Sitting of 8 November 1934

Preamble
The house met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  TRADE BOARDS ACT (MILK PRODUCTION).
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce legislation to bring milk production under the Trade Boards Act, and so enable milk producers to receive the same fixed weekly remuneration as is guaranteed to the milk distributors?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I see no good reason for transferring a particular class of farm workers from the scope of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, to that of the Trade Boards Acts.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Does my right hon. Friend regard the distribution of milk as a very much more intelligent occupation than the care of cows, for which a man is paid only 32s. a week?
  Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot separate the functions of caring for cows from the ordinary run of agricultural duties which are considered by the Agricultural Wages Boards.

  DISTRESSED AREAS (LANCASHIRE AND TYNESIDE).
  Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the Minister of Labour whether, in making a record of the depressed areas of the country, he has taken into consideration, or will take into consideration, the position of certain districts in Lancashire where, owing to the decline in the cotton industry and the consequent removal of machinery from mills, there is acute unemployment, and no form of employment seems possible except by the introduction of entirely new industries?
  Mr. STANLEY: I am, of course, aware of the grave unemployment which exists in some districts of Lancashire, but I should deprecate any suggestion that the position of that county is comparable with that of the special areas which have recently been surveyed.
  Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all possible measures are being taken to introduce other industries?
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Although the whole of Lancashire may not fall into the same category as Durham arid South Wales, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are patches of Lancashire which do fall into that category?
  Mr. STANLEY: I know that there are certain places in Lancashire where unemployment is grave, but I could not agree to the description of Lancashire as a derelict area.
  Mr. TINKER: Is any survey made of districts where industries are likely to decline, in order to be ready to meet the situation?
  Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid I did not catch the point of the hon. Member's question, perhaps he would discuss it with me afterwards.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE (for Mr. DENVILLE)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to alleviating distress on the North-East Coast, he is yet able to make an announcement with regard to the building on the Tyneside of the sister ship to the "Queen Mary"?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag).

  SUMMARY COURTS (SOCIAL SERVICES) COMMITTEE.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the terms of reference of the Departmental Committee on Social Services connected with Courts of Summary Jurisdiction include an inquiry into the application of conciliation methods to matrimonial disputes, he will consider the

  1249
  appointment on the committee of a married woman with practical knowledge of the work of the courts in matrimonial cases?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The subject which the Summary Courts (Social Services) Committee has been asked to consider is mainly an administrative one, namely, to review the existing organisation of the probation service, and in selecting the members I gave special attention to their qualifications for this task. As magistrates when dealing with applications for separation orders frequently ask their probation officers in suitable cases to see the parties and endeavour to promote a reconciliation, this type of social service was specified among others in the terms of reference. The committee already includes persons with practical knowledge of this work and I regret that I can find no sufficient reason for adding to its numbers.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter, in order to get the advantage of the presence of a married woman?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, sir, I think that is unnecessary. The committee will, no doubt, take evidence from all sorts of people.
  Mr. KNIGHT: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that in the sifting of the evidence given before the committee it would be an advantage to have the assistance of a married woman?

  POLICE.

    SECTION HOUSES.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Home Secretary what progress has been made in regard to a general scheme for the rovision of better section houses for the Metropolitan police?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member in reply to his question on 5th July last, the provision of four new section houses has been approved by me. The plans of these are being prepared with all possible speed and it is hoped to commence building operations in the early part of next year. The general building programme to which
    1250
    I referred in the same reply has been drawn up. It is under consideration and is at present only in a provisional stage but I may say that it provides for the building of over 20 other new section houses and for the enlargement and modernisation of about the same number of existing ones.

    SPECIAL DUTIES.
    Mr. WILMOTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the Metropolitan Police and the public misgiving owing to the present practice whereby special duties such as attendance at dog races, football matches, etc., for which payment is made to the commissioners, are performed by constables who should be engaged upon their ordinary duties; and whether he will revert to the previous practice so that these duties are performed by constables in their own time for suitable payment without depleting the force engaged on public duties?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware of any public misgiving or dissatisfaction in the Metropolitan police force on this matter. The Government's reasons for the change of practice were fully explained in the White Paper of May, 1933, and there is no intention to go back to the previous system.
    Mr. PETHERICK: In view of the large number of additional duties put on the police by the work of the Departments, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the strength of the Metropolitan police force is adequate?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. WILMOT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the calls made upon constables for this kind of duty interfere with the discharge of their duties to the public?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

    SHORT-SERVICE CONSTABLES.
    Mr. WILMOTasked the Home Secretary the number of 10-year-service constables enrolled in the Metropolitan Police Force to date?
    Sir J. GILM0UR: On 7th instant 161 short-service constables were serving in the force, 70 undergoing training as candidates and 54 accepted and waiting to commence training.

  INUDUSTRIAL DISEASES (DUPUYTREN'S CONTRACTION).
  Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a number of cases in coal mining of men being incapacitated and unable to follow their employment through what is known as Dupuytren's contraction, fingers contracting on to the palm of the hand; and will he consider having this scheduled in the industrial diseases?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The question of giving workmen's compensation for Dupuytren's contraction was fully enquired into in 1913 by the Committee on Compensation for Industrial Diseases, who took evidence from the Miners' Federation and others. The committee found that there was no established connection between this condition and the workmen's employment which would justify its being scheduled; and since then no evidence has come to my notice to suggest that their conclusions ought to be reconsidered.
  Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently in Lancashire several cases of people suffering from this disease have been brought to our notice, and will he further consider the matter if more evidence is brought to his attention?
  Sir J. GILM0UR: Certainly, if the hon. Member can produce any fresh evidence I will consider it.

  HOUSING.

    LONDON.
    Miss CAZALETasked the Minister of Health the number of houses erected by the London County Council during the last six months and during each of the two preceding periods of six months?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I am informed that the number of houses provided by the London County Council during the half-year ending 30th September, 1934, was 1,101, during the half-year ending 31st March, 1934, 1,614, and during the half-year ending 30th September, 1933, 1,577.
    Miss CAZALET: Does the Minister know of any special reason why there has been so large a decline since the Labour party took office there?

    CLEARANCE ORDER INQUIRIES (INSPECTOR'S REPORTS).
    Mr. BOULTONasked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken to comply with the recommendations in the report of the Committee, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, on Ministers' Powers (Cmd. 4060, 1932), that in any case in which a statutory public inquiry is held in connection with the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions by Ministers, the report made by the person holding the inquiry should be published; and whether he will see that this recommendation is adopted in respect of the reports of his inspectors at public local inquiries upon clearance orders under the Housing Acts?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The Government have, so far, not seen their way to accepting the recommendations to which my hon. Friend refers, and, accordingly, I am not prepared to give effect to the suggestion in the last part of his question to which there are objections.
    Mr. BOULTON: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is intense feeling in the country on this matter; and has he considered the question of a right of appeal to the courts of law?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I think that is an entirely different question from the one upon the Paper.
    Mr. CAPORN: Has the right. hon. Gentleman considered whether the existing practice is consistent with the essential principles of British justice, which demand not only an open court but an open judgment?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I say again that the question on the Paper is entirely different from this one, and my answer referred to different circumstances. My answer referred to the publication of confidential reports made to the Minister by inspectors.
    Mr. CAPORN: I am asking the Minister whether the report to which he refers was not a report following a public inquiry at which evidence was given and which should be based on the evidence?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Undoubtedly, and the decision given by the Minister is a public decision.

    FIRE RESISTING MATERIALS.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fatal accident at Purley on 1st November resulting in the deaths of two small children in an outbreak of fire at a private house, he will consider the advisability of urging upon all local authorities, in regard to the plans for municipal houses and houses built by private enterprise alike, that regulations be enforced upon architects and builders to provide for the use in such plans of asbestos or other scientifically-tested fire-resisting materials for the impregnation or lining of walls, floors and ceilings so as to minimise the risk of such fatalities in future?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The importance of such precautions against fire as are referred to, and other methods for the purpose is, I believe, present to the minds of architects, builders and local authorities, and attention is given to the subject in the consideration of plans both by them and at the Ministry of Health. No occasion is indeed lost or will be lost for promoting the standards of safety in this matter.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Minister of Health whether, in the forthcoming housing legislation, he proposes to take steps to safeguard the interests of the owner of good property in a clearance area?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the introduction of the Bill.
    Mr. ADAMS: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask him to bear in mind, when framing that legislation, the remarkable results of the Leeds municipal elections? Do they not prove to him that the people will not stand the practical application of confiscatory Socialism?

    LOAN INTEREST.
    Mr. DOBBIEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the high rates of interest being paid by local authorities on many of the loans made since 1918 for housing purposes, the Government will now consider legislation to effect a general reduction to the present low market rate of the rates of interest on
    1254
    all existing housing loans, and so enable the local authorities to make substantial reductions in the rents of council houses?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 5th July last to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), of which I am sending him a copy.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the decision not to fill the vacancy arising out of the resignation of the medical officer for maternity and child welfare, but to allocate the duties to an officer of lower rank, has created a misgiving that sufficient importance is not attached to this part of the department's activities; and whether, in view of the high figures of maternal mortality and the necessity for zeal and efficiency in dealing with this problem, he will reconsider the matter?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is, I think, under a misapprehension with regard to this matter. The Local Government Act of 1929 imposed more largely on local authorities the determination of their local administration of maternity and child welfare work and, consequently, the detailed supervision of this work by my Department has been substantially changed in character and degree. I therefore decided that, on the retirement of the senior medical officer in charge of this work, its supervision could for the future best be entrusted not to two higher posts but to one. This post, as I have previously stated, is held by a most experienced woman medical officer, who is directly responsible to the chief medical officer of the Ministry. Attaching, as I do, the greatest possible importance to this branch of the work of the Ministry, I am fully satisfied that there is no ground for misgiving as to the present arrangements for its effective performance.
    Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman supplement that reply by saying whether the amount of attention drawn to infant welfare and maternal mortality so long as there was an officer

    1255
    solely in charge has influenced the Department in diminishing the amount of supervision?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am afraid I did not quite hear the hon. Lady's question.
    Miss RATHBONE: I asked the Minister whether the perhaps too great activity of the officer when she had nothing else to do but to attend to these matters has made the Government feel that too much public attention was being drawn to maternal mortality, and whether they wish to hush it down?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I can only say that the suggestion is tinged with complete impropriety and I trust that in giving that answer to the hon. Lady I have succeeded in staying within the bounds of Parliamentary propriety.
    Mr. DAVIES: In view of the very keen interest that is shown in this problem, cannot the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is room for misgiving? There has been a change in the status of this person?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir, I am quite satisfied that that is not so, and I think the hon. Member's question shows the same misconception. There has been no change in the status at all. The status necessary to secure sufficient authority for the work is quite unchanged, and the same as it ever was.
    Miss CAZALET (for Countess of IVEAGH)asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the list of areas exhibiting a persistently high rate of maternal mortality included by the chief medical officer of the Ministry in his report for 1933; and how many, and which, of the powers which can be exercised by local authorities under the Maternity and Child Welfare Act are exercised in each of these areas?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Noble Lady will see from the circular recently issued on the subject of maternal mortality that it is intended to make a detailed review of the maternity services in each of these areas with a view to determining what action is needed to render the services both effective and comprehensive, and for the purposes of the review I propose to instruct expert medical officers to visit the areas concerned.

    SOUTH VIEW MENTAL HOSPITAL, HELLINGLY.
    Mr. DORANasked the Minister of Health whether he will take immediate steps to investigate the case of Bertha Croft, now an inmate of the South View Mental Hospital, Hellingly, Sussex; and whether he can ascertain how far inquiries have been made into this case, in view of the fact that the lady claims she has been wrongfully detained?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I will cause inquiries to be made at once and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

    BEDDINGTON SEWAGE WORK.
    Mr. DORANasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the failure of the Croydon Corporation to deal with the foul smells permeating the districts of West Croydon, Beddington, Mitcham, and Thornton Heath, presumably emanating from the Beddington sewage works; and whether he will take steps to make the corporation carry out its obligations in this matter?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware that complaints have been made. The Croydon Corporation, after consultation with my Department, are taking the necessary steps to deal with the matter.
    Mr. DORAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that Croydon Corporation have been fiddling with this matter for three years and have done nothing in that connection at all, and in view of the fact that I am a resident in the district and live in that odoriferous atmosphere, may I ask him if he does not think that something ought to be done to stop it?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware of the situation, and my hon. Friend will notice that the Croydon Corporation, after consultation with my Department. are taking the necessary steps to deal with the matter.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in cases where colliery companies have failed, and subsequently only a part of the amount due to those entitled to workmen's compensation has been paid, the annuity value of it is assessed and deducted from the disablement benefit of the National

  1257
  Health Insurance paid to that person; and will he consider amending the law so as to leave the injured person in no worse position than if he had received the full amount of compensation due to him?
  Sir H. YOUNG: In accordance with the amendment of Section 10 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, made by the Act of 1928, the deduction from disablement benefit in cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member is based on the value of the compensation actually received by the injured person and not on the whole amount due to him. I could not contemplate placing on the funds of approved societies a liability to make good to their members the loss of compensation due to colliery companies going into liquidation, and I would remind the hon. Member that it was in view of such losses that the Workmen's Compensation (Coal Mines) Act, 1934, was passed during the present session.
  Mr. PIKE: Has the Minister received any representation from. the Miners' Federation on this matter?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I should like to have notice of that question.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE (for Mr. DENVILLE)asked the Minister of Health whether the Government are now prepared to adopt the report of the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance presented in 1926, and in which they recommend expert medical advice and treatment for patients who can travel to meet a specialist, expert advice for persons who are unable to travel, and laboratory services?
  Sir H. YOUNG: The recommendation of the Royal Commission was that the services referred to should be provided by means of a partial pooling of the surpluses of approved societies, a plan which has proved to be impracticable.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    CASUALS (TRAINING CENTRES).
    Mr. DREWEasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the formation of training centres or colonies as being a more humane and satisfactory method of dealing with the unemployed. throughout the country who are at
    1258
    present continually seeking the shelter of the casual wards of the public assistance institutions?
    Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the views as to detention colonies expressed by the Departmental Committee on the Relief of the Casual Poor (Cmd. 3640). The general adoption by vagrancy authorities of such a policy as he suggests would raise some very difficult problems, and in the circumstances I have thought the best way of making progress is to support and foster the movement in this direction on the part of the voluntary associations interested in the matter. There are already 18 hostels for the reception and training of young and helpable casuals managed by such associations and assisted financially and otherwise by local vagrancy authorities.
    Mr. WILMOT: How many persons are these 18 hostels capable of accommodating?
    Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me notice of that question, I shall he happy to supply him with the information.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
    Miss WARDasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the estimated cost to local authorities of public assistance, from 1st October to 3rd March; to those persons who will come under Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act on the appointed day?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am informed by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland that an investigation of current public assistance expenditure is being carried out with the co-operation of the local authorities in order to determine the charge falling on the local authorities in respect of the standard year, but that it will be some considerable time before the investigation is completed, and that for the present no figure of the kind desired by my hon. Friend can be given.

    YACHTS' CREWS.
    Sir JOHN PYBUSasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at Brightlingsea, Essex, about 80 men, having formed part of the regular crews of yachts all the season and paid their contributions towards unemployment

    1259
    insurance, have been refused unemployment benefit, and are driven to seek aid from the public assistance committee and various charitable funds; and will he take steps for the ruling regarding this class of worker to be restored to its original form, by which these men were entitled to unemployment benefit?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IMPORT DUTIES (FLOUR).
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any communication from the Import Duties Advisory Committee on the subject of the two applications made by the National Association of British and Irish Millers for an increase in the rate of duty on imported flour; and, if so, what decision he has come to in the matter
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. On each occasion the committee publicly announced, after examining the application, that they had decided not to make any recommendation in respect thereof.

    SHIPPING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the Government's declared policy to subsidise British shipping, he will consider the advisability of restricting the subsidy to those ships burning coal or oil directly produced from British coal?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made on behalf of the Government in this House on the 10th July. As was then indicated, it is not the Government's intention to impose conditions of the character suggested in the question.

  FOREIGN LOANS (JAPAN).
  Mr. WILMOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the House his assurance that Treasury sanction will not be given to any loan to Japan or Manchukuo in view of the refusal of Japan to fulfil her obligations
  1260
  under the covenant of the League of Nations?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is impossible for me to give general assurances. If a case of the kind suggested were to arise in relation to any foreign country it would have to be considered on its merits.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS.
    MABANEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state why the amount of revenue collected under the head of miscellaneous receipts is so much less during the current year than during the corresponding period of last year; and whether he can also say what amounts are expected to be collected under this head during the remainder of the year to justify the estimated figure, in view of the fact that last year's windfall of £10,000,000 will not be repeated?
    Mr. COOPER: My hon. Friend has really given the answer himself to the first part of the question. There has been no special receipt this year corresponding to the sum of £10,000,000 from the War Loan Depreciation Fund made available to the Exchequer on the passing of the Finance Act, 1933. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is unable to depart from the recognised practice which is not to give details of any particular item of budgetry revenue, beyond the figures already published, before the results of the year are known.
    Mr. MABANE: Is it correct to say that, apart from this item of Miscellaneous Receipts, the returns to date show that the national finances are in a far better condition than they were at this time last year?
    Mr. COOPER: I would not like to make any statement on that matter.

    INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).
    Mr. MABANEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to state the amount of Income Tax collected from co-operative societies under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1933, during the last financial year; and whether he can also state whether the total amount collected in

    1261
    Income Tax from co-operative societies during that year is greater or less than the amount collected in the previous year, and by how much?
    Mr. COOPER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Nottingham West (Mr. Caporn), on the 9th May last, of which I am sending him a copy.

  AGRICULTURE.

    BACON FACTORIES.
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state what is the present total number of bacon factories in Great Britain which are working and idle, respectively; what is the approximate annual output of each; and what were the comparable figures at 1st July, 1933, or the nearest available date thereto?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I regret that the information desired is not available. My hon. Friend will appreciate that in addition to the 615 curers who are registered under the Bacon Marketing Scheme there are a number of small curers who are exempted from its provisions.
    Sir G. FOX: Will the Minister try to have these statistics published at some time in the near future, and will it also be possible to give the numbers of bacon pigs classified in different grades showing whether the numbers in the higher grades are on the increase?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It will require a very long inquiry to obtain those statistics, but I will see what can be done.
    Sir G. FOXasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state which of the bacon factories in this country employed the tank curing process in whole or in part, and to what extent, before the bacon-marketing scheme came into operation; whether any have adopted or extended such process since that time; and how the proportion of tank-cured bacon to the total output of bacon by British bacon factories at the present time compares with such proportion in the period immediately prior to the introduction of the said marketing scheme?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I regret I am unable to give the information asked for.

    ALLOTMENTS.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the complaint of allotment holders that they have no security of tenure on their plots; and whether he can do anything to help to provide that security?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware of complaints of lack of security by tenants of allotments on land which is rented for that purpose, more especially in areas that are in course of development. The practical remedy is for the local authority to purchase land for permanent allotments where they can do so on favourable terms. This has already been done in the case of 36 per cent. of the total area of allotments provided by urban allotment authorities in England and Wales, and is a policy that is encouraged by the Ministry.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the Minister give a little more encouragement to the remainder of these local authorities for the extension of this very desirable form of municipal Socialism?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Any form of land-owning is no doubt desirable, and I would encourage it.
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the country it is impossible to find occupiers for allotments at any price?
    Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: When the Minister says that the policy of ownership by local authorities is encouraged by the Ministry, does he refer to anything the Department are doing in the way of practical encouragement under the Land (Utilisation) Act, which enables them to help financially in the purchase of land?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Thirty-six per cent. of the allotment land has been taken up, and that is very good.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman help by providing the assistance of Government valuers in acquiring land at a reasonable price instead of at the enormous figures that are asked at the present time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has another subject in mind.

    POTATO MARKETING SCHEME.
    Sir G. FOXasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state how many applications for registration as a potato merchant under the Potato Marketing Scheme have been refused by the Potato Marketing Board?
    Mr. HEPWORTHasked the Minister of Agriculture what provision is being made for hearing appeals, and in what circumstances, from those whose applications for licences under the Potato Marketing Board have been rejected; and what redress these men have as a result of the loss of their livelihood?
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the hardship caused to hundreds of potato dealers whose living is being taken away from them by a recent decision of the Merchants' Authorisation Committee of the Potato Marketing Board in not allowing them to buy from producers, who themselves are desirous of dealing with the smaller men rather than with a few authorised merchants; and whether he is prepared to remedy an injustice which must seriously affect employment in the potato industry?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, provides machinery for the full consideration of complaints about the operation of Marketing Schemes, but, of course, it is open to any person whose application to be included in the list of authorised merchants has not been granted, to request the Potato Marketing Board to reconsider his case. I understand that many such requests for reconsideration have been received by the board, that a large number of cases have already been reviewed, and that supplementary lists of authorised merchants will be issued.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the Minister use his influence with the board in order to prevent the refusal of registration to men who have been engaged in the business all their lives?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The board have already adopted a very liberal attitude towards requests for a revision of the lists that they have issued.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Is the Minister aware that very grave misapprehension has unnecessarily been caused among
    1264
    potato growers, and will he take steps to see that similar mistakes are not made in the future?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Surely the best thing that we can do is to ensure that hasty steps are not taken. Undoubtedly in the beginning of these schemes there is the danger that an authority may take steps which it subsequently desires to reconsider.

    WAGES.
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the system adopted by the Manx government in developing a scheme of subsidised wages for agricultural workers whereby every farmer who employs an additional man will pay 50 per cent. of the wages, the object being to remove an unemployed man from the receipt of relief; and whether he will consider applying such a scheme in this country?
    Mr. ELLIOT: My attention has been drawn to the scheme in question, and similar schemes have been sumitted to this and previous Governments. I have not found any such scheme which would be applicable to this country.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any of the animals recently discovered to be suffering from foot-and-mouth disease at Bisley, Gloucestershire, had been imported from Ireland?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the House any information of the probable duration of the 15-mile standstill order as a result of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Bisley, Gloucestershire, in the event of there being no other outbreak in that area?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Two outbreaks have been confirmed in the area in question, the second on the 7th November at Woodchester, about five miles from Bisley. If no further outbreak occurs in the meantime, the area to which the restrictions apply will he reduced on 22nd November to one covering approximately an area of five miles round the two infected farms. This area again will be further reduced on the 29th November

    1265
    to two areas of approximately two miles around each infected farm, the restrictions being due for final removal on the 6th December.

  JERMYN STREET (WIDENING).
  Rear - Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Commissioners of Crown Lands will make arrangements, when letting the site of the old Geological Museum, to sacrifice a portion of the depth of the site with the object of widening Jermyn Street?
  Mr. ELLIOT: The London County Council, when last consulted on this subject by the Commissioners of Crown Lands, stated that they would not be prepared to undertake a widening of Jermyn Street, but suggested that the narrow forecourt of the museum on the Jermyn Street frontage might be added to the footway there. The Commissioners would be prepared to act upon this suggestion when a new building on the museum site is erected.

  RELIEF FUNDS (UNUSED BALANCES).
  Mr. CONANTasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the establishment of a national fund to which the surplus of moneys subscribed by the public for the relief of distress caused by mining and other national disasters may be handed over after the needs of a particular disaster have been met, in order that the same measure of relief may be available for cases to which no publicity is given and for those in which large numbers of people are involved?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): My hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted. It would, of course, involve legislation, and I am doubtful on a general view whether it would be advantageous, for reasons such as my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines gave in reply to questions last Tuesday in regard to the colliery disaster fund. Moreover, I would call the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that his object is secured under the existing law, inasmuch as, where the particular objects for which a distress fund was raised have been completely fulfilled, it is the duty
  1266
  of the trustees of the fund to apply to the Court or to the Charity Commissioners to establish a scheme applying any surplus of the fund to analogous objects.
  Mr. CAPORN: Is not the Prime Minister aware that an application to the court is a very expensive matter, and very often uses up the whole of the surplus funds?
  The PRIME MINISTER.

  EDUCATION.

    DURHAM UNIVERSITY (ROYAL COMMISSION'S INQUIRY).
    Mr. MARTINasked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Commssion set up to inquire into the constitution of Durham University has yet completed its report; and, if not, whether he can give a date on which he expects to receive the report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the commissioners have not yet completed their investigations, and I am not at present in a position to give any indication when their report will be received.
    Mr. MARTIN: Could the right hon. Gentleman undertake to try to expedite the publication of the report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will look into it and see if that can be done.

    MILK SUPPLIES.
    Mr. DREWEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state the increased amount of milk consumed in the schools since the price of milk was reduced; and whether there have been any difficulties in working the scheme?
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of children who are now being supplied with milk at the reduced price of one halfpenny per bottle of one-third pint; and how many local authorities have taken advantage of this supply of cheap milk?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend regrets that it is not possible to give statistical

    1267
    information regarding the operation of the scheme for the supply of milk at reduced rates in schools in England and Wales, until the Milk Marketing Board's returns for the month of October have been analysed, and this will necessarily take some little time. With regard to the second part of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Drewe), a number of questions, as was inevitable in the initial stages of a scheme of this magnitude, have arisen, but it is hoped that any difficulties presented will be satisfactorily adjusted at an early date.
    Mr. DREWE: Can my hon. Friend say whether there has been any difficulty in getting milk approved by the medical officers in the rural areas particularly?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I think not at present.
    Sir F. ACLAND: Is it not on the whole true that, although the work is difficult and requires the inspection of a great many farms, the staffs of local authorities are proceeding to get farms approved, so that a supply of milk may be available to schools at a fairly reasonable rate.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I think that that is so.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain parts of the country considerable hardship is being caused to small producers who previously supplied schools, in view of the fact that the authorities are insisting on the supply not of fresh milk but of pasteurised milk, which can only be supplied by large dairies.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Board of Education have not made it a requirement that pasteurised milk must be supplied to the exclusion of all other types. As explained in the Board's circular where the supply of sufficient pasteurised milk is available it should be supplied. Medical opinion is strongly in favour of supplying pasteurised milk where possible.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
  Sir WALDRON SMITHERSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention
  1268
  has been called to a speech broadcast on 30th October, on the eve of the municipal elections, which, though intended to be non-party in character, was calculated to forward the interests of one political party; and will he give an early opportunity for this House to discuss the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Nottingham relative to the British Broadcasting Corporation:
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the powers, administration, finances and expenditure of the British Broadcasting Corporation."
  The PRIME MINISTER: The British Broadcasting Corporation inform me that the talk to which my hon. Friend refers was one of a series intended for secondary schools, and that its subject was the importance of municipal government. I regret that I can hold out no hope that time can be found for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight).
  Sir W. SMITHERS: May I ask if the Prime Minister has had time to read that speech himself; and, further, in view of the deliberate political bias in that speech, will His Majesty's Government watch the activities of the British Broadcasting Corporation and take the necessary steps to prevent further political bias which seems unduly to favour one political form of opinion from occurring in the future?
  Mr. KNIGHT: Arising out of the second part of the answer, may I ask whether the Prime Minister appreciates the public interest in this important service, and the general satisfaction that. would be afforded if it were known that early attention was to be given to its development?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; we are watching developments very carefully.
  Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same opinion was held by another political party about the broadcast during the General Election of October, 1931?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That question was quite unnecessary.
  Mr. WILMOT: May I ask whether the talk to which reference has been made was the talk which was booked by the

  1269
  British Broadcasting Corporation to be delivered by a Municipal Reform candidate for the borough council of Greenwich?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I really cannot, and I am not called upon, to go into details on the matter. I have seen the talk, and have my own opinion, and my reply is that the whole situation is being watched.
  Mr. M. BEAUMONT: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

  SUGAR INDUSTRY (MARKETING SCHEME).
  Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the revelations at the public inquiry into the sugar marketing scheme and in the evidence of the United Kingdom Sugar Industry Committee, it is intended to proceed with the marketing scheme in question
  Mr. ELLIOT: I would remind the hon. Member of the statement which I made on the Third Reading of the British Sugar Subsidy Bill on the 29th June last, when I informed the House that I would not take action in putting forward the Sugar Marketing Scheme until the House had had an opportunity of considering the report of the committee presided over by Mr. Wilfrid Greene.
  Mr. LEONARD: Has the Minister seen the latest report of the world prices of sugar, which are the lowest on record; and is he aware that the policy now being pursued by the Government puts Great Britain in the same position in which Germany was 30 years ago, when the bounty system practically ruined the British Colonial sugar industry?

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. PALING (for Mr. T. VVILLIAMS)asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the effect of under-employment on the compensation received by injured persons; and whether he has considered the possibility of amending the Compensation Act so that justice may be done to affected persons?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Under the present Act the amount of compensation depends, broadly speaking, on the particular workman's earning capacity, and while I appreciate the hon. Member's object, I do not see, as at present advised, how it could be achieved without a radical departure from this principle. I shall be prepared to consider any representations, but no legislation on this point could be undertaken except after the fullest inquiry.
  Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Does not the compensation depend on earning capacity and on the amount of employment in the last 12 months, and is not that rather unfair?
  Mr. T. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to meet a deputation on the matter?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly.

  SCOTLAND.

    GLASGOW CORPORATION (OMNIBUSES).
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether inquiries have been made by the Glasgow police into the visit of two persons who proposed to the manager of a leading Glasgow firm, namely, the Albion Motor and Engineering Company, that they were empowered to act for certain members of the Glasgow Corporation Transport Committee and asked him what sum he was prepared to pay in order that he should secure the building of 110 new omnibuses for Glasgow Corporation; and if the identity of these persons can be disclosed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, and to the second part thereof in the negative. The whole matter is at present in the hands of the Procurator-Fiscal.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Could the hon. Gentleman inform me if the authorities have power to compel an individual to divulge names; and, if so, will he see that that pressure is applied if necessary
    Mr. SKELTON: I should require notice of that question.

    HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) ACT.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give a list of Scottish burghs which have adopted the Rural Workers Housing Act, with a list of the State funds contributed in each burgh for the reconditioning of privately held property?
    Mr. SKELTON: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931.
    LIST of Town Councils in Scotland who have adopted Schemes, and Amounts paid by way of Grant at the 30th September, 1934.

    Name of Town Council.

    Amount Paid.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Alva

    …

    200

    0

    0

    Alloa

    …

    287

    10

    6

    Auchterarder

    …

    —

    Annan

    …

    700

    0

    0

    Ardrossan

    …

    —

    Alyth

    …

    —

    Brechin

    …

    —

    Buckhaven

    …

    100

    0

    0

    Blairgowrie

    …

    —

    Cullen

    …

    —

    Castle Douglas

    …

    3,401

    18

    6

    Crail

    …

    —

    Crieff

    …

    —

    Dunfermline

    …

    1,027

    0

    0

    Dalbeattie

    …

    4,895

    5

    11

    Dumbarton

    …

    100

    0

    0

    Dornoch

    …

    —

    Denny

    …

    1,000

    0

    0

    Dollar

    …

    149

    0

    0

    Edinburgh

    …

    12,438

    13

    4

    Elgin

    …

    757

    4

    2

    Fraserburgh

    …

    1,400

    0

    0

    Falkirk

    …

    —

    Gatehouse

    …

    1,157

    0

    0

    Galashiels

    …

    4,220

    12

    1

    Glasgow

    …

    433

    6

    8

    Grangemouth

    …

    80

    0

    0

    Huntly

    …

    2,144

    4

    10

    Hawick

    …

    —

    Inverurie

    …

    2,405

    15

    9

    Inverbervie

    …

    —

    Keith

    …

    666

    0

    0

    Kirkcudbright

    …

    1,891

    11

    2

    Kirkcaldy

    …

    3,148

    0

    0

    Kilrenny

    …

    200

    0

    0

    Kirkintilloch

    …

    —

    Kirriemuir

    …

    —

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR HORNS (SILENCE PERIOD).
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to amend the law so as to make it clear that where a motor-vehicle driver is involved in a road accident at midnight, which could have been averted by the sounding of his motor horn, he will have a good defence in civil or criminal proceedings in the plea that the sounding of the horn was prohibited by regulations made by the Minister of Transport?
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON' (Lord of the Treasury): The Minister is advised that the regulations to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers would be a good defence to any allegation that a defendant had been guilty of negligence solely by reason of not sounding his horn. The prohibition of the use of warning instruments during the night hours entails the exercise of additional caution in driving, so that motorists should not place themselves in such a position that they must either sound their horns or be involved in an accident.
    Sir W. BRASS: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that one of the chief

    1273
    dangers is when one car is passing another—a point which is not raised—and will he convey that to the Minister in pointing out the difficulties which arise?

    BICYCLES (CHILD PASSENGERS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the advisability of giving some guidance as to hat is considered a satisfactory fitting within the regulaton governing the carrying of children on bicycles?
    Captain A. HUDSON: Parliament has decided that not more than one person may be carried on a pedal cycle, "unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person." It is for the courts, and not for the Minister, to determine in any particular case whether a cycle is so "constructed or adapted," and he could not, therefore, properly accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that people who are in the habit of taking their children to school on bicycles do not know whether they are breaking the law or not; And could not some guidance be given them by the Minister on this important question?
    Captain HUDSON: I will convey that suggestion to the Minister, and see if anything can be done.

    RIVER THAMES (PASSENGER SERVICE).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the present position with regard to the setting up under Section 19 of the London Passenger Transport Act of a Thames water-omnibus service?
    Captain A. HUDSON: My hon. Friend expects shortly to receive from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee a report on the question of water-omnibus services.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it going to be published?
    Captain HUDSON: I do not know.

  PROSECUTION AND SENTENCE (ESMEE SIBLEY).
  Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Miss Esmee Marie Dorothy Sibley, on 3rd
  1274
  August, 1934, was sentenced at a London police court to six months' imprisonment and to a fine of £105 in costs on a charge of securing various petty goods by false pretences at Harrod's stores to the total value of £3 12s. 6d.; and, as this was her first offence and she is only 18 years of age and suffers from delicate health, now seriously impaired in prison as testified by her medical advisers, will he look into the case with a view to an early remission of her term of imprisonment?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made inquiries and am informed that Miss Sibley was sentenced to six months' imprisonment after learned Counsel on her behalf had pleaded guilty to seven charges of obtaining goods by false pretences. She appealed to Quarter Sessions against her sentence and the sentence was upheld. I have carefully considered the circumstances of this case, but I have been unable to find any medical or other ground which would justify me in interfering with this sentence. Medical reports which I have obtained do not support the suggestion that imprisonment has impaired her health in any way or that further imprisonment is likely to do so.

  PALESTINE (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to pay salaries or expenses to the members of the proposed Legislative Council in Palestine?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am not in a. position to make any statement on the subject at present.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet considered the question or that they have not yet been able to find a Jew willing to accept 30 pieces of silver?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It means exactly what it says.

  CYPRUS (EMIGRATION).
  Mr. NORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the increas-

  1275
  ing number of Cypriots coming into this country to obtain work and unemployment benefit; and whether any restrictions are placed upon their emigration from Cyprus, in view of the lack of work in this country?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This question is under consideration. The only existing restriction is that Cypriot emigrants are, unless persons of substance, required by the Colonial Government before passports are issued to provide a surety to indemnify the Government against the expense of their repatriation. Further restriction as regards the right of entry into the United Kingdom presents some difficulty, since Cypriots are entitled to all the privileges attaching to their position as British subjects. In consultation with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, I am, however, considering whether, in their own interest any further restrictive measures are desirable and practicable.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ROSS COLLIERY, HAMILTON.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he can state the last day on which an inspector of mines visited the Ross Colliery, Hamilton; whether, on the occasion of his visit, he made any inquiry into the ventilation of the colliery arid was he satisfied that it was in good condition;
    2) whether he can state the date upon which an explosion occurred at Ross

    Year.

    Number of boys under 16 years of age killed and injured at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in Great Britain.

    Killed.

    Injured.

    Below-ground.

    Above-ground.

    Total.

    Below-ground.

    Aboveground.

    Total.

    1930

    …

    …

    24

    6

    30

    6,306

    1,210

    7,516

    1931

    …

    …

    25

    2

    27

    4,617

    970

    5,587

    1932

    …

    …

    17

    2

    19

    3,613

    790

    4,403

    1933

    …

    …

    15

    5

    20

    3,253

    834

    4,087

    OUTPUT, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines the average output for persons
    1276
    Colliery, Hamilton, by which a miner named Malcolm MacCormack was killed; and whether there was any correspondence or interviews between the management of the colliery or any of His Majesty's inspectors of mines with the object of avoiding a prosecution?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am making detailed inquiries as regards these questions, both relating to the same colliery, and if the hon. Member will repeat the questions next Tuesday I shall then be in a, position to reply.

    ACCIDENTS (BOYS).
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines how many fatal accidents happened to boys under 16 years of age in the mines in Great Britain in 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933; and how many nonfatal accidents happened to boys under 16 years of age in the mines in Great Britain in 1930, 1531, 1932, and 1933?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The number of boys under 16 years of age killed belowground at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, during the years 1930 to 1933 were 24, 25, 17 and 15, respectively, and the number incapacitated for three days or more, 6,306, 4,617, 3,613 and 3,253. I have assumed that by the phrase "in the mines," the hon. Member is referring only to underground accidents, but in case he also desires to have particulars of the accidents aboveground, I am circulating the complete figure in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    employed in mines in South Wales and Monmouthshire for the years 1931, 1932, and 1933; and the average wages paid per person for the same period?
    Mr. E. BROWN: During the years ended 31st January, 1932, 1933 and 1934, the average output of coal per person employed in mines in South Wales and Monmouthshire was 250 tons, 245 tons and 249 tons, respectively. The average cash earnings per person employed during the same periods were £115, £113 and £114.

    RENTS, ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary far Mines the sums paid by British coal mines in rents, royalties, and wayleaves for the years 1931, 1932, and 1933, respectively?
    Mr. E. BROWN: During the years 1931, 1932 and 1933 the estimated amounts paid by colliery owners in Great Britain in royalties and wayleaves, including the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietors, were £5,135,000, £4,827,000 and £4,828,000, respectively.
    Mr. PIKE: How do the actual figures of receipts from royalties compare with the figures of cost entailed in explanation and exploitation?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: How many royalty owners lost their lives—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Secretary for Mines cannot possibly answer that question without notice.

    EXPORTS (FINLAND).
    Mr. NORTHasked the Secretary for Mines what quantity of British coal has been purchased by Finland since the signing of the Anglo-Finnish trade agreement; how this amount compared with that purchased during a similar period in the previous year and, approximately, what proportion it is of the total purchases by Finland of coal during such period?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The coal provisions of the Anglo-Finnish Trade Agreement operated from 1st December, 1933. Imports of United Kingdom coal into Finland in the nine months December, 1933-August, 1934, the latest period for which figures are available, amounted to 559,511 metric tons, which was 78.6 per cent. of the total imports of coal in that period. Figures of imports for the corresponding period in 1932–33 are not available, but a fair guide to the quantity
    1278
    can be obtained from the statistics of British coal exported to Finland in that period which amounted to 320,880 statute tons.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the percentage of coal agreed to in the Anglo-Finnish Trade Agreement
    Mr. BROWN: Yes, 75 per cent.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE CELEBRATIONS.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is proposed to hold any military reviews in which the Territorial Army will take part in celebration of His Majesty's Silver Jubilee next year; and, if so, will he consider granting special facilities to units of the British National Cadet Association in order that they may send. representative detachments to join in these celebrations?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The form which the celebrations will take is still under consideration, and an announcement will be made in due course. Such suggestions as that made by my hon. and gallant Friend will be given all consideration.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Will units which are affiliated to territorial units—I am thinking now of cadet units-be the only ones which will be invited on these occasions, and will expenses be met out of a special grant?
    Mr. HACKING: I have already told my hon. and gallant Friend that the whole matter is under consideration. I cannot add anything to my answer.

    EX-RANKER OFFICERS.
    Major MILNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that all permanently commissioned warrant officers or noncommissioned officers in the Army, all Marines coming within the Jerram award of 1919, all Marines who were granted full retired pay in 1924, those officers who were granted temporary commissions under A.O. 159 of 1918, and those pensioned warrant and non-commissioned

    1279
    officers who were commissioned to the Indian Army, all receive retired pay as officers, whereas the ex-ranker officers who were urged to take, and did take, temporary commissions during the War only receive soldiers' pensions; and whether he will reconsider the position of the latter class, with a view to putting them on the same basis as regards pension as the former classes?
    Mr. HACKING: I would refer the hon. Member to the second part of the answer given by the Lord President of the Council to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham on 23rd July last.
    Major MILNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that since that date 318 Members of the House have put their names to a Motion on the Order Paper, and in the circumstances what is he going to do about it?
    Mr. HACKING: I regret to note that 318 Members of the House have put their names on the Order Paper in connection with a memorial in respect of these ex-ranker officers. I would beg Members on my side of the House to study the Barnes Report, and I think they will then realize that these people have no legal right to their claim, and in fact the Barnes Report made out that they had very little, if any, moral right. If hon. Members, knowing this, realised that the cost would be many millions of pounds, possibly adding up to £10,000,000, I think they would hesitate before signing another similar memorial.
    Major MILNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Barnes Committee had no independent advice and had to take the advice of the War Office representatives, some of whose evidence was not accurate? In the circumstances is there not a case for reconsideration?
    Mr. HACKING: The matter has been considered by successive Governments and they have all reached the same conclusion. No one will state that these men have any legal right and, even if there is a moral claim, it would be very expensive to satisfy.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the £10,000,000 which my right hon. Friend has referred to the capital sum?
    Mr. HACKING: Yes, and that sum would also include the probable wide repercussions. It would be very difficult to resist other claims of a like character is this claim were granted.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SLAVERY COMMITTEE).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the date and place of the first meeting of the slavery committee of the League of Nations?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): The Advisory Committee of experts on slavery will meet early in 1935. The date and place of the meeting have not yet been fixed.

  REGISTERS OF ELECTORS.
  Mr. M. BEAUMONTasked the Home Secretary under what circum. stances the agents of political parties are refused copies of the registers of electors; and if he will see to it that all parties receive equal treatment in this respect?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the supply of free copies of the register to the recognised agents of political organisations. Registration officers are authorised to make such supplies to the accredited agents of any political party actively engaged in registration work and thereby assisting in the preparation of an accurate registrar. Whether or not such supplies should be made to any particular organisation is a matter for the individual Registration Officer to decide.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: Will the Home Secretary advise these registration officers to be very careful not to discriminate between political parties if evidence of such discrimination is put before him?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, it is not my business to advise.
  Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that anyone who chooses to apply to the town clerk of a particular local authority can purchase a copy of the register of electors for a few coppers?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Oh, yes, Sir, they can be purchased.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whose business it is to advise them
  Sir J. GILMOUR: They must be the judge of the circumstances themselves. Any advice which I am asked to give, of course, I give, but I have always understood from my officers that copies of the registers should be supplied by registration officers to the agents of any political parties actually engaged in registration work, and that that is the main consideration.

  RATING AND VALUATION ACT.
  Mr. DREWEasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the interpretation placed upon the word uniformity in the Rating and Valuation Act is causing apprehension, as certain assessment committees are adopting the policy of levelling up to prevailing high rentals instead of making an equitable assessment upon business and other properties, and that this policy is prejudicial to employment for improvement purposes; and whether he will take steps to place the quinquennial valuation on a basis less disturbing to the business of the country?
  Sir H. YOUNG: I am not aware of the apprehensions to which my hon. Friend refers or that there is any case fur the special action which he suggests. There is an appeal to the courts from the Local Assessment Committees with whom rests the application of the law relating to the assessment of property and the position is fortified by the County Valuation Committees and the advisory Central Valuation Committee.

  ROYAL NAVY (SUBMARINE DESIGNS).
  Mr. PALING (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the design for the K-type of submarine was given to the Government of any other nation and, if so, which Governments; the dates when such arrangements were made; and what were the terms of these arrangements?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The design of the K-type of submarine has not been given to the Government
  1282
  of any other nation, but the hon. Member probably has in mind the gift of the design of the "L" class submarine to Japan at a time when she was our ally during the late War.

  IRELAND (FRONTIER SMUGGLING).
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the recent steps taken to prevent smuggling on the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State have proved effective?
  Mr. COOPER: I have reason to believe that the measures recently adopted are proving effective.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will state the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: Monday and Tuesday: Betting and Lotteries Bill [Lords]; Report and Third Reading.
Provided that the Third Reading of the Betting Bill is obtained on Tuesday night, the position in the Depressed Areas will be debated on Wednesday.
Thursday: Consideration of Amendments to Standing Orders giving effect to those recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure which have been adopted by the Government, and any outstanding Business such as Lords Amendments to Bills which have already passed this House.
It is anticipated that all outstanding Business will be concluded in time to allow of Parliament being prorogued on Friday, 16th November.
The new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 20th November.
It will be noticed that no time has been allowed for the Electricity (Supply) Bill [Lords] during the present Session. This Bill will be introduced at the beginning of the new Session and passed into law as expeditiously as possible.
The following Bills will not be proceeded with during the present Session:
Coal Mines Bill;
Diseases of Fish Bill [Lords];
Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill;

1283
Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Bill;
Merchandise Marks (Trade Descriptions) Bill; and the
Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill [Lords];
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Debate on Wednesday in connection with the Reports on the Distressed Areas will take place on a Motion which the Government will put upon the Order Paper, or what will be the procedure? May I also ask, if such a Motion be put down, that it may be carried over until Thursday, so that in the event of there being time we may continue the discussion, seeing that apparently the Business down for Thursday is not likely to be unduly prolonged, and that a very large number of Members representing distressed areas would no doubt like to take part in the Debate.
The PRIME MINISTER: I think the second proposition is a very reasonable one and I should be glad to give any time up to 11 o'clock that still remains to continue the discussion on the distressed areas subject, Government business, of course, having been disposed of. I assume that that was taken for granted?
Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly.
The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the form of the Resolution, our minds are not at all fixed upon it. I would suggest that it might be most convenient for all sides of the House to have a Resolution: "That the Commissioners' Reports be received," or something like that, which could be moved. If the right hon. Gentleman has any views about it, or any other views are communicated through the usual channels, we shall be perfectly willing to accommodate the wording of the Resolution to the desires expressed.
Mr. LANSBURY: I asked the question in order to find out whether the Government propose to open the discussion with a statement on the subject of the Reports. So long as that is to be done, speaking for those on these benches, I do not think we mind very much what the form of the Motion is, because there will be other opportunities if we want to say some kind things about the Government, to say them.
Major CARVER: With regard to the announcement about the Electricity Supply Bill, is it the intention of the Government to send it to a Select Committee?
The PRIME MINISTER: No.
Mr. TINKER: The Prime Minister has expressed some doubt whether we shall get the Betting and Lotteries Bill by Tuesday night, and he left some doubt in our minds on the question of dealing with the necessitous areas. Surely, there will be no doubt about finishing the Betting and Lotteries Bill on Tuesday night.
Mr. LANSBURY: Even if we have to sit up all night.
The PRIME MINISTER: One sometimes has to take precautions.
Mr. PIKE: In view of the large number of reconsiderations which the Home Secretary has promised on the Betting and Lotteries Bill and the possible consumption of practically the whole time allocated to the Report stage by the Home Secretary himself in the explanation of those reconsiderations, is it not possible to allocate a little further time, for the general convenience of the House, for the Report and Third Reading of the Bill?
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be possible to make an appeal to Members of the House to allow us to have a discussion on a subject of equal importance to the Betting Bill?
Mr. BATEY: I did not hear the Prime Minister's reply in regard to the distressed areas. Are we to understand that the Prime Minister's proposal is simply to have a Debate on the receiving of the reports, or will the House have the proposals of the Government before them in debating the question next Wednesday?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is the question which the Leader of the Opposition put to me. The form that I suggested will be a form which necessitates the Government opening the Debate.
Mr. BATEY: Yes, but does' that mean that whoever opens for the Government will state what the Government propose to do on the reports?
The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend must await the statement that is to be made.
Mr. EMMOTT: With regard to the statement of the Prime Minister on the Electricity Supply Bill, has he considered the large number of petitions recently presented to this House praying that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and is the decision which he has just announced final
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, the decision that I have announced is quite final. I do not think that the House will take more than two days in considering the further stages of the Betting Bill.

PRIVATE MANUFACTURE OF AND TRADE IN ARMS.
3.40 p.m.
Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move:
"That this House endorses the view expressed in the Covenant of the League of Nations that manufacture of munitions of war by private enterprise is open to grave objection, regrets the absence of any international agreement to deal with this admitted evil., and is of opinion that this country should set an example by prohibiting forthwith all private manufacture of and trade in armaments by British nationals and by making provision for the production by the State of such armaments and munitions of war as are considered necessary."
We have put down this Motion, although it is not very long since this matter was debated in the House, because a certain amount of additional information has come to light. I should like to make quite clear our position in regard to traffic in arms. It is no part of our case to say that the private manufacturer of arms is the sole cause or the biggest cause of war. We know that there are many contributory causes - national egoism, mass hysteria, nationalism and so forth. We think that the main causes are economic. In our view this is a natural result of capitalism and Imperialism operating in an anarchic world. We hold that the existence of powerful profit making interests is a factor making for international insecurity. We hold that vested interests work against peace and against the attempt to create a world order, and that the existence of these vested interests tends to frustrate the efforts of the wiser statesmen of the world to create a. world order.
I would give a parallel case, that of the slums. I do not suppose that anyone would claim that the slum problem is the mere creation of the slum landlords or the jerry builder. It is the result of a system which regards the providing of housing accommodation primarily as matter for private profit and which grew up at a time when there was very little regulation in a socially anarchic country. The effect of the vested interests of the slum landlord and the jerry builder in 'working against the efforts of Governments to deal with the slums, no one would deny, and no one can deny the influence of the slum landlord and the, jerry builder on the local councils, or even in the counsels of great political
1294
parties at their annual conferences. Our position as a party in this country does not enable us to change the system but it does not prevent us from urging that the Government should deal with this particular evil of capitalism. We think that Members of every party should join with us in trying to destroy the slums and we hope that Members in all parts of the House will join with us in an attack on the traffic in arms. I hope that Members of the House who agree with the view that slums could be better dealt with by taking away private profits from them will also agree with us that the same principle could well be applied in regard to the manufacture of arms.
The Motion is formulated on the Covenant of the League of Nations. Perhaps the world was much more conscious at that time of what war profiteering meant. We are demanding action, not inquiry. We are fully convinced of the evil of private property in armaments and we believe it is practicable to take action.
I want to show first the existence of the evil, secondly, the urgency of the matter and, thirdly, what we believe are the practical steps that should be taken. First as to the facts of the case. A little bit of the very ragged veil that has concealed the activities of war profiteers has been lifted in the inquiry by a Committee of the American Senate. It is quite possible to pooh pooh that inquiry, it is quite possible to take isolated statements and say it is hearsay, that here is a Senator dragging in the name of the. King, a ridiculous thing, but when you have done all that you do not get away-from the mass of evidence tendered as to the methods of armament traders. I am not going to go back over the evidence of the past, I do not want to go back to Mr. Mulliner or Mr. Shearer but, broadly speaking, there is nothing very new or startling in the revelations that have come out in the American inquiry. The activities of armament mongers have been well known all over the world for many years.
It may be suggested that the American inquiry only deals with American firms. As a matter of fact, it does not, it implicates British firms, and even if it did not the armament industry is so closely linked up, is so essentially an international concern, that it is quite

1295
impossible to believe that the methods of procedure adopted by American firms are not known to their British, French and German colleagues. For instance you have a large amount of evidence produced in America with regard to the Electric Boat Company. That company has an arrangement with Vickers whereby they divide the world. They are in constant correspondence and advise one another. If you look through the records of these big armament firms, you find that before and since the War, and very often during the War, there was close co-operation between the armament makers of different nations. In the American case we had a lot of evidence of extremely dirty work. It may be said that it does not all relate to English firms. It does not; but we have the unsolicited testimony of Mr. Allen:
"The Vickers crowd are the dirtiest opponents here. They have almost an entire embassy working for them, and use women of doubtful character freely."
That, of course, is not prime evidence against Vickers, but it is the opinion of an American engaged in the trade, and he is estimating that his rivals are just as able to play the game which they play. He says:
"British prestige stands high in that particular game."
I am not concerned to blacken any particular firm. In fact, the selling of armaments is a dirty business and you cannot get away from it. Mr. Jonas, an agent of the tear gas manufacturers, said:
"We are certainly in a hell of a business where a fellow has to wish for trouble so as to make a living, the only consolation being however that if we do not get the business someone else will. It would he a terrible state of affairs for my conscience to start bothering me now."
It is not my case that the manufacture of arms is conducted by a group of extra wicked people, worse than anybody else. They simply adopt the methods which are followed generally. These people no doubt in their home lives are extremely respectable and admirable people. We have the opinion of Mr. Paul Young, who combines the business of a missionary with that of the vendor of poison gas. He says:
"Six or eight Indians showed a desire to follow the Lord and we prayed with them. Yesterday saw the Minister of War again and made arrangements to demonstrate today."
1296
He is just an ordinary person. Sir Robert Hadfield, speaking at his director's meeting, said:
"We are devoutly thankful for present mercies, and for what we hope we are about to receive may the Lord make us truly thankful."
What is the case which we can bring against armament firms? First that they are a corrupting influence. Let me take up a matter which has already been mentioned in this House, that is the letter which was produced from Sir Charles Craven. I do not think that the First Lord's explanation took us very far. Let me read the letter again:
"I also think it would be worth while putting forward a tender for six boats, the total number to be built. I have had a word with the Director of Contracts at the Admiralty, who is a friend of mine, and who would like this. He, I know, tried to get us the order for all five submarines last year."
What are the charges made against the armament firms? Mr. Nye's committee in America went to work very drastically. They got documents, rightly or wrongly, which they produced. Here is an ordinary business letter written by Sir Charles Craven. I do not suppose that he is bluffing, but he says that the Director of Contracts is a friend of his. It may not be corrupt at all, but there is a serious question, when you have firms like this, of the relationship of people in Government offices to the firm. If that stood alone there might be nothing in it, but we have abundant evidence of corruption from country to country. Sir Charles Craven advised the Electric Boat Company in their dealings with the Chilean Government. He says:
"I would not be too modest about the price. My own experience is that at the last minute something is always needed to grease the ways."
He gives confidential information to his business partners, and he is a gentleman who ranks Geneva as being one with other troublesome organisations that may stop business, but we have quite abundant evidence here of the kind of thing that is done by armament manufacturers. We have evidence that the Turkish Minister of Defence in 1934 was going to get £2,500 from the Electric Boat Company in competing with the Italian firms to secure a contract, but he did not get it, so that the money was not actually paid. There is evidence again as to what

1297
happened in China. You find again the same thing with regard to Greece. Here is a remarkable document taken from the Export Company's files:
"I have succeeded in persuading the Air Minister (John Rhallis), through a common friend, to give his preference to your material. As, however, lie did not like to commit himself with a corporation like ours, we decided on the following:—You should address, by return mail, a letter to the Societe Financiere et Technique de Grece, 10, Metropole Street, and write them that on all orders of your material you will allow a commission of 5 per cent. At the same time you write me a private letter saying that on all orders for your material through the Societe Financiers et Technique de Grece or direct by the Greek Government you will allow me a commission of 45 per cent. I shall transfer this letter to the friend of the Minister in order to guarantee, him that he shall get his profits without this transaction being disclosed by thirds, with kind regards, yours sincerely."
Then there is Captain Ball's letter. He is a general dealer in munitions of war on a very large scale, and, as I understand, is a contractor for getting rid of Government stores. I am not going to quote his letter-probably most people have read it. It is a very long and frank exposition of a point of view. He is quite prepared to recognise that you must have bribery.
"But if any palm oil is required, it has to be added to the price, and as our prices are at least 50 per cent, less than factory prices for the same arms they will stand a lot of grease,' and still be cheaper than the manufacturers' prices."
Then you get references to China, where they say everything has to be done by bribes, although they sometimes hit on the wrong Chinaman. The bribery of officials is a dirty business. There was a celebrated case before the War in which a number of Japanese admirals were convicted of receiving bribes from Vickers in that country. In these reports again and again we find a close relation between armament firms of one kind and another and officials of Governments. Further than that, you find generals and admirals in munition firms. Are they selected solely on account of their business ability? I notice that very often they hold positions in which they have been able to influence contracts. I put the case to any business man here, if he were in a large way of business, and he found that after a few years his chief buyer had left him and joined the board of one of the firms which supplied him
1298
with a large amount of material, and a few years later another buyer got a similar position. There is the fact that there is a close connection all the time between Government Departments and these firms, and I think the existence of such firms is a standing temptation to corruption all over the world to public servants, soldiers and sailors who are trying to do their duty.
The second count in the indictment is that these firms deliberately work against peace and disarmament. Of course they do not like disarmament conventions. Sir Charles Craven described Geneva as "some fancy convention." Commandante Aubry, in Peru, an agent for the Electric Boat Company, who claimed to be appointed as the delegate of Peru to the Disarmament Conference, said:
"My flag will be no quota in submarines, and classify it as a defensive weapon."
I am bound to say that it has always struck me as curious how these experts take such a long time in deciding whether weapons are defensive or not, when so many of us could make up our minds in half a minute.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Was he actually appointed as delegate of Peru at that time?
Mr. ATTLEE: He failed to get it, but others were more successful. Then we have an elaborate plan to evade embargoes. The world meets together in a League of Nations. It tries to lay down rules for the prevention of war, and all the time the nationals of those countries are engaged in evading those embargoes to the best of their ability. We have an extract like this from the American Armament Corporation, which is the American agent of the Soley Armament Company, which contracts for the Government:
"We have heard that Bolivia wants anti-aircraft guns quickly, but we do not for a moment think that a shipment of sale to Bolivia could be made direct while that country is at war. If, however, an American armament firm of some standing bought the guns for eventual re-sale, things might be easier, or if the Colombian Government, who are not at war, bought the guns they could no doubt have them."
There is the case of that little war which everyone must regard as a wretched war in the middle of South America, a war in which the population of either side is

1299
not concerned. It is a war between rival financial interests backed by financial interests, and described as a comic opera war. Here is an extract:
"I am firmly convinced that moral and financial support is coming and will continue from Argentina on behalf of Paraguay, and Bolivia will be required to find a similar support either through the Standard Oil Company…"
It is interesting to see how on one side you can have a State and on the other side a corporation.
"I am still of the opinion that before these two comic opera 'wars are finished in the North and South practically all of South America will be involved-so watch your step and play your cards accordingly."
I have no doubt the official American representatives in the world are doing their best to have that wretched struggle stopped, and at the same time their nationals are engaged in fomenting it, and obviously hoping for its spread.
Then there is a disregard of any idea that the League has laid down anything with regard to the rearmament of the ex-enemy Powers. There is the rearmament of Germany. There is a record of the shipments going through Holland and elsewhere to Germany. There is talk of the air menace. In the first eight months of 1934 exports to Germany included 176 aeroplanes, two large planes and six two-seater mail planes. All shipments were approved by the United States Government, and were listed as commercial, but the information which one gets leads one to have doubts whether they are commercial at all. The rearming of Germany goes on through the nationals of the Powers who are parties to the Treaty against it. I want to suggest, first of all, the insanity of-the whole thing. The Governments work for peace and disarmament, and the armsmongers work for war and armaments. Ministers talk gravely of the problem created by the anarchy of China, but who makes the anarchy? It is one of the best fields for selling guns and munitions of every kind, and the nationals of a civilised world arm the bandits of China, and then, when China gets sufficiently disintegrated, they come in and pick up the pieces. In 1932 Vickers were advertising their tanks in German papers, in one case with a full-page illustration.
1300
Consider the hypocrisy of the whole thing. The League of Nations is out to prevent war, and the nations say, "But when people go to war, we had better make what money we can out of it." We got a very belated embargo in the case of Bolivia and Paraguay. The fact is that wherever trouble is blowing up, there are the armament firms' agents, and from what I can find out the armsmongers are quite clever enough to outwit any regulations.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): Will the hon. Member give an example?
Mr. ATTLEE: I am saying I do not believe that any of the regulations will prevent the sending of arms to another country. It can be done with regard to Bolivia and Paraguay by sending through the Argentine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] It can be done through a neighbouring State. The control of South America is very inefficient.
Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is this being done?
Miss RATHBONE: I was wondering whether this would serve as an example—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Lady had better allow the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech.
Mr. ATTLEE: The evidence brought out that military aeroplanes have been shipped piecemeal to North Sea ports from the United States, Sweden and Great Britain, and have been assembled in Germany.
HON. MEMBERS: Speak up. We cannot hear you.
Mr. ATTLEE: The evidence shows that military aeroplanes have been shipped piecemeal to North Sea ports from the United States, Sweden, and Great Britain, and have been assembled in Germany. The fact is that there is evidence here of the deliberate evasion by armament traders of the rules laid down by the League of Nations and of the action of Governments. The next point is, what can be done? We all want to see international action taken in the matter. I would like to see very vigorous action, and I do not think that our Government has been vigorous on this matter. There

1301
was a discussion of a draft plan for the control of munition manufacture. We were not represented there by a major delegate. We were represented by a comparatively junior official, not an official of the first rank. We want international action. I do not think that mere supervision will go far enough. I would have liked to have sided with those who propose the abolition of private trading in armaments, with France and Spain and Poland, and not with Germany and Italy. It is said that in France there is a Press largely controlled by armaments firms, but it is France which comes forward and asks for the complete abolition of the trade.
We say about the arms trade, "You must abolish it because it is wrong." Some people say, and the Financial Secretary to the War Office on a previous occasion expressed his approval, "If nations will fight, if they will have these terrible weapons—and they are certainly going to get them—we may as well provide them as anyone else." I think that that is a profoundly immoral position. Take a parallel. Suppose we cultivated opium and heroin in this country and said, "Unfortunately there are people on the Continent who will take these drugs. Why should we not make a profit out of them?" But we have not come to that. Suppose that we had a white slave traffic in this country and there were a lot of people engaged in the business. Should we say "it is all very deplorable, but there is a demand there and why should we not make our profit?" That was not the line taken by our country in regard to the slave trade. One hundred years ago this country declared that the slave trade was wrong. As to the white slave traffic, we are all agreed that it is not a matter for regulation but a matter for abolition, for stopping it. But why should it be worse to make profits out of a breach of the Seventh Commandment than to make them out of a breach of the Sixth Commandment?
This armament trade is a trade in murder. Someone may say "You cannot do anything unless you get international agreement, and international agreement is impossible; so let us carry on." We did not wait for that in the case of the slave trade. We set our own house in order. I want to see this country set its house in order by dealing with this matter in the right way. But it is said,
1302
"We must keep an arms industry in order to be able to expand our munition supply in time of war." As a matter of fact the Great War proved that that was the very worst way of doing it. Reliance on private armament firms broke down badly in the War. The inefficiency and rapacity of the big firms are brought out in report after report. We had the report of the Lever Committee, which showed that the prices charged contained an excessive profit and that the organisation and management of the works were inefficient. A national body got to work and it was then found that the firms were able so to reduce the price of shells that at that time there was a reduction in cost of no less than £400,000 a week.
There is no doubt whatever about the rapacity of these gentlemen. I also attack their capacity. There is the fact that people had to come in from outside and organise the industry. From the point of view of national defence, it is entirely fallacious to think that it is necessary for some of these firms to do a trade abroad. The right way to organise munitions in this country is to nationalise the production, to have a nucleus that is able to expand, and expansion will be obtained not by having large firms dealing with foreign countries, but by having a great variety of firms engaged in all sorts of occupations and provided with the organisation and the machinery which is ready to be turned over to armaments. If you are out for that kind of defence, that is the way to do it. We do not believe that this private armaments trade is an advantage to us. I am told that my suggestions would throw 20,000 people out of work. It would be better to keep those people and find work for them.
Then we come to the good old test question, what are munitions of war? Last time we debated the subject it was suggested that nearly everything came under the heading of munitions—boots and cloth and motor cars and everything. If it is necessary to socialise these industries—it might be socialisation by the side door—it might come to a choice between socialisation and the next war. I should plump for socialising and hon. Members opposite would plump for the next war. Even if you cannot do the whole thing, you can go a very long way. In almost any matter with which you try

1303
to deal you will not be able to go the whole way. The Government are profoundly convinced of the evil of betting and gambling, and they would be delighted to go the whole way, but they have found that to go the whole way they would have to deal with football pools. They claim, in spite of that, that in their Bill they are making a great onslaught on the betting evil. You can do something if you cannot go the whole way. There is a vast number of munitions of war as to which there is not the slightest doubt of the use for which they are intended.
It may be asked, "What would happen to the unfortunate or fortunate countries that have not any munition factories themselves How are they going to arm?" That question is put by people who are living in a past age, who are living in pre-War days. What we are asking for with regard to armaments is, that if we cannot get full disarmament there should at least be programmes by regulation. If you get 'agreement as to the regualtion of armaments, there would not be this running around of private armament firms. The idea that there must be private enterprise in 'armaments belongs to a past world, and those who entertain it do not recognise the new world in which they live. There were hon. Members who jeered just now when I suggested that to socialise the industry might be Socialism by a side door. Those hon. Members are also living in an archaic world. We are coming to-day into a more regulated world, although it is not always regulated as we should like it. We hold that this country can set an 'example in this matter. It is not suggested that we are all alone. Big nations have already declared themselves. I do not claim that nationalising is going far enough. I want disarmament all round, and I say that the only arms and armament factories should be run by a world authority.
Let me turn to the Amendments on the Paper. The right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has put down a Liberal Amendment asking for an inquiry. I do not want a mere hush-hush inquiry. I do not want a merely pious expression of conviction that international action is needed. I want to declare against profit
1304
in armaments. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will say whether or not Liberals think it is right to make profits out of armaments. We believe it is wrong. I do not think we have need of this inquiry. We have abundant facts available, and the matter should be made absolutely clear to everybody in the modern world. The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) comes rather disappointingly from him. It seems to me like whitewash. I believe in international action, but there is great difficulty in getting it, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. We must first set our own house in order. We must set an example. There is nothing so good as an example in these matters. I have already said that from the defence point of view we should be stronger and not weaker without these firms and we certainly should be cleaner. Finally, as regards the American inquiry it has certainly brought out interesting details but it has not got at anything that we did not know already about the existence of this arms traffic, its corrupting influence in the Press and in business circles and we should like to see our own country, as in the days of the abolition of slavery, leading the world to put it down.
4.31 p.m.
Sir J. SIMON: The Government were very glad, notwithstanding the necessarily crowded state of business at the end of the Session, to find time for this Debate. The subject is a most important one. It is widely believed to be closely associated with the most important thing in the world and that is world peace; and it is a subject which is occupying and disturbing the hearts and consciences of many people of deep sincerity and conviction. Moreover, it is a subject which is particularly suited to examination by Parliamentary Debate because here the considerations can be presented from more than one point of view. Outside this House this question has very often been treated, indeed I do not go too far when I say that it has been exploited, as though it were quite a simple issue in which a conclusion can be reached almost automatically by anyone who is neither a

1305
fool nor a knave without examination of difficulties which are scouted as imaginary or far-fetched.
There is one further feature about this subject which makes it, I think, most suitable for Parliamentary examination. This is an issue which offers a special and peculiar temptation to confuse the denunciation of certain evils, which I join in denouncing just as much as anybody else, with the claim that you have found a complete cure for those evils. I must add and it will be my business in the course of what I say to endeavour to prove that it is moreover a question which recently has been made the subject outside this House of flagrant misrepresentation against the Government. I was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) just now say, and say with truth, that this issue, important as it is, cannot possibly be regarded as though it were the major or the main cause of war. That is what one would expect from the hon. Gentleman. At the same time, some of us have good reason to know from our correspondence and other information that there is an active campaign going on, in which immense numbers of perfectly honourable, devoted, sincere people are being industriously persuaded that the issue which is raised in this Debate is really the thing into which they have to throw the whole of their devotion because thereby they are going to deliver the world from war and the evils of the present regime.
Before we examine this thing in any more detail, we must be clear as to the basis upon which we are proceeding, and I would ask the House to see if we cannot agree that there are two things which it is essential to assume for the purposes of this discussion. The first is this. We are proceeding, are we not, on the basis that this country must be provided with some defence, defence expressed in the form of the possession and the supply of munitions of war? If that be not the assumption, then the whole Debate is meaningless because, of course, if you take the view which is taken by some people and which I think even the hon. Gentleman opposite in one passage indicated that he would like to have regarded as his view, then it is not a, question of prohibiting the private manufacture of arms. It is equally a case of prohibiting the public manufacture of
1306
arms. I listened with great attention to the analogies which the hon. Gentleman gave. He pointed out that there were cases and indeed that there are cases in which the moral law requires resolute action by a self-respecting State without fear of consequences. One of them, I thing, was the white slave traffic. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman: is it his view that State brothels are right but private brothels are wrong?
Mr. ATTLEE: The point which I made, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had followed me, was this, that profit should not be made out of the selling of the bodies of women whether it was done either way. I never suggested that any profit should be made out of arms. I say, take the profit-making out of arms, however the arms are made.
Mr. PALING: A typically Simonite argument.
Sir J. SIMON: I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will find that I am at least as straightforward as they are. The illustration unfortunately cannot be saved by that correction. If it were a good correction, then the conclusion would be that it would be proper to provide for the lusts of men, as long as you did not make a profit out of it.
Mr. ATTLEE: Then does the right hon. Gentleman say that marriage should be abolished because it is one of the recognised ways in which men—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
Sir J. SIMON: I leave that as it is. I will take another one of the hon. Gentleman's analogies dealing with a subject which I have had some reason to study with attention and the deepest sympathy. The hon. Gentleman referred to the abolition of the slave trade. Why, Sir, the proposal which was carried, to the glory of this House, 127 years ago, that we should make indulgence in the slave trade a criminal offence and a felony was directed towards abolishing the slave trade altogether. It was not directed towards securing that there should be a State monopoly in the slave trade. It is true that the act of this Parliament at that time set an example. Yes, but it set an example because the Navy of Britain was in a position to see to it that if the slave trade was really put down and abolished in this country

1307
it would surely be repressed in the course of years elsewhere. I say, then, without fear of contradiction, that we have to proceed upon the basis that there are going to be arms possessed by the State and held for the defence of the State and the question is not whether we should have arms but how they are to be provided.
There is a second assumption which must be made for the purposes of this Debate, and it is this. We are not to-day discussing whether the amount of armaments which this country needs is great or small, is sufficient, is too much or too little. We are proceeding upon this assumption that for the purposes of to-day the country has to be provided adequately with armed forces in order that it may be in a position by those means to defend itself in case that emergency arises. I read the other day with great pleasure a statement made by Mr. Clynes, I think at the Labour Conference two months ago at Southport, when, after calling attention to the war-like preparations which are taking place throughout the world and appealing to his audience there to remember that we must live in the world as it is, he went on to say:
"Is there a man here who will rise and say that the moment has now arrived when we ought to cease the manufacture of these implements of war? If so, he knows that he would not speak as a representative voice."
The question which we have to consider here is the question which indeed is the only concrete proposal in this Motion, namely, whether we should prohibit forthwith in this country, whatever other people do, all private manufacture of and trade in armaments by British nationals and make provision for the production by the State of such armaments and munitions of war as are considered necessary. I must say though I followed closely the speech of the hon. Gentleman it did not appear to me that nine-tenths of his speech were addressed to that issue at all. In order that we may form a judgment we must first pass briefly in review what our existing system is, and, if the House will allow me, I will occupy two or three minutes in endeavouring to summarise it. I am not for the moment arguing whether it is right or wrong. I only ask you to see what it is. Our existing system is one which combines a
1308
nucleus of State production of necessary armaments with a supplementary supply from so called armament firms and private shipyards though in fact, these armament firms and private shipyards are for the most part engaged in peace time in the production of things that are not munitions of war at all.
That is our present position. A nucleus of State factories is useful, not only for the weapons that they themselves produce, but as a check on the prices and qualities of those produced by private companies. So much for the State factory. The private armament firm, on the other hand, has its skilled staff, its organisation, its machinery—some of it extremely heavy and important machinery—with which it is producing a certain quantity on the armaments side of its business. That side of its business could not in fact be maintained without foreign orders. Now if we are plunged into the calamity of war—and, after all, that is the assumption upon which this Debate is based, that we might be plunged into such a calamity some day—then these armament firms and these private shipyards, owing to their previous organisation and their acquired aptitudes, are able to switch over rapidly from their level of peace production to their maximum of war production. That is the essence of this arrangement, and only by that means is it possible, having regard to the limited output of our State factories, to bridge the gap, which would widen at a, terrific rate if war again were to visit the world, between peace precautions and war demands. But even so the strain which modern war puts upon the productive powers of a nation is stupendous, and supplementary efforts on the vastest scale have to be provided. I ask particularly the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) to the fact that, but for the suddenly increased contribution of private armament firms and private shipyards when these devote themselves entirely to armament production, it would be quite impossible to meet. the sudden demands on the nation.
What is it which this Motion proposes? By Act of Parliament there are to be no armament firms, there are to be no shipyards accustomed to build ships of war. The Tyne, the Clyde, the Mersey are to get no employment from this source. I see opposite the hon. Member for

1309
Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). We have all felt much satisfaction and rejoiced with him at the laying down and launching of the "Queen Mary," but perhaps he will excuse me for saying that under this system you must not expect a "Queen Mary" every year. We are to rely then upon the dockyard plant.
Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear.
Sir J. SIMON: The Noble Lady opposite, though she may not be in favour of State monopoly, undoubtedly holds the view that the place she represents is better entitled to be considered than anywhere else. If we start a State monopoly in the building of ships of war and the provision of armaments, there will not be one Member who thinks that, but the whole place will be filled with them. It is evident, therefore, that there would have to be, on this assumption, more dockyard towns.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: That does not apply to Russia.
Sir J. SIMON: We had better confine ourselves to the proposal of the Opposition, which is that we should do this in this country, whatever other people do. It would be for the State to keep and to train a sufficient staff, in every grade, from the designer to the "black squad," to take up, in the ultimate event of war, which we are all trying to prevent, the immensely increased burden which war throws on such production. I would ask the attention of hon. Members opposite to this, that whatever else it does, it will most certainly mean that in time of peace—let us hope in generations of peace—this heavy burden must be cast on the revenues of this country, when the present system avoids it. It is this need for sudden, almost unlimited expansion which makes the conception of a Government monopoly difficult to apply, but I would ask the House to be good enough to let me put an illustration.
I do not see my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General in his place—perhaps he is enlarging the telephone service—but we have a monopoly in the case of the Post Office. A State monopoly operates best and most efficiently if it is engaged in providing a service, preferably a comparatively simple service, as to which the demand is fairly regular. If the need for
1310
the sorting and delivery of letters might change with the European situation till
suddenly it became of vital importance to multiply it 10 or 20 times, then a State monopoly for sorting and delivering letters could not work. The very reason why it works is because the service is one which is within reasonably constant limits, and consequently you are able to form an organisation and a staff which can be employed throughout the years. It is quite true that there are occasions when there is an extra pressure on the Post Office, such as Christmas, and it is true that that has to be provided for. How is it provided for? By bringing in the services of men who are not on the established staff, and if it were the case that these things did not happen at fixed intervals, and instead of Christmas coming once a year—if it only came at irregular intervals and you hoped to heaven it would not come at all—it is obvious that the argument from an efficient State organisation would fail.
I am going to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon on this subject. I read—and I hope it is the case—that he may be taking part in this Debate before it closes. No one has described the intenseness of the pressure for increased armament production, when a country like ours is unhappily involved in war, so vividly as it is described in the second volume of an unending series of works which are now being produced by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and in that second volume, which deals with the history of munitions in the War, my right. hon. Friend pays a most handsome tribute to the right hon. Member for Swindon, for it was not in that connection that his former chief was so unkind as to observe that:
"in my judgment and that of all my colleagues be was making an utter mess of it. I had to dismiss him because he was incompetent."
The right hon. Gentleman received, and no doubt deservedly received, a very high encomium there, but the story of the Munitions Department, as told in that book, does not give much encouragement to those who would put all their trust in a State Department to provide what is wanted to fight the enemy. I forbear to quote the lurid language of the right hon. Gentleman on that subject; I will only say that his sentiments of disgust

1311
at the difficulty of getting the State services to expand are expressed in language more extreme and more vehement than the comments which he makes on almost everybody else, alive or dead, who had any active part in the conduct of the War. No doubt it can be said that the Munitions Department—the right hon. Gentleman opposite was there—achieved an astounding task in supplementing the efforts of State Departments by bringing into play the immense field of private enterprise, but is the right hon. Gentleman, when he speaks to-night, really going to tell us that he would have accomplished his task with equal or greater ease if, before the War, and it might be for a long period before the War, all private armament firms in this country had been shut up by Act of Parliament, if no ships of war had been built perhaps for a generation in any private dockyard, and military aeroplanes were as exclusively a Government product as, shall I say, postage stamps or the coinage?
Whatever might be the lesson which ought to be drawn from that tremendous, organised, and successful effort in the Great War, it certainly cannot be that we can put our trust in State factories and wait until we are in war before anybody else is called upon, and consequently that we lose the staff, the organisation and the experience which may very well be the only salvation of the country? If it be said—and that perhaps will be the right hon. Gentleman's answer—"Oh, well, though this is a very good thing to do in time of peace, of course we would not do it in time of war," what a moment to choose for so tremendous a transformation. If it is going to be done at all, at least let us show some measure of prevision on a matter of such enormous importance.
But there is a further point. I acknowledge, of course, that the hon. Gentleman opposite, though he urges that we should set an example, would like other people to do the same. But observe that, if that be so, you are not only providing that there will be no such supplementary supply from our own armament firms, but that we shall be quite unable to get any purchases from foreign sources. One State cannot provide State armaments from its own arsenal, when it is at peace, to another State which is at war without
1312
involving itself in the war, and that is a consideration which I cannot think has been sufficiently regarded.
One thing more. States which have no internal production of arms would not only be obliged to set up their own factories, which they do not do now, but they would have to accumulate great stocks in order that under the new system they might be in a position in which they felt more secure against their neighbours. I have not attempted to put this argument with any idea of dealing with it exhaustively. My object has been to show the House that most serious considerations have to be weighed before this matter can be glibly decided. May I point out that it is not a new question at all. Under Article 8 of the Covenant there was set up in Geneva a commission which examined this question. I have a report of the commission here; it is a public document. May I ask the attention of the House to the way in which the report was made? It is a report of the committee which was appointed for the very purpose of examining the proposal to abolish the private manufacture of arms and for countries to confine themselves to State production. Will the House kindly observe these points? The committee did not reach any conclusions in favour of the abolition of the private manufacture of arms. It did not, so far as I know, collect evidence on the subject. It set out a series of considerations which, as it truly said, were very strongly urged against the system, of private manufacture. Some of them have been put very effectively by the hon. Gentleman to-day. Then the committee goes on to say that it is unable to reach a conclusion. I will read the words:
"It cannot at the present stage of its deliberations either recommend tile abolition of private manufacture or advise upon the particular steps to be taken to control it should it be decided that on the balance of advantage private manufacture must be allowed to continue. The Sub-Committee must content itself for the present with indicating some of the difficulties which confront the total abolition of private manufacture and some of the problems which will have to he faced before a complete code of regulations can be recommended. Accordingly, the following observations are offered with reference to the two courses of prohibition and regulation."
Then there follow over the next page a series of eight reasons which are stated, not as conclusions of the Committee, but

1313
as considerations of the greatest weight, which no man taking the subject seriously could possibly fail to measure and deal with before he decided. The date of the document is 1921. The first reason has to do with the language of the Covenant; I will say a word about that in a moment. The second reason is that a recommendation that private manufacture be abolished would doubtless be objectionable to States which do not produce all the munitions that they need. Such States would probably feel that it would be more difficult to get the necessary supplies from foreign governments than from foreign firms.
The next reason is this:
"As international law stands to-day the supply of munitions or implements of war by a neutral government to a belligerent government would constitute a violation of neutrality. In time of war, therefore, a belligerent would have to depend upon its own production and upon what it could get from its Allies. This might mean that all governments would feel themselves called upon to prepare for the eventualities of war by storing up large stocks of munitions and by equipping themselves with large munition funds."
The next point is:
"The abolition of private manufacture might result in the establishment of many new armaments plants by the governments of non-producing States. Such governments could, of course, undertake to manufacture munitions to meet their own needs, there being no restriction on the export of iron and coal."
The next point is:
"Governments might—in some countries—find it more difficult than private firms to reduce their armament establishments on the cessation of war owing to the Parliamentary pressure exerted by the representatives of labour engaged in the production of armaments."
The next point is:
"Few industrial enterprises work exclusively for the manufacture of war material. For the most part the great armament firms are establishments of a composite nature whose activity in normal times is chiefly directed to peace industries."
The last point deals with the difficulty of defining war industries. I should like to know—perhaps the right hon. Member for Swindon will tell us—what under the plan which hon. Members are proposing they are going to do with the production of military aeroplanes? Are they going to have a State monopoly in respect of the military aeroplanes of our Air Force? I find it impossible to conceive of any
1314
plan, unless indeed it is the Socialist plan to nationalise not merely the provision for war but a very much wider range of industries. That is the character of the report which was made after this subject was examined at Geneva, and it is enough for me to say that, with the knowledge of that report before us, no honest man can possibly think it wise or right for the public to be invited to reach a conclusion without having both sides stated. I have here a green pamphlet which some hon. Gentlemen opposite know very well, the authorship of which is concealed under the convenient phrase, "The Union of Democratic Control."
Mr. LANSBURY: Ask the Prime Minister.
Sir J. SIMON: The Union of Democratic Control may, for all I know, have served a very useful purpose in the past, but that does not excuse the grossest misrepresentation. I should be greatly surprised if I am contradicted when I say that hundreds of copies of this book have been sent across to America. My correspondence shows that it has reached the hands of hundreds of decent people who only want to do the right thing, and that every one of them has been grossly misled by this production. I am going to call attention to the very sentence with which the document begins. It refers to the very report of the League of Nations Committee which I have been quoting, and the House will remember that that committee reached no conclusion and set out at length eight serious considerations against State monopoly and the abolition of private enterprise.
Dr. ADDISON: Was the date of that report 1921?
Sir J. SIMON: Yes, 1921. The pamphlet begins in this way:
"In 1921 a League of Nations Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the problem of the private manufacture of arms came to the following conclusions."
The first point is that it came to no conclusions. It then sets out, as being the conclusions, the six points which were impartially recorded in the Commission's report as being the main arguments used in favour of the abolition of private manufacture. It then goes on to say:

1315
"These are definite charges, and it is a pity that the evidence on which they were based has not been published."
The whole thing is, of course, a complete misconception. They were not charges, but they were contentions that were set out on one side. Will the House believe that, having done that, the authors of the pamphlet deliberately suppress everything else that is to be found in the report of the Commission—the statement of this impartial Commission at Geneva which, for the reasons it gives, was unable to recommend the abolition of the private manufacture of arms—and they suppress the smallest reference to any one of those eight considerations which follow on the next page in the report. If anything could make that more disgraceful, it is the preface of this precious document, which actually has the impudence to assert on the page opposite to this falsehood:
"Where the facts have been already published, they have been carefully checked before being repeated, and the source of every important statement and fact is indicated either in the text or in the footnotes."
I do really think, and I think the House will agree, that it is perfectly outrageous that an issue should be presented in such a form by those who are endeavouring at all costs to further a particular policy. I am bound to say that, although differences of opinion may be held about it, I do think the risks of misunderstandings or misapprehensions involved are very great.
In the ballot that is now being organised by a body—I do not say it is the League of Nations Union, but it is carried on from the same address—the risks of misunderstanding in that matter are extreme. They propound a question which they hope every householder will consider—
"Should the manufacture and sale of arms for private profit be prohibited by international agreement?"
It is a very proper question, but it is not a question on which, without reasonable information of the arguments on either side, the verdict of the uninstructed person should be invited. What is the method followed by the National Declaration Committee to get an answer to their questions? They sent round notes with the five questions on the ballot paper, and when I come to their
1316
notes on this question 4 there is not a word which suggests that anybody has ever considered these difficulties to be serious. It carefully abstains from mentioning what the difficulties are. It is obvious that that is done for the purpose of getting, by hook or by crook, a particular answer to that question. Some members of the executive committee of the League of Nations Union felt so strongly about this that after that had been done they proposed, I do not know with what success, that at least something else should be said and circulated, and this is the comment that they suggested should be added:
"This is an exceptionally complex subject, the difficulties of which are obscured in the question. No explanation is offered of how the object is to be obtained. The alternative of control of the international trade in arms is not even mentioned. The question is framed to secure a particular answer, not to invite a reasoned verdict. In our opinion this is emphatically a question which ought not to have been put without mentioning the various issues which arise out of it. We mention only one or two of those considerations. The absence from this question of any definition of the armaments concerned; the immense extension of national arsenals which would at once become necessary, and the increase to taxation this would involve; the impossible position in which small nations without armament factories would be placed, and their consequent, dependence on the foreign governments upon which they would have to rely for their means of defence."
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether that leaflet has been published and circulated by the committee which is conducting the ballot and of which Lord Cecil is chief?
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As I was one of the members of the executive committee of the League of Nations Union alluded to in the preamble to that pamphlet, I would like to say that the undertaking given by the National Declaration Committee was that wherever they circulated their Green Paper they would circulate this document, which is printed in Blue Paper. I am informed that sooner than circulate the Blue Paper a large number of their branch organisations are circulating no reasons at all.
Mr. LANSBURY: When the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) wished to assist my hon. Friend, the Speaker ruled that he should conduct his own speech. The right hon. Gentleman knows nothing about that,

1317
else he never would have read it, because it was agreed that it should not be circulated, and this is an excellent opportunity of getting it circulated in a sort of roundabout manner.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is misinformed.
Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman himself says that neither the one leaflet nor the other is being circulated.
HON. MEMBERS: By some branches.
Sir J. SIMON: I rather gather that my right hon. Friend may have an opportunity of speaking, and I do not wish to pursue that point further, except to say that I am sure we shall all agree that if this question is to be fairly and impartially examined the main considerations on both sides should be put forward. I say so because I have here two copies of the official paper of the League of Nations Union, called "Headway." A great many of us in this House belong to the League of Nations Union. We are asked, very often, to take part in League of Nations Union meetings, and, speaking for myself, I gladly do so when I can. I acknowledge most fully the enormously valuable work which that union has done in popularising the idea of the League of Nations, but I must say, if we really are agreed when we say that both sides should be put, that the articles which have appeared in the official journal of the non-party League of Nations Union are extremely surprising. I have here a leader, published in September, 1934, and headed, "Common sense is enough," the object of which is to ridicule the idea that anybody should honestly desire to put any of these objections and difficulties to the voter, and it proceeds to say that these matters are candidly explained in supplementary literature. More than that, in the November issue of "Headway" I find an article on "Democracy and the Declaration"—in this non-political, nonparty organ of the League of Nations Union—and I read in it the statement:
"If 20,000,000 people in this country were to answer the questions in the affirmative, they would give an overwhelming mandate to all future British Governments to pursue a policy by which peace can be secured."
The hon. Member opposite admitted just now that important 'as this issue was it
1318
really was not a fundamental issue. The article in this paper—this non-party, nonpartisan official organ of the League of Nations Union—goes on to say:
"The Labour party has always stood in national and international affairs for democracy, brotherhood and co-operation."
We are all for co-operation provided that we do really agree in our desire for peace that we should form a right judgment after a fair consideration of the arguments on the other side.
Speaking for my part and for the Government, I say that as a matter of fact we have less reason than any country in the world to be reproached as though in this matter we had failed to do our best. We are convinced, as a matter of fact, that the practical way to deal with this matter is not by national legislation, which seeks to abolish private manufacture, but by regulation and control, which ought to be in accordance with an international treaty negotiated at Geneva and signed and observed by all the States participating. Article 8 of the Covenant does not say that the private manufacture of armaments should be ended. This Motion seems almost to suggest that it does. It does not do anything of the kind, but says that private manufacture of arms is felt to be open to grave objection, and goes on to say that therefore the burden falls upon the Council of the League to devise measures by which these shortcomings may be stopped—a quite ridiculous assertion if you are going to abolish the private manufacture of armaments. It finishes by pointing out one of the special difficulties, namely, the undoubted difficulty of the small nations which have not got armament factories, and whose course of life would be entirely changed if something of that sort were done.
Before I sit down I wish to state quite categorically what steps we do take in this country in the matter of control. We have the most complete and stringent system of controlling export of any country in the world. No consignment of armaments can leave this country without a licence to export. I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend cast doubts on that. Anyone who has experience of it will know that the service which is discharged at our ports by our Customs officials is incorrupt, that the organisation is adequate, and that there is no possibility

1319
whatever of arms being exported from this country without a licence.
Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman must not suggest that I said anything of that sort. What I said was that it was perfectly possible to export from one country to another country and so to another country and eventually to get to the belligerents. I said nothing about the ports.
Sir J. SIMON: I will deal with that point, which is equally wrong. In the first place the British exporter has to establish to the satisfaction of the appropriate department the real destination of his goods. Again, we give no licence except for export to Governments, a thing which is worth noting. In the next place, we refuse the benefit of our export credits system to the export of munitions of war, and, so far as I know, we are the only country in the world which does so. Further, we never subsidise a private firm to produce arms—never. If I may refer to the service of the Foreign Office and make a perfectly simple statement about it, we never allow our diplomatic or consular representatives abroad to act as travellers or canvassers for armament firms—never. Our diplomatic help is given only when a foreign State has announced its intentions to purchase from abroad. Then our service naturally does its best to secure that the British firms should get a proper opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If I may offer a little illustration of this, outside the formal terms of a Foreign Office statement, the other day, when playing golf, I happened to be in the company of a very distinguished man, whose name would be known to everybody here, who has been one of our diplomatic representatives, mostly in South America, for 20 years. I said to him within the intimacy of friendship, and with a most certain assurance of his character, that I wanted to know not what the regulations were, but what the facts were with reference to this branch of our diplomatic service. He replied that in the whole of his 20 years' experience as secretary, counsellor, minister and ambassador, he had never known a single case in which any member of our diplomatic service had ever acted otherwise. I say that with some pride, knowing that in South America anyone who wants to assure you
1320
that he is really speaking the truth tells you that he assures you of a fact on the word of an Englishman. I accept that declaration, and I think we are entitled to use this opportunity to show that, as a matter of fact, our own regulations are far stricter than those of other countries.
What can be done in this connection at Geneva? The idea that we are really going to do any good by setting an example by unilateral action on the part of this country is really an absurdity. Let the House remember what happened when this country did attempt unilateral action in respect of the export of arms to the Far East. I came down here and I did my very best for it. I was not welcomed by some critics who seemed to think it was quite right for private manufacturers to export arms to China but quite wrong to export them to Japan. But though we set that example nobody in the whole world was prepared to follow it. The hon. Gentleman has referred to Bolivia and Paraguay. It is this Government which took the initiative about an embargo in the case of Bolivia and Paraguay, and what was the difficulty? It was not that our regulations were not sufficient, but that other people's regulations were not. The hon. Gentleman referred, quite rightly, to the fact that there were difficulties on this subject in the United States. That is because, we are informed, the United States Government have not complete control of exports at the ports, on account of the terms of their constitution, and we had the greatest difficulty in getting satisfactory arrangements to restrain the sending of American munitions to Bolivia and Paraguay. But it has been done as the result of a very strenuous and continuous effort, and we are able to say, as I told the House the other day, that 28 countries, at our instigation originally, have now announced that they have taken the necessary steps to prevent the supply of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay—and all those are exporting countries. If those steps are taken, as they are being taken in this country, then we shall be able to see what everybody desires, the starving out of the belligerents in that miserable war.
The view that we take of a Motion of this sort is that it is really of no value for calling attention to the very grave considerations that are associated with this problem. I think the whole

1321
House will agree that it does not carry the solution of the problem very much farther. A problem of this moment cannot be solved by some easy, confident formula which says that there shall be no private manufacture of arms in this country. God knows I feel the horrible nature of the consequences which we are trying to restrain and prevent, but I feel also that a great disservice has been done to the decent citizen who is deeply moved and desires to reach a fair conclusion, by the attempt to exploit those feelings and that passionate desire for peace by pretending—and it is only a pretence—that the question is a perfectly simple one. Every artifice, not only of emphasis, but of suppression, has been used in order to pronounce a view upon imperfect and distorted information. His Majesty's Government, like previous Governments, are not able to agree with the view that the remedy for this situation lies in State monopoly. Neither national security nor the overwhelming needs of peace can be served by this method. The true method is by international agreement. We have done, and are doing, our best most energetically to promote such international agreement and strict regulation and control by every State in which arms are manufactured and exported. It is certainly right to call attention to these evils so that as far as possible they may be avoided, and so that an effective embargo by collective action may be put into operation when we have a case such as that with which we have been dealing in regard to Bolivia and Paraguay.
I have made a perfectly plain and simple statement of the situation and if anybody can sugest ways of improving it we are very ready to listen. If there are well-thought-out proposals for a modification of the system which will help to remove more objections than they raise we will welcome the co-operation of others for that purpose. It is noticeable that the Resolution moved by the Opposition does not ask for an inquiry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt considered that matter very carefully and decided that it would be wiser not to do so. An inquiry would necessarily mean bringing out the overwhelming difficulties, which I am doing nothing whatever to build up but which are there, and which would, therefore, obstruct the course which they wish to recommend.
1322
Something has been said by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) as to specific cases. He referred to a matter raised recently and upon which a statement was made by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I think the House will agree that the First Lord dealt with that matter in the manner in which the House would wish it to be dealt with; he gave a perfectly plain statement of what happened. He told the House how the misapprehension had arisen and added that anybody who wanted a further investigation on that point was welcome to have it. There has not been a murmer in response to that invitation. The hon. Member for Limehouse referred in his speech to the inquiry which has recently taken place in America. I should be the very last person to fail to recognise the importance of those investigations in another great and friendly country, and I speak with due respect, but I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say that some of the methods of arriving at conclusions adopted in that inquiry are not such as commend themselves to our English practice. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), as he said, for the purpose of clearing up the point, referred the other day to the perfectly preposterous story that a British minister or ambassador in a South American capital had actually been corruptly guilty of getting the police force of that country to come here in some connection with armament manufacture. The House will remember my answer, and I do not think anybody will doubt the accuracy of what I said.
I will take one other instance. I do not suppose that the House realises that so wide was the range of that senatorial inquiry and so slender was the basis of some of its information, that this happened: A telegram was produced which had been sent by the unsuccessful agent of an American armaments firm to his principals in which he excused himself and explained his failure to secure an order for arms from the Polish Government. This telegram was produced and read. The telegram proceeded to assert that no less a person than His Majesty the King had sent for the Polish Ambassador to this country, M. Skirmunt, and had pressed upon him the importance of purchasing whatever it was that the Polish Government wanted from an English firm. Of course this is perfectly

1323
and entirely grotesque. I noticed with interest that the hon. Member was making constant use of his convenient synopsis of this American inquiry published by the Union of Democratic Control. When I turn to the passage which ought to give this surprising piece of information I find that, from a scruple which we all respect, what is said is: "He intimated that it fell through because of the intervention on the part of Vickers by a highly placed British Government personage." I take leave to say that His Majesty is not a Government personage at all. He is the Sovereign of this country who has the loyalty and respect of all of us without any distinction of party. We know him to be perfectly incapable of having any connection with this silly story.
I wonder whether the story is not told in this interesting yellow pamphlet because it would obviously show the dangers of a fishing inquiry.
If we desire to examine this serious problem, not by a fishing inquiry dealing with every rumour and detail that can be found about the conduct of a trade which is not confined to this country, but by an inquiry which really studied the proposal of State monopoly from the point of view of national security and the like, the Government would have no reason to have any difficulties about it. This Debate is not going to make very much difference to those difficulties—and the subject is horribly difficult. It really rests upon my conscience that we should not fail to do what we can here, but I do not believe that after the Debate today it will be found that the solution proposed would be a justifiable course. I do not believe that the tremendous moral and human issues that, lie behind this subject are to be determined by a Debate however important on what I may call the mechanics of munition production. It is underlying fear, suspicion and Animosity which are the potent influences that make or mar the prospect of peace. What is so deplorable is that the agitation that has been worked up on this subject outside is manifestly designed to exploit the universal passion for peace to serve a merely partisan purpose.
It suggests that the difficulties with which we are struggling—the Lord Privy Seal and myself, Heaven knows! have
1324
struggled with them continuously and honestly—and the obstacles to better understanding which we are striving, not always unsuccessfully, to remove, are the creation of Government policy or a proof of Government indifference. If we here on this bench were not throwing our utmost energy into the cause of peace we should not merely be foolish and ignorant beyond belief, but we should be stark, staring lunatics. It was the Lord President of the Council who said that another great war would be the end of our civilisation. There is hardly a home in our land which next Sunday will not mourn its dead. I sit in a MOM in the Foreign Office, and the window that faces me looking out on to the Square is the window where Sir Edward Grey stood on 3rd August, 1914, and as the night fell he said to an intimate friend: "The lights are going out all over Europe; they will never be lit again in my lifetime." It is intolerable that with these responsibilities pressing upon every honest man in, the land this Debate should be conducted with the obvious purpose of snatching a particular conclusion in order hereafter to belabour the Government. I will ask hon. Members who may not feel that my observation is a just one to turn back and look at what I think is, upon the whole, the most moving single sentence in modern English literature. This is how the chapter in "Vanity Fair," in which Thackeray has been describing the battle of Waterloo, ends:
"No more firing was heard at Brussels. The pursuit rolled miles away. Darkness came down on the field and city: and Amelia was praying for George, who was lying on his face, dead, with a bullet through his heart."
Do us the justice to know that we, too, are inspired by this common feeling, that we know better than any the enormous intensity of the horror which would come if this were repeated. I ask that, as a result of this Debate, we should receive, not the condemnation, but the encouragement of the House, and we shall go on with our duty as well as we can.
5.46 p.m.
Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman has said that we have met here this afternoon to discuss a question which is occupying and disturbing the heart and conscience of a great many people of deep conviction and

1325
sincerity; and yet I find in the course of his speech, in which he appealed to us and appealed to his fellow-countrymen to believe in his own sincerity, hardly any acknowledgment of the sincerity of those who differ from him. He condemned those who use every artifice to stir up an agitation of which he disapproves, and yet for an hour and ten minutes he has been using every dialectical artifice, dragging in the housing record of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison), ransacking obscure pamphlets, creating every prejudice against those who are working honestly, even though they may riot agree with him, for the cause of peace. These people who, he says, are disturbed in their heart and conscience—are their fears and their apprehensions going to be allayed by his attacks upon the League of Nations Union, which, rightly or wrongly, they regard as a sincere body of men working for peace?
The right hon. Gentleman, in using his dialectical artifices, quoted from a particular article in "Headway." My recollection may be at fault, but I suggest to him that it was one of a series of three articles. The House will remember that he made great play with the fact that the author of this article said that the Labour party had always been for international co-operation and peace, and he suggested that this was a most unfair partisan statement in a professedly non-partisan newspaper. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—I may be wrong, if I am I hope he will correct me—that that article was one of a series of three articles, one of them written by a Conservative, Lord Cecil; one by a Liberal, Professor Gilbert Murray; and the third, from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, by a member of the Labour party, Professor Noel Baker. I think the House will agree that in those circumstances Professor Noel Baker was amply entitled to make the claim he did for the party to which he belongs. The right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me, has spent the greater part of his speech, not in dealing with the things which are working on the consciences and the hearts of his fellow-countrymen, but has been using the time of the House, as he is entitled to do, to attack a particular proposal which has been put forward from the Opposition Front Bench to-day, and has hardly spent any part of his
1326
speech in dealing with what I believe are the real practical difficulties and the real dangers with which this country is confronted if no further measures are taken for the control and suppression of the armaments traffic, which is poisoning international relations throughout the world.
For my own part, I regret the form which the Motion of the Labour party has taken. We on these benches have put down a Motion in another form, which we think gets to closer grips with the practical difficulties of the situation with which we are now confronted, and I will give the House the reasons why I take that view. We agree whole-heartedly, and I gather that the whole House does, with one qualification which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has added, with the statement in the first part of the Motion on the Paper, quoted from the Covenant of the League of Nations, that the private manufacture of armaments is open to grave objection. There is, I think, agreement in the whole House on that point. But we think that the reference in the Labour party's Motion—its despairing, untimely, and, I think, unjustified reference—to the absence of any international agreement, and its reference to the immediate establishment of a State monopoly of armament manufacture and trade, are not grounds upon which public opinion in this country, and still less in other countries, can be rallied and focused on the urgent need of exterminating the evils of the international traffic in arms.
It is a sheer illusion to imagine that the withdrawal of Great Britain from the traffic—which I imagine to be the object of hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches—would kill it. On the contrary, it would enhance its value to the other arms-exporting countries. Far from weakening the armament rings, the withdrawal from that traffic of this country—where, it must be frankly admitted by us all, the official control of the export of arms is more strictly exercised than in other countries—would merely strengthen the position of the armament rings, and tighten their hold over the importing nations. Until universal disarmament is secured, nations without munition plants must either incur great and wasteful expenditure in providing themselves with munition plants in their own countries—

1327
in which case the effect of the Socialist policy would be the multiplication of munition plants all over the world, each plant a nucleus of militarism—or they must buy from those nations which export. Unfortunately, other nations, with the possible but by no means certain exception of the United States of America, would be only too ready to welcome the expansion of their business which would follow from our withdrawal. There is no arms-exporting country in the world, with the possible exception of the United States of America, in which public opinion has matured to the recognition of such a gesture as noble and inspiring, and, as a matter of fact, we have made such a gesture. We have in fact attempted to ratify the Arms Convention of 1925—
Sir J. SIMON: We have not merely attempted; we have ratified it.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I used the word "attempted." I accept his correction, however, and will say that we have ratified the Arms Convention of 1925. But an insufficient number of other countries have ratified it to bring it into operation, and, therefore, it is not in operation. If other countries will not follow that very reasonable and moderate lead, how are we to hope that they will be inspired by our example to follow this greater lead? If we want to influence other nations, we must do it, not by mounting our high moral horse, but by working with them, facing up to all the practical difficulties, allying ourselves with the sane progressive forces in other nations, and throwing the weight of our influence behind all those who are working whole-heartedly for the effective control and eventual abolition of the international arms traffic.
Accordingly, we have put down on the Paper an Amendment; and I must here say that I wish that the right hon. Gentleman, particularly as he discussed in a few sentences at the end of his speech the proposal for an inquiry, had waited to hear the case; but he chose the course of speaking before the case could be expounded. We have put down an Amendment to the Labour party's Motion, in which we ask the House to record its conviction that the only way of suppressing this traffic is by inter-
1328
national action, and we demand a special commission of investigation into the international arms traffic. These, as I hope to show the House, are not two disconnected proposals, but two integral parts of one policy. The main difference between our Amendment and the Labour party's Motion is that, whereas they regret the absence of international agreement, we ask the House to strive for it and adopt a policy calculated to achieve it. We refuse to regard international agreement on this matter as merely an idle dream; we regard it as the indispensable and the attainable condition of a practical solution of the problem. I say "attainable" because already there is substantial progress to record, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman had told us a little more about it. That, I think, would have done something to allay those misgivings which he observes are expressed by his countrymen, by men and women in whose judgment he has confidence and whom he respects. Why did he not tell us a little more about it? He tells us nothing about the work he has been doing. He puts his hand figuratively on his heart and tells us he is sincere and is working conscientiously. We do not doubt it. I have never thrown any doubts upon that, and I do not like to be numbered among the people keen on these questions who are supposed to rate the sincerity and intelligence of the right hon. Gentleman low. We rate them high. But he has not told us what he is doing; he has not told us what he intends to do about the very important work which is being carried out by the Trade in Arms Subcommittee of the Disarmament Conference. Let us consider what has been done.
It is curious that it should fall to me to make this statement; I should have thought that it would have come very much better from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on whom the responsibility for all these things rests: but, as he has not made the statement, perhaps the House will be indulgent to me and will listen to me on the achievements of this Sub-committee of the Disarmament Conference. A report has been. made to the President of the Disarmament Conference, and circulated by him to all the Governments represented at the Conference—a report by the Subcommittee on Trade in Arms, on which

1329
20 countries were represented, including many arms - exporting countries—the United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, France and Japan, Poland and Russia—which are not arms-exporting countries—and the United States of America. The report contains recommendations for the assumption by every State of the final and complete responsibility for the production of and trade in arms in all the territories under its jurisdiction, and it further provides that this responsibility is to be exercised by a system of import and export licences or visas. Under this plan there would be a system of publicity which would enable every piece of armament to be observed at every moment in its life, and would also afford full knowledge of impending production. The plan would, of course, be worked by an international commission, and every nation would know exactly what its neighbour was doing in the way of armament manufacture and sale, and what it was intending to do.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Baronet give us the date, or the reference to the particular Committee?
Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is a report of the Trade in Arms sub-committee of the Disarmament Conference. It was either approved or sent to the President of the Conference on 2nd July.
Sir J. SIMON: It was sent.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: If this report was adopted, and put into force by the Governments of the world, the whole atmosphere of rumour, fear and suspicion which now poisons the relations between nations and drives them on to ruinous competition in armaments would be dissipated. Here, I suggest, is a great and hopeful policy. It is not by any means all we want, but it is a substantial advance along the right road to the suppression of the evils of this traffic, and I think it is lamentable that the Labour party should at this juncture rush off at a Socialist tangent with their demand for a unilateral nationalisation of armament manufacture and sale in this country and indulge in untimely and, I consider, unjustified regrets about the absence of international agreement. All the forces that want to suppress the evils of this traffic should throw the united weight of their influence behind the solid, and indeed I might almost say solitary,
1330
achievement of this sub-committee of the Disarmament Conference and urge the adoption of its proposals upon the Government.
I hope we shall be told whether the Government accept these proposals. If they give us that assurance, as I hope they will, we shall have to confront and overcome two practical difficulties before an effective international convention on these lines can be concluded. The first is that, in the form in which these proposals have been adopted by the Committee, they are dependent upon the successful completion of the labours of the Disarmament Conference. Indeed there can be no final solution of the problem of the arms traffic except on the basis of some measure of universal disarmament. But, reluctant as I am to make so disheartening an assumption, even for the purpose of meeting hostile argument, I feel that I must answer the question. What will you do if the conclusion of the Disarmament Convention is long delayed? My answer is that the recommendations of this sub-committee ought, if necessary, to be lifted out of the Draft Convention—they ought to be accepted by the Governments with such modifications as that operation would require—and that an ad hoc organisation should be set up by the Governments to exercise the powers which under the Committee's scheme would be entrusted to the permanent Disarmament Commission, the constitution of which is provided for in the Draft Disarmament Convention.
Now I come to the second practical difficulty, how to prevail upon the governments represented on the Disarmament Conference to accept the findings of this sub-committee. There is only one way to move them, and that is to arouse public opinion. The impact of the revelations in the United States inquiry upon public opinion in this country shows clearly that the influence of a thorough and fearless investigation stretches far beyond the bounds of the country in which it is held, and the report of such an investigation conducted in this country, with full power to compel the attendance of witnesses and the discovery of documents, would be a powerful weapon in the hands of the Government and of all supporters of the Committee's proposals here and in other countries. It is idle to say that the case against the

1331
armament manufacturers has been proved to the complete satisfaction of public opinion. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate made the interesting, eloquent and able speech which we are accustomed to expect from him, but I could not help thinking that it might perhaps have gained in persuasiveness if he had, to buttress his case, the report of a well conducted inquiry into this traffic sitting in this country instead of the passages that he quoted from the report of the United States inquiry.
Miss RATHBONE: Would he get it?
Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is what I am arguing for, and that is what he has refused to ask for. That is what we ought to demand and, unless we demand it, we have not the weapons by which we can move public opinion. I listened with respect and attention to his speech, but I do not believe it will move public opinion. A report by such an inquiry as I am suggesting would. It would be a powerful weapon. Many people have never read the case against the armament firms. In the mind of other people who have not closely studied it the case has been prejudiced by exaggeration and distortion and weakened by the dissemination of obviously false and grotesque stories. One of the duties of the, Commission that we propose would be thoroughly and objectively to sift the allegations made against the armament firms.
I am confident that an inquiry held in this country would give fair play to all who appeared before it. It ought not, for example, to allow a man to be cross-examined without giving him a full opportunity to put his own case, either by way of a statement or by way of re-examination by his own counsel. The weapons of the reformer should be forged from the flawless steel of truth and not a jumble of unverified rumours and suspicions. The constitution of such a Commission by the Government would be an earnest of goodwill and the work of the Commission sitting in this country would awaken public opinion here and in Europe and focus it accurately upon the problem of the arms traffic.
What should be the objectives of such an inquiry? We have made certain suggestions in our Amendment. Of
1332
course they are not intended to be comprehensive. The actual terms of reference to a special commission would obviously be a matter for careful adjustment. Let me explain what our proposals are. The first object of the inquiry would be the manufacture and trade in munitions of war, including existing methods of promoting their sale. The charge made against the armament firms is that, in order to expand their markets, they have fomented revolution and internal disorder in Germany, China, Cuba and other States, that they have stirred up strife between nation and nation and intensified international rivalry in armaments by using their sales in one country as a stimulus to make a neighbouring country buy more armaments from them, and that they have exerted their influence, in some countries through the control of newspapers and in most countries through their secret financial and industrial organisations to thwart the work of the peacemakers. Naturally they are opposed to disarmament, and they ally themselves with all the opponents of disarmament in powerful positions in every country, and bribery and moral corruption of public servants, not in this country—there is not a shred of evidence of that—but in other countries, are the means employed to promote their trade. Further there is evidence to show that British firms are actively engaged in this trade and are employing the same methods as their foreign rivals.
These are the charges. They are elaborated in books and pamphlets. Many of them have been written by public men of authority and integrity in this country and, if hon. Members have not read them, they are in the hands of thousands of their constituents and young men and women are deeply stirred. The volume of evidence is being swollen by the United States inquiry, which I may remind hon. Members is not yet completed. British firms are implicated and are mentioned by name. It would be wrong and foolish to accept the evidence given against them without giving them a chance to answer it. But public opinion is becoming impatient, and when the United States inquiry is resumed in a fortnight, public opinion will become restive and the case against the British armament firms will go by default, unless they are given a chance here in this

1333
country to answer the charges made against them. The Americans are not afraid of inquiry, and we ought not to fear one. Shed the white light of publicity upon this secret traffic and let the public have the facts.
Then let the boasted efficiency, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke just now, of our present methods of control be investigated. The Government say we are the one country with an effective system of control over the export of armaments. But is it really completely effective? Is it really impossible for arms, and spare parts of arms, to find their way out of this country. We know that our officers cannot watch every single consignment. Is it not possible for them to find their way out? Can the Government be sure that consignments intended for one country do not, in fact, get to another? When they are making up their mind whether or not to permit a particular consignment, are there not many voices saying to them, "If we do not permit this consignment someone else will make the stuff," or, "Think of the employment it will give to our people," or, "If we do not let these people sell some of these arms, they will go out of business altogether, and we shall have one munition plant the less on which to rely in case of war."
The right hon. Gentleman says we never export except to Governments. Does that apply to aircraft and aircraft engines? With the exception of Abyssinia, I think their export is free to any part of the world. It must be very difficult to work these regulations effectively and it is, in my belief, impossible for the Government by itself to check the abuses of the arms traffic in this way. We are coming back to the necessity of international agreement. Let us, at any rate, investigate how far the present methods are successful in checking abuses.
Another subject of inquiry would be the desirability of creating a Government monopoly of armaments sales and manufacture. The right hon. Gentleman said the public ought not to reach a conclusion without hearing both sides. It is just an impartial inquiry which would bring out both sides and enable these difficulties to be frankly faced. We on these Benches are strongly in favour of prohibition of the private manufacture
1334
and sale of armaments in all countries, and we believe that is the goal at which we should aim—disarmament down to a level at which that will be a practical policy. It depends largely on the scale of international armament how far that is a practical policy, but that is the goal at which we aim and that is the policy of the League of Nations Union. There was nothing in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion to show that he had even considered the immense practical difficulties in the way of immediate—perhaps that is not a fair statement. I do not think, at any rate, that the hon. Gentleman met in his speech the real difficulties of immediate and unilateral disarmament by this country. Other methods of control should also be put to searching and critical investigation, such as the plan for an arms manufacturing board which has been elaborated with care and thoroughness by the League of Nations Union. It is too early to tie ourselves to the one panacea of nationalisation.
Lastly, the relations between the armament firms and Government Departments need to be fearlessly probed. The statement of Lord Welby has often been quoted in this House before. Here was a great public official who, as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, had the supervision of the whole structure of our Civil Service—ramifying through all the great Departments of State, and he gave it as his opinion—
"We are in the midst of an organisation of crooks. They are politicians, generals, manufacturers of armaments, and journalists."
This is also the aspect of the problem on which the First Lord of the Admiralty has already offered an inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman said that nobody had accepted it, or offered to accept it. As far as my friends and I are concerned, I can give him the answer. Somebody else will no doubt speak for hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. We knew that this Debate was coming off. We did not want a little inquiry into a particular incident like this. If there is to be an inquiry, let it cover the whole field, and certainly this should be an important branch of it.
The reports of the United States inquiry are full of disquieting allegations against British firms which certainly

1335
ought not to be regarded as proved until they are tested, and which certainly ought to be probed. The relations between British and foreign firms appear to be so close that not only do they divide up territory and use the sales of one firm in one country as an argument for pressing the sales of another firm in another country, but British armament manufacturers are exhibited as giving confidential information of the Admiralty's intentions to the firms in other countries with which they are in close relationship.
Mr. HANNON: No.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is certainly stated in the evidence taken before the United States inquiry. I have said that it is not proved.
Mr. HANNON: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman present to this House this evening one shred of evidence that manufacturing firms in this country have acted as is suggested
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I have no evidence—
Mr. HANNON rose—
Sir A. SINCLAIR: No! no ! I do not want to be taken up at that point. That is not the whole of what I am going to say. I have no evidence now which ought to be accepted as conclusive in 'any fair inquiry, but I have evidence which the hon. Member can read for himself in the reports of the investigation before the United States Senate which shows that these things are alleged, and those allegations are serious and ought to be the subject of a fair inquiry.
These, then, are the chief objects of the investigation which we demand. The last question with which our Amendment deals is the form of the inquiry. The vital consideration here is that the investigating body should have full powers—that is the essence of it—to compel the attendance of witnesses, to take evidence on oath and to call for the production of documents whether in private hands or in Government Departments. It should be a small body of men of experience, integrity and impartiality who would act with energy and expedition. We have considered the possibility of a Select Committee or a Royal Commission or a tribunal set, up under the Tribunal of In-
1336
quiry Act, 1921, but there are objections to all three, and we therefore ask the House to follow the precedent of the Parnell Commission of 1888 arid pass an Act to set up a special Commission.
The demand for an inquiry as fearless and as public as that which is now being held in the United States of America is growing in force and will not be fobbed off, not even if the Labour party support the Government's hush-hush policy. The grave disclosures in the United States have already stirred public opinion here and in other countries. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said, that these matters are occupying and disturbing the heart and conscience of a great many people of deep conviction and sincerity, but he says to us that they are victims of a campaign in which matters of detail are being misrepresented by ignorant propaganda. They are being exploited, he says. Well, in that case, let us have this fair, impartial, detached inquiry at which those things can be tried and tested and then there will be no fear of these people being exploited by ignorant propaganda. Now is the time not to blanket and thwart public opinion, but to enlighten it and direct it, and that is my chief criticism against the speech to which we have listened this afternoon. It was dialectical, negative criticism of the actions of people who are in favour of the reform. of the abuses of international arms traffic. That, of course, could not be bettered from the most brilliant advocate in Europe, but nowhere was there an effort to enlighten and direct public opinion on lines of useful and constructive action for the suppression of the evils of this trade, and we therefore ask the House of Commons to act now.
In conclusion, let me turn to the Amendment which is to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), an Amendment which rolls and purrs across our mental vision like a well-sprung Rolls Royce which lulls its occupants into unheeding and untimely slumber. It is not necessary to be a connoisseur of Parliamentary draftsmanship to detect the master hand. We are to recognise the importance of the steps already adopted in this country to control the arms traffic. Let me state at once to the right hon. Gentleman that it

1337
would be dishonest not to do that. We are to be confident that His Majesty's Government will continue their efforts to secure international agreement. That is not good enough for the people of this country in the disturbed mood to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has already alluded. We cannot agree to express such confidence. What are we to vote for? No specific action at all. Where is the basis for this confidence? The right hon. Gentleman did not even think that it was worth while to tell us what the Trade in Arms Committee was doing at Geneva. It is not in the record of the Government, for on this, and other subjects they strive to express in their policy diametrically opposed opinions. There are those in the Government who hate the arms traffic, and they have succeeded in persuading them to adopt measures of control in advance of those accepted in other countries. On the other hand, there are those who feel no such hate and there are signs that they are demanding their share in influencing policy.
There is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am sorry he is no longer in his place, because it was he, speaking as the mouthpiece of Government policy, who wound up the Debate on this subject in February of this year. The speech was brilliant, witty, eloquent, fearless and uncompromising, but it contained not one word of condemnation of the international traffic in arms and represented the activities of armament manufacturers and salesmen as being none other than patriotic and useful and from which the uninstructed observer might have supposed that no problem existed worthy of the concentrated study of the representatives of every government in the world at Geneva. Meanwhile, as the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion pointed out, there has been no leading representative of the Government working on this Trade in Arms Committee. There is a minor delegate. I have no doubt that he is a very able official, but, at any rate, we think that there should be a Member of the Government pushing on this vital work at Geneva, and that there should have been efforts by the Government to draw attention, in this Debate, obviously, but at other times, too, to the vital and important work which this Committee has been doing. In short, to give it support
1338
in influencing public opinion not only in this country but all over the world.
It has been my duty to indicate frankly to the House the grounds of my disagreement with the Motion of the Labour party, but I must make equally clear my revulsion from the complacent terms of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and from the speech which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs delivered this afternoon. I believe that that speech and this Amendment will shock and horrify public opinion in this country, and especially the opinion of young men and women. They will never agree that the destruction of human life and the corruption of public morals which are alleged on evidence which the Government refuse to test—as far as I understand from the few words which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs used on this subject in the concluding passages of his speech—by public and searching inquiry—they will never agree that they are proper sources of private profit, and that we are to stand idly by and express no opinion as to the policy which is to be pursued in order to suppress the evils of this traffic. Therefore, unless the Government grant a full, immediate and expeditious inquiry, with full powers—and the powers are the essence of our demand, and without them the inquiry would be futile, and we would be no party to it—unless they grant this investigation and assure the House of their whole-hearted acceptance of, and support for, the recommendations of the Trade in Arms Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Conference, we shall feel bound, as our Amendment, I understand, will not be called, to vote against any alteration of the Motion which can be interpreted as expressing confidence in the Government.
6.28 p.m.
Mr. MABANE: It is obvious that this Debate is one which tends to develop a considerable amount of heat, but I wonder whether that is the sort of spirit in which a Debate on this topic is best conducted. I feel that this is a subject on which the country is not looking for party points but for peace. There is one thing of which we can be perfectly certain. There is no matter with which the great mass of the people of this country are so deeply concerned as the subject

1339
of our Debate to-day. Because people are interested in peace, it does not mean that they are losing their virility. The people of this country, I am certain, are prepared to defend their liberties, freedom, and rights against any aggressor whether he comes from within or without just as vigorously now as they have ever done. Nevertheless, the people of this country are moved with a fervour which may be described as almost religious, in their desire that at all costs not only this country but all countries of the world shall he saved from the disaster of another war. That desire is not confined to any one class or party; it is universal and overwhelming. The people are anxious that we should not avoid any effort to prevent war. The people of this generation desire that when they have to face the judgment of the next. generation, that generation may at least be able to say that they did their best.
International traffic in armaments is suspect, and that suspicion is harboured not by those who owe adherence to any particular party. It is to be found where-ever we go. The operations of those who are engaged in the manufacture and sale of armaments have from time to time for many years past been the subject of startling revelations, some more, some less, authoritative. The more sensational passages from the evidence given before the United States Senate inquiry are familiar to many Members of this House and have become familiar to many people in the country. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that it would be improper for us to express any opinion on that evidence. It would be wrong for us to take sides or to pretend that we know the truth. Having considered the evidence given before the inquiry I do not feel prepared to say that I know the truth, but I do sincerely desire to know the truth, and I believe that it is vital in the public interests that the truth should be known.
Without in any degree wishing to be concerned with the truth or otherwise of the allegation made before the United States Senate inquiry I am perfectly satisfied that the plain man in this country is impressed by the callous attitude of many of those engaged in the armaments industry; a callous attitude which is evidenced in many of the documents
1340
put before that inquiry. It is not for us to blame those who are engaged in that industry for adopting that callous attitude. The sale and manufacture of armaments is their job. Society has forced it upon them. Doubtless in the same impersonal, objective manner the mediaeval torturer would engage in devising new and more terrible instruments of torture. Yet if society is itself threatened by the nature of the work it has entrusted to the armaments industry, it would deserve destruction unless it sought the means to remove that threat. There is no purpose in quoting at length from the evidence given before the United States inquiry. Considerable quotations have been made by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and reference has been made to the evidence by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. There was however one quotation that particularly impressed me and that was the document penned I think by Mr. F. S. Jonas of the Curtiss Wright Export Corporation of America, which ends by saying:
"We are certainly in a hell of a business where a fellow has to work for trouble so as to make a living. It would be a terrible state of affairs for my conscience to start bothering me now."
I do not think that any question of fact is involved in that quotation. The quotation does no more than illustrate the terrifying and horrible mentality that may be developed by the best of men by connection with this particular industry. For the sake of these people who are driven to seek profit in "trouble" no less than for the sake of society itself it seems to me that there is prima facie evidence that society should make some attempt to do its best to alter a condition involving such consequences.
I must confess myself disappointed that the Government have refused, as I take it—although there was an ambiguous sentence at the end of the speech of the Foreign Secretary—to undertake any form of inquiry into this matter, and I am certain that that disappointment is shared by the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country. It is not as if sensible people held any dogmatic views about it. Sensible men do not jump to the easy conclusion in general terms that the private manufacture of arms could be at once completely abolished. I am sure that the great majority of our people will recognise the

1341
recklessness of the Resolution brought before the House to-day by the Labour party, a recklessness which has been exposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I do not think that the people of this country would be prepared, save as a gesture, to support the Resolution. If I understood the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland aright, he is only prepared to support the Resolution as a gesture, and for no other reason. Although the great majority of the people of this country would not be prepared to support the Resolution, they would like an inquiry. If discreditable facts were revealed as a result of the inquiry they would prefer to face them and take action. If, however, everything was proved to be all that was desirable and nothing discreditable were revealed, the country would be the more satisfied because it would be the more reassured.
In my humble opinion the Government have fallen into a grave error of judgment in refusing to respond to this desire for an inquiry. The opportunity was not difficult to take, and the example was at hand. It is little more than a week ago that the First Lord of the Admiralty made a brave and frank statement with regard to certain allegations that were made before the United States Committee of Inquiry. He offered any sort of inquiry into those allegations. The effect was immediate. The hon. Member for Limehouse has suggested that the effect of that frank offer of an inquiry did not dispel the fears aroused by the statement that provoked the offer. I think he is wrong. The statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty had an immediate effect upon the country. It reaffirmed and reassured the confidence of the country in the integrity of the Department headed by the First Lord of the Admiralty. Had he refused an inquiry merely because he himself was satisfied that there was nothing to conceal, I am sure that the effect would have been different. Reticence would have provoked suspicion, and, instead of the confidence that we now all have, there might have been lurking fear and suspicion. The analogy is complete. Had the Government to-day proposed an inquiry they would have stifled all the accusations of their detractors. By refusing an inquiry they have added fuel to the
1342
fire of those whose first purpose is to bring about the downfall of this Government.
It is not necessary to harbour suspicion in order to demand an inquiry. I should be the last to say that the Foreign Secretary or any Member of the Government have anything to conceal. None of us imagine that the Government or any Members of the Government are subtle instruments of an armaments ramp. They are as anxious to seek peace as we are. My only complaint is the methods that they employ in their search. By employing these means they are in danger of alienating from themselves a very large body of opinion which would very willingly rally to their support rather than to the support of those who have put the Resolution before the House to-day. It is not difficult to justify that opinion. I will refer to the merits of the Resolution. It is in comprehensive terms and demands that the private manufacture of armaments shall be prohibited. These generalities are easy and they are misleading. One of the valuable results that might arise from an inquiry would be to reduce these generalities to definite terms. Those who have given careful thought to this subject have been driven to the conclusion that unless the term "armaments" is confined within a very narrow definition no sort of practical effect can be given to any proposal to prohibit the private manufacture of armaments. Any inquiry would reveal to the public mind the same sort of difficulties that have been revealed to those of us who have given our private attention to this particular problem.
Recently I have had an opportunity to justify this point of view. I made an experiment in order to discover whether I was right. In my constituency there is an organisation of young people who, being young people, are intimately concerned with this question because in the event of war they would be the first active participants in it. I should say that the members of that organisation are almost to an individual in favour of the prohibition of the private manufacture of armaments, when that proposition is stated in general terms. I thought that I would do my best to discover exactly what they meant and I said to them: "Will you please reduce the general proposition to which you agree to particular

1343
terms." I wanted them more closely to understand and appreciate their position. They are young people and, as I have said, they will be thrown into war if it breaks out. When they got down to this problem I was astonished by the remarkable result. I asked them how they would achieve the prohibition of the private manufacture of armaments. I drew their attention to the main considerations which had to be borne in mind—the question of definition, the question of the expansion of production in time of war, the problem of compensation to private firms and so on. The result was illuminating. When they brought their young and active minds to bear upon the problem they found that they would have to be content with something far smaller than they ever dreamed of when they first set out upon their general proposition. On this most important matter of the definition of armaments they surprised me by the moderation of their requests, when faced with the practical difficulties. The modesty of their demand was the measure of their sincerity. Their definition, which surprised me when they gave it to me, was that by armaments they meant small arms, projectiles and the instruments for discharging projectiles.
The people of this country are essentially practical and not theoretical, and, if an inquiry were established, it might have a very valuable effect in settling this practical point and other kindred practical points. People might discover that if you are going to have anything practical done you must limit your definition as closely as I have suggested. Then we might have an end of this propaganda, to which most of us object, and an end to purely doctrinaire resolutions such as we are considering to-day. I am not the only Member of this House who would wish to appeal to the Government to accede, even at this late hour, to some sort of inquiry in response to the request that has been voiced in this House, 4nd which is far more powerful and general in the country than many imagine, for a close and careful inquiry into the whole business of the private manufacture and sale of arms.
This is a question on which many of us feel very deeply indeed. In an earlier Debate the Lord President of the Council made an appeal to the younger genera-
1344
tion to take care that the destruction of war did not fall upon them. I am not sure whether I belong to the younger generation or whether I have passed out of it, but at any rate I belong to another generation to that to which reference was made at a luncheon outside the House last Monday week—the lost generation. Many of us in this House belong to that generation. We know that the best of our generation lies buried in untimely graves scattered all over the world, and the memory of these men, friends and comrades of ours, never leaves us. There is no need to be sentimental or priggish, but I speak my most sincere mind when I say that I have always felt that those of us who are left have a duty to those who have gone. We know what war means. That does not mean that we are afraid to face it again. There are others in this House who know earlier forms of war, men like the right hon. Gentleman for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in whose books we read of wars which were not so blind, so impersonal, so mechanical. We only know the war that is a shambles. Much of our generation is lost in body. It will also be lost in spirit unless it does its utmost to save the generation coming on from a repetition of our experience. We ask those who are older than us and who are still in control, if their professions are sincere, to make sure that not in the minutest degree shall there be any danger that once again men shall be sacrificed for money or the blood of sons be the price to be paid for the profits of the fathers.
I wish I was able to support the Government to-day. With the utmost reluctance I have to say that I am unable to support the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I am a sincere supporter of the new political ideal which the Government have in their charge, but on this topic I feel that I cannot offend my own convictions. Three proposals are put before us to-day, one by the party opposite, another by hon. Members below the Gangway and the third by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Of the three it appears to me that the one put forward by hon. Members below the Gangway is the most reasonable and should command the greatest measure of support in the country, not

1345
because we want to muckrake in order to find out unpleasant things but because we want to show that there are no unpleasant things to be found out. I appeal to the Government even at this late hour to accept if not in the precise terms, yet nevertheless in the spirit, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland. If that were done nothing would give me greater joy than to support the Government as a humble back bencher, but, if that is not done, then I must say frankly that I cannot support the Government with my vote on their Amendment to-night.
6.50 p.m.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"bearing in mind that Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, while recording the view that the manufacture of munitions of war by private enterprise is open to grave objection, does not prescribe its abolition, recognises the importance of the steps already adopted in this Country to control arms traffic, and is confident that His Majesty's Government will continue their efforts to secure international agreement and common action on the whole subject."
I am sure that those who have heard the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) evoke the memories of his war years would not for a moment doubt his sincerity or that he was expressing how deeply they were embedded in his memory, but I beg him not to suppose that those who oppose an inquiry, or those who certainly oppose the Motion moved by hon. Members opposite, are less moved by their sense of duty to those who ought to have been with us still but who are buried in the graveyards of France and Flanders, Mesopotamia and Palestine or under the oceans and the narrow seas. It is one of the great services which this House can render to the country that it can on the occasion of a Debate like this, on a question of the very gravest importance and at the same time of the very greatest difficulty and complexity, take the discussion out of the atmosphere of emotion partisanship and propaganda which habitually affects its discussion in the country, and without imputations of motive can discuss the matter on its merits; and that we can find men in this House who
1346
can put both sides, unlike the campaign outsid6 from which one side of view is to the utmost excluded and where those who are canvassed are asked to make up their minds without hearing anything said on the other side. That is my objection to the so called National Declaration.
I am a member of the Executive Committee of the League of Nations Union. For the last 18 months—I apologise for dealing with this personal matter—the task laid upon me as a member of the India Committee made it impossible for me to be anything but a sleeping partner in the union. I offered to resign and should have been glad to do so, because I could not do the work and did not wish to accept the responsibility. This was decided in my absence and without my knowledge. When I heard of a certain green paper which was being circulated with the ballot paper, putting the case on one side and saying nothing on the other, some of my hon. Friends and I made a protest. We made our protest to the Executive of the League of Nations Union. They were no longer in charge; it was the National Declaration Committee, on which the union is represented and on which many other bodies are represented, which was carrying on this propaganda. As a result of the representations made, it was at that time agreed by the National Declaration Committee that wherever they circulated the green paper, which contained arguments on one side, they should circulate a blue paper putting some considerations on the other side. I did not know that the National Declaration Committee had decided not to circulate either of these papers. Perhaps the leader of the Opposition has better information.
Mr. LANSBURY: The committee with which I am associated, and which is represented on the committee, were informed that as a result of a disagreement about what should be circulated that no more copies were going out of the paper for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible and no more copies of the other declaration, and that the whole thing was to be left just to the ballot paper with the questions. I understood that neither document was to be distributed, but a large number had gone out before the disagreement came to a head. My information is that no more were to be sent out.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and I apologise for having contradicted him earlier in the Debate. I ask the House to see the position. A paper is being circulated. The National Declaration Committee agreed that wherever that paper is being circulated a statement of the arguments on the other side should be put forward, and then without one word to the people with whom that engagement had been reached, without a word to my hon. Friends or myself, they decide not to circulate their own paper for fear of having to circulate ours. What did they do? What information has the voter to enable him to make up his mind if he does not feel that he is in possession of all the facts? There is an industrious canvasser who goes round. Do you suppose that he puts fairly the different arguments, that he calls attention to the arguments set out by the Impartial Committee of the League of Nations for and against? Not at all. I am informed that he is now supplied by the Declaration Committee with a paper in which our arguments are dealt with, in order that the canvasser shall be able to counter those arguments if by chance, and in spite of the National Declaration Committee's attempt to suppress them, they should have reached the man whose vote is being asked. I confess to a feeling of some indignation. If it were merely a personal matter I should not venture to bring it before the House, but I think it shows in what spirit and by what methods a verdict is attempted to be snatched from the country on these complicated issues, and how carefully those who have the chief responsibility are refraining themselves from putting both sides of the case and doing their best to prevent others from doing so. That is all I have to say about that.
Let me come to the question before the House. I am in a little difficulty in relating the passionate speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) to the course which at the end he decided to take. He denounced with vehemence and passion, only one degree lower in temperature than that which he applied to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the attitude and course taken by the Labour party in endeavouring to snatch a verdict for the particular nostrum favoured by that party, not merely for
1348
the traffic in arms but for other forms of production. And then he said that lie was going to vote for the Motion. All this time he was shaking a menacing finger at other Members of the House, all of whom had come here by the same means as the right hon. and gallant Member and who are just as representative as he is, telling them what the country would not stand. When an hon. Member says what the country will not stand he is in the same position as the counsel who was advised to abuse the attorney for the other side. I am not impressed when I am told by a Member of this House who has no more representative character than myself, what my constituents will or will not stand. If the right hon. Gentleman had his way, they would not stand me. If the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite had their way, again they would not stand me. They very nearly did have their way. But where is the right hon. Gentleman's party? I wish he would tell me who he considers to be the principal members of the Liberal party in my constituency. I have searched hard to find them, for I wanted to make a national platform at the last election. But they do not grow. It is an exotic article which I have to import.
But let, us leave that type of taunt and get down to realities. Of course, the right. hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his party, are in favour of the nationalisation of the production of arms. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) would have liked to begin with the banks, and produce at once that financial crisis which the blessings of Socialism will bring in its train—and I foresee a little rivalry for first place when that party comes into office. They are in favour of nationalising all the means of production, and therefore, naturally, in favour of nationalising the production of armaments. But that raises a problem. In some countries the nationalisation of production has gone very far. We need not refer to names, but there are countries which openly proclaim that their system rests, as the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would have ours to rest, on the socialisation and the nationalisation of all the means of production.
There are other countries which have a, State organisation so complete and so

1349
rigid that while private enterprise may continue they are in fact masters, to a greater or less degree, of every factory in that country, though not themselves the nominal owners. Take the case of the country which has socialised its industry. It will be a long time before the right hon. Gentleman persuades this country to do that. In the meantime every factory in that country with a socialised. industry would be 'a Government factory, which might be maintained as a reserve for war production. Where factories have not been socialised only those arsenals in the hands of the Government could be maintained in a position, or ought to be maintained in a position, to turn out munitions of war in case of emergency. That is not a possible position for us to take. All the manufacturing resources of a country following one system of national economy would be potential arsenals, or if they wished actual arsenals, while other countries which have adopted the same system are limited to a few arsenals.
More prejudice—honest prejudice—has been brought into this discussion outside and even here to-day than into most discussions. I heard the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) talking about profiteering. That is not the issue which we are discussing. Profiteering in war, profiteering out of the necessities of the country, is not confined to armament firms. It arises out of circumstances which disturb all the ordinary market rules and which need to be controlled by exceptional measures dealing with that exceptional situation. We had our Excess Profits Duty and other exceptional measures. Whether arms are manufactured privately or by Government monopoly, this problem will remain, and it will have to be dealt with in another way.
What is to be the position? How do the hon. Gentleman and his friends envisage the position? Assume that they have carried their Motion; immediately, the Government responsible for the safety of this country—'and after my experience at Geneva I am not one of those who think that we serve the cause of peace by rendering ourselves defenceless—any Government, must define what it thinks to be an adequate defence for this country and provide it. What number of arsenals do you contemplate
1350
creating, how many new dockyard towns do you propose to establish? And do you think that politics would be purer when Governments are the vendors of arms, and their constituents the makers of them? The hon. Member for Limehouse said he had no objection to the Government's selling arms. The Foreign Secretary has 'already pointed out that we only sell in peace-time and that if a Government sold arms even in peace-time to one party to a dispute and refused to deal at all with the other it is taking sides. If it sells to one party and not to the other in time of war, it is breaking its neutrality and taking belligerent action which would justify the country that suffers from its action in declaring war. The situation is serious enough for us, too, for we could not with our Allies have carried on the Great War as it was carried on without being able to draw on resources which were neither in our territory nor in theirs. It is death to a small country which has not those manufacturing resources and can only get its supplies from some other country.
These things are an appeal to our hearts, profiteering and the horrors of war; the difficulties are not faced; they are deliberately put on one side and you attempt to snatch a verdict. The hon. Gentlemen opposite have one little bit of the policy which they propose to apply to every method of production in the country. They believe in one particular principle which they present in this form to the country at large. This, they say, will stop war; if you want peace vote for a monopoly for Governments in the production of arms. It will no more stop war than my talking will stop war. It is part of the deplorable results of the concentration of public opinion here and elsewhere on armaments in all their shapes and forms that people are really beginning to believe that if you limit armaments you can remove the cause of war. You have causes of war which lie much deeper. These are only means to an end, more or less useful, more or less appropriate, more or less happily chosen. It is really deceiving people to represent this as if it were a case between those who are anxious to preserve peace and who loathe war and those—
Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman says that we are deceiving people. I started off by saying on behalf of my

1351
party precisely the same thing as he is saying now, that it would not stop war.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thought that the observations which I was making were in any sense personal to him. I was referring to the method of the presentation of this question outside at present. He did a useful service in disclaiming that idea. I say that in debating this particular proposal you are running your heads against a brick wall; you are trying to go up a road which is blocked again and again. But there is another road by which you can reach your purpose, a road which is not open but which can be opened and by which there is a much better prospect of reaching your objective than there is by proceeding by the way of the suppression of the private manufacture of arms. It has been publicly stated by the delegation from the United States that the constitution of the United States makes it impossible for them to control or even to license the internal production of arms. Well what does it matter for this purpose, provided that you have secured agreement to an international limitation? It is a very big proviso. What does it matter if those arms are supplied not from the country itself but from outside if there were such a limitation? The country could only possess the arms to which it would be entitled. If there be no such limitations, I admit, different considerations arise. But surely the easiest way is not by trying to force on the American people a change in their constitution but by seeking some method which, without changing their constitution, may enable them to combine with us in controlling the trade. That is the way that the British Government have chosen. It is not to limit the production but to control the export. I believe that to be the only hopeful line of procedure.
I do not believe that within the time that any Member sitting in this House will live to see, you will get all the manufacturing countries to agree that they will make the private manufacture of arms an offence. If you direct all your energy to securing an international agreement for the control of the international traffic, you will deal with these abuses. You will not have made corrupt Ministers incorruptible; you will not have made
1352
squeeze an unknown thing in a country where squeeze is not uncommon; you will not by that abolish graft in countries where graft is commonly employed; but you will control the passage of arms from one country to another; you will know what that passage is, and by international agreement you can prevent at any time the passage of arms to people who in the light of the world are obviously preparing to break the peace and seek those arms not for defence but for aggression. I believe that to be the right way. I am not impressed with the plea for an inquiry. I do not say that I feel very strongly on the subject. The right hon. Member for Caithness suggested an inquiry like the Parnell Commission.
Sir A. SINCLAIR: I do not say that the composition would be the same.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The composition of the tribunal was the one good thing about it. If you have to ascertain facts, not to determine the policy that you are to pursue, I would as soon take three judges of our own High Court as any tribunal in the world. But I wanted to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what he, I thought, was going to disavow—any idea that the Commission should rove over such a vast field as the Parnell Commission did. I think I was in the House at that time. At any rate I remember it all very well. That Commission was admirably composed for the ascertainment of facts. When the Piggott letters were brought before it they crumpled; the truth was brought to light at once. It was a long inquiry fishing for evidence almost. Did it carry any weight? Did it affect public opinion? Not one bit. The right hon. Gentleman was not active in politics in those days. The gentlemen with whom I acted in those days, I myself in my humble way with men of greater experience and ability and with far more power than I could use, really tried to make the country give attention to the report on the general, course of agitation in Ireland. They did not care about anything except the charge against Parnell. That was disproved; Parnell was cleared and they had no more use for the Commission.
If you are going to set up a roving Commission, not to investigate particular charges which some responsible person

1353
formulates, but a roving 'Commission to fish for any prima facie evidence which they can carry further by sending for persons, papers, records or whatever it may be, where are you going to end? Long before your Commission comes to an end the whole country will be weary. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this inquiry would not only educate public opinion here but would really snake the whole world see what are the dangers we have to meet and help a long way to agreement, then I say, high as I put the influence of my colleagues in the Councils of Europe, I think the right hon. Gentleman has over-estimated it. I am very much afraid of a rambling Commission. If there are charges of weight on the kind of authority with which you start a prosecution, if they involve offences at law by particular firms, by all means let us have an inquiry; but if it is a rambling inquiry into the whole methods of doing business, I believe it would once more distract attention from the matter at issue.
My last words are a question. In my opinion there is something that would be effective if applied to-day, and it is not open to the objections which can be urged against other remedies. It is international control of the international traffic. What is the attitude of the Government to the Draft Convention? I want to hear from the Secretary of State that, subject to its careful examination, subject to whatever may be the necessary adjustments if prepared as part of a general scheme for the limitation of armaments it is brought into force before that limitation takes place, whether the Government are supporting it, whether they have yet officially expressed their opinion upon it, and what action they propose to take at Geneva in regard to it. It is not by the setting up of an inquiry, it is not by asking people, when other nations are not willing, to abandon private manufacture, but by pressing all nations to make an effective international agreement about the traffic in arms as distinct from its manufacture, that we shall best advance the cause of peace as far as it can be advanced by any Measure of that kind.
7.26 p.m.
Mr. WILMOT: I am sure that other Members of the House will share with me a certain amount of surprise and dis-
1354
appointment at the speech which we have just heard from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). He joined with the Secretary of State in imputing base motives to those with whom he does not agree. I mean no offence when I say that we expected less from him than from the Secretary of State. I am indeed surprised that he should have chosen to couple in that condemnation those workers in the cause of peace who are giving their time and their energy to promoting a national declaration. It is time that the people of this country faced the realities of the situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that that statement commands such general agreement. No one is doing more to bring those realities into the light than the people who are handling this national effort.
In my view it is a little unbecoming that the attack which has been made to-night should have been launched. What right has the right hon. Gentleman to think that those of us who are convinced that the private manufacture of arms for profit is a menace to peace express that opinion for motives other than the apparent motives? We express our opinion because we are convinced that it is true, and that seems to me sufficient reason for expressing it and doing one's utmost to get something done to remove the evils which we see. I am indeed surprised that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham should join the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on that line in dealing with a subject of this magnitude. It is not sufficient for the Secretary of State to cast doubts upon the evidence given at the United States inquiry. It is his usual habit to discredit the creditability of witnesses, and it is a habit which has become so profound with him that he even attempts to use it when it has no relevance at all, as he did with one of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. The fact remains that the evidence given before the United States inquiry is only additional evidence of what is obvious and must be obvious. It is not merely that there are somewhere in the world corrupt officials and undesirable persons concerned with this trade. They are only extraneous matters.
The real substance of our case is that the private trade in arms must be un-

1355
desirable by the very nature of the instruments which are sold. The people who manufacture arms have to sell what they produce in order to keep their businesses alive, and in order to sell what they produce they have to persuade Governments to buy as much of their goods as possible. It naturally follows that they are driven to adopt precisely the same methods of salesmanship as a manufacturer of bicycles or motor-cars or clothing or any other kind of goods. The only difference is that those methods, applied to the ordinary articles of commerce, are harmless, but when applied to the sale of the instruments of death they are of such a nature as to become a menace to the whole world. In order to sell the maximum quantity the necessary conditions have to be created in which armaments are required. It is not at all surprising that from time to time the veil of secrecy which covers this business very successfully is pierced, and that we see the hand of the armament interests manufacturing propaganda and creating war scares in order that their potential customers should be in a coming-on disposition. It is the usual custom as in other trades, that there shall be international trustification and cartels, and that the area of trade should be divided up and wasteful competition eliminated.
What the right hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked is that while this is going on, and it is not denied that it is going on, that very fact nullifies the efforts which are being made to get a peaceful settlement of international disputes. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was not the sole cause of war. Nobody ever said that it was. We have always claimed that the real fundamental cause of war is economic. It is to be found in the economic frictions set up as a result of the capitalistic system. But nobody who looks at the case dispassionately and with a desire to find the truth, could deny that the fact that there are powerful interests operating to secure the sale of the maximum amount of munitions and arms is a factor which causes economic disagreement to break out into war.
One would have expected the Secretary of State to have devoted his speech to proving that it was impossible to accomplish what this Motion asked him
1356
to accomplish but on that point he did not touch. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did just touch upon it. The main argument was that if the factories and the plant necessary to produce armaments were no longer in private hands, the nation would be incapable of producing a sufficient supply of munitions in time of war. Is that true? What happened during the Great War? Although we had in existence then this elaborate system of private manufacture of arms, although we know that the operation of the armaments interest was one of the causes which brought about the War—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Surely hon. Members have not forgotten their history so soon? Surely they have not forgotten the Mulliner story and the various scandals before the War and the use of the international armaments ring for the promotion of war scares and mutual misunderstanding.
Lord EUSTACE PERCY: And that is the evidence on which the hon. Member relies for his statement?
Mr. WILMOT: I rely upon facts which have been proved and accepted. Surely the hon. Member will not say that the existence of an international armaments ring before the War had no effect whatever on international relations?
Lord E. PERCY: I do not think that it had any effect whatever but as the hon. Member has put a question to me, may I put another to him? Does he think that the chief influence in promoting German armaments was Admiral von Tirpitz or some private armaments firm?
Mr. WILMOT: I did not say that it was the chief influence. Indeed I have been denying that throughout but I do say that the representations made to the German Admiralty that the British were constructing more ships than that they admitted, and the representations made to the British Admiralty that the Germans were constructing more ships than they admitted constituted a factor which inflamed relations just about that time. But in spite of the fact that we paid a very heavy price for the existence of this traffic yet when the War came the private manufacture system broke down and those who least believed in private enterprise, those who were most reso-

1357
lutely opposed to anything that savoured of Socialism, found themselves compelled to set up a system of State manufacture and control otherwise we should have been starved out of the War because of the breakdown in the supply of munitions.
If the proposal of my hon. Friend were adopted the factories would still exist and the men would still be there but the State would have command of the factories required to manufacture those supplies which it is necessary to keep going and in the event of war the Government would step in and take charge of the supply precisely as it did in the last war. The Secretary of State referred to a document, I think a League of Nations document of 1921, and pointed out that the difficulties in the way were insuperable and rather intimated that nobody but a fool would ever have raised this question again. He omitted to remind the House that it is only a year since the Governments of France, Denmark, Poland and Spain submitted a memorandum to the Disarmament Conference in which they asked the other nations to adopt the very measures which my hon. Friend suggests in this Motion. He omitted to explain to the House that as a result of the movement in the direction of the complete suppression of the private manufacture of arms an enormous amount of detailed work was done in various committees of the Disarmament Conference. I do not wonder that the Foreign Secretary forgot that remarkably important development because I do not think that his conscience can be too dear as to the part which his Government played in that matter. I wonder whether he could put his hand on his heart with the same conviction as he showed to-day and assure the House that the British Government, which in this matter could have exercised an influence which would have turned the scale, did everything it could to secure international agreement to the complete abolition of the trade in armaments and in the instruments of death.
The case which we make is not based solely upon the belief that private trade in armaments is the only cause of war. Neither is it based merely on the shreds of evidence, important though they are, with regard to British firms, which have come out so far in the American inquiry. It is based on the obvious reasonableness
1358
of the proposition that it cannot be a healthy state of affairs to have a vast, powerful, wealthy, industrial interest whose profit and success depend entirely upon the world remaining in a state of unrest and incipient war. That cannot be a healthy state of affairs, and any friend of peace on. the benches opposite must see, however clever his advocate on the Front Bench may be, that we shall never get rid of the danger of war while there is the incentive of profit-making in the instruments of war. One step which must be taken and in my view should be taken without further delay is to remove this obstacle to a peaceful settlement out of the very difficult path that we have to tread.
I suggest that the Foreign Secretary has not done his party or his Government or indeed our nation a service by the sort of speech which was made this afternoon. He attempted to make cheap party capital out of a genuine desire genuinely expressed to remove from this nation this accursed traffic, which, in my view, and in the view of hundreds of thousands of people in this country, is one of the most potent causes of misunderstanding and strife between the nations. I should have thought that this Government would have welcomed the opportunity either of embracing this proposal or of explaining why it was so difficult to carry it into effect. They have done neither and I can only conclude by saying that those Of us who believe that there will be no move forward on the path of peace until this Government have gone may indeed be right.
7.40 p.m.
Sir JONAH WALKER-SMITH: The question of inquiries, as a subject which ought to engage the attention of the House in connection with this matter was brought to mind during the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and we found further reason to consider the question of inquiries when listening to the very brilliant and eloquent speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). I concluded at the end of his speech that there was no good reason why there should not be an inquiry of the character which he indicated and I was also inclined to think that as far as eloquence and vigour of expression was

1359
concerned the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had nothing to learn from the hon. Member for Limehouse. At the same time I was bound to appreciate the fact that he certainly had a good deal to learn in the matter of political sagacity. Although both hon. Members are doing their best to eliminate private enterprise, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness thinks that that would be assisted by an inquiry whereas the hon. Member for Limehouse knows that nothing of the kind would result. Therefore he was eloquently silent upon the question of holding an inquiry.
The main point in his speech which concerned me on this subject was his reference to the Senatorial inquiry at Washington which I believe is still in progress. Various references were made to the report on the proceedings of that inquiry so far as they have gone. References were made by the hon. Member to certain suggested activities of the firm of Messrs. Vickers and in particular to some correspondence in which the managing director of Messrs. Vickers was concerned. I do not hold any brief for Sir Charles Craven and I am sure he would not desire me to do so. Those who are aware of his remarkably successful industrial administration know that no one needs to hold a brief for him and certainly I do not hold any brief for Messrs. Vickers. I am not myself particularly favourable to the nature of the big business which characterises firms such as Messrs. Vickers, except in this respect that they are a means of providing an enormous amount of useful employment for very skilled and industrious workmen at the highest wages and under the best conditions that industry can be made to yield.
It is necessary to consider what sort of inquiry this Senatorial inquiry in America is. It is not the sort of governmental inquiry to which we are accustomed in this country. The methods employed savour of ganster methods rather than of governmental methods such as those with which we are familiar. Unlimited money is placed at the disposal of those conducting the inquiry and they promptly appoint investigators who are armed with powers to seize and impound documents and private files and private correspondence whether of Government Depart-
1360
ments or private firms or bodies of any other kind whatever. The documents having been impounded by these gangster methods, they are put under a microscope and examined in the absence of those who have been particularly concerned in the correspondence which has been impounded.
It is necessary then to consider the relationship of the parties between whom this correspondence was conducted. Apparently Messrs. Vickers are licensees of certain patents which are held in America, and they manufacture under an arrangement of paying royalties, and apparently this arrangement has been in existence for a good many years. That is the relationshhip between Messrs. Vickers and the Electric Boat Company of America. It must be obvious that in the course of their business in that relationship a. good deal of the correspondence must be of a private and confidential character, and it is necessary to have some sort of idea of the activities of the managing director of Messrs. Vickers in order to appreciate the atmosphere in which his correspondence is conducted. Sir Charles Craven has been managing director of Messrs. Vickers' works at Barrow for the last 10 years, and during that time he has increased the amount of employment in those large works at Barrow from about 5,000 to a figure approaching 11,000. In his capacity as managing director of Armstrongs, he has reorganised the works on the Tyne at Elswick and the shipyards at Walker, and I have no doubt that in due course the Tyne will see the same sort of benefits arising from his re-organisation that Barrow has felt. Further, in his position of managing director of the English Steel Corporation, he has expended in Sheffield £1,500,000 in re-organising the production works in that district from which similar beneficial results will accrue in due course.
I mention these facts briefly in order that hon. Members may have it in their minds that he is responsible for the employment of about 30,000 men, and that it is necessary for him to obtain work to a very considerable value each year—perhaps a matter of £10,000,000, but I do not know. In these circumstances one can appreciate the sort of correspondence that a man of that kind must have. He must dictate hundreds of letters every day, many of which he will never see

1361
again, not even for signature. Many of those letters will be of a private and confidential nature, and one does not trouble very much in one's private and confidential correspondence about meticulous phrasing nor the polishing of one's periods as long as one is convinced that one's friends will regard these letters as of a private and confidential nature. In all these circumstances, just consider what has been revealed.
The hon. Member for Limehouse said there were certain revelations as a result of this Senatorial inquiry which were of a somewhat disgraceful character. During the afternoon I have been searching into these matters and trying to follow some of the references that were made, and one reference that I found was entirely incorrect. One letter which suggested that one should not be too squeamish in regard to price was alleged to be a letter from Sir Charles Craven to America, but it was just the reverse; it was a letter from the American, Lieutenant Spear, to Sir Charles Craven. That is merely one indication of extraordinary inaccuracy. The hon. Member for Limehouse made very great play with one letter which had been the subject of a question in this House, and he said that he was not entirely satisfied with the reply of the First Lord of the Admiralty. As a matter of fact, I myself was not too satisfied with that reply, though perhaps not for the same reason as the hon. Member for Limehouse. The letter which was referred to appears to have been this: The chairman, in examining his witness, said:
"I have before me a letter written by C. W. Craven addressed to you, Lieutenant Spear, dated 7th October, 1927, and again marked, 'Absolutely personal and confidential.'"
One would scarecly expect the whole of one's absolutely personal and confidential correspondence to be impounded by those gangster methods to which I have referred. Some Members may not object to their correspondence being seen in this way, but I should not be particularly anxious to have the whole of mine so dealt with. One would expect, with a roving commission of that kind, some extraordinary revelations, but so far as I can find there are absolutely none, certainly nothing whatever of which the managing director of Messrs. Vickers should feel in the very least degree
1362
ashamed. The only point which seems to have aroused a little concern is the sentence which indicates that the Director of Naval Contracts was anxious that Messrs. Vickers should obtain the contracts for the whole of six submarines, just as he had been anxious to obtain for Messrs. Vickers the contracts for the whole of five the previous year.
Commander MARSDEN: Might it not be that the Controller desired Messrs. Vickers' submarines because they were the best submarines?
Sir J. WALKER-SMITH: It might well be, and I agree with the hon. Member for Limehouse that the reply of the First Lord upon this subject was not entirely satisfactory. If the evidence given before the inquiry in Washington were examined, you would find in the very forefront a glowing testimony to British manufacturers and particularly to Messrs. Vickers. The first witness explained to the Senatorial Committee that Messrs. Vickers were able to manufacture in such an extraordinarily efficient manner that they could outbid any American manufacturer of submarines. That is true. They can outbid any American and any British manufacturers of that particular armament, for this very good and sufficient reason, that they have had 14 years' intimate experience of it, and during that time they have accumulated an enormous amount of experience and very remarkable facilities for the output of naval vessels of that type. That is why the Director of Naval Contracts wished to get the whole of these contracts for Messrs. Vickers: The First Lord's reply does not reveal that Messrs. Vickers' tender was very much lower than the others, but it is clearly implied, because the First Lord goes on to say:
"Indeed, one of the chief objects of the allocation in each year was to enlarge the number of firms upon which the Admiralty could rely for submarine building and to prevent anything in the nature of a monopoly, and tkie Board accepted extra cost in order to achieve this object."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st Oct., 1934; col. 196; vol. 293.]
There you have it. The Board of Admiralty, consisting of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Controller, and the Financial Secretary, in the proper discharge of their Admiralty policy, looked beyond the mere question of costs. The Director of Naval Contracts was not

1363
entitled to do that, and if he had had his way, looking after Treasury interests alone, I believe that the whole of those submarines would have gone to Messrs. Vickers, because it would have meant a considerable saving to the Treasury. Here the First Lord revealed that for the purpose of preventing all these submarines being made in one place, they spread the contracts and placed some in other localities at a higher cost. So far as this incident in the Senatorial inquiry is concerned, I am satisfied that all that the Board of Admiralty did was rightly and properly done and that all that the Director of Naval Contracts did was rightly and properly done. Whatever the motives were, I am sure they were honourable and strictly proper, and whatever Messrs. Vickers did was, I am sure, beyond reproach. There is absolutely nothing whatever in anything that has been revealed in this Senatorial inquiry in Washington of which Sir Charles Craven need feel in the least degree ashamed.
I wish now to refer to what is the real object of the Socialist Opposition in placing this Motion before the House. It is clear that they desire to make this a further step in the pursuit of their policy of eliminating private enterprise altogether and substituting nationalisation and State control and production, and their policy would be just the same, whether it was regard to armaments or anything else. They seize upon armaments because they can add to their ordinary arguments just a few trimmings that make their case seem a little more specious. I am sure they would never make such a suggestion if they had had the very long experience that I have had in Government Departments and also in private enterprise. No one who has had experience of that sort would ever suggest that private enterprise should be eliminated in favour of governmental, departmental enterprise. Anything more absurd than that, it is almost impossible to conceive. It would be fundamentally unsound economically, so far as the manufacture of such technical commodities as armaments are concerned and technically it would be suicide.
The capital costs involved would be enormous, and the costs of production would be very much greater in the case of governmentally run works. I doubt
1364
if anyone would suggest that the oncostings would be any less than they are in the case of Admiralty administration. In the Admiralty Estimates I find that the Admiralty's on-costs are twice as much in terms of production as they ought to be for a department similarly constituted. Therefore, it must be obvious that there is much less incentive to energy, initiative, and enterprise if these matters are left with a Government Department than if there is the urge of private enterprise. Even though it be no more than for the making of profit, to put it on that extremely low basis, there is the further argument that unless they have highly efficient technical people in the home and world markets, they will very promptly go into bankruptcy.
I am sure one illustration will satisfy the House about this. The on-costs, which in manufactures of this kind are very considerable, would be at least double in the case of manufacture by a Government Department, and the House will observe that the only orders which they can look for in a Government yard are those that come direct to the Government. Therefore, they have either to set up an expensive, extravagant department of supervisors, management, and designers, or else they have to have a comparatively small one, just sufficient for the net amount of work which the Government require to be done. On the other hand, so far as private enterprise is concerned, part of their orders comes from the Government and part from other countries. In addition, they do a certain amount of commercial work. Carrying these three lines of production, they are able to reduce their on-costs below the possibility of any on-costs of governmental administration. Therefore, it is clear that there is the great advantage in the present system of always having available and always having maintained in a high state of efficiency a large managerial and designing staff which is capable of considerable and immediate expansion. That, as has been pointed out by the Foreign Secretary, is precisely what we should want in case of need.
The Socialists desire us to adopt this proposal by way of example, as though there had not been sufficient examples and gestures of that kind which have had

1365
extremely little response. The Foreign Secretary has explained to the House—I think it must be to the satisfaction of everyone—that so far as the control of the export of arms is concerned, the example which we have set is a great and wonderful example to every other country in the world, but very few have responded. He explained, too, that the example which we set in the Convention of 1925 was one with which very few countries complied and which the majority of countries ignored. Recently we set another example in the case of the embargo upon the export of armaments to the belligerent nations of China and Japan. I will not say that no other country took any notice of it, but no other country followed that example. The notice that they did take of it was promptly to jump in and help themselves freely to such orders as were going. It is notorious that our gestures and examples in the matter of our own disarmament have regretfully fallen upon deaf ears throughout the world.
Although I am satisfied that if the manufacture of armaments were a monopoly of the Government it would lead to obsolescence, inefficiency, extravagance, apathy and lack of any progressive thought, and leave us hopelessly trailing behind, I would willingly agree with it if I thought it likely that all other countries in the world would adopt the same measure of apathy, indifference and incompetence. What do we see, however? We see our near neighbour France armed to the teeth, and Germany rearming with great vigour. We see in Russia a standing army of colossal size and preparations for armaments manufacture and such armaments as aeroplanes in unprecedented quantities. We see that in Japan, a country with three times the population of ours, they are extremely well satisfied with the results of their departure from the League of Nations. We see them flush with their success in what is practically the annexation of Manchuria, and we see them approaching the termination of the Treaty of Washington in not quite the spirit of pacific accommodation that we would like. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, is it in the least degree likely that we should not suffer profoundly by a position of unpreparedness?
I do not think that in the face of all these difficulties we dare run the risk.
1366
It may be that some would willingly run the risk, but I am certain that if we were again faced with the same conditions as those of 1914, nothing in the world would prevent the youth of this country from striking a blow for our homes, our people and our liberties. Will anyone say that the youth of the country must sacrifice itself and be mowed down armless and defenceless I There could be no excuse for that. It would be just criminal folly. If my Socialist friends will give me their attention for two or three minutes, I think I shall be able to explain that the object which they seek would be better attained by permitting private enterprise to proceed with the manufacture of armaments rather than by eliminating it entirely and substituting a State monopoly. It must be agreed that the country must have a certain amount of armaments. It must be agreed that if we must have armaments other countries must have them too. It is regrettable that it should be so, but we must face the facts. Such is human nature and the state of civilisation that unfortunately we cannot do without armaments. It may well be that by a process of increased education, enlightenment and culture we may greatly improve, but we have to accept human nature for what it is, and this country and every other country must have a certain amount of arms. That being the case, we must agree that the less of the world's wealth and labour that is expended upon the manufacture of armaments the better.
I would ask my friends to perceive that in this country manufacturing technique has advanced to such a state that we are able to manufacture far more efficiently, expeditiously and economically than almost any other country in the world. Within our own country there are places where various armaments can be made with greater efficiency than in any other part of the world. For instance, there are places where rifles and small armaments can be made, and other places, such as Barrow, where submarines can be made more efficiently than any other place in the world. It follows that where rifles and small arms can be made best they should be made, and in places where submarines can be made best they should be made in order to lower the cost of manufacture. It is desirable, therefore, that other countries should not

1367
be induced to set up their establishments for manufacturing arms which they cannot do so efficiently as it can be done in this country. It is much better that they should be manufactured in this country.
In that case we should prevent the establishment of a great number of munition manufacturing establishments in various parts of the world. If we could not supply arms and other countries could not supply them, every country would have to supply their own, and the productive capacity in arms would be increased beyond what is needed. If we permit private enterprise we shall do something to maintain the manufacturing efficiency of this country and to keep our people employed. If my Socialist friends will think of this for a few minutes, they will see that no purpose is to be served by eliminating private enterprise and substituting governmental control. It is not a desirable thing to turn a cold shoulder to these armament firms. We remember that very early in the War many anxious and grateful eyes were turned upon these firms for our absolutely necessary products. It is undesirable that they should be eliminated. Each should be retained as a valuable nucleus capable of being expanded efficiently, effectively, economically and very rapidly if and when—and please God it will never happen—we should ever again be placed in the position in which we were in 1914.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. MANDER: There has been introduced into the Debate some reference to the national canvass that has been undertaken by the League of Nations Union, and as I also happen to be a member of the executive committee, I desire to make some comments on the points that have been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) gave some account of what has occurred. What actually happened was this. The Committee decided unanimously, all the Members representing different parties being in agreement, that the national canvass should take place. The right hon. Gentleman was not at that time an attending member, and he only heard of it and brought it up after the decision bad been taken. Every possible effort was made to conciliate his
1368
views, as we appreciated enormously his co-operation on the executive of the Union. In order to meet him and some of his friends, another paper, known as the blue paper, in addition to the green paper, was to be issued to various people throughout the country putting the opposite point of view. What happened next was a revolt on the part of the people who were to answer the questions in the country. They said, "We do not want a great mass of literature in the country. We cannot read it and we would like to have nothing sent to us at all." That was the reason why in a number of cases, in spite of the recommendation of the Declaration Committee that both papers should be sent to the local committees, they decided they did not want any papers. In order to meet cases of that kind another paper—a pink paper—giving a neutral sort of statement, not really expressing views on one side or the other, was issued advising people what to do in connection with filling in the forms.
The right hon. Gentleman has been treated throughout with the utmost consideration by Lord Cecil and other Members of the committee, and he really has no grievance of any kind. It is true that he was always hostile to the declaration and, consistently with carrying out the unanimous purpose of the executive, we did all we possibly could to try and carry him with us. The executive committee of the League of Nations Union is composed of Members of all three parties. There are differences, but we manage in the main to pursue a steady forward course. At the same time, the Union is not the slave of any party or Government, and it reserves to itself the right to express its views on great questions of foreign policy, whether the Foreign Secretary of the day likes it or not. On the question of whether the private manufacture of arms is a suitable subject to submit to the electors, I think we ought to decide in the affirmative. The question submitted to them is:
"Should the manufacture and sale of arms for private profit be prohibited by international agreement?"
I submit that that is a perfectly clear and simple proposition, which anyone in this country can understand. People are not asked to say when and how it should be done, but it gives them the oppor-

1369
tunity of expressing the view that it is undesirable, and I cannot see the slightest objection to a broad proposition of that kind being put to the people. The Foreign Secretary, in speaking this afternoon, for the first time threw off the mask and—I presume on behalf of the Government—declared war on the whole of the peace movement in this country. There is no doubt that is what he did. That is how it will be interpreted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] The speeches made to-day will do immense harm to the National Government, who will rue the day when such a provocative and offensive speech to those working for peace in this country was made.
I say, further, that the right hon. Gentleman adopted a method which was definitely hitting below the belt. He quoted from an issue of "Headway" of November, 1934, of which I have a copy, a passage at the end of an article which made reference to the Labour party and its support of the national declaration. Surely the inference to be drawn from that was that "Headway" was an organ pushing and advertising the Labour party and generally working in their interests. Will it, be believed that this same issue contains articles by two Conservatives and a member of the Liberal party? It provided one of the fairest possible opportunities for representative men in all three parties to put their views on the subject of the national declaration. Names were mentioned earlier, and to those already given I would add those of Lord Cecil, Lord Lytton, Mr. Noel Baker and Professor Gilbert Murray; and I must say that I am astounded that the Secretary of State should so demean him- self in his great office as to make use of the unscrupulous argument he did.
Although the Foreign Secretary and others may not approve of the national declaration and may think it improper and wrong, there are other people who think differently. Messages in support of the national declaration have been received from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Archbishop of Liverpool, the Chief Rabbi, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the President of the National Free Church Council, the President of the Assembly of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, the Moderator of the English Presbyterian Church, the General Secretary of the Baptist Union of Great
1370
Britain and Ireland, and a large number of influential and well-known national organisations are co-operating on the declaration committee in the carrying out of this important work. It has been made perfectly clear that although the Conservative party is the only political party not actively and officially co-operating, there is no objection to Conservatives doing so locally, and in many cases they are most effectively doing so. We welcome and desire their co-operation whole-heartedly. At the meeting of the National Union of Conservative Associations at Bristol on 3rd October, Colonel Herbert said:
"The executive committee wish me to point out that they have made it clear to local constituency associations that they are entirely free to take what action they think hest."
I venture to hope that the declaration, in spite of the violent opposition of the Foreign Secretary, will go on. I believe those interested in it will redouble their efforts after the offensive attack made to-day, that it will be a great success, and that it must, in the years to come, profoundly influence for good the peace policy of the Government of this country. It is true that the subject with which we are dealing to-day is only a small part of the great question of the preservation of peace, but it is an important part and deserves careful attention. I think the case for the inquiry has been fully made out by my right hon. Friend and by others who have spoken, and I shall not argue it again. It is clear that if it is to be of any value it must be of the widest possible nature, with the strongest powers. Personally, I think its greatest value will be from the psychological standpoint. By the revelations which are bound to come out it will create a motive power in this country which will drive forward the political organs to achievement, and I believe the result of the inquiries of such a commission can only be to point out the necessity for the removal of private profit in arms altogether.
I am interested to know that on the question of the appointment of a commission and the removal of private interests in 'arms I have a powerful supporter on the Treasury Bench. The Prime Minister, in answering a question the other day, assured me that however unreliable the ordinary Press organs of

1371
this country might be, the "News Letter" was always to be relied upon to state the truth about anything. I was therefore particularly interested to see in the issue of 29th September, this year, of this, the Prime Minister's personal organ, the following words on this subject:
"The Americans have now given us a lead which we should not hesitate to follow. From our own carefully edited newspaper accounts it would appear that British firms were hardly concerned in this inquiry, but the fuller reports of American papers give a very different picture. That many of our firms are involved is not a question of doubt, and too much has been said to allow the matter to rest where it is. We hope that the matter will be actively pursued (if necessary, by an inquiry) in this country—in which, it is fair to add, a Government licence for the export of arms has always been rigorously required. As to a solution, there is no easy way, and there are too many glib suggestions of 'nationalising' an industry the bulk of whose work has nothing whatever to do with munitions. But that private profit should be taken out of this business is essential, and it is no excuse for us to say that other countries are not yet willing to do likewise."
The Prime Minister's organ is supporting the official motion of the Labour Opposition. Let us get that quite clear. It is wholeheartedly behind it. He is coming back to them. He is making tracks for the Front Bench on the other side. The paper goes on:
"We must forgo our profits if they are made at the expense of pursuing methods of salesmanship which are at once dishonest and dangerous."
That is from the "News Letter" and the Prime Minister has assured me that is always accurate and to be relied upon. Even if we do not get an inquiry I do not feel that it really matters so very much, because however much might be proved as to bribery and improper methods in the arms business that is beside the point. Even though the business were carried on in the purest possible way it would be equally objectionable, the objection being that it is a system which makes private individuals, which makes ordinary business men, the merchants of death. That is the position into which they are driven in order to make money. Some reference has been made to various extracts from the evidence given in America. There was a reference to the case of Commandante Aubry of Peru, who tried to get the job of Peruvian repre-
1372
sentative on the Disarmament Conference, in which he was not successful because although he was the agent of an American armament firm at the time he tried to get the job they were not willing to pay his expenses, as he asked, and therefore he did not, on the whole, think it worth while to go over there. Reference has been made to the letters from Sir Charles Craven who, for his distinguished services—and I have no doubt they are distinguished—was recently knighted by the Government. I notice that one letter, which has been already referred to, but which I quote because it deals with a very important point—it is exhibit 22—says:
"All that you and I gain by the transaction will be that we shall know that if the ship is built Vickers will get the order. If, on the other hand, Geneva or some other fancy convention decides that large submarines have to be abolished no definite contract will be placed and the Admiralty can retire gracefully without having to pay anything."
In Exhibit No. 23 he used very similar words. He said:
"In other words they will have the right to withdraw their promised order for the second ship if Geneva or any other troublesome organisation upsets the large submarines."
There you have, shown with the utmost clarity, what is most objectionable from the national point of view, the interest which is aroused by armaments being in private hands. You have powerful armament interests working against the policy of the British Government. While the British Government were trying to arrive at an arms or a disarmament convention in Geneva, the armament interests were saying in their private letters that they hoped that that trouble-some organisation at Geneva was not going to upset things.
Sir J. WALKER-SMITH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the letters he has read are not confidential correspondence?
Mr. MANDER: The hon. Gentleman had a very long innings just now, and there are other hon. Members who wish to speak. If he permit me, I will proceed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) expressed the hope that the Government would go on in the good course that they are pursuing at Geneva—or words to that effect. Let us see

1373
what the Government have been doing at Geneva. I want to give them full marks for the initiative shown by the Lord Privy Seal in the case of what is now the agreed and settled embargo on the supply of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay. His action was admirable, and he deserves to be most heartily congratulated on the success of it. I wish one had fuller opportunities of congratulating the British representatives upon work of that kind. Looking carefully through the minutes of the different committees on this subject which sat during the time of the Disarmament Conference drives one to the conclusion that no British delegate at any public meeting has ever lent support to proposals for the abolition of private manufacture from whatever quarter the proposals have come. On the contrary, the British delegation have led the opposition to these proposals, and in particular to the proposals put forward by France, Spain, Denmark and Poland. Our opposition was carried to such a point that at one moment the French were reduced to begging us to state our case in order that they might have something to answer. At one moment we strongly opposed a proposal for a questionnaire concerning the scale, etc., of existing private manufacture.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from a document?
Mr. MANDER: No; from some notes which I have made. They are a resume of the situation as it appeared to me after having gone through the minutes of the sittings of the various committees of the Disarmament Conference. When our opposition was defeated, we urged that the conference should suspend its work on the subject until the answers to the questionnaire were received, that is, a period of three months. When the answers were received, the British Government declared in their return that there were no undertakings in the United Kingdom which could be strictly described as engaged chiefly or largely in armament manufacture. The British delegation have not given active support to any proposal for the drastic control of the international trade in arms, even when other great Powers such as France,
1374
Russia and the United States have been laying great emphasis on the matter.
I come to the last point, upon which several questions have been asked to-day, and I hope that before the Debate closes some representative of the Government will be good enough to state exactly what position we are to take up with regard to the agreement of 2nd July on the arms traffic. It was very surprising that the Secretary of State made no reference to it. I venture to urge the Government most strongly to support it and to press for general agreement at Geneva, because, although it is a very long way from the abolition of private manufacture for which some of us hope, it would be a big step forward and would be very well worth while. I noticed that the President of the Disarmament Conference issued a statement the other day saying that while there are a good many matters that still require further elucidation there are certain things that can be dealt with and are ready for framing in a Convention at once. Among those was the agreement of 2nd July to which I have referred. I hope that the Government will support the President of the Disarmament Conference in going forward with this step. Although this is only a small part of the problem, it is one which deeply touches the public conscience. It outrages the sense of decency of the ordinary human being, and most people feel that it is desirable to bring under public control in some form a trade which, if left in private hands, is a menace to the whole world and to the future of our civilisation.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: I wish to speak for a very few minutes chiefly because of certain allegations and propaganda which are taking place within the ranks of the Opposition, which I have had to meet throughout the country, and which I think is prejudiced on a very important public issue. I cannot speak, as did an hon. Baronet, for a large volume of opinion, but only for my own small party and probably not for all of them. I may be speaking entirely for myself. It is not only in this Debate but in previous Debates during the last 10 days that some of us have had to stand here and listen to remarks, insinuations, innuendos, and half-baked truths from the Opposition benches which had to be con-

1375
tradicted by Members of the Government. There was no apology and no withdrawal, and those remarks have gone out into the country. I go to various parts of Scotland and the north of England, and all I hear is that this Government is a war-mongering Government. It is not doing good to the cause of Democracy for that kind of irresponsible statement to be made, as it is at the present time. It is all very well in this House. We have listened this afternoon to a legal examination of a case, and how hon. Members opposite can still advance the case for nationalisation as the answer to the arms problem defeats me. The modern conception of Socialism in the Labour party is "When in doubt, nationalise and damn the details."
We have had a perfect example this afternoon from the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). I listened extremely carefully to every word that he said. I respect his knowledge on certain home questions in which he and I have had some previous experience, but not once during the course of his speech did he give any sort of indication of the kind of machinery which would be built up to deal with the nationalisation of armaments nor did he attempt to give a definition of armaments. If he does not do that—if he does not tell us where phosgene and chlorine cease to be in common use for peace, and begin to be useful for war—if he simply repeats this parrot cry that the traffic in arms is a wicked traffic and must therefore be run by the State, in the long run he is not going to get the support of this country. If one firm in this country has an arrangement with a firm in the United States, if it has to do with armaments there is a sinister plot, but if it is rubber, teak, sugar, tubes or rails, then it is a cartel. It is an ordinary, common method of international trade, and, to my mind, one of the more orderly movements in international trade which is making for greater security and peace in the world. If there is an arrangement between Mr. Dupont and Imperial Chemical Industries, immediately there is something sinister; but if there is some question of sharing the markets in various parts of Europe between firms in Germany and in this country, and if it is a question of iron or steel, or any other basic raw material or commodity, then
1376
it is an ordinary international arrangement. Shared markets are perfectly familiar; but if there happen to be any armaments concerned, it is a sinister plot.
We have had this picture conjured up before us this afternoon. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) won an election by absolute misrepresentation on this point, and I know it because it was at this time last year, when I was beginning to find—although, fortunately, people in Scotland were a little more hard-hearded, and did not give way to this panic cry—that this same sort of scare was being put about the country. I do not think that the generation which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) mentioned, and which is my generation, is going to sit down under this misrepresentation. I have been a member and Secretary of the League of Nations Union since almost the first day after the War. In East London it was unpopular then. Afterwards it became very respectable and everybody in the country joined it. In East London we had to fight it from the left, not from the right, and I do not propose to lend the support, for what it is worth, of myself and some of my friends to the use of an organisation which was originally intended to work out the details and popularise the conception of the League of Nations, in the way in which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is not only using it, but, as he has just said, is proud to use it in the cause of peace. He said just now that the Foreign Secretary has now come out into the open and declared war on the peace movement in this country. He then went on to mention practically every Church in the country, and to say that these were now going to be the enemies of this Government.
Mr. MAND ER: No. What I said was that, although the Foreign Secretary was opposed to the declaration, all the most distinguished people in all the Churches of this country were in favour of it. They were not necessarily against the Government, but they were in favour of the declaration.
Mr. LINDSAY: I am perfectly prepared to accept the emendation, but I think that the sense which I gave of what my hon. Friend was saving was

1377
quite accurate. Is that really quite a fair way to tackle what everybody this afternoon has admitted to be an immensely complicated problem? I stand here as one who is, I suppose, as much a pacifist as anyone else. No one who has been through the War has any desire to do anything else but spend the rest of his life in trying to work out the details of the machinery of peace. But what is happening to-day—and it is not by any means confined to the question of nationalisation of armaments, but it applies to every single question that comes up—is that the party to which I, for at any rate 10 years of my political life, belonged, is simply doing shoddy things; it is not tackling the details, and is leaving it for reaction to walk in unless somebody does begin to get down to the details of what it is pleased to call Socialism, which is a very wide conception of any notion of Socialism that I have ever read about or seen worked out in practice.
That does not mean that we here, on these curious cross-benches, are satisfied. I am not satisfied, and I do not suppose for a moment that the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary is satisfied. But because you are not satisfied you are supposed to go about in this easy way. Only a few days ago I heard a distinguished Member of the other House say that you had only to mention armaments and nationalisation, and the audiences of this country were with you. That shows what is going on; it shows the sort of propaganda that is going about in the country. That is not true. I cannot speak, as the right hon. Baronet did, for the whole country, but wherever I go there is a profound anxiety; but why the hon. Member should immediately equate that profound anxiety with a particular remedy which he and his friends favour, I cannot for the life of me see, and I think it is doing no good service to peace to follow that line of argument.
There are questions which I should like to ask of whoever replies from the Government benches. I think we are entitled to know—and I think I shall carry my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton with me here—a great deal more about the whole system of licensing. He may know, but I should like to know more. We were told not long ago that so many hundreds of
1378
licences had been given in one year, and that they had gone to so many countries. What are the criteria in giving licences in this country at the present moment? Is it true to say that, except where specific arrangements have been made, as with Paraguay and Bolivia, and it may be in the case of China, or where there is some special arrangement, these licences are given more or less automatically? I do not believe that that is so; I believe that there is a pretty adequate machinery which goes into these questions, and that the action taken is taken on broad principles which are laid down by the Cabinet. But the country does not know that. The country does not know the details.
The only two authorities quoted by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton were himself, in the very illuminating extract which he gave in the latter part of his speech, and the "News-Letter"; and half the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse was based on a Yellow Book, from which he quoted extract after extract. Is this country going to rely, for accurate information as to the relations between Vickers, Imperial Chemical Industries and the Government, on bits of information that come out from an American inquiry? As a very great friend of America, I have not the slightest respect for the method or the details of such inquiries as they have been conducted, not only in the case of armaments, but in several other cases within the last 10 years. Clearly, we cannot have that sort of roving, fishing inquiry in this country. I sympathise with hon. Members opposite in their desire to know more facts. I am all with them, and I believe that there is a consensus of agreement in this House, and that, to my mind, is why this artificial dilemma which has been put up by the Labour Party to-day clouds the issue, as it so often does.
The case against nationalisation of the whole of the armament industry has been made by at least five speakers. We must know from some one who is going to reply what precisely is meant by armaments, where it begins and where it ends and if they are prepared to go right through. We know that in times of war we have to go into the coal and cotton and several other industries. We must have something precise and defined. The Union of Democratic Control has been quoted by the Foreign Secretary.

1379
I remember the Union of Democratic Control when they used to dig out facts which would make opposition sit up. There was a time, in the days of Morel, Norman Angell and the Prime Minister, when the Union of Democratic Control dug up some very awkward facts for any Government. At the present moment—I have read these things carefully—they have dug up so-called facts which you cannot prove, which I have tried to prove, which I have gone to Government offices and armament firms to prove, and they are based on no evidence whatsoever. On the front of the book is written that evidence can be brought for every fact in it. That is not the way they used to conduct business. The fact is that the present opposition to the Government is feeble and irresponsible. I say that avowedly, because, having on us a responsibility for democracy, when we go back to our people and tell them the sort of facts that I have to deny week after week in Scotland and in the north of England, they are doing no good service to democracy. That is what is happening on a scale that is quite unusual in this country.
If those facts are true, as I believe they are, the great mass of the people want further light and further evidence. I appeal to the Government to give us some more evidence about licensing as at present conducted, to tell us whether it is not possible perhaps to license individual manufacturers as well as the export, though I realise that there are great difficulties there, and I should also like to see the case examined and some board or public authority which will come between the manufacturers and the consumers for the buying of all armaments as far as they can be defined. The hon. Member for Limehouse made great play of the fact that we are not living in the old days of unregulated, private enterprise and that regulation is necessary.I give him the point. Let us have greater regulation. Let us examine the case, if you will, for an armaments board. But that is utterly different from repeating this parrot cry of nationalisation of armaments. That is a thing which is worth working out in detail, and worthy of much more practical examination by the Labour party and others. I am not speaking because I have any practical suggestions myself—that is why I am
1380
going to vote with the Government—but a great many people have anxiety. The Government can go a long way in taking the country further into their confidence, and if there are any special difficulties, such as the one raised a few days ago when the Government immediately offered an inquiry, I think they will gain in the confidence of the country.
Finally, there is the policy which is being pursued at present by this country and no other. I can understand the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who goes the whole hog. I can understand people who say you will have to tread the via dolorosa for humanity and be disarmed. I can understand the out and out pacifist, but cannot for the life of me understand the party which is now the major opposition whose great contribution to this ghastly problem of peace and war as far as this Debate is concerned is to nationalise armaments as they exist at present, and to do that in the face of an armed world. The hon. Member for Limehouse said the whole business was insanity and hypocrisy. The kind of policy which he has put forward is not only insanity and hypocrisy. It is impracticable. In 1915 it was an utterly different question. If 1915 came again we should have to do it again, as we shall probably hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison). That is a totally different question. What you do in the crisis of war, when you have to summon up all your resources against the common enemy, is an entirely different thing from what you do when you are trying to minimise and regulate armaments in the cause of international peace. The only thing the hon. Member can say is that we had to do it in 1915. That is not logic. it is not good sense, and it does not help us in arguing this case out. If hon. Members opposite would speak their own mind, I believe there is an overwhelming majority in the House and in the country for further enlightenment on the present relations between armament firm and the Government, and also for continuing to pursue the policy of international regulation in the cause of peace.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. HICKS: I think the Labour Party may very well be congratulated on having placed this Resolution on the Order Paper and evoked the discussion that we

1381
have had. I listened with very great attention to the reply of the Foreign Secretary, and I felt it was particularly thin. There was hardly anything in it at all in reply to the general statement that had been made. I have listened to other speeches, and it seems to me that there has been a greater desire to score points than to tackle the problem. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay) devoted a lot of time in his speech in order to show the chances he missed when he was in another party. I am sorry that that party did not utilise their opportunity to enlighten the hon. Member better than they have done. Someone must have been at fault. It must be obvious to all that the private manufacture of arms is a grave and menacing danger in any part of the world. The militarists are already trotting and stamping about Europe and Asia rattling their cutlasses, and some are drilling infants in the arts of war. I saw a picture in the papers the other day of a Prime Minister of a certain state parading in front of children and presenting them with small rifles in order that they should be trained in the arts of war.
Every Power in the world to-day appears to be engaged in a passionate endeavour to build faster and more deadly bombing planes, to manufacture the most devastating poison gases, and generally to collect the most potent instruments of death and destruction. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Russia?"] I say all the countries in the world. All the Powers in the world seem to be engaged in that connection. If that be the fact, is it not sufficient to excite the attention of representative men and women to a consideration as to what we should do in such circumstances? It is much more important to be considering these matters than to be merely engaged in making debating points. The private manufacture of armaments—and I speak as I feel on this matter—is a positive danger. It may be said that the private manufacture of other things may not be desirable. It is very remarkable that, as soon as we on this side of the House urge the importance of having something like national control, we are immediately chided and told that it is only another phase of the Labour and Socialist party in the attempt to nationalise one industry after another, and that we are not sincere in our apprehensions of the danger
1382
of war, or of the manufacture of the instruments of war being in private hands. It is said that it is simply some more of our propaganda in order to try to influence the country and to bring more industries under national control.
The private manufacture of arms is a positive danger. Private manufacturers are prepared to produce and distribute arms in all parts of the world providing there is a demand for them, and they have an opportunity to do it, as they did in the case of Japan and China, with careless abandon. There is no morality in this matter. I am not blaming the individual manufacturer any more than I am blaming the workmen engaged in producing armaments. We ought to consider the condition at which the world has arrived and our responsibility in order to see what can be done to minimise the danger of an international conflict. There is not the slightest doubt that private manufacturers would utilise the newspapers—some of them are already financially interested in the newspapers—to create and raise scares and to ferment enmity in order to create a market favourable for their manufactures. I do not think that I am overstating the case. Surely, we are living in a world of unreality if we do not recognise these things. We are grown up and are old enough, and have sufficient experience, to formulate our own opinions.
International combines have been formed in order to monopolise raw materials and hold Governments in such a position as to compel them to pay the prices demanded for armaments. The other day a statement was printed in the "Daily Herald," a very reliable paper, from a speech which was to have been broadcast by Professor Haldane, but which the British Broadcasting Corporation evidently denied him the opportunity of broadcasting. He said that common sense told us that when we found an evil we should inquire who was making money out of it. Then we should not be far off its cause. If we wanted to catch fire-raisers we found out who was making money out of the fire. If we wanted to catch war raisers, we should find out who was making money out of war and rumours of war. I have only quoted that in order to reinforce the statement that it is the desire of the manufacturers to dispose of the muni-

1383
tions of war which they produce. They are cumbrous things and must be disposed of somewhere, and they are anxious to find a market for them. Britain is a great exporter of arms. It is an extremely dangerous proceeding for us to export arms at all to anyone not economically, socially and politically bound up with the destinies of Britain in the present state of the world. I heard this afternoon an argument about Vickers Maxim making submarines for America much better than the Americans could make them, a much better type of machine, cheaper and so on. In the event of such a calamity ever arising as to force us into international conflict those machines would be used against us. There is no doubt about that. Unless countries are bound up with the destinies of Britain it is extremely dangerous to export munitions of war to them. The ally of to-day may be the enemy of to-morrow.
There can be no question that the private manufacture of arms is a dangerous contribution to the causes of war. I do not think there is anyone on this side of the House who would say that the private manufacture of arms is the cause of war, but we have all said that wars have their realities deep down in economic and commercial rivalries between countries. Those are the basic causes of international conflict. If everybody was fully employed, if factories and money were fully employed, there would be very little discussion about international conflict. It is when countries have their workers and factories and money unemployed that there are possibilites of war. I see no reason why that danger should exist as far as this country is concerned. The whole business should be the direct concern of the State and kept carefully within public control. There is no doubt that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) takes part in the Debate later on we shall hear a good deal about the munitions muddle which existed during the Great War. He is more familiar with the details of that matter than I am, and it is not my purpose to take up the time of the House in dealing with that aspect of the question. To permit a condition under which groups of private individuals have power to cooperate and to frustrate the intentions
1384
of the State is a situation that should not be tolerated.
The difficulties of getting private firms to do what the Government wanted at the time of the Great War were such that we are most of us familiar with them. Difficulty was experienced, cooperation. was not easily obtained and frustration was a very big factor at that time. In dealing with the forces of the country there are no armaments manufactured to-day which the State through its arsenals, workshops and dockyards could not produce for itself. Perhaps means are not at the moment available to the Government for the purpose of adequately meeting all these requirements through their present agencies, but the Government have the means within their power of extending their factories, workshops, arsenals and so on in order to be able to meet the requirements. I believe that the arsenals, the workshops and the dockyards could he made to produce all the things which the Government need. If there is such a position existing that it is vital to the public interest and the public welfare in defence that immediate steps be taken to deal with that situation, then it rests with the Government. That proposition is per fectly fair. We ought not to be held up to ransom by private interests and by failure to co-operate at the critical time.
The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) made reference to the possibility of Government factories and workshops being under the control or under the influence of the people who worked in them, and he thought that the purity of public life would be to some extent diminished as a consequence of having arsenals and factories in various constituencies. I do not know what may be the experience in other constituencies, but it is my privilege to represent in this House—I am not wanting to advertise it—the greatest and oldest arsenal in the world. Although the people employed in that arsenal are manufacturing munitions of war, I am perfectly satisfied that they would be much happier manufacturing instruments of peace. I can say very definitely that I 'am sent to the House of Commons from that constituency, the greatest and oldest arsenal in the world, to fight for peace. Therefore, I should not be apprehensive about the purity of public life if great factories were set up in various parts of

1385
the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Sir J. Walker-Smith) represents a private armaments constituency, very largely, and they have sent him here to represent them. That should be an argument in favour of extending arsenals rather than private firms for the manufacture of armaments.
Some of the finest workmen and ablest technicians in the world are to be found in our arsenals. I do not say that of my constituency alone. In Enfield the same remark would apply, and in other centres. In the research establishments and workshops at our arsenals we have some of the ablest technicians in the world. Therefore, from the point of view of capacity and organisation there is Available certainly a very substantial nucleus which could be extended. The manufacture of armaments should be under the control of the State, in the supreme interest of the State and for the State Alone. In the manufacture of armaments in our arsenals there is no idea of making armaments for other countries. The men there are simply obeying the wishes of the State, working for the supreme interest of the State. It is not a question of private interest or gain.
I would urge the Government to act in accordance with the principles of our Resolution and I would ask hon. Members opposite who are in favour of peace and whose hearts are attuned for peace, to support us. We claim no monopoly in our desire for peace. The agency to which we have called attention was not the most efficient when we have called upon it, and with the troubled conditions of the world to-day it is a definite aggravation. I would urge the Government to put a final and complete stop to the private traffic in arms. We put severe penalties upon shopkeepers or chemists who in moments of forgetfulness pass over the counter a little poison. I wish we were able to be more severe with those who traffic in poison gas. We are also very stringent with the pedlars in dope. I wish we were a thousand times more stringent with the pedlars of death. In support of the arguments I am advancing I would say that the world is in such a feverish state to-day that it requires all the calmness of approach and all the common sense that we have to meet the situation. We require political and social doctors.
1386
Industrial depression, economic chaos, unemployment, flooded markets, intensive economic nationalism, the growth of trade rivalry, which is fiercer to-day than it has ever been in my lifetime or in the lifetime of any one present, make the position very serious. All this tends increasingly to engulf us in another international situation. If all the people could be employed, if all the raw material could be used, if unemployment could be reduced to vanishing point the danger of war would not be there, but to-day with all the countries in the world suffering from industrial depression and unemployment, with economic nationalism, we are in very grave danger.
I am aware that our proposal would mean drastic changes, but it would be in the interest of the country that the Government should recognise the principle of our Resolution. Instead of private interest controlling the manufacture of armaments the public interest should be the dominant note. There are many who make public interest a matter of private profit. We want to remove those conditions to a very great extent. Our proposition is feasible and practicable. It is necessary for defence and security that the manufacture of armaments should be under public control and ownership. It would have to be done in the event of another war, and it would have to be done then in the stress of conditions that would make the approach to the problem and the machinery for dealing with it rather difficult to evolve. It would be more in accordance with practical common sense first of all to remove the temptation to those who are engaged in the private manufacture of armaments to utilise them for any international organisation. The State itself is the prime agency responsible for security and defence and for ensuring its own protection. Steps in that direction would have to be taken should the emergency arise, and it is common sense to agree to our proposal and to do it now.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. EM RYS-EVANS: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) in his speech touched on a question to which I desire to refer. He talked about the phantom generation. The time has come to stop talking about the phantom gener-

1387
ation. We have a very good second eleven on the Front Bench, and let us judge them by their batting. They have behind them a great deal of experience, gained very early in life. This evening the Socialist party have again brought forward their case for nationalisation. They wish to nationalise all the means of production, and that fact detracts somewhat from their argument. We are dealing with a limited question, the question of armaments, which is not necessarily related to questions of Socialism, and the nationalisation of the means of production. Weapons of war are only a small part of the work of factories which make munitions. In times of peace a great part of their products are peace products, and it is only during times of war that they expand. That expansion takes place not only in definite armament factories but in all factories throughout the country. If the nation is to take over these factories it must face very heavy expenditure and make up its mind that it is essential to keep up a highly trained technical staff. This staff will not always be fully employed, and a partially employed staff is not a very effective staff.
The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) brushed away the very important question of the problem of those countries which do not possess the raw materials to enable them to create their own munitions, but it is a question which must be considered seriously. Industrial nations are in a strong position. If we are to be prohibited from supplying arms to nations which have not the raw materials we place them in a very inferior position, and under modern conditions of development such conditions would not be fair or just. If the whole manufacture of munitions and armaments are nationalised, we are placed in a new position in regard to the competition in armaments. It would not be a competition between private firms but the much more dangerous competition between Governments to supply those portions of the world which cannot make their own armaments. When we consider the question of the nationalisation of armaments we must pay some attention to the present position of Germany. The present German Government is national, but it is also Socialist; and it exercises an authority and power over private enterprise which causes a great deal of
1388
anxiety. The position of the private manufacture of armaments is not satisfactory at the present time, but I do not think it can be attacked on the lines suggested by the Motion; it is one which must be looked at with new eyes.
We are in the presence of an entirely new problem. In the days of Napoleon an army marched on its stomach and we heard little in those days of munitions. They played their part, but it was a comparatively small part. It is the developments which have taken place during the last 50 years which are important from the point of view from which we are dealing with the problem to-day. Scientific developments and inventions have changed the whole aspect of the armaments and munitions problem. Immense quantities of munitions were required during the last War and much greater supplies will be required in any future war. At the battle of Loos, an early and comparatively small affair compared with later actions, more munitions were fired away than during the whole course of the Boer War, only 12 years before. This question cannot be treated in the light of past experience, even of recent experience, and in attacking it we must clear our minds of the cobwebs of the past. The question divides itself into two categories, the internal question of armaments and munitions, a problem every country must consider, and the external problem of the traffic in arms. I believe that a solution can be found for both the internal and external problem by a full publicity, but this full publicity cannot be obtained unless there is international agreement.
It is no good saying that this country has to set an example. The day of gestures is past and the day of realities is here. I know that there are technical objections to full publicity, that there are considerable dangers which are put forward by the technical advisers of the Government, but let us understand this clearly, that in times of peace the front line is diplomacy and foreign policy, it is there that you see the bigger picture and however important may be the advice given by the technical advisers to the Government they can only see a small portion of the picture. In looking to the future I do not think that we shall be able to overcome this problem unless we treat it as part of the larger problem instead of a mere question of dealing

1389
with armaments and munitions. It is part of the whole problem of disarmament, and we shall not be able to solve it by adopting a policy of safety first or drifting into those uncertainties and doubts which led us into the difficulties which brought us eventually into the Great War. This question cannot be solved by the pre-War mind. It can only be solved if the Government are prepared to take greater risks than they have taken in the past. I know it is dangerous to suggest risks but I think it is much more dangerous to stand still and hope that the position will get better. We shall only get out of our difficulties by a definite lead on the part of the Government facing risks and making sure that at least we have given a lead to Europe, a lead which I believe would soon be followed.
9.24 p.m.
Mr. RICHARD LAW: I should like to say a word in support of the last remarks of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Emrys-Evans). I, too, am one of those who would like to see the Government taking a more definite lead in foreign policy than they seem to have taken up to the moment. Let me refer briefly to one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay). My hon. Friend pointed out with perfect truth that there was a great deal of half-baked propaganda emanating from the Socialist benches; and he also pointed out, what is equally true, that there is at the moment profound dissatisfaction in the country generally with the foreign policy of the Government, and that there is a feeling in the country that the Government is not really as wholehearted in the pursuit of peace as some other parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock connects the two things completely—the half-baked propaganda with the unpopularity which has come to attach to the Government in this respect. There is no doubt that the propaganda of the Socialists has had a great effect on public opinion. But I refuse to believe that the majority of people in this country are as half-baked as the Socialists who make this propaganda. I am very strongly of the opinion that there is some other reason besides the Socialist propaganda for the reputation which the National Government have to-
1390
day in this respect. I believe that this Debate has given us an indication of what that reason is. In the Debate this afternoon we have had, as we always do have in these Debates, a most remarkable speech from the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary enjoyed, as he always does enjoy, a Parliamentary triumph, and I have always noticed—so it seems to me—that these Debates on foreign policy, or at any rate on that kind of policy which comes within the purview of the Foreign Office, always take a similar course. There is a great deal of criticism, a Parliamentary triumph on the part of the Foreign Secretary, and then on the next day there is a definite falling off of the stock of the National Government in the country.
No one can deny that the right hon. Gentleman when he speaks in these Debates makes a very strong case, but I think there is a feeling which is very widespread in the country that he is making a case, and not really trying to get at the fundamental truth of the subject under discussion. I do not mean by that to imply that the right hon. Gentleman is in any way insincere. What I do feel is that whenever any topic like this of the nationalisation of armaments, or an international police force, or economic sanctions, comes up in our Debates, the only thing the Foreign Secretary does—and he does it very completely—is to point out the enormous difficulties which surround the policy, whatever it may be. It is, obviously, quite right to point out the difficulties, but I would be more satisfied that the Government really were going into these problems as deeply as I think they ought to be gone into, if he would point out sometimes some of the advantages which must in any reasonable contingency accrue from these policies.
In foreign policy, as in any other form of policy, you have got to take a balance of advantages and disadvantages. In every policy there are disadvantages, and in most policies there are advantages. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would only be justified in his purely negative attitude if he could show to the satisfaction of the House and of the people that his own policy was entirely free from disadvantages. But that is manifestly not the case, and indeed one can say without undue harshness that his policy has one very great disadvantage which

1391
does not attach to some of the policies which have been discussed and turned down by the Government. It has this disadvantage: it has been tried for three years and has not been very successful. I do not say that this is the right hon. Gentleman's fault. I do not say that anybody else might have done better. But the fact is that the situation in Europe and the world to-day is not very much improved on what it was when he took over the Foreign Office. I do not think he is entitled just to point out the difficulties and the weaknesses of any other policy proposed, unless his own policy is a good deal more free from criticism than in practice it is.
The right hon. Gentleman in these Debates always makes these speeches, extremely convincing at the moment, to show exactly why nothing can be done. He always ends up with the plea: "Well, if anyone can show me anything better that I can do, I shall be glad to know of it." I am sure he means that, but it is rather difficult for any private Member to make a concrete suggestion on foreign policy of a kind that I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind. But I would like to take the advantage of his invitation to make one suggestion which I must admit is neither a concrete nor a definite one. I would ask him to have a little more courage, and a little more faith than he seems to have. I cannot explain what I mean without some kind of analogy. There does come a time in the lives of individuals and in the lives of States when some risk has got to be taken, and when we have got to accept that risk in the faith that, dangerous as it is, it is in fact safer than the course which seems to be safer and easier.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever, among his other activities, been a yachtsman. If he has he will know that if he is at sea in a small boat, perhaps cruising along the coast, and if the weather is thick and wind and sea get up, he may feel: "Well, I had better get nearer to dry land. I am better near the shore where even if the boat is wrecked I can swim ashore." If he thinks that, he would be a foolish sailor. He would know that however unpleasant it may be in these circumstances, the only thing he can do is to put out to sea and face the gale and see
1392
it out. If he tries to run for harbour it may seem safer, but he will undoubtedly be lost. It does seem to me that his attitude towards these great problems of foreign policy is rather like that of the timid yachtsman. He is afraid to put out from the coast for fear of being lost in the sea, and seems never to pay any attention to the possibility that he may be driven on to the shore and irretrievably lost in the breakers which crash over the wreck of his ship.
9.34 p.m.
Lord E. PERCY: I can speak only for a very few moments, and I had not intended to address the House or to trouble it with any words of mine to-day. But I feel impelled to trespass on the indulgence of the House for a very short time, because this Debate has left upon me, I confess, a feeling of intense disappointment and depression. I think that perhaps the fundamental reason is this: The House has felt itself to be behindhand with public opinion in the country. That is to say that discussion of this subject has been left behind by propaganda conducted by one side or the other in the country. We have spent a good deal of time in discussing whether certain features of that propaganda are justified or not. I find myself in the same position as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I feel with him that this national peace declaration has been conducted in some respects in a very deplorable way. But I leave that on one side. That perhaps is the fundamental reason.
It is all very well for the Foreign Secretary to spend so much time in talking of the pamphlets of the Union of Democratic Control and proving them to be, as they are, thoroughly dishonest, but, after all, the reply is, what has his Department been doing to counteract that propaganda and to put the other side in the country? That is the first reason why this Debate has been so unsatisfactory. The other reason is that there is no contact between the two sides in this Debate. Neither side really wants to address itself to the arguments of the other. That is especially true about the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The depressing thing about the speeches from the Opposition to-day—I wish they would realise how a person like myself. belonging to that War generation, feels about them—is that they represent a

1393
state of mind which has led to every war of which I have ever read in the history of this country.
One hon. Member—I am sorry if I interrupted him unjustifiably—said that the War was due in part to the activities of private munition firms, and when I challenged him he produced the story about Mr. Mulliner. That concentration on the tittle-tattle about what Mr. Mulliner may have said in 1910 or 1912 weighs a great deal with him, and weighs a great deal in the propaganda that he conducts in the country, but he ignores absolutely the whole history of 20 years. He is exactly in the position of the men who, at the time when Germany was starting her naval programme, would not look at the facts of Europe but spent their time in tying to prove that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was concerned in Army con-
tracts. That is the kind of blindness -which has led to every war in the past—the lack of a sense of proportion. At the same time, on the Government side of the House there has been hitherto no real effort to meet what is the uncomfortable feeling in this country. Here are men engaged in a business in which none of us would very much like to engage. It is not a business that tastes nice.
Mr. Mc GOVERN: It pays well.
Lord E. PER CY: The hon. Gentleman precisely represents that class of person of whom I have been speaking. He can see nothing but profits, profits, profits, and he does not know that what leads to war is the ambition of power, for which he is far more responsible, the ambition of power and the hatred which that ambition leads. Let him remember that when he speaks about profit. But I do not want to make a controversial speech. I was saying that on this side of the House there has been no real effort to meet that uncomfortable feeling in the country. This may be a necessary business, but it does not taste nice and it does lead to abuses. It is open to certain obvious dangers.
That, I know, is the whole of the case of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They do not realise what the history of the world has proved over and over again, that the capitalists' power of getting improper action by Parliament through the Press is as nothing to the power of the electorate at the poll in getting improper
1394
action by the Government. Those two dangers have to be weighed against each other, the danger of socialised production of munitions and the danger of private enterprise in munitions. You can make a comparison with the very analogy that the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) gave us—analogy of the slave trade. You can compare the effects of State monopoly in the slave trade and the effects of private enterprise in the slave trade. Apart from the fundamental evil of the slave trade itself, the State monopoly was for a time the more dangerous and the more difficult to eradicate. If the Government had been dealing only with private enterprise in the slave trade, that trade would have been abolished very much earlier than it was.
Those are the two dangers with which we are dealing. We know that we cannot convert the Opposition. We know that they are past praying for. But, after all, if we talk about profit their errors are too profitable to them politically to be easily given up. To the Government we surely can say this: You have a policy. It is true it has not been stated from the Government Benches today, but it has been stated by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham You have a policy. In itself it is a good policy, but it lacks two things; it lacks the completion in detail which such a policy ought to have, the control of the traffic in arms by the governments of the world. It lacks also the sense of drive and determination behind it which a government ought to evince in a matter like this. Let the Government show that drive, that conviction in the truth of their own policy, and then they will not need to engage in dialectics with the Opposition, because their policy, with that drive behind it, will ride over the Opposition's perfectly hopeless policy—ride over it, horse, foot and dragoons.
9.45 p.m.
Dr. ADDISON: I must confess that I share with the Noble Lord a considerable measure of disappointment at the course of this Debate. I agree with him that a lot of it anyhow has been rather remote from the tragic realities of the case. I should have been as glad as he to have seen evinced from the Government Bench some of that drive and determination which he is so disappointed at not

1395
finding. The speech of the Foreign Secretary was as is usual with him, a brilliant forensic performance. He had a good deal to say about bogies which he carefully put up and effectively and eloquently demolished. Then he had a good deal of criticism of this party and that party which had, he said, misrepresented the Government. He was even ingenious enough to drag in something which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said about me in 1929 and he pointed out that it did not accord with something that he had said more recently. I do not myself belong to the advocate species, but I understand that it is the practice when acting for the defence to get if you can a few splashes over the plaintiff's attorney and I suppose that is the reason why this matter was dragged in. Otherwise, it seems to have no relation to the subject of the Motion.
Then the right hon. Gentleman was very much annoyed with some party or other—I was not clear what party—which had published a green pamphlet and with some other party which had or had not—I was not sure which—published a blue pamphlet. I was asking myself all the time what had these Pecksniffian castigations to do with the Motion. The relation appeared to be extraordinarily remote. I am afraid that I was unkind enough when listening to them to have recalled to my mind what some gossip said, I believe, of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his performances at Geneva. It was said that he had secured convictions against so many other people that he had altogether lost sight of his own. He was followed in much the same vein by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and a good deal was made of the difficulties which were mentioned, and quite properly mentioned, by the committee set up at Geneva 13 years ago. But that was 13 years ago. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has been able to think of something since then. Why should he have to rely solely upon the difficulties which were presented 13 years ago? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham referred to the difficulty of inquiring into what were munitions and what were not. I agree that the definition of munitions might present
1396
certain difficulties. It would. There is, for example, the chemical industry. We required in the last war vast masses of nitrates of a different character from those ordinarily produced in peace time. But as far as I am concerned I feel there should be no difficulty in dealing with these problems and questions of practice all of which are all capable of being tackled by sensible people with the will to tackle them. Instead of that these two right hon. Gentlemen made me think of some lines which I may adjust to their case:
"And thus the native hue of resolution, Was sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought"—
in their case by the thought of all these difficulties—
"And enterprises of great pith and moment,
With this regard, their currents turned awry,
And lost the name of action."
Lord E. PERCY: That was said of a murder.
Dr. ADDISON: In one lucid interval, if he will allow me to use that term without discourtesy, the right hon. Gentleman really did approach the subject matter of the Motion, and it is to what he said then that I would ask the House to give some attention. I am not going to take any part in casting aspersions upon munition makers. As far as I know, and I knew lots of them very well, they are just a fair average of the rest of humanity—good, bad and indifferent. A man who makes rifles naturally wants to get customers just the same as the man who makes boots, and under the present system you cannot blame him for that. In this case, of course, the article manufactured is a very dangerous article to humanity generally and, therefore, it is necessary to look at that kind of manufacture in a different way from that in which we regard others. But as a mere business proposition the three statements which the right hon. Gentleman made on this point are as remote from the realities that we experienced during the War as the rest of his speech was from the Resolution.
He made the usual case that we have to maintain private manufactories, with their capacity, their staffs, their machinery and all the rest of it in order that they may be usable in time of war. He said that this need for almost "unlimited expan-

1397
sion" required the maintenance of these private firms. Then, addressing me particularly I think, he asked if I could have done my work at the Ministry of Munitions if the organisation and experience of private firms had not been there to be drawn upon. I think that fairly represents what he said. Now the experience of the War, and I am bound to refer to it, because it has been called in question, showed to me and I think to everyone else intimately concerned with that dreadful business, that not only was the existence of private firms, upon which the Department had quite naturally to depend for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman stated, not a source of strength but that it was a source of weakness. As a matter of fact the dependence of this country upon private munition manufacturers nearly lost us the War and it was not until we broke that tradition and emancipated ourselves from the shackles which it put upon us that we were able to meet the needs of the men at the front.
Let me examine as fairly as I can how that came about. The first thing was that the Departments naturally came to rely upon groups of private manufacturers. In that connection I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty need be upset if the managing director of a great firm has had n talk, even a friendly talk, with the director of contracts. That is inevitable. Under that system the director of contracts is necessarily in continual conversation and having meetings with the heads of the great firms with which that Department is doing business. That is inevitable, and it is right that it should be so long as this system continues. But there are certain undesirable features which we are bound to recognise which have sprung up in consequence. I think the practice of recruiting the Boards of some of these firms from members of the staffs in the Great War Departments is undesirable. It is difficult to see how it could be prevented in existing circumstances, but it is certainly un- desirable. The condition was that owing to this system we depended mainly, out- side the Government Departments, upon the skill and personnel of these firms.
The result, in the first place, was that there had grown up—and we were confronted with it—a sort of specialist frame of mind, a frame of mind which thought
1398
that nobody else could do the job. We found as soon as we had to deal with it that we could get 'as good master gauge-makers out of the watchmakers in Clerkenwell, and who also could make as good fuses as anybody else. There was no particular monolopy about it. There was more quackery mixed up with this business than anything I have known. It was largely a pretence. There was this further drawback attached to the system, that the firms naturally employed by the Department were given increasing orders as the conditions of the War made them become necessary. Human nature is the same more or less all round, and the firms, finding themselves snowed up with this glorious array of orders, naturally—I not blaming them—took as many as they could. The result was that others who could contribute and had the appropriate organisation were not called in to contribute, and the nation was confronted with the perilious position in which masses of orders had been given out which could not physically be met. We found ourselves met with millions and millions of things in arrears, and the system utterly broke down. It broke down because of the dependence of the State upon these firms, which the right hon. Gentleman seems to think were capable of "unlimited expansion."
The system completely failed, and not only so, but there is this other criticism which applied then, and I do not doubt that, if ever we were mad enough to allow ourselves to be rushed into war again, it would probably apply again. Nobody anticipated the character of the demand. The character of the demand was quite different, on a different scale, and different in its ingredients, from anything that anybody anticipated, and the rigidity of the anticipations of the so-called experts was one of the greatest difficulties that we found in responding to the new demands.
Mr. JOHN WALLACE: Of the private or Government experts?
Dr. ADDISON: I am speaking of private experts as well as of Government experts. The Departments necessarily came to depend on the experts, and the whole system engendered a rigidity of mind which led to a dependence on the experts in these firms, which prevented our responding to the new character of the

1399
demand as readily as we ought to have done. It was certainly a great source of weakness for more than 12 months, and the point that I was going to make was that the character of the demand was quite different from any anticipation. The Foreign Secretary seems to think that somehow or other selected groups of firms should be kept in being and would be capable of unlimited expansion. If ever disaster should overtake us, we may be certain that it will be something different from what we have been expecting, and that the character of the demand will be quite different also. Nobody would have anticipated, for instance, that we should have to hunt the country and the world over for phosphorus and other materials which were unlooked for at the time of the outbreak of war.
Apart from the fact that the system, by becoming set and hidebound, was difficult to expand, it was ruinously expensive. Some hon. Members opposite suggest that if we had the system which is advocated in the Motion, it would mean that we should have to take over lots of factories and run them. We paid for the factories over and over again in the prices that we were paying. Until we adopted a national system, we did not have any conception as to what we were paying. I will give one illustration. The character of the war demand brought about an immense requirement of fuming sulphuric acid, quite beyond the commercial sort of supply, and naturally they were called upon to supply the goods. On the question of price, at the date for which I took out the figures yesterday, namely, October, 1916, when this return was made to me, the average market price of this commodity, obtained by contracts, was £12 a ton. We had then built a factory which had had a year's running. We had paid for the whole factory in nine months, and the price of the oleum, including the amortisation of the whole factory in nine months was not £12 a ton but 55s. I am not speaking of profiteering.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not disputing the right hon. Gentleman's facts, but if this resolution had been enforced before the War, would that have been scheduled as an armament industry to be conducted only by the Government, or not?
Dr. ADDISON: That is a trifling point. Of course it would. Oleum, the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, is used in a limited way for a certain number of commercial manufacturing purposes, and for such purposes it would be used, but we should not have been dependent upon the producers, the private manufacturers, of oleum to meet the war demands, so far as they were required, of that product. We would make them ourselves, as we did, [An HON. MEMBER: "In peace time?"] The real point was that the private manufacturer was unable to meet our requirements, and when we began to meet them for ourselves we found that we were paying for the factory times over, indeed every year, so that I say the present system is necessarily expensive. There is another matter which is very material. We set up our own national factories wholly and solely because the private manufacturers, the armament makers, had failed. They were required, and we found that although they were improvised in a few months, within a few months of working, namely, at the end of 1915, they were producing 18-pounder shell-cases at from 10s. to 12s. a piece, whereas the average contract price, even with the most experienced of the armament firms, was 20s. There is no doubt about it—it is not open to question—that it was only the institution of large scale methods of production that enabled us to supply the needs of the troops.
Sir JOHN PYBUS: Was not the cost of Woolwich more than 20s.? The right hon. Gentleman is pointing out that while the price of the armament firms was something over 20s. for 18-pounder cases, they were making them in the national factory for something over 10s., but what was Woolwich doing all this time? That is a national factory and its cost was the highest in the country.
Dr. ADDISON: Why was that? It was because Woolwich made a mere handful of these things in the first instance, and as soon as we got the factories, instead of making a handful at Woolwich we used it for filling and testing and other purposes. [Interruption.] I can understand hon. Members not liking these statements, but if you have an improvised factory turning out these things for 10s., whereas the private manufacturer, who prides himself on being

1401
essential to the well-being of the State, cannot make them for less than 20s., it is not a testimonial for private manufacturers.
May I go on to a further point which relates to another undesirable feature of this system, which I am not mentioning with any at all; I am only mentioning it as an illustration of the kind of thing that necessarily attaches to this system where a department is dependent for its supplies on a limited number of favoured firms. At one time I was possessed with the idea that I should like to look into the cost of the manufacture of cordite, and I set a number of capable accountants to make a report on the subject. They reported that the cost was much higher than it ought to be. They reported, for example, that one great firm, whom we had helped to finance in the provision of a factory, had paid for the whole thing in less than 18 months, and was still getting 33⅓ per cent. profit. They said that the price of 2s. 3d. per lb. was too great. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord will not think I am mentioning this in any way to cast aspersions on anybody. It is inalienable in the system. I received a message while these negotiations were going on from the Admiralty exorting me not to press too hard on the firm's willingness to increase the supply of cordite by seeking to reduce the selling price too much. I asked those concerned to leave it to us and promised that we would do the fair thing. I asked them not to be too sensitive but to let us deal with it, and they did. It was all done in good temper, and we reduced the price of cordite 7d. per lb. As a result we saved £3,900,000 on that one year's supply. That remonstrance, that representation would never have been addressed if this kind of thing had not been the practice in the past under the present system. This illustration and scores more prove that there is a difficulty in the initiation and development of supplies of war materials under this system, and that it proved to be ruinously costly.
May I mention in passing one other consideration which was very frequently brought to our notice, and which we quite fairly took into account. We were told over and over again when we were examining the prices that we must take account of the higher overhead charges
1402
of the great firms. I admit I was not too particular as to inquire what those overhead charges were, but still, I dare say one might have surmised what some of them might be. Here let me mention the case which was brought out, and I understand is not disputed, in the American inquiry. I am not making much reference to it because we have abundant material of our own near at hand. In the case of the Electric Boat Company I find that they have an arrangement for a sub-division of territory of the world for the supply of submarine boats. It was said in the evidence at the inquiry that this firm
"receive a certain percentage of net profit accruing to them on such business"—
that is, submarines built by Vickers for the account of the British Government—
"and during the entire period of such construction, running over 20 years, our average profit has been £28,467 per boat, and the profit of Vickers accruing on this business has been larger than our proportion."
It means that wrapped up in the overhead charges in the Department that supplied submarines is £28,000 for the Electric Boat Company, and that amount sooner or later is paid by the British taxpayer. The witness, Mr. Carse, was asked by the chairman:
"That is substantially correct, so far as relates to your relations with Vickers, on British business? In any event, you made a percentage on all of the submarine building that Vickers did for the British Government?
Mr. CARSE: Yes, Sir."
That system has grown up. It is part of the arrangements which are made between the different great concerns in supplying munitions. It necessarily includes overhead charges, and we have only to peruse the evidence at this inquiry to see what other causes there are inflating overhead charges. I do not see how, under the existing system, we can ever escape from these inflations of prices. It is really inevitable so long as we continue the present system. Apart entirely from the worst of the revelations, out of which I make no capital, it is inevitable that the great firms concerned, seeking business all over the world, must necessarily incur very heavy expenditure and must necessarily inflate their office charges in consequence, and sooner or later the Contracts Department of this country has to pay the bill. My suggestion is that, so far as an examination of this system shows that it is not a success, on

1403
mere merits, as a business proposition, it is an undesirable practice, and it failed us in our time of need—such a time of need as is fresh within the memory of many men in this House.
I have tried to address myself to the realities of the case suggested by the Foreign Secretary as a justification for this system. I say that as a business proposition there is no justification for it, and when we look at it from the other point of view there is no case at all. One cannot imagine a case from the other side, because with every desire not to exaggerate the position I must point out that this business, if it is to flourish, can only flourish upon the giving of orders for armaments; can only flourish if it uses its agents up and down the world to obtain orders for armaments to the best of their ability; can only flourish if it encourages, directly or indirectly, by any sort of influence it can muster, propaganda which will lead to the giving of orders for armaments. It must be so. And then, of course, an influence like this, which is so penetrating, as it is, so persistent, so pernicious, ought to be removed, apart from other considerations.
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, having been driven to invent a difficulty in the last ditch, invented this one. Apart from all these difficulties, which were conjured up 13 years ago, and which, during his tenure of the office of Foreign Secretary for three years he has not attempted to deal with, the last difficulty he presents to us is that if Great Britain took the lead, which we suggest, we should be lonely, that we should give a lead which nobody would follow. Even that prospect need not dismay us, if it is the right thing to do, because I have tried to argue this case, and we do present it, not as a part of a mere doctrine of Socialism but as something which the experience of the nation has proved to be a source of weakness, and which is undeniably a danger to the peace of the world. I question very much whether Great Britain would be lonely. I think the nations of the world would open their eyes with wonder if they saw the National Government and the right hon. Gentleman giving a courageous lead in a matter of this kind. I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). I wish
1404
this Government would try to get away from the fog of tradition and come into the light and lead the nations.
10.20 p.m.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): At the beginning of my observations, I should like to say with what pleasure I listened to the thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hull (Mr. Law), though I did not find myself in agreement with all he said. He has an hereditary right to speak in this House. I agree with him that in many ways this Debate has been unsatisfactory, because the matter of the Debate is very strictly limited by the terms of the Motion. When you get into any Debate that deals with armaments or with questions that bear on foreign policy, the subjects that are near men's hearts are those eternal subjects of peace and war, and they have to be discussed from the aspect of what it is possible to do to-day. What is this Motion? It
"regrets the absence of any international agreement to deal with this admitted evil, and is of opinion that this country should set an example by prohibiting forthwith all private manufacture of and trade in armaments by British nationals."
That is the subject of our Debate, and it is constricted. We have had the good fortune to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) give us some of his recollections of the Ministry of Munitions, and I would make two observations on them. He said, in other words, that he took over that responsible duty in conditions absolutely unlike any that had ever existed in the world before. His facts were right, but his deductions, I think, were wrong. It may well be that he found what he complained of among the private manufacturers, but we were entering at that time into a world unfamiliar to everyone, and in which no one could foresee his way. It was at a time when no one had foreseen the extent of the armaments that would be required or that the regular soldier would ever imagine that the Territorial would be fit to fight as he did in the time that he took to train, when the most experienced artillery officers believed that the training Of a gunner was a matter of years and when the skilled workman said that it was impossible for women to work in munition works. We have seen all those things.

1405
We were all wrong at the beginning of the War, and we only slowly came to see the truth.
Mr. COCKS: We are still wrong now.
Mr. BALDWIN: After the recollections that have been given, to the great interest of the House, I will give the House my recollections of the Munitions Department. I will only give two. Before I entered on an official life, I was connected with a steel works which switched over parts of its. work to munitions. When we first started making shells we had no idea what to charge for them, because we had never made them before. We had no idea what they cost. We knew nothing about them. We asked advice from a very clever gentleman who come down from, the Ministry of Munitions, and the advice we got was: "Charge what you like for them."
Dr. ADDISON: I challenge that statement.
Mr. BALDWIN: He said: "We will take it all from you in the Munitions Levy."
Dr. ADDISON: I challenge that statement. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce any statement to show that a free opportunity was given like that, without it being said that it would be costed afterwards.
Mr. BALDWIN: Speaking from recollection, I cannot say that. [Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: Order!
Mr. COCKS: Order for both sides.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the last right hon. Gentleman who addressed the House got a very good hearing. He may have been interrupted once or twice, but now there is continual interruption. One thing I will have is a fair hearing for both sides.
Mr. BALDWIN: My other recollection is this I remember that a 15 per cent. increase in wages was given, and I remember that most mysteriously the wages of labourers, certainly in South Wales, were above the wages of skilled engineers, which very nearly led to a strike all through South Wales. Concessions were made to the engineers at some considerable expense—an expense which, at that time and in those circumstances, was justified—to smooth the matter over.
1406
I wish now to come back to the second part of the Motion, and then I propose to say a few words on the first part, which suggests dealing with an admitted evil by international agreement. Some of what I propose to say has been said already in the course of the Debate, but I wish to put briefly some considerations which I think are worthy of being taken into account, certainly by those who would naturally be opposed to this Motion, and also by those who will vote for it, and who some day may have it in their power to bring it into effect. I am quite sure that everyone who votes for this Motion must have thought out very carefully all its implications. I want to help them by drawing attention to some points which seem to me to be worthy of attention.
First of all, we have learned one thing in the course of the Debate to-day, and that is that the actual making of munitions is not necessarily morally wrong. That is interesting, because I thought that possibly that view might have been taken, but it has not been taken. That, of course, was a view which mutatis mutandis,, was taken in 1915, when, as the right hon. Gentleman, who, I think, became Minister of Munitions in that year, will remember, a scheme very nearly went through—and it received some support from the party to which I belong—for practically the nationalisation of the brewery trade. That scheme, however, failed. It failed because of the views of the extreme teetotallers, who said, "No; the brewery trade is an evil thing, and we will not have the Government dealing with an evil thing. The Government will make this evil thing respectable, and the last state would be worse than the first." I admit frankly that that ground has not been taken.
I wonder what the ground is. Is it the old objection of the Puritans to bear-baiting? It will be remembered that the Puritans objected to bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. Objection is taken to the private manufacture of munitions, not because it is a bad trade, but because people make money out of it. I have never heard any complaint that there is anything immoral in an employè taking his wages for making munitions even though they be high; but evidently it is wrong, in the view of hon. Members opposite, that anyone should make a profit out of munitions.

1407
I will come back to that question in a minute. Do hon. Members wish to get rid of it because of the alleged scandal? That is a tenable proposition, but I shall try to show; before I sit down, that the scandal can be dealt with, and dealt with thoroughly, by international control.
I was puzzled before the Debate began, because I thought, from some of the propaganda literature I have seen, that hon. Members would advocate the abolition of the private manufacture of arms on the ground that it would make for peace. No one, however, has, I think, put that forward, and I think that that reason, if reason it can be called—in inverted commas, let us say—has been put on one side. I am very glad to hear it. I think probably it is an attempt to get the principle of the nationalisation of industry accepted until such time as you can get control of all means of production. Our sole object, and the sole object of Governments hitherto, has been to secure the necessary armaments of this country, an object which by the terms of the Motion we know is an admittedly proper one for a Government to prosecute.
But my greatest objection to this proposal is my firm conviction that, just as prohibition in America had many unexpected results, unforeseen by millions of honest and earnest people who brought it about—it led to fresh forms of crime and fresh forms of drinking—so I believe that the prohibition of private manufacture, with its consequent corollary of only Government manufacture, would lead to an enormous increase of armaments not only in this country but throughout the world. I will try to develop that for a few moments. We have very little to guide us in the way of actual practice, but my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) touched with great discretion—I am going to use less discretion for I am going to mention names—on what is going on in the world. The only country which has a completely national manufacture of arms is Russia, and the production of arms in that country, particularly of tanks and aircraft, is prodigious. I am not finding fault with that. That is not the point of my argument. The point is that Government manufacture does not necessarily make for a reduction of arms. The country which has more practical
1408
Government control over the manufacture of arms than any other is France, and France is not a country which stands out at this moment as being distinguished for a reduction of arms. So the small amount of experience that we have today in State control, either complete or partial, shows that, at any rate, State control is perfectly consistent with a very large manufacture of armaments.
Are we quite sure that there would be no improper practices—I use a wide phrase. I am not so sure of that. Let us consider the question for a moment. Would Governments sell arms themselves? Governments, of course, in these days have one constant care—the employment of their people. I can think of other countries, without mentioning their names—I can think of our own—which would be very anxious to find employment for their people. There are a number of countries which make no arms at all. Is it proposed—these things have to be thought out—that the Governments of the armed States should say to those countries, "No, in no circumstances shall you be allowed to make arms or to have them," or will they sell to them, or will those countries themselves say, "No, we cannot depend on buying from a Government lest when we are belligerents we should get no arms. We will make arsenals for ourselves"? Until countries, say, in South America, have their own arsenals, think what the competition would be for any ships that might be going. Who would not be glad to have a cruiser from the Tyne or the Clyde? Or Italy might like to have a cruiser. What would the competition be? Suppose one of these countries that controls the manufacture of arms said to one of these States, "You can have a loan on condition that you place two cruisers with us." What would our Government do?
Does not that bring into the already complicated world of economic stress of competition between the nations one still more dangerous form of competition than there is to-day? I see grave difficulties there to which I have never discovered a solution, but doubtless hon. Members who have decided to vote for this Motion know exactly what the solution will be when the circumstances arise. Consider the situation envisaged in this Motion. I do not wish to go into any detail or

1409
dwell at any length over what has been said in the course of the Debate to-day. I will be as short as I can. The great difficulty that strikes me is this. The work dovetails very much between work which the firms do for armaments and work for peace. You have, on the one hand, say, for the Admiralty, propelling machinery of great dimensions and size which can be made in no dockyards, armour plate, big guns, big gun mountings, those are things, of course, peculiar to the Service. When you come to the big forgings for the big guns, those again are the same type of forgings used for hydrogenating plants, and steel of nearly all kinds in ships and plates can be used for many kinds of armament manufacture, as they can for boundless services in private life. The whole of the explosives practically are made in private works where they are made equally with explosives for quarries, for mines and for sport, and, as far as the Air Ministry goes, practically everything is made in private works. There, again, you have the aeroplane engine, and who can tell always whether an engine will be going into a Service plane or whether it will not? There, again, the one advantage which you have at the moment, with many keen brains working in rivalry and competition, is that you get quicker development than you would at a Government factory by reason of that very rivalry, newer types, better engines in a work which is still in its infancy.
There is one other thing to be remembered before we consider how we are going to make the change. There are two great shocks with regard to munition work. There is the shock of war when you have to expand, and almost the equally formidable shock of peace when you have to disband. There is no doubt in my view, that—I say this because of what was said from the opposite side of the House—the first is felt by armament works and the second is felt by private works. The absorption is more elastic in private works. There is a firm which during the War manufactured cartridges and afterwards turned to the manufacture of lipstick. It would mean, of course, a permanent number of discharges from Government works unless the Government works also were able to turn themselves into civilian industries, which, of course, they would do if hon. Members
1410
got what they really wanted, the nationalisation of the whole industry of the country.
Even from that sketch hon. Members will see how gigantic the problem is, and how incapable of solution without complete nationalisation. You will have to make up your mind at what point you will stop. Whatever point that is, whether you take in much or little, the expenditure is going to be colossal and the number of men for whom you will be responsible will be very great. If you allow on your establishment sufficient staff to help to stop the time-lag in the turn-over to war conditions, then a fortiori your problem becomes much more serious. In the nature of things you cannot have constant work in providing armaments for the services of this country. They are bound to fluctuate, however good the management and the regulation. It depends so much on the mood of the country, the mood of Parliament, the temper of the people, the outlook abroad and a hundred other things. Are you going to make stock or are you going to discharge men? These are practical problems, and I have no doubt that you have thought them out. Are you going to discharge your men right off the staff or are you going to put them on unemployment benefit to stand by against the time that you want them, and forbid them to get employment in private firms?
Now I come to another matter, and that is what is going to be the position of a candidate for Parliament vis-a-vis an armaments industry that is controlled by the Government It is not going to be easy. I could not help thinking this, when I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) the other day being returned for one of the constituencies for which I should be proud to sit, because it is full of Great Western men, who are the best men in the world; men of my old line. Suppose those men had been in a Government munitions factory. Suppose they were faced with a very close election, and one of the candidates said, "If I am returned to Parliament I will see that another 50,000 of you get a job." What a difficult argument to answer.
Dr. ADDISON: There were 400 men who got the sack one day not many weeks ago under the existing system.
Mr. BALDWIN: I have no doubt that that played a large part in bringing my right hon. Friend back to this House. That is my point. It would be perfectly impossible, even with reasons which made it necessary to reduce the number of workmen employed, because were were overstocked or because perhaps the Foreign Secretary was going to make a fresh appeal at Geneva at the Disarmament Conference, for any candidate to have the remotest chance of winning in any constituency controlled by munition workers if he went there and said: "For the good of the country I am going to have 5,000 of you put out of work." You would open the door to one of the most difficult and subtle forms of political corruption for the unhappy candidate, and God knows we have enough to worry about at elections without that.
Mr. HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I made a slight contribution to the Debate. A point was raised earlier in the day in regard to possible political corruption by having in a constituency arsenals or factories for the manufacture of munitions. I told the House, for what it was worth, that my constituency, one of the oldest arsenals in the world, sent me here to fight for peace.
Mr. BALDWIN: I am sure that it is done, and so shrewd a man as the hon. Member will realise that he has a good many companions. I have known the hon. Member for many years. We met in less happy days, in 1926. I am sure that if the hon. Member is once returned for a seat nobody can turn him out; you have only to look at him. But no testimony of that kind will make me doubt that here is a terrific danger, a danger to which we ought not to submit the country. I strongly oppose the proposition put forward on the grounds which I have briefly indicated, and, particularly, on the last ground, which I think is vital. We have at present what is, on the whole, the best system to provide for national defence at as little cost as possible to the taxpayer.
Having done my duty, briefly, to that part of the question, let me say a few words on the question of control. Control sounds a very easy and simple matter, but it has not always proved to be so in the past. While I shall never complain of hon. Members urging the Gov-
1412
ernment on or complaining about our being too slow, I do sometimes resent a little the criticism which is directed against us as though we were in a position among all the nations to do at any time exactly what we would. There is no better instance of this than the instance of the restriction on traffic in arms. No one in this House is more anxious than I to deal with this traffic and control it effectively. I had the honour of being Prime Minister when the 1925 Convention was arranged at Geneva. Many attempts had been made—I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite tried just as hard in their time as we did for many years—but the most important initiative undoubtedly was the Convention for the Supervision of International Trade in Arms, commonly called the 1925 Convention.
We signed and ratified that Convention as a Government, and it is one of the things upon which I look back with pride as having been allowed to take some part in it. That was nine years ago, and that Convention is still waste-paper because it has never been ratified by any considerable number of the nations among whom it was agreed. If those provisions had been put into force they would have proved an important contribution towards meeting the very anxieties which have been expressed to-day; if the Convention had been in force for the last nine years, nine-tenths of the charges which the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) quoted in his speech would not have been made because they would have been non-existent. I acknowledge that rebuffs like that are depressing. An enormous amount of work goes to the achievement even to get a Convention on traffic in arms. Your Foreign Secretary goes to Geneva, your staff from London are going backward and forwards, the whole thing is settled and you sign and ratify—and there is an end of it. But we are going back to Geneva to take up this matter again, and we are determined to get an effective Convention. We shall do our utmost to see that other nations sign and ratify it as we do ourselves. It may be of interest for the House to know that we have been considering this very matter within the last few days. We have been in touch with the President of the Disarmament Conference. We have expressed our views to him, and I am de-

1413
lighted to find that our views are in very close accord. And we are going to Geneva in the hope—the not unreasonable hope—that we may be able to accomplish something.
I wish that it had been possible to have widened, perhaps, the scope of this Debate, because these are anxious days in which we live. But I should like to assure the House, and particularly my own friends in the House, that in spite of all the disheartening events of the last year, we never lost sight of what must be the principal object—and I say this to bring no credit to ourselves—of any British Government, as it must be the principal object of every Government, and that is to maintain peace. There are many circumstances to-day which make it difficult. We are not always helped when conferences are taking place by criticisms and premature disclosures that are made. Things that look so small sometimes cast suspicion in the minds of those dealing with the subject, and your work may be set back for months by
some reckless word or criticism. I only mention that as one of the difficulties inseparable from working in a true democracy as we do.
I say that we are seeking peace, and I see no reason why the peace should not be maintained. I am no panic-monger; I am no scare-monger; I am no warmonger. And yet we have so great an heritage to maintain. We stand for so much in a world where from the West of Europe right across the continent of Asia there are great peoples whose cultural ideals are poles asunder from ours; and at a time like this while seeking peace, and while as I believe securing peace, we must never forget, while attacking no one, that we have a marvellous heritage to defend and hand on. In no circumstances must we fail in that trust.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 279.

Division No. 391.]

AYES.

[10.55 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

Milner, Major James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Nathan, Major H. L.

Banfield, John William

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

Paling, Wilfred

Batey, Joseph

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)

Parkinson, John Allan

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Groves, Thomas E.

Rathbone, Eleanor

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

Grundy, Thomas W.

Rea, Walter Russell

Buchanan, George

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cape, Thomas

Harris, Sir Percy

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

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hicks, Ernest George

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Cove, William G.

Holdsworth, Herbert

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

Curry, A. C.

Janner, Barnett

Thorne, William James

Daggar, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Tinker, John Joseph

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

West, F. R.

Davies, Stephen Owen

Kirkwood, David

White, Henry Graham

Dobbie, William

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Edwards, Charles

Lawson, John James

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Leonard, William

Wilmot, John

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Lunn, William

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

McGovern, John

Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

Burghley, Lord

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

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

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Albery, Irving James

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Burnett, John George

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

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Butler, Richard Austen

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

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

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Caine. G. R. Hall-

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

Boulton, W. W.

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Apsley, Lord

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Aske, Sir Robert William

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Assheton, Ralph

Boyce, H. Leslie

Carver, Major William H.

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

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Balniel, Lord

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

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Clarke, Frank

Barrie, Sir Charles Couper

Buchan, John

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Conant, R. J. E.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Cook, Thomas A.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Cooke, Douglas

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

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

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Iveagh, Countess of

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Crooke, J. Smedley

Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

Ray, Sir William

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

Jennings, Roland

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Crossley, A. C.

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Remer, John R.

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Knight, Holford

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

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

Knox, Sir Alfred

Rickards, George William

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Law Sir Alfred

Ross, Ronald D.

Denville, Alfred

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)

Dickie, John P.

Lees-Jones, John

Runge, Norah Cecil

Dixey, Arthur C. N.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

Doran, Edward

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Drewe, Cedric

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Salt, Edward W.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Duggan, Hubert John

Llewellin, Major John J.

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

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

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Savery, Samuel Servington

Dunglass, Lord

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

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Eastwood, John Francis

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

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

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow.in-F.)

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

McKie, John Hamilton

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Smithers, Sir Waldron

Fox, Sir Gifford

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Somervell, Sir Donald

Fremantle, Sir Francis

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Ganzonl, Sir John

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

Spens, William Patrick

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

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Glossop, C. W. H.

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

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

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

Storey, Samuel

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Strauss, Edward A.

Gower, Sir Robert

Martin, Thomas B.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Granville, Edgar

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Graves, Marjorie

Monsen, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Tate, Mavis Constance

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Moreing, Adrian C.

Templeton, William P.

Greene, William P. C.

Morgan, Robert H.

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Grigg, Sir Edward

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

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

Grimston, R. V

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

Morrison, William Shepherd

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Moss, Captain H. J.

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

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Munro, Patrick

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Nall, Sir Joseph

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Hanbury, Cecil

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

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

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

North, Edward T.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Hartland, George A.

Nunn, William

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

O'Connor, Terence James

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Ormiston, Thomas

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter

Patrick, Colin M.

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

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

Pearson, William G.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George

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

Peat, Charles U.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Hopkinson, Austin

Penny, Sir George

Womersley, Sir Walter

Horsbrugh, Florence

Percy, Lord Eustace

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Petherick, M.

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

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Powell, Lieut,Col. Evelyn G. H.

Mr. Blindell and Commander Southby.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
It being after Eleven, of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
The Orders of the day were read, and postponed.

SLUM CLEARANCE, WITHYPOOL, SOMERSET.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
11.7 p.m.
Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: This is the first time since I have had the honour of being a Member of this House that I have thought a question of such vital importance that I have asked to be allowed to address the House on the Motion for the Adjournment. The incident to which I wish to refer did not occur in my own constituency but in that of my hon., and gallant Friend the Member for Taunton (Lieut.-Colonel Gault), who, unfortunately, is away after a serious illness, and although I have kept him informed of the circumstances up-to-date, I am taking this action on my own responsibility. There are only a few minutes in which to put the matter before the House, and I must therefore concentrate on one or two special points. I would add that I have already given the Minister a full and detailed description of the incident. I will ask the House to visualise a real tragedy which is being enacted in a small village on Exmoor. The thing is happening at a place called Withypool which I should think is unprecedented in English history. What is happening there savours more of what we knew in wartime as Prussianism or what we would expect to happen in Soviet Russia to-day.
The question concerns the demolition of certain cottages. Withypool is a village on Exmoor open to the four winds of heaven. It is right out on the moor and is one of the most rural villages in England. There are two incidents to which I wish to draw attention. One is that two cottages quite near the church were ordered to be demolished. The church authorities agreed and, wanting to be helpful, said they would not oppose the order for demolition, but they hoped the cottages might be left, and, if so, the partition would be knocked down and they would be used in future not for human habitation but as a village church hall. This request was ignored. They were not allowed to retain the cottages for that purpose, and men arrived in a lorry from many miles away. The cottages were demolished, and the rubble was sold on the site to pay for the ex-
1418
penses of demolition. That is the first case. It is serious, but not nearly so serious as the second case.
The second case is that of two cottages, of which there are many of the same kind in Withypool, and if the policy—whether it be the policy of the Ministry of Health or the local authority, I cannot find out—is allowed to be pursued, it seems to me that every cottage in Withypool will be scheduled for demolition. The two cottages in question are occupied by old people over 70 years of age. They are their own property and they are the owner occupiers. The cottages belonged to their fathers and grandfathers before them. They are the only possessions of these old people, and if they are demolished there will be no compensation and the site value will be nil. The Rector of Withypool, who is the chairman of the parish meeting, has been to see these cottages several times. He states that they are clean, warm, dry and weather-proof, and very dear to the inhabitants. If they are turned out, there is nowhere in the village for the inhabitants to go. This order for demolition is the result of the operation of the 1930 Act which was passed by a Socialist Government. I cannot believe that even a Socialist Government intended that it should operate in this severe and harsh way on innocent old people in country cottages, as it is doing at Withypool.
I would like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I am with him and I will support him to the full in the attempt of the Ministry to clear the slums. When I put this question down it was answered under the heading "Slum Clearance." To call these two cottages slums is absolutely not a true statement of the fact. It is difficult to find out who is behind it. It is either the inspector or the local authority, and I understand the inspector is a sympathetic and charming man who is only carrying out the orders given to him, which, I believe, are distasteful to him. The only motive behind it is that the local authority must demolish in order to get the statutory subsidy to erect cottages in other districts, but in this widespread district, the cottages which may be erected will be many miles away from the old homes of these delightful old people. Although I

1419
welcome the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary, I regret, after all the correspondence that has passed and in view of the importance we attach to this question, that the Minister is not here to-night.
When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, it is not a bit of good his sheltering himself or his officials, or the local authority behind the letter of the law. The spirit in which these orders are being carried out is un-English and unfair. I ask him a definite question. In reply to one question he said—I am quoting from memory—that he had no direct authority over the local authority. May I ask him whether he has any indirect authority; has he any powers whatever to prevent the demolition of these cottages; what influence he can bring to bear in this matter and whether he and all the officials of England put together are able to shelter themselves behind the statement: "We are only administering the Act"? In that case I ask him whether, in view of the fact that new legislation is about to be introduced, and in view of the details which I have already given to the Minister in full and have summarised to-night, he believes that any House of Commons would find fault with him if he were to say "I am about to introduce new legislation to deal with these difficult matters, and with the new circumstances which have arisen in the working of that Act; all the consequences of which could not be foreseen when it was drafted, and I will say to the local authority that these cottages must not be demolished."
It may seem a small thing to the House to demolish two cottages in a small Exmoor village, but if they are demolished a blow will be struck at the liberties of the people of England. The Parliamentary Secretary must realise that this case raises a wide principle and I ask him to use all the power and influence he has to prevent these cottages being demolished, to prevent misery and hopelessness overtaking these old inhabitants, who have lived in those cottages all their lives. These cottages may not be in accordance with all that is required under the Act, but they are clean and their occupants are happy. I ask him to do all in his power to see that the cottages are not demolished.
11.18 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) has raised a matter of difficulty in a very reasonable way, and in the few moments at my disposal I will try to answer the many questions he has put to me. But I must point out at the start that to say that because a local authority is exercising a power of demolition which it has enjoyed for a generation something is being done which has never happened in the world before, is really a gross exaggeration. He started his statement with that suggestion, and I beg leave to differ on that point; but apart from that, the hon. Member has raised a case of great difficulty. My trouble is that I am not yet in possession of the facts, but I am prepared to accept as true the facts as he presented them.
Sir W. SMITHERS: I am sorry to interrupt, but has the Minister not had my long letter stating the facts?
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We must be allowed to inquire whether there is another side, and what that other side is. It is very difficult for me to give a. reply when I am not yet in a position to know the point of view of the local authority and whether the statement put forward by the hon. Member is absolutely correct. Subject to that, I will make a reply.
This is a case of two houses against which the local authority has taken, action under the 1930 Act. Under Section 19 the local authority has power to demolish individual houses. If the medical officer makes representations on the subject, the local authority can consider them, and if they are in accord with the medical officer, a notice is sent to the owner stating at what time and at what place he can state his case. At the time when the notice is served, it is stated that the owner will have a chance of stating what works he will carry out in order to put that property into a state of repair. When the owner appears before the local authority, he is asked for an undertaking, either that the necessary works will be carried out to render the house fit for habitation, or that the property will not be used for human habitation.

1421
I understand that this gentleman is to appear before the local authority on 12th November. What right has the owner when he appears before a local authority? What the hon. Member has said may be true. The owner may be 70 or 75 years of age, and his father and his grandfather may have lived in the house. That makes the house something like 150 years old.
Sir W. SMITHERS: Two-hundred years old.
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That makes the situation worse than I thought. But let us assume that the house is in perfect condition. What is the remedy? Parliament laid down the remedy in 1930. Parliament said that the Ministry of Health should not be trusted to hear appeals, and that an owner who was dissatisfied with the decision of a local authority should have the right to go to the county court. Whether the owner will exercise that right in this case I cannot say. To the best of my knowledge, the case presented by the hon. Gentleman has not been considered by the appropriate local authority.
Sir JOSEPH NALL: That is the second case. What about the first case?
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I must deal with one case at a time. Before 1930 there was an appeal to the Ministry of Health. Had that been so now, this situation would not have happened, but Parliament decided that the appeal should be taken away from the Ministry of Health and should go to a court of law. That being so, we have no jurisdiction whatever. How could Parliament interfere with the decision of the court? The local authority is exercising a statutory right which it possessed long before 1930. The remedy for the owner was given by Parliament, and we have no power to intervene. How could Parliament intervene against the judiciary 4 The hon. Gentleman then went on to point out that this cottage was in a rural area and that the case of a rural area was very different from that of an urban area. There he was on safe ground. But anyone who knows anything about slum clearance knows that different considerations apply. That does not mean that a rural authority is not charged with the statutory duty of dealing with
1422
unfit houses, but obviously, in a rural locality, rural considerations must be taken into account. The plain fact is that every housing authority is an autonomous authority. We have no power to intervene except to see that the law, according to the Act passed by Parliament, is carried out. If an authority is carrying out the Act, as this one is—
Sir W. SMITHERS: No.
Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My hon. Friend will pardon me. I have shown how, for the last generation, it has had this power and statutory duty. If the local authority is carrying out the Act, we have no power to intervene. What my hon. Friend really wants now is that the whole question of slum clearance should be governed from Whitehall, but, honestly, we cannot do it.
What is the remedy? The remedy, surely, is the remedy that applies in any area, namely, that, if any local authority is acting in an alleged arbitrary fashion, that local council has to come up for election. That is the whole principle of local government; that is the whole principle of democracy. My hon. Friend asks whether, if we cannot help by law, there is no way out? What we can do, and what we have done, is this: Although the local authority is autonomous, we are in partnership with all the local authorities in housing matters. We cannot say to them, "You cannot do what Parliament has enabled you to do," but we can advise, and use our power of persuasion in all housing matters; and, when my hon. Friend raised this question, we sent down an inspector, and we are now awaiting his report. When that report comes, it may be that further facts will come to light. That is really the difficulty of my position, that I cannot at this moment state a case, not really knowing both sides. When that report Domes I will consult my hon. Friend and see whether any action can be taken. The only other point I would mention is that he rather implied that the local authority was demolishing these cottages in order to get the subsidy. There is no obligation on a local authority to rehouse in the case of individual demolition. All that Parliament said was that, if a house was

1423
demolished, the subsidy was available for the building of a new house should the local authority so decide; and of course a good local authority has the moral duty to provide the requisite house as near as possible to the demolished cottage. Obviously I cannot criticise the local authority when I do not know the facts.
1424
I can only say what a good local authority can do and, when the report of the inspector comes in, I will consult my hon. Friend again.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  IMPORTED LIQUID EGGS (INSPECTION).
  IMPORTED LIQUID EGGS (INSPECTION).
  DEATH AFTER VACCINATION, BIRMINGHAM.
  DEATH AFTER VACCINATION, BIRMINGHAM.
  DENTAL BENEFIT.
  DENTAL BENEFIT.
  BIRTH CONTROL.
  BIRTH CONTROL.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.
  PILOTAGE.
  PILOTAGE.
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS, LONDON (CENSORSHIP).
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS, LONDON (CENSORSHIP).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (UNATTENDED MOTOR LORRIES).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (UNATTENDED MOTOR LORRIES).
SCOTLAND.
  GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING).
  GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING).
  SHEEP STOCK VALUATIONS.
  SHEEP STOCK VALUATIONS.
AGRICULTURE.
  BACON (STATISTICS).
  BACON (STATISTICS).
  HOPS MARKETING SCHEME.
  HOPS MARKETING SCHEME.
  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, VISCOUNT MERSEY on the Woolsack.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

INCITEMENT TO DISAFFECTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Penalty on persons endeavouring to seduce members of His Majesty's forces from their duty or allegiance.
1. If any person maliciously and advisedly endeavours to seduce any member of His Majesty's forces from his duty or allegiance to His Majesty he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, after "If," to insert "in time of war or national emergency." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Arnold is to insert, after the word "If" in line 6, the words "in time of war or national emergency." Let me say at once that if the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill so prefers it, I and my noble friend have no objection to these words being put in Clause 2 if the subsequent wording of Clause 2 is altered—that is a drafting matter—or, indeed, the words could go into a separate clause. The reason why it may be found more convenient to the Parliamentary draftsman to have it in another place is that at first sight any one reading the Bill amended as I propose might suppose that any evil-disposed person is able to incite the soldiers and sailors of the King to mutiny
202
at other times than in time of war or national emergency, and that this is therefore a free licence to such people to do their worst. Of course your Lordships are aware that that is not the case at all. Indeed, the Secretary of State for War made it perfectly clear that the existing laws enable proceedings to be taken against any person or persons who maliciously and advisedly endeavour to seduce any member of His Majesty's forces.
That is not the complaint at all of the noble Viscount. He and his Government and his minions are armed with all the necessary powers for dealing with people who endeavour to seduce the forces. What they do want is additional powers to enter private houses in search of evidence. That is the object of the Bill as the noble Viscount with great lucidity, if I may say so, explained it to us on Second Reading. I think I have made it clear to your Lordships that the object of this Amendment is not to give any licence to people to do what they cannot do already, or to give greater freedom to people to commit mutinous acts except in time of war or national emergency. Therefore my noble friend and myself have no particular reason for inserting the words here so long as the intention can be made clear by putting them in somewhere else. But Clause 1 does govern the rest of the Bill. The very wide powers sought in Clause 2 refer to the offence committed under Clause 1, and therefore it seems to us it would be better to amend the wording of Clause 1 by the addition of these words, although, as I say, if they went in after "If" at the begginning of Clause 2, if that would have the same effect, and if the noble Viscount is advised that that would meet the case better, we should be quite content.
The reason for proposing this Amendment is that we want to narrow the scope of the Bill to a time of national emergency. Admittedly in war the Executive must have additional powers. Nowadays in war, when the whole nation is engaged, all personal liberty goes to the wall; that we know. It is one of the prices we pay for militarism; we have to accept that. Now we come to the case of a national emergency. A state of national emergency was defined in the 1920 Act—the Emergency Powers Act.
It may be declared by the Government of the day. It has certain effects. It corresponds to the general mobilisation order in a country enjoying conscription. I myself come under the proclamation of a national emergency, so does my noble friend below me, Lord Marley. When we ceased to be officers on the respective lists of our forces we went on to the emergency list. I am liable to be called up on a declaration of national emergency; I am automatically called up as an officer on the emergency list. All the reservists in all the forces are automatically called up in the same way.
Your Lordships will remember it was actually done once since the War. I believe I am right in saying it was in 1921, during the régime of the Coalition Government, when there was a very long-drawn-out mining strike or lock-out, and thousands and thousands of Army reservists, Naval reservists, and officers of other ranks were called up and spent weeks in camp. I believe my noble friend Lord Marley was called up on that occasion and spent weeks in camp. I was not called up because I was at that time a member of the other House and, with other members in a similar position to myself, was exempted. Otherwise two or three hundred Members of Parliament would have had to go, and I suppose the Government's majority would have been in danger, so they said DO Member of Parliament was to be called away. Whether that applied to your Lordships' House I do not know. It is clear what a time of national emergency is; it is declared, it is statutory, and it is quite circumscribed.
The Government in introducing this Bill declared that they wanted certain powers to deal with people who incite the troops, but nobody has pretended, nobody has claimed and nobody has complained that there is any unrest in the forces at the present time. I think that is common ground between us. The noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party in this House (the Marquess of Reading) said that if a case was made out he would be prepared to give the Government additional powers. I think he had in mind the consideration that in case of war the Government might ask for exceptional powers, and the Liberal Party would support them in that demand, but in time of peace, in ordinary times like the present, when the country is still
204
peaceful despite the three years rule of the present Government, in times like this, when the country is tranquil and when, apparently, on the horizon there is no real danger of any change in the situation—I do not mean political change, I mean the state of mind of the people of the country—why should these powers be granted to the Government, powers which nobody likes, which nobody defends, which the noble Viscount himself does not enjoy asking this House for?
The noble Viscount himself admits that this is a painful duty. He did not use those words exactly, but he rightly led your Lordships to suppose he did not enjoy asking for these powers of search, of invasion of the privacy of the home. He would not ask for these powers unless he had to. The only person who has enjoyed this Bill, in his own words, is the Prime Minister. He has voted for the Bill with the greatest pleasure. Nobody else, not the noble Viscount, not the Attorney-General in another place, not the Ministers who have attempted to defend the Bill in the country have enjoyed it. The Bill has been a necessity forced upon them, because otherwise, they say, they cannot deal with certain obnoxious persons. But obviously that is for a time of emergency, not now. There is no trouble now and, therefore, I offer this solution to the Government as a helpful way of getting them out of a difficulty, the difficulty being that they have aroused an amount of suspicion and indignation in the country.
I would also ask the noble Viscount and the members of the Government present to think about another aspect of this matter. Have they considered the effect of this Bill, and of the controversy it aroused long before it came to your Lordships' House? Have they considered the effect of this Bill on foreign opinion? This is very germane to the object of this Amendment. The foreigner reading our newspapers, following all that happens in this country, is made aware that the Government are apparently alarmed about the loyalty of the forces, that apparently the Admiralty is alarmed about the loyalty and discipline of the seamen, or that the Minister for War himself is alarmed about the reliability of the soldiers, or the Air Minister, for all I know, may have been alarmed as to what cadets and airmen generally

205
may do if a few more leaflets are left about in their mess rooms and places which they frequent.
People are always ready to paint the picture of this country black. We saw a very good example of it three years ago when the present Government was formed. About our financial position at that time there were alarmist reports in the newspapers, very largely exaggerated for a deliberate purpose. Foreigners took them seriously. They thought this country was driving headlong to ruin. Then there was a real run on the gold stocks of the Bank of England. To-day what is the situation? I do not want to rake up the matter again, but we had one most unfortunate event in a squadron of His Majesty's Navy three years ago. That was terribly exaggerated by the American and foreign newspapers. I had newspapers sent to me from abroad which painted the picture in the blackest colours. In every report it was said that the Government was trembling in its shoes, and all the rest of it. Now what happens? Admittedly, it is not because of these events that this Bill was introduced. Again we were told that there were plots against the troops and their loyalty, plots against the discipline of the Navy and that these powers had irritated and outraged the good sense of the people of this country, and were asked for by the Government reluctantly.
The foreigner reading of these things says that there must be something very wrong indeed in England, and when such ideas are entertained abroad, naturally they weaken our prestige abroad, and weaken our influence for good—I hope it always will be an influence for good. If my words are accepted the situation will be very different. These are special powers that the Government feel they must have in case of a sudden emergency, the danger of war, whatever it is. But in peaceful England, in reasonably contented England in spite of all its present trials, that these things should be asked for is a danger signal in the eyes of our friends and certainly of our enemies abroad, and will be so represented. If these words which I propose are inserted then the position is made much clearer. I think they are reasonable words, and they will go far to remove some of the hostility to the Bill which persists and is likely to persist while it remains on the Statute Book. Quite sincerely I offer
206
them as a means of helping the Government out of the nasty mess into which they have got themselves.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, after ("If") insert ("in time of war or national emergency").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD MARLEY: I want very briefly to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. But I first wish to correct him on a small point of detail in connection with our liability to service. It is quite true that I was on the reserve of officers and was called up on the occasion of the mining trouble in, I think, 1921. I well remember that at that time in my barracks there was another officer of similar rank to me who was a Conservative candidate for Parliament. He was considered too dangerous to be put actually in command of troops engaged in this ticklish job of aiding the civil power and I was therefore kept in barracks to look after him. We two ran the barracks between us. Each of us had, I think, four companies and we very successfully drew large sums of money, which in my case went to aid the strikers. Unfortunately I am no longer liable to be called up because I am not as young as the noble Lord behind me. I am over fifty and therefore, although I was on the reserve of officers, I am no longer liable to be called up.
The point about this Amendment is that the Government have not produced a single case of disaffection among the troops in time of peace which justifies the tremendous breadth of this first clause. The only disaffection I can remember was in the time of national emergency, when large numbers of men who were called up were called up at a time which prevented them carrying through their normal work to earn a living. Where I was then, in Hampshire, large numbers of men were engaged in agriculture, on smallholdings and allotments, and immense trouble and difficulty and considerable disaffection were caused amongst those who were called up. But apart from the national emergency and apart from a time of war, I have yet to learn of a single instance of disaffection resulting from the activities of any members of the public, or even members of your Lordships' House, which justifies the breadth of this Bill. We realise perfectly well the

207
difficulties that face a Government when a war is imminent, but to propose this sort of measure at a time of profound peace without any evidence of its necessity seems to me to justify the suggestion made by a noble Lord during the Second Reading debate, that there is some sinister motive behind the Bill. I notice that while the noble Viscount has explained certain reasons which were not a justification for the Bill, he has been very careful to avoid giving the actual reasons why the Government have introduced this Bill. I think it at least advisable, and from the country's point of view most desirable, that the Government should explain why they have introduced this Bill and given Clause 1 such a breadth of application.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I have no wish to offer undue obstruction to this Bill, but I look upon this Amendment as one of the most important on the Paper. Reading through the report of my speech in the Second Reading debate I notice that I asked the Government if they had got the breeze up. Perhaps that was not a Parliamentary expression, but I would like to ask them now if they really have any fear of any future insurrection, because as the Bill stands now it would appear that they have such a fear. If my noble friend's Amendment is accepted then the Bill would only be used in real times of national emergency. Do the Government really suggest that there is going to be war to-morrow morning, let us say, or war during their term of office? Or do they suggest that Sir Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts are going to cause insurrection? Or have they any real fear, as would appear from Second Reading speeches, of the influence of Moscow and that our Communists are going to start trouble in the country?
I have yet to learn that Communists in this country have gained sufficient power to be taken really seriously. I have yet to learn that even Sir Oswald Mosley, in spite of the action of police in coming out with their autogiro and employing such enormous numbers of men at the Hyde Park rally, is a real force in the country. It may be that the Government are frightened either of him or the Communists, but if they are frightened neither of him nor the Communists, why will they not accept this exceedingly reasonable Amendment? If
208
this Bill had been introduced in 1914, before the War, one would have understood it. One would have understood in those days that rebellion in Ulster really necessitated a Bill of this description. But to-day there is no budding revolution that I have heard of in this country. It may be that the Cabinet know more about it, and if that be the case I hope the noble Viscount will tell us where this budding revolution is coming from.
There is one other point to which I would like to refer, and that is the influence of this Bill on foreign opinion. As my noble friend has stated, the introduction of Bills like this naturally has a great effect on the foreign public. It is quite possible, I think, that this Bill may be regarded in Germany as the thin end of the wedge of Fascism. If the Government agree to accept this Amendment it will make it perfectly clear that we are not really worried at the present moment about the condition of affairs here. One would have thought that the Government, instead of introducing a Bill of this description—which I think I may say is liked by very few people in the country—would have shown more interest in the Poor Law, for instance, in the depressed areas, in the people who are living on the verge of starvation to-day. Not a bit of it. They are interested in Bills to give them these powers which in my belief, and I think in the view of all my noble friends, are certainly unnecessary. I very sincerely hope that the Government will accept this Amendment and make it clear, not only to the public of England, but to the public in foreign countries, that they do not suspect in the future any uprising in England, that the Bill is only for a time of real emergency and not for to-day.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I should like to emphasise one of the points made by my noble friends because I think it is really a point of substance. It is the fact—I am afraid the damage has been done already—that this Bill has given the impression abroad that the Government are nervous. I think that is extremely unfortunate, because there is no justification for it whatsoever. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi said with regard to the condition of His Majesty's forces, and

209
that no sort of evidence has been produced that the pamphlets distributed have had the smallest effect. I heard of one instance where a leaflet of this description had been circulated and was brought on board one of His Majesty's ships. The captain was told that this leaflet was being circulated to his men, and his only reply was: "Pin it up on the notice board," so that everybody might laugh at it. That is the real spirit in which the sort of leaflet which is being distributed should be taken. If the noble Viscount would accept this Amendment, it would at any rate show that the Government did not intend to widen the scope of this Bill by applying it to ordinary peaceful times when there is absolutely no justification for it, but intended to restrict it to moments when there was an emergency.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: When the noble Viscount replies I hope he will express the view of the Government in relation to the addition of the words proposed by the present Amendment. What strikes me, and what I certainly would like him to consider, is that if these words are introduced in Clause 1, the difficulty will be that they relate to an offence which is already an offence but will limit the offence to a time of national emergency or a time of war. That will be a most unfortunate result. I rather gathered from what fell from the noble Lord who moved the Amendment that he had some doubts about the insertion of these words in this clause. Their insertion, of course, would have an effect upon the whole Bill. We know quite well that the law as it at present stands is quite sufficient to meet the offence. There is no doubt about that, and we are not discussing that. There is no controversy upon it; the Government are of the same opinion. But it is still difficult to understand why it was necessary to introduce this clause at all.
The words are rather different from those of the Acts as they stand at the present day. I am not. discussing that matter because I have already made some observations upon it, but I am concerned about the question of the addition of these words, and I really would ask the noble Viscount to tell us whether I would not be right in stating (as I think I am alter the short consideration that I have been able to give to it) that the effect of
210
the proposed insertion would be to limit this offence to a time of war. Of course in time of war you do not need the limitation because an offence of this character would be dealt with at once by emergency legislation, but any addition here would certainly interfere with the law as it at present stands. If that is right, this insertion must be out of place here. When we come to discuss it in relation to search I shall have some other observations to make, but I would prefer to wait until then and until we know where we are with regard to this Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would it be better if this Amendment were withdrawn and, if the Lord Chairman would permit, if it were moved in line 10 after the word "If" in Clause 2? I think if my noble friend behind me would agree to that being done it would be better. I would be quite willing to do that. I have seen the difficulty which the noble Marquess has mentioned and have tried to express it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): As long as we do not have the same speeches over again on line 10 I have no objection.
LORD SNELL: We are entitled to say what we like on line 10.
LORD STRABOLGI: No, I am prepared formally to move if the Lord Chairman will allow me to do that?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: If the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment here and hand in his Amendment in another place in the form of a manuscript Amendment, I think that would be the best way of carrying out the wishes of your Lordships.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after "seduce", to insert "other than by an article in a newspaper". The noble Earl said: The importance of this Amendment is that as Clause 1 stands at the present moment it may be interpreted by our Courts of Law so as to trespass very considerably upon the freedom of the Press to produce in its

211
columns any ideas it thinks fit, and upon the freedom of individuals to express in public ideas which are likely to be reported in the columns of the Press. That is the object of having a proviso to exclude the daily Press from the operation of this clause. Take an example of what might happen if newspapers were to fall in the same category as pamphlets which might be circulated among the troops or in the Navy. A newspaper might contain, for instance, a pacifist article, an article urging that force should be used in no circumstances, or an article written by a champion of one of the political theories such as anarchism, syndicalism or communism, which maintains that change and progress can only come about by sudden leaps and, if necessary, by the use of force. If a newspaper were to contain a purely theoretical article of that kind and if a copy of that paper were to fall into the hands of a member of His Majesty's forces, then immediately the newspaper would become legally liable. This liability would clearly extend to newsagents, to the publishers if they had copies of the paper, to the printers who put the article in type and to journalists who might contribute to the paper, not to mention those public men whose speeches were reported, and who in that way became liable to prosecution.
The freedom of the Press to express any views it chooses is surely one of our most ancient and most precious liberties. If we look back we shall see that some of our greatest men have always stood for absolute and unlimited freedom for people to express in print and in the daily Press whatever views they may seriously hold. Milton, writing on a similar subject, asserted that to kill a book was worse than to kill a living individual, and surely the same thing applies to a newspaper article if that article contains ideas—general ideas, political ideas, philosophical or religious ideas—which naturally and inevitably are infinitely more important than the mere physical organism which they happen to inhabit. It is essential that the Press should be free, not merely because freedom is of value for all civilised countries and for all cultured individuals, but because it is impossible to run a country on democratic lines or to govern by persuasion and argument unless ideas
212
are able to circulate without any intervention, without any interruption, without any curtailment by the executive strength of the State.
After all, a soldier or a sailor is a citizen as well as a member of His Majesty's defence forces, and as a citizen he is entitled to know every idea which political Parties or religious groups may wish to express, in order that when the time comes for him to exercise his right and privilege of registering a vote he may be able to perform the essential function of citizenship, which is to contribute an instructive judgment to the public good. The noble Viscount who is answering on behalf of the Government may quite possibly say that these fears are absolutely unjustified, that this clause will never be interpreted so as to limit or curtail the freedom of the Press, and the freedom of individuals to express themselves in public. I am not questioning for a moment the sincerity of the noble Viscount when he makes that answer for himself I am not questioning for a moment the honesty of the Government which he supports, if he claims that that is their view; but on the other hand, if this clause does not intend to alter the existing law surely the Amendment is perfectly harmless.
Surely it can be made clear to the public that the Government do not intend to make any inroad upon the freedom of the Press. Surely it can be made perfectly plain that the Government can deal with incitement to mutiny or revolt in the Press by the existing laws, and that this particular measure does not alter the situation at all. In that case I hope the Government will be ready to accept the Amendment. On the other hand, I think we must consider the future as well as the present, and it may not be altogether improbable to say that Governments are bound to change in the future, and that even National Governments are bound to be superseded by other Governments. In that case emergencies may arise when the clause in question will be entirely differently interpreted. For instance, we see in Europe a wave of dictatorship, and democracy everywhere supplanted. Supposing a Government in this country were to decide that it wished to rule alone and without opposition. It could then very easily use this Bill to crush its opponents, by making them guilty of sedition and incitement, and in that case

213
we should see what has happened everywhere—namely, the armed forces being made the blind tool of the existing régime, when it tries to stamp out its enemies in order to establish its supremacy once for all.
That is one possibility. Another is this. Supposing we are in a situation where war may be declared. The only war in which we can participate, owing to our present international obligations, is a war in defence of the collective peace system. We are pledged to that. But so far no war has been fought in defence of a collective peace system. Is it not possible that an occasion may arise, similar to those that have arisen in the past, when, owing to economic interests in other parts of the world and rivalries with other great. Powers, or crises arising from our great capital. possessions abroad, the Government decides that it will enter into a private war and neglect the general obligations into which it has entered? In those circumstances, surely it would be the duty of those who believe in our existing obligations to assert and express their views as strongly as possible; but in order to make certain that they will have the troops at their command so soon as the ultimatum is sent the Government will not be over-scrupulous, and will not respect the precedents set up by preceding Governments. It may easily stamp out all articles produced in the Press, and all the individuals who try to speak in favour of abstaining from a war that would in the circumstances be a criminal war. On those grounds I am moving this Amendment, and I sincerely hope the Government will see its way to insert a few words to make it explicit that no daily paper will be subject to legal proceedings under this Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7,, after ("seduce") insert ("other than by an article in a newspaper").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: I would like to make a comment on the proposition which has been put, because I find it exceedingly confusing. I happen to be a critic of this Bill, as I said on the Second Reading, and hope to do what I can to make it better than it is, but I cannot understand what the noble Earl is really standing for. Does he or does he not condemn the crime envisaged in
214
this Bill? If he presses the Amendment which he has moved it surely means that he does not condemn the crime, because if that crime can be managed to be confined to a newspaper, everyone who wishes to commit this crime will cease to publish pamphlets and leaflets and will confine himself to publishing newspapers, and he will be able to carry on propaganda of this kind. So far as I am concerned, as I said on the Second Reading, I condemn this crime without qualification at all.
The thing that seems to me to be wrong about the Bill is the right of search and the powers conferred upon the Executive, but that the crime itself is reprehensible, and one that would be most disastrous to noble Lords opposite, when they perhaps become members of a Government, I feel confident. Therefore I put, it to the noble Earl that he is falling into the same difficulty as the noble Lord who has just had to withdraw his Amendment in order to move it on a later clause. The first clause of this Bill is a good clause. It is a clause which condemns the crime, and I think my noble friend opposite made a bad slip, which he recognised perfectly well when he had to withdraw his Amendment. Now the noble Earl also is doing nothing more than this, that under a disguise of belief in the liberty of the Press he proposes to leave open the opportunity of committing a crime which I believe is a crime noble Lords on both sides of the House ought definitely to condemn.
LORD SNELL: I hope your Lordships will not accept the last definition of the purpose or result of this Amendment should it be carried. The difficulty is really not that which the noble Lord opposite has placed before your Lordships' House, and I trust the Government will not reject this Amendment without sonic serious consideration. The facts, as I understand them, are that those who are in responsible positions in the Press world are alarmed at the possibilities of trouble coming to them under this particular Bill. We on this side of the House are not accustomed to receive from the Press any favours. We are thankful if we are fairly reported, and if we are noticed at all; but we get no gratuities from the Press. Nevertheless we believe that the Press is an honorable profession, and, though it may be as liable

215
to fall into error as other people, yet the honour of the craft of a journalist is one that will always be in the minds of those responsible at least for the English Press. Now the difficulty is really that of estimating properly what is dangerous in those circumstances and what is not. An editor in good faith may allow a comment which some military minded person with information or with prejudices that the editor has not at his disposal may think harmful; then the whole of the Press is involved. We submit that the full purpose of His Majesty's Government would be served if it were to make this difference in regard to the liberty of the Press. We have had singularly little in modern British history to complain of in regard to the faults of the Press and I think we should he doing no injury to the nation, and removing from those who are responsible for the Press a great anxiety, if this Amendment were accepted.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: When I listen to the speeches of honourable members opposite I begin to despair of inducing noble Lords on that side of the House either to read the Bill or to form the faintest idea of what is in it. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment told us that if a newspaper published an opinion as to Fascism or something of that kind in perfect good faith and meaning no harm, and some malicious or foolish person were to introduce that into the hands of a soldier or sailor, the writer in the newspaper, and the speaker of the speech which was reported in the newspaper, and the printer of the newspaper all became liable for prosecution under this Bill. Well, he has only got to look at the Bill to see how ludicrous that suggestion is, because the Bill which he is purporting to amend begins by saying that
"If any person maliciously and advisedly endeavours to seduce any member of His Majesty's forces from his duty or allegiance to His Majesty, he shall be guilty of an offence …"
It is quite obvious that the man who prints a newspaper for general circulation, without any intent of endeavouring to seduce a member of His Majesty's forces does not become guilty of a malicious and advised endeavour to seduce that member because someone, without his knowledge or consent or approval, hands the newspaper in question
216
to a soldier or a sailor. The thing has only to be stated to show that it is wholly unreasonable.
There are two or three observations, and only two or three, that I want to make about this. In the first place the noble Earl professed to be a champion of the liberty of the Press, and he gave vent to noble sentiments about the importance of the preservation of that liberty. The Press has never had liberty to commit crime. There has never been a licence to the newspapers to commit criminal offences which other people are forbidden to commit. Then he says: "Why do you not insert this in order to show that you do not mean to alter the law?" But, of course, if you were to put in these words and to make this the only enactment, you would be altering the law. The present law is in the 1797 Act, which says that
"any person who shall maliciously and advisedly endeavour to seduce any person or persons serving in His Majesty's forces, by sea or land, from his or their duty and allegiance to His Majesty, or to incite or stir up any such person or persons to commit any act of mutiny …"
shall be guilty. Those words, with the exception of "and" for "or," are the same words as are reproduced here, and therefore the only effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be that in cases where a newspaper did it you would have to prosecute under the 1797 Act, and where anybody except a newspaper did it you could prosecute, if you liked, under this Bill. That seems to me a ludicrous and absurd result.
There is further the point which was made on this side of the House, that if you pass this Amendment any one who wanted to seduce His Majesty's forces would proceed to put what he wanted to say in a newspaper, and this has been done in the following appeal addressed to soldiers:
"Let us use the knowledge of arms which they give us … and the arms themselves … not to defend these rulers from the wrath of the workers, not to help them bolster up their exploiting, profit-making system, but, when the opportunity presents itself, to overthrow their rule, and, in unity with our fellow workers, to establish a free, Socialist Britain."
There are half a dozen more equally choice examples. That is in a newspaper called the Soldier's Voice. Unfortunately for the preservation of the law, neither

217
the publisher nor the printer ventured to put his name on it. Possibly when this Bill becomes law they may find that that practice is not quite so effective as it is at present. But I read that to your Lordships merely as a sample of equally poisonous trash that, could appear in a week's time if you were so foolish as to say that anybody may endeavour to seduce members of His Majesty's forces from their duty or allegiance, so long as they do it in a newspaper. That is the Amendment, which your Lordships are asked to accept, and you will not be surprised if I say that the Government are unable to accept it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I trust that, even after that redoubtable onslaught, I may be allowed to add a few words which may not perhaps appear quite unreasonable. In the first place, I claim that what I said was, not deliberately but clearly, misinterpreted by my noble friend Lord Allen of Hurtwood. I was not claiming that newspapers should enjoy a special privilege enjoyed by no one else. No, I was simply saying that newspapers, in so far as they incited to mutiny, could be perfectly well dealt with under the existing law. And the noble Viscount himself, in quoting from a certain newspaper, said that unfortunately the publisher and minter had not added their names. He implied that, if they had, the Government could have taken legal proceedings. And what we maintain is that our present law is adequate to deal with seditious articles and incitements to mutiny that may appear in any quarter, and that we are not justified,
either by the present circumstances or in view of what may happen in the future, in further curtailing the freedom of the Press. That is all that we are asserting on this side, and I hope that now it is no longer open to misinterpretation.
The noble Viscount made it plain that those only could be guilty who had been proved guilty of entertaining in their minds the intention of seducing His Majesty's forces. Surely if we look at Clause 2 we shall find that accomplices in the act of seduction are included. I do not think the noble Viscount will challenge that interpretation of the Bill. He said I was misreading it; I claim that understood it perfectly. Accomplices are included, and I think that anyone who did not actively prevent someone else who to his knowledge intended to seduce His Majesty's forces, would equally be liable to prosecution. The net, therefore, is thrown very wide, and I do not believe I exaggerated when I said that all those who took part in the production of an article which was considered seditious, from the editor of the newspaper to the printer, the clerk, the typist, and so one could, by an interpretation of this Bill which I am glad to think the noble Viscount and the Government will never put upon it, be included. I therefore feel that the reasons that led me to put down this Amendment have not been weakened by what your Lordships have already heard.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 85.

CONTENTS.

Arnold, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Faringdon, L.

Snell, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Munster, E.

Truro, L. Bp.

Exeter, M.

Onslow, E.

Reading, M.

Plymouth, E.

Abinger, L.

Zetland, M.

Rothes, E.

Alness, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Airlie, E.

Stanhope, E.

Alvingham, L.

Dudley, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Annaly, L.

Feversham, E.

Ypres, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Harrowby, E.

Barnard, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Astor, V.

Biddulph, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Elibank, V.

Carnock, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Goschen, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Midleton, E.

Hailsham, V.

Morton, E.

Mersey, V.

Clwyd, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Rennell, L.

Cranworth, L.

Jessel, L.

Rochester, L.

Danesfort, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Rockley, L.

Desborough, L.

Latymer, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Doverdale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Eltisley, L.

Lloyd, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Elton, L.

Marks, L.

Southampton, L.

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

Merrivale, L.

Stanmore, L.

Greville, L.

Middleton, L.

Strachie, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harris, L.

Polwarth, L.

Hawke, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Templemore, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Remnant, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved to substitute "and" for "or." The noble Lord said: Despite the rejection of the Amendment of my noble friend, I am afraid it will be necessary for me to keep your Lordships for some little time upon the present Amendment. We were not surprised that we were defeated in the Division Lobby. We are used to that in your Lordships' House. It does not really perturb us, and we console ourselves with the saying, "The greater the majority, the greater the scandal." This Amendment is one of supreme importance—how important I did not fully realise until the speech of the noble Viscount in reply to the last Amendment. The noble Viscount has constantly told noble Lords who do not agree with him that they ought to read the Bill. In his forceful way—I use that expression quite politely—he keeps telling everybody that they do not know the Bill, and that they ought to read the Bill. I can prove to your Lordships that the noble Viscount does not know the Bill and does not know it in a most vital particular. Not only so, but the Attorney-General did not know it until it was pointed out to him. This Amendment which I have down in Clause 1 to change the crime of seducing from "duty or allegiance" to that of seducing from "duty and allegiance," is obviously one of very great moment. Yet, will it be believed, when this Amendment was moved in another place it was quite clear the Government had not realised its significance. On the Second Reading it was stated by the Attorney-General, and the noble Viscount has said the same thing this afternoon, that the Bill in Clause 1 merely re-enacts what is law to-day. What the noble Viscount said in reply to my noble friend was that the Bill merely re-enacts the words of the
220
Act of 1797. The noble Viscount is entirely wrong.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord did not hear me. I turned to the noble Marquess and said subject to the point about "and" and "or" which we had already discussed, and which we are to discuss in a moment.
LORD ARNOLD: I am sorry but that did not reach these Benches. If the noble Viscount said that I accept it, but the Attorney-General did not know that. He said three times that it was the same. Again, he said that Clause 1 of the Bill merely set out that which was already an offence, and that they were re-enacting in Clause 1 of the Bill what was already contained in the Incitement to Mutiny Act. There are many extraordinary things about this extraordinary Bill and one of the most extraordinary is that the Minister in charge of the Bill until it came up here had, if I may say so, to be instructed as to the significance of the words which were in the Bill. When this matter was being discussed in another place he first of all said he had not thought there was anything in it, that it was merely a niggling point, but after listening to the debate he said he thought there was a great deal more in it. The noble Viscount himself, when he was speaking on Tuesday, informed your Lordships that they were very much surprised in Government circles that the Bill had aroused the opposition which it has aroused. That shows, if I may say so, that they are entirely out of touch with the feeling of the country, and, apparently, entirely ignorant of the devotion of large sections of the people not confined to these Benches, or this Party, but to all Parties, to certain principles which this Bill undoubtedly assails.
The noble Viscount endeavoured on Tuesday to make out that this Bill was

221
merely, as he said, re-enacting the Act of 1797, but the Bill goes very much further than that, as I shall show your Lordships. The words which I complain of, the words "duty or allegiance," instead of "duty and allegiance" quite obviously create two offences instead of one. There cannot be any dispute about that. Duty is not the same thing as allegiance for this purpose. The Bill, I repeat, creates two offences instead of one. That, again, is quite counter to what the Attorney-General has said. He has implied that it creates no new offence. He said it was merely a procedure Bill. That is not so. Quite obviously there is a vast difference between endeavouring to seduce a soldier from his duty and allegiance and endeavouring to seduce him from his duty alone. In 1914 great attempts were made, and to some extent I think they succeeded, to seduce soldiers from their duty.
The noble Lord, Lord Carson, for whom I personally have a great respect, although I differ from him politically, was so convinced in his own mind of the seriousness of the situation from his point of view that he went so far as to say he believed the Ulster Volunteers were justified to the very last extremity in using force or any other means in their power. He added:
"I know that that is a serious statement to make. I know what it involves."
He was quite deliberate; he knew all about it. He went on:
"I have the honour to be a Privy Councillor of His Majesty in Ireland and in England. I have the honour to be a K.C., and I believe we are morally justified in every step we take to protect our interests."
Similar speeches were made by other highly placed persons, but those persons were not prosecuted because we know that in this country there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. My point is this. Those words were used to seduce soldiers from their duty but not to seduce them from their allegiance to His Majesty. Under this Bill a man could be prosecuted for doing that because he could be prosecuted for seducing a soldier from duty apart from allegiance. That is therefore a very specific example of the very material and very vital difference between the phrases in this Bill and the Act.
An appeal to soldiers not to shoot down strikers, which is something we can all
222
understand because it is a serious thing to call on men to shoot down, it may be, their own brothers or fathers or relatives in an industrial dispute, in which all the rights may be on the side of the strikers, would be an attempt to seduce soldiers from their duty, but not an attempt to seduce them from allegiance to His Majesty. This Bill makes that a definite offence. When you had to prove that it was an attempt not only to seduce from duty but to seduce from duty and allegiance at the same time, that was a very different state of things. It is, apparently, the Communists whom the noble Viscount has in his mind. They seem to trouble him so much that he talks about them by day and no doubt dreams about them at night. The activity of the Communists is, I personally believe, of most minute and quite unimportant dimensions, but an appeal by Communists, if there is such an appeal, to troops not merely to disobey orders but to overthrow the existing order of society, including the Monarchy, is an attempt to seduce soldiers both from their duty and allegiance and that would come under the 1797 Act on which the Government rely.
The noble Viscount apparently has not appreciated, and certainly the Attorney-General did not appreciate, that the Act and this Bill are entirely and fundamentally different. It is, therefore, not true to represent this as a small Bill or a trivial Bill, which is only providing a different procedure for dealing with the same offence. It is going to create an entirely different offence which may have most serious consequences, as I think I shall be able to prove to your Lordships. Why has the change been made? There is a great deal more to be said about it. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke about it and so did the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. There is not the slightest evidence of any need for change in the law. One of the weakest things I have ever heard—and I have heard many weak things in the course of a very long experience—was the explanation of the noble Viscount. He said there had not been any offence but there might he. Good heavens! if we are going to pass legislation to deal with every offence that might be committed Parliament will certainly break down. Nothing more preposterous has been put before a serious

223
legislative assembly. There is no evidence that the Bill is required in the smallest degree.
Why we on these Benches are particularly opposed to this Bill is that in the form in which it now stands it may be adjudged a crime to seduce a soldier simply from his duty and not from his allegiance. If that is to be an offence—it has not been hitherto—then this Bill is undoubtedly a very serious matter from the point of view of pacifists and pacifist propaganda. That is a point with which I want to deal in some detail if your Lordships will be good enough to listen to me. I hope the noble Viscount will not talk about the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, or about the Army Act, where the words are the same. Those Acts apply only to men in the Service. They have no application to the general mass of the people. I think that the Naval Discipline Act of 1866 only applies to people actually on board ship.
Loan STRABOLGI: Borne on the books of a ship.
LORD ARNOLD: At any rate it applies only to Service men and not to ordinary citizens. A very large number of pacifists, most highly respected people, are extremely perturbed about the possibility because they consider the Bill may very easily be used against pacifists. The Society of Friends dealt with this matter only on Tuesday. The most reverend Primate, in the course of his observations, was good enough to say that he had a very great respect for the Society of Friends. He does not do much to assist them in their main propaganda, which is that of propagating peace, but he says that he has a great respect for them. This is the minute which they passed at a meeting on Tuesday:
"The Committee of the Society of Friends which is considering the Incitement to Disaffection Bill desires to make it quite clear that their opposition to the whole underlying principle of the Bill remains unchanged in spite of the Amendments which have removed some of its most glaring defects. Their opposition is not based mainly on the ground that it might interfere with their own religious propaganda, but on the much wider view of the paramount right of all citizens to hold and spread their seriously considered opinions in a peaceable manner without interference either from the Executive Government or from the Police. They regard the Bill as an attempt to re-establish in peace time the
224
limitations on free speech which were such a deplorable feature of the war period."
That is signed by Mr. Harold J. Morland, Clerk of the Committee of the Society of Friends. Those views are shared by many people in the country.
I want to take a specific example to try to get this thing down to something concrete which cannot be evaded by the noble Viscount, because we all know he is a very airy debater. It is very easy for him to try to pass things off with the full Benches he has behind him, always ready to cheer anything he says if he wants them to do so. I am going, if your Lordships will listen to me, to take a specific statement by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. It was dealt with to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Hurtwood, and the most reverend Primate, but I think we should endeavour to get a little more light on the situation. The Bishop of Birmingham made this statement in regard to the Bill:
"By the means of a letter to an unnamed correspondent, the Attorney-General has attempted to allay the profound misgivings aroused among all workers for peace and among many lovers of freedom by the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. Incidentally, he referred to my own criticism of the measure, and suggests that I should look at the Bill more carefully. I have re-examined the Bill carefully and my objection to it remains.
"I still fear that under its vague provisions practically any worker for peace in time of war could by it be condemned. An active pacifist would desire the war to cease. He would say so publicly, knowing that his words might reach members of His Majesty's forces. If challenged, he would have to admit that his concern was not with abstract theory, but with the actual conflict, and that his wish was that the troops—practically all his adult male fellow citizens—should cease from fighting. Would he not be held at his trial to have been endeavouring maliciously and advisedly to seduce members of His Majesty's forces from their duty and allegiance? If the phrase of the Act were duty and allegiance, the accused pacifist might escape because lie could urge that he desired the troops to maintain their allegiance to the Sovereign. But this change the Attorney-General has refused to sponsor."
The Bishop of Birmingham went on later in his statement to say:
"To clear up the obscurity which surrounds this Bill, I would put a concrete question to Sir Thomas Inskip. I regard the present policy of the Government of India towards the tribes on the North-West frontier with abhorrence. These tribesmen, with their wives and children, suffer periodi-

225
cally from famine, and then the men raid the more fertile plains. The Government would do well to drive roads up their valleys, to develop their agriculture and to start domestic industries among them.
"Such a policy has not been attempted. Instead, whenever there are signs of disaffection, bombing aeroplanes are sent up, which have to fly high to escape bullets and consequently rain down indiscriminate destruction. I desire that this barbarism should cease. Knowing that my words, as published in the English Press, may reach members of the Royal Air Force concerned, I say that I cannot link that a Christian man should act under orders in this way. Naturally, I should be glad if officers and men represented to the political authorities that they felt unable to be the instruments of this policy. Am I not, by these words, committing an offence under Section 1 of the proposed Bill?
"Further, if my wife, with intent to spread my opinions has in her possession a marked copy of a newspaper containing the statement which I have just made, would she rot he guilty of an offence under Section 2 of the Act, and might we not each be fined £200, and also each be given two years imprisonment? Of course, I presume that, if the Bill passes into law, the Government will not take action against me for this promulgation of my views."
Of course they will not. As I have said, there is one law for the rich and one for the poor. The Bishop will be safe, but that does not mean that other people will be safe.
The most reverend Primate on the last occasion quoted what the Attorney-General said about this matter. It was to the effect—I am quoting the most reverend Primate's words from the OFFICIAL REPORT—that
"he would only bring himself under this Bill if it could be proved that he had conveyed or caused to be conveyed or had a deliberate intention to convey his statement to actual members of the Air Force so as to induce them to disobey their orders."
In short, unless you definitely go to a member or members of the forces with that object and intent there is no offence. But the Bill does not say that at all, and the point I am making is that it does not matter twopence what the Attorney-General says, and it does not matter a brass farthing what the noble Viscount says. This Bill will be interpreted by the Courts, and the noble Viscount knows as well as I do that it is absolutely beside the point to say that the Attorney-General said so and so in the House of Commons or that the noble Viscount said so and so in the House of Lords. The Courts would not pay the
226
slightest attention. In fact, the late Lord Sumner, I suppose one of the greatest Judges of modern times, according to a note which was contributed to The Times after Lord Sumner's death, almost took a delight in construing Acts, if he could, in a sense different from, what seemed to he the intention of Parliament. That is the statement made in The Times. I think it is broadly correct, but it can be turned up by anybody. It was a very interesting notice which appeared after the lamented death of Lord Sumner not very long ago.
Therefore the most reverend Primate is entirely wrong if he is relying upon what the learned Attorney-General said or upon what the noble Viscount may say. The Bill is here, and that is what matters, and how it will be interpreted by Judges and by magistrates. What does the Bill say The Bill does not say anything about going to soldiers and sailors at all. It does not mention them in that sense, but it says, "if any person maliciously and advisedly"—we have been told by those Judges that that means with intent, or deliberately, that is all. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham admits that he did it deliberately and he says he meant it to succeed. He does not conceal his aim. The Bill says:
"If any person maliciously and advisedly endeavours to seduce any member of His Majesty's forces from his duty or allegiance to His Majesty he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
That is what the Bill says, and I say that undoubtedly in certain circumstances, particularly if you were getting near a time of war, if some person—not the right reverend Prelate, not a person so highly placed, but some more ordinary person—made a speech like that near Aldershot, he would not have a cat's chance before many county benches—not a cat's chance. They would convict him under these words, and if you quoted to them what the Attorney-General or what the noble Viscount said they would simply laugh at you.
Your Lordships know that what I say is perfectly true, and that is why we have to be so very careful in drafting these Acts. The responsibility rests upon us, because Courts will interpret the words according to their own views, and if we have the kind of mentality which the noble

227
Lord, Lord Allen, exposed on Tuesday in his searching speech in regard to the foreign policy of the Labour Party—the kind of mentality which, for instance, the noble Viscount has—what chance would a pacifist have before a Judge? Not the slightest. But my contention is that pacifist propaganda if it is intended to seduce at all—which may be matter for much argument—at any rate can only be held to be seducing from duty, not from duty and allegiance. Therefore it has not hitherto really been an offence; but it may become an offence in future.
Look at the fears which this Bill has aroused. Already this has happened: printers do not know where they are and do not know what they may print. They cannot tell what the Courts will say. Here is a very influentially signed letter which is in the Press only this morning and I feel it necessary to read it to your Lordships because it is so apposite to what I am saying:
"During the debates on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill assurances have repeatedly been given on behalf of the Government that this Bill was solely designed to enable the Government to deal more efficiently with those who deliberately attempt to spread disaffection among members of His Majesty's forces, and was not intended to operate, nor would in fact operate, to check the expression of opinion or anti-war propaganda, however unqualified.
"Publishers are not concerned with politics as such, but they are very much concerned with free expression of opinion, and many of us have felt apprehension that the effect of the Bill would not he confined to the former laudable purpose. There is, unfortunately, already evidence that this is the case.
"During the past weeks the proofs of a children's annual"—
a children's annual !—
"have been returned to the publisher with a letter from the printer saying that certain marked passages could not safely be printed in view of the fact that the Incitement to Disaffection Bill would already be law by the time the annual appeared. The passages in question undoubtedly contain anti-war propaganda, which it is not for us either to defend or to criticise; but it is clear that the annual itself is written for children and equally clear that it is not addressed to, or intended for circulation among, members of His Majesty's forces. Yet we feel sure that, in view of the vague wording of the Bill"—
that is what I am complaining of—
"this incident will not be an isolated one and that the result of the Bill, as it stands to-day, will be to impose a severe burden on both printers and publishers and in the
228
end to set up what will in fact be a secret, unofficial, and most embarrassing form of censorship exercised by printers (who will, quite naturally, have regard to the principle of 'safety first') over the publication of any literature of an anti-militarist character.
"This aspect of the Bill has been touched upon but not fully considered in the House of Commons. The Bill is now proceeding to its final stages in the House of Lords."
That is why I trouble your Lordships with this.
"We hope that the Upper House,"—
I do not altogether endorse this—
"whose tradition has been to pay particular attention to the constitutional safeguards of British liberties, will so amend the Bill as to relieve publishers from this dangerous and undesirable innovation. In so doing it will only be carrying out the avowed and, we have no doubt, sincere desire of the Government to limit the scope of the Bill to its ostensible purpose."
That letter is signed by Jonathan Cape, Hugh R. Dent, Geoffrey Faber, George G. Harrap, Allen Lane, Stanley Unwin, and Leonard Woolf.
Your Lordships will see that the Bill is already at work; it is stopping what has been hitherto perfectly legitimate propaganda, which is going to be a crime, or may in the future be adjudged a crime. Pacifism hitherto has not been a crime. Take my noble friend Lord Ponsonby who leads us on these Benches. He takes the view—and many people, and a growing number of people, agree with him—that as things are going the only end of war can come when a sufficient number of men in each country say that they will not fight. He is trying to increase that number. I very well remember during the course of the War, in the smoke room in another place, discussing the situation with a man who had no sympathy whatever with conscientious objectors. He made the point that "the whole difficulty about conscientious objectors is that there are not enough of them; if there had been more of them we should not have had the war at all." That is exactly what my noble friend Lord Ponsonby thinks, and that is what he is preaching and has preached hitherto with great success. He begs men not to fight.
That may be adjudged an offence and a crime under this Bill, but it may be of the highest importance to Great Britain that that policy should succeed.

229
What the Government do not seem to realise, judging from the airy way in which the noble Viscount introduced this Bill, is that they are taking steps to stop the propagation of a definite policy and a very important policy which certainly is not a policy against allegiance to His Majesty, because in the event of another war, which according to Mr. Baldwin will mean the end of civilisation, it is as certain as anything can be that the monarch of this country will be overthrown. Therefore my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, so far from doing anything to seduce a soldier from allegiance to His Majesty, is really safeguarding the Throne, which is much more likely to be safe in the event of peace than in the event of war.
If you had the words "duty and allegiance" noble friend would be perfectly safe, but as the Government will not, have those words, there is no telling what may happen in future to propaganda of this sort. The Bill may be interpreted by the Courts in such a way as to make this, as I think, beneficent propaganda a definite offence punishable by two years hard labour and a fine of £200. I do not profess to be a lawyer, but I think it is correct to say that a man is presumed to intend the consequences of his actions, I think that is right. I am very happy to see that the noble Marquess nods his head, so that I know that I am right. That is why the Bishop of Birmingham, it seems to me, will undoubtedly come within the Bill. He is presumed to intend the consequences of his actions. He puts these views in the Press, and he intends them, he says, to influence members of the Air Force. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby may be presumed to intend the consequences of his actions. He made a most courageous speech on Tuesday last whether you agree with it or not, it was courageous. I think it certainly deserved more than the sneers it received from the noble Viscount opposite.
I know the noble Viscount does not like strong language from anybody but himself. He does not like us on this side of the House to put things in what he would call "purple patches," but really do not think it is any exaggeration whatever to say that this Bill may be introducing into this country, in effect, Hitler methods. Hitlerism is the suppression of opinion which does not suit the
230
Government—views they do not agree with. That is what this Bill will do, particularly when you are getting near a time of war. It is quite idle for the most reverend Primate to console himself with the idea that the Bill has nothing to do, as he said, with the liberty and freedom to express opinions, and that it concerns only those who do certain specific things. I pointed out, and I want to emphasise it again and again, that there is no safeguard whatever of that kind in the Bill—not the slightest.
If this Amendment is accepted the position will be entirely different. Of course, we shall still disagree with the Bill, because we are against the whole Bill, but it would make a very material change if the Amendment were accepted. If the noble Viscount opposite is really speaking the mind of the Government when he says that all they wish to do is to deal with this poisonous propaganda, I see no reason why he should not accept the Amendment. It would be a very considerable safeguard. I do not think I have overstated the case at all. I have tried not to do so. If our apprehensions prove to be unfounded I shall be only too glad, but you can never tell, especially if the foreign situation worsens and war appears to be corning near. Then we should have all sorts of people getting busy about all sorts of speeches, and we should have them rushing to the Law Courts and asking for warrants, so that they may harry people and bring them before the magistrates and justices, before certain of whom the accused would have no chance, particularly if things were getting worse on the Continent. I venture to think I have shown that this Amendment goes to the heart and kernel of the measure, that it is a vital and fundamental Amendment, and I hope it will be treated seriously by the noble Viscount.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Before the noble Viscount replies, may I ask him if he will tell us whether, in view of the arguments to which we have just listened, he adheres to the view which he expressed, and which I have expressed, that no new offence is created? I confess I am rather troubled about that statement. I made it myself to-day. On

231
the last occasion I criticised the Bill from a totally different aspect, on which I shall have a few words to say later, but my trouble now is that I am not quite sure how we stand. I assume, and indeed was led to believe by what my noble friend the Leader of the House said, that really there was no distinction between "duty and allegiance" and "duty or allegiance." I listened carefully to what he said. I had not looked at the other Statutes, and I accepted immediately from him the statement that these words "duty or allegiance" were exactly the same words as the words in the Discipline Acts, and that there was no substance or justification for attempting to draw any distinction.
I confess I have grave doubts about that now. If the other Acts to which reference was made were meant to apply only to the Services, it is clear it cannot be said that the introduction of the word "or" in those Discipline Acts is exactly the same as the word "and" in the Incitement to Mutiny Act. Leaving aside other aspects of the matter, I have hitherto been under the impression, from what has taken place in this debate, that the considered view was that really the change of the word "and" from the Incitement to Mutiny Act, 1797, to the word "or," made no difference at all, and created no new offence. If it is correct that there is no law applying to the general public which makes it an offence to seduce, or attempt to seduce, members of the forces from their "duty or allegiance," then undoubtedly this Bill is creating a new offence, and if that is correct I certainly do withdraw the observation I made, earlier to-day, in reference to the appeal from the noble Lord who moved the first Amendment, that really it was undesirable to deal with it in that way because it was only reiterating the law as it stood.
I therefore press my noble friend Lord Flails-ham to tell us what is the considered view of the Government and of himself of the change from "and" into "or." I really would ask him that question, and his answer will have a very great effect upon the vote which I shall give, and the lead which I shall attempt to give to those associated with me, upon this Amendment. I do not agree with everything that Lord Arnold said, but I think he was perfectly correct in the observation he made, that what must be
232
considered is the language of the Statute or the Bill you are passing. I do not hesitate to make that observation. I have had to lay it down myself, sitting in a Court of Law as a Judge, and I am certain that my noble friend, speaking as an ex-Lord Chancellor, would not hesitate to say exactly the same thing—namely that you must have reference to the words of the Statute.
Neither the words of the Attorney General nor the words of an ex-Lord Chancellor, spoken in this House, as to the meaning intended to be given to language used in a Bill, have the slightest effect or relevance when the matter comes to be considered by a Court of Law. The one thing which stands out beyond all question is that in a Court of Law you are not allowed to introduce observations made either by the Government or by anybody else, but the Court will only give consideration to the Statute itself. That is elementary, but I think it is necessary to bring it home to your Lordships, because I think too much importance can be attached to language which fell from the Attorney-General. What we are concerned with are the words of the Bill, and I am asking the noble Viscount to tell us now, quite distinctly, so that in voting on this Amendment we may know what it is that we are voting upon, where we stand. I can understand a lawyer saying there is not a great difference between breach of duty and breach of allegiance, but that thought will never lead me to say that there is no difference, and that is the essential point in this case. I accept anything that may fall from the Leader of the House, but I am anxious to get his assistance in this in order that I may come to a conclusion, because if there is any difference, between the offence as constituted hitherto and the offence, as applied to the civilian, as it will be if this Bill passes in this language, then I shall be bound to support the Amendment.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: I take a different view on these points from each group in turn. I find it difficult to understand why Lord Reading should let this particular point have such a considerable influence over the way in which he approaches this particular subject. Supposing it were true, for the sake of argument, that a new offence was created, and the introduction of this word "or"

233
instead of the old ward "and" did in fact create a new offence, would that be a substantial reason for voting against this Bill? I should say quite the contrary. I happen to be in a peculiar position. I have myself broken my allegiance to His Majesty. During the War, like the members of the Society of Friends, I felt it my duty not to bear arms, but I do not think that any person has a right, even if he takes that view for himself, to try and influence other people who do not take that view to come into line and to break the law. And I believe that is a distinction that must be made. There is, at the present moment, a new movement growing up in politics thoughout the world and in this country, which is a formidable threat to orderly government by means of violent policies. If, therefore, we are now to find that those who wish to threaten orderly government, whether they be members of the Right or of the Left, should seek to find a way of doing that by saying "As long as we do not tamper with allegiance, we can try to seduce people from their duty," that seems to me to be a formidable threat to orderly government in this country.
I find myself line by line on this Bill in the most unique position. I first opposed one alteration and now favour another alteration of the law. It carne to my knowledge a few months ago, on the highest authority, that there was in contemplation in this country some kind of coup d'Etat on the B.B.C. which was being prepared in this country just in the same way as it was in Vienna. That came to my knowledge, and I have no reason to doubt the authority from which it came. If politics are going to permit this sort of thing to take place, it is our business, in the interests of the Socialist state that I want to see established in the future, to see that there shall not be the means of tampering with those forces of law and order which are to maintain the instructions of the Government, whether these instructions are given by a Government of the Right or a Government of the Left.
VISCOUNT HAIILSHAM: In order to answer the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, perhaps he will forgive me if I trouble your Lordships for two minutes by reading what in fact I said on the Second Reading. This is what I said on this very point:
234
"The criticism was made in another place that the words were 'duty or allegiance' whereas the 1797 Act spoke of 'duty and allegiance,' and it was thought to make a distinction between the two., For myself, I share the view which I see my learned friend the Attorney-General expressed in another place, that it makes very little difference in fact which form of language you use."
Then Lord Rhayader suggested that there was more than one opinion expressed.
LORD RHAYADER: I expressed the opinion that the Attorney-General had expressed two opinions.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes. And I said:
"I read carefully his speech and I did not think he expressed two opinions."
LORD ARNOLD: Did you read him in the Standing Committee? He undoubtedly did there.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Do not let us argue as to whether he expressed one or two opinions. I think he expressed one, but we are not on that point at present. I am endeavouring to answer Lord Reading. As he said he was influenced by what I said it is important to see what I did say. These were my words:
"He expressed the opinion, which I share, that it made very little difference which form of words was used. I believe he was right. He went on to point out that in fact the words in the later Statutes were 'duty or allegiance' as in this Bill, but he expressed the view, which again I share, that if there was a great difference between the two, that if it was possible under the words duty and allegiance 'for a person to endeavour to seduce a member of His Majesty's forces from his duty, persuade him to disobey his orders and then to escape liability by saying: 'Well, I never seduced him from his allegiance,' then the sooner that is put right the better, and that this form of words was much the preferable one."
I adhere exactly to what I said there, but the noble Marquess asked me what was the position under the Naval Discipline Act.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I did not find the reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I distinctly remember the noble Viscount referring to the Naval Discipline Act.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I did at one point.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: But I did not find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I certainly did, but I do not think it was in that context. It was later on. The Naval Discipline Act is an Act which deals primarily with the discipline of the Navy, and it has two sections which relate to this matter. The first, Section 12, deals only with people subject to naval discipline. It says:
"Every person subject to this Act who shall endeavour to seduce any other person subject to this Act from his duty or allegiance to His Majesty, or endeavour to incite him to commit any act of mutiny, shall suffer death or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned."
That deals only with seduction by a member of the forces. Section 13 deals with everybody who goes on to one of His Majestys' ships, whether a member of the forces or not. This is the language:
"Every person, not otherwise subject to this Act, who, being on board any ship of His Majesty, shall endeavour to seduce from his duty or allegiance to His Majesty any person subject to this Act, shall so far as respects such offence be deemed to be a person subject to this Act, and shall suffer death or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned."
I think it is quite clear that the effect of that is that any member of the Navy who attempts to seduce any other member of the Navy from his duty or allegiance is liable to death under Section 12. Any civilian who endeavours to seduce any member of the Navy on board a ship is also liable to the penalty of death or a less punishment. It does not cover everybody, because if a civilian happens to catch a sailor on shore then it does not come under "duty or", but under the earlier Act of 1797. If the civilian goes on board ship and attempts to seduce a sailor whom he meets there, then he is liable to death. That is the position, I think, under the Naval Discipline Act.
May I just say a word on the Amendment? I said that I thought it made very little difference—I did not say no difference, because there is obviously a difference in language—but very little difference which form of words is used. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said it made a great difference; it was fundamental; and he gave an illustration. He said, "Supposing you were to try to induce the soldiers to refuse to obey orders to shoot in an industrial dispute, that would not be endeavouring to seduce them from their duty and allegiance, but if you went on to ask them to try and
236
overthrow the Monarchy, then that would be within the words "duty and allegiance." I have not had very long, and the noble Lord is always very positive in his statements, but I have had just time to look at one case that carries more weight than anything I can say because it is a decision of the Courts. It is a case called "The King against Bowman and Others," and it is fair to say that the real point on which, the case is reported is not this point but the question whether you have to name the persons said to be seduced in the indictment. Actually the words there used are set out. I do not want to read them, but they are an appeal to British soldiers, in an open letter, to refuse to shoot in an industrial dispute.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Was that under the Incitement to Mutiny Act?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes. The case came before Mr. Justice Horridge. The argument I need not trouble your Lordships with, because it deals with another point, but Mr. Justice Horridge's summing up, or part of it, is quoted, and this is what he said:
"Ask yourselves this question: Why was this article printed and published? Was it, as the prosecution suggest, to induce soldiers to disobey their officers in the event of being ordered to quell a strike, or was it, as counsel for the defendants suggests, merely a comment upon the use of armed military force by the State for the suppression of industrial riots?"
Then he goes on later to say:
"Is this a comment on the State using armed force, or is it a suggestion that if the State does use armed force the soldiers are not to obey orders?"
On the answer to that question the jury were to find the prisoners either guilty or not guilty, and in fact the jury found the prisoners guilty, and they were sentenced. That is a case in which the very inducement was used which the noble Lord said clearly did not come within the Incitement to Mutiny Act, the inducement not to obey orders to fire in an industrial dispute, and in that case the learned Judge, in terms, says that if the suggestion is that if the State does use armed force the soldiers are not to obey orders, then that is, within the meaning of the Act, an endeavour to seduce them from their duty and allegiance.
I should have thought that was clearly right. That is why I have said the

237
alteration makes very little difference. But let it be supposed that I am wrong, that the learned Judge is wrong, and that Lord Arnold knows the law better than the learned Judge, and that it is not an offence to try and persuade soldiers to refuse to obey orders to shoot, but that it only becomes an offence if you ask them afterwards to go on to endeavour to overthrow the Monarchy. Then I should say that the sooner that state of affairs was altered the better. It seems to me an outrageous proposition to say you can persuade a soldier to stay out of the battle, to say: "You can refuse the orders to risk your life, to go into the trenches and fight, and so long as you are willing to sing 'God save the King' when it is all over you have not been seduced from your allegiance and you have committed no offence." That does not seem to be a reasonable proposition, and I do not believe it is the law. The case I have cited supports my view; but, if it is the law, then the sooner it is altered the better.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to add very much after the very interesting debate which your Lordships will agree we have had on this particular Amendment, but there are one or two comments I want to make on the explanation that the Leader of the House has just furnished. He quoted one particular case and a very weighty case it was, and, I think, it strengthens heavily the case for this particular Amendment. But may I ask the Leader of the House with his great knowledge and experience of all these matters, whether it is not a fact that a soldier can be punished even now for obeying orders to fire when there is no justification? There have been such cases in the past.
LORD MARLEY: The Featherstone riots.
LORD STRABOLGI: My noble friend has given me the title of one of them. At that time the noble Marquess was, I think, a distinguished member of the then Liberal Government.
Tins MARQUESS OF READING: Not a member of the Government.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think he was, at any rate, a prominent member of the House of Commons and of the Liberal Party, and so was the noble Lord, Lord
238
Rhayader, who sits beside him, and most noble Lords will remember that particular case. It was a case where the soldiers should have been seduced from their duty because their duty apparently was to carry out an illegal order. That is one particular argument that I think your Lordships should weigh in deciding how you will vote on this particular Amendment. The noble Viscount, is still of the opinion that there is very little difference in this Amendment, but in that respect he does not satisfy the noble Lord behind him, Lord Allen of Hurtwood, his only vocal supporter, but, of course, a very valuable supporter, on this Bill. If there is very little difference, why not accept the Amendment?
I am going now to cite the lesser victims who may be affected. If the present wording in the Bill is allowed to stand, may I ask the noble Viscount, both as one of his Majesty's Secretaries of State and also as a very distinguished lawyer, what will be the position in such a case as this? A woman is in love with a soldier, and she persuades that soldier to overstay his leave. That very often happens. The noble Viscount has been a soldier himself, and he knows how his comrades have fallen very often in that way. It is afterwards found that the woman is a Communist. There are women Communists, and some of them are doubtless attractive enough to seduce soldiers from their duty within the present wording of this Bill. What chance is that poor woman going to have under the wording of this Bill? That is not an exaggerated case at all. The noble Viscount quoted the Naval Discipline Act as applying to civilians, but that only applies to civilians who are on board ship. The noble Viscount rolled off his tongue that the penalty in that case was death. He added, in a rather quieter tone, "or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned." That is for people who habitually go on board ships—bumboat men, canteen servants, and so on; it does not apply to the ordinary public. This is the first time an Act of this kind has been applied to the ordinary public. The Naval Discipline Act and the Army Act apply to men who have enlisted with their eyes open and who know they have certain duties to perform. Anyone who, in the wording here, maliciously and advisedly endeavours to seduce a soldier or

239
sailor from his duty is now guilty of an offence.
The noble Viscount thinks there is very little difference. I suggest there is a very great difference, and we should think most seriously before we create a new offence. The letter of the law of the present Act of 1797 served, as we have heard, perfectly well to enable the present Foreign Secretary, Sir John Simon, when he was a Law Officer, to deal with the case quoted by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, of the engine driver who tried to persuade soldiers not to take part in an industrial dispute. He was prosecuted under the Incitement to Mutiny Act and punished. The present law is sufficient. We have heard at last from Lord Allen of Hurtwood the real reason for this Bill. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the evidence he has given us. There was to be last spring, I think,
a coup d'Etat on the B.B.C. He had heard that from the higest authority; I presume from his revered leader because there can be no higher authority. Because some madmen, some feather brains, were going to rag into the B.B.C. pretending they were Professor So-and-so going to deliver a talk on fossils or téetotalism or perhaps on the Betting Bill, because there was going to be a raid on the B.B.C. and the B.B.C. was going to be seized, therefore we have got to have this ridiculous Bill!
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord in his speech but may I say that it would be better if he would go a little more quietly when dealing with this problem? He should try to learn in this House to deal with such matters with more restraint. May I point out to him what I did in fact say? When I dealt with the case of the B.B.C., that was not to suggest that the foolish threat to the B.B.C. was the cause of this Bill but simply to give an illustration of the kind of new movements which are threatening orderly government and menacing law and order. It is vital that we should tighten up the law in order to prevent this development growing into a formidable danger.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am extremely obliged to the noble Lord for his advice to me on how I should address your Lordships. He has had far greater experience in this House having been here a longer time than myself, and I should naturally
240
pay great attention to his advice. He now says it was not the cause of the Bill but it was an example of how the Bill can be used. That is really absurd. Is it supposed that people making an attack on the. B.B.C. building, or indeed upon this building, could not be dealt with by the Police? It reminds me very much of the story of the Army in the old days in Ireland. It was told to get ready to strike a blow for liberty, and when the soldiers were asked why they did not do so they said the Police would not let them. All these people can be dealt with by the Police under the present law. You might have a coup d'Etat on the B.B.C. or on any public place in the country, or even on this House, and the Police would soon interfere. We need some better reason than that for the Bill.
I am relieved to know that the Government are not quite so bereft of commonsense or humour as to be impelled to bring in this Bill by any consideration of that sort. My noble friend Lord Arnold spoke about the letter in The Times from a group of publishers. That letter is no exaggeration of the apprehensions felt by publishers. It so happened that that morning I had not seen the particular letter. I was at a board meeting of a publishing house of which I am a director. My secretary drew my attention to this letter, and I brought it before our managing director, who is anything but of the same way of thinking politically as myself and who certainly would have no sort of sympathy with any kind of incitement of the armed forces. He had a distinguished War record himself and a distinguished career in the Service. He agreed with every word of this letter to The Times. That is an absolute fact. The printers do not really know where they stand under this Bill. They are apprehensive. There is a great deal of pacifist writing at the present time. Take, for instance, the well-known book "All Quiet on the Western Front." I suppose it could be proved that if that book was read by a man intending to join the Army it might prevent him from enlisting, or if he was already in the Army it might persuade him to desert and forget his duty. Under Clause 1, unless there is some change in the wording, the printer can be proceeded against and, therefore, you have that most objectionable form of censorship, the censorship of fear, the censorship of

241
poor men who do not know how they stand under the law, and who will refuse to print anything which they think may be objectionable to the authorities. There is a great deal in the Amendment and I beg your Lordships to consider seriously whether you should not support it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am indebted to the noble Viscount for the answer he made upon this clause. I must, however, hold my own opinion on any legal proposition. I do not intend to discuss the legal proposition across the floor of the House, but what I do say is that it now appears quite clearly that a new offence is being created by this I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount that there is very little difference between the two offences, but nevertheless I think there is a difference. I have given the matter some thought. I think I shall find myself in complete opposition to the views that may fall from the Labour members of your Lordships' House in regard to another Amendment which comes later and which has been referred to as an Amendment in regard to the incitement of soldiers to disobey their duty, and not to fire at strikers, That, I always think, is a wrong way of stating it, because that is not what happens. When such cases do arise the soldiers are simply called in for the purpose of restoring order. I want to guard against an impression that I may be taking the view which has been put forward by some speakers in this respect, nevertheless I do think that this Bill creates a new offence. I want to make that point without attempting to refer again to the criticisms I put forward when I discussed this Bill on the Second Reading.
There are points in this Bill that I do not like, and in particular the right of search. The special objection I made was that I could not see why it was necessary to introduce this Bill at this time of day after all the experience of the law we have had unless the Government could tell us some facts which necessitated its introduction. Nothing of the kind has happened. The Government have not given such facts. I said then, and I say now, that I would support the Government upon this Bill if they could tell us facts which would justify it, but what I object to is introducing this new Bill when
242
apparently there seem no better reasons for it than have so far been given. Having said that, I only make this further remark to clear the ground and so that there shall be no misunderstanding. The observations of the noble Viscount of course I accept, but when you refer to the Naval Discipline Act it is quite clear that it has a very different application. This Bill is not confined merely to offences by those in the Navy. It applies to a member of the public who goes on board the ship and attempts to seduce a sailor from his duty. That is a totally different thing from the law as it is proposed in this Bill.
This Bill would apply to every member of the public not only when he goes On board a ship or when he goes into barracks, but when he makes a speech or when he distributes a pamphlet broadcast with the purpose of making his views known and in such a manner that the pamphlet will get to the Forces of the Crown, the soldiers and sailors, and that he intends it to get to them. It seems to me that that is a totally different thing from the Act to which have just referred. Objecting as I do, for reasons I gave on the Second Reading, to this Bill, particularly in regard to the right of search which it gives, brought in as it is for reasons which at present none of us know (because they have not been stated by the Government) I shall feel bound to support the Amendment because in my view there is a new offence created.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I had not intended to intervene on this Amendment, but I consider that the speech we have just listened to is of the very highest importance, coming as it does from the noble Marquess whose legal experience and knowledge are so well known to all of us. I do not desire to add any word to what he has said on the legal point, but I think that that opinion, coming from him, is likely to carry considerable weight in the country, and I cannot see why the Government, seeing that in their opinion there is very little difference between the "and" and "or" are not content to accept this Amendment. I have a suspicion that the Government are not going to accept any Amendment. That we shall see as time passes. As we get to close quarters with this Bill and Amendments are discussed I am

243
more and more persuaded that I shall come within the net. I think that the rather scoffing way in which the noble Viscount referred to the pacifist position requires a little correction. I am not a conscientious objector and I am not a religious objector, although I have the greatest respect for both those classes of people. My objection is a purely common-sense objection. I introduced the common-sense attitude when other people had been trying for 2,000 years the religious attitude and the moral attitude. It is because of the commonsense attitude that I have been successful in converting a lot of people to my view.
But what would be my position if I tried in a speech to convert soldiers from their duty—that is to say to leave the Army—and to prevent recruits from joining the Army? Suppose a section was taken from my speech and printed as a leaflet—that has been done with some of my speeches—and that leaflet was distributed and got into barracks or among soldiers, what would happen? The Government seem to think that soldiers are always confined to barracks, that they are kept in a place from which they are not allowed to view the outer world at all. Actually, of course, they move about among the population, they see their friends, and they hear the views of all sections of the community. If this section of my speech, expressed as persuasively as I could do it, gets into barracks and amongst the soldiers, I certainly would come under this Bill, although I said nothing to seduce them from their allegiance. In fact, I think it is the best allegiance to the Crown and the best thing for this country to renounce the war weapon altogether. But I should be seducing them from their duty undoubtedly. Therefore, I should come within the net of this Bill. The argument appears to me to be entirely on this side of the House, and I venture to express surprise that the Government cannot see their way to accept the Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: Before we go to a Division I should like to say a word or two in reply. It seems to me that the position is profoundly unsatisfactory. The noble Viscount attempts to prove too much. I might make the obvious point, but none the less relevant point, that
244
if there is so little in it the Amendment might be accepted. I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for his words. It is true he did not accept my arguments entirely, but my natural optimism is never great and always under strict control, so that I did not expect that. I am, however, grateful to him when he gives his support on a vital point of this kind. There is a real point here whatever the noble Viscount may say. I would like to know more about the case before Mr. Justice Horridge which he brought up as having a considerable bearing on the case I put forward. I do not take that view. It only touches part of my case, but I should very much like to know a little more about that ease, whether it was brought before the Court of Appeal was set up, or, if it was brought afterwards, why there was no appeal. You cannot take one case as deciding a great principle which may affect legislation for the future.
If it is argued that there is no difference between duty and allegiance I would say that that is obviously untenable. It may be that in this particular case the Judge did not expatiate upon it and the jury may have given a wrong verdict. Wrong verdicts are sometimes given. We want more consideration of the verbiage than that. The noble Viscount entirely ignored the whole question of the effect of this clause upon what I call pacifist propaganda. He has not said a syllable about it. I brought forward the case of the Bishop of Birmingham. The noble Viscount has not referred to it, but it is on record. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby might address a meeting and, like the Rev. H. R. L. Shepherd, ask men not to go to war but to honour the Kellogg Pact. He has only to go down to Aldershot, which is very likely because he does not live a great way off and he is a man of great courage, and he would be brought within the Bill. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, admitted that the Government had to take notice of this propaganda, which shows that it is a powerful thing. The point is that men of lesser courage than my noble friend would be deterred from making such speeches. There has been no reply to that point. On the question of men being presumed to intend the consequences of their action, many a man has been hanged who never committed

245
murder. Three men were sentenced to death in the spring of this year. It was perfectly obvious that only one man could have committed the murder, but they were all sentenced, because, I understand they were in circumstances where murder might have come. This is a very vital point. I have referred to the letter written by publishers to The Times. It
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that a speech or article in the Press advising members of His Majesty's forces not to allow themselves to be used in an industrial dispute shall not be held to be an offence under this Act."
The noble Earl said: I venture to think that this Amendment which stands in my name is one of very considerable importance, and this on the ground that it raises a fundamental issue for which all
246
will make nervous people afraid and they will refrain from printing what they might have printed which great advantage to this country.
On Question, Whether the word "or" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Aberdare, L.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Exeter, M.

Abinger, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Jessel, L.

Airlie, E.

Alvingham, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Dudley, E.

Amulree, L.

Lamington, L.

Feversham, E.

Annaly, L.

Latymer, L.

Harrowby, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lloyd, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Barnard, L.

Luke, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Biddulph, L.

Marks, L.

Leven and Melville, E,

Bingley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde)

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Polwarth, L.

Morton, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Cobham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Munster, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Remnant, L.

Onslow, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Peel, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rochester, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cranworth, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Radnor, E.

Danesfort, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

Rothes, E.

Darling, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Daryngton, L.

Southampton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

Elton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ypres, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

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

Strickland, L.

Astor, V.

Greville, L.

Templemore, L.

Brentford, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Elibank, V.

Hampton, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Goschen, V.

Harris, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford)

Hailsham, V.

Hawke, L.

Wolverton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Doverdale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Faringdon, L.

Rhayader, L.

Esher, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

Sanderson, L.

Mersey, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull) [Teller]

Snell, L.

Stanmore, L.

Arnold, L.

Marley, L. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Clwyd, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

those who oppose the present measure Are contending—namely, the issue of personal liberty and individual freedom as against the authority of the executive power in the State. That is a very great and very broad principle, and is the common ground of all those who are opposing this measure; and it is illustrated extremely clearly in the Amendment which I am now venturing to bring before your Lordships. May I ask your Lordships to read this Amendment carefully, because in conversation with a noble Lord I have already found that its intention and mean-

247
ing have been the subject of a certain degree of misunderstanding?
If I may very briefly summarise its object I would express myself as follows. Is it not reasonable and possible to hold the view, and is it not a proposition which could be advanced by a person who would not be dubbed as insane or lunatic, that the military should not be used when industrial disputes arise in any part of the country? I am not saying for a moment that this view is correct; I am equally not contending that it is false. I ask your Lordships most respectfully to consider this question. I wish your Lordships to entertain in your minds the problem whether this is riot a possible opinion for any citizen of this country to hold: that the military have no right to intervene in quarrels or difficulties which arise between employers and those they employ. If you are prepared to grant me this much, then I think you will be prepared to grant the logical consequence of this assumption—namely, that those who hold this view should be entitled to express it through the ordinary channels, if they choose, in the Press or any other literary medium that may come their way. That is all I am contending for in this particular Amendment, because if the Bill in its present form were to come into law, and one of your Lordships were to advocate this view outside your Lordships' House—because within the House you would enjoy the privilege of any member of Parliament—you would be subjected immediately to legal proceedings. It seems to me that the whole of this Amendment hangs on whether your Lordships are prepared to accept the initial assumption that it is a reasonable and possible view for citizens to entertain, that the military should not be used in these particular cases.
In case your Lordships should be opposed to the reasonableness or possibility of this conviction I should like to present, very briefly, some arguments that those who hold this view might be expected to adduce. They would say, I think, that the proper function of the military is defence of the life and property of the citizens of this country, whether at home or abroad, and that strikes and lock-outs are quarrels between employers and employed, and are not intended as an attack on the life
248
or the liberty of any individual citizens, or of any group of citizens; that they cannot possibly be considered as an attempt at revolt or rebellion. What I think they would say, further, would be this: Supposing an industrial dispute becomes so bitter that certain individuals who take part in it do create disorder, those individuals are surely to be dealt with by the Police; that it is the proper function of the Police to see that single individuals do not disturb the peace; and that it is ludicrous and absurd to suppose that all the strikers, or for that matter all the employed, are engaged in a rising, which would be the only possible justification for the use of the military.
Again, they would say that all soldiers have a conscience, like everyone else, and have a right and a duty to use their conscience. For the most part the ordinary private is recruited from the working class, and a very difficult and curious moral situation might arise. Supposing a company of soldiers was sent from London to one of these distressed areas, say, a mining area in South Wales or Durham, where, for the sake of argument, trouble had broken out. Obviously, in the first place, they would be very loath to use their arms against the very people whom they had been accustomed to regard as their fellows, and as the section of the community which shared with them the same sort of life and the same sort of economic circumstances and general interests. That, however, is not the crux of the situation. It might be much more acute than that. Supposing among this detachment sent to South Wales there was a miner or several miners. Supposing it was sent to the very village in which a miner-soldier had been brought up, and that when ordered to fire he should see in front of him his own brother or father, or his most intimate friend. In that case would not a very acute conflict of conscience arise, in which the private in question might find himself obliged to decide that he must disobey the orders of his officer and obey his conscience?
This Amendment would enable people to draw the attention of anyone who was considering recruitment in the Army, or who had entered the Army, to such possibilities as these. There is yet one more contingency, which will perhaps appeal even more to your Lordships. It is that of a clash between military law and the

249
law that governs us civilians and citizens in the ordinary routine of our lives. If a detachment of soldiers is sent off to quell an industrial dispute, or to keep order in a district where such a dispute has occurred, it is not entitled by the ordinary law of the land to use any more than a reasonable degree of force. Supposing that in the heat of the moment a soldier is ordered to fire on a crowd which, as it subsequently transpires, was not about to attack the military, and was peaceful in intention: he would be guilty of a crime under the ordinary law of the land.
Is it really the case that we are not entitled to draw the attention of any member of His Majesty's forces to the fact that if he exceeds what is described as a reasonable degree of force when he is ordered to take part in a civil or industrial dispute, he will he committing a crime? Are we to be forbidden to draw the soldier's attention to what is fundamentally a possible conflict between two codes of law which exist together at the present time? I would suggest that on the very general ground that liberty of opinion is of the highest value to civilisation this is an opinion that is entitled to expression whether we agree with it or not, and that very awkward situations may arise if we do not allow people to express themselves in this matter. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will be able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("Provided that a speech or article in the Press advising members of His Majesty's forces not to allow themselves to be used in an industrial dispute shall not be field to be an offence under this Act").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD RHAYADER: I have a good deal of sympathy with the desire of Lord Listowel, but I cannot think that this Amendment is one which your Lordships should accept. I speak as one who is against the Bill as a whole. The Government have given us no reason for bringing in this Bill. I do not think they have made any case at all for strengthening the ordinary law, and I voted for the last Amendment, thinking it undesirable to create a new offence and to extend to the mass of the people of this country penalties to which they have not been subject. But I am bound to say I cannot go with the noble Earl in this Amendment. In the first place, I would ask him
250
what is an industrial dispute. At what point does the situation arise which he contemplates? Is it wherever the magistrates have to call for the aid of the soldiery to assist in keeping order, in circumstances where there may be a dispute between the employers and the employed? I do not really know myself quite how far an industrial dispute is a clearly defined situation which can be recognised at once. But then the difficulty I have is this. Why does he address the unfortunate soldiers of this country? They are not the people to whom you should address your persuasions. I assume that the noble Earl thinks that soldiers should not be employed in industrial disputes. There is something to be said for that view, but I do not think, as a matter of fact, that soldiers are employed to end industrial disputes: they are employed to keep order. But why talk to the soldiers? The soldier has accepted employment on the terms that he will obey the orders given to him by his superior officers. Is he to judge on every occasion when an order is given? Has he time to judge whether he is to refuse to obey orders?
I submit that the noble Earl and his friends in this matter are addressing themselves to the wrong people. They should not talk to the soldiers, they should talk to the House of Commons or to your Lordships' House. It is Parliament which should settle the purpose for which the soldiers should he employed. Let the noble Earl talk to the public. There is nothing to prevent him from writing letters advising the public that members of the forces should not be used in industrial disputes, and it is not fair to the soldiers to be engaged in a special campaign of this kind. That is a matter which the nation should decide for itself. It is for Parliament and the people to determine the purposes for which soldiers shall be employed, and it is creating unnecessary unrest in the Army—doing the very thing that I assume you do not desire to do—to go specially to the members of the forces in order to preach this doctrine, which is not very widely accepted in this country. Begin in the proper place. Begin with the public, come to Parliament, and, when you have Parliament and the public behind you, you will easily get the Army to carry out the orders which you will still have to give to those soldiers, and

251
they will be engaged on terms very like those at present, and subject to the orders of their superior officers and of those who employ the Army—that is, the Government of this country. I think the noble Earl would do well to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CARNOCK: I think that the noble Earl has probably not had very much to do with soldiers, and perhaps he does not know very much about the law. The soldier's duty, not as a soldier, but as a citizen of this country, is to prevent a felony. I have not got the facts here, but if the noble Earl would read up about the Gordon Riots, it was held then that it was the soldier's duty, whether as a soldier or a civilian, to prevent the commission of a felony. Therefore, the question of the soldier against the civil law does not arise. The noble Earl has also told us a terrible story of a private soldier being asked to shoot on his relations. May I tell him that he can trust the regimental officers of His Majesty's Army to see that that never happens, and it never will happen.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Lord opposite twitted my noble friend Lord Listowel with not having had much experience of the Army or of the law. Well, I have at least had a great many years' experience of the Army, including many years on the General Staff.
LORD CARNOCK: I had many years of regimental service.
LORD MARLEY: I am very glad to hear it. So have I. And I think I can perhaps speak with some little authority from the point of view of the Army. Now what we have done is to create a new offence by this Bill, and we are now going to apply that new offence to the use of the military in aid of the civil power, which is most undesirable. As long as that offence was narrowly construed, and carefully safeguarded, the danger was less, but now that we are widening the effect of the law, bringing all kinds of ill-defined and uncertain elements of the population under the terms of this Bill, I think there is a serious case for omitting from the operation of the Bill the activities of the troops in aid of the civil power.
The Amendment is to insert this sentence:
252
"Provided that a speech or article in the Press advising members of His Majesty's forces not to allow themselves to be used in an industrial dispute shall not he held to be an offence under this Act."
Speaking from the point of view of the soldier I want to say that it is well known to your Lordships that for centuries the Army in this country has been held in considerable mistrust, historically speaking. It was always the failure of the family who enlisted. It was considered a disgrace to have had a member of the family in the Army, and the nation distrusted the Army to this extent that still, to this day, the standing Army can only continue to exist by the passing every year of the Army Annual Act to enable it to be legally constituted.
I believe that this use of soldiers in industrial disputes is utterly repugnant to the men themselves. I believe they hate being used in connection with disputes in which, as my noble friend said, their close relations, their fathers, their brothers, their sons may actually be engaged. The noble Viscount who leads this House and who is also Secretary of State for War knows perfectly well that the state of recruiting for the Army is extremely unsatisfactory. Has he ever asked himself if possibly one reason why it is unsatisfactory is that men are not prepared to adopt a mode of life under which they may be employed to shoot down or apply force to their own relations and at least to their comrades who are workers in industry? Therefore, in the interest of recruiting, I believe the Government would be well advised to accept this Amendment proposed by my noble friend. It is going to be extremely difficult in the future to use the military in industrial disputes. It was all right as long as you had infantry with rifles, bayonets, and so on. It is much more difficult when it comes to machine guns, and I do not really see a man of the noble-mindedness of the noble Viscount ordering his men to use machine guns on strikers or men engaged in an industrial dispute. How much worse is it going to be when it comes to employing a mechanized army. Are we going to use tanks against strikers? I believe that in the interests of the Army itself we should be very well advised to accept this Amendment. Recruiting is more difficult because men are not prepared to be placed in this position.
There is another aspect of this matter, and that is that in Great Britain under the law, as I understand it—and let me confess at once to the noble Lord who spoke from that corner of your Lordships' House that my knowledge of the law is confined to being a student in one of the Inns of Court—I understand that a soldier is also a citizen of this country and that he has duties as a citizen which have been held by law to transcend his duties as a soldier. I am subject to correction in this, but I seem to remember that in some riots in connection with some mines belonging, I think, to the father-in-law of the noble Lord who so earnestly supported the opposition to my noble friend's Amendment—the Featherstone collieries, in which riots occurred in connection with an industrial district—certain persons were shot and injured, and a judicial inquiry held subsequently found that the order to shoot was entirely unjustified and made it clear that the soldiers as citizens should have refused to fire. What a difficult position we are putting these men in!
Does the noble Viscount not think that by accepting this Amendment he would make it easier for men to become soldiers and so aid in one of the difficulties of his position—namely, the encouragement of recruiting? I do not believe that troops ought ever to be used in industrial disputes, and from the point of view of the soldiers I hope very much that the Government may see their way to accept this very reasonable Amendment. From the point of view of strikers and men engaged in industrial disputes I think the matter is still more important. In an industrial dispute the men have so much more suffering to face than the employers, for, after all, the employers always have other sources from which they may draw their incomes and secure their living, whereas strikers have only that industry to live upon, and they face immediate starvation when it comes to a strike. Therefore I believe strikers are always right in an industrial dispute. It is our duty, as legislators, on behalf of the vast body of the citizens of this country, to consider the mass of our fellow men and women who are workers and not employers, and that is another reason why the Government would be well advised to accept this Amendment, not only in the interests of the soldiers, but in the interests of the vast mass of
254
the population who suffer when the military are employed in such a dispute.
VISCOUNT ESHER: Before the noble Viscount replies I should like to ask a question of the noble Earl who initiated this debate. I rather gathered that he is never in favour of the use of troops by the civil power. Is that actually the case? Suppose the brother of the soldier, instead of being an industrial striker happened to be a supporter of the Fascist Party and wore a black shirt, I should like to know whether in that case the noble Earl would feel differently about the use of the military by the civil power?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think I need trouble your Lordships very long because the noble Lords, Lord Rhayader and Lord Carnock, gave such admirable reasons why this Amendment cannot possibly be accepted. I agree with what they said. Nothing could be more unjust than to say, as this Amendment seeks to do, that soldiers may be used in aid of the civil power when it is necessary for the preservation of law and order and that they must be punished for mutiny and disobedience of orders if they refuse to obey when they are told to take part in that duty, but that those who seduce them from the performance of their duty are to go scot free. I need hardly add that it is an entire mistake to talk about soldiers being used in industrial disputes. That is not what happens. Whether a dispute has its origin in some industrial matter or whether it has its origin in any other, you cannot use soldiers on one side or the other; but sometimes as a result of that dispute it happens that law and order are threatened, and in order to preserve law and order it is necessary to invoke the aid of the military in support of the civil power. When that happens the soldier is bound to do his duty, and to say he shall be punished for not doing it but that anyone may endeavour to persuade him not to do it and go scot free, sometimes by the use of the extravagant language such as was used in the particular case to which I called attention some time ago, seems to me a most unjust thing to do, certainly a grievous wrong to the military forces of the Crown.
LORD SNELL: The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, told us that the right thing to do in these cases when trouble arose in the country—acute, sudden, passionate trouble—owing to industrial disputes, was for us to bring these matters before your Lordships' House. This afternoon we have tried that experiment, and when my noble friend Lord Listowel put forward an Amendment in proper language and with entire courtesy he was lectured as though he had committed some grievous moral offence. We cannot hope to have the knowledge of the law possessed by the noble Viscount. We have not his legal experience, but we have certain responsibilities placed upon us as an Opposition, and up to our powers we shall fulfil those as we see our duty. The noble Viscount has sufficient knowledge of another place to know that that method will not expedite the conduct of public business. In any case we shall feel it our duty as well as our right to say what we think is proper upon this grave matter.
The issue which is before your Lordships' House is one of personal feeling, of moral apprehension. Some of these men in the Army will be the sons of miners or railwaymen or people engaged in other crafts, and they may suddenly have placed upon them this enormous test of their feelings, a conflict of duties. It is all very well for the noble Viscount to say that they are not called upon to put down strikes but merely to preserve order. Is it disorder for a workman suffering under what he thinks is a grave grievance to withhold his labour until that grievance is remedied? That is the only weapon he has, and if that is to constitute disorder sufficient for him to be shot down by the armed forces then I think there is some moral protest which can be made against it. On the other hand, have we never heard of a barrister, for instance, throwing up his brief? It is a similar thing, but I do not imagine we shall ever have the Army going down to the Inns of Court to put a matter of that kind right. If the noble Viscount would do me the courtesy of listening I will try not to delay the House longer. Is it part of the soldiers' contract with the State to become, for instance, strike breakers? Suppose that a dispute arose, the ships were not being unloaded, the trains were not being run, is it part of the soldiers' contract with the State to
256
break an industrial strike, which may or may not be just from the point of view of the worker, by undertaking these civic duties? It is not a question of disorder, it is a question of whether under those acute circumstances the troops could be used to break a strike.
I will only just say on the general question that the men intensely dislike it. If a man is on strike, and if he has the power to make a speech or the power to express his views by writing an article, and under acute feeling he uses injudicious or hasty words that he would not use at any other time, if he speaks out of the poverty he feels rather than from a sense of balance and justice, that does not seem to me to be a ease for the shooting down of himself and his fellows by the troops. Acute feelings are aroused in industrial disputes. There is hunger on one side fighting bank balances on the other, and we hold that it is not fair to the soldier to require him to do this thing.
I want to conclude my remarks by expressing an opinion of my own. I represented for many years in the House of Commons a military constituency. I know the soldiers very well and my sense of obligation went to this, that the whole time that I represented Woolwich I never went inside the gates of Woolwich Arsenal, and I never went inside the gates of the barracks because I thought it not Tight to take politics inside a Government institution of that kind. But I did meet these men. I met them every day in all sorts of ways. It is true the soldier always has a grievance. One form of his happiness is that of complaining. Complaining is the luxury he enjoys most because it is cheap and always can be indulged in. Sometimes the soldier's language would shock your Lordships if you heard it, and very frequently it astounded even myself. But soldiers are not children, and you are treating the soldier unfairly when you suggest he would be thrown off his balance by a stray Communist leaflet. He is not a child of that kind. He knows that four and two make six, but he has his own view about the world and frequently about the Army Commander, and it is not protection from a stray Communist leaflet that the soldiers want.
They want protection from other things. They want protection from private arms

257
manufacturers who stimulate international disputes and thereby lead them to the possibilities of war, and from fire-eaters who are always dragging the tail of their country before the rest of the world. I think your Lordships would do well to trust the men. They have never failed their country yet, and for my own part, knowing them quite well, I do not believe that the circulation of any Communist leaflet, the hasty utterance of a speech in Hyde Park or elsewhere, or an article appearing in a newspaper would divert them in the least degree from their duty. We shall feel it right t o take this Amendment to a Division.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: am sure everyone on this side of the House must appreciate the earnestness and sincerity with which the noble Lord who has just sat down has spoken. None of us on this side of the House wish to impute to the noble Lord any motive other than his obvious sincerity, but is there not just a little misunderstanding and conflict between the arguments which he has put to your Lordships? The noble Lord has drawn a picture on the one hand of the soldier being ordered to shoot down his relatives, and on the other hand of the soldier being used as a strike breaker. Surely the two pictures are not comparable. As the noble Viscount has explained, if the military are called in it is not a question of strike breaking, but it is a question of maintenance of order. The noble Lord drew a picture of the ships not being loaded at the clocks. My recollection of the general strike when it took place a few years ago is not that the military were called in to do the work of the strikers, but they were called in to keep order, and it was the civilians who rallied to the support of the Government and did the work.
LORD MARLEY: Will the noble Lord allow me to point out that in the Amendment now before your Lordships it is "allow themselves to be used in an industrial dispute" and that includes strike breaking as well as the other form.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It is precisely that phrase "to be used in an industrial dispute" which is so vague, far more vague and objectionable from that point of view than any phrase in the Bill. All I wanted to conclude by saying, when the noble Lord interrupted
258
me, was that it was not the soldiers but the civilians who put an end to the strike and that the use of the military, as the noble Viscount said, was for the preservation of order and not for strike breaking.
LORD SANDERSON: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said that it is unfair that a soldier should be punished for not doing his duty while the person who persuaded him not to do his duty goes scot free. The noble Viscount has said that once or twice. I think he said it in his Second Reading speech. With the greatest respect to the noble Viscount I think that is not so. The soldier has to decide according to his conscience whether he shall do his duty or not. He can weigh up the matter as well as anybody else after he has received advice. Surely the fact of my giving him advice and asking him to consider whether or not he ought to take part in an industrial dispute is quite a different thing from a man neglecting his duty. If I give him advice that is merely an expression of opinion, an opinion which I have the right to express. If I tell a soldier or write to a soldier advising him not to take part in an industrial dispute, that is one thing, and it is another thing if the soldier, having considered my argument and knowing the penalty, decides to run the risk of that penalty. Because a soldier, knowing the law, decides to run the risk of punishment, that is no reason why I should be punished for expressing an opinion on the subject.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My noble friend on the Liberal Benches asked me a question, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to answer it, although I do not think it is pertinent to the issue before us at this moment. He wanted to know whether I personally was in favour of the use of the military in industrial disputes. My opinion is that, as a general rule, the Police ought to be sufficient to deal with individual cases of violence that may occur during an industrial dispute, and that exactly the same principle should apply to Fascists, or any other small bodies of individuals who may disturb the peace. I do not make any discrimination between Parties or classes. I cannot help feeling that in the very interesting discussion we have had the point at issue has been neglected, and the very common error has been fallen

259
into of arguing stubbornly against a case that has not been put forward by those who proposed this Amendment. That has been so even in the case of the noble Viscount himself. A dispute has arisen between those who believe that the military should be used in industrial disputes, and those who maintain, on the other hand, that the military should not be allowed to intervene in such cases. That is not the issue raised by this Amendment. The issue, as your Lordships will perceive, if you read the
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before we finally part with this clause may I ask the noble Viscount if he will answer one point which I raised and which I do not think he has answered? It is a point of some importance, not the case of a pacifist propagandist, but the case of the lesser person who seduces a soldier from his duty—who persuades him to overstay his leave for one reason or another. I would ask the advice of the noble Viscount upon this point, but as I read it, such a person who for one reason or another induced the soldier to miss a troopship, for exampe, is liable to two years imprisonment or a fine of £200. I do not think that that can he the intention and
260
Amendment carefully, is simply whether a view of this kind may be expressed in a public speech, or in an article that appears in a newspaper. It is fundamentally an Amendment that stands for freedom of speech and freedom of the Press, and that is what I put before your Lordships.
On Question, Whether the proposed proviso shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS.

Arnold, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull) [Teller]

Sanderson, L.

Faringdon, L.

Snell, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

Marley, L. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Mersey, V.

Hawke, L.

Exeter, M.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Reading, M.

Aberdare, L.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Abinger, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Feversham, E.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Alvingham, L.

Lamington, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Amulree, L.

Luke, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Annaly, L.

Marks, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller]

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Merrivale, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bingley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Midleton, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Remnant, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rennell, L.

Munster, E.

Cranworth, L.

Rhayader, L.

Onslow, E.

Danesfort, L.

Ritchie or Dundee, L.

Plymouth, E.

Darling, L.

Rochester, L.

Radnor, E.

Daryngton, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)

Rothes, E.

Elton, L.

Southampton, L.

Ypres, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stanmore, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Astor, V.

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

Esher, V.

Greville, L.

Templemore, L.

Goschen, V.

Hampton, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Hailsham, V.

Harris, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford)

Wolverton, L.

I think we ought to make that matter clear.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD Before the noble Viscount replies there are one or two observations which I should like to make upon this clause before we go to a Division upon it. The noble Viscount did not, reply to what is really the most serious charge made against this Bill by the opponents of the Bill. He appears to be still lingering under the delusion that this Bill deals, and can deal, only with absolutely subversive Communistic propaganda. We have put the other case; the noble Viscount has completely ignored it, and I do submit quite respectfully but quite firmly that that is not the way in which a very vital matter of this sort ought to be discussed in your Lord-

261
ships' House. We have put points of tremendous substance which are awakening the greatest apprehension in the minds of a very large number of people in this country, people whose character is of the highest, and we have a right to have the view of the Government on the case which we put.
It is quite true, as I have said to your Lordships two or three times, that whatever the noble Viscount says will have no effect whatever upon how the Bill is interpreted. He may, therefore, ask what is the good of bringing up the point. The good of bringing up the point is that the public may be informed of the dangers of this Bill even more than they are at the present time. I brought up the case of the statement of the Bishop of Birmingham which has attracted a tremendous amount of attention in the country. The noble Viscount has not deigned to say anything whatever upon that matter; and after all the Bishop of Birmingham is a member of your Lordships' House, and I think we are entitled to have his views upon that matter. They were stated in another place, and the matter has been discussed here by the most reverend Primate and by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Hurt-wood. I think the noble Viscount should give us his views upon the case of the Bishop of Birmingham. He knows perfectly well what it is because it has been debated again and again. Hitherto he has absolutely ignored it.
On the question of general pacifist propaganda the point upon which we want some pronouncement is the danger which arises from the intention of the consequences of the man's action being presumed by the Courts. May I read what has been said by a very great authority upon this very question, Dr. Ivor Jennings, Professor of International Law at the London University. The first part of the passage which I am going to read is not a quotation of the words of Dr. Jennings, but I read it to lead up to what he says, and I will read his words at the end:
"This provision regarding intention, however, does nothing to safeguard the legitimate distribution of pacifist and antiwar literature."
This is the point:
"Not only under the influence of political prejudice or in conditions of national hysteria, magistrates will be perfectly"—
262
and now follow the words of Dr. Ivor Jennings—
"'entitled to deduce intention from the circumstances'".
The noble Viscount knows perfectly well what that means, and he knows how very important those words are. So that the point is that the writer or distributor of pacifist literature, if charged with malicious intention—and Mr. Justice Horridge has laid it down that "malicious" only means "deliberate"—may very properly deny that it was his intention to cause any disaffection, but he could not deny that in certain cases pacifist pamphlets do in fact have that effect. That is the point, and we should like to have some pronouncement upon that from the noble Viscount. I submit that it is a thing for which we are entitled to ask before this clause passes, and I should be very much obliged if he would deal with the matter in detail, so that we may have the views of the Government upon it, not only for our benefit but for the benefit of the public.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I always hesitate to answer hypothetical questions, because, of necessity, any legal point depends on a precise statement of the facts, and unless you have all the facts your answer on legal points may very often be misleading, but I will do my best to state what my view is on the questions so far as I understand them. Lord Strabolgi wants to know whether the lady who persuades her soldier friend to overstay his leave is guilty of an offence under this Bill. My impression is that technically she is guilty of an offence under the existing law, and that therefore she will still be guilty of an offence, with this difference, that at present she is liable to penal servitude for life and indictment and all that sort of ridiculous nonsense, but under this Bill she would in such a case, if she were ever prosecuted, at worst get off with a nominal fine. It reduces the penalty but does not alter the offence.
Then Lord Arnold asked me about the Bishop of Birmingham. I am sorry, but although it is true that I have read the debate in another place, and I read the words used there, I have not studied them carefully; I was content to take the Attorney-General's answer in another place. But I think the answer is that if

263
the Bishop of Birmingham makes a statement to members of His Majesty's forces with the endeavour to seduce them from their duty or allegiance, he is guilty of an offence, and the fact that he is a Bishop, with all respect to the Episcopal Bench—and all who now occupy it—does not seem to me to make any difference.
LORD ARNOLD: If the noble Viscount will permit me—this is a very vital thing with regard to this Bill—what does he mean when he says: "makes that statement to soldiers"? Does he mean that he must go to Aldershot and wait outside the barracks until soldiers come out? The Bishop's statement, as he makes it, is to soldiers.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If he intends, and is trying, to seduce a soldier or soldiers from obeying orders, then I think it is an offence at present, and it will certainly remain an offence.
LORD ARNOLD: Is the noble Viscount's position that the Bill makes no difference in law?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In that regard, none. Then the noble Lord asks about pacifist pamphlets. "Pacifist" is a very vague word, and it depends upon what is in the pamphlet. There are many pacifist pamphlets which advocate no war, and advocate no fighting in circumstances which some of us think would justify resistance. Those are all right. They always have been, and will remain so. But though it is called a pacifist pamphlet it does not escape being criminal if it is an
endeavour to persuade soldiers to refuse to obey orders. That is an offence, and you have to prove, in order to convict under this Bill and under the existing Act, that the document is such as reasonably to amount to an attempt to seduce soldiers and sailors, and that it is issued to soldiers and sailors, or caused to be issued to them with that intent. If you prove that then you prove an offence under the Incitement to Mutiny Act, 1797, and under what I hope will be the Incitement to Disaffection Act of 1934.
LORD MARLEY: Did I understand the noble Viscount to say that a woman who persuades a soldier to overstay his leave is liable to penal servitude for life?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think it is arguable that perhaps she may be. I think under the Incitement to Mutiny Act she would come within it, and if so then she would come within this Bill. That is all.
LORD MARLEY: Then overstaying leave is somehow or other destroying allegiance?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That may be.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think the last admission is extraordinary, and I shall certainly ask the House to divide against Clause 1.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not Contents, 9.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Goschen, V.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Exeter, M.

Hailsham, V.

Lamington, L.

Luke L.

Feversham, E.

Aberdare, L.

Marks, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Abinger, L.

Merrivale, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Alvingham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Amulree, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Annaly, L.

Remnant, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Rennell, L.

Morton, E.

Bingley, L.

Rochester, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Munster, E.

Danesfort, L.

Southampton, L.

Onslow, E.

Daryngton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Plymouth, E.

Elton, L.

Radnor, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Templemore, L.

Rothes, E.

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

Wakehurst, L.

Ypres, E.

Greville, L.

Wolverton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Arnold, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Rhayader, L.

Faringdon, L.

Sanderson, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Snell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1 agreed to accordingly.
[The Sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
Clause 2:
Provisions for the prevention and detection of offences antler this Act.
2.—(1) If any person, with intent to commit or to aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of an offence under Section one of this Act, has in his possession or under his control any document of such a nature that the dissemination of copies thereof among members of His Majesty's forces would constitute such an offence he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
(2) If a Judge of the High Court is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act has been committed, and that evidence of the commission thereof is to be found at any premises or place specified in the information, he may, on an application made by an officer of Police of a rank not lower than that of inspector, grant a search warrant authorising any such officer as aforesaid named in the warrant together with any other persons named in the warrant and any other officers of Police to enter the premises or place at any time within one month from the date of the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and every person found therein, and to seize anything found on the premises or place or on any such person which the officer has reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of the commission of such an offence as aforesaid:
Provided that—

(a) a search warrant shall only be issued in respect of an offence suspected to have been committed within the three months prior to the laying of the information thereof; and

(b) if a search warrant under this Act has been executed on any premises, it shall be the duty of the officer of Police who has conducted or directed the search to notify the occupier that the search has taken place, and to supply him with a list of any documents or other objects which have been removed from the premises, and where and documents have been removed from any other person to supply that person with a list of such documents.

(3) No woman shall, in pursuance of a warrant issued under the last foregoing subsection, be searched except by a woman.
(4) Anything seized under this section may be retained for a period not exceeding one month, or if within that period proceedings are commenced for an offence under this Act until the conclusion of those proceedings, and subject as aforesaid, and to the provisions of this Act conferring powers on courts dealing with offences, the Police (Property) Act, 1897 (which makes provision with respect to the disposal of property in the possession of the Police),
266
shall apply to property which has come into the possession of the Police under this section as it applies to property which has come into the possession of the Police in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I might explain that in view of the fact that Lord Strabolgi withdrew his Amendment on Clause 1, he has handed me a manuscript Amendment, the same as the one on the Paper, which will come after Lord Marley's Amendment. Therefore, I shall put to the House the question that the word "If" stand part in order to save the other Amendment.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment may I express the hope that the noble Viscount who leads the House has had a good dinner and is in a more reasonable frame of mind, and that he will be more willing to give accurate information on the Bill when he replies to the points raised? He has certainly been guilty of suppressing a number of facts, and has failed to answer questions on certain aspects of the Bill in his replies. He has certainly misled certain members of your Lordships' House and misrepresented certain aspects of the Bill. Of course, he is a splendid fighter, but I think his valour sometimes outruns his discretion, and this led him into certain inaccuracies which misled some members of your Lordships' House, notably, the noble Marquess who leads the Liberals. It is very important in his position that we should have extremely accurate replies on this important measure. In particular, I want to take exception to his reply in connection with the newspaper controversy. He quoted from a leaflet called "The Soldier's Voice" which he says is a newspaper, though he knows perfectly well it is not a newspaper. There is a statutory definition of a newspaper, which is a publication which is published regularly, at least once every twenty-eight days, and the proprietor of which is registered. "The Soldier's Voice" is not a newspaper.
There is no doubt that this subsection is one of the most important parts of the Bill, because it provides the definition of the offence outlined in Clause 1. I do not believe that this Bill is aimed mainly at so-called Communist agitators, nor do I believe that it is aimed mainly at pacifists. I believe it is aimed at the

267
events which may take place in those few vital days preceding a possible declaration of war, days when tension throughout the country is extremely dangerous, when agitation against war may have the effect of destroying that popular support of a declaration of war without which no Government can make such a momentous decision; a time when those in favour of pacific action may be able to have an immense influence on great wavering sections of the population. I have a feeling that the sinister motive which has been referred to several times from various sides of the House may possibly be this motive of ensuring that any attempt to prevent popular support of that "extension of national policy," to use the words of Clausewitz, of which armed force is the final expression, shall be defeated. There can be no doubt that a declaration of a state of emergency, some declaration of national conscription, might at once make absolutely impossible any pacifist activities, any activities designed to prevent those who have been conscripted into the forces of the Crown or recalled to the colours from supporting the warlike attitude of the Government. I do not know about that, and I do not expect the noble Viscount to answer any hypothetical questions; I merely give it as a possible explanation of the real intention behind this Bill.
Let me read this subsection to noble Lords, because one of the stock replies of the noble and learned Viscount is his pathetic reiteration that we on these Benches have not read the Bill. If only he would give up this imagination that he is the only person who reads a measure brought before your Lordships' House, if he would acknowledge that we are capable of reading and understanding, and do read and understand, measures far too well sometimes for the Government! To get rid of that taunt, which is quite unworthy of the noble Viscount, I propose to read the subsection under discussion. It says:
"If any person, with intent to commit or to aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of an offence under Section one of this Act, has in his possession or under his control any document of such a nature that the dissemination of copies thereof among members of His Majesty's forces would constitute such an offence he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
The scope of this subsection is almost unlimited. It is capable of such an
268
infinity of interpretations that I cannot see there is any real limit to the extent to which it might be used. While, as was stated by my noble friend Lord Listowel a few minutes ago, the avowed object of this Government is limited in extent, I believe that it might be used most unscrupulously by any Government finding itself in a position where it desired to prevent free expression of opinion and to crush out opposition to any warlike preparations on the part of that Government. Moreover, under this subsection, any prominent man or woman who has expressed in the past pacifist views, views against war, views in favour of international friendship, may quite easily be caught up in the toils of the measure and be proved to have committed an offence under it. Not only that, but under this Bill the speeches of those persons may be taken into account to prove intent, also the antecedents of individuals, their activities now and in the past, the character of individuals and their position. The powers given are far too wide, far too ill-defined and vague.
I believe that this subsection of the Bill is capable of the most dangerous and vindictive application. I would like for a moment to analyse the two sides of this subsection. There is first of all the question of intent, and then there is the question of the possession or control of a document. I submit that in this subsection—and I think it wants very careful examination—those two things are not intimately connected. That is to say, you can prove intention with regard to the general activities of an individual and then you may have him for an offence because of the possession of a document quite other than and totally unconnected with the particular intention which is alleged against the individual. I believe that as it is worded this subsection is capable of that interpretation. It will not be the interpretation of the noble Viscount which will be taken in the Courts, it will be the actual wording of the Bill itself. Those individuals' intentions, as the Attorney-General's statements have indicated, will be a question of fact varying with every individual. For instance you can consider intention as applicable to a person merely because it is claimed that he has a thoroughly bad character.
There are very few members of your Lordships' House who have public bad characters, though I have no doubt privately we are no different from anyone else. It has been said by Bernard Shaw that this place is better than the House of Commons because, while most of us are here merely because we are the sons of our fathers, the House of Commons is a collection of selected undesirables. I of course do not follow Bernard Shaw in that. I think that probably we are about an average. According to the Attorney-General, apparently everything a man has done or said may be an index to his intention, and, under the law of evidence, events and incidents which have nothing to do with the particular case under consideration may be given in evidence if they are directed to showing the man's intention. For instance, membership of an organisation may be quite sufficient to establish intention. The members of the Society of Friends, as I shall show in a moment, publish some documents which certainly come under the second part of this subsection. Membership of the League of Nations Union might bring in that well-known criminal Viscount Cecil, for example. He would be qualifying for two years imprisonment and a fine of such astronomical proportions that I cannot conceive its amount. Certainly members of anti-war and pacifist organisations would qualify under the intention part of the subsection we are considering.
Whereas ordinary evidence must be relevant to the facts at issue, when it comes to intention evidence of other events is admissible—evidence of other events not connected with the particular facts at issue. There is a legal doctrine—here, of course, I speak subject to correction—of presumption of continuance of activities. Apparently, if an individual has been active in a certain direction, it is presumed that he is continuing those activities. Therefore, his intention is quite sufficiently provable when it comes to a case under this Bill. It seems easy to prove intent. Printers and publishers are particularly hit by this subsection. My noble friend Lord Arnold quoted from The Times an extremely interesting letter signed by a large number of publishers about a manuscript for a children's book which was considered to be so dangerous in its anti-war proposals that the printer
270
did not dare to print it. Not only are authors hit, but apparently typists who type their manuscripts would be among those who "aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence." There we should have typists, printers, publishers, book-sellers, newspaper advertisers and distributors. With regard to advertisers, there was a very interesting case some years ago, when Sir Archibald Bodkin, then an advocate at the Criminal Bar, declared that war would become impossible if all men were to take the view that war was wrong. He made that remark in the course of proceedings against members of the committee of the No Conscription Fellowship who, under the then existing law, were sentenced to six months imprisonment. That remark was subsequently printed as a poster, and the printer was fined one hundred and twenty pounds with the alternative of ninety-one days imprisonment merely for the sin of intending to display the poster.
It seems to me the whole of this chain of persons involved between the author and the publisher and the distributor of any document of a pacifist nature comes in under this far too wide Bill as capable of being charged with aiding and abetting the commission of an offence. It is quite clear, therefore, that the Bill does definitely stifle free speech and free expression of opinion and does lay the foundations for the building up in this country of a slave State. A vital point to remember is the legal presumption that everyone intends the natural and ordinary consequences of his actions or intended actions, and therefore disseminators in the way of their business are thus deemed to intend to circulate to anyone into whose hands or before whose eyes a paper, document, poster, etcetera, may come. Hence they cannot prevent a soldier seeing or buying a book or newspaper; and that, of course, is the whole position that we are taking up, that after this Bill becomes an Act, free speech becomes gravely endangered if that free speech or that expression of opinion has anything to do with pacifism, with antiwar, or with trying to persuade the people not to take part in fighting and in the use of armed force.
So much for the first part of this subsection, intention. If it is so easy to prove intention against any individual,

271
prominent or otherwise, but particularly prominent individuals, having got your intention you have then merely to discover a suitable document in his possession. The intention then is easy. Is it equally easy to discover a document which is suitable for the purpose of constituting an offence? And here the definition is amazingly wide. Let me try to give an analysis of it. Any document which, if placed before a soldier casually, might be considered by him or anyone else to be an attempt to seduce him, even by the internal evidence of the document, is quite sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the Bill, and it is impossible to say beforehand whether or not many documents actually fulfil the requirements of the second part of subsection (1) of Clause 2.
Let me give some examples. Of course manuscript notes or notes for speeches found in the house of one of these persons whose intention is so easy to prove are ample evidence, because they would be, according to the Bill, a document of such a nature that "the dissemination of copies thereof" would do the trick. May I remind your Lordships how very easy it is, if unscrupulous persons are conducting the search, to plant manuscript notes or to plant notes for a speech in the premises being searched? There is very real danger there. It has been done again and again. It has been done in this country as well as in other countries, and there is real danger of the planting of such a type of document.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I hope the noble Lord will pardon me for interrupting him, but does he suggest that it has been done by the Police in this country? If so, I think he ought to give instances.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Lord knows that history will show numerous cases of this type of action, and we have the words of the Attorney-General in another place when he stated that there was never any difficulty in obtaining an agent-provocateur and that he himself has sent an agent-provocateur to obtain certain documents without the slightest difficulty. With regard to articles, I hold in my hands a copy of the supplement to Time and Tide, a supplement dated November 3 and edited by Sir Norman Angell, that well-known pacifist, whose intentions can so easily be in-
272
ferred from his public and private activities. This document contains—and I strongly recommend to your Lordships the immense value of buying a copy of this paper, though I need hardly say I have no financial interest in it—extraordinarily interesting excerpts from the evidence heard by the United States Senate on the munitions industry—evidence of bribery and corruption of the most colossal kind by the great munition industries, not only of America, but of Great Britain—evidence of collaboration between Vickers and the Electric Boat Company, which must have the effect, if read by any soldier, of disgusting him with the type of people who are supplying him with the arms which he is to use in fighting, and which must have the effect on any reasonable being of disgusting him with the use of every conceivable type of filthy underground activity, as described in this document. I turn it up at random, and I read extraordinarily interesting evidence of the use of prostitutes in getting business.
LORD CARNOCK: Is that really evidence?
LORD MARLEY: Naturally, I said so.
LORD CARNOCK: Is evidence of prostitutes relevant to this debate?
LORD MARLEY: Very much so, because I am going to point out how it is going to disgust soldiers, and is likely to have the effect of turning soldiers against their duty. Let me take an example here. Asked whether Vickers were using women of doubtful character freely for the purpose of selling their goods, Mr. Miranda answered "Yes," and, asked whether they used women of doubtful character in South America, he replied "They do sometimes." Asked whether women were effective, he said "Not with me." Do noble Lords think that any soldier is going to fight under these conditions, when he learns that these great firms are selling arms to both sides in every conflict, and that the British soldier, when he is asked to fight, is quite likely to be shot down by the arms supplied by a British firm to the enemy? These articles will certainly subject Sir Norman Angell to the possibility of arrest, for we read that he is advocating that people should read this document, including soldiers.

273
Articles in the Press of this general kind will be published very much less freely in the future than in the past, because not only Sir Norman Angell but the publisher, printer and distributor will be liable under this Bill to two years imprisonment and an enormous fine. One copy of this found in the house of any individual known to have pacifist views, known to intend that soldiers shall be encouraged not to fight, is sufficient to secure that man's conviction. And what about books? Have any noble Lords read the memoirs of Mr. Lloyd George and his attack upon the generals for what he claims to be their crass stupidity and obstinacy in forcing to death thousands upon thousands of men in the mud of the battlefield of Passchendaele. Surely any solder reading that is likely to be disgusted—
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: Hear, hear.
LORD MARLEY: I am very glad to have the agreement of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CLAYWILLIAM: We do not agree with Mr. Lloyd George.
LORD MARLEY: I am not concerned with that.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: The noble Lord asked us if we had read the book. I have not.
LORD MARLEY: Well, I am very sorry. I hope the noble Earl will obtain a copy, and then he will speak with more authority on it. But I am not concerned with the effect of this book on noble Lords. I am concerned with the dangerous effect it will have on the minds of private soldiers who, reading that book, will believe that the officers commanding are dangerous, obstinate, inefficient and brutal, and may be incited thereby not to carry out their duties. Now, that is a very serious position, and therefore I say that one copy of Lloyd George's book found in the house of a person known to have intent to seduce is quite sufficient to secure the conviction of that person.
LORD CARNOCK: Lloyd George?
LORD MARLEY: Lloyd George; and I hope very much that if somebody is going to be prosecuted, the Government will try their hand on Lloyd George at the beginning, and see what success they
274
have. Similarly, I think Mr. H. G. Wells's book, in which he examines the mentality of the generals would be sufficient as a document to secure the conviction of any well-known pacifist if a copy were found in his house.
There was some amusement at the possibility of the League of Nations Union being an organisation membership of which might be dangerous. But let me quote an excerpt from a pamphlet by Dr. Maxwell Garnett, who is secretary of the League of Nations Union, which I believe, if found in the house of one of these individuals, would be sufficient under this Bill to secure a conviction. Dr. Garnett, in his pamphlet "Organising Peace," which is an official publication of the League of Nations Union, used the following words:
"The only common sense policy is to enrol the forces of sanity and decency in all nations in a joint endeavour to get the world out of its foolish and wicked old dream about war's nobility and utility. Probably an enormous number of people, certainly most ex-soldiers, have got hold of some of this truth."
These words can only have value when addressed not only to the civil population, but to ex-soldiers, many of whom are still reservists, and I think therefore that under this Bill, although Dr. Garnett might deny his intention to disaffect these reservists, yet it could be shown that the probable consequence of his words and his guilty intention must be inferred from the consequences of his deliberate act in writing these words.
Then what about the Society of Friends—a most dangerous organisation, pacifist, one that urges all men and women to take no part in war? I believe that certain pamphlets of the Society of Friends would be amply adequate documents to find in the hands of one of these well-known persons. For instance in the pamphlet, "In the Next War," published by the Friends' Peace Committee it is said:
"The only way in which war will ever stop is for the fighters to refuse to fight."
That is a perfectly deliberate attempt to seduce fighters from their duty and allegiance. In another pamphlet, "The Warless World," published by the Society of Friends, it is said:
"The fundamental peace principle of Christianity demands the utter rejection of war, unequivocally and without compromise."

275
And I see that Professor Gilbert Murray, after examining this Bill, gave it as his opinion that if the Bill is passed and is strictly administered by an unscrupulous Government, all those possessing the literature of the Society of Friends will be liable to imprisonment.
Surely this Bill is far too wide if I am right in all these examples of documents which could be used to create the offence under discussion? The worst case in my opinion is a resolution passed by that wicked organisation, the Labour Party, at their annual conference. I have a copy of the annual report of the Labour Party Conference at home. I cannot hide it. I have no doubt that if, and when, it is desired to imprison me my words will be remembered and that incriminating document will be found. Why do I say "incriminating"? I want to remind your Lordships that membership of political Parties is not forbidden to soldiers. We have in the Labour Party many serving soldiers who are members. One resolution, carried unanimously at the Annual Conference of the Labour Party, says this:
"We pledge ourselves to take no part in war and to resist it with the whole force of the Labour Movement."
That is a most dangerous document to have. Soldiers who are members of the Labour Party are "to take no part in war and to resist it with the whole force of the Labour Movement."
We heard something about the B.B.C. just before we adjourned for dinner. The British Broadcasting Corporation has already been frightened by the possibility of this Bill becoming law. When Professor Haldane was asked to broadcast his views on war the British Broadcasting Corporation, knowing that Professor Haldane's speech would be published in the Listener, knowing that such a document might be a document within the meaning of the Bill, and would therefore render them liable for aiding and abetting, refused to allow him to speak. Professor Haldane argued, of course, that the way to stop war was to find out those who profit by war, and then he included a sentence that I commend to your Lordships. He said:
"In 1921 the Greek Government rejected the British, French and Italian proposals for a peace with Turkey, and launched an offensive in Asia Minor. The following year the Greek Army was defeated. There was
276
a revolution, and the Commander-in-Chief, the Prime Minister, and four other Ministers were executed. This was one of the most impressive gestures for peace made in our time."
I suggest that the B.B.C. were perhaps wise not to publish that in view of this Bill and the probability of its becoming law, but the Daily Herald published it, and so the Daily Herald is now liable, and it will be interesting to see the use made of that when it is desired to secure a conviction.
We all know the liability of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is known to have made statements which are most seditious. Take the statement in which he said that:
"Beneath the uniforms of the soldiers now engaged in fighting us were workmen—miners, textile workers, engineers, railwaymen. Our workmen, joining hands with them, should be fighting the common enemy in every land—capitalism, militarism, secret diplomacy."
That statement was made during the War. What a dangerous sentence to find as a document in the house of any individual whom it is desired to prove guilty of an offence under this subsection, which I say is infinitely too wide. I do not say the Prime Minister is alone in this Government. We have similar statements by the Dominions Secretary. He was asked when the War would end, and he said:
"God knows—but what is more important is: Will there be another? Not if the workers of the world are alive to their responsibility."
These documents are ample, I submit, if found in a house or on the premises of persons of well known pacifist views, to supply the prosecutors with all that is necessary to secure a conviction against such a person.
We have had the case of the Bishop of Birmingham, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Arnold. The Bishop of Birmingham deliberately intends, apparently, to advise soldiers not to fight. Suppose that he were a Vice-President of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel or of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and there were discovered in his house five thousand copies of the Bible and by his bedside a marked copy with certain seditious sentences clearly marked, I believe that would be ample documentary evidence of his intention to commit the offence, and of the document being available by which the offence

277
might be committed. We know that the Attorney-General in another place has made it clear that in certain circumstances the use of the Bible would be a document amply sufficient to fulfil the need of documentary evidence in the case of a person of well known pacifist views.
Not only is this the case. It is not only possession that is involved, but it is possession and control, and not only is it the individual concerned, but it may be servants of that individual who will also be brought into the case. For example, in the case of a public library the librarian is responsible if such a document is found in the library of which he is librarian. The ramifications of the clause as drawn are so infinite and so wide that I believe it to be a most dangerous and serious clause to put into the law of this country. I believe I have proved the vagueness and the immense breadth of liability and the danger of this subsection. I want to conclude by reminding your Lordships that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, may well be used by a Socialist Government in the case, for example, of another Curragh plot to seduce soldiers from performing their duty of supporting the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange against the resistance of the possessing classes. You are putting a weapon on the Statute Book which has two edges. I hope that your Lordships, or some of your Lordships, will realise our absolute sincerity in our opposition to this Bill, will realise our real belief in its dangers for the future of the country, and will not consider that we are idly opposing it merely because the Government are forcing a measure on this House, but that we are concerned with the future of this country, and believing that this Bill is a danger, consider therefore that it should be opposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Marley.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think I need take so long in answering the noble Lord as he has taken in moving this Amendment. The noble Lord has entertained us for some considerable time with extracts from evidence given in some American inquiry as to the private manufacture of arms, which would seem more relevant to the debate now going on in
278
another place than to anything before your Lordships. The noble Lord has told us that he has read and understood the subsection. He has read it to your Lordships, and therefore we know that he has read it. I can only say that from his speech he seems far from understanding it. May I explain in a few sentences what this subsection does? Clause 1, which we have already passed, makes it an offence, maliciously and advisedly, to try and seduce a member of the forces from his duty or allegiance. Clause 2, with which we are now concerned, makes it an offence for persons to have in their possession, or under their control, certain documents under certain conditions.
There are two conditions which are necessary to constitute an offence under this subsection. The first relates to the object of the person, and the second relates to the nature of the document. With regard to the object, of the person who is accused, it will be necessary for the prosecution to establish that the object with which the accused person has this document, whatever it be, in his possession, is to commit, or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence under Clause I. That is to say, before a prosecution can succeed, it is necessary affirmatively to prove that the object of the person accused is to seduce a member of His Majesty's Forces from his duty or allegiance. That is the first condition and, unless that is satisfied, no prosecution can succeed. The noble Lord has told us what he said the Attorney-General had explained as to what was relevant evidence, The important thing is what it is that has to be proved. In fact, the Attorney-General, so far from saying that the character of the person charged would be sufficient, said this:
"One has to prove two things. First, to prove an intention to commit an offence under Clause 1, and, secondly, to prove possession. The proof of intention is a proof which the prosecution must undertake. It has sometimes been suggested that the character of a person charged will he proof of intention."
The noble Lord told us that the Attorney-General said that was so. The Attorney-General went on to say:
"Any lawyer will know that that is wrong. You might as well attempt to prove that a man who was charged with being drunk while in charge of a motor car on 1st November was guilty because he had been drunk on 1st October. His character and his ante-

279
cedents would have nothing on earth to do with the charge, and could not be given in evidence."
LORD MARLEY: May I interrupt for just one moment? The actual words used by the Attorney-General were—"a person of thoroughly bad character, a Communist." That is character.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am reading a verbatim extract from what the Attorney-General said.
LORD MARLEY: What I read was a verbatim extract.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: And with great respect to the noble Lord I do not propose to be diverted from it. He said that the Attorney-General had told the House of Commons that the character of a person charged would be proof of intention. I am reading this short extract to show that the Attorney-General, so far from saying that, said the precise opposite:
"His character and his antecedents would have nothing on earth to do with the charge, and could not be given in evidence. The prosecution will have to prove intention by giving evidence of some overt acts, as we lawyers say, in a phrase which I think is understood, and will have to undertake the onus, and discharge the onus before a magistrate or, if the person charged prefers it, before a jury, of showing that this intention exists."
I read that merely to show what in fact was said, so that your Lordships shall not be afraid, after the noble Lord's explanation, that the Attorney-General's language had been quite so surprising as some of you may have thought it was.
Then the other point which has to be proved is not only the intention with which the document is possessed, but also the nature of the document, and in order to ascertain that you have got to look at the document.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That seems to me rather a sensible thing to do and I am glad that we are agreed. You have got to look at the document and you have got to see from the document itself whether it is "of such a nature that the dissemination of copies thereof among members of His Majesty's forces would constitute" an offence under Clause 1, that is to say that the document is of such a nature that you could not spread it among members of His Majesty's forces without com-
280
mitting the offence of endeavouring to seduce them from their allegiance. What is the good of reading the sort of letters and books and so-called evidence which the noble Lord read, when those are the words of the Bill, and when that is what has got to be undertaken? I do venture to think that this is an eminently reasonable clause. I come back, as I said before, to what the purpose of it is. The purpose of it is this, that whereas at present the person you catch and punish is the innocent tool, under this clause the person you catch and punish will be the person who has organised and intended to carry out a conspiracy to seduce His Majesty's forces.
LORD SNELL: I do not wish to detain the Committee on this point for more than a minute or two, but I should like to explain that if we felt it necessary to spend some time upon our criticism of this clause it was not our intention either to "entertain" the House (as the words were) or to obstruct its proceedings. It did seem to us that this subsection opened up the great principle of the Bill and therefore it would serve the purposes of your Lordships' House if we explained our position upon it at rather more than the usual length. I will say no more upon that point, but the speech of the noble Viscount has left me in a state of perplexity. I should like to know how the intention of a man can be discovered. That is the real point which the noble Viscount has been astute enough not to deal with. You can judge the words of a man; you can judge his overt acts and apply to them certain qualities; but how you are to judge what a man's intention is has not been explained. How does the noble Viscount know what my intentions are? I assure him that so far as I know they are entirely pacific and I hope not seditious, but how does he know what my intentions are? How do I know what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government? I do not know, but I suspect what they are. But a. suspicion is not sufficient to give a man two years for, or to put a fine of £200 upon him. That is the real point which I want to impress upon your Lordships, and it is the point of our discussion of this subject.
Before I close I would just like to say this. My own limitations in appreciation of this House are fairly well known,

281
and I do not recall any of the criticisms I ever made upon it, but I have always believed that almost the one thing that placed it high in the estimation of the country was its regard for the personal liberty of Englishmen, and there were times during the War when the House of Lords seemed to remember that there was such a thing as a British tradition and a British Constitution. Yet on this occasion, when something so fundamental to the liberty of the individual is being discussed, we can scarcely get an argument in justification of it. That seems to be a matter for some regret. We still affirm our supreme anxiety about this subsection, and we feel that the arguments which have been advanced have not been answered, and we shall carry our opposition to a Division.
LORD BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH: I think the noble Lord was complaining a little unfairly when he said "We cannot get our arguments listened to." We have listened with patience for three-quarters of an hour.
LORD SNELL: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I thought I said we could not get our arguments answered.
LORD BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord said it was not fair to convict on suspicion, but surely the effect of the clause is that you have got to prove intent in order to convict. I believe there are many Acts of Parliament in which an intent is an offence. The noble Lord says that suspicion is not enough, but it is provided in the clause that the intent has got to he proved.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: I wonder whether if, instead of moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I might venture to speak on this Amendment, and so save the time which otherwise would be taken by my Amendment. I hope I am not inconveniencing the House by intervening now, but I think this subsection still contains one element of very grave doubt. In this clause you find the phrase "any document of such a nature that" it will have a certain effect. I submit to the noble Viscount that those words are of such a nature that if they remain in an undefined condition, they make it difficult, for the administration of this clause to be carried out justly and equitably in every case. There is great uncertainty as to what precisely
282
this phrase does mean. I do believe that in a strict rigid sense the document is defined in the Bill as drawn, but when you have matters of this importance which are going to have a considerable public interest it is important to have a clause so drafted that it commands public confidence in the wording used.
Whether the noble Viscount himself and the Attorney-General can understand it or not, printers and publishers at present do feel in considerable doubt as to what precisely is covered by that vague phrase "of such a nature"; and I have tried in my proposed Amendment to define more precisely the meaning of the phrase, and in the Amendment which I should have moved occur these words: "designed for that purpose and directed to that end." If that phrase could have been introduced into the Bill a great deal of what Lord Marley has said would not have been relevant, because every one of these documents which might come under suspicion must then have been deliberately designed for the purpose of the offence, and definitely directed to the object. I believe that if it were possible for the Government to give sympathetic consideration to these words, a great deal of the public misapprehension about this Bill would be cleared up, even though it is true that it is textually covered by the present drafting.
The reason which makes this matter so technically difficult and so dangerous to public confidence is that the procedure under this Bill is the procedure of the search warrant. If, for instance, the document were to lie taken before a Judge in an ordinary public Court, and the arguments for and against the nature of the document were to be publicly argued before the Judge, then the document would be examined by the Judge and a definite verdict upon its character could be given. But in this case it is a Judge in Chambers on an ex parte statement who has to pronounce on the document and say whether a search warrant shall be given. Say that he gives the search warrant, and says that the search in respect of that document shall take place, then the inspector goes into the private house in order, partly, to try to see to what extent that document is to be found in the house. But under subsection (2), when the inspector arrives in the house, he is not only entitled to

283
take as evidence the document which has been brought before the Judge in Chambers and argued on an ex parte statement, but he has also to seize anything found on the premises which he may feel is evidence in connection with the case. Therefore, the next stage in the proceedings, where definiteness is so vital, is that the document is considered by an ordinary inspector, who uses what judgment he may possess in order to try to decide what documents are seditious, and as long as there is that possibility that an inspector may seize anything which he thinks to be a document of the kind that would be evidence in the case under Clause I, the consequence may be that printers, journalists and editors may be in grave doubt as to what precisely is, and is not, covered by the phrase a "document of such a nature."
In this debate I have to speak sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other, but a Cross Bench attitude is sometimes of help. Assurances given by the noble Viscount I accept without any question at all. I am perfectly convinced that there is no sinister intention in this Bill, but assurances given in Parliament are absolutely of no value when the Act comes to be administered in the Courts of Law. If the assurances which had been given in the House of Commons during the passage of the Military Service Acts during the War had been valid in the Courts of Law, I should never have been the guest of His Majesty's Government on so many occasions and for so long a period of time. Therefore having that experience in mind, and remembering that it is not only the intentions of this Government but the intentions of other Governments which are involved, and our descendants who will be subject to the administration of this Bill, if it were possible for the Government favourably to consider trying to define this vague clause more amply than it is now defined, I believe they would be doing a public service and would be removing one of the great apprehensions that at the present time surround this measure.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I only rise to say that I think the noble Lord who has just spoken has added to the confusion of our proceedings by moving his Amendment now. There are
284
seven Amendments on this subsection, and although many of us might be prepared to support the noble Lord on the particular point he has raised I think it would be preferable for us to get the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marley out of the way first, and then the seven Amendments on the subsection can be debated separately and voted on.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I did riot understand that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Hurtwood, moved his Amendment. He merely asked to speak on his Amendment at this stage.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: Might I say that I thought it would be a great pity to duplicate the discussion? Speeches are far too long in any case, and if I were to raise the whole subject again it would be a great mistake. Therefore I thought I would speak now.
LORD ARNOLD: This is a matter of supreme importance. I have been a long time in your Lordships' House now, and I do not remember this sort of thing happening before. We shall get into most inextricable confusion if we attempt to do business in this way. I have great respect for the noble Lord, but he has not been very long here, and I do not think the procedure he has adopted is one that should be followed. I hope there will not be any more of it, otherwise the debate becomes more difficult, and it is difficult enough already, because we do not get a proper reply even to one Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: May I say just one word in defence of the noble Lord, Lord Allen? I gather he is not going to move, so he is in exactly the same position as if he had not put an Amendment down. The Amendment we have been discussing is to leave out the whole subsection, and nobody can doubt that the noble Lord who moved dealt exhaustively with the whole subsection. The noble Lord behind me points out his misgivings with regard to some words in the subsection as to which he would desire to have elucidation. I cannot see myself that there is anything inconvenient or improper in the course he has taken, and, if I may, I shall endeavour in a few words to answer the points he has raised. I agree with the noble Lord that in a Bill which is even suspected—I think I said

285
this on Second Reading—of dealing with any question of the liberty of the subject, it is of the greatest importance that we should do our best to ensure that the Bill is not misunderstood. Whether or not that end has been assisted by some of the attacks made from the other side, I think may be doubted; but I agree with the noble Lord that that should be our object.
But when I come to the actual Amendment that he suggests I would ask the House to believe that the Government tried to get the words which were best for the purpose, and if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so his own words do not really help. It is very difficult to find words which are not capable of being misrepresented. If I may remind him for a moment—and this is only an illustration of the sort of difficulty that arises—in the Trade Disputes Bill when the Government proposed words very like these he now suggests, the words "a strike designed or calculated," a tremendous attack was made on the ground that the word "designed" was so ambiguous, and it was said we ought to have something which was more definite and clear. I am quite sure if the word here had been "designed," although the noble Lord would perhaps have been satisfied, we should have had just as bitter complaints from the other side and just such an attempt to make out that the words were not intelligible.
There is this further difficulty, which is perhaps a technical one, that if those words were used you would have to prove what was the design of the person who originally produced the pamphlet. That might be a very, very difficult thing. The material thing is what is the design of the person who has the pamphlet whom you are prosecuting, and it does not matter whether the original writer designed the particular words which are in the pamphlet for one purpose or another so long as they are, if disseminated among the forces, calculated to produce this result of seducing them from their allegiance, and are held by the possessor with the intention of using them for that purpose. For that reason we think that the words we have got in the Bill are as clear as it is possible for us to make them.
LORD RHAYADER,: I listened to the noble Viscount with some disappoint-
286
ment. I rather hoped that my noble friend Lord Allen would have elicited a better response from the Government than he has received. This clause, with its wide application, is really the main cause of the anxiety of the country about the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, who devoted a great deal of time to analysing the clause, I think has voiced what is felt in the country. None of us know at this moment what documents are referred to in the Bill. We have not the smallest idea whether the circulation of portions of the Bible specially marked might become incriminating documents, or whether sermons preached in the interests of peace are dangerous to the speakers. The Government give us no help whatever. Surely the thing we want to get at is the circulation of documents which are designed, which have the intent, which are written and circulated with the purpose of seducing the troops. That is what the Government profess to be aiming at, that and nothing more. Yet they put in this Bill words so wide that nobody in the country knows whether any book, pamphlet, sermon, speech, article, notes of a speech, or anything which is reduced to writing may not come under the condemnation of this clause.
The Government cannot say that this fear is baseless, because they have refused from the beginning to justify their Bill by saying what is going on which requires this legislation. Not one word has been said in either House to prove the necessity of the Bill. The Government refuse altogether to say what are the documents that they mean to condemn. They wish to have power absolutely unlimited in scope to keep any document which in certain circumstances is made use of in regard to the troops. I submit that the Government are asking us for an amount of confidence which they have not justified. I do not wish to withhold from the Government any power which may be necessary to them to keep order or discipline among the soldiers. We have a free Army and a man need not go into the Army unless he chooses to do so. He makes a contract. I do not want the Government to have a power so wide that books, written long ago, and speeches which were never intended to be used for seditious purposes may all come under the condemnation of the Bill. I think we have real reason to

287
complain that the Government have given us no help to allay the anxieties of the country which are very real and far-reaching. I do think that, although they have accepted many Amendments and this Bill is very different from when it was introduced, their refusal to define what sort of a document they really mean in words which cannot be mistaken, their refusal to limit this terrible power which they are now taking into the hands of the Executive will do something to lose them support in the country. The country would be glad enough to give them power to preserve discipline in the Army, but not willing to give them these immense powers when nobody knows who may come under condemnation, or what documents may be the cause of his conviction.
LORD MARLEY: May I say that I am disappointed with the reply of the noble
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (1), after "If," to insert "in time of war or national emergency." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Viscount? I expected that sort of reply but I am disgusted with it, because we never get adequate arguments in reply to the arguments we try to put forward. We put forward our arguments with perfect sincerity because we believe that this Bill is a danger to the future of the country. I apologise to the Committee if my arguments were put at too great a length, but it was difficult to compress into a smaller space a speech on a subject which I believe to be of such vital importance. We feel that our arguments are serious arguments, and deserve a reply less airy, rather more detailed, and rather more informative than was vouchsafed by the noble Viscount who leads the House.
On Question, Whether the word "If" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Brentford, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Exeter, M.

Hailsham, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick)

Airlie, E.

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

Aberdare, L.

Greville, L.

De La Warr, E.

Abinger, L.

Hampton, L.

Feversham, E.

Alness, L.

Harris, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Alvingham, L.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Amulree, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Annaly, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller]

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Biddulph, L.

Lamington, L.

Midleton, E.

Bingley, L.

Luke, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Redesdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Remnant, L.

Plymouth, E.

Rennell, L.

Radnor, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Rothes, E.

Cranworth, L.

Rochester, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

Danesfort, L.

Southampton, L.

Ypres, E.

Daryngton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Douglas, L. (E. Home)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Astor, V.

Elton, L.

Templemore, L.

Wakehurst, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull)

Rhayader, L.

Arnold, L.

Snell, L.

Faringdon, L.

Marley L. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Page 1, line 10, after ("If") insert ("in time of war or national emergency" ).—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD ARNOLD: I wish to say something upon this Amendment. There seems to be a sort of understanding that there were not to be any speeches upon this Amendment, but I was not involved

289
in that understanding because I had not spoken upon it for the first time. I wish to make the position in regard to that very important matter quite clear, because the noble Viscount who leads the House appears to be under the impression that he could give directions which would restrict the debate. The noble Marquess sitting on the Liberal Benches, when an Amendment, similar to this was moved on Clause 1, with rather more courtesy than knowledge of the rules of procedure of the House, asked the noble Viscount whether he would agree to the Amendment being moved where it is now being moved, and the noble Viscount said he would agree to that on the condition that the speeches made were not repeated. As a matter of fact the noble Viscount has no authority in the matter—no more than I have, or the bench on which he is sitting. Noble Lords are entitled to speak as often and as long as they like, and they are going to do it.
There is no closure in this House, and no power to stop speaking, unless you move that a noble Lord be no longer heard. If the noble Viscount cares to do that let him do it. It is an important matter and should be cleared up. I happen to be the only member who during many years of the history of this House has been closured. It was in 1927, on the repealing of the Seven Hours Bill for miners, when Lord Salisbury moved the closure upon me. It was a most unconstitutional proceeding, and the noble Marquess had next week to eat humble pie and to promise not to do it again. In particular, he incurred the censure of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, probably the greatest living authority on the closure. There has been no obstruction on this Bill, absolutely none, and we should get on much better if the noble Viscount would endeavour to apply 'himself seriously to the arguments put forward. We on these Benches at the present moment number about eight, and we represent about a million voters each, or on this Bill probably two millions each.
In the country this Bill is hated, and the only way in which a so-called National candidate can make any headway is by "trimming" on this Bill. The Government know that the Bill is a ghastly mistake, and if they had any decent political courage they would withdraw it even now.
290
should very much like to hear the discussions on this Bill inside Government circles. I suspect the Government are told to give way, or to get the Bill through or out of the way, because they are sick of it. It is a very serious Bill, and it is not in accordance with the traditions of the House, or the utility of the House, if it has any utility (as to Which I have grave doubts, after the debate to-day) that our arguments should be pooh-poohed as of no account, or else misrepresented. Even the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, with all his great experience, was deceived by the noble Viscount on the question of "duty or" and "duty and," and when the matter was made clear to him he said with commendable honesty that there are two offences, and he was going to vote against that clause.
That gives all the more reason for the Amendment of Lord Strabolgi. He put forward the question of the soldier's sweetheart who asks her lover to stop over his leave, and the noble Viscount said that is an offence punishable under the present law by penal servitude for life. Personally, I do not believe that any Court could hold that an action of that kind affected allegiance. But it might be substantiated if it affects duty, and that comes in this Amendment. But the more we go on, the worse the position gets. The points we brought up in regard to the happenings this week, that letter in The Times and so forth—these are not imaginary apprehensions; they are held by a very large number of people. The Bill is not what the noble Viscount represented it to be, simply a Bill for dealing with dangerous Communist propaganda. It goes far beyond that. I believe I am correct in saying that it was only on the last Amendment that the noble Viscount seemed to have any glimmerings that the Bill had anything to do with the great principles of liberty. Well, that is not the view of the country. There is widespread apprehension in the country, and this debate has done nothing to decrease it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I imagine it is desired that I should say a word in answer to the Amendment. I am not dealing with the speech of Lord Arnold, because he has not said a word which has even the remotest relevance to the Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: That is not so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This Amendment was originally moved on Clause 1. But Lord Strabolgi saw that it was hopeless on that clause, it did not fit, and he suggested that it would come better under Clause 2. Now there is a difference of principle between noble Lords opposite and ourselves which vitally affects this Amendment. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said on Second Reading that if the Government was able to show a state of emergency he would be prepared to give all the powers which are contained in the Bill, but he said the state of emergency had not been proved to exist. We, on our side, do not in the least regard this as an emergency measure; it is not to meet a case of emergency. If there were, in fact, a war or a national emergency, which is the only case in which the noble Lord suggests that this Bill should become operative, I think myself that probably very different powers would be required beyond those which this Bill confers. Certainly they were in the last war, and I imagine the same thing would happen in any future war.
But at the present time we say that there is going on, week by week, and month by month, and year by year a series of attempts to seduce members of His Majesty's forces from their duty and allegiance to the Crown. If those attempts were ever to succeed, the unfortunate person who yielded to those solicitations would be liable to extreme punishment, and the view which we form, and which I am not in the least ashamed of reiterating, is that it is not right to allow people to go on unchecked, endeavouring to seduce the members of His Majesty's forces, and at the same time to say to the members of the forces that if they are seduced they are going to be severely punished. We believe that the right course is to punish anybody who makes the endeavour to seduce, not in time of emergency but to-day, and that it is not right to limit the power of punishment to those who actually disseminate the criminal documents, that it is far more important to apprehend and punish those who are responsible for their dissemination. It is for that purpose that this Bill is introduced, and therefore it is we cannot accept the
292
Amendment which the noble Lord has moved.
LORD STRABOLGI: I thank the Minister for War for dealing with the matter that I raised on the very first Amendment at the beginning of this sitting. No doubt he believes it is very necessary to have these powers even in time of peace. What we have just heard is a justification for this measure in time of peace and tranquillity. There are these endeavours going on, he tells us, day after day, week after week, month after month—I cannot imitate the Minister's eloquence, but that was the effect of it. That may be, but what we have not heard, and I am sorry to have to repeat this again—it was brought up by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Liberal Party, and by Lord Rhayader and others—is what is the effect of these attempts. From all I can gather—and I have been at some pains to enquire from friends who are serving officers in all three Services—the troops are reasonably contented. They grumble, as most men in uniform do, but there are really no cases of seditious outbreak amongst them.
I believe that a little time ago—and I shall give the Minister for War this point—a number of young Communists, men of fine physique, enlisted in one of His Majesty's regiments of Foot Guards. I am told they were excellent soldiers, clean, good soldiers, but at the first sign of real trouble in the country these men stepped out from the ranks—that was during the General Strike in 1926—and called upon their comrades to follow them—in other words, to mutiny. They were not followed, and they were taken outside the barrack gates and naturally dismissed His Majesty's service. That did happen in 1926, and it is very remarkable. I am told these men were good soldiers, and obviously men of great sincerity who believed in the Communist solution of our present economic troubles, and they proceeded to carry out their convictions. But this Bill will not affect any such men whatsoever. These men do not read pamphlets—the "Soldier's Voice," and the "Red Signal," or whatever they call the curious documents I have heard of for the first time. These men go into the Army with the deliberate intention of stirring up trouble, and with no result whatsoever. So far as I can hear—and we have two of His Majesty's Secretaries of State, representing two of our great

293
fighting forces on that Bench, and I am sure they will bear me out—the general bearing of the troops and the discipline of the seamen are excellent. Therefore, we say, there is no need for this Bill. That is the reason for my Amendment. The noble Viscount gave his reasons. I thank him for his arguments. He has at least given us a full reply. I have tried to meet his arguments and to explain why we shall have to divide the House on a very great question of principle.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord who has just spoken is a past-master in the art of obstruction. I was fortunate enough to be a member of another place at the same time as the noble Lord, and I have heard him stand up in that place on many occasions and reiterate arguments on the subject of the debate over and over again as he has done this afternoon and as he is doing this evening. Unfortunately I have not been able to be in the House during the past few hours, because I was attending a dinner at which we were discussing a very similar subject to that which your Lordships' House is discussing this evening, but before I left the House I was listening to exactly the same arguments, exactly the same trend of ideas, from noble Lords on the Opposition Bench as have been portrayed in the arguments to which I have just listened in the last five minutes since I came back to your Lordships' House.
The whole argument is that there is no reason for the Bill because neither the Army nor the Navy nor the Air Force has broken out into sedition. You might as well say you should take no precautions against your house being set on fire. You might just as well take no precautions against a burglar entering into your house and taking away such valuable articles as he might find there. Surely the whole reason for this Bill is that it is definitely known—we have heard it from the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House over and over again this evening, and we have read it in the debates that have taken place in the House of Commons—that there are Communistic activities proceeding in the country to-day with the definite object of undermining the loyalty and the goodwill of the forces of the Crown. If that is the case what Government would be worth its salt if it did not take the action that is suggested in this Bill? What is the good of looking the stable after the
294
horse has been stolen? That is the whole trend of the arguments from the Opposition Benches to-day.
I venture to charge the Opposition here with not presenting arguments on every Amendment which they bring forward according to the Amendments themselves, but with bringing forward arguments with the sole purpose of obstructing this Bill in order so far as possible to prevent its passing in time to go on the Statute Book. I hope that noble Lords opposite are not going to continue this form of obstruction, but that they will present at least new arguments for the Amendments which they are about to introduce, and not weary the Committee with the same arguments over and over again to which we have been listening to-day.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I must protest against the charge which the noble Viscount has just brought forward of obstruction. If we wanted to obstruct we could have put about one hundred Amendments on the Paper, and we could have intentionally kept your Lordships for several nights and perhaps endangered the Bill. We wanted to do no such thing. We dismissed the idea entirely, and we put down a mere two dozen Amendments on the most important points, knowing that outside there is a very deep feeling about this Bill which we intended to voice in this House. Why is this Bill brought forward at the time that it is in your Lordships' House? We are very often forced in the last few days of the Session to pass a number of Bills, and, as we all know, this House is not a revising Chamber when a Conservative Government is in power; it is a registering Chamber; and we shall find that to-day when not a single Amendment is accepted. But the idea of obstruction is monstrous. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi has not spoken more than three times, I suppose, during the whole of this sitting. The noble Viscount strolls in here after dinner and makes this charge against us, not having sat through the debate, which I think has been at a very high level and very carefully dealt with on our side.
If this Bill was of such supreme importance as the Government pretend why did they not see to it that they got it through the House of Commons earlier? Why were there blank days in the Com-

295
mittee upstairs from want of a quorum? There were enough National Government supporters on that Committee to have carried on the work and given a quorum every day the Committee sat, but they did not do so. I do not know for how many days the Committee was suspended because there was no quorum. That was because in the ranks of the supporters of the Government there was as much doubt And misgiving as there is outside. We have every right to see that the Bill is
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or to aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of". The noble Earl said: Your Lordships have listened with such exemplary attention and patience to the long debates which we have had this afternoon and evening that that alone is sufficient to prove that the reproach of obstruction does not represent the considered opinion of the majority of your Lordships. It is a very encouraging symptom to those of us who represent an extremely small section of your Lordships' House that we who speak—and this is our only claim to be able to speak—as the mouthpieces of hundreds of thousands of individuals in the towns
296
properly argued and that arguments are brought forward so that the country can read them. If we have made slow progress so far it is because our arguments have not been met. Therefore we have had to repeat them and repeat them we shall for a few hours more.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS.

Arnold, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull) [Teller]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Faringdon, L.

Rhayader, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

Marley, L. [Teller]

Snell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hailsham, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick)

Exeter, M.

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

Aberdare, L.

Greville, L.

Airlie, E.

Abinger, L.

Hampton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Harris, L.

Feversham, E.

Alness, L.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Alvingham, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Amulree, L.

Iliffe, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller]

Annaly, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lamington, L.

Midleton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Lloyd, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Bingley, L.

Luke, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

Redesdale, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Remnant, L.

Radnor, E.

Rennell, L.

Rothes, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Vane, K. (M. Londonderry)

Cottesloe, L.

Rochester, L.

Ypres, E.

Cranworth, L.

Southampton, L.

Daryngton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Astor, V.

Elton, L.

Elibank, V.

Fairfax of Cameron L.

Templemore, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

and villages of this country who are apprehensive on account of this measure, are able to voice unpopular opinions without interruption and with serious attention during a very long period of time.
Your Lordships will have observed that the majority of our Amendments occur in relation to subsection (1) of Clause 2 of this Bill. The reason for that is that we regard this subsection, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has said and as the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, has said, as the source of the poison that we believe this Bill to contain, and if we are unable to eliminate, as we should like to eliminate, the whole subsection, we shall make every endeavour to obtain concessions from the Government on minor points. One of the concessions we

297
should like to obtain is represented by the Amendment tabled in my name. The object of this Amendment is to limit the scope of the clause. As the passage in question now reads, not only those who are directly responsible for a passage in a book or for a pamphlet which is deemed to be seditious will find themselves liable to legal proceedings, but ally others who have at any time given them assistance in the production of literature of this nature, or who, having knowledge that such opinions were going to be expressed in print, did not actively take steps to prevent these intentions being carried out, would be liable to legal proceedings and to be found guilty in a Court of Law.
What we want to do is to limit the responsibility of those who are concerned with the documents or pamphlets deemed by the Courts to be seditious entirely to the man or the woman who writes the article—to the fount-head, which the noble Viscount urged was exactly the person whom he wished to reach, and not the "tool"—I think that was the word he mentioned. But as the clause at present stands it is not merely the author of a pamphlet or of an article in a newspaper who will be held responsible, but also the newsagent through whose hands this article or journal passed, the publisher who was responsible for its production, besides the printer and all those, both employers and employed, who took a hand in the production of a printed work deemed by the Courts to be seditious, would become liable as the clause is at present.
There is a second objection to these words that arises, if I may remind your Lordships, from the history of the Bill itself. When His Majesty's Government introduced this measure in another place these words did not figure in its text. On the contrary, the words then used were:
"If any person, with intent to commit an offence under Section one of this Act, has in his possession or under his control any document without lawful excuse."
The words "without lawful excuse" were at that time inserted. It was later discovered by those responsible that only those who had lawful excuse to have in their possession articles or objects deemed illegal were the Police; that is to say, that everyone who might have in his possession a document quite casually, sometimes quite accidentally,
298
would be liable because only the Police were entitled to hold objects such as pornographic literature and the like which are banned by the law.
Now, in order to narrow down that extremely wide and inclusive wording the Government substituted the new wording found in the clause. But we are also assured by the Attorney-General in. another place that the new wording makes very little difference. If that is so why did the Government take the trouble to alter the drafting of the clause? Why was is not content to leave it as it stood and allow everyone to say openly how far it was likely to include the innocent within its scope, and to deter the production of passages of unpopular literature because publishers are naturally afraid of legal proceedings? But instead of that the Government have altered the wording. If, as the Attorney-General claims, the new wording makes very little difference, we are in a position to say that as the clause stands it is likely to include many perfectly innocent people through whose hands an illegal document has passed, and also to discourage very seriously the printing and publication of books, pamphlets and manifestoes that might possibly, according to the views of the printer or publisher, be deemed seditious by a Court of law. An example of this has already been given in the shape of a letter which appeared a few days ago in The Times, sent by a number of distinguished London publishers, speaking on behalf of a single firm, saying that a passage in a children's annual might be deemed seditious. It is on these grounds that I am moving this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("commit") to ("an") in line 11.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am afraid it is quite impossible to accept this Amendment, which is, I do not say a designedly wrecking Amendment, but an Amendment which would in effect defeat the purposes of the Bill. I say that for this reason. If the Amendment were carried you would have to prove, in order to bring anybody within this subsection, that a person had these documents in his possession or control with intent to commit an offence, that is to say, with intent himself to endeavour to seduce a

299
member of His Majesty's forces. Such people are not the people whom I regard as the more guilty. The man who actually makes the endeavour to seduce, the person who throws the pamphlet over the barrack wall or stuffs it in the soldier's pocket or drops it on the parade ground, or whatever other course he may adopt to bring it to his attention, is not the man I want. The man I want to catch is the man who has planned this attack on the loyalty of the soldier, and has organised the attempt to seduce him. These are the people the Government are aiming at, and these are the people whom this Bill will catch if the clause stands as drafted, but whom the Bill will wholly fail to catch if the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted, because they would say: "We never meant to make the endeavour. All we meant to do was to hand them to somebody else who, on their part, were going to be the persons who were going to commit the offence under Clause 1."
LORD ARNOLD: Is that the reply which the Government would give to those publishers who have put the letter in The Times? We have definite evidence that something which would have been printed in a children's annual, which was perfectly harmless and most desirable, is not going to be printed and circulated. That we know; that, is a concrete case. Has the noble Viscount no kind of concern for that sort of thing? Does he not care a scrap when we adduce evidence that the Bill is going to stop the dissemination of sound pacifist doctrines? Is that not to count in the scale? Is everything to be placed on the one side, and yet on the other side nothing whatever is produced? Surely some words should be devised which will make it perfectly possible for these publishers to pursue their ordinary, legitimate, useful, and entirely good activities which are now going to be stopped? It is impossible to say how far this kind of thing will go. Are we to take if that the noble Viscount, speaking on behalf of the Government is entirely unconcerned about that?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Although I do not want to speak too often, the answer to the noble Lord is that if there was the slightest shadow of ground for the apprehensions which this anonymous printer entertains it would be a matter
300
of grave concern; but since the letter which the noble Lord cited in terms says that the document which was going to be printed was a children's annual, only addressed to children and not intended for circulation among His Majesty's forces, it is perfectly obvious, if anyone had read the Bill, such fears are entirely chimerical. It only shows how far misunderstanding and misrepresentation have gone that anyone could conceive any risk was involved in such a case.
Loan ARNOLD: I do not think that answer entirely meets the case. It is well known that if you have a law of this character it is going to have an effect upon activities. There is no question the result will be that good sound doctrines which otherwise would have been gut before the people of this country will not be put. The apprehensions may be unfounded, but they will operate.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his courteous reply to the Amendment. Although comforted by the knowledge that the noble Viscount himself and the Government he represents would not interpret this clause so as to trespass seriously on the liberties of the Press and on freedom to express pacifist opinions, yet we have to consider the interpretation that will be put upon it by magistrates in our police courts, and not merely at the present moment but in future times when the country may be in a state of stress and agitation. With that in view I am still obliged to maintain that my Amendment would be a useful addition to this measure.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL or LISTOWEL THE EARL or LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "has in his possession or under his control" and insert "circulates." The noble Earl said: This Amendment also affects subsection (1) Clause 2 which we on these Benches regard as the essential bulwark that we are endeavouring to demolish, and which is going to do more harm than any other part of the measure. This Amendment is a very fundamental and crucial one, and expresses, I think, the considered view of the great majority of those inside and outside Parliament who have been stubbornly resisting this Bill. The Amendment proposes to substitute the small and apparently unimportant word "circulates" fir the phrase occurring

301
about the middle of the subsection—namely, that a person, "has in his possession or under his control any document of such a nature" and so on. According to the Bill as it now stands proof of intention is likely to be inferred by magistrates—and it is, after all, magistrates who will in the first instance hear cases that are brought under the measure—from the physical possession of documents that are deemed to be seditious.
That is based on a very ancient and very widespread legal practice. It is based on the assumption that a man is responsible for the whole consequences that result from his action. That principle may apply in a great number of cases, but it is by no means universal. How many of your Lordships have performed actions which afterwards you have regretted? How often has one done something in a moment of temper or forgetfulness that one certainly did not intend to do, and would not have done if one had considered the consequences of one's actions. This assumption is at bottom a legal fiction, and it is absolutely untrue that by merely having in your possession any pamphlet, any document, any book that is considered by the Courts to be seditious you automatically are proved to have possessed it with the deliberate intention and purpose of committing a criminal act.
That is the great danger under the present wording of this clause. That is the supreme danger to the liberty of the subject. The whole of the English criminal law is based on giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Of that we are justly proud and the whole world envies us. We cannot believe that it is sufficient proof of guilt to demonstrate that a certain individual has in his possession at a given moment a document or a number of documents that the Court declares to be seditious. That is contrary to a very ancient practice of English criminal law. The practice is that a man cannot be deemed guilty of an offence unless he has committed some specific action which was evidently calculated to bring about and make effective his criminal purpose. It is not enough to prove that a man intended to burgle or intended to murder, or had letters in his possession in which there was a threat to murder or commit burglary. It has to be proved that his
302
physical action has been calculated to effect a burglary or a murder.
That is an ancient and well-established principle of criminal law and it is a fundamental guarantee for the liberty of the individual. By substituting the word "circulates" we shall bring this measure into line with the ordinary criminal law. We shall take the worst sting out of it which is its threat to civil liberty, and we shall only make guilty of an offence those who by their physical actions have made themselves responsible for a crime as defined in the Bill. I sincerely hope that your Lordships, feeling the grave responsibility resting upon those who set such a precedent—a precedent that affects so closely the liberties and rights of British citizens—will endorse the view of those who speak from these Benches, of lawyers of distinction outside the House and of the very large volume of public opinion that is seriously apprehensive of this measure because it believes that it carries a serious threat to our most valued heritage, the heritage of civil liberty and individual freedom. I believe if your Lordships accept this Amendment you will make this Bill as innocuous as any Amendment can make it.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("has in his possession or under his control") and insert ("circulates").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Your Lordships will not be surprised when I say we are unable to accept this Amendment. The noble Earl, in his concluding remarks, said the Amendment, if accepted, would make the Bill innocuous. I would add that it would make it largely inoperative. It is not proposed to alter the earlier part of the clause which requires the consideration of an intention to commit an offence or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence. That remains whether the Amendment is accepted or not. What this Amendment proposes to do is to say that if a person with intent to commit or procure the commission of an offence of trying to seduce a soldier "has in his possession or under his control" a criminal document for that purpose, be commits no offence unless it is proved that he has circulated it. If he has circulated it to the forces, then of course he is caught under Clause 1 and there is no need for Clause 2. If on the other hand the in-

303
tention of the Amendment is to provide that we must show that one of these conspirators—one of these guilty parties—has handed the document to another, that is an extraordinarily difficult thing to prove, and with all respect to the noble Earl it does not seem to me that it makes the two people either more or less guilty than they would be without the act of exchanging the document.
Nothing in this clause has anything to do with the burden of proof as to intent about which the noble Earl gave his views as to the law; it merely says that there are to be three ingredients in order to constitute an offence, all of which must be proved by the prosecution: first, criminal intent; second, actual possession or control; and third, a criminal document. If all those three are proved, then an offence is committed; unless they are all three proved, an offence is not committed. The words "possession or … control" are one of the ingredients of the offence, and do not, by their absence or presence, make any difference as to the legal onus of proof or as to the methods which would be required to establish guilt.
LORD SNELL: We thank the noble Viscount for an answer in which he has tried to make clear to us what he believes to be the legal interpretation of this clause. I need hardly say that we do not regard his interpretation of this Amendment as being satisfactory. We are under the gravest apprehension as to what the words "in his possession or under his control" might be construed to mean. Let me try to illustrate it in this way. I personally am a person of known political bad character. I have represented the views of the Labour Party, which, as we are told, means to bring the country to ruin and disaster, for practically the whole of my adult life. Therefore, I am a suitable subject for the attention of the authorities under this Bill. I do not believe, that is to say, that the sole duty of a man consists in getting his soul saved, and voting Tory at elections. I have other ideas as to my social responsibilities. I am, therefore, as I say, liable to be suspected.
I have in my possession and control a good deal of literature, varying from the Prophet Isaiah to the famous Communistic manifesto of Marx and Engels, and
304
a great deal of stuff in between them. That might, with the other disadvantage to which I have referred, make me subject to the attentions of the authorities under this Bill. But apart from that, supposing that somebody chooses to send me by post subversive literature of this kind (and I get an avalanche of stuff every morning, including unwelcome solicitations from whisky touts and all the rest) I may be visited by the authorities directly I have had my breakfast and before I have had time to absorb this poison, and caught with this subversive literature in my possession and under my control. I say that it is not inconceivable that a spiteful reactionary might do that, or might deposit in my coat pocket the necessary literature to get me convicted. That is what agents-provocateurs are for, and if the noble Viscount thinks I am sketching a hypothetical case I have only to say that in other parts of the world this thing is done, and whilst I believe our virtues are as great as those of other nations, I do not think we are entirely free from political prejudices and those faults which are common to all mankind. We put that argument seriously, and we hope that the Government will pay more attention to them than they seem inclined to do.
LORD MARLEY: May I add one word to that? The noble Viscount did not say anything about one real advantage of the Amendment moved by my noble friend, and that is that it does away with much of the objectionable character of the power of search. It does not deprive the authorities of the power of search, but it does away with much of the objectionable character and danger of that power. Therefore I believe that a great many people in this country who fear this new power of search for unspecified documents, would feel very much relieved if that great danger were eliminated. Then, again, it gets rid of the fact that mere possession is not made to be part of the criminal offence of the person involved, and that, surely, is an advantage to meet the legitimate fears of so many of our fellow citizens. It also does away with the really terrible ambiguity of the words "in his control". No one knows what they mean, and surely there is an advantage in getting rid of ambiguity from any Bill, however necessary.

305
There is one other point that I want to deal with, and that is the point raised by Lord Snell, of the delivery of documents by post, which would then be found in the possession of the individual. These might have been deliberately sent by post. I have the misfortune, or perhaps the good fortune, to live immediately over the Chambers in the Temple occupied by the noble Viscount, and I have reason to fear the possibility that documents of a seditious nature, sent to him for examination or even for his information, might possibly be delivered by mistake into my innocent letter box by the postman. I do not know how much I risk imprisonment under this Bill—I dare say quite serious risk—and I have no doubt it would give a great deal of pleasure to many persons were I caught in this way. I do not mind, it cannot be helped, but. I do submit that this danger is a real danger, especially if it is intended to catch someone in this way.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I give one example of the activities of Scotland Yard a few years ago in forging documents? It was admitted in another place by the Government of the day that Scotland. Yard had printed, forged and concocted bogus copies of the Russian paper Pravda, which I believe means "truth," in thousands, that they had obtained the guillotine from the Stationery Office and guillotined off the printer's name and address, and they intended, of course, to circulate them among the White Russian forces who were acting in conjunction with the interventionist forces sent to Russia illegally without the consent of Parliament by Mr. Churchill who was then Minister for War. That was proved and admitted, and lame attempts were made to excuse it. If that could be done once it could be done again.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The answer of the noble Viscount has not allayed my fears. He said quite explicitly that in order to prove guilt three ingredients were essential: (1), criminal intention; (2), the possession or control of certain objects; and (3), the physical documents or objects which the person had in his possession. But, true
as that is, let me ask him for a moment to consider how the law would work. The Police prosecute somebody, and they would only prosecute somebody because they had some suspicion that that person was committing an illegal action. The suspicion is most likely to arise from the fact that he is known to have in his possession certain seditious pamphlets or other documents. He is brought before the magistrate with the pamphlets. He has obviously been in possession of these pamphlets, and all that remains to be proved is that these pamphlets were intended for the seduction of His Majesty's forces. How is the magistrate going to decide what motives were operative in that man's mind? He must assume that the possession of these documents is valid evidence for the inference that that individual was guilty of a criminal motive.
I do not believe, when one examines an instance of that kind, that there can be any doubt that the Bill will be interpreted in that sort of way. I am not merely objecting because of certain instances of injustice which this procedure is likely to entail; I am protesting because it raises the much wider question of individual freedom, because it enables a person to be convicted of a crime, not because he has committed any action which can be referred to as leading directly to this breach of the law, but because he happens to have in his possession certain papers which, if they were circulated, if they were handed to certain other individuals, would constitute a breach of the law. That is why I must persist in the Amendment, and why I hope very sincerely that your Lordships may be able to accept it.
LORD STRICKLAND: I am not in charge of the Bill, but when I am told that nobody knows what is the meaning of "accessory before and after the fact," I think I may say that even those who failed in their examinations know something about that.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Airlie, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Exeter, M.

De La Warr, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller]

Feversham, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Midleton, E.

Amulree, L.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Annaly, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Munster, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Iliffe, L.

Onslow, E.

Biddulph, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Plymouth, E.

Bingley, L.

Lamington, L.

Radnor, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lloyd, L.

Rothes, E.

Carnock, L.

Luke, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Rankeillour, L.

Ypres, E.

Redesdale, L.

Conway of Allington, L.

Remnant, L.

Astor, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Rennell, L.

Brentford, V.

Daryngton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elibank, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home)

Rochester, L.

Hailsham, V.

Elton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Southampton, L.

Aberdare, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick)

Stonehaven, L.

Abinger, L.

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

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Alness, L.

Hampton, L.

Alvingham, L.

Harris, L.

Strickland, L.

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Rhayader, L.

Arnold, L.

Snell, L.

Faringdon, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any document" and insert "documents." The noble Lord said: This Amendment in my name should be read with two Amendments lower down—page 1, line 13, leave out "of such a nature that" and page 1, line 14, leave out "copies thereof" and insert "which." I do not know if your Lordships would allow me to move them together. If I am allowed to do that the clause will read "If any person, with intent to commit," and so on, "has in his possession or under his control any documents the dissemination of which among members of His Majesty's forces would constitute," etcetera. I suppose I can only now actually move the first Amendment, and I do not intend to move the other consequential Amendments if your Lordships do not accept this first Amendment. I take them all together to save time. The difference is very important indeed.
Under the Bill which the Secretary of State for War has introduced as part of his duty the possession of a document—a document—by a person who has the intention to use it illegally, a document which, if reproduced and distributed in camps or barracks or on board ship, might upset the discipline of seamen or soldiers, is an offence. It may be a letter, if you like, from a soldier in China complaining of ill-treatment out there which,
308
if cyclostyled or hectographed and distributed among a battalion under orders for China, might induce some soldier to miss his troopship. Possession of that letter, unless the person could prove his innocence, would be an offence. If the prosecution, with all their resources, with their prestige and the money behind them, could induce the court to believe that the person accused intended to cyclostyle or hectograph that letter, he would be liable to two years imprisonment or a fine of £200. I want to alter the Bill to read, not "document" but "documents."
The Secretary of State for War said that nine years ago when he was Attorney-General, he had reason to believe that there were secreted in a certain house thousands and thousands of pamphlets, leaflets or handbills for distribution among His Majesty's forces, and that he was not able to interfere with the people who had these thousands and thousands of leaflets because he had not the powers contained in this Bill. All right, I meet the Secretary of State for War. I will give him these powers. If one of His Majesty's Judges thinks that he is being told the truth when an inspector says there are these thousands and thousands of leaflets with which the Secretary of State for War made your Lordships' flesh creep, then let him go ahead and deal with the people concerned. But it is very different from the possession of one document, one piece of

309
paper, one handbill. The importance of this matter was shown at the end of the Second Reading debate. Your Lordships will remember the very interesting and eloquent speech of the Secretary of State for War in reply to the debate. He was answering one of his supporters, Lord Allen of Hurtwood, who was complaining about the wording of the subsection we are now discussing, and the noble Lord had questioned the possibility of proving that a document would have this effect—note, my Lords, a document, not "documents," as I allow the noble Viscount the Minister of War. This is what the Minister of War said, and I draw your Lordships' attention to this wording, because if anything shows intent, these words of the noble Viscount show what his intent is and what his reading of the situation is: and it is to me astounding.
He says, answering the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Hurtwood:
"He will forgive ray saying that it does nothing of the kind. It deals only with documents which amount to and are intended to be an endeavour to seduce the armed forces of the Crown from their allegiance—that and nothing else."
Now note these words:
"It is just as easy to see whether a document bears that character as it is, for example, to see whether it is an obscene publication under another Act."
Earlier in the evening your Lordships heard, no doubt with great interest, as I certainly did, the things which have to be proved. It is admitted that there are many borderline cases. There are documents which, if not distributed to the troops, we are told would be harmless. There are others which might depend on the circumstances of the time; but it is idle to pretend that a searching policeman raiding a newspaper office, a publisher's office or private dwelling-house, on seeing the sort of document that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby or my noble friend Lord Snell writes, would be able to tell at a glance that that was a criminal document as easily as he could tell that an indecent photograph was an indecent document.
The use of that argument shows that the noble Viscount, with great respect, has totally misjudged the situation. He does not understand the opposition to the Bill; and, again with the greatest respect, I do beg hint to study it himself
310
again. We have been accused of not understanding the Bill, but if the noble Viscount really thinks that you can compare documents of a supposedly seditious nature with, for this purpose, pornographic photographs—which I admit any policeman can easily see are illegal or criminal—it is an extraordinary exposure of the mind either of the Government or of the noble Viscount himself that he should use that argument. The Amendment which I propose meets the whole of the case. We object very much to seeing a person—I care not whether a Fascist, a Communist or anybody else, or whether he be a person who was opposing a Government which I was supporting—dragged before a Court because there is found on his premises a document. I grant the noble Viscount that he may have a case for attacking a person who has piles and piles of documents ready for distribution; I give him the second case, but I resist him in the first. For that reason, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("any document") and insert ("documents").—(Lord Strobolgi.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord cited the end of my speech on Second Reading and said that a policeman would not be able to tell whether a document was a document which would be an endeavour to seduce members of His Majesty's forces from their allegiance. He will forgive my saying, with regard to that, that I do not agree with him; but even if he were right, at the moment I do not see why he would find it easier to decide that question if he found two copies of the document than if he found one, and that is the effect of this Amendment. Why, if you find two copies of a pamphlet, it would be quite easy to tell whether it has a criminal meaning whereas if you found one copy of the same document you could not understand it, is to me not very plain at first sight.
But let me explain another reason why the Amendment will not do. The noble Lord is willing, he said, to concede to me the case where there are a number of copies of the same criminal pamphlet, as I will call it, but supposing I find the arch-villain, the man who is really composing this, and I catch him with the very document which he has composed,

311
of the most poisonous character, before he has had time to get it printed, why should it be that if I were able to catch the printer after he had printed off A thousand copies I should be able to prosecute him, but that if I catch the man who composed the draft before the printer has time to print them off, he is to go scathless? To my mind that would be a very improper position. I would point out that of course it is not enough to prove possession and control and the criminal character of the document. There is always a third element which has to be established—namely, intent to commit or assist in committing the offence of endeavouring to seduce members of the forces from their allegiance.
The noble Lord has said that a man found with the document would be convicted unless he proved his innocence. It may have been a. reminiscence of what he said in earlier days before the Bill was altered and it read "without lawful excuse," and the argument was then put forward that it put the burden of proving his innocence on the person accused. In order to make it clear that that was not so the clause was altered in another place. It is now incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the document is or was in the possession of the accused person, and that the document is in itself
an incitement to mutiny, but also that it is possessed by the person accused with the intention of committing or aiding in committing the offence. I suggest that there is no reason for saying that a person who has in his possession a criminal document is not guilty of an offence because he had not had time to copy it.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Minister for War was good enough to answer the case of a man who has in his possession two documents, one of which has been copied, but I was referring to the cases of thousands of documents cited by the noble Viscount on the Second Reading. I was prepared to grant him the case of the man who has piles and piles of documents ready to send out to our soldiers in India, or wherever it may be, but the noble Viscount wants to have the arch-villain who has written one document. I would rather trust to the good sense of our soldiers and sailors than arm the Executive with such powers, and I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 9.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Aberdare, L.

Harris, L.

Exeter, M.

Abinger, L.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Alvingham, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Airlie, E.

Annaly, L.

Iliffe, L.

De La Warr, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Feversham, E.

Biddulph, L.

Lamington, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bingley, L.

Lloyd, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Middleton, L.

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Rankeillour, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Redesdale, L.

Munster, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Remnant, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rennell, L.

Plymouth, E.

Daryngton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Radnor, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Sandhurst, L.

Rothes, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Southampton, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Elton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Brentford, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Elibank, V.

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

Strickland, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Faringdon, L.

Snell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that any person who has entered into a contract to print any such document shall not be deemed for the purposes of this section to have such document in his possession or under his control."
The noble Lord said: I have great hope of this Amendment, from something that fell from the noble and learned Viscount. Replying to Lord Strabolgi, he said that it would seem unfair to catch the printer and not to catch the arch-evildoer. I do not think there is any difference of opinion about our wanting to get at the man who is at the bottom of the nefarious proceedings, but we want to spare the various other people who are not primarily responsible. There is the author; and the author may be taken to be primarily responsible. He is the person we want to get at. There is then the publisher; there is the typist; there is the printer; and there is the distributor. A certain amount of blame can certainly be brought against the distributor, although, as the noble Viscount has said en more than one occasion, he may be a mere tool. But the printer may be entirely innocent. The printer may have undertaken a purely commercial transaction to print so many leaflets without any idea of what their destination is to be, without any very clear knowledge of the implications of their contents.
I think it is a very great mistake to go on supposing that these crude Communist leaflets, worded in flamboyant and rude language, have any effect at all. In fact, there has been no proof brought in the course of this debate that they have really injured the loyalty of any of His Majesty's forces. But I can conceive leaflets being drafted of a very insinuating character, and very persuasive in their nature; not perhaps easily recognisable at first glance as seditious, but having very considerably more effect than the leaflets quoted so far. The printer may have no sort of idea that what he is printing is more than a pacifist leaflet of which he has to print so many thousands. I feel that he certainly ought to be protected because he will undoubtedly have had large numbers of these leaflets on his premises and their destination may be unknown to him. They may not even be given to a distributor; they may not even be
314
given to paid agents to go round and distribute them. They may find their way into the possession of a soldier outside a barracks who may take them inside a barracks, and they could be possibly distributed in that way quite unknown to the printer. The printer appears to me to be a man who ought to be singled out for protection, and think that is the view of the noble Viscount, because he referred to the printer just now saying that it would be extremely unjust that he should be caught when the author went scot free. I say it is unfair that he should be caught even when the author is caught because of all the sorts of people through whom the leaflet or literature passes the printer may be the most innocent, and yet he will have this document in his possession and under his control, as the Bill at present stands. No doubt stacks of documents would be in the warehouse of the printer and they would be under his control and they might be sent from his premises without his permission. My purpose therefore is to protect time printer.
The letter that has been quoted more than once that appeared in The Times from a number of publishers has been dismissed by the noble Viscount, who said that they could not have read the Bill, and that in no conceivable circumstances could any printer or publisher find himself incriminated under any clause of this Bill by the action which is described in that letter. That may be so, but the trouble is that there is a certain vagueness about the Bill, a certain difficulty in the interpretation of it of which we had an example yesterday between two such eminent exponents of the law as the noble Viscount who leads the House and the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party in this House. That two such high authorities should differ only shows what a lot of mistakes will be made by laymen, and the nervousness already shown before the Bill is passed into law, by the printers and publishers, only shows their apprehensions. This is undoubtedly going to check printing and publication of perfectly harmless documents. Whether justified or not printers and publishers are now going to refuse a mass of compositions which otherwise they would have freely and openly published, simply because they are not quite satisfied that

315
a Bill which is still in dispute between high legal authorities may not in its meshes catch them sooner or later so that they may find themselves in gaol.
To my mind there is not the least doubt that that apprehension is going to be increased by the debates in both Houses of Parliament, not because of the imaginations which we are supposed to show, but because of what has been said by the legal luminaries of the Government—the Attorney-General in another place and the noble Viscount here. I have hopes that this safeguard which I propose will be accepted. The words are:
"Provided that any person who has entered into a contract to print any such document shall not be deemed for the purposes of this section to have such document in his possession or under his control."
That will safeguard the printers. This Amendment is a test of whether this House is a revising body or whether, as I said just now, you are merely going to register line by line the Bill as passed in another place. It is a reasonable Amendment and is consonant with the views expressed by the noble Viscount himself. I hope he will see his way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sorry if I disappoint a hope which the noble Lord opposite says he entertains. If I believed it was a reasonable Amendment and was necessary and feasible I would do my best to meet him, but I am afraid I cannot see that it is either. First let me indicate why it would defeat the whole object of the Bill. If this Amendment were passed and anybody wanted to keep a stock of offending pamphlets directed to seduce members of His Majesty's forces from their allegiance, all that would be necessary would be to leave them at the printers until they were wanted for distribution and there would be no offence. In other words, you would make the printers' premises a kind of Alsatia in which you could safely keep any documents of this nature. I do not suppose the noble Lord means to do that.
On the other hand, let me point out that it is not necessary for the purpose for which he designs it. He says he wants to protect the printers, by which,
316
I suppose, he means the innocent printers. He nods his assent. Obviously he would not wish to protect printers who printed pamphlets with the intention that they should be used to seduce His Majesty's forces. But it has to be proved by the prosecution that the printer has that intention. The innocent printer is safe already. The only printer who comes under this section is the printer who prints documents which are in themselves an inducement to the members of His Majesty's forces to disobey orders and betray their allegiance and who prints these documents with the intention that they shall be used for that purpose. Unless that intention is proved he is not guilty.
Loan ARNOLD: Several points arise out of what the noble Viscount has said. He contends that the real purpose of the Bill would be defeated by the printer keeping on his premises stocks of pamphlets. It would be perfectly possible, as the noble Viscount knows, to meet that case and still substantially accept the Amendment. He suggests that printers are persons who know the subtleties of the law and are able to decide whether they will be held to have had intent or not. He is entirely wrong, and that is one of the evils of the Bill. It will arouse apprehensions which may be unfounded, but evidence has already been given that those apprehensions will be aroused, and many printers will refuse to print perfectly proper pacific literature which otherwise they would have printed. Therefore its amount and its circulation will be reduced, and there are many of us who say that that is a bad thing for the country.
Dr. Sheppard is conducting a campaign at the present moment to find out how many men are definitely prepared to state that they will not fight in the event of another war. His letter has appeared in the Press, and part of it is this:
"It seems essential to discover whether or not it he the truth, as we are told, that the majority of thoughtful men in this country are now convinced that war of every kind or for any cause is not only a denial of Chistianity"—
I suppose there cannot be any doubt about that—
"but a crime against humanity which is no longer to be permitted by civilised people."

317
Then he asks men to sign a declaration to this effect:
"We renounce war, and never again directly or indirectly will we sanction another."
That letter of course means, in effect, that Dr. Sheppard is asking men to sign a declaration which is in accordance with the Kellogg Pact which this country has signed, and which the noble Viscount's own Government signed.
That is all that Dr. Sheppard is doing, but after this Bill is passed, I can quite understand many printers would refuse to print that for circulation they know not where. They would be running a risk. The noble Viscount shakes his head, but when these things are to be interpreted by certain benches of magistrates, I would not give a cat's chance for their likelihood of getting an acquittal in certain circumstances, especially if the situation on the Continent of Europe is worsening and war clouds are appearing on the horizon. That is the evil of the Bill—that it will stop things being done which in the view of many of us ought to be done. The noble Viscount seems quite unable to appreciate that fact. Whatever there may be to say on the other side is in our view entirely outweighed by fundamental consideration of that kind.
LORD RHAYADER: I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but I may point out that this is no new quarrel. It is close upon 300 years since John Milton published a pamphlet which was called, if I remember rightly, its second title, "The Liberty of Unlicensed Printing." As I understand the meaning of the Leader of the Opposition, it is precisely that liberty of unlicensed printing, not interfered with by the Government, that be is asking for by this Amendment. I must confess that I am greatly disappointed at the answer which the noble Viscount gave. How is the printer to know what is going to be the effect of his publications? Why should he know? He is asked to do printing, he is not asked to do thinking and consideration of what he is printing. I believe there are some offences he may commit, but I do not see why you should multiply them. I think it would be far better not to interfere with the printing, unless the authorities can bring home to the printer that he is an offender under the present
318
law. The effect of it will be what has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold; the effect must be to frighten printers and prevent them from undertaking business.
The Government are occupied with the unemployment problem. I suggest to them that it is very undesirable that they should raise fresh apprehensions and fears in the minds of various people in this country lest they should be doing something which will bring them into conflict with the taw. Our people are not disorderly people, and mostly they do not want to get into the clutches of the law. They wish to avoid it, but they do not know much about it. I think that lawyers and those who are in the habit of dealing with criminals get a somewhat distorted view of the people of this country. We really have been a free country. We hardly realise that in going about the country in our daily lives we are in constant danger of the law. What the Government are doing now is to multiply the occasions upon which people may be brought into conflict with the law, and that is the real reason for much of the opposition to this Bill. People do not want to be interfered with. I wish the Government could have seen their way to define their purpose more clearly, and make the Bill more definite, so that people in the country might know when they were about to commit an offence.
LORD MARLEY: May I say a very brief word in connection with the reply of the noble Viscount? He said the innocent printer who had these leaflets stored had nothing to fear; but suppose the printer is himself a keen member of the Society of Friends, and a keen supporter of encouraging people not to fight; if, in addition, he has leaflets printed for someone else stored on his premises, may it not be possible to unite those matters so that they constitute an offence under subsection (1) of Clause 2 of this Bill? I fear there is serious danger, and I feel that the Bill might be twisted to get at that man, should it happen that an unscrupulous Government followed this Government. A Government not of the high scrupulousness of the National Government might be able to twist this Bill in order to catch such a man, although he was perfectly innocent. With regard to leaflets left

319
at the printers by the arch-villain, the author, those leaflets are still under the control of the arch-villain, the author, and therefore the author can be got at, because he can direct what shall be done with them. It seems to me that those two reasons are additional reasons why the Government should make some concession on this Amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I confess I am disappointed, because I thought the Leader of the House was going to meet us on this Amendment. I do not abide by the exact wording of it, but I am anxious that the innocent printer should be protected. I am not concerned with the criminal printer. The case seems so clear to the noble Viscount that he cannot understand anyone mis-
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
". Provided that no person shall be deemed to have had any such intent as aforesaid unless it be alleged and proved that he has committed some overt act directed to the publication of such document as aforesaid to a member of H.M. forces."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, which I am moving in the absence of Lord Passfield, has been considerably reduced in size by the elimination of a
320
understanding it, but it appears that people like these publishers have already misunderstood, and humbler people will misunderstand it still more. It is going to restrict to a large extent the activities of printers, who have a great deal of fear and misapprehension in their minds as to what is legitimate and what is illegitimate, and we shall have innocent printers refusing to take the risk of printing that which is perfectly innocent. I feel it is a point where we must stand up for the innocent printer and divide the Committee.
On Question, Whether the words proposed shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Rhayader, L.

Arnold, L.

Snell, L.

Faringdon, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Aberdare, L.

Harris, L.

Exeter, M.

Abinger, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Alvingham, L.

Iliffe, L.

Airlie, E.

Annaly, L.

Kinnaird, L.

De La Warr, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lamington, L.

Feversham, E.

Biddulph, L.

Lloyd, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bingley, L.

Luke, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Remnant, L.

Munster, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rennell, L.

Onslow, E.

Daryngton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Plymouth, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Sandhurst, L.

Radnor, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Southampton, L.

Rothes, E.

Elton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Brentford, V.

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

Strickland, L.

Elibank, V.

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L.

Hailsham, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

second proviso. It is, I think, one of very great importance because it raises a matter of general principle affecting theories of jurisprudence and social philosophy as well as concerning, naturally, the specific individual cases that will in future be dealt with by the present measure if it passes into law. Your Lordships are well aware of the fact that it has been one of the best established principles of English law that a man is not to be considered guilty until he has been so proved up to the hilt. The onus probandi lies on the prosecutor, and

321
not vice versa. This is not the practice in all countries by any means. It implies that no man shall be considered guilty unless some other individual, or the State, has succeeded in proving his guilt up to the hilt. The onus probandi, therefore, lies on those who bring an accusation, and it is assumed that an individual is innocent unless the accusation is substantiated.
The present measure is an infringement of this very ancient principle. It is a very serious infringement of the principle that a man is completely innocent unless his accusers have succeeded in completely establishing his guilt. The elements of proof required by the present Bill are not the same as those which are demanded by ordinary criminal law. That is the essential point. The general rule in criminal law is—and I would draw your Lordships' attention to these words—that an overt act is necessary to constitute a punishable offence. What does this imply? It means that an individual cannot be proved guilty under this measure if the Amendment is accepted unless it has been established not only that he possessed a certain document declared to be seditious, not only, according to the inference of the magistrate, that he possessed a criminal intention in relation to the document, but also that he has actively participated in the dissemination and the circulation of seditious propaganda, that he has committed some action which is definitely directed to a criminal end, that he has dropped a leaflet in a barrack square, that he has pushed a pamphlet into the knapsack of a soldier, that he has sent by post a document of this kind to a sailor or any other member of His Majesty's forces, that he has performed an action which in criminal law makes him subject to the operation of that law.
This Amendment, if accepted, would bring the present measure into line with ordinary English criminal law and by so doing it would maintain an ancient tradition that the accused is innocent unless his guilt has been established up to the hilt by the fullest possible degree of proof. It affects another issue which is even as great and important as that of the liberty of the subject. We believe in this country that ideas in themselves may not be penalised and that any thought, however subversive, however
322
seditious, however revolutionary, may legitimately be entertained until it has resulted in some action which violates the law of the land. The fundamental principle is that we do not penalise the holding of revolutionary ideas. If we did the Sermon on the Mount, would be an illegal document. The literature of the Society of Friends would be banned. And it is not merely religious literature that is revolutionary. Those who study political theory and teach political theory would become criminally liable because they were in possession of works of revolutionary Socialists like Karl Marx or of Communists or of Syndicalists.
As the Bill stands it does not make clear the gap between the entertainment of an idea and its translation into practice. It allows the possession of a document that contains seditious or revolutionary ideas, and the holding of seditious or revolutionary intentions, to be the criteria to brand an individual as a criminal. It would be a most dangerous thing to allow that to become the law of the land. It is absolutely essential that there should be added a. third criterion—the commission of sonic criminal action—and in the absence of that third criterion it should be impossible for a magistrate to condemn any citizen in this country who is prosecuted on a charge of sedition or incitement to mutiny. That is fundamental as a defence of our liberties and as preventing the establishment of a precedent that would encourage succeeding Governments to trespass on the liberty of the individual and to increase the authority of the Executive. I hope the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment because it seems to me, and will seem to thousands who have been agitating against the Bill outside Parliament, that it goes to the very heart of the Bill. If accepted we should agree that His Majesty's Government had gone very far to meet the critics of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The, Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The concluding sentence of the noble Earl is one with which I quite agree. We should indeed go far to meet the Opposition if we accepted this Amendment because we should go very far to destroy the purpose of the Bill. I confess I have been in a little difficulty about this Amend-

323
ment, because I was not quite sure what the original proposer of this Amendment meant by "overt act directed to the publication of such document." I am obliged to the noble Earl opposite, because I think he has now made that quite clear. He began by telling us that in criminal law the onus of proof lies on the prosecution, and he suggested that this ancient principle of our law was infringed by this Bill. He will forgive me for saying that, whether or not that was true under the original form of the Bill, it certainly is not true to-day. There is nothing in this Bill which shifts the onus of proof. The three ingredients of the crime are quite plainly stated: criminal intent, actual possession or control, criminal document; and the onus of proving each one of those three facts rests upon the prosecution and upon nobody else. Therefore there is no shifting of the onus of proof.
But I do not think that is really quite what the noble Earl meant, because he went on to say that in his view, in order to be convicted of an offence the alleged criminal must be proved to have actively taken part in the actual dissemination of one of these criminal documents. He said a little later that it was essential to add the commission of a criminal act to criminal motive and to possession, by which I understood him to mean—and I hope I understood him correctly—that it was not enough to prove that a person had in his possession or control a criminal document and that he had it in his possession with the intention of committing a criminal offence; you must go on to prove that he had committed a criminal offence before you could convict him. With great respect, I do not agree that that is desirable. If it were, we should not need this clause. If a man can already be proved to have distributed criminal documents, that is to say, documents intended to seduce His Majesty's forces from their allegiance, he has committed a crime under Clause 1, and we do not need Clause 2. Clause 2 comes into operation, not as the merely unnecessary addition which it would be if the noble Lord's Amendment were carried, but as a wholly separate crime, and the crime is that the man is in possession of criminal documents which he intends to use for a criminal purpose. The Committee will judge whether we are right, but in our view it would be very foolish and idle to say that when a man can
324
actually be proved to have distributed these documents you can punish him, but when you have caught him before he has succeeded in doing it, though you prove that he intended to do it and that he has got the documents for that purpose and that they are documents of that character, you cannot punish him because you have fortunately been able to prevent him fulfilling his criminal intent.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Viscount has put the case of His Majesty's Government so clearly and lucidly that I feel quite certain that no member of your Lordships' House can be under any possible misapprehension as to its nature. I only say that it is with very deep regret that I have heard that he is unable to make any compromise. He has declared that for him the possession of a document which is proved to contain seditious matter, and the intention to use that document in a manner which would infringe the law, are sufficient evidence of guilt, and in saying so he has declared that he desires a very abrupt innovation and a very startling departure from the customary methods of English criminal law, and one for which he and his supporters have adduced no case at all. For such a departure as this it would be required of any Government to show that there was a national emergency when special measures infringing upon the liberties of the subject should be taken in order to preserve the stability and order of society. He has not made any case of that kind and he is simply asking your Lordships to put a new crime down on the calendar; to allow an infringement of the liberties of the subject, without adducing any need that might have made legitimate such a very drastic alteration of our existing law.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before we leave this matter may I ask the noble Viscount to give an opinion on this question? Does he remember the famous Zinoviev letter, which had such effect in the 1924 Election? How would this Amendment affect that case? That letter was never actually produced—I do not believe it ever existed—but it had a tremendous effect upon the history of Europe. It destroyed a Government and replaced it by a Government of which the Minister for War was a member in another place. It was simply

325
a rumour, an allegation. Under the Bill before this House the person who was alleged to have received the letter—I think it was a member of the Communist Party, and the letter was one of those "poisonous" documents which the Minister of War has described, calling upon soldiers to revolt and that kind of thing—would have been prosecuted. Actually he never was, but if this Amendment were accepted it would also have to be proved that, having received the letter from Moscow, he then intended to use it. There is a great difference there. The man, although a member of the Communist Party, might be quite innocent, and believe in spreading his ideas by peaceful and proper means. Under this Bill he could be prosecuted, but under the Amendment he would be safeguarded. I would rather go to the trouble of asking your Lordships to support us in this Amendment than run the risk of injustice to one man, even if he be a Communist of the bad character
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to, accordingly.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (2), before the first "evidence," to insert "documents named in the information will provide." The noble Lord said: Important as many of the Amendments have been that we have discussed to-day, I do not believe
326
which has so alarmed and disturbed the sleep of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Does the noble Lord want me to answer a question? The answer, of course, is that if the Zinoviev letter did, in fact, contain inducements to the forces to betray their allegiance, and it was found in the possession of somebody in this country, that person would not then be committing an offence under the Bill as it stands unless the prosecution went on to prove that he intended to use the letter for the purpose of actually seducing the forces.
LORD STRABOLGI: How can they do that?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: if they cannot prove it, then they will not convict him.
On Question, Whether the proposed proviso shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 55.

CONTENTS.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Rhayader, L.

Arnold, L.

Snell, L.

Faringdon, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Aberdare, L.

Harris, L.

Exeter, M.

Abinger, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Alvingham, L.

Iliffe, L.

Airlie, E.

Annaly, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Feversham, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lamington, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bindley, L.

Lloyd, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Middleton, L.

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Rankeillour, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Redesdale, L.

Munster, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Remnant, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rennell, L.

Plymouth. E,

Daryngton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Radnor, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Southampton, L.

Rothes, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Elton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Brentford, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Strickland, L.

Elibank, V.

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

Templemore, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

that there is one that is more important than that which I am about to move. If it is accepted the subsection will then read:
"If a Judge of the High Court is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act has been committed, and that documents named in the information will provide evidence of the commission thereof …"

327
The point of that is briefly this: What is provided for under this subsection is a general search, and what I desire to insert in the Bill is that the search should be restricted to the documents which the Police are looking for—that is to say, that the officer will come into a room, and if he finds the documents he is looking for, his search will then be at an end, and he will not be able to rummage about the whole room to find what he conceives to be further incriminating documents and take away as much literature as he wants. This question of general search came up in another place, and it is very interesting to read the exact words used by the Attorney-General, because he defines the purpose of this Bill very clearly.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Will you give me the reference?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: It is the eighth day of the proceedings in Committee, dated June 14, column 241. He said:
"Everybody uses the expression 'general warrant,' but some people forget what it means. It means to carry away all the papers; not merely to go and take papers which are evidence of a crime having been committed, but all the papers. That is what some honourable Members overlook."
He was quoting a case that arose some years ago, and he says:
"This Court said to themselves: 'Where is the power conferred on a magistrate to issue a general warrant and carry away all the papers?'"
The Attorney-General goes on to say that Lord Camden said in the case he was quoting:
"Where is the written law that gives any magistrate such a power?"
Then the Attorney-General goes on:
"In those days, as far as I know, there were no Statutes which gave a right of search and to carry away papers. The Chief Justice said that if the Secretary of State or any magistrate is going to make an order for carrying away papers, he must put his finger on the Act of Parliament justifying such an Order. That is precisely why we are here to-day. If the Chief Justice was wrong in saying that you must point to a specific provision in the law that allows you to carry away papers, we should not be here to-day. We could act on what we call our Common Law rights for a magistrate to issue his warrant."
Referring to another Member he was answering, the Attorney-General went on:
"The honourable and gallant gentleman is not following the point. Chief Justice
328
Camden says: 'Where is the law for this warrant of a general character to be issued?' The answer is, there is not any such Act of Parliament on the Statute Book, nor is there to-day such an Act on the Statute Book, but there are fifty-two Acts of Parliament which do contain a power to seize specific papers in connection with specific offences, and this particular Bill is to enable an answer to be given to any successor of Chief Justice Camden who asks: 'Where is the law which allows a general warrant to be issued?' If this Bill is passed, we shall turn to it and say: 'This is the authority for the magistrate.'"
It is clear that what is intended by this Bill is that it is a general warrant for searching premises, for taking away incriminating documents for which the Police are told to undertake this service, and further to continue to search until all the literature in the room is taken away and examined.
I think that is most objectionable. It is stretching the point much farther than is needful. You want specific evidence. You know the document you want. You have found that it is being distributed. You think you know the premises from which it emanates. You send police to find it and they find it. That is sufficient. They have found the evidence they wanted. The owner of those premises, the author of the document, is incriminated and can be punished. If they do not find it I think their operation should come to an end. If we are going to have people going into houses on suspicion, which it will always be, and search the premises and, having found a document, not to be content with that, but to go opening all the cupboards and chests of drawers in the room, taking away all documents whether private and quite irrelevant to the case or not, then I say that is putting in the hands of the law a capacity to encroach on the English home in such a way as has never been allowed before. There is no need and no reason for it.
We have not got the same apprehensions as noble Lords opposite with regard to the necessity of this measure or to the danger of these Communist leaflets. The whole thing is so grossly exaggerated. If the noble Viscount wanted to get some idea of English Communism I would ask him to ask Sir John Simon or the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, who will probably have heard from the Russian Ambassador to this country what he thinks of British Communists. They are

329
considered as a joke and those people who do consider them an a joke deal with them in the proper way. When I represented Sheffield in the other House I had a great deal to do with Communist interruptions. They were always directed more or less against attacking the Labour Party than any other Party. I found the method that always succeeded was to treat them as a joke. Here is the Government shivering in its shoes, terrified of these ridiculous leaflets, and. now giving this right of general search into premises and ransacking the whole place even after they have discovered the wretched leaflet or stack of leaflets they are looking for. This is a most objectionable feature of the Bill and I cannot help feeling that even at this late hour, after we have been refused every Amendment, the noble Viscount will see reason and accede to my request.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, after ("that") insert ("documents named in the information will provide").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD STRABOLGI: The night is young and we have now reached the real fighting around. Our previous Amendments were Amendments of substance but as the Secretary of State for War will no doubt agree they have been preliminary skirmishes. Now we come to the most objectionable part of the whole Bill, the general right of search. I repeat those words deliberately in spite of the speech we heard from the Secretary of State for War on Second Reading. If the words in the Bill are allowed by your Lordships to remain and if my noble friend's very reasonable Amendment is rejected you will empower police to go on a general fishing expedition into people's houses, into newspaper offices, into printing works, into clubs, into places the Government do not like inhabited by people the Government do not like. That has been repudiated by the Courts, by successive Governments and by your Lordships' House for a century and a-half.
You see what the Great War has done. We are back in the Middle Ages or back in the rather darker ages of a century and a-half ago. We have had one or two speeches from noble Lords who represent the National Labour group, in which they made the point that I made myself three years ago in another place when we were discussing certain troubles, that a
330
Labour Government might be glad of these powers to use against Fascists or near Fascists or people who wanted to take unconstitutional action to resist an elected Parliament and a Government supported by it. That is perfectly true. A Labour Government in the future with a majority might desire to deal with attempts at unconstitutional action, but I hope if this Bill receives the Royal Assent and remains on the Statute Book that no Labour Government will use these powers that we are now discussing.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Vain hope.
LORD STRABOLGI: We have perfectly good powers already. If the noble Viscount organised an illegal force we could deal with him under the existing law with the greatest ease. We do not need these powers. But an unscrupulous Government with no strong evidence against the noble Viscount could raid his country seat and his town house on a fishing expedition by using these powers;, and they would then ransack every room in the place, blow open the safes and turn out the cellars, search all his relations and all his servants, and all the rest of it. I would resist and criticise and object to any such action although he was organising, and was supposed to be organising, a Blackshirt force against a Government which I supported. I only take that very hypothetically, because I know that the noble Viscount has far too much sense and is far too much of a good Scotsman, if I may say so, to attempt anything of the kind.
This Amendment is really the test of the Government's sincerity. At present, as the Bill is drawn, an inspector goes to a Judge of the High Court and swears that he will find certain evidence in a certain place if he gets a search warrant. In seeking for that evidence or finding it, as the case may be, he then can remove other documents. If noble Lords will turn to page 2 and look at lines 5 to 10, particularly lines 9 and 10, they will see that having obtained this search warrant the Police are then entitled
"to seize anything found on the premises or place or on such person which the officer has reasonable ground for suspecting to he evidence of the commission of such an offence as aforesaid."
I am sure it is clear what very wide powers are asked for in the Bill. It is

331
surely clear even to the noble Viscount how very objectionable in the eyes of the public those particular powers are.
We have been told again and again in this very interesting debate by the noble Viscount that he is seeking to check Communists, or a section of Communists, who are printing thousands and thousands of leaflets for distribution to the armed forces. Very well, we accept that. But there may be times of excitement, as noble Lords on this side of the House have pointed out and we must point out again to your Lordships; there may be periods of stress, and hysterical periods, as we have had before in this country, when the judgment even of the authorities is upset, when people lose their mental balance, and you have "spy mania" rife. Noble Lords will remember that at the beginning of the War people in the East End of London went mad, and they nearly killed an unfortunate butcher rejoicing in the ancient Scottish name of Strachan. They said that with a name like that he must be a German, and they nearly beat the unfortunate fellow to death.
It is at periods of that kind that the powers in this Bill will be misused to hunt and harry by police raids, by searches in the middle of the night, by terrorising the families of people who are obnoxious to the Government of the day, or opposing an attempt to embroil us in a war. Those are the days we are thinking about, and it is to prevent those scandals in the country that we ask your Lordships to support us to-night. As I say, the night is young. We have now reached the real part of the Bill that matters, the part of the Bill which, if it reaches the Statute Book in its present form, will add to the contempt in which the Government is held in the country and which it only needs an opportunity for the country to express at the polls.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: I really would ask my noble friend if he can, to be accurate in the way he listens and the way he reproduces what he hears. Nobody has ever said from the National Labour group that a Socialist Government would be glad to have these powers in order to use them when they were in power. So far as I am concerned I have said precisely the opposite. I tried to beg my noble friends opposite to be careful, not in asking for new powers
332
which they may use, but in starting new disobedience which may be to their disadvantage. I take as examples of new disobedience the calling upon troops not to drop bombs when they are told to drop bombs on the North-West frontier or calling upon troops to disobey orders when they are dealing with industrial disputes. Those are the warnings which I offered to my noble friends. It would be very much better if they would try to be accurate.
As to the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, I would be glad indeed if the Government could be induced to accept it. I share with him the belief that this is perhaps the most important Amendment that has been moved during this debate. Whatever may have been said in another place or here, I believe that under this clause does come the danger of the general search warrant. Unless the documents which are sought for are definitely identifiable, we are starting in this country a process which must ultimately be that of going to seek for any documents which may be found in n search initiated by a Judge in Chambers who granted a search warrant. I have seen it done. I have seen an inspector look bewildered at rows of pamphlets and books, trying to make up his mind what they mean. I realise that the Government are reaching the stage when they cannot accept any Amendment, but if they can accept this Amendment I believe they will be taking from this Bill one of the grievous mistakes which has been made.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is it a fact that the Government have made up their minds to accept no Amendments?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Government have not made up their minds to refuse to accept any Amendments if a case is made out for them. It is true that I do not see on the Paper any Amendments which seem likely to commend themselves to the Government, and that is all the more natural because, as your Lordships may remember, this Bill was very exhaustively debated in another place and the Government have gone to the extreme limit of concession in hoping to meet any reasonable apprehensions which might be entertained. How far we have been from succeeding in that has been demonstrated to-night, because

333
we have been shown to-night that some people's apprehensions can never be allayed.
Turning now to answer points which have been raised, it is said that this power is the power of general search warrant. I wonder if noble Lords remember what a general search warrant is. It is a document issued on the authority of the Secretary of State authorising the police to go and look, in some cases without naming any individual, and in other cases naming an individual, and see what he has got, and bring it all back. Lord Strabolgi went so far as to say that in times of stress the Government would send the police, and the police would be allowed to go on a general fishing expedition to see what they could find. That happens to be the very thing which this Bill does not do and carefully avoids doing. Instead of the Secretary of State or the Government sending a policeman, nobody can go until he has got the authority of a Judge in Chambers, and although there are a great number of Statutes giving power to issue search warrants, this is the only one, so far as I know, in which only a Judge of the High Court can give permission. Secondly, before the Judge of the High Court can allow a warrant to issue he has to be satisfied by sworn evidence that there is reasonable ground for suspecting an offence to have been committed, and evidence is to be found on specified premises, and when the Judge is so satisfied and a police officer goes in pursuance of that authority he does not, as is suggested, have a general right to seize anything he finds but only a right to seize things which he has reasonable ground for suspecting is evidence. So every sort of precaution is taken and every feature of a general search warrant which has been condemned as objectionable is carefully excluded from this Bill.
Then the Leader of the Opposition has said that this is an unprecedented power, but of course I do not think he could have meant that. It is quite true, of course, that this search warrant for this offence is not in an existing Statute, otherwise there would have been no need to pass this Bill; but to say that this sort of power of search is an unprecedented one is a complete mistake. I could give a number of instances. I
334
think the closest analogy is in the Official Secrets Act, 1911, where it is provided that:
"If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act has been or is about to be committed, he may grant a, search warrant authorising any constable named therein to enter at any tune any premises or place named in the warrant, if necessary, by force, and to search tie premises or place, and every person found therein, and to seize any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document, or anything of a like nature, or anything which is evidence of an offence under this Act having been or being about to be committed, which he may find on the premises or place or on any such person, and with regard to or in connection with which he has reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act has been or is about to be committed."
I quote that because it happens to be very close to the words here, except that the words in the 1911 Act are somewhat wide.
Quite obviously we could not accept the Amendment. The result would be that, although you got a search warrant and although on going to look with the search warrant you found the most objectionable and obviously criminal pamphlets of the character you suspected, unless they happened to be the documents of which you had laid the information you could not do anything, and you would have to leave the man to take them away scathless until a new search warrant had been obtained. That would be a futile and idle thing to do, and I think the precautions I have mentioned ought to satisfy your Lordships that every care has been taken not to give any unreasonable power to the Police.
LORD ARNOLD: I do not think that the reference to the Official Secrets Act is really applicable. That Act is one in which the offence consists not in the possession of a document, but either retaining it unlawfully or else communicating it to some unauthorised person. It could only be very limited in its application anyhow, because very few persons could possibly have a warrant issued to them under that Act. The noble Viscount has to his own satisfaction dealt with the charge which my noble friend brought against this general search warrant, but the fact remains that the Attorney-General admitted that there was a. general search. He said:

335
"Where is the law which allows a general warrant to be issued? If this Bill is passed we shall … say this is the authority …"
We want to get at the facts. We see that frequently the noble Viscount entirely evades the point and the spectacle which your Lordships' House has exhibited to-day in connection with this Bill is not one that does it credit.
Your Lordships' House is supposed to be a revising Chamber, and above all you are supposed to see that measures are not passed for which there has been no mandate, unless a case has been made out for them. It is absolutely certain that there is no mandate for this Bill, and also that no real case has been made out for the Bill. Yet from the 700 odd Unionist Peers who are supposed to come here and safeguard the interests of the people and particularly to see that measures like this are not passed, measures putting back the clock for 150 years—what I suppose the Prime Minister calls "on and on and on"—not one syllable has been spoken from that side of the House by one single Unionist member except the noble Viscount, who has constantly misrepresented the case. From our Party point of view I could wish for nothing better. It will be very good propaganda. We shall make it our business to tell the people of the country how the House of Lords behaves when it is dealing with a measure for which there is no mandate whatever. If this were a Labour measure it would not have a moment's shrift. It is highly regrettable that not one single Unionist member has had the independence and the manliness to stand up in this House for the liberties of the people. What was condemned 150 years ago as something not to be tolerated is to-day, in 1934, in a few hours, being rushed through the House of Lords, without any proper reply being made to the arguments, and, as I said, not a single Unionist Peer saying a single word in defence of the liberties of the people.
LORD MARLEY: May I ask the noble Viscount one brief question? I have noticed that three or four times in the course of the Committee stage the noble Viscount has said this with regard to subsection (2) of Clause 2, that if a Judge is satisfied by "sworn evidence" or "evidence on oath," but the terms
336
of the Bill are "information on oath." It seems to me there is a very serious difference between information on oath and sworn evidence. I should like to know which the noble Viscount means. I think I am right in saying that on at least three occasions he has used the words "sworn evidence," and that, I believe, will be borne out by a scrutiny of the OFFICIAL REPORT in the morning. If I am right, I think he is definitely misleading the Committee, and I should be very much obliged if the noble Viscount would say whether or not there is a difference between sworn evidence and evidence on oath.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: None at all.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I do not wish to take up the attention of the noble Viscount unduly at this early hour of the morning, but I should like again to ask him one specific question. It may be more suitable to the next Amendment, but if the noble Viscount can give me a satisfactory answer he will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I shall not detain him on the next Amendment. The noble Viscount said that in fact this Bill did not entail any right to a general search warrant, and the distinction that he drew between any general search warrant and this Bill was that a general search warrant must apply to some specific person. It is quite clearly laid down in this Bill that on information being laid and on consent of a Judge of the High Court being obtained, a search may be made for unspecified papers, and a search may be made of any and every person found in such premises. It seems to me that it might well be that some perfectly innocent person—innocent, that is to say, of any offence under this Bill—may find himself searched by police under this Bill, and if that is not a general search warrant I would ask the noble Viscount to explain what is.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: A general search warrant is a search warrant issued on the authority of a Secretary of State authorising the police to search in some cases any premises or persons without specifying them and in other cases to search defined premises or persons, and to seize anything they like without any regard as to what it must prove or have relation to. This search warrant only

337
enables you to search specified premises and people on those premises.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Possibly innocent people?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Possibly innocent people. We do not assume for one moment that everyone is proved guilty merely because they are on the premises, and they will not be punished unless they are guilty. But you search to find, not to bring anything you can find but anything which the officer has reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of the commission of the offence of incitement to mutiny.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I thank the noble Viscount for his explanation but it is not clear now. It seems to me that this would take place after application had been made to the Judge of the High Court and it rests entirely with the discretion of the officer what is incriminating. I am not for a moment suggesting that the guilty should go scot free. It may well be under this Bill, if it becomes law, that a person innocent of this particular crime may be, and for no good reason, hauled in for an offence quite outside this measure. The noble Viscount has said that this is not a general search warrant because a general search warrant is issued by the Secretary of State. That is so, but surely that is a specified form of general search warrant. There may be, and indeed under this Bill will be, general search warrants, although without precedent, issued not by a Secretary of State, but for all that they will be general search warrants. The term general search warrant says nothing about the Secretary of State at all. You may have one without any authority of the Secretary of State, but on the authority of the Police backed up by a Judge of the High Court.
LORD PONSONBY OF SFIULBREDE: I am disappointed at the way this Amendment has been received. I certainly thought it was one that would
appeal to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill and that he would concede it. I must say that when his definition of a search warrant is read to-morrow in the printed report and put alongside that of the Attorney-General we shall feel very much confused as to what a search warrant is. They do not seem to tally. I am not sufficiently conversant with legal phraseology to be able to follow them completely, but there seems to be considerable doubt as to what powers are exactly involved in a search warrant. One thing I am frightened of is planting. I think that is a very real danger. The agent provocateur is an accepted personalty. The Attorney-General spoke of using him as if it was like using a private secretary. He said: "I find no difficulty from my agent provocateur in getting indecent books." We all know that that man may on some occasions plant leaflets and undesirable documents in somebody's house and that there will be the general search warrant, although the particular documents that the searcher is looking for may not be on the premises. I think that is extremely dangerous. These legal definitions and political definitions do not clear the air at all.
I am reminded of the desire of the National Government to preserve the liberties of this country, and then I look to the Prime Minister for a definition of liberty and find this:
I want to say and let it be known to those who are timorous about liberty, that it is necessary for us now, in view of the example that has been set to us by nation after nation in the world, to take steps to protect our liberties against those who are using the liberty of our liberties to undo that liberty.
If that is the method by which Governments make their definitions no wonder the Government is in great confusion.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS.

Allen of Hurtwood, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Rhayader, L.

Arnold, L.

Snell, L.

Faringdon, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, (L. Sheffield.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Aberdare, L.

Harris, L.

Exeter, M.

Abinger, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Alvingham, L.

Iliffe, L.

Airlie, E.

Annaly, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Feversham, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lamington, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bingley, L.

Lloyd, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Middleton, L.

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rankeillour, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Redesdale, L.

Munster, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Remnant, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rennell, L.

Plymouth, E.

Daryngton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Radnor, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Southampton, L.

Rothes, E.

Elton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Brentford, V.

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

Strickland, L.

Elibank, V.

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L.

Hailsham, V.

Resolved in the negative Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "and every person found thereon." The noble Lord said: As I wish to do what I can to facilitate business I shall not speak separately to the two Amendments I have on the Paper. This Amendment, I admit, is not of equal importance with the one which your Lordships have most unhappily just rejected, but it is of very great consequence. This clause gives power of what I call general search—that is how it is generally understood—and that is something which, as we have been told, we have not had in this country for 150 years. But it goes further. In this insensate hunt for so-called incriminating documents this clause gives power not merely to enter a man's house, at any time, by force if necessary, whether he is there or not, but it gives power of searching for documents every person found on the premises.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has indicated that a power of search is needed to get at bulk documents. Quite clearly, if that is what is intended it is not necessary to have the power to search all the persons on the premises. That, I think, is obvious. The pamphlets that can be concealed on the person can be only very few in number, and if that is all that is in question, I think we might take it as being quite certain that the person or persons who might have been incriminated will have taken good care, before the search came, that those particular pamphlets were not on his or their persons but were somewhere else.
Therefore that is totally unnecessary. But think what it means. It means that police may come breaking into the house, perhaps into the house of some noble Lord here; he may have a house party of guests, who may know nothing whatever about the matter, but they may be subjected to search. All the servants, and every one on the premises, may be searched. And that applies not only to a house, because the words of the clause are "premises or place," and "place" has a very wide connotation. It would apply to a hotel, it would apply to the Albert Hall. You might get a search warrant, go to the Albert Hall and search every person in the Albert Hall, under this clause.
It is all very well for the noble Viscount to suggest that that is a thing which could not happen, but there is nothing in this clause to prevent it. It has happened in other countries; it has happened in Ireland—not in a place as big as the Albert Hall, but in a big hall. Take the Ulster disaffection of 1914. I think there is no doubt whatever, especially after the memoirs of Sir Henry Wilson, that a search warrant would have been obtained to go to the Carlton Club, and everybody in the Club would have been searched. This surely is a, very extraordinary provision. I see that one of the supporters of the Government, a National Liberal, refers to the powers in this clause as outrageous. I say that this particular part of the clause is clearly outrageous. There is surely sufficient power in the general search which has been given without this monstrous power of searching every person on the premises, many of whom will know

341
nothing about the matter. The noble Viscount said that he had not accepted any Amendment because no sufficient reason had been given for acceptance. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether there is any precedent, apart from the Official Secrets Act, for the right of search of persons found on premises in this indiscriminate way.
Are we again setting up something which is entirely new, and for which no reason has been adduced? I do not say there is no reason, and I am asking for information, but is there any precedent in any Act of Parliament for this general right of search of persons in this indiscriminate way? I may have more to say when we have heard the reply of the noble Viscount, but I think it is clear from the attitude of the Government that they are not going to accept any Amendment, that they are not taking the Bill seriously in this House and that whatever we may say it does not make any difference. Nevertheless, it is our duty to raise these points and we shall do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out, ("and every person found thereon").—(Lord Arnold.)
LORD STRABOLGI: When the Minister for War comes to reply may I ask trim whether when he did his military service in South Africa he saw prisoners searched for documents? It means complete stripping. It meant even more in the last war. It is rather drastic, and I am not going to describe it in this House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Lord Arnold said I had told your Lordships that the object of the Bill was only to deal with bulk documents. I never made any such statement. If his memory goes back even an hour he will recall that I resisted an Amendment to exclude a single document on the ground that this clause was intended to deal with single criminal documents just as with many of them. The instance which I gave was the original of an offending pamphlet which was found before the pamphlet had been produced in quantity.
LORD ARNOLD: We get a certain amount of assistance for our Amendments on this side of the House, and I was informed that at one stage of the debate the noble Viscount did say this about these documents, but if he denies that I will withdraw it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have referred to both documents. All I am saying is that I never said that the purpose of the Bill is confined to it, and unless it is confined to that document of course the argument of the noble Lord falls to the ground. He asked me if there was any precedent. The precedent which I actually had was the one which he knew about, the exact precedent of the Official Secrets Act, passed in 1911. But it happens that I was able to find another. I believe there are a good many, but I cannot vouch for that. I can give one at once—the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1923. You will find in Section (1) (a):
"If a justice of the peace … is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that any drugs to which this Act applies are, in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any regulations made thereunder, in the possession or under the control of any person in any premises, or that any document directly or indirectly relating to or connected with any transaction or dealing which was, or any intended transaction or dealing which would if carried out be, an offence against this Act, or in the case of a transaction or dealing carried out or intended to be carried out in any place outside Great Britain, an offence against the provisions of any corresponding law in force in that place, is in the possession or under the control of any person in ally premises, he may grant a search warrant authorising any constable named in the warrant, at any time or times within one month from the date of the warrant, to enter, if need be by force, the premises named in the warrant, and to search the premises and any persons found therein, and, if there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence against this Act has been committed in relation to any such drugs which may be found in the premises or in the possession of any such persons, or that any document which may be so found is such a document as aforesaid, to seize and detain those drugs or flint document, as the case may be."
I believe that there are other precedents, but that is one which I am able to put my hand on at short notice. The fact is that if you were to exclude the power of search all that the ingenious criminal would need to do would be to put the documents in his pocket or in the pockets of any friends he had, and the policeman, though he might see them there perfectly, could do nothing, either to seize them or to see if they were there. Therefore the purpose of the Act would be completely defeated, except in those cases in which there were so many documents that neither the occupier nor any-

343
body with him could collectively wish to smuggle them away on their persons. That, I have no doubt, the House would not wish to be the law, and therefore I think the Amendment must be defeated.
LORD ARNOLD: Apparently the position is that if one man is allowed to conceal one or two documents in his pocket then he is a dangerous person. How on earth are you going to seduce the troops by having an odd leaflet in your pocket? On the question of precedent I was asking for information. My information was that there was no precedent, and I suggest that the precedent the noble Viscount has produced is not really a very
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (3), after "woman," to insert "or female child." The noble Lord said: I presume the Government are accepting this Amendment?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No.
LORD STRABOLGI: What? Now I really receive my first shock since I had the honour of joining your Lordships' House. I thought I had, at any rate, helped the Government on one occasion. If noble Lords will look at subsection (3) of Clause 2 they will see that as the result of some agitation in another place,
344
satisfactory one in relation to this Bill. Moreover, I have been told that under the Dangerous Drugs Act very often the person or persons are named in the warrant. In any case it is perfectly obvious that those implicated must be very few in number. It is a totally different thing to what may happen under this. Our case for this Amendment is really unshaken. I do not expect the Government to accept it, but we intend to force it to a Division.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Aberdare, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Exeter, M.

Abinger, L.

Iliffe, L.

Alvingham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Airlie, E.

Annaly, L.

Lamington, L.

Feversham, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lloyd, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bingley, L.

Luke, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Redesdale, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Remnant, L.

Munster, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Rennell, L.

Plymouth, E.

Daryngton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Radnor, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Southampton, L.

Rothes, E.

Elton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Brentford, V.

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

Strickland, L.

Elibank, V.

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L.

Hailsham, V.

Harris, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Arnold, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

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

Faringdon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Rhayader, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Snell, L.

and a good deal of indignation in the country, the Government gave way to the extent that a woman who is to be searched shall only be searched by a woman. I propose to add the words "or female child." I telephoned to nay solicitor this morning and asked what was the legal definition of the age of a woman, and he said he understood it was the age of puberty, or seventeen.
A NOBLE LORD: Sixteen.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the Minister for War—is it sixteen or seventeen?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: "Woman" merely means a person of the female sex.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very much obliged. The Minister for War then is better informed by his advisers than my solicitor was. However, if that is so then a girl of ten, twelve or fourteen years is a woman.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes, but of course there are Acts of Parliament in which there is a definition for the purposes of those Acts of what a woman is. Such an Act is the Mines Act. But in the absence of a statutory definition for the particular purpose a woman simply means a person of the female sex just the same as a man would be a person of the male sex.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is a girl of 15 a woman and must she be searched by a woman and is every other female child a woman?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes.
LORD STRABOLGI: Then I will not persist in my Amendment.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Would the noble Viscount consider substituting the words "female person"?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is quite unnecessary.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Is the Amendment withdrawn?
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not move.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Before the question that this clause stand part of the Bill is decided, I would like to say that I think there was some misapprehension with regard to an Amendment which I put down to leave out the words "or under his control." I think the Lord Chairman, if I may say so with great respect, did not understand that my Amendment raised a totally different point from that raised by the previous Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: If the noble Earl will forgive me, may I say that his Amendment was exactly the same and he had an opportunity of explaining when the Earl of Listowel's Amendment was under discussion. The Committee had taken a decision on the point.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I do not want to detain the Committee but my Amendment was intended to raise a
346
totally different point. I want to know what these words "under his control" really mean. It seems to me they are extremely vague. Is it to be presumed if a member of your Lordships' House happened to have a servant who was a member of the Communist Party or the Fascist Party or any other Party that may spring up in the future, that he is under your personal control? Or, again, if you work for an employer and he happens to have views different from yours, and fills his office with various pamphlets, and the police raid the premises, are those pamphlets supposed to be under your control if he is not there? I would like to have a statement from the noble Viscount as to the exact meaning of the words.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The sort of thing which I should think the draftsman probably had in mind—I do not give it as an exhaustive definition but as an illustration—is that a person having criminal pamphlets might, instead of keeping them in his own house, send them to his bank. If he had an overdraft the bank might technically have some, sort of lien on them, but they would really be under the control of the person depositing them. Again he might send them to a safe deposit. He might leave them with the printer and leave his bill unpaid, so that again there would be a lien. In all those cases there would be great difficulty in establishing possession in the eye of the law. I do not lay down positively that in none of them could you do so, because possession is rather a technical thing, but at any rate there would be considerable risk that people might evade the Statute by having documents in that sort of custody which were not technically in the possession of the guilty person, but which were none the less under his effective control.
LORD STRABOLGI: Upon that particular point of their being "under the control," I think the examples given by-the noble Viscount are very extraordinary indeed. I thought we were trying to deal with the circulation of poisonous, nefarious leaflets to the loyal members of the forces. We are now told that if a banker has these documents, or if a safe deposit has them, that is an offence and that all this machinery is required to deal with it. How pathetic!
LORD MARLEY: We shall be bound to press to a Division our opposition to Clause 2, because as we have tried to point out, it contains so very many objectionable provisions, and because we have obtained no satisfaction whatever in any single one of the Amendments which we have moved after great thought, and with great care, and which we have attempted to explain, in order to meet the desires which we believe exist very widely throughout the country. For that reason, and particularly in view of the fact that subsection (1), for instance, contains so many objectionable features in such
Resolved in the affirmative and Clause 2 agreed to accordingly.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Safeguards for political and other publications not intended for H.M. forces.
". It is hereby declared that it shall not be an offence under this Act for any person:

(a) to have in his possession or under his control with intent to publish and distribute the same to the public generally or to any section of the public other than His Majesty's forces any document the publication or distribution whereof to persons other than members of His Majesty's forces would not prior to the passing of this Act have amounted to a criminal offence; or

(b) to print, publish or distribute in any newspaper, book or pamphlet distributed

matters as search, and such matters as the total inability to get a clear definition of the meaning of the conglomeration of words which forms subsection (1) of Clause 2 of this Bill, and in view of the objectionable features surrounding the whole position of search, and the searching of individuals in the house, we shall be bound to force to a Division our opposition to Clause 2.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Exeter, M.

Harris, L.

Aberdare, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Airlie, E.

Abinger, L.

Iliffe, L.

Feversham, E.

Alvingham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Annaly, L.

Lamington, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lloyd, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bingley, L.

Luke, L.

Midleton, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Carnock, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Redesdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Remnant, L.

Plymouth, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Rennell, L.

Radnor, E.

Daryngton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Rothes, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Southampton, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Elton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Brentford, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Elibank, V.

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

Strickland, L.

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Arnold, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

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

Faringdon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Rhayader, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Snell, L.

or sold to the public generally or to any section of the public other than His Majesty's forces any matter the publication or distribution whereof to persons other than members of His Majesty's forces would not prior to the passing of this Act have amounted to a criminal offence; or
(c) to print, publish or distribute any matter calculated or designed to advocate peace or abstention from war or from armed resistance or from enlistment in armed forces or any like matter if the publication or distribution thereof to the public generally or to any other section of the public other than His Majesty's forces would not prior to the passing of this Act have amounted to a criminal offence."
The noble Lord said: It is a rather formidable looking cause, but if you will be good enough to glance at it you will

349
see that it is not quite so intricate as it might appear. It was put down in the anticipation, unhappily realised, that we would not be able to improve Clauses 1 and 2, which are left exactly as they reached this house, and in our opinion are extremely objectionable. However, there it is; we have done our best. The next best thing to do is to see that this new power which the Minister for War requires to safeguard his soldiers and sailors from contamination by Bosheviks is not used to suppress ordinary political propaganda, which is already legal. At any rate we can put up that safeguard, we hope. Paragraph (a) says that it shall not be an offence under this Act for any person
"to have in his possession or under his control with intent to publish and distribute the same to the public generally or to any section of the public other than His Majesty's forces any document the publication or distribution whereof to persons other than members of His Majesty's forces would not prior to the passing of this Act have amounted to a criminal offence."
That safeguards the general public who may have in their possession documents perhaps of an extravagant nature, antiwar propaganda, anti-Government propaganda even, which it is not an offence to have at present, but which admittedly, if it were sent to the troops, might be an incitement to mutiny, and therefore would be an offence.
Paragraph (b) is designed to safeguard the working printer, the publisher, the newspaper personnel and people of that, kind, so that the printing or writing of a newspaper or pamphlet and its distribution to any section of the public apart from His Majesty's forces shall not constitute an offence. Take, for instance, a political club. There might be some document prepared for members of the Carlton Club when a Labour Government was in power of a really subversive character, but we allow liberty of expression in this country, and no one in his senses would think of prosecuting the author of that pamphlet. If, however, that same pamphlet were shown to the soldiers or sailors it is possible that some of them might be disaffected, and then it would be an offence. Paragraph (b) safeguards that position.
Paragraph (c) specifically deals with pacifist propaganda by people like the Society of Friends, the League of Nations Union and Canon Sheppard, who is at
350
present inviting people to sign an undertaking not to engage in war under any circumstances. Lord Ponsonby ran a great and successful campaign to the same end some years ago. A member of your Lordships' House, Lord Beaver-brook, through his newspapers, no doubt with perfect sincerity and certainly legally, is advocating that we should not engage in any kind of war. All this is peace propaganda. All of it is perfectly legal and should be allowed, but if Lord Beaverbrook—who, if he had been present, might have supported me on this point—tried to carry his objection to war, which is very strong, to the troops about to sail for the theatre of war, then he might be guilty of an offence. I expect he will be guilty of an offence already under the present Mutiny Act, but I do not want to go over that ground again.
One of our arguments is that the Secretary of State has plenty of powers already, but he says these additional powers are necessary. Well, let him have them. We have done our best. We believe they are both unnecessary and mischievous, but he must safeguard those present activities such as those of Lord Beaverbrook, the Society of Friends, Dick Sheppard, the Bishop of Birmingham and all such people. That is the object of subsection (c) of this Amendment. I think this new clause is reasonable and we have called it "Safeguards for political and other publications not intended for His Majesty's forces." The Secretary of State wil doubtless reply: "Ah, but look at my Clause 1—that is 'If by publishing maliciously and advisedly'—ant look at my Clause 2—intent has to be proved." I asked him how he was going to prove intent, and he indicated there was no way of proving that which he could explain; and that, no doubt, will be what the noble Viscount will explain to your Lordships.
But we are still nervous about the effect of this Bill. In spite of what the noble Viscount says here, and the peaceful atmosphere of your Lordships' House, with everyone good-humouredly enjoying an interesting debate, and the excellent explanations of the noble Viscount, we have got to remember that some poor wretch may be dragged before the Courts at a time of popular excitement when there is a good deal of prejudice about, and we want some safeguard for him.

351
He may be perfectly innocent of stirring up mutiny among the troops; he may be doing what it is legal to do at present, and we want to make it continue to be legal. It is for these reasons that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I have put down this new clause, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord showed his commencement of understanding of the Bill when he indicated what part of my answer to his arguments would be. It is quite true, as he observed, that I should refer your Lordships to Clauses 1 and 2, in order to see what the Bill does, before we decide whether it is necessary to put in a special safeguarding clause to say what it shall not do, because, quite obviously, if the things included in the safeguarding clause are obviously already outside the existing clauses, then there is no use for the safeguarding clause. I am bound to say I do not find the safeguarding clause very precise. I have been listening for some hours to noble Lords saying how vague our Bill is, but I do not think we have got anything quite so vague into the Bill as noble Lords opposite have succeeded in getting into their safeguarding clause.
The short answer I would make is that the clause is unnecessary, or else it is definitely mischievous. If the clause means what it appears on a first reading to mean, and as I gathered from the speech of the noble Lord that it is intended to mean—that it is merely going to protect what is called pacifist propaganda which is not intended to be circulated among the troops, but is merely intended to appear in the ordinary Press or to be circulated to a section of the public other than the troops—then quite obviously you are not within either Clause 1 or Clause 2; you are not within the Bill at all. Clause 1 provides that in order to come within the Bill you must maliciously and advisedly be endeavouring to seduce a member of His Majesty's forces. But if this new clause were intended so as to create the defence that other people as well as His Majesty's forces were to receive these documents or that you were giving them to the public or a section of the public, let us say to an unemployed man whom you
352
engaged for the purpose in order that they might give them to His Majesty's forces—if it means those things obviously it defeats the whole purpose and object of the Bill. Similarly, the rest of the three paragraphs referring to Acts which would not, prior to the commencement of this Act, have amounted to a criminal offence, seems to be re-raising in a new form the controversy which we have engaged in already between "and" and "or." If I am right in thinking, as does the Attorney-General, "and" and "or" make very little difference, then that part of the wording of the clauses would not do much harm. If on the other hand, as Lord Arnold thinks, it makes a very great difference, why then these words would in fact destroy what we have done already and would be a reversal of the position we have already taken. Whichever view, therefore, is the right one, it seems to me that this clause is not one which your Lordships would be well advised to Accept.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My noble friend and I do not stand out for the exact wording and we should be quite prepared to accept any wording that the noble Viscount preferred. Our intention is that the various sorts of political propaganda which may conceivably be mistaken as malicious should be safeguarded. We do not want this idea that, people who have unpopular views should be suppressed. I am afraid the noble Viscount thinks that people with unpopular views should be suppressed. We believe people should say what they like. I think it was Voltaire who said: "I disagree profoundly with what you are saying, but I would sacrifice my life for your right to say it." I think that is very sound and it is really the system we have gone on in this country with our safety valve of the Marble Arch. Foreigners regard with surprise that we should tolerate anything of that sort. It is these great safety valves that we want in our public life, not these pettifogging Bills with their penalties. I think they are more apt to create the very offence you want to suppress.
What we desire is that there should be inserted in this Bill, which we still consider to be pernicious, something that will properly safeguard legitimate political propaganda which in certain circumstances, mistakenly no doubt, may

353
find its way into a barracks and be so worded as to have some effect on soldiers one way or another. It is all too vague. People are likely to be caught in the nets of this Bill so easily that my noble friend and I felt that, anyhow, this class of propaganda, however near the wind it might be, ought still to be allowed and safeguarded and not come under the provisions of this Bill.
LORD ARNOLD: There are one or two observations of the noble Viscount which raise still further doubts in my mind. I do not raise this point in any sense obstructively. We do want to know what the view of the Government is. This Bill, finally, will be interpreted by the Courts, but at the same time it is customary in Parliament to discuss and have the views of the Government. The noble Viscount said the ordinary pacifist propaganda other than to troops would be perfectly permissible. May I point out that immediately war is declared we may have a Military Service Act and every male from 18 to 50 might become a member of the forces? That means, presumably, that during the war there may be no pacifist propaganda at all; that this Bill would stop it. But leave that out of account. Is it the view of the noble Viscount that a man may go down to the Aldershot area and hold a meeting asking men not to fight and asking for signatures, which is often done at these meetings? It would be a meeting for the general public but obviously at Aldershot some soldiers would be there. Is it the view that that would be ordinary political pacifist propaganda and would be no offence under this Bill?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have said that I very much demur to answering these hypothetical questions because you do not get the full facts and the full facts make all the difference. A mere speech saying that you were against war and did not think people ought to fight would be perfectly harmless, but a speech intended to persuade soldiers to infuse to obey orders would be now as well as under this Bill a very grave offence.
LORD STRABOLGI: I would like to ask the noble Viscount to be a little more explicit about the position of newspapers, I notice in the House the noble Lord, Lord Iliffe, who I think con-
354
trols the largest group of newspapers in this country and who both as a member in another place and here has been quite rightly very jealous of the liberty of the Press. May I ask the noble Viscount to envisage a Labour Government in office and the Morning Post inciting against that Government a movement of resistance. Suppose there was a kind of stay-in strike in the City of London, which we are told might happen, and that we were getting near a state of emergency. The Morning Post, as it would be entitled to do—and I would fight for it having the right to do so—would criticise the Cabinet and call them dishonest, dishonourable, unpatriotic men, as it has often done before.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As it does now.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Morning Post does now! I must start reading it again. I did not know it was so impartial. The Morning Post circulates largely in officers' messes ashore and afloat, in the Army and the Navy. You might get Mr. Gwynne publishing some of those violently clever leaders and some inspector might go before a Judge and swear that he believed the Morning Post editor to be a person who, in the words of Clause 1 of this Bill, "maliciously and advisedly" was endeavouring "to seduce" members of His Majesty's forces from their duty—I will not say from their allegiance to His Majesty, because the Morning Post would never do that. I believe a case could be made out under Clause 1 of this Bill. I am not a lawyer—not even the hair-splitting lawyer referred to by the Secretary of State for War on Second Reading—but I believe even I could make out a case against the Morning Post under Clause 1 of this Bill. I believe the Secretary of State for War could make out a much stronger case against the Daily Herald on account of recent issues.
Do noble Lords remember—it is only a few years ago—the proposed intervention against Russia? Do noble Lords remember what happened at the London Docks, that a number of dockers refused to load a munition ship called the "Jolly George"? I am sure the Secretary of State for War remembers it. It was a very good example of strike action against war and a very successful example. Those few dockers were the

355
spearhead of a great mass of public opinion at the time. The Government of the day were wise enough to recognise that if they had gone to war at that time they would have split the nation in twain, and they were afraid—and quite rightly, too. At that time the Daily Herald was a weekly Herald, and it was edited by the Leader of the Opposition in another place, the Right Honourable George Lansbury; and they were at that time inciting everyone and anyone, in uniform and out of uniform, to have nothing at all to do with that threatened war against Russia in defence of Poland. Of course they were perfectly right, but as this Bill is now drawn, I certainly believe that the Minister for War could make a case against them, if he were once more to put on his full-bottomed wig and his robes and went to Court as a prosecutor. I would not much like to be the defender against him, with those powers which he has in this Bill. We want to safeguard that position, and we want to safeguard the right of people to print and publish what they like, as long as it does not offend against public morals or decency, to the civilian population. By Jove ! if we have to fight again for liberty of speech in this country, for the liberty of
Resolved in the negative and the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
the printing press and liberty of thought and expression, we will go into the fight with the greatest pleasure against all the embattled forces opposite.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I will anticipate the probable reply of the noble Viscount opposite by saying that I am a fool, but it does seem to me that every time a hypothetical case under this Bill (because there is no other) is suggested to His Majesty's Government, the reply always is that there is no new offence created under this Bill, and indeed no new penalty. If that be the case—and the noble Viscount has repeatedly told us that it is the case—I would like to know, without being told that I am a fool, just what is the object of passing this Bill?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord had better ask that on Third Reading.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Then I assure the noble Viscount that I will ask it.
On Question, Whether the said new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS.

Arnold, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Snell, L.

Faringdon, L.

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

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Aberdare, L.

Harris, L.

Exeter, M.

Abinger, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Alvingham, L.

Iliffe, L.

Airlie, E.

Annaly, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Feversham, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lamington L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bingley, L.

Lloyd, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Redesdale, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Remnant, L.

Munster, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Rennell, L.

Plymouth, E.

Daryngton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Radnor, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Southampton, L.

Rothes, E.

Elton, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Elibank, V.

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

Strickland, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Templemore, L.

LORD SNELL LORD SNELL moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Direction for search.
". Before making a search under this Act, the person about to make it shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate to attend and witness the search.
The search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the coarse of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by the person making the search and signed by such witnesses, but no such witness shall be required to attend the court as a witness of the search unless summoned by it."
The noble Lord said: I am afraid it has become farcical to ask the Government to consider these proposed Amendments and new clauses on their merits. Nevertheless I commend to the attention of the noble Viscount the clause which is set out on the Paper. It seems to us to be entirely reasonable, and if it were passed it would relieve a certain alarm and anxiety as to the method in which search should take place. The Bill empowers a Judge of the High Court, if he is satisfied there is reasonable ground for suspecting that a man possesses material associated with some offence under this Bill, to grant, on the application of a police officer of a stated rank, a warrant to search the person's house and premises, and so on, if the police officer has reasonable ground for expecting to find evidence of the commission of an offence. That raises once again the great trouble we have had throughout this debate, and I do not propose to continue the argument at any length.
I sympathise with the fatigue of your Lordships, a fatigue which I share to the full, and I do not want merely to repeat, but in moving this we bring no sort of question as to the impartiality of the Judge. He acts on information supplied to him by a police officer, and so it is really a question of an officer of a given rank being concerned. The evidence submitted may be nothing more than a reasonable suspicion on the part of the officer. We have raised before to-night the possibility of such evidence being provided in advance of such a visit—I think the word "plant" is that which is used. I think it is not likely, but it is not impossible that such a thing should take place, and therefore we want to take every kind of precaution against it.
There is also the point that Police inspectors are, of course, responsible per-
358
sons and would act always within what they thought was the law and their duty. There is no question about that in mind, but at the same time Police officers are not distinguished for political wisdom, or for balance on nice philosophical points, and sometimes not for toleration. They are apt to be respecters of persons, and would be deeply influenced by the source from which a complaint came to them. That an energetic member of a Watch Committee had a suspicion against a political opponent, and procured a Police officer to make a search—that would, in my judgment weigh heavily on the mind of the officer concerned. I have had long and very friendly relationships with the Police, and I believe in their competence and their probity, but I am not always satisfied that they have always an impartial political mind. And that is true of any other officer, true indeed of all of us in this House: there is a, limit to the impartiality that we can achieve.
Therefore we desire that whenever such a search is made there shall be these two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to be witnesses of any search that is made. This would serve the double purpose of protecting the Police themselves against accusations of partiality or anything of that kind, and it would be a security to the people who are being searched and would relieve the mind of the community of a certain hesitation that it must always have in the case of a public officer going into a man's private house, overhauling his papers, taking what he wants, and then making an accusation before the High Court and so on. In spite of the lack of success we have had in the previous part of the debate, we hope that the noble Viscount may see fit to meet us favourably on the point which I have put before you.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Snell.)
LORD MARLEY: I desire to reinforce the plea of my noble friend with regard to this new clause, because I think it is very much in the interests of the Police themselves that this fear and suspicion among the inhabitants with regard to this so-called general search should be mitigated at least by the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants. I do not altogether like it, because I think the

359
whole business of this search for unspecified and unnamed documents is so utterly and completely objectionable and foreign to all ideas of British justice and decency that my objection is fundamental to the whole position in this Bill; but if you are going to have a beastly, unpleasant, and unjust system to apply to people whom you dislike, which the Bill does, then perhaps you can mitigate to some small extent the unpleasantness and beastliness of it by some such plan as is involved in this addition. I am not sure that it is very much better, because I do not know that we should like, any of us, our neighbours, however respectable, to take part in a search of our private papers, let alone a search of the members of our household. But on the whole I think it is an improvement, and I hope very much in this case that the Government will be able to give us some satisfaction.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Snell, began by saying he had almost given up hope of the Government giving careful consideration to his Amendments, but I would remind him with regard to this Amendment, at any rate, that not only has it been carefully considered by the Government, but it was also very fully discussed in another place. Arguments were put both by those who share the views of the noble Lord and by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, both of whom spoke on this clause, giving reasons why it could not be accepted, and the view of the Government was endorsed by a very large majority in another place. May I very shortly give what I think are the answers to it? First of all, if the ground of the suggestion is that you cannot trust the Police, I would like to say at once that we do not think there is any ground for any suspicion against the Police. But if it were true, contrary to what I believe, that the Police could not be trusted, that they were going to plant something upon some unfortunate and innocent man—
LORD SNELL: I hope I did not convey the suggestion that the Police themselves would provide that evidence. I assumed a case where someone had planted material prior to the visit of the Police.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That relieves me of what I was going to say on that point. We are dealing, then, on the assumption that there is no ground for
360
suspicion against the Police that they are going to do anything improper. On that hypothesis, when the Police go to look for the evidence which is to be found on the premises, they will find what has been planted there. They will find there just as much whether they go with two respectable inhabitants or without them. I do not think the presence of two respectable inhabitants will do anything to prevent the Police drawing just the same inferences as they would if two respectable inhabitants were not there. It does not seem to offer a safeguard against that risk if it exists, which I do not think it does. There is no means in the Bill to compel two respectable inhabitants to go. There is no means of choosing them, of making them sign or of reconciling any differences between them as to what is really found, and I should have thought you would have extreme difficulty in asking two respectable inhabitants to spend their time in going through their neighbour's private papers.
Finally, when one hears that this provision will mitigate the beastliness—I think that was the word—of search by the Police, I suppose all these things are a matter of taste. Personally, if I were going to have my private papers searched, I should much prefer that they were searched by the Police alone and not to have my neighbours come in to look at everything as well. There is this additional force in that observation, that the Police at any rate would be quite sure not to make any improper use of the information because they are under discipline and can be dealt with by the authorities if they do anything outside their duty, whereas there is nothing to prevent two respectable inhabitants telling everyone in London what they have found out. I do not think it is mitigating the beastliness of having your private papers looked through to say that not only are the Police to do it, who are responsible and confidential people, but also that two respectable inhabitants whom the Police can persuade to do it should have the fun of going through papers and doing what they like with the information they obtain.
LORD SNELL: I am not satisfied with the reply and I did not expect I should be. I am afraid I shall have to ask the House to divide.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3:
Provisions as to punishment of offences.
3.—(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable, on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or (whether on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction) to both such imprisonment and fine.
(2) No prosecution in England under this Act shall take place without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(3) Where a prosecution under this Act is being carried on by the Director of Public Prosecutions a court of summary jurisdiction shall not deal with the case summarily without the consent of the Director.
(4) Where any person is convicted of an offence under this Act the Court dealing with the case may order any documents connected with the offence to be destroyed or dealt with in such other manner as may be specified in the order, but no documents shall be destroyed before the expiration of the period within which an appeal may be lodged, and if an appeal is lodged no document shall be destroyed until after the appeal has been heard and decided.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "two years" and insert "six months." The noble
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS.

Arnold, L.

Hay L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Snell, L.

Faringdon, L.

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

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Exeter, M.

Harris, L.

Aberdare, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Airlie, E.

Abinger, L.

Iliffe, L.

Feversham, E.

Alvingham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Annaly, L.

Lamington, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lloyd, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bingley, L.

Middleton, L.

Midleton, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Carnock, L.

Redesdale, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam

Remnant, L.

Onslow, E.

Rennell, L.

Plymouth, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Radnor, E.

Daryngton, L.

Southampton, L.

Rothes, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Elton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Elibank, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Strickland, L.

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

Templemore, L.

Earl said: I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sanderson, who put it on the Paper. We think a penalty of two years is really too much. If we were satisfied that under the Bill the real culprits were going to be caught, we would not so much object to this penalty, but as this Bill is drafted it seems to me, and I think to my noble friends, that it is very probable that the person who is not primarily responsible is going to get it in the neck. Therefore I think the penalty is too high.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("two years") and insert ("six months").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD MARLEY: I want to support my noble friend in this because I am very frightened of this prison business. Two years is a long time. I do not know what we would do without our Leader if Lord Ponsonby went to prison. For six months we might manage—especially if there was the Recess—but two years is a terrible time. After all, we are not used to prison. Very few of your Lordships have been in prison. I think one of our supporters has been in prison, and one or two on the other side. I think we beat the House of Commons in the number of

363
members of your Lordships' House who have actually been in prison. But my point is that prison is rather harder to those who are not normally used to a hard life than it is to other people, and I feel that two years is rather too long. I very much hope that this very severe penalty—and I speak feelingly in anticipation—may be lowered to six months.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think the Secretary of State for War can accept this Amendment quite safely, because after all he only wants to get the tall poppies cut down for only a few weeks. Six months would be quite long enough to keep them out of the way.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think noble Lords opposite are under a misapprehension. The Bill does not say that everybody who is convicted under the Bill shall go to prison for two years. Two years is the maximum sentence. As a matter of fact under the existing law the maximum sentence is penal servitude for life, and this Bill, instead of giving penal servitude for life, provides that in a prosecution under this Bill the maximum that can be inflicted is two years. So that your Lordships really will be very fortunate, and those who are so anxious to be martyrs will have a more modified crown than that to which they might originally have aspired. I quite agree that there will be some offences under this Bill for which two years would be grossly excessive, but those convicted of those offences will not get two years; they will probably be let off with a small fine, or they may even be bound over, or otherwise treated lightly. It is in the discretion of the Judge, and two years is the maximum that can be given. If your Lordships think what is the gravest form of offence here, an offence in which there may be a deliberate attempt to induce soldiers to mutiny, to shoot down their officers and to desert to the enemy, to suggest that two years punishment is too much for that, whereas the man who listens to the inducement may be sentenced to death, seems to me rather an extravagant proposition.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I understand from the noble Viscount that as the law is at present, a person may be sentenced to penal servitude for life for this offence, and that if this Bill is passed in
364
its present form that person can be sentenced only to two years?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If he is prosecuted under this Bill.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Is it not probable that the magistrate, in view of the existing law, would sentence an offender under this Bill to the maximum of two years?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The magistrate has no such power. It is only on indictment that a person can be sentenced to two years imprisonment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Very well, a Judge.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I would ask the noble Viscount whether offences under this Bill are exactly the same as under the Mutiny Act of 1797 and Acts following upon it, under which penal servitude for life is the maximum penalty? Are we to understand that that penalty is by this Bill rescinded, and that the maximum penalty will be two years and the equivalent fine?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: You can prosecute under either Act. If you prosecute under this measure, the maximum that can be inflicted is two years, but the maximum offence under this measure might be one which deserves at least that amount.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The noble Viscount has given us to understand that this Bill is to replace the other Act.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No; if the noble Lord had been here, he would have heard me say just the opposite several times.
LORD FARINGDON: I have to thank the noble Viscount; he has been so kind to us all. He has reduced the amount of punishment to which we are liable. A great many noble Lords on the other side have said kind things about the Quakers. The Quakers believe that in no circumstances is one entitled to kill another man. I equally believe that to kill another man is always murder, no matter what the circumstances, and if one believes that one must inevitably try to persuade other people not to commit murder. Therefore it seems to me, and I beg your Lordships' pardon for wast-

365
ing your time so late at night, those of us who believe that killing is murder must inevitably try to persuade people who are liable to commit murder, namely, the members of His Majesty's forces, not to commit murder. To do that appears to be under this Bill an offence. I ask your Lordships' pardon while I draw your attention to the Met that to me and I believe to the Leader of my Party in this House this Bill is fatal. We must inevitably go to prison. Your Lordships are very kind to us really, because under the old Act we should have had to go to prison for life.
LORD CARNOCK: Is not the noble Lord wasting our time, as nothing he has said is relevant to this Bill.
LORD FARINGDON: I do not know at all whether what I have said is relevant. I am just making an appeal, based simply on my feelings and not necessarily from facts or figures. I am simply making an appeal for people who believe in peace at any price and who, under this Bill, may be sent to prison. I do not say that the present Government are going to send us to prison—they are far too nice—but another Government which is less kind might easily do so.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "fifty pounds" for "two hundred pounds." The noble Lord said: I will not keep your Lordships very long on this Amendment, because the principle has been argued on the previous Amendment and I am rather afraid to speak about it at all, for I understand that any comment on or criticism of this Bill is a waste of your Lordships' time. On the point raised I should like to say that in a less exalted place when a man makes a maiden speech he usually is not interrupted. In this matter our fear is about this £200, that the maximum might be imposed. There is no danger at all of the Morning Pose or organs of that kind being prosecuted. Our anxiety is for the poor little printer who, anxious to get a job, makes a contract to print a thing. He has probably not read it diligently, he may not be fully aware of the significance of the things he prints, but he may nevertheless be got at in this way, and it seems to us that to punish a little man of that kind with a fine of £200 would really cripple him. The Gov-
366
ernment would get all that they require by a much reduced fine. We suggest that £50 would give them all that they desire, and we are bold enough even now to ask them to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("two hundred") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Snell.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am afraid my answer must be like that which I gave last time, that this is a maximum penalty. It is quite true that there will be cases, no doubt, in which £200 will be too much. It is only the Judge on indictment who will inflict this penalty—if the case is tried summarily it is only £20. The Judge in the case mentioned by the noble Lord would give a penalty less than £200, and if perchance the Judge went wrong there would be, as of right, an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which reviews all questions when there is any ground for it. So that I do not think that the noble Lord's anxiety is really very substantial.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (2), before "consent," to insert "written." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will notice that the subsection reads:
"No prosecution in England under this Act shall take place without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
I want the word "written" put in as an additional safeguard.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, after first ("the") insert ("written").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is not a, very important Amendment, but I can assure the noble Lord that it really is not necessary. I think invariably the consent is given, but in every case, if this clause stands, the consent will have to be proved in Court before the prosecution can succeed. That normally will be proved by producing a written document, but if for any exceptional reason the Public Prosecutor temporarily could not write, or if there were any special difficulty about producing the writing, or the writing had been destroyed, you would then prove it by calling somebody, either the Public Prosecutor himself or somebody who could prove that the Public Prosecutor had given his consent. The form we have taken here

367
is the form in which it normally stands when these stipulations appear. It has worked perfectly smoothly in practice.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Public Prosecutor might give his consent by telephone. How do you prove that then in Court?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: You would have to call the Public Prosecutor.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is far more trouble, and I think that the noble Viscount might accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I cannot accept it. This is a very common clause.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Director of Public Prosecutions" and insert "Attorney-General." The noble Lord said: The reason for this Amendment is very clear. In the event of any miscarriage of justice, any case in which wrong consent has been given, the Attorney-General can be questioned in another place. That is very salutary indeed. Your Lordships will remember that the reason for the downfall of the Government of 1924, the first Government of the present Prime Minister, was that a case arose which came to be known as the Campbell Case. I am not going into the details of it, because your Lordships will be aware of it. Several noble Lords, both on that side of the House and on this side, were members of that Parliament in another place, and the circumstances will be present in their minds. There were certain curious features about the case. I myself believe still that for very good reasons the Government of the day decided not to continue with the prosecution of a legless ex-Serviceman.
It was only a few years after the War and public sympathy was all with the disabled ex-Serviceman at that time, as it ought to be. For good reason it was decided that the case would not lie or that it was not in the public interest to go on with it, and Sir Patrick Hastings, the then Attorney-General, withdrew the case in a perfectly straightforward manner. But for the metaphysics and philosophisings and vagueness and prevarication of the then Prime Minister, who made a complete mess of things in the House of Commons, the matter would, I think, have gone through all right and
368
there need have been no General Election in that year. I think that my noble friend below me, who was a member of that Government, will agree with me when I say that. But the Conservatives and the Liberal Party thought there was something amiss, and they were able to thrash the whole matter out on the floor of the House of Commons. Responsibility was held to rest with the Attorney-General. The Director of Public Prosecutions was Sir Archibald Bodkin, and he, too, was criticised, not openly perhaps, although there were some strictures on him publicly for his conduct of affairs. He was not supposed to have been altogether loyal to his chief. I do not know the facts, but I do know the joke that went round the smokeroom in another place and that was that "the Government has been punctured by a small Bodkin."
However that may be, we had a debate that was perhaps necessary, and certainly useful, and although, for the reasons I have given, it led to the regrettable end of the then Government, which I supported generally although I was not at that time a member of the Labour Party, it was a good thing that the matter could be thrashed out on the floor of the House. That is the reason that has induced me to put down this Amendment. I would rather have a political personage like the Attorney-General dealing with these questions than the Director of Public Prosecutions. The noble Viscount has been Attorney-General, and I am sure he will accept the compliment that this Amendment pays to that office.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("Director of Public Prosecutions") and insert ("Attorney-General").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There is some substance in this Amendment, though I do not believe for a moment that it will be accepted. I think it is necessary to link the procedure in this Bill to public discussion in Parliament. I think that some degree of public and Parliamentary interference with the working of this Bill would be very healthy, though I am afraid there is no hope of the Government accepting the proposal.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a rather ungenerous Motion. I would remind noble Lords that the reason why this

369
clause is in at all is because of a Motion moved from their Benches in another place and accepted by the Government as a concession to them after a full discussion. If we had added the Attorney-General instead of the Director of Public Prosecutions, I am sure we should have had a Motion by the noble Lord to substitute the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Attorney-General, and he would have made a very powerful speech showing how iniquitous it was to place this responsibility in the hands of the Attorney-General, subject as he was to political prejudice through being in close touch with the Cabinet and all that sort of thing. There would have been criticism that he should be allowed to have any say in a matter which, after all, might be regarded as trenching too much on political matters. As it happens, the House below chose the Director, and then we get an Amendment put forward and we are told the Attorney-General is a more suitable person. Personally I think either of them would do very well. I see no reason to disturb the decision of the House of Commons.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am glad the Minister for War is in such jocular mood and in such good humour. He has had a very great strain and I wish he had had some assistance to help him in this matter. But I am glad he has maintained his balance, as shown by his reply. There was no controversy in the other place. There was not a choice between the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. This subsection was put in as a safeguard in response to pressure in another place from those who were disturbed about the whole Bill. It is only because in this House we have a greater sense of the fitness of things that we have chosen the Attorney-General. If they had thought of it in another place they no doubt would have done so. We think there is a great deal of substance in this. After all, it does not matter who proposes Amendments in another place that affect the Bill, if we can still further improve it it is the duty of this House as a revising Chamber to do so. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will support us. I am afraid we shall have to divide the House.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3, agreed to.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 3:
Act not to apply to a Parliamentary candidate.
". No search warrant shall be granted or any prosecution instituted under this Act against any candidate for Parliamentary election or against his agent or against any person or persons under his instructions for anything said, done, written or published in pursuance of his candidature after the issue of writs for the summoning of a new Parliament or after motion made for the issue of the Speaker's warrant for the issue of a writ to fill a vacancy until such time as the return to such writ or writs has been duly made."
The noble Earl said: This is the last Amendment but I think it is not the least. The first point I want to make is that soldiers, sailors and airmen during a General Election, or a by-election in their constituencies, are in the same position as civilians. They all have the right to vote. As voters they should have the right to receive the literature of every candidate and should be entitled to read it quite freely without any question of prosecution of the candidates or their agents. It might happen that one of your Lordships went down to a naval centre to support a candidate, let us say an admiral. There is no reason why a soldier or sailor should not be able to read the speech of the noble Lord if he spoke against the Government of the day.
In foreign countries where the Fascist element has gained the upper hand other points of view cannot be expressed. Herr von Papen had his desk broken open because he dared to make a speech in favour of liberty in Germany. That is the sort of thing that might happen if we had a Government of the Fascist or Communist type. I do not say this National Government would do that. Although I have denounced them on many occasions I do not think they would go as far as that. Herr Wilkes also had his desk broken open and his papers stolen. I say stolen, but I suppose they were taken by the political police. Therefore this is a very necessary provision. I hope the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment, or, if he cannot do that now, will consider it with a view to accepting some Amendment on the next stage.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the, said new clause.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is a matter which had careful consideration at the hands of the Government in another place. It was fully debated on the Report stage in the House of Commons and the House rejected the proposal by a majority of between four and five to one. What was said in the other place left the Government in no doubt that it was right in rejecting this clause, and after listening to what was said by the noble Earl I am bound to say that he has not been more successful than his friends and colleagues in the House of Commons. The effect of the clause would be to provide that if a Parliamentary Election were in progress or in contemplation a candidate and anybody acting for him—I suppose they would be indefinite in number—would be allowed to commit this crime of seducing soldiers and sailors from their allegiance with impunity for the period of the election.
Why should they? You are perfectly entitled now and at any time to express your political opinions. You are perfectly entitled, under this Bill, at any time to try to persuade other people to share your opinions. What you are not entitled to do under this Bill is to attempt to get soldiers and sailors to refuse to obey their lawful orders, and I do not see in the least why the fact that you are a Parliamentary candidate should give you any wider licence in that respect.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4:
Short title and application to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
4.—(1) This Act may be cited as the incitement to Disaffection Act, 1934.
(2) This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:

(a) subsection (2) of Section two shall have effect as if for references to a Judge of the High Court there were substituted references to the Sheriff, and any application for a search warrant under the said subsection shall be made by the procurator fiscal instead of such officer as is therein mentioned;

(b) subsection (4) of Section two shall not apply provided that anything seized under that section may be retained for a period not exceeding one month, or if within that period proceedings are commenced for an offence under this Act until the conclusion of those proceedings, and subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any enactment, including this Act, conferring powers on Courts dealing with offences, any property which has come
372
into the possession of the Police under this section shall be returned to the owner, or, if the owner cannot be ascertained, shall be disposed of in such manner as the Sheriff, in a summary application made to him, may direct;

(c) the powers conferred by this Act on the Sheriff shall not be exercisable by an honorary sheriff substitute.

(3) It is hereby declared that this Act extends to Northern Ireland, and in the application thereof to Northern Ireland the provisions of this Act requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the summary trial of cases shall have effect as if references to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland were therein substituted for references to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask a question on Clause 4? It is a long clause, but we do not want to debate it at length and do not want to detain your Lordships' House; but may I ask why, in subsection (3), it provides that the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is to give his consent? Is there no Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I believe the answer is that there is no Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. I am afraid I shall have to ask for notice of that question so that I may answer it on Third Reading, but I think that is the answer.
LORD STRABOLGI: I only asked in view of the noble Viscount's remarks on my former Amendment, that is all. With reference to the rest of Clause 4, this contains the title, "Incitement to Disaffection Act." I had a number of remarks to make on this clause, but I do not propose to offer them to your Lordships, as the night is getting rather late. I would make only one remark, if I may, to the noble Viscount and to the noble Marquess who sits beside him, who is also responsible for the contentment and good discipline of another of the great fighting forces. In a very delightful play which deals with matters of sedition and incitement, and which appeared on the London stage recently, a play called Richard of Bordeaux, the King in the period of his great power was asked on what he relied, or words to that effect. He said: "On five thousand archers paid every Friday." The real defence against the terrible things feared from the Communists and

373
others of which this Bill is the result is a contented, happy and satisfied body of men, wearing the King's uniform. That is our case on this side of the House, and that is why we have objected to this Bill—not nearly as vehemently nor at such length as we could have done, but with the very least objection that we thought was commensurate with our duty as the Opposition in this House of Lords.
On Question, Clause 4 agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the adjournment is moved I should like, on behalf of my noble friends behind me, to thank the Lord Chainman for the way in which he has performed the arduous duties which have fallen upon him. I think that the regulations of this House have prevented him leaving the Chair during the ten or eleven hours that the House has been sitting. May I also say that I think the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has had a very heavy task to discharge in conducting this Bill alone, and the whole proceedings have been conducted with the greatest possible good humour. I can assure your Lordships that we felt it our bounden duty to make what fight we
374
could with our small numbers, and, although we have been obliged to keep your Lordships late, we did it for a public purpose. We thought we were really serving the Party to which we belong to the best of our ability.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sure everybody would like to endorse what the noble Lord has said about the Lord Chairman, who has had a very arduous evening and morning. I only hope it will be a very long time before he has to spend so many hours again in the Chair. In the friendly atmosphere which prevails, may I ask the noble Lord, if it is not inconvenient, whether he anticipates that one day will be sufficient for the Third Reading? I understand he agrees, and in that case I propose that we should sit, not on Monday but Tuesday next. I would add that I understand what the noble Lord has said and naturally I accept his assurance that there was no intention of unnecessary obstruction. I congratulate the House upon having endured this somewhat lengthy sitting with so much patience and apparently so much good will.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past four o'clock on Friday morning.