Sitting of 23 June 1936

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Derby, in the room of the Right hon. James Henry Thomas (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.
  Mr. A. C. JONESasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the official pronouncement by the South African Premier, as to the future changes in the administration of Swaziland, there exists any understanding between Britain and the Dominion of South Africa as to the transfer of the South African native protectorates to the Union?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As indicated in the reply given to questions on 17th June, the understanding arrived at with General Hertzog last year as to the future of the High Commission Territories is fully stated in the Aide-Memoire published in Command Paper 4948.
  Mr. CREECH JONES: Can the Minister tell us whether any instructions on that point have been issued to the resident authorities in the Protectorate, and can he give us an assurance that this matter of the Protectorates will not be a negotiating point with Mr. Pirow during his visit to this country?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
  1566
  negative; and as to the second, this matter is not being discussed with Mr. Pirow.
  Mr. LUNN: Do we gather that the policy is still the same policy that has been declared in this House?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I have said that several times already, and I hope that my hon. Friend will take this as a final answer.

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Oversea Settlement Board is taking steps to encourage or initiate schemes which will lead to an early resumption of migration?
  Mr. AMMONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether any progress in preparing and submitting schemes has been made by the Oversea Settlement Board;
  (2) whether a decision has been reached as to the desirability, or otherwise, of approaching any of the Dominions on the subject of immigration?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: The Oversea Settlement Board is actively engaged upon a general review of the possibilities of the early resumption of migration, in the light of past experience and present economic conditions overseas. In this they have so far had the advantage of informal discussions with Ministers of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Premiers of two of the Australian States and representatives of a number of voluntary organisations interested in the question of oversea, settlement. The position has not yet been reached, however, where the board have found it possible to recommend specific schemes.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this important subject is placed on the agenda of the Imperial Conference next year?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I am answering another question on that point.
  Mr. LUNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received from any of the

  1567
  Dominions any schemes for restarting emigration which are likely to be acceptable?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I have not received any such schemes.
  Mr. AMMON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the Alberta scheme for settlement? Is that one of the schemes under consideration?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I understand that certain unofficial inquiries are being made into that scheme on the spot, and the Oversea Settlement Board are expecting to hear further about it when the representatives of the unofficial organisation return to this country.
  Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has consulted the Governments of the Dominions upon the need for full discussion of the question of Empire development and settlement at the approaching Imperial Conference?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The agenda for the proposed Imperial Conference next year is under consideration. I will certainly bear in mind the possibility of including the subject to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the probable early resumption of migration, he will consider the advisability of again affording financial help to the voluntary societies which have been actively engaged in the past in the work of migration and settlement, with a view to keeping their machinery efficient?
  Mr. MacDONALD: At the present time, assisted migration is virtually in abeyance and it would, I think, be premature to consider the question of a renewal of Government assistance to voluntary societies. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the value of the work performed by voluntary societies in the past is fully recognised, and that when a resumption of migration on any material scale becomes practicable, careful consideration will be given, in the light of the recommendations made on the subject by the Inter-Departmental Committee on
  1568
  Migration Policy, to the question of what assistance may appropriately be afforded by the Government to approved societies.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask whether he is aware that some of these societies, which have done most valuable work in the past, as testified by the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, of which he was chairman, are now in sore straits owing to the effort to keep their machinery in being, and will he not consider the desirability of giving them immediate help?
  Mr. LUNN: Why spend the taxpayers' money on machinery if we are not going to emigrate our people?
  Mr. MacDONALD: I think the answer that I have given covers those points. If there are any particular cases to which my hon. Friend would like to draw my attention, perhaps he will let me know of them.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (PASS LAWS).
  Mr. CREECH JONESasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the numbers of natives in Southern Rhodesia who have been convicted under pass laws in each year since the constitution was promulgated in 1923?
  Mr. M. MacDONALD: As the reply involves a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

  Natives convicted under pass laws, 1923–1935.

  1923

  12,386

  1924

  11,254

  1925

  11,048

  1926

  10,081

  1927

  8,940

  1928

  9,181

  1929

  10,995

  1930

  13,565

  1931

  14,540

  1932

  17,510

  1933

  18,866

  1934

  19,279

  1935

  19,773

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    ORKNEY TWEED.
    Major NEVEN-SPENCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to consider taking steps to rule that the use of the word "Orkney" in describing tweed means tweed made entirely from wool grown in Orkney and woven in the islands.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have no power to give the ruling asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    ANGLO-SPANISH PAYMENTS AGREEMENT.
    Mr. BOULTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that exports to Spain are experiencing considerable difficulty and delay in receiving payments in spite of the Anglo-Spanish payments agreement; and will he make representations to the Spanish Government with a view to the agreement being strictly adhered to?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The delay in receiving payments in sterling is primarily due to the large amount of arrears outstanding. His Majesty's Government have therefore proposed that the arrears should be liquidated by a special payment outside the clearing, but the Spanish Government have not, up to the present, agreed to the adoption of this course. If my hon. Friend will bring to my notice any cases in which it is considered that the Spanish Government have not strictly adhered to the terms of the agreement, I will look into the matter.

    TANKS (EXPORT LICENCES).
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the number and particulars of tanks for which licences have been issued for export by his Department during the past six years; and by which countries these tanks were ordered?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the period 1st January, 1930, to 31st December, 1935, licences were issued covering the export of 46 light amphibian tanks, 234 other light tanks and 21 medium weight tanks. With regard to the last part of the question, as the hon. Member has previously been informed, it would not be in the public interest to give particulars of the countries by which these tanks were ordered.
    Mr. DAY: Can the Minister say whether any of these tanks were obsolete stock?

    PIG IRON (IMPORT).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of pig iron imported during the last six months from Russia and India, respectively; and why this commodity has not been produced in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The quantity of pig iron imported into this country during the six months ended May, 1936, from Russia and India, amounted to 7,279 tons and 41,579 tons respectively. There is at present a heavy demand for pig iron owing to increased activity in the steel industry. Production in the United Kingdom is increasing rapidly. The output for the six months ended in May last was 3,664,000 tons.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the importation of this pig iron due to the fact that English and Scottish companies cannot produce it in sufficient quantities?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to that question must be qualified by the fact that the English users of pig iron have made greater demands than anyone anticipated a short time ago.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Does that mean that we cannot supply these users with pig iron?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It would be unfair to draw that conclusion.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the Minister say whether all the blast furnaces in this country are still blowing?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must have notice of that question.

    ENAMELLED WARE (IMPORTS).
    Sir PHILIP DAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade the number and value of enamelled baths and enamelled wash basins imported during the last 12 months for which statistics are available, and the countries they have been imported from?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate in the

    1571
    OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing such particulars as are available regarding imports of iron and steel baths. The

    Table showing the weight and declared value of the imports into the United Kingdom of the undermentioned descriptions of baths of iron or steel during the 12 months ended May, 1936, distinguishing the principal countries of consignment.

    Countries from which consigned.

    Baths of iron or steel

    Wrought enamelled, of a description commonly used for domestic purposes.

    Other kinds.

    Quantity (a).

    Declared value.

    Quantity (a).

    Declared value.

    Tons.

    £

    Tons.

    £

    British Countries

    1

    86

    1

    30

    Germany

    23

    916

    5,502

    144,643

    Belgium

    —

    —

    1,018

    20,594

    Other Foreign Countries

    10

    697

    360

    10,099

    Total

    34

    1,699

    6,881

    175,366

    (a) Recorded by weight only.

    BRAZIL (BALANCE OF PAYMENTS).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom is now buying from Brazil annually £1,000,000 more than Brazil buys of the United Kingdom, after the import and export figures have been adjusted to c.i.f. basis in both cases, he will, for the protection of British exporters and holders of defaulted Brazilian public obligations, prepare a scheme for an Anglo-Brazilian exchange clearing?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend will be aware that the balance of trade, even when adjusted to a c.i.f. basis, does not cover all the items which go to make up the balance of payments between the United Kingdom and Brazil. In view of the wider considerations involved, I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion would be likely to achieve the object he has in mind.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the balance as it stands?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall never confess to being satisfied.
    imports a enamelled wash basins are not recorded separately in the United Kingdom trade returns.
    Following is the statement:

    ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH INVESTORS).
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will notify the Argentine Government that a traffic pooling arrangement for the protection of British investors in Argentine railways is desired by His Majesty's Government as part of the new Roca Agreement in order that ratification may receive the support of this House?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am unable to add anything to the reply which was given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on 11th June.

    BRITISH SHIPPING SERVICE, PACIFIC.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement with regard to the future of the British shipping services in the Pacific plying between the Dominions and the United States of America?
    Lord APSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make regarding the discussions which have been taking place about

    1573
    the position of British shipping services in the Pacific?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have agreed to ask the Imperial Shipping Committee to report

    (a) As to the traffic possibilities of a British passenger and cargo service between Western Canada and Australia-New Zealand;

    (b) Whether a service on lines suggested by the shipping interests concerned would be appropriate in view of the traffic possibilities and any other shipping facilities available; and, if not, what kind of service would be appropriate;

    (c) As to the probable financial results of such a service, taking into account the financial results of the working of the existing British services between San Francisco and Australia-New Zealand and Vancouver and Australia-New Zealand;

    (d) Whether such a service would have any ill effects on any other British shipping interests.

    A request has accordingly been addressed to the Chairman of the Imperial Shipping Committee, who has called a meeting for this afternoon to begin their consideration of the matter.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer I would like to ask him, respecting the present British shipping services in the Pacific, whether it is not a fact that unless a Government subsidy is given to the companies they will be unable to continue in face of the American subsidised shipping lines, and that the services will have to be abandoned?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is one of the questions which the committee will inquire into at an early date.
    Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider taking over and nationalising the whole of the shipping industry and so save the subsidies?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CONTRACTS (SPECIAL AREAS).
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the
    1574
    total value of Army contracts placed during the years 1934 and 1935, respectively, went to the Special Areas of Wales, Special Areas of North-West England, and Special Areas of Scotland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): The records of contracts and sub-contracts are not kept in such a form as to enable the desired information to be readily available, and I regret that it would not be possible to obtain it without a disproportionate expenditure of time and of labour.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployed in the Special Areas are gravely dissatisfied with the gross neglect of their plight by the National Government, and is it not possible to get these figures?
    Mr. COOPER: I do not think it is possible to get them for the past, but I am quite prepared to consider the possibility and practicability of having them for the future.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for War the comparative results of recruiting for the regular Forces during the six months ended 31st March in Scotland and England, respectively?
    Mr. COOPER: During the six months in question, the number of recruits finally approved for each 10,000 of the recruitable population was, Scotland, 42.32, England, 41.02.
    Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: How many are there?

    NEW MILITARY HOSPITAL, REDFORD.
    Mr. GUYasked the Secretary of State for War the reasons for the delay in proceeding with the scheme for a new military hospital at Redford?
    Mr. COOPER: The provision of the new military hospital at Redford is delayed because of other more urgent building services which must take priority.

  SCOTLAND.

    VAGRANCY COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the departmental committee on vagrancy

    1575
    has completed its sittings; and, if so, when its report will be available for Members of this House?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Yes, Sir. I have received the report of the committee, which has been presented, and will be made available to Members this week.

    MOTORING OFFENCE, FORT WILLIAM.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. R. MacPherson, of Gallop, Glenfinnan, Inverness-shire, who, at the court house, Fort William, was fined £3 for having overlooked the renewal of his driving licence for a period of about two weeks; whether he is aware that there was no previous conviction against Mr. MacPherson; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will take steps to remit the fine imposed?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am making inquiry into the circumstances of this case, and will communicate further with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when his attention was first drawn to this case, and how it is that there has been so much delay in ascertaining the facts relative to it?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have not that information available.

    HOUSING (GLASGOW).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses built last year in the city of Glasgow; the number at present under construction; and what steps he intends to take to expedite the building of houses in view of the present unsatisfactory position?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The total number of houses completed by the Corporation of Glasgow during 1935 was 3,878, and the number under construction at 31st May, 1936, was 2,612. With regard to the latter part of the question, I have personally discussed housing progress with the Corporation, who have decided to increase their output from 4,000 to 6,500 houses a year.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that 6,500 is a very small figure, in view of the terrible shortage and the fearful overcrowded conditions in Glasgow, and will he not try to get the Corporation to make it 20,000?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The number 6,500 is a very considerable increase on any previous year, and, if the Corporation keep to it, I believe a further step will be taken to increase that figure.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when the Corporation will begin on the 6,500 scale, seeing that they have only 2,600 under construction at the present moment?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I shall require notice of that question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter rests with the Corporation. I have given the House the information with which they have supplied me on the subject.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES).
    Mr. MALCOLM MacMILLANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland operate superannuation schemes for the benefit of their employes; and whether he has any intention of making obligatory the present adoptive powers in this connection?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The local government and other officers' Superannuation Act, 1922, has been adopted by seven counties and 12 burghs in Scotland. In addition, Glasgow and Edinburgh have superannuation schemes under Local Acts, and three counties and four burghs are in process of adopting the 1922 Act. The matter referred to in the last part of the question involves legislation, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give a list of those authorities in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I would rather do that in reply to a further question, as I have not the information at the moment.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1929.
    Mr. M. MacMILLANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the inquiry which is being made into the financial aspects of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929; and whether it is now possible to extend the scope of the inquiry, in view of the growing dissatisfaction on the part of small burghs regarding the lessening of their authority in matters over which they previously had full control?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As regards the first part of the question, the procedure in connection with the financial investigation has been discussed with local authority representatives, and relative statistics have been circulated for their consideration. As regards the second part, the scope of this financial investigation is specifically defined by the Act, and I am unable to give any undertaking as to an inquiry into the general questions referred to.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great and growing irritation in connection with the administration in Scotland, and that that irritation would be wiped away if he would set up the committee of inquiry suggested in the last part of the question?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The information which I have does not lead me to think that there is growing dissatisfaction in Scotland in connection with the working of the Act. As to the finances, these are presently being inquired into, and no doubt legislation will be carried into effect at an early date.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Convention of Royal Burghs repeatedly and unanimously passed resolutions demanding this inquiry?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am well aware of the dissatisfaction, but my answer was that there is no growing dissatisfaction. I would rather suggest that the dissatisfaction is getting less.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is it possible that the dissatisfaction can grow any more when it includes every local authority outwith the county council authorities?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    SCOTTISH MINING DISASTERS RELIEF FUND.
    Mr. CHAPMANasked the Secretary for Mines the amount of the capital transferred from the Blantyre Colliery Accident Fund to the Scottish Mining Disasters Relief Fund on 15th May, 1930?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): The capital and assets of the Blantyre Accident Fund amounted at 31st March, 1930, to £2,119 2s. 6d.
    Mr. CHAPMAN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the number of dependants and survivors who are still receiving grants in Blantyre?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: When the Blantyre fund was merged with the Scottish Mining Disasters Relief Fund, there were seven persons taken over. I cannot say how many of them are still there.
    Mr. CHAPMANasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give, to the nearest convenient date, the total capital existing in the Scottish Mining Disasters Fund, the annual income derived therefrom, the annual expenditure, the number of persons receiving relief from the fund, and the names of the board of governors?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member will see in Cd. Paper 5167 that, on 15th May, 1935, the Scottish Mining Disasters Relief Fund had a balance in hand of £8,408 12s. 7d., and there were at that date five persons in receipt of relief. I am informed that the income of the fund during the year ended 15th May, 1935, was £370 13s. 10d., and the expenditure £380 4s. 7d., of which £256 6s. 4d. represents the amount paid in relief to beneficiaries. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the governors of the fund.
    Mr. CHAPMAN: Has the fund power to make grants to dependants of possible future disasters, or is it limited to the dependants and survivors of past disasters?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I understand that, under the scheme, money has to be applied in the first instance to continuing

    1579
    payments to the beneficiaries of the Blantyre and Udston funds, and that any surplus may be applied to the relief of sufferers from any mining disaster in Scotland in future involving the death of not less than six persons.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Does the Minister not think it reasonable that the surplus from these funds should be amalgamated and used for the purpose of relieving any kind of distress that may arise from accidents in mining areas?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: That, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a very big question, and I would rather not answer it without notice at Question Time.
    Following is the list:
    The Governors of the Scottish Mining Disasters Relief Fund are:

    (a) Ex officio Governors under Article 3 of Scheme.

    (1) The Rt. Hon. The Lord Provost (John Stewart, Esq., City Chambers, Glasgow), Chairman.

    (2) The Lord Dean of Guild of the City of Glasgow (Claud A. Allan, Esq., 127, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, C.2).

    (3) The Deacon Convener of the Trades of Glasgow (Robert Robertson, Esq., Carnbooth, Carmunnock).

    (4) The President of the Coalmasters' Association (Andrew K. McCosh, Gartsherrie Iron Works, Coat-bridge).

    (5) The President of the National Union of Scottish Mineworkers (Andrew B. Clarke, Esq., 5, Hillside Crescent, Edinburgh).

    (b) Elected Governors under Article 3 of Scheme.

    (1) Glasgow Corporation.

    Councillor P. J. Dollan, 1, Kingsley Avenue, Glasgow, S.2.

    (2) Merchants' House of Glasgow.

    The Hon. Joseph Paton Maclay, 21, Bothwell Street, Glasgow.

    (3) Trades' House of Glasgow.

    James F. G. Cameron, Esq., 75, St. George's Place, Glasgow, C.2.

    (4) Coalmasters' Association of Lanarkshire.

    James T. Forgie, Esq., Bothwell Collieries, Bothwell.

    1580

    (5) National Union of Scottish Mineworkers.

    William B. Small, Esq., Beech-field, 31, Fallside Road, Bothwell.

    (c) Co-opted Governors (being the former Executive Committee of Blantyre and Udston Accident Funds).

    A. Millar Bannatyne, Esq., LL.D., 145, West George Street, Glasgow.

    James T. Forgie, Esq., Bothwell Collieries, Bothwell.

    Robert Forrester, Esq., 78, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow.

    The Rev. Matthew Stewart, B.D., Mansewood, Hamilton.

    BEDWAS COLLIERY, MONMOUTHSHIRE.
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give particulars with regard to the manner in which a change of workmen's inspectors was effected at the Bedwas Colliery, Monmouthshire, during the months of February or March this year; and whether the change was made by the workmen employed at the colliery?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I understand that the appointment was made in the usual way through the trade union representing the workmen employed at the mine.
    Mr. DAGGAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the information he promised me last week?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: If the hon. Gentleman wants further information on the point, I hope he has not forgotten that he has some more questions on the Paper on the same subject.
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will inquire whether the deduction of 1s. 0½d. per week per man is made a condition of employment at the Bedwas Colliery, Monmouthshire; for what purpose or purposes such money is used; and whether there is any agreement between the workmen and the owners of the colliery providing for the deduction of contributions to a trade union?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I am informed that the money represents contributions to insurance, hospital and convalescent home schemes,

    1581
    contingency and comforts fund, the cost of workmen's examiners, and trade union fund. As regards the third part of the question, I am informed that these deductions are made by agreement between the owners and workmen.
    Mr. DAGGARasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the Miners' Industrial Union submits returns to the registrar as a, trade union, and, as it makes no provision for the payment of benefits similar to a friendly society, will he state under what authority deductions from the wages of the persons employed at the Bedwas Colliery, Monmouthshire, are made as contributions to this organisation; and whether, as such a practice appears contrary to the Truck Acts, 1831 and 1887, he proposes to instruct His Majesty's inspectors to take appropriate action in this matter?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the rest of the question, as I have just stated I am informed that the deductions from wages are made by agreement. So far as my information goes, I have no reason to think that there has been any contravention of the law in this case.
    Mr. A. JENKINS: Has the Minister any information with regard to the firm laying down as a condition of employment that no person, as I understand it—and I am asking the Minister whether he understands it—is permitted to work in this colliery unless he signed, agreeing to the deduction?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I am afraid I cannot answer without notice. As I say, so far as my present information goes, I have no reason to think that there has been any contravention of the law in this matter.
    Mr. JENKINS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: No, Sir. I would rather leave it. I should be prepared to consider any representations made in this matter, and in consultation with my legal advisers, because the points in the second part of the question are matter for legal consideration.
    Mr. DAGGAR: Last week the Secretary for Mines said that he had not the
    1582
    necessary information to answer the question. What we are asking him now is, will he obtain the information?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I have just answered three detailed questions by the hon. Member on those points.
    Mr. DAGGAR: May I submit that that is not an answer to my question? Will the Minister obtain the information asked for?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I have answered all the questions put to me, but if the hon. Member wants further information, he must put down some more questions and I will do my best to answer them.

    EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.
    Mr. ROWSONasked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed in the mining industry of Great Britain in the month of March each year for the years 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936, respectively?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The number of wage-earners on colliery books in Great Britain at the end of March, 1936, was 763,400. The corresponding figure for 1932 was 834,300, for 1933 790,600, for 1934 788,300, and for 1935 769,900.
    Mr. ROWSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman convey that information to the Minister of Labour, in order to correct the misleading statement that he made in this House last Thursday?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The Minister of Labour made no misleading statement whatsoever, either in this House or anywhere else. The question I have been asked this afternoon is with regard to the figures of persons employed; the question that my right hon. Friend was asked was as to the figures of those unemployed. They are not the same thing.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines the number of wage-earners employed in the mining industry on the latest date available; the number so employed in Yorkshire and Durham, respectively; and the comparative figures for 1930 and 1933?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: At lath June, 1936, there were 753,700 wage-earners on colliery books in Great Britain, including 137,400 in Yorkshire

    1583
    and 106,600 in Durham. At 17th June, 1933, the corresponding numbers were 766,400, 140,000, and 98,700 and at 14th June, 1930, 923,900, 168,600 and 136,300, respectively.
    Mr. SMITH: Can the Secretary for Mines indicate what is the Government's policy with regard to this matter?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: This is not the time to talk about policy; it is the time to answer questions.

    SAFETY IN MINES.
    Mr. MacLARENasked the Secretary for Mines the total amount expended on safety in mines research during the 10 years ended 31st March, 1936; what proportions of the amount so expended have been contributed from the Miners' Welfare Fund, the Colliery Owners' Association, and from the Exchequer; and what decrease, if any, there has been in the accident rate during the same period?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The total amount expended by the Safety in Mines Research Board during the 10 years ended 31st March, 1936, was £606,058, all of which was provided from the Miners' Welfare Fund, except for Exchequer contributions amounting to £17,605. I have no information of the cost of the safety research conducted by the British Colliery Owners' Research Association. Over the period referred to, there has been an appreciable reduction in the accident rate per 1,000,000 tons of mineral gotten, but not, I regret to say, in the accident rate per 100,000 man-shifts worked.
    Mr. RITSON: In view of the halfpenny levy for the Welfare Fund, is the research work now to be reduced?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Oh, no, Sir, that is not the case at all.
    Mr. PALING: Is the Research Board going into the question of whether the percentage increase or the rate of increase in accidents per shift worked is due to the introduction of machinery or not, and has it any information about that matter?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I should like to see that question upon the Paper.
    Mr. MacLARENasked the Secretary for Mines whether the list of duties
    1584
    in the recent advertisement by his Department for a mining engineer under the Safety in Mines Research Board indicates that the researches of the board are being limited to the prevention of falls of ground and of haulage accidents, or whether the advertisement is designed merely to indicate that the two problems mentioned are only in the forefront of the board's programme?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: No, Sir: the matter arises in this way. I have decided to strengthen the mines inspectorate at headquarters for the time being by appointing a second deputy to the Chief Inspector: and for that purpose the Chief Mining Engineer to the Safety in Mines Research Board, who was seconded from the inspectorate to that post, is being recalled to the inspectorate. The board is accordingly taking steps to fill the vacancy on its staff. The work of the Mining Engineer to the Safety in Mines Research Board is not limited to the prevention of accidents from falls of ground and haulage operations, but, in view of the very large number of such accidents, it naturally constitutes the major part of his work.

    WAGES.
    Mr. LYONSasked the Minister of Labour the approximate loss of wages consequent upon the observance of the Bank Holiday on Whit-Monday, 1936?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I regret that the available information is insufficient to enable a trustworthy estimate to be made.
    Mr. LYONS: Is the important question of payment for holidays one of the matters that are being considered in the conversations that are proceeding between the right hon. Gentleman and various industrial representatives?
    Mr. BROWN: It is one of the elements.
    Mr. LYONSasked the Minister of Labour the approximate upswing of wages for the year ending 31st, May, 1936?
    Mr. BROWN: In those industries for which statistics are regularly compiled, the changes in rates of wages reported to my Department during the year ending 31st May, 1936, are estimated to have resulted in a net increase of about £400,000 a week in the full-time weekly rates of

    1585
    wages of about 3,000,000 workpeople. These statistics are exclusive of changes in the rates of wages of agricultural labourers, domestic servants, shop assistants, clerks, and Government employés, and they relate in the main to changes collectively arranged between organised groups of employers and workpeople. It is estimated that, in the industries for which information is available, the average level of full-time weekly rates of wages rose by about 2¼ to 2½ per cent. during this period.
    Mr. LYONS: In view of the fact that the purchasing power of wages has remained intact, is it not the fact that this is one of the largest upswings in any similar period?
    Mr. BROWN: That is so.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the Minister aware that organised labour is responsible for all these advances, and also that the increased rates of pay are received by nonunion as well as by union men?
    Mr. BROWN: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion; he must give a good deal of credit to the Government's policy in these matters.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRAINING CAMP, CLIPSHAM, RUTLAND.
    Mr. GALLACHERasked the Minister of Labour whether it has been brought to his attention that at the Pick-worth training camp, Clipsham, Oakham, Rutland, on wet days the men have no change of clothing or any facilities for drying clothes; the ground-sheets allow the water to come through; there are no proper scrapers outside the tents and so they are muddy on wet days; there are about three brushes in the whole camp and only one bucket to five tents for washing; and whether he will see that conditions at the camp are improved?
    Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir. The men at this camp, as at other similar camps, are supplied with working boots, trousers, shirts and socks, and, if these become wet, the men can change into their ordinary clothes while drying their wet clothes in the heated drying room provided at each camp or centre. The waterproof capes (to which I understand the hon. Member to refer) in use at the Pick-worth camp are in sound condition. Each
    1586
    tent and hut has an iron scraper at the entrance. The provision of brushes is adequate for a camp of 150 men (three soft brooms, four mops, four rubber squeegees, 11 deck scrubbers, three bass brooms and 27 scrubbing brushes). The proportion of washing buckets is one bucket to eight men. Conditions at this camp and at all similar camps and centres are under constant review, and my information is that, despite trying weather conditions, the camp is running well and that there have been no complaints.
    Mr. GALLACHER: Is not the Minister aware that in all these camps continual complaints are being made about the conditions; and, in view of the tendency of these camps to fall into decay, will he not provide a Government subsidy in order to ensure the best possible conditions?
    Mr. BROWN: I am not aware of anything of the kind, but I am aware that a certain small number of people in this country are deliberately decrying these admirable institutions.
    Mr. LOGAN: By whom is the right hon. Gentleman's information supplied?
    Mr. BROWN: It is accurate and full information in answer to an inaccurate question.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will not the Minister consider closing down these camps and, instead, giving decent unemployment benefit?

    ASSISTANCE, DURHAM.
    Mr. LESLIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the action of the Unemployment Assistance Board in Durham in reducing the allowance of Mr. J. Wilson, of 15, High Dyke Street, Trimdon Colliery, by 2s. per week, on the ground that his son, aged 16½ years, is now in receipt of an increase of 3d. per day under the miners recent wage agreement; and whether he will inquire into the method of computing allowances, with a view to removing what is considered to be a grievance?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that the facts relating to Mr. Wilson's allowance do not correspond with those set out in the hon. Member's question. The allowances in this case have been throughout at the higher rate provided for by the

    1587
    standstill arrangements, and the adjustments made from time to time on change of circumstances have been governed by the transitional payments practice, and not by the board's discretion.
    Mr. LESLIE: Am I to understand that the deduction referred to is not being made?
    Mr. BROWN: Perhaps the hon. Member will discuss the matter with me. I have a series of determinations here, and they do not correspond with the facts that he quotes.

    PROPOSED TRADING ESTATE, DURHAM.
    Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWARTasked the Minister of Labour whether any progress has been made by the North-East Trading Estate Company in regard to the selecting of a site for the new trading estate in Durham; and whether he is yet able to report when and where this estate will be established?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am informed that the question of selecting a site for its operations is occupying the active attention of this company, but that no decision in the matter has yet been announced.

    ROAD DEVIATION, SWINDON.
    Mr. WAKEFIELDasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he is aware of the waste of public money now being incurred by deviating the Oxford-Swindon reconstructed road round a building situated at the junction of the Swindon borough and the Wiltshire county boundaries; and whether he will inquire into the reasons why this road was not reconstructed along the new straight building line of recently erected houses;
    (2) whether he is aware that on the Oxford-Swindon road, at the junction of the Swindon borough and Wiltshire county boundaries, a building is situated which, in view of the road widening and reconstruction at present taking place, has now become a dangerous obstruction to road users; and will he take the necessary action for the immediate removal of this obstruction?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I understand
    1588
    that the Wiltshire County Council are negotiating for the acquisition of the building referred to by my hon. Friend.

    SPECIAL AREAS RECONSTRUCTION (AGREEMENT) ACT.
    Dr. LEECHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what industrial applications have been received, since 11th May, 1936, by the proper authorities for consideration under the provisions of the Special Areas Reconstruction (Agreement) Act?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, Limited, was registered last Thursday, and an announcement was made in the Press on Friday morning as to the procedure which should be followed by applicants for assistance. I am afraid, therefore, that definite information on the point raised in the question is not yet available. During the interval preceding the incorporation of the company, a number of inquiries, mostly of a preliminary and tentative kind, were addressed to the Treasury, who suggested in reply that applications should be sent direct to the company as soon as it was formed.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    TAXATION.
    Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of taxation per head of the population in the United Kingdom for the years 1929–30 and 1936–37; and the amount of revenue raised in these years by means of direct and indirect taxation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Taxation per head in 1929–30 was £14 15s. 10d., and in 1936–37 is estimated at £16 3s. 7d. Direct taxation in 1929–30 was £434,166,000, and indirect £242,615,000. For 1936–37, direct taxation is estimated at £469,500,000, and indirect at £312,525,000. I should add that the alteration in our fiscal system since 1929–30 would render any comparisons with later periods altogether misleading.
    Mr. MABANE: If the comparison were made with 1913–14, would it not show that

    1589
    the proportion of direct to indirect taxation was much heavier?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should require notice of that question.

    SUR-TAX.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an approximate estimate of the increase to the Treasury if Sur-tax started on incomes of £1,500 instead of the present rate of £2,000?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Sur-tax is graduated by way of charging a higher rate on each slice of income in excess of £2,000, and the yield from lowering the limit to £1,500 would depend upon the graduation that would apply in respect of the slices of income in excess of £1,500. If the graduation were similar to that obtaining at present, the increased yield would be nearly £7,000,000, of which £6,500,000 would be payable by the existing body of Sur-tax payers.

    INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).
    Mr. MARCUS SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the additional amount of Income Tax paid by the co-operative societies under Schedule C for the past year, as compared with the year prior to the amendment of the Income Tax laws relating to co-operative societies?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The tax payable under Schedule C, which relates to interest and dividends payable out of public revenue, cannot be distinguished from any other tax payable by the societies. It is estimated that the payment of Income Tax by the societies in the year 1935–36 amounted to £1,350,000. This includes about £500,000 in respect of Income Tax under Schedules A and B which represented the liability of the societies before the Finance Act, 1933.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is this up to expectations, and, in view of the small sum, will the right hon. Gentleman look out for anything in the way of legal evasion?
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Did the right hon. Gentleman assent to the suggestion of illegal evasion?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I did not.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the question of promotion of ex-service S-class clerks to the clerical classes of the Civil Service was considered in relation to paragraph 14 of the agreement of 28th May, 1936, which deals with the introduction of the new class of female grade 1 clerical assistants; and will he give an undertaking that the previous arrangements for the promotion of ex-service men will hold good for the future, and that the new agreement will in no way restrict their promotion or cancel any promotions which would otherwise have been authorised, and that the promotion prospects of ex-service post-War entrants to the general clerical class to higher clerical grade posts, will in no way be prejudiced?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): It was agreed when the special class was constituted that members thereof should be eligible on their merits for promotion to the general or departmental clerical classes and my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that this arrangement will be in no way prejudiced by the agreement to which he refers. The position in the matter of selection for promotion from the clerical to the higher clerical grade is unaffected by the agreement in question.

    OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to increase old age and widows' pensions to £1 a week and for the abolition of the stamp qualification in view of the hardships resulting therefrom?
    Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir. The additional cost of increasing the present contributory and non-contributory old age pensions and widows' pensions to 20s. a week would be about £85,000,000 a year at the present time. The abolition of the stamp qualification, by which I presume the hon. Member means the making of the grant of benefits independent of the payment of contributions, would involve a further substantial increase whose amount would depend on the scope

    1591
    of the scheme under the new conditions and on whether the principle of contributions survived the change.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that this money would be much better spent in providing comfort for these old people than on munitions and instruments of death?
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of the DUCHESS OF ATHOLL:
    46. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of granting pensions to all single women who have reached the age of 55?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that inadvertently no weekly sum is mentioned in the question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If, as I assume is intended, the rate of pension were 10s. a week, the extra cost of granting pensions to all single women at 55 years of age would be about £12,500,000 a year as regards the period up to the attainment of 70. To this would have to be added the cost of old age pensions at 70 to single women who are not at present entitled to them. I am unable to give an estimate of the amount required for this purpose.

    SOUTH AFRICA (AIR SERVICE).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether any discussion has taken place with Mr. Pirow, the South African Minister for Defence, on the question of a regular West Coast aerial service to South Africa?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Yes, Sir. In discussing various air routes certain possibilities with regard to the West Coast came under consideration.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the Air Ministry give as sympathetic support as they possibly can to a service down the West Coast of Africa?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The whole thing is under discussion.

  DEFENCE.

    ARMAMENT CONTRACTS.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the Government intend asking for powers to secure priority for their essential armament orders
    The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): The policy laid down in the White Paper is that the defence programme is to be carried out without impeding the course of normal trade. Accordingly the question raised by my hon. Friend does not at present arise.
    Mr. SANDYS: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a state of emergency exists, and that the speediest restoration of our defensive position should override all other considerations?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I do not know in what sense my hon. Friend uses the word "emergency." Certain action of an emergency character has been taken.
    Mr. SANDYS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us that we already felt the heat of the flame?
    Mr. EMMOTTasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence on what basis and by what machinery the calculation of fair profits on Government armament contracts is made?
    Sir T. INSKIP: Fair profits cannot be determined by the application of any single criterion. As indicated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12th March last to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), it is necessary to have regard to the circumstances of each case and to deal with it on its merits taking into account such factors for example as the extent of orders and a reasonable return on the capital assets directly employed. As regards the second part of the question, the machinery adopted necessarily varies according to the type of contract. The underlying principle is that, where effective competitive tender is not available, Departments obtain such information as to production costs as will enable a fair price to be determined. This information is normally obtained by such methods as examination of the contrac-

    1593
    tors' books by the Departments' accountants, or by the preparation of technical estimates of cost. On all such questions as this, the Admiralty has the assistance of their Contract Advisory Committee and the Air Ministry of the committee presided over by Sir Hardman Lever, and the establishment of a similar committee is being considered by the War Office.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a statement before the House as to the margin of gross and net profits respectively which will be allowed.
    Sir T. INSKIP: If the right hon. Gentleman will explain to me privately what he wants, I shall be very glad to see if I can give any further information as to the methods to be adopted.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: To the House?
    Sir T. INSKIP: In such a form as is most accessible to hon. Members.

    SKILLED LABOUR (TRAINING).
    Mr. CARTLANDasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether it is proposed to provide facilities for training in those branches of skilled labour essential for the fulfilment of the Government's armament construction programme?
    Sir T. INSKIP: This matter can, in my judgment, best be handled by each industry in relation to its own circumstances and requirements, and I have no doubt that all steps which are practicable will be taken. A substantial increase is taking place in the number of apprentices engaged in the engineering trades. As stated in the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour to the hon. Member for Bosworth on 12th June (Sir W. Edge), the experiment of training some of the skilled engineers, in the depressed areas, who have been long unemployed, by "Refresher Courses" in order to refit them for employment, is being undertaken by the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. CROSSLEY: Would not the Government get on with their rearmament programme more quickly if they gave direct encouragement to industries to train more apprentices?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I do not know what my hon. Friend has in mind, but a great deal of encouragement is being given to
    1594
    industries to train apprentices. If he will explain what he means by "direct," I may be able to help him.

    STATE FACTORIES.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Minister for the Coordination of Defence whether any plans have been drawn up for the construction of State aeroplane and armament factories?
    Sir T. INSKIP: The answer is in the negative as regards State aeroplane factories. As regards armament factories, plans have been approved for the transfer of the Royal Filling Factory at Woolwich and the Cordite Factory at Waltham and the question whether certain State explosives factories will not also be requisite is under consideration.
    Sir JOHN HASLAM: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are innumerable factories in Lancashire almost ready equipped for this kind of work, and skilled artisans living in the neighbourhood to do the work that is necessary, if arrangements can be made?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I am aware of that fact, and that is why the matter requires special attention.

    ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of proposing the expulsion, of Italy from the League of Nations at the forthcoming Assembly?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) on 13th May.
    Mr. MANDER: If the Government are not prepared themselves to propose the expulsion of Italy, are they prepared to support any other member of the League which may make this proposition?
    Viscount CRANBORNE: That is not the question the hon. Member asked. I have answered his question.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose at the League of Nations meeting that some reparation and apology

    1595
    should be offered to the Emperor of Abyssinia for the failure of the League to carry out its obligations under Article 10 of the Covenant to maintain the territorial integrity and political independence of his country?
    Viscount CRANBORNE: No, Sir.
    Mr. MANDER: Are we to understand that there is to be no expression of sympathy or regret at the plight of the Abyssinians?
    Viscount CRANBORNE: The Government have again and again expressed their regret in the House. There is no reason to apologise. The Government have done their utmost.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the noble Lord at least give this assurance that there will be no apology to Italy for having put on sanctions against her?
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Would it not be wise to have ready a second apology to Austria for our abandonment of the collective system, which might be signed by the leader of the Council of Action and endorsed by the Front Opposition Bench?

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES' NOTICES (PLACES OF WORSHIP).
    Major OWENasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is growing dissatisfaction with the practice of local authorities in making use of the notice boards of places of worship for the announcement of public notices; and whether he will circularise all local authorities asking them to desist from this practice and to provide their own notice boards in more suitable places for the information of the public?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend has received one complaint but is not aware of any growing dissatisfaction. The standard provision on this subject is contained in Section 287 of the Local Government Act, 1933, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. Except in the case of parish councils and parish meetings, the section imposes no obligation to post notices on or near church and chapel doors. My right hon. Friend thinks that local authorities are well
    1596
    aware of this provision, and sees at present no occasion for the issue of any circular in the matter.
    Major OWEN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in many cases damage has been caused by officials of local authorities climbing over railings and putting up notices which are quite unsuitable to be posted on places of worship?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think that had better be left to local opinion.
    Major OWEN: Have not representations been received already from several presbyteries in North Wales?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, Sir.

    SLUM CLEARANCE (DEBRIS).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the unsatisfactory state in which some local authorities leave sites of properties demolished under slum clearance for considerable periods before removing the accumulation of débris; what action he proposes to take to prevent danger to property and person by this practice; and whether he will take steps to see that local authorities make arrangements to commence the building of the new houses on the sites when the condemned buildings have been pulled down?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has not received any representations with regard to the condition of sites which have been acquired by local authorities under their clearance operations. If my hon. Friend will send particulars of any case he has in mind my right hon. Friend will look into it.

    PATENT MEDICINES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Patent Medicines?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, Sir. The Government have no present intention of introducing legislation for this purpose. As the hon. Member is aware, the subject was recently debated on a Private Member's Bill, which failed to obtain a Second Reading.

    NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (EMPLOYES WAGES).
    Mr. GALLACHERasked the Minister of Health whether he will ascertain and state the number of men on the Norfolk County Council receiving less than £1 per week in wages and the number of men in receipt of more than £400 per annum in addition to expenses approved by the last audit of account?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I will ask the county council to supply the information desired and send their reply to the hon. Member.
    Mr. GALLACHER: Will not the Department take steps to stop the practice of increasing salaries and depressing wages in many municipalities?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I cannot accept that aspersion on my own county until I have found out whether there is any scintilla of truth in it.
    Mr. GALLACHER: It is a question of which the hon. Gentleman has had sufficient notice.

    TANGANYIKA.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the latest estimated number of native population in the dependency of Tanganyika and the amount spent on health services by the Government for the last year for which returns are available?
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD (Major Sir George Davies): The native population numbered 5,022,640 at the 1931 census. Direct expenditure on the Medical Department in 1935 amounted to £193,930.
    Mr. DAY: Is anything further to be done to improve the health services?
    Captain DOWER: Is it not the fact that a far larger sum is being spent than was spent when Tanganyika was under other administration than our own?

    TELEVISION (DEMONSTRATION HALLS).
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the plans of various stores and railway
    1598
    companies to open television demonstration halls for the public on their premises; and what arrangements will be made to ensure that adequate safety measures are provided at these halls in the same way as at other licensed places of entertainment?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The attention of my Department had not been called to this matter. I understand that it is estimated that in most cases the screen of the receivers to be put on the market will be of such a size that about 20 to 30 persons will be able to see the picture simultaneously. As at present advised, my right hon. Friend does not apprehend that those responsible for any demonstration halls or rooms which may he opened will find difficulty in securing the Safety of such small numbers of spectators.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (ACCIDENT, SOLENT).
    Captain BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement regarding the accident which occurred yesterday when a Royal Air Force aircraft collided with the French steamer "Normandie" in the Solent; whether the duties on which the pilot was engaged necessitated such low flying over mercantile marine craft; whether he will issue immediate orders, or, if necessary, amend existing instructions with a view to preventing a repetition of such an accident, and whether the naval pilot of the Royal Air Force aircraft was operating under control of the naval authorities or Royal Air Force authorities?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The accident occurred in the course of a training flight from the Royal Air Force station at Gosport. In normal circumstances it should not be necessary for aircraft to fly low over marine craft during such training, but, as a full report of the accident has not yet been received, I am not in a position to make any fuller statement at present. The whole circumstances of the case will, of course, be carefully investigated.
    Mr. PERKINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question? Who was responsible for this aircraft—the Admiralty or the Air Ministry?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I have said that it was under the control of the Royal Air Force.
    Captain PLUGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any compensation will have to be paid to the French Government and, if so, to what extent?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I should like to have notice of that question. I cannot answer at the present time.
    Mr. GARRO JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in whose possession the machine now is? Who is the owner of it?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The wreckage of the machine was taken on to Le Havre. A Royal Air Force party is proceeding to Le Havre. Who is in possession of the machine at the moment, I am not in a position to say.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction at the amount of low flying that takes place in the Solent area, and will he take steps to see that this does not take place again? It is a growing nuisance.
    Sir P. SASSOON: Detailed regulations are in existence with regard to low flying of aircraft during training. I should not like to say more now or to prejudge the matter. The whole matter will have to be investigated.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [Lords].
Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, in respect of the following Bill (pending in the Lords), namely:
Public Health Bill [Lords], brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Llanelly District Traction Bill, without Amendment.
Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Bill,
London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill, with Amendments.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  MEASUREMENT OF GAS.
  That they propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock.

MEASUREMENT OF GAS.
So much of the Lords Message as relates to the Measurement of Gas considered.
Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Sir G. Penny.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    FOREIGN OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £117,736, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  FOREIGN POLICY.
  3.42 p.m.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move,
  "That His Majesty's Government, by their lack of a resolute and straightforward foreign policy, have lowered the prestige of this country, weakened the League of Nations, imperilled peace, and thereby forfeited the confidence of this House."
  I do not think that anyone who heard the statement made by the Foreign Secretary last week, on Waterloo Day, will have any doubt that it was the duty of the Opposition to put on the Order Paper a Vote of Censure on the Government. It is said that Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. It might also be said that Abyssinia was lost on the playing fields of Harrow. I think that the substance of the Motion commends very wide support in the country. I, in common with most Members of the House, have received numbers of letters from men and women in, every part of the country; men and women of various points of view, who unite in regarding this matter as one of deep humiliation for this country. I notice that that feeling extends to Members of this House. To begin with, there is the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who,
  1606
  speaking in his constituency the other day, expressed exactly the terms of this Motion. He laid stress on the humiliation to this country. He laid stress on the absence of a clear, straightforward policy. The only point on which he differed from us was that, despite his complete distrust of the Government, he intended to continue to honour it with his support. I am interested in the Amendments that have been placed on the Order Paper. The one in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) and other hon. Members obviously expresses deep misgiving as to what may be the future action of the Government. The other Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson), while approving of the policy of the Government trusts that they will act differently in the future than they have done in the past. Between the two of them, the general lines of the Motion come.
  Another reason why we should put forward this Vote of Censure is because we have had no explanation of Government policy. There was no adequate reply in this House to the powerful speeches delivered by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The Prime Minister gave a number of explanations mainly relating to things which he ought to have thought about a year or two ago. He paid a graceful compliment to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, but abstained from crossing swords with him. I do not know whether that work has been left to the skilful hands of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). Instead, the Prime Minister preferred the secure and more secluded precincts of a Conservative rally at Wishaw. It is time that the House of Commons insisted that important matters of policy should be stated on the Floor of this House. Announcements of policy should not be let out in after-dinner speeches or confined to gatherings of faithful followers in the country.
  I will deal a little later with some of the points of the Prime Minister's speech at Wishaw. In passing, I would say that we are drawing the indictment not against one Member of the Government but against the whole of the Government. The situation differs to-day from that

  1607
  which we had before us previously, because this time, apparently, the Foreign Secretary is not to be thrown overboard. I do not think it is fair that one should challenge the Foreign Secretary, apart from the 'Government. The Foreign Secretary's action relates only to what may be his views on the matter, and no one who heard him last week can say that he is very happy in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman has attained a very high position. He stood very high in the opinion of the men and women of this country, but he has forfeited that position. He had to make a difficult choice between two loyalties. He seems to have said, "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his old school tie?"
  We draw an indictment against the whole of the Government, not upon one item of their policy but upon the whole field, the tortuous vacillating policy which they have pursued for the last five years, and which has brought this country from the proud position of 1931—[Interruption]—I was going to say when the right hon. Member for Spen Valley was Foreign Secretary and was able to go before the world as the leader of a great country that was leading the world towards peace—to its humiliating position in 1936. We hold that the Government have betrayed the people of Abyssinia who trusted in them, and that they have made our name a by-word throughout the world. It is no good contesting that. You have only to read what the world Press—the Press of Europe, Asia and Africa—says now of the name of Great Britain, whether you take the dictatorship Press or the regrets of the anti-dictatorship Press.
  Further, the Government have destroyed the League of Nations as an effective instrument for peace. It is no good the Prime Minister saying, "We will try again. We have made one little failure, and we will build it up again." Why should anyone believe that the future will be any better than the past? The Italo-Abyssinia issue was a test case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer put the matter clearly when he said that the opportunity could hardly have been more favourable. Why should anyone think that the Government will do better when the conditions are less favourable? The fact is that there is no security for any League State if Italy is allowed to
  1608
  triumph over Abyssinia. There will be no next time. None of the small States of Europe are going to trust any more in collective security under the League if they know that the League States will not stand by them, if they know that the League can carry on and that its predatory members can pursue their prey unchecked. The Government undertook this enterprise. I know that there are hon. Members who disapprove entirely of the policy of enforcing sanctions on Italy, but it was the Government's policy. They decided to undertake the duty; a Government with the greatest majority numerically that any Government ever had, a Government with complete control of the situation in both Houses of Parliament, a Government that proudly told the country and the world that it was taking the lead in this enterprise. We all know that this was a very difficult enterprise. The Prime Minister said:
  "If you are going to adopt a sanction you must be prepared for war. If you adopt a sanction without being prepared for war you are not an honest trustee of the nation."
  The Prime Minister is nothing if not honest, and he took the risk of war. He must have counted the cost. He must have known the military strength on the side of the League and the military strength on the side of the aggressor, and he was satisfied on 22nd October, 1935, because the present First Lord of the Admiralty, then Foreign Secretary, said:
  "All member States must co-operate to resist an attack upon any one State for action that it has taken to defend the Covenant."
  Communications were made to clear up the position. They were completely satisfactory.
  "In the event of an isolated attack, inconceivable though such madness might be, we and they and the rest of the League stand together and resist it with our full and united force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1935; cols. 28–29, Vol. 3051
  There was the position. The Prime Minister pledged the honour and prestige of this country. He had absolute power to carry through the enterprise to which he had pledged this country with courage and resolution, but he did not do it. There was never any resolution in the handling of the Italo-Abyssinia affair. From the earliest days there were always attempts to do an Imperialist deal with Signor Mussolini. Right from the start there was always the hope that something might

  1609
  be fixed up, and when sanctions were applied they were applied late, very partially, and no attempt was made to apply an oil sanction. The Prime Minister, speaking at Wishaw, made what, I think, was a thoroughly mean attack on the United States of America. He tried to put all the blame on the United States, and said that we could not put on an oil sanction because a flood of oil would be coming from the United States. I ask this question: Was any effort made to ascertain what the United States of America would do? We had a declaration from Mr. Norman Davis in 1932 at the League of Nations, in which he said that his country would be prepared not to put any hindrance in the way of the League where it was carrying out its duties of sanctions. There were the reports in the Press—not the Left Press at all. In the "Daily Telegraph," on 26th December, 1935, it was said:
  "While the American official world was formerly thoroughly sympathetic with the British attitude, it is now, in lack of any extenuating explanation, in a condition of suppressed irritation and bewilderment."
  There was a similar passage in the "Morning Post," and also in the "Times." I ask the Government to reply to the question whether any attempt was made to find out what the United States were prepared to do. We have had a great deal of talk about an incomplete League. It is always easy to say that the United States of America are not in the League, but on no occasion have we had any evidence that any effort was made to bring the United States into joint action, although there was abundant evidence of the feeling on the side of the League, especially after the speech of the present First Lord of the Admiralty at Geneva.
  The next question I ask is: Were the Government threatened with attack? Was Italy going to attack? Is it true that the Fleet had to be moved away because of this threat of attack? Were the Government in a panic at the time of the Hoare-Laval discussions? It looked like it. I have never heard more panicky speeches than those delivered on that occasion. The Prime Minister's lips have not yet been unsealed. We do not know yet what are the circumstances. I ask, too, is there danger of an attack now? The Prime Minister says that the alternative to giving up sanctions is war.
  1610
  Has that war been threatened? Remember that the right hon. Gentleman is the Prime Minister who said that if you apply sanctions you have to run the risk—not our risk, but his risk. We ought to know, because there is a peculiar line taken, and that is that the entire failure of this enterprise is due to the fact that Labour would not give the Government a sufficient supply of armaments. It was hinted at by the Prime Minister at Wishaw, and by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). There is absolutely no truth in the statement.
  During the last five years this Government has had absolute control. The National Government took good care to see that it had some Conservatives at the head of the fighting Services—Lord Hailsham, Lord Londonderry, Lord Monsell. Is it the case that these gentlemen neglected their duties? They were to begin the enterprise. We had a confident speech by the First Lord of the Admiralty who said that everything was all right. Was he deceived by his advisers? If so, it is a very serious matter for the Government. If not, where is the honesty in saying that it was the Labour party who would not supply armaments? The Government could have got what armaments they liked. They had 48 men in this House of Commons forming the Opposition. The Government had a full majority and they had no trouble whatever with the other place. If they had wished to carry through this policy they could have had any supply of armaments.
  Then we are told, "Now, the whole thing is over; now Signor Mussolini has won his war, and we must take off sanctions." It is a very curious attitude. Why is it that because a large part of Abyssinia has been conquered we must now take off sanctions? That was not said in 1914 when Belgium was overrun. The Government of that day did not say, "You can go home now; it is all over." By the end of September, 1914, they were not sending a cruiser to take off King Albert of Belgium. Why is it that with 52 States in the League standing for the principle of collective security, standing for the principle of saying that the aggressor shall not get away with his spoils when the weakest member of the League, Abyssinia, is beaten in war, perhaps only temporarily, it is necessary

  1611
  at once to surrender? That can only mean that this Government depended on Abyssinia to fight its battles. In all the talk of that great principle of collective security, to which they were committed, it was not worth while keeping on sanctions even for a few weeks more. At once they say, "Oh, well, Signor Mussolini has won. Let us surrender." It is not a very glorious position.
  What now? I want to ask the Government what their policy is now, because lifting sanctions is not a policy. We have had no policy. The nearest we have come to a policy is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's indiscretion. What is the policy now to be with regard to Abyssinia? Now the Abyssinians have been conquered is it to be said that there is nothing to be done for them at all? Do you say that they are to be handed over and Italy can do what she likes? What is to be done with regard to Italy? What is the policy towards Italy? Is she to be welcomed back into the League? Is she to be supplied with money by the City of London? Is she to be welcomed back so as to re-form the Stresa front? What of the British Empire? Not all of the British Empire approves of the Government policy of dropping sanctions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Most of it does."] In fact the Dominion most nearly affected is strongest against this policy. What is to be the effect on the minds of our dark-coloured fellow citizens in South Africa and all over the world? How do they think of this country now? What is the position of the British Empire? Will the Government stand firm on their line or say that at all costs, if anyone threatens us, we must give way at once, if Signor Mussolini wants to extend his domains a little further?
  It would be interesting to know, because the Prime Minister is now posing as the great pacifist. Would he fight for British Somaliland or for the Sudan or Kenya, or is he ready to hand them all over to Signor Mussolini, if Signor Mussolini wants them? After all, we have had one act of aggression and he gets away with it. Why not another? What is to be the effect on the smaller States of the League? The Government have broken the sanctions front, and the smaller States of the League can have no
  1612
  faith in the Government or the League. What will them do? They will make their peace with the various aggressors. Then the Prime Minister says, "Oh, the League is to be strengthened." Strengthened with what? Strengthened with dictators? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to say, "To form a great League let us have in Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler and Japan. Let us reconstruct the whole basis of the League." That is what it seems like.
  I can only go by what policy has been stated, the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He says there should be a limit to the function of the League in future, and that it should be limited in such a way that it can no longer be relied upon by itself to secure the peace of the world. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer instead of being Mayor of Birmingham had been Mayor of Chicago he would have limited the functions of the police in order to accommodate A1 Capone. Instructions would have been given to the police to be very careful about speeding motorists, very careful about small boys who were under age, not being allowed to drive cars, but they would have had strict injunctions not to interfere with serious crime. The truth is that there is one thing abundantly clear from beginning to end of this sorry story. There was no real intention to stop Signor Mussolini. At the back of its mind the Government is always thinking that it may need Mussolini some time in the near future.
  It is obvious that the League system has never had a clear trial at all. This, after all, is only one incident in a number of betrayals ever since the present Government came into power. I find that objections to the Government's policy is quite as strong in those who object to sanctions as in those who are for sanctions. They are equally puzzled to know what the Government are after. This is only a final betrayal of the League. The League was betrayed earlier on in the matter of Manchuria. It was betrayed at the Disarmament Conference. It was betrayed by the clumsy mishandling of Germany when Herr Brüning was Chancellor. That gave Herr Hitler his chance. It was betrayed by the acquiescence in German rearmament. The Government stood by, seeing these enormous armaments piling up. I remember that when questioned the Foreign Secretary said

  1613
  that the Government had noted it, and he passed on. The Government allowed this drift to take place without any clear attempt to lead the world in a different direction.
  One reason is, of course, that we now know that the most important Member of the Government, the present Prime Minister, did not believe in collective security two years ago. The Government began to believe in it after German rearmament. Then you have the extraordinary union of incompatible policies. It is hardly conceivable that one Government should manage to carry on the Stresa Conference, sanctions against Italy, an understanding generally with France, and the German Naval Treaty. The Home Secretary is very good at unravelling these things, and perhaps he will show exactly where all those actions fit into some considered policy that is leading to peace and not to anarchy. It is time that the Government made clear what is the position.
  I understand perfectly the pacifist position. I respect those who hold it, but I do not hold it myself. If you do not accept the pacifist position, there must be something on which you will stand and fight. What is it that the Government will stand and fight on? On what do they expect an attack? Would they resist an attack on the League? Would they resist an attack on the British Empire? Would they fight under Locarno for France if Germany attacked France, or for Germany if France attacked Germany? We must have some explanation of what these great armaments are for. We have been told hitherto that they have something to do with collective security. I suppose, if you are going to have armaments like that, they are to be in support of some kind of policy. If it is well known that in no circumstances will you ever be prepared to use them, you may just as well save your money.
  The Government will take no risk for collective security. We, for our part, have made our position clear. We were prepared to stand for collective security. We asked for sanctions to be applied. We were prepared to stand up to the aggressor should the aggressor attack the League Powers. The Prime Minister says, "If you do not take off sanctions, it will mean war." What does he mean by that? Does he mean that he is afraid
  1614
  that if you do not take off sanctions now you will be met by the force of Signor Mussolini, and that is a little bit too much for you? If you cannot beat Signor Mussolini when you are standing in company with 52 other nations, you will not have much chance if you are prepared to stand to defend the British Empire single-handed. You must make up your mind one way or the other what you are prepared to do. We have supported the League and the League system because security is a condition precedent to obtaining disarmament, because unless you can get some kind of law and order in the world you cannot deal with the economic conditions that are wrecking the world. This is just another count in the indictment against this Government, that it has never attempted to make any effective use of the League of Nations to deal with these fundamental questions.
  I say quite frankly that the Government have killed the League; the League may go on as a debating society, but the Government have killed it. I ask now what is to be the next step? What is the Government's policy? Again we have no guidance from the Prime Minister and have to fall back on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's after-dinner speech. He used Hitler language and talked about localising danger spots, regional arrangements guaranteed by interested nations. What are they but alliances under another name? Where was the danger spot in 1914? Serbia. Would you have got over that by some regional arrangement guaranteed by the interested nations? Belgium—would you have got over that? Why, that is exactly what you had at that time—interested nations all drawn into a war because of a number of interlocking alliances, so that when the shot was fired in one part of Europe they all came in in two great groups. This system only means alliances again, and interested parties only means that if they are interested in one spot, they disinterest themselves in other spots. It is a very convenient position for a dictator. If he can make a pact which will guard him on one side, he can do what he pleases on the other. In one word, it means war; it means anarchy. The Government have refused to take risks for peace, although that was their professed policy and their aim, and they have increased the risk of war. The

  1615
  result is that they have put this country in a dangerous position. I do not go as far as the Secretary of State for War. I do not think it is desirable that all our people should be mad with fear. The Members of the Cabinet seem to be obsessed with the idea of madness of one kind or another.
  But this country's strategic position is not what it was in pre-1914 days. It is not in the position in which it had an island stronghold here and a far-flung Empire. It now has its very heart connected with the Continent by the air. There is no security in isolation. The alternatives to isolation are alliances or collective security. The indictment against the Government is that when they had the opportunity of uniting Europe and forming a real front for collective security, they threw it away, and when they had the chance of uniting all the people in this country behind that policy, they threw it away. That opportunity is not going to recur. To-day the British Empire holds its possessions in the Far East on the good will of Japan; we hold the route to India on the good will of Italy. These armaments which the Government are asking us to give them are being piled up so that we shall be strong enough to meet all these enemies. That way lies ruin and war. Above all things this country's honour has been trailed in the mud. There is no trust in us anywhere. Throughout the length and breadth of this land there is a feeling that we have been humiliated, and there is no trust in this present Government. It is only eight months since we had those great posters up everywhere, "Baldwin, the man you can trust." In eight short months this idol has fallen from its pedestal, and if one goes through the length and breadth of the country one finds that people are talking in about the same tones of the Prime Minister as they did of the Lord President of the Council.
  4.23 p.m.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): It was not to be expected that, in the grave difficulty in which the League of Nations finds itself over the Italo-Abyssinian war, the Opposition would not hasten to suggest that it was all the fault of His Majesty's Government. Indeed we had last Thursday a
  1616
  most gorgeous example of how to present such an indictment, and the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon has taken up the same argument and presented it, forcibly no doubt, in his own fashion. Yet I feel that in the interval between last Thursday and to-day the coruscating thunder and lightning has begun to disappear and there is a considerable lowering of the temperature. I want to present the arguments in reply, entirely distinguishing the question of Government responsibility from the question on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt at the beginning of his speech, that of whether the situation in which the League of Nations finds itself is one of great distress and concern to every sincere supporter of the League. Those two questions are not necessarily connected and we had better do our best to look at them separately.
  Let me begin by saying what I very deeply feel, and what we all feel, that the League has had a most serious setback. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who from?"] Would it not be just as well for one moment not to try to make a party score, but to try to face the serious situation? The League has admittedly had a most serious setback. The financial and economic sanctions decided upon last October by 50 States have in fact failed to prevent an aggressor from violating the Covenant and from obtaining his objective. Nothing could be more distressing. To use the language of one Article of the Covenant, the territorial integrity and existing political independence of a Member of the League have not been preserved against external aggression. And more than that—an effort of the League, in which Britain took a leading part, to substitute by those sanctions the rule of international order as laid down in the Covenant for the triumph of brute force, has not succeeded.
  I state these things bluntly, not only because I feel them sincerely, but because they are common ground to us all. The real necessity is to examine the situation with a sense of reality and to see whether it is or is not true to say that this distressing situation is due to His Majesty's Government. What has happened is very much more than a mere political event. I do not think we in the least do justice to the feeling of a great number of people in this country in all

  1617
  parties if we treat it merely as an incident in the unrolling of history. It is not. It is very widely felt to be an injury to the cause of international morality. That is the reason people in all parties have, in fact, such a deep sense of distress about it. On that there is no difference between different sides of the House. It is a distress which His Majesty's Government and their supporters share just as honestly as hon. Members opposite.
  That being the position it would, of course, be too much to expect the Opposition not to make the most of it and, in place of facing the realities of the situation, say, "Here is a Heaven-sent opportunity, let us have a Vote of Censure and blame it all on the Government." I think I can show the House that hon. Gentlemen opposite are the very last party who have any right in this matter to reproach the Government because the League of Nations has not gone further and been more successful. The risks that have been run, the burdens that have been undertaken and the expense to ourselves and to others that has been incurred—those things bring no thanks from the supporters of the Opposition. The Prime Minister, when he takes part in the Debate later, will of course deal, as the Prime Minister should, with some of the matters which the right hon. Gentleman raised, but I want to deal as well as I can with what is really, as I think, the basis of this attack.
  I think that so far as these sanctions are concerned, it may fairly be said that there are three lines of criticism. There is the criticism that these sanctions should have been applied earlier. There is the criticism that these sanctions were not enough and that further sanctions should have been applied. And there is the criticism, which is the immediate topic of this discussion, that these sanctions should not be stopped now but should be continued and it may be intensified. I ask the House to bear with me while I try to deal with those three lines of criticism and I think at the outset the House will recognise that I have, at least, tried to state those three issues fairly and bluntly.
  The complaint is frequently made that these sanctions should have been applied earlier and on many occasions a more
  1618
  general complaint has been made to the effect that, in connection with this Italo-Abyssinian dispute, the policy of the Government in the earlier stages was dilatory or half-hearted, though it may have been intensified and made more vigorous later. That is a false allegation which has been exposed in detail. The exposure has been made by the Foreign Secretary more than once in this House. Any one who looks, for example, at the Debate of 23rd October last will find that my right hon. Friend took up that point and showed, by chapter and verse, by incident after incident, that there is not the slightest shadow of ground for that complaint. I can only think of one thing more fantastic in that connection, and that is one of the observations of the Leader of the Opposition just now when the right hon. Gentleman actually allowed himself to say that to him it was obvious that in our treatment of this subject there had been in the background an Imperialistic deal with Mussolini.
  Without delaying the House further about that matter, I want to make a perfectly definite point on the subject of the date of the application of these sanctions. It is a point which has been made by no less an authority than Viscount Cecil himself who, in a Debate in the House of Lords, pointed out that Article 16 provides for sanctions being imposed, not before but after a member of the League has resorted to war in disregard of the Covenant. It may be, and indeed I think, Lord Cecil threw out his own view about this point, that in that respect there is something to improve, but there is the fact. The first object of the Covenant is to promote conciliation. The provision for financial and economic sanctions or any sanctions, under Article 16, is under the express terms of the Article, to apply, "should any member of the League resort to war in disregard of its Covenants." That does not, in the least, prevent any member of the League or the League itself from doing its utmost to discourage and prevent such a war, but on the question when these financial and economic sanctions can be applied there is no doubt. It is perfectly plain, by the terms of the Covenant itself, that they could not be applied under Article 16 until that war broke out, and I think great injustice is done to Geneva if it is suggested that in

  1619
  that respect there was something dilatory and wasteful of time on the part of the League.
  I have taken the trouble to get out three or four of the essential dates in connection with this matter, and here they are. On 3rd October, Italian troops first entered Ethiopia. On 5th October, the Council of the League formed a committee of six to examine the situation and report upon it instantly. [Laughter.] I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should not laugh too much at the League. On 7th October, 13 members of the Council, that is to say the Council excluding Italy, accepted the conclusion of the committee of six that Italy's resort to war was in disregard of the Covenant. On 9th October the Assembly met—not the Council but the Assembly, a body which has to be called from different parts of the world, a representative gathering. Within a week of the outbreak of the war, the Assembly met and 50 State members concurred in the opinion that Italy was the aggressor. Austria dissented, Hungary dissented, Italy opposed and Albania stood aside, but apart from them 50 members so decided on 10th October. On the next day, 11th October, Article 16 was put into operation and a co-ordinating committee was created for the purpose. On 14th October financial sanctions dealing with loans and credits were actually approved, and on 19th October economic sanctions were approved and measures dealing with the importation of Italian goods and with lists of exports were started. Whatever else that may be, I say that it is not a record of dilatory action on the part of the League, and I am sure that anybody who is acquainted in the least with League procedure, and anybody who takes a fair view of the matter, could not refrain from admitting that that procedure was prompt and, further, acknowledging that it was the Foreign Secretary of this country more than anybody else, who secured action as prompt as that action was.
  It was in those circumstances that some comment on the matter began to be made by various distinguished authorities in this country. I read with interest at the time the comment that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  1620
  Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He happened to be addressing a great audience and I think it is very useful for us to note what he said on that occasion about these financial and economic sanctions which he is so anxious should be retained. This is what he said:
  "The war has been going on for 19 days."
  That was from 3rd October.
  "We have decided not to trade with Italy until she gives up this job. If we had said that, when Abyssinia appealed first to the League, there would have been no war."
  I have already pointed out that Article 16 does not provide for sanctions until after war has broken out. Then my right hon. Friend went on to make an extremely pertinent observation:
  "We say, 'If you do not retreat, if you do not come back from Abyssinia we will not buy your lemons.' Can you imagine any nation marching back and saying 'We are sorry but our trade has gone; we have been beaten by an economic sanction.'"
  I draw the conclusion from those observations of the right hon. Gentleman that he does not believe in the efficacy of financial and economic sanctions. Although on Thursday last we were appealed to with so much vigour and eloquence to realise what a frightful thing would be done if these sanctions were not continued, I draw the conclusion that as a matter of fact the right hon. Gentleman has no belief in such sanctions at all. I think I am pretty well-founded in drawing that conclusion, because this is how the right hon. Gentleman went on, speaking in Whitfield's Tabernacle, on that Sunday afternoon. He said:
  "Economic sanctions applied in time are effective. Applied too late"—
  The right hon. Gentleman meant applied as they were being applied.
  "they are worse than useless—a sham and a mockery."
  I wonder whether all those correspondents who, we are told, have been writing to the right hon. Gentleman thanking him for his magnificent speech last week and for his earnest plea that these sanctions should be continued at all costs, knew that in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman these very sanctions are a sham and a mockery and worse than useless. I think it is perfectly plain, on examining what the right hon. Gentleman then said and what he afterwards wrote, which I will quote in a moment or two, that he has never had any honest

  1621
  belief in the efficacy of this instrument at all and that what he besought the Government to continue on the ground that if they did not do so they would be abandoning the world to anarchy, is a series of financial and economic provisions which he regards as worse than useless.
  I come to the next criticism which is made. It is said, in the second place, that more sanctions should have been applied—that these sanctions were not enough. I sympathise with the natural view on this subject. Until sanctions produce the result wanted, it is natural for all of us to wish that there were more, but the members of the League put on every sanction which could be agreed upon and which was calculated to be effective—such as could be made reasonably effective by the League members without the assistance of nonmembers of the League—and this Government, as far as it had responsibility, constantly said, both at this Box and at Geneva, that for our part we were prepared to put on such other economic measures as could be agreed upon. [An HON. MEMBER: "With Mussolini?"] Any sanction that could be agreed upon between the Members of the League, provided that that sanction could be made reasonably effective in the existing circumstances of the League.
  The right hon. Gentleman the other day, and I think again to-day, referred to oil. I shall deal with that in a moment, but, first, I would like to ask, does the House take the view that the present Foreign Secretary has not pressed sanctions at Geneva as far as ever he could? I read in the paper the other day a statement that was made by Mr. De Valera, on this subject. Mr. De Valera is not always a sympathetic or kindly critic of the proceedings of the British Government. He is perfectly independent in this matter and I hope some Members of the House may have observed what he said on this subject. I think it was in the Dail last Saturday that he said:
  "There is a great deal of blame now being laid on the present British Government and particularly on the Foreign Secretary. I was at Geneva and of this I am certain, that it was not the fault of the British Foreign Secretary that successful measures were not taken. Picture the situation there for Great Britain and France. The French people already had experience of what a great European war was. Had they not every reason to hesitate about action that would possibly bring war?"
  1622
  He went on to say that he challenged those who said that more severe sanctions should be imposed to ask themselves were they prepared for war, and if they were not, then let them not blame those who were stopped by those considerations. I should have thought it might be agreed that the British Foreign Secretary, in pressing this course of action at Geneva, had done all he could honestly do in support of sanctions and in the interests of the League as a whole. The Foreign Secretary has from first to last had the complete and united support of the whole of his colleagues in the Government.
  Then it is said "What about oil?" I would like to say a word about oil. The League as originally conceived—as a universal organ—could no doubt adopt financial and economic sanctions of all sorts and kinds without considering the list, but if you have the League as it is it is essential that, in deciding what that list should be, you should select commodities effective from the point of view of putting pressure on the aggressor, commodities which are substantially within the control of League members. It is for that reason, I apprehend, that the League, in drawing up this list, included rubber and a large number of metals important for the carrying on of war, such as nickel and so on. As for oil, however, there is a huge supply which is outside the ring of the League of Nations States, and it was that consideration which made it necessary, as I understand it, for the committee at Geneva, in spite of the urging of the British Foreign Secretary, while approving of the oil sanction in principle, to examine how in effect it could be carried out.
  Without going through the whole story, I will make these two points: I do not wish to say a word in reflection upon the good intentions of any statesman in the United States of America, but the fact of the matter is—and it is the first thing we should observe if it were in our own country—that the United States had not and have not any power to prohibit the export of oil. The second point is that when in the early months of this year the committee considered whether oil sanctions could be made effective, it was our Foreign Secretary who said that, as far as we were concerned, we should be very glad to see oil sanctions applied and that they ought to be applied. It was clear

  1623
  that there was not support for that course among other and essential members of the League. You may think that view is right, or you may think it is wrong, but I protest against the unfairness of treating the failure to impose oil sanctions as though it were the crime of the British Government. But the matter has not been left entirely there, because in the brilliant speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs the other day, in a passage we all remember about leadership—I wish that I had the powers of leading that he has—he allowed himself to be led into the assertion that we in practice also have been the leader in selling oil to Italy. I wish my right hon. Friend had not added that particular pearl to the necklace, because it is a false pearl.
  These are the simple facts, Before the Italo-Abyssinian War, before October last year, the Anglo-Persian supply of oil to Italy considerably exceeded the American supply. It was a major supply. The supply that came from the Anglo-Persian Company to Italy before the war was more than double the American supply. In the first three months of the war the American supply was increased and the Anglo-Persian supply so fell off that, the American supply became four times as great as the Anglo-Persian supply.
  Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Give us the figures.
  Sir J. SIMON: I have not got the figures, but they are all printed in the League of Nations return.
  Mr. SMITH: Very smart! Very misleading!
  Sir J. SIMON: I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is nothing very smart in stating facts. If he will communicate with me after the Debate I will show him the League of Nations document that contains them. Then, no doubt, he will make plain to people where I was misleading the House. In the next three months the American supply was three times as great, and, although I have not the exact figures before me, I know that the actual American supply multiplied by about four times as compared with 12 months before. I can understand the argument that, notwithstanding that other people would not stop supplies, the Anglo-Persian Company
  1624
  might have stopped selling oil to Italy. That is not collective action; it is isolated action. I am more concerned to correct the mistake of my right hon. Friend. It is simply not true that in this particular the Anglo-Persian Company or any company with British connection took the lead in supplying oil to Italy.
  I come to what, I think, is really in the public mind the most pressing of the three questions I have formulated. That is, Why stop sanctions now? This is the thing which strikes the observer with a good deal of shock, and in this free country we express ourselves forcibly when we find something that surprises us. In order to look at that fairly, you must consider, first, what the purpose of sanctions was. The purpose was to put pressure on the actual aggressor in the effort by collective action to prevent the success of his aggression. Lord Cecil put the point in the Debate to which I have referred when he said that the only thing that Article 16 aimed at was the prevention of the continuance of war, and that once the war ceased tae obligation to exert sanctions under the Article ceased also. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who knows this subject so well, will confirm that as an accurate statement of Article 16. It is a very unpleasant fact, which is deeply disappointing to anybody who has been hoping for a good result from this effort, that the Italo-Abyssinian War has come to an end.
  That really is not open to serious dispute, and I would remind the House of a proof of it which must carry weight. By the law of America, when two States become engaged in war the President of the United States issues a proclamation to prohibit the supply of arms and munitions to either of the two States. The President did so immediately the war broke out on the 5th October. He issued a proclamation that a state of war existed between Italy and Abyssinia and that it was consequently unlawful to export arms and munitions of war from the United States to either of those belligerent countries. He did so the moment war broke out. I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed that last week the President issued a further proclamation, on 19th or 20th June, cancelling the previous proclamation and declaring that the conditions which caused him to issue the previous proclamation

  1625
  had ceased to exist. No one would suggest that the President did that because of something the British Government did. He did it because the war had come to an end, and that is a circumstance which must be borne in mind in deciding whether or not financial and economic sanctions are to continue.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs drew the analogy the other day of the Boer War. There are many Members who can speak with more authority than I can about such an analogy, but I should have thought that the circumstances in which the Boers were enabled to continue their resistance in what a former Lord Chancellor called "a sort of war," though a very serious one, for two years or more, were completely different. In the case of the Boer Republics, you had people of European origin, accomplished and experienced fighters, all devoted to the same Government, the people of the whole country united together—you had them conducting this prolonged and most successful guerilla warfare in an age when there were no aeroplanes, when any attempt to find out where they were could only be carried through by pushing blindly forward here and there, and an age in which there was no such thing as the use of gas. I find it impossible to suppose that there is any real analogy between the two wars. That is why the Foreign Secretary said, as he did in the Debate last week, that this is a situation which nothing but military action from without can possibly reverse.
  The Leader of the Opposition made great play just now with the challenge, "Do you mean, when you speak of war, that you are afraid of being attacked by Italy?" That is not the point at all. The point is that in the new situation which now exists nothing except military action by the League and its members can reverse the situation which has arisen. I can understand the view that the possibility of an ultimate recourse to force in the background may in some cases be the necessary stiffening of economic and financial sanctions, and I think I can understand the point of view of my right hon. Friend if he doubted the efficacy of economic sanctions. I can appreciate the view which may be held that, unless you have behind it this stiffening of ultimate force, it is much more difficult to make economic and financial sanctions
  1626
  work. In this case the position was made perfectly plain. These sanctions were adopted as a measure which, though it would work slowly, would, if the war continued, be increasingly effective and would exercise increasing pressure as the war went on. What has happened? Whether by military miscalculation on the part of experts or unwisdom in the conduct of the war on the other side, the reason does not matter, but what has happened is that, contrary to the calculations of the very best generals, the success of the aggressor has come about much more quickly than many people anticipated.
  It was perfectly justifiable for the League to say, "We know that these financial and economic sanctions are not sure of success, but they ought to be tried, for, if the thing works out slowly, they will in an increasing degree present the necessary pressure against the aggressor." That is no reason at all, when in fact the conclusion has been reached more rapidly than we had hoped or expected, to say that none the less it is necessary, in order to avoid the accusation of cowardice, to keep sanctions on, which in the nature of things can do no further good. I return, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, because he made this point again perfectly plainly in another article which he wrote last October. I have here his article written after sanctions were imposed, in the "Sunday Express" on 13th October last, and I would ask the House to consider the view which the right hon. Gentleman then expressed in print and compare it, if I may respectfully say so, with the advice he gave us last week, that the one necessary thing in the present circumstances is to keep these sanctions on. Writing in the "Sunday Express" on 13th October he said:
  "If Germany as well as Austria and Hungary remain out (meaning out of sanctions) I cannot see these sanctions attaining their purpose for years."
  He said about them that:
  "Everything depends upon their being deterrent as far as the continued prosecution of the campaign by Italy is concerned. Anything short of that will be a costly and risky practical joke."
  Why should we be adjured in the names of Disraeli and Gladstone and Palmerston to keep these things on at all cost when in his view they are a costly

  1627
  and risky practical joke? He himself discussed the two alternatives of a short war and a long war and pointed out that if it was a short war and it was stopped by this means, well and good, but he had his doubts about it. He went on to discuss the possibility of what the League of Nations should do if it was a long war and sanctions continued. He pointed out:
  "Much will depend on whether the war will be short and sharp or whether it becomes a prolonged struggle desperately and stubbornly maintained by the tribesmen after the main armies of their country have been defeated. In the latter case the Italian temper woud be exasperated, and exasperation is fatal to discretion. Every lunar month in which the conflict is protracted will be 28 days and nights of sinister possibilities for world peace."
  The whole point of this article was that while he doubted that these particular sanctions would be effective in a short time, he was warning his readers of the great danger ahead if people kept them on arid on and on in the hone that something would happen.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not interrupted the right hon. Gentleman because I hope to have an opportunity of replying, but in case I do not have an opportunity I just want to correct the right hon. Gentleman on a very serious omission. I threw out, criticised, the sanctions as being ineffective and short of what was necessary in order to bring the war to a speedy conclusion. I can point that out in two or three respects, and I have done so in some of those articles, and I still say it. My argument was not in favour of continuing sanctions as they are, but making them effective.
  Sir J. SIMON: I can accept that and, if I may say so, confirm it. The right hon. Gentleman did not think much of the sanctions that were imposed. My point is that last week he appealed to the Government and denounced us all because we did not agree that these things must go on.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: And extended and intensified.
  Sir J. SIMON: Nothing is plainer than this, that while he was not, I quite agree, satisfied with the sanctions, his true position was that the longer these sanctions were kept on, unless there was a quick decision, the greater the danger.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Unless they were intensified.
  Sir J. SIMON: I submit to the House that we must take the situation as we find it, and it is a situation in which this war has come to an end. It is a situation very distressing, in which the continuance of these sanctions will not reverse that result. It is a situation in which if you want ultimately to produce the change that the friends of the League desire you have to be prepared to take military action. I notice in the Amendment to the Motion which was put on the Paper by the right hon. Baronet what seemed to me to be on the whole the most remarkable of all the propositions on this subject. He describes these sanctions which are on and which are now coming to an end as sanctions by which the Italians Government may be:
  "compelled to agree to a settlement of the Abyssinian question in conformity with the Covenant of the League."
  If that is true, certainly keep them on, but it is not true. It has no conceivable relation to the truth. My right hon. Friend has been reorganising the Opposition Liberals and introducing a new air of reality into their activities, but there is no reality at all in the proposition of continuing financial and economic sanctions in order that the Italian Government may be:
  "compelled to agree to a settlement of the Abyssinian question in conformity with the Covenant of the League."
  That is the point which seems to me to have been overlooked by my right hon. Friend.
  That leads me to the last point that I want to make. The Leader of the Opposition has endeavoured to-day to meet the challenge constantly made, "What is it which you would be prepared to do in pursuit of a policy which is going to secure that Mussolini withdraws from Abyssinia?" The right hon. Gentleman and his friends in the past have been a good deal embarrassed by the question how far they would go. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he intervened the other day said that the challenge was a fair one, and, the proper occasion being chosen, he would recognise that we had to take more strenuous action in support of the League. That is the answer, but what I cannot believe

  1629
  is that the House or the country is really prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's choice of the occasion. I find it very difficult to understand why he picks and chooses between the members of the League for the purpose of applying the Covenant by force. He gave his views very plainly about Austria, when he said that he was certain that the people of this country would never be prepared to go to war again in an Austrian quarrel.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Prime Minister said the same thing on Saturday.
  Sir J. SIMON: How is this consistent with the view that any and every violation of the Covenant calls for forcible action on our part, and that if we do not take that forcible action we are cowards? What is the difference from the League point of view between a violation of Austrian integrity and a violation of Abyssinian integrity? If there is a difference I should not have thought it was one which the right hon. Gentleman would want to emphasise in the way that he does. He has a special responsibility for the Covenant of the League and a special responsibility for the Treaties of Peace too.
  Our action in this matter has got to be judged by considering the possibilities of the case, by facing the developments which have in fact taken place, and by judging whether the circumstances are such as will justify us joining with others to use force to reverse the decision. I do not think there is a single member of the League which is prepared to use such force, and I say quite bluntly that this Government is not prepared to invite this country to engage itself by force in that quarrel. Very ridiculous things have been said in that connection by some critics. It had been implied with a sneer, "Are you afraid? Do you think the British Navy would be overwhelmed?" I have no doubt the British Navy would give a good account of itself, but that is not the point. The point is that with the present situation in Europe and the great dangers surrounding us here at home I am not prepared to see a single ship sunk even in a successful naval battle in the attempt to restore Abyssinian independence. It is said, "That may be all very well for an argument but why not go on with sanctions? Do they do any harm?"
  Mr. MAXTON: Why did you not say that at the beginning?
  Sir J. SIMON: I recall some of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman last week which I think many Members of the House must have in mind. He was arguing that there was no reason for dropping these sanctions now and he said, "Why not go on? No British lives have been lost and only seven millions of money have been spent. Why not go on?" Let me deal with that. We have no intention that any British lives should be lost. It is no argument to say that we should go on because no British lives have yet been lost. In fact, in the Birthday Honours to-day you will see the Albert Medal in gold, which is the civilian equivalent of the Victoria Cross, was awarded after his death to Dr. Melly for his gallant services in rescuing refugees in Addis Ababa. The House must be gratified that that is in the List to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was murdered by the Italians"] Apart from that I believe it is true that only one Englishman lost his life. As for the £7,000,000, that may not sound very much when you are dealing with these great figures of national income and expenditure, but the £7,000,000 represents within that total cases of unemployment, cases of private loss, and cases of trading difficulty, and we have no right to continue unless you can achieve the object for which those sanctions were imposed. As long as there was a good reason for carrying on sanctions that was done, but I do not for a moment recognise the argument that you are at liberty to go on because it is only a case of £7,000,000 when, as I have shown the House, there is no justification at all for these sanctions to continue.
  Let me call attention to the League of Nations' figures which show how these economic sanctions have been operating to our disadvantage, which show, indeed, how, as it turns out, our own burden in this matter, as in the matter of providing protection by the Navy, has been greater than that of others. If any one will trouble to look at the tables he will see some serious figures. The figures show the extent to which the trade of different countries with Italy has fallen off both as regards exports to Italy and imports from Italy. I take the last month, which is a representative month. In the case of the United Kingdom, in the month,

  1631
  of March, 1935, imports from Italy, measured in United States gold dollars, amounted to 2,113,000 gold dollars, and the imports in March of this year were 8,000 gold dollars. That very trifling amount—1/250th of the total—was due to the fact that some goods were imported under contracts which had been already made and paid for before sanctions were applied. Those figures show that we have completely fulfilled the letter of our bargain. We have absolutely cut off the imports which used to come from Italy. Take the case of Switzerland, which is next to Italy, and which might be almost a door between Italy and the centre of Europe. Switzerland, in March, 1935, imported from Italy 1,677,000 gold dollars' worth, but last March, with sanctions in full blast, Switzerland was still importing nearly 1,000,000 gold dollars' worth—actually 950,000 dollars' worth. The Argentine, in March, 1935, was importing from Italy 811,000 gold dollars' worth, and in March, 1936, she was importing 863,000 gold dollars' worth.
  I think any hon. Members who look at those figures will come to the conclusion that when it was a question of really carrying out a sanctions' policy there was no doubt that it was carried out by us. Exactly the same thing is true about exports to Italy. Our exports to Italy have not all been prohibited, because the exports depend on a list, but will the House be good enough to compare these figures? In March, 1935, exports from this country to Italy were measured by 2,599,000 gold dollars, and in March, 1936, by 261,000 gold dollars. That is what happened to us. While that is the case there are other countries which, whatever the reason, cannot show anything like the same proportions in their figures. I have no concern with what might be called "sordid considerations "as long as those sanctions are carrying through an effective League policy, but what I do protest against is the view that we ought to be deterred from acting on our present view now because otherwise we shall be accused of cowardice and vacillation when the real justification for putting on and attempting to carry through these sanctions has, I believe, disappeared. If such differences as these figures reveal existed at a time when the League was really trying actively to
  1632
  apply sanctions, what sort of differences are you going to have if we continue them now with no particular reason?
  No doubt all that does not sound very pleasant, but I venture to think there is more courage in taking up that attitude and facing that fact than in continuing, in response to the appeals made to-day and last week, in a course of conduct which it can be seen is, in the circumstances, not going to produce the results for which we had hoped. I take the view that in this matter it is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all. I take the view that courage does not consist in pursuing a method which in this case, unhappily, has not succeeded. I take the view that we are not reversing our policy or our devotion to the League when we act as we do. You serve the League much better by facing the realities of the situation and considering how the League can be strengthened to avoid such shocks and disappointments in the future, and, as I think the Foreign Secretary indicated last week, he has already taken up that matter, he is already in informal communication with other League States. It is obviously a matter in which we must closely consult the Dominions. Surely it is far better that we should face the situation which has developed in that spirit than that we should, for fear of being called craven, go on with a method which, unfortunately, is not producing the results desired.
  I must conclude by this: This is a Vote of Censure, and of course the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to invite his friends to censure the Government, but this is a case in which the Government has stated quite clearly what its own view is as to the correct policy to pursue. It has not said: "Leave us to go to Geneva and argue it out." We have said at this Box what we think should be done. In these circumstances am I not justified in saying that it is perfectly legitimate to inquire, and I hope we may learn before the end of the Debate, what is the alternative course? [HON. MEMBERS: "War."] The Leader of the Opposition has put his question to the Prime Minister, and he will get his reply, but as one of his lieutenants I respectfully suggest a question or two across the table. Are we to understand that the view of the Opposition is that these sanctions should be

  1633
  continued without being intensified, and, if so, what particular good result do they think would follow? If they do propose to intensify sanctions will they indicate in general terms in what way they would be intensified? And supposing, as is the view of so many, and I suggest the view of the President of the United States, that the war is over, and that Mussolini is established in Abyssinia, which he has overrun, what is the policy which hon. Members opposite would seek to substitute for the policy which we have laid down? Those are perfectly fair questions.
  Mr. ATTLEE: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know what our policy is, will he, before my hon. Friend who is going to speak later addresses the House, tell us what is the Government's policy with regard to Italy and Abyssinia? Because the mere lifting of sanctions does not end the situation. What is the Government going to do then?
  Sir J. SIMON: I thought I had already said that the right hon. Gentleman had put these questions and that the Prime Minister proposed to deal with them. I am entitled to ask for attention to my questions. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why it is that I am particularly anxious to hear what his friends have got to say. The other day we had the Supplementary Estimates for the exceptional expenditure incurred in the Mediterranean in connection with the Navy and the Army and the Air Force, and the party opposite voted against it.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is not that a misrepresentation of our position? We moved a token reduction.
  Sir J. SIMON: Let me try to be a little more explicit. Not only did the Opposition move a reduction but they voted against the Estimate. There was no need whatever for the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to have voted if they had merely wanted to raise a grievance. And not merely that, last year in the closuring of the Votes which provide the money for these very forces on which they are going to rely they voted against the lot. I therefore ask that this Vote of Censure should be rejected. It is based on a deep disappointment which we all share, it is an attempt, an utterly unwarranted attempt, to fasten the blame for that on the Government, and it is an attempt to do so by
  1634
  people and parties in this House who have never themselves been prepared to face the consequences of the action which they now advocate.
  5.28 p.m.
  Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is the stormy petrel of the Government. Whenever the Government are in a hole, and they often are in a hole; whenever they lead the country into difficulties, and they often do lead the country into difficulties; whenever they have a bad case, and they very often have a very bad case, they put up the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who is known to be one of the finest advocates in Europe, to make the best of the case for them. Here, to-day, he has been practising the art of making the worse case seem the better; but I venture to think, having regard to the importance of this occasion, having regard to the fact that the House of Commons has been waiting to hear a declaration of policy on behalf of the Government, having regard to the fact that all the people of the country have been waiting to hear it and will be gathering round their wireless sets by their firesides to-night—[Laughter]—well, gathering round their empty firesides—to listen to a statement of the Government's policy, it is little less than an affront to this House that the right hon. Gentleman should have spoken for an hour and 10 minutes without telling us anything about the Government's policy and then, at the end of his speech, have said, "Oh, but the Prime Minister at the end of the Debate will answer the questions of the Opposition." The Home Secretary has done nothing but chop logic with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) about opinions which the latter expressed, when sanctions were first imposed, as to their probable effect. He has asked the Leader of the Labour party to tell us what the policy of the Labour party is at this juncture. What this country and other countries are waiting for is a declaration on behalf of the Government of what their policy is. That is what this House has a right to receive.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that he objects to the Opposition saying that all the blame for the situation in which we find ourselves rests upon His Majesty's Government. I speak for myself; I have never said that the whole blame rests

  1635
  upon His Majesty's Government. We are, no doubt, in a terrible position. The world has got into a dangerous position at this moment, and which Government are we to hold responsible? Whom are we to call to account if not the Ministers who are responsible to us? We have a right to emphasise the share of responsibility which this Government must accept for the situation in which the League of Nations finds itself to-day. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking last week, said that if he had taken another course the ranks of the League of Nations might have crumbled, but meanwhile they were closed. It is the Government who are taking the initiative, and which must take the responsibility, for going to Geneva and calling off the struggle against Italian aggression, and asking those nations to abandon the sanctions by means of which the struggle is being waged.
  Let me come to some of the criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman passed on us—criticisms of our criticisms, instead of an exposition of the policy of the Government, which we were awaiting. He said that there, were three criticisms with which he would try to deal; the first, that sanctions should have been imposed earlier. He said that we had had many Debates in which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had traced the course of the Government's policy during 1935, and had proved to everybody's satisfaction that no opportunity was missed of making our policy clear to Mussolini. As a matter of fact, what was made quite clear in those Debates was that at the Stresa Conference the opportunity was missed of insisting that the question of Abyssinia should be discussed and dealt with. It came out in those very Debates which, the right hon. Gentleman says, ended so satisfactorily for the Government, that they had their expert upon Abyssinia affairs with them there, and that they never once dared to raise the question and call him into the room with Signor Mussolini in order to discuss these matters.
  The right hon. Gentleman made the more valid point as to the impossibility of bringing sanctions into operation before the act of aggression had been committed, under Article 16, as it now
  1636
  exists. Certainly, I have always realised that weakness, and I have always referred to it in my speeches on this subject. I have always advocated a reform of Article 11, which would make it possible to bring sanctions into operation in order to avert war.
  Sir J. SIMON: A reform of the Covenant?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: A reform of the Covenant, an amendment of Article 11, which would make it possible to bring sanctions into effect in order to avert war. That, however, does not dispose of our criticism of the Government. What should have been done at Stresa was to face Mussolini with the declaration: "If you go on with your Abyssinia policy you will find that the whole might of Britain will be ranged on the side of the League in order to assert its authority against aggression."
  Miss HORSBRUGH: I think we all need to be clear on one point. The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about the date on which certain things took place. Can he say what date it was when it was decided that the only incident, the Wal-Wal incident, should go to arbitration?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am not going to be drawn off from dealing with the particular point of the Stresa Conference. That was a Conference at which the heads of the British, French and Italian Governments conferred, and the British Government had there their expert on Abyssinia, but they were afraid to raise the issue of Abyssinia at that Conference. They made another blunder in 1935, with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal. At a time when they knew that Italy was building up this great armament on all sides of Abyssinia, what did they do to help Abyssinia? They forbade the importation into that country of arms by which alone she could protect herself.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that sanctions have failed, that the League has failed; he says: "Let us face the realities of the situation." All right. Let us face some of the realities of the situation, and the first is that it is not true, as the Prime Minister has said, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in his notorious speech 10 days

  1637
  ago, and as the Secretary of State did not say explicitly, but implied in his speech, that sanctions have been tried out. It is not true to say that they have failed. They will have failed if the Government goes to Geneva and calls them off, but meanwhile the struggle still continues. It is not true to say that they have failed; indeed, more than that, not all the sanctions—I come now to the right hon. Gentleman's second point—which could have been put on, were put on. The right hon. Gentleman says that every sanction was put on which it was agreed could be made effective and that the Government were prepared to put on any sanctions, provided they were effective.
  In support of his statement to that effect, the right hon. Gentleman quoted no less an authority than Mr. de Valera. I was very glad to hear that kind word from an influential Member of the Government about the statesmanship of Mr. de Valera. I have never heard Mr. de Valera quoted before from that Bench as an authority on statesmanship, although I have heard many bitter criticisms of him as a statesman. This is the first time I have heard this praise, and I hope it augurs better for the relations between the Irish Free State and our Government. Other great Imperial statesmen take a very different view, and I shall presently have a word to say about the view of the Prime Minister of South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, aware that there was one vitally important sanction which the Government could not put on, and that was the oil sanction. The Prime Minister said in Lanarkshire last week, and the right hon. Gentleman—
  Sir J. SIMON: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government did not put that sanction on?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Government did not press the League of Nations to do it. I am glad of the opportunity given by the right hon. Gentleman to make my statement watertight. The Government did not press the League of Nations to put on the oil sanction. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that it was the unwillingness of the United States to stop supplying oil to Italy, which was the reason why we did not impose that sanction. The right hon. Gentleman said to-day that the United
  1638
  States had no power to stop the export of oil to Italy. If the right hon. Gentleman, has been following this matter as closely as I should have thought a Cabinet Minister and an ex-Foreign Secretary would, he must know that the United States Government in October and November were moving to get the powers necessary to enable them to forbid the export of oil to Italy and to other aggressive Powers. It was the betrayal of the League in the Hoare-Laval negotiations which soured the sympathy of the United States of America and turned it into cynical disillusionment. The right hon. Gentleman must know, too, that the greatest of all the oil magnates in the United States of America, Mr. Rockefeller, is a firm supporter of the League of Nations, and that there was no opposition from him; on the contrary, there was firm sympathy for the imposition of such a sanction.
  Now the right hon. Gentleman reminds us that it was not until March of this year that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs proposed action in regard to oil at the League of Nations. He protested against the unfairness of alleging that the Government were responsible for not imposing this sanction. I reject his protest. I feel convinced that the Government were grossly to blame for not pressing for it earlier, and my conviction upon this point is strengthened by the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman in which they seek to lay the blame upon the United States. What did the ex-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) say, when he resigned from the Government on this issue? Making his explanation to the House, with the facts fresh in his memory, he said nothing about the United States of America, but something quite different. He said:
  "Just because of the effectiveness of the oil sanction, provided that the non-member States had a full part in it, the situation immediately became more dangerous from the point of view of Italian resistance. From all sides we received reports that no responsible Government could disregard that Italy would regard the oil embargo as a military sanction or an act involving war against her."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th December, 1935; col. 2005, Vol. 307.]
  A few weeks later, the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to his constituents in which he said:

  1639
  "Within a few days it was necessary to decide whether or not we would agree to an Oil embargo against Italy, and we knew from many sources that an oil embargo might lead to some warlike act by Italy, such as an attack upon Malta or Egypt"
  There was not one syllable about a refusal of the United States of America to co-operate with us in imposing this oil embargo. To throw the blame upon the United States of America was just an unhappy afterthought of the Prime Minister. The fact is that now, and throughout the whole of this crisis, the Government have, in the words of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), in his letter to the "Times" yesterday:
  "been diverted … by what in plain words must be called fear."
  He adds:
  "I am sure that no foreign policy can be successfully conducted if the Government have lost their nerve."
  Those are strong words from so staunch a supporter of the Government as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University.
  Far from sanctions having failed, or the machinery of the League having failed, it is working with a smoothness and an efficiency which, I say to the House quite frankly, I never for one moment anticipated. I do not know what the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to the Home Secretary will be on this point, but I should say that the House would be amply satisfied if he said, "Well, at that time we thought that these sanctions would not be effective, and I have been surprised at the effectiveness which they have achieved." Why should the Home Secretary waste time in chopping logic with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs? At best it only proves that both were wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has to come here and admit miscalculations; why should he take so much pride in fixing upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—who, after all, has only such sources of information as are open to a private Member—the responsibility for similar miscalculations? As a matter of fact, sanctions have not been a sham, a mockery, and worse than useless; they have been strongly supported by our fellow-members of the League. The right hon. Gentleman read out some
  1640
  figures of the import and export trade of this and other countries which are members of the League, and at one moment he said—a little slip, perhaps—"I will not pick out any more." He had picked them out very successfully up to that point. There were just one or two members of the League who had not been as loyal to the Covenant as others have been, but, broadly speaking, our fellow members of the League have been loyal to this sanctions policy.
  Has it been effective? In the newspapers, in the corridors of the House, in Whitehall, you hear people whispering, "It is not doing any good at all," but what are the facts? The facts are that the trade of Italy has been reduced by nearly half, and that the gold reserve and foreign exchange resources of Italy have been reduced by more than half. I hold in my hand a letter which I have received from a friend of mine who has interests in Italy. I have been begged not to reveal the name of my correspondent, because nobody who is interested in Italy dare allow it to be known that they have ventured on any criticism of the Italian Government. I can only say to the House that, while I cannot give the name, I can vouch for the integrity of my correspondent and for the knowledge which that correspondent possesses of Italy. This is what is in the letter:
  "I have just returned from Italy. Arriving by sea at Naples, the port completely dead. Not another ship besides our own. Hotels mostly closed, hardly a motor about."
  Mr. RADFORD: What is the date?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: A week ago—the 16th June. It goes on:
  "30,000 in the glove trade alone are out of work; factories working three days, and to be reduced to two; copper stocks practically exhausted, cotton the same. What more could be expected from these limited sanctions? They are in a desperate plight for financial help, and think they will get it from Britain."
  So far from sanctions having been tried out, the Government are throwing the weapon away just when it is becoming effective. It is not true that military actions alone can win this struggle for the League. The economic power of the League has Italy in its grip to-day, and the Government are going to Geneva to propose to our fellow-members of the League to relax that grip.

  1641
  The war, says the right hon. Gentleman, which sanctions were imposed to stop, has come to an end, and he quotes as his authority for that statement the President of the United States of America. I do not think that anyone in this House holds the President of the United States of America in greater respect than I do, but, really, why should we take our policy from the President of the United States of America? His Majesty's Government recognise the Ethiopian Minister; they recognise him as representing in this country the Ethiopian Government. Let them go to him if they want to know whether the war in Ethiopia, is at an end or not. This is a matter of international law for decision by the League of Nations; it is not a matter upon which the Government of this country ought to come to an independent decision. Indeed, I see in this morning's newspapers accounts of the strong resistance which the Abyssinians are putting up in Abyssinia at the present time, and I hear from many quarters, some of which I believe to be well informed, that the Italians are having great difficulty in holding on to their positions in the face of Abyssinian resistance and during the rains.
  The main point is that the chief purpose of putting on sanctions, the greatest purpose of putting on sanctions, was not the defence of the integrity of Abyssinia. That was an important purpose, but the main purpose was to thwart and frustrate aggression, to make it clear that the rule of law was going to be asserted against arbitrary power, that in future aggression was not going to pay. That struggle between arbitrary power represented by the Italian Fascist Government and the rule of law represented by the League still continues, and the Government of this country have no right to break it off. The Prime Minister now says that the retention of sanctions would mean war. I will not read the quotation, though I have it here, because the Leader of the Opposition read it to us in the speech in which he opened the Debate. The Prime Minister said: "If you adopt a sanction without being ready for war, you are not an honest trustee of the nation." Then why did the Prime Minister adopt sanctions in October? In the whole of his speech in Lanarkshire
  1642
  he was saying that we were not ready for war now, that we wanted far more armaments, that the wicked Labour party were preventing him from obtaining the armaments which the defence of the country required. If that be true, and if he is an honest trustee for the interests of the nation, why did he impose sanctions in October last? I hope that he will give the House and the country a clear answer to that question when he replies to-night.
  If it was safe to impose sanctions then, it is much safer to retain them now. There was a Government in Spain which was not nearly so strong in support of the League as the present Government; there was a Government in France which was not nearly so strong in support of the League as the present Government which has just received a mandate from the electors of France. Italy is weaker to-day than she was in October—weaker with half her trade lost and more than half her reserve of gold and foreign exchange gone. We are stronger. There were, indeed, defects in our naval equipment and other armament deficiencies, which, by an expenditure of many millions of pounds—for which, let me say, in view of observations by the Home Secretary and by the Prime Minister in his speech in Lanarkshire last week, I and my friends on these benches voted—have now been made good. If it is dangerous now to maintain sanctions, if it would be an unwarrantable risk for the Government to take to maintain them now, it was a far greater risk for them to take when they put them on in October and when they then encouraged the Abyssinians to resist and when they led the nations of the world in opposition to Italian aggression. The Prime Minister reverses the maxim of Polonius:
  "Beware Of entrance to a quarrel: but, being in, Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee."
  The Prime Minister gets into the quarrel, then asks the country to observe how very dangerous it is, and then allows no consideration of justice or honour to hinder his withdrawal. The Foreign Secretary spoke last week of a world made safe for democracy. He knows that aggression is an appetite that grows by what it feeds on. The Government's policy puts a premium on successful aggression, and makes the world safe for

  1643
  dictatorship. As General Hertzog said last week, it makes the hope of averting war more slender.
  There is another charge that we on these benches bring against the Government, and I think the Labour party do too. That is that the action which the Government propose to take at Geneva is inconsistent with the pledges which they gave to the country at the last Election. The Prime Minister, when speaking in Lanarkshire, said truly that that is a grave charge, but this is what the Government told the country at the last Election in their manifesto:
  "The League of Nations will remain as heretofore the keystone of British foreign policy … We shall, therefore, continue to do all in our power to uphold the Covenant."
  Now they are going to Geneva to break down the sanctions.
  "… We shall take no action in isolation, but we shall be prepared faithfully to take our part in any collective action decided upon by the League and shared in by its members."
  The manifesto did not say: "And when we get frightened we shall go to Geneva and we shall propose collective action in order to run away from the aggressor and to lift the sanctions which impede his policy." Quite frankly, I did not believe the Government. I remembered the Secretary of State for Air, the present Lord Swinton, saying not much more than a year ago—in February of last year:
  "Collective security is the policy of the Socialist party, and it will sooner or later land this country into war."
  I quoted that speech from several platforms, and I said I did not believe that the Government were sincere in the declaration which they made in support of the League. But when the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who was then a Member of the Cabinet, was sent to Edinburgh to make the principal speech that was made on behalf of the Government in Scotland at the last Election, he referred to a speech which I had made the night before, in which I had expressed my distrust of the Government's intentions. I quote from the "Scotsman":
  "Against that appeal to distrust he (the Noble Lord) made an appeal to confidence in the good will and honest evidence of the determination of all those men of different antecedents who came together to form the
  1644
  National Government. He asked for confidence in the determination of all parties in the National Government, without any distinction or shade of difference of opinion, to uphold and enforce the system of collective security under the League of Nations and to uphold"—
  what? The independence of Abyssinia?—Not at all!—
  "the inviolability of the law of nations against all unprovoked aggression."
  There was nothing about Abyssinia in that speech, it was to uphold the law against aggression, against arbitrary power. That is the struggle which is now going on, and that is the struggle which the Government are abandoning.
  "The situation has altered," says the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. "There were serious miscalculations." The only one that he mentioned was the miscalculation of military opinion in most countries that the conflict would last very much longer than it has in fact lasted. What military opinion? I do not pretend to have the sources of military advice that are at the disposal of the Government, but I tried to form an opinion last Christmas. I remember meeting a member of the Cabinet in a club in London. We were looking at the reports from the battlefields that were coming in, and I said I thought it was obvious that, when the Italians were ready, they would go through the Abyssinians like butter. I urged him to use his influence with the Cabinet to get additional sanctions put on. He said, in reply, that there were great hills and mountains and great difficulties in advancing. We all know the power of the defensive in the Great War. On what did that rest? It rested on barbed wire, machine guns, any quantity of small-arm ammunition, discipline and intelligent, highly-trained troops. With those advantages the power of defensive is, indeed, great, but not one of those advantages was possessed by the Abyssinians. There was great courage but no training and little discipline, no machine guns, no barbed wire and hardly any ammunition.
  Now the Government tell us that they were staking the peace of the world, the future of the League and the honour of this country on the power of primitive almost unarmed Abyssinian troops to resist the bombs, the gas and attacks of a ruthless aggressor equipped with every devilish device of modern scientific war.

  1645
  Now that the gallant resistance of the tribes has broken down, the British Government are the first to abandon the struggle. That is not what the country expected from the declarations that the Government made at the last election. Now the Government excuses itself on the ground that they need great armaments. This is what the Prime Minister said in one of the most important speeches during the General Election, a speech to which the "Times" gave four and a-half columns, at the Guildhall on 31st October:
  "It will not have escaped your attention that in our loyalty to the League we take heavy responsibilities. Those responsibilities we must be in a position to discharge. That involves us in some hard thinking and hard decisions."
  What was the conclusion of the hard thinkings and hard decisions? It came towards the end of the speech:
  "Do not fear or misunderstand when you have heard me say that we are looking to our defences.… I give you my word that there will be no great armaments."
  So it is not lack of great armaments which could be an excuse for the Government for climbing down from the pledges they gave of unwavering support of the League of Nations at the General Election.
  There was no word in the Foreign Secretary's speech last week of condemnation for the crime of Italian aggression or for the use of gas. The moral issue must be evaded! The country will not have that. I have had double or treble the number of letters, post cards and telegrams during this crisis that I had at the crisis of the Hoare-Laval negotiations, a very large number from people who tell me they voted for the Government, and implied that they did so on the strength of the pledge that the Government gave on the issue of the League of Nations at the last election. They realise that the Government have broken the pledges that they gave to the country.
  The Leader of the Opposition has asked what is the Government's policy. The Home Secretary has asked what our policy is. I will tell him quite frankly what my policy is. It is to maintain sanctions, of course if our fellow members of the League agree. I would not ask the Government to attempt to maintain them alone. It is the duty of the Government to continue the policy which
  1646
  they have professed to be following of unwavering support of the League to go to Geneva and, in co-operation with the French, to give a firm lead to our fellow members to uphold sanctions. In order to shorten the struggle as much as possible I would intensify those sanctions. To weaken support of the League, to limit its functions, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his notorious speech, to fall back towards isolation is not to reduce our liabilities. It is greatly to increase them. For a country like us, with interests and obligations in every part of the world, isolation is unlimited liability. Creating a system of collective security under the League of Nations is the only way of limiting our risks.
  I ask, therefore, what is the Government's policy, and I ask the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister to tell me definitely and specifically what are the answers to these questions? Will they, in the first place, recognise the Italian Empire in Ethiopia? Suppose, for example, that Signor Grandi happened to be recalled to Rome in the next few months and his successor arrived with credentials made out in the name of the King of Italy and Emperor of Ethiopia, would those credentials be accepted? Then does the Government propose to obtain any safeguard for the treatment of the Abyssinians—any safeguard, for instance, in regard to the alienation of land and, more important still, the militarisation of the natives? Will the Government insist on any safeguards against the building up of a great black army? Will they insist upon the open door for the trade of other nations in Abyssinia? Finally, what is their policy going to be about loans? It is not enough to say, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said yesterday, although it was a proper answer to the question he was asked, that the Government is not going to lend money. I want to know if the Government is going to prevent loans being made to Italy by private or any other interests. There ought to be a ban on foreign lending of all kinds to all nations which are at variance with the League of Nations.
  I hope we shall not hear very much more of this accusation that we do not make constructive suggestions and tell the Government and the House what our policy would be. Will they give instruc-

  1647
  tions to Lord Kennet's Committee with regard to prohibiting loans to Italy so long as they are at variance with the League? If they say, "No, we will do none of these things; we will make friends with Italy and restore the common front against Germany," I shall recognise a logical and comprehensive but a short-sighted and wicked policy. If they say "Yes, we will insist on these things," I would ask, "How will you insist, if you use neither force nor economic sanctions, and impose your will on the aggressor?" I see that some Members have an Amendment on the Paper in which they ask that the Italian annexation of Abyssinia should not be recognised and that no loans should be made to Italy. I rather wonder that the Government have not accepted it, because really it means very little. The main point is that there is a struggle going on now between the League and Italy. If you abandon it, events will, of course, make it impossible for you indefinitely to refuse to recognise the annexation of Abyssinia or indefinitely to refuse to make loans to Italy. Refusal to recognise Italian aggression and annexation and refusal to give loans are vital, but they can only be made effective within the framework of sanctions and if you are maintaining the struggle on behalf of the League.
  The Government is rotten with the psychology of weakness, irresolution and defeat. The Prime Minister was reduced in his speech last week to appealing for sympathy for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Can one imagine Lord John Russell or Aberdeen appealing for sympathy for Palmerston, or Mr. Asquith appealing for sympathy for Lord Grey? Nor can one imagine the shout of homeric laughter which would have gone up from the Conservative benches if the present Lord President of the Council had appealed for sympathy for Arthur Henderson when he was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Prime Minister drenches his audiences with sentiment. What is lacking is grit, leadership and tenacity of purpose. Much as I should like to ignore the present position of the Foreign Secretary, I find it difficult to do so. I do not for a moment say that such support as I have given him has been of any value to him personally, or to the Government, but I have, at great meetings in the Albert Hall and
  1648
  all over the country, consistently appealed to my audiences to have confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity, in his devotion to the League and in his determination to maintain the struggle against arbitrary power. The confidence for which I appealed and which I felt myself, seems to have been misplaced. I could give, from the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT and from the right hon. Gentleman's speeches elsewhere, quotations expressing the necessity of firmness on the Government's part and unwavering support of the League.
  "We shall always be arrayed on the side of the League in sup porting collective security."
  Now he is going there to break the sanctions array. I should like to quote from two speeches of his. There was one which he delivered last October in which he said:
  "There are two indispensable conditions. The first is that the three parties, Italy, Abyssinia and the League, accept the settlement and, secondly, that the terms shall be consistent with the Covenant. There has been and will be no change in the policy of His Majesty's Government, in which as a loyal member of the League we will persevere. For what is at stake?"
  That is the question that we all have to ask ourselves to-day. This was the right hon Gentleman's answer:
  "At this hour it is surely not necessary to repeat that it is neither an African dispute, nor an incident in expansionist rivalry between two nations, nor a Colonial war, but a vital test of the efficacy of the League and of the loyalty of its members to the Covenant to which they have put their names. If we fail, even though that failure be not final, we shall have shattered for a generation, and it maybe more, the hopes which mankind has placed in this new endeavour."
  We have not failed. The struggle is now continuing. It is not the effect of the sanctions, which I have described this afternoon in detail, which has failed. It is the Government's nerve which is failing, as the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) said, and it is the right hon. Gentleman who is now going to Geneva to break the sanctions. This is not the time, surely, and he is not the man to go back on that declaration.
  But if the right hon. Gentleman has lost some old friends on this new policy, let us all gladly recognise that he has gained a number of new ones. I see from the

  1649
  "Times," for example, that Signor Mussolini and his Government read the right hon. Gentleman's speech with great delight and that it aroused in their breasts feelings of satisfaction, pleasure, tranquillity, and faith in the future, and the recognition of Italian military and political successes, and also the admission of the non-existence of any Abyssinian Government had gratified Italy. And the compliments of the Government-controlled German Press were not less fulsome:
  "In Press comments the decision that an end bad better be put to sanctions is regarded as a sensible step 'back to realities,' and a certain admiration is perceptible of the sober and straightforward manner in which Mr. Eden, as the Government's spokesman, accomplished a delicate and unpleasant task, making no attempt to evade responsibility and admitting miscalculations. The British attachment to the logic of hard facts is appreciated."
  It is appreciated, I have no doubt, most of all by those Governments which are most attached to the fait accompli as tie weapon of diplomacy. Lord Beaver-brook in a signed article in yesterday's "Daily Express" called upon his readers to rally to the support of the Government. Mr. Garvin was frankly delighted, and Lady Houston is rhapsodic, though she still reserves her praises for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What a change since last December, when the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Perhaps, as I have the honour to represent Stratford-on-Avon in this House, I may be allowed to quote Bacon. If the hon. Member for Bridgeton will turn to Bacon's works, he will find this very wise saying:
  'Men ought to know that, in the theatre of human life, it is only for God and angels to be spectators.'
  We have to add to that list Lord Beaver-brook, Lady Houston, Mr. Garvin, and the hon. Member for Bridgeton."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1935; col. 431, Vol. 307.]
  Now shrill and high among the celestial choir rise the voices of Lord Beaverbrook, Mr. Garvin, and Lady Houston—singing the hymn of welcome to the right hon. Gentleman as he passes into the ranks of the angels, there to become a spectator of the Roman triumph and the increasing power of the Italian Imperialist dictatorship. I prefer the words of a British statesman with great responsibilities, who delivered himself of this opinion last week:
  "We have no right to be unfaithful to the League merely because we fear that others are going to be untrue to it. If
  1650
  other nations like Great Britain and France were not prepared to face the possible outcome of continuing sanctions that did not affect South Africa, which intended to support the League to the last."
  He goes on, and repeats:
  "South Africa will support the League to the end."
  Such is the only language which would be consistent in the mouth of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. South Africa will support the League to the end. No other course is consistent with the honour of Britain.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) on his military foresight in seeing the end of the Abyssinian war. We shall know where to look in the future when we require information. He seems to be more far-seeing than all the general staffs in the capitals of Europe. But it is to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that I want to make some reference for a few moments. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs last Thursday spoke in this House with a brilliance to which few of us had had the pleasure of listening before. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that he had been in this House with Mr. Gladstone, but I cannot imagine that Mr. Gladstone would have treated these grave problems with the same flippancy with which the right hon. Gentleman treated them.
  The right hon. Gentleman threw a large number of stones at the Government, and I am going to say something about the record of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He talked about running away when confronted with danger. He is the expert. He has experience. He added terror to terror in Ireland, and then ran away. Then the picture arises in my mind of the unfortunate fate of the Greeks at Smyrna. When Mustapha Kemal Pasha threatened our troops on the Asiatic shore, the Greeks were invited to fight them and drive them back. The Greeks were placed at the disposal of the Supreme Council. They drove the Turks back. They wanted to go further forward, and they were forbidden to go further forward. When Mustapha Kemal Pasha became stronger he drove the Greeks back. There was no protection

  1651
  for them. They were driven back into the sea. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was the Prime Minister of this country and claimed for his Government that he never ran away. There is the ghost of Admiral Koltchak. The right hon. Gentleman had much to say about a torch. He also had a torch which was held high in Europe. But it was a torch which lit fires which have smouldered ever since. They were lit at the time of the 1918 election. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House on Thursday and made that remark about Austria. Why should Austria be put out in the cold?
  Mr. COCKS: Because she is taking the part of Italy.
  Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: The hon. Gentleman opposite says that it is because she is taking the part of Italy, but I do not think that that is a just charge to bring against Austria. In any case, I do not know that arrangements were made to punish any members of the League by placing them outside the League if they committed any kind of slight indiscretion. The truth of the matter, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, when he speaks of these matters, is speaking in a hollow voice. He does not really mean that he is behind the League, otherwise he would be behind Austria, just as he professes to be behind the Abyssinians.
  I turn from the formidable figure of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to a less formidable figure, but one who may be very much more powerful in this country. I refer to the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition who is the second man on the Opposition Bench and who, if an alternative Government was formed, might be the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Lord President of the Council. When we ask him to state the views of his party he says: "I have already informed the Committee that I am not under examination." We have a right to know. The country has a right to know what the Opposition propose to do, if they are returned to power in the near future. We have a right to know, and the country has aright to know whether they are prepared to go to war in order to restore the independence of Abyssinia. That question
  1652
  must be answered or hon. Gentlemen on these benches will be entitled to say, that the Opposition are following a policy of drift which can only lead to war.
  The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary was very different from either of the two speeches to which I have referred. He came down to this House and gave a clear and definite statement of the course which His Majesty's Government proposed to take. The right hon. Gentleman, ever since he has been in his present appointment, has had to face many crises. He has faced them all with courage, and he is facing this crisis with the same kind of courage that he has shown in the past. With the violation of the Covenant and the breaking of so many treaties, His Majesty's Government, of course, had no alternative but to impose economic sanctions, but it is quite clear to every Member of this House that they have failed to deter the aggressor, or to prevent the independence of Abyssinia from disappearing. I believe that we shall come round to the view, indeed we have come round to the view now, that unless we are prepared to back up economic sanctions with military sanctions, we should not try them at all. We told Signor Mussolini during the Election that we proposed to impose economic sanctions, but it was made quite clear during the course of the Election that we did not propose to impose military sanctions. I can remember speech after speech by the Prime Minister and by other leaders of the National Government. We have discovered that imposing economic sanctions is rather like peppering an elephant with a shotgun; it hurts but it does not kill. The whole burden, the whole odium of the imposition of economic sanctions has fallen upon this country.
  No one who faces the question fairly can doubt that the cause of failure is the lack of unity among the members of the League. If they had acted together with unity and determination, and if they had already organised their overwhelming strength, the Abyssinian expedition would never have started. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have not really thought out these issues. I think I am right in saying that during the course of the Election they proposed that the Suez Canal should be blocked. In the opinion of those most competent to understand the situation, that would

  1653
  undoubtedly have led to war. They wished to take on unlimited commitments, but they were not prepared to vote for adequate means of defence. The Dervishes, I understand, cry repeatedly a certain phrase until eventually they come to believe that what they say is true, and hon. and right hon. Members opposite have cried out "Collective security, collective security," till they believe that collective security already exists. They have never thought out the problem. What are they prepared to do in order to make collective security effective? Are they prepared to fight anywhere, at any time, in any part of the world? Have they thought out the numbers of divisions, of fleets and of aeroplanes which will be necessary? Are they prepared to fight for it? Will they give me an answer to that question? Hon. Members do not answer. Are they quite certain that all their associates will be adequately armed and will act promptly? Have they considered the possibility of a partner once again becoming an aggressor, as Italy became an aggressor during the past year?
  These questions have to be thought out. The one thing that stands out clearly is that no one thinks out these questions. It is no good talking about 50 nations. One small nation added to another small nation really adds nothing to the strength of the whole front. The whole burden will fall on the great nations, just in the same way that the heaviest burden of taxation falls on the Super-tax payer. Hon. Members must not regard this question purely from the national point of view. In the world as it exists to-day we are the Super-tax payers, and internationally the heaviest burden will fall upon us. That is an issue which hon. Members opposite have never faced. They have never told the country what collective security, properly organised, is going to cost this country. There is a grave danger of our being governed by phrases and deceived by words.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the hon. Member aware that those words were in the Government's manifesto? It was their pledge and not our pledge at the last Election that we were going to adopt the system of collective security.
  Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has intervened. I have watched the growth of the
  1654
  phrase "collective security." As far as I remember, the phrase was coined originally by the Labour party. I think it was the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) who originally claimed it.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I am very sorry, but I must disclaim the authorship. It was coined long before my time.
  Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: I remember the hon. and learned Member obtaining ringing cheers from his supporters when he referred to collective security. I am prepared to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party, that no one in this country has really thought out collective security as they should have thought it out. But the greatest sinners are hon. Members opposite, who have voted against every increase in the defences of the country and yet have gone round vaguely talking about collective security, never having explained what it means.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: You fought the Election on it.
  Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: We did, but we explained what it meant. We had the courage to tell the country that it was necessary for them to put their defences into order, because we had certain international obligations. Did hon. Members opposite go to the country and say we should put our defences in order? When we think about collective security, I would urge the House to think of the events which occurred in March of this year. The re-occupation of the Rhineland in principle but not in degree was the same as the Italian aggression in Abyssinia. We were very unwilling to act them. I received no notice then of great Albert Hall meetings of protest, when agreements were broken, when the Covenant was defied, when Locarno was smashed. I have found no enthusiasm either among hon. Members opposite or among the Liberal Opposition for standing firm by our agreements. It was a case on their part of running away.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member is quite mistaken.
  Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: I do not remember the right hon. Gentleman making the enthusiastic kind of speech then that we have had from him this

  1655
  afternoon. I did not find his name supporting a League of Nations Union meeting at the Albert Hall. I did not find him supporting manifestos which might have been sent out about German re-occupation, the breaking of treaties, the smashing of Locarno, the violation of the Covenant. Yet our vital interests are much more closely affected by the re-occupation of the Rhineland than they have ever been affected by the invasion of Abyssinia. I would ask the House to consider the question, where do our interests lie? We must examine the international problems by thinking of that question, in the first place. Our interests lie along the frontiers of Belgium, Holland and France. That is our immediate interest. We are interdependent. The French Army is the screen behind which we are able to rearm. We should not be able to do it if that screen did not exist. It is not a question of what our inclinations are, but where our interests lie. Staff talks were not only inevitable but absolutely essential to our safety. That is where the immediate interests of our country lie.
  Then there is another ultimate interest to be considered. We will never allow in the future as we have never allowed in the past any one nation to become predominant on the Continent of Europe. We have always gravitated towards those Powers which will oppose the hegemony of any one nation, and I cannot help feeling that just as it was to the British interest that Napoleon's march on Moscow should fail, so it will be in British interests in the future that any other march on Moscow in the present circumstances should also fail.
  Mr. GALLACHER: You are becoming sensible now. They will fail.
  Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: My hon. Friend will perhaps bear with me for a few minutes. The problem of Europe and the problem of this country is summed up in those two considerations of our immediate and our ultimate interests, and they will govern our policy, whether we like it or not. We are looking now to see which is the country which is aiming at the hegemony of Europe. It is the threat of German rearmament which is causing this country to carry through the programme of rearmament.
  1656
  That is the only cause of British rearmament. The reason why it is necessary for us to take the immediate action that we are taking in regard to our rearmament is largely due to the philosophy which has grown up in Germany during the last two or three years or, rather, the resurrection of a philosophy which existed in the past and which has been intensified in the last few years. We are facing a nation which is chloroformed and which is deaf and blind to anything but Nazi doctrines. Everyone there is marching and everyone is preparing for war. They are utterly opposed to our ideals. In the German edition of "Mein Kampf" we find these words:
  "Nothing could have been effected by bourgeois virtues of peace and order," and again "the War of 1914 was not, we can call God to witness, in any way imposed on the masses, but, on the contrary, desired by the whole nation."
  As Germany only believes in force, so she will only respect strength. We are like someone walking through a jungle. Those who are around us cannot understand us or appreciate anything about us except the rifle in our hands. If they have any doubt about it, I would ask hon. Members to recollect the course of the negotiations which have been taking place recently between Germany and this country, negotiations upon which so many hopes have been built. In February of last year the British and French Governments made an effort to come together and put forward proposals which would be acceptable to Germany. They were met by the re-introduction of conscription in Germany. That was followed by a great but vague speech by Herr Hitler. Then negotiations began. The proceedings went on, through the summer, and when it came to September the British Minister in Berlin approached the German Foreign Office and said he would like to have a reply as soon as possible. He was told that the German holiday season was on and that it was a long one. It is a long one so far as peace is concerned, but very short so far as war is concerned. This year, immediately after the reoccupation of the Rhineland, Herr Hitler made another great and vague speech. The negotiations are still continuing. I hope the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will note that His Majesty's Government are doing their best in this matter in trying to get

  1657
  the two nations together. Let him put the blame where it really rests. The question of mandated territories stands between this country and Germany. The demand has been carried on unofficially, but really nothing is unofficial in Germany. The demand is now becoming official.
  I do not believe that any party in this country would surrender at the point of the bayonet. The mandated territories are a red light in the same way as the German navy was before 1914. During last year "collective security" was the favourite phrase. I am a little anxious as to whether this year regional pacts may not be the 1936 vintage, but I trust that when we begin to talk about regional pacts we shall know exactly what we mean. I hope that the policy of regional pacts is not going to be brought forward without a great deal of thought and that in the present structure of Europe the two immediate and ultimate interests of which I have already spoken will continue to govern all our actions in the future, as they have in the past. The Debate only makes me feel more definitely that the time has come to present a firm and united front to all who may attempt to weaken and divide a free nation, whose great resources, when they are once organised, will again be the deciding factor in world affairs.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. LANSBURY: The speech to which we have just listened is evidence of the opinion on the Government benches, and perhaps elsewhere, as to the present state of affairs in Europe. I opposed the imposition of sanctions, and I oppose a continuance of sanctions. I did so because I thought, and still think, that the Italian-Abyssinian dispute is only an incident in the troubled conditions which have arisen since the close of the Great War. The Government and the League of Nations and their supporters are all very seriously to blame for having led the Abyssinian people to believe that they could be saved by the League of Nations without war. I am sorry that I am unable to agree with my friends and colleagues in this matter, but I have never believed that it would be possible for the League of Nations to enforce a blockade on a relatively strong Power without that Power attempting to break the blockade. Therefore, from the first,
  1658
  when it became apparent that sanctions would be used, my friends and I took the line which we have taken up to the present. But the House and the country will be very sadly misled if they take this Debate, or the Debate last week, as in any way representing the world conditions, especially in Europe and in Asia.
  We must remember that this Government, this Parliament, not quite unanimously but almost unanimously, are preparing consciously for war. All the preparations which have been made and all the appeals for men to join the forces, are not idly made by men who love war for its own sake, but that they think we have got once more to a crisis which can only be solved, or they think it can only be solved, by war. I am certain that if that issue had been put to the country fairly and squarely last October, no party would have received anything like a majority vote on behalf of war or preparation for war. Every single party in the State did its level best to persuade the electors that there was no fear of war—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—at any rate, that there was no fear of an Italian war. There was a statement that armaments in this country were generally to be raised, but there was not a single alarmist speech made.
  Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Several were made at the Labour party conference.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I was speaking of those who took part politically in the election. There was no statement that we have to prepare ourselves for another gigantic war, and that is what the country has to face to-day.
  The Secretary of State for War has told us—I think he was right to tell us if he believed it, although it was a terrible confession on the part of a Member of the present Government—that we ought to be drilled into fear, that we should look with fear and dread to the future. I want to remind hon. Members that from 1914 to 1918 this country and the world were called upon to settle exactly the same questions which we are told we have to settle to-day, that is, that we must secure Great Britain and the frontier in regard to France and the coast once more. How can you expect the young men of this country to respond to an appeal to which their fathers responded in 1914, 20 years ago? How can

  1659
  you expect them to take up arms in order to do something which after four years of fighting you told their fathers they had done? They were told that German militarism was conquered, its fleet scuttled and at the bottom of the sea, and that for the future we were to have a reign of peace.
  Whatever other people may do, I at least ought to acknowledge that the men who said that from 1914 to 1918 believed it. Those who told the nation that German militarism was crushed and that the world was safe for democracy and peace, believed it, but events have proved them to be wrong, and now you are telling the youth of the world—it is not a story told by pacifists but by leading Statesmen, scientists and leading religious teachers—that another war will destroy civilisation. That statement has been made again and again, I heard it a hundred times in the United States. I have read it a thousand times in newspapers. It is a statement not made by irresponsible people, but by those who have a knowledge of the facts. I want to ask: What right have we to ask the youth to enlist in another war merely to destroy civilisation, merely to bring about a catastrophic ending to the period in which we are living? No one, I think, will deny the truth of what I am saying, and if that is the case, surely before it is too late this Parliament—we have a great responsibility—ought to demand that the Government should make a supreme effort to avert such a catastrophe.
  I wish that the policy which the Lord President of the Council advocated partly during the War and after the War could be carried into actual practice, that is open diplomacy, open discussions, so that the people on whom this catastrophe may fall will have the chance of knowing who really are responsible. It is no use our statesmen saying that it is the statesmen in Germany, or in Italy or in France. Each Government declares that it is for peace, but prepares for war. We are in the same boat. Every Government says that the responsibility is on someone else. I want the Government to stand up to its responsibilities. I went to America a short time ago. I do not profess, having been there for five or six weeks, to know any more about America than the average person does. I am not
  1660
  one of those travellers who comes back after a week thinking that I know everything. But in America this matter is being discussed. It is a great mistake to think that the American people are anything but really friendly towards the people of this country. The American people have a tremendous regard for the people of Great Britain, and also a tremendous regard for peace. I spoke in 27 towns with all kinds of people, and the slogan at every meeting was "Keep America out of war."
  The American people want peace in the world because they know perfectly well that if there is war in Europe they may, against their will, be dragged in, but those with whom I conversed were also quite certain that you can never get collective security on the basis of the present League of Nations. They are quite certain that the League must be cut free of the Versailles Treaty. Its primary business must be before war takes place to discuss and inquire whether it is not possible to remove the causes which may lead to war. I have said this scores of times in this House—the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) and others, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party have said it many times—that we want our Government, together with the American Government, and whatever other Government will join with us, not to wait and drift any longer but to join in making an appeal to the world to prevent this catastrophe which Fascists, Communists, Socialists, Tories and everybody know is coming unless action is taken. We should call on the nations to come together in order that they might first of all call a, halt to war and then sit down and pay some attention to the causes. Some of my hon. Friends disagree with me on this because, they say, you cannot get within a capitalist State any agreement such as I desire. If you cannot do that on economic causes you are not going to get any collective security in any other way, in my judgment.
  Therefore, I want to ask the Government and the House whether they will not take immediate action so that a conference of this kind can be called. You may say that America would not come in. I am not so sure about that. I have not any inside or outside information except this: That every time a Governor took the chair at a meeting or any lead-

  1661
  ing man or woman spoke at a meeting all of them paid attention to this question and what was put to me every time was: Will the British people be willing to enter into a discussion, not for sharing out territories, but how the resources of the world can be used for the service of the world? I believe that if that were put to our people you would get an almost unanimous vote in favour of it, because everybody agrees that there is a big question to be solved by someone in regard to access to raw materials. I cannot argue that, but I would just mention currency, exchange and all the difficulties which there are in the way of countries which need raw materials being able to sell goods in order to be able to purchase those materials.
  When I think of the markets of the world which are unsatisfied, I am appalled that statesmen and economists should be willing to spend their time only in preparing for catastrophic slaughter, and no time on how to develop the undeveloped markets of the world. I want this new conference to come together under the auspices of the League. I want the League to continue, but on the basis of which I spoke at the beginning. This country has given a tremendous service both on her own behalf and on behalf of humanity in every part of the world. We control the great waterways of the world. The other day the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said that a part of Palestine was the Clapham Junction of the airways of the world, and he rather suggested that we should hold on to it. I should hope that Great Britain at a new conference to discuss how we can get peace would be willing to say to the world, "This new method of travelling should be free for all the world, and international airways should be free and open on the same condition for all the people of the world." I should hope, too, that our nation would take the lead in saying that, as far as subject races are concerned, we would be willing that people like the Indians and those in other parts of the British Dominions should be able to give their voice on how their countries should be dealt with.
  There are many other questions, but I think I have broadly and roughly made out what I wanted to say, and I would like to tell the House—however scornful
  1662
  some may be of the proposition—that I never met a man, from the highest person to the lowest I met, but was quite certain that this was the only course open to the world. Senor Madriaga, the Spanish statesman, wrote two articles in the "Times" and has just now made another speech or written an article which was reported in the "Times," in which he says—and he is backed up by a Professor in America, Nicholas Butler—that what the world has to do is to merge its sovereignty in the sovereignty of the international of the world. People say that this has always been a dream, but we are living at a time when the world has altogether changed from what it was in the days when Mr. Gladstone thundered from that Box about the Bulgarian and other atrocities in Europe. He tried for what was called a concert of Europe. Others have tried for some federation or other. But to-day it is unite or perish. Mr. Cordell Hull put it in another way; you must trade or fight, he said. I ask: Is the statesmanship of Great Britain become destitute of imagination, of any power to use the brains of our country and invite the use of the brains of the world along other lines except war? I cannot believe that that is going to be true, and I will not until the event. I will not believe that my country at this crisis of her fate and the fate of the world is going to see the youth and early manhood of the nation smashed once more merely for universal destruction. I believe—and I have reason to believe—that in the country to-day many thousands of those who are pacificists are not pacifists for my reasons or because they are cowards, but because of the futility of war, the stupidity of war, the crime of war—the crime and futility owned up to by all those who advocate arms.
  I have not said all that I would like to have said, but enough I hope to make hon. Members think along another line. Do not tell me about the difficulties or that I do not understand the difficulties. I have not lived in politics all my life without knowing how difficult it is; but it is no more difficult to sit down and argue how to share the world than to sit down and argue how to destroy the world. That is the choice and to-day, when I think of the enormous power of a man like Lord Allenby and of his swan song in Scotland, bewailing the fact that

  1663
  science and invention and everything we have is being used to prepare for destruction, I will not believe that the youth of this country will allow it to be done, and I appeal to everybody here, whatever his opinions are, and to my own comrades here especially. Before it is too late let us all come together. Let us all unite as you would for a war. Let us have a national movement for peace to help the Government if it will take the lead. Hell) it to go to Geneva and call the nations together, not for collective security by poison gas and all those horrible means of destruction, but to use their intelligence, their brain power, the same brain power which was used for destruction. Let them use it for constructing a new and a better world.
  7.13 p.m.
  Mr. NICOLSON: It is always difficult to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) since we all in our hearts feel such respect for his venerable courage, and we all feel for his ideals such emotional sympathy. Yet we cannot in our hearts agree that the purposes which he has in mind are as easy to secure as he would have us suppose. In his speech he has indicated to us the fallacy in which so many Members on the other side of the House indulge too frequently in discussing foreign affairs. They are apt to forget that they are foreign affairs—not the affairs of this country, but of other countries. They are, apt to approach the matter and criticise the Government as if they were discussing an education Bill or a Budget, something which depended on the volition and discussion of our own Government alone. They forget that in foreign affairs we are dealing with other Governments. If all countries were as reasonable and humane as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley there would be no question of foreign policy at all. We should not then have to discuss in this House in distress, and sometimes in vituperation, the terrible problems by which we are confronted.
  I am glad that in to-day's Debate, unlike that of last week, the thermometer of the House has returned from fever heat to normal. Last week we were on the verge of calling each other by bitter epithets. We on this side were about to call the Opposition ignorant
  1664
  and hysterical warmongers, and they were already calling us cowards and traitors, and we knew very well that those epithets did not really apply. I was, however, sorry that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) returned to vituperation to-day, and did in fact assail the right hon. Gentleman the, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for cowardice. By implication, if not by statement, he suggested that the right course for the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary would be resignation. It seems to me—and I am sure all Members in this House will really agree with me—that if the right hon. Gentleman had been capable of treachery and cowardice he would have resigned, for that was the easier course. It was a course which would have earned immediately for him wide popularity, but he would have lost that great respect and great confidence which we others have in him. That the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary should have retained his post and taken the lead in retreating from sanctions appears to me an act of great loyalty and of remarkable courage. I think we should all pay a tribute to him for it. It was loyalty to his colleagues and the Government. He could easily have said and allowed it to be supposed that they had let him down.
  During the Debate to-day and last Thursday I was anxious to detect from the speeches of hon. Members opposite what formula of policy their rhetoric contained. I was unable to do so. I am at this moment unaware of what that policy is. The very courteous questions that we have asked have been unable to elicit what, in fact, their policy is, and what they advocate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who was acting as the spokesman of the Opposition, began—and we all listened carefully—to indicate by what methods he imagined peace could be attained. We asked him how. He replied to us first by saying that he was not in the dock, and then he told us not to be flippant. Is it flippancy to ask the spokesman of the Opposition by what methods he intends to carry out his policy? Having accused us of being flippant, the right hon. Gentleman then passed on to a comic recitation of his own.

  1665
  I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose remarks were obviously received with acclaim by hon. Members behind him, would indicate to us by what methods the policy of the Opposition was to be carried out. Indeed, he did go further than any hon. Member who spoke from the Opposition benches. There is nobody for whom I have greater admiration than I have for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, but he has his faults. He has one fault in particular: it is the fault of boyish irresponsibility. On Thursday last the right hon. Gentleman drove the solemn pantechnicon of his wisdom and experience in a manner which would have disgraced an undergraduate driving a racing car. As any of us might well have expected, this Jehuism on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, conducted as it was over a road which was greasy in any case, and on which there were, I may say, large patches of oil, caused the right hon. Gentleman to skid. He skidded three times. He skidded the first time over oil, the second time over Lord Palmerston, and the third time, as has been pointed out, he not only skidded, but the pantechnicon turned round on itself, on the unfortunate subject of Austria. I had honed that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would to-day pick up those broken and sundered threads of argument, but he has not done so, and therefore I have to try to make up in my mind in my own way what idea is really behind the policy of hon. Members opposite. I suppose it is this. They wish to maintain sanctions in the first place as a deterrent and as a punishment for the aggressor. I think that is a perfectly legitimate point of view, but it is not a policy; it is an emotion. On the other hand, I do not suppose hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) would wish to maintain sanctions purely in a spirit of vindictiveness.
  There must be some other reason, and I suppose he wishes to do so as an example. I presume hon. Members say, "The great danger and the great peril is Germany; therefore, let us give Germany an example; let us show that the League can be organised and can act as a deterrent and in a penal way." I would agree with hon. Members in that
  1666
  if I felt it were possible or that it would have the effect they desire, but I do not think it is possible, because I do not believe that it would be a feasible proposition to consider for one moment that we could get the sanctions countries to continue sanctions, at great loss to themselves, without having a definite objective in view. As the Home Secretary reminded us this afternoon, it has been fairly difficult to keep them up to scratch with a definite objective in view. That definite objective has now gone, and it would be foolish of us to persist in dragging these countries a little further on the road to waste and ineptitude. Therefore, in the first place, even if there is a definite objective, the proposition is not feasible, and, in the second place, as to the effect on Germany, surely hon. Members know that the German public will only think what it is told to think. It will not be told to think that this shows the magnificent powers of the League. It will be told that it is a splendid thing, that there were three countries in Europe of which Germany was frightened—France, Italy and Great Britain—and that two of those countries are now cancelling each other out. That is what the German public will be told. So far from having a deterrent effect on Germany, the maintenance of sanctions will have an encouraging and stimulating effect.
  Hon. Members will say that I am doing just what I accused them of doing, and that I merely pick holes in their arguments and make no suggestions myself. But I have a suggestion to make. I think it is a very strange thing in this Debate that, when the Foreign Secretary made a statement of the utmost importance last Thursday, it has not been taken up on every side of the House. What was that statement? The Foreign Secretary said that he pledged himself definitely to devote his whole energies to restoring to the League the plenitude of its powers. It is on the basis of that statement that I shall vote against the Motion to-day. If that statement had not been made, I should feel grave hesitation in voting for the Government, but we have that assurance and we know it is a definite assurance which means something. What does it mean? [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but I do not think they realise the lesson that we have been taught by this Abyssinian affair and our

  1667
  humility in accepting that lesson. We League people have been shown finally and absolutely by our ineptitude in this Abyssinian question that economic sanctions are not enough. We know, as has already been said, that aggressive violence can only be restrained by force. It is by the organisation, the co-ordination and the planning of force that the new League of Nations must be built. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs says there is no chance at all of reconstituting the League and when the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Liberal party taunts and jeers me for using the phrase, reconstitution of the League, I do not think either of them realises that I mean reconstruction of the League in terms of actuality and force. Surely that is not repeating the old slogan.
  How are we to do it? There is a "gold standard" of force in each country. We can be pretty sure that in every country there comes a point where they will resist and use force, and fight with all their forces and all their men. That is the point of self-defence. You can say to every country—to France, Germany, Italy—"At what point would you fight for your self-defence?" You then get the area of certainty in terms of force. You map that out, and then take the second line. You say to Great Britain, for instance, "We quite see that you will fight with all your men to defend your own territory"—(I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley would not, and there are some like him, but I am referring to the majority of the people in this country)—"how far would you help with force in other areas, we would like to know exactly?" The reply would probably be, "We will certainly send our fleet into such areas in such proportion; we will send so many aeroplanes, etc." You then get the second category, which might be called the probable. In the third category we should say, "We are not prepared to fight there; we will not send our men to the Far East and so on; we will not do that but we will help economically and financially." On that basis I think the reconstitution of the League is a very serious and possible proposition. Each country would divide its contribution into three categories, the certain, the probable and the possible,
  1668
  and on that basis the authority of the League could be re-established. Only when you have done that can you talk conciliation, can you apply Article 19 for the complete revision of all treaties, can you do everything possible to remove all the causes of grievance and finally establish that rule of order and of peace which is our objective on this side of the House, just as much as it is the objective of any hon. Member opposite.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member who has just spoken. As one who is some years his senior in this House, may I assume towards him the right which he assumed towards the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and patronise him a little? I hope it will not be any more out of place on my part towards him than it was on his part towards them. I suppose his speech is what would be called in many quarters of this House "a practical contribution" to the discussion, while the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley would be regarded as Utopian and idealistic and of no application to the subject. I differ profoundly from that view. I think the hon. Gentleman's so-called practical proposals are visionary, Utopian, futile and illogical. But if Parliamentary politics in this country proceed on the same plan as they have followed in recent years, I prophesy for the hon. Member a great future in this House. He described the continuation of sanctions in the present situation as being not a policy but an emotion.
  Mr. NICOLSON: An experiment.
  Mr. MAXTON: An experiment in emotion. I am prepared to agree that this country, swept off its feet by a great wave of emotion for Abyssinia, just as it was swept off its feet in 1914 by a great wave of emotion for Belgium said, "We must do something to help those poor people—not too much on this occasion, not enough to hurt ourselves but what will be, we hope, sufficient with the aid of the Abyssinians themselves, the mountainous nature of the country, and the rains." For some reason this year the rains did not oblige the League of Nations to the extent that was anticipated. We

  1669
  hoped that with those aids and a limited measure of sacrifice on our own part, we might restrain Italy from taking possession of Abyssinia. But there were no time limits. We went into this policy to establish the great fact throughout the world and for all time, that aggression would not pay the aggressor. We have not established that fact, and now the policy is reversed. The policy which was to establish a particular fact, which, presumably, it is still the desire of the Government to establish, is being dropped and the hon. Gentleman defends to-day the withdrawal of sanctions with the same eloquence and skill as he defended their application.
  His hon. Friend behind him, the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Emrys-Evans), speaks, I understand, in something of a representative capacity for back bench Conservatives. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Oh, yes, I think, with all due respect, that is the case. It is all right for hon. Members opposite to be duteous about their Government, but they need not throw over the officials of their back bench organisation. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire talked about hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway as dervishes who, by repeating a phrase again and again, finally made themselves believe that it was true. I have no experience of the East, but I have heard of another kind of dervish, namely, the dancing dervish who works himself into a frenzy and keeps whirling round about for hours and even days on end. That is what the hon. Gentleman opposite is doing. He is like the dancing dervish. Whatever happens on the Front Bench, round he goes. If the continuation of sanctions to-day is merely an emotion, surely their application was an emotion, and a badly calculated emotion. If back benchers like myself could look at this thing in an objective way and if hack benchers like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) and one or two other hon. Members opposite could prophesy the situation we are in to-day, why were the Government, with the resources at their command, with the advice of the military and economic and financial experts, unable, nine months ago, to visualise the humiliating situation in which this country finds itself? I cannot accept the words of the Vote of Consure because they seem to me to continue
  1670
  the same kind of silly sentimentality on a serious business, but on the one important issue before us, namely, that the Government have failed in a humiliating fashion to deal with this situation, over the last nine minths, then I am 100 per cent. with the party above the Gangway.
  One of the reasons, though it is not put forward very strongly, why it is considered desirable to get out of Italian antagonism and get into some sort of relationship of friendliness with Italy is that in the interval Germany has grown to be a menace. We will have to deal with Germany, it is said, and, therefore, do not let us exaggerate the importance of this quarrel with Italy. Suppose Germany does become an aggressor, we shall say, "We are going to have economic and financial sanctions, but this time backed by military sanctions, and we are going to teach the aggressor that it does not pay to be an aggressor." That is the basis of the League of Nations to-day. It was in 1914 that we started to do that before. The War of 1914 did not start with the League of Nations, but it started with a regional pact, and after a very short period you had this alignment. There was a great array of the nations out to restrain an aggressor in the interests of international law. You had military, economic and financial sanctions, oil sanctions, and a blockade; the Suez Canal was closed to the aggressor; the Straits of Gibraltar were closed to the aggressor; the Straits of Dover were closed to the aggressor. You smashed Germany flat. You won and here is the aggressor again. Yet the hon. Member opposite tries to persuade me that he is a practical politician when he says that next time the organisation must be a little more complete.
  Was not the organisation from 1914 to 1918 effective enough for him? Was it not all-embracing enough for him? Were the methods employed not severe and stringent enough for him? Did all that, however, teach the aggressor that aggression did not pay? What is the mood of Germany to-day? If we are to believe speeches made in this House in defence of the Government's policy the mood of Germany to-day, after being beaten and smashed, starved and financially ruined, is that they are saying to the world, "We shall have another go at you as soon as owe are fit for it." It

  1671
  is all very well to say that that was before the days of the League of Nations. That was before you had it down on paper, but the arrangements, the alignment, the ideals, the objects were precisely the same as those which were finally put down on paper in a written constitution, if I may so describe it. The right hon. Gentleman speaking the other day said the League has not a written constitution, but I think it has "nothing else but," as the Americans would say. It is all written—there is no body, no spirit, no consciousness, no fundamental honesty.
  Everybody there is thinking in terms of general world wealth. Everybody there, with the single exception of Russia, is thinking in the ordinary capitalist processes of thought. They are always watching their neighbours around the corner, always watching the fellows sitting next to them at the council table. Look at the relish with which the Home Secretary read out the failures of certain member nations and how they had not done as much as we had done. How glad he seemed to be that they were failing in the duties which they all solemnly undertook. It is a mere delusion to think that among the capitalist nations of the world, there is a common desire for world peace and prosperity. My hon. Friends and myself on this bench always find ourselves a good bit away from the general attitude of the House on these occasions, because we do not think that there are short cuts to world peace. We do not think you are going to get it by constitutions, or regional pacts or formulae. You are going to get it by the struggles of the common peoples in the various countries.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Communism.
  Mr. MAXTON: Call it Communism or anything you please, but always remember this when you throw out gibes about Communism, that the Russian State, since it came under Communist leadership, has been a force for peace in the world.
  Viscountess ASTOR: The most heavily-armed nation in the world.
  Mr. MAXTON: It may be, but it is a force for peace, and everybody knows it, and Great Britain banks on it. [An HON. MEMBER: "The greatest army in the
  1672
  world!"] I have admitted that. The greatest force for peace is the struggle of the workers in the various countries to get economic and social justice, and to establish conditions in which the workers of one country cannot be hurled against the workers of another country in their masters' quarrels. Just fancy that what we have been discussing here as sanctions has been the starvation of the Italian working class. That is what we set out to do. If sanctions were effective, that is what we would be doing—carrying misery into the homes of millions of people. If you had some policy by which it would be possible to say, "This leader of the Italian nation is a tyrant and an aggressor, and we are going in among the Italian people and we are going to take him out and hang him by the neck as a menace to the peace of the world," there would be some argument for it. You never do that with the rulers, you never do that with the leaders, whether they be Emperor of Abyssinia or anyone else. They get going when the going is good and easy, and the common people are left to face the poison gas and the shells. The common people have a lesson to learn, and I am very glad to agree in two things that the Prime Minister has said. One was last Thursday when he said that it was questionable whether you would get the people of this country to march in a war. That is one thing that has to be borne in mind. The second, and more important thing, which he said in Lanarkshire last Saturday was that if you reluctantly had to throw the workers into another war, the war would end with the end of their rulers and a new system of society.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. STUART RUSSELL: I have always been a supporter of the Government and their foreign policy. I am going to support them in the decision they have taken to lift, in co-operation with other countries, sanctions against Italy. The first question, however, that I ask myself now in the position which has to be faced in the immediate or near future is, what should be the objects of our foreign policy? What ends do we really wish to achieve? I suggest that there are four: First to secure peace for this country for our time and generation; secondly, to maintain the integrity of the British Em-

  1673
  pire; thirdly, to use our influence in keeping the peace of Europe because war in Europe must always be a matter of grave concern to the people of this country; and, fourthly, to keep and to maintain the defence services of this country in a condition in which they may provide an effective safeguard against invasion and protect our trade routes and Imperial interests.
  To maintain peace for this country is more important and imperative than it has ever been in the past. During the last century wars were not waged on a scale which brought ruin either to victors or to vanquished, but to-day the position has completely changed. The economic reactions and repercussions of the next war will be more formidable than they have ever been in the past. Any country engaged in a first class European war will end in utter prostration, impoverishment and financial and economic destitution. Any great Power which keeps out of such a war will in the end be immeasurably the strongest and most powerful country in Europe. If this country is to avoid war, either war must be averted in Europe, or, if war in Europe should break out, this country must stand aloof and refuse participation. With a view to preventing war over 50 countries have subscribed to the covenant of the League of Nations. In the Italo-Abyssinian dispute they failed to prevent the outbreak of war. I would ask hon. Members whether it is likely that the League will succeed in the immediate future where it has so sadly failed in the immediate past. For my own part, although I regret it, I do not believe it. I believe that the League of Nations will always work, not in preventing war, but in opposing the aggressor where it is in the immediate interests of the State members of the League to make it work. If that natural but selfish aim is absent it will fail, and continue to fail, until a new outlook and mentality grows up in the hearts of men.
  There are many in this country to-day who would wish the League of Nations to be reconstituted and remain the cornerstone of our foreign policy. If we wish to see it reconstituted, with this country as one of its main buttresses of support, I feel that, without in any way abandoning the high ideals that everybody in this and other countries must strive for, and while anxious to see the framework of
  1674
  the League altered in such a way as to command universal respect, I cannot in the immediate future support a League of Nations all-embracing in its commitments and with its power and authority based on automatic sanctions clauses. To-day we are faced with very formidable dangers. Doubt and alarm concerning Germany's intentions grow daily. Germany's military preparations grow hourly more complete. Internal upheavals in Germany may conceivably hasten the pace. Perhaps the time may come this Autumn after the Olympic games, after the harvest is garnered.
  If so, where stands this country? The great League Powers—Russia, France, the Little Entente, and Italy—may demand sanctions against Germany in the name of the League of Nations and to vindicate international law and order. That is what is likely to happen, and that will be the ostensible reason for the demand. But I suggest that the real reason will be self-interest. Where will this country stand? When these demands are made we shall either have to go into a first-class war with Germany or we shall have to repudiate our contractual obligations. To repudiate such obligations which we had solemnly undertaken would be a deplorable action. It would be a sad day for the British people. To go to war with Germany because war broke out in Eastern Europe would be sheer disaster to this country. It would be disaster swift and absolute. It is with a view to meeting this eventuality which, although hypothetical, is a risk that may well materialise, that I say that in the immediate future the far-reaching commitments of the League of Nations must cease, and the automatically coercive clauses be expunged from the Covenant.
  I can envisage four lines of argument against what I have said. First, it may be argued that a League which is determined and united, and whose efforts and intentions are known to the world, would save such a catastrophe. I do not believe that the League of Nations as at present constituted will ever deter a highly armed and powerful totalitarian State from embarking on a war of aggression. I do not believe that any Power on earth will deter a highly armed and resolute Germany, faced with troubles from within, from embarking upon foreign adventure. Secondly, I can hear the argument that this country could never allow this

  1675
  strong, powerful and militant people to extend their sway and control in Central Europe. Germany could never extend her control and her influence in such a way without a first-class war. She could never do it. If she went to such a war she would emerge a weaker, not a stronger Germany. We would see a broken Germany whose might was dissipated and whose strength was undermined. At the end of that war this country would be efficiently armed. Where is the danger? Which is the lesser risk, an immediate first-class war spelling immediate disaster, or a risk of war thereafter, a risk which could only be present when we were formidable and strongly armed and a risk which could only mature if you admit both Germany's hostile intentions to this country and her power to execute her evil designs?
  I can hear another argument, namely, that to abandon the League of Nations and make known your intention of refusing to take part in a war in Central Europe would encourage Germany in her aggressive intentions. I can understand the force of that argument, but before being persuaded by its reason I must be convinced of the efficacy of the alternative, I must be convinced that the League of Nations will, in fact, stop such a war from breaking out. I do not believe that, and, not believing it, I cannot accept the view that the action which I am contemplating would cause an injury to peace which could otherwise be maintained. The policy I propose, although far from being ideal, is, I suggest, the least bad of various alternatives. I should like to make clear that I am not an isolationist. I do not believe that this country can allow a powerful and potentially hostile Power to gain permanent control of the Low Countries. To stop this it might be necessary for this country, either at the beginning, or at some stage of a conflict, to resort to force of arms. I feel most strongly about that.
  I welcome the statement which has been made by His Majesty's Government. I hope that they will maintain their attitude that any such aggression by Germany on France and the Low Countries would not be tolerated, yet I equally strongly hope that the Government will privately inform the French Government that, should Germany attack
  1676
  to the East, and if France thinks her moment has come to wage a war of aggression on Germany, such action by France will not necessarily receive the support of this country. Meanwhile, the League must go on. As an international meeting place, as a chamber of conciliation, it can perform a useful and highly important purpose. In the control of the drug traffic it has proved itself indispensable. I hope that the time may come when it will be possible to envisage regional pacts under the auspices of the League. The time may come when that will be a matter of practical politics and it will certainly require the closest investigation.
  There are two points which I should like to make, both of which are questions of fact. I am firmly convinced that the people of this country will not march to war unless they can see an immediate threat to this country or to our interests. We may applaud it. We may deplore it but we cannot ignore it. To pursue a foreign policy, the ultimate consequences of which the people of this country would neither support nor accept, would be to invite trouble beyond measure. There is growing up to-day a new generation who knew not the War. They are no less brave than their forbears; they lack neither courage nor resolution. Their hatred of war springs not from fear or cowardice, but from a better appreciation and a closer consciousness of the effects of war and the chaos that ensues. I feel profoundly convinced of that. In order to fight for their own country they would rise as one man, and in that cause would show a valour and a tenacity unparalleled in the world. To seek to educate the youth of this country to fight in various lands, not for self-interest, not for self-preservation, but for an international order which all would wish to enjoy, but for the vindication of which they are only prepared to fight when self-interest and League principles coalesce, would be unfair to our own people.
  Secondly, there is the question of the preparedness of our defence Services. It is difficult for an ordinary Member of this House to come to any clear conclusion on this subject. I have made what inquiries I could, and I have satisfied myself that for a European war we are utterly and completely unprepared. Where a country is attacked or where its interests are

  1677
  immediately and unmistakably imperilled, it may be necessary for a country to resort to arms notwithstanding the condition of its defence forces. I confess, however, that to send the youth of this country to the Continent of Europe, ill-armed, ill-provided, ill-equipped, against a mighty and redoubtable foe supplied with all the modern weapons of our age, not to fight for self-interest, but for the League of Nations, would be a crime and a treason against our people. We have tried a great experiment, and we have failed. We have failed because the League was incomplete. We have failed because human nature was imperfect. This country has played its part with honour and dignity. We do not apologise; we do not recant. We are wiser after the experience.
  We now turn to the future. We see a vast new panorama spread out before us; we see totalitarian States brandishing their swords before peaceful people; we see great European Powers anxious to obtain peace yet apparently unable to obtain it. We see the gathering storm, yet we doubt the collective ability of Europe to resist it. We see our own country standing as it does on the very verge of a prosperity yet unknown, and of a standard of living yet undreamed of. We weigh the cost of entering into such a war. We know that our civilisation will never stand the strain. We know that Bolshevism will raise its head in Europe, from east to west, from Caucasus to Pyrenees. We weigh the cost of keeping out of such a war. We gauge the strength of belligerent Powers when the war is over. We weigh the risks. We come to our conclusions. I have decided. As I listened on Thursday last to that rather remarkable concluding sentence of the right hon. Gentleman speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition, the conclusions which I drew were somewhat different from his own. Referring to the Ministers of the Crown, he said that the League would flourish when these men's names had been forgotten. Sir, if they bring this country through the next 10 years at peace, their names will never be forgotten.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. COCKS: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) when he said that the Government have failed to establish the policy
  1678
  that aggression does not pay, and they seem quite happy about it. Because they have failed to do that, I warn the Government that thousands of people in this country who have supported the League of Nations since it was instituted are at the present time coming gradually to the view that the League itself is a useless humbug and that this country should have little more to do with it. Many more are coming to the view mentioned by the last speaker that if war cannot be prevented by collective action or by any other action in Europe, the best thing for this country to do is to keep out of it. Those views are developing in this country at the present time owing to the failure of the League and of the Government, and the Government must recognise that fact. I feel that the League has been sorely wounded to the death and that the Government are very optimistic if they think that they will build it up again and restore the faith of the peoples of the world in that institution. I agree, too, with the last speaker when he said that we in Europe are faced with very formidable dangers. Over the whole Continent of Europe there broods the hooded shape of impending disaster. The breakdown of the Disarmament Conference, the rearmament of Germany, the victory of Mussolini, not only over Abyssinia but over the League as well, have brought Europe nearer to war than it has been since 1914, and for that position I say that the Government have, not the sole responsibility, but a very heavy responsibility indeed.
  This Vote of Censure has been moved on the whole foreign policy of the Government since they came into existence. I do not intend to say more about the first four years of the Government's existence than that those years of the Government's foreign policy under the present Home Secretary, then the Foreign Secretary, were four years of unbroken failure and disaster. I would also say that the action of the present Home Secretary in condoning Japanese aggression, and even in encouraging Japanese militarism, in the Far East has had a great deal to do with causing Signor Mussolini to say, "After this I will have a little aggression on my own." Before I come to the question of Abyssinia, I want to say a word about the Disarmament Conference and its failure. During the whole

  1679
  of the time the Disarmament Conference was in existence the Government refused to adopt the principle of collective security or to bind themselves to take action against an aggressor, and the farthest they ever went in the direction of saying that they would take action against an aggressor was in the amended form of the British Draft Convention, which said that
  "in the event of a breach or a threatened breach of the Kellogg Pact, the League should call a Conference to discuss the best way of promoting peace, or to use its good offices to restore peace, or, if that were found impossible, to determinee which was the responsible party."
  Very few nations get, as Abyssinia got, nine months' notice of a declaration of war, so that such a proposal as that was completely useless as a means of giving collective security against aggression. Because of that, because we would not go further than that, the Disarmament Conference broke down. The Foreign Secretary shakes his head, but I am of the same opinion still. The Conference broke down, and Germany left the League. Even after that, when the late Monsieur Barthou proposed that the conference should seriously consider the setting up of a Security System, the British Government threw cold water on the proposal, and because of that the French Government, despairing of getting any security through the League or through a collective system, made what amounted to a military alliance with Italy. Therefore, when the British Government suddenly took up the question of sanctions, to which they had been completely indifferent before, and proposed that sanctions should be applied first to France's new military ally, naturally Monsieur Laval was very reluctant to follow such a very disconcerting and novel lead. That attitude of France was strengthened by the Anglo-German Naval Convention concluded by the late Foreign Secretary and present First Lord of the Admiralty, which the French considered, and which I consider, was a direct contravention of the Stresa Resolution and of other Resolutions. The French Government resented it very deeply, and as a result Geneva was weakened and Rome encouraged to defy the Covenant. The author of that Anglo-German Convention, as of the Hoare-Laval proposal, was the present First Lord of the Admiralty. I
  1680
  am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is First Lord of the Admiralty, because I do not think the white flag of a blameless life and of two surrenders is a very thrilling substitute for "the meteor flag of England."
  It is true, as so many hon. Members have said, that the greatest menace in the world to-day is the menace of German rearmament and the hardly disguised policy of the present German Government. Whenever a country is faced by a great menace, as we have been in the last two years, and a lesser menace appears, surely it is the duty of wise statesmanship to turn on that lesser menace and to get rid of it before the flames reach the central powder magazine. Therefore, when it was made clear that Signor Mussolini intended to challenge the whole collective system and make war upon Abyssinia, it was the duty of this Government, working through the League and using all its powers, both extra-League as well as powers within the League, to do everything possible, first of all to stop war breaking out at all, and after it had broken out to bring it to a close as quickly as possible. The Government and the League have failed to do either of those things. In my view the Government, throughout the whole of this controversy, have exhibited great weakness and vacillation. In which two Foreign Ministers have lost their reputation, and I am sorry to say a third has followed their example and now has lost his reputation too. I am afraid that to serve under the present Home Secretary, as the Foreign Secretary did, is not a good training for any British Foreign Minister, and I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has learned his lesson too well.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary on several occasions has claimed that the British Government in all these affairs have led the way. We had a paraphrase of that claim from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) last week. The Foreign Secretary claimed that we have led the way and in certain so-called narratives of events which he has put before the House he has tried to prove that in detail. I wish to say here and now that those narratives of events, very much like the speeches of the Home Secretary, are masterpieces of evasion and of suppression. I will go

  1681
  through one or two of his points, and as the Foreign Secretary is here, he can follow me and, if he cares, deny what I am saying. We all know of the Wal Wal incident on 5th December and that Abyssinia appealed to the League of Nations three times in quick succession. The two most important times were 3rd January and 15th January, when Abyssinia appealed, under Article 11, and asked the Council to examine the situation. The Foreign Secretary said last week that British insistence had brought this matter within the ambit of the League. The Council was meeting at that time, on 15th January, and all that it did when the appeal of Abyssinia came before it was to postpone the matter until the next session. That is all the British Government did. The result of the Government's action was that the matter was postponed until the next session. The appeal by Abyssinia under Article 11 was not put upon the agenda, but postponed until the next session, and this was only the first of a long series of postponements.
  On 11th February—these dates are very important—it was announced that Italy had mobilised two divisions, numbering 30,000 men, for service in Africa, and on 7th March that Generals Graziani and De Bono had been appointed to command the Italian forces in Africa. On 17th March Abyssinia appealed to the League under Article 15 to investigate the dispute, which was now likely to lead to a rupture. She stated that the independence of Abyssinia was in peril and demanded full investigation by the League. This appeal was not confined to the Wal Wal incident, but had reference to the Italian preparations for war. Nothing was done at the time. On 15th April the Home Secretary and the Lord President of the Council, those great British statesmen, then Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister respectively, went to Stresa and there they met Signor Mussolini. They did not go alone, but were supported by the Foreign Office expert on Abyssinia, though he was not called upon to say anything at all. The Foreign Secretary did not mention that in his narrative of events. The Foreign Secretary said:
  "The Abyssinian dispute was then almost entirely confined to this minor frontier incident (Wal Wal) … and the wider
  1682
  aspects of the dispute had not then begun to loom so seriously on the horizon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1935; col. 213, Vol. 305.]
  He stated that in order to show that there was no need for the matter to be brought up at all at Stresa; but three weeks before that Abyssinia has stated that her independence was in danger and that she demanded full investigation. How, then, can the Foreign Secretary say the wider aspects of the question were not looming? I am afraid he has not been entirely candid with the House on this matter. I have heard of "the Nelson touch," which is not particularly noticeable in the actions of this Government, but this is what I call "the Simon touch," which is. At Stresa a resolution was drawn up denouncing the unilateral repudiation of treaties. It starts this way:
  "Representatives of the Governments of Italy, France, and the United Kingdom have examined at Stresa the general European situation …"
  The Foreign Secretary, speaking in this House last October, said:
  "It was hardly to be supposed that one of three Powers who had just declared that the object of their joint policy was the collective maintenance of peace within the framework of the League of Nations would take action in any other Continent which would jeopardise that framework."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1935; col. 214, Vol. 305.]
  But it was Signor Mussolini himself who wrote the word "European" in that resolution, in order to limit its effects to Europe. Signor Mussolini said this in an interview which appeared in the "Morning Post," and which was sent round by the Italian Embassy, showing that it had an official character, to every Member of this House. He stated:
  "It was I who inserted the word 'European' in that text and I did it to show the African situation had been omitted."
  That was done in the presence of the Home Secretary. He may be a small statesman but he is a great lawyer, and he understands what limiting words of that kind mean. If there is a resolution and someone put in a word which limits it he would see at once what it meant. He knew that at that time the Abyssinian question was in the air. Abyssinia had appealed to the League saying that her independence was in danger and Mussolini takes up his pen and limits the resolution to Europe. Did not the then Foreign

  1683
  Secretary know that that meant that Africa had been deliberately excluded? Did he say a word about it? Did any of them say a word about it? Did they not ask Mussolini, "Why have you put in that word?" No question was asked. Nobody uttered a syllable. The Abyssinian expert was not called upon to come in and help in the negotiations. I say that that was an act of political poltroonery. It confirmed Mussolini in his view that no effective action would be taken, and it was that failure at Stresa to say anything about Abyssinia, and the action of allowing him to limit the Stresa Resolution to Europe, which caused Signor Mussolini to adopt such a truculent attitude when the right hon. Gentleman himself went to see him on 20th June.
  Stresa was the first failure of the Government. It was a moral failure on the part of the present Home Secretary and the present Lord President of the Council, and has laid Abyssinia open to aggression. I think the only act of courage the Government have shown during this dispute has been in putting up the Home Secretary to-day to defend them. The white feather is the natural plumage of the right hon. Gentleman and birds of a feather flock together in the present Cabinet. Following upon Stresa Abyssinia again appealed to the League on 17th March. Nearly another month elapsed. On 15th April there was a special meeting of the Council. Abyssinia asked that the dispute should be placed on the agenda, but that request was refused, and it was postponed to the end of May.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): The only person who pressed for it was the representative of Great Britain.
  Mr. COCKS: Why did not the representative of Great Britain press for it effectively? Was it put to the vote? We are the greatest country in the world still, in spite of the Government, and our prestige at that time was unimpaired and not impaired in the way it has since become. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say to his colleagues "This thing has been going on for months. Why should it be postponed again?" Which nations objected? Was there any
  1684
  vote? None at all. I expect what happened was that the Foreign Secretary said in his usual mild way, "I think we might put it on the agenda."
  Mr. EDEN: I was not there.
  Mr. COCKS: I meant the representative of the British Government. I was not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of this particular thing. I am accusing the British Government generally. Anyhow, there was a postponement until May. During May more troops were poured into Africa. Abyssinia appealed again on 13th May, and again on 20th May, asking that the military preparations of Italy should stop. Nothing was done. Nothing has been done from first to last during this controversy to prevent Italian troops being sent to Africa. When at last the Council met on 20th May, after all these troops had been poured in, after Abyssinia had declared her independence in peril, all the Council did was to confine itself to the minor incident of Wal Wal, and did not raise the general question at all. By that time Wal Wal had become unimportant—a mere question of a well or two. What was in question then was the future of Abyssinia itself, yet the Council still talked about Wal Wal and not about the general situation. At that time not only were troops being poured into Africa but Mussolini, in speeches to his troops, was openly saying that he intended to conquer Abyssinia. He said to his troops "You are going to the conquest of Abyssinia"—while the members of the League Council were still discussing Wal Wal. This state of things went on through the summer. It was not until 31st July, seven months after the beginning of this business, that the Council took up the general situation, and then only to postpone to September and the eve of hostilities. I know that between July and September there was a meeting in Paris, but it broke down. I say that this long series of delays proves the whole futility of the League to prevent war or to defend the independence of Abyssinia. In all these delays and postponements the British Government acquiesced. They made no protest against them. They did not make an open protest against it.
  Captain McEWEN: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the League ought to have done more?
  Mr. COCKS: I am attacking the British Government. I am supporting a Vote of Censure on the British Government. I say that the British Government did not at any time protest against those long postponements. Why did somebody not go down to the Guildhall, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs did in 1911, I think it was, when he made a statement there on behalf of the Cabinet and caused the postponement of the European war? Something could have been done at this time. Signor Mussolini should have been told that the whole British Empire was backing the League and did not intend to have all these postponements. Does any hon. Member imagine that even if the League is reformed, and if you are supporting the collective system, and if war took place between Germany and France that you would have postponement for months before the League took any action at all? The war will not be over before that time?
  Never had the League such a splendid opportunity. They had nine months notice that the war was going to take place. They knew that the war could not take place until the rains were over and they did not decide what to do until the rains were over. The League, of which the British Government is a prominent member—
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The League had not the power to act until there was aggression. That is the Covenant.
  Mr. COCKS: If the hon. Gentleman had done me the honour of listening to me he would have heard me say that all these intolerable postponements and all this procrastination took place and that no strong public protest was made by the British Government against them. We ought to have called the Council together in 24 hours and said: "Now is the time to act."
  Mr. EDEN: We did call them. Read the "Daily Herald."
  Mr. COCKS: Months afterwards. I am a reader of the "Manchester Guardian," the "Daily Herald" and other papers and also of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, and I think I have gathered some information about this particular question. In September, when sanctions
  1686
  were imposed, this Government voluntarily agreed, without telling the House of Commons, not to impose, and not to propose the imposition of, immediately effective sanctions. They made an agreement not to propose the use of military sanctions, the closing of the Suez Canal, the withdrawal of ambassadors and the rupture of diplomatic relations. The House of Commons was not told about that. We only heard that the promise had been made in September by a speech made by M. Laval three months later in Paris, when he disclosed the fact that this Government had voluntarily agreed that when, the Council met they were not going to put any of those propositions before the Council.
  They sent the Fleet to the Mediterranean months too late. If they had sent it in the Spring, it might have been of some use, and if they had sent it long before the war started. When they did send the British Fleet to the Mediterranean, they immediately sent the Ambassador to Signor Mussolini to apologise for its presence and to say that it was not there for use but only for ornament. It is a wonder that they did not ask Signor Mussolini to come and review the Fleet at Alexandria and partake of our renowned hospitality upon the hospital ship "Maine." The late Foreign Secretary—we are already almost forgetting who was the Foreign Secretary—said on several occasions that he admitted the need for Italian expansion, and that he had been the first to admit the need for Italian expansion, but he did not say at whose expense. Those speeches of the Foreign Secretary, made at that very moment, as though the Italians had a moral right to expand, encouraged Mussolini to go on, and also confirmed him in his view that the British lion would not fight.
  Now I come to the Hoare-Laval proposals. I need not dwell upon them because they are so well known. It is difficult to understand how the Cabinet could say that those proposals came to them as a complete surprise, seeing that the negotiations for a settlement at the Abyssinian expense had been going on between Foreign Office experts and the Quai d'Orsay since the beginning of October. On 24th October, the Home Secretary came down to the House and, in tones of virtuous indignation, stated

  1687
  that no such settlement was being contemplated behind the backs of the League, as had been suggested in the "Daily Herald." The Foreign Secretary asked me to read the "Daily Herald." The "Daily Herald," just before, had drawn up a plan of the partition of Abyssinia, and had said that that was being discussed in Paris. The Home Secretary came down, before the election, and said there was no truth in it at all. When the details of the plan were eventually revealed, after the election—the Government won the election on the League of Nations appeal—we saw that it bore a very close resemblance to that which, a month or two previously, the Home Secretary said was not even in contemplation. How the Prime Minister can say that the proposals took the Cabinet by surprise is more than I can understand.
  To recapitulate: The first betrayal was at Stresa, the second was the Hoare-Laval proposals and the third was upon the question of oil. Oil sanctions were approved in principle on 6th November. They were postponed over and over again and month after month, until the Italians, by means of poison gas, had won their way to Addis Ababa. It is no use for the Foreign Secretary to say that oil sanctions could never have been applied because they could not be sure that oil would not come from America; they knew that from the beginning. They knew that the United States of America were not in the League. Why did they start to discuss oil sanctions? Did the Government give a lead in suggesting that oil should be a sanction? If they gave a lead on that occasion they cannot come down and excuse themselves for not putting it on, and blame America. All the oil-producing countries in the League were in favour of it, Britain, Russia and Rumania, and the amount of oil from other countries in the League was almost negligible. Month after month, every excuse was made to put the matter off, not because of America, but it was said to give a chance to peace negotiations, although they knew that Signor Mussolini did not intend to have any peace negotiations at all. They postponed the matter month after month, and nothing was done after the Hoare-Laval proposals. They postponed it, and Abyssinia now lies
  1688
  prostrate under the feet of the poisoners of Italy.
  Now we have seen the fourth betrayal, the dropping of sanctions in a hurry, almost simultaneously with the Roman triumph of Mussolini. To add to the irony of the thing, the day upon which the Foreign Secretary came here to announce the dropping of sanctions, as well as the dropping of the League and of the prestige of the British Government, was the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. It was also the same day as that upon which the Anglo-German Naval Convention was signed. In 1815 on that low roll of hills the British squares stood, and were not defeated, although they were attacked by the finest army and the greatest military commander of modern times. I remember the Home Secretary coming down to the House and quoting the great description of Waterloo in Thackeray's "Vanity Fair" and how it ended with somebody named George lying on his face with a bullet in his heart—he was probably running away at the time. I know that the speech did not go down; it was not a success. There was another character in the book, called Joe Sedley, who was in Brussels when the Belgians ran away. He took the first coach to Ostend, and that is exactly what the British Government have done. The Government were supported the other day, I was sorry to see, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). He made a speech which I was very sorry to hear. It was not animated by the spirit that animated the speeches of his gallant father. I remember what the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said to the German Chancellor:
  "What I have said I have said. I withdraw nothing."
  And when I compare that with the way the right hon. Gentleman has eaten his words, taken off his hat to Signor Mussolini, and spoken about the Italian people glorying in their victory, without one word on behalf of the Abyssinians who have been poisoned and destroyed then I reflect how strange it is that history repeats itself and just as Oliver Cromwell, the Great Protector, was followed by Tumble-Down Dick, so the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has been followed by the present Member for West Birmingham. It is said that the reason why we did not take more vigorous action

  1689
  was that we were afraid that Italy would hit back. I was reminded of a statement in a letter of Dr. Johnson:
  "I hope I shall never be deterred from detecting what I think a cheat by the menaces of a ruffian."
  I venture to suggest that the works of Dr. Johnson would be more heartening reading for the First Lord of the Admiralty than the morbid meanderings of a neurasthenic Frenchman. There is no tang of the briny in the perfumed chambers of the Paris of Marcel Proust.
  On an earlier occasion I should have liked to have appealed to the Government to take more vigorous action, but it is no use appealing to people who are running away. I should have liked to have appealed to them to uphold in this Thermopylae the honour of our land. I should have asked the Government then not to be obsessed by craven fears of being great, but it is too late now. Abyssinia has been conquered, the League has been destroyed, British prestige and honour are lying in the dust. The only poet to whom I can turn is a, modern poet, recently dead, who wrote these words—the bitterest words I have ever read:
  "Be still, be still, my soul; it is but for a season.
  Let us abide awhile, and see injustice done."
  One last shame we must be spared; there is one humiliation that we must not suffer. I warn the Government that there must be no reconstruction of the Stresa front; the people of this country will not stand for it. Italy too is disgraced and her name is an affront to civilisation. Years ago we used to speak of the Italian flag in the words of Swinburne:
  "Green as our hope in it,
  White as our faith in it,
  Red as our love."
  To-day red stands for murder, green stands for poison, and white stands for death. That flag, as long as the present régime exists in Rome, must never fly side by side with ours. Things have been said about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and what he said about Austria. As Austria is now practically a dependency of Italy and has taken no part in sanctions, it is true that no one is going to defend the Brenner Pass for Mussolini. If the German troops like to invade Austria by the Brenner Pass in order to release the Germans in the Trentino, we shall regard
  1690
  that with complete complacency, and even if they find it necessary to bomb the Palazzo Venetia, it would not be the first time that Rome has been sacked by the Goths. Italy must be expelled from the League; otherwise the League and the Government will perish in their own hypocrisy. I conclude with a few words used by a great statesman, Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, on 4th July, 1864:
  "We will not threaten and then refuse to act. We will not lure on our Allies with expectations we do not expect to fulfil. And, Sir, if ever we have the honour to act, to carry on important negotiations on behalf of this country, I trust that we at least shall not carry them on in such a manner that it will be our duty to come to Parliament to announce to the country that we have no allies and then declare that England can never act alone … I lay this down as a great principle which cannot be controverted in the management of our foreign affairs. If England is resolved upon a particular policy, war is not probable."
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. De la BERE: I rise to say a few words after having been here for some very considerable time. I do not wish to detain the House, because I gather that there are many others who wish to speak. To-day's Debate has been extraordinarily interesting. I myself am going to be quite fearless, and am going to say, whatever it may cost me in my constituency, that I do not believe in the continuation of the League of Nations as it is at present, or even as it may be if it is considerably reorganised. I do believe in a League of Nations organised more on the lines, perhaps, of a vast chamber of commerce, to develop the trade of the world, which might really benefit the nations and might do something to prevent that terrible hunger for land which so many of them have.
  I know that to-day everyone, so far as the Government are concerned, has given of his best. I do not want anyone to think I am subscribing in any way to a Vote of Censure on the Government. I am a supporter of the Government, and I believe that, under the conditions and difficulties which they have had to face, they have not only acquitted themselves well, but have done remarkably well. They have taken courage in both hands—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I mean that. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but I think it is perfectly true that the

  1691
  Government have taken hold of the things that matter, and have said that these sanctions, which will be nothing more of less than vindictive, must come to an end as far as Italy is concerned. In doing that they have undoubtedly done the right thing, and I shall go into the Lobby and vote for the Government feeling that it is the right course to pursue.
  I believe that the League as it is constituted should definitely come to an end, and that the ideas of its reorganisation are bound to come to failure, because we have been told to-day very clearly, and have been given figures bearing out the statement, that we alone of the 50 nations or so have really endeavoured faithfully to carry out the sanctions which were proposed. No other nation seems to have done that; no other nation has really fulfilled that obligation. I believe that, as time goes on, what I am saying will be borne out, and that this policy and these very long and—I am sorry if I am rude—sometimes very wearisome Debates will end by our taking a strong line on our own account. I believe that we should gradually and honourably, but definitely, detach ourselves from all these commitments which we have. I believe that by our own strong arm, and by that alone, we shall win through and be a power for peace in the world.
  8.45 p.m.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I must congratulate the hon. Member on condensing into a very short period of time a very interesting point of view. He has perhaps given some of us a lead. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will you follow his example?"] I shall do my best. The curious thing about public opinion to-day is that it is still capable of surprise at the deceit and duplicity of the National Government. One would have imagined that by this time it was sufficiently inured to that experience not to consider it anything out of the ordinary. It is well worth while looking back, in the history of this Government, to the time when it was first elected, because one will find that gradually the truly reactionary Conservative elements have pushed out the Liberal and National Labour elements, which have been used more and more as mere camouflage. The Foreign Secretary was, perhaps, the chief decoy duck put out on this foreign policy
  1692
  episode, and one would have thought that, when the decoy cluck was revealed for what it was, it would have retired gracefully from the scene and not determined to continue its deception of the public, because there is not the slightest doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gradually been carrying out a policy of sweeping away the Liberal elements and the Liberal outlook which at one time were part of the outlook and policy of the Government, allowing Liberal statements still to be made in the country for the purpose of deceiving the public, but making quite certain that the actions of the Government were actions of reactionary Conservatism.
  Hon. Members will find it very interesting to take the list of Ministers in 1931 and see what has happened to them in the development of national government. The Lord President of the Council, of course, and people of that type are naturally regarded as nonentities throughout the country to-day, and shortly the Prime Minister will join them in the lumber-room of Conservative politicians. [Interruption.] It is not a promise. It is a prophecy. There has more and more come to the fore the type like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Hailsham and the late Foreign Secretary, who has now returned as First Lord of the Admiralty, to emphasise the fact that they are now preparing to drop that camouflage which they had formerly adopted. If one follows through the development of this policy by the National Government, one sees what the reason for it was. May I remind the House of the words of the Prime Minister at Glasgow in November, 1934?
  "It is curious that there is growing among the Labour party support for what is called a collective peace system. Well now, a collective peace system, in my view, is perfectly impracticable in view of the fact that the United States is not yet, to our unbounded regret, a member of the League of Nations, and that in the last two or three years two great Powers, Germany and Japan, have both retired from it. It is hardly worth considering, but those be the facts."
  Shortly afterwards it became perfectly apparent that the National Government was in for a very heavy electoral defeat unless it adopted a League of Nations policy, so they performed a quick-change turn. They shed the Foreign Minister, they changed the Prime Minister, and

  1693
  then the new Foreign Minister adopted this policy of faithful adherence to the League of Nations, as heretofore. It happened by a strange coincidence that the new Foreign Secretary made a speech at Geneva on the eve of the General Election—a speech which was heralded in this country as showing that the Government were honestly convinced of the necessity of a collective peace system, and which has succeeded in hoodwinking the electorate and making them believe that the Government meant what it said. But, of course, the really intelligent supporters of the Government, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), realised that this policy of collective security and the League of Nations could be utilised, after the disappearance of Germany, as a means of encouraging the Anglo-French Pact which he desired and as an argument in favour of rearmament and, following the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, he took up this cry of collective security and the League of Nations as from that time.
  The Conservative party were so successful in their deception of the people during the Election that the Prime Minister himself admitted his surprise that the people were against the Hoare-Laval agreement. Knowing that he himself had his tongue in his cheek, he had not realised that he would make the people think that the Conservative Government was honest. As a result the Hoare-Laval incident caused the electorate to wonder whether, after all, the Government had meant what it said. The Foreign Secretary was changed. It was not much trouble for the Prime Minister to get rid of his best friend politically in order to save his own skin, and to put the present Foreign Secretary in his place. He at once took up the song that he was instructed to sing, the Liberal song, in order to try once again to quiet the minds of the people which had been so severely disturbed by the Hoare-Laval incident. The new camouflage worked for a time till the rain of events washed off the paint. Now the right hon. Gentleman sits there as discredited as any of his predecessors.
  There is one other incident that is worth noticing as regards the Hoare-Laval Debate. The Chancellor made a speech on that occasion, when he wound up with these words:
  1694
  "I say for myself—I am not speaking for my colleagues—that, though I recognise to-day that that decision was a mistake, I cannot say that in similar circuumstances I should not again commit that mistake."
  Now he has done it. It was one of the truest prophecies that the Chancellor has ever made. But this time he was going to make quite certain that he was not let down and made to apologise by the Prime Minister, so he adopted the ingenious method of stating in public, to the Press of the world, the provisional reflections that had occurred to him personally, and he made it quite certain that the Prime Minister could not throw him over this time. No doubt from good experience, he had learnt that he could not trust his colleagues, so that he must commit them in advance. One asks oneself whether the people of this country are ever going to realise that, the sacking of a Foreign Secretary or the reorganisation of a Government is never going to alter the foreign policy of an Imperialist Conservative party. If the people want to alter foreign policy, they have to get rid of this Government, and the sooner they do it the better will be their chance of saving themselves from a premature and ghastly death in the next war. I venture to think that the people of this country will find votes much more effective than gas masks to avoid that danger and that tragedy. There is one passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary to which I want to draw particular attention. He said:
  "I am convinced that it remains true that a universal League of Nations of substantially disarmed States, in a world made safe for democracy—that is what the Covenant contemplated—can effectively and without doubt maintain peace, but, unhappily as I believe for mankind, such a League has never in fact existed, nor in present conditions can it readily be seen how such a League can be made."
  A few lines later he said:
  "We have to comprise within one organisation the willing collaboration of governments of totally divergent character."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1936; col. 1208, Vol. 313.]
  Observe the necessary conditions for a successful League laid down by the Foreign Secretary—universality, substantial disarmament, and, thirdly, States safe for democracies. In those circumstances it is not surprising that he says that he cannot readily see how such a League can be made to-day, especially

  1695
  when you start with the reversion to complete anarchy which is being confirmed by the National Government's most recent acts. I do not think that anyone outside a lunatic asylum imagines that any one of those three conditions which he postulates is likely to come about before the next great war. The League has become less and less universal as aggressors have been allowed to continue aggression and have withdrawn from the League as a result.
  So far as any disarmament is concerned, the complete surrender of democracies to dictatorships, signified by the present act of the Government, is leading, and must lead, to more rapid rearmament throughout the world, and as for democracy it has shown itself so weak and craven under the leadership of the National Government in this country, that it is in the greatest danger of growing eclipse, an eclipse which has already been setting throughout Europe. If this is the best that the Foreign Secretary can say as the great protagonist of the League among capitalists in this country, it is high time that the peoples of the world appreciated the sorry farce in which they have been asked to take part since the last War. I think that though the Foreign Secretary made it clear that it was impossible to have an effective League of Nations in the present circumstances, he under-estimated the difficulties. Like all capitalist statesmen he ignored the vital fact that political co-operation cannot be built upon the basis of economic competition. British Imperial interests are not synonymous with the interests of world peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his famous provisional reflections ended his speech with this sentence:
  "No one looking round the three continents of Europe, Africa, and Asia can doubt that if we are to play our part in preserving the peace of these great regions, if indeed we are to maintain our own Imperial interests and vital lines of Imperial communications, it is absolutely necessary that we should rehabilitate our Forces without delay."
  The primary objective of this Government has always been and is now the maintenance of British Imperial interests, just as Hitler's objective is the maintenance of German Imperial interests, and Mussolini's objective is the maintenance of Italian Imperial interests, and Japan
  1696
  has the same objective as regards Japanese Imperial interests. In that rivalry of Imperial interests in the world, world peace comes in a very bad second as regards the foreign policy of any of those countries in the world to-day. It is hardly to be wondered at that, when you get a collection of Imperialist exploiters, they will from time to time fall out over the division of the swag. Those who desire to see the liquidation of Imperialism as the basis of foreign policy in the world, as we do, do not want to see it come about in the disgustingly undignified way in which the National Government threaten to bring it about, by conquest by some other Imperialist country. We do not want to be driven out by some new rival, but we want to use our position and our influence in the world to-day to liquidate Imperialism as a method of international economic organisation, because as long as that persists as the basis of international economic organisation, so long is it perfectly certain that the rivalries and competition arising within those Imperialisms will lead to the necessities which have been spoken of to-day, of using force to try and solve the contradictions and objections of that system.
  It would be possible for a strong group of States, all determined upon a new method of co-operation in the economic life of the world, co-operating in the use of their resources and in the government of their dependencies, to lay a real foundation for a policy of peace. But as the Foreign Secretary implied in his speech, that group cannot successfully comprise within one organisation governments of totally divergent characters. True democracy is required within each constituent State of that group, democracy which is economic as well as political, and on the basis of democratic working-class control in those various States they can concert a common policy which will give cohesion to that group, which can never be derived from the mere participation in power politics as it is exercised in the world to-day. There is only one firm foundation for any structure, either of an all-inclusive or a partly inclusive peace group in the world to-day, and that is the unity and co-operation of economic interests. Until that is realised by the statesmen of the world, they will go on as to-day trying to get a balance of power, first by one orienta-

  1697
  tion and then by another orientation of Powers in Europe or in the East, and all the time the uncertainty of these groupings will themselves lead to the inevitability of war. Unless the people of this country are prepared to put into power a Government that will tackle this problem from the basic economic point of view they are, in my view, inevitably going to find themselves within the next few years in a far more tragic set of circumstances than they were in from 1914 to 1918.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. BERNAYS: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the object of the Government ought to be to liquidate Imperialism. I hope that at some future date he will inform the House how he proposes to liquidate General Goering. I hope, too, that on a future occasion he will deal with realities and not with abstractions. At the beginning of his speech he followed the line that has been followed by so many hon. Members in the party opposite of using this grave occasion as the opportunity for a knockabout party debate. This is a question of blood. No one has challenged the contention advanced from the Government Front Bench that we cannot turn Italy out of Abyssinia without war. It is the grave issue of war that we are discussing to-night. There have been sneers, jeers, laughter and irresponsible truculence from the party opposite, but no sense of the appalling gravity of the situation in Europe. We are being censured to-night. Let us look for a moment at the hon. Gentlemen who are censuring us. We are being censured for failing to uphold international law, for truckling to dictators and for permitting might to triumph over right.
  Mr. GALLACHER: And for running away.
  Mr. BERNAYS: I am coming to that in, a moment. Who are the gentlemen who are censuring us with such a parade of moral indignation, and with wounded pride at the humiliation of their country? Many of them in the last War were conscientious objectors. I say nothing against them personally, but am merely stating a fact. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke impersonally of pacifism and talked about pacifists. He said that he did not agree with their point of view, but he has
  1698
  pacifists behind him by the score. He has pacifists in every Labour association. It is only now in the Lewes by-election that at last the Labour party has said: "At any rate, in a by-election we cannot have pacifist candidates." But we understand that that ban will be lifted for the General Election. I recollect—I think it was in 1923—a complimentary dinner being given in this House to conscientious objectors. It was presided over by a distinguished member of the Labour party. If ever international law and the sanctity of treaties was challenged and the honour and safety of our country was imperilled, it was in the invasion of Belgium. Belgium was wantonly attacked by Germany, an attack accompanied by the use of poison gas and with every weapon of atrocity and frightfulness, and yet those who would not lift a finger, would not lift a stretcher, would not even carry the wounded in order to save Belgium, have the effrontery to come to this House to-day and put down a Motion of Censure and say that by our cowardice we have betrayed Abyssinia.
  I propose to quote one of those gentlemen, these ex-conscientious objectors, not for the sake of personal abuse—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—it is a perfectly fair point that I am making—but to illustrate my argument. I see my hon. Friend, if I may call him so, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) in his place. I should like to call attention to a speech he made at a meeting at Bedworth on Saturday, dealing with the Abyssinian situation. He said:
  "The House of Commons last Thursday witnessed one of the most disgraceful spectacles ever seen in British politics. Inevitably they would see an attempt by Italy to conscript the black races of Africa for the Italian Army, and just as surely as Italy did that, other nations would militarise their people in the same way. The whole of Africa would be regarded as a recruiting ground for the armies of Europe. Unless a change of international outlook came into Europe all they now called civilisation and its benefits would be engulfed in ruin."
  The hon. Member was himself a conscientious objector in the last War. Then, it was not a question of the conscription of the black races of Africa. It was a question of the conscription of the white population of Belgium. It was not the enslavement of Africa or of Abyssinia but the enslavement of western European civilisation under the iron heel of militarist oppression. What did my hon.

  1699
  Friend do at that time? I will give an extract from "Who's Who." No doubt he contributed, as we all do, dossiers to "Who's Who."
  "Opposed Great War; became conscientious objector; imprisoned; deprived of post as teacher; refused re-instatement as teacher."
  HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."
  Mr. BERNAYS: You cannot cheer a man who does that in the Great War and also cheer him for doing exactly the opposite in the present crisis. I am making no personal attack upon the hon. Member, but I am asking whether he and those like him really can go into the Lobby to-night with a clear conscience and vote against us on the ground that we have betrayed Abyssinia, when he and they would do nothing 20 years ago to save Belgium.
  Mr. THURTLE: May I ask the hon. Member, seeing that he is so ardently anxious to get people into the armed forces of the country, whether he is a member of the Territorial Force now?
  Mr. BERNAYS: I have had what the hon. Member has probably not had, and that is, a military course in an officers' training corps.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: If the hon. Member has finished with me, perhaps he will allow me to say a few words. There is no time to reply to him now, and I should not have intervened had he not referred to me. I believe there is a quite adequate defence to the position that I took up. That is all that I can say now.
  Mr. BERNAYS: I thank the hon. Member very much, and I have no doubt that we shall hear from him later. I want to say a few words on the new position that the Labour party is taking up in regard to armaments. It is something new in our Debate. An attempt is being made to explain away an inconsistency. The Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon that the Government could have had what arms they liked. Yes, but not if the Labour party had won the Election. He talked of posters eight months ago. We remember some posters eight months ago. Those posters were:
  "Armaments means war.
  More armaments mean more war."
  1700
  But, apparently, they would have supported the provision of armaments. Hon. Members opposite are now saying that their votes against armaments were only token votes, and presumably not meant to be taken very seriously. They do not oppose rearmament now. Their opposition then last October to rearmament was only an electoral trick, and they are finding it rather unpopular and trying to explain it away. Who is running away now? What about election pledges now? The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said in a memorable phrase:
  "The torch of freedom is being extinguished with a hiss."
  Rearmament is now being advocated by the party opposite in a whisper so that the pacifist vote will not hear it, but loud enough for the right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs to hear it, and what is called the Popular Front. Popular Front—popular humbug! I share the grave concern of many hon. Members of the House at the withdrawal of sanctions. I put my name to an Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) which contains two points—no condemnation of Italy and no loan. On both these points, as far as I am concerned, the Government have returned entirely satisfactory answers. The Foreign Secretary, on Monday, said:
  "His Majesty's Government have no intention at the forthcoming meeting of the League of proposing or assenting to the recognition of Italy's annexation of Abyssinia."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1936; col. 1410, Vol. 313.]
  And the Financial Secretary on Monday said:
  "His Majesty's Government have no power to grant loans or credits to Italy, nor have they any intention of seeking such power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1936; col. 1412, Vol. 313.]
  We have to ask ourselves this vital question, to which no attention has really been given in the Debate so far: What purpose would a continuance of sanctions achieve? The war is finished. When I saw a picture the other day of the Emperor of Abyssinia leaving Euston to spend a day or two with Lord Inverclyde I said to myself, "The war is over." I have nothing but admiration for the gallant way, and the great dignity, with which he stood by his troops and organised resistance when all seemed lost.

  1701
  The Opposition say that two-thirds of Abyssinia is still in the hands of the Abyssinians. Unfortunately the tragic fact remains that the Emperor is not with them. And there is the fact pointed out by the Foreign Secretary, that the Galla tribes, who alone remain unconquered, are violently opposed to his rule. The Leader of the Opposition used a rather unfortunate analogy with Belgium on this issue. For four years fourteen-fifteenths of Belgium was in the hands of Germany. Where was King Albert? He was in the fifteenth part; in the trenches with his troops. Two-thirds of Abyssinia may be in the hands of the Abyssinians, but the one unifying and civilising force is in London. Whatever may be the result of a continuance of sanctions, they will clearly never put the Emperor back on his throne.
  As for Italy, I am still of the opinion that sanctions resolutely continued and intensified by a League united and enthusiastic would produce ruinous effects on the internal economy of Italy. But where is the unity and enthusiasm of the League? Take France. What evidence really is there that a change of Government in France has meant a change of heart on sanctions? What evidence is there that they are really anxious for the continuance and intensification of sanctions? I have in my hand a speech made only this afternoon by the French Foreign Secretary in the Chamber of Deputies which, I think, answers the question:
  "In the present state of affairs the maintenance of sanctions would only be a symbolic gesture without having real efficacy. What would be the use of putting forward measures whose character would be to aggravate by the very fact that a definite object could be no longer assigned to it?"
  And what about the great majority of the smaller nations? Are they really willing to continue sanctions? The Leader of the Opposition used strong words this afternoon when he said that our name had become a by-word in Europe. He did not produce any evidence for it. Not a line from a public newspaper in the whole of Europe could he quote in defence of that extraordinary statement. As to foreign opinion on sanctions, I will quote an authority which will be respected on both sides of the House, a League publicist and popular front hot-gospeller, Mr. Vernon Bartlett. What did he say about sanctions in the "News-Chronicle" of 13th June?
  1702
  "During the last six weeks, I have discussed the future of sanctions with important politicians in six central European countries. I am compelled to admit that, almost without exception, they favoured their abolition, but on two conditions. One was that the British Government, having taking the lead in imposing sanctions, should at least have the courage to propose their abolition without any pretence that the failure was due more to defects in the League machinery than to the unwillingness of the States, including Great Britain, to make the machinery work. The second condition put before me in these foreign countries was that the British should avoid all talk about needing Italy's help against Germany."
  I suggest that both those conditions are fulfilled in the Government's policy. I remain a convinced supporter of the League. I fought the election upon it, and I have nothing for which to apologise or withdraw. Circumstances have been too much for us. It is absurd for the Opposition to contend that nothing has changed since October. Everything has changed. The battle at Lake Tsana has been fought, the Emperor is in flight, and there is no provisional Government or any Government in contemplation. Above all, the peril of Germany is a far greater menace than it was six months ago. In October she was still behind the bars of the demilitarised zone. She has burst them, and has refortified the Rhine, and we have reason to believe that there is a large army waiting, if need be, to strike at Western civilisation. Some countries in the present critical condition of foreign affairs have reason to fear the ambitions of Italy, and some have reason to fear the ambitions of Germany. We alone among the great nations of the world have reason to fear both. These are the ugly facts of the situation, and no Government worthy of the name could ignore them.
  9.26 p.m.
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House went out of his way to make a gratuitously offensive attack on those who were conscientious objectors during the War. He seemed to imagine that all of us on this side were conscientious objectors, and therefore inconsistent in seeking to charge the Government with cowardice. Most hon. Members on this side would agree when I suggest that it is a very mean thing for the hon. Gentleman to sneer—
  Mr. BERNAYS: I was not sneering in the least. The hon. Member says I was gratuitously offensive. What did I say?
  Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. Member will read his references to conscientious objectors and their inconsistency in charging the Government with cowardice, he will see. He is entitled to form his opinion and we are entitled to form ours. I do not want to defend the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). He is capable of defending himself. I would like to remind the hon. Member for Bristol North (Mr. Bernays) that it is because some of us saw something of the last War that we are just as strong in our beliefs in the collective peace system as he appears to be, and it is because we are strong believers in the collective system that we are supporting the Vote of Censure. We charge the Government with having been guilty of dishonesty and cowardice. We charge them with being dishonest because the Prime Minister and many of his colleagues never have believed in the collective peace system.
  The Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion that he did not believe that the collective system was a practical proposition. If he really believed that he should not have allowed his late Foreign Secretary to go to Geneva last September and deliver a speech which was a clarion call to the whole world to rally round the Covenant. It is true, as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) pointed out, that it was just prior to the General Election and subsequent to the peace ballot. If the right hon. Gentleman really believed that the collective system was impracticable he should have instructed his Foreign Secretary to go to Geneva and say: "We, the British Government, take the view that the collective peace system is impracticable, and we therefore cannot give any assistance to Abyssinia." If he had done that maybe much would have been avoided that has subsequently taken place. At any rate it would have been more honest if the British Government had taken that line in September instead of leading the Abyssinian nation, so to speak, up the garden.
  Is it an exaggeration to charge the Government with cowardice? For the
  1704
  first time in about 2,000 years this proud British nation is bending the knee to the Roman conqueror—the conqueror of Abyssinia. The only excuse the Government is able to put forward is that the collective peace system has failed. How could that system succeed unless it was being operated by men and Governments who believed in it? How could it be expected to succeed if two of the principal Governments acted as the French and British Governments have acted in the last 18 months? In January, 1935, complaint was first made to the League of Nations by the Emperor of Abyssinia. In the same month a secret agreement was made between the French Government and Mussolini, whereby the French, in return for assurances of aid on their other frontiers, gave to Italy a free hand in Abyssinia.
  The Foreign Secretary has told the House that in January last year there was every prospect of serious conflict between Abyssinia and Italy, and that the Government were in possession of the terms of the secret agreement between Laval and Mussolini. The statement was made in this House on 24th February, that the Foreign Office were in possession of the terms of that secret agreement in January last year. And yet in April they went to Stresa and said nothing. I wish the Home Secretary were in his place. I never expected to hear a Minister in a British Cabinet, not even in this Cabinet, say that a Government which we are told stands four-square to the collective peace system and the Covenant of the League of Nations would not allow, so far as he was concerned, one soldier to lose his life or one British ship to be lost in defence of the independence of Abyssinia.
  Let us clear our minds of humbug. Either we are going to stand by the Covenant of the League or we are not. If this country is going to stand by the Covenant we must be prepared to face up to all the obligations flowing from that Covenant, including the obligations of Article 16, and you are not carrying out the obligations of Article 16 by putting on pettifogging sanctions which made little or no effect on the situation in Italy. The League could have tried other sanctions. Why was not Italy expelled from the Council of the League? Why were not ambassadors withdrawn? In 1921 certain resolutions were passed at the

  1705
  League Assembly in Geneva. One of these resolutions was to the effect that as a first measure it would be sufficient to withdraw the heads of Missions. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) when he followed me in a Debate a few weeks ago, said it was ridiculous on my part to suggest the withdrawal of ambassadors. If it is ridiculous to suggest that in 1936 it was ridiculous for the British Government to agree to that resolution in 1921, and the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham were both members of the Government which agreed to that resolution providing for the withdrawal of ambassadors as part of a sanctions policy. The Foreign Secretary would not in my opinion accept any suggestion that it was ridiculous to endeavour to enforce the provisions of Article 16, although he might take the view that it was undesirable from another point of view.
  May I, in conclusion, put one or two points to the Foreign Secretary with regard to the future? Nothing was done from January of last year until October to prevent war breaking out, except in so far as conciliation was attempted. I would like to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he accepts the view of the Home Secretary that nothing could have been done until Article 11 of the Covenant. The Home Secretary endeavoured to confuse the issue by saying that there was no provision for the enforcement of sanctions prior to the outbreak of war, but would that be inconsistent with the taking of measures other than sanctions by the League of Nations in the months preceding the outbreak of war? In a normal case, in Europe, if an army were mobilised on the frontier of a country, that would be an indication that aggression was to be attempted. Last year troops and supplies poured along the Suez Canal to the Italian Colonies, and the situation was, therefore, an unusual one in that respect and not technically an act of aggression. Would it not be desirable to reinforce the Covenant so as to entitle the Council of the League to say to a country acting as Italy did last year that while conciliation is taking place not a soldier or a gun must be moved until conciliation has terminated? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary will consider that suggestion.
  1706
  I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget the provisions of the Protocol, to which reference has been made on a number of previous occasions. It is of no use appointing a committee after the war has begun to decide whether or not it is possible or practicable to impose an oil sanction. All that expert work should be done during times of peace, so that when it may become necessary to impose economic pressure upon an aggressor all plans will be in the pigeon-holes of the League ready to be taken out and put into operation. That leads me to the point that it is of no use talking about revision of the Covenant unless there are to be Governments in control of the League which are prepared to operate the Covenant. The Covenant even in its present form, if properly operated last year, might well have avoided the conditions which exist at the present time. The reason the Opposition has put down a Vote of Censure to-night is not that it is our duty to say what should be done, but because we say that the Government, as a result of their inactivity, their lack of cohesion, their lack of strength and their vacillation, have landed this country in a mess almost without parallel. It is for the Government themselves to get out of that mess, and it is the duty of the Opposition to criticise the Government for putting themselves into that position. That is the object of the Vote of Censure.
  It is not for us to say what we will do when we take office. If hon. Members would like to know what we would have done if we had been in office 12 months ago, I can very soon tell them. We would have avoided—[Interruption]—Hon. Members are like a lot of parrots; every time the question of the League of Nations is discussed they keep on saying, "War, war, what about war? Are you in favour of war?" I can only speak for myself, but for what it is worth I can state my own position. I believe that anyone who supports the collective peace system, as set out in the Covenant of the League of Nations, has to be prepared to face all the consequences naturally flowing from the enforcement of the Covenant against an aggressor nation. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about armaments."] Let us consider the question of armaments. Forty-six nations have given the assurance of mutual aid under the second paragraph of Article 16. Four

  1707
  nations have given specific guarantees of mutual aid. We who support the Covenant of the League say that we are prepared to face all the consequences flowing from the enforcement of the Covenant on a basis of mutual aid. It does not mean that the British Navy or the British Army has to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the rest of civilisation. Nothing of the kind.
  After all, a nation cannot do more than give an assurance, and I do not believe—[Interruption]. Hon. Members may sneer, but I challenge the Foreign Secretary to rise in his place and say that he has no faith in any of the assurances that have been given by 46 nations under Article 16. The Foreign Secretary disagrees with the hon. Gentleman on my left, and I am very glad he is prepared to take that view. I hope that what I have said has made it clear that we on these benches are prepared to accept all the obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations, and that, having regard to that position, we are entitled to put forward this Vote of Censure and condemn the Government for the mess they have made with regard to the Abyssinian question.
  Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: May I ask the hon. Member—
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. DALTON: I apologise to the hon. Member opposite, but I am anxious not to take any of the Prime Minister's time. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that without a time-table there is chaos. In to-night's Debate we are discussing a Vote of Censure on the Government, but there have been moments in the course of the Debate when it appeared that the character of the discussion had not been fully apprehended. The Home Secretary, for example, appears to have confused a little the role of the accused person before the law and the prosecuting counsel. The Government to-night is the accused person and we are the prosecuting counsel, and the country is the judge and the jury. I do not intend to run away from any questions that have been put, but I shall only answer them with due regard to proportion, and I shall primarily advance arguments in support of the Motion which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has moved. So far as records are concerned,
  1708
  the Labour party has held office in this country, and from 1929 to 1931 the Labour party was in control of foreign affairs. We are quite willing, so far as records of achievement are concerned, that history should judge between our record from 1929 to 1931 and the record of the so-called National Government from 1931 to the present time. We will leave that to the impartial historians of to-morrow. However, I am anxious to meet one point which has been advanced with emphasis to-day by the Home Secretary and to which the Prime Minister also referred in his speech to a hand-picked audience on Saturday last. The Prime Minister, referring to my hon. Friends of the Labour party, spoke as follows:
  "They vote against every vote for the Navy. They vote aganst every aeroplane for the Air Force. They vote against every proposal in the House of Commons for the production of an extra shell for the Navy."
  The Home Secretary this afternoon made a statement a little more skilful, savoured a little more with legal cunning, but substantially equivalent. I stand at this Box to say that that statement is not true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I stand here to say, and I will give evidence in a moment if hon. Members will bear with me, that not only is that statement not true, but that it is a most shameful fabrication for which I am astounded that the Prime Minister should make himself responsible. I ask the Prime Minister, when he rises later, either to prove that statement or to withdraw it, in the light of the facts which I shall now recite.
  In this Parliament there have been several occasions, even in the few short months since the Election, when the Government have come forward with Estimates for the fighting Services. Following long-established Parliamentary procedure, my hon. Friends have not—and I emphasise the words "have not"—opposed those Estimates. What we have done, following, as I say, long-established Parliamentary procedure, adopted in turn by all parties in the State, has been to move token reductions in large Votes. I have all the particulars here if I am challenged. What we have done has been to move a reduction of £100 on a total of millions, say for the Air Force, or to move a reduction of 100 men on a total of thousands in the personnel of the Navy, or to move a reduc-

  1709
  tion of £100 on a total running into millions for the Army. We have done so with the object of ascertaining whether behind these demands for increased armaments there was any clear and conscious plan, any relationship of a definite and clear character between these armaments and the armaments of other countries, within a scheme of collective security against aggression, and whether, as between the demands for the different Services, there was any scheme of intelligible co-ordination so as to get the best results from a given expenditure.
  It was with those objects that my hon. Friends moved those token reductions and we carried those Motions to Divisions, because we got from the Government no clear statement of the purposes behind their demands for increased expenditure, and no evidence whatever that they were doing anything else but rearming in isolation from other nations, with no scheme of collective security against an aggressor—that they were even rearming in isolation, service by service, hardly assisted at all by the tardy appointment of the Minister who is now called the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. We carried each Amendment for a token reduction to a, Division and thereafter—and I beg the Prime Minister to note this and to contradict it if he can—having been defeated on those token reductions, we did not challenge Divisions on the main Estimates. The same Estimates, passing from the Committee stage to the Report stage, again went through without Divisions.
  Having looked at the proceedings of this House for 24th February and 19th March and for other dates when Estimates have been before us, and having taken the trouble to fortify my memory as to the facts, I say with complete confidence that there is no justification whatever for the Prime Minister's statement that my hon. Friends have
  "voted against every vote for the Navy, every aeroplane for the Air Force, and every proposal for the production of an extra shell for the Navy."
  [Interruption.] I am stating the facts, and if the hon. Member opposite is doubtful as to the truth of what I am saying, let him go outside and consult the OFFICIAL REPORT for 24th February and 19th March. I say that either the
  1710
  Prime Minister was below his usual moral form or else was ill-served by incompetent secretaries when he dished up that statement.
  Further, if we are to speak, not of the actions of Governments who have power, but of the actions of Oppositions who are, for the time being, without power, I go back to the days when the Labour Government held office in 1931. What happened about the Service Estimates then? I beg the attention of Conservative Members to the facts which I am about to recite. In those days the Labour Government were faced with something more serious than Motions for mere token reductions of 100 men or £100 in large Votes. They were faced with proposals from certain of their own supporters, whose opinions the great majority of us respect but do not share, not for token reductions but for real reductions which would have wiped out the Forces altogether had they been carried.
  I take one illustration but I could multiply it. On 17th March, 1931, the Labour Government were faced with a proposal to reduce the Air Force to 2,000 men which, practically speaking, if carried, would have "washed out" the Air Force—annihilated it. On that occasion there voted: "Ayes, 12; Noes, 248." Who were the 248? I have counted them with care and I find that 163 plus two Tellers were members of the Labour party. Two-thirds of those who voted to save the Air Force from extinction were Labour Members. Where were the Conservatives that night? What interest did they take in maintaining the forces in an efficient condition when the Labour Government were in office? They were not here and we presume that, as patriotic and thoughtful men, they left it confidently in the hands of the general body of the loyal supporters of the Labour Government to maintain the forces in an efficient condition and to save them from extinction. Let us hear then a little less of what Oppositions do and a little more of what is done by those who have responsibility in the Government.
  Since 1931 the responsibility for the defence forces has been wholly and unquestionably that of the National Government. They have had full power and full responsibility for five years.

  1711
  What have they done? They have spent a lot of money. The Naval Estimates run to round £60,000,000 a year. What value have we got for it? The Fleet was sent to the Mediterranean last autumn. The Home Secretary, this afternoon, said he was not prepared to see a single British ship sunk in the cause of Abyssinian independence. None the less, you sent your valuable ships with their valuable crews into the danger zone, where you judged there was a danger that they would be sunk. You sent the Fleet, the responsibility for the equipment of which was yours, not ours, into the danger zone. What happened next? The Prime Minister's lips became sealed. In the Hoare-Laval Debate the Prime Minister said that, could he but reveal the truth, not one of us would go into the Lobby against him. He did not reveal the truth that night. I ask him whether the time has not come to reveal it now, in view of all this argument and counter-argument in regard to the naval situation.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in one of the many unanswered passages of his speech last Thursday, asked whether it were true that the Navy, which the Government sent into the Mediterranean last autumn—the Navy for the efficiency of which the Government were responsible—was unprepared, was ill-equipped, was short of ammunition, could not fight a fleet action and could not face Italian aircraft. There have been so many rumours that it is time they were either justified or laid to rest. Is it true that you are now going to make peace with Mussolini and that he is going to be your ally now? Cannot you tell us the truth now? Was that the situation with the Fleet? If that was the situation, the Government in other days would have been hounded from office by an indignant public opinion. The Government have had responsibility for five years. At the end of five years it is said that they are afraid that Italian aircraft might sink a ship or two of ours. Then I ask this—and the Foreign Secretary knows the answer to the question, and he will correct me if I am wrong—who was it in the early days of the Disarmament Conference who first proposed the abolition of bombing aircraft everywhere? By a bitter irony of
  1712
  history it was Signor Mussolini, through the mouthpiece of Signor Grandi, who is now the Italian Ambassador in England, with whom from time to time the right hon. Gentleman meets in order to arrange comfortable accommodation about the future status of the African territories. It was Signor Mussolini who first proposed that all the nations at Geneva should agree to abolish by international agreement all bombing aircraft. [Interruption.] He is going to be your Ally soon, so do not speak evil of him. It was Signor Mussolini who first proposed it, and he had great support among other nations.
  Who opposed the proposal? There is a famous passage that has been recited before:
  "When the Disarmament Conference assembled in 1932 almost its earliest discussions were centred around the possibility of the total abolition of air forces, or at least of the abolition of the artillery of the air, the bombing aeroplane."
  And Lord Londonderry said:
  "I had the utmost difficulty at that time, amid the public outcry, in preserving the use of the bombing aeroplane, even on the frontiers of the Middle East and India."
  It has come nearer home since then. Lord Londonderry had the utmost difficulty in preserving the use of the bombing aeroplane. Even in the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean, even further north in Germany, he had the utmost difficulty, but he succeeded. There was the menace to our Fleet last autumn. This Government, which at that historic occasion at Geneva took the wrong turning, are responsible for the peril, if there were peril, in which our Fleet was then placed.
  We charge the Government with having lowered British prestige abroad lower than it has ever stood in the memory of men now living. Read the foreign Press. Read what is said in the Press of almost every European country and of our Dominions and countries overseas. Our influence to-day at Geneva is less than it has been for many years, and foreigners, according as they have regarded themselves as our friends or as our enemies or envious rivals, are to-day either sorrowful or filled with contempt and delight. This Government is like a bird flapping about with broken wings, afraid that Signor Mussolini will throw a stone at it to drive it away from any piece of

  1713
  land he demands. And Herr Hitler does not take it very seriously. It is six weeks since the Foreign Secretary addressed certain questions to Herr Hitler. He is still waiting for an answer. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessors would not have been kept waiting so long when Great Britain counted for more in the councils of Europe.
  One finds no pleasure—I say this frankly and completely sincerely—in noting that these things are so and wishing that they were otherwise, and that the influence of our country were greater. Reference has been made already to the vast yawning gap between what the Government said at the Election and what they did when they won the Election. Literally millions of British men and women who voted "Yes" to the questions in the Peace Ballot and voted "Yes" to the candidatures of hon. Gentleman opposite, were duped. Out of their own mouths the Government have been condemned more than once. I select for quotation a passage which has been quoted less often than others from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, speaking on 14th October, said:
  "If the League were to abdicate its functions under the Covenant every weak nation would first begin to arm, then to seek alliance with its strongest neighbour, and before long the peace of Europe would be at the mercy of the biggest and strongest Powers of Europe."
  I whole-heartedly agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The League today is abdicating its functions under the Covenant, and abdicating them under the leadership of the Foreign Secretary next week. From these events will unquestionably flow the consequences which the Chancellor forecast in that passage. You will find that before long from the competitive and frantic rearmament of great and small Powers alike there will come a situation in which the peace of Europe will indeed be at the mercy of the biggest and strongest Power.
  The Government started in pursuance—I should say in semi-pursuance—of their undertaking at the election. They deliberately started on this policy, which the Prime Minister told us involved great risk, of applying sanctions, even though in a half-hearted fashion. They went that distance into the risks, and then suddenly they turned tail and came out again. Will the Prime Minister explain to us why they were willing to run all those risks in
  1714
  one month and why in the next month they pulled out and ran away?
  I wish to speak for a moment of the present situation in Abyssinia, and here I wish to be objective and to quote such authority as is available to me. It has been said freely by supporters of the Government that Abyssinian resistance is broken, is at an end. Is it sure that Abyssinian resistance is at an end? How do you know, until after the rains, what resistance remains in Western Abyssinia? During the season of rains neither Italians nor Abyssinians can move, and I am advised that, owing to the low clouds, Italian aircraft cannot fly. Until the season of the rains comes to an end round about October next, it is impossible to say whether or not any resistance remains. It is admitted that less than half of Abyssinia, in terms of area and less than half of Abyssinia in terms of population, has yet been conquered by the Italian armies. It is true, as the Foreign Secretary said, that Addis Ababa and Harar have been taken, but Addis Ababa is a mere collection of mud huts, and Harar is not much more, and the great bulk of the Abyssinian population live in the western part of the country, which is still unsubjugated.
  Lord Lugard has a letter in to-day's "Times," and he is an authority who, I am sure, will be recognised as impartial and possessing considerable knowledge. I will not quote it at length, because time passes on, but it is available for any hon. Member to read in to-day's issue of the "Times." Lord Lugard in that letter quotes a certain Colonel Sandford, whom he certifies to be a man of great knowledge and long experience in the affairs of that part of Africa and who has spent long years there, as declaring that there is still a considerable area of Abyssinia which is outside the control of the Italian forces.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was very anxious to know what our policy is. It has often been stated before, and I am not confident that, after I have restated it now, the Home Secretary will not ask for it again the next time we ask him to tell us what the Government's policy is. So far as sanctions are concerned, we say that there should be no question whatever of lifting the existing sanctions yet until the rainy season is past, until it has been ascertained whether or not the Abyssinian

  1715
  resistance is at an end, and until we have seen what a few more months of economic and financial pressure will effect upon the minds of those responsible for Italian policy. Signor Mussolini is very anxious that sanctions should be lifted—most anxious. The Italian gold reserve is dwindling, and the Italian economic and financial situation is certainly not getting better. I make an under-statement deliberately. Perhaps after three months more or quarantine, Signor Mussolini would be willing to consider something a little short of what he will get now, with the connivance of His Majesty's Government, something a little short of the sheer, total, and unconditional annexation of the whole of Abyssinia and freedom to raise—a most menacing factor in the future—a vast black army of magnificent fighting material, out of men who held out for weeks and months, ill-equipped as they were, against the might of a great Power, with all its aircraft, tanks, and apparatus of modern war, and with mustard gas to help them out when nothing else could. The Home Secretary can take it that my hon. Friends and myself are in favour of the maintenance of sanctions, at least at the existing level, at least until the rainy season is over, and then let us judge whether Abyssinia is a conquered area or not.
  I am endeavouring to give a straightforward and clear answer to questions put to me by the Government spokesman, and I venture to say that if the spokesman of the Government would answer as directly the questions which we have put to them, we should have more light upon the future course of British foreign policy; and that, after all, is the principal topic of Debate to-night. What are the Government going to do next? [An HON. MEMBER "Run away!"] They have run away already, and I want to know what will be the next step after that. Before I pass to that point, however, perhaps the Prime Minister would answer this question, arising out of the letter of Lord Lugard and of the valuable evidence which he gives that Abyssinian resistance is perhaps not at an end: Suppose it turns out to be true that there remain—I do not care whether they are loyal to the Emperor or not; that is a personal matter in which I take rather little interest—that there remain bodies of men bravely resisting the subjugation of their
  1716
  country by the Italian aggressor—whether they owe allegiance to this or that titled person—anxious and desirous of resisting the continued advance of the Italian aggression, are you going to refuse to supply them with arms for their resistance? Are you going to refuse to supply them, even more, with gas masks if they ask for them to enable them to resist the poison gas which, in defiance of treaty obligations, Signor Mussolini has been pouring down upon their country?
  I ask the Prime Minister this question very specifically: Are you going, in the event of a nucleus of resistance still showing itself in Western Abyssinia, to do anything to enable these unfortunate people, in their gallant fight against enormous odds, to get either arms, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, gas masks as an instrument of passive defence? We want an answer to that question. But now I wish to ask a question far more fundamental, far more important on a longer view. What is the Government's policy going to be next? The Foreign Secretary is going to Geneva to lead the rout. What next? So far we have only been told that the Government stand for the raising of sanctions. The raising of sanctions is not a policy; the raising of sanctions is the collapse of a policy.
  What is your policy next? We have had to depend for illumination on this subject so far exclusively upon the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has often been quoted, and I ask the Prime Minister again tonight, as we fruitlessly asked him on Thursday last week, Do the Government or do they not repudiate the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that speech? Of positive proposals that speech had two—I am speaking now of the future of the League and collective security—first of all, the limitation of the functions of the League and, secondly, the localising of danger spots, the localising of war. Does the Government or does it not accept those two formulae of action? Are you in favour of limiting the functions of the League, and if so how? You are using the language of Hitler. Herr Von Ribbentrop does not, it seems, visit this country in vain. It was Lord Londonderry, that famous Air Minister who preserved the use of bombing aeroplanes in the Eastern

  1717
  Mediterranean and elsewhere, who presided over the meeting at which the Chancellor provided these interesting forecasts of Government policy. His language is curiously Hitleresque under a chairman who had been entertaining Hitler's emissary. Are these things all pure coincidence? This terminology is catching. "Localising war," sounds an attractive operation, if you could do it.
  I am not merely putting debating questions, but questions to which the whole country is entitled to clear replies from the Leader of the Government. Do the Government, or do they not, accept this conception, borrowed from Herr Hitler, of localising war instead of preventing war? There is only one way in which you can prevent war. I pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) for his insistence on the economic causes of war and the importance of eradicating them, and I wholly share his view on that, and so do all my hon. Friends. We would all be with him on that point. But I am speaking of a different aspect of things in which, before you can come together in any such conference or consultation, as my right hon. Friend properly demands, you have to deal with a Germany which is arming, arming, arming day by day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Can we help that?"] Yes, you encouraged it and you have assisted it. Go back to those tragic years, four years ago, to the early months of 1932, 12 months before Hitler appeared as the ruler of Germany, when you failed to come to terms with a Germany still democratic, with a Germany still free, with, most important of all, a Germany still lightly armed, with a Germany whose representatives supported Signor Mussolini against Lord Londonderry at the Disarmament Conference in proposing the abolition of all bombing aircraft everywhere. You, by your ineptitude, have helped to build up the Hitler menace.
  Under the shadow of this menace, which lengthens and darkens over Europe day by day, what are you going to do? You are going to say, "We believe in localising the danger spots." Hitler taught you that phrase—localising war. In other words, you are going to say, "Do what you like in certain regions, go South, go East, go South-East and God be with you, and we will sell you oil." Is that
  1718
  what you are going to say You sold oil to Mussolini in Abyssinia. You said it was quite consistent with your membership of the League of Nations. The Americans, you said, would not play. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) said you were frightened of Signor Mussolini. You will be more frightened of Herr Hitler. You will find just the same excuse for selling oil to Hitler when he has localised war in East Europe as you found for selling oil to Mussolini when he localised war in Abyssinia. Is that where the Chancellor is leading us? I have made my undertaking with the Prime Minister and I will sit down within one minute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—unless I am interrupted. If I am interrupted and prevented from finishing in my own way the Prime Minister must blame his followers and not me.
  There is a common belief, running wildly and dangerously in this country, that the Government are so frightened of Herr Hitler that they are prepared to give him a free hand in the East and in the South-East and in the South of Europe. Is that true or not? Let the Prime Minister say. It is a far larger question than any relating to Abyssinia. It concerns the whole future of Europe, and of this country and of the world. It is the belief of my hon. Friends and myself that you cannot effectively localise any war that breaks out in Europe. It will engulf us all and set all Europe in a blaze, and the only way in which to prevent it is by making collective security a reality, and by uniting, at least within the bounds of Europe—that is the practical proposition—with all those nations who prefer peace to war, and they are many, in a united front against any potential aggressor, whoever he may be. I ask the Prime Minister, Is that or is that not the Government's policy? We are entitled to know.
  10.20 p.m.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I will do my best to answer all the questions that have been put to me. Most of them are questions which ought to be answered in this House, and deserve the most serious consideration. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken considers that the latter part of his speech will make our task any easier with Herr Hitler. [Interruption.] I do not think I am a bad political

  1719
  prophet, because in the course of last year I said to one of my colleagues who is sitting beside me that I was quite sure that one of the greatest difficulties I should have before the year was out was to keep myself from being thrust into war by the Opposition.
  Now I must say a few words about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. When I appointed him to that great office, just before Christmas, I warned him. I said: "You are very young. You have the most responsible post in Europe. So far, you have had nothing but roses, roses all the way, but before long you will get brick-bats. You will find them different, but if you are like me you will think as much of one as of the other. You will find them unpleasant." He is getting them now. He has my sympathy, because he has been heart and soul in this struggle to maintain the League during these difficult months. The disappointment to him personally is very great, as I know who see most of him. I am a much older man, and less sanguine of what can be accomplished by men of different countries acting together in difficult work for the first time. I know that his disappointment has been keen. He started with higher hopes of what was possible than I did, although I threw myself into the work to the best of my ability. I wish to pay that tribute to him before I proceed any further.
  A point was raised to which I should like to answer at once, because it is one in which I think the House will be interested. I have been at pains to get a careful statement of the facts in regard to any sporadic fighting there may be in Abyssinia. The situation in the West and South-West of Abyssinia is extremely confused. In the greater part of that area, the population consists of non-Amharic tribes who have become hostile to Abyssinian rule. This state of affairs has been intensified by the fact that there is no central Abyssinian Government in the country. There may be, here and there, a local governor, with a number of troops. Since the Debate last week the existence of one such has come to my right hon. Friend's notice, although I am told that his authority is extremely limited, and there may be others in a similar position. None of them, so far as we are aware, are in touch with any authority within
  1720
  Abyssinia, representing the central Government.
  We do not want to stand in the way of arms reaching any constituted authority, but the House will appreciate that the difficulties of communication are immense. For instance, though arms could be sent to Gore, it seems clear from the condition of the country that they could not be conveyed from there to any other locality in west or south-west Abyssinia with any certainty of their reaching their destination. I must warn the House that though we will give all information at our command, it is inevitable that, in present conditions, it cannot be complete or anything like it. There are, inevitably, considerable tracks of the country as to which we have no information. There is no intention of imposing an embargo on the shipment of arms from this country to Abyssinia, but arms can only be passed across the frontier from the Sudan, or wherever it may be, if they are consigned to a properly constituted authority and if that authority is in a position to take delivery.
  I must now dispose of the first question that was raised by the hon. Member. I was interested in the defence that he put up about the token Vote, because I think it shows, and I hope it shows, that hon. Members opposite are beginning to take this most grave question of armaments with more seriousness. Last summer the whole of the party opposite—of course the much smaller party which was then in the House—voted against all the Service Estimates as a whole in the Committee stage and under the Guillotine. I shall watch with great interest and some hope to see whether that is repeated or is not repeated this year. It must be remembered that, when a reduction is put down of only £100, it is to that extent a censure, because you can raise any subject without putting it down, and, if a Government were defeated in Committee of Supply on a Vote of that kind, they would have no alternative but to resign. With regard to the Debate which has taken place to-day on the action of the Government, I shall be as brief as I can in summarising one or two points, and I hope I shall have plenty of time to deal with the League of Nations, which I am very anxious to do in order to dispel a real misconception. An attempt has been made to show that the view taken by the Government—
  Mr. DALTON: Does the Prime Minister, having failed to prove it, now withdraw the statement he made at Wishaw that my hon. Friends voted against every ship, every gun and every shell?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see any reason why I should withdraw it. An attempt has been made to show that the action of the Government of this country, in stating that, so far as they are concerned, they desire to see sanctions raised at the forthcoming meeting at Geneva, has in some way prejudiced the action of other countries, and is not an action that meets with approval among other members of the League. Questions were asked a day or two ago about the attitude of the Dominions. I then said that it was quite impossible for me to say in this House what the attitude of the Dominions would be, because it was for them to declare that attitude, either in their own Parliaments or at Geneva. Some of those attitudes have now been declared. The Prime Minister of Canada used these words, speaking on Thursday, the same day on which we had our Debate:
  "The Canadian Government believes that there is no practicable alternative for Canada at the Assembly but to support the raising of sanctions, and Canadian delegates have been instructed accordingly."
  Mr. Mackenzie King added:
  "The Canadian Government's decision was reached before any information was available as to what the British attitude would be."
  Last Thursday at Canberra a statement was issued for publication which included this sentence:
  "The sanctions in force having failed to prevent an Italian victory, it is clear that their continuation cannot restore the military situation or place Abyssinia in her original position. Not only that, but the international situation is such that every effort must be made to secure a general all-round settlement in the interests of peace, for which the co-operation of every nation is essential..… In the circumstances the Commonwealth Government has instructed its representative to the League of Nations, Mr. Bruce, to declare at the appropriate time that the Commonwealth Government favour the raising of sanctions."
  I shall say nothing about the Irish Free State, because that was alluded to earlier in the Debate. I would say to the hon. Gentleman who seemed to think it rather curious that that quotation should be made at all, that one is always pleased
  1722
  to make a quotation when it comes from a source where one never looks for it. That is why I was so pleased to hear the extract from the special correspondent of the "News Chronicle" by my hon. Friend who made such an admirable speech an hour or two ago.
  Then there is the question of France. It has always been assumed by hon. Members opposite, I gather, that a French Government of the present complexion would, perhaps, take the same view that their party takes in this country. The French Government, as the House knows now, is taking the same view that we are, and the hon. Gentleman to whom I have just alluded made a quotation from a speech delivered to-day by the French Foreign Secretary. The French and ourselves, I hope, may be able to work most closely together at Geneva. It is their desire and it is ours, but I would ask the House to remember this: It is a very easy thing to try to justify yourself by laying the blame on another party. Because I mentioned as a fact the question of oil coming from America, I was accused by two speakers of putting the blame on America. I put no blame on America at all. She is not a member of the League of Nations and she has a perfect right to act exactly as she likes. In the same way there has been a tendency during the Winter among what I may call the Left Wing critics of this House to lay a great deal of blame on France for the attitude that she has taken up. The French, whether they are Socialists or the Right, or whatever they are, are realists, and they are great lovers of their country, and we must never forget the difference between their position and ours if there should be war with Italy,—I say nothing about Germany for the moment, I say with Italy.
  I have always had great sympathy with the French and I think I have always understood their point of view and their reasons for it, even when at times we should have been glad of greater and more rapid and more close co-operation in some of the difficult times through which we passed in the Autumn. But to all of us who have followed the events of recent weeks and months the French decision to raise sanctions cannot come as any surprise. A quotation was made once in this House, I think from the correspondent of the "Daily Herald," or it may have been an article in that

  1723
  paper. I quote that paper for the same reason that the "News Chronicle" was quoted. They have very good articles from the Continent and within the last two or two-and-a-half months their special correspondent reported from Geneva that, the Foreign Secretary having declared that the British Government were not only determined to maintain existing sanctions, but were ready to impose new ones if the other Members of the League would agree, that correspondent wrote, "but he got hardly any response, and having complained of the attitude of the French correspondent he concluded:
  "The attitude of the French and other delegates to-day makes it clear that there is a danger that at any moment the sanctions rot may begin."
  That is exactly what we have been afraid of all the time. The matter has been considered for some time. It is obvious that sanctions could not go on for ever. They had to come off at some time. Had they better come off at a definite time when, in our view and in the view of the President of the United States of America, the war is over, or should they be left on, with the practical certainty that they would peter out and the whole situation might end in confusion and in disaster? We have rejected the idea of keeping them on and intensifying them because, as has been repeatedly stated in the House, nothing but military action could now make any difference in the status of Italy and Abyssinia.
  There is only one man living, and I regret to see that he is not in the House at this moment, who could have devised a formula which would have satisfied the Italians that sanctions were to be raised and the League of Nations that they would be intensified. I would be the last to claim for myself the skilful handling of the situation in that way. I come to some definite questions asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition. He said, do we intend to condone Italy's action? The answer to that is "No," and, in so far as it concerns recognition, I would emphasise that His Majesty's Government have no intention at the forthcoming meeting of the League to propose, or assent to, the recognition of Italy's annexation of Abyssinia.
  There was another question, an important one to which a short answer was
  1724
  given in the House, but here again I have prepared a reasoned reply, as I think that it is important that the House should know exactly what the situation is, and that is on the question of making loans to Italy. Do we propose to make loans to Italy? The Government have no power to lend money to Italy, and they have no intention of seeking such power. Moreover, any proposals which involved the issue of securities in this country on, behalf of Italy would, in the first instance, be considered by the Foreign Transactions Advisory Committee, whose recommendations are reviewed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend would not be disposed to consent to any relaxation of the restrictions on the issue of foreign loans in the case of Italy in the present circumstances. Applicants for export credits for Italy at for any other country will be dealt with by the Export Credits Advisory Committee solely on commercial grounds, with a view to supporting United Kingdom exporters, but not applications which relate to munitions.
  As regards private credits to Italy, the Government are anxious that these should not be afforded except to the limited extent they may be required for purely commercial purposes. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether, if we persist in the maintenance of existing sanctions, there is a danger of attack by Italy? That is what I understood him to say. I took the question in that form. I am not sure whether in that form it really does not miss the point. The point is that, owing to military events in Abyssinia itself the objective for which sanctions were originally put on can now only be realised—and this is what I said two minutes ago—by military action on the part of the League. Such military action would clearly be resisted by force, and with such military action I would not be prepared to associate this country.
  Was any attempt made to ask the United States of America to co-operate in refusing oil to Italy? That, I understand, was dealt with to a certain extent by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I have one or two points to add. No such direct approach was made by the League nor by any individual Government, and for this very good reason: The United States had taken certain individual action in respect of this dispute—

  1725
  action which ran parallel in certain respects with the action of the League, but the League were perfectly well aware, as any hon. Member of the House must be aware who has any knowledge of public opinion in the United States, that the worst possible means of securing co-operation from the United States in a matter which required legislation by Congress would have been to have asked for such co-operation. His Majesty's Government did, however, keep the United States closely informed of all the developments.
  I was asked what are our armaments for? I think I made clear at the Election what they were for. I said that we could not fulfil our part under collective security, nor did I consider our position secure in the present state of Europe, without making such provisions as I described with regard to armaments. I was asked one or two questions, I think by the Leader of the Liberal party also, with regard to the action we took in going in for sanctions and embarking on collective security, and whether we thought there were serious risks attached to it. The hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) reminded me of a, statement that I made two or three years ago in which I expressed doubts as to the possibility of collective security, with so many large nations standing outside the League. Collective security had never been tried out by the League of Nations, but after consideration and discussion we decided we would try it out, with all the risks it might involve. It was the first opportunity that had arisen in Europe, if I remember rightly, where it could be tried out, and tried out, as many supporters of the League have said, under comparatively favourable conditions. We did try it out earnestly, sincerely and zealously and with every desire that it might succeed. Why it failed ultimately was because of the reluctance of nearly all the nations in Europe to proceed to what I might call military sanctions. That is a point to which I shall refer when I come to the future work of the League.
  It would have been perfectly impossible to have brought Europe last year at any time to military sanctions, and I think the real reason, or the main reason, was
  1726
  that we discovered in the process of weeks that there was no country except the aggressor country which was ready for war. I said once or twice in the course of last autumn that I had learned a great deal by the experience that we had had, and we could not have learned it without experience. I beg those who talk lightly of applying sanctions to bear this in mind, that the two things I learned were these, first—I have said it before but it is so important that I want to repeat it—you cannot tell when you begin at what point the aggressor will regard the sanction as a military sanction. It depends entirely on his strength. I can conceive instances when the first sanction might be the sign for war breaking out. I can conceive instances when sanctions might proceed as far as we proceeded last autumn before war broke out. But the ultimate sanction is always war, and unless the sanction you apply is such as to bring the aggressor to his knees, war is inevitable, and probably not a localised war, but a war throughout the whole of Europe. That is a terrible fact.
  The second fact that emerged—I have twice stressed this point—that where there is an aggressor it would be quite impossible for the nations that wished to exercise the power of military sanctions against the aggressor or a group of aggressors to do it unless they are in a position to do it at once and together. I have already pointed out that if collective action is to be a reality and not merely a thing to be talked about, it means not only that every country is to be ready for war, but must be ready to go to war at once. That is a terrible thing, but it is an essential part of collective security. But let us look ahead, because it is far more important than looking back. Anyone is welcome to look back and find a stick with which to beat us.
  The question is, what is our policy? The League has received a setback, and a bad setback. But I have never taken the view in any speech I have made during the last two years that failure in the first attempt to apply sanctions and collective security would be the death of the League. Not at all. The duty of the League is to see what they can do in the light of the experience they have had, in the light of the present state of Europe, and to see how far they can make collective security a reality.

  1727
  Our policy is still based, as is the policy of many of the countries of Europe, on the League of Nations. The countries of Europe are the League of Nations, and they have the responsibility of deciding what should be done and the responsibility of taking action. That obligation of the League and the lessons to be learnt from our recent experience must be taken up for the first time at the September meeting of the League, and by that time I hope that many countries will have devoted great consideration to these matters. We are considering it ourselves. It is a most difficult question, but it is the duty of members of the League to reflect on these most important issues.
  We are now engaged not only in forming our own conclusions, but are having informal exchanges of views with the Dominion Governments and with the governments of other members of the League. In particular we are in touch with the French Government, with whom we share the wish to work in the closest collaboration. There cannot be any quack remedy for a situation like this. No catch phrases and no incantations are of the slightest use. We cannot be expected to state here and now in detail what changes, if any, we would wish to see made in the practice of the League, but the House may take it from me that our view is to work on the lines I have indicated.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would wish me to tell the House that the observations he made at a recent dinner were made entirely on his own responsibility and not on behalf of the Government. If my right hon. Friend has been guilty of any indiscretions, it is a very rare thing with him. I have been guilty of a good many, and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has reminded me of one or two, and I acknowledge them. I have gone into them, and I hope I shall do better. The difficulties of the League being non-universal are very great, and in the political conditions in which it has to operate we want to make it a more practical instrument for the purpose for which it was created. I hope with all my heart that that may be practicable, and that it may be done, but it is going to be no easy task.
  1728
  The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate was struck by the fact that last Thursday was the anniversay of the Battle of Waterloo. He drew a very odd conclusion from it. Waterloo was a battle which brought to a close a very long period of fighting and gave Europe peace for a generation. I rather gathered that he wanted to see the anniversary of Waterloo celebrated by starting a fresh war in Europe. I thought last Thursday of this. At Waterloo just about the time I was speaking the Duke of Wellington was looking anxiously for the arrival of the Prussians to help him defeat our hereditary enemy the French. One hundred years later our hereditary enemy the French were fighting shoulder to shoulder with us against those who had been our allies at Waterloo. I felt this: Has not the time come when it is possible for these three great countries to get together?
  So the second object of our policy is the appeasement of the situation in Europe. We are most anxious to get on to those negotiations. There is no foundation for a single word of what the hon. Member said about our plans for leaving the whole of Europe to look after itself, provided we could safeguard ourselves in the West. The safeguarding of ourselves in the West is of vital importance. It may come to that if the League of Nations breaks down ultimately, but we are not there yet. I have every hope, but negotiations may be futile if, when negotiations come between our three countries, we cannot make provision for the same security in the countries to the centre and the East of Europe as we hope to make for ourselves. That is a policy on which we shall be directly occupied for weeks to come. No doubt there will be a Debate before the end of July, and I hope that when September comes my right hon. Friend and whatever colleagues go with him may begin to lay the foundations of the superstructure which we hope to rear. But let the House be under no misapprehension about the difficulties of the task. It may involve great commitments for this and any country to carry out the letter and the spirit.
  We are now going to divide on this Vote of Censure, and I understand that hon. Members opposite are going to launch a great campaign against this Government on what we have done in

  1729
  regard to the League of Nations. All I want to say to them is that, as Prime Minister and with the fullest sense of responsibility, I welcome that campaign most heartily. I welcome it for this reason, that you cannot conduct a campaign of that nature without people learning a great deal about which they have been ignorant with regard to what sanctions mean, with regard to the risks and with regard to the necessity for armaments. I am perfectly certain that the result of that campaign will be that there will be throughout the country in another month or two's time a greater determination than exists to-day to see that in every respect we shall be equipped in a manner that will enable us to undertake all the responsibilities that may be thrown upon us. The country will be educated. That is wholly to the good.
  But I warn hon. Members that they will have to choose definitely before they have finished their meetings on which side of the fence they are coming. The hon. Member for Kingswinford, I thought, made a very honest speech. He said he was prepared for the risks and he knew the risks, and I hope he will tell his people honestly and fairly what those
  risks are, because it is not our soldiers, sailors and airmen now whose lives we have to consider. The Government of the country—and indeed the Opposition, which may be the Government one day—have to remember that it may well be that the greater slaughter in a fresh war may be among the non-combatants, the women and the children. That is an awful thing to say in this year of grace, but it may be the truth, and it is no good concealing these things from the people. If we in our wisdom think it right to expose our people to these things, then we must equally feel it right to take every human precaution for their defence and safety, and do everything that can be done as well for the equipment and the strength of our people in the future. May God avert that tragedy from our country, and let us remember our responsibility to our people.
  Question put,
  "That His Majesty's Government, by their lack of a resolute and straightforward foreign policy, have lowered the prestige of this country, weakened the League of Nations, imperilled peace, and thereby forfeited the confidence of this House."
  The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 384.

  Division No. 247.

  AYES.

  [10.57 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

  Dobble, W.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  John, W.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Ede, J. C.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)

  Adamson, W. M.

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)

  Foot. D. M.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Frankel, D.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Gallacher, W.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

  Barnes, A. J.

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

  Lathan, G.

  Barr, J.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Batey, J.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Leach, W.

  Bellenger, F.

  Gibbins, J.

  Lee, F.

  Benson, G.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Leonard, W.

  Bevan, A.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Broad, F. A.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Logan, D. G.

  Bromfield, W.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Lunn, W.

  Brooke, W.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Buchanan, G.

  Groves, T. E.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  McGovern, J.

  Cape, T.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  MacLaren, A.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hardie, G. D.

  Maclean, N.

  Chator, D.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hayday, A.

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  MacNeill, Weir, L.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Compton, J.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hicks, E. G.

  Marklew, E.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Marshall, F.

  Daggar, G.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Mathers, G.

  Dalton, H.

  Holland, A.

  Maxton, J.

  Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

  Hollins, A.

  Messer, F.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Hopkin, D.

  Milner, Major J.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jagger, J.

  Montague, F.

  Day, H.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Muff, G.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Walker, J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Short, A.

  Watson, W. McL.

  Owen, Major G.

  Silkin, L.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Parker, J.

  Silverman, S. S.

  Westwood, J.

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Simpson, F. B.

  White, H. Graham

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

  Whiteley, W.

  Potts, J.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Pritt, D. N.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Rlley, B.

  Stephen, C.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Ritson, J.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Thorne, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-

  Rowson, G.

  Thurtle, E.

  Sir Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Tinker, J. J.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)

  Elliston, G. S.

  Albery, I. J.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

  Emery, J. F.

  Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.

  Channon, H.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Entwistle, C. F.

  Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)

  Chorlton, A. E. L.

  Errington, E.

  Apsley, Lord

  Christie, J. A.

  Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

  Assheton, R.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Everard, W. L.

  Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

  Clarke, F. E.

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.

  Fromantle, Sir F. E.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Furness, S. N.

  Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

  Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.

  Ganzonl, Sir J.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

  Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)

  Gibson, C. G.

  Balnell, Lord

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Gledhill, G.

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Barrie. Sir C. C.

  Cooper, Rt.Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.)

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Craddock, Sir R. H.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Granville, E. L.

  Belt, Sir A. L.

  Critchley, A.

  Grattan-Doyte, Sir N.

  Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Bernays, R. H.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Cross, R. H.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Guest,Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll,N.W.)

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

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

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Hamilton, Sir G. C.

  Bracken, B.

  Dawson, Sir P.

  Hanbury, Sir C.

  Braithwalte, Major A. N.

  De Chair, S. S.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Brass, Sir W.

  De la Bère, R.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Harbord, A.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Denville, Alfred

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

  Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Dodd, J. S.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F, A.

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Bull, B. B.

  Drewe, C.

  Hepburn, p. G. T. Buchan-

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Burghley, Lord

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)

  Burton, Col. H. W.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)

  Butler, R. A.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Calne, G. R. Hall-

  Dunglass, Lord

  Holmes, J S.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Dunne, P. R. R.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Eales, J. F.

  Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.

  Cary, R. A.

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Catlereagh, Viscount

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)

  Edge, Sir W.

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

  Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  Cazalet, Theima (Islington, E.)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Hulbert, N. J.

  1732

  1733

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Morgan, R. H.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Hunter, T.

  Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

  Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

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

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Jackson, Sir H.

  Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  James, Wing-Commander A. W.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Munro, P.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Somerset, T.

  Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Keeling, E. H.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Kerr, H. w. (Oldham)

  Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. W. G.

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.

  Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Spens, W. P.

  Kimball, L.

  Patrick, C. M.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Kirkpatrick, W. M.

  Peake, O.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Peat, C. U.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Penny, Sir G.

  Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

  Latham, Sir P.

  Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

  Storey, S.

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

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

  Petherick, M.

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

  Leckie, J. A.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Pilkington, R.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Plugge, L. F.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)

  Leigh, Sir J.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Power, Sir J. C.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Lewis, O.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Purbrick, R.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Radford, E. A.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (Padd., S.)

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Touche, G. C.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Rankin, R.

  Train, Sir J.

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Turton, R. H.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Reid, Captain A. Cunningham

  Wakefield, W. W.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Wallace, Captain Euan

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Remer, J. R.

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

  MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)

  Warrender, Sir V.

  McKie, J. H.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

  Wells, S. R.

  Magnay, T.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Maitland, A.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Salt, E. W.

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Markham, S. F.

  Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Macon, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.

  Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  Maxwell, S. A.

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

  Sandys, E. D.

  Wise, A. R.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. sir P.

  Withers, Sir J. J.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Savery, Servington

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Scott, Lord William

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Selley, H. R.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Wragg, H.

  Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Moreing, A. C.

  Simmonds, O. E.

  Captain Margesson and Sir James

  Blindell.

  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  FOREIGN POLICY.

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

  FOREIGN-BUILT SHIPS (BRITISH REGISTRATION).
  FOREIGN-BUILT SHIPS (BRITISH REGISTRATION).
  BUTTER (COLD STORAGE).
  BUTTER (COLD STORAGE).
  POLITICAL PROPAGANDA (BROADCASTS).
  POLITICAL PROPAGANDA (BROADCASTS).
  ALDERSHOT TATTOO.
  ALDERSHOT TATTOO.
  INDIA (COURT-MARTIAL, LIEUT- COLONEL SANDFORD).
  INDIA (COURT-MARTIAL, LIEUT- COLONEL SANDFORD).
  AFRICAN RESEARCH SURVEY.
  AFRICAN RESEARCH SURVEY.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Ampthill—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Wakehurst—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

GRIMSBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER (LEEDS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARYPORT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (COWES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KEYHAVEN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (PAIGNTON) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (WHITLEY BAY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
FOUNDLING HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CORNWALL ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORA- TION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.

MEASUREMENT OF GAS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of four Members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of Wednesday last, and that they have made the following Orders:—That leave be given to the Committee to hear parties interested by themselves, their Counsel or agents so far as the Committee think fit; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; that two be the quorum.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PUBLIC HEALTH (DRAINAGE OF TRADE PREMISES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Notice of discharge of trade effluents into local authorities' sewers.
2.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, it shall not be lawful to discharge from any trade premises into a sewer of a local authority trade effluent of any particular nature or composition, or to discharge as aforesaid, on any one day, any particular quantity of trade effluent, or to discharge as aforesaid trade effluent at any particular rate—
(b) (Except with the consent of the local authority) until the end of the period of six consecutive months beginning on the day on which the said notice was served on the local authority or, if in relation to the notice, an application for an order under the next following section has been duly made to the Minister and is pending at the end of that period, until the determination or withdrawal of the application;
and if this subsection is contravened in the case of any premises, the occupier of the premises shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that, as respects any trade premises from which trade effluent of any particular nature or composition was discharged into a sewer of the local authority
126
at any time during the period of twelve months immediately before the commencement of this Act, this subsection shall not restrict the discharge as aforesaid of trade effluent of that nature or composition from those premises, if and so long as the quantity of the trade effluent discharged as aforesaid from the premises on any one day does not exceed the maximum quantity thereof so discharged on any one day during the said period, and the rate at which the trade effluent is so discharged is not higher than the highest rate at which it was so discharged during the said period; and any question as to the nature or composition of the trade effluent discharged from any trade premises into a sewer of a local authority at any time during the said period or as to the maximum quantity so discharged on any one day during the said period or as to the highest rate at which it was so discharged during the said period shall unless agreed between the local authority and the occupier of the trade premises be determined by the Minister.
(2) A local authority, on receiving a trade effluent notice served on them by the owner or occupier of any trade premises, shall forthwith send a copy of the notice to any joint sewerage board of which the local authority are a constituent authority, and to every other local authority being an authority into whose sewers or sewage disposal works the first-mentioned local authority are for the time being entitled to discharge sewage from their sewers.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in paragraph (b) in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "until the end of the" and insert "appropriate time." The noble Lord said: The Amendments appearing on the first page of Amendments in my name deal with matters agreed with the Ministry of Health and the Federation of British Industries. They are really inserted to meet the point raised by traders that their trade effluent may vary from time to time with regard to nature or composition, quantity or rate. Without troubling your Lordships in detail with these Amendments I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of line 35 and insert ("appropriate time").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD: I beg to move the next three Amendments on the Order Paper.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 39, after ("that") insert ("(i)")
Page 3, line 11, after ("and") insert ("(ii)")
Page 3, line 12, after ("question") insert ("as to the sufficiency of a trade effluent notice, or").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, after "Minister" at the end of subsection (1), to insert "on the application of either party." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, after ("Minister") insert ("on the application of either party").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to delay the proceedings, and I am sure the Amendments are of a drafting nature, but we are coming to some rather more substantial ones. If we could have a general statement that the Government offer no objection to them, it would ease the consciences of some of us.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, that these Amendments had been agreed with the Ministry of Health on behalf of the Government and I did not think it necessary to confirm that.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged. I understood the noble Lord to say that they were agreed with the Federation of British Industries.
LORD GAINFORD: And also the Ministry of Health.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not catch those words. I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the second "local" and insert "sewerage." The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that although this is a drafting Amendment it is important from the London County Council's point of view. The London County Council want to have notice of alterations, and if the word "local" were left in it would prevent notices being sent to that county council and the London municipal councils. The Amendment is really drafting, but I thought I would give that explanation.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("local") and insert ("sewerage").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD JESSEL: I remember that on the last occasion the noble Lord stated that
128
no agreement had been come to with the London County Council and the Metropolitan Borough Councils. I believe I am correct in stating that now an agreement has been arrived at. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us.
LORD GAINFORD: An agreement has been arrived at with the London County Council and with the Metropolitan Boroughs in London. They are excluded from the scope of the Bill, but it must be patent that possibly there are effluents running into sewers outside the area which may affect the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs, and in that case these authorities desire to have notices sent to them so that proper action may be taken with the Ministry of Health in connection therewith. All these Amendments are agreed with all the authorities.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) In this section the expression ' the appropriate time ' means, in relation to any trade effluent notice, the end of the period of six consecutive months beginning on the day on which the notice was served on the local authority or if, in relation to that notice, an application for a determination of a question as to the sufficiency of the notice or for an order under the next following section has been duly made to the Minister and is pending at the end of that period, the time of the determination or withdrawal of the application."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Orders of Minister with respect, to discharge of trade effluents into local authorities' sewers.
3.—(1) If, within two months after the date on which a trade effluent notice in respect of any trade premises is served by the owner or occupier thereof on a local authority, an application in that behalf is made to the Minister by that local authority or any body to which a copy of the notice is required by the last preceding section to be sent, the Minister may make in relation to those premises either or both of the orders authorised by the following provisions, that is to say:—
(a) An order directing—
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1), after "local authority," where that, expression first occurs, to insert "or, if within the said two months an application has been made to the Minister for his determination of a question as to the sufficiency of the notice, within two months after the date on which the Minister's determination is made." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, after ("authority") insert the said words.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1), after "(a)) An order directing," to insert "(i) that no trade effluent shall be discharged from the premises into any sewer of the local authority." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is required by the Association of Municipal Corporations to meet cases where an effluent would really be prejudicial in their opinion, and in that case no trade effluent would be discharged. There might be exceptional cases where the expenditure would be so heavy that the resources of the local authority would be unduly taxed. The Amendment is to meet that case.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 41, leave out ("local") and insert ("sewerage").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to,
Clause 5:
By-laws of local authorities.
5.—(1) A local authority may make by-laws with respect to the discharge of any trade effluent, or trade effluent of any particular nature or composition, from trade premises into a sewer of the local authority, and such by-laws may provide for all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—
(h) For the provision and maintenance on the premises of such meters as may be required to measure the volume of trade effluent being discharged from the premises into the sewer:
(5) Any by-law made by a local authority under this section shall cease to have effect
130
on the expiration of ten years from the date on which it is made. Provided that the Minister may by order extend the period during which any by-law made under this section is to remain in force.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1), after "A local authority may," to insert "and, if required by the Minister, shall." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved at the suggestion of the Ministry of Health itself, but it does deal with the position taken up by the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association. They think that if there is any injury caused to their docks they could apply to the Ministry and require the local authority to make by-laws with respect to the discharge of a trade effluent of that character. The Amendment is really a safeguard to the dock and harbour authorities against injury to harbours, docks, and tidal waters.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, after ("may") insert ("and, if required by the Minister, shall").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (h) "and for the testing of such meters." The noble Viscount said: Under paragraph (h) a local authority has power to make by-laws for certain things, and I think it should also have power to make a by-law for testing meters. I understand that my noble friend is going to accept this Amendment, and I think that if your Lordships take his advice and accept it, on Report it will be as well to have an Amendment to Clause 9, on page 10, at the end of line 32, to insert "and for the purpose of testing the accuracy of such meter." I propose, however, to leave that Amendment over till Report. I have spoken to my noble friend about it and I think he agrees with me.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, at end insert ("and for the testing of such meters").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD GAINFORD: I have no objection to this Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Government have also agreed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEmoved, in subsection (5), after the second "by-law," to insert "or relaxation or dispensation thereof made under the preceding subsection." The noble Viscount said: Under this subsection the local authority at the end of ten years may extend the order, and I think it is just as well that they should also have power to extend any relaxation or dispensation which they have been able to give during the ten years before.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 35, after ("by-law") insert ("or relaxation or dispensation thereof made under the preceding subsection").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD GAINFORD: I gather that the Ministry of Health do not think that these words are necessary. I am informed that they are really redundant. If the period is extended ipso facto the powers in the earlier period would also be extended and therefore the words are not necessary.
VISCOUNT GAGE: That does in fact state the position of the Ministry.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I never like to make myself troublesome. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
Power of Minister to make by-laws in case of default and to revoke unreasonable bylaws.
".—(1) If a local authority, when required by the Minister to make by-laws under the last preceding section in relation to any of the matters with respect to which they are empowered to make such by-laws, do not within three months after such requisition make, in relation to that matter, by-laws satisfactory to him, the Minister may himself make by-laws in relation thereto.
(2) If the Minister is satisfied that the establishment or carrying on of any trade or industry at any premises within the district of a local authority is, or is likely to be, unreasonably impeded in consequence of any by-laws made under the last preceding section by that local authority, he may for the purpose of removing the impediment require the local authority to revoke those by-laws and to make such new by-laws as he considers necessary, and if the local authority do not within three months after such requisition comply therewith, the Minister may himself for that purpose revoke the by-laws and make such new by-laws as he considers necessary.
(3) Any by-laws made by the Minister under this section shall have effect as if they had been duly made by the local authority and confirmed by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: The Federation of British Industries are anxious to secure this power, which is similar to that given to the local authority. The local authorities can approach the Ministry and get orders relaxed, and the Federation of British Industries wish to secure to traders a similar power.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Government accept this clause. It follows, with necessary adaptations, Clause 68 of the Public Health Bill and will assimilate the procedure under this. Bill with the general procedure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Agreements between local authorities and traders or other local authorities.
(3) A copy of every agreement entered into by a local authority in pursuance of this section, certified by the clerk to the local authority, shall be kept by the local authority at their offices so as to be available at all reasonable times for inspection by any person, upon payment of a fee of sixpence for each inspection.
(5) Where necessary for the purposes of this Act, any agreement made under Section twenty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1975 (which authorises agreements for the drainage of the sewers of one local authority into the sewers of another) may be cancelled or altered subject to such conditions and in such manner as may be agreed upon between the parties or, in default of agreement, determined by the Minister upon application made by either or any of the parties after notice to the other party or parties.
LORD GAINFORD: The first two Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 11, leave out ("local") and insert ("sewerage")
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("local") and insert ("sewerage").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3) after the first "inspection," to insert "and copying." The noble Viscount said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment, and I understand my noble friend is prepared to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 29, after ("inspection") insert ("and copying").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD GAINFORD: I have no objection to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert:
"(5) If, on the application of any local authority being a party to an agreement which, whether before or after the passing of this Act, has been entered into in pursuance of Section twenty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1875 (which authorises agreements for the drainage of the sewers of one local authority into the sewers of another) the Minister is satisfied that, owing to circumstances arising or likely to arise by reason of the operation of this Act, the agreement ought to be cancelled or varied, he may by order direct that, subject to such conditions (if any) as he may in default of agreement between the parties determine, the agreement shall cease to have effect, or that the agreement shall be varied in such manner as may be specified in the order.
(6) This section shall have effect as from the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is required in order to meet the Minister's view and to give power to vary agreements where two or more authorities drain into each other's sewerage system.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Government agree to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Production of plans, and furnishing of information to local authorities.
"(3) Every person who fails to comply with this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall, for each such offence, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds and to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for every day on which the offence continues after conviction therefor."
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "liable," to insert "on summary conviction." The noble Viscount said: I think that in most Bills when a person is liable to a fine it is on summary conviction, and for that reason I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 9, after ("liable") insert ("on summary conviction").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD GAINFORD: This Amendment is really not required. By Clause 15 the Bill is to be construed as one of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1936, which deal with the whole subject, and therefore this Amendment will not be necessary.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I plead guilty to negligence, and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Entry and inspection of trade premises.
(2) An officer of a local authority who takes a sample of any trade effluent with the intention of submitting it to analysis shall forthwith notify to the occupier of the trade premises or his agent his intention to have it analysed and shall there and then divide the sample into three parts, each part to be marked and sealed up in a suitable container, and shall—

(a) if required so to do, deliver one part to the occupier of the trade premises or his agent;

(b) retain one part for future comparison;

(c) if he thinks fit to have an analysis made, submit one part to the analyst.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), to leave out "the" and insert "a public" [analyst]. The noble Viscount said: I do not quite know what "the" analyst is. I should have thought it ought to be a public analyst. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("the") and insert ("a public").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD GAINFORD: The reason why this Amendment cannot be accepted is that a public analyst is appointed under the Food and Drugs Act, and the public analyst has often not got the necessary experience in connection with the kind of bacteriological and analytical work which will be required under the provisions of this Bill. The Ministry think it is very desirable that there should be absolute elasticity in regard to the analyst who may be selected for the

135
particular purpose that may be required, and the public analyst might not be the best person that could be found in certain circumstances.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I do not wish to be obstructive, and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Saving of rights with respect to volume of water.
12. Nothing in this Act shall affect any right with respect to the volume of water in a river, stream or watercourse, or authorise any infringement of such a right.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, after "shall," to insert "(a)." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a case which may occur in connection with any trading establishment which for a period is not in operation and certain rights might be extinguished if the words which I propose to insert after "right" were not included. Where a trading operation is for the time being not in operation it is very desirable that for a reasonable period the parties concerned should not lose any right that at the present time they possess. The Amendment is designed to meet that case.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 3, after ("shall") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I agree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 6, after ("right") insert "or
(b) affect any right or drainage acquired by any person, by prescription or otherwise, before the commencement of this Act").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Incidental powers of Minister.
13.—(1) The Minister, upon application made to him by any local authority or joint sewerage board or by the owner or occupier of trade premises within the district of the local authority or board, may by order make such amendments or adaptations of any local
136
Act relating to that authority or board as appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of bringing the provisions of that Act into conformity with the provisions of this Act.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (1):
" Provided that any such order shall, as soon as may be, be laid before each House of Parliament and if either House within twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after the date on which the order is laid before it passes a Resolution against the order, the order shall thenceforth be void but without prejudice to the making of a new order."
The noble Viscount said: If your Lordships will look at this clause you will see that
" The Minister, upon application made to him by any local authority or joint sewerage board or by the owner or occupier of trade premises within the district of the local authority or board, may by order make such amendments or adaptations of any local Act relating to that authority or board as appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of bringing the provisions of that Act into conformity with the provisions of this Act."
It seems to me that nobody has any power to say that the Minister has gone beyond his powers. By order he can alter this Private Act perhaps in some respect contrary to the intention of the Bill, and it seems to me that Parliament or some other authority should have power to say to him: "You have gone beyond your authority and we annul what you have done."
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 15, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD GAINFORD: The objection to this Amendment is that the Ministry of Health has a Bill for amending Local Acts, and it is necessary that this Bill should conform to the Bill which has already gone through the Joint Committee upstairs with which it will be eventually merged. Therefore the Ministry of Health are not of the opinion that this Amendment should be accepted.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I might also add that this is actually the procedure which finds a place in the existing law. Clause 13 (1) as drafted follows Section 37 of the Public Health (Amending) Act, 1907, and Section 6 of the Public Health Act, 1925, which is reproduced in the Bill at present before Parliament. Obviously it is within the power of any individual who

137
considers the Minister has gone beyond what he is authorised to do to proceed in the Courts against him for taking action ultra vires.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am glad that the noble Viscount quoted the dates of the Acts in his reply. Both these Acts were passed before the Report of the Donoughmore Committee which dealt rather severely with Ministerial powers. But I think, at any rate for the time being, I shall withdraw this Amendment and consider whether I shall bring it up again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Interpretation.
14. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"District" means, in relation to a local authority, the area over which that authority has jurisdiction;
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the definition of "district," to leave out "has" and insert "have" The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment which I understand my noble friend accepts.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 35, leave out ("has") and insert ("have").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to insert:
"'Sewerage authority ' means a local authority, the London County Council and the council of a metropolitan borough."
The noble Lord said: I have already explained that the word "sewerage" has to be inserted and this is merely a definition.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 9, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD JESSEL: May I ask whether it would not be better to put the word "Sewerage" a little higher up in the. Bill before "The Minister." You have "Local authority" at the top of the page, and "Sewerage authority" is to come after "The Minister."
LORD GAINFORD: This Bill has been carefully looked at by responsible draftsmen,
138
and it is not for me to say that any alterations should take place. Note will be made of the observations of the noble Lord, and if the draftsmen on reconsideration think it is necessary I have no doubt the Minister of Health would insert an Amendment on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Short title, construction, citation, extent and commencement.
15.—(1) This Act may he cited as the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Promises) Act, 1936, and shall he construed as one with the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1932, and those Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1936.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Scotland, Northern Ireland or the administrative county of London.
(3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of July nineteen hundred and thirty-seven:
Provided that at any time before the said day the Minister, if satisfied, upon application made by a local authority, that having regard to the inadequacy of the sewers or sewage works available for the reception or disposal of trade effluents from premises in the district of the local authority it is expedient so to do, may make an order directing that this Act shall not come into operation in that district until such day as may be specified in the order, and any order made as aforesaid may, subject to the like conditions, be varied by a subsequent order made by the Minister; and in relation to any district with respect to which such an order as aforesaid has been made, the commencement of this Act shall be taken to be the beginning of the day on which this Act comes into operation in that district; and a local authority making application to the Minister for such an order shall give notice of the application by advertisement in two newspapers circulating in the district of the local authority and the Minister before deciding whether or not to make the order shall consider any representations or objections made to him in writing by any owner or occupier of trade premises in the district.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or". The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the following Amendments are made to meet comments made by the London County Council, which desired to exclude from the scope of the Bill not only the administrative County of London but also the areas outside London which drain into the London system. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 28, leave out ("or").—(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I want to say a word on behalf of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, because this Amendment affects directly the County of London and certain outlying regions of the Metropolitan area. These bodies express their gratitude to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for meeting them so readily. His Amendment exactly covers the principal objection that they were bound to raise on Second Reading, and they very much hope that your Lordships will see your way to incorporate this Amendment like the preceding Amendments in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 28, at end insert ("or to any area which immediately before the passing of this Act drains directly or indirectly into a sewer or sewage disposal works vested in the London County Council or in the council of a metropolitan borough").
Page 13, line 29, after ("shall") insert ("save as otherwise specially provided therein").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I have a manuscript Amendment from Lord Gainford on Clause 15, page 14, line 8, after "authority" to insert "and in the London Gazette."
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in the proviso in subsection (3), after "authority," where that word last occurs, to insert "and in the London Gazette." The noble Lord said: This is merely an Amendment to give information as to what has been done in connection with the notices that are to be given under the Public Health Act which has passed through the Joint Committee, and the Federation of British Industries are very anxious that in addition to the advertisement in the two papers the advertisement shall appear also in the London Gazette.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 8, after ("authority") insert ("and in the London Gazette").—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: This seems a reasonable proposal and the Government accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule:
SCHEDULE.
Provisions as to making and publication of by-laws.
2. Where the owner or occupier of any trade premises within the district of the local authority serves upon them a written request to be registered and states his name and postal address, it shall be the duty of the local authority to enter his name in a register to be kept by them for the purpose of this Act, and so long as his name appears in the register, the local authority shall cause to be sent to him a copy of every notice which they are required by this or any other Act to publish in connection with the making of by-laws under this Act or the confirmation of such by-laws.
LORD GAINFORD: The Amendment to the Schedule down in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 32, leave out ("local") and insert ("sewerage").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph 2, after "name," to insert "and address." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment of a drafting nature which my noble friend has been kind enough to say he accepts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 9, after ("name") insert ("and address").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Issue of licences appropriate to test.
3.—(1) Where, under Section six of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, any person is required to pass the prescribed test of competence to drive, and the test passed by him is a test prescribed under subsection (5) of that section with respect only to the driving of any specified class or description of vehicles, the licence granted to him under Part I of the principal Act shall specify that class or description of vehicles, and he shall be deemed not to be the holder of a licence granted under that Part of that Act to drive motor vehicles of any other class or description.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "principal Act" and insert "Road Traffic Act, 1930." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I owe the House a short explanation in connection with this and the other Amendments in my name on the Paper. Your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage of this Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, suggested a manuscript Amendment which was of a drafting character, but he did not press it because the promoters of the Bill were desirous that the Bill should be placed upon the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. The Government, sympathising with that desire, did not think at that moment that there was any objection to the Bill passing in the form in which it is at present. However, on further consideration, they feel that in spite of the fact that a little delay will result it would be better to see this Bill go through in the most workmanlike form possible, and for this reason I have placed on the Paper the Amendments which stand in my name, which I hope will be satisfactory to Lord Jessel.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out (" principal Act ") and insert (" Road Traffic Act 1930 ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for moving this Amendment. I should like to congratulate him on having removed the sanction which was enforced during Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Short title, citation, construction and extent]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move the drafting Amendments upon this clause standing in my name.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 5, after ("one") insert (" and subsection 1 of Section three").
Page 3, line 7, leave out (" and Section two ") and insert (" Section two and subsection (2) of Section three ").—(Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PRO- CEDURE. (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, this Bill has been circulated to your Lordships. It is purely a Consolidation Bill, and it will be referred to the Committee upstairs. I do not propose, therefore, to move the Second Reading in any more than these formal words. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

BRITISH SHIPPING IN THE PACIFIC.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD rose to call attention to the question of British shipping in the Pacific, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I am venturing to commend to your Lordships this afternoon concerns the specific case of the British shipping service threatened with nothing less than extinction as the result of the action of a foreign Government. Alas! in the domain of shipping it is not by any means an isolated case, for British shipping, owing to the amount of foreign subsidies, has been brought to very grave straits. It is a matter to which attention was called only two days ago in a very powerful letter to The Times from one who is, I believe, vice-chairman of the Shipping Federation. Before I outline to your Lordships the particular difficulties and dangers of this Pacific question, perhaps you will excuse me if I make one or two general observations which, while I think they probably will be superfluous in your Lordships' House, are needed to be remembered very much by the public outside to-day when our minds are concerned with national defence. It is merely to recall to the minds of the public the absolute dependence of the Empire and every part of it upon its merchant shipping.
The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, recognises that in almost every line of it, and you can scarcely call the strength and reserve of the merchant navy second

143
in importance to that of our Defence Forces. The merchant navy itself—its men as well as its ships—if ineffective or enfeebled, could bring about our downfall as surely as naval defeat. Over and over during the last few years, during the Governments alike of Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, when they were actively engaged—as I think short-sightedly—in leading us down the sombre and solitary road of disarmament, I and my friends have been trying to remind the people of the country of the enormous dangers of thus allowing our merchant shipping to be attacked with impunity, for no other country, obviously, is in so precarious a state as regards its food supplies as our own. Every other country has, in popular phrase, a back-door by which, if its ports are closed, it can be fed. We alone of all the countries in the world have no such back door. Close our ports or sink our ships and the people of this country starve!
In a moment I shall venture to point out the danger to our shipping at the hands of American subsidies, but may I for a moment contrast that precarious food position of ours with the fortunate position which the great federation of the United States occupies. There she is, a compact, self-contained area, an area of something like 4,000,000 square miles with a population of 130,000,000, all connected up by some 3,000,000 miles of roads and 750,000 miles of railways, interconnected and intertwined, all consolidated and concentrated. Besides that, she has a great coastal service entirely reserved to herself, the whole length of her great seaboard, along which no one else may ply, thus giving her ample tonnage in case of any emergency which might conceivably overtake her. We, on the other hand, are at the head of an even greater federation, but we have no such vast concentrated area. Our area is not 4,000,000 miles nor even 1,000,000 miles. It is only 700 odd miles from north to south. Our federation lies outside these Islands. It is on the sea that communications with our federation lie, and without a supreme and efficient merchant navy our troops cannot be moved and our people cannot be fed. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for making these few quite general observations, but they form the frame into which this particular Pacific picture needs, I think, to be fitted.
Now, if I may, I will come to the actual point of my Motion. As your Lordships are aware, up till about 1900 the trade between the Canadian Pacific and the American Pacific coast via Honolulu, Hawaii, Fiji, New Zealand and Australia was carried on practically exclusively by British ships. The British lines operating to-day are two. One of them is the Union Company of New Zealand, which is closely connected with the P. & O. That has two steamers and its terminal point on the American Pacific coast is San Francisco. The other is the Canadian-Australian line, which makes its terminal port on the Canadian Pacific Vancouver. The Chairman of the former line has informed the public that for reasons which will become obvious as I proceed his company is going to be forced to abandon this service—next November I think. Sir Edward Beatty, the Chairman of the Canadian-Australian Company, who is over here now and I hope in this respect to good purpose, has indicated that without aid the services of his line cannot long continue. The services which these vessels provide are the links between three important Dominions as well as the Colony of Fiji, and link them also with the United States of America. The real tragedy of the story is that these lines are threatened with extinction, not at the hands of an unfriendly Power, but of a Power with which we have closer kinship and more intimate relations than any other. It is hard to believe that American policy really is deliberately aimed at driving our ships off the Pacific—every one in your Lordships' House, I think, would refuse to believe that—but unless America alters its policy or our Government puts an end to its policy of drift and defends British interests in the Pacific with far greater alacrity and determination than it has yet shown any signs of doing, extinction must be the only result.
The history of this question is an interesting one. If your Lordships will carry in your mind's eye for a moment the map of the Pacific you will see that the Pacific West Coast—Vancouver in Canada, and San Francisco and Los Angeles in the United States of America—Honolulu in Hawaii, Fiji, New Zealand and Australia form a series of obvious links, stepping stones as it were from one great Continent to the other. You will see at once that if ships trading from Australia to the Pacific coast are prevented

145
from trading between Honolulu and the American coast they are subject to a very grave handicap. That is exactly the disadvantage to which our ships were submitted in 1900 when, after the Spanish-American War, Hawaii was attached to America, The American coastal reservation was applied and we were not able to do that important trade, to our great detriment and loss. Others with greater knowledge will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am correct in saying that up till 1928 or thereabouts that did not affect us so seriously because the Americans had no fast passenger ships. The effect up to that time was on cargo and not on passenger trading. As to that I think I am correct, but certainly in 1928 Congress passed the Merchant Marino Act and the whole picture was changed to our grievous hurt. The result was the building of three absolutely up-to-date luxury ships the "Mariposa," the "Monterey," and the "Lurline." The two former ships, I understand, ply regularly and the third ship is brought in to supplement the service.
To the aid of this line important construction loans were given. According to a report of the Postmaster-General of the United States to the Chairman of a Committee appointed to investigate the air mail and ocean mail contracts, these construction loans were granted to the Matson Line, that is the American line that controls the steamers. Construction loans were given for twenty years at 1½ per cent. for the first two vessels and one-third of 1 per cent. for the third—an enormous assistance, money on the cheapest possible terms. The financial aid thus given to the Matson Line has enabled it, as I have said, to build high-speed steamers of a design and character which no company that is not heavily subsidised can possibly hope to compete with at all. One of the justifications put forward by American apologists for these loans is the higher building costs which supervene in America. But any examination of the figures proves, I think, quite conclusively that the degree of assistance given far more than offsets any difference there may be in the first place as regards cost of construction. There is another and perhaps a more convincing proof in the fact that, by means of these construction loans, the ships in question have been able to cut rates to such a degree that nobody's ships can possibly
146
compete, showing therein an enormous margin of fighting resources, well over and above the construction costs that these subsidies have given to the line.
But that is not all the story. Apart from these important and heavy construction subsidies, there are operating subsidies as well. When I tell your Lordships that between the years 1928 and 1934 this line has received, under its contract with the United States Postal Department, getting on for £1,000,000 sterling in operating subsidies—£963,000, I think, is the figure—you will see the appalling difficulties to which any non-subsidised line is put if it is to have any hope of competing. These subsidies, of course, although they are given through the Postmaster-General's Department, are in no way postal subsidies. Indeed, if they had been calculated at the same rate as the normal postal subsidies, the amount given would not have been £963,000 but £190,000. Moreover, if there is any doubt left in the minds of your Lordships as regards the real nature of these subsidies, we have the testimony of the United States Postmaster-General himself, who, in his endeavour to justify these payments to Congress, stated:
" These objects are national in scope. They have no special relation to the postal service. Ocean mail pay is simply the form in which Congress has elected to extend financial aid to the shipping industry."
There have been other attempts by American apologists to justify these enormous subsidies on the ground of the heavier cost of the American labour employed on the ships. It is hard to get any accurate information as regards the operating costs, but I have here beside me a table which was prepared by the Chamber of Shipping and which, I should think, is as good information as you could get anywhere. According to that table it is quite clear that, at any rate in 1935, so far from American wages having been higher than New Zealand wages, if anything they were lower. The table says that the oilers on the ships in America were paid £15 13s. and in New Zealand £16 6s.; the firemen £14 2s. 6d. and in New Zealand £16 6s.—a large difference, they were much more expensive. The wipers in America were paid £11 11s. and in New Zealand £14 6s.; the sailors—the deck hands—in America were paid £13 7s. and in New Zealand £14 6s. Of course, there are questions of

147
exchange and allowances which make the calculation difficult. I am by no means certain that these figures are right though they come from a considerable authority, but I think they are sufficient to show, at any rate, that the contention that the operating subsidies were justified on account of higher wages in America than in New Zealand is very far from being borne out.
Then there is one other argument which I should like to dispose of, which is also given in justification—namely, that these subsidies are legitimate subsidies paid in support of American trade on an American route. I scarcely need to mention that, because it is quite obvious that the American part of the route is between the American Pacific Coast—Los Angeles or San Francisco—and Hawaii. There is no need of any subsidy there, because under the Coastal Reservation Act nobody can compete at all there. Therefore, when you observe that the subsidies are given, not for one section of the route but all over, right through to Australasia, it is perfectly clear that these are what the Postmaster-General himself said they were, objects national in scope, and, of course, competitive subsidies as against us.
Therefore, to summarise briefly, the advantages which the American ships have over ours are that the Americans have their ships built with the aid of Government money advanced at little or no interest; they receive heavy cash subsidies; and on one important section of the route they are further completely protected by the Coastal Reservation Act. It is all the more serious to us, my Lords, if you remember that, while we are excluded from the American portion under the American Coastal Reservation Act, we allow the Americans to compete absolutely freely in our own inter-Imperial trade between Australia and New-Zealand, which we might easily have kept to ourselves if we had only played the same game and reserved it by coastal reservation. We have played a foolishly generous part, while their part has been less generous. That is the position of the American ships. The position of our ships, on the other hand, is an absolutely desperate one. Our ships have had to maintain their services in the face of these impossible conditions. Our men have had to face these conditions in ships built at the expense of
148
private investors, and I think it is a tribute, and a great tribute, to the superlative skill of our shipping industry, its courage and endurance, that these ships have been able to fight these conditions as long as they have.
It is now, my Lords, four years since New Zealand first brought this matter to the Ottawa Conference. The Conference, I believe, unanimously took the view that these were what they called "dumped services," and New Zealand's appeal received the approval of the whole Imperial Conference. After the matter had been referred to the Ottawa Conference, we rather lost sight of the fate of this question. I believe it was referred to a sub-conference, but I have no evidence whether this sub-conference was ever held. I should like to ask my noble friend whether my facts are correct, and whether it was referred to a sub-conference. I should also like to ask him if he could tell us, in the event of my surmise being correct, of what that sub-conference was composed, how often it met, who was on it, and what decision it came to, if any. At other times we are told that this question is to be referred to the Imperial Shipping Committee; we were told so fairly recently. If it is the right thing to do at all, why was it not right to do it four years ago? Why have we waited for four years since this question was raised? What is the use of having an Imperial Conference? What is the use of getting all our great statesmen to meet and to confer over these vital matters if four years later nothing is done at all? Was it necessary to refer it to any committee? Why refer so serious a matter as this to such a graveyard of inaction as a committee always is?
Surely the Board of Trade must have all the knowledge by now. Does it take four years to find out the facts? I should have thought that, if they had really wanted to, they could have found out the main facts of the situation in a few months. They have sufficient material for action. As it is, years have elapsed. Surely the Board of Trade is more competent to deal with the question, and has more authority and more knowledge, than any committee at all. Over and over again in the last three or four years His Majesty's Government and Ministers have made statements, brave statements, but

149
nothing has been done, nothing has followed. I will quote only one or two—I could quote a page full or even two pages full, I think. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in December, 1933, at a meeting of the Midland Union:
"We are not going to see British ships swept off the face of the ocean, and in one way or another we mean to defend ourselves."
That was in 1933. To-day is 1936. The Chancellor of Exchequer was wrong if he was prophesying. He is seeing British ships being swept off the ocean every day of every week. The President of the Board of Trade, more immediately concerned, said in a speech on December 13, 1933:
" We shall, if necessary, take steps to see that the liner services get fair play at all events within an inter-Imperial trade."
This is inter-Imperial trade. Where is the fair play that Mr. Runciman has procured for these services? That was in 1933, and now we are in the year 1936. Again in 1934, Mr. Runciman said:
"I do not want to use the large stick, but we have to make it clear that if foreign countries are going to treat our shipping unfairly we shall know how to put them on an equal footing."
Nothing yet has been done. If Mr. Runciman knows how to put them on an equal footing, he has not imparted his information to anyone else. That is to say, all these promises are entirely unredeemed.
British ships, as I have said, are daily being swept off the face of the ocean. Since 1930 our shipping has been reduced by over 3,000,000 tons gross, or roughly 15 per cent. of the quantity existing that year. During the first quarter of this year an additional forty-five ocean-going cargo carriers were laid up. I have that on the authority of Mr. Watts, confirmed by the Chamber of Shipping. These are terribly grave facts, and I do not think it is easy to depict in Parliamentary language what the effect would be within our Empire if we lost this vitally important link in the All-Red Route. I do not desire to make any attack upon His Majesty's Government, but what I, and I think the country, desire is action. It is not to be believed that the Government after four years are not yet in possession of the facts relevant to their decision. I am not competent to discuss what the remedial measures should be. There are others who will
150
follow me who are fully competent. Very possibly it may be thought desirable to substitute for the present four steamers which we have on the route two first-rate fast and up-to-date passenger ships, which would carry the Canadian and American and Pacific trade, and link it up with Australasia. Whatever may be the decision in this respect, there seems good hope for believing that the Dominions will readily co-operate if His Majesty's Government will give an immediate and energetic lead.
I am confirmed in that view by a speech made by no less a person than Mr. Menzies, the Attorney-General for Australia, who is in this country at the present time. Perhaps your Lordships, in spite of the debate the other day, will permit me to read a portion of the speech which he delivered at the Royal Empire Society recently. These are his words:
"Australia was the terminus of a body of British shipping which passed between the Commonwealth, New Zealand and Fiji, touched Honolulu and found its way to Canada. Crossing Canada the route continued to Great Britain. It was one of the great waterways of the world and Australia, regarded the preservation of its British character as essential. I want to make it clear that Australia, as a very definite island country, as a child of the British Mercantile Marine, still believes that the flying of the British flag on the furthest ocean of the world is of the greatest importance to the British race. But she also believes that the security of British shipping in any part of the world is not the business of any one part of the world only.
" She believes firmly that the whole of the British Community of Nations has a common interest in preserving British shipping and British mercantile interests all over the world. It is for that reason that representatives of Australia, New Zealand and other Dominions, and of Great Britain, have been conferring on that matter and we are still engaged in conference. We attach the greatest importance"—
I would ask His Majesty's Government to mark these words—
"to the crisis through which British shipping is passing to-day. The British Empire and the power of the British Empire was largely founded on British shipping. That was a vital element in the position that Australia occupied in the Pacific."
He concluded with these words, to which the City of London might do well to listen:
"If British financial power, to-day, was prepared to admit that it was largely created by British mercantile marine

151
power in past centuries, then it could scarcely complain if the British Mercantile Marine said that ' the time has come for you to exercise yourself on our behalf.' "
I am not, as undoubtedly your Lordships will have discovered, an expert on these matters, but the Navy League, with which I am concerned, takes the deepest interest in these matters and I have ventured, although not an expert, to bring them before your Lordships in the hope that the Press of this country, as well as this House, would take such steps as would make His Majesty's Government realise that this is a matter of vital concern to our defence as well as to our trade position.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends have asked me to state our point of view on the very important subject which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, this afternoon. The view that we take of all subsidies to private enterprise is one of great hostility. I am speaking now of our economic theories. We are economic purists, and we do not like subsidies to private enterprises. At the same time it is recognised that there may be cases in which some form of Government assistance is unavoidable. Other countries are heavily subsidising their shipping lines, and there are Imperial and strategical reasons why it would be dangerous to allow the British flag to be swept out of the Pacific. At the same time I notice that the noble Lord did not propose any remedies in his speech. Naturally, as he would say, that is the business of the Government. There is the problem, and it is their duty to face it. I rather thought he was going to suggest that we should retaliate against those nations, such as the United States, who reserve what in effect is their empire to their own shipping. Of course if we reserved the shipping routes to all our ports within the Empire it would be an extraordinary undertaking. If we said that only British ships should trade between Australia and the United Kingdom, and to any other parts of the British Empire, it would be an extraordinary state of affairs, and my Party would oppose what in effect would be a great shipping war, if such a policy were started. The noble Lord did not suggest that, but it has been hinted at in other quarters.
152
Short of that, what is suggested? I presume that what the shipping companies want is State assistance in the form of money, and their excuse is that State assistance is given to their rivals in the Pacific, notably the Americans and the Japanese. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, did not refer very particularly to the Japanese case, but I have here a cutting from the well-known shipping publication Lloyd's List, of June 15, in which they give some extraordinary figures and statements about the intentions of the Japanese Government. They quote particularly from the well-known Japanese newspaper the Asahi Shimbun, and they say that it is the policy of the Japanese Government to increase the national shipping resources of Japan from 4,000,000 tons of shipping to 6,000,000 tons. I am speaking in the presence of great shipowners, including the noble Lords, Lord Essendon, Lord Inverforth and others, and I believe they will bear me out when I say that the trouble to-day is that, with the existing trade to be carried, there is too much shipping under various flags, for reasons that we all know. If the Japanese intend to construct another 2,000,000 tons it will be an extraordinary state of affairs that the shipping industry will be faced with.
Now we come to the question of the Japanese subsidies. I think there is an inclination somewhat to exaggerate the amount of subsidies that the Japanese, and indeed, the American Government, give, though I admit that they are substantial. According to the returns quoted in Lloyd's List on the date I have given your Lordships, the Government subsidies granted by the Japanese Government to the whole commercial sea services during the last financial year 1935–36 totalled 9,680,000 yen or, in sterling, £570,000, most of that amount going to two lines, the Nippon Yusen Kaisha and the Osaka Shosen Kaisha. The first received £350,000 and the second £150,000. Considering the whole amount of Japanese shipping all over the world, that amount is not very great. We must remember that considerable assistance has already been given in one way or another to British shipping. Compared with the sum that we guaranteed, for example, for the "Queen Mary" and her sister ship, that is not a very large amount of money. We remember the discussion in your Lordships'

153
House on the British Shipping (Assistance) Bill, which provides in one way or another some £2,000,000 for tramp shipping. I know that this is largely a liner problem, an important problem too; but still, these Japanese figures are not very alarming. But the Japanese intentions, if the statement I mentioned is true, are certainly alarming.
With regard to American figures, I am taking the liberty of quoting from another letter in The Times by a gentleman who came from the city that I had the honour to represent in another place for many years, Mr. Cleminson, the General Manager of the Chamber of Shipping. His calculation of the amount of what he calls the pure subsidy for the American lines in the Pacific—that is, taking away the real payment for mails, and including the disguised subsidy that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to—is £772,684. I agree that that is a substantial figure, but it is not colossal. And I further agree that the cheap money policy which I have advocated at other times—the policy of allowing shipowners long-term loans at cheap rates—has enormously helped the American shipping companies. I have always been in favour of that policy being extended to our own shipowners.
The general view of my Party is that if there is a case for subsidising sugar beet, for example—I feel myself very bold to say this in your Lordships' House—there is a better case for subsidising British shipping; and that if there is a case for subsidising civil aviation or grand opera (which many of your Lordships have at heart) then, in view of the subsidies paid to its rivals, there is certainly a case for subsidising British shipping, and it may be that in these peculiar circumstances this may have to be done. I understand that the Leader of the House is going to make a statement on the Government's policy. I am glad to hear it, and I am sure he will be much more definite than Mr. Runciman was in December last, when he said that the matter was receiving consideration, and on March 10 last, when he said it was still receiving consideration—and of course that was all that the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, could say on the last occasion when he charmed your Lord ships' House by one of his adroit and eloquent replies on one of these Motions. I find myself, not for the first
154
time, in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, in attacking the Government for their hesitations and their long-drawn-out consideration of these matters. I hesitate to say so, but I think that what this country really needs is action. We have had leadership in the wrong direction; let us have a little action in the right direction.
Now I come to a matter upon which my Party feels very deeply, and I would ask the noble Viscount when he makes the Government announcement, if he can, to say what is their policy in this connection if any subsidies or monetary assistance are given. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, speaks of the British Mercantile Marine as a reserve of the Royal Navy. That is perfectly true, it is a material reserve, but, much more important, it is a human reserve. It is essential to attract into the British Mercantile Marine the best type of young British lads, and that they should have a real, assured career there. To do that you have to have decent conditions of employment. I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Essendon and Lord Inverforth particularly as representative British shipowners, on the most recent advance made in this direction by the more humane system of hours of work that has been arrived at by the Joint Maritime Board. I think they have done splendidly, and I have written to the National Union of Seamen to say so, but I want verbally to congratulate them as well. I think they have shown foresight in getting rid of that barbarous two-watch system, and now in all large ships the three-watch system is introduced. That is a great step forward. I am very happy to pay that compliment to the noble Lords. That is voluntary, however. It will be carried out by all good shipowners, we know, but if Government money is to be provided to help British shipping in the Pacific, will the Government this time—they omitted to do this on previous subsidy Bills—see that the minimum conditions of labour and pay agreed to by the Joint Maritime Board, and freely negotiated between the representatives of the owners and the seamen, are enforced in British ships receiving the subsidy? We feel very deeply on this point.
The other point I wish to make is this. If we are going to help British shipping for the Imperial strategical reasons that have been described in this debate, there ought to be some form of Government

155
control, some form of Government sharing so that when British shipping revives later on, as we hope it will, the taxpayer will benefit. In the past, in the case, for example, of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, now the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, when the Government, for reasons of high policy, made Government money available, they acquired for the taxpayer a large block of shares which have been a profitable investment. In the case of the Suez Canal, when Disraeli acquired the Khedive's shares they became a valuable investment for the State. In this case, if we are going to provide money by way of subsidy to prevent British shipping from being swept off the Pacific, then I want that to be regarded as an investment for the British taxpayer. That is my Party's policy, and I would wish for some comfort from the Lord Privy Seal when he states the Government's policy on this matter.
The Government's record in this respect in other directions has, I am sorry to say, been lamentable. They have shovelled out the taxpayer's money in all directions, and we have nothing to show for it to the taxpayers. In Germany—I know some noble Lords opposite admire the economics of the present German Government—under the present Government and under previous German Governments, when the State had to come to the rescue of the banks it took very good care that the taxpayer was afterwards recouped, so that when prosperity returned to the banking industry in Germany the taxpayer benefited. I know that is the thin end of the wedge of Socialism. Certainly it is, and that is why I favour it. Never mind; it is just and right, and the fact that we can drive the wedge in further one day does not detract from the justice of the cause which I plead. Finally, I am not prepared as things are, to resist giving assistance in this way. We think it may be very necessary to provide the safeguards I have ventured to submit to the Government, and we think the policy ought to go a great deal further. If private enterprise cannot keep the British flag flying in the Pacific, then we ought to have a State shipping-service. That is our policy, and one day I hope to see it accomplished. I hope to see the whole of our transport, internal and external, one great public service under good conditions and providing the best possible means of communication within this country and outside.
LORD ESSENDON: My Lords, I have certain interests in the shipping industry, but it so happens I have no interest in the particular trade to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. Neither have I, for the purpose of this debate, been in communication or consultation with owners in that trade, because I think by that means I can keep a more detached mind. When I saw the Motion put down by the noble Lord I felt that an expression of my views as representing the shipping industry might be of some use to the House for whatever value those views might have. It may be interesting in the first place to trace the development of this subsidy question. It is really a kind of unemployment dole. It apparently starts in the first instance with the theory that everyone must have ships. It is not a question of their wanting other people's ships; they want their own ships; and then when they get the ships they find that other people have better ships, or can manage those ships better, and they must have a subsidy from their Government with which to compete. Then, having got that, they find that there are more ships than there is cargo, and they cannot get the other man to give them any cargo to carry. Having got the ships and having got the subsidy, they complain to their Government that the other man is getting all the cargo, and they are having this wicked competition to contend with, and that that accounts for the losses they have achieved. Gradually this process develops until we get subsidies to meet differences in construction costs, we get subsidies to meet differences in cost of operation, we get subsidies to meet the losses incurred through currency depreciation, we get subsidies to meet subsidies, and we get subsidies to meet the losses incurred by subsidies.
That is really a parody of the position as it is to-day, which has caused owners of tramp ships to apply to the Government for assistance in order to meet the competition which is created by the number of ships that are built to comply with the spirit of nationalism which is fostered by entirely uneconomic means. I say "uneconomic" because we have practically an impoverished world building ships and running ships that are not necessary, for the purpose of carrying out trade that they refuse to allow to develop, and for carrying people whom

157
they refuse to allow to emigrate. In the case to which the noble Lord has drawn attention we have a pioneer line trading between Dominion countries. I believe the line referred to initiated that particular trade, and it is threatened with extinction because you have an American line that has the facility to get a large amount of the purchase price advanced to it for the construction of its ships at a nominal rate of interest. It has a huge subsidy and it has the additional advantage of carrying passengers between New Zealand and Australia while similar rights are denied to the British line from Honolulu and San Francisco, and vice versa, on account of the American coasting laws.
It seems intolerable that a British line should be forced out of existence in these circumstances. The noble Lord has moved to draw attention to this matter, but it may very well be asked, as has been asked, what is the remedy? Members of the Government from the Prime Minister downwards have told us repeatedly that they are prepared to give assurances that the liner interest will be protected against unfair competition. I suggest it is time that the principal Governments concerned should confer together for the purpose of providing a subsidy for the maintenance of that trade. I mean the British Government, the Canadian Government, the New Zealand Government, and the Australian Government. We might also include the Islands of Fiji; I think the noble Lord referred to them. They are a very small and perhaps unimportant part of the British Empire, but none the less they have a very great interest in this matter, relatively as much as any of the Dominions, because their only means of communication between Canada on the one hand and New Zealand and Australia on the other is involved. They may not be threatened with the suspension of their services, but they might very well be affected. I suggest that the time has come when the Governments concerned might put their heads together and see what can be done for the maintenance of this service. May I say that I hope it will be a long day before the suggestion of the noble Lord regarding the reservation of Empire trade is adopted? The shipping industry has enough difficulties to deal with without increasing and multiplying the restrictions with which we have to contend.
LORD STBABOLGI: May I ask the noble Lord what amount of subsidy would keep this service going? I do not want the noble Lord to commit himself, but probably he has some figure in mind.
LORD ESSENDON: I have an idea in my mind, but I should not like to commit myself to it, because I really have no particular knowledge of this trade. I would like to get more information on it before I committed myself. I believe the American subsidy is something like one million dollars a year. But I have not been into the actual figures, and I have not sufficient knowledge of this particular trade. The noble Lord referred to the fact that the Americans pay these subsidies under the guise of postal services. I am connected with a trade from New York to Brazil and the Argentine, where we give a fortnightly passenger and cargo service and carry the mails. On the other fortnight we have an American line carrying the mails and passengers and cargo. It is the only passenger service between North and South America. The American line gets 50,000 dollars a voyage and the British line gets 2,500 dollars, paid on the weight basis. It is only fair to say—presumably the noble Lord did not have this information—that in the new Subsidy Bill which has passed the American Senate they have called the subsidies what they are—namely, subsidies, and they are no longer under the postal system at all. They are recognised as real subsidies.
I have not particulars of the Bill, but from information I have seen of the various drafts sent to this side, the new American Subsidy Bill will provide, probably, for four things. First, it will provide for a subsidy to meet a difference in construction costs, which are probably 50 per cent. more than the cost of building in this country. Then it will give a subsidy to cover operating costs. I believe the noble Lord is correct in saying that the cost of wages on the Australian and New Zealand ships engaged in this particular trade is higher than that on the American ships. Then there will be a subsidy for what is called "peaceful penetration trade," whatever that may mean. It will also give a financial advantage for the building of ships. We cannot blame the Americans for taking advantage of these facilities. I wish we could get something like them sometimes. But remember this is a matter of American

159
internal policy. They must be the best judges of what suits them. We have also to remember that the Americans are a great-hearted people. We have recently had evidence of that. I refer to the wonderful reception they gave to the "Queen Mary," of which I was an admiring witness. When I sailed up the Hudson River I confess I had a lump in my throat.
After making full allowances for merchant shipping requirements as naval auxiliaries in the United States, which are probably covered by their coasting vessels, we could wish that they would recognise that we could carry their goods for them cheaper and better than they can carry them themselves; in fact we used to do that before the War. Prior to the War they had only something like two millions tons of merchant ships, most of them engaged in the coasting trade. In that time we and other foreign shipowners used to carry the greater part of their export trade, and we did it cheaper and more successfully than they could do it for themselves. At the same time we have to take things as they are. Personally, I hate subsidies in the same way as I hated tariffs as a lifelong Free Trader, but they were forced upon us, and really the same position applies in regard to the shipping industry. The "tramps," as I have said, have got their subsidy, and there seems to be an idea about that because the liners have what is called their conference agreements they are therefore immune from competition. That is really a delusion. The liners are subject to as much competition in many cases as are the tramp steamers. Merchants when trade is brisk are too glad to take advantage of the better facilities offered by the fast vessels, such as liners, but when the reverse is the case they are also only too glad to take advantage of the lower rates offered by some of the less efficient vessels. Where these conditions do not apply, no subsidy would be asked and none would be expected. It is understood that if a subsidy were granted two new ships would be built in British shipyards and, incidentally, the employment of Empire and British officers and seamen would be continued.
The noble Lord has given a hint that there is a rumour that this matter is going to be referred to the Imperial Shipping Committee. I quite agree with him that
160
if that is going to be done, then it ought to have been done four years ago. This matter has been in the forefront of the shipping controversy since the Ottawa Conference of 1932, and I think something might have been done since then. I do not think that the facts are in dispute, and I am sure the Board of Trade must have all the information that is available. I do not see why something cannot be done without further delay. Why not take advantage of the present position in this country, and of the presence here of the Prime Minister of Australia and the Attorney-General of that Dominion and, so far at any rate as Australia is concerned, get some agreement with them as to the policy to be pursued. I would like to point out that it is a very much easier matter to stop a service than it is to recommence a service after it has once been stopped.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I desire to support emphatically the Motion which has been moved in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Lloyd, and in doing so to associate myself with everything that he has said with the single exception of the word "Australasia." That is a word which is not at all approved of in New Zealand, and I venture to hope, out of consideration for the feelings of New Zealanders, and in order to avoid complications in the minds of the British public, some of whom fondly imagine that New Zealand is a part of Australia although it is twelve hundred miles away, that at least in this House the term will not be used. I awaited with some interest the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, because I began to wonder what he could find as an old member and a distinguished officer of the Royal Navy to object to in the terms of this Motion, and, if he will allow me, I should like to congratulate him on the line which, as voiced by him, the Labour Party propose to adopt in this matter. I noticed that he referred to Japan. So far as I am aware Japan does not enter into the consideration of this matter at all. It is entirely a matter as between the great friendly Power of the United States and the British Empire. I noticed also that he said incidentally that the American subsidisation was not colossal. Well, it matters to my mind little whether it is colossal or something which can be expressed in a somewhat less superlative term, but if the subsidisation

161
is destructive of our shipping and calculated to drive it from Pacific waters, surely that is sufficient reason for meeting it with some due and effective answer. I began to wonder when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, whether in spite of his old-time strongly expressed Free Trade sentiments he was not gradually becoming a heartwhole Protectionist.
I want to make it perfectly clear that in participating in this debate I do not do so in any sense as a shipowner, but entirely from the point of view of one who has held responsible administrative office in one of His Majesty's Dominions overseas, and as such has entertained serious fears as to the ultimate effect upon our Imperial fortunes of the apparent inaction of His Majesty's Government. Since my return to England about a year ago I have indeed been much concerned by the apparent concentration of His Majesty's Government at home upon the affairs of foreign countries, and the relative neglect of vital issues which materially affect the welfare if not the actual existence of the British Empire. I hope my noble friend the Leader of the House will not think me unkind if I suggest that apathy, lack of any settled plans in relation either to Imperial defence or the Empire trade, and undue procrastination appear just now to characterise the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards Imperial problems. Visiting statesmen from Now Zealand and Australia, of whom we have had a good many and there are still some in this country to-day, are always scrupulously polite, courteous and loyal in their public utterances, but it is common knowledge that they entertain the greatest apprehension concerning outstanding questions upon which they are awaiting not merely professions of sympathy but a definite lead and a definite help from the Mother Country.
Of these problems surely none is more serious and none more urgent than that of this highly-subsidised American shipping in the Pacific, and the gradual prospective expulsion from the trade routes between North America and our two great Dominions on the other side of the world of our British Mercantile Marine. For the moment, as has been pointed out, the chief victim of this process is the well-known Union Steamship Company of New Zealand, but what guarantee have we that it will stop there? The
162
facts are incontrovertible and should be clearly recognised. One is that no privately owned and unsubsidised shipping company can continuously meet such competition out of its own meagre resources and survive. The second is that relatively poor agricultural countries like New Zealand and Australia cannot possibly attempt with the smallest chance of success to meet subsidy with subsidy in connection with a wealthy industrial nation like the United States. The third and the most important is that this is not in any sense a local problem. It is at least as vital to the future of Great Britain, her trade and her defence, as it is to the Dominions overseas. It is, consequently, surely not only unfair but imprudent upon her part to allow the present drift to continue on the assumption, expressed or implied, that it is not the paramount duty of the British Government to take the lead in saving the situation and to do it without delay.
I know, my Lords, that it is sometimes argued that a shipping company is undeserving of Government assistance owing to its lack of enterprise, and I have even heard it suggested in regard to what I have described as the victim of this artificial and unequal competition that this particular company has been lacking in enterprise. This, even if it is true, is surely not a convincing argument if the company's ships are in the nature of an Empire asset and essential to its defence in time of war. In any case, that criticism, if I may venture to say so, can be proved to be hardly applicable to the company under consideration. Would your Lordships allow me to say something with regard to that company, whose activities I have studied and indeed have admired during my sojourn of five years at the Antipodes? It is now sixty years since the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand was founded by a New Zealander, the late much respected Sir James Mills. Its growth has been somewhat remarkable. Commencing with five small vessels of an aggregate gross tonnage of 212,000 tons and formerly confined to the South Island of New Zealand, its Vessels, new forty-five in all, while effectually serving the Dominion's coastal requirements, ply regularly between New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States, the South Sea Islands and Calcutta. To indicate the potential value in war time of such

163
ships it is noteworthy that during the Great War this company in the interests of the Empire transported to the seat of war 106,000 men and carried 47,000 men in two hospital ships which it had provided out of its own resources. In war service its vessels steamed over 3,000,000 miles and no fewer than 18 of them of a gross tonnage of 102,000 tons were employed on war service at one time. Probably no shipping company of similar, scope and resources can show a finer war record.
I dislike intensely the nationalisation of Empire industries as calculated amongst other things to conduce to extravagance and inefficiency, but I feel so profoundly upon this subject from the standpoint of the Empire's future, that I want seriously to suggest that the Government should either come forward promptly to the rescue of British shipping in the Pacific or themselves take over the service which it is performing. I cannot but deprecate, and deprecate strongly, the tendency nowadays of British Governments to fail to provide adequately for the defence of the Empire or its mercantile interests through fear of diplomatic reprisals or repercussions. This timidity seldom if ever redounds to the advantage of any country affected with it, and certainly when it is shown by this country with its great maritime interests it neither inspires respect on the part of other nations for Great Britain nor enhances her prestige or her future security. In conclusion, I should like to endorse the appeal of my noble friends Lord Lloyd and Lord Essendon, that this matter should not be further shelved by reference to the Imperial Shipping Committee or any other body for further consideration. All the facts are well known. The overseas Dominions who are concerned in this problem have been awaiting definite action on the part of the British Government for at least three years. Surely now, before Dr. Earle Page and Mr. Menzies return to Australia, as they will do in the course of the next three or four weeks, the British Government should make some clear declaration of their policy and enable them to return with something substantial to tell their colleagues at the Antipodes.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am sure we are all deeply indebted to my
164
noble friend Lord Lloyd for having raised this question. As he has said, and as other noble Lords who have spoken in support of him have said, it is a most vital problem for the Empire. That we should reserve an All-Red shipping trade route around the Empire is as important to-day as it was when the service was commenced. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will listen to what has been said this afternoon not only by Lord Lloyd, who approached the subject from the defence point of view as well as the general point of view, but by my noble friend Lord Essendon, who brought an expert outlook to bear upon it. The debate this afternoon has very largely ranged round the shipping aspect of it. No reference has been made to the goods that are carried in those ships. I happen to be associated with a body called the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire. We are going to hold our triennial conference in October this year in New Zealand. In order to proceed there, delegates from Canada and from this country intend to travel by the Canadian-Australian Line to New Zealand. But we are confronted with this position that unless His Majesty's Government are prepared to collaborate with the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and Canada in what has become a very burning subject, which is not only of great political significance in the Dominions but has roused great depths of feeling in this country—unless they are prepared to collaborate in some scheme to save the ships of this line by which the delegates to the congress are going to travel, we as members of the commercial community will have to face a situation which so far as trade is concerned is unparalleled in the history of the British Empire.
How can you expect British goods to be carried in foreign ships to the same extent as they would be in British ships? That is what will be the effect if a subsidy is not granted to this British line. This line will disappear. It is bound to disappear; it cannot face up to the competition, and New Zealand will to all intents and purposes be marooned in American waters. I have nothing to say against the United States of America. They have as perfect a right as any other nation in the world to promote their interests and to promote their trade. But we have a similar right,

165
and we have a right to call upon our Government and the Governments of the Dominions to protect our shipping routes and to protect us against unfair competition. I shall travel back from New Zealand by a ship of the same line, the Union Company of New Zealand, to San Francisco, and I am told that that is the last voyage that this ship or any other British ship, if no action is taken, will make on that route. That is a very serious matter. The fact that I, as a British subject, if I go to New Zealand in Future and wish to travel back from New Zealand to San Francisco, must travel on an American ship, whether I like it or not, brings home the gravity of our case. I should like to support what has been said this afternoon and appeal most urgently to the Government to take steps while they may. In this country to-day, as has already been stated, there is Mr. Menzies, the Attorney-General of Australia, and Dr. Page, who are only too ready, as I believe, to come to some arrangement, and I feel that it is only fair to them, having come all this long distance, that some settlement should be reached before they depart for home.
Then there is one other point to which I should like to refer. It was made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he suggested that he would like to see these ships State-controlled, or partially State-controlled, if any subsidies were given. Then my noble friend Lord Bledisloe went even so far as to suggest that, if the Government could not see their way to give subsidies, then they might start a State-controlled shipping line themselves. I should be very much opposed to any such step. We have already had experience of State-controlled shipping lines—not in this country, thank God; I hope we never shall, but they have been tried in Canada, and where are the ships now? Sold back to private enterprise because the Government could not afford to keep them going and were not able to run them as an economic or commercial project. Then Australia herself: it is within the recollection of noble Lords that after the War there was a State-controlled shipping line which ran ships from Australia to this country and elsewhere. Where are those ships now? Sold back to private enterprise because the Australian Government found that it was not possible to run those ships economically and satisfactorily. So, my Lords, with those examples
166
before us, I should deplore immensely, and I am sure a great many other people in this country would do likewise, the sight of any State-controlled shipping line in place of the existing lines running to-day from Canada to New Zealand, Australia and America. I sincerely hope that the Government will take this matter in hand—a matter which had the greatest importance even at the time of Ottawa, four years ago—now, as quickly as possible, even if it is apparently a little bit too late. I beg to support the Motion.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I venture to intervene at this late hour only because I want to introduce a new point which has not so far been raised by any of the speakers this afternoon. I should like to say that I fully support the mover of this Motion and other noble Lords who have supported him. Although perhaps with one or two observations that fell from my noble friend Lord Strabolgi the noble Lord will not expect me to agree, yet apart from those I agree with almost every point that has been covered. One thing, however, has not been mentioned this afternoon, and that is the shipping of goods. I have not much interest in this matter as a shipping man, but I am very considerably interested in it as a shipper of goods. One point which I should like the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to explain when he replies is how the Government's present policy is supposed to work.
At the present moment the tramp steamers have their subsidy: the liner companies are faced with the competition of foreign lines and with the competition of British Government-subsidised tramp steamers. It is a very acute competition. I have had some experience of it: It is not always necessary to ship goods by a liner. There are very often occasions when one has the choice of a liner, a tramp steamer or a charter, and the Government subsidy naturally throws the advantage in favour of the tramp as against the liner. The result is that the liner companies are going through an extraordinarily bad time. The point has been taken so well and so ably by my noble friend Lord Essendon that there is no need for me to dilate upon it, except to say that the exporters of goods from this country can never afford to see their goods carried in foreign ships to the exclusion of British ships. If that position is allowed to arise, if the British export

167
trade is dependent upon foreign shipping, it will be killed. That is a simple point which is perfectly plain to everyone who has studied the subject and I am totally at a loss to understand what the Government's policy really is, what it is intended to be and how it is intended to work.
It is not only a question of the Empire, although that is perhaps of paramount importance. It is the policy of the Government that this country should be an exporting country. Ministers continually repeat the point. But they are doing nothing to carry out really effectively a shipping policy which will enable that activity to be continued. So far as the Empire is concerned I should have thought that it was so fundamental, so axiomatic, that we, as an Empire, were totally dependent upon sea connections that our command of the sea, not only by our Navy but also by our merchant marine, was vital to our very existence, and that there could be no hesitation for a moment in doing everything possible to make certain that the British Mercantile Marine stood at the head of the various shipping lines throughout the world and that our ships were not, as they are to-day, being driven off in every direction. It really does seem absurd that British shipping should be driven out in many cases by half-bankrupt Governments. All over the place one finds the Government subsidies creating a position which makes it quite impossible for British campanies to compete. It is not a question of efficiency, it is not a question of skill in management; it is simply a question of solid money. Governments who are supposed to manage their finances, and who we are told manage them, so badly, seem to be able to find sufficient money to dominate trade routes. That is an absurd situation. There is, as noble Lords have said this afternoon not the slightest grounds for further hesitation in this matter. Nor is there any time. It is already far too late, and much damage has already been done. I appeal to the Government to put this matter right at the very earliest possible moment.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I will only detain you for barely two minutes to add one word to the support which I should like to give to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Lloyd, and to say how glad I am that he has brought this matter forward. My one regret is that his Motion has been confined solely to
168
the specific case of the Pacific, whereas we are confronted with similar disadvantages in many parts of the world. I can only say that last year, having occasion to go to the Isle of Cyprus, our one Colony besides Malta in the Mediterranean, it was with profound humiliation that I found that there was no other way of getting there but in a liner of a foreign country subsidised for the taking of our mails. I have also been in correspondence with a good many people, lately, about the coastal shipping of this country, and the advantages which we give to everybody else without as a rule securing any countervailing advantages for ourselves. I find that everywhere there is a good deal of—perhaps discontent is not the right word—apprehension, and I do not look at this thing from the point of view of interested trades but rather from the Imperial point of view.
In view of this apprehension, I hope it is not with the object of taking advantage of the public at a given moment, when we are preoccupying ourselves so much with other important matters, but as I came down to this House I saw the posters of an evening paper on which appeared, in very large letters, "Loss of a flagship with 360 lives." On expending my penny on the paper I found in it a a reproduction of the story of the collision between the "Victoria" and the "Camperdown." If that announcement caused as much discomfort and heartburning to others as it did to myself, I consider the process to be very reprehensible.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I make no complaint, certainly, of the course that this debate has taken, and I associate myself with those of your Lordships who have paid tribute to my noble friend who introduced the subject, because I am not less sensible than he, or any who have spoken in the debate, of the importance of it from every point of view. The debate has travelled, in one or two cases, a little bit wide of the Motion which my noble friend introduced, and I shall have to ask the indulgence of your Lordships if I do not, on this occasion, seek to follow all those who have spoken into all the widest ramifications of their contributions. I might, however, perhaps at this point, deal with one matter that Lord Melchett raised while it is still in my mind. It does, I think, lie a little bit outside the

169
specific subject with which I have to deal. He drew your Lordships' attention to the range of the shipping problem being, as it in truth is, a great deal wider than the specific matter to which Lord Lloyd began by referring, and he directed our thoughts to the fact that there is, although not much has been said of it this afternoon, real competition, if I understood him correctly, between the tramp subsidised trade and the unsubsidised liner trade. I have not the knowledge to know to what extent that competition is in fact a practical competition, but I am advised that representatives of the liners are members of the Committee which deals with the tramp shipping subsidy, and that no complaints have been advanced by the liner representatives as to the working of that scheme.
Perhaps there is one other matter on which I might make a general observation before coming to the Motion itself. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe, in his interesting contribution to the debate, made what I think he will perhaps allow me to describe as a rather surprising attack upon His Majesty's Government, when he invited your Lordships to believe that so preoccupied have the Government been with the affairs of foreign nations that they had no inclination or time to devote to the affairs of the Imperial nations. My noble friend will, I am sure, take it from me that that is very far from the truth, and I am bound to express the hope that holding the position he does, and having held the position that he has, in which his words necessarily carry the greatest weight outside this country, he would on reflection perhaps regret having advanced so general a charge against His Majesty's Government, to which on this occasion it is quite impossible for me, except in a sentence or two, to make any reply.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I hope the noble Viscount will allow me for a moment to correct the false impression which he received of what I said. I tried to point out that the Government appeared to be paying relatively smaller attention to the graver issues raised by overseas problems, being apparently relatively concentrating their attention upon foreign affairs. I was careful to use the word "relative" in referring to the more important and serious problems of the Dominions, and not to all the problems that might arise in connection with them.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I heartily assure my noble friend that the last thing I would wish to do would be to misconstrue anything that he said, as I am equally sure the last thing that he would wish to do would be to fail in any degree in justice to the efforts of His Majesty's Government in these not too easy days. My noble friend Lord Lloyd began his speech by saying that the problem that he was inviting us to consider was by no means simply a national problem, but that it was in the widest sense an Imperial problem. In that I agree with him, and I agree with him not only because I, with him, regard it as a problem which affects Australia, New Zealand, Canada and this country, but because it is, as has been implicit in much that has been said in this debate, only one expression of a problem which vitally affects every part of the Empire. Lord Lloyd, I am sure, appealed to all our sense of loyalty and imagination when he drew a picture of the contrast between this headquarter island, as I think he called it, set geographically thousands of miles away from the other component parts of the Empire, and the countries so closely joined together in the other federation with which he for the moment was contrasting it and comparing it. Of course that is true; and it is also true that as long as a country enjoys sea power and has the material to develop sea power and to make use of the seas, the seas, so far from being a dividing factor, are a great instrument of unity, drawing together those parts that nature had naturally sundered. Therefore so long, and so long only, as there is a prosperous and efficient British Mercantile Marine the seven seas may be regarded in fact as arteries pumping the blood of Imperial health to and from the heart of the Empire and every part of it.
And of course on the practical side the British Mercantile Marine holds a quite peculiar place in the shipping of the world. It is on the British Mercantile Marine in immense proportion that world trade depends for maintenance and development. It is a platitude to repeat it, but it is perhaps worth repeating, that one of the principal exports of this country is the shipping services that it renders to the world. The employment that shipping directly gives runs into very large figures, and the indirect employment—coal and the heavy industries of

171
all sorts—runs into larger figures still. I was a little bit surprised at one observation that fell from my noble friend who introduced this Motion when he said that he had information—which for all I know is correct; I have not the figure by me—that during the last few years—I forget precisely what date he chose—British shipping had sunk by 3,000,000 tons; and I think in the connection in which he made that observation he rather suggested to your Lordships that the reduction was due to the failure of Government to take appropriate action, whether by subsidies or in some other way. I do not in any way speak as an expert in these matters, but I should have supposed that that reduction of British shipping, whatever the figure be, must in great part have been due to the general shrinkage of world trade, which has affected us along with everybody else.
The principal criticism which has been directed at His Majesty's Government has been criticism of delay. That was the criticism made by my noble friend who moved the Motion, by I think the noble Lord opposite who, I think, said that we had had leadership but that we now wanted action—whatever precise idea that was intended to connote I have been wondering ever since—and by my noble friend Lord Essendon and my noble friend Lord Bledisloe. All alike joined in the assertion and condemnation of Government delay and also of Government inertia in the whole field of shipping policy. I was rather surprised at the unqualified nature of the condemnation of the alleged Government inertia because, whether people have or have not agreed with the policy that has been pursued by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, I should have thought the last thing that, looking over the whole field, he could have been rightly described as was inert. After all, he has committed the taxpayers of this country to a subsidy of £2,000,000 for tramp shipping, which I am told has had great effects in rescuing tramp shipping from the worst of its immediate difficulties. The scrap-and-build scheme has filled a considerable place in shipping policy; and the Press and the public mind have been, I think, greatly impressed during recent months by what seemed to me a stroke of rather wider imagination than is usually exhibited by Government Departments in
172
the matter of the assistance and encouragement given to the building of the ship that will, I hope, make the name of British shipbuilding all over the world even more famous than it has been up till now. Therefore I am not at all disposed to accept the complaint of inertia on behalf of my right honourable friend in the general field of shipping policy.
With regard to the other matter, the criticism of Government delay on this particular point of the subsidised competition in the Southern Pacific, I think that perhaps the best and most convenient course is to remind your Lordships of what has been the actual history of this matter since it first came into prominence. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, gave the history as he viewed it, and I think gave it very fairly. But there are one or two other matters that also need to be kept in mind. A good many speakers seem to me to have spoken on this matter as if it were purely a question for the United Kingdom. That of course is not so. The noble Lord, Lord Essendon, was careful to say in terms that it was a matter on which it was essential to secure the agreement of the three Dominions principally concerned along with ourselves to a solution that might be capable of being put forward. The point that I wished to emphasize was that at the beginning of the last three or four years that this question has been up, it was not primarily a United Kingdom question, and at no point in those four years has it ever been solely a United Kingdom question. In a sense all these shipping questions concern us, as I began by saying, but I think I shall carry the assent of those who have followed this problem when I say that at no point has it, or ought it to have, been treated solely as a United Kingdom question.
It is quite true, I think, that this question began to attract attention somewhere about 1931 or 1932, and at that date, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, would agree, it began along the narrower lines of a question affecting the trade between Australia and New Zealand, and I think it was at that point that it first engaged the attention of the Imperial Conference at Ottawa, to which my noble friend Lord Lloyd alluded. He asked me one or two questions about the Imperial Conference at Ottawa that perhaps it would be convenient for me to deal with at this point.

173
I believe it is the case, although I was not at Ottawa, that New Zealand raised the question of British shipping in the Pacific at that Conference. A discussion took place between representatives of Australia, New Zealand, and this country, and as the result of that discussion it was agreed between those representatives of this country and the two Dominions that the matter would be taken up again and carried further by representatives of the three Governments in London. It was in accordance with the arrangement then made at Ottawa that the matter was taken up in London with the President of the Board of Trade.
LORD LLOYD: Could I be told when it was taken up—how long after Ottawa?
VISCOCNT HALIFAX: I have not the exact date, but I think I can give the date from the general context. It was taken up at the time when preparations were active for the World Economic Conference. The Ottawa Conference was in August and September, 1932, and the World Economic Conference was in June, 1933. Therefore I suppose this question came up and was discussed at the Board of Trade some time in the early part of 1933. The United Kingdom Government had, at that point, taken steps to get the question of shipping subsidies put on the agenda of the World Economic Conference on the understanding that if, and when, no agreement was reached at the World Economic Conference it would be open to the representatives of the Dominion Governments to raise the matter again. The Conference did in fact fail to reach agreement, and after the failure of the World Economic Conference to deal with the matter, I am advised, the Australian and New Zealand representatives employed some time in trying to adjust their points of view in order to reach a common agreement upon matters in regard to which, in some respects, they had some differences of approach. The next occasion on which, as I am informed, the matter was given publicity was in September, 1934, when the Prime Minister of New Zealand made a statement, with the concurrence of the Prime Minister of Australia, in which they both agreed to continue their examination of the question, and so on.
I do not wish to go through this history at wearisome length, but the point I wish
174
to emphasise is, shortly, this, that when the matter was first brought up to the Government of this country, they placed before the representatives of the Dominions some of the wider considerations that must inevitably be borne in mind when questions of shipping self-defensive action were being examined. Afterwards they made it quite clear that they were not going to stand in the way of common action that the Dominions primarily concerned with the narrower question might think it right to take. It was not until these Dominions had reached a common policy, and with the expansion, of the question into the wider trans-Pacific nature it assumed after the first year or two of its coming into prominence—when Canada was also brought into the question—it was not until then that we reached the point of His Majesty's Government here being formally approached along with the Ministers of Australia and New Zealand by the Chamber of Shipping in, I think, the month of May, 1935. It was at those meetings in 1935 that the question of a subsidy was first mentioned by, I think, the Chamber of Shipping deputations. At that point the Dominion Prime Ministers receiving their deputations gave, if my recollection serves me rightly, very noncommittal replies, and it was made clear at the deputation received by my right honourable friend the President of the. Board of Trade that the shipping industry itself was not agreed as to the necessity of such a subsidy being given.
I hope none of your Lordships will be tempted to under-rate the importance of such a subsidy decision as has been brought before us as a possibility this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Essendon was quite frank, and said he had always been disposed to hate subsidies, and other of your Lordships, including the noble Lord opposite, said that a very special case had to be made out for the economic purist to accept them. It was quite clear that in this case the question of whether or not a subsidy was justifiable could only be decided on a case that was definitely formulated and definitely made by the only people who could put it up, and they were the representatives of the steamship line themselves. It was only six weeks ago, in April, that a meeting was held between Ministers and High Commissioners representing this country and the Dominions

175
concerned and the definite proposals were submitted by the shipping companies concerned—in April and, more precisely, in May—which now, as I shall show in one or two moments, are in definite occupation of the field. I stand open to correction, but I think it is true that supporters of the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand have come to realise the difficulties in the way of making a case for financial assistance to enable both their service from the United States and also the service of the Canadian Line from Canada to be maintained. They have, in consequence, I am informed, been for some time prepared to put forward a scheme for rationalising these trans-Pacific services by dropping that of the Union Steamship Company which, I believe, is to have the final honour of carrying my noble friend to New Zealand in the autumn, and placing the service of the Canadian Line on a sound financial footing.
As your Lordships may have been informed, the definite proposal that has been put forward is that the Canada-Australia Line should build two new vessels capable of effective competition with the fast and well-equipped vessels of the Matson Line and that they should use these to maintain a monthly service between the West Coast of North America and Australia and New Zealand. When I tell your Lordships that these proposals by the people principally concerned were only put forward to His Majesty's Government six weeks ago, I do not think any charge of undue delay in dealing with them can properly be laid.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt my noble friend and ask how long this question will take for consideration by the Imperial Shipping Committee?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I was just coming to that. The first step of course that ought to be taken was to secure the agreement of Canada and the other Dominions to the proposal to remit it to the Imperial Shipping Committee. I was a little surprised that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe found fault with any reference of this matter being made to the Imperial Shipping Committee. I was even more surprised, if he will allow me to say so, to hear it suggested that it would have been a good plan, if no other plan suggested itself, for the
176
Government to run the line itself. For the reasons given by my noble friend behind me, and which I should have thought would have been familiar to the noble Viscount as not having been so very far distant from him in New-Zealand, the Australian experience was not, I believe, an encouragement of Government-managed steamship lines. But I must not digress from my purpose.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: The noble Viscount really must be fair to me. First of all I only deprecated reference to the Imperial Shipping Committee as a course which ought to have been taken, if taken at all, some three years ago, and not left until the present time when there is universal dissatisfaction being expressed at the dilatoriness of the Government in this matter. With regard to the possible nationalisation of the shipping service, what I wanted to point out was that it is absolutely essential to the security and effective defence of the Empire that the matter should not be allowed to drift indefinitely and the Mercantile Marine swept off the Pacific; and that I for my part for that reason would welcome, although reluctantly, the Government ownership of the ships themselves.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am afraid I cannot pretend to be at all in agreement with my noble friend that Government ownership would ever be likely to provide a satisfactory solution of this matter; nor, I am bound to say, can I understand why he should have committed himself to the statement, though I do not wish to cross swords with him, that reference to the Imperial Shipping Committee, because it was in his view late, was, therefore, wrong. That seems to me to be an illogical and unsafe deduction. But the short point surely is that the Imperial Shipping Committee is the only body that can perform the function of advising all the Dominion Governments of the Empire on the questions that a matter like this involves. My noble friend asked me how long I anticipated that it would take the Imperial Shipping Committee to report upon the problem. I am naturally not in a position to tie them or make any commitments on their behalf, but I understand that they are proposing to expedite their inquiry now that they have got a definite problem stated before them. They are, I believe, holding their first sitting to-day, and it

177
will be hoped very much that they may be in a position to make their Report within what we should all consider quite a reasonably brief space of time.
It will perhaps interest your Lordships to hear the terms of reference that they, with the concurrence of the Governments concerned, have been given for their work:
"To inquire and report:—

"(a) as to the traffic possibilities of a British passenger and cargo service between Western Canada and Australia/New Zealand;

"(b) whether the service outlined in the Note annexed would be appropriate in view of the traffic possibilities and of any other shipping facilities available; and if not, what kind of service would be appropriate;

"(c) as to the probable financial results of such a service, taking into account the financial results of the working of the existing British services between (i) San Francisco and Australia/New Zealand, and (ii) Vancouver and Australia/New Zealand;

"(d) whether such a service would have any ill effects on other British shipping interests."

I think your Lordships will agree when you examine those terms of reference that they are pretty comprehensive, and at the same time sufficiently detailed to invite and to permit rapid examination.
I do not think there is really anything more that I can say to add to the information that I have tried to give your Lordships on this matter. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Strabolgi) asked me a couple of questions. The first was as to what obligations the Government would consider laying upon any recipients of subsidies. I am afraid my general answer to him must be that it is premature at this stage for me to pronounce upon those matters, but I might perhaps remind the noble Lord that the National Maritime Board, which may, I suppose, not inaptly be described as the Whitley Council of the shipping industry, have a great deal to say to all the recipients of the tramp shipping subsidy, and that he may draw such conclusions as he can from that analogy so far as it is complete. With regard to his other point, that he would wish to see the shipping business or the recipients of shipping subsidy under some measure of Government control, I am afraid I must tell him that on that point I should be, if I understood him correctly, in disagreement with him
178
for the same reason that I was in disagreement with the hypothetical case put by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, because, on the whole, I think that business, and perhaps particularly shipping business, is the best conducted the least it is interfered with by any Government Department.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I point out that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is subsidised and that shares in that company, which are a valuable property, are held by the Exchequer? There we have a Government Department concerned, yet the Government do not interfere with the commercial business of that company. Cannot we have something of that sort here?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: It is not for me to shut my mind to any of those proposals. I was only asserting a general principle from which I am very glad to find the noble Lord does not greatly differ.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, before turning to the reply of my noble friend the Leader of the House I should first like to say, if I may, with what satisfaction I heard the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, refer to this question, and, despite his Party's dislike of subsidies, say he thought there might be an exception in this particular case. The noble Lord is, as somebody has said, a distinguished sailor. If he will allow me to say so, I always notice that when the salt of him supervenes over his Socialism, he becomes particularly sagacious. But we are grateful to him, I am sure, for the help he will give us on this question. I am very grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, and to my other noble friends for the speeches they have made.
I was a little sorry, if I may say so, that my noble friend the Leader of the House should have indulged in such a rather heavy rebuke of my noble friend on my right (Viscount Bledisloe) on his very proper remarks. My noble friend the Leader of the House, if he will forgive my saying so, has a habit growing on him of treating as guilty almost of lèse majesté any one who points out the very obvious shortcomings of the Government in these matters, shortcomings which are obvious to the whole Empire, though the fact that this is so does not seem yet to have penetrated the minds of the Front Bench

179
in this House. I really think my noble friend ought to have been more grateful for the important and careful contribution to our debate from a noble Lord who has such distinguished experience and knowledge of those questions as the late Governor-General of New Zealand. When it comes to the defence which my noble friend attempted to make for Government policy I can only say I heard that defence with a sense of profound discouragement and unhappiness. Every thing he said showed that what I had feared was abundantly true. I do not want to misquote the noble Viscount, but I think he said that this Pacific question was not at first primarily a British question.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: What I said was that it was not primarily a United Kingdom question at that time.
LORD LLOYD: I agree. I regret I misquoted my noble friend. But at what period in this controversy could it ever not have been primarily a United Kingdom question? The United Kingdom is the power house of the whole Empire. From the very beginning, this great problem of how to keep up an All-Red Route to connect the various parts of the Empire was surely a United Kingdom question as well as an Imperial question. Then there was what I think was a rather unhappy period in the noble Lord's speech—the Government were not prepared to interfere with the Dominions on this matter. What we are begging His Majesty's Government to give is a great deal more leadership to the Dominions in these very difficult and complex matters. In these matters the Dominions have not got the resources in many cases to take the lead, either in cash, or very often in counsel. They have many distinguished people, but it is to the leadership of this country that they look in a great maritime question like this. If the Imperial Government say they are not going to interfere in this question there must be terrible drift and terrible delay.
Now we are to have this question once more referred to a Committee. All of us who have spoken on the matter are united in feeling, and indeed as far as I can judge the House is almost unanimous to-day in feeling that the Government must have in their possession the information
180
necessary for a prompt decision of this question. These lines are dying. There is no time to wait. What hope is there, with all the expedition that my noble friend contemplates, that before next autumn there is likely to be a complete decision? If it is possible for a Committee to reach a decision by the autumn, how much sooner it would be possible for the Government to reach a decision when the President of the Board of Trade has only to telegraph to the Dominions for information in their possession. There is tremendous feeling in this country on this question, and I think there will be a feeling of profound discontent and discouragement when people learn that once more a decision has been adjourned, if not sine die, at any rate for weeks and probably for months.
I feel very tempted, in view of the unsatisfactory reply given, to ask your Lordships to divide. I am not going to do so, solely for the reason that I believe at this juncture a Division, in which the Government as far as I can judge would suffer defeat, might do more harm than good. I can only, while thanking the noble Viscount for his full and of course courteous statement on the question, express to him my profound sense of discouragement and dissatisfaction. In view of the Government's reply I and my friends will wish to raise the matter again at an early date. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I understand that it will be for the general convenience, in view of the lateness of the hour, if we postpone until to-morrow afternoon the remaining Orders on the Paper. If that meets with the general approval of your Lordships, these Orders under the Government of India Act and the Government of Burma Act will be taken to-morrow afternoon.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, may I ask at what time they will be taken?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, they will be taken after the other business on the Paper, and of course I cannot say

181
exactly how long that business will take but I should think it ought not to take very long. The business, if your Lordships have not the Paper before you, consists of the Second Reading of the Weights and Measures Bill, the Second Reading of the Employment of Women and Young Persons Bill, the Committee stage of the Pilotage Authorities (Limitation of Liabilities) Bill, which I believe is formal, and some other formal matters. I am afraid that my noble friend the Secretary of State will be obliged by exigencies of dates to take them by to-morrow and I think I am interpreting the opinion of your Lordships when I say that I think it would probably be more convenient to take them to-morrow rather than this evening.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, these Orders deal with matters of some importance and, although no one I think will want to discuss them in detail, no doubt the Secretary of State will want to explain carefully the meaning of their provisions, financial and otherwise, for India. It seems a pity to rush these Orders through at the end of a long debate. If it is convenient for the Government to take them to-morrow I should advise that being done.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I think I may take it that the general sense of the House is that we should take the Orders to-morrow, and in that case I think we might now adjourn.
House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Provisional Order,

Derby Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order,

Doncaster Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order,

Reading Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order.

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Marriages Provisional Orders,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Gloucester).

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Wolverhampton Corporation,

Axbridge Rural District Council,

Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 2),

York Gas.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (LONDON TRANSPORT) BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

D. Northumberland,

L. Annaly,

L. Wolverton,

L. Monkswell,

L. Milne. (Chairman):

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be
184
heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

BANBURY GAS ORDER, 1936.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Banbury Gaslight and Coke Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSUR- ANCE (ANOMALIES) (SEASONAL WORKERS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1936.
An Order made by the Minister of Labour under Section 55 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RIPON) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee, on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House: Bill to be printed as amended.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next: Bill to be printed as amended.
Proceedings of the Joint Committee laid upon the Table, and to be printed: Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.