Sitting of 26 November 1936

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PETITION (UNEMPLOYMENT, SOUTH WALES).
Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: I beg to present a humble Petition from county councils, city councils, and other local authorities in South Wales and Monmouthshire, Breconshire and Pembrokeshire and from other bodies and persons interested in or concerned with the improvement of social and industrial conditions within the areas of these authorities. The petition shows that in South Wales alone there are 142,636 persons unemployed, or over 34 per cent. of the total number of insured persons; that this excessive unemployment has persisted during the past nine years, notwithstanding the fact that since the year 1921 there has been a net loss of population by migration of 280,000 persons, and that the provisions of the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, have proved inadequate for the purposes the Act. Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that the Act may be so amended as to confer on the Commissioners acting thereunder such further powers as are necessary for enabling full effect to be given to the objects of the Act, and that provision may be made by the establishment of a Committee of the Cabinet, or otherwise, for co-ordinating the functions of Government Departments in regard to matters which form the subject of recommendations of the said Commissioners.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  EDINBURGH CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ANNUITY, ETC., FUND (CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Edinburgh Chartered Accountants Annuity, Etc., Fund," presented by Mr. Elliot; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to
  526
  be considered To-mmorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    EXCHANGES (RECRUITING).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Minister of Labour whether coloured pictorial recruiting posters are now hung in all Employment Exchanges; and whether he will instruct exchange officials to give recruiting leaflets to applicants for work who are of recruitable age?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): A coloured poster about service in the Forces is exhibited in each of the local offices of the Ministry, and leaflets are given to any applicants making inquiry. Under arrangements already in hand, pictorial posters, supplied by the Service Departments, will also be exhibited at an early date.
    Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that these leaflets are to be given by exchange officials to any applicant for a job who is of suitable age?
    Mr. BROWN: They are given to any applicant who makes inquiry.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it right that the exchanges should be ashamed of the Army?
    Mr. BROWN: Not at all, but the Ministry of Labour is a civil Department.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Why not distribute the leaflets round the Tory clubs instead of to die poor unemployed?
    Sir A. KNOX: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Motion for the Adjournment.

    COMMISSIONER FOR SPECIAL AREAS (REPORTS).
    Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour, whether, in addition to the three published reports from the Commissioners for the Special Areas, Vile Government have received any other

    527
    report or reports on the subject of those areas; and, if so, whether he will make such report or reports available to Members of this House?
    Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir, I have re-received no report from the Commissioner for Special Areas in England and Wales other than the three which have been published.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during his recent visit to Wales it was brought to us that he discussed with the Commissioner a private report which the Commissioner had sent to his Department? Is that the truth?
    Mr. BROWN: No. There is no truth in it at all. Of course, there is constant communication between the Special Commissioner and myself and between his Department and my Department, but there is no unpublished document which could, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a, report.
    Mr. A. JENKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state that the whole of the reports submitted by the Commissioner have been published?
    Mr. BROWN: Certainly. That is the answer which I have given.
    Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any memorandum from the Commissioner which could have been published and could be published now?
    Mr. BROWN: The Commissioner points out in his report that he sent a forecast of how his mind was working on 27th July. That was embodied in the report, and it is there in full.
    Miss WILKINSON rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Arthur Michael Samuel.
    Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order. May I submit that the Minister has just now contradicted a statement that he himself made in an answer to my question previously, when he said he had received no memorandum at any earlier stage than the report? Now he contradicts that.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Arthur Michael Samuel.

    CATERING TRADES (PARK ROYAL TRAINING CENTRE).
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government training centre at Park Royal is receiving from South Wales and Durham a number of unemployed would-be trainees for the catering trades adequate to the accommodation at Park Royal; and, if not, will be arrange for local authorities in the distressed areas to send to Park Royal an increased number of suitable persons to be trained to fill the numerous vacancies on the staffs of hotels and restaurants in London and the South of England?
    Mr. E. BROWN: There has been for some months a shortage of candidates for the waiters' training class at the Park Royal Training Centre, but as a result of special steps to bring the facilities to the notice of suitable unemployed men the number of applications has increased during the past few weeks. In selecting men for this course preference is given to those coming from the depressed areas, including South Wales and Durham; recruitment is effected through the Employment Exchanges. There are still a few vacancies in the class in addition to those which will continue to arise as men pass into employment on the completion of the course.
    Mr. BANFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman really give some attention to the question of setting up a trade board for this particular industry?
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Will my right hon. Friend let it be known that hon. Gentlemen opposite, by creating a grievance, prevent unemployed men from getting employment?
    Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply to Members of this House the conditions of training at this centre?
    Mr. BROWN: I will be only too happy to do so. This is one of the successful parts of the Ministry's work.

    JUVENILES.
    Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWARTasked the Minister of Labour the percentage of rejections on medical grounds of applicants for the juvenile transfer centres and the men's instructional centres at Durham county for the years 1931, 1932,

    529
    1933, 1934, and 1935; and what provision is being made for the medical inspection and treatment of those presenting themselves for training?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The junior transfer centre in Durham was opened in July, 1935, and, during the year from July, 1935, to June, 1936, 571 boys were submitted for medical examination of whom 109, i.e. 19.1 per cent. were rejected on medical grounds. Boys rejected for reception into the centre are those who are considered by the medical officers to be permanently unfit for employment away from home or to be in need of medical treatment. The centre is conducted by the education authority, and they have recently been asked to consider accepting at the centre boys in need of the simpler kinds of medical treatment. The authority already have power to provide medical inspection and treatment for boys attending junior instruction centres. As regards instructional centres, the percentage of men in the County of Durham who were rejected on medical grounds during the period January to October, 1936, was about 17 per cent. 3 it is regretted that figures for the earlier years are not available. Young men who are rejected owing to dental trouble can receive remedial treatment at the insstructional centre at Hamsterley, and arrangements are being made for the opening of two local training centres in the County of Durham at which young men who are suffering from minor physical disabilities will be able to receive treatment.
    Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a percentage of these rejections is owing to the fact that many of these boys and men are suffering from under-feeding, due to the operation of the means test in many of their homes?
    Mr. BROWN: I do not accept that.
    Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it very unsatisfactory that 19 per cent. of the young men who are examined are found unfit for the comparatively light work for which they have offered themselves, and is he not prepared to recommend that the Government should do something rather serious in the matter?
    Mr. BROWN: The answer is that are taking medical steps to do that.
    Mr. PALING: Do these medical steps apply to youths who are rejected?
    Mr. BROWN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read in detail the answer I have given, which answers that point.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is considering any action in regard to the health of unemployed young persons between the age of 14 and 18, the time when the need for good nutrition is greatest, and when the benefit of school meals, milk, and physical training is no longer available?
    Mr. BROWN: In nearly all areas in which there is substantial unemployment among boys and girls between 14 and 18 years of age junior instruction centres or classes are provided by the local education authority which unemployed boys and girls may be required to attend. The instruction given at the centres normally includes physical training, and arrangements may be made for the supply of milk. Medical treatment may also be provided at centres in England and Wales. The question of providing meals at the centres is being considered by the National Advisory Councils for Juvenile Employment.

    TRAINING CENTRES, DURHAM.
    Mr. LESLIEasked the Minister of Labour how many training centres there are in the county of Durham and where they are situated; and whether it is his intention to set up training centres in each division in the county so as to obviate the necessity of men and women having to leave home to attend training centres in other districts?
    Mr. E. BROWN: There are no Government training centres in Durham, the reason being that it is the policy to establish such centres in areas of good employment since experience has shown that this course is greatly to the advantage of the men in securing employment after training. Arrangements are, however, in hand for establishing two local centres in Durham (for one of which a site has been found at Spennymoor) at which men will receive preliminary training with a view to their proceeding subsequently to some other centre appropriate to their particular capacity. There is also an instructional centre at Hamsterley. There are six domestic training centres in the county

    531
    for women, situated at Durham, Blaydon, Stockton, Sunderland, Jarrow and South Shields.
    Mr. LESLIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it advisable to have training centres for young people so that in the event of the location of industry becoming the policy of the Government, labour will be available locally?
    Mr. BROWN: It is with the idea of preparing the way for any movement in connection with enlarged employment that the intermediate centres have been established. One has been very successful for Merthyr, and we are hoping that that success will be repeated in Durham.

    SPECIAL AREAS.
    Mr. J. J. DAVIDSONafter the Minister of Labour whether any further special consultation with regard to the Special Areas have taken place; and, if so, has he anything to report to the House?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I have nothing to add to the replies given on 23rd November to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and on 25th November to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins).
    Mr. DAVIDSON: As the newspapers of the country have been circulating reports during the past week that steps have been taken, does the Minister deny it?
    Mr. BROWN: I cannot be asked to take responsibility for newspaper reports.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: As this matter has been in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department for the last 15 months, is it not time something were done?
    Mr. BROWN: I have nothing further to add at the moment.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I ask whether the Government have, in the light of their experience, decided to withdraw the Special Areas Bill?
    Mr. BROWN: I have already said that I have nothing to add to my answer.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. R. J. TAYLORasked the Minister of Labour what conditions govern the
    532
    payment of benefit to the dependants of a claimant in receipt of unemployment assistance benefit who has died before benefit is paid?
    Mr. E. BROWN: The Unemployment Assistance Board inform me that arrangements have now been made under which, in cases where hardship to dependants would otherwise result, payment will be made to the representative of a deceased person of an amount corresponding to the period during which the deceased applicant was qualified for an allowance subsequent to the date on which the last payment was made.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated annual cost of the abolition of the household means test?
    Mr. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16th July last to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), in which I dealt fully with this matter.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Did the right hon. Gentleman give the estimated amount in that reply?
    Mr. BROWN: No, I pointed out many reasons why it was not possible to do so.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If the sum required is not very large, ought it to stand in the way of the removal of the intense poverty in many thousands of homes?
    Mr. BROWN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the answer, and, if necessary, put down another question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman was in such close contact with the King, did not the King suggest that the means test should be done away with?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not bring in the King's name.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the Statutory Committee's report on the surplus, which is now, I understand, fairly large, will not the right hon. Gentleman recommend to the Committee that the surplus should be used for the abolition of the means test?
    Mr. BROWN: No, the Statutory Committee have their own duty to examine the facts and to report to me accordingly.

    MEXBOROUGH AND THORNE.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour how many persons were receiving unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance at Mexborough and Thorne on the latest date for which figures are available?
    Mr. E. BROWN: During the week ended 13th November, 1936, 2,208 payments of insurance benefit and 1,620 payments of unemployment allowances were made direct through the Mexborough Employment Exchange. The corresponding figures for the Thorne Employment Exchange were 562 and 1,032 respectively. These figures do not include payments made through associations for which a geographical analysis is not available.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: As these areas are not regarded as distressed areas, does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of these figures, that something special ought to be done for them?

    TRADING ESTATES.
    Mr. G. HALLasked the Minister of Labour what progress, if any, is being made in establishing the new trading estates in South Wales; will he give the location of these estates; and whether any applications have been made to establish new industries on the proposed estates?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am informed that the South Wales and Monmouthshire Trading Estates Company, Limited, was registered on 27th June. Negotiations have been practically completed for a site at Treforest, south of Pontypridd and about seven miles north-west of Cardiff. Possession of the bulk of this site will be obtained within the next few days. Plans and specifications for its development are now being prepared, and it is anticipated that work will be started early in the new year. Twenty-four applications for sites have been received, but it is not known whether all of these will materialise. As regards the trading estate at Port Talbot, which it is hoped that private enterprise will establish, it is understood that negotiations are still proceeding.
    Mr. CHARLESWILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to carry out the proposal to set up a calcium carbide works in South Wales or some other distressed area?
    Mr. BROWN: That is another issue.

    DOCK WORKERS.
    Mr. GIBBINSasked the Minister of Labour whether the National Joint Council for Dock Labour have completed their investigation into the question of dock workers signing eleven times a week; and when are the number of signings to be reduced?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I understand that the National Joint Council for Dock Labour and its standing advisory committee have had this question under consideration, and that recommendations may be expected shortly. I will consider these recommendations as soon as they are received.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the Minister aware that this matter has been under consideration for five years?
    Mr. BROWN: I am, but as the hon. Member and the House know, this is one of the most difficult problems in the whole range of insurance.

  BUILDING TRADE (WET TIME).
  Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement with regard to a national scheme for the payment for wet time in the building trade?
  Mr. E. BROWN: I assume that the reference is to a scheme for payment for wet time under Section 72 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935. In the first instance the matter is one for employers and workpeople in the building industry. Discussion is taking place between representatives of the industry and officials of my Department, with a view to assisting the industry to formulate a scheme.

  CHRISTMAS PANTOMIME (MISS BARBARA VERNON).
  Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether the application made to him for permission for Miss Barbara Vernon to appear in pantomime at the London Hippodrome was in order; and will he state the reason why it was refused for this particular theatre?
  Mr. E. BROWN: The application to which the hon. Member refers was refused because I was not satisfied that the part in question—that of principal girl in a Christmas pantomime—could not be filled by a British subject.
  Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman set himself up as an authority as to what artists should fill certain parts?
  Mr. BROWN: I only know that since the decision the part has been filled by a British subject.

  ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. DAVIDSONasked the Minister of Labour the total number of aliens who have received permission to start employment in this country for the years 1934 and 1935, respectively, and for the first nine months of 1936?
  Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply contains a tabular statement, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the statement:
  The number of permits issued by the Ministry of Labour for aliens to come to the United Kingdom to take employment and the number of recommendations made to the Home Office that permission be granted for the employment of aliens already in the United Kingdom during the periods 1934, 1935 and the first nine months of 1936 were as follow:

  PRISONERS.
  Mr. GALLACHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will direct that the Churchill rule (1910) concerning political prisoners be made operative?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The rule to which, I think, the hon. Member refers still forms part of the Code of Rules for the Government of Prisons, but I must point out that it contains no reference to "political prisoners" and indeed the law does not recognise any such class of prisoners.
  Mr. GALLACHER: Is not the Secretary of State aware that this failure to
  536
  recognise political prisoners is based on a fiction, and is he not prepared to consider removing this fiction and applying the Churchill rule to political prisoners?
  Sir J. SIMON: We could not deal with the matter by using such a question-begging phrase.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing a rule for dealing with political prisoners?
  Mr. GALLACHERasked the Home Secretary whether he will discontinue the practice of compelling young prison officers to witness the flogging of prisoners?
  Sir J. SIMON: If this question implies that any officers are required to attend except those whose presence is necessary for the due carrying out of the punishment, there is no truth in the suggestion.
  Mr. BENSON: Does not the Home Secretary think it desirable that this country should be brought into line with every other civilised country, and abolish flogging?
  Mr. GALLACHER: Is not the Secretary of State aware that a definite statement has been made to this effect by one who has had the experience of seeing young officers witnessing flogging?
  Sir J. SIMON: Then I hope that the definite statement I have made with will be duly asked the Home Secretary the number of convicts in His Majesty's prisons who have been at one time inmates of Borstal institutions?
  Sir J. SIMON: I could not give particulars for the present date without obtaining a special return, but a return obtained last February showed that there were then in prison under sentence 688 men who at some previous date had been in a Borstal institution. The total number of men who have passed through the Borstal institutions is over 13,000.

  CORONERS.
  Mr. SORENSENasked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to implement the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Coroners?
  Sir J. SIMON: Legislation would be required to give effect to the principal recommendations of the committee, and in view of the heavy legislative programme which has already been announced, it would not appear that there is likely to be an opportunity for dealing with this matter in the present Session.
  Mr. SORENSEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when these important recommendations will be dealt with?
  Sir J. SIMON: I could not give an indication in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question now, but I said not in the present Session in the answer I have given him.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTORING OFFENCES.
    Sir JOHN MELLORasked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to secure that notice shall be given to persons whom the police intend to charge with motoring offences as soon as is practicable after the alleged commission of an offence?
    Sir J. SIMON: Parliament has dealt with this matter, as my hon. Friend knows, in Section 21 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and I have no reason to doubt that chief officers of police are fully aware of and comply with this provision.
    Sir J. MELLOR: Is my right hon. Friend aware that defendants are frequently seriously embarrassed in their defence through not receiving any notice that a charge will be preferred until a considerable time after the date of the alleged offence?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am sure that there is no deliberate intention to do that. If my hon. Friend will look at the terms of the Statute he will see what the provisions of the law are.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Has my right hon. Friend taken into consideration the silent trap by which, after a, lapse of a week, a man is expected to remember the pace at which he travelled over a measured distance during a period of one minute?
    Sir J. MELLORasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider taking steps to provide that all motoring
    538
    charges which render a defendant liable to an endorsement of his licence shall be tried by specially constituted courts?
    Sir J. SIMON: Under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the court before which a person is convicted of any criminal offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle (not being an offence under Part IV of the Act) may order particulars of the conviction to be endorsed on the offender's licence, and my hon. Friend's suggestion would, therefore, involve the hearing of nearly all such charges by specially constituted courts. I know of no sufficient reason for the adoption of any such proposal.
    Sir J. MELLOR: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that it would be an advantage if the defendants in these alleged motoring offences could be tried by benches of magistrates who are themselves qualified drivers?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the question which is at issue in these cases is a very proper one to be dealt with by ordinary justices. After all, the court has to consider the interests of the public as well as of motorists.

    ROADS (WHITE LINES).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Transport whether, to prevent motor accidents and to help motorists and other road users to drive with more safety, he will take steps to have all roads marked with white lines or spots?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend exercises his influence in all appropriate cases to this end.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think it would be a wise precaution to insist on all roads having a white line in the centre, particularly in view of the fact that during fog it is almost impossible to see the kerb from the driving side of the car?
    Captain HUDSON: My answer shows that we are doing what we can in that direction.

    SPEED LIMIT.
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that

    539
    the reluctance of magistrates to convict motorists charged with exceeding the 30miles-per-hour limit in built-up areas is largely due to the prevalent difficulty of knowing whether a thoroughfare is controlled or not; and whether he will take steps to require the marking of lampposts in controlled areas with a, distinguishing colour band?
    Captain HUDSON: Where the speed limit is not in force in a built-up area every street lamp is marked with an appropriate sign. The absence of such a sign is a clear indication that the speed limit is in force.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, although that may be the general instruction, it is not in fact carried out throughout the country, and can he see that it is generally observed by local authorities?
    Captain HUDSON: If my hon. Friend knows of any case anywhere where it is not carried out, I hope he will let my Department know.

  EXPLOSION, NEWCASTLE.
  Mr. DENVILLEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report on the explosion in a house situate in Scotswood Road, Newcastle, where several lives were lost; and has he any statement to make?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have obtained a report from the Chief Constable of Newcastle in regard to this distressing accident. Five persons, I regret to say, have lost their lives as a result of the explosion, and six were injured. The hon. Member will appreciate that I am not in a position to make any further statement in the matter pending the proceedings at the coroner's inquest, which I understand has been adjourned until 9th December.
  Mr. THORNE: Can the Home Secretary tell us the cause of the explosion?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have a note about it, but I think it would be better to let the coroner's inquiry take place, because it will, of course, be addressed to that very question.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that most of these explosions occur in working class districts in our big industrial centres?

  ITALIANS (BRITISH DOMICILE).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he has any record of the number of Italians who left this country during the course of the ItaloAbyssinian war and who have returned here and secured employment; and, if so, will he give a list of their employers?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. No record has been kept.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that these men left this country to help their country to break international law, will the right hon. Gentleman secure a record of those who attempt to return, and will he refuse to allow any of them to be domiciled in this country?
  Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman will see that it does not follow that because a man leaves at a particular period he leaves for a particular purpose, and it would be difficult, I think, to ascertain in each case whether he left for this purpose or not; and, apart from that, our general practice under all governments has been that a foreigner who is regularly domiciled in this country is ordinarily readmitted after a temporary absence abroad, provided that he has not been absent so long that he has ceased to have any claim to be regarded as a resident here. I think that, broadly speaking, that must be the fair way to deal with this class of case.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: In the very special circumstances referred to in the question, and with 1,750,000 of our own people unemployed, does the right hon. Gentleman think that we ought to allow to be domiciled in this country persons who left here to join the Italian army to help to break international law?
  Sir J. SIMON: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how foreigners are able to get domicile here?
  Sir J. SIMON: That is another question.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.

    DISCIPLINARY BOARD (APPEALS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary the number of police officers who have

    541
    appealed to him against the findings of the disciplinary board during the three years ended to the last convenient date; and in how many cases those officers who have appeared before such board during the same period were legally represented?
    Sir J. SIMON: During the three years ended on 31st ultimo 14 members of the Metropolitan Police Force appealed to me from decisions of the Discipline Board under the Police (Appeals) Act, 1927. None of them had legal aid when appearing before the Discipline Board.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these men were given the opportunity to have legal representatives with them when they appeared before him?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am quite certain that any legal aid wanted could be available, but I think we may assume that before the Discipline Board the officer in question, who very naturally appears, is very often assisted by one of his colleagues and that the matter will be settled there in the ordinary way.
    Mr. J. HALL: How many of these appeals were successful?
    Sir J. SIMON: Does the hon. Member mean appeals to the Home Secretary?
    Mr. HALL: Yes.
    Sir J. SIMON: I will gladly answer that question if the hon. Member will put it down. Some have been successful and some have not, but I could not now give the figures.

    DETECTIVE-SERGEANT WHITEHURST.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Home Secretary whether Detective-sergeant Whitehurst is now serving in the Metropolitan Police; and, if so, what is his present rank and to what division he is attached?
    Sir J. SIMON: This officer is now serving as a constable. He is temporarily attached to the Criminal Record Office at New Scotland Yard.

  EDUCATION.

    POLITICAL LITERATURE IN SCHOOLS.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the President of the Board of Education what steps are taken by his Department to prohibit
    542
    the distribution of political literature to school children during school hours in the case of a non-provided elementary school receiving grants from public funds?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): No distinction can be drawn in this matter between non-provided and provided schools. I am confident that managers equally with local education authorities are fully alive to the impropriety of permitting the distribution of political literature to school children during school hours. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I should be glad if he would furnish me with particulars.
    Mr. THURTLE: If I furnish the right hon. Gentleman with information to the effect that at a non-provided school there was distributed to the senior scholars during school hours a pamphlet on "Why you must not be a Communist," will he consider taking any action?
    Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member had better furnish me with the particulars first.
    Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order, Am I not entitled to get from the Minister a statement as to whether or not he considers that ground for action by his Department?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has said that he would like to see the pamphlet first, and I think that is a reasonable request.

    FREE MEALS, YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. HEPWORTHasked the President of the Board of Education how many local authorities in Yorkshire now provide free meals for children who show symptoms of sub-normal nutrition; and how many such authorities do not do so?
    Mr. STANLEY: During the month of October, 1936, 24 local education authorities in Yorkshire provided free meals or milk for children attending public elementary schools. Of these, 17 provided solid meals and milk, one solid meals only, and six milk only. Six authorities made no provision for free meals or milk.
    Mr. PALING: What action does the board take in the case of those authorities which make no provision although they may have reports on subnormal children?
    Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down that question.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    PNEUMONIA AND EMPHYSEMA.
    Mr. J. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health the mortality rate

    Mortality from Pneumonia (Broncho-Pneumonia, Lobar Pneumonia and Pneumonia (not otherwise defined. Death Rates per Million persons living)).

    —

    1930.

    1931.

    1932.

    1933.

    1934.

    1935.

    Carmarthen:

    Administrative County

    676

    611

    636

    500

    558

    627

    Brecon:

    Administrative County

    448

    543

    561

    724

    588

    325

    Glamorgan:

    Administrative County

    570

    765

    662

    729

    470

    561

    Cardiff C.B.

    563

    743

    669

    901

    588

    596

    Merthyr Tydfil C.B.

    984

    1,007

    863

    1,119

    830

    685

    Swansea C.B.

    785

    731

    1,013

    937

    640

    771

    Monmouth:

    Administrative County

    567

    783

    654

    676

    575

    682

    Newport C.B.

    652

    1,042

    748

    610

    1,062

    887

    England and Wales

    696

    840

    735

    745

    707

    659

    Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health the mortality rate from pneumonia and emphysema among coal miners in the counties of Brecon, Carmarthen, Glamorgan and Monmouth for each year from 1930 to 1935, or for the period for which such statistics are available?
    Sir K. WOOD: I regret that these figures are not available.

    MILK (PASTEURISATION).
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report sent him from the Institute for Dairying who found that a disturbingly high proportion of pasteurising plants, both in London and elsewhere, were producing improperly pasteurised milk; and what steps he is taking to make pasteurisation effective?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am aware of the statements made in the report referred to, which relates to the period ended 30th
    544
    from pneumonia and emphysema for each year from 1930 to 1935 in the counties of Carmarthen, Brecon, Glamorgan and Monmouth; and the comparative rate for England and Wales in the same periods?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Separate figures for emphysema are not available. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the figures relating to pneumonia in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    September, 1935. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) on this subject on 19th November, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is it not time the Minister took some more drastic measures against these inefficient pasteurisation plants, in view of the fact that 37 per cent. of the samples tested were found to give a positive result and 90 samples taken from milk supplied to school children were contaminated?
    Captain HEILGERS: Is it not a fact that partly pasteurised milk is infinitely more dangerous to the public health than ordinary clean milk?
    Sir K. WOOD: I could not now make a reply on that general matter, but the difficulty has chiefly arisen through these plants not being in proper working order.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the experience of Bournemouth and of other

    545
    similar experiences throughout the country, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it time that the Government acted on the lines suggested by the research committee?
    Sir K. WOOD: I made a reply on that matter last week.
    Major COLFOX: Is it not a fact that the Bournemouth epidemic had nothing whatever to do with milk?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, I must contradict that at once.

    RURAL WATER SUPPLY (ATCHAM SCHEME).
    Mr. ARTHUR DUCKWORTHasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the considerable opposition among the ratepayers in the Minsterley, Pontesbury, and Hanwood districts of Shropshire against the comprehensive water scheme covering these districts promoted by the Atcham Rural District Council; and whether, in sanctioning the council's proposals following the public inquiry, full consideration was given to the protests of these ratepayers and to the extra rate burdens that the scheme will impose upon the locality?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir, I was satisfied that there was urgent need for a pxper water supply in those parishes and that the burden on the rates, after allowing for an Exchequer grant of £15,000 and similar contributions from the county council and the rural district council, would not he unduly heavy.
    Mr. DUCKWORTH: Is there any possibility of this matter being reconsidered, in view of the meetings of protest that are still being held and the fact that a petition against this treatment has, I understand, recently been signed by a majority of the ratepayers?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have really given careful consideration to this matter and also the representations which my hon. Friend has made to me, but I may say that the rates increase due to this scheme compare very favourably with other areas of the country.

    SEWAGE DISPOSAL (EPPING RURAL DISTRICT).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Health the position regarding the various sewage schemes in the rural council area of Epping; and whether a grant will be made towards such schemes?
    Sir K. WOOD: Three schemes are before me, for Nazeing, Theydon Bois and North Weald Bassett. I have approved in principle the scheme for Nazeing and am awaiting certain further details from the council before issuing loan sanction. Revised proposals are being prepared by the council for the other two schemes. I have no funds at my disposal out of which grants could be made towards the scheme.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to secure that the rural council of Epping shall adopt by-laws requiring cesspools in the vicinity of dwelling-houses to be emptied periodically and to make proper arrangements for the disposal of sewage?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have no information as to the necessity for such by-laws in the Epping rural district, but if the lion. Member will inform me of the particular areas he has in mind I will look into the matter.
    Mr. McENTEE: In view of the existing danger to public health, could not the Department of the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in regard to the nature of these conditions and the need for improvement?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I have had no information, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is not backward in bringing forward any complaints.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Does this not show that local authorities ought to obtain power to get records of where cesspools and septic tanks are placed?

    SMOKE ABATEMENT.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Health whether he can give an estimate of the annual cost imposed upon the public through the emission of smoke from domestic and industrial chimneys whether any steps are being taken to abate the smoke nuisance; and whether he would consider the prohibition of the use of raw coal in certain selected areas as an experiment?
    Sir K. WOOD: As regards the first part of the question, I am advised that no reliable estimate can be given. As to the second part of the question, many steps with my encouragement are being taken by local authorities, industrial interests and voluntary organisations who

    547
    are co-operating in the matter, and smokeless methods of using coal are being increasingly developed both for domestic and industrial purposes. The proposal referred to in the last part of the question would require legislation.
    Mr. SHINWELL: In view of the prolonged inquiry and the research into this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman now consider the promotion of legislation?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid that there is already a very heavy Parliamentary programme before the House.
    Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Could the Minister not urge that anthracite coal produced in this country should be used for this purpose?
    Mr. LOGAN: Is that why the unemployed at Liverpool are not getting any coal this winter?
    Mr. HAROLD MITCHELL: In view of the research which the Coal Utilisation Council are now carrying out at the Greenwich Fuel Research Station into smokeless methods of domestic burning of bituminous coal, would it not be undesirable to introduce legislation before that inquiry has been completed?

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. HEPWORTHasked the Minister of Health how many approved societies have, within the past year, withdrawn any benefits previously granted; and whether he can give any details?
  Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTHasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the improvement in trade and industry, any approved societies are extending their benefits; and, if so, in what directions?
  Sir K. WOOD: I presume that in each case the reference is to the additional benefits which approved societies and branches may provide out of a surplus found on valuation. The fourth valuation of societies and branches has recently been completed, and, although there have been many variations of schemes of additional benefits, the position over the insured
  548
  population as a whole shows no appreciable change on balance. As there are over 5,000 schemes of additional benefits, it is clearly impossible for me to give details of the changes made. Improvement in the financial position of societies, due to improvement in trade and industry, would not operate to improve additional benefits until after the next valuation.
  Mr. LOGAN: Is it not possible that under the scheme which came into operation in January, 1936, the approved societies will at next valuation be able to give increased additional benefits, due to the solvency of the fund?

  HOUSING (OVERCROWDING).
  Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTHasked the Minister of Health the names of those towns in the country which have decided to build flats, in order to relieve overcrowding, under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1935?
  Sir K. WOOD: Approval has been given to proposals submitted by the London County Council and the Bermondsey Metropolitan Borough Council, and I understand that several other authorities have similar proposals under consideration.

  IMPORT DUTIES ORDERS.
  Mr. KEELINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in future notices appearing upon the Order Paper of motions for approval of Import Duty Orders, he will, for the convenience of the House, state the subject of the Order as well as its number?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The suggestion made by my hon. Friend has already been considered from time to time, in connection with the allied suggestion that an indication of the goods covered by an Import Duties Order should appear upon the cover of the Command Paper containing the recommendation and Order; but it has always been found that the practical objections outweigh the obvious convenience of such a step. A complete description of the subject matter of an Order might well entail something like the reproduction of the whole Order, but

  549
  anything less than a complete description might mislead the House and give rise to questions as to whether the terms of the Notice covered the subject matter. My hon. Friend is no doubt, aware that the list of Sessional Printed Papers delivered to the House does state the principal article to which the particular Import Duty Order refers.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    ABLE-BODIED UNEMPLOYED (STATE MAINTENANCE COST).
    Mr. HEPWORTHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost to the State if it, took over complete responsibility for the maintenance of all able-bodied unemployed in this country; and what is the cost at the present time of partial maintenance by the State in the last 12 months for which figures are available?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the financial year 1935–36, the amount provided by the Exchequer for the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed in the form of unemployment allowances and grants to public assistance authorities, and including the proportion of the block grant appropriate to the expenditure on the able-bodied unemployed borne by local authorities, was approximately £50,000,000. The expenditure borne by local authorities, less the block grant, was approximately £950,000. The extra cost to the Exchequer in that year of assuming complete responsibility for the able-bodied unemployed would thus have been £950,000 assuming that the block grant had been appropriately adjusted. These figures do not include the cost of the assumption by the Exchequer of the payments to the unemployed now made by way of unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman remember the time when this principle was not accepted?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the figures granted in the recent Regulations, 24s. for a man and wife and 10s. for an adult, as maintenance?
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: If it is such a small amount, why not grant the complete amount and accept the whole principle?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If it is a small amount, why grant it?

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice of the Treasury in assessing industrial concerns for Income Tax, in cases where it appears that sums entered as expenses are likely to have been used for purposes of bribery or secret commissions, either to ask for the name of the recipients or to charge Income Tax on the amounts to the donors?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question whether a particular payment is admissible as a deduction in computing for Income Tax purposes the profits of a trade falls to be determined, not by reference to the character of the payment, but solely by reference to the consideration whether it represents expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the trade. The hon. Member may rest assured that all possible steps are taken to secure the due assessment of any liabilities arising under the Income Tax law in respect of the payments which he has in mind.
    Mr. MANDER: Would it be possible for the Chancellor to give any indication of the amount of revenue obtained from this particular source, if I put down a question?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will look into that point.
    Mr. THURTLE: May I ask whether contributions to political party funds are recognised as legitimate expenses in this category?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That depends upon whether they fall under the considerations I have mentioned.

    MONETARY POLICY.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to give legislative recognition to this country's new standard, namely, stability of the internal general price level; and whether he is prepared to give legislative effect to those reforms of the monetary system which are necessary to ensure the stability of the new standard?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am satisfied that our monetary policy, which has often been stated in the House, can be carried

    551
    out on the basis of the existing law, and that no further legislation is at present required. I must not, of course, be understood to accept my hon. Friend's statement of that policy as accurate or complete.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the existing law provides the stability which industry considers necessary?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to suppose to the contrary.
    Sir A. M. SAMUEL: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will request the hon. Member to issue a paper to explain exactly what his question means?

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  Mr. G. HALLasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to set up a Select Committee to inquire into Private Bill Procedure?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir. At the request of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Government propose to set up a Select Committee with the following terms of reference:
  "To consider the Procedure on Private Bills containing Clauses commonly known as 'Local Legislation' Clauses and the respective functions of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Committee of Selection (other than selection of Members to serve on Committees) in relation to Private Bills; and to report whether any alteration in such Procedure or any re-arrangement of such functions is desirable."
  Mr. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Members?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The Committee will consist of seven Members, and communications are always made through the usual channels. They will be representative of all parties, but they are not yet selected.

  PHYSICAL TRAINING.
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the proposals of the Government for the development of
  552
  physical training, it is intended to appoint a Minister of Physical Culture; and, if not, to what Minister the responsibility for giving effect to the scheme will fall?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the Government's proposals on this subject.
  Miss WILKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government's proposals include provision for adequate food before physical culture?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, I cannot.

  DEPUTATION TO THE PRIME MINISTER.
  Mr. BELLENGERasked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House of the names of the individuals accompanying the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) at an interview given by him on Monday afternoon last; and whether a pledge of secrecy was asked from or given by all Members of the deputation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. No secret information was given to the deputation, and no pledge of secrecy was asked for or given. The conversations, however, being of a private character, will naturally be treated as such by those who took part in them.
  Mr. BELLENGER: In view of the preferential treatment that has been shown to these gentlemen by the Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House the grounds on which he refused the request by a Privy Councillor, a Member of His Majesty's Opposition, to accompany that deputation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have always been prepared, as I have said over and over again, to consider similar requests from the Opposition. I have not, to the best of my recollection, received such a request at any time.
  Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no request from a Member of the Opposition to accompany the deputation reached Members of the deputation?
  Following were the members of the deputation:
  The right hon. the Marquess of Salisbury,
  The right hon. Viscount FitzAlan,
  The Viscount Trenchard,
  The right hon. Lord Lloyd,
  The Lord Milne,
  My right hon. and Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton),
  My right hon. and Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer),
  My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain),
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill),
  My right hon. Friend the Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Horne),
  My right hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain F. E. Guest),
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir Hugh O'Neill),
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery),
  My right hon. Friend the Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow (Sir J. Gilmour),
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir R. Keyes),
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft),
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg),
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Colonel MooreBrabazon).

  THE CORONATION (FREE CHURCHES).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to promote the participation in the Coronation service of representatives of the Free Churches?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I understand that the question has already be en under consideration by the proper authorities, but I am not in a position to say what, if any, conclusions have been reached.

  PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (OFFICIAL REPORT).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a decision has yet been reached as to the setting up the Parliamentary Debates in a type and style different from that now used; and, if so, whether, for the information of Members, he will cause a specimen page set in the new manner to be placed in the Library?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Arrangements have been made for placing in the Library, for the information of Members, copies of a daily part of the House of Commons Debates printed with a new type face which it is proposed to introduce early next year.

  BENEFIT CLUBS.
  Mr. DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of complaints received by the Metropolitan Police for the three years ended to the last convenient date, with regard to defalcations in connection with various slate, loan, and other benefit clubs, and the total amount of money involved; and whether he will further consider the introduction of legislation to regulate and control all similar sharing-out clubs?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The number of complaints received by the Metropolitan Police with regard to defalcations and fraud in connection with slate, loan and benefit clubs for the three years ended 31st October, 1936, was 61, and the total amount involved was £7,678. The question of taking statutory power to control such clubs has often been considered, but no workable scheme of compulsory control has been found. A National Savings Club scheme was, however, started in 1934 by the National Savings Movement, in co-operation with the Post Office and trustee savings banks. This scheme provides simple model rules for adoption by any club that so desires, and has been adopted by nearly 2,000 clubs.
  Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Government will give facilities for a Bill similar to the one which passed its Second Reading unopposed in this House?
  Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Is the Financial Secretary aware that most of these clubs are run by working-class people and the standard of honesty is as high as it possibly can be?

  AGRICULTURE.

    LAND DRAINAGE (RATES).
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the injustice being done to ratepayers in built-up areas owing to the basis of assessment being 33 1/3 per cent. of the annual value, he will consider introducing an amending Bill to the Land Drainage Act, 1930, early in the coming year?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his previous question of 18th May last on this subject. I regret I could not undertake to introduce any further land drainage legislation at the present time.
    Mr. LIDDALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many real cases of hardship in built-up areas, that the sufferers are looking to the present Government to relieve them, and that the only way of doing it is by bringing in an amending Bill?
    Mr. MORRISON: There are provisions in existing legislation under which measures could be taken by the appropriate authorities to mitigate distress from this cause, and, until that is done, it is very difficult to promise my hon. Friend or the House legislation on the subject.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the Minister aware that very few re-assessments have been taken, and will he see that it is done more frequently in future?

    SUGAR BEET (TRANSPORT CHARGES).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture, for what reasons the Sugar Commission has decided that, in respect of the 1937 contract, the British Sugar Corporation shall confine the defraying of railway freight charges in excess of 7s. per ton to sugar beet for delivery to the Kidderminster and Alscott factories; whether he is aware that sugar beet from the Isle of Wight is sent to the Selby factory, and will not, therefore, qualify for this concession; and whether, in view of the fact
    556
    that the transport costs from farm to factory of the Isle of Wight growers amount to 12s. 1d. per ton, he can ensure that the subsidy scheme shall be equitably distributed so far as the Isle of Wight growers are concerned?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The Sugar Commission inform me that they are at present considering the question of applying to the special circumstances of Isle of Wight sugar beet growers the rail freight concession to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and I will communicate with him as soon as any decision is reached on this matter.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister say why he thinks that either landowners or farmers in the Isle of Wight should be subsidised by taxpayers in other parts of the country?
    Mr. MORRISON: It is not a question of subsidising landowners in the Isle of Wight; it is a question of equalising the burden which falls upon growers of sugar beet in various parts of the country.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, if all these concessions are made to farmers and landowners in the Isle of Wight, rents will not be increased?
    Captain HEILGERS: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any further concession would be unpopular among the pioneer growers in East Anglia?

    PEDIGREE CATTLE.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of pedigree cattle which have been exported to the British West Indies during the present year, including those awaiting exportation at the present time, and the circumstances arising for their exportation?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: No pedigree cattle have been exported to the British West Indies during the current year, and so far as I am aware no such cattle are awaiting exportation at the present time. The answer to the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    UNITED STATES (NEGOTIATIONS).
    Captain PLUGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he

    557
    proposes to initiate negotiations for a trade agreement with the United States of America now that the Presidential election is finished?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): As I stated in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. M ander) on 17th November, exchanges of a purely informal and exploratory nature have for some time been proceeding with the United States Government with the view to ascertaining whether a basis exists for trade negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. I do not think that His Majesty's Government can usefully do more than they are already doing in the matter.
    Captain PLUGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the first three quarters of this year £55,000,000 worth of goods was imported into this country from the United States, as against £15,000,000 worth of goods exported from this country to the United States; and doss he not think it is urgent that the situation should be improved?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am quite well aware of those figures.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain circles in America the impression has been created that the British Government are not at all anxious to enter into serious negotiations on this matter, and can he correct that now?
    Mr. EMMOTT: Are not those very narrow circles?

    WOOLLEN TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. BROOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any trade agreements have been entered into with foreign countries during the last 12 months affecting the woollen textile industry; and, if so, whether he can give particulars and say what effect such agreements have had upon the woollen textile industry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Trade agreements containing specific provisions relating to the United Kingdom wool textile industry have been concluded during the last 12 months with Denmark, Turkey, Peru and Italy. In the four months which have
    558
    elapsed since the conclusion of the agreement with Denmark, exports of woollen and worsted tissues to Denmark have increased in value as compared with the corresponding period of last year by approximately 13 per cent. The other agreements are of too recent date for their effects on the industry to be assessed.

    LITIIALAN PRODUCTS, LIMITED, BRIDGEND.
    Mr. E. J. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a firm sent its chief executive to Lithalan Products, Limited, Bridgend, Glamorgan, with a view of taking over the entire sales of the British Empire, but stipulated that they must sign an agreement to build a factory on the London area within three years; and whether the Government propose to take steps to prevent this Special Area being further impaired by the migration of thriving business?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no information on this matter, but I am making inquiries. I would be glad to receive any further particulars which the hon. Member has on the subject.

  SHARE-PUSHING (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the constitution and terms of reference of the Departmental Committee which is to consider the question of fraudulent share-pushing?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Departmental Committee s terms of reference will be:
  "To consider the operations commonly known as share-pushing and share-hawking and similar activities and to report what, if any, action is desirable."
  I am glad to say that Sir Archibald Bodkin, formerly Director of Public Prosecutions, has accepted my invitation to be Chairman of the Committee. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate a list of members of the Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that companies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts will come under the review of this committee?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the terms of reference are wide enough for a solution of the problems by which we are at present faced.
  Following is the list:
  Sir Archibald Bodkin, K.C.B., late Director of Public Prosecutions (Chairman).
  Mr. Lionel Cohen, K.C.
  Mr. Charles L. Dalziel, partner of the firm of Messrs. Higginson and Company.
  Sir Malcolm N. Hogg, Deputy-Chairman of the Westminster Bank, Limited.
  Mr. J. McEwan, President of the Council of Associated Stock Exchanges.
  Mr. E. T. A. Phillips, M.B.E., Senior Official Receiver, Companies (Winding-up) Department, Board of Trade.
  Mr. C. G. Vickers, V.C., partner of the firm of Messrs. Slaughter and May.
  Mr. R. P. Wilkinson, Deputy-Chairman of the Committee of the London Stock Exchange.

  POST OFFICE.

    FACILITIES (ALDERNEY).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Postmaster-General what steps he has taken to establish telephone communication, either by cable or wireless, between this country and Alderney, in view of the fact that no such communication exists at the present time; and whether he is arranging for the delivery of letters by air mail, in view of the fact that aeroplanes land in the island daily and that otherwise letters take several days for delivery?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): The island of Alderney falls within the area for which the Guernsey States Telephone Department has been licensed to provide telephone service, and I have already forwarded a recent representation from the hon. Member to the States Telephone Department. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, I hope to be able to arrange for an air mail service to the Channel Islands when the necessary aerodromes are available, and in that event I shall not overlook the claims of Alderney to be included in the system.

    AUTOMATIC TELEPHONES (LINCOLN).
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Postmaster-General the date when the city
    560
    of Lincoln will have the automatic telephone system installed?
    Sir W. WOMERSLEY: Negotiations for a site suitable for an automatic exchange are in hand. I cannot at present give a date for conversion.
    Mr. LIDDALL: How does it come about that my hon. Friend was recently able to open an automatic system in the smaller town of Boston while the county town and cathedral city is without it?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. BELLENGERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the experiment of permitting men below recruiting standard to join the Army has been successful; whether these men will now revert to the ordinary Army rations; and whether he proposes to extend this experiment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): The experiment will not be completed until the end of December, but the progress of the recruits has been so successful that there is every reason to hope that 30 of the 33 men will be physically fit at the end of the three months' period. The intention is that the men should revert to the ordinary standard of ration when finally accepted as fit. The practical application of the experiment on a larger scale is under consideration.
    Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Does not the answer indicate that the condition prior to enlistment was due to the operation of the Poor Law allowances and the means test?

    LIVER GALVANISING COMPANY.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War when his officers last inspected the work engaged upon for his Department by the Liver Galvanising Company, of Manchester; and whether the report indicated that the conditions satisfied the fair wages clause in all respects?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: No contracts have been placed by my Department with the firm mentioned, and the question does not, therefore, arise.

  BRITISH AIRWAYS (FOREIGN MACHINES).
  Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps he has taken to ensure the availability as soon as possible of medium-sized airliners of British manufacture to replace those aircraft of foreign manufacture which he has authorised British Airways, Limited, to use on their subsidised services?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As stated in my reply to questions on this subject of 18th November, no suitable civil aircraft of British design and manufacture is immediately available or in early prospect for the night mail service upon which the employment of foreign aircraft has been authorised. I cannot, therefore, give any specific assurance that it will be possible to revert to the use of British aircraft within a given time. I need hardly assure my hon. Friend, however, that the whole question is being carefully reviewed.
  Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not an obligation on my right hon. Friend to see that the necessary British types are developed for these subsidised services and, in view of the fact that the need for this type of aircraft has long been known, will he not, take some definite action to see that this type of British air liner is developed?
  Sir P. SASSOON: The whole subject has been under active consideration for many months with a view to the formulation of plans designed to enable new civil types of British construction to go into production at an early date.

  BALEARIC ISLANDS.
  Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position in the Balearic Islands; and whether we have any representatives in the islands?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): Recent information from the British Vice-Consul at Palma and from His Majesty's ships indicates that the situation in the Balearic Islands remains quiet. There is a British Vice-Consul at Palma.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it true that Majorca and other islands are in Italian occupation?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: So far as I am aware, there is no truth in any rumour that the Italian Government are contemplating any change.
  Mr. MANDER: That is not my question. Is it a fact that the Balearic Islands are in Italian occupation at present?
  Viscount CRANBORNE: If there have been any such breaches of the non-intervention agreement of which there has been confirmation, they have been forwarded to the Non-intervention Committee. I can obviously, therefore, make no statement on the subject.

  ROYAL NAVY (CLERICAL STAFF, MALTA).
  Mr. MCENTEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, after long negotiations between the official and staff sides of the Departmental Whitley Council in the Admiralty, no agreement was reached as to the pay of locally entered civilian clerical staff at Malta, that on 17th July the Admiralty was asked to refer the matters in dispute to the appropriate arbitration body set up by His Majesty's Government, and that four months have elapsed without any reply to that request being received by the staff association; and whether, in view of the unrest among the staff concerned, he will take steps to refer the matter in dispute to the Civil Service arbitration tribunal at the earliest possible moment?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Samuel Hoare): Following my recent visit to the Mediterranean, I was satisfied that existing conditions at Malta warranted some increase in the rates of remuneration of these employés, and I am now able to state that an increase is to be made in the bonus rates which will be paid from 1st November, 1936. This increase in the rates will benefit all classes of local entrants at Malta, from the highest paid clerks and subordinate officers to the lowest paid labourers, and the amount of the increase will vary in different cases from 2s. to 4s. a week. I hope that, in view of this

  563
  decision, no further question of arbitration in the matter of the pay of locally entered civilian clerical staffs at Malta will arise.

  ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRADE AGREEMENT.
  Mr. ATTLEE(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the progress of the trade negotiations with Argentina?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am happy to be able to inform the House that the trade negotiations with Argentina have now been concluded, and that the provisions of a new trade agreement have been settled. The agreement which is being prepared for signature will take effect provisionally, pending the exchange of ratifications, as from 20th November. The text of the agreement will be published as a White Paper as soon as possible after signature.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing it?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any question of time being given for a, Debate on the Agreement must be addressed to the Leader of the House.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Before the Agreement comes into operation, will it be ratified by Parliament?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: We shall follow precedent quite strictly.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Agreement provides for proper treatment being accorded to British coal?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is one of the things that are affected by it.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: Are we right in gathering that the Agreement is already in operation?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have stated that it will take effect provisionally as from 20th November.
  Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Has the Argentine Legislative Assembly come to any conclusion in the matter of co-ordinating national transport facilities?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not answer on a detail of that kind without notice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: Can the Prime Minister tell us the business for next week, and also for what purpose he is proposing the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: We are suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule for the Public Order Bill. It is the second day in Committee, and we desire to finish the Committee stage and to take afterwards what is exempted business, the Italian Clearing Office Order. With regard to the business for next week:
Monday: Committee stage of the Trunk Roads Bill and of the Money Resolution relating to Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners (Tenure of office).
Tuesday: Consideration of the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Bill. We decided to take that Bill on Tuesday instead of Monday as originally arranged, as it was intimated to us that it would be for the greater convenience of the House. It must be understood that the Government will ask the House to pass the Bill through all its stages on that day, in view of its urgency.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Second Reading of the Railway Freights Rebates Bill, which is expected to be received from another place early next week; and the concluding stages of the Trunk Roads Bill.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. ATTLEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to give an early day for the discussion of the Motion on the Unemployment Assistance Regulations which is on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and myself?—
"That, being opposed to any action calculated to intensify the appalling distress prevailing in many parts of the country, this House is of opinion that the Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations, in so far as they will involve reductions in existing allowances, should be suspended."
The PRIME MINISTER: I have only just received notice of the question. It is not an easy matter. We had an opportunity on the Address of debating

565
this matter. We have a lot of urgent business to do, and we have not taken any Private Members' time. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to consult the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, I should be very much obliged to him.
Mr. G. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the unanimous feeling of opposition against the new Regulations in South Wales, even among members of Conservative clubs? It applies, I think, to almost every Special Area in the country.
Mr. THURTLE: In view of the fact that the House is not yet in possession of the terms of the Bill dealing with the transport of munitions to Spain, can the
Prime Minister say whether it would be possible to submit an Amendment to that Bill which would bring the ports of Portugal within its purview
The PRIMEMINISTER: The Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow. It is a very short Bill, but with regard to what will be in order, I am not in a position to answer. That matter rests with the Chair.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 103.

Division No. 17.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Denville, Alfred

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Albery, Sir Irving

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Leckie, J. A.

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

Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Apsley, Lord

Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

Lees-Jones, J.

Assheton, R.

Drewe, C.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Atholl, Duchess of

Duckworth, G. A. V (Salop)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Duckworth. W. R. (Moss Side)

Levy, T.

Balneil, Lord

Dugdale, Major T. L.

Lewis, O.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Duggan, H. J.

Liddall, W. S.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Dunglass, Lord

Liewellin, Lieut.-Col, J. J.

Belt, Sir A. L.

Eckersley, P. T.

Lloyd, G. W.

Bernays, R. H.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Loftus, P. C.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Ellis, Sir G.

Lycns, A. M.

Blair Sir R.

Elfiston, G. S.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Boulton, W. W

Elmley, Viscount

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

MacDonald Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. D.)

Brass, Sir W.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Elides, Sir H.

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

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

Findlay, Sir E.

Markham, S. F.

Bull, B. B.

Fleming, E. L.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Foot, D. M.

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

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

Mills, Sir F. (Layton, E.)

Burton, Col. H. W.

Gledhill, G.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Goldie, N. B.

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Cartland, J. R. H.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Morgan, R. H.

Caralet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Morrls-Jones, Dr. J. H.

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

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unly's.)

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

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

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)

Channon, H.

Grimston, R. V.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Munro, P.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Hannah, I. C.

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

Christie, J. A.

Harbord, A.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Harris, Sir P. A.

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

Colfox, Major W. P.

Harvey, Sir G.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Hasiam, H. C. (Horncastie)

Owen, Major G.

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

Hasiam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Palmer, G. E. H.

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

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Peat, C. U.

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

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Penny, Sir G.

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

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Cradcock, Sir R. H.

Hepworth, J.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Cranhorne, Viscount

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Petherick, M.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Crooke, J. S.

Holdsworth, H.

PlIkington, R.

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Piugge, L. F.

Crossley, A. C.

Hopkinson, A.

Ponsonhy, Col. C. E.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Cruddas, Col. B.

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

Furbrick, R.

Culverwell, C, T.

Hulbert, N. J.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Jackson, Sir H.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Dawson, Sir P.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

De Chair, S. S.

Kimball, L.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

De la Bere, R.

Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

Reid, W. Allen (Derby)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Smithers, Sir W.

Train, Sir J.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Somerset. T.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Rowlands, G.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

Spens, W. P.

Ward, Irene (Walisend)

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Wardiaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Warrender. Sir V.

Salmon, Sir I.

Storey, S.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Salt, E. W.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Wells, S. R.

Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

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

White, H. Graham

Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

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

Wise, A. R.

Sandys, E. D.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Savery, Servington

Sutcliffe, H.

Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Selley, H. R.

Tate, Mavis C.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Simmonds, O. E.

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

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Ward and Commander Southby.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Touche, G. C.

NOES.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Potts, J.

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

Hayday, A.

Pritt, U. N.

Adamson, W. M.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Richards. R. (Wrexham)

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

Hollins, A.

Riley, B.

Ammon, C. G.

Jagger, J.

Kitson, J.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

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

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Reath)

Rowson, G.

Banfleid, J. W.

John, W.

Salter, Dr. A.

Barnes, A. J.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Sanders, W. S.

Barr, J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sexton, T. M.

Batey, J.

Kelly, W. T.

Shinwell, E.

Bellenger, F.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Short, A.

Benson. G.

Kirby, B. V.

Silverman, S. S.

Brooke, W.

Kirkwood, D.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

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

Lathan, G.

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

Buchanan, G.

Lawson, J. J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Burke, W. A.

Leach, W.

Stephen, C.

Charleton, H. C.

Lee, F.

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

Chater, D.

Leslie, J. R.

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

Cluse, W. S.

Logan, D. G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Daggar, G.

Lunn, W.

Thorne, W.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Macdonald, G. (ince)

Thurtle, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McEntee, V. La T.

Tinker, J. J.

Day, H.

McGhee, H. G.

Walkden, A. G.

Dobble, W.

MacLaren, A.

Watkins, F. C.

Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)

Maclean, N.

Watson, W. McL.

Ede, J. C.

Marshall, F.

Welsh, J. C

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mathers, G.

Wilkinson, Ellen

Gallacher, W.

Montague, F.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gardner, B. W.

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

Williams. T. (Don Valley)

Garro Jones, G. M.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Gibbins, J.

Paling, W.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Parker, J.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

Parkinson, J. A.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Viscountess Astor, Major Courtauld, Mr. Holdsworth, and Mr. Stuart Russell; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Acland, Mr. Cartland, Mr. Lyons, and Mrs. Tate.
  Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Marriage Bill): Mr. Burke, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, and Mr. Thurtle; and had
  568
  appointed in substitution: Commander Fletcher, Mr. Marklew, and Mr. Raikes.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (CARRIAGE OF MUNITIONS Td SPAIN) BILL,
  "to prohibit the discharge in or transhipment for Spanish territory of weapons and munitions of war and other articles from certain ships, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Runciman; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Mr. Eden, Sir Samuel Hoare, and the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PUBLIC ORDER BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 23rd November.]
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  CLAUSE 3.—(Powers for the preservation of public order on the occasion of processions.)
  Amendment proposed [23rd November], in page 4, line 35, to leave out Subsection (4).—[Mr. Stephen.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'fails,' in line 35, stand part of the Clause."
  4.2 p.m.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Before we adjourned the discussion on Monday I had only time to move this Amendment without giving reasons for it. I welcome the opportunity now of putting some considerations before the Committee in connection with this Sub-section. Hon. Members will see on the Paper that there are other Amendments to the Sub-section. What I had in mind is what is indicated in my own subsequent Amendments and the Amendments of hon. Members behind me. The whole Clause I regard as a very dangerous Clause. It appears to me that it is going to have very great possibilities in the hands of the police in the case of working-class demonstrations. This Sub-section is so drawn and to my mind is so wide that it should be substantially altered. I ask the Committee to address their minds to what happens in connection with demonstrations. If an order has been made and a demonstration takes place there may be only a certain number of people who are acquainted with all the instructions which have been given or the conditions which have been imposed, but under this Sub-section people taking part in that demonstration may be charged with an offence, although they are quite unaware of the exact terms of the order or the conditions which have been imposed.
  In the past there have been many occasions when demonstrations have taken place against the wish of the authorities. Very often such demonstrations have arisen out of the spontaneous dissatisfaction of people, and although
  582
  the authorities have refused permission for the demonstrations to take place the dissatisfaction was so great that the demonstrations went on. I believe that it has been very often a safety valve, when demonstrations have gone on despite the order of the authorities, and the authorities, seeing how widespread has been the dissatisfaction which has led to the demonstrations, have subsequently taken no steps, even though their order has been disregarded. That has been one of the great safeguards of democracy in this country. It is all going to be changed by this Bill, and this Subsection is to give power to impose very heavy penalties on people who take part in these demonstrations.
  There are two specific points with regard to the Sub-section that I would emphasise. There is, first, the point that so many people in demonstrations have no opportunity of knowing what the conditions are under an order, yet they may be charged with an offence of which they are guiltless because they never had the intention of breaking the law in any particular. In the second place the power of imposing heavy penalties will weigh much more harshly on working-class organisations than on the Fascist organisation, which the Home Secretary has told us is receiving money from foreign sources. This legislation, I am told, has been the result very largely of the activity of that very organisation, but the organisations which are going to be penalised by the legislation provoked by the Fascists are the working-class organisations that have carried on these demonstrations. The present law, however, has always been capable of dealing with them, and the provisions with regard to penalties have been sufficient in the past. Now these working-class organisations are to be put into ever so much more difficult circumstances.
  I would draw attention also to the way in which the Sub-section will be specially dangerous in the case of industrial disputes. Suppose that a demonstration takes place during an industrial dispute, although it is prohibited. There are many recent occasions when such demonstrations have been prohibited but have been held. Under this Sub-section practically all the leaders in the dispute may be penalised. I believe that to be one of the most dangerous things that have been done in this country for a long

  583
  time with regard to trade union activity, and I hope that the Committee will insist on the Sub-section being withdrawn or substantially modified.
  4.12 p.m.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The hon. Member has moved the Amendment to leave out Subsection (4), but he explained that he and those associated with him are interested also in a subsequent Amendment which would alter the terms of the Sub-section. I will have a word to say about that later. It may be convenient if in the course of this present discussion I point out first to the Committee that as a matter of arrangement I do not think one could possibly leave out Subsection (4), because of course it would be quite idle for us to enact, whether wisely or unwisely, what we have already passed, namely, Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of this Clause, and then to make no provision as to what was to be done if those three Sub-sections were disregarded. Obviously, we must have a Sub-section which provides that in proper cases offences against the law shall be punished. The hon. Member is concerned and there are others who are concerned lest the language of Subsection (4) opens a possibility of people being treated as offenders when in fact they have no knowledge of the directions that are laid down. I think that that is a good point. I had intended when we came to the later Amendment which proposes to insert the word "knowingly" after "who" in line 35, to advise the Committee to accept that Amendment. That of course would be a very material change, and I think would be a perfectly fair point to make on the Clause. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the question as you have put it on this Amendment will enable that to be done.
  I fully appreciate the point in the hon. Member's mind, but we must have a Sub-section which will provide that a person cannot offend against the law without being punished. That is all that this Sub-section does. If we omitted the Sub-section we should leave the whole thing in the air. We can imagine a case in which an individual in a procession has no intention of offending at all, and
  584
  it would certainly not be the general desire of the Committee that people should be exposed to punishment unless they know that what they are doing is failure to comply with directions actually made. If the Committee are prepared to negative this Amendment I shall be prepared to agree to the word "knowingly" being inserted later.
  TheCHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) would prefer, in the circumstances, to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr.STEPHEN: Yes, with the consent of the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, after "who," to insert "knowingly."
  After what the Home Secretary has said I need not make any remarks in moving the Amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. PRITT: The Home Secretary suggests that the word "knowingly". ought to satisfy everybody, but it does not quite satisfy me. You may have cases where the direction has been issued only a few minutes before, although generally it will come a few days before, and be publicly announced. In an. Amendment not called, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) it is provided that after the word "who" there should be inserted the words:
  "after being made acquainted with any directions given or conditions imposed under this section."
  Those words are, I think, taken from the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839. If those in charge of the Bill would consider that point, and, if possible, deal with it on Report, I should be very grateful.
  4.16 p.m.
  Sir J. SIMON: It is true that the much more elaborate phrase quoted by the hon. and learned Member appears in the Statute of 1839, but we have learned shorter methods since then. It is taken from a very long Section which, I think, covers three pages. I should have thought that the word "knowingly," which is constantly inserted, and, as far as I know, has been construed fairly, covers the point. I will

  585
  consider the point which the hon. and learned Member raises, but my present impression is, and my advisers take the view, that the matter is really covered by inserting the simple word "knowingly." I do not think that there would be any advantage in inserting the other words. I suggest that we insert the word "knowingly" now, and between now and the Report stage I will look into the matter.
  Mr.STEPHEN: I have looked at the other words, and, in my view, "knowingly" makes the defence easier than the other words. I should be sorry if the Home Secretary preferred the other form of words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. LEWIS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, at the end, to add:
  "(5) Any person who obstructs or who incites others to obstruct the peaceful passage of any lawful procession shall be guilty of an offence."
  The Committee have already agreed to the provisions of Clause 3, which lay down that in certain circumstances the police may regulate processions, may regulate the routes and lay down conditions. In some cases they may prohibit a procession altogether. I would invite the attention of the Committee to what might happen. Let us suppose that a demonstration is organised to protest against the employment of aliens. Suppose there is considerable opposition to the demonstration. Let us assume that a number of aliens decide that they will prevent the procession taking place. Suppose a number of them go into one of the streets through which the procession is to pass and by lying clown in the street, in the Indian manner, or by standing together in considerable numbers, with linked arms, they prevent the peaceful passage of the procession. I can imagine that in those circumstances it would not be long before great disorder would arise, and yet those men who were the original cause of the trouble might not have done anything which, within the meaning of the law, would represent an assault or any other offence.
  It might be desired to organise another procession for the same object. In that case the chief of police might say: "The last time these people had a procession there was a great deal of disorder. I
  586
  cannot possibly agree to the same sort of thing that we had last time. Therefore I will apply for permission to prohibit the procession." That would mean that those opponents of the procession had, in effect, by their action made it impossible for a further procession of the same kind to take place, and I submit that they would have done so in what the House might fairly describe as a violent manner. Now that we are providing that in certain circumstances the chief of police may issue an order to regulate or prohibit processions, we have to be careful that the opponents of those processions do not by, in effect, a threat of disorder, prevent such processions from obtaining permission to take place. I think everybody will agree that if an organised procession obtains permission from the police to go by a certain route on a certain day, it is entitled to go along that route in a peaceable manner. I do not think that hon. Members would agree that the persons who did not like the procession would be entitled in some such way as I have described, by physical force, to obstruct that procession. I cannot see any provision in the Bill to guard against such a thing. Now is the time, when we are laying down these conditions as to the circumstances under which a procession may take place, to say clearly that if permission is granted for a procession and the conditions of the Bill are complied with, people are entitled to have a free passage for their procession.
  4.23 p.m.
  Sir J. SIMON: With much of what my hon. Friend says I am in agreement. In general, I agree that the exercise by our fellow-subjects of the right of procession ought not to be nullified by threats of disorder or by violence which leads to a breach of the peace. Let me consider the question of a threat of disorder. That is precisely provided for in Clause 5, which says:
  "Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occassioned, shall be guilty of an offence."
  I would ask my hon. Friend to remember that those words are already in the Bill and will, I hope, be approved by the Committee. He spoke of the obstruction of streets by those who did not like a

  587
  certain procession passing. It is an essential part of the law as it exists that there should not be an obstruction of the highway or of the lawful use of the highway. That is a matter on which from time to time proceedings are taken. Frankly, I think that we should go a little too far if we were to suppose that by enacting a Sub-section of the sort proposed by the hon. Member we could secure the peaceful passage of any and every procession. I do not think that that would be taking a reasonable view of human nature. If people whose feelings are strongly aroused against a particular demonstration organise themselves and express their feelings on the other side, as long as they do it within the law they are only exercising their right.
  We might conceive a case of a procession passing along a quarter which had a predominant population of a particular race or religion, going there and known to be going there for the purpose of demonstrating in a most provocative manner against that race or religion. There have been times in the past when processions were held by people who were opposed to the continuance of war or who were determined to hang the Kaiser, or whatever might be the object. In those circumstances you are bound to have a lot of people in the public streets who may be inclined to take a contrary view and to demonstrate it pretty loudly, and I do not think that you can really guarantee that any and every procession should have what is called a peaceful time. What you can do, and that is what the Bill does, is to say that we must have proper power to regulate the procession, to prescribe a route and in some cases even the power to prohibit the procession. You must have power to impose these things, and at the same time public rights must be safeguarded. We have a statute which says that there must be no obstruction of the highway and a clause prohibiting threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour in a public place, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. That is about as much as we can expect.
  If the Act is to be worked in a fair and reasonable way, there is great danger in inserting unnecessary Subsections. Inevitably, a certain amount
  588
  of discretion must be left in these matters to the police. There are certain people who look upon the police of this country as if they were petty tyrants, trying to damage a particular cause. There is not a word of truth in that. They do their duty to the public fairly. If we were to lay it down that any and every procession should have what is called a peaceful passage, one thing that would happen would be that there would be a very strong inducement to the police to be very much stiffer as to the conditions they impose than they ought to be. Processions have a right of demonstration in this country but they ought to be prepared to meet some controversy. The very reason of a procession is that those who compose it want other people who do not agree with them to know what their opinions are. I think that we have got the Bill, not as the result of Government drafting, but by general co-operation, into a very fair condition. To impose additional restrictions which are unnecessary would seriously interfere with the ordinary freedom and practice of British citizens. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. I do not think the new Sub-section is necessary in view of the other provisions in the Bill. I hope that what I have said will show that it is not the desire of the Government or of any responsible body to deny processionists their fair rights. There must be a certain amount of give and take in this matter, and it is not wise to lay down what is perhaps rather an abstract principle in dealing with this matter.
  Mr. LEWIS: The right hon. Gentleman is relying on Clause 5. May I ask him whether in his opinion, if anyone by a letter or advertisement in the newspapers urges others to obstruct the passage of a procession and thus commit an offence, he commits an offence under Clause 5, and, if not, whether he commits any offence under any other law?
  Sir J. SIMON: I should have thought that such a person would be guilty of inciting to commit an offence, and to incite a person to commit an offence is itself an offence.
  Mr. C ROSSLEY: Does that apply to the case of a man going to a number of others at a corner in the street and saying, "Go to a certain point, stand

  589
  firm there, and do not let the procession pass"? He can say that without using insulting or abusive words.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): It is already an offence wilfully to obstruct the free passage of any highway, and therefore an incitement to obstruct the free passage will also be an offence.
  Mr. LEWIS: In view of the Home Secretary's explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Before the Committee parts with the Clause there are a few words which I think should be said upon it. The Home Secretary will agree that there has been no factious or party opposition in any section of the Committee, and he will also agree that the way in which the Bill will actually work when it becomes an Act will depend to a large extent on the spirit in which it is administered. In those circumstances he will realise that there must be in all parts of the Committee a certain amount of anxiety with regard to the framework of the Bill, and that anxiety applies more especially to this particular Clause. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) moved the deletion of Sub-section (2) but the explanation given by the Home Secretary was so far satisfying that the hon. Member did not pursue his proposal to a Division. In regard to Sub-section (2) the Home Secretary said:
  "It provides for perfectly exceptional cases."
  I was glad to hear that because it is a very important point. When we go from Sub-section (2) to Sub-section (3) we have similar powers for London, but instead of the elaborate apparatus of a triple decision which applies in Sub-section (2) we have the simple decision of the Home Secretary in Sub-section (3). I am sure he will agree that, however satisfactory his explanation may be as to the way in which these Sub-sections will be administered, his interpretation does not in any way bind the action of his successors, and is still less binding on the courts. The courts will be concerned with the words as they appear in the Act.
  590
  In view of these facts, and in view of the fact that the interpretation of these provisions and the method of their administration are essential factors as to whether the Bill will work smoothly, I think it is important that the text of the Measure should bear out the very careful interpretation which the Home Secretary has given. For my part, I am a little uneasy whether these two Sub-sections do apply only to very exceptional cases, and I would ask the Home Secretary between now and Report stage to consider whether there are any words which can be inserted, not to weaken the effect of these Sub-sections but to safeguard the rights of people who were never intended to be covered by the Bill, and thus to prevent abuses of the Bill for purposes which neither the Home Secretary nor the Committee desire. It may be that the Home Secretary will be unable to find any such words. We on our part will also consider whether we can find words which will meet the purpose. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not reject this proposal, which is not made to weaken the Bill, but to make sure that what is the intention of the Home Secretary and the Committee, certainly the intention of hon. Members on this side, is embodied in the Bill.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I want to reinforce the appeal which has just been made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). I am also a little uneasy about the framework of this Clause. Our objections to Sub-section (1) were largely met by the acceptance by the Home Secretary of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. K. Griffith), which made the action of the chief officers of police open to challenge. But it still seems to me that the words of Sub-sections (2) and (3) are unnecessarily wide. We ought to be quite clear what we are doing here. We are giving power to impose a permanent ban on processions. I do not say that it will be used in exactly that way, but the ban can last for an indefinite time, as there is no time limit in the Clause. I would ask hon. Members to consider the effect which that might have on processions and marches. Take for example the march from Jarrow and the unemployed march. Although there was a

  591
  difference of view as to the reception which should be accorded them, everybody agreed that they were exercising a lawful and peaceful, and, as the Home Secretary has admitted, a traditional method of demonstrating. What would be the possible effect of this Sub-section on marches of that kind? The marchers from Jarrow proceed on their way to London and arrive at a town where a ban has been imposed under Sub-section (2). It is quite impossible for them to hold a procession through the streets of that town. I do not say that they are prevented from entering the town, as it would be quite possible for them to go through singly or in twos and threes, but it would prevent them passing through in a procession.
  But suppose that when they got to the Metropolis an order had been made under Sub-section (3). It would mean that the procession, as a procession or a march, could not enter London at all. It might go to Hyde Park and reassemble there, but they certainly could not demonstrate by way of a procession through the streets, once the order had been made. We are all anxious to make it a satisfactory Measure. The apprehension in my mind is that what is contemplated here is a purely executive act. The actions of the police under Subsection (1) are open to challenge in the courts. I suggested an Amendment making the action of a council challengeable in the courts. It was not such a novel suggestion as some hon. Members seem to think. There are precedents for it, but the Amendment did not commend itself to the Committee, which preferred the safeguard of a right to challenge in Parliament.. I accepted that, but I would like to suggest that if possible we should strengthen that safeguard. After all, the opportunities we have in this House for challenging purely administrative acts by one Minister or another are rather limited. Naturally we can put Questions, but if we do not get what we consider to be a satisfactory answer, there are only certain limited occasions when we can follow up the matter.
  Let us suppose that an hon. Member wishes, when this Bill has become an Act, to challenge the action of the Home Secretary in confirming an order made under this Clause. He can get an answer at Question Time, and he can then raise
  592
  the matter between 11 o'clock and 11.30 on the Adjournment. I do not say that that is not a valuable opportunity of raising grievances, but the time is very limited. It is very difficult to go fully into things in that short space of time, and also there is no Division, so that there is no way in which the House can express a view. It would also be possible to raise these matters on a Home Office day, I suppose on the Supplementary Estimates at the beginning of the year, or later on the Home Office Supply day. However, if an hon. Member wishes to raise a matter in November there is not very much comfort in his knowing that he can bring it up the following March or April. Even when a matter is raised on a Supply day, it has to be raised as one of a great number of matters discussed on that day and the Minister can only devote a few sentences in reply to each particular point.
  I think we all appreciate that the opportunities for challenging decisions of this kind are rather limited. Consequently, I would like to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman as to a way in which we might strengthen the Parliamentary control that is here envisaged. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for an answer now, but I ask him to consider it between now and the Report stage. As the machinery now is, the chief officer would make an application to the council, the council would make an order and the Secretary of State, if he thought fit, would confirm the order. I suggest, instead of that, that the council should make the order in draft and that the Secretary of State himself should make the order or regulation, and that that order or regulation should lie upon the Table of the House. That is a perfectly usual procedure, and if the order were made expressly liable to annulment by the House within a stated period of time, as is done in the case of a great many orders and regulations, it would be possible not only to raise these matters after 11 o'clock, but as exempted business. We would not then be limited as to time in discussing them, and it would be possible, if it were thought fit, to divide the House. I put forward that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think it would weaken the scheme which he has in mind under this Clause, but it would, in my opinion, very greatly strengthen the

  593
  operation of Parliamentary control, which is the only form of control that we have under Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill.
  4.49 p.m.
  Mr. SANDYS: I wish to say a few words on the question raised in Clause 3, Sub-section (1), by the words:
  "That there is ground for apprehending that the procession may occasion serious public disorder."
  I have not moved an Amendment because this is such a wide question that I hope my right hon. Friend will consider the matter further between now and Report stage. These words raise a big principle. The onus here seems not to be placed on the right party. It seems to rue that it is not fair that a procession, whether of a provocative or non-provocative nature, should in one case be banned or diverted by the police because the people who live in the particular district through which it intends to pass are of an easily-provoked nature, and in another case, when a similar type of procession is passing through another district, it should not be banned. I think that the matter that should be decided by the police is whether the procession is of a provocative nature, and that they should impose whatever restrictions may be necessary upon it in order to limit the likely provocation. I think it is there that the emphasis should be laid.
  We had an instance recently—I am not taking the side either of the Fascist party or of the Communist party—when the Fascist party planned a procession through the East End and received the permission of the police, but they had not actually carried out their intention to have a procession before the procession was banned. Consequently, it is clear that they had not done anything which they had not already announced to the police and no act of additional provocation had taken place. Yet because of the easily provocable character of the districts through which they were to pass, the police thought it necessary to ban the procession, no doubt in the interests of public order, and quite rightly.
  On another occasion, however—I think a fortnight before or after—there was a procession of Communists from Trafalgar Square and through Regent Street and Piccadilly Circus. They passed along the streets with shouts of "Down with capitalism" and things of that sort of a
  594
  highly provocative nature, but because the capitalist jewellers in Regent Street did not put up a barricade against them, naturally the police allowed the procession to continue. Therefore, it seems to me that it is essential, in fairness, that the character of the procession should be examined by the police in the first place, and if they decide that the procession is not of a provocative nature, then I think there should be provided all necessary protection for it to go on its way and that it should not be possible for, a procession of an unprovocative nature to be banned merely because the population of the district through which it is to pass have announced the intention of preventing the procession from passing. To my mind that is an invitation to people to obstruct and to defy the law. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider the question further between now and Report stage.
  4.54 p.m.
  Miss WILKINSON: Surely the answer to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) is that the capitalist jewellers in Regent Street already have under the present social system very many ways of dealing with people who object to the system which does so well for them, whereas the poor people in the East End have nothing but their bare hands. I think the suggestion that the Fascists are unfortunately without protection shows clearly in this House how strong and how powerful that protection is. I am one of those who thoroughly dislike this Bill, and, with the possible exception of the Clause dealing with uniforms, I think it is entirely unnecessary. Of all the Clauses of the Bill, I think the Clause we are now discussing is the most unnecessary, and I would like to ask the Home Secretary, when he replies, to deal with a point which is in the minds of many hon. Members. Is riot the existing law, as now administered, sufficient to deal with processions?
  The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) referred to the marchers, and I would like to give one instance to show how the present law, as administered by certain people, deals with the position. The Jarrow marchers had no difficulty, but the hunger marchers, when they got to York, found themselves met on the outskirts of the city by the chief

  595
  constable, who told them that he did not want the procession to go there and that he would not allow it to go to the particular place that had been made ready for it. The marchers were then conducted very much round the outskirts of the city. Place after place which had been provided for them by their friends in the City of York was rejected by the chief constable, either as being unsuitable, or not being the sort of place he wanted them to go to, or the correct route he wanted them to follow. Finally, although hot food was ready for them, they were pushed into the Poor Law institution where, after a number of miles of marching, they had nothing but bread and margarine. I suggest to the Home Secretary that the chief constable was effectively preventing the procession and doing it without the help of this Clause.
  Earl WINTERTON: He was probably doing something which was illegal and something which he had no power to do. If anybody had challenged his action it would probably have been found that he would have had to take the case to the House of Lords to be decided.
  Mr. JAGGER: While the marchers waited outside York.
  Miss WILKINSON: I think for the first time in the whole of my Parliamentary experience I find myself in complete agreement with the Noble Lord, and with his views on this Bill. I listened to a previous speech he made on it, and he had my full and warmest agreement. He and I, for a strange reason which I cannot fathom, seem to find ourselves in a minority of two in this House.
  Earl WINTERTON: It is most embarrassing for us both.
  Miss WILKINSON: While it may be clear that if we had taken the matter to the House of Lords we could have challenged the chief constable's action, the difficulty, as I said with reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood, is that here we are dealing with people who are so poor that there is no question of the matter being taken to the House of Lords. These poor people are bullied by chief constables who simply take the power into their hands. If it had happened as the marchers were going through the constituency of
  596
  Horsham and they had been able to appeal to the Noble Lord, we might have had our case taken to the House of Lords. The only thing this Clause does, therefore, is to legalise the present position of these bullying police constables, and I do not think that it a particularly desirable thing. The second point with which I wish to deal is the suggestion that the chief constable must place his case before the council and get its sanction. While that seems to be so democratic and such a safeguard, I think the difficulty will arise when there is a chief constable and a council of the same political colour, as happens a very great deal in the Northern districts. In such cases there is so safeguard. The reactionary chief constable and the reactionary council—or, on the other hand, if there were such a strange thing, a Socialist or Communist chief constable and Socialist or Communist council—would be in a position to see that the whole thing was carried through.
  A long march, such as one from Jarrow or it may be from Dundee, passing through a large number of counties and police districts, would find itself in the most extraordinary position, in that the marchers would have a more or less legal fight at the boundary of each district that did not belong to their political colour. May I give an illustration? When the Jarrow march was about one-third of the way, the Cabinet issued its statement that, first, such marches were highly undesirable, and secondly, that it did not intend to receive it. Under this Clause, what would be the position of a council that supported the present Government or, for that matter, any Government that issued a statement? It would feel almost in duty bound to support, as a matter of political loyalty, the ban issued by the Cabinet. At the present time, when it is not quite sure whether these powers exist or not and when all chief constables are not of the same disposition as the gentleman who is chief constable of York, the marchers have the benefit of the doubt. The danger of this Clause is that it encourages people to ban processions which they do not happen to like. I feel that in this Bill, in an effort to deal with the question of political uniforms, we are introducing provisions which take away many rights that have been fought for in the past, and I am

  597
  surprised that the Bill should be having such an easy passages through the Committee.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Like the last speaker, I view this Bill and particularly this Clause of it with a great deal of suspicion. As regards the speech of the Home Secretary the other night on the unanimity with which the Bill had been received, may I say that my colleagues and I take a dissenting view on many points in the Bill? But we recognise that it would be only an infliction on other Members if our small group tried to divide the Committee on every occasion, and what we have tried to do, not unfairly I hope, is to express our views and only to exercise the right of dividing rarely and on the most important occasion. I am opposed to this Clause for several reasons. I think that chief constables, as far as possible, should keep clear of political and religious controversy, but this Clause, for good or ill, will put them right into the forefront of the battle.
  Let me try to put the position as I see it in relation to this Clause. The chief constable in the first place will have the right if he thinks fit to prohibit a procession or demonstration. Thereafter he can apply to the local council for an order, which has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. What hapens in fact? I hope I shall not annoy hon. Members above the Gangway by relating what I have seen happening in Glasgow. For years the Independent Labour party there had to apply to the local authority for permission to sell flags on a certain day. The Labour party applied also and for years both parties got permission to sell flags. Then the Labour party got a majority on the town council and the Labour party decided that the previous arrangement was unfair. They said to us in effect, "We want all the flags to be sold for us and you, being a minority, will not get the right to sell flags." The consequence of this provision will be that the chief constable in pursuance of this power will become the agent of a political party. That is what will happen in effect.
  In the case of a demonstration, what will happen? Suppose that a town council of any political character decides to reduce the children's allowances to
  598
  poor people, say, from 3s. to 2s.? Suppose they say, "We are the custodians of Poor Law relief and we propose, as from a certain day, to reduce the scales" The poor people have only one method of redress and that is to try to get as much public opinion behind them as will make that town council alter or modify its views. The town council is the employer of the chief constable and under this Clause it is the employe of the town council—the body which is proposing to reduce the scales—who will have to say whether the people are to be allowed to demonstrate against the reduction or not. The chief constable, being the servant of the council, will be to a large extent influenced by his interpretation of their views and he will probably say, "I am not allowing this procession." He will apply to the town council for support and they will naturally give him that support. In the result the demonstration will not be held.
  I do not know what is the experience of other hon. Members, but the majority of the demonstrations which take place in my locality are spontaneous. They are rarely organised. Take the case of a strike by a number of girl workers who are either semi-organised or completely unorganised—because the organised workers generally take another method. But suppose that the girls in a big hosiery factory, for instance, come out on strike against a new system of pay or against some shocking conditions which are being imposed on them, or against a reduction of wages. Incidentally, it is very often, not on a question of wages that they come out but on account of a bullying foreman or on account of a new system of pay. The girls come out on strike in the morning. Probably on the day before they did not know that they would be coming out. They propose to hold a demonstration, first, because they may want public help in the form of subscriptions, and, secondly, because they want to demonstrate to the people in the neighbourhood their grievance against the employer.
  The chief constable in that case will say that the demonstration cannot be held and it will not be held. He applies to the local authority, but meantime the local authority has to meet and as I read the Clause the prohibition of the demonstration is already on. [HON. MEMBERS:

  599
  "No!"] Oh yes, he has the prerogative. I would remind hon. Members who say "No!" that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are still the Government. Hon. Members on this side above the Gangway are not the Government, although to read the speeches of certain right hon. Gentlemen one would have thought that in regard to this Bill the Government was on this side of the Committee and not on the other side. But despite what hon. Members may say, as I read the Clause, the chief constable has the power to prohibit a demonstration if he thinks it will run counter to what is provided for in this Clause, and he does not need in the first instance to get the permission of the local authority. The power is provided here for him if he is satisfied that there may be trouble.
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that the hon. Member quite correctly construes the provision, but the Lord Advocate will explain it later.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It says:
  "If the chief officer of police is of opinion having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any procession is taking place or is intended to take place and to the route…that there is grounds for apprehending …public disorder, he may give directions"—
  Sir J. SIMON: But it does not go on to say that he may make an order.
  Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Which part of the Clause is the hon. Member quoting?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I am reading Subsection (1). Under it
  "he may give directions imposing…such conditions as appear to him necessary for the preservation of public order,"
  which means, in effect, that he can stop the procession or demonstration.
  Mr. SILVERMAN: That is something with which the local authority has nothing to do in any event so that that part of the hon. Member's argument which was directed to the gap between the making of the order by the chief constable and its confirmation by the local authority does not apply. The order by the council only comes under Subsection (2).
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I say, again, that the chief constable, in effect, has power
  600
  to stop the demonstration entirely. He can impose conditions which would make it stupid and ridiculous. He can order it to take a route which would be impossible and he can impose other conditions which would make the demonstration hopelessly ineffective for its purpose. I take it that even, in the last resort, he can himself prohibit it altogether if he says that there is a, danger to public order. As regards the position in Scotland I will listen with interest to what the Lord Advocate has to say on the matter. Our law is not the same as the law in England, but I take it that the effect of Sub-section (1) is that a chief constable has the power to do all these things in regard to any kind of procession. Under Sub-section (2), I agree, there is a provision as to the consent of the local authority. In the case of Scotland, I take it, that means the magistrates—in a city like Glasgow, for instance. In Scotland we are worse off than you are in England. In Glasgow these magistrates are not subject to the jurisdiction of the town council and their decision is final. The magistrates, who number perhaps only 14 or 15 out of a council of 120, can meet by themselves and their decision is not challengeable by the rest of the council.
  Mr. SILVERMAN: I suggest that in one respect the position in Scotland is better than that in England, because I understand that in Glasgow the magistrates are popularly elected. That is not the case in England.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: They are elected for three years, but the point is that a council in England can deal with this matter, and I take it from my reading of the Clause that a council in Scotland cannot and that the magistrate's decision in Scotland cannot be vetoed or altered by the corporation. The magistrates can come along and say, "We are having no demonstrations here. There is a strike on, and for the period of the strike there will be a ban on demonstrations." The weakness of this proposal is that to-day these demonstrations, in many cases, are directed against the very people who are to have this prerogative and their friends. To put this power into their hands seems a negation of democratic rights. In my neighbourhood, for instance, I would like to see a demonstration against the shocking housing conditions which exist in my

  601
  city. But the town council is responsible to some extent—not wholly, but partly—in that matter and I would not like to see the town council, against whom I would propose to lead such a demonstration, having the power to say whether I was to demonstrate or not. They naturally do not want annoyance. They do not want public indignation to be aroused in these matters. They can say that it is considered that the demonstration is likely to give rise to some kind of disturbance or annoyance which is not specified, and that therefore it must not take place.
  It may be said that there is an appeal to the Secretary of State, but what safeguard is that when for four months of the year Parliament is not sitting? For four months this veto, backed by the local authority, remains unchallengeable. But it is in effect very little challengeable/ As the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) pit it, our opportunities of challenging in this House are comparatively few and far between. What chance is there, for instance, on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland He deals with 30 subjects, and what chance have you of raising a question on his Vote in regard to an isolated ease of the banning of a procession? What chance have you on the Home Office Vote, dealing with prisons, aliens, and a host of other administrative details, or on the Motion for the Adjournment, a very rare occurrence and of very litle effect?
  I view this whole Clause with every form of apprehension. I do not like the Bill at all. If I have any reason for hating the Fascists more than I already hate them, this Bill gives me more reason than ever for hating them. They are the excuse for the Bill. I agree with the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) about the treatment of religious people in that connection, but I feel about this Clause that although for good and laudable objects there were some grounds for it, you have incorporated in it proposals which are not necessary to deal with the problem before the House. If it was only the problem of the East End of London and its racial riots, that could have been met without a Bill embodying proposals far outwith that need and desire. I will divide against this Clause, along with my hon. Friend beside me. I believe that only two of us will be prepared to do so, but we will
  602
  welcome support from any quarter of the Committee, because we feel that this Clause is far outwith what was really meant when the Bill was introduced.
  The Bill was meant to deal with that problem of the Fascist movement and the shocking ill-treatment of the Jews, but this Bill gives the Home Secretary far wider powers, powers to deal with trade disputes and innocent demonstrations and agitations, and I fear that it will put the population of this country in a worse position than they were in before, so I shall divide against it, because I will not in the future be challenged that I allowed a Bill to go through that may well be used, not against the Fascist movement, but against the legitimate aspirations of very poor people. May I say to my Labour friends that I do not think they need fear very much for the big unions, which have great power and strength, but large masses of the people are outwith any union at all, and even they may be flung up against Labour councils, and I hope that Labour councils will not feel that it is wrong for people to demonstrate against them. For these reasons, because I want to see the right of public demonstration and the right of people, particularly poor people, to show their feelings, I shall divide against Clause 3.
  5.20 p.m.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The speech to which we have just listened shows the desirability of having the Clauses of a Bill such as this crystal clear, so that everyone can apprehend and understand their meaning. This Bill interferes in many ways with the liberty of the subject, and therefore clarity in such a Bill is essential. Sub-section (2) is undoubtedly somewhat complicated, but Sub-section (3), which applies the Bill, so far as processions are concerned, to London, is still more complicated. Members of the House again and again refer to the undesirability of legislation by reference. Well, here is quite unnecessary legislation by reference to a preceding Sub-section. I have some knowledge of Bills, but it took me some little time to understand what was the effect of this Clause relating to London. It says:
  "The Commissioner of the City of London police and the Commissioner of the police of the metropolis shall, within their respective police areas, have the powers conferred on councils by the last foregoing subsection,

  603
  and accordingly the said subsection shall, in its application to those police areas, have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say, for references to a borough or urban district there shall be substituted references to those police areas, for the words shall apply to the council of the borough or district for' there shall be substituted the words may with the consent of the Secretary of State make,' for the word application,' where that word occurs for the first time, there shall be substituted the word order,' and the words from and upon receipt ' to the end of the subsection shall be omitted."
  It is a most complicated Clause. Here is a very important Measure, dealing with the liberties of the subject over a great area such as London, with at least 7,000,000 people in it, and I suggest to the Home Secretary that on the Report stage he should make this matter as clear as possible. I would suggest that, instead of all these cross-references between Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (2), he should insert a new Clause simply saying that, so far as the City of London and the Metropolitan police district are concerned, the following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (2). It may entail a few additional lines of print, but what people in London, both citizens and police officers, want to know, and very often quickly when it is some question of a procession, is what the effect of the Bill will be as regards London. Let there be one Clause dealing with London, without people having to go backwards and forwards through the Bill to see exactly what the law is. With very great respect, I would ask the Home Secretary to consider whether a new Clause on the lines which I have suggested cannot be put in before the Report stage, so that, as far as processions in London are concerned, people can see exactly where they stand.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. GALLACHER: I should like to draw attention to the fact that I put down an Amendment asking for the deletion of the whole Clause. I consider that this is one of the most dangerous attacks on democracy that has ever been made in this country. I do not want to go over the ground that I covered on Clause 2, but I would like to call attention to the fact that the party on this side of the House was built up on demonstrations and processions, that the Members on this side occupy their seats
  604
  in Parliament because there have been free and unrestricted demonstrations and processions. And not only Members on this side, but the Liberal party also, of which the Home Secretary used to be an ornament, gilded or otherwise, was also built up out of demonstrations and processions, and, I would remind the Home Secretary, some very wild and turbulent demonstrations and processions. This Bill has been brought in as a consequence of events in the East End, so we are told, but the Bill should deal with the evil that was responsible for the difficulties in the East End, and should not, on the ground of dealing with Fascism and Communism—as though there was some association between these two bodies—and because certain Members opposite are supported by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), in dealing with the troubles arising from Fascism, introduce a deliberate attack on the working class.
  Nobody can make an attack on the Communists without attacking the working class, because the Communist party never moves apart from the working class. Whenever the Communist party makes a demonstration, it is on a political issue, and I challenge the Home Secretary or the Lord Advocate to give us an instance of any kind where the Communist party makes a demonstration that is not a demonstration of the working class, employed or unemployed, on a particular political issue. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) talked about Communists going down Regent Street and the shopkeepers there not putting up their shutters. What is the matter with hon. Members opposite? Are they incapable of thinking? Of course, they do not put up their shutters, because it is a political demonstration, but if there were some of us in London who were coming out and declaring, "The shopkeepers in Regent Street are a crowd of blackguards, a crowd of robbers and dirty swine; let us go down and attack these shopkeepers in Regent Street," would they put up their shutters? They would have out the military to prevent our going there. Cannot hon. Members opposite understand the simple difference between provocation directed towards a political end and other kinds of provocation, such as that used in the

  605
  East End against the Jews? One of the most sinister slogans I ever heard was one which I heard 30 or 40 years ago—"Down with the House of Lords," and then—I am certain the Home Secretary has rolled it out many a time—" Mend 'em or end 'em."
  The CHAIRMAN: I have been listening to the hon. Member for something over five minutes, and although his speech is directed apparently, in his own words, to the Bill, I have been unable to find any sentence yet which would apply to this particular Clause. I am certainly of opinion that the whole of his speech is irrelevant to Clause 3, and I must ask him to confine himself strictly to the question before the Committee.
  Mr. GALLACHER: I am sorry, Sir Dennis, if I have gone off the line somewhere, but I have been taking up certain arguments that were presented from the other side, and I am not surprised to realise that hon. Members opposite are capable of leading me in the wrong direction. I am calling attention to the fact that this Clause is directed against working-class demonstrations and gives new power to the police, the local authorities and the Home Secretary to deal with them. There are continually demonstrations in this country and some people seem to think that they are only working-class demonstrations, but in Glasgow—and I suppose it is the same in London and other areas—there are demonstrations of a patriotic character. We do not go out and obstruct them or interfere with them; they pass along the streets without interference, peacefully and well organised. The next day or the next week we may have a demonstration which also passes through the streets in a peaceful manner.
  If the Home Secretary would introduce a Bill to give less power to the police there would be a better chance of public order in demonstrations. On one occasion when I was discussing this matter with the Procurator Fiscal in Glasgow, he asked why there should be disorder when there was a demonstration, and I said, "If you would be good enough to confine the police to barracks when we are having a demonstration there would be no disorder. As long as we have control of demonstrations which we organise there will never be disorder, but if there
  606
  is an attack upon the demonstration and the control is broken, disorder will take place." This Bill was introduced to deal with a particular evil. The evil is not demonstrations of a provocative character, but demonstrations directed towards slanderous provocation—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now in his own words definitely speaking on the Bill as a whole. He must not do so. He must confine his speech entirely to Clause 3.
  Mr. GALLACHER: Again I ask your pardon. I want to emphasise as strongly as possible the fact that this Clause has no relation to the original cause of the introduction of the Bill. It does not deal with anything that gave rise to the discussion out of which the Bill arose. It empowers the police to control, direct or ban working-class demonstrations. I have seen too often the effects of power of this kind being in the hands of officials, especially high officials of the police. They are in constant association with the local administrative officials who do not want demonstrations or processions. When there is an association of that kind and people want to demonstrate against the means test or high rents or something else that affects their lives, it is easy for the administrative officials to get the chief of police to raise the question of banning the demonstration with the magistrates. They can get up some passable reason that will enable the Home Secretary to accept the ban. Once the ban is on, who is going to get it removed Y Too often we have seen that men have had to be bludgeoned and imprisoned before a ban has been removed.
  I do not know how Members on the other side can treat such an attack on the democratic rights of the people in such an easy manner. I can appreciate that they have very little regard for democratic rights and the right of the working class to demonstrate in the streets. It is the only real opportunity they have of expressing themselves, and we can understand how this Clause will be used to try and suppress them. I warn the Home Secretary that you do not make for public order by attacking democracy as this Clause does. You cannot under any democratic procedure justify giving more power to the chiefs of police to interfere with or ban working-class activities.
  Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: May I ask the hon. Member where there is any reference in this Clause to the working class or any other class?
  Mr. GALLACHER: I have never known a patriotic demonstration prohibited, but I have known many working-class demonstrations banned. I have known of a ban on demonstrations in Dundee, but patriotic demonstrations have taken place during the period of the ban. Any ban that is imposed will be on working-class demonstrations. That is why I protest in the strongest manner against such an attack on democracy. It is bound to have evil effects. The Government can pass all the Acts of Parliament they like, but they will never stop the working class from expressing themselves on the questions of wages, the means test—
  The CHAIRMAN: Order!
  Mr. GALLACHER: I am just going to finish.
  The CHAIRMAN: Then I hope that the hon. Member will very much narrow down what he has to say, because the whole of his speech hitherto, while it has been in support of broad principles, has not had much application to this Clause.
  Mr. GALLACHER: I am about to finish. I want to tell the Home Secretary that he can never make for peaceful development by introducing such a Clause as this, which strikes so hardly at democratic rights. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we have to make sacrifices and concessions in order to reach agreement, but it is never permissible to make concessions that mean the sacrifice of democratic rights.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. H. MORRISON: In order that there shall be no confusion as to where the Labour party stands on this matter, perhaps I ought to make a statement. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) raised certain points with the Home Secretary which he asked the right hon. Gentleman to look into between now and the Report stage. I join in the request that he has made. Of course, it will be understood that between now and the Report stage it will be competent for us to examine the Clause as amended and to put down Amendments on that stage if we feel so minded. On the
  608
  general principle of this Clause, subject to any Amendments we have urged and other Amendments that we may urge, we are not opposing it. Indeed, we support the general principle of regulation which is embodied in it. If an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway is trying to make out that there are Conservative tendencies here, I am not doing so.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: We would not dream of saying that there are Conservative tendencies. They are already Conservative.
  Mr. MORRISON: I have always observed the greatest affection between Members of the Independent Labour party and Conservative Members of this House—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Where? At functions with white shirts on? Give us an instance?
  The CHAIRMAN: This matter has only arisen as an incident and has nothing to do with the Clause under discussion.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: A charge has been made which I take seriously. I say that the charge is unfounded, and, as it is one to which I take serious exception, I want the right hon. Member not to make vague references, but to state a specific charge and give some support to it. This is not the Trades Union Congress or the Labour Party Conference. It is still the House of Commons.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has put the matter to me quite rightly that a charge, as he described it, has been made. He has stated that it is unfounded and it is for the right hon. Gentleman, if he chooses, to admit that or not, but I cannot allow it to be debated on this Clause.
  Mr. MORRISON: I am in rather a difficulty because if I go on to argue the point with which I was dealing I shall be debating it. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is so thin-skinned. He makes many attacks on Members on these Benches and he ought to take his medicine. I only said that several of us have seen the very friendly relationships between hon. Members below the Gangway and hon. Members on the other side. I do not say that there is anything wrong about it, but I object to the hon. Member's assumption of 100 per cent. purity on his part.
  Mr. STEPHEN: The right hon. Gentleman has gone on to repeat his statement. He has been challenged to give a single instance, and I submit that unless he can do so he should withdraw his statement, which was meant to be offensive, and has no basis in fact, but is one of the usual kind.
  The CHAIRMAN: I should be very sorry if accusations of friendship between any hon. Member of this House with another or other hon. Members should be regarded as an insult. I think that at any rate an accusation of friendship between Members of the House, if it be ar insult, can scarcely be a sufficiently serious one to warrant the Debate being taken off the matter under discussion.
  Mr. MORRISON: On this Bill we are all of us in danger of getting into company which is not customary. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) this afternoon found himself it close agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), and in close agreement with some hon. Members in the House with whom he is not usually associated. On certain matters most of us on these benches have been in agreement with the Home Secretary, but I hope that these temporary lapses from the customary enmities between hon. Members will not necessarily be held against us. We have all got our complications; there are no exceptions.
  What is the history of this matter? All of us as Labour Members must take responsibility for what we have demanded and what we have denounced. There was a grave disturbance in the East End of London and another grave disturbance in Leeds, and there has been a. danger of grave disturbances in the city of Manchester and in other places. When the Labour Party's Conference opened at Edinburgh we, recalling the appeal to the Home Secretary by the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that he ought to have routed this procession, and other requests that he ought to have prohibited it in advance, instead of waiting until there were the circumstances of a set war between the Fascists and the Communists—
  Mr. GALLACHER: Not the Communists. There were 100,000 people there.
  Mr. MORRISON: Heaven forbid that there should be 100,000 Communists in London. I will come to the point about the Fascists and the Communists. I do not like to quarrel with my hon. Friend, because I like him too much personally, although I disagree with some of his views. There was the probability of a set battle—this will be safe—between somebody and somebody else, and our criticism of the Home Secretary was that he ought to have intervened days before instead of waiting for the threat of force and for the police, when on the spot, having to give way. We attacked him with very great vigour from the platform at Edinburgh and every delegate to that conference agreed with the resolution we passed, including my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow. The answer was that it was not fair to the Home Secretary, because he had not got adequate powers. If it be the case that he had not adequate powers to route or, in the dangerous areas, to prohibit processions, to that extent the case against the Home Secretary goes. Now, when he comes to the House seeking powers to enable him to deal with a situation such as we have grumbled at him for not dealing with, are we to be cowardly, are we to boggle over things? Now that we see the set terms of a Bill and realise that it is theoretically possible that it may at some time inconvenience us, are we going to be such cowards in politics that we run away from our responsibilities and decline to share responsibility with the right hon. Gentleman in doing something which we insisted he ought to do? That may be some people's view of public life, but it is not mine.
  I am going to take my share of responsibility for what is being done, and I want every Member who belongs to the Labour party to do the same. That conference denounced the Home Secretary for not acting, and there is no great harm in giving him under this Statute the powers which he said he had not got and which, under Sub-section (2) are severely limited and checked in their operation by democratic authority. We demanded at our conference that the Government should act, and we have persuaded the Government to act, not as politicians, any more than we have demanded action in the spirit of politicians, but as good citizens concerned with the

  611
  good name of our country and with the protection of people who had reasonable grounds for apprehension as to the safety of their lives and property. It may be that somebody now wants to make a speech so that afterwards, if anything inconvenient arises, he may be able to say, "Ah, I did not like this and I gave warnings in the House. It was Morrison who let you in for this." That may be clever, but it is not playing the game, after the party conference has spoken, and I am not going to do it, whatever the consequences may be.
  Therefore, we think that, broadly speaking, this Clause is right, subject to Amendments which we will consider on the Report stage. What is the alternative? We have prohibited uniforms under Clause 1, we have endeavoured to prevent the militarisation of politics under Clause 2, but it is still possible, without uniform and without quasi-military organisation, for people to go in mob processions into the East End of London or the City of Manchester—in its Jewish quarters—or in Leeds, and to shout, "Down with the Yids" and "Away with the dirty Jews" and to spread terror and fear. And it would still be possible for other people to organise another crowd to have a riot with them. Some people may like that sort of thing. I do not. I prefer peaceful, firm and ordered government to government by mobs, and I am going to stand for that principle—at any rate as long as I can. You do not necessarily solve the problem of racial intimidation in that area by Clauses 1 and 2, you do not necessarily solve the problem of disorder in other directions. We must take our responsibilities.
  Our party decided, after full consideration, in which everybody took part, to accept the general principle of this Clause and I am going to vote for it and I advise my hon. Friends definitely to do the same; and in any case it will be inconsistent with the considered decision which this party reached to vote against the Clause. Let me, in conclusion, make my peace, if I can, with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I do not say that Fascism is Communism or Communism is Fascism. Their economic objectives and their social ideals or, as my hon. Friend might say, their social ideology, are very different.
  612
  The most I have said, and to this I adhere, is that in their theories of government, the doctrine of dictatorship and their belief in the suppression of other political parties when one of them has triumphed, there is a similarity between them. There is another similarity which they share with the Conservative and Liberal party, and that is a very strict secrecy as to the origin and disbursement of their political funds.
  Mr. GALLACHER: I have a right to say that time and again our party have made the offer that we are prepared to have all our books, all our funds, examined at any time by responsible members of the Labour party, and we are prepared to have the leader of the party's finances examined along with the finances of the leaders of the Labour party, and we are confident that we will present a clean bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman who is in possession of the Floor will not think it necessary to reply further on this matter which again has only arisen as an incident in this Debate and is not relevant to the question before the Committee.
  Mr. MORRISON: I had no intention of pursuing the point. I was merely replying to a very short statement which my hon. Friend made. The last thing I wish to do is to quarrel with him, but I thought it only right, as there might be a danger of confusion and muddle about this Division, to inform the Committee and my hon. Friends of the decision we reached, and why we reached it; and for myself, having taken a line in public with the full support, the unanimous support, of the conference of the political party to which I belong, I am going to face the consequences, accept my responsibilities, and vote for the Clause, and I hope that my hon. Friends will do the same.
  5.55 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): After the speech of the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), which I am sure must have won acceptance in all parts of the Committee, I think it, will be appropriate if I now deal as briefly as I can with points which have arisen in the discussion on the Clause, and then invite the Committee to come to a decision on this the third

  613
  major Clause of the Bill. Quite a number of suggestions have been thrown out by various hon. Members, some of them valuable suggestions, such, for instance, as that put forward by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) at d the more elaborate suggestions of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), and I need hardly say that my right hon. Friend and I will be only too glad to make the closest examination of those suggestions between now and the Report stage in order to see whether improve)11.nts in the terminology of the Bill can be effected. But, putting that aside, may I deal with one or two of the more substantial criticisms made in the last hour?
  The hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) began with a very apt question, inquiring what was the existing law in relation to the control of processions in this country. I am sorry to say the answer is that the existing law, both in England and in Scotland, is a patch-work. It would hardly be possible, without an expenditure of time which the Committee would not tolerate, to indicate even in outline the wide variety of the powers which exist under private Statutes and general Statutes in different parts of the country, and the object of Clause 3 is to provide for the country as a whale more or less uniform powers under which those authorities which do not at present possess adequate powers may be brought up to the level which already obtains in certain other areas. The powers in some areas in England and Scotland may well be sufficient already to enable the evil to be dealt with, but in many other areas the powers are definitely inadequate for that purpose.
  The next point which emerged from the speeches was that in regard to Subsection (2)—the Sub-section which empowers the banning of processions—insufficient attention had been given to the providing of safeguards for the rights of British citizens to engage in processions or demonstrations. In dealing with that point may I preface my observation with this remark, directed to the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), that I do not propose to deal at this stage with the wholly separate question, which will probably arise on the Amendments to Clause 8, of the powers of magistrates and the appropriateness of magistrates in Scotland being the authority for exercising
  614
  the powers under this Sub-section. That is a separate issue, and I shall refer to it at a later stage in our Debate, when I think it will be a more appropriate time to discuss it.
  Taking the Clause as it stands, hon. Members in several parts of the Committee have, I think, not done justice to the lavish care with which the draftsman, and the Members of the Committee who have edited the draftsman's work, have hedged around both Sub-sections (1) and (2) with the most elaborate precautions, designed to safeguard what may be accurately described as the liberties of the subject in this matter. More than one hon. Member has spoken in terms which suggested that a chief officer of police might exercise an almost capricious power to prohibit processions. Hon. Members will recall that, as the result of an Amendment which has already been passed, Sub-section (1) now requires that the chief officer of police shall have reasonable ground for his apprehension and, in the second place, that his apprehension must be not that he dislikes Communists or Fascists, or any of the other persons who may be engaged in the demonstrations, or that he disapproves of hunger marchers; he must have a reasonable apprehension that the procession may lead to serious public disorder. When he comes to that decision, hon. Members will observe, he cannot claim to prohibit the procession. The whole purport of the Clause assumes that the procession will take place. All that he can do is to ask for conditions to be observed and for such other assurances as are necessary for the preservation of public order.
  On passing from Sub-section (1) to Sub-section (2) hon. Members will observe that the safeguards become all the more apparent. I am not going to take Subsection (2) in detail, but hon. Members will realise that the first condition of it is the inadequacy of Sub-section (1), which must be insufficient to deal with the situation. Then there is the requirement about application to a borough or urban authority—once again the condition of apprehension of serious public disorder comes in—and finally the consent of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. FOOT: May I interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend? Under Subsection (2) is not the chief officer of

  615
  police made the sole judge of whether Sub-section (1) is sufficient or insufficient to keep the peace? There is no question of reasonable grounds of apprehension in Sub-section (2).
  The LORD ADVOCATE: That is perfectly right.
  Mr. FOOT: That was the point of my Amendment.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The whole point of the opening words of Sub-section (2) is, that the chief officer of police sets in operation under that Sub-section a train of machinery to safeguard public order, which works in a way for which Sub-section (1) was not designed. I should not hesitate to say that a borough or urban district council would be well entitled to decline to act under Sub-section (2), and the Home Secretary equally well entitled to refuse to consent to any exercise of their powers by such a council, if it appeared that Sub-section (1) were adequate for the occasion. Be that as it may, we have heaped Pelion on Ossa, and Ossa on Olympus in the safeguards that have been set around these Sub-sections. One hon. Member—I cannot at the moment recall who it was—expressed fears that a procession might arrive in London to find that the whole of the Metropolitan Police Area was completely closed by a ban imposed under Sub-section (3) and that it might have to wait for a very long period for a suitable Parliamentary opportunity of criticising the Home Secretary for that action. I ask the Committee to consider whether it is possible to conceive of a situation of emergency in this country so extreme as to justify the total banning of public processions and demonstrations throughout the City of London, without there being a grave matter of public importance such as to justify the most extreme Parliamentary action. I cannot conceive of a situation in which action so drastic as that would have to be set in operation under Sub-section (2). That Subsection, for the country as a whole, and Sub-section (3) for the London area, are merely to enable the emergency provisions to be applied in, I should anticipate, the most exceptional circumstances, and probably for only a very limited period, because a situation exists of such grave danger to the public peace that nothing but this Sub-section can deal with it.
  616
  I think I have covered the main points which arose in the discussion.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to be perfectly fair. We were led to believe that a sort of pledge was given that, so far as Scotland was concerned, the matter would not be left to the chief constable in any of our towns.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: What is the difference between a magistrate and a chief constable?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The difference is that the magistrates are elected by the community and the chief constable is outwith, and can act the part of a dictator. The community has no recourse to bring him to book, no matter what he does. Nobody knows that better than the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not know that.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Time and again we have tried to raise this question regarding the position of the chief constable, and we could not do so.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): There is a specific Amendment to Clause 8 which applies the Measure to Scotland and raises exactly the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I propose to call that Amendment, and I think we had better discuss this subject when we come to it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: With all due respect to you, Captain Bourne, at the moment I would point out that we may not have the Lord Advocate before us when the Clause to which you have referred comes before the Committee. We have the Lord Advocate here now, and I am not going to lose the opportunity of tying him down to tell him that he has never said anything to the representatives of our party, or that we were misinformed. I would put it to him here, before the Members of the British House of Commons: Is it the case or not that the power under the Bill will be taken out of the hands of the magistrates to say whether a demonstration is to be allowed to take place or not? Is that power to be in the hands of a magistrate, or is the final word to be with the chief constable?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I hope that I am not transgressing your Ruling,

  617
  Captain Bourne, if I answer the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs by saying that the Bill as drafted will put the power into the hands of the magistrates. When we discuss the Amendment to Clause 8 I shall support that view. I will deal with a few of the other points. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) argued, as I understood, that it was unfair that a procession should be subjected to restrictions merely because of the excitable character of the population through which it was proposed to conduct it. I cannot quite feel the weight of that argument. It is impossible to regard this matter as though, in different parts of the country and in this city, you found populations of average people of an average degree of excitability and an average degree of political intelligence. You do not. You and areas where, for perfectly intelligible reasons, the people are, politically speaking, explosive and ignitable, or, it may be, religiously explosive and ignitable. If the organisers of a procession choose to conduct a march or a demonstration for a particular object through an area in which that object excites strong feelings and leads to serious apprehension of great public disorder, it is fair that those who, by their action, are, as it were, proposing to strike matches in a powder magazine, ought to be told, "You must not do that there."
  Mr. SANDYS: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite sure that, if he accepts that principle, he is not placing a premium upon political excitability, and is not encouraging a peaceful population who would allow processions with which they disagreed to go through their districts, to show that excitability in order to have the processions abandoned?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not think so. It takes two to make a quarrel. In the majority of cases where a restriction of this kind will be imposed, it will be because it is obviously unwise to hold a demonstration in the particular locality in which it is proposed to hold it. The central proposition which I would suggest to the Committee is, that no one has an absolute legal right to do anything; one has only a legal right to do that which does not unreasonably interfere with the rights of other people.
  Mr. GALLAGHER: Would the Lord Advocate give us any indication, or hint, or any possibility, of a procession exciting such feelings, except in cases of race or religion?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not sure that I am the proper person to whom that question ought to be addressed, but I think that political as well as racial and religious topics are calculated to give rise to the serious public disorder to which this Bill applies. I have detained the Committee already too long, and I would now humbly suggest that we should come to a decision.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to say a few words, having listened to the discussion since my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) put our point of view. I think it is a matter to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench did not get into the National Government when the Lord President of the Council refused to take him with him when the National Government was formed—
  Mr. H. MORRISON: On a point of Order. That statement is quite untrue. Is it in order for the hon. Member to make charges of that kind?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Clause.
  Mr. STEPHEN: You did not hear the earlier discussion, when the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to be offensive by innuendo—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not use an epithet like "offensive" about other Members of the House.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I am quite willing to alter it in order to observe your Ruling by saying that the right hon. Gentleman by innuendo was seeking to convey to the working-class movement of this country a complete misrepresentation of the position of the party below the Gangway to which I belong. I myself took up the other position, of saying without innuendo, and I am quite sure that the Lord President of the Council will bear out what I said—
  Mr. H. MORRISON: That is a reaffirmation of the statement which I have specifically denied. It is not true,

  619
  and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it or justify it.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: You withdraw or justify what you said.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Whatever statement the right hon. Gentleman may or may not have made at some part of the Debate, it has nothing to do with this Clause.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I do not think that any real answer has been given, either from the Front Labour Bench or from the Government Bench, to the arguments that were brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals. The Clause as it stands presents the utmost danger to the working-class movement in the future, and, in spite of the fact that the Labour Party Conference at Edinburgh decided that something must be done with regard to the happenings in the East End of London, I do not think that that decision of the Labour Party Conference in Edinburgh should debar Members of the House of Commons who represent the working-class movement in the various constituencies throughout the country from taking the necessary steps, in connection with legislation before the House, to see that that legislation is not going to be used so as to affect adversely the workers in their divisions.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals referred to one position in regard to demonstrations that occur during an industrial dispute. I put it to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway whether, from their industrial experience in those circumstances, they do not see that this would be one of the most dangerous weapons that was ever put into the hands of the governing class in this country. That is the contention that we have been putting forward in this House. In view of past history, and in view of the likely development of events in the future, we have no right to bargain away the protection of the working class in order to avoid a recurrence of something that has happened in the East End of London. I submit that what happened there is something absolutely distinct from what is being provided for in this Clause, and that in the future, if the circumstances are at all circumstances to create a little apprehension, the instrument that has been used with such great
  620
  effect by the working-class movement in the past will become utterly useless, or they will be deprived of it by this Clause. The Lord Advocate, when he was replying to the discussion, said that Sub-sections (2) and (3) would only come into operation in a time of emergency, but there is the Emergency Powers Act to deal with a case of emergency. As I see it, I believe that this is one of the most dangerous Clauses, so far as working-class agitation is concerned, that ever came before the House of Commons, and I hope that it will be rejected.
  6.22 p.m.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: I intervene because I feel a responsibility as representing a constituency in the East End of London. I do not think we ought to under-rate the problem in the East End of London. It is unfortunate that something that has happened down there should be the occasion for a Bill of this character. Nobody likes this Clause; I certainly do not; but, when the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway made his protest against the alleged slowness of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to take action, I went out of my way to stand up for the right hon. Gentleman, because I thought that not only had he taken the right line within his powers, but that on the whole, in all the circumstances, the Commissioner of Police was wise in not taking any action. I realise, as I think anyone with any knowledge of the East End of London must realise, that the happenings of the last few weeks are a real problem which does require some kind of legislation.
  I take the line that the prohibition of the wearing of political uniforms will hardly meet the case. I do not like this Clause; I agree that the right to march in processions is one of the primary instruments of democratic expression, and, therefore, any Clause that attempts to limit that right, or to make it more difficult, should be examined most meticulously word by word, and we should try to make it as watertight as possible. I do not think that the Clause in its present form, and especially Subsection (2), is beyond reproach, but we have had—and this is the important point—the assurance that on Report the Government will try to meet some of the criticisms.

  621
  I want to utter this warning. I am going to accept that assurance on the understanding that we have a reasonable time for discussion of this Clause, and one or two other Clauses, on the Report stage. In many cases the Report stage is only formal. I think it would be a tragedy if the unfortunate circumstances of the last few weeks should in any way jeopardise political liberties, whatever form they take—whether it be the form of processions, or of carrying banners, or any other particular form. In view of the importance of showing to the world over this situation a united front, if I may use that expression, in opposition to Fascism and everything that that stands for, I suggest that it would be a good thing to allow the Clause to go through now on the understanding that, if it appears on Report that the Government have not been skilful enough to give greater protection to the right of procession, we shall have to divide against it. In the meantime, accepting the assurance of the Government, I am going to support the Clause.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. MacLAREN: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has told the Committee that, owing to the unanimous support given to a certain resolution at the Labour Party Conference, he felt in honour bound to support the Clause as it stands here, subject, of course, to amendment later. That is as it may be, but I am quite clear, speaking for myself, that I must vote against the Clause as it stands, despite the assurance that something will be done later to bring in Amendments. Frankly, I cannot see—
  Sir J. SIMON: Reference has been made to an assurance. I have given no assurance that amendments will be made. Let me say quite frankly to the Committee, as it is my duty to do, that I have given no assurance that I will introduce Amendments. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be under a misapprehension.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I thank the Home Secretary for that statement, because it is very necessary to be clear on the point. The impression has been conveyed—I think I am within the recollection of the Committee—that such changes would be made in the construction of this Clause as would make it commendable to
  622
  those who are critical of it at the moment; I put it no higher than that to the Home Secretary. I assure him that that was the impression conveyed. I think the Lord Advocate went as far.
  Sir J. SIMON: Really, there is no difficulty in stating the point in plain English, and I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend did so. He said—and he spoke for the whole Government—that on the Report stage and before the Report stage every attention would be given to the criticisms which have been made, in order to see whether the Clause needs improvement in its wording or not. I intervened because of the wholly inaccurate statement that an assurance had been given that Amendments would be made.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I do not wish to give a wrong impression, but I was under that impression, as I think were many Members of the Committee. If the correction to which we have listened is taken to heart, it makes it all the more imperative that something should be said critically at this moment about the Clause. I was going on to say that I cannot see any legal device that is going to make this Clause commendable to the House. Let us take a case in point. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney is one of the most skilful debaters in the House. How did he deal with the point? He said it was necessary to have Sub-section (2) of Clause 3, because, without it, it would be possible for a mob in uniform to go down to the East End and shout, "Down with the Jews." But if they did that they would, under the present law, be apprehended for inciting to violence. The law can act now, without this Sub-section at all.
  It is not the case that the Home Secretary was obliged to draw the Clause as it stands because of certain statements that had been made. The right hon. Gentleman was criticised for not acting quickly enough in view of what was expected to happen in the East End, but in the Bill the whole action is placed upon the chief constable. It is not the Home Secretary who is to intervene. It affords us no assurance to be told that the Government have accepted an Amendment in which it is stated that the chief officer has reasonable ground for apprehension. What in law or outside the law is meant by "reasonable

  623
  apprehension"? Can anyone define it? More than that, the chief constable not only has to have apprehension but he has to keep in mind three points—the time, the place, and the circumstances of a procession. The Lord Advocate assured the House that he could well conceive circumstances in which political opinion could give rise to disturbances in any district. I can remember years ago attempting to have a little procession and an open-air meeting in Wiltshire dealing with the land question, and even in those days the police officer warned us what would happen if we dared to have a meeting. We dared to have a meeting and I know what happened, and it was not a very nice sight.
  We are assured now by the Lord Advocate that not merely racial or religious, but political opinion may govern the decision of the chief constable as to whether there shall be processions and, furthermore, whether he shall take the matter further to the council and receive their decision to prohibit the meetings and processions altogether. This is a serious matter. There are ways and means of dealing with this disastrous growth of two extreme sections of the community other than this Bill, namely, to find out from where the money is coming that supports these processions and demonstrations. I want to give a word of warning to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney. He seems to like the Bill as a fulfilment of all that he has asked for.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not now discussing the Bill.
  Mr. MacLAREN: I should have said the Clause. We are all very delighted with an Act of Parliament which seems to be running up our street, or pleasing us because it is effective in doing something that we want to see done, but the worst of the law is that when it is in operation it has no regard for political parties, and the Bill will cut both ways. It may please many just now because it seems to be hitting at the Blackshirts, but when it is the law of the land, and has no regard to the colour of the shirt or to the opinions that are held, people who are welcoming it now will find that it hits at them, too. The danger, therefore, that I see is that under the pretext of dealing with these crude expressions of violent political opinion we are
  624
  running a very serious danger of checking the full liberty of the British subject in the State. I cannot for the life of me see how the Home Secretary, with all his ability to embody in a Clause all that he may desire to put into it, can produce a Clause which will safeguard the liberty of the subject, check the encroachment of officialdom and at the same time check the encroachment of illegal political action in the State.
  It would be far better to use the powers that we have and, if you like, pass a short Bill dealing with the funds of these bodies. I shall vote against the Clause. I am taking no risks here. I am not saying this so that in the future I can say, "I did this and Morrison did the other." I regard liberty as a thing that must be defended now with greater enthusiasm and a more watchful eye than at any time in the past. Who knows but that this attempt to deal with Fascism and other dictatorial forces in the State, this very action that we are taking in the name of democracy to check them, is forging new chains to keep us from having greater liberty to fight them in the future? For these reasons I shall vote solidly against the Clause.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Speaking as an old Member, there is nothing that rouses one's suspicions so much as when people get up and proclaim loudly and at length that liberty must be protected. It is very easy in the circumstances to wonder whether the Clause is or is not necessary. We have had other suspicious circumstances to-day. We have had between the two front benches an unusual amount of praise of each other. When the front benches, whether it is a matter of processions or anything else, praise each other, you may be sure 99 times out of 100 that in some way or other they are hitting at the back bencher. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has been having a very rough time with his left wings. Both left wings have set about him more or less, and he did not come out of it with his usual brilliancy. I intend to support the Clause. We have undoubtedly got into a position where there has been a serious danger of breach of the peace in East London because of the abuse of processions. Unless we make it, perfectly clear that processions must not be abused pro-

  625
  cessions must go and those who want to see them kept realise that something has to be done to prevent their abuse.
  I have read the Clause very carefully and listened to a great many of the arguments on the subject. It is generally agreed outside the House; whatever two or three minor sections of the Socialist party may think here, that it is up to the House of Commons to do something to enable the people of the country to enjoy their right of processions freely in the future as they have in the past, and something ought to be done to stop these two wings of the community who are abusing processions at present. No alternative has been put before us except this Clause. There are a good many safeguards under it. If you are going to preserve democracy and its right to have processions and to explain its feelings fully, you must undoubtedly have a Clause of this kind. We will hope that there are not many local authorities such as that described by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), which prohibited a particular procession for a particular purpose. I do not think that is likely to happen often. For these reasons I shall most certainly vote for the Clause.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. ELLIS SMITH: I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and others who have expressed their anxiety regarding this Clause. A number of us put down an Amendment which has not been called and I should like to make a few observations upon Sub-section (4). The reason why I am concerned about it arises out of my experience in a big industrial centre. The Home Secretary has accepted the word "knowingly." I am concerned about the various interpretations that will be put upon that word by the various people who will administer the Act. I have had the experience of organising perhaps one of the largest demonstrations that have taken place in Lancashire against the means test. The Chief Constable of Manchester sent for us and had us in his office for about two hours. On the day that the demonstration took place the police had been specially selected and given strict orders that in no circumstances should they be parties to or allow any provocation to take place. The Chief Constable showed that he was capable of handling a demonstration of
  626
  that character. He was tactful, and the constables under his charge also handled the demonstration in as tactful a way as it could possibly have been handled.
  At Trafford Park we had a different experience altogether. I remember an apprentices' strike, and the interpretation that the chief officer in charge of the police placed upon the Trade Disputes Act was different altogether from that placed upon it in other areas. The apprentices were on strike because of a legitimate grievance. The police on that occasion deliberately provoked the greatest amount of antagonism possible as the result of their action. A demonstration took place against the means test in Edinburgh during the week that the conference of the Labour party was being held in that city, and it was a model of law and order. When it came to the traffic lights, owing to the untactful way that one of the constables was handling the demonstrators, there was nearly trouble, but, fortunately, a senior member of the police came along and spoke to him, and the result was that there was no incident. I am concerned about this matter because, having had experience of the administration of the Trade Disputes Act and its effect upon industrial disputes, I can see various interpretations being placed upon this Measure when it becomes an Act which will have the same detrimental effect unless our interests are safeguarded. Therefore, no matter what anyone else may do, I have felt bound to make these observations of my experience in order that we can use our influence to ask the Home Secretary to consider the other Amendments that have been put upon the Order Paper so that the legitimate trades union rights in this country can be safeguarded under the Bill.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. SILVERMAN: I feel that an apology is really due to the Committee for detaining it a minute or two longer when so much time has already been devoted to this subject, but in view of the dangers which have been discussed from these benches, it may be of some value to say that I think that the dangers have been very greatly exaggerated. There is no doubt that there are dangers, and I believe that when they are understood they can be further safeguarded, as I hope they will be at a later stage. I

  627
  cannot share the anxieties expressed in the Debate to anything like the degree of some of my hon. Friends here. There is no doubt that in some respects the very existence of this Clause is the first substantial success that the Fascists have had in this country, but I am afraid that is something with which we have to put up in order to safeguard greater things. May I point out to some of my hon. Friends here that there is not under this Clause any power given to any chief constable or to any local authority to ban processions? A great deal of discussion has proceeded on the assumption that perhaps a chief constable can ban a procession, and that perhaps the local authority against which some people might desire to demonstrate can prevent a procession. There is nothing in the Clause to justify any such thing. The chief constable has power to impose conditions, but no power to prohibit processions. Even then, now that the Clause has been amended, he must have reasonable grounds for action.
  The point about placing a whole park or district or borough out of bounds for processions and demonstrations is quite another question. There the chief constable may request the local authority to make such an order and the local authority may make such order if the Secretary of State consents. I support the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) that it would be better, and a very useful safeguard, if the order were not made by the local authority at all but by the Minister, so as to give this House a much greater control over it than would otherwise be the case. It is fair to point out to those who see all sorts of grave dangers lurking in the background that a chief constable cannot even make the order unless he has grounds for believing that the powers under Sub-section (1) are insufficient. Even then there is the control of the local authority and beyond that the control of this House. While I entirely agree that further safeguards are necessary—and I hope that when the Report stage is reached some way of meeting some of the dangers may have been found—I think that the dangers which have been expressed during the Debate are exaggerated, and I shall have no difficulty whatever in supporting the Clause at this stage.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not want to remain silent because I intend to vote against this Clause. I do not see any need for it. There was no need for it when we were up against it in Glasgow in 1919, when the police smashed me up and down. I was arrested as a result of that demonstration. The Home Secretary had the necessary power at that time. In 1926, when I made a speech in this House and said that if the Government of this country were to treat me and mine in the way that they were treating the miners of this country, I would blow the thing to babarags, the Secretary of State challenged me to make that speech outside. I made the speech outside. What happened? Did I run away like you are running away from Mosley? No fear. They arrested me, and I was fined £25. They had that power then, and they had the power in 1919 to put me into solitary confinement for one month for the part I played in that strike. I have listened to this Debate and to all the Debates we have had and to the different conversations since this Bill came before the country, and I am thoroughly convinced that we are letting go certain liberties and powers that we boast about when we say that we have more freedom in this country than there is anywhere else in the world.
  We are the outstanding democratic country, but if we allow the Government to go on much longer in the way that they are doing, we shall not remain so. It is being done in such a scientific fashion that quite a number of Socialists have fallen into the trap. There is no doubt in my mind, after having listened to what has taken place in the Debate to-day that a sprat is being thrown to catch a whale. The Home Secretary is not going to catch me. The Liberal party, the great defenders of liberty, do not see further than that this idea is to affect the supposed extremes. You have to remember that it has been the extremes in this country that have been the safeguards of this country. What is extreme to-day becomes that which is correct to-morrow. That is what we are facing here.
  The Government of the day and the Secretary of State has the power, and nobody knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman does, to stop Mosley and

  629
  company whenever they like. But there is no more astute individual in this House. We trade unionists know very well what he did during the miners' lock-out in 1926. He was behind all the business which led the trade union officials to understand that they were liable to arrest and that their funds could be seized. The subtle mind responsible for that was no less a personage than the Secretary of State. He has allowed all the trouble of Mosley against the Jews to go on, and the idea to spread from one end of the land to the other that the poor old Jews were not getting a fair deal. Our party, defending the weak against the strong, as our party always will, naturally took the part of the Jews, and they will continue to take the part of the downtrodden. We have done that since the institution of our movement, and because of that, with all the pressure that was going on and the Secretary of State pretending that it was being beyond his power and beyond what he could do, it has created such an atmosphere from one end of the land to the other that the Labour party have been won over to the idea. And then, after he has expanded the whole thing, along comes the product of the subtle mind of the Secretary of State—this Bill—which, I believe, will fleece from us that outstanding characteristic of British liberty through which to-day we
  are able to stand at our street corners. I will do it again. I do not care what law you pass. If I have something to say I shall say it, and will take the consequences. The Bill is going to steal from us this great possession which we should guard with all our power. We ought to guard the jewel of liberty in the framework of freedom.
  We are discussing a most serious thing, not Spain, Germany or Russia, but something which is at home. We shall not be able to raise and discuss questions in the free and untrammelled manner we have been able to do in the past if we allow a Bill of this description to go through. We are voicing the aspirations of the people outside who have grievances and are inarticulate. They sent us to defend them on the Floor of the House of Commons against the ravages of those who are in control of this country. We are now able to put forward their grievances either here or at the street corners, but by this Bill we are going to hand away that power and liberty, and I certainly shall go into the Lobby, if the House divides, against this Clause.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 13.

  Division No. 18.]

  AYES.

  [7.0 p.m.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Frankel, D.

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Furness, S. N.

  Adamson, W. M.

  Clarke, F. E.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Ganzoni, Sir J.

  Apsley, Lord

  Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

  Gardner, B. W.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

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

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

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

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

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Gledhill, G.

  Balaiel, Lord

  Craddock, Sir R. H.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Goldie, N. B.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Goodman, Col. A. W.

  Barr, J.

  Crookehank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

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

  Crossley, A. C.

  Granville, E. L.

  Belt, Sir A. L.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Bellenger, F.

  Dalton, H.

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.

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

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Benson, G.

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

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

  Bernays, R. H.

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Day, H.

  Groves, T. E.

  Blindell, Sir J.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

  Boulton, W. W.

  Denville, Alfred

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Doland, G. F.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Brass, Sir W.

  Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.

  Harbord, A.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Dower, Capt. A. V. G.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

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

  Drewe, C.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

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

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Hayday, A.

  Bull, B. B.

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Burke, W. A.

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Dunne, P. R. R.

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Cape, T.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

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

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Holmes. J. S.

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

  Entwistle, C. F.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Chanson, H.

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  Hopkin, D.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

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

  Naylor, T. E.

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

  Jagger, J.

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

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  John, W.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Keeling, E. H

  Paling, W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Peat, C. U.

  Specs, W. P.

  Kimball, L.

  Penny, Sir G.

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

  Kirby, B. V.

  Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Latham, Sir P.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

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

  Lathan, G.

  Peters, Dr. S. J.

  Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Petherick, M.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

  Leach, W.

  Potts, J.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Leckie, J. A.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Tacker, Sir R. I.

  Lee, F.

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Thorne, W.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Tinker, J. J.

  Levy, T.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Touche, G. C.

  Lewis, O.

  Ridley, G.

  Train, Sir J.

  Liddall. W. S.

  Riley. B.

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Ritson, J.

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G C.

  Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

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

  Walkden. A. G.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

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

  Lyons, A. M.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Ward, Irene (Wallsend)

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Rowlands, G.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Watkins, F. C.

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

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Welsh, J. C.

  MacDonald Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Salt, E. W.

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

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

  Salter, Dr. A.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Markham, S. F.

  Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Marshall, F.

  Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)

  Wise. A. R.

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

  Sanders, W. S.

  Withers, Sir J. J.

  Mathers, G.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Mayhew. Lt.-Col. J.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

  Savery, Servington

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Messer, F.

  Selley, H. R.

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Young. A. S. L. (Partick)

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Montague, F.

  Short, A.

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)

  Silkin, L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-

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

  Silverman, S. S.

  Dr. Morris-Jones and Lieut.-Colonel

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Llewellin.

  Munro, P.

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

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Hardie, G. D.

  Maclean, N.

  Daggar, G.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Westwood, J.

  Ede, J. C.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Foot, D. M.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Gallacher, W.

  MacLaren, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Stephen and Mr. Buchanan.

  Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Prohibition of offensive weapons at public, meetings and processions), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Prohibition of offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace.)
  7.9 p.m.
  Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I beg to move, in page 5, line 3, after "behaviour," to insert:
  "or wears emblems or displays banners or emblems."
  It will be observed that the Clause says:
  "Any person who … uses threatening; abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace … shall be guilty of an offence."
  Earlier on in the Bill it was indicated that banners and emblems of a provocative character were to be considered on the Report stage. But here we have no offence under this Clause as it stands unless the police have taken action and certain conditions prevail. It occurs to many of us that at the present time you are quite likely to have disorder and a breach of the peace if there is a display of provocative emblems, just as you are with abusive epithets or insulting words. I will give one instance of the fears we have. You might have a public demonstration in Hyde Park or some other meeting place, and you might suddenly find a section of the audience producing very provocative emblems. I have had a good deal of experience of public

  633
  meetings in this country during the last 32 years and I am a processionist. I am glad that we are preserving the right to march. I once had the honour of leading 70,000 persons from Hyde Park to call on the Prime Minister, at that time, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The fact that he was not at home did not alter the effectiveness of the procession. We were orderly people, and, as has been explained all through these good-humoured Debates, no one in this House is going to attempt to deprive persons of the right to demonstrate in an orderly manner.
  It is conceivable, now that the black shirt is not going to be worn in procession, that there might be persons who are enthusiastic supporters of that system on the Continent who at the psychological moment might produce a swastika on a banner and cause a great disturbance. To be impartial, there might be men who produced a red flag at a respectable meeting and caused disorder. In either event it is clear that the same reactions on the public mind which would be caused by the foreign uniform or fancy dress which we have noticed recently might also be caused by emblems which were foreign to the instincts of Englishmen. The policy of the hon. Gentleman is a foreign importation.
  Mr. GALLACHER: You are all wrong.
  Sir H. CROFT: I will not accuse him of having produced his policy from the ranks of the Labour party. I beg the Government to insert these words, because it would be a great mistake if it were imagined in any part of the country that this Bill was weighted all the time against one particular school of thought and it is important that we should show that it is a Measure not specially brought into this House out of panic on account of certain disturbances in the East End, but because we want to revert to the ancient ideal of complete freedom in this country. It must be admitted that if you were to have a meeting and there was a sudden parade of emblems which are offensive to British people, such as fasces inscribed on a flag, the swastika or any other emblem which was provocative, it would be likely to cause disturbance. I have attended meetings, not of a party character, but educative, addressed by various members of the Dominions over-sea. I was the only Englishman taking
  634
  part, and I have seen many meetings of that character, broken up. I remember that on one occasion at a fairly peaceful meeting an emblem was produced which caused grave annoyance, and the result was disorder. Now that we are dealing with this question, let His Majesty's Government see to it that the ground is covered. The principle has been admitted in an earlier Clause in regard to emblems and banners, and I hope that it will be adequately covered on the Report stage, and that the Home Secretary will now accept my very modest Amendment, which I realise has the approval of all parties.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. A. BEVAN: I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member misrepresents the point of view of members of this party when he says that we are in general agreement with the argument that emblems and banners should be prohibited.
  Sir H. CROFT: I did not mean harmless banners or emblems, such as: "Up with the Labour party," or "Down with. the Socialists."
  Mr. BEVAN: We had a very long discussion on this matter, and I think it will be the general point of view of hon. Members in all parts that it is very difficult to define what is a provocative emblem or device. We should be imposing a very difficult duty on the police if we asked them to decide that question. The hon. and gallant Member has indicated that he would take a view which I am sure would not be shared by hon. Members on these benches. He said that he. would regard the red flag as a provocative emblem. The red flag has been used by Socialist assemblies for very many years. If the hon. and gallant Member would be provoked by the display of a red flag at any meeting that I addressed, I should regard it as part of my duty to have him immediately ejected. I should not regard it as reason able on his part to suggest that I should be arrested because he took offence at the display of the red flag. I should regard him as the unreasonable person.
  The hon. and gallant Member wants to put words into the Clause which are unnecessary. The Clause says:
  "Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour."

  635
  I should have thought that everything was covered by that provision. It goes on to protect the speakers at a meeting, as they ought to be protected. We ought to guard against allowing any of our liberties to be interfered with by restricting the holding of meetings, and we ought to have some regard to the behaviour of the people there. Sometimes tempers run high and people say things on the spur of the moment. It would be very unfortunate if our British genius for heckling were restrained. Some of the most humorous incidents in British political history have arisen from the right to heckle. We have so little humour left-in politics that it would be regrettable if that right were interfered with. I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment. If he did accept it he would be inconsistent, having regard to what he said on the previous occasion, when he stated that he hoped to insert words in the Bill which would meet our position in regard to the display of flags.
  The hon. and learned Member must realise that it is difficult to say when an emblem is provocative. I have been intensely provoked on numberless occasions when I have seen the Union Jack displayed on Conservative platforms. If there is anything that would outrage me it would be the impudence of the Conservative party in using the National flag as a party emblem. I am sure from what we know of the hon. and gallant Member that at his meetings he swathes himself in the Union Jack. How objectionable it is that that national emblem should be associated with the odious politics of the hon. and gallant Member and his friends.
  Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a shameful thing that all parties do not show the national emblem?
  Mr. BEVAN: If all parties showed the national emblem there would be no force in it. The hon. and gallant Member and his friends use the Union Jack at Conservative meetings because they want to give a sacrosanct air and authority to their dubious messages. They know that the national emblem is something that arouses great emotion among the people and they want, with their mediocre policies, to borrow vitality from those emotions. I should not, however, like the hon. and gallant Member to be put into prison or to be
  636
  prosecuted because he does that. Surely, hon. Members in other parts of the Committee must feel that it is unreasonable to take exception to the display of the red flag, which has been endeared to us by many sacrifices which have been made under its auspices.
  Sir H. CROFT: The swastika also.
  Mr. BEVAN: If a person came into a meeting and behaved in such a, manner that he clearly intended to cause a breach of the peace and waved a swastika flag in confirmation of that intention, he would be offending against the law. It all depends upon the circumstances surrounding the case. The hon. and gallant Member must realise that the swastika is the national emblem of Germany, whereas the red flag is the international workers' banner. It depends upon the association surrounding the incident. As the hon. and gallant Member has indicated what is in his mind in moving the Amendment, it seems to me that there would have been many more converts to his point of view had he not made his speech. I hope that the Committee will be satisfied that all the requirements of propriety are satisfied by the use of the word "behaviour," and that it is unnecessary to insert anything which might further restrict the liberties of the subject.
  7.23 p.m.
  Colonel GRETTON: The Amendment is really related to Clause 3, which has been discussed for a considerable length of time, and which seeks to prohibit the use of provocative banners and emblems in processions. The Government have told us that they intend on the Report stage to insert words making such a display an offence. In Clause 5 we are dealing with public meetings, and the question before the Committee is whether provocative emblems and banners produced at such meetings with intent to produce disorder ought to be prohibited. It ought to be an offence so to display banners of a provocative kind. The question is not a large one. It is not profitable at this stage to discuss what are or are not provocative banners and emblems. We have all had experiences of banners and emblems being produced at meetings for the purpose of creating disorder and preventing the meetings from being carried through.

  637
  When we are dealing with this matter I submit that it would be well to make it clear that such conduct is not orderly and should be punished when it is done with the intention and effect of producing disorder. I hope that I have made it clear why our Amendment has been put down, and I hope that it will receive favourable consideration.
  7.26 p.m.
  Sir J. SIMON: I have listened carefully to what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) and I have no doubt whatever as to Clause 5 being sufficient to deal with the case. I have consulted the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate and they agree with me. I can hardly imagine a more obvious example of "threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour" in a public place, if we think for the moment of political behaviour, than the sort of case which has been referred to as needing special treatment. There cannot be any doubt in anybody's mind that the ground is covered by this Clause. I think it would be a very serious mistake to introduce a separate phrase on the subject. We might have some difficulty in defining its exact limitations. I am of opinion, and I am supported by my learned Friends who are helping me, that what is in the mind of my hon. and gallant Friends, in so far as it ought to be dealt with, is certainly covered by the word "behaviour." The exhibition of flags and emblems is "behaviour."
  One argument used by my hon. and gallant Friend was that it is contemplated to make a reference to this class of subject in connection with the conditions that may have to be imposed in regard to processions, but the two cases are quite different. As the Clause is now drafted, when we speak about conditions, about the route, about the street not to be entered, those phrases do not really give sufficient room for the introduction of conditions of rather a different character, namely, conditions about banners. Therefore, while it will be wise to deal with the matter in Clause 3, there is no ground for doing what is suggested in Clause 5. I can give the hon. and gallant Member the assurance that there is not the slightest doubt that
  638
  the word "behaviour" covers the exhibition or display of banners and emblems.
  Sir H. CROFT: In view of the very definite assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given that the word "behaviour" covers the kind of occurrence I have indicated, I have no desire to press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, to leave out "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or," and to insert:
  "calculated to excite racial or religious prejudice."
  I move the Amendment in a form different from that on the Paper. Owing to an inadvertence the Amendment on the Paper did not include the word "or." The purpose of the Amendment is obvious. On the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that the penalties under the Clause were going to be much higher, and I am now submitting that, so far as our experience has gone in regard to recent happenings, the law seems to be sufficiently strong in this matter. Until the events in the East End there has been nothing to make urgent any demand for an alteration of the present law. In these circumstances I think it is well to maintain the old position and deal only with the new circumstances which have arisen. The difficulty has occurred owing to the attempt to excite racial and religious prejudice, and I see grave dangers if the Clause is unduly extended. A subject which has aroused a good deal of attention to-day is the position of the law of libel. Many people feel that the law of libel in this country is being so extended as to be a real danger to liberty. I think the Clause in its present terms would have a similar effect. Unless there is a limitation on the Clause and it is confined to abusive language calculated to excite racial or religious prejudice, you are going to make public controversy very difficult indeed.
  An hon. Member opposite gave us an illustration of what he would regard as abusive language. He said that he should regard "Down with British Imperialism" as abusive language. Evidently he would take action if he heard that phrase used. But there is a whole school in this coun-

  639
  try which regards all social development as being dependent on the downfall of British Imperialism. It is a basic principle in our political thought; we must achieve the overthrow of British Imperialism before we are able to enter into a civilised Socialist society. The hon. Member opposite, in quite good faith, if he heard me make a statement like that, calling upon the workers in the country to support our party in the overthrow of British Imperialism, would possibly go to the police and say, "Did you hear the insulting language he used about British Imperialism, which I prize so highly"; and as the hon. Member is a very good-looking fellow the police constable might be impressed, and I should later on be faced with a charge of using abusive language calculated to create a breach of the peace, when, in fact, I had used language which has been in use, in the public controversies of this country for years. The Home Secretary may say that the magistrates would throw it out, but suppose the person on the bench was of the same mind as the hon. Member opposite? In that case I should be subject to the heavy penalties which are proposed in the Bill. Formerly it was a matter of 40s., and did not matter so much, but now I should be faced with imprisonment for three months and a fine of £50.
  The illustration I have given shows the danger of the words as they now stand. They require some modification. The incidents which have called for these heavier penalties and an alteration in the law have been incidents which have been calculated to excite racial and religious prejudice, and, therefore, if the Government accept the Amendment they will be dealing with the real substance of the problem. They will also allow public controversy to go on in the way it has done in the past without creating any special ill-feeling or difficulties.
  7.36 p.m.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not think the object of the hon. Member would be in the least attained by the Amendment he has proposed. Indeed, in many cases the Amendment, I think, would curtail liberty of speech more than the original Clause. I have never heard a proposal coming from an alleged democratic party which has been more undemocratic. Does the
  640
  hon. Member mean that nobody is to be allowed to criticise in public the Roman Catholic or the Protestant religions or to criticise the actions of Germany or France or anybody else? Under the wording of his Amendment we should be creating racial or religious prejudice. It is a most astonishing proposal. You will certainly be creating religious and racial prejudice if you criticise the Roman Catholic religion or the Jews. Personally I do not think the Clause will have the slightest effect. A law to the same effect as regards London has been on the Statute Book for some years, but has never been put into operation. It provides that if the speaker at a public meeting, not only some unfortunate interruptor but a Minister of the Crown or the Leader of the Opposition, makes threatening or abusive language, the Commissioner of Police may prosecute. The Clause will make practically no difference to the law as it stands. There is such a provision already in force; but it has never been put into operation.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: What about penalties?
  Earl WINTERTON: I admit that the penalties are different. I hope the Committee will not support the Amendment. It would be an intolerable abuse of public liberty if people were not permitted to make speeches which showed either racial or religious prejudice. If a speaker uses threatening or abusive language he can be summoned under the present law, but to say that no one shall make a speech showing racial or religious prejudice is preposterous. It has existed in this country for hundreds of years, and will always exist. If speakers use abusive or threatening language they can be dealt with under the law of criminal libel.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I think the argument of the Noble Lord is sound. The Clause includes the words "with intent to" and therefore the responsibility rests on the prosecutor to prove his case that the words are calculated to cause a breach of the peace. Who is to decide the calculation? It is for the Government to prove the case. If the Amendment were accepted it would mean that in the mind of the police officer they were calculated to bring about certain results, and you would have shifted the ground from one side to the other.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: We do not want to press this Amendment unduly, but the point is worth consideration. I do not think there is much legal difference between the words "calculated" and "intent," but really the point is this: To criticise a person's religion would not be wrong, but, in the words of the Amendment, it would be wrong if it were calculated to excite racial or religious prejudice. That is another matter. To criticise the Roman Catholic or Protestant religion or the Jewish faith is not wrong, but if you accompany that criticism by saying that the Roman Catholics are bloodsuckers, it would be a crime because it would create religious prejudice. If you said that Protestants were a crowd of people of immoral character you would be creating religious prejudice.
  Earl WINTERTON: Does the hon. Member seriously ask the Committee to accept the point of view that when you make speeches criticising a particular faith or religion you are not attempting to create prejudice?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I think there is this difference. No one would complain if Mosley and the Fascists simply criticised the Jewish religion. That is not a crime. It is an ordinary controversy of the day. But the complaint is that the Fascists want to create prejudice against the Jews, that Mosley does not content himself with criticising the Jewish faith and religion—indeed, that faith is open to criticism and there are many persons who differ from it.
  The complaint is that they are creating prejudice against the Jews. To create a breach of the peace obviously means doing something more than merely criticising a faith. Therefore, we seek to insert the words:
  "calculated to incite racial or religious prejudice."
  Those words would not constitute a check on reasonable criticism, which has gone on for generations and will continue. The Noble Lord's criticism would have been sound if we had not added those words, and it is on those words that we found our Amendment. The cases they would cover would be those where people use certain words which create among the community a prejudice against a par-tic liar section. In Hyde Park there are
  642
  speakers belonging to all sorts of sects, and everything goes off all right; but if somebody went there and said, "That person over there is a Jew," and proceeded to use his oratory against that person, it would be creating racial and religious prejudice. That would be the crime. We do not wish to interfere with the right of people to criticise each other's religion in the ordinary way; but we wish to prevent the creation of racial and religious prejudice. That is the object of our Amendment.
  7.47 p.m.
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The speeches that have been made have left me very little to say. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) put his finger on what is the real and final objection to this Amendment. The Amendment would make it an offence to say something which is
  "calculated to excite racial or religious prejudice"
  whether the circumstances were such as were likely to create a breach of the peace or not. One might argue about the word "prejudice," but I should have thought that there were many statements frequently made by Scotsmen, particularly on a Burns night, that might not unfairly be described as being calculated to excite racial prejudice. The Amendment would make that an offence.
  Mr. STEPHEN: May I point out to the Attorney-General that the Clause reads on:
  "whereby a breach of the peace is likely to he occasioned."
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As the Amendment is drafted the words
  "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace"
  are left out.
  Mr. STEPHEN: The hon. and learned Gentleman will notice that "a breach of the peace" is referred to twice.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ought to point out that when the Amendment was moved the word "or" was added at the end of it. The Amendment would leave out the words "with intent," etc., down to the word "whereby," in line 9.
  Mr. STEPHEN: When moving the Amendment, I drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the word "or" had been added to the Amendment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman did that, but perhaps not all hon. Members realised it.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I accept that, but it would make only a slight difference. I suggest to the Committee that there are two difficulties. First of all, the basis of this Clause is that of
  "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned."
  That is the form in which this Clause occurs in the Act which applies to London and in many of the local Acts, and I suggest it is the right basis for a charge—namely, words likely to provoke a breach of the peace, whatever those words may be, whether they are directed to racial or religious grounds or not. We do not wish to draw a distinction between people who, in fact, use
  "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace,"
  and say that it is all right to do that if there is a particular subject matter, but not if the subject matter is something different. That is the real answer, in principle, to the Amendment.
  Mr. LOGAN: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that it is not necessary to insert the words proposed in the Amendment, because the purpose of the Bill is to deal with these things, although the Clause does not specify any particular kind of incident that might occur?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the words that are used "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace," or words "whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned," are religious or racial words, clearly the Clause applies.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Would the Clause apply in the case of the illustration I gave—"Down with British Imperialism"?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Clause applies to any words, whatever the subject matter, if they are "threatening, abusive or insulting," and are used "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace" or are words "whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned." I suggest to the Committee that it would be better to leave the Clause as it is and not seek to
  644
  specify the particular subject matter, thereby, as it were, giving a licence to people, as far as this Clause is concerned, to be as threatening, abusive or insulting as they like, with intent to provoke as many breaches of the peace as they like, provided the subject matter is not racial or religious. For those reasons, I suggest that the Committee should reject the Amendment.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. J. HALL: I am afraid I must speak as a layman without being able to appreciate the niceties of phraseology employed by lawyers. With regard to the difficulties that have occurred in the East End of London, there is certainly a dire necessity for the strengthening of the law as to statements made at meetings when they are made with the deliberate intent of inciting racial feeling. It seems to me that the words proposed in the Amendment would strengthen the position and would create a state of affairs in London that would very largely tend to do away with some of the destructive efforts of certain propagandists of a new political philosophy. There is not a shadow of doubt that this new political philosophy is built up on an odious propaganda which deliberately incites racial animosity. It must be appreciated that the meetings are not held indoors, but in the open, invariably in districts that are completely Jewish. The speakers spend the whole of their time, not in endeavouring to propagate their own particular political philosophy, but in making all sorts of accusations and statements of a slanderous character against the Jewish people. These meetings, being held in the districts in which they are, create immense difficulties and tend to destroy the peace and amity that have existed in those places for a number of years.
  It must be appreciated that attacks upon the Jewish people were not always the methods adopted by the Fascists. A surprising feature of the work of that body was that for the first 18 months or two years it made no attacks upon the Jewish people. No attempt was made to incite racial prejudice. It was not until the Fascists discovered that they had no message for the British people and were unable to get a response from the British people, that they copied the methods of foreign political forces, taking from them the worst features, with the idea of finding a rallying ground for their own political

  645
  philosophy. The new stunt was not based on real enmity or animosity against the Jewish people; it was assimilated anger, assimilated detestation, developed purely with the object of creating adherents to their cause. We have found in the East End of London during the last few months that the whole of this attempt to create racial animosity has given an impetus to hooligans—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very far from the Amendment, the point of which is comparatively narrow.
  Mr. HALL: I am exceedingly sorry if I have transgressed from the right lines in addressing the Committee, but I wish to refer to the Amendment, which aims at introducing a phrase that nothing should be said at public meetings
  "calculated to excite racial or religious prejudice."
  In the East End of London for a number of years, whatever may have been the feelings of the people there, they lived in peace and amity together, until this deliberate attempt was made by a particular organisation to sow the seeds of dissension by appealing to the baser instincts of racial animosity. I feel that such a method must be regarded as the meanest form of political propaganda. In the East End of London the Jewish people have been constantly insulted, and the speakers who have been responsible for it have had the protection of the police while doing so.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into that now. The sole question before the Committee is whether the words in the Clause or the words proposed in the Amendment by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) are better. What has happened in the East End of London is, I am afraid, not a matter which arises on this Amendment.
  Mr. HALL: I am only trying to show that the present situation, particularly in the East End of London, demands that there shall be an alteration of the law.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this occasion. The Committee is solely concerned with the point as to whether the words proposed by the Government or those proposed by the lion. Member for Camlachie are better.
  646
  The matter to which the hon. Member is referring might arise on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but it does not arise at this stage.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is the hon. Member not entitled to point to his experience in the East End of London as showing the necessity for the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Camlachie? That was what I understood the hon. Member to be doing.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All I can say is that the hon. Member's attempt was not successful. I listened to him with great care and I did not know whether he was for or against the Amendment. His remarks had nothing to do with the subject.
  Mr. JONES: The point I made was whether my hon. Friend is not entitled to argue that his experience in the East End of London has proved the need for this Amendment. I do not wish to put my opinion against your's, Captain Bourne, but, for myself, I think the hon. Gentleman was using a very convincing argument. He was convincing me, in any case.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It did not occur to me that the hon. Gentleman was putting a case for the Amendment at all. It seemed to me that he was putting a case for the Clause standing part of the Bill.
  Mr. PRITT: Surely the hon. Member is entitled to point to what occurred in the East End as an illustration of the importance of legislation against deliberate incitement to racial and religious prejudice.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's argument did not strike me in that way. It struck me that he was putting forward a very powerful argument in favour of legislation to prevent this kind of thing altogether, and I think the proper place to do that is on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. J. HALL: It was my intention to show the necessity for the Amendment. I was endeavouring to show why I thought it necessary to add these words, but I am prepared to reserve the re-

  647
  mainder of my remarks until the Question is proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: Everybody, I am sure, sympathises with the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. J. Hall) in regard to the events to which he referred, but I suggest, with great. respect to him, that he has misapprehended the effect of the Amendment. He said he wanted the law strengthened. So do many of us, and it is with that object that this Bill has been produced, but the effect of the Amendment would not be to strengthen the Clause, but to make it weaker. It is possible, as the Clause stands, to take proceedings under it against anybody who is guilty of
  "threatening, abusing or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned."
  That, of course, would include any attacks calculated to excite racial and religious prejudice. The effect of the Amendment would be to exclude a large class of cases and to provide that proceedings should only be taken where words are used calculated to excite racial or religious prejudice.
  Mr. PRITT: If the hon. Member looks again at the Amendment and at the Clause as it stands he will see that the words
  "whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned"
  are intended by the Amendment to remain in the Bill.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: I agree, but the words
  "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace"
  would be left out. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member heard the speech of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) in introducing the Amendment, but the hon. Member's ground for the Amendment was that the words in the Clause were too wide. He argued that a great many kinds of expression which he and his friends might desire to use and might think it proper to use, would be prohibited, whereas, he said, what we wanted to do in this Bill was to strike at particular kinds of religious and racial insult which are quite
  648
  new in public life in this country, but which have been, more or less, invented recently by those who have figured in events in the East End. I am sure the hon. Member for Camlachie will be the most surprised person here if he is told that the effect of his Amendment is to do what apparently is desired by hon. Members above the Gangway, namely, to strengthen the Clause. He was certainly trying to limit its scope.
  Mr. STEPHEN: The Amendment would have a limiting effect in one respect but in another respect it would have the effect of strengthening this Clause. It would strengthen the Clause to deal with the particular circumstances which calls for this legislation. It would leave out, of the operation of the Clause things to which we have been accustomed in the past but it would strengthen the words with regard to a particular kind of prejudice. There would be no dubiety about it. The Clause would then say that it was an offence to create religious or racial prejudice in order to stir up strife.
  Mr. GRIFFITH: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his further explanation, but for myself I cannot see in what sense these words would strengthen the Clause at all. I cannot imagine any words of the kind which we all have in mind and which were used in the East End, which could not be dealt with under the Clause as it stands, without this Amendment.
  8.7 p.m.
  Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Suppose some persons addressed a meeting at which no Jews were present and attempted to excite feeling against the Jews. That would not lead to any liability to a breach of the peace at the meeting, no Jews being there to resist any such attack. But that case would come within these words;
  "calculated to excite racial or religious prejudice"
  though it, would not be
  "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace."
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) explained when moving the Amendment that he was not doing so in the exact form in which it appears on the Paper, and the words which he proposes are qualified by the words in the Clause
  "whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned."
  Sir S. CRIPPS: In the case which I have supposed the language might provoke a breach of the peace on the following day. It is not used with intent to provoke a breach of the peace at the meeting, but with the intent that people shall go out and do something, perhaps on the next day against the Jews. That might well come within the words of the Amendment, but I do not think it could come within the words
  "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace."
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. BANFIELD: I cannot agree that the effect of the Amendment would be to weaken the Clause. There is a real necessity for words of this kind either in this Clause or in some other part of the Bill. We ought to remember the purpose of this Bill and the fact that at the next Election we may find a body of men addressing public meetings in the course of the campaign, making appeals to religious prejudice and using abusive and insulting language towards a certain race, namely, the Jews. While the persons at such meetings may be in agreement with the views thus expressed, and while there may be no breaches of the peace at those meetings, language of that kind may have the effect of sending men and women into the streets to create very serious disorder. I do not think that the point of the Amendment is so easily disposed of as some hon. Members seem to think. It is not enough to say that we have always expressed our racial feelings or our religious prejudices and that we ought to continue to do so. We may be right in claiming that as part of our freedom, but we have a set of circumstances to-day which is different from anything we have ever had in the history of the country.
  I have here a verbatim report of a speech made as recently as 7th November at Stoke Newington by a member of the Fascist party. I can give his name if desired though I do not particularly wish to do so. He went out of his way to declare that the Jew had a different moral standard of values from the Englishman, and to abuse the Jews. If we are to have that kind of thing on a large scale in the near future and if, from hundreds of platforms, men are going to seek to arouse the passions of people against a particular race, we
  650
  ought to take steps to fix the responsibility upon those who incite others to go out and create a breach of the peace. It is said that the Clause as it stands provides a sufficient safeguard. I suggest that it does not. It may be that the words which it is proposed to leave out are far too wide to be inserted in a Bill which deals with a particular object at a particular time. But it seems to me, on the balance of possibilities, that the words which it is proposed to insert would not weaken but would probably strengthen the Clause. They would bring it home very definitely to those who are now committing these outrages against public decency and public safety, that if they inflame racial passion or religious prejudice and go outside the ordinary decencies, and what is right and proper in these matters, they will be dealt with under this Clause. For those reasons I support the Amendment.
  8.14 p.m.
  Sir ALFRED LAW: I am surprised at the Amendment being moved, and I cannot see any necessity for it. Surely the words of the Clause as they stand
  "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace"
  do not prevent any ordinary legitimate criticism. If words are used which tend to provoke or are calculated to provoke a breach of the peace the Clause, as it stands, appears to cover everything, and I think it would be dangerous to insert the words proposed in the Amendment. I strongly support the Clause as it stands.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. NAYLOR; As the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) appears to wish to divide the Committee on this Amendment, I would like to say why I cannot support it. I would remind him that it is not what is said in support of his Amendment or in support of any legislation before this House that counts when a case is considered by magistrates in court. What is considered is what is actually said in the Act itself. My complaint against this Amendment, although I am in sympathy with the object of its Movers, is that it goes much farther than they intend. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. J. Hall) made out a good case against racial prejudice being excited at a meeting, and I would agree with every word he said if he had con-

  651
  fined his remarks to racial prejudice, but the Amendment goes farther than that and says "racial or religious prejudice." If the Amendment as now worded were incorporated in the Bill, it would mean that there could be no religious meeting of protest at which a speaker could say a word of any kind that might be regarded as criticism of someone else's faith without running counter to this Clause.
  If the Amendment is carried, it means that no meeting can be held by such an organisation as the Secular Society criticising religion as religion, without exciting religious prejudice. It is an entirely new departure and would be likely to be used against absolute freedom of speech at meetings where these questions have hitherto been discussed without injury, and I, for one, am not prepared to subscribe to that. I want to see men free to say what they please against any religious or any political institution. If the hon. Member for Camlachie could get some hon. Member to move a further Amendment to his own, to omit the words "or religious," he might perhaps get more support from this Committee, but so long as he allows the Amendment, as at present, to obstruct the free flow of thought that has always been allowed to express itself in our modern meetings, he must expect to be defeated.
  Mr. STEPHEN: There is nothing in the Amendment that would prevent a Secular Society meeting with a Secularist lecturer indulging in any severe criticism of the religious viewpoint of anybody, but it would prevent a Secularist lecturer from using abusive language to the prejudice of religion which might provoke a breach of the peace. It would not interfere with liberty to criticise religion in any respect at all. The kernel of the Amendment is in the word "prejudice," where there is something being done, as, for example, in the Lambert case in the courts the other day.
  Mr. NAYLOR; Again I must remind the hon. Member that magistrates pay no respect whatever to explanations such as we have just had from him. It would be no good in court to quote the speech of the hon. Member. The magistrate would say, "I am not concerned with the hon. Member for Camlachie; here is the Act, and this lecturer at this meeting
  652
  said something calculated to excite racial or religious feeling." It is not a question of abusive language. The hon. Member does not say that in his Amendment. The question of abusive language is already covered. What is said is "calculated to excite." I have been at meetings of all kinds where the moderate things that have been said have still been "calculated to excite," and if these words are used, I warn the Committee against voting in support of them for that reason alone.
  8.21 p.m.
  Brigadier-General SPEARS; I rise merely to put a question. I want to ask whether, if this Amendment were accepted, it would not be perfectly possible, for instance, to use abusive or insulting words against a capitalist or capitalists unless those capitalists happened to belong to the Jewish religion?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, and not only against capitalists, but against unemployed people or any other section of the community as well.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. LOGAN; I think the words "calculated to excite religious prejudice" would be beneficial, but we must remember that the hon. and learned Gentleman told us earlier that the Clause as it stands is comprehensive enough to carry with it all that we are asking for in these additional words. I am not in agreement with my hon. Friend who said just now that he was in full agreement with inserting the words "to excite racial prejudice," but that he would not like religious prejudice mentioned. Coming from a city where we have had not only racial but religious prejudice to a great extent, and where we have had broken heads, I have reached that stage of life when I think that anything that would strengthen the law, whether it be that my co-religionists or any other body should keep public decency as it ought to be kept in a great city, should be inserted in the Bill. When I recollect, as I must, the differences of opinion that exist, and that freedom or licence has been exercised on occasions and there has been no religion about it, but it has led to breaches of the peace, I incline to think that if such practices were to continue, it would cause great difficulty. I agree that we are getting more en-

  653
  lightened and that men and women are not so anxious as they used to be to hurt and insult each other, because greater respect is paid to the honest feelings of other men, whatever their faith may be, but there are occasions in the city of Liverpool when there may be a tendency in that direction, and while this Bill does not deal specifically with Liverpool or the East End of London—it deals with public order, and, as I understand it, will cover all England and Scotland—anything we can do to strengthen a Public Order Bill will be beneficial for the peace of our country.
  I think the words "calculated to excite racial or religious prejudice" would lay an emphasis that has never before been laid in an Act of Parliament in regard to the licence that many people think they have a right to use in public places. It was implied a short time ago in this Committee that the words "likely to excite" would apply only to a particular meeting which a particular speaker was addressing. We know, however, that incitement to riot and to a breach of the peace takes place on a particular date, and that two or three Clays later some demagogue brings forward, on racial or religious grounds, things that ought not to be allowed in the public life of this nation. One thing that must be recognised—and it is recognised by this House—is that whatever we may be, Jew or Gentile, we are British citizens, and we have the right under the law to the fullest protection it is immaterial what a man's religion may be as long as he is a British subject admitting the right of the Constitution to govern, and he can demand the protection which the Government extends to each and every one of us. What I expect for myself I am prepared to give to my brothers and sisters, whoever they may be. Any man has a right to criticise my faith but not to abuse the things I love. What happens in ordinary conversation is a different matter, but vulgar abuse in the street by one who may be leading a mob in a way that is liable to lead to trouble, ought not to be tolerated. I feel that I am under a tribute to the four hon. Gentlemen who have put forward this Amendment, for I feel that if such an Amendment could be included it would be for the benefit of public law and order. Because of that I will give whatever weight I can
  654
  to it, but I am not prepared to go into the Lobby in support of it if the Attorney-General advises the Committee that it is already covered by the words in the Clause.
  8.28 p.m.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I rise, in view of the obvious interest taken in this Amendment, to state the position as it appears to me. If the Clause were amended as suggested you would, in order to get a successful prosecution, have to prove first that the words were "threatening, abusive or insulting"; and second, that they were "calculated to excite racial or religious prejudice." On the Clause as it stands you would have to prove only that a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned. With the Clause as amended you would have to prove an additional thing which has not to be proved under the Clause as it stands. The Clause, as drafted, covers the purpose for which the Amendment is designed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. PRITT: At first sight the Clause seems a reasonable and unexceptional one, and the Government could have added to their defence of it that it was already the law to some extent over a large part of the country. While the Clause itself looks harmless, it has been found in practice that, whenever the police either want to dispose of somebody at a public meeting or, if they have already arrested him and find the charge they propose to make against him will not hold water, they turn round and charge him under this Clause in various Metropolitan Police Acts and similar Statutes with such regularity and fervour that it has come to be known in many circles as the policeman's friend. That is not the fault of the magistrates and only in an indirect sense the fault of the Government. It does give point, however, to my other complaint that, whereas in London, if you are charged with this offence, the most that can happen to you is to be fined 40s., as this stands the offence can be punishable with a fine not exceeding £50 or three months' imprisonment. I thought that I ought to mention that by way of a subdued protest in order that the House should know that it is

  655
  enacting a Clause which is frequently abused in practice and is enacting it with a much higher penalty.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment of 8 Edw. 7, c.66.)
  8.34 p.m.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, after "refuses," to insert "or fails."
  If I may I will deal also with a similar Amendment in line 27, because the two hang together. The object of the Amendment is to cover a case where you cannot say a man has refused to give his name, because what he has done is, perhaps, to turn his back and try to get out of the room. I think the Committee would desire that such a case should be covered as if it were an actual refusal. With this Amendment inserted it is, in our view, unnecessary to retain the words;
  "or of intending to abscond,"
  which are also the subject of an Amendment on the paper. There is a further Amendment to insert the word "reasonably" after "constable" to which we do not object.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. G. HARDIE: Supposing a man in a meeting gives a false name and address and it is not known at the time that he is not giving his right name and address. Will the police have to make inquiries and then seek that man again?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, I think that is so. If the constable has reason to suspect him of giving a false name and address he can arrest him, but if he does not suspect that, and lets him go, believing he has given his proper name and address, the man may get away with it for the time, but there are ways of tracing people which sometimes result in their being found.
  Mr. HARDIE: But what would be a ground of suspicion on the part of the constable? I understand that from his training a constable can generally tell something of a man's character, but take the case of a perfectly innocent person who may at some time have had something happen to his face. Suppose you have this quite decent fellow at a meeting and he gives his proper name and
  656
  address but the policeman is suspicious and arrests him. Is there to be some guard against anyone being treated in that way?
  The CHAIRMAN: That point certainly does not arise on the Amendment we are now considering.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. PRITT: I should like to say a few words about this phrase "refuses or fails." It seems to be so reasonable that probably it contains some element of danger. It is a very familiar phrase. The Attorney-General and the Home Secretary must have looked at it hundreds of times, and so have I, but that has been in leisurely commercial litigation, and I want the Committee to picture what would, in fact, happen when a constable reasonably suspects a person of acting in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transacting of the business for which the meeting has been called. If there is not much disturbance the constable, who will probably be larger than the individual in question, will stand in front of him and say, "I want your name and address and I want it quick," and if the man does not give it he will be, in effect, refusing. It would be reasonable to say that refusal or failure in such a case would be enough to bring him within the law. But we must consider an occasion of hurly-burly in a meeting, when people are pushing about, and the constable is reasonably, but perhaps wrongly, suspecting this person or that or the other person. If all he has to do is to call out "I want the name and address of everybody in that corner of the hall" and then, on failing to get it, because of the crowd surging and pushing into the street, he is to be entitled to arrest without warrant everybody in that corner of the room, that is a serious thing.
  While the whole matter lies in rather a small compass I suggest to the Government that we are really legislating to create a new crime, and every time we do that we are legislating against something which most persons of reasonable temperament would rather not do. To make it a criminal offence, one for which you can be arrested without warrant, not to give your name and address, although there may be a large number of physical reasons why you could not do so at the moment, is, in my submission, to carry

  657
  even modern restrictive legislation a little too far.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made; In page 5, line 27, after "refuses" insert "or fails."—[The Attorney-General.]
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. PRITT: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, after "constable," to insert "reasonably."
  Having regard to what has fallen from the Attorney-General I think it will be sufficient for me formally to move this Amendment, because it will be clear to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  8.42 p.m.
  Sir IRVING ALBERY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "or of intending to abscond."
  If I understood the Attorney-General correctly he has accepted this Amendment.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes.
  Amendment agreed to.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. PRITT: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, at the end, to insert;
  "and keep him in custody for a time reasonably sufficient for verifying his name and address, but in any case not longer than twelve hours."
  I am a little puzzled by the Clause as it stands, because while it gives to a constable power to arrest a person without warrant it does not by any means follow that a prosecution will be undertaken. There is the danger of a constable arresting a man on reasonable suspicion but not immediately deciding whether to charge hifm or not, because there is nothing to say what the constable is then to do with the man. It may be that the ordinary law is sufficient to cover the case, but I suggest that the matter is not too clear, and that it will be very much better to make some definite provision for releasing the man if be ought to be released. He is not arrested for an offence at all. The power given is a power of arrest without warrant, irrespective of an actual offence—and in all the circumstances I suggest it is a perfectly reasonable power, although I always distrust all powers—if he reasonably suspects the man of giving a false name and
  658
  address; but if he finds that there is nothing wrong with the name and address, or does not find it out within a reasonable time, it ought not to be within the power of the police to keep him in custody a moment longer—or even a few moments longer, while they may think of something else with which to charge him. While I am not wedded to the form of words I suggest that it is right that the police should have power only to keep the man in custody for some period of time which is related both to the seriousness of the matter and the interest of the police, in pursuance of law and order, in deciding whether he ought to be detained or not.
  8.45 p.m.
  Sir J. SIMON: So far as it is the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman to get an assurance that there will not be unnecessary or prolonged detention I entirely agree with him. I do not think it would be well to add words to this effect and I hope that I can persuade the hon. and learned Gentleman to agree with me. In the first place the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act and the practice of the police in this country, in respect of the power of detaining people in custody are as follow; Where the police arrest a person without warrant Section 38 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, used to be the law. I think it is now the Section substituted by Section 22 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, which I will read to the Committee;
  "On a person being taken into custody for an offence without a warrant, a superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer of police of equal or superior rank, or in charge of any police station, may in any case, and shall, if it will not be practicable to bring such person before a court of summary jurisdiction within 24 hours after he was so taken into custody, inquire into the case, and, unless the offence appears to such superintendent, inspector, or officer to be of a serious nature, discharge the person upon his entering into a recognisance with or without sureties for a reasonable amount to appear before some court of summary jurisdiction at the time and place named in the recognisance, but where such person is retained in custody he shall be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction as soon as practicable."
  That Section of the Criminal Justice Administration Act has worked quite reasonably; otherwise I should hear of the contrary again and again. The practice is to do everything possible to

  659
  bring the person before the court as soon as may be and, in cases which permit, if there is any possibility of bail, to admit him to bail.
  To lay down 12 hours, or anything of that sort, I do not think will do. We must consider the possibility of anything which arises on a Saturday. Twelve hours, I take it, would include the Sunday. A great deal depends, of course, on whether the police have to make inquiries. The real truth is that if there were any practical abuse of the powers in this respect, I am quite certain that the authorities, the House of Commons and the Press, would hear of it very quickly. Many complaints are brought to the notice of the Home Secretary, but while I have been in this Office, which covers two different periods, this point has not been a real point at all. It will be unfortunate to introduce into an Act of Parliament a provision which inevitably suggests that the police need to be tied down in this way, and if a similar provision is not to he found in another Act of Parliament it shows that the police have a wider latitude. London comes rather closely under the eye of the Home Secretary, and the Committee probably know that from time to time the Home Office send out circulars to the police authorities, pointing out matters that ought to be considered. I have no doubt that I shall do so in reference to this Bill. If at all necessary, I should not hesitate to call specific attention to the Clause, pointing out that action should be taken in the promptest fashion. I am entirely sympathetic with the view of those hon. Members who want to be sure that no injustice is done, but I do not believe that the insertion of an Amendment of this kind would be an improvement.
  Mr. PRITT; I still have a little anxiety, for the reason that, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, under the general law, if you take a person in custody for an offence without a warrant, the matter has to go through with more speed. The Clause gives deliberate authority—I do not think it is a. bad one —to arrest people who are not giving their names and addresses, in circumstances where you cannot at present dream either of arresting them or charging them. I doubt whether this quick
  660
  and summary method of arresting people for the time being as suspected of an offence is taking them first into custody for an offence, and whether the Summary Jurisdiction Act and the Criminal Justice Administration Act apply.
  Sir J. SIMON; I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who takes the point of view which we expected. I will, of course, consult my advisers, but I am bound to say that the Lord Advocate's opinion is the same as my own. The Clause speaks of particular conduct which makes a man guilty of an offence. One kind of conduct is refusing to declare his true name and address, and the other is failing to declare his true name and address. The Clause goes on to say that when a constable reasonably suspects him of breaking that law he can proceed to arrest him. It seems a very slight argument to say that the constable has not arrested him for an offence.
  8.53 p.m.
  Sir IRVING ALBERY: When the arrest takes place, it appears that the man will probably commit two offences. The first offence is disorder, and the second that of refusing to give his name and address. I raise that point now because it is going to have some reference to what we are discussing.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. MAXWELL FYFE: May I allay the fears of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt)? Under the Common Law a constable has power to arrest on suspicion, and the person who is arrested need not have committed a felony; in fact the felony need never have been committed at all. A constable has the power at common law to arrest on suspicion of a felony having been committed, and the same power is given in certain circumstances in a Section of the last Act and in many other Acts, both public and local. The point, therefore, that seems to be troubling my hon. and learned Friend, namely, that a constable in these circumstances is not arresting for an offence within the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, is not one that has troubled any court that has had the problem before it. It has always been taken that, when a person has been arrested either for a felony or under the special provisions

  661
  of the last Act or of local Acts, he was arrested for that offence, although in fact the constable arrested him on suspicion. I think that on that point my hon. and learned Friend's suspicions, although entertained in a very worthy cause, have not the basis which they sometimes have.
  Amendment negatived.
  The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.
  Sir I. ALBERY: Do I understand, Sir Dennis, that you are not calling the Amendment, in page 5, line 31, to leave out Sub-section (4)?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is so. may perhaps tell the hon. Member that there is no Sub-section (4) to this Clause.
  Mr. EDE: Would it be possible to ask if one might move to leave out from line 31 to the end of the Clause?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not an Amendment which is on the Paper. It would be in the nature of a manuscript Amendment, and in that case I should still hardly be inclined to accept it, because I think the point can be sufficiently discussed, either on the Amendment I have just called or on the Clause.
  Mr. PRITT: On a point of Order. May I submit that there is such a thing as Sub-section (4)? Clause 6 provides that an existing Section of an existing Statute shall have effect as if Sub-section (4) were added thereto. Surely it is worse than fine-spun—it is a thing which I should hardly do myself—to say, when Sub-section (4) is described as Sub-section (4) by the hon. Member opposite, that it is not Sub-section (4).
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I should have done better to adhere to the custom of not giving any reason why I did not select the Amendment, but I think the hon. and learned Member will probably agree with me that there cannot be a Sub-section (4), in view of the fact that there is not a Sub-section (1) or a Subsection (2) to this Clause.
  Mr. PRITT: But there is a Sub-section (1).
  Sir I. ALBERY: If you rule that you do not select that Amendment, I of course accept your ruling, and if the point is discussed on another Amendment
  662
  I shall feel that no harm has been done; but the point is a very important one. I think that what was meant by those Members who put down the Amendment is obvious, and perhaps you could see your way to make an exception in this case.
  Mr. PRITT: May I say, if the hon. Member opposite does not object to support from this side of the Committee, that there is a Sub-section (1), and a Sub-section (2)? I have them in my hand; they are in the Public Meeting Act.
  9 p.m.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, to leave out from the beginning to "any," in line 34.
  These are the words which provide that the police shall not institute a prosecution in these circumstances for the purposes of the Public Meeting Act, 1908. I was under the impression that this Amendment would be moved by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), in whose name it stands on the Paper. If I remember correctly, he referred to this question on the Second Reading, and I understood that his point then was—perhaps I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the police were a more suitable body to institute proceedings than the promoters of the meeting. Whether that is the point which he desired to raise to-night or not, I do not know, but that is not precisely the point that I and my hon. Friend who is associated with me in moving the Amendment desire to put forward. As the Bill stands, a prosecution, if it is to be instituted, must be instituted by the promoters of the meeting. It is not our wish to substitute the police for the promoters of the meeting, and to make the onus rest upon the police whether to prosecute or not, but to provide the alternative that the prosecution can be instituted either by the promoters of the meeting or by the police.
  The reason why we put forward this proposal is that we venture to think that the law as it will stand if the Clause be carried in its present form will not work out with quite an even hand in different circumstances. Let us suppose that in some village or small borough some very influential persons in the place are holding a meeting, and that one or two less influential persons come forward and make a disturbance which comes

  663
  within the provisions of the present Measure. The constable invites the disturbers to give their names and addresses. They either give them or are forced to give them later on, and the names are handed to the promoters of the meeting. Then, with all the authority which comes from their influential position, and with all the means at their disposal, they will have no difficulty, if they so wish, in prosecuting the offenders, and the law will proceed as was intended by those who framed the original Act and those who are framing the Amendment of the original Act.
  But let us imagine the position reversed. Suppose that some persons are holding a meeting who have no influence in the place, who are very humble people and have no means, and that a band of roughs comes down and breaks up the meeting. The police, we may assume, will take their names and addresses in precisely the same way and hand them to the promoters of the meeting; but we venture to suggest that it may very well be that those people are not in a position to take proceedings. They may find it difficult for various reasons, one of which may be that they have not the means necessary to enable them to go forward with their action, and we are moving this Amendment in order to make it possible in such cases for the police, if they see fit—of course, if they do not, they will not do it—as an alternative to the promoters, to take the proceedings. If that were so, the preventive action of the law would come in much more effectively than as at present provided. Of course, the object of most of these laws is not to institute proceedings and get a conviction and fine the offender, but to raise a standard, to act as a deterrent to people who would otherwise take the action which by these laws is declared punishable in some way; and we feel that, as I have said, that deterrent effect would be greater if the alternative we suggest were provided.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. EDE: While I regret that it is not possible to move the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and other hon. Members—it is very regrettable to find that so eloquent an exponent to other people of the way to
  664
  do things should have been caught napping in this, and share that position with at least one Privy Councillor—we are bound to accept the position as it stands. I would rather have supported his Amendment than this one, because I think it will be a very deplorable thing if these are always to be private prosecutions. I was a colleague of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Commander Southby). He and I stay away now because we may as well pair there as elsewhere. We hold different views about the possibility of motorists, and things like that, which generally cancel out on the bench. A prosecution that is undertaken by the police, especially in the Metropolitan Police District, is entirely an impersonal prosecution. Very rarely can it be insinuated that the police are actuated by other than quite proper motives in bringing a case before the court and presenting it in a way that it is perfectly fair to both sides. These prosecutions will arise in cases where personal antagonism has been aroused. It was said on the Second Reading that a lot of people will not want to prosecute, not because a prosecution is not justified, but because the prosecutor would be regarded locally as a political persecutor. It may very well be that the Clause as drafted will prevent cases which ought to come before the Courts not coming before them because of that point of view being held.
  I was rather surprised to hear it suggested that that would arise during a contested election, because generally when a summons is applied for—most of these prosecutions will be by summons, and not as a result of arrest—the justices do not make the summonses returnable during the time that the writ for the election would be running, and the prosecution would be heard after the election. Then it might be said that the side that had lost was trying to get its own back on the side that had won. If the Amendment of the Public Meeting Act is to be really effective, the prosecution must be undertaken in an atmosphere which will remove it from the feeling that either political prejudice or antagonism is being vented by the prosecution taking place. I also wish to reinforce the point that my hon. Friend has made. The first time that I was ever connected with the Home

  665
  Secretary was when, in the 1906 election, after he had won Walthamstow, he was imported into the Epsom division to address a meeting at Cobham. When I was the Labour candidate for Epsom I had the greatest possible difficulty in getting a chairman at all in Cobham. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the division may well laugh; it is the power of his supporters in that district to make people understand that it is going to be a bad thing if you belong to the Labour party that produces that state of affairs. I know that is quite alien to his spirit. He would desire that, if a man holds a political view, he should have the transient glory of being the chairman of a meeting where it was being expounded.
  If you are going to leave on the chairman of a meeting the possible responsibility of having to launch a prosecution, you will make it still more difficult for certain parties to get chairmen in certain places where it is thought that being associated with a certain political party may not be too healthy for your worldly prospects. That will reduce this Subsection to nullity. After a man has instituted a prosecution he has to prove his case and, if he fails, he may be landed in the costs of the defence as well as the costs of the prosecution, and that might well make a man of limited means hesitate before he prosecuted a person who was known to be of sufficient wealth to undertake a defence which would mean a substantial cost to the prosecution if it failed, and he might have to rely on his own lay presentation of the case as against a defence conducted by an advocate.
  If this Clause is to be made effective, there should at least be the possibility that the prosecution should be undertaken by the police. After all, it is not anywhere in the country the local policemen who will decide whether a prosecution should take place. He makes his statement to the chief constable or the Commissioner, and it is carefully considered at police headquarters, or at Scotland Yard, and if a prosecution is to be undertaken it is after a very careful review of the whole of the circumstances by people who can view the subject quite dispassionately. For this class of offence it seems to be precisely the sort of preparation for the presentation of the case
  666
  that should be undertaken. I hope the Government will realise that the Amendment raises a point of very great substance and really raises the issue whether the Act as amended is to be effectively administered or not.
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. FOOT: The Mover of the Amendment raised the point that the chairman or organiser of the meeting who had to determine that proceedings were to be taken, under this machinery might have to bear the costs of the prosecution. I have had that point put to me in one or two quarters outside the House. It had not occurred to me that he would be saddled with that liability—I should not have thought so—but it would be useful if we could have a statement from the Front Bench on that point. What is contemplated in the Clause is that the police officer shall convey the name and address, when he has obtained it, to the chairman, who shall then decide whether the law is to be Put in motion. It would be very useful if the Home Secretary, or whoever is to reply, would make clear to the Committee precisely how the law is to be put into action when the chairman has made up his mind to prosecute. Will it not simply be a matter either of laying formal information or of lodging a complaint with the police? If so, would not the prosecution be undertaken by the police in the ordinary way? I should have thought that that would be the procedure, but I may be wrong, and it is a point that ought to be cleared up. It ought to be made quite clear whether there is any danger of the chairman of a meeting being mulcted in the cost of the prosecution. I can very well appreciate the point in the mind of hon. Members who support the Amendment, but I am still rather doubtful whether the position that would be created, if this point were carried, would be much more desirable than that which is set out in the Subsection.
  The Committee has to decide upon whom the responsibility is to rest for starting the proceedings. The view embodied in the Bill is that it ought to rest upon the chairman or organiser of the meeting, and the view of some hon. Members who spoke on the Second Reading, is that it should rest exclusively upon the police. There may be a great deal to be said for the one view or the other, but it seems to create a difficulty if you are

  667
  to have the two authorities each of whom may start the proceedings. It puts the police in a somewhat difficult situation if they never know whether the chairman of the meeting is to start proceedings or whether it is to be left to them. We have to decide upon one alternative or the other.
  The Clause, as I understand it, is a compromise between those who think that no addition is necessary to the Public Meeting Act, 1908, and those who think that the police ought to have the power to prosecute those who break up public meetings. The Government have chosen a very fair compromise. Have they not met the situation by saying that every person who indulges in the sort of conduct contemplated in the Act of 1908 should be prosecuted as a matter of course, but by this machinery they make it clear that every person who acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business of the meeting is laying himself open to a prosecution and that he has definitely put himself in peril? At another stage of the Bill I expressed the view that, in achieving the object we are setting out to achieve, we ought to content ourselves with the minimum that is necessary. This is on the whole a fair and reasonable compromise, and personally I should be inclined to acquiesce in it.
  9.19 p.m.
  Sir I. ALBERY: I very much regret that some of my hon. Friends whose names were attached to the previous Amendment to that which has now been called and which deals with a similar matter, are not present, because I know that they feel very strongly on this subject. I am unable to understand the difference between the man, for instance, who obstructs the traffic in the street and is arrested by the police for an obstruction of that kind, and the man who commits an offence under the Clause with which we are now dealing, which provides,
  "That any person who at a lawful public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business."
  Conduct of that kind at a public meeting at which the police are present and find themselves obliged to take action, and possibly to make an arrest, seems to be a
  668
  suitable occasion for them to take also the subsequent proceedings. In any case, if these proceedings are to depend upon the chairman of meetings, I can conceive it possible that it may lead eventually to further disorder. It is possible to imagine a case with the chairman on one side deciding to take no proceedings, no matter what the disorder may be. On the other hand, the chairman may take proceedings which may really increase feeling and lead to further disorders in the particular locality. I imagine that if the police see fit to arrest someone because he refuses to give his name and address, it will be the responsibility of the police to take action against him. It is a peculiar state of circumstances if the police are to take action for what seems to be quite the minor of the two offences, that is, giving a wrong address, while on, the major offence, which was the indirect cause of the minor offence, they are not to take any action at all. I do not feel quite happy about the Amendment as at present moved, and I regret that it was not possible to discuss the former Amendment which was not selected. I certainly should prefer the Amendment now being moved to the Clause in its present state, and I hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to make some concession and perhaps provide a better form of words than that now before the Committee.
  9.22 p.m.
  Mr. SILVERMAN: I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment. It will make things worse if you are to have legislation making it easier for one party in politics than for the other to take advantage of the Bill. If you have a situation where a great many people, if not all, who are well supplied with this world's goods are likely to be found on one side of politics, and a great many people, if not all, who are of the very poorest, on the other side of politics, and the legislation which you are proposing in order to preserve the rights of everybody under the law is so drafted that it makes it easier for those who have the money to avail themselves of their rights than for those who have not the money, obviously that is not quite the object that every Member of the Committee contemplates in this legislation.

  669
  I was unable to follow the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) in his criticism of the Amendment. Quite apart from legislation of this type, under the ordinary criminal law the police have the right, and indeed the duty, to prosecute offenders, and private persons who are aggrieved, and, in some cases, private persons who are not aggrieved have the right to bring prosecutions. If that were the position in the law that we are now seeking to enact, it would be nothing new, but it is new to make a differentiation between the offence that is being created in this Clause and all other offences. If you are going to say that of all the functions known to law there shall be one and only one where the police shall have no right to prosecute, that is not going to help to keep the law separate; it is rather going to tend the other way and tend very strongly the other way. Why should you draw the distinction? What purpose is it intended to serve?
  What is the end you have in view when you say that although the police may take names and addresses and arrest people without a warrant if they suspect that they are getting a wrong name and address, they may not be in any way associated with the prosecution of an offender under the Clause? Either that has no result at all, in which case there is, no reason why we should pass it, or if it has any result it can have the result only of placing power on one side of politics, to avail themselves of the new law which is being made, whereas the other side in politics have the legal right but not the practical opportunity of availing themselves of it. A foreign observer said that in England all people were equal under the law; it was as much an offence for a millionaire to be found wandering on the Thames Embankment without visible means of subsistence as it was for an unemployed man. If we are to have that kind of equality in law people are going to smile.
  9. 28 p.m.
  Mr. LYONS: I do not quite see how the proposition of equality in law affects the matter before us. I want to dissent from what was said by the Mover of the Amendment. It seems to me that if there has been interruption of a meeting which brings the interrupter within this Clause it should be the right of the chairman and the promoters of the meeting to
  670
  institute a prosecution under the Bill. This is the position that might arise where a man has interrupted a meeting and has put himself in peril and leaves the meeting. If you put on the police an insistence to prosecute it may open out in large measure an interference with the police. This might very well be the means of opening up interference with the authorities who prosecute if that is left in the hands of the police alone. I hope that it will be left in the hands of the promoters and chairman of a meeting to institute proceedings if they wish. That will be the means of seeing that the machinery is fairly set in motion and will take away all possibility of any attempt to interfere with the police if it is put on them that they should have the right and duty to institute proceedings under this Bill. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will not be proceeded with.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. MAXWELL FYFE: There are one or two considerations which seem to make this Amendment, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, of great importance. It seems that we have to make up our minds between two difficulties—one, whether the chairman is to be compelled to incur the odium of commencing prosecution, and, on the other hand, whether in an area where the tide is running fairly strongly one way, where the interruptions are continuously being made by one side, the police, if they are going to take proceedings, would not appear to be actuated against the side which makes the interruptions. That will require serious consideration. I should like to follow out for a moment what will happen. What we hope will be the result of the Bill in its present form is that at the ordinary meeting, if there is interruption and interference in the way that is feared, the chairman will be able to say that these powers exist, and, if the interruption continues, the police can ask for names and addresses, and get them or exercise their powers if they are not given. It is hoped that that will be enough.
  But suppose the bluff is called? What is going to happen then? There is bound to be some sanction, and, if no prosecution is undertaken, the Bill will have no good result. That means that the prosecution must be undertaken at

  671
  once. It is no good saying, "We will wait until after the election and institute a prosecution then." As the Bill is drafted, the chairman of the meeting cannot go to the police. Whatever be the position as to the police evidence, the chairman cannot say, "I have indisputable evidence—my evidence, the evidence of police officers, and here is prima facie evidence for you to prosecute." They are bound to say, "We cannot" The chairman must either lay his own information or make application for a summons to start proceedings. As the matter will be tried at a court of summary jurisdiction he becomes liable, as the hon. Member for South Shields pointed out, for the costs of the prosecution if the case fails. You have in that method the odium which the chairman will incur for instituting the prosecution, with resultant odium on his party, and his personal liability for costs. In a case like that it is obvious that he cannot put forward his own case. That is one side of it.
  On the other side, he goes to the police and where the police consider it satisfactory they institute a prosecution. It has been pointed out that in practically every case this is not decided by a constable or even an inspector; it has to go, probably, to a superintendent, and in many cases the superintendent goes to a solicitor who does the police work. Is that going to have the result of identifying the police as being against those who are making the disturbance if they are identified with one particular party? I have given the matter anxious consideration. One knows, if I may say so to the Home Secretary, the great care with which all these matters were framed. I do ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether there is not more risk of the Act being stultified and the desires of hon. Members in all quarters of the House being nullified by placing this difficult decision on the chairman of the meeting rather than the other way. It is the balance of difficulties I admit, but I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the balance of difficulties does not come down on the side I have indicated, and whether the practical course would not be to consider whether there should not be some means by which the police could, if they desired, and if they are so advised, institute a prosecution?
  9.36 p.m.
  Sir J. SIMON: I have listened with care to this interesting Debate, because I was most anxious to be informed fully of the views of hon. Members in different parts of the Committee on what, I agree, is rather a difficult and puzzling question. I do not complain, because I know hon. Members wish well of the general efforts of the Bill, and I can understand that they should feel some doubt as to the way the Clause is framed. I hope the Committee will allow me to state as clearly and as bluntly as I can the consideration which led us to draw the Clause in this form. May I, in the first place, most respectfully ask that the Committee should put out of their minds, because the suspicion is quite unfounded, any idea that this is a Bill designed to favour the wealthy on one side of politics as against the poor on the other side? It is nothing of the kind.
  Mr. SILVERMAN: I should be very sorry if the right hon. Gentleman thought that I had intended to convey the idea that that was the purpose either of the Bill or of the Clause. I am certain that it is not. What I was concerned to point out was that it might have that effect, even though that was quite different from its intention.
  Sir J. SIMON: I thank the hon. Member. I think everybody knows how much anxious care we have put into this matter, and I appreciate the candid and fair way in which the Bill has been dealt with, and I should be very sorry if anybody entertained thoughts of that kind. May I put my difficulties to the Committee, and I think hon. Members will sympathise with them. There is a feature about the police system in this country which, I believe, is one of its greatest successes, and of which we are rightly proud, and in respect of which we may truly say, whatever our political colour may be, that this country on the whole shows up better than many other countries in the world. It is this, and it is a thing in which we ought all to take great interest and resolve to do all we can to preserve it—it is the principle that once the police have got in their hands a man against whom a charge is made nobody, whatever his position may be, whatever his opportunity of influence

  673
  may be, shall be able to interfere to prevent his being brought before the court.
  I speak on this matter with some feeling and with some little knowledge. I do not wish to praise everything in our institutions, but this is a thing of which WE: are entitled to be proud, and when WE think of the way that it works in some other countries, we must all of us, I am sure, be very anxious to preserve that principle. Consider what the difficulty is. The promoter of a public meeting may be a very strong-minded or authoritative person. He may be a person whose opinions would, I do not say corruptly, have considerable weight; but if once you allow a system in our country under which after a charge has been taken at the police station there is some power to intervene behind the scene before the person is brought before the magistrate, we should be doing a very bad thing for the system of police in this country. This is a point which has pressed very strongly upon all of us.
  I do ask the Committee to consider this point very seriously. It is a fact to-day, that, if some riotous young man is arrested, say, in Piccadilly and taken to Vine Street, not all the powers in heaven and earth can prevent him from being brought before the magistrate. Once the charge has been accepted at the police station, the rule is as strict as can be, and we should regard it as a very grave breach of discipline if there were any hanky-panky about it. That is a thing that one cannot say of many countries. Do let us preserve it here. It is in the interest, both of poor people and of very influential people, and it is in the interest of the ordinary citizen that that should never happen. Let us apply that principle to this machine. I agree that it is a very difficult thing to think out. I have weighed it in my mind with great care. One thing was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Mr. Fyfe) with which I do not think that I quite agree. I understood him to suggest that even after a policeman has brought an arrested man to the station and made a charge there is some higher authority, a superintendent or the solicitor advising the police, who meditates as to whether or not the man should be brought before the magistrate. Not at all. Once the policeman has brought the man to the police station and the charge is accepted,
  674
  it has to go forward, and it is in the interest of the British principles of justice and fair play that it should go forward. There may be a case in which, after the constable brings the man to the police station, the station inspector says; "But I think you must have been romancing. This man has a good explanation. You have made a mistake." In that case the man is discharged, the constable has made a mistake and he has to stand for it.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the case exactly as the right hon. Gentleman presents it? As I understand it, the constable does not arrest and bring the man to the police station, but he takes the name and address. In the majority of cases the constable takes the man's name and address at the meeting. There is no question of bringing him to the police station. All that I understood my hon. Friend behind me to say was that the man's name and address are taken, and afterwards consideration is given to the case. Surely in that case the consideration would be as to whether the facts are sufficient on which to bring a prosecution.
  Mr. MAXWELL FYFE: That is the normal procedure which I was contemplating. As my right hon. Friend will remember, there is still another procedure, namely, that when a man is arrested, if it is a case where he is arrested, he can be brought before the superior officer who may not continue the arrest, but may adopt the procedure, which is very often taken, of releasing him for summons. The first procedure is that mentioned by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). In most cases the charge at the police court would not follow arrest.
  Sir J. SIMON: I think all the three cases have been quite satisfactorily stated. If I omitted any I am sorry. Certainly, the instances which I have given would arise, but that would not be the only way in which they might arise. Let me put it rather more broadly. It seems to me quite clear that if you consider this particular kind of offence, the offence of acting in a disorderly manner so as to break up a meeting, not necessarily a political meeting, but a meeting of any sort, it is certain that if the obligation which falls upon the police to

  675
  prosecute, whether under one set of machinery or the other, cases will arise, and I think they will arise pretty often, where, as a matter of fact, the desire on the part of those who would have to give evidence would be that the man should not be prosecuted. I think it will appeal to the common sense of everybody that that must be so, not only at election times, but on other occasions. The value of this Clause is very largely that it makes it plain that if persons try to break up a public meeting the machinery is here, and they lay themselves open to a charge.
  I must say that I view with great concern the idea that there should not follow a prosecution. The hon. and learned Member behind me has pointed out that there would be many cases where there will be no arrest but procedure by summons. I understand that, but once it has been established to the satisfaction of the police that the case is one in which it is proper to prosecute, then, if it is their business to prosecute, they should prosecute without fear or favour. That is what we all wish. The question is, is this kind of offence one in which we really can serve the public good by putting this automatic machinery into motion? That is the point which the Committee should consider. I think it would be much better on the whole not to do so. I view with the greatest concern the introduction into our law of a procedure in which, after the police have taken notice of a particular offence and have come to the conclusion that it is a proper case in which to prosecute, none the less they should not prosecute. That would lead to favouritism and all sorts of undesirable things.
  On the other hand, I am equally clear that under the Bill there will be many cases in which the police may come to the conclusion that there is a case which could be proved, but where there would be a strong desire locally, for very good reasons of friendly feelings, that none the less a prosecution should not take place. For example, the police may come to the conclusion that Mr. A had behaved in so riotous and violent a manner as not to give the chairman a fair chance of carrying through the meeting. That would be a proper case for a prosecution. Who would be the witnesses? The most natural witnesses, the best people to testify,
  676
  would be the people on the platform, including the distinguished visitor who had come down for the night and had not taken the interruptions as well as distinguished visitors ought to take them. The police would be engaged in collecting statements from these persons and, therefore, would be putting forward unintentionally one side of the case, or would be looking to those people to prove a case which could be proved, who were most unwilling to prove it.
  Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be advancing a most extraordinary argument.. Do I understand him to say that if an individual so behaves as to make it impossible to carry on the meeting and there are police constables present, the magistrate would not hear the evidence of the police constable in regard to such an incident?
  Sir J. SIMON: My right hon. Friend has been a Member of the House so long that he must know on how many occasions the Home Secretary has been challenged because a man has been convicted on the evidence of one policeman. The defendant would at once say "Call the people who you say were incommoded by my behaviour." I am convinced that if we attempt this procedure we shall land ourselves in a position which we do not want. My Noble Friend called is an extraordinary argument—
  Earl WINTERTON: I apologise.
  Sir J. SIMON: Not at all. We are dealing with a very different kind of case. We are all thinking, I imagine, of an instance which is so clear and plain that there is no trouble about it. That is natural. But we must remember the width of this provision. It does not apply only to political public meetings, but to public meetings of all sorts and kinds. There are numbers of cases in which the police may be present, but there are all kinds of public meetings at which the interruptions cannot be regarded as of first class importance from the point of view of our criminal law.
  Mr. SILVERMAN: If the interruptions are as trivial as that, no one would want to go into a court of law. Is not the position this, that it is only an offence against the criminal law if the conduct is of such a nature as to prevent the

  677
  business of the meeting being carried through at all? If the offence is as gross as that, why should we not deal with it?
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not think the argument I am putting forward is so easily disposed of, and I hope it may be possible for the Committee to listen to the explanation. I have pointed out the risk we are being asked to take, and I would invite the Committee to think again and ask themselves whether the considerations I am putting forward are not of some weight. When you are dealing with a real offence against the public right of ordinary citizens there is no question at all. Of course it should be for the police to prosecute. On the other hand, there is the case where someone has hired a hall, advertised the meeting and has got his speakers together, but the meeting did not go through in the way it should have gone. There has been gross interruption. I cannot think that in that case it can be regarded as an offence against the public in general, and that the police as the guardians of law and order should be bound to prosecute. I would suggest, with the greatest respect to the hon. Member opposite, that his first view may be wrong. I hope hon. Members opposite will see the force of what I am trying to put, and I would ask the Committee not to allow first impressions on this matter to carry them away. We all desire to have a workable Bill, and I think that if we make the change we may regret it.
  I should like to make this further point, that the Amendment which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has moved would leave the question in this position; either the police or private persons would prosecute. We must make up our minds one way or the other—either to put upon the police the duty in any case in which the evidence is sufficient to prosecute—as I have tried to point out, I believe that would have very unfortunate consequences—or we must recognise that the assistance which the police should afford in case of need in meetings is to take the name and address, and that that is the form of public assistance that should be given to strengthen the Public Meeting Act. There is no question of party politics in this; it is merely a question of finding out which is the best machinery. I may not have succeeded in making as clear to
  678
  hon. Members as I would wish the considerations which have weighed very heavily with me, but I have talked this matter over with very great care with a number of people whose independence of judgment is beyond all question, and I am bound, in view of the advice I have had, and my own judgment, to urge the Committee to take the view I have put forward.
  Sir I. ALBERY: Will the Home Secretary kindly inform me whether I am correct in supposing that, in the case of a man who refuses to give his address and who, I believe, would be liable to a penalty of 40s., the police would prosecute 3 As I read the Bill, they would do so. If so, would the Home Secretary explain why they would prosecute in what is, after all, a minor subsidiary offence, whereas they would not prosecute in the major offence?
  Sir J. SIMON: I listened to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) making that point, and I apologise for not having dealt with it. The offence to which he referred is an offence because the citizen does not do what the law requires him to do on the demand of a constable. It is the constable who asks him to give his name and address, and if the constable demands that, within the law, and the persons refuses, it must, of course, be the constable who prosecutes. Who else could do it? It is the same as refusing to show a passport to an immigration officer. What is the good of saying that the chairman of a. public meeting should prosecute? The person who makes the demand must prosecute. That matter, however, does not seem to me to bear on the main point I was putting. I am not saying which is the most serious offence, but, the material for prosecuting having been obtained, the Committee must decide which is the right way to carry the matter further. I should be very glad to hear the views of one or two hon. Members opposite, because I know they are perfectly open-minded on the matter, and I think this is really a very serious point.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. PRITT: I agree that this is a serious and important matter and that we ought to listen carefully to the discussion on it. I agree also that first impressions are not the whole of the matter and, as far as I know, there are

  679
  no party politics involved. Hon. Members have very decided views as to which course they would like to follow, and I would like now to do what I can to help on the very important legal matters to which the Home Secretary, with all the advantage not only of his own training but his advisers, has been referring. I am sorry to have to say that I think on this matter, where there are no axes to grind, the right hon. Gentleman has been stating something which is a little beside the point. I will try to explain my views on the matter. In the first place, it is clear that if it be an evil to lay the burden of prosecution in this matter on the police, it is an evil which has continuously operated unnoticed for 28 years.
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that is really the case. In 1908 it was the universal view that the police could not go into a public meeting.
  Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: In practice they went in.
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not mean that. If my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) got up a riot in a meeting in Croydon, they would have come in.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I put it in this way—that, in practice, they came in?
  Sir J. SIMON: I think I am right in saying that the old view was that, except, of course, where there was a serious breach of the law, police did not come inside a meeting unless they were invited.
  Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: Their right has been challenged.
  Sir J. SIMON: I believe that the recent view is that they may—certainly in London and some other places they often do; but when the Public Meeting Act was passed in 1908, and for many years afterwards, I do not think the prospect was that there were going to be police prosecutions.
  Mr. PRITT: I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong again, for the following reasons. In the first place, a very large number of public meetings then held in public halls were in fact attended by the police. Secondly, a very large number of public meetings—
  680
  and particularly those which the Act was designed to protect and did protect—were held in public in the streets and market places of England, and the police were there. I have addressed thousands of public meetings; i confess that I have done it for the Tories, for the Liberals and for the Labour party in the course of my political career—[An HON. MEMBER; "You are an all-round man!"—in the presence of police since the Public Meeting Act. That, however, is not the point. If, in fact, it is an evil which has passed unnoticed for 28 years, let it be dealt with; but my submission is that there is not really an evil in the police being in the ordinary position there. I do not think anybody will disagree with me when I say that the ordinary law of England is that for every offence, with a certain number of exceptions made by Statute, any one can prosecute. The police have a very high duty in the matter, but the police constable can take off his helmet, go into the court—even under this Clause—and say that he is a private citizen and is going to prosecute. It is left free to the whole world, except the police, to prosecute under the Subsection as proposed in the Bill.
  Let the Home Secretary express his anxiety about the police possibly being put in a position where it might be thought they might be "got at" by somebody—and he rightly praised our system of police work in that respect—but that difficulty with regard to the police applies to every offence in the United Kingdom, and not only to this one. Although I do respectfully agree that semi-private offences such as this one have an air of privateness about them, I submit that the Home Secretary, in all innocence—it may be for the first time in a great many years—approached a point of law from the wrong end. He said that once anybody has been brought into the hands of the police and charged, and the charge is accepted, it is right that no one should interfere. Under this Subsection, not only would that not happen, but it could not happen, because if a policeman brought a man into Vine Street police station, for instance, and said to the charge inspector—or whoever might be the right person—"I charge this man with acting in a disorderly manner at a lawful public meeting," the inspector would say "You cannot do so because a

  681
  charge on this man under these circumstances amounts to an institution of proceedings." I think I am right in that. "Under the Sub-section," the inspector would have to say, "we cannot even institute proceedings because we are the police."
  It is only the police in England who cannot prosecute in these offences, and they are the people who have been established to prosecute all offences. We know that we have amateurs on benches, but we do not naturally prohibit lawyers from taking part, and getting prosecutions. We keep a quite good police force, but tell it that it cannot operate, whereas we give the right, not only to people who go to the meetings, but to any amateur who likes to interfere. In my submission this is what will happen in almost every case on an offence against Sub-section (1). The police will consider whether they will issue summonses in the ordinary way or not. They have no powers of arrest. It is true they can arrest persons who are committing a breach of the peace and persons who give false names and addresses, but, when they have arrested those persons, I think it would be improper to charge those persons with these offences against Subsection (1). I think the proper course would be to release them and then summon them. If the law is to be as the Home Secretary—sincerely but in my opinion acting on wrong advice—desires, the police will have to say "In those cases we cannot even summon them."
  The Home Secretary made another point which wants consideration—that very often offences against Subsection (1) will be offences for which people reasonably do not want to prosecute and that, to put it no higher, it is very much more difficult for the police to drop a prosecution than for the amateur—the chairman or the organisers of a meeting—to do so. I submit that there is not a great deal in that point. If I understand police procedure—and I have not yet suffered from it very much—the ordinary course of the police authorities, when it is suggested that someone should be summoned, is to consider all the available evidence and all the circumstances, and then to exercise an honest and quasi-judicial discretion as to whether there should be a prosecution or not.
  682
  I stand open to correction from those who know the law about the matter, but surely there must be hundreds of occasions on which a police official, who is responsible for deciding whether there should be a prosecution or not, will take this view; "I do not say there is no evidence for a prosecution and I do not even say that a prosecution might not be brought to a conviction, but in all the circumstances I am not going to allow a prosecution to proceed." The matter may be too trivial or it may be ill-advised for various reasons to prosecute, and it is therefore decided not to go any further with it. If that be so, there seems no reason whatever why there should be this difference in the law, either from the point of view of any difficulty in the law itself, or, what is even more important, from the point of view of maintaining the high traditions under which the police should and very often do act.
  What the Bill is seeking to do is to make a grave and curious alteration in the law as it has stood for years. It is asked, "Who are to be the witnesses in a matter like this" I That is a real difficulty, but it is a difficulty which arises in every case of this kind, and in one sense it is a difficulty which arises in every prosecution in the United Kingdom or indeed in the world. I do not think it is peculiar to this kind of case. The real question before the Committee is; Shall the police be the sole prosecutors, or shall the police be the only people in the United Kingdom not allowed to prosecute, or shall it be left to the ordinary law under which the police will normally consider whether they ought to prosecute or not, and under which, if they do not consider that they ought to prosecute, it remains open to the directly interested public, or to the uninterested public for that matter, to prosecute if they wish.
  I have occupied the Committee for some little time upon what is a lawyer's matter and I leave the other part of the question which is not a lawyer's matter to be dealt with by more experienced people on my side of the Committee. I do not know whether they differ from me or not upon it. They certainly differ with each other about it, and so I suppose some of them must differ from me, but I leave it there without taking up further time. There is only one point that I would like

  683
  to mention before concluding. The Home Secretary has said, "Do not let it be thought that there is in this part of the Bill any motive to prefer the rich to the poor." I do not desire to say for a moment that there is any such motive, but the tragedy is that, of course, neither in legislation nor out, of it, is it possible, under the existing system to do anything that does not automatically make things more difficult for the poor and easier for the rich.
  10.1 p.m.
  Earl WINTERTON: I think I am one of the few Members of the Committee present, except the Home Secretary himself, who was a Member of the House when the Public Meeting Act was passed in 1908, and I think it is in order that I should tell the Committee something about that Act the amendment of which we are considering. In the first place, the Home Secretary's recollection of the circumstances in which that Act was passed, has, I think, suffered from what is rather pompously known as the efflux of time. I do not want to score a party point, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite reads the Debates which took place on that occasion he will find that it is not right to say, a§ was said in connection with a previous Amendment that the Act was brought in because of disorder in the 1906 Election caused by the supporters of those who sit on this side of the Committee. The exact opposite was the case.
  Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS; The suffragettes.
  Earl WINTERTON: No, it was long before the suffragette movement. There were great complaints by members of the Conservative party about the disturbances caused at political meetings of that party in the 1906 Election. Public opinion outside, non-party as well as party opinion, sympathised with that point of view. When, therefore, Lord Robert Cecil, as he then was, brought in a private Members' Bill to deal with that disorder, the Government of the day yielded to the feeling in the House that something should be done. I was in opposition to the then Government but I say that they showed a public-spirited attitude. They took up the position that things had gone too far, that there had been far too much interference with the
  684
  right of public meeting and public speech and, even though the Bill was introduced by an Opposition Private Member, they gave it their support. That was the genesis of the Public Meeting Act. My first point to the Committee is that that Act has become a dead letter. I ought. to say, indeed, that it has always been a dead letter and for the very reason why, in my opinion, this Clause, as it stands, is so weak. This Clause perpetuates the reason which made that Act a dead letter because, in the majority of cases, neither a candidate nor his agent, nor his chairman will prosecute. They think that it may damage their cause and they believe also that the result even of sustained disorder throughout an election, is likely to benefit rather than injure them.
  Having followed the most of these proceedings I have been much struck by the felicitous and tactful manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has conducted this Bill. He has shown great ability and knowledge of the House but I was not particularly struck by the argument which he has just used. In effect it was that this is really quite a small matter, that it is not criminal, arid that we all take it in good part if there are a few interruptions. I venture to think that that is not the right way to look at it. We have to consider, not the interests of the Government, or the agent, or the chairman, or his supporters, but the public interest. Is it in the public interest that in certain parts of England, or indeed in all parts—it certainly happens to hon. Members opposite from some of their extreme left supporters—that it should be impossible to address a public meeting throughout an election'? I put this to the Attorney-General; Is it, or is it not, in the public interest that people going about their lawful business and wishing to hear the speeches of the other side should be permitted to do so? To my mind, to prevent people from doing so is a public mischief of the highest magnitude.
  Everybody knows that this Act has been a dead letter for another reason also—it is an open secret—because the police have said that they do not like being mixed up in political matters. That is the genesis of this proposal, but whether they like it or not, unfortunately, owing to circumstances which have recently occurred, they have become mixed up in them inextricably.

  685
  What is likely to happen at the next election? We have now in this country a party which, rightly or wrongly, has, as one of its mottoes, this proposition: It says, "We will undertake that in whatever part of England we hold meetings, however antipathetic it is to our cause, we will have sufficient force present to see that that meeting is held." Take an district where it is impossible to hold a meeting at present. What happened? Perhaps the police themselves went to the chairman of the division and said, "I should not hold a meeting in this or that particular village, because it would be sure to be broken up." That is a very grievous state of affairs. In my judgment, one of the primary duties of the police is to see that free speech has a, fair chance.
  What happens? Owing to the rise of this new Fascist party, they say they are going to hold meetings wherever they like, and they have candidates now. One must presume that their intentions are genuine and that they are going to run candidates. Incidentally, to show that I have no sympathy with Fascism, they have a candidate against me, and they have one against the Leader of the Opposition, and candidates against many other hon. Members in this House. In my judgment, the result of this will be that unless precautions are taken by the police at the next election, we shall have most serious riots.
  Some hon. Members may say, "How would this particular Amendment deal with that position?" My answer is perfectly simple. If you put on the police the onus of taking the steps under the law to check such conduct at public meetings as leads to disorder, and afterwards to prosecute, I believe you will not have the trouble that you will have otherwise. But, apart from that, could anything be more ridiculous than the law as it will stand? The police are encouraged by this Clause to take the names of the persons at public meetings who interrupt, and yet they cannot prosecute. A police constable, we will say, takes the names of a number of people and reports them to the chairman, who, for the reasons I have mentioned, decides not to prosecute. The next night a fresh batch of interruptions occurs, and the police take another batch of names.
  Mr. EDE: It may be the same lot.
  Earl WINTERTON: Yes, but in any event it turns the whole thing into a farce. When my right hon. Friend assures me that it will be very difficult to prosecute on purely legal lines, because you will not be able to get evidence, and when he says that there is an objection in this House to merely police evidence, all that I can say is that I hope he will bring in to-morrow an Amendment to the motor car law. If you say you cannot bring in a Statute because only police evidence is taken, well, that is an amazing position.
  I am very much encouraged by a considerable consensus of opinion in the House that favours this Amendment. This is really no party matter. There has never been a time when it was more important to preserve the rights of public speech than now, and what is the use of having a unilateral Bill and saying that we shall stop, and rightly stop, processions or provocative uniforms, while at the same time we have had disclosed a growing determination of a certain section of people to make public speaking impossible? After every election complaints are put in this House to the Home Secretary, not from one section only, calling attention to disorder at meetings, and asking what is going to be done about it. The Government with their enormous majority and the great authority which they enjoy have a golden opportunity of dealing with it, and I greatly regret that in this part of the Bill they have come to such a weak conclusion. The police would be well advised entirely to alter their attitude towards this matter, and to realise that unless they take time by the forelock they will be faced at the next election with a condition of disorder at public meetings which may well result in a coroner's inquest. To say that the police dissociate themselves from this matter, that this is not a criminal matter and not the kind of matter with which they are normally engaged, is, in my opinion, completely to misunderstand the reason why the police force is paid and sustained in this country.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I do not disagree with the main proposition which has been put by the Noble Lord, but we are in a definite difficulty here. We are all anxious to preserve order in public meetings, and to see that nothing is done

  687
  to interrupt proper discussion at public meetings. The question which concerns us in this Clause is how best to make the Public Meeting Act, 1908, effective. It is clear that there is a good deal of difference of opinion in the House, which is largely caused by different experiences in different parts of the country. I am not satisfied with the Sub-section as it stands and not entirely with the suggested Amendment. I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether he would look into this matter again and consider whether he could not get this Sub-section into a condition which would give effective power to enforce the reasonable provisions of the Public Meeting Act, and at the same time not give rise to some of the dangers that some people see. Will the Home Secretary undertake to reconsider the matter between now and Report, because I think that the Committee is fairly united on a non-party issue in the desire to get the best possible results from the Bill?
  10.23 p.m.
  Sir J. SIMON: I think that what the Leader of the Opposition has just suggested is very wise. The discussion has been an interesting one, and I do not think that it has been carried on in too vehement a manner. The truth is that this is a non-party question. There is some difference of opinion in all quarters of the Committee, and I think that it will be good for all of us if we just look through the Debate, talk it over with our friends, and, I dare say, have some sort of conference as far as may be with one another. That is what I should like. I have been interested to see the course of the Debate because it has followed the kind of emotions through which I myself have gone. It may be that wisdom will come, not so much from second thoughts as from the thoughts of today's Debate. I will follow the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, for it is due to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that we should follow that course. If, therefore, the Committee will agree to do so, I think it will be better to negative this Amendment, because it is admitted that in any case this particular change is not the right one to make. Therefore, I would ask the Committee to end the discussion of this Amendment on the under-
  688
  standing that the matter will remain open for the Report stage, and I hope that I may have the good will of all those interested, without distinction of parties, because this really is a question which we ought to look at from the point of view of administration. If the course I have suggested can be taken I shall be very glad.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of what the right lion. Gentleman has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. GALLAGHER: I object. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I have a right to speak.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member persist in speaking?
  Mr. GALLAGHER: I do, because I object very strongly to police democracy. I have experienced arrest at a public meeting, and I have a right to speak. I say that while the Clause is bad the Amendment would make it much worse. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Amendment is being withdrawn."] It has not been withdrawn yet. I want hon. Members to understand what has taken place. I was once at a public meeting, the organisers of which had feared there would be disorder and had arranged for police to be present, outside the meeting. There was disorder at the meeting and the police were brought in. The stewards pointed out the people who were making the disturbance and those persons were arrested and taken to prison, and were kept there until their names and addresses were verified. I happened to go up to the chairman to protest against the procedure—he was a friend of mine—and the police, without any authority, arrested me and took me out, but although I was kept in prison till my name and address were verified there was no one to make a charge against me of disturbing the meeting, because I had made no disturbance. If the police had had the power which it is proposed to give them now they would have made a case against me. I have had too many cases made against me not to understand.
  How is it possible to suggest that the police should be allowed to come into a public meeting and arrest anyone and start a prosecution on their own initiative, I cannot think. Would anyone

  689
  suggest that the police have the right to arrest anyone and take him to gaol on a charge of assault when the person assaulted is unknown? If anyone is assaulted he makes a charge and the police arrest the man accused, but for the police to be given the powers suggested here is absolutely against all conceptions of democracy and has nothing whatever to do with the maintaining of democracy or public order. I also wish to say a word about the nice remarks of the Home Secretary, that this legislation is not aimed at the poor any more than at the rich. It is aimed at the poor, please understand that, and at nobody else. The rich do not have to go to working-class meetings and protest about the means test, or about poverty or about the hardships imposed on them. When the poor are suffering the most terrible worries under the means test, with no money for rent or food, some important speaker will come down to speak at a meeting about all the wonderful prosperity there is. I have been told that last night there was a picture in the cinemas showing the Prime Minister talking about wonderful prosperity. Just following that talk about our wonderful prosperity, was a picture of the party which was touring distressed areas in South Wales, and of the squalor, poverty and misery there.
  You get that sort of thing, some important personage coming along and talking about prosperity, while people are sitting there and hoping that something will be said to alleviate their trouble and take the burdens from their shoulders. They have a right of protest, and yet it is now proposed to give power to the police to drag them down to gaol. Can hon. Members give me one case of a wealthy man being taken to gaol? On the other hand, give me the case of a poor man who has been arrested, and I will show you one who has protested against a wrong, and who had a right to protest against the wrong. This proposal is a compromise with democracy. In no circumstances should the party on this side of the Committee give encouragement to any right of the police to arrest workers and put them into prison for protesting at a public meeting.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Application to Scotland.)
  10.32 p.m.
  Sir JOHN TRAIN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, to leave out paragraph (4).
  The Clause deals with matters in respect of which the Bill affects Scotland. I believe this is a good Bill, because of the cumulative effect all over the country in the interruption of meetings and processions got up by various causes, many of them good causes. The Bill is designed to keep proper public order, and I support it. When we come to exemptions for Scotland, I would draw the attention of the Committee to paragraph (4), which says:
  "Sub-section (1) of Section three of this Act shall in its application to a burgh have effect with the substitution of references to the magistrates of the burgh for references to the chief officer of police, and any reference to the powers conferred by the said Sub-section shall be construed accordingly."
  To-night we discussed Clause 3, in the beginning of which it states emphatically that the chief of police shall be in charge, and
  "if the chief officer of police is of opinion, having regard to the time or place at which and the i circumstances in which any procession s taking place or is intended to take place and to the route taken or proposed to be taken by the procession, that there is ground for apprehending that the procession may occasion serious public disorder, he may give directions."
  The chief of police has the power. Apparently the Bill is designed so that England and Wales shall have a privilege that Scotland has not, the power of the chief of police to decide. I am in considerable difficulty at the present time, because, when Clause 3 was discussed, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) put a question to the Lord Advocate as to whether the magistrates of Glasgow were to be the controlling power, or the chief of police. You pointed out, Captain Bourne, that there was an Amendment later which you intended to call and which dealt with that very subject, but the Lord Advocate replied to the hon. Member that he intended to support the view that the authority in Scotland should be the magistrates, and not the chief of police as in England. Therefore, it follows that

  691
  the answer to this present Amendment has been given already by the spokesman of the Government, before any argument has been put forward and before a Debate has taken place on Clause 8, which applies to Scotland. It may be that the Amendment will be turned down, but I give full marks to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs for raising the question at that time and getting his answer. He thereupon proceeded to make a speech, and also to vote against Clause 3. He was one of the noble 13 who voted against that Clause, and, therefore, was consistent in his position. I take a different view. I voted for Clause 3, and I think it is right.
  We in Scotland have always been fond of processions. One of my earliest recollections of a procession, in the village where I was brought up, was a Sunday School treat on a Saturday afternoon, when we went through the main streets with little tin mugs slung over our shoulders, and the village band in front playing, "There is a happy land, far, far away." That liking for processions has grown up with us, and there is very little interference with processions in Scotland. Is it that we are far better civilised in Scotland than you are in England and Wales, so that we do not require any chief of police to look after us? But we have very kind-hearted magistrates, who are appointed by the people and elected as magistrates by the town council, so that we are in advance of England and Wales. I recall, however, something riot so happy. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs talked of 1919, when he got a crack over the head in Glasgow. Two or three hon. Members sitting on the benches opposite will remember that incident perfectly well, as I do. I was sitting as chairman at a meeting of a joint wages board which was trying to settle wages and hours and conditions, when broken bottles were thrown about the streets. We had the accredited representatives of the trade union and the employers discussing this question, but it was taken into the hands of the mob, and there was a riot in the street. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was in Scotland."] That was in Glasgow in 1919, and there are hon. Members sitting on those benches who will remember it.
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: These historical reminiscences are no doubt extremely interesting, but I fail to see what connection they have with the question whether the magistrates or the chief of police shall be the authority.
  Mr. MESSER: Is not the hon. Member proving that Scotland is more civilised than England and Wales?
  Sir J. TRAIN: I am very sorry; I was trying to reply to something that had been said in the Debate. In spite of all that has been said about Edinburgh being a very quiet place, where they have never been accustomed to anything but the magistrates' control, Glasgow is a place where we have had disorders in the past, and in this Bill, while we are giving this power to the police in small boroughs and county councils in England and Wales, in Scotland we are going to leave out those large burghs where these things may happen at any moment. Are we to wait until the chief constable calls a meeting of his magistrates before he can act in the matter? Why should Scotland be exempted? Is Scotland not as important as England and Wales? Do we require separate legislation for Scotland? Can we be given a definite reason why we should not have the chief of police in the same position in Scotland as in England and Wales? I appeal to the Government to reconsider the position. If this is a good Measure for England and Wales, it is a good Measure for Scotland.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. HARDIE: We have just had a very interesting dissertation from a Scotsman who seems to have forgotten all his native logic. He began by arguing that Scotland is a very peaceful place and is famous for its administration. It is true. I do not know why he should want to make a change unless it is that he himself has ceased to have any ideals about democracy and that he wants, now that he sees other parties coining into majorities where he does not like them, to hand over civic powers to non-elected authorities. From the earliest days of local government, even going back to the twelfth century, it has always been the boast. of the Scottish people that they are capable of dealing with any kind of disturbance that may crop up. There is no city with a better record than Glasgow

  693
  in regard to public disturbances. I put that down to the fact that you cannot find a more patient people anywhere. When you consider the condition to which the capitalist system has reduced certain people in big areas of that city, one wonders that there are not very serious disturbances. I challenge any hon. Member from Scotland to say that there has ever been a disturbance in Glasgow of the magnitude described by the hon. Gentleman.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is exactly the point where I stopped the hon. Gentleman. It is quite irrelevant.
  Mr. HARDIE: The hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience that if he went back now, even to his own constituency, and suggested that the democratic body was to hand over its powers to an unelected person he would very likely have to run away. Suppose we get away from the city and come to the cour, ties and small burghs, is there not a greater argument still when you leave the industrial city, in favour of preserving that sense of justice. Take the case of the chief of police of Lanarkshire, who is stationed at Hamilton. Imagine what might take place in all the areas which he has to govern. I cannot understand why any Scotsman should come along with the idea that we should follow anything that was done in England and Wales in connection with doing away with democratic institutions. The democracy of Scotland has always had that power, and I am convinced that if a plebiscite were taken in Scotland the whole of the people would vote for the retention of their civic rights. I hope that the Lord Advocate will see to it that we are protected from any hon. Member who may try to take away our civic rights.
  10.47 p.m.
  Mr. STEPHEN: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has acted very unwisely, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will not make any concession with regard to it. The position under the Bill, as it is at present, is that the chief of police, if he has reasonable grounds for supposing that trouble may occur with regard to a demonstration, will consult the magistrates, and will have their backing if his grounds are sufficiently reasonable. That is probably the soundest line, if you are to have interference with the present practice,
  694
  and the most suitable way, considering our Scottish law and organisations. I do not want to develop the point, but I hope that on the Report stage I shall have an opportunity of making a further suggestion to the Lord Advocate as to how this matter ought to be dealt with, and he will probably consider before then whether it will not be possible to do this to meet the hon. Gentleman behind him in this way. Sub-section (5) should be omitted so that there should be not only the decision of the magistrates with regard to a demonstration being banned for any long period, but that the matter should come before the local council for ratification. You would have the magistrates acting on the initiative of the chief of police in the first place with regard to the route of the demonstration and whether special steps should be taken in view of the circumstances, and then, if the emergency situation about which the Lord Advocate spoke earlier in the day should come along, and for some reason or other it was desired to ban demonstrations for a period of time, the magistrates would approach and get the consent of the council to put their proposal before the Secretary of State for Scotland for action to be taken.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman had better raise that matter on the Report stage.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I was only mentioning it in connection with this Amendment as suggesting to the hon. Member for Cathcart (Sir J. Train) that in this way he might get some of the advantage in the English Measure, which seems to have been one of the motives in putting this Amendment to the Lord Advocate. I hope the Lord Advocate is going to retain the position as it is in the Bill. I think he would probably agree that the different procedure here has not been come to lightly, but in a certain measure because of the different relationship between the police and the magistrates in the Scottish administration as compared with the position of the police and the watch committees in English administration. I hope that on Report the Lord Advocate may be able to consider further the consideration regarding town councils.
  10.53 p.m.
  Mr. ERSKINE HILL: I rise to express my opposition to the Amendment. In

  695
  Scotland magistrates have been entrusted, to a large degree, with the keeping of law and order. That tradition is one which has lasted in many cases for several hundred years, and the magistrates have fulfilled their duties in an admirable way. The Burgh Police Act, 1892, gave powers to different burghs in Scotland to administer the keeping of law and order. Glasgow did not avail itself of those powers, but those burghs which did do so have well fulfilled the duties entrusted to them. The answer to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who suggested that power should be given to the town councils as well, is that, as the magistrates have done well in the past, why should we alter the scheme of things? For that reason I am in favour of entrusting the power to the burghs, and not to the chief constables.
  10.54 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: My task has been considerably lightened by the Debate that has taken place. The Committee will appreciate that the issue raised by this Amendment is based on Clause 3 being part of the Bill, and the question is, assuming that this procession Clause is to be part of the law of England and Scotland, which is the proper authority in Scotland—the magistrates or the chiefs of police? I am surprised at the way the hon. Member for Cathcart (Sir J. Train) put the position in moving this Amendment. He seemed to put it that what is good enough for England is good enough for Scotland—a view which Scottish Members would be very slow to appreciate. The answer is that in deliberately choosing the magistrates of the Scottish burghs as the substitute for the chief officer of police in the Scottish burghs the Government were influenced by a completely different historical background of local government and police control in Scotland from that of England. I have touched on that subject before and would only remind the Committee that if we had adopted the English system of the chief officer of police, one or other of two results would have followed. Either the control in Scotland would have been a dual control, a most confusing and complex thing, or, alternatively, we should have had to face in this Bill the necessity of amending quite a number of Scottish Acts, private
  696
  and public, and withdrawing from the magistrates of every burgh in Scotland, except Glasgow, powers which they already exercised and with which, according to the best information I have been able to get, they will be exceedingly reluctant to part.
  I appreciate that in putting the duty of exercising the powers of Clause 3 upon the magistrates of Scotland we are imposing upon them a very difficult and very big task, which probably they would be very pleased to be without, but I am quite confident, nevertheless, from the record of centuries of administration of law and order in Scotland which the history of the magistrates can present, that they will be able in a spirit of high public duty to discharge this function in the future as they have discharged it in the past. I accordingly suggest to the Committee that they should reject the Amendment.
  Sir J. TRAIN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in Page 6, line 30, after burgh, "to insert
  "and in its application to non-burghal areas have effect with the substitution of references to the county council."
  We desire to get the same security for the non-burghal burgh as for the county.
  10.59 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I am afraid that the arguments which I used a few moments ago in respect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cathcart (Sir J. Train) are almost equally efficacious in regard to the present Amendment, and I would urge the Committee to reject the Amendment. The county council in Scotland which the hon. Member proposes to make the authority in non-burghal areas has none of the historical position and none of the police functions which the magistrates of Scottish burghs have. The county council in Scotland was only brought into being in 1929 by the Local Government Act of that year, when the county council superseded as the police authority the Standing Joint Committee which had exercised the function prior to that year. Accordingly, there is a, complete absence of that back-

  697
  ground of historical tradition on the part of the county council towards the nonburghal areas which the Committee has accepted with regard to magistrates in burghs.
  In the second place there is no case in which the county councils of Scotland possess powers of this nature. Finally, there is the practical argument which will appeal to the hon. Member. If this power in the matter of procession control and local disorder is to be exercised by a local authority that local authority must necessarily possess an intimate local knowledge of the localities where disorder is likely to break out and where processions are likely to take place. In a local authority for a burgh you have a body of persons who by the very necessity of the case possess that local knowledge, or presumably possess it, whereas in the case of a county council or the police committee of a county council, drawn from an area hundreds of square miles and many of them residing 40 miles away, it is quite impracticable to get that local knowledge which is required for an intelligent exercise of this power.
  In addition, there is this further consideration, that by no reasonably practical method I can think of would it be possible to secure consultation or conference between the members of the average county council with the necessary expedition desirable for the exercise of this power. The case of the county council is in vivid contrast to that of the magistrates of a burgh, and the reasons which induced hon. Members to accept magistrates on the last Amendment are really the reasons for inducing them to believe, as I suggest they should, that the county council is not the appropriate body in the case of non-burghal areas. In that situation the only alternative is the chief officer of police, and accordingly the practical solution which I commend to the Committee is to allow the police to remain as the authority for the non-burghal areas in Scotland. I appreciate the suggestion that it is not logical that in the burghs it should be a popularly elected authority and in the case of the non-burghal areas a non-elected body. There is, of course, an absence of strict logic, but my answer, in addition to what I have already said, is that strict
  698
  logic is not always a wise guide in local public administration or in statecraft in general. This is a typical instance where the strict logic of the situation must give way to the considerations of common sense.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Could the Lord Advocate not make a distinction as between the chief officer of police being vested with powers for the direction of processions and the county council having some power as to whether there should be a permanent ban I That is a different matter. It is a much stronger power permanently to ban processions, and I wonder whether the Lord Advocate can consider between now and Report making the county council for some period of time the authority in that matter.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I shall, of course, consider between now and Report stage any suggestions made by any hon. Member, but I would remind the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) of the fact that Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 is confined in its application in England to boroughs and urban districts, and does not apply to rural districts. Therefore, the necessity for a reference to a corresponding Scottish local authority would not appear to arise.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Gentleman was saying that in the other matter we should not follow England, and I therefore think we could differ from England in this case as well.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not wish to pursue that matter, because it is one that might call for more consideration. I was simply pointing out to the hon. Member that in England it applies to boroughs and urban districts only. I can assure the hon. Member that I will look further into the matter.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. HARDIE: While it is true that the councils as organised bodies are only of recent date, something of the sort existed for very many years. I had hoped the Lord Advocate would have been able to do something on the lines I suggested, and I hope that between now and Report stage he may be able to think of some way out. For the reasons he has just

  699
  given, and in the hope that he will consider the matter further between now and Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I would like to refer to one or two points with regard to this Clause. I would like the Lord Advocate to tell me how the Clause affects local authorities who already have powers to deal with processions. Will this Clause take precedence over any of the local by-laws that the town councils may have already? The town councils, or burghs, throughout Scotland already possess various powers in local by-laws. There is a difference in practice, in powers, in fines and punishments, and in the chief constables' powers. Will this Bill, if it becomes an Act, take precedence over the local by-laws, and will the local bylaws cease to have effect wherever the Act takes over the duties which the bylaws gave to the local authorities?
  The second matter to which I would like to refer is the permanent ban to be imposed by the magistrates. I would ask the Lord Advocate whether he could not give further consideration to the question of the imposition of a permanent ban, that is to say, a ban for a period of time? I submit that when there is to be a ban for a period of time, the magistrates should seek the approval of the town council, and I would ask the Lord Advocate whether he cannot give serious consideration to the question whether the magistrates should not seek the approval of the town council?
  Another point I would like to raise is the power of the procurator-fiscal in connection with the search warrant. As I understand Sub-section 3, the procurator-fiscal will apply to the sheriffs for power for a search warrant. I anticipate that "sheriff" in this connection will mean "sheriff substitute," but I hope it is not intended to include honorary sheriffs substitute. The point was raised in the discussions on the Incitement to Disaffection Act that there were honorary sheriffs substitute who were not appointed on grounds of legal training and knowledge but often on quite different grounds. In
  700
  matters involving important points such as may arise here, the reference should be to the sheriff and not to the honorary sheriff and I hope the Lord Advocate in this respect will follow the procedure adopted in the Incitement to Disaffection Act. I would also like to know whether the reference to the procurator-fiscal applies to a deputy and, if so, to what class of deputy; or must the procurator-fiscal himself in pursuance of his legal duties undertake this work.
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. ERSKINE HILL: I wish to raise a question of drafting with reference to paragraph (6) which states that the provisions of Clause 6 in so far as they relate to the institution of prosecutions shall not apply to Scotland. If the Committee look at Clause 6 they will see that these words are obviously meant to apply to the new Sub-section (4) which that Clause proposes to add to Section 1 of the Public Meeting Act. I think, however, they are capable of an interpretation which would also have the effect of wiping out as regards Scotland the proposed new Subsection (3) which it is proposed to add to Section 1 of the Public Meeting Act. That Sub-section (3) makes a person's refusal to give his name and address an offence and that obviously relates to the institution of proceedings. I think the point might be met for the present by an undertaking on the part of the Lord Advocate that between now and the Report stage he will reconsider the drafting of this paragraph.
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. FOOT: I do not propose to go into the details of the Clause, but to say something on the general principle which it represents. There have been 'a good many complaints against this method of legislating for Scotland. There are obvious reasons, which 'apply both to England and to Scotland, for adopting this method, where the only differences to be made are those of terminology—the substitution of sheriff for county court judge and so forth. But that is not the case in this Bill. It was made clear by the Lord Advocate in the Second Reading Debate, and it has again been made clear in the last three-quarters of an hour, that, particularly in regard to processions, entirely different considerations apply when you are dealing with the law in Scotland, compared with those which

  701
  apply to England. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate told us on the Second Reading that throughout the greater part of Scotland the magistrates already possess powers closely corresponding to those which are conferred by Clause 3 of this Bill. It may have been that it was unnecessary for a large part, at any rate, of this Bill to be passed at all for Scotland. We all know that this Bill was brought in because of peculiar circumstances which had arisen in the East End of London and, I think, in one or two other cities. I do not think it was due in any way to circumstances which had arisen in Scotland, and it seems to me that in a case like this, where there are substantial differences between the law of one country and that of another, and where the changes you have to make in this sort of Clause are not simply terminological changes, but are substantial changes, so that you are really embodying two Bills within the corners of one, it would have been far better if there had been a separate Bill for Scotland and if, instead of dealing with the Scottish part of the Measure at the fag-end of the business and at this hour of the night, we had been able to take the whole matter upstairs to the Scottish Standing Committee.
  11.17 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot), in the first place, there was, and is, no fundamental difference in the law on the subjects dealt with in this Bill between Scotland and England. The difference is in the machinery of local government of the two countries, and all that required to be done was to adapt the provisions of the main enacting Clauses of the Bill to the existing local government machinery North of the Border. Whether that has been adequately clone or not is for the Committee to determine. It is true that Scotland already possesses a wide measure of power in relation to the processions question dealt with in Clause 3, but not in relation to the other subjects dealt with by the Bill, and in regard to the processions powers, in Scotland, as in England, the powers differ widely in different parts of the country, and therefore it is of great advantage to Scotland to have a uniform code throughout the
  702
  length and breadth of the land. In this case, therefore, I think the policy of having one Bill for both countries, with a Scottish interpretation Clause, was appropriate.
  With regard to the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) and his inquiry, I think I need not say more than that the position in which Clause 6 of this Bill has been left by the decision of the Committee a few moments ago will necessarily compel a reconsideration of the Scottish application Clause in relation to that matter, and therefore it would probably be a waste of time to examine the drafting of that provision. Turning to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), first of all, and subject to looking a little more narrowly into the matter with my advisers, I am inclined to accept in principle his suggestion that the sheriff-substitute should be the full salaried, and not the honorary, sheriff-substitute. As regards the Procurator-Fiscal, I should like to look more narrowly into that matter also; but in principle I agree that the responsibility for this duty should be undertaken either by the Procurator-Fiscal for the county or the second in command who acts in his absence. That is the general idea we have tried to secure. With reference to the hon. Gentleman's remaining points, the existing powers in Scotland are mostly contained in Statutes. On examination of those Statutes, such as the Edinburgh and Aberdeen Acts, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the powers contained in them will fit in perfectly well with the powers in this Bill. There will be no duplication, and in certain areas there will be given to the local authorities more extensive powers. For example, in Aberdeen it is necessary before a procession is held to give 24 hours notice to the chief of police; and I think a similar provision applies in Edinburgh. These powers will remain available, but so far as regards that area of administration which covers the same ground as that with which this Bill is concerned, the provisions are parallel and will involve no clashing or difficulty of administration. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be possible to substitute the town council for the magistrate in regard to the imposition of a ban for a period on processions. I am willing to consider that

  703
  topic afresh, but I see a difficulty in adopting the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Interpretation, etc.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. STEPHEN: I notice that there is no interpretation of the phrase "usurping the functions of the police" in Clause 2. Should there not be an interpretation?
  11.24 p.m.
  The LORD ADVOCATE: I am bound to say that it had not occurred to me until the hon. Member raised the point that the expression '"usurping the functions of the police" was in any sense a technical term or would require statutory definition. I am not going to traverse the arguments which the Committee has already heard, nor am I going to attempt, without a moment's consideration, to draft a definition of the phrase. I am confident that the Committee is sufficiently appreciative of the idea involved in these words as to know precisely what they mean. Speaking without consideration, I would say that an organisation which was trained to usurp the functions of the police was attempting to discharge duties which are, according to our constitution, the duties of the police. Certain instruments of force must be employed in any civilised Government if order and law are to be preserved. The appropriate instruments of law and order are the police under normal circumstances and the military forces in abnormal circumstances. The idea underlying the prohibition in Clause 2 is that no private citizens or organisations of private citizens are to be entitled to constitute themselves the instruments of force for that purpose.

  CLAUSE 10.—(Short title and extent.)
  The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. DENMAN:
  In page 7, line 26, at the end, to add:
  "(3) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines:
  Provided that after the expiry of this Act any legal proceedings may be instituted
  704
  or continued and penalties imposed or enforced in respect of any prior event as if this Act had not expired."
  The CHAIRMAN: I have some little doubt about the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), but I think that under Standing Order 45 it ought to be moved as a new Clause. Perhaps the hon. Member will so move it.
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (2).
  This manuscript Amendment has been handed in by me for one particular purpose, and that is to get a statement from the responsible Minister as to where we stand in regard to the maintenance of public order in Northern Ireland. If there are to be special laws for England and Scotland I am at a loss to understand why they should not apply to Northern Ireland, and I have moved the Amendment to delete the sub-section which says that this Measure shall not extend to Northern Ireland. This is the first time for many a day that we have had the opportunity of raising the question of having proper regulations for dealing with turmoil and trouble in Northern Ireland. In July of last year matters pertaining to public order in Northern Ireland had to be raised in this honourable House, and His Majesty's Forces in great strength had to be brought out in the streets of Northern Ireland to protect civilians. Not only was that so in July of last year, but it has been so every July as long as my memory goes back. Now that public order is the thing of the day, and we are setting our own house in order, we should know what power is vested in us in respect of the affairs of Northern Ireland. I contend that we have power and authority which all Ireland is not able to take away from us, and that in time of public disorder or rebellion, this land has still the right to exercise its authority, especially over the section which claims to he constitutional and to be within the bounds of the Empire. How far have we the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, in respect of public order, discipline, turmoil and rebellion?
  I do not disagree with any section of opinion in Northern Ireland; I have put forward this Amendment in order to get

  705
  a reply from the Home Secretary to my question. How far can we deal with the terrible outrages that take place from time to time in Belfast, which are a reflection not only on England, but on other parts of the Kingdom? It is time that English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh social order became as of one common family. The sooner we recognise it as a trinity-in-one, the better for all concerned. I do not want to have representations made to me that the streets are likely to run with blood, and that 10 or 14 people will be killed—not in Russia but in Belfast—and homes burnt down, although Christianity is practised by all the parties concerned. Such incidents in the life of a busy city should cease to exist. If the Home Secretary is able to improve that state of affairs I shall have obtained all that I wish for. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can get us out of the difficulties which have disgraced Northern Ireland for so long.
  11.35 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I appreciate all that has been said by the last speaker, and I am sure he speaks from the heart, but as an Irishman representing a Scottish constituency, I might perhaps, since he has mentioned both countries, say a word in defence of the Bill as it stands. As we know, certain constitutional changes have been made in the status of Northern Ireland since the War. The hon. Member referred to none of them. He omitted, deliberately I am afraid, to mention that Northern Ireland was given a Constitution of her own some 17 years ago. Since that time Northern Ireland has satisfactorily carried out the duties given her under that Constitution. She has a Cabinet, her people trust that Cabinet, and it has done its work extraordinarily well in very difficult circumstances. Therefore it seems to me perfectly legitimate and proper for the Imperial Government to say to the people of Northern Ireland, "You are masters in your own house; it is for you to decide whether or not you feel it necessary to adept this Public Order Bill in Northern Ireland. We have decided that it is necessary for Great Britain, but we feel that you are competent to carry out your own affairs in your own way, and therefore we leave it in your hands to follow our example if you think fit, or not to do so if you do not think fit. We believe in you and we trust you. You have not
  706
  failed us in the past, and we trust you not to fail us in the future." Therefore, I oppose the Amendment, and trust that the Government will stand by the Bill as it is at present.
  11.37 p.m.
  Mr. TINKER: I think we ought to have some explanation as to why Northern Ireland is excluded. I remember a meeting in one of the Committee rooms upstairs when a deputation from Northern Ireland tried to get us to use our influence to persuade the Prime Minister to have an investigation made into some riot in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister, however, said that he had no jurisdiction over affairs in Northern Ireland, and naturally one could see that that was reasonable. But now we have an opportunity of trying to bring to that part of the United Kingdom the benefits which we are going to enjoy. After all, this situation has been created by a new kind of circumstances, and we do not know that the same kind of thing may not happen in Northern Ireland. Therefore, if we really believe in the Public Order Bill, it should cover the whole Kingdom. I think we should be doing Northern Ireland a good turn by extending the Bill to that country. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) has argued that Northern Ireland has managed its affairs very well for 17 years, but it depends upon how one looks at it; some whose views from a religious point of view are different from those of the hon. and gallant Member might not agree with what he says in that respect. That being so, I think the Home Secretary ought to give us some idea why Northern Ireland is to be excluded, and what the attitude of the Government will be should the same kind of thing happen there that has happened in this country. I agree that we do not expect to carry our point of view, but the moving of the Amendment may lead to some explanation that will give us satisfaction.
  11.40 p.m.
  Sir J. SIMON: I shall be very glad to do my best to explain why it is that the last Sub-section of Clause 10 provides that this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland. The reason, in a sentence, is that this is a Bill dealing

  707
  with the subject of public order. That is the Title of the Bill and by the Constitution of the Government of Northern Ireland, which this House approved in 1920, the subject of law and order in Northern Ireland was one of the subjects which was allocated to the Legislature and Executive of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. LOGAN: To whom was disorder allocated?
  Sir J. SIMON: I speak only of public order. If it were a public disorder Bill, I am sure that it might be left to the genius of the Irish to do what was necessary. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) spoke of our legislating for Scotland in this matter. This House in the ordinary constitutional course legislates for these Islands, but it is a perfectly well understood Constitutional function that the matter of law and order is by Statute transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland. That is the reason why it is proper to provide that the Act should not extend to Northern Ireland. There is nothing exceptional in the matter.
  Mr. LOGAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that order should not prevail in Northern Ireland?
  Sir J. SIMON: We have to decide the area of this legislation, and according to well-established principles which have prevailed for the last 17 years it would not be proper to include Northern Ireland.
  Mr. STEPHEN: What would happen if this Amendment were passed and these words were omitted from the Bill? Would it be possible for us afterwards to raise questions as to administration in Northern Ireland?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, I do not think it would have any effect of that sort. The administration of Northern Ireland and the responsibilities of the Executive there would remain where they are now, and it is not for me to indicate what might be the view taken, but I would suggest that as the responsibility would still remain with the Executive in Belfast, no question on the matter could be raised here; and if this piece of
  708
  legislation, anomalous and contrary to the independent Constitution of Northern Ireland, were applied to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Parliament might legislate in rather different terms.
  Mr. LOGAN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration.)
  This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and no longer, unless Parliament otherwise determines:
  Provided that after the expiry of this Act any legal proceedings may be instituted or continued and penalties imposed or enforced in respect of any prior event as if this Act had not expired.—[Mr. Denman.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  11.43 p.m.
  Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This proposed new Clause, which takes the place of my Amendment to Clause 10, presents an issue on which this Committee can speedily decide. The new Clause suggests that the Bill when it becomes an Act should be given a trial run of 5 years and then, on the experience that we have gained, the ensuing Parliament can extend it, either in whole or in part, by making it permanent or, if necessary, for a further five years. There have been two main lines of thought; first, the unanimous determination that the militarisation of politics shall be stopped, and, secondly, a widely-felt doubt whether we are not going further than is necessary, and whether what we realise is a much-needed medicine for a particular disease at the moment may not become an exceedingly dangerous diet when taken by the community in later years. Grave doubts have been expressed whether we are not unnecessarily interfering with liberty, and whether also we are not introducing into the police forces throughout the country a danger of political bias or suggestions of political bias which would be inimical to the proper working of the police. By the process of having a trial run and then deciding how much of the Bill shall be made permanent or extended for a

  709
  period, we should satisfy very largely the doubts that many of us have felt upon those points.
  I would point out to the Committee the extreme flexibility of the procedure of putting a Bill into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. You can extend either the whole or a part, or even small parts of it. I freely agree that most of this Bill relates to matters that present permanent problems, and I hope that the Bill will provide the permanent solution to those problems. Clause 1 and most of Clause 2, I have no doubt, an ensuing Parliament would want to continue, and very likely Clauses 4, 5 and 6, but Clause 3 is the central point of doubt, and I am sure that it would be a satisfaction to Members in all parts of the Committee if there were an easy possibility of remedying any mistakes we may make to-night by reviewing the subject in five years' time. The process of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act is an old and well-tried process. Many Measures about which there have been doubts at the time have been subjected to it in the past, and I think that it would both satisfy many doubts upon the Bill and very materially speed up the Report stage if it were known that the Bill would be temporary in its duration, with the possibility of being made, either wholly or in part, permanent.
  11.48 p.m.
  Sir J. SIMON: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, but I really do not think that this is a case in which we should turn to the expedient of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We may not be entirely successful in our efforts, but the efforts we are making are efforts to lay down an improved code. In so far as these efforts are successful the code will not cease to be applicable after five calendar years have passed, and I do not see any reason why, when five years have passed, any person should be encouraged to think that the law may be altered. It seems to me that we must take the responsibility that Parliament has to take. It is not the last word, and our successors will come afterwards, and, I dare say, correct our mistakes; but, in the circumstances, I think that the general sense of the Committee is that we should not insert in this Bill any limitation of time.
  11.49 p.m.
  Mr. TINKER: I agree with the Mover of the Clause. During the progress of the Bill there have been grave doubts about the curtailment of the liberty of the subject at democratic assemblies and with regard to processions and the like. That is the concern of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. It is only the fear of what is likely to happen unless something is done immediately that we agree to the Bill at all. We can see many of the things that we have paid dearly for in the right of public assembly in which we are not going to have the same liberty as we have had in the past. We have given way on that because we thought there was a greater menace for the time being. If in five years we have dealt with the threatened danger from other countries, and they have seen the wisdom of doing something with their dictators, there may be no need for this restriction of liberty in this country. If at the end of five years the same danger exists, it is agreed in the Clause that the restriction shall continue. If not, this provision will come into operation at the end of the period and the Act will die a natural death. On this matter I am in agreement with the hon. Member who moved the Clause.
  Mr. DENMAN: While thanking the hon. Member for his support, it is clear that the House regards itself as having attained eternal wisdom, and in these circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

  DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ACT, 1934.
  11.54 p.m.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville):
  I beg to move
  "That the Clearing Office (Italy) Amendment Order, 1936, dated the eleventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions

  711
  Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventeenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."
  This is an Order made by the Treasury on 11th November which varies the Clearing Office (Italy) Order made on 10th July, 1936. The position in regard to trade with Italy is that between March and November, 1935, trade payments made between the United Kingdom and Italy were regulated by the Anglo-Italian Payments Agreement of April, 1935, in which it was laid down that sums due from persons in the United Kingdom to persons in Italy in respect of exports to the United Kingdom and freights for carriage of goods between the two countries in Italian ships should be paid to a sterling account at the Bank of England, and should be used to pay debts in respect of United Kingdom exports to Italy or freights for the carriage of goods between the two countries in British ships. There was no compulsion, however, on debtors in this country to make their payments to the sterling account and the agreement did not work very satisfactorily. In the result, debts amounting to about £1,750,000 accumulated in Italy. On 18th November, 1935, the date when the sanctions embargo was placed on Italian goods, a Controller of Anglo-Italian debts was appointed to whom debts due for Italian goods were payable compulsorily. By that means some £600,000 was collected up to 15th July, when sanctions were raised, and this sum was used to reduce the debts due for United Kingdom goods and freights.
  On the raising of sanctions it seemed desirable to make sure that sterling derived from Italian exports to the United Kingdom should be used to meet Italian liabilities to the United Kingdom and, as the voluntary system that was in force prior to sanctions had not worked satisfactorily, it was decided to set up an Anglo-Italian Clearing Office, payment to which would be compulsory. This was done, but no agreement was reached before sanctions terminated as to how the sterling collected by the Clearing Office should be distributed, and it was therefore decided that the sterling received by the Anglo-Italian Clearing Office should be placed to a reserve fund pending the conclusion of negotiations.
  712
  These arrangements were established by the Clearing Office (Italy) Order made on 10th July, 1936. The negotiations which were started in July broke down on the question of provisions for frozen debts. They were resumed on 24th September, and a Clearing Agreement was signed on 6th November, 1936. The Clearing Agreement provides that all debts in respect of Italian goods imported into the United Kingdom shall continue to be paid to the Anglo-Italian Clearing Office and that the sterling should be allocated as follows:
  70 per cent. to current trade debts in respect of United Kingdom goods imported into Italy after 14th July—that is the end of sanctions—and freights for the carriage between the two countries in British ships of goods imported into either country after that date; and
  27 per cent. is devoted to commercial arrears. Within the 27 per cent. 18 per cent. is devoted to debts covered by the old Agreement of 1935 in respect of United Kingdom imports into Italy and freight in the period from 17th March, 1935, to 18th November, 1935. The balance of the 27 per cent., namely, 9 per cent., is allocated to commercial debts which were outside the Agreement of 1935, such as debts for goods supplied to Italy from third countries and for goods supplied to the Italian colonies.
  Finally 3 per cent. is earmarked for financial debts and remittances. Under this heading provision is made for the transfer of recurrent items in priority to capital items.
  The Agreement thus provides for three categories of debts, and allocates 70 per cent. for current trade, 27 per cent. for commercial arrears and 3 per cent. to financial debts. Any balance not required for commitments in respect of current trade which is available at 31st December, 1936, and at the end of each subsequent quarter is to be used for old Agreement debts, for pre-agreement and extra-agreement debts and for financial debts in the proportions 18 to 9 to 3. The sterling collected by the Anglo-Italian Clearing Office from 15th July up to 15th November, 1936, is to be allocated as to 50 per cent. to current trade and 50 per cent. to arrears.
  These, broadly, are the provisions of the agreement which makes the present

  713
  Amending Order necessary. I think it is a matter about which there will be no controversy that, if trade is to be resumed with Italy, the best arrangements that can be made with regard to payment for our goods should be put in operation. It is no use making arrangements for the resumption of trade with Italy unless we make an effort to clear off the arrears which have accumulated in the past, and the agreement is satisfactory in that it provides for the clearing off of these arrears. The Order does not set up a new Clearing Office but merely modifies the Clearing Office system at present in force, in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
  12 m.
  Mr. BENSON: I must thank the Financial Secretary for his lucid explanation of a complicated Agreement, but there are one or two points on which I should like more information. In Article 4 certain priorities are given to claimants who put in their claims prior to the agreement coming into operation. I should like to know what opportunity there was for claimants to know about the Agreement. There were only 10 days between the signing of the Agreement in Rome and its coming into operation, and unless there was widespread knowledge of the matter, certain people unquestionably had an unfair advantage. In the second place, does the reserve fund account apply to debts between 15th July, 1936, and 16th November, 1936? It seems to me that paragraph (b) of Article 13 gives an undue advantage to Italian bonds for freights for goods carried in Italian ships. It means that Italian ships can get immediate payment, whereas British ships will have to wait for the operation of the Agreement before they can get freight. Why is there this unfair differentiation against British bottoms?
  The real part of the Agreement, however, is Article 7. The working of the Agreement depends on the exchange of goods and current payments. Thirty per cent. of current future payments are to be issued for the liquidation of frozen debts, and 70 per cent. as reserve for the payment of current and future trade. That assumes that if our merchants are to receive reasonably early payments for current and future trade, there must be an adverse balance of trade between Italy and this country of something like
  714
  50 per cent. Thirty per cent. of current debts will be put to arrears and 70 per cent. for the payment of our exports to Italy. If one looks at the course of trade there is no reserve, no balance, which would justify putting 30 per cent. to arrears. For instance, in the three years, 1932 to 1934, Italy sent £28,000,000 of trade and took £27,000,000. There was a balance of only £1,000,000.
  In 1934 the boot is actually on the other leg. Italy sent £8,500,000 and took £9,300,000—nearly £750,000 adverse balance against Italy. This clearance scheme can only work if Italy sends more goods than she takes from us. Otherwise, current trade is likely to have to wait for a considerable period for its payment. I do not know what the present balance of trade is or is likely to be between this country and Italy, and I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether he thinks that this allocation of 30 per cent. and 70 per cent. is likely to work out.
  12.6 a.m.
  Mr. PETHERICK: The Agreement is an enormous advance on that made in 1935. At that time two classes of debts were left out, both of them affecting British subjects. One class was debts in respect of goods shipped to Italy from, say, Canada, and, by negotiations, through London. The debts in that respect were due to British citizens and at that time no provision was made for repayment. There was a second class of goods which were also not taken into consideration. These were goods which had passed through Italian Customs prior to 19th March of that year. In this agreement a great step forward has been made. The Treasury has recognised that an injustice was done to these two classes of debts. After all, they were both classes of debts in respect of British citizens who were owed money from Italian quarters. It was obviously inequitable, in order to push forward the coal trade, to prejudice them. It is no good carrying on trade unless you are to get paid. This Agreement is a great advance on the previous Agreement. There is one point about which I should like to ask my right hon. Friend. At the bottom of page 4 of the Agreement it says:
  "The Istituto will now convert such lire deposits into sterling at the rate of lire 64·46 to the pound sterling."

  715
  Does that fixed rate of exchange still mean that British subjects who were owed money by Italian debtors two years ago will, in fact, lose money on the exchange in view of the arrangements which have recently been made 7 I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend will look into it. I know that it is a complicated question, and if he is unable to give an answer now, I shall be grateful if he will communicate with me. I welcome this Agreement, not by any means as an ideal one, but because I realise that the Board of Trade and the Treasury have done their best in difficult circumstances, and I am pleased that trade relations have again been renewed with Italy.
  12.9 a.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The answer to the first question of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) is that the applications made are those made during the last year or two, when transfers were being restricted and no one had advance information. His second question was with regard to the reserve fund. His dates were correct, namely, between 15th July, 1936, and 16th November, 1936. As regards freights, the exemption from the clearing relates only to freights due by traders in the United Kingdom for the carriage of goods between the two countries in Italian Ships. The hon. Member made the point that this seemed to be discrimination against British shipping. The circumstances are that the question was gone into carefully by those who negotiated the Agreement, and it was decided that the amounts were so small and their collection by the clearing office would involve such troublesome administrative questions, that it was better to leave them outside the clearing. The hon. Member also spoke of the general balance of trade. As he pointed out, the balance of trade between Italy and Great Britain in 1934 was slightly in favour of this country. The figures, I think, were 8½ millions to 9 1/3 millions. In 1935, the tendency was reversed, and in 1936, of course, the trade went all to pieces for political reasons.
  It is rather hard to say what the course of trade between Italy and this country will be in the immediate future and how far Italy will again pick up
  716
  her markets in this country. But it is contemplated that for a period, in order to make certain that funds are available both for current trade and arrears, there shall be a surplus of imports from Italy. What I would emphasise is that if this arrangement succeeds in liquidating the arrears, as we intend it should, it will be possible to negotiate for the future a different arrangement in regard to current trade. But while these considerable debts have to be liquidated we find it necessary to earmark a definite proportion for that purpose.
  Mr. BENSON: It is true that this agreement will liquidate the frozen debts, but will it not do so at the expense of the current trader who will have to wait for payment on goods which are being shipped now, unless there is a heavy excess of imports into this country?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I do not hold that view. Under the agreement if trade flows in the way which is contemplated there should be sufficient to meet the proportion required for arrears, as well as that for current trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) raised a point as to the rate of conversion of the deposits of lire. It is, as he said, a complicated point, but I think I can answer him. In accordance with the normal practice the debtor in Italy is responsible for the payment of sterling debts to the creditor in England up to the full sterling amount due, except in the special case of the pre-agreement and extra-agreement arrears for which the debtor in Italy has deposited lire and received a full discharge under the Italian decree of 20th November, 1935. To meet that exceptional position the Italian Government has agreed that the lire deposited under the Decree in the cases I have mentioned should be reconverted into sterling by the Italian authorities and paid in sterling at the rate of 64.46 lire to the £. That was the last official quotation before the devaluation of the lire took place. Conversion on these terms will mean possibly a slight loss to British creditors varying from 1 per cent. to 5 per cent., but no more than that, on the sums affected. Taking all the circumstances into account and the considerable loss which would have been

  717
  incurred by the creditors if this agreement had not been negotiated, on account of the devaluation of the lira from 64 to 90 to the £, the agreement, I think, is satisfactory in that no greater loss than 5 per cent. will result from depreciation. I think I have now dealt with the principal points raised by hon. Members, and I hope the House is now ready to approve of the Order.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot say that I like this arrangement, which seems to me to be an attempt to get out of a difficult situation by an unsatisfactory compromise. At the same time it is probably the best that could be done in the circumstances. The Financial Secretary has explained these rather difficult matters with courtesy and lucidity and as far as we on these benches are concerned, we do not raise any objection to the passing of the Resolution.
  Resolved,
  "That the Clearing Office (Italy) Amendment Order, 1936, dated the eleventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventeenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (BIRKENHEAD).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (BIRKENHEAD).
  SCOTLAND (AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS).
  SCOTLAND (AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MEMBERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MEMBERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  SEWAGE DISPOSAL WORKS, NAZEING.
  SEWAGE DISPOSAL WORKS, NAZEING.
  WIDOW'S PENSION CLAIM (MRS. CLAY).
  WIDOW'S PENSION CLAIM (MRS. CLAY).
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY (MEDITERRANEAN).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY (MEDITERRANEAN).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS (RENT).
  ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS (RENT).
  CHRISTMAS ASSISTANCE.
  CHRISTMAS ASSISTANCE.
  WALWORTH.
  WALWORTH.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL).
  ROAD ACCIDENTS (MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL).
  POULTRY DISEASES.
  POULTRY DISEASES.
  INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS, CANADA.
  INDEPENDENT ORDER OF FORESTERS, CANADA.
  AFRICAN RESEARCH SURVEY.
  AFRICAN RESEARCH SURVEY.
  EASTER ACT.
  EASTER ACT.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.

RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve into Committee.—(The Earl of Erne.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I desire to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the Government for having given an opportunity to those interested in this Bill of putting down Amendments had they desired to do so to-day, but I am authorised to say that, although the assistance provided by the Bill to the exportation of coal is felt to be quite inadequate, the coal trade recognises that no Amendment appears to be possible in this House to increase the amount to be distributed, and it is not now proposed to vary the amounts to be so distributed. The industry, however, desires that it shall be made quite clear to the Government that the exporting collieries do rely on the Government providing further essential assistance by some other measure to enable this country to compete with the subsidised exportation of coal by other countries to neutral markets, and trust that other Government proposals will be brought forward without delay.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the statement he has made. Within the limits of the Bill we have really taken a course which I think is agreed by the coal trade to be in their best interests regarding the distribution of what is available. My noble friend knows that the Secretary for Mines has already invited the proper associations to put forward to him any proposals which they may have, and as I said in the debate on the Second Reading of
406
the Bill, obviously the proper time to consider those proposals will be when the whole general policy in regard to the coal industry is under consideration.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly [The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair]:
Bill reported without amendment.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (FAMILY PENSION FUNDS) ORDER, 1936.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships' approval this afternoon of no fewer than twelve Draft Orders under various provisions of the Government of India Act and the Government of Burma Act. The task, however, is by no means so formidable as at first sight it might appear. These Orders have been considered and reported on by the India and Burma Orders Committee. They have come to the conclusion that in the case of ten of the twelve Orders no question of policy or principle is involved, and they recommend to your Lordships therefore that you may pass these ten Orders without special attention. The other two Orders raise questions of policy and are of some interest, particularly the first of those which appears on the list—namely, the Order which deals with the Family Pensions Funds. This Order deals with a large sum of money in which a large number of people outside your Lordships' House are very closely interested. The total capital sum involved is something like £12,000,000 sterling; the number of subscribers to the four funds to which I will refer in a moment is very nearly 9,000, while the total number of those who are actually drawing pensions from these funds at the present time is not far short of 3,000. We may therefore assume that there are at least 12,000 persons outside your Lordships' House who are very closely interested in our proceedings this afternoon.
May I, by way of explanation, give your Lordships a very short history of the funds? The funds, as I said, are four in number and are at present in India. Two of the funds refer to the Military Services in India and two to the Civil Services. The earlier of the two military funds was formed in 1873, but was brought to a close so far as new entrants were

407
concerned in 1914 and was succeeded by another military fund which came into existence in 1915. Of the two civil funds the earlier, which was formed in 1881, is the Indian Civil Service Fund, and much more recently—namely, in 1928—another fund was formed for the members of the superior Services in India other than the members of the Indian Civil Service. Those, then, are the four funds which exist in India for providing pensions for the widows and children of the military and civil officers. They have been formed by contributions from the members of the Services themselves, and may therefore rightly be said to be the property of the subscribers.
Now you may ask why it is proposed to make any change in the arrangements in connection with these funds. Some few years ago, when it became evident that a considerable advance was to be made along the road of constitutional reform in India, some of the subscribers to the funds expressed a desire that they might be transferred from India to this country. Since it was the desire of my predecessor as far as possible to meet the wishes of the subscribers themselves, he agreed to consider a plan under which the funds would be transferred to this country. Under the earliest proposals a period varying from fifteen to forty years would have been required before the funds would have been transferred in their entirety to this country. That was regarded by those who were interested as far too long a period, and they asked that the period should be reduced. Those of your Lordships who served on the Joint Select Committee will remember that this matter came before that Committee for its consideration, and that the Committee expressed the opinion that provision should be made for the transfer of the funds in the shortest possible space of time, the period mentioned at that time being twelve years. Since the discussions of that Committee it has been found possible to reduce the period of twelve years very considerably, and in the Act of 1935 it was provided that an Order in Council may be made by His Majesty for the transfer of these funds and that the transfer should be made within a period of three years, the three-year period to begin on March 31 subsequent to the date of the passing of the Act—that is
408
to say, March 31, 1936—the transfer to be completed, therefore, by March 31, 1989.
We have done our best to familiarise the subscribers and the beneficiaries of these funds with the conditions under which the transfer can be made. In the first instance we, circularised every one of them in the year 1933—more than three years ago—informing them of the proposal and asking them to let us know whether they desired that it should be proceeded with. It was made clear to them in that circular that the probability was that, if they transferred their funds to this country, the pensions which they would be able to draw would be somewhat lower than the pensions which they are drawing under the existing scheme, since the rate of interest which was obtainable in this country was appreciably lower than the rate of interest available in India. In spite of that knowledge the majority of those who replied to our circular expressed the desire that the funds should be transferred. We proceeded, therefore, with our scheme, and in the spring of this year we drafted the Order which is before your Lordships to-day and laid it upon the Tables of Parliament so that it could become available to the public. At the same time we circularised all the subscribers once more in April last, giving them all the information that it was possible to give them which would enable them to form an estimate of the change which would be effected in the rates of their pensions if the money were transferred to this country. At the same time we invited their comments upon the draft of the Order which we have laid upon the Tables of the two Houses; and in the draft which is now before your Lordships some alterations have been made to meet, so far as possible, the comments and representations made by the subscribers.
That brings me up to the present time. There is one feature of the Act upon which I must lay stress, because it affects vitally the interests of the subscribers. It provides that in this period of three years ending on March 31, 1939, these funds shall be transferred to this country unless objection is made by any of the s subscribers, so that it is quite clear that unless objections are made, and received by us by March 31 next, the whole of the funds will be transferred by March 31, 1939. Subscribers, however,

409
have the option of retaining their interest in India, and provided that we receive their objections to transfer by-March 31 next their interests will be retained in India, in accordance with the existing arrangements. Your Lordships will see that it is very essential, in those circumstances, that every subscriber and beneficiary should make a reply to the circular which, if you approve of this Order this afternoon, I propose to send out immediately. In this circular I shall give the subscribers the most up-to-date information that it is possible to give them. I propose to enclose with it a franked and addressed postcard, on which I ask them to acknowledge the receipt of the circular, and further I propose to enclose with it a franked and addressed envelope and a printed form which will make it easy for them to say "Yes" or "No" to the proposal whether or not they desire their interests in the funds to be transferred to this country. Over and above that I propose to advertise in all the better-known newspapers. And so I am taking every precaution, I think, that is possible, to see that every subscriber and beneficiary shall decide and make known to us whether he desires his interest to be transferred to this country or whether he desires his interest in the funds to remain in India.
Your Lordships may ask me to let you know briefly how the subscribers would stand in either case. In the case of those who decide to transfer their interest to this country it is obvious, as has already been made clear to them, that in return for the greater security which they expect to receive, as a result of the transfer of their interests to this country, they will inevitably lose something in the rate of their pensions. It will not be possible to let them know exactly what the change in the rates will be until we know how many propose to transfer their interests, and in fact until the funds in this country are established; but a provisional reduction will be essential, and the provisional reduction proposed is as follows. In the case of the Indian Civil Service Fund the pensions will be reduced provisionally to their present permanent rate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: To what rate?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: To their present permanent rate; and I should perhaps explain to your Lordships that
410
the rates of pension have from time to time varied. During the period of high rates of interest which followed the War pensions were considerably increased. Some part of that increase was described as permanent, but some part of it was described as temporary. How would that work in the case of a typical beneficiary under the Indian Civil Service scheme? At the present moment a widow in respect of a pension of £450 per annum would, if she transferred her interest to this country, provisionally lose the temporary part of that pension—namely, £50—so that in her case for the time being her pension would be reduced from £450 to £400 a year. Let me take one other typical case, the case of a military beneficiary, since the conditions of those funds differ in certain respects.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the noble Marquess will allow me to interrupt, but in the case of a widow who elected not to transfer would her pension remain at the equivalent of £450, or would it be reduced to £400?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I will come to that in a moment when I deal with those who propose not to transfer. I am dealing now with those who do transfer. In the case of one of the beneficiaries under the military fund the provisional reduction in pension will be 10 per cent. of the original rate of pension. A typical case is that of a widow drawing at the present time a pension of £150 a year. In that case the original pension was not £150 but £100. She, therefore, will be reduced to the extent of 10 per cent. Of £100—namely, by £10—so that her present pension of £150 will provisionally be reduced to £140. So much for those who propose to transfer their interests to this country.
Then I come to those who decide that they would rather retain their interests in India. It is impossible to say, until we know how many persons will transfer their interests, what precisely will be the position of those who remain in India. If a sufficient number keep their interests in India, it is proposed that the funds should be continued on their present basis; in other words, that rules should be made equivalent to the rules which are in force at the present time. It is quite possible, however, that if a. very large number of persons desire to

411
transfer their interests to this country, there will not be a sufficient number left in India to enable self-contained funds to continue. In those circumstances it is proposed that the Government of India should take over the capital, and should guarantee to the subscribers and beneficiaries pensions at a fixed rate for all time—pensions that will not vary one way or the other, and which will be not less than the permanent pensions now as to the three funds which I mentioned, and not less than the present pensions in the fourth fund which I mentioned—namely, the fund created in very recent times and in which, therefore, the pensions have not yet varied.
I think, my Lords, that covers the ground broadly. There is little that I need say with regard to the actual clauses of the draft. Clauses 2 and 3 really deal with accountancy matters. Clause 4 lays down that there shall be a body of Commissioners to whom the capital shall be transferred. Clause 5 says that each of these bodies—that is to say, the Commissioners who will be in charge of the four separate funds—shall consist of five Commissioners, of whom one shall be the Public Trustee, and that the Secretary of State shall appoint the other four, but in such a way that two of them are, or have been, subscribers to the funds. The next clause of any interest to your Lordships is Clause 10, which deals with the time limits, which I have already explained; and then there is Clause 12, which sets out the range of investments in which the Commissioners shall be entitled to invest the moneys. It has been pointed out that if the funds were restricted to what are strictly trustee investments the present return of interest on the funds would be a very low one, and, in order to some extent to meet that case, we have set forth in Clause 12 the various classes of securities in which the Commissioners shall be entitled to invest the funds.
LORD LAMINGTON: Would the noble Marquess state the respective amounts contributed by the pensioners themselves or their families? I think he said the total gross capital was about £12,000,000.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: In the case of these funds, as I think the noble Lord knows, the money has been entirely
412
contributed by the subscribers themselves, except to the extent to which interest is paid upon the accumulated funds by Government. Interest is paid by Government on the funds as they accumulate, otherwise the contributions are made entirely by the subscribers themselves. Then I come to Clause 17, and here I have to suggest for your Lordships' consideration an Amendment. Clause 17 enables the Secretary of State to make the reductions in the rates of pension to which I have referred. In response to a request by my honourable friend Sir Reginald Craddock in another place on behalf of the subscribers, I agreed to accept an Amendment to this clause which would have the effect of laying upon the Secretary of State a statutory obligation that, in exercising the powers conferred upon him by Clause 17, modifying the amount of the pensions hitherto payable, he should act on the advice given to him by an ac uary.
Of course that really is only carrying on the present practice. It is quite obvious that the Secretary of State would net himself try to assess the value of these funds; he naturally would obtain the advice of an actuary. But I am quite willing to insert that provision in the Order itself, so that the Secretary of State is under statutory obligation to seek the advice of an actuary. If, in addition, the present practice of also employing an actuary to advise the subscribers is continued, as it will be, it will be necessary to insert after Clause 17 a short additional clause to enable that actuary to be paid out of the funds, as is done at present. I think that that really covers the whole of the ground so far as the Pensions Order is concerned, and I beg to move that the Order be taken into consideration.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament on the 3rd instant, and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be now considered.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, no one can feel more than myself my inadequacy in dealing with these most intricate financial points, and it only occurs to me to say on that head that if it is a subject which is extremely difficult for, I will not say myself to

413
understand, but for many of your Lordships to understand, how much worse must it appear to the unfortunate beneficiaries who have to grasp the exact bearing of these financial points, and have to decide what will affect their whole financial future. I hope they will read the speech of my noble friend the Secretary of State because it must be admitted that he was extremely lucid, in so far as the subject permits of lucidity; and if they read him with care and take very expert advice they may arrive at a conclusion as to what is likely to happen.
I hope your Lordships will realise what is involved, and what I think arises out of the figures which my noble friend has been good enough to explain to the House. He took the case of the widow who at present enjoys the equivalent of £450 a year, and he said that if she transfers to this country, at any rate to begin with, she will be reduced to £400 a year. I do not know how those figures affect your Lordships, but to me it seems that the widow has a very formidable choice to make. She has to balance the yield of her investment—for it is an investment in fact—against its security, and it may be every halfpenny that she possesses. She has to decide by March 31 next year, for better or worse, whether she will be content with the loss of a ninth of her whole income. I am sure the Secretary of State has the greatest sympathy with her difficulties; indeed I ought to say at once that in matters of this kind I have always found him, in the negotiations which it has been my duty to engage upon with him, most considerate. But I am sure any member of your Lordships' House would feel this great difficulty of the beneficiaries. They have to decide by this very early date.
Now my noble friend in his speech said that they had their first notice in 1933. 1933! Why, that was before the India Act passed. They had no reason to assume then that Parliament would agree to the provisions of the Act, much less to the minute financial arrangements which were going to follow on the Act. I expect they all said to themselves:
"Well, we had better just wait to see what Parliament decides before we try to master the difficulties of this problem." And I really honestly think, without prejudice to anything else which may be said, that you cannot take any date before
414
the passing of the Act. Until that happened the matter was res integra. Nothing had occurred except the prophecies of His Majesty's Government, which are not always fulfilled, and the expectation of the Government of India. This is not a big point, because I admit there has been a considerable interval since the passing of the Act itself, but still you must at any rate reduce it by that amount, and they have to arrive at this conclusion.
Now the first question that must occur to any of your Lordships to ask is: Why must they necessarily decide by March 31 of next year? My noble friend has given the answer. He says, in effect, that it was so provided under the Act. Is that not so?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes, it is provided under the Act that the transfer of the Fund must be made between March 31, 1936, and March 31, 1939—that is, in three years.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I should put it in the form of a question to my noble friend. Is there anything in the Act of Parliament which makes it essential that these beneficiaries should decide before April 1 next year because, if there is not anything in the Act of Parliament, then I venture to think that the matter is still within the competence of His Majesty's Government—even without fresh legislation, which is always possible in case of necessity—to reconsider the point. I think it would be only fair that they should consider the point again. There was another observation which arose in my mind from the speech of my noble friend. He said he could not decide—I think it was in the case of the beneficiaries who elect to have their money left in India—how much they would be entitled to until he knew the number of those who were going to transfer their pensions to England. Is that fair?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? That was not what I said.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg pardon.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I said that until we knew how many were going to transfer their interests to England we

415
could not tell whether we should continue to maintain funds in India or whether the Government of India would have to guarantee the pensions out of the revenues of India.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope I shall be at once corrected, but I understand that it would follow that if, in the event, there were so few left with their pensions payable in India that the Government of India had to fall back on the other method—namely, a fixed pension—that would, or might, easily involve a loss of income to those who keep their pensions in India. That is what I understand. Whereas if there were a large number who did not transfer, and in consequence it might be actuarially possible to give higher pensions to those who elect to keep their pensions in India, yet, because other people with whom they have nothing whatever to do transfer their pensions to this country, therefore they must be content to receive something less than they otherwise would receive. That is unfair. I think it is very hard that, because certain people transfer their pensions to England, other persons, totally different persons, who keep their pensions in India are to suffer for it.
May I say upon this whole subject that I sometimes think that the Government of India, and I suppose His Majesty's Government, approach this subject from the wrong point of view? I should have said that in a case of this kind, as is generally the practice in this country where there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the individual beneficiaries. When you are making a vast change—I think my noble friend called it a modification or some such very respectful and gentle phrase—and it follows as a consequence that certain individuals are financially worse off, then this great country might put its hand into its pocket and make good the difference. That, I should have said, would have been the ordinary practice in almost every conjuncture when we are dealing as between the State and the individuals. Where the individuals complain that they are hardly treated, then the State should say: "Oh, well, we admit there is a hardship, and of course we will make it good to you." I should suggest that that is the more becoming attitude to adopt. I know quite well, of course, that my noble friend is responsible
416
for the finances of India just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for the finances of this country, and he cannot play fast and loose with them as if they were his own. He is obliged to consider the interests of the taxpayer in every case. But I come back to my point that by our practice, when an issue lies between the State and an individual, it is usual for the State to say: "As there is a doubt about it, or as there is extreme hardship, we make it good." That would have been the better way to approach this subject.
Beyond that I have no criticism to make, but I want to ask a question. I understand that when this part of the fund is by the wish of the beneficiaries transferred to this country, then it is vested in the hands of certain Commissioners, and these Commissioners, I suppose, themselves invest it in one of the list of securities contained in the Order. Does that mean that all the pensioners are to rise or fall together? That is to say, if the Commissioners make a rather better bargain in England, does that mean a rise in pensions all round, and if they make a worse bargain that the pensions will be lowered? If that is the case, then is there a vista of varying pensions? As the money market varies in this country, as the Commissioners make better or worse use of the fund, will the pensions vary? Is that how it will work? I hope my noble friend will for give me for most inadequately putting these questions. If that follows then the further question arises: Upon what principle has the list of investments been drawn within which the Commissioners are confined? My noble friend said in his speech that they were ordinary trust investments.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I we s quite sure that I had misheard him.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: That is precisely what I did not say. I said that if the Commissioners were restricted to the rigid trustee stocks the rate of interest would obviously be very low, and it was for that reason that the Commissioners had been given greater liberty in their investments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So that they may use the money considerably outside the ordinary limitations of trustee investments? Is that so?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged to my noble friend. That is very satisfactory. We may trust the Commissioners to be very careful in what they do. While they are allowed to act outside the ordinary limits of trustee investments, we may be satisfied that they will not risk the money. But supposing there was a loss then the rate of pensions over the whole number of pensioners would thereby be reduced—is that. not so?—but not, I think my noble friend said, below a certain minimum, which he called the permanent pension standard. I hope I have not imposed upon your Lordships too much with these figures, but I think I have said enough to show your Lordships what a very intricate and complicated subject this is. To revert to my original point, that it is a little difficult to expect the unfortunate widow to find her way through these intricacies, if my noble friend will assure us that he will do his very utmost to see that these unfortunate people are treated as well as possible, why then there will be nothing more to be said.
Without desiring to be in the least aggressive, I may say that they did not ask Parliament to pass the Government of India Act. They were quite content in the old days. They were paid by the Indian Exchequer, it is quite true, at this higher rate, but it was quite certain that there would be no default from the Indian Exchequer. They knew it was in the hands and under the shield of the British Government. Now they do not know that. They are apprehensive; let us, in order to be quite fair, perhaps say quite unduly apprehensive; but they are apprehensive and they say to your Lordships: "May we not have a little longer time to decide this difficulty? If you are not absolutely controlled by the Act of Parliament, may we not have a little imager time in which to come to this decision which may involve us in the loss perhaps of one-ninth of our whole income? "I think your Lordships at any rate will receive their plea with consideration and indeed with sympathy.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, may I express my thanks to the
418
noble Marquess for what he has said with regard to this matter. I know that ho feels very strongly the difficulty of the position of these persons, and he has put to me one or two questions. Let me take the last of his questions first, which was, on what principle were the Commissioners to deal with these funds which had to be transferred to their custody? The Commissioners will deal with these funds on precisely the same principles that any trustee does with any funds of which he is a trustee except that in this case, as I pointed out and as the noble Marquess will find in Clause 12 of the Order, they are given a rather wider range of investment than is the case in some of the more restricted trustee deeds.
Then the noble Marquess suggested that as a result of this scheme those who decided to retain their interest in India might lose. Let me take this opportunity at once of correcting that impression. It is not so at all. If the number who retain their interest in India is large enough to continue these funds on a self-contained basis, the funds will continue under precisely the same rules as are administered at the present time and the position, therefore, in those circumstances of the subscribers and beneficiaries will be neither better nor worse than it is now. Even at the present time if rates of interest in India go down the pensions vary, just as the pensions have gone up when the rates of interest have gone up. What I did say, and this surely is a guarantee to those who decide to retain their interest in India, was this, that if the number who decided to retain their interest in India was not sufficient to enable us to continue the funds as self-contained funds, then the Government of India themselves would guarantee the pensions and that the rate at which they would be guaranteed would be not less than the rate of permanent pensions in India at the present time. I hope I have made that point clear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I did say was that this permanent basis might be lower than the rate they may have got had they been lucky enough to persuade the other beneficiaries to keep their funds in India.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: That is where the noble Marquess, if I may

419
say so again, is incorrect. The number that will transfer from India to this country will have no effect upon the position in India. Then the noble Marquess pleaded for further time for these persons to decide, and he asked how these unfortunate people were to master the figures with which we have been dealing this afternoon. I can reassure the noble Marquess that in this circular which I propose to send to every subscriber there will be a detailed table setting out in each case, as far as it is possible without knowing precisely what the future holds in store for us in the way of rates of interest, what their position is likely to be either in the case of their retaining their interest in India or in the case of their transferring it to this country.
Moreover, those figures provisionally were sent to every subscriber in April, 1936, so that far from their having to decide, as the noble Marquess said, in a few months, they really will have had the whole case, as far as it is possible to put it before them before the actual transfer is made, in front of them for a year, and surely if they are not prepared to come to a decision in a year what reason have we to suppose they would come to a decision in eighteen months? There are a good many persons who are pressing us and have pressed us all the time very strongly to reduce the period during which the transfer of the funds is to be made to the shortest time possible, and it really is in response to their desires that the three years was decided on in the Act. I think that covers the point raised by the noble Marquess. I appreciate how strongly he feels on behalf of these people, but I can assure him that both my predecessor and I feel for them just as much. All that we have been trying to do to the best of our ability is, so far as it is possible to do so, to meet the wishes which they themselves have expressed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
In paragraph 17, page 5, lines 28 to 30, leave out ("from time to time make such alterations in any pension payable out of the said funds as may in his opinion be reasonably necessary in consequence of the transfers") and insert ("having obtained from an actuary a report on any of the
420
funds, make such alterations in any pensions payable out of that fund as may appear to him after consideration of the report to be reasonably necessary in consequence of the transfer of that fund").(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that the next Amendment on the Paper be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, after paragraph 17, insert the following new paragraph (with a consequential renumbering of the succeeding paragraphs)—
("18. The fees of an actuary appointed as any time with the approval of the Secretary of State to make a report to the subscribers to, or beneficiaries under, any fund with respect to the position of that fund may to such extent as the Secretary of State deems proper be paid out of that fund)."—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
Oh Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Order, as amended, be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament on the 3rd instant a id reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved as amended.—(The Marquess Of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (FEDERAL COURT) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I do not think I need trouble you with very much explanation of this Order. The purpose of the Order is to bring into operation that part of the Act of 1935 which provides for the setting up of a Federal Court, and the date on which we propose that the Federal Court should be established is October 1, 1937. It may be that your Lordships will ask why it is necessary to establish a Federal Court before the Federation itself comes into existence. The reason that under the Act the Federal Court charged with the interpretation of the Constitution and with deciding questions between the Provinces, which will come into existence on April 1 next, and the Central Government as it will exist during the transitional period between the coming into operation of Provincial

421
Autonomy and the eventual establishment of the Federation itself. Therefore it is necessary, within a reasonable time of the coming into operation of Provincial Autonomy, that there should be a Federal Court in existence to deal with questions of that kind.
There are only one or two points in connection with the actual clauses of the Order to which I need refer. If your Lordships will look at Clause 3 you will see that the provisions of Chapter I of Part IX of the Act, other than the provisions of Sections 206 and 215, shall come into force on October 1, 1937. The first of those two provisions which are excepted deals with the power which the Federal Legislative will have, if it thinks fit, to establish a Supreme Court—conferring, that is to say, upon the Federal Court the powers of a Supreme Court. Since the Federal Legislature will not come into existence until the Federation is inaugurated that particular proposal cannot be brought into operation now. Section 215 deals with a similar matter and confers on the Federal Legislature certain powers of bestowing upon the Federal Court supplementary jurisdiction. There again, since that cannot be done until the Federal Legislature comes into existence, that section cannot be brought into operation now. We do not propose, of course, at the beginning to establish a Federal Court at full strength. What we propose to do is to establish a Court on October 1 next consisting of a Chief Justice and two Judges. Provision is made in this Order for the pay of the judges and for the pay and pension of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will receive pay of 7,000 rupees a month and the other Judges 5,500 rupees a month. That compares with pay of 6,000 rupees a month in the case of the Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta and 4,000 rupees a month in the case of the High Court Judges in the various High Courts throughout India. I think that is all I need say on this Order, and I beg to move that it be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and. Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be considered and approved.—(The Marquess of Zeeland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, this Order is merely to give effect under the new Constitution to the existing arrangement in connection with the Auditor-General of India and the Auditor of Indian Home Accounts I beg to move that it be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be considered and approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOVER NORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, this Order is to provide for the allowances and privileges of the Governors of the different Provinces, and it embodies substantially the arrangements so far as these allowances are concerned which exist at the present time. The only change of any importance under this new Order is that the Governors will be entitled to Customs privileges corresponding to the privileges we grant to the representatives of foreign countries over here. I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be considered and approved.—(The Marquess of Zeeland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (FEDERAL LEGISLATURE AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, the object of this Order is merely to correct two errors which occur in the description and statement of the population of the Indian States which will be found in Division xvii of Part II of the First Schedule of the Government of India Act. It is little more than a clerical amendment and I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee

423
on Thursday last, be considered and approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES) (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, in the case of this Order I shall have to move two small Amendments to correct clerical errors. The object of the Order is, firstly, to prevent the members of the Advisory Councils of the Provinces of Sind and Orissa, the two new Provinces, from being disabled from standing for election under the new Constitution. They hold offices of profit under the Crown and technically unless this Order is passed they would be disabled. It was never the intention that they should be disabled, but that they should be on the same footing as the other Ministers in the other and older Provinces of India. The second part of the Order is merely to restrict the extent of the costs which the Commissioners who hear an election petition can recommend should be paid by the petitioners. The Amendment is merely to correct a clerical error. I beg to move that the Order be now considered.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be now considered.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move the drafting Amendments which are on the Paper.
Amendments moved—
In paragraph 4, page 2, line 5, after ("paragraph eight") insert ("of Part III").
In paragraph 4, page 2, line 23, after ("paragraph eight") insert ("of Part III").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, now I beg to move that the Draft Order be approved as amended.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved as amended.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (DEFENCE APPOINTMENTS) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, the object of this Order is to enumerate certain high military offices which shall be filled by the Crown inst3ad of by the Government of India. It regularises what is substantially the present position. I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee of Thursday last, be considered and approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, this Order merely does for separated Burma what the equivalent Order does for India. I beg to move that it be now considered.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Order Committee or Thursday last, be now considered.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, the Amendment on the Paper is merely to correct a clerical error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In the third recital, page 1, line 26, leave out ("1937") and insert ("1936").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order, as amended, be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved as amended.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (GOVERNOR'S SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, this Order is substantially drafted

425
on the lines of the similar India Order, but in the case of Burma it deals with the Governor's salary as well as with his allowances. The Governor's salary is to be fixed at the same rate as the salaries of the Presidency Governors in India. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be considered and approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (LEGISLATURE) (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, this Order is to effect the same purpose with regard to restricting the cost to be imposed upon petitioners presenting election petitions as is done in the corresponding Indian Order. It also corrects a misstatement of the qualification in respect of Income Tax of a Senator in Burma which was entered in an earlier Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be considered and approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (DEFENCE APPOINTMENTS) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, this corresponds with a similar Indian Order, and there is only one appointment in this case—namely, that of the General Officer Commanding in Burma. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be considered and approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS) (No.2) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I think this Order has been put
426
down last on the list because for the first time the India and Burma Orders Committee are able to report that it is in accordance with precedent. It follows an earlier Order and brings Section 199 into force on April 1, 1937. That section provides, firstly, for the appointment of the Government representatives on the railways by the Governor-General. Secondly, it provides that the Budget for next year, which will be produced, in accordance with the ordinary custom in India, early in the year, shall be presented in the form which it would have taken if it had been presented after April 1, when Provincial Autonomy will have come into operation. I hope I have made it clear to your Lordships that, since it will have to be dealt with in that form, it is very desirable that it should be introduced into the Legislative Assembly and considered by them in that form. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on Thursday last, be considered and approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPAIN.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL rose to ask His Majesty's Government to state what information they have with regard to the present situation in Spain; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, since the Question which stands in my name was placed upon the Order Paper, the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Spain has been in part elucidated by a statement of the Secretary of State, but there remains some obscurity on several essential points, and as the situation changes from day to day and there is general anxiety concerning the situation in Spain, the Question may nevertheless serve the double purpose of enabling His Majesty's Government to give any further explanation that they may desire to make, and also perhaps of creating an atmosphere in which possibly peace may grow.
I regret that other urgent public duties will prevent me from speaking at any length in support of this Question, and therefore I beg more or less formally to ask one or two questions. The whole thing seems to resolve itself

427
into our responsibility to try to assist peace and to prevent the war from spreading to other lands and especially to our own. The problem is whether we can make any contribution to the cause of peace, and if not, and if war must go on, whether we can help to secure neutrality in regard to the combatants and make it a reality instead of the sham that it is at the present time. That is really the criticism that we specially desire to make. I have certain other questions which I should like to ask the Government, and one of them concerns the supply of arms: Have His Majesty's Government any further information respecting the supply of arms from outside to either of the contending parties in Spain? Do they intend to give to General Franco the right of search upon the high seas at his will? And do they propose to concede to the rebels belligerent rights?
I only have time, in support of those questions, to say that it seems clear to us, without the information that the Government, of course, has at their disposal, that the rebels have received support in money, in arms, in men and in diplomatic pressure, from sources outside Spain. It may be established, too, that the Government of Spain has also received outside support. Into that I cannot go. I will only just state in a word the policy of the Labour Party in this respect. Non-intervention is not its policy; it is a policy for which the Government themselves are responsible. But we do say that, if non-intervention is to be our policy, it should be non-intervention in a real sense and that one side of this terrible struggle should not be receiving support from all kinds of people and nations while the other, which, after all, is the legitimate Government of Spain, is placed at a great disadvantage. I am no Communist in social philosophy, and I am equally not a Fascist, but I do feel that the legal Government of Spain has been receiving very bad and shabby treatment during the whole of this desperate struggle.
Spain has never menaced any interest of ours. It pleases those who are supporting the rebel cause in other countries and in our own to say that it is a fight against Communism; but, my Lords, the Government of Spain is not a Communist Government. It is a composite Government made up of Syndicalists, Anarchists
428
and others, and certainly is not—as we understand it at least—a Socialist Government. But whatever it is, it is the legal Government of the country, and it has been attacked shamefully, as we believe, as the result of a carefully-designed and long conspiracy on the part of people whom I have not time to-night to mention. I put those questions formally to His Majesty's Government in the hope that they may be able to help us with further information upon specific points. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, before a reply is made from the Front Bench opposite, I would say just a few words on the situation as it strikes me. It has always been found that when internal disputes and struggles have taken place in other countries the citizens of this country have shown warm sympathy with one side or the other. I can hardly remember a case in which that has not existed. My recollection goes back to the days when I was a schoolboy, and when the rising of the Commune in Paris, and its merciless repression, were in everybody's mind. It so happened that my tutor at school, who was a man of very marked ability and of strong character, was an ardent sympathiser with the Paris Commune. So much so that on one summer's evening he got an escaped Communard to come down and give to the boys an account of his experiences during those terrible days in Paris. Unluckily, as it turned out, the poor gentleman was unable even in his own language to give any kind of coherent account of his experiences in Paris, and had it not been for the excellent supper which we all enjoyed, none I am sure more than the poor Frenchman, the whole business would have proved a complete fiasco. Then a few years later, at the time of what were described as the Bulgarian atrocities, we know that strong feelings were shown on both sides, some being most unwilling to say hard things of the Turks, who were our old friends, and others with equally strong feelings of horror at the crimes perpetrated in Bulgaria by the Bashibazouks.
Now a civil war is taking place in Spain. It can hardly be described, I think, as anything but a civil war, in spite of what the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench has said in describing it as an outbreak against an

429
organised Government. It is not, I think, quite correct to speak of the Government at Madrid as an organised Government in the sense in which that phrase is usually understood, but it is a Government, and it is fighting on its own lines for what it believes to be right. I must say that I am in no way in the position of taking either side on this occasion. I do not find it possible to feel any emotion of satisfaction when one side or the other has gained an advantage. Terrible events, as we know—I hope largely exaggerated, in a way, by the popular Press—have taken place, and so far as one can judge both sides have been guilty of those barbarities. So far, therefore, it seems to me that His Majesty's Government have taken the only possible course in refusing to offer their countenance—I will not say support—but their countenance to one side or the other in the sense of admitting their belligerent rights.
How far it is possible for the Government to maintain that attitude I have no information which enables me to predict. It seems to me that the gravest danger will arise at sea. There must be some fear of some incident in connection with British ships which might bring about the kind of interference which I am certain His Majesty's Government are most unwilling to undertake in any respect; but they have all the information and we have none. All that one can say is that I trust the Government will lose no opportunity of trying to impress on both sides the necessity of conducting this struggle in a more humane and less barbarous manner, if whichever side wins is to obtain the good will not only of this country but of the civilised world. I noticed the other day that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that he looked forward to the time when we should achieve a real measure of friendship with whatever Government of Spain comes into being when hostilities are ended. I fervently hope so also, but any sentiment of that kind which can be entertained by this country must depend upon a complete change of attitude and practice on the part of those who are to become the Government in Spain. I have nothing further to say, but I only hope that His Majesty's Government, who are deeply concerned, as I know, at this terrible business, will do all that they can to assist in bringing
430
about the happy result which it is terribly difficult to foresee at this moment.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I had no intention of speaking at all when I came down to this House, but I am bound to say, having heard the speech of the noble Lord opposite, who is invariably extremely moderate in his utterances, that I am afraid he has created a rather unfortunate impression. What the noble Lord desires us to believe, and no doubt believes himself, is that the present Government in Madrid is composed of persons like himself. Well, I think that if the noble Lord were in Spain at the present moment he would probably be classed as an opponent of the Government, and might possibly suffer the fate that has attended so many other harmless persons. He has represented in his speech that the present Government is a sort of respectable, quiet, weak body, which has been wantonly attacked by the people whom he describes as rebels; and there are other people in the country whom he describes as members of a purely military movement. Well, I venture to assert that it is nothing of the kind. To begin with, the Madrid Government is totally different from what the noble Lord wishes us to imagine, and the position in Spain is really this, that people—not the military, but vast numbers of persons in the country—have revolted at the idea of turning Spain into a Bolshevist State. Every class has joined in this movement, and I believe I am correct in saying that the opponents of the Government number something like ten millions, that is to say, half the population of the country. To represent this as a mere military conspiracy against the Government is, to my mind, to talk nonsense.
The noble Lord also endeavoured to convey the impression that the scales were unduly weighted on behalf of the so-called rebel party, and that they were being helped by powerful outside countries. He glided over the fact that the Government which originally intervened in the case was the Soviet Government, and that it intervened with much greater effect than any other. In fact, the whole story of this deplorable business is that it is the result of the action of the Soviet Government itself. Perhaps it is not a matter of vital importance to us whether Spain is

431
governed by a Soviet or by a Fascist Government, except that if the present Government eventually win, the property of every British subject and every British company in Spain will immediately be confiscated. That may be a contingency which is not considered very seriously, but that I think is bound to be the ultimate result. I agree absolutely with what the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said, that in this case the only thing that we can do is to keep clear of the whole business. We do not desire the success of one side more than the other, but the essential thing is that we should not be mixed up in it. For that reason I hope that the Government will persevere in the course which they have adopted, resolutely decline to be drawn into the contest themselves, and also do their utmost to prevent other outside Powers taking part in it as well.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Snell, in opening this debate, distinguished himself as usual by his anxiety to be helpful, and he has invited contributions in this debate that might be helpful. He spoke of "rebels" and "legitimate Government of Spain," and on both occasions he did so only in such a manner as was calculated to invite discussion. After very careful thought and consultation with others I beg to suggest to your Lordships that neither of the groups of belligerents in Spain is a legitimate Government. The proposition may be startling, but I am confident that on purely legal grounds I could carry the majority of this House with me on that point. There has been a rebellion in Spain against what at the time was the legitimate constitutional Government. That rebellion has become a revolution. Whether or not, and when, the insurgents should be recognised as belligerents is a question of fact, and judgment on the facts can only be attempted by His Majesty's Government when full information is available. I am in complete sympathy with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in his warning as to the importance of not appearing to take sides, and I hope that nothing that I may say will be interpreted as showing any sympathy with either group of belligerents.
However much one may differ from Mr. de Valera, the President of the Irish Free State, he has made a valuable contribution to the study of Constitutional Law in
432
a terse pronouncement which was published in that greatest of the world's newspapers, The Times. He has indicated—and no one is in a better position than he to form on opinion—when it is that democracy breaks down. My thesis is to show that in Spain democracy has broken down. In the speech to which I refer Mr. de Valera puts forward the proposition that when in a democracy, as the result of a legally conducted election because of abstentions at the polls or otherwise, a majority has resulted in a House that makes and unmakes Ministries, which majority, whilst representing the majority of electors who voted, is far from representing the majority of the people, and when at the same time the Army is with the majority of the electors and not of those representatives, then—according to Mr. de Valera—democracy breaks down. It is to be added that the Church in Spain has been very militant on the same side as the Army; and that with this additional factor, the breakdown of democracy is the more glaringly inevitable.
In these circumstances the question arises whether the breakdown of democracy in Spain has reached a stage at which neither of the groups of belligerents can claim sovereignty in the constitutional sense of the word and in the name of the people of Spain. The recognition of belligerency is very different from the recognition of sovereignty. The Spanish insurgents at the outset were rebels. They have now established the position of belligerents; but they have not established a successful revolution with a claim to sovereignty.
When we turn to the group of belligerents who have been alluded to by the noble Lord opposite as "the Government," I say that they also are technically rebels—I do not use the word disrespectfully. They are rebels against their own Constitution. The Republic was legitimately established. In the same way as the other group of belligerents cannot claim a mandate, as constitutionally expressed, so those now in charge at Madrid cannot claim succession from the Constitution of Spain as established under the Republic, which was at one time legitimate. And for this reason: Emerging from the majority of the Assembly in Spain that made and unmade Ministries, a Ministry was formed under the control of the extreme Left, but which

433
was an attempt organised by the head of the State to introduce therein some quasi-moderate elements so as to constitute a workable Government. Against that composite Ministry, which was legitimate, there was a political rebellion inside the Ministry and inside the Chamber, and that rebellion displaced the legitimate Government of Spain.
That displacement was accompanied by political assassinations and other aberrations from constitutional government, and broke altogether the nexus of the Government with the sovereignty of the people. I have used the word "sovereignty" in the narrow legal sense in which we talk of the political sovereignty, for example, of the States of Australia in relation to the Federation. The claim the present Government of Madrid is that Spain has already divided itself into a collection of governing bodies, regional groups—Catalonia, the Basque Provinces, and we hear to-day also of Valencia. Once a Government which was the Government of the whole of Spain admits it is no longer the Government of Spain, but has some nexus with a loose federation of various groups, it has abandoned or surrendered any support from the Constitution of a unified Spain under which it was set up. If it is not a collection of legal rebels, it is a collection of people who have surrendered their legal position altogether and are merely clutching at a straw by asserting some connection with a undefined and loose federation. That is undoubtedly the legal position. That cannot be contradicted from any legal or constitutional point of view.
As to facts, once the Prime Minister of Spain, whether appointed by the head of the State or whether he obtained office by force, left Madrid, those who took office could not produce any constitutional nexus with any written Constitution. It is difficult to find a parallel in history. The best I can remember is when King James II of England left London and is alleged to have dropped the Great Seal in the sea on his way to a foreign country. Sovereignty is not merely a question of succession based on hereditary right. The sovereignty of the people is translated into something tangible by votes legitimately collected, but very often ineffective when there is no compulsory voting, as there is in Australia, which
434
is the one true democracy that the human race has so far developed. Sovereignty based on paper charters or sovereignty based on hereditary right is not to be recognised as effective or treated as continuous when de facto it is not concurrent with the accepted definition of sovereignty—that is, the absence of obedience to a foreign authority. I am not going into that question, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, made a good point in suggesting that there are grounds for challenging the independence of the present Government of Madrid because of obedience to outside authority, whether that obedience be habitual or not.
There is one point which the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, brought out which makes me remember that there has been interference on the part of England in similar difficulties as, for instance, when the merchants in the City of London raised troops to support the claims of Isabella to the Throne of Spain—a very regrettable page in our history and in the history of Spain, which drew attention to the necessity of having the Foreign Enlistment Act. It is greatly to be regretted that there are reports of an expedition from Southern Ireland, but I hope that it is so small in numbers and in importance that His Majesty's Government will be able to neglect it. I beg leave to join with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in congratulating His Majesty's Government on the very correct and successful attitude they have up to now preserved in this most difficult complication; and in conclusion I would ask my noble friends opposite to join with me in holding that if there is delay in recognising either party as belligerents, or if there is delay in recognising the claim of one party or the other to be regarded as the legitimate Government of Spain, that delay, whether on the one side or the other, is amply justified by the legal complications of the position.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to convey to his noble friend Lord Snell my deep disappointment with Lord Snell. The noble Lord usually expounds with great moderation the policy of his Party, but on this occasion he has not done so. The policy of his Party is that, while this country should forbid arms to go to what I would call the Nationalist forces in Spain, they

435
should allow arms to go to the Madrid Government. That has been laid down, but there is not a word of it in the noble Lord's speech to-night. I do not know whether the atmosphere of this place has exercised so potent an effect on him that he was unable to state the policy of his Party clearly, but he certainly did not state it.
I should like to take up the question which was implied by the repeated descriptions by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, of one of the combatant parties in Spain as "rebels." We all, I think, recognise that insurrection is wrong in principle, but are there never to be any exceptions? If there are never to be any exceptions, why that is very good news for Herr Hitler, who has been confirmed in his position by an enormous majority of the plebescite of the German people. And now, if that view is to be taken, he may be quite reassured as to any action of the British Labour Party and will know that they will help him to get supplies of arms if he has any sort of trouble with any section of his own people. But on the other hand, are there never to be any exceptions? In the seventeenth century there was a high political and theological school that said there should be none. That, I thought, had been completely repudiated since, and I should have thought that at any rate the great body of English public opinion would have supported the rebellion in retrospect against both Charles I and James II.
But is it now to be said that a majority is to have the benefit of a doctrine of passive opinion which a monarch could not have? That would be a strange doctrine indeed, and I wonder if there is any noble Lord opposite who will confirm it; but if not, and if there are to be exceptions, I cannot conceive any better cause for rising against a de facto Government than when you see it forcing your country into the bottomless Russian pit. The elections in Spain gave the Government a small majority in seats though not in votes, but there is the most abundant evidence that that Government never governed. I could quote one eye-witness after another—Professor Peers, a man of the most rigid neutrality, Mr. Loveday, formerly Chairman of the British Chamber of Commerce in Barcelona, Mr. Caplan, in his letters to The Times
436
newspaper, and the Spanish Liberal, who was given full print by that paper, and who wrote under the name of "Castilian." It was perfectly proved that no public order was kept. One hundred and seventy churches and many clubs and rallying places for political opponents were burned. Passes to travel about the country were not signed by Government officials, but by the secretaries or agents of revolutionary clubs. That went on for months, and it culminated in the murder of a political leader by uniformed Police, or at any rate, regular police in a prison van. If I could conceive myself as Commissioner of Police of this Metropolis, I assure your Lordships in all earnestness and sincerity I should never dream of disposing of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in any such fashion, but that is what this eminent Government did.
I wish to turn from that to another, a kindred subject. Some people put the blame for the insurrection upon the Church. No doubt the leaders of the Church in Spain do take the side of the Nationalist forces. It is very natural if a conflict breaks out in your country that you should wish for the success of the people who will not cut your throat rather than of those who will, but there is no evidence whatever that the action of the Generals was instigated by that of the leaders of the Church, though I should blame them very little under the circumstances if it had been. It is quite false to suppose that the insurgent forces are all animated by a burning spirit of Catholicism. They are not. They are composed, as my noble friend below me said, of all kinds of elements. They are not all Catholics; they are not all Monarchists; they are not all Fascists. I am told that one or two of the leading Generals actually belong to the Grand Orient Order which is incompatible with Catholicism. What they are united in is the desire to save their country from the fate that has befallen Russia, and that is all.
I know there is some difficulty in arguing about Spain, and where any interest of the Church in Spain is concerned, and that for several reasons. In the first place the same religion may be presented very differently in different countries according to the race and mentality prevailing in the country, and no doubt Englishmen will find a more congenial presentment

437
of the same religion in, let us say, the Rhineland or Central Switzerland, or Oberammergau than in Spain. It is the tradition of Philip the Second, the Armada, Westward Ho, and all that which comes to people's minds when they are not conscious of it. There is a third point, and that is that it is very difficult to convey to ordinary English people, what is an undoubted fact to those who have studied it, that just as in Russia so in the Latin countries, there are many large sections which lave a real burning hatred of Christianity and which would make very short work of any other form of Christianity if it stood up against them.
All these causes make it difficult with regard to Spain above all other countries to put a case before an English audience, and that accounts, I suppose, for the extraordinary illusion which prevails that the Church in Spain retained its power and privileges up to the Republican rising of 1931. The truth is that the Church has not been a dominant factor in Spanish politics for at least one hundred years. The whole of the Church property was confiscated in 1836, and after much controversy and trouble a Concordat was established in 1852. Under that Concordat, in place of the confiscated lands, allowances were doled out by the Government. Now the Primate under that settlement got something over £1,800 a year, but the parish priest got £22 and no more. I quote that on the authority of a Liberal writer, Mr. Butler Clark I think the name was, who wrote in a Cambridge series. I have every sympathy with the incumbents of the Church of England who have suffered under the Tithe Act. I think the poorer ones have had in some cases hard measure, but to have expected one of them, even if unmarried, to live on this pittance would have aroused a storm of indignation.
Then with regard to education, why put the blame in Spain for the lack of education on the Church alone? What was the State doing all these years? If the State could pass a measure of dis-endowment, why could it not have passed a measure for education? The Church would not have had the power to oppose them. As a matter of fact, such education as there was was done by the Church. On the authority of the correspondent of The Times whose message
438
had not been censored there were 90,000 children of school age in Madrid; 50,000 were educated in Church schools and 40,000 had no schools to go to. The Government of Madrid came in and shut up those schools for 50,000 children, so then there were 90,000 without education. What I suppose can be alleged is that the Church could not cover the whole ground and no doubt they would have opposed proposals for purely secular education. Just those two points are the very things that have been alleged, and with like injustice, in the past against the Church of England.
Now I have to say one or two things which I very much regret about the utterances of certain most reverend and right reverend Prelates on this whole question. I am not referring to the most reverend Primate. He has said what I should have expected him to say, and I deeply regret that through a misconception he has been unjustly attacked by the Osservatore Romano. I am afraid I cannot say the like of his brother the most reverend Prelate the Archbishop of York. He, speaking at a diocesan meeting, dwelt at length on the situation in Spain in a tone of cold detachment, and it is deplorable that throughout there was not one word of Christian sympathy for the thousands of priests and religious women who have lost their lives often under most atrocious conditions for no other reason than their witness to that Christianity the fundamentals of which are professed both in Toledo and York. Having said so much I feel bound just to add that I received this morning a letter from the most reverend Prelate, very courteously expressed, in which he regretted that he was unable to be here to-night. He said in that letter that he had prima facie evidence that at least three Spanish Protestant pastors with their families had been murdered by members or adherents of the Nationalist forces in Spain. I trust that he has been misinformed. I will of course try to get this prima facie charge sent to the proper quarter if it has not already gone there. If there be any kind of truth in it it deserves of course exactly the same condemnation as would be the case on the other side. It seems most difficult to believe because Protestantism is just as incompatible with Bolshevism as Catholicism, but if through some strange misguided fury in the Nationalist forces

439
they did commit such acts they could not have done a worse disservice to their country or their faith.
LORD STRABOLGI: Probably the Moors did it.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Well, the matter must be looked into, of course. I am speaking generally. In so far as the Nationalist forces have committed outrages—if they have and in so far as they have—equal reprobation should fall upon them, because neither in this nor in anything else does the end justify the means. But I have seen no evidence either in degree or extent comparable to what has been done on the other side. I am not going to stand here and harrow your Lordships with particular stories, though I could. I will point to two matters only. The first is the broadcast—I suppose the official broadcast, anyhow the broadcast from the people in actual power at Barcelona-which—called for the extermination of all clerics and Fascists by name. The other is the statement in the uncensored correspondence to The Times that a few weeks ago it was enough in Madrid to be either in Holy Orders or to bear the name of nobleman to ensure your nocturnal murder by the secret committees. There is nothing whatever on the other side at all comparable to that.
I will not say anything about the issue of the conflict or ultimate aims. In the extreme difficulties of the international situation I recognise that our Government must maintain strict neutrality. I would only utter a word of warning, if I may venture to do so, lest in this as in other matters their very natural wish to co-operate with France should not drive them further than they will. As for the Nationalist forces and what they may do if they succeed, well I love the form of Government neither in Italy nor in Germany, and I trust that a reasonable Constitution may in the end emerge; but for the moment, in this struggle as regards the issue between them and their enemies, I say that they are lighting the battle of righteousness at least as much as the Northern forces in America whom Our grandfathers supported and acclaimed.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not propose to follow my noble friend into an elaborate discussion as to the rights and wrongs of the Church to which he belongs. I have
440
not the information to do it and there evidently are grave objections to any attempt of that kind. I will only say that his account of it is not the same as that which has reached me. Beyond t hat I will not go. I rise for two reasons. In the first place I am not quite sure that it has been sufficiently emphasised in this House what a deep feeling of horror exists in this country at the continuance of this war with its extraordinarily bloodthirsty characteristics. I do not know how far that extends, it is impossible to say, but I know as a fact how very deeply it is felt and how earnestly a section at any rate of my fellow countrymen hope that some means may be found of bringing it to a conclusion. I know the difficulties, and I Lope I shall not say anything which will add to the difficulties which the Government have to face.
Primarily no doubt this was a domestic Spanish question. My noble friend has discussed the ethics of rebellion. I do not propose to do that. I thought that everybody was agreed that there were cases in which rebellion was justified, and that everybody also agreed that those cases were extremely rare, and that one condition certainly of justifiable rebellion was the prospect of rapid and immediate success. The horror consequent upon rebellion is so great and so terrible that no one has a right to enter upon rebellion unless he has every reason to believe that he will quickly be able to succeed in his object. I thought that that also was a generally recognised Proposition. Judged by that test I cannot see how this rebellion is justified.
My noble friend Lord Newton, having I suppose been reading very assiduously the publications of the noble Viscount, Lord Rothermere, regards it as entirely a question between Communism and Fascism. I am afraid I do not agree with that. It is entirely a different account from that which has reached me. The account which has reached me from apparently reputable and authoritative sources is that it is not that at all. It is that Communists in Spain never were a formidable body, that they only had some fifteen members in the Parliament which existed before the war began, and that they were never a formidable body at all. That is what I am told. I do not know whether it is right. If you are to say that it is a question of Parties

441
it is a question between the old Party and the new Party. It is a revolt—that is the way it is put to me—by those who were shocked, not so much by the badness of the Government in Spain, because, unfortunately, Governments in Spain have usually been bad, though perhaps the one that was in power was particularly bad. But it was not so much that; it was rather that the upholders of the older system found that there was a great probability, both economic and political, that their system would be destroyed, and it was on that ground that they rebelled. That is the account that reaches me. I do not say that it is right, because I am not able to do so, but that is the situation.
When my noble friend speaks of them as Nationalists, it does appear to me, I confess, that there is very little ground for believing that the rebels represent the majority, or even a very considerable minority, of the people of Spain. That is again a matter which is disputable, because it is very difficult to test, but there is at any rate the remarkable fact that the forces which seem to be fighting are not Spanish forces except in a very small degree. There is a very small section of Fascists fighting on behalf of General Franco, and the old Carlists are fighting. Those, as far as I can learn, are the only Spanish forces that he has at his command; the rest are the Foreign Legion and the Moors. That is what I am assured, and that if there are any other troops they are at any rate of such limited enthusiasm that they have not been put in the front line. That is what I have been told by people who are not in any way sympathetic with the Government of Spain.
As for the atrocities, I do not propose to go into that question. I think they have been horrible on both sides. I have heard also what my noble friend read from the Archbishop of York's letter: that the Protestants—there are not many of them—have been slaughtered by the rebels in the same way as many, at any rate, of the Catholic clergy have been slaughtered by the Government troops. That, I am afraid, is probably true. The truth is that the war has been horrible; we cannot doubt it. The slaughter of all the defenceless people after the capture of Badajoz, the bombardment of Madrid—an open city bombarded, apparently, quite irrespective of military object—the
442
slaughter of hundreds and perhaps thousands of women and children in the process, the importation of the Moors to carry on a national revolution—all these seem to me some of the most deplorable things that have ever been done in the history of the world. I do not say the rebels are any worse than the other side; I have no means of judging; but I am certainly not prepared to say for a moment that the rebels have any right to throw stones at the Government forces—very much the reverse.
But all that, to my mind, is not the thing that is really important for us to consider. If it were really simply a domestic matter in Spain, I should say that this House was quite wasting its time in discussing the matter at all and that it was not a matter of vital importance to us. But that is not so. Unfortunately, as every one knows, whoever began it—and I admit that I do not know which side began it—one side of this miserable struggle has been adopted by certain Governments, and other Governments—at any rate one other Government, and perhaps more—have adopted the other side. My noble friend Lord Plymouth is of course extremely familiar with the difficulties that have arisen in consequence. That is a frightfully dangerous situation. I do not think one can exaggerate the danger; it is very extreme. I do not wish to utter a word of criticism of the motives which have dictated the policy of His Majesty's Government. They are absolutely unimpeachable. I am sure the Government were perfectly right and that the great object which we should have in view is to prevent this struggle extending beyond the borders of Spain. Horrible and terrible as the result of the revolution in Spain has been, it is of course infinitesimal compared with the horrors of the renewal of a European war. I am sure that was right, and I am bound to admit that I thought the policy adopted by His Majesty's Government at the first was perfectly right.
I hope my noble friend will not think that I am desirous of criticising them in any way about it; I think it was the reasonable policy to try to establish a real neutrality so that no country from outside Spain should join in the struggle at all. If that could have been secured, it would have been an admirable thing, I have not the least doubt. I admit I

443
am not quite so sure about it now. My noble friend Lord Plymouth will no doubt be able to tell us, and I hope he will be able to give us reassuring information, but it does look as if that policy had failed: the policy of "keeping the ring," if I may put it in that way. I do not know which country began it, but first one country began helping one side and then another country began helping the other side, and there can be doubt—at least I think there can be no doubt—that very extensive assistance has been given by outside countries to both sides. We read with great anxiety—at least I do—statements in the newspapers, which I hope are exaggerated, of increasing excitement in the countries outside on this subject, and of an increasing danger of something happening which might precipitate a conflict. I confess that seems to me a very serious situation. Your Lordships will perhaps remember that Lord Lothian, in an interesting speech which he made the other day in this House, said—I think with absolute truth—that there was very little danger of any country starting deliberately a European war. That is not the danger that we have to fear; the danger is first that some incident will set the countries in opposing camps and then that a deplorable crisis will arise and we shall slip into war, as some people think we slipped into war in 1914. That is the danger.
I feel extreme anxiety about the present position. It is my only excuse for venturing to trouble your Lordships with these observations. I agree with what I think Lord Crewe said: that the shipping danger seemed to him very great. So it is; there is no doubt that an incident on the sea might precipitate the most frightful catastrophes. I read, too, this morning in a daily newspaper, I think it was the News-Chronicle, a statement which may have been accurate or inaccurate—I do not know; possibly the Government can tell us—of a most formidable position in the island of Majorca, where this gentleman, the correspondent whose name is given and who got into the island secretly, reports that the whole place is absolutely controlled by the Italian Government; that it is absolutely governed; that they have shot 1,500 civilians; that no ship is allowed to go into the harbour if it is not an Italian or a Spanish ship; and that there are a great quantity of aeroplanes evidently
444
being got ready for the bombardment of Barcelona. That is his story I mention it in this House in the hope that my noble friend may be able to give us an assurance that none of these things have taken place and that it is not true. I dare say he has no information; it is very difficult to get information. But that is the kind of thing that I think is very serious.
Do not let us hide from ourselves what is threatened. What is threatened—it has been threatened definitely and openly—is the bombardment of this great city of Barcelona. Because they think they cannot carry it by assault, therefore they propose to destroy it. That is what is threatened. And I am quite sure of this: if that takes place a situation will have been reached which is of the utmost danger to the peace of Europe. I am quite sure of it. The country has been horrified by what is going on in Madrid, and I am quite sure that if it is repeated in Barcelona there will be the greatest possible danger to peace. That is the feeling I have, and I hesitate to make any suggestion on a matter which is evidently one on which the Executive Government must determine. But I cannot help feeling that what we need is some impartial account of what is actually going on in Spain. I believe that if that account were put before the people of the world they would be able to make up their minds who is most to blame, and what ought to be done. I admit it is doubtful whether it would have any effect, but I cannot help feeling that the great moral pressure which might be exerted in that way might do something to bring the terrible state of things to a conclusion.
I should like, I confess, that the matter should be brought As an international matter before the Council of the League of Nations, and that they should appoint some impartial Committee to inquire into the matter and prepare a report with rapidity, among other things, as to what, in their judgment, if they could form a judgment, the people of Spain really wish, and the possibilities of a settlement. Even if that turns out to be impracticable, I cannot help feeling that a great international appeal, launched with all the solemnity which might attend it, might still have some influence in bringing about a settlement of this horrible struggle. My noble

445
friend, in his concluding observations, compared it to the war between North and South in America. I cannot agree with him that it has any serious resemblance to that struggle. No doubt very horrible things occurred in that as in every similar struggle, but nothing occurred comparable to the things alleged to have been done on both sides in Spain, to the things which certainly happened in the case of the bombardment of Madrid, and the utilisation of the Moslem soldiers, in the name apparently of religion, to destroy the fellow countrymen of the leaders of this revolution. I trust that something may be done to meet this case.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I think there is no one in this House who can have failed to be moved by the obvious moderation of Lord Cecil. I am afraid that I find him to have been in certain details too moderate, and it seemed to me that at moments he verged on a too impartial attitude. It is, of course, an attitude which we expect of Lord Cecil, and which, for that reason, carries great weight, but when Lord Crewe and other noble Lords said that there was nothing to choose between the two sides, and Lord Cecil said he would not judge, I am afraid I cannot follow them. I can judge, and I do judge, and I consider that your Lordships should judge. There are said to have been atrocities on both sides. I am afraid, from all the information we have, that that is only too true. But one side denounces these atrocities and has done its best to suppress and prevent them, and the other side has announced them on its own wireless and gloried in them.
On one side you have the massacre of two thousand people ordered by the rebel Generals. I do not think any noble Lord will question that, and on no occasion can it conceivably be, suggested that such an order was given on the Government side. The Government have always deplored the fact that, largely because they were so short of arms, they were unable to arm the police behind the lines and unable to prevent outbreaks of terrorism. Nevertheless, the Government have always deplored them. Noble Lords on the other side talk about attacks upon the Church. I have, for various reasons, taken care to become well informed on the question of Spain. We have taken a great deal of trouble to try
446
to confirm or disprove the stories of atrocities on the Government side. I am sorry to say there have been excesses, but never, as yet, have I found any story of an official atrocity which it has been possible to confirm. I have heard atrocious stories of the burning of nuns and the killing of priests, and so on, but when inquired into, and followed up from street to street, they have been found to be untrue.
Priests have been shot, but priests have shot other people. Stores of money have been found in the cellars of churches. Let your Lordships recall the stores and money found in the Cathedral of Vich. I regret the destruction of the Goya frescoes, but I do not regret the burning of that church. It was an auto da fé. It was burned because it was used as a store for the rebels. I have a number of friends in Catalonia, and they all tell me that it is not true that priests, as such, have been killed. They have not been shot because they were priests, but because they were rebel agents, and so far from being ministers of religion they are taking sides and shooting other men. The Church stands in a particular category, and it must be most particularly careful not to be involved in anything of this sort. A friend of mine arrived yesterday from Spain. In the small town from which he came there were two priests. One remained where he was. The other was found sniping from a corner with other Fascists. He was taken to Barcelona and probably shot. I do not know whether there is such a thing as justifiable homicide, but if there is that would seem to me to be justifiable homicide.
I have heard stories of nuns being burnt, but I have been unable to confirm them. On the other hand I have heard from Barcelona, where nuns were turned out of their houses, that these nuns, although shut up and not allowed out, were brought out in lorries to vote against the Spanish Republic. These nuns, after being turned out of their houses, were given money to take them into France, where they were received by other members of their Order. There have undoubtedly been assassinations in Government territory, but never by the Government themselves. The Government have always deplored them, and done their best to suppress them, and such assassinations are no longer taking

447
place. Lord Cecil has just referred to the latest news from Majorca. Into that the Government might will inquire. There are lots of things that His Majesty's Government might inquire into there. We have the massacres of Badajoz. What about the British Rio Tinto mines? Have the Government any information about that? The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, looks as if he had, and I hope he has, and that it is better than mine. But these are all massacres ordered by the rebel government.
I do take sides in this matter; it seems to me that there is a right and a wrong. When on one side you have a man like General Queipo de Llano, who broadcasts and announces his late atrocities, we can only hope it is as the drunkard that we know him to be, and that he has not been able to satisfy the sadism which he expressed on the wireless, and that his utterances were exaggerated or untrue. It makes me regret when I hear noble Lords from the Liberal Benches saying that there is nothing to choose between the two sides. There is a great deal to choose. Noble Lords talk about organised government, and the noble Lord, Lord Strickland, produced an elaborate legal theory on the subject which I regret I was unable entirely to follow; it seemed to me a little involved. On Maltese subjects I have thought the noble Lord most interesting; perhaps that is because I do not know Malta, and I do know something about Spain. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, doubted whether the present Government was an organised Government. It seems to me a perfectly organised Government so far as a Government, the half of whose country is in a state of rebellion, can be organised. Considering its difficulties and the disastrous treachery towards it, it seems to me to be singularly well organised.
It was described by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as a Red Government, but I would remind the noble Lord that it was not against the present Government that the rebellion broke out. The Government against which the insurgents rebelled was a most moderate Government, in which there was not even a member as dangerous as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, or my noble friend Lord Listowel or myself. There was not a single Socialist in the Government. Their most revolutionary proposal was
448
that uncultivated land should be distributed amongst the peasants in order that it might be cultivated. I do not know whether Lord Newton knows the conditions of the Spanish peasantry in Estramadura. Their habitations are picturesque, but while we on this side found the provisions in the Government Bill on overcrowding inadequate, such habitations as were there outlined would lave appeared to the Estramadura peasants to be fit for princes. Noble Lords can have no conception of the conditions in which they live—and that merely because the land belonged to people who used it for sport, or did not use it at all, so that it could not be cultivated. That was the most revolutionary proposal of this "Red" Government against which, in the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, Spaniards were justified in rebelling. If there is at present in Spain a Government somewhat Socialist—and I only say "somewhat"—it is thanks entirely to his friend General Franco, who naturally drove all forces together to resist him.
The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, mentioned several subjects, and was partly answered by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. He made reference to the "Russian pit." I think I have referred to that in the matter of the composition of the original Spanish Government. Lord Rankeillour seemed to think that the Church was justified in defending its property. I find that for priests people inevitably have slightly different standards, but property is not, so far as I remember, recommended to members of the Church by its Founder. The noble Lord spoke of education. He does not seem to be very well informed on that, because though the Spanish Church has had control of education in Spain ever since there was education, it has strenuously resisted any intrusion of other authorities upon its ground. It was dispossessed of that control by the Republic when it came into power because the Church was known to be so passionately opposed to the Republic, and since that time I am in the happy position of being able to inform the noble Lord that, so far from 50,000 out of 90,000 being turned out of the schools and having no school to go to, the number of pupils in Spain has been doubled. Ho spoke of the most reverend Prelate's cold detachment. The most reverend

449
Prelate did not seem to me to be coldly detached, and I hope that his brother will speak up on his behalf. It seemed to me, on the contrary, that he was taking the warm and the chivalrous part in this matter.
One thing that I greatly regret is that the Committee on Non-intervention is so named. The inevitable reaction one has to that title is that its contrary would have been intervention. Nobody in the world, outside the Fascist countries, has ever suggested intervention in Spain. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that at the beginning there was a great deal to be said for the, position which His Majesty's Government took up, but I am afraid it is true that had there been no such policy as non-intervention the whole of this trouble would have been over much more quickly. The Spanish Government would have been able to provide for itself, and would have dealt with its rebels and restored order in its own country. I am afraid that is true. In the meanwhile we have this Non-intervention Committee, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a very surprising remark the other day in another place when he said that Italy and Germany were not the worst offenders. That may be so—I do not know to whom he was referring—but whether it is so or not, I think we must inevitably admit that this Committee is farcical.
On the other hand, the affronts which have been placed on British Ambassadors are less farcical. At the beginning of August our Ambassador in Berlin had an interview with the German Foreign Secretary, Baron von Neurath, who informed him that no arms or munitions had been sent to Spain, or would be sent. I can hardly suppose that even His Majesty's Government at that time believed, or can conceivably now believe, that that statement was truthful. To us on these Benches it seems curious that we should have to be defending national honour. We believe in it as much as noble Lords opposite, but we are most of us internationalists; yet we do not much like to see an insult of that sort offered to a British Ambassador. In fact, it seems to me an occasion when our Ambassador-should be withdrawn until such time as that curious statement has been explained.
450
We have now a similar position arising again. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has spoken about Majorca. The Government must be as aware as I am that in all except name there is an Italian occupation of Majorca. As yet the report which we all read with horror in this morning's News-Chronicle has not been confirmed, and it will be difficult to confirm; but I would draw the attention of the Government to the fact that it is Italians who are supposed to have commanded that massacre, and the Government must know as well as I do that it is Italians who have organised the whole of the rebellion and the defence by the rebels of Majorca. If the Italians intend to retire from Majorca when peace is restored in Spain, I shall be one of the happiest members of your Lordships' House, but possibly one of the most surprised, I trust that His Majesty's Government will not be quite so surprised. The whole of this trouble is due to the fact that the Government have had no policy at all, that they never had a foreign policy, that they are divided among themselves, as we all know full well, and that the foreign policy of the Government has been run by a reactionary permanent official in the Foreign Office.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order ! Order!
LORD FARINGDON: Certainly. Why not? If the Government want to shuffle off their responsibilities, it is a way of doing it, but it is not a very creditable way. The Government, we hope and believe, are in essence neutral in this matter, but they have most unfortunately given an impression of unfriendliness to the Spanish Government. Personally I should be most happy if the Government could in any way dissipate that impression. There have been most unfortunate episodes connected with the refusal of admission to this country of persons coming from Government territory in Spain. There have been persons of irreproachable character, coming here merely for commercial reasons, who have been refused permission to land. There have been others who have come here to express the Spanish Government's point of view and who could not be regarded as dangerous revolutionaries. They, too, have been refused permission to land. I should like a word of explanation from the Government of that particular attitude, which has created a most unfortunate impression.

451
There is one thing which I should like to remark upon and to which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, referred—the humanisation of this war, if you can talk about such a thing in connection with war. The Government have talked about it a lot. We all thought they were doing something about it but, as I have said, they do not seem to have done some of the things which strike us as obvious. They have not protested against the massacres. They might have protested against the massacre of Badajoz; they might have protested against the massacre in the Rio Tinto British-controlled mines; they might now protest against the massacre in Majorca. These are all large facts difficult to disprove, difficult to excuse. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, mentioned the Bulgarian massacres. At that time Englishmen had the courage to say what they thought and the conviction that they were right when they were on sound principles. Are we afraid now to disapprove of massacres? I hope not. I hope the Government are going to tell us they are protesting, that they have protested, and will do it more and more publicly. An interesting sidelight on that has been provided by a book which I have just received entitled "Behind Spanish Barricades." I suggest to your Lordships, who think that your position is truly British, that you should read that book. You should read the reports of English Conservatives in Spain in the last century, who reported with infinite admiration the defence by Spaniards of their own country and their enthusiasm for democratic causes.
One hundred years ago we thought we were a fine democracy. We still say we are. I should like to think we are. One begins to wonder a little bit, when one finds members of your Lordships' House expressing the opinions we have heard this evening, whether that is any longer true. I am a little inclined to doubt it. In the last century it was certainly in our interests to intervene. Spain rose against Napoleon, and we were against Napoleon. But is it any less in our interests today? I do not think so. I do not think it would be any safer now or better for British interests to have the Mediterranean controlled at both ends by the same Power than it was during the last century when we strained every nerve to see that no one should control the entrance to that sea. I do not think so. I
452
hope the Government are happier about this situation than I am. I hope the Admiralty are happier about it, and I hope, if they are considering alternative routes to India, they will not forget that the Canaries are on the way round by South Africa.
There is one minor point on which I should like to ask information. I had occasion to go to buy some sherry the other day, and I was informed by my wine merchant that soon they hoped to be able to arrange means of payment with the shippers of sherry from Jerez. There is a clearing-house arrangement with Spain in operation under which all payments must be paid in here, and are at the disposal of the Spanish Government, which naturally does not distribute them in rebel territories. I should like an assurance that in no circumstances, without the consent of the Spanish Government, will this arrangement be abrogated. It is a matter of private information, and probably my informant ii entirely misinformed, but I should like to be assured on the subject. I have kept your Lordships a long time, but I lave not said one-eighth of what is to be said on Spain or one-eighth of what is seems to me every Englishman on any side, as a member of a democratic State, must inevitably feel. Finally, all I wish to say is that I hope the Government's influence will be used to prevent any kind of annexation of Spanish territory and any threat to British interests.
THE UNDEE-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I am sure the House will not expect me to approach this subject in the same spirit as that which has been displayed by the noble Lord who has just sat down, during the course of his remarks, which I consider deplorable and not calculated to help any of us in the very difficult task we have before us in steering a safe course through the very troubled waters of Spain. He furthermore took the opportunity of attacking a civil servant, though admittedly he did not name him, but I need not remind your Lordships that that is a practice which is never recognised as proper either here or in another place. I do not intend to follow him in the various rather wild statements that he made, but there is just one point to which I should like to call attention before I proceed to deal with other points

453
which have been raised during the debate. The noble Lord stated that it is his view that it would have been a very much better thing if the policy of non-intervention in this struggle had never been initiated. I thought that a short time ago, at any rate, the policy of non-intervention was a policy to which the Party to which he belongs adhered. I am therefore very much surprised to hear him express the view that it would have been very much better if that policy had never been put into operation. He finished by accusing His Majesty's Government of having no policy in regard to this matter. That is an accusation which I deny, and I think any reasonable person who has followed the course of events will realise that we have adopted a very sensible policy; but I would like to say this, that if he considers His Majesty's Government have no policy in this matter, it is perfectly clear that the Socialist Party have at least half-a-dozen policies.
I do not think that there really is very much information which I am able to give to the House that your Lordships have not already at your disposal. Ever since the beginning of the civil war in Spain the policy of His Majesty's Government has been one of strict non-intervention in the internal affairs of that country. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a full statement with regard to the formulation and execution of that policy in another place on October 29, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to cover the same ground as he did at all fully, but there are one or two observations of a general character which I should like to make. The object which His Majesty's Government have always had in view has been to prevent the civil war from spreading outside the frontiers of Spain itself, which would lead to very serious complications indeed and might Lave incalculable results which we should all very greatly deplore.
I should also like to emphasise this point—one that has been raised by one or two speakers during the course of the afternoon—that His Majesty's Government do not share the view of a number of people that the carrying out of the policy of non-intervention has operated against the Spanish Government and in favour of General Franco. People may have their own opinions on that subject, but that is not the view of His Majesty's
454
Government. My noble friend Lord Snell made the appeal before he left that an effort should be made to make this policy of non-intervention real instead of a sham. Well, all I can say is that it is quite easy to put that question, but it obviously is a great deal harder to devise a method of making non-intervention really effective. I would say that on their part His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to do, as far as they are concerned, everything in their power to make that policy effective, and I will endeavour to explain that point to your Lordships during the course of my later remarks.
Your Lordships will remember that the initiative which led to the conclusion of this Non-Intervention Agreement was taken by the French Government, but from the very start His Majesty's Government have accorded that initiative their full support, and throughout these difficult weeks they have worked in full collaboration with the French Government. I want to state quite categorically that His Majesty's Government propose to continue that policy of non-intervention in the future. They are not doing so because they believe that it has always been successful in preventing arms and war material from going to Spain, but because it has prevented, and we believe can still prevent, an enlargement of the conflict beyond the Spanish border. They also do believe that it has greatly reduced the amount of arms which might have been imported into Spain and thus saved some suffering to the Spanish people. I should like to add, in this connection, that contrary to certain rumours which we have heard, the French Government have stated during the last few days that they, too, intend to continue the non-intervention policy.
I would also like to state that there is no evidence that the Italian and German recognition of General Franco implies that those two countries will abandon non-intervention. The German Minister for Foreign Affairs stated to His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin that it is not their intention to do so, while the Italian Foreign Minister also informed His Majesty's Ambassador on November 19 that the Italian Government—and here I am quoting—
"intended to go on in the Non-intervention Committee which was devoted solely to questions relating to supply of munitions to

455
both parties. Recognition therefore did not in any way change the position."
I think I have made it quite clear that the Government intend to pursue the policy of non-intervention to the very limit.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made an important statement in another place on 23rd November, which dealt with certain matters that have been raised to-day—namely, the question of belligerent rights at sea, and all other questions which are germane to that issue. He pointed out during the course of his statement, that our policy was one of non-intervention, and that in pursuance of that policy the Government have been considering further the importation of arms into Spain by sea, and the various problems that arose from that matter. He stated that belligerent rights have not been accorded to either party in Spain, and that there was no present intention on the part of the Government of doing so. As a consequence of that policy, His Majesty's ships will, should it prove necessary, protect British merchant ships on the high seas against interference by ships of either party engaged in the conflict in Spain outside the three mile limit. At the same time, it is not the intention of the Government that British ships should carry war material from any foreign port to any port in Spain, and in order to make this as effective as possible in the difficult circumstances which obtain, the Government intend to introduce legislation immediately rendering the carriage of arms and war material to Spain by British ships illegal.
I should like to point out in connection with the question of according belligerent rights that we would not normally consider the internal troubles of Spain as justifying any Spanish authority in searching British ships on the high seas. In the present circumstances this attitude is even more justifiable in view of the Non-Intervention Agreement by which we have undertaken ourselves not to supply arms to Spain. In so far as that Agreement did not prevent the supply of arms from foreign ports to Spain on British ships, and so to that extent was incomplete, our new policy we hope will complete it and stop up the gap. There is therefore in our view no reason why belligerent rights at sea should be required by either of the contending parties. I think that the
456
grant of belligerent rights would be liable to misinterpretation both at home and abroad. It would have appeared as if we were, in a sense, departing from our policy of neutrality, and assisting one or other of the parties to establish a blockade of the ports of their opponent. The present position, therefore, is that His Majesty's Government have not recognised General Franco, but, on the other hand, they are maintaining unofficial contacts with him, in so far as this is necessary for the proper protection of British interests in those portions of Spain which he controls.
I would like to pass for a moment to the work of the Non-Intervention Committee which I have referred to quite shortly already. It was set up by an agreement between the signatories of the Non-Intervention Agreement in order to supervise the application of that Agreement. I want to say quite frankly that His Majesty's Government have been aware for some time past that breaches of the Agreement have been committed by more than one signatory to the Agreement, but your Lordships will readily understand that it is extremely difficult definitely to prove those breaches. I would merely inform the House that the Government have sent on all the evidence they have been in a position to sub-stantiate to the Non-Intervention Committee which will examine it in due course. In connection with the Non-Intervention Committee I would add what has already been explained by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place—namely, that His Majesty's Government are collaborating in every possible effort to make the work of that Committee more effective than it can be at the present moment. A scheme of control and supervision has been agreed to in principle by that Committee with a view to making their work more effective, but until now no approach has been made to either party in Spain on the subject. The scheme is not quite complete, and therefore, as I say, so far no approach has been made to the two parties in Spain.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, referred to the position in Majorca. I am afraid that I am not in a position to confirm or contradict the information that appeared in the News-Chronicle this morning. I think it is generally acknowledged that there are a considerable

457
number of Italians on that island. All I am in a position to say is—and this affects the future rattier than the present—that there have been suspicions on various sides that it was the intention of the Italian Government, perhaps as a result of a bargain with General Franco, to take over one or more of the islands in the Balearic Group. I wish to say that on several occasions in recent months the Italian Government have given His Majesty's Government full assurances as to the absence of any Italian intentions in regard to the Balearic Isles.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Might I interrupt for a moment to ask whether my noble friend would consider the possibility of laying on the Table the exact terms of the assurances which have been given? I think it would be at any rate a great satisfaction to some of us to know exactly what was said.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I will certainly consider that point. Only a few days ago the Head of that Government, in an interview granted to a British Press correspondent, repeated this declaration in the most ample and satisfactory form. His words must, of course, be taken as a full and sufficient official assurance, and I would only add that His Majesty's Government regarded it as almost unnecessary in view of the previous assurances spontaneously and on several occasions prior to this declaration given officially to them.
Certain references have been made to the humanitarian side of this terrible conflict, and I feel that I must make some reference myself to that and to the question of mediation. The Government have on their part made every possible effort to help in this way. The offer of His Majesty's Government to place His Majesty's ships at the disposal of the two parties for effecting exchanges of prisoners, hostages and others remains open and both parties have been informed to that effect. His Majesty's representative in Madrid has formed a committee with two of his colleagues for the purpose of offering on behalf of the Diplomatic Corps their services to the Spanish Government for any humanitarian mediation which might be suggested. They also offered, if necessary, to cross the lines and negotiate humanitarian exchanges with the insurgent forces. Both His Majesty's
458
representative in Madrid and His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye are in continuous touch with the representatives of the International Red Cross.
I entirely agree with the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches that every possible effort should be made in order to bring this struggle to as early a conclusion as possible. Anything that any person or any country can do to that end will be something for which the whole of the rest of the world would naturally be grateful. His Majesty's Government would lose no opportunity of making their contribution in this connection if the opportunity arose. I can only say for the moment that I regret that His Majesty's Government have received indications that there is at present little basis for reconciliation between the two parties. Therefore they do not consider that the present moment at any rate is opportune for a general offer of mediation.
I think I have dealt with the majority of the points that have been raised during the course of the debate. There are so many aspects that it is difficult to deal with these matters at all fully, but they have been dealt with at different times by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and it seemed to me that it was perhaps not necessary on this occasion to go right, back to the very beginning of the trouble and cover it once again. But I think I have made it clear that His Majesty's Government are fully conscious of the various difficulties and considerations which are involved in the situation in Spain. I think I have furthermore made it clear that His Majesty's Government have most rightly and willingly adhered to a policy of non-intervention from the very beginning of this struggle, and that they intend to continue in that policy in the future. I believe I am justified in saying that they have the support of the vast majority not only of your Lordships but of the people of the whole country in following out that policy.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Snell has asked me to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, and to your Lordships, for having been called away on a public engagement after he had made his speech in introducing this debate. He asked me to make any remarks that I thought necessary in his absence and I will

459
do that as quickly as possible. I regret as much as any noble Lord in this House the terrible things that have happened in Spain. I used to know that country well, and I found the Spanish people, high and low, some of the most agreeable and admirable people in Europe. The Spanish peasant is as fine a man as one can find anywhere in Europe, a courteous, honest and decent fellow. The Spanish gentry, the upper classes, are the most delightful and gallant people that one can hope to meet. It is a nation which has given much to art, learning and literature, and now it is racked by this terrible struggle. I must say that the people who started this business and who instigated it will answer before their Creator. I regret very much that certain things have been said from the other side of the House which would seem to excuse and apologise for the ghastly things which are happening in Spain to-day.
The noble Earl mentioned the Bill which is being introduced in another place early next week and of which we have not seen the text, but which I understand is to prevent British ships from carrying raw material, say, from Antwerp to a Spanish port. I have to ask the noble Earl whether, if the Bill is not yet completely drafted, a clause will be considered, or if it is drafted, whether an Amendment will be considered, to widen it to a certain extent if what I am now going to suggest is not already included. I think we come up here against the difficulty of the doctrine of continuous voyage. If British merchant ships are to carry raw material, say, from Antwerp to Lisbon and it is then to be carried through Portugal into Spain, they will be open to aggressive action possibly by Spanish Government war vessels, and therefore my friends think that the terms of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, should be extended to cover Portugal or any other contiguous country where the continuous voyage may come in.
In connection with this matter of continuous voyage I have seen, as other noble Lords have, the most extraordinary statements in the newspapers—the only information I have had on these matters—about the use of Gibraltar—our Gibraltar!—as a place of transit by aviators, Italians and Germans, in uniform, in the most open way on their way to join the
460
rebels. These things have been in the newspapers and the noble Earl has not heard of it; I know he has not. I am sure he has been hearing of some most extraordinary things in the Committee over which he presides. May I offer my personal sympathy to him? I expect he is having some experience of what I believe is called the "new diplomacy" there. But, if he will allow me to say so, the left hand of His Majesty's Government does not always know what the right hand is doing. In this case I am afraid a great deal must have gone on that has been hidden from him. That is one of the things that has appeared, not once but several times, in reputable newspapers, and many other things have appeared as well.
In connection with that, I must press the noble Earl on the question raised by my noble friend Lord Faringdon and by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and that is the situation in Majorca. That, I believe, is notorious. The noble Earl says he has no information, but I hope that your Lordships, whatever your views art; on the matter, will support me in pressing for Papers presently to be laid—not now—on the Table.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: What I said was that I was not in a position to confirm or contradict the article to which the noble Viscount had drawn my attention.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The question is whether you will make inquiries; that is the thing.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not ask for Papers to-night, but I wish that the noble Earl would consider circularising in the usual way what information he has. After all, we have had warships, our own warships, continuously in Majorca harbour; they must know what is going on there. We have, I think, a Consul-General in Majorca, and we used to have a very good Intelligence Service—in fact, we had three Intelligence Services, not always acting in complete harmony with each other: the Foreign Office Intelligence Service; what was known as M.I., the Military Intelligence Service, and the Naval Intelligence Service. We had the Military, the Naval and the Foreign Office Intelligence Services in the Mediterranean. They must know what is going on. In fact, I expect they knew a good deal more about what was going

461
on than His Majesty's; Government knew, and they knew what was going to happen before it did happen. If I dared to be perfectly frank with your Lordships, I should express the opinion that they quite well knew what was brewing, that they hoped for a quick decision and were not unsympathetic to the attempt. But I do not want to go into that matter at length, and I will content myself now with answering only a couple of points made by the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth. I must do this.
What was deplorable in the speech of my noble friend Lord Faringdon? I did not think it was at all deplorable. My noble friend spoke with fervour, but I find it difficult to speak on this subject with composure myself. The noble Lord is younger than I am and has not had quite so much experience of Parliamentary speech. With great respect to my noble friend, I think he gave an excellent and well-marshalled speech, and I do not think he was at all strong in his statements. As for his attacking the permanent officials, I am going to repeat that the left hand of His Majesty's Government does not know what the right hand is doing.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: That is a much more cryptic remark!
LORD STRABOLGI: Some of your Lordships may remember that we once had a war in Arabia—I wonder if the noble Earl knows about this; the noble Marquess certainly knows of it—which was fought by deputy between the India Office and the Foreign Office. The India Office were backing Ibn Saud and the Foreign Office were backing King Feisal's family, and each side got plenty of gold and plenty of arms and went on fighting quite happily. It would not surprise me, when the whole story of the war in Spain comes out, to hear that the Admiralty had been backing one side and the Foreign Office the other—not at all—and that the noble Earl had quite honestly been unaware of what had been going on. If we have stirred the curiosity of Lord Plymouth in this debate, my noble friend Lord Snell, I submit to your Lordships, has been well justified. I hope the noble Earl will make further inquiries and will answer my noble friend who is sitting behind me and the noble Viscount on this question of Majorca, because many people are worried about it.
462
The other question is this. I have been very glad to hear that at long last His Majesty's Government are really standing up to somebody for British rights. I refer to British rights at sea. It is really about time that we showed, if I may be allowed to use the expression, a little backbone in this matter. I congratulate the noble Earl on what he said about maintaining the rights for our British merchant ships to pursue their lawful occasions on the high seas. I have in my hand two newspaper cuttings about cases of rebel gunboats apprehending vessels on the high seas. In one case a British ship, the "Thornhope," 2,272 tons, of Newcastle, proceeding on her lawful occasions past the north coast of Spain bound for Algiers, was arrested by a rebel gunboat and taken into Vigo—a British ship, flying the British flag! And then they found that she was bound for Algiers and not for a Spanish port, and so they were good enough to let her go. That was all reported in the Daily Herald of November 17 last, and I should like to know if there is any truth in it. The other report is that a Norwegian steamer, the "Lisken," 2,000 tons, registered at Bergen, carrying a cargo of potatoes from Sunderland bound for a Spanish port in Government territory, the port of Valencia, was taken into Vigo by a Spanish gunboat and the potatoes, presumably belonging to distressed British agriculturists—I hope noble Lords opposite, especially Lord Newton, will have as much sympathy for the British farmers as they have for the rebel Generals—were confiscated. That is an intolerable state of affairs, and I hope that a stop is going to be put to that sort of piracy.
Now I only want to complete these few remarks. I am sorry the hour is late, but this is the only opportunity we have had of discussing Spain in your Lordships' House since last July. There has been no discussion on this matter since the trouble began in Spain. We do not complain on this side of the House. We have had our opportunity, but the hour is getting late. The policy of the Labour Party is perfectly clear. There are not six policies. Our policy was laid down at Edinburgh after a very full discussion, which lasted three days. We want to get back to legality. All the parties concerned have been breaking the

463
law, if I may so put it—the law of nations. The original so-called nonintervention policy, which we reluctantly supported—the Government had all the facts and it was very difficult for the Labour Party—was an illegality. The Government of Spain was a recognised Government with an Ambassador at the Court of St. James's. Whether it was a, bad or a good Government does not matter. I think all Governments are bad—
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: You knew that when you adhered to the policy of non-intervention.
LORD STRABOLGI: I say we adhered to it very reluctantly, and I say it is not a question of whether the Spanish Government is good or bad. I think all Governments are bad, only in different degrees—not only the Spanish Government. It was a Government recognised as the Government of Spain, with an Ambassador at the Court of St. James's, and it was an illegality to prevent that Government from purchasing munitions for the suppression of insurrection in its own country. It was a greater illegality for certain Powers to aid and abet the rebels. We cannot always be perfectly logical. I admit that the circumstances were rather difficult, and when the French Government introduced this policy of non-intervention we reluctantly agreed to it. Now it has proved a failure, and we do want to get back to International Law. That is clearly set out in the resolution passed at the Edinburgh Conference without a single dissentient. As to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, about whether if there were a rebellion in Germany against the Hitler Government we should permit the Hitler Government to buy arms here, the answer is "Undoubtedly." You cannot differentiate in the law between this and that
464
person. There is the law, and you have to carry it out. If there is an insurrection in Germany, and the Nazi Government desires to buy arms in this country, it is an unfriendly act to refuse it, and the legal position is to allow them to do it. In this case I think we must get back to the law of nations. I admit the situation is delicate, and I should personally like to support the plea of Lord Cecil, that if there is real danger the Covenant of the League of Nations should be invoked. Speaking for myself, I think we should have done that long ago.
There is one other warning which I might give, very respectfully. I believe the new danger is a little different. I think there is a new danger. From information which reaches me, such as it if, I think the rebel cause is losing. I think that General Franco is beaten, and that to save himself he will try to involve other nations. I admit that the Government are in a delicate position, and that they have all the information: We are not quite satisfied, however, with regard to the Balearic Islands, that all the information is available, and I hope that they will try to obtain further information. I apologise for keeping the House at this late hour, and in the circumstances ask leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GAS PRICES.
Message from the Commons, That they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.