Sitting of 19 July 1937

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bucks Water Bill,
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
London Passenger Transport Board Bill,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,
Torquay Corporation Bill,
Wadebridge Rural District Council Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Bath Corporation Bill [Lords],
Poole Corporation Bill [Lords],
Taunton Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Bournemouth Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    STATE RAILWAYS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    Sir Nairne Stewart Sandemanasked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the report of the Wedgwood Committee on the subject of Indian State Railways will be released for publication in England?
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): This report was released for publication in India on 28th June. Copies are not yet available in this country but are expected shortly.

    DISTURBANCES.
    Mr. Dayasked the Under-Secretary of State for India particulars of the
    1754
    number of riots or disturbances involving loss of or injury to life and damage to property that have taken place in India during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
    Earl Winterton: The particulars asked for in respect of the year 1936 were given in the reply to the hon. Member's similar question on 8th March last. From 1st January to 31st March of this year, there have been eight disturbances involving loss of life or injury, in which 20 persons were killed and 92 injured.
    Mr. Day: Have any special steps been taken to try to prevent these riots from taking place?
    Earl Winterton: I would remind the hon. Member that since 31st March the question of law and order has been one for the Provincial Governments.

    SPAIN.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the announcement of the Valencia ministry of national defence that arms are being conveyed to the rebels by former Spanish merchant ships handed over by the rebels to the Italian Government, which ships carry double sets of documents and two flags and figure as Italian until they enter the control zone when they hoist the Spanish flag; whether he will make inquiries into this matter; and whether British warships taking part in the control system have been given powers to stop such vessels and inspect their cargoes?
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Spanish Government have not brought any such announcement to my notice, nor have I any evidence that such practices are taking place. The second and third parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question: whether they have power to inspect the cargoes in these cases?
    Mr. Eden: These cases have never been brought to our notice by the Spanish Government or anybody else.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the

    1755
    Non-Intervention Board has received any report concerning the cargo of the "Marques de Comillas" which arrived at Cadiz on 17th May; whether any poison gas was found on board this vessel; what country she had come from; and whether or not this vessel flies the same flag both while inside control waters and during the rest of her voyages to and from Italy?
    Mr. Eden: I understand that the "Marques de Comillas" is a Spanish ship. She is consequently not subject to supervision under the non-intervention scheme, and I understand that no reports have been received by the board regarding her movements?
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that German ships have been conveying arms from Hamburg to Spain, proceeding, in some cases, under false names and flying flags of countries which have not adhered to the non-intervention pact; whether he has any reports on this matter; and, in particular, whether he has any information regarding the "Amalienborg," sailing under the name of "Acme" and flying the Panama flag, and the "Schleswig," sailing under the name of "Maranon"?
    Mr. Eden: My information is that the steamship "Amalienborg" was bought from a Danish firm and placed on the Panama registration list in April last. As she was not flying a European flag, the Non-Intervention Board have not received any reports about her movements. I have no information about the other ship mentioned. His Majesty's Government are aware that arms and munitions have been reaching Spain in ships flying the flag of countries not parties to the Non-Intervention Agreement. The House must not, however, assume that this gap in the present system has been benefiting one side only. Hon. Members will, no doubt, have observed that the proposals recently submitted by His Majesty's Government to the Committee contained suggestions designed to deal with this situation.
    Mr. Cocks: Do not these gaps in the scheme show that the whole non-intervention plan is a farce?
    Mr. Eden: We debated that last Thursday.
    Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether under the new suggestion they will be allowed to find out whether arms and munitions are going to Spain?
    Mr. Eden: I should not be answerable for that.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. T. W. Pears is being allowed by the rebel authorities in Spain to exercise his functions or enjoy his privileges and rights as His Britannic Majesty's Consul at Bilbao; and, if not, whether he will recall Mr. Pears forthwith?
    Mr. Eden: The hon. and gallant Member appears to be misinformed. Mr. Pears is a subordinate official on the staff of His Majesty's Consul who is temporarily in charge of the Consulate offices and archives. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Pears is being allowed all the rights and privileges of a Consul?
    Mr. Eden: I am told that he is being cordially treated and he has proved most useful.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is he being allowed to exercise the full functions of a Consul? For example, can he telegraph in code?
    Mr. Eden: He cannot. He is not His Majesty's Consul.
    Mr. Benn: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman tell the House last week that we had a Consular officer there, and give the impression that the Consul was functioning?
    Mr. Eden: I do not think I gave the impression that he 'was functioning as Consul. The right hon. Gentleman must have formed that impression for himself. What I said then is absolutely consistent with what I have said now.
    Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked him this question: "Have they refused to allow the Consul to function?" and his reply was: "That is not so"?
    Mr. Eden: I have not said anything inconsistent with that.
    Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have yet sent military observers to both sides in Spain, or whether British military observers are still only attached to the Valencia forces?
    Mr. Eden: There are no permanent British military observers attached to the forces of either side.
    Commander Marsdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of British merchant ships entering Spanish territorial waters and being challenged by Spanish naval forces, His Majesty's Government recognise the right of these forces to apply the doctrine of continuous pursuit where necessary?
    Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government would not recognise the right in question as justifying the pursuit of a British vessel on the high seas in such a case.
    Commander Marsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman make his answer more generally known, that in that case ships of His Majesty's Navy should interfere with the pursuit?
    Mr. Eden: I am sure it is pretty well known.
    Mr. Dalton: Are we to understand that if a British ship is within Spanish territorial waters and is obstructed by a rebel vessel and is then allowed to pass out of territorial waters she is safe from further molestation and will be protected by the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Eden: This is a difficult matter to define, but if the hon. Member will read the question and answer carefully he will find that the answer fully meets the case as put. I do not want to be drawn further by supplementary questions.
    Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what measures are being taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure the safety of British citizens in the crew of the steamship "Molton."
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to secure the return of the steamship "Molton" to the control of her owners; and whether notice that a claim will be made for compensation for her illegal capture and detention has been sent to General Franco?
    Mr. Eden: I understand that the steamship "Molton" was chartered on 1st July by the Basque Government agent in London for the purpose of evacuating civilian refugees from Northern Spain to French ports. She is believed to have been returning to Santander in ballast at the time of her capture. Instructions have been sent to His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye to demand the release of the vessel and her crew, and to state that His Majesty's Government must hold General Franco's Government responsible for any injury or damage which she may have incurred. It is reported in the Press that the ship is about to be released, but I have not yet been able to confirm this.
    Mr. Adams: And the crew will enjoy the full protection of Great Britain?
    Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is now any British Consul at Santander; and, if not, whether, in view of the difficulties that have arisen in the evacuation of refugees owing to the lack of such an official and the importance of having official information as to the conditions in that port, he will arrange to have a Consul sent there?
    Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Consul has been repeatedly exposed at Santander to risk of death or injury arising out of military operations. His Majesty's Government consider, and I feel sure the House will agree, that Consular officers should not by reason of their official position be exposed to such grave risks, and he was accordingly withdrawn. Before the post is reopened, His Majesty's Government will require to be satisfied that the conditions which called for his withdrawal no longer exist, and I have called for a report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye on this point.
    Duchess of Atholl: What arrangements has the right hon. Gentleman been able to make that if any refugees can be evacuated from Santander they will consist only of non-combatants as the Government require?
    Mr. Eden: I do not think the question of our Consular representative at Santander affects the question of the evacuation of refugees which is being made under arrangements between the French and Spanish Governments, in respect of which we give our protection.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If the risk is so great is it not desirable that women and children refugees in Santander should also be evacuated?
    Mr. Eden: We desire to do the same in Santander, in Madrid and other places.
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the result of the last meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee?
    Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to inform the House that at the Meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee on Friday last, all representatives stated that their Government were willing to accept the proposals put forward by His Majesty's Government as a basis for discussion. The Committee unanimously agreed that the proposals should be referred to the Chairman's Sub-Committee, which is to meet tomorrow morning.
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that in the White Paper proposals the recognition of belligerent rights is made contingent on the fact that the withdrawal of foreign nationals has made substantial progress, he will represent to the Non-Intervention Committee the desirability of defining in advance, to avoid future disagreement, the meaning of the word "substantial" in this connection?
    Mr. Eden: This is one of the points which, as has already been explained, will clearly have to be settled when the proposals are examined in the Chairman's Sub-Committee which is to meet tomorrow.
    Commander Marsdenasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of British ships that have been captured in Spanish territorial waters by Spanish naval forces during the past 12 months; and which of these ships had disregarded advice tendered to them by ships of His Majesty's Navy.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): Three British ships have been captured inside territorial waters while attempting to enter Spanish ports, and on each occasion information as to the dangers furnished to them by ships of His Majesty's Navy had been disregarded.
    Commander Marsden: Is it not the case that in all these matters the Navy knows best?
    Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that, in spite of any criticism, he will continue to give warning to British ships in order that British lives may be preserved on the high seas?
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether en any of these occasions a British warship was present?
    Mr. Cooper: On two occasions, certainly, a British warship was present. I am not certain about the third.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will he British Navy refuse to assist British ships?
    Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these merchant ships operating in Spanish waters have changed their names recently?
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet has considered the status and rights of British shipping inside and outside Spanish territorial waters vis-à-vis Spanish rebel naval forces; and whether he will make a statement?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The matters mentioned in the question have been, and continue to be, under close examination by the Government as a whole. I think it has already been made amply clear to the House that, although we have net admitted that either of the parties in Spain possesses belligerent rights, yet in pursuance of our policy of Non-Intervention we are not prepared to intervene by force to prevent the capture by either party of a British merchant ship which has voluntarily placed herself within Spanish jurisdiction by entering Spanish territorial waters, provided that the capture is made with a due regard to the universally recognised rules of naval warfare which prohibit such practices as firing on a merchant ship before she has been properly warned or after she has submitted. As His Majesty's Government have not admitted that either party in Spain is entitled to exercise belligerent rights, the foregoing statement of policy is entirely without prejudice to

    1761
    any claim for loss or damage to British interests which may arise out of an attempt to exercise these rights.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: What is the position in the case of a merchant ship which has disregarded the warning shot of a rebel cruiser and which is subsequently sunk by gun-fire from that rebel ship? In such a case as that, would a ship of His Majesty's Navy stand by and make no attempt to prevent the merchant ship being sunk?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. and gallant Member will read my reply, I think he will see that that case is covered by it.
    Miss Rathboneasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ships, and under what flags, carrying refugees from Santander have received naval protection on the high seas since the fall of Bilbao; how many refugees have been thus evacuated; and how many British ships have received naval warnings against entering or leaving territorial waters round Santander during the same period?
    Mr. Cooper: Nine ships, all British, carrying refugees from Santander have received naval protection on the high seas since the fall of Bilbao. The total number of refugees carried by these ships is estimated at 16,091. During the same period 21 ships have received information from His Majesty's ships as to the situation off Santander.
    Miss Rathbone: Is it not apparent that His Majesty's Navy is proving much more effective in helping General Franco to maintain a blockade than in assisting in the evacuation of refugees?
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that the evacuation of refugees by a neutral country from a city which is being besieged is a direct intervention in the war?
    Duchess of Atholl: Is it not the case that these refugees are much more likely to come from the country around Santander than from Santander itself, and that there are said to be 200,000 or 300,000 refugees in that area at present?
    Mr. Bennasked the First Lord of the Admiralty where the steamship "Molton" is at present; whether any
    1762
    watch was kept to see whether she was brought out of Spanish territorial waters; and what His Majesty's ships are ordered to do when they observe British vessels being forcibly detained on the high seas?
    Mr. Lyonsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state the whereabouts of the steamship "Molton," and her movements since her encounter with the "Almirante Cervera"?
    Mr. Cooper: According to my information, steamship "Molton" is at present at Bilbao, and I understand that after her capture and while she was under the effective control of the Spanish cruiser "Almirante Cervera," she passed out of territorial waters on to the high seas. As regards the last part of the right hon. Member's question, His Majesty's ships have been instructed not to attempt the recapture of vessels which have submitted inside territorial waters and have passed into the control of Spanish ships in cases where such vessels still under control emerge once more on to the high seas.
    Mr. Lyons: Can my right hon. Friend say when it is expected that the steamship "Molton" will pass on its way?
    Mr. Cooper: I cannot say.
    Miss Rathboneasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, on the morning of 15th July, the British steamship "Thorpe Bay" and either the same ship attempting entry a second time or another British ship was deterred from entering territorial waters round Santander by warnings from two British destroyers, and that the authorities at Santander report that no insurgent ships were then in sight and that the channel was clear; whether he has information that this report is incorrect; and, if correct, why the ships were warned not to enter?
    Mr. Gallacherasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the action of a British destroyer which stopped the merchant ship "Thorpe Bay" on its approach to Santander; whether the destroyer was acting under Admiralty orders; and, if so, what is the reason for such orders?
    Mr. Cooper: According to reports which I have received, during the 15th July

    1763
    five British ships, including the "Thorpe Bay," were in the vicinity of Santander, and throughout the day three Spanish warships were in a position to intercept any ships which attempted to enter the port. Of the five British ships concerned, four, including the "Thorpe Bay," were informed that if they en-deavoured to enter Santander, they would run a very serious risk of capture inside territorial waters and that British ships had in fact been captured in this manner on 8th July and on the preceding day.
    Miss Rathbone: Is it not plain that since the capture of the first British ship, which was received in this House by applause and laughter—
    Hon. Members: "Nonsense!" and "No!"
    Mr. Gallacher: Are we to understand that when a British destroyer attempts to stop a British ship, if the British ship refuses to stop, the British destroyer will fire on it, or will it simply give "the soldier's farewell"?
    Mr. Benn: I desire to give notice that with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will at Eleven o'Clock again raise the question of the protection of merchant ships on the High Seas.
    Mr. Speaker: Another hon. Member has already given me notice that he wishes to raise a question on the Adjournment to-night; he must, therefore, have precedence.

    EMBASSIES AND LEGATIONS (CHAPLAINS).
    Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much it would cost were every British Embassy and Legation to receive the same contribution towards the stipend of an official chaplain as is now paid on average to the six which are at present so supplied?
    Mr. Eden: The average annual contribution to the stipends of chaplains paid from official funds is at present £240. The number of independent posts is 45 and the cost would, therefore, amount to £10,800 a year.

    CANTON ISLAND.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
    1764
    he proposes to take any action in respect of the statement by the officer commanding the United States tender "Avocet" that the United States Government does not recognise the island of Canton as a British possession?
    Mr. Eden: On my instructions His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington informed the United States Government on 16th July that the attention of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom had been drawn to the recent visit to Canton Island in the Pacific of the United States mine-sweeper "Avocet." Sir Ronald Lindsay a t the same time communicated to the United States Government for their information a copy of the Order in Council of 18th March, 1937, by which Canton Island and the other islands in the Phoenix group were incorporated in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands colony.
    Mr. Henderson: Has any reply been received from the United States?
    Mr. Eden: I do not think that any communication was asked for.
    Mr. Henderson: Are no steps being taken to avoid the recurrence of an unpleasant incident?
    Mr. Eden: I would deprecate any suggestion that there was any kind of unpleasant incident. There was not.

    NAVAL AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement with reference to the Anglo-German and Anglo-Russian Bilateral Naval Agreements?
    Mr. Eden: I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Anglo-German and Anglo-Soviet Bilateral Naval Agreements were signed at the Foreign Office on Saturday. I am arranging to make the texts available in tie form of a White Paper this evening.
    Mr. Henderson: May I ask whether the ratification of these agreements by His Majesty's Government depends in any way on the attitude of the Japanese Government to these schemes?
    Mr. Eden: That is another question, and perhaps the hon. Member will await the statement to be made to-morrow.

    CHINA AND JAPAN.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to convene a meeting of representatives of the signatories of the Nine-Power Treaty affecting China, to endeavour to reach a settlement of the constant friction between Japan and China?
    Mr. Eden: No such proposal is under consideration.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. G. B. Wright, late of the Royal Lancashire Regiment, No. 50,229, residing at 30, The Park, Penketh, Lancashire, is in receipt of a life pension of 30 per cent. in respect of gastritis; that he has recently undergone two operations for duodenal ulcer; that the Ministry's doctor visited him but did not examine him; and will he explain why this ex-service man is refused free medical treatment for this trouble, for which his pension was granted?
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am looking further into the facts of this case, and I will communicate again with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Sir R. Young: Will the Minister see that treatment of this kind is provided?

  AGRICULTURE.

    CREDIT.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government's scheme to assist agriculture in offering to the industry more facilities for credit will be announced before 30th July; and whether, under such scheme, farmers will be able to borrow at a low rate of interest?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend's question is no doubt based on certain recent reports in the Press which are without foundation.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister really feel compelled to tell the House that nothing at all is being done for the farmers similar to what is being done
    1766
    for every other industry? Are they to be treated differently from other sections of the people? Is there to be one law for one class of people and another law for another class?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: Experience has shown that it is difficult to explain agricultural credit to the hon. Member by way of question and answer, and perhaps he will allow me to discuss the matter with him.

    POULTRY INDUSTRY.
    Major Hillsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, since Parliament will adjourn on 30th July, he can indicate some action which the Government will take to relieve the distress afflicting poultry keepers, especially those who have embarked their whole fortune in the enterprise?
    Mr. Mathersasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to indicate the policy of the Government in relation to the poultry industry?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: As stated in reply to questions on 15th July by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) and by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley), my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any announcement of policy with regard to the poultry industry.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will the hon. Gentleman urge upon the President of the Board of Trade the necessity of doing away with the present treaties which prevent any action being taken?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the present position.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland - Troyte: Then why does he not do something?
    Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend is credited with being prepared to give the necessary assistance to the cultivator and the livestock producer, but is not prepared to do something for the small man? When is he going to remove this reproach?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: As I have said, my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make an announcement.
    Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members think that the Government are brooding too long over this matter?
    Mr. V. Adams: Is the Minister aware of the urgency of this matter, affecting all parts of the country?

    DRAINAGE RATES, HORNCASTLE.
    Mr. Haslamasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Third Witham Internal Drainage Board collected in drainage rates from the Horn-castle urban district area for the financial periods ended 31st March, 1935, 1936 and 1937 £519, £480 and £910, respectively; that the amounts spent on works in the area by the board for the years mentioned were £11, £13 and £9 respectively, while the share of the area of the administrative expenses of the board amounted to £112, £92 and £182, respectively; that a similar inequality of burden borne, compared with benefit received, obtains in the case of the Horncastle upland area; and will he make further representations to the catchment and internal drainage boards in regard to the necessity of making some adjustment which will remove these inequalities?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend this morning received a newspaper cutting containing the figures mentioned in my hon. Friend's question. He will gladly call the attention of the catchment board to the position, but I think my hon. Friend knows that he is unable to initiate action in a matter of this kind in which he may be called upon to act in a judicial capacity. Moreover, I understand that the catchment board have now decided to carry out a scheme of remedial works in respect of the River Bain and the Horn-castle Canal at a cost of £20,000.
    Mr. Haslam: Is the Minister aware that some internal drainage boards have been granted differential rating, and will he not press upon them the necessity of removing the injustice which is clear from the figures given in the question? Further, in regard to this heavy expenditure, £26,000, will he give the Horncastle and district residents an opportunity of discussing this case?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: I have already explained that as one or two authorities may
    1768
    take action my right hon. Friend may have to act in a judicial capacity, and therefore I cannot say arty more about the matter.

  POST OFFICE.

    AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGES, LONDON.
    Colonel Goodmanasked the Postmaster-General what telephone exchanges of the London telephone service are not yet automatic; and when it is proposed to transform the Victoria exchange into an automatic service?
    The Postmaster - General (Major Tryon): There are 45 out of 134 telephone exchanges within Io miles radius of Oxford Circus which have not yet been converted to automatic working, and with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is anticipated that conversion of the Victoria exchange will be completed about the end of next year.
    Following is the list of manual exchanges yet to be converted..

    Abercorn.

    Mountview.

    Albert Dock.

    Museum.

    Avenue.

    New Cross.

    Barnet.

    Palmers Green.

    Battersea.

    Park.

    Buckhurst.

    Popesgrove.

    Chiswick.

    Putney.

    Clerkenwell.

    Ravensbourne.

    Clissold.

    Richmond.

    Cunningham.

    Rippleway.

    East.

    Riverside.

    Enfield.

    Rodney.

    Finchley.

    Silverthorn.

    Gipsy Hill.

    Speedwell.

    Greenwich.

    Streatham.

    Harrow.

    Tottenham.

    Kingston-on-

    Tudor.

    Thames.

    Victoria.

    Ladbroke.

    Walthamstow.

    Lee Green.

    Wembley.

    Malden.

    Willesden.

    Maryland.

    Wimbledon.

    Mill Hill.

    Woolwich.

    TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE CALLS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Postmaster-General the number of transatlantic telephone calls that were dealt with by the Post Office wireless station passing between Great Britain and the United States of America for the three months

    1769
    ending at the last convenient date; the average chargeable duration of these calls; and what has been the result of the last negotiations that took place for the purpose of reducing the charges of the transatlantic and ship-to-shore telephone charges?
    Major Tryon: The number of telephone calls made between this country and the United States during the three months ended 31st May last was 5,511; and the average duration of these calls was about seven minutes. The last negotiations concerning the transatlantic telephone rates resulted a year ago in a reduction of the rate to the New York zone of the United States from 40s. to 28s. a minute during the day, and from 28s. to 20s. a minute at night and on Sundays. Similar reductions were made in the rates to the more remote zones and the charge for calls to ships on the Atlantic set up via New York was reduced from 48s. to 36s. a minute. Some further reductions were made at the beginning of this month in the charges for calls to places beyond the New York zone.
    Mr. Day: Do these reductions show a constant increase in the calls?
    Major Tryon: If the hon. Member wishes to have those figures, he should put down another question.

    INVENTIONS (GOVERNMENT EMPLOYéS).
    Sir R. Younǵasked the Postmaster-General how many, if any, inventions made by Government servants in the course of their duty, etc., in his Department during the past five years, have been commercially exploited in the interests of the State; whether suitable awards are made to such servants; and by what methods are the awards assessed?
    Major Tryon: The answer to the first part of the question is "one." The answer to the second and third parts is that in assessing the awards to inventors in its service the Post Office follows the principles and procedure recommended by the Patents Committee of the National Whitley Council.

    BROADCASTING (ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to give a definite
    1770
    undertaking that legislation to implement the report of the Institute of Electrical Engineers with regard to electrical interference with broadcast reception will be introduced in the near future?
    Major Tryon: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Rostron Duckworth) on 31st May last, the preparation of a Bill to give general effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Electrical Interference with Broadcasting is under consideration. The matter is being actively pursued; but I can hold out no hope of the introduction of such a Bill during the present Session.

    TAX OFFICES.
    Mr. Banfieldasked the First Commissioner of Works how many tax offices are scheduled as unsuitable for present use, and where they are situated?
    The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): The Office of Works have at present under review a list of 156 buildings in Great Britain housing 257 tax offices, which, in varying degree, require improvement. Arrangements are actually in hand for dealing with 88 buildings containing 165 tax offices. In the remaining cases special difficulty is experienced owing to the absence of suitable alternative accommodation in the towns concerned.
    Mr. Banfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme difficulty which the staffs in these tax offices have in getting their duties done owing to the insufficient accommodation?
    Sir P. Sassoon: I am aware that the accommodation is unsuitable, and we are trying to make improvements.
    Mr. Kellyasked the first Commissioner of Works why the principle of erecting Crown buildings to house Government offices, as in the case of the Ministry of Labour and the post offices, is not adopted in the case of tax offices and collectors' offices?
    Sir P. Sassoon: Crown buildings are erected for the Ministry of Labour and the Post Office because their requirements are of a very specialised character and can only be met by buildings designed for the purpose. The requirements of tax offices and collectors' offices are not so

    1771
    specialised and can usually be met by hiring suitable office accommodation, with the additional advantage that when a hired building ceases to satisfy Inland Revenue requirements the tenancy can be determined at stated periods. Where suitable accommodation is not available, the question of erecting a Crown building for tax collectors' offices is considered.
    Mr. Kelly: In view of the experience of so many unsuitable buildings being used, will not the First Commissioner consider the erection of buildings instead of hiring them, as at the present time?
    Sir P. Sassoon: Where necessary, we do that.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
    Mr. Dayasked the First Commissioner of Works, in view of the fact that the existing system of ventilation was first installed in the House of Commons in 1854 and slightly modified in 1892, whether it is proposed to make an early improvement in it?
    Mr. Viantasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will give his attention to the possibility of providing more ventilation for the public and other galleries of this House?
    Sir P. Sassoon: The matter was dealt with fully in a note circulated by my predecessor a year ago. Progress has been made in the preparation of a scheme which will be carried out as soon as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Viant: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay a visit to the Public Gallery one of these warm days? If he has that experience, I feel sure he will be persuaded to expedite these proposals.
    Sir P. Sassoon: I do not require any persuasion.
    Mr. Day: Have experts in the Department investigated the systems in use in large buildings in the United States of America?
    Sir William Davison: How long is it since bowls of broth were provided for streptococci and other microbes in the Chamber to test their vitality?
    Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the discomfort
    1772
    from which hon. Members sometimes suffer in this House is due not so much to atmospheric as to gastronomic causes?
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Could we not have the windows open now so as to make a small beginning?

  PALESTINE.

    MURDERS.
    Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the High Commissioner for Palestine can now give information concerning the number of murders committed by Jews in Palestine in each of the six years 1930 to 1936, and how many have been committed by Arabs; and how many times the oil pipeline has been cut by Arabs and Jews, respectively, during these years?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The High Commissioner for Palestine was asked whether he could supply the desired information in a despatch dated the 18th June. I will communicate with my honourable and gallant Friend when I receive the reply.

    ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.
    Colonel Nathanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Arabs and how many Jews in the Jerusalem enclave contemplated by the Royal Commission's Report in Palestine, in Haifa, in Tiberias, in Safad, arid in the protected enclave of Aqaba, respectively, now possess the status of British-protected persons within the meaning of Section 32 of Chapter XXII of the report; and what will be the number of Jews and Arabs, respectively, and their respective proportion to the total population coming under the sovereignty of the suggested Jewish state after the deduction of those excluded from such sovereignty as being British-protected persons?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not in possession of the information asked for in the first part of the Question, and I do not consider that l should be justified in imposing on the Government of Palestine the labour of obtaining it in present circumstances, especially as the boundaries of the enclaves in question have not yet been fixed by the proposed boundary commission.
    Colonel Nathan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it premature to make a statement of Government policy to the Permanent Mandates Commission without this vital information?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, certainly not.
    Colonel Nathanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who will represent His Majesty's Government at the next meeting of the Permanent Mandates Committee in regard to the Royal Commission's Report on Palestine; whether the Administration of Palestine will be represented and, if so, by whom; whether there will be made available to the Permanent Mandates Committee such part of the memoranda and public evidence placed before the Royal Commission as are now printed and available; and whether the Permanent Mandates Committee will be invited by His Majesty's Government to defer consideration of the matter until it shall have had before it the complete evidence given publicly to the Royal Commission?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom alone is represented at meetings of the Permanent Mandates Commission. The Administration of Palestine is not represented. I propose myself to go to Geneva as accredited representative of His Majesty's Government, and I shall be accompanied by Mr. J. Hathorn Hall, who has just vacated the appointment of Chief Secretary to the Government of Palestine and who will also be accredited, and I shall be accompanied by Mr. Martin, the Secretary of the Royal Commission. In reply to the third part of the question, this is covered by the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on 12th July, and the reply to the fourth part of the question is in the negative.
    Colonel Nathan: Will not the right hon. Gentleman submit to the Permanent Mandates Commission the evidence which is now printed and available, and would it not be lacking in courtesy to the Permanent Mandates Commission if it were withheld from them?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Naturally I shall withohld nothing which they ask for, or require, that is published. Anything that is available, they will have.
    Colonel Nathanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His
    1774
    Majesty's Government propose to take any and what steps to ensure that representatives of Arabs and Jews, respectively, are given an adequate opportunity of presenting personally their views on His Majesty's Government's statement of policy to the Permanent Mandates Committee before that body completes its consideration of the matter or remits it to the Council of the League of Nations, or how otherwise His Majesty's Government propose to take steps to ensure that any representations which Arabs and/or Jews may desire to make to the Permanent Mandates Committee and / or the Council of the League shall be brought to the notice of the Mandates Committee and /or Council before either body is invited to give an opinion upon His Majesty's Government's statement of policy?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: This is not the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. Any representations which may be received at Geneva, either direct or through His Majesty's Government, from Arabs or Jews will presumably be dealt with by the Permanent Mandates Commission in accordance with the procedure to be followed in the matter of petitions concerning Mandated Territories which has been approved by the Council of the League.
    Colonel Nathan: In a matter of this importance to Arabs and Jews alike, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it desirable that they should be invited to present their views to the Permanent Mandates Commission on such a fundamental change in the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am no longer a member of the Permanent Mandates Commission, and it is for that commission to regulate its own procedure.
    Colonel Nathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman, then, invite the Permanent Mandates Commission to defer considartion of this matter until representations have been made by or invited from the Jewish and Arab organisations proper to make such representations?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think this is a matter for the League and not for His Majesty's Government. It is perfectly clear that, particularly in a case of this kind, we ought not to seek to interfere with the complete independence of the

    1775
    Permanent Mandates Commission, whose members are there individually and not as representing Governments. It would be improper for me to make representation to any members of the commission?
    Colonel Nathan: Has not His Majesty's Government taken the initiative in causing this special meeting of the Permanent Mandates Commission to be called, and would it not have been proper to have deferred that course until the Jewish and Arab representatives had had an opportunity of considering the report and preparing and submitting representations?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, the exact contrary is the case. The commission themselves decided without consultation with the Government to hold a special meeting. It has been postponed in order to meet the very points which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind.
    Mr. Dalton: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the commission will come to a final conclusion at the meeting which is to begin on 30th July, or will that be a preliminary canter?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As to a final conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman can see from this report that a whole series of steps requiring concurrence of the League will have to be followed. What we are anxious about is that at the earliest possible moment, if the commission are agreeable to that course, they should make a report to the Council which will enable the Council in September to authorise the Government to proceed with such matters as the Boundary Commission and other initial stages of the procedure.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Would it be possible for representations to be made before there is a final decision?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Of course it will.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any communication from the administration in Palestine for or against the report of the Royal Commission?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The answer is in the negative.
    Colonel Wedgwood: May we take it that the report published in an Arab newspaper to the effect that the administration in Palestine had protested against
    1776
    Galilee being passed over to the Jews is false?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, and it was publicly contradicted in the local Press by the High Commissioner. I have a telegram here. But it was not the fault of the local newspaper. What they published was an extract from the "Londoner's Diary" in the "Evening Standard" last week which had no foundation.

    MUFTI OF JERUSALEM.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why the active campaign of the Mufti against the British Government is still permitted in Palestine:
    (2) whether he proposes to make any changes in the administration in Palestine or in the relations between that administration and the Mufti of Jerusalem before the end of the year?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add to previous statements.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the articles in the "Times" from Palestine on Saturday and to-day, and in view of the continuous agitation by the Mufti in Syria, Galilee and Iraq—where he has produced pogroms—do the Government propose to make any change?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I must decline to answer that question, more particularly in view of the telegram in the "Times." I have not received any official statement of what took place. I have not heard from the High Commissioner as to the raid on the Arab Supreme Committee's offices on Saturday. Until I get that information I can make no statement.
    Colonel Wedgwood: In view of the series of steps to be taken before any final decision is come to by the League, does the right hon. Gentleman not intend to take any steps whatever to change the administration in Palestine until that occurs?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have not said anything about that. As a matter of fact, some change has already been authorised. The Northern part last week has been divided into new districts and new organisations, and I know that a despatch is on its way asking for supplementary

    1777
    British personnel. The whole question of the administration of Palestine will, of course, have to be continuously watched.

  SCOTLAND.

    TORPEDO FACTORY, GREENOCK (WAGE DEDUCTIONS).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in view of the small cost entailed and the great benefit both to the unestablished workers employed in the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory in Greenock and to the Greenock Hospital organisations concerned, he will authorise the deductions to be made from their wages, as desired by these workers, for hospital purposes?
    Mr. Cooper: Discussions are at present proceeding which may result in the application of a general scheme of deductions for hospital purposes through some central organisation, and in this connection I should be prepared to give careful consideration to the position of the Greenock factory hospital and local charities fund.
    Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a decision will be reached?
    Mr. Cooper: I could not say that at present.

    OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the 264,066 old age pensioners in Scotland at 1st January, 1937, and of the 37,020 old age pensioners in Scotland who, at 15th May, 1936, were in receipt of poor relief, were resident in Greenock; and whether, in view of the large percentage of old age pensioners having to submit themselves to the public assistance authorities, he will take the necessary steps to make the amount of the old age pension adequate?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): Approximately 3,500 old age pensioners were resident in Greenock at 1st January, 1937. The number of old age pensioners in Greenock who were in receipt of public assistance at 15th May, 1936, was 719. I have no statement to make in regard to the last part of the question.
    Mr. Gibson: Has the Department considered the loss arising out of these double
    1778
    applications, and how much that is gained on the swings may be lost on the roundabouts?

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (UNIVERSITIES).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now aware that an instruction has been given to the presiding officers at the next Scottish Universities election to prevent Parliamentary agents from finding out how individual electors recorded their votes; whether he can state the name of the individual issuing the said instruction; whether he has in view the statutory method of postal voting at such elections and the statutory rights of candidates and their agents to be present and object to the validity of any voting paper; what action he proposes to take in regard to such instruction; and whether the Government have any proposals to make regarding the University Parliamentary Franchise?
    Mr. Wedderburn: As regards the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend has made further inquiry and finds that no such instruction has been given. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply to his question of 13th July.
    Mr. Gibson: Have the Scottish Office through the proper channels examined the minutes of the General Council of St. Andrews University held on 26th June?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think that we have examined the minutes but we have inquired of the Principal and Vice-Chancellor, and he informs me that he did not receive any such instruction.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the well-informed "Scotsman" had a detailed account in the report of the meeting, showing that such an instruction was given?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think that I can answer for what appears in the Press.

    LORDS AMENDMENTS (WAIVING OF PRIVILEGE).
    Mr. Cerro Jonesasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the increasing number of occasions upon which, at the behest of the Government, this

    1779
    House has in the last few years been asked to waive Privilege arising in respect of Motions emanating from another place which affect public finance; and whether he can undertake that Motions involving waiver of Privilege shall in future not be moved by the Government in this House save only in cases of both urgency and minor importance?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is presumably alluding to occasions upon which Amendments to Bills are made in another place upon matters which affect the Privileges of this House. In such cases, you, Sir, invariably direct the attention of the House to the question of Privilege, and, in accordance with long-established practice, the House usually considers such Amendments on their merits and agrees or disagrees with them as it thinks best. When Lords Amendments are considered in this House, Motions to agree or disagree with them are generally moved by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, and accordingly in the case of Government Bills such Motions are moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill on behalf of the Government. Beyond following the ordinary procedure the Government have taken no special action in this respect, and I am not aware of any recent increase in the number of occasions on which the acceptance of Lords Amendments has involved a waiver of Privilege. I see no reason for making any change in the present practice.
    Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the Prime Minister by what principle or by what working rule, he will prevent these minor waivers of Privilege from developing into a breach of the constitutional principle of financial Privilege?
    The Prime Minister: I think we can depend on Mr. Speaker for that.
    Mr. Attlee: As these occasions usually arise because of matters which are not foreseen when legislation is passing through this House, will the right hon. Gentleman, as the head of the Government and also as Leader of the House, endeavour to reduce the number of such occasions to the lowest possible limit in order to preserve the Privileges of this House?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question did not relate to the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker, but to the initiative of His Majesty's Government, and, in the light of that statement, would he say by what principle he seeks to prevent these minor breaches of Privilege from developing into a major breach of Privilege, affecting the Constitution?

    GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (SALE).
    Sir W. Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make it a general rule that, in the case of the sale of landed property belonging to the State, consideration will always be given to the immediate purpose for which the property is being acquired, especially when the site to be sold adjoins or is in the immediate vicinity of other State property?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be desirable to lay down any general rules of the character suggested by my hon. Friend. But he may rest assured that in any cases in which Government property for disposal is in the immediate vicinity of other property in their possession, appropriate steps are taken to ensure that such property is sold subject to conditions which would prevent it from being developed in a manner detrimental to the Government's interests.
    Sir W. Davison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether considerations of this kind will be before the Government in connection with the offer of the site immediately opposite the Victoria and Albert Museum which we understand is to be sold by sealed tender to the highest bidder?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, certainly.
    Mr. Bellenger: In the case just mentioned, will restrictions be placed on the user of the site?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

    UNEMPLOYED AND OLD AGE PENSIONERS.
    Mr. Viantasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing cost of living, he will give early consideration to the need for increasing the allowances of the unemployed and their dependants and also that of the old age pensioners?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I have been asked to reply. I regret that the answer is in the negative. I would remind the hon. Member that the recent moderate rise in the cost of living index figure followed a prolonged and, in the aggregate, substantial fall.
    Mr. Viant: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman recently refreshed his memory, and, furthermore, has he given further consideration to the recent increase that has taken place; and, in the light of that, does he appreciate the hardship which is imposed upon the persons mentioned in the question?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, all the circumstances are kept in mind, and a few nights ago, on the Motion for the Adjournment, I gave the House a table of figures showing the movement of the cost of living figure since 1920. Perhaps the hon. Member will look at that.
    Mr. Lyons: Is it not a fact that the position of all persons dependent on the State for financial assistance is infinitely safer now than it was during the lifetime of the Socialist Government?
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the seriousness of this question, would the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer not receive a deputation of old age pensioners and unemployed?
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the widespread demand for more generous treatment of those persons who are in receipt of old age pensions, he will consider moving to appoint a Committee of the House to inquire into the conditions under which old age pensioners are living; and whether he is aware that in thousands of cases the amount paid by the State has had to be supplemented by public assistance?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have been asked to reply. I do not think that a Committee such as the hon. Member suggests would serve any useful purpose. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind him that the number of old age pensioners who are in receipt of public assistance is less than 10 per cent. of the total number of such pensioners.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Prime Minister, to whom this question was
    1782
    addressed, whether the refusal to set up a Committee is an admission that serious hardships do exist, and whether, having regard to that fact, it is not desirable to bring all these matters into the light of day?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: There is no lack of knowledge of all the facts, but regard must also be paid to financial considerations.
    Mr. Shinwell: Then do I understand that the refusal to set up a Committee is based, not on the Government's refusal to recognise existing hardships, but primarily on financial considerations, and is it not a fact that the Government have utilised public money for purposes not so useful as the granting of old age pensions? May I have an answer to that question?
    Mr. Speaker: Clearly that is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. My first point of Order is whether in fact—I put this with great respect—it is within the prerogative of the Chair to determine whether a supplementary question, put on an important public issue, is merely a matter of opinion?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Shinwell: Then I decline to accept your Ruling.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member does not withdraw that remark, I must ask him to leave the Chamber.
    Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Speaker—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Withdraw !"]—if I have said anything disrespectful to the Chair, I naturally withdraw, but I want to say, Sir, at the same time, that on a matter of serious public importance I believe that Members of this House have a perfect right to put their point of view, and I shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member does not withdraw the latter remark, I shall still have to ask him to withdraw.
    Mr. Shinwell: Very naturally I bow to your desire, and I have no desire to come into conflict with the Chair, but I repeat that on important issues of this kind—
    Hon. Members: Withdraw!
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will please leave the Chamber.
    The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

    GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER (VISIT).
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will send a formal invitation to the German Foreign Secretary to carry out his projected visit to this country at an early date, having in mind the desirability of doing everything possible to bring about an appeasement of the present strained political situation in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: In view of the approaching holidays, His Majesty's Government do not consider the present moment appropriate for renewing their invitation to the German Foreign Secretary, but the German Government will be aware from my recent observations on the subject that we should welcome an opportunity for discussion of problems of common interest at a suitable time.
    Mr. Thurtle: Arising from that reply, which I heard imperfectly, may I ask the Prime Minister not to allow diplomatic niceties to stand in the way of action of this kind, if he thinks thereby that the cause of peace may be served?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    PARACHUTES.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, how many parachutes were purchased for the Royal Air Force in 1926 and in 1936; of what makes; whether they were purchased after tender; and at what price?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): As regards the first part of the Question, I am advised that it would not be in the public interest to give this information. As regards the second part, the purchases in 1926 were of the supplies-dropping type and of the man-carrying type, contracts being placed with P. B. Cow & Co., C. G. Spencer & Sons, E. R. Calthrop's Aerial Patents and Irving Airchute of Great Britain, Ltd. In 1936, the purchases were of the flare reconnaissance type and the man-carrying type, contracts being placed with G. Q.
    1784
    Parachute Co., Spencer Bros. and the Irving Airchute Co. As regards the third part, the purchases were made after competitive tender, except in the case of the man-carrying parachutes which were of a proprietary type. As regards the last part, it would be contrary to established practice to disclose contract prices.

    AERODROMES (CONSTRUCTION).
    Mr. Kellyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether there is a resident engineer representing the Air Ministry engaged in each district where aerodromes are being constructed for the Air Ministry?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Kelly: Is this engineer given authority to clear up difficulties that may arise in the course of construction without having to refer every little thing back to the Air Ministry or the Office of Works?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The engineer has a certain power of discretion, but I cannot answer the question categorically without knowing to what type of difficulties the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Kelly: In view of the difficulties and the consequent delays that have occurred, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman look into the matter to see whether these engineers are given sufficient authority to proceed with the work?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Perhaps the best thing would be for the hon. Member to give me the instances which he has in mind.
    Mr. Kellyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of aerodromes in course of construction for his Department, and whether the progress of construction is satisfactory?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Forty-three aerodromes are in course of construction, All things considered, progress must be regarded as satisfactory although this particular form of building is not, of course, free from the difficulties being experienced in the building world generally.
    Mr. Kelly: Is it a fact that skilled men have been discharged from this work at the same time that we have been told that it has not been possible for the Department to obtain the services of skilled men; and why is it that this work is being so badly managed?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am not aware that it is being badly managed. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I have no knowledge of the particular cases to which the hon. Member refers.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    MINERS (SOUTH WALES AND DURHAM).
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a statement as to whether any difficulty exists in getting real working colliers in South Wales and Durham; whether his attention has been called to any cases where pits have been delayed in re-opening because colliery owners cannot get the men who have experience in opening them; at what Employment Exchanges in South Wales and Durham applications have been made for such workmen; what exchanges, if any, have not been able to supply the labour requested by any colliery owners; and what was the number of miners registered as unemployed in those areas on the last convenient date?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Butler): There is generally no difficulty in securing experienced colliery workpeople in South Wales and Durham, but it is not easy to meet employers' requirements from among the workpeople available locally in a few

    Table showing, for each Employment Exchange in the Special Areas in Monmouthshire, the decrease in the numbers of unemployed persons on the registers at 21st June, 1937, as compared with 22nd June, 1936.

    Employment Exchange.

    Decrease in numbers wholly unemployed.

    Decrease in numbers temporarily stopped.

    Total decrease.

    Abertillery

    1,238

    32

    1,270

    Blaina

    613

    46

    659

    Blackwood

    701

    39

    740

    Blaenavon

    300

    14

    314

    Ebbw Vale

    1,318

    79

    1,397

    Newbridge

    1,331

    363

    1,694

    Pontypool

    839

    34

    873

    Pontnewydd

    140

    84

    224

    Risca

    557

    475

    1,032

    Tredegar

    1,088

    25

    1,113

    Usk

    22

    —

    22

    YORKSHIRE.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Labour the number and age group of persons registered as unemployed at Normanton, Castleford, and Pontefract at the latest date available, and the compara-
    1786
    places where the pits are developing rapidly or where special circumstances exist—for example, where the mines are in an isolated position. It is possible that in some of these cases the development of the pits might be accelerated if a greater number of experienced workpeople were immediately available, but I am not aware of any instances where the re-opening of collieries has been delayed for this reason. With regard to the last part of the question, the numbers of insured persons aged 16 to 64 in the coal mining industry classification recorded as unemployed in South Wales and Monmouth-shire and in Durham on 21st June last were 30,482 and 13,893, respectively.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate that report to all Departments of the Government in order to prevent Members of the Government making misleading statements on this matter?

    SPECIAL AREAS, MONMOUTHSHIRE.
    Major Herbertasked the Minister of Labour the amount of the reduction in unemployment figures, permanent and temporary, at each of the exchanges within the districts scheduled as Special Areas in Monmouth-shire between 20th June, 1936, and 22nd June, 1937?
    Mr. Butler: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    tive figures for the same date in 1936 and 1934?
    Mr. Butler: I am having this information extracted, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Angus Valdemar Hambro, esquire, for the County of Dorset (Northern Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill,
Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners, etc. (Tenure of Office) Bill, without Amendment.
Marriage Bill (changed to "Matrimonial Causes Bill"),
Summary Procedure (Domestic Proceedings) Bill,
Cinematograph Films (Animals) Bill,
Aberystwyth Rural District Council Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Banbury Waterworks Bill [Lords],
Hertfordshire County Council (Colne Valley Sewerage, etc.) Bill [Lords],
Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

MARRIAGE BILL (CHANGED TO "MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.")
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]
SUMMARY PROCEDURE (DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]
CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]
BILLS REPORTED.

  BRISTOL TRANSPORT BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

  CANVEY ISLAND URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1937.
  CLASS II.
  FOREIGN OFFICE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £84,956, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
  3.48 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I am credibly informed that the Parliamentary holidays are drawing near, and it has been represented to me through the usual channels that the moment is perhaps appropriate for a survey of the world situation. That is a formidable task, but I am prepared to attempt it with the indulgence of the House. Only a few weeks ago a foreign affairs debate, initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) took place, and if from what I have to say to-day I omit certain parts of the world, that is not due to the fact that the Government have suddenly become disinterested in them, but because for the moment I have nothing to add to what was said only a few weeks ago. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to begin with the situation in the Far East; then to say something about recent developments in the Spanish situation and make certain references which I desire to make on behalf of the Government with regard to the situation in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; and, having referred to our relations with Egypt, to speak of the League's future, and, finally, to say a word about the European outlook as a whole.
  If we may deal with the Far East first, the situation there is confused and anxious and it is difficult even to describe it in precise terms. The causes and the responsibilities for the actual origin of the
  1800
  first clash, which took place on the night of 7th-8th July, remain uncertain, and the course of negotiations which have been in progress locally is not fully known to us. None the less, all the indications encourage us to believe that the present situation, grave as its possibilities undoubtedly are, was not deliberately provoked by either Government. It does not make the situation less dangerous in its potentialities, but if it is right it is an important element in assessing the possibilities of a solution. I stated in the House on 14th July that certain terms which had been referred to as an agreement by the Japanese Embassy at Peking had been communicated to the Japanese authorities by Chinese representatives. The Japanese Government, I am informed, have since intimated to the Chinese Government that they expect them not to interfere with the execution of an agreement reached locally on firth July. The terms of that agreement are not known to us, but I understand them to include an apology' for the original incident, punishment of those responsible and the withdrawal of Chinese troops across the river at the actual scene of the incident. The first of these conditions appears already to have been carried out. Meanwhile, both the Japanese and Chinese Governments have assured us that they are anxious to avoid an extension of the trouble, and we have expressed to both Governments our earnest hope that the situation should not be aggravated, and a peaceful settlement may be reached.
  The Committee will appreciate that there is obvious cause for apprehension in the measures repotted on both sides of the movement of large bodies of troops nearer to the scene of the original incident. Some of the Press reports of these movements have exaggerated the position, but it is a fact that considerable reinforcements have been sent to the Japanese troops in the Province of Hopei, and on the Chinese side troop movements have also taken place, bat we have been assured, in answer to questions which we have put, that these are purely precautionary and defensive, and that there is no intention whatever of starting hostilities. There is however, the Committee will agree, clearly danger inherent in the situation, and His Majesty's Government have been in communication in consequence not only with the Chinese and Japanese Governments but also with

  1801
  other Governments on the general situation. The United States Government and the French Government, both of them, have, I know, like ourselves, expressed their concern and their hope for a peaceful settlement. It may be that this is most likely to be reached between the two parties without attempts by third parties to intervene, beyond showing, as they must, their natural concern and interest in the maintenance of peace. None the less we have made it clear in both capitals that if there is any way in which His Majesty's Government can contribute to a solution they will be pleased to lend any assistance that may be in their power.
  It is a matter of the greatest regret to us that these unfortunate incidents should have arisen at this moment, when it seemed justifiable to hope that the situation in the Far East was entering on a better phase. We ourselves enjoy very good relations with both the Governments concerned, and we do not believe that the interests of those two Far Eastern nations need conflict. We have watched with sympathy during recent years the efforts which China has been making to develop her vast resources, and at the same time we have not been unmindful of the difficulties, the economic difficulties, 'which Japan has to encounter in the problems which she has to solve.
  Mr. Gallacher: What problems?
  Mr. Eden: Economic problems, problems of population, of trade and the rest. If it is permissible for His Majesty's Government to suggest what should be the remedy for a situation which has presented so many difficulties in recent years we would say that it is to be sought only in a change of method, in a real attempt at understanding between the two countries which would ensure a period of tranquillity affording opportunity for the development of peaceful trade and commerce. As long as the uncertain situation in North China is allowed to continue, and as long as a succession of incidents are patched up by local settlements of rather doubtful scope and validity, the situation will remain charged with danger. Is it too much to hope that both Governments will yet make a determined effort to endeavour to find a comprehensive settlement of their differences? A few weeks ago, as I told the House, we welcomed the approach made
  1802
  to us recently by the Japanese Government, and hope it may yet be possible to improve still further our relations with that Government, and to find a solution for the various difficulties which affect our relations. We had hoped that a further improvement of the relations between ourselves and Japan would have enabled us to contribute to a general easing of the situation in the Far East, which in our firm conviction would be to the benefit of all concerned. There is much more prosperity to be gained out of peaceful developments in the Far East than can ever be attained by other methods, and that is why we are watching present developments with a very real anxiety, and with a fervent wish that these unhappy incidents may be settled, so that the way may be open to a better and more stable state of things.
  I come nearer home to deal with another country which has been so largely in our minds this last year. I do not propose to deal at any length with the Spanish situation to-day, but I want to make a brief reference to the further stages of the negotiations on the Non-Intervention Committee. A week ago the nations were at a deadlock. They were without a plan and without an agreed basis upon which to work. Now that basis exists, and it has been accepted by all. If I may translate that into Parliamentary terms, I would say that our proposals have had their Second Reading, and that they enter upon the Committee stage to-morrow. Perhaps, therefore, the moment is not inappropriate to say a word or two about the prospects of their achieving the purpose for which they were designed, to circumscribe the Spanish conflict and to leave Spaniards to decide their own destiny. Our proposals constitute a carefully balanced whole. This fact is at once an encouragement and a warning. It means that in the elements of our proposals each nation finds something that it likes while no nation finds everything that it likes. That balance must not be upset. Every member of the Non-Intervention Committee must recall that the contribution which he is most anxious to withhold is precisely that which another member of the committee is most anxious to receive. The plan, therefore, stands or falls as a whole. Any attempt to modify it except in points of detail, will upset its balance and destroy its usefulness.

  1803
  If this plan fails what is the alternative? None other, as we know, than the complete breakdown of non-intervention. The opening of frontiers, the competitive flow of unrestricted supplies of munitions and perhaps of men—what combatant in Spain will gain from such a state of affairs? There may be argument about that. On one thing there can be no argument: Europe would certainly lose from such a course and the nations would once again confront, and I fear in an intensified form, those dangers from which M. Blum's initiative saved them last Autumn. Let us be blunt about it. No nation wants the Spanish civil war to be a European war, yet if the nations will not now co-operate sincerely on a basis which they have all accepted, we shall drift perilously nearer to it. Whatever their difficulties, whatever their preoccupations, whatever their provocations, I pray that the nations who begin their work to-morrow will never forget the alternative. It should be their signpost to success.
  We, the Government of this country, have throughout the last six months laid emphasis on the importance of securing a withdrawal of foreigners from Spain. We have done this for more than one reason. The teachings of history, I suggest, show that the victory of one side or the other in civil war, if brought about by foreign aid, is not final. Surely the least that Europe can seek to do for Spain is to co-operate so that the ordeal which that country is now undergoing be not repeated in our generation.
  In that connection I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to a remarkable letter which appears in the "Times" this morning from a Spaniard who has himself contributed much in the past to international collaboration. There is just one brief passage from that letter which I would beg to quote:
  "By a tragic coincidence this war, essentially Spanish, has 'caught on' abroad. Lured by somewhat shallow parallelisms, men, institutions and even Governments outside Spain have been adding fuel to the fire which is consuming our unhappy country. Spain is thus suffering vicariously the latent civil war which Europe is—so far—keeping in check. I earnestly hope that the more militant groups on both sides will realise that their activities are not merely dangerous—that they do see—but also sterile. Spain will never be either Communist or Fascist. Her foreign policy, determined by geo-political and economic laws, will never vary fundamentally—whoever wins
  1804
  —and foreign help, known to have been given for something more than its own sake, is sure to call forth deep resentment after the war in Spain, in all Spain. Here again, the best policy, and the one most in harmony with the interests of all the nations concerned, is to agree to bring about a speedy end of the war through reconciliation."
  That is from Senor de Madariaga. I can only say that His Majesty's Government are in complete agreement with every word that I have quoted, and there is only one sentence that I would add. We ourselves would be ready at any time to collaborate in any way possible to bring an end to this tragic Spanish war, and we believe that the method proposed by this distinguished Spaniard, were it only acceptable on both sides, would in the end be of the greatest benefit to Spain itself.
  It has been stated many times with truth that this country has no desire to interfere with, no intention of interfering in, the internal affairs of Spain. But our interest in the integrity of Spanish territory is very real. It has been clearly expressed. Only a few days ago I used certain words which, since they were deliberately chosen and have the approval of my colleagues. I pray the indulgence of the Committee to repeat:
  "But disinterestedness in this matter—
  the internal affairs of Spain—
  "must not be taken to mean disinterestedness where British interests are concerned on the land or the sea frontiers of Spain, or the trade routes that pass her by."
  This country has every intention of defending its national interest in the Mediterranean, as elsewhere in the world. There must be no mistake about that. Yet, it is important that there should be no misconception anywhere. While we are determined to defend our own interests we have no intention of challenging those of others. That is why we made with Italy the Mediterranean Agreement of last January. We stand by that Agreement. If the Mediterranean is for us a main arterial road—and it is—yet there is plenty of room for all on such a road. If we intend to maintain our place on it—and we do—we have no intention of seeking to turn anybody else off it. Least of all do we wish to interfere with those who geographically dwell upon it. There is ample room for all. Free traffic through and out of the Mediterranean is the common interest of Great Britain and of all the Mediterranean Powers.

  1805
  In the light of certain reports which have reached me there is one further categorical assurance I should like to give. This country has no intention of pursuing towards any other country a policy either of aggression or of revenge. Such a possibility has never even occurred to the British people. The word "vendetta" has no English equivalent. The foreign policy of this country will never be based upon such a motive or influenced by such a sentiment, but if any apprehensions exist upon that score they should be instantly allayed. To entertain them is truly to misconceive the British character. We wish to live in peace and friendship with our neighbours in the Mediterranean, as elsewhere, for while we will defend our own we covet nought of theirs. The moment is perhaps opportune to add that what I have said about the Mediterranean applies equally to the Red Sea. It has always been, and it is to-day, a major British interest that no great Power should establish itself on the Eastern shore of the Red Sea. I need hardly add that this applies to ourselves no less than to others.
  While we speak of the Red Sea I would like to make a reference to Egypt. It is now nearly a year since the signature of a treaty of friendship and alliance with Egypt. In the interval our relations have continued to grow in friendliness and to develop in confidence. The settlement of various matters which required readjustment, as a result of the treaty is proceeding amicably and with due expedition. I am confident that material advantage has accrued to both countries by the establishment of their relations on a new basis consecrated by the treaty. We in this country feel sure that, in the light of the collaboration which has taken place between our two Governments in the past year, the Government of Egypt on their part share this feeling and find nothing to regret in the close and free connection established 1?y treaty between our two countries.
  I have referred to matters requiring adjustment as a result of the treaty, and I would in this context call special attention to the settlement by the Convention of Montreux of the question of the Capitulations, in respect of which we are indebted to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain Wallace). I would not wish to mention the Montreux Convention, the provisions of which His Majesty's Government re-
  1806
  gard as eminently satisfactory for all parties, without drawing the attention of the Committee to this instance of success attending the efforts of a number of nations to collaborate in solving a longstanding difference by mutual agreement.
  I would now like to venture upon slightly different ground and to say a few words to the Committee about the economic factors and their relation to the present international situation. I find it much easier to talk in general terms about the economic causes of war than to define them, or when, having defined them, to eliminate them. But we do believe, the Government believe, that the removal of the barriers which at present impede and at times stop altogether the course of international trade would be an effective step in the removal of political tension. In this belief we are supported by the representatives of the Dominion Governments who have lately been assembled in London for the Imperial Conference. The Committee will, I hope, have in mind the terms of the statement agreed to by all His Majesty's Governments at the Conference in connection with this problem.
  I would like to make a further reference to some of the steps which are actually being taken at the moment. There was, as the Committee will recall, the Three Power Declaration of last September by the. United Kingdom Government, the French Government and the United States Government, which not only laid down the basis of currency co-operation, but affirmed the importance that they attached to the progressive relaxation of the present system of quotas and exchange controls with a view to their abolition. Resulting from that agreement of last September is the mission undertaken at the request of the French Government and the United Kingdom Government, by M. Van Zeeland, the Prime Minister of Belgium, to inquire in the principal European countries as to the possibility and the practicability of progress in this direction being made.
  Mr. Bellenger: Is it limited to European nations?
  Mr. Eden: I will come to that point later. In the course of these inquiries which M. Van Zeeland has made himself or through the agency of a distinguished Belgian economist, M. Frére, he has recently paid a visit to the United States, at the close of which, as the Committee.

  1807
  are aware, he paid a visit to London and reported to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself the state of the work which he had undertaken. There is another aspect of economic matters to which I would like to refer. The preliminary discussions now proceeding in Washington with a view to seeing whether there is a basis for negotiations for a trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom are, of course, welcomed by His Majesty's Government. It is the desire of both Governments that such agreement should be a practical contribution to the development of international trade and the movement for promoting world peace through economic agreements. In that connection, there is the work which has been done in recent months by the League of Nations inquiry into the question of equal commercial access to raw materials for all nations. This inquiry should also be of assistance, and its report will be available in September, I understand, providing both information and possibly suggestions, leading in the direction of freer trade and of economic appeasement. There are the ideals which inspired the Oslo countries, ideals which we welcomed. In these and other ways, perhaps not in the full glare of publicity, a good deal of work is being done to show practical support of recent endeavours to promote international trade and to remove potential causes of international friction. We shall persist in these endeavours, though our contribution must necessarily be limited by the fact that His Majesty's Government policy in regard to imports is clearly a liberal one, as is illustrated by the very large volume of our imports and the very steady increase throughout recent months.
  I come now to say something of the League of Nations. In spite of the events of the last year, the League is neither dead nor moribund, as some people maintain.
  Mr. Gallacher: It is not your fault.
  Mr. Eden: Of course, some Governments which have taken more risks than ourselves are privileged to state that, but I do not know if there are any. The field of action may be restricted by the limitation of League membership and by the absence from Geneva of many powerful States, but the League still exercises
  1808
  a valuable political influence; particularly the settlement only a short while ago of the dispute between France and Turkey over the Sanjak of Alexandretta was an example of this. That dispute had all the elements which might, in different conditions, have led to a grave international situation. I am confident that but for the fact that it was possible to handle it by what we may call League methods, a solution would not have been found in the time and the circumstances which prevailed. It was an important victory, we think, for League principles and methods.
  If we approach the question of reform, the League Committee which is charged with this subject has a difficult task, because the moment the subject is discussed, two contending theses are revealed. On the one hand, you have those who believe that the only way to strengthen the League's authority is to make its obligations more binding and to increase the implications for taking coercive action; on the other side, you get those who urge that the League can be strengthened only by widening its membership, and that in order to achieve this result it is necessary to lay emphasis on the conciliatory rather than on the coercive clauses in the Covenant. In the face of this difference of view, and there are countless shades between them, it is necessary to proceed with caution. It is not difficult to devise machinery, but no paper plan, however well drafted, is of use if the will to work it is lacking.
  In that connection, I would like to utter one word of warning to the Committee. Nothing, in our view, could be more inimical to the application of the principles of the Covenant or to the restoration of the League's authority than a situation in which the world is divided into two groups of Powers, one inside and one outside the League. It must be the object of members of the League to do everything in their power to check any tendency in that direction. It must constantly he made clear that there is room at Geneva for all countries, whatever their political complexion and whatever their system of Government, provided that they desire to co-operate in the work of the maintenance of peace. It cannot be too strongly asserted that the League is an association of sovereign States. It is not an alliance for the furtherance of a particular political creed or the maintenance

  1809
  of a particular political system. The League cannot, as a whole, be anti-anything except dissension and war, or pro-anything except conciliation and peace.
  In this connection I was glad to note the refusal of the British representative at a recent international trade union conference at Warsaw to join an anti-Fascist league for peace. I am convinced that it would be a grave and perhaps irreparable error were our foreign policy ever to be conducted upon such principles. If we will not join an international bloc against Communism—and we will not—neither will we join an international bloc against Fascism.
  Mr. Gallacher: Who is the aggressor?
  Mr. Eden: There can be only one foreign policy for this country, a willingness to co-operate with any country, whatever its form of Government, that is willing to work for peace.
  Mr. Gallacher: You must be against Fascism if you are to work for peace.
  Mr. Eden: Everybody knows the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. They are unique. I submit that what matters to us is not the way a Government governs at home but the way it conducts itself abroad. That is the only thing upon which international relations can rest.
  Knowing the difficulty of co-operation between nations to-day, I would like to pay a tribute to the helpful and statesmanlike attitude of the German and Soviet Governments—it is nice to be able to mention them in one sentence—who, in concluding naval agreements with this country a few days ago, of their own free will subscribed to the system of qualitative limitation and the system of exchange of information set out in the London Naval Treaty. I do not wish to enter into details about this subject which will be dealt with by the First Lord to-morrow, but I say that their readiness to co-operate in the field of naval limitation is a sure proof that, given mutual good will and understanding on both sides, even the most difficult problems are not impossible of solution.
  Now I come to a reference which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness made in his speech on Thursday last. The right hon. Gentleman spoke, I think rightly, of the importance at the present time of no step being taken
  1810
  which would in any way affect the present excellent relations between ourselves and France. I agree. In fact, one of the facts which have enabled us to pass through the last 12 months without the major disaster of a European conflict has been the steadily growing confidence and intimacy of the relations between our two countries. Fortunately, that friendship is now nowhere misunderstood. No one can seriously hope, no one should want, to weaken or destroy that friendship. There have been periods during these post-War years, let us admit it frankly, when the French Government and ourselves have not seen eye to eye and when we have not agreed in our policies towards Europe, and more particularly towards Germany. That period is passed, never, we trust, to return. Why is it passed? Because we are convinced that the present French Government are sincerely anxious, as we ourselves are sincerely anxious, to bring about a real improvement in our relations with Germany and to seek to reach a Western agreement as a prelude to that wider settlement which must be our constant objective.
  Nearly 30 years ago, Sir Edward Grey, the then Foreign Secretary of this country, wrote a private letter which was published in that remarkable biography by Professor Trevelyan. Grey wrote:
  "Foreign Office things are always in a mess; they are not as if one were doing constructive work or writing a book or a lecture, or reading up a subject, and they can never be put aside for a day."
  How well those words apply to the last 12 months. They have been an anxious. and at times a tempestuous period in the international sphere. They have imposed a heavy strain upon all concerned with the conduct of foreign affairs in their respective countries, and not least, if I may be allowed to add, in Parliamentary countries.
  Within a few days of the Parliamentary holiday, as we survey the world, the outlook is not wholly bad. There are storm clouds, but there are patches of clear sky. On the whole, the atmosphere is less tense and lowering than it was 12 months ago. The mere fact that Europe has endured for 12 months the strains and stresses and the sudden jars and constantly recurring crises of this Spanish conflict, without the whole of Europe being involved in its consequences, surely affords a cause of modified hope. There

  1811
  has been a measure of international cooperation, however uncertain its working or however incomplete its success. None of the nations, some of them violently partisan to one side or the other in the Spanish conflict, in truth desired that the flames should spread.
  It may be, also, that the conflict in Spain has enforced another lesson, In modern warfare a quick victory is not to be easily won. The very fact that warfare to-day is not fought out between small, highly trained professional armies, but involves the whole population, their lives and their homes, at once widens its scope, intensifies its horror and prolongs its duration. It also increases the power of defence. No one to-day can hope to reap advantage from a long war. It would spell international ruin. And I would leave this thought with the Committee if I might. There is a further difference between the years before 1914 and to-day. In those years most people found it hard to believe in the possibility of a world war, and even those whose apprehensions were most acute greatly underrated its scope and its duration. To-day we know more of this monster, and this should aid us to control and conjure it. No man in his senses could want to see is unleashed. Therefore, though the load of international anxieties remain heavy, though there can be no lasting confidence until an international organisation with world membership is entrusted with the arbitration of our differences and the conciliation of our disputes, yet I stand at this Box to-day with a greater measure of hope than was possible a year ago that the nations of Europe will yet compose their quarrels and that peace will be preserved.
  4.32 p.m.
  Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I think it has been fitting that the right hon. Gentleman to-day has taken a wide survey of the international scene. Although we have had many Debates in this House in recent months on foreign affairs, they have naturally emphasised one particular part of the planet, and it would therefore be well to-day to look around more widely. The right hon. Gentleman, at the close of his speech, said that in his view the outlook was not wholly black; there were storm clouds about, but the atmosphere, he
  1812
  said, was less tense and lowering than it was 12 months ago. Supposing that that were true, and for the moment I will not discuss whether it is or not, it none the less shows that, in his view, the scene is very sombre at this time, and no advantage is gained by pretending otherwise.
  The right hon. Gentleman looked round, and I also shall try to look round at some of the places which he has visited; but I think we have also to look back and to look forward; we have to inquire what are the tendencies of the world to-day, what is happening to-day, where we stand as a result of certain past action, or inaction, and what is the likely fate ahead of us. I propose to speak with frankness, which is a quality that is more freely permitted at such times to Members of His Majesty's Opposition than to Members of His Majesty's Government, and I propose to speak with frankness for this further reason, that, if the worst should come, it will be better that we should have spoken the truth in time. Moreover, in this country, whatever may be thought in totalitarian States, we still believe that free speech may help to reveal the truth and to inform and strengthen opinion.
  May I begin with the Far East? The right hon. Gentleman said that the position in the Far East was confused and anxious, and so, evidently, it is. He, no doubt, has details which the world has not. I am not going into details with regard to the Far East, but I am going to suggest one guiding principle, and that is that, in all which concerns the Far East, we in this country should work in the very closest and most intimate cooperation with the United States of America, and with them above all other States in that part of the world. In any action which it may be necessary to take in order to secure that what remains unbroken of treaties relating to that part of the world is not stir: further broken, and in order to preserve and restore peace among Far Eastern nations, we should go in step with the.. United States, not rushing ahead of anything they are prepared to do, but being prepared to go as far and as fast as they. I lay that down as a principle which I think is essential in our relations with that part of the world.
  I must pause at this stage to ask: Can we trust this Government to do that? This

  1813
  Government has a very bad record in its dealings with the United States of America, a bad record which began long before the right hon. Gentleman became Foreign Secretary. It is well, I think, to recall these events, because they show how necessary it is, if the guiding principle which I have suggested is to be adopted, to realise that it means a certain change in attitude and in approach on the part of His Majesty's Government towards the United States. I do not speak only of purely economic questions at this stage, such as what many of us regard as the very clumsy handling of the debt question, and the Prime Minister's contemptuous reference to the Middle West; even the Middle West, he said, will perhaps understand that—a very unhappy form of words. I am not even referring here to the question of a trade pact or treaty, though I shall come to it later, beyond saying that I think the responses by the Government to Mr. Cordell Hull's proposals for a trade pact and President Roosevelt's well-known desire for it are very slow and lukewarm. But in the political as distinguished from the economic field there have been bad breaks in Anglo-American relations. There was a bad break at the Disarmament Conference, for example, where the United States made admirable proposals, which the present Home Secretary, during his disastrous tenure of the Foreign Office turned down contemptuously. [Interruption.] I beg pardon; I am referring to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. All Foreign Secretaries who deserve ill of their country seem to creep gradually round to the Home Office. Some remain there, and some pass on.
  Finally, I hope that in this part of the story—because this brings us very close to the present problem, making allowance for the changes in time and persons—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to repeat to Mr. Cordell Hull to-day the kind of words and attitude adopted by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer towards Mr. Stimson when this affair between Japan and China first flamed up in 1931–32. As Mr. Stimson has told the world in his most interesting book, "The Far Eastern Crisis, he twice endeavoured to secure effective Anglo-American co-operation in preserving peace and maintaining treaties in the Far East, and was twice rebuffed—"rebuffed" is Mr. Stimson's word. It is worth while
  1814
  also to recall, as part of this cautionary tale, that the "Times" newspaper, on 11th January, 1932, in a leading article which showed an amazing lack of prescience, and which should now evidently be re-quoted lest any one should believe the "Times" to be infallible, said:
  "The British Government acted wisely in declining to address a communication to the Chinese and Japanese Governments on the lines of Mr. Stimson's Note"—
  in reference to the Nine Power Treaty. It went on to say:
  "In invoking its Clauses the American Government may have been moved by the fear that the Japanese authorities would set up a virtually independent administration in Manchuria … to the detriment of the commerce of other nations. It is clear that the Foreign Office does not share these apprehensions."
  I suppose that that was inspired by the Foreign Office, under the instructions of the then Foreign Secretary. I hope we are not going to have a repetition of the attitude which was displayed by the Foreign Secretary of that day, or of foolish failure to foresee such as the "Times" newspaper then displayed. The question now is not whether Japan will establish an independent administration in Manchuria, but whether that independent administration will not gradually eat up all China, including its ancient capital. I do not wish to say more on this subject than that there has been an inclination in the past for the British Government, for some reason which on realistic grounds I find difficult to understand, to side with Japanese claims as against Chinese claims. I hope that that will not be repeated now. I am not now arguing on the basis of Anglo-American cooperation, or on the basis of League of Nations obligations, but I desire to bring the matter down, if that be the right word, to the plane of straight British interests, and I fail to see what British interest is served by the continuing encroachment of Japan upon the territory and natural resources of China. On the contrary, I think that, on the plane of British interests, we should desire that Japanese aggression in China should stop now rather than proceed further.
  This present situation in the Far East is the logical consequence of the attitude adopted by the Government of this country in 1931–32. Their weakness at the

  1815
  end of 1931 and the beginning of 1932 was the first great blunder, and the first act in the tragedy of the continuing retreat from Treaty obligations that has characterised those six years, of the continuing sacrifice of British interests, and of the continuous sapping of the authority of the League of Nations. That was the first great blow struck at the collective system by our attitude in the Far East. Japan has set a successful example of treaty breaking which has been faithfully followed.
  I turn now to what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the League of Nations. He says that it is still alive, and we are grateful for that information. I hope that in the days in front of us signs of increased vitality and usefulness will be shown from Geneva. When I speak of the League of Nations, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Committee will misunderstand me. I mean that collective influence which is exercised by governments through their representatives at Geneva. Frankly, I have the impression that the League of Nations has lost much of its authority and initiative and vigour. There are four things which, it seems to me, the League of Nations should be. It should be an international club, where mutual confidences may be created; it should be a regular instrument of economic co-operation between nations; it should be a court of justice for settling juridical matters and for the negotiation of peaceful changes in the present order of things; and it should be—I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me in this, but I think he will accept it—it should be a grand alliance of peaceful States against aggressors.
  Is the League of Nations to-day effectively any of these things? Evidently the absence from its councils of important States, and the intermittent attendance of unimportant States, limits the extent to which it is an effective international club. So far as economic co-operation is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Committee on Raw Materials, where we have, not technically a representative, but where we have a member in the person of Sir Frederick Leith-Ross. We were told that there was to be a report of this committee in September. We shall await that report, but my hon. Friends and I
  1816
  have frequently expressed the view that these economic difficulties are fundamental and have been greatly neglected; that they have not been vigorously attacked or deeply studied by the Government; and that many deep-lying causes of international hatred and suspicion to-day are economic in their character, and could be, even within the limits of differing forms of national policy, removed or greatly attenuated. What is being done? I have read accounts of the proceedings of this Committee on Raw Materials. Sir Frederick Leith-Ross made a speech in which he proved that the British Commonwealth was a have not Power—I think he used that very phrase. It was more clever than convincing to his hearer. The Treasury, of course, are nothing if not clever; they are supposed to be much cleverer than other Departments. Whether that is true or not, there is no doubt that they are very clever. That was in the best Treasury style, but I doubt if it helped us on. Is it really useful to pretend that, if you are going to divide the nations of the world and call them by these hackneyed terms, the "have" and "have not" nations, we come within the "have not" category? We must do better than that.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of some things that were being done. He reminded us of the tripartite declaration between ourselves, the French and the United States, admirable as a declaration and up to now applied in the defence of the franc, but not carrying us very far. He spoke of the mission of M. Van Zeeland. Its results, no doubt, will be reported more fully later. So far all that we know is that he has been travelling. We do not know whether he has had any success at all. In the third place, there was some reference, which was received with icy silence by the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, to reducing trade barriers. My hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) cheered loudly; the rest was silence. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has sonic reserves that are being hurried up. There was no burning enthusiasm on the opposite side for tariff barriers to be reduced, nor indeed are all my hon. Friends old-fashioned Free Traders on this side of the House. Some of us wear our Free Trade with a difference. But, however that may be, we want to know what the Government are doing,

  1817
  what trade barriers are they going to reduce, and what is the plan. We were told that at the Imperial Conference, recently dispersed, the Dominion Governments agreed to certain generalities on this subject, but have they agreed to our reducing duties on goods which compete with those of the Dominions? We are passing away from the Foreign Office, and I am not entitled to expect a detailed answer, but, broadly, how far is there really the will in any Department of the Government to reduce actual existing trade barriers instead of making general statements about them?
  Further than that, the fiscal question was at one time thought to be the predominant question in our politics. Some of us think it served the old parties to keep it so. But there are much deeper issues here than mere questions of tariffs and quotas. There is the whole question of the control of Colonial territories. There is the whole question whether or not the mandate system is capable, on the one hand, of geographical extension and, on the other, of change in its essential character. My hon. Friends have never made any secret of their view that it would be much better if dependent Colonies were all administered, by whatever mandatory, as mandated territories. What the Government ought to be doing, is trying to persuade other Colonial Powers to join with us in the extension of what would be, if not juridically a mandate system, at any rate its economic equivalent. I am doubtful whether the present Government is prepared to say, "We shall press the French to make the French Congo the equivalent of a mandated territory, and we will do the same to Nigeria, and we will bring pressure on the Portuguese to do it in Angola." I doubt whether the Government are prepared to go as far as that at present. If that is so, my view, which I believe is shared by my hon. Friends, is that, unless they are prepared to go that far, they are not really getting down to the root of these economic grievances between nations.
  I pass from that to ask whether the Government have any plan to make the League of Nations an effective grand alliance against aggression. If this scattered and vulnerable British Commonwealth is isolated in a war, no British armaments, however great, can effectively defend it against certain possible and
  1818
  obvious combinations. Therefore I ask, are the Government exploring the possibility, not of amending the Covenant of the League—I do not suggest that that is the proper way of doing it; I think they had better let the Covenant alone at present—but exploring the possibility of obtaining, within the framework of the League, as the phrase goes, a pact of mutual assistance and non-aggression with a substantial number of other States? Is the right hon. Gentleman seeking, or do the Government desire, to form within the framework of the League a powerful group of this kind, open of course to everyone to come in, because unless some unified force of that kind exists you have not created a sufficient collective force to deter aggression. Is the right hon. Gentleman moving along that line at all? Of course, we all wholly agree that we desire no vendetta against any State and that there are no inevitable enemies either of this country or of peace. There are only some people who make us wonder more than others. By all means let that be laid down quite clearly. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a statement to that effect made by a political friend of mine at Warsaw, and clearly we must make any such scheme open in the fullest and the freest way for any State, however governed or misgoverned, to come in.
  May I pass from the League of Nations to Spain? The League of Nations has played a very small part—that is a colourless way of putting it—in Spanish affairs. Some might say it has played an inactive and ignoble part. It has passed on all its responsibilities to the Non-Intervention Committee. We have had nine months of the old diplomacy on that committee, in which ambassadors meet and semi-accurate accounts of what transpires leak out, and there is no effective publicity and no effective secrecy, and all is gossip and surmise. Nine months of the Non-Intervention Committee has so far not produced non-intervention. The fruits of nine months of the Non-Intervention Committee are very small. The right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary analogy on the present state of the proposals that he has submitted can be carried a good deal further. He says they have had their Second Reading and have now entered on their Committee stage. We know what a Committee stage can sometimes be, how prolonged, how full of speeches which to all

  1819
  except the speakers seem unnecessary and unhelpful, how long the proceedings may be dragged out, and how many Amendments may be proposed.
  In the Non-Intervention Committee I presume unanimity is practically necessary, otherwise the thing does not carry. That, at any rate, is a difficulty that we do not have here. Therefore I anticipate that you will have a prolonged Committee stage. I anticipate that you will not secure unanimity. I may be wrong but, sizing up the form of the various States concerned, the utterances made and what one knows of their attitude I shall be astonished if the Committee stage is either short or unanimous in its proceedings. Meanwhile, this thing will drag on for months perhaps, while the so-called volunteers are still in Spain, their numbers still increasing and materials still going across, and the British Government will still have no official information about any of these matters.
  I will therefore, put on one side the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman has made to the Non-Intervention Committee and say one or two words about the Spanish affair in its wider aspects. I lay down these propositions. First, it is beyond dispute that the rebellion in Spain was begun by some mutinous Spanish officers and disgruntled Spanish plutocrats, aided and in contact with German and Italian agents. It is also not as clear as it ought to be, because it has been deliberately overlaid by many commentators, that the Spanish Government against which the rebellion was directed was a very mild Liberal Government. [Interruption.] It is my belief, and that of others who have studied the facts, that that was the original situation. Second, the rebellion would long ago have been crushed, even in spite of all the weaknesses of the Madrid and Valencia Government, but for the entry into Spain of large numbers of German and Italian soldiers and airmen, powerfully equipped.
  Lieut.-Colonel the Marquess of Titchfield: What about the Russians?
  Mr. Dalton: I thought I was going to get that. No doubt there are some Russians, but very many fewer than Germans and Italians, and I believe also that they arrived rather later. Since Russia has been mentioned, I was informed the other
  1820
  day that the Spanish Government at the outbreak of the civil war was in the same relation to Moscow diplomatically that this country was in in the days before the late Arthur Henderson sent an Ambassador to Moscow and received one in London. In other words, there were no regular diplomatic relations between the two Governments. Since the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned Russia, I offer him that piece of relevant information.
  But let us suppose, if you like, that it was not Germans and Italians. Suppose it was Russians who had been sent in in great numbers. My next argument will stand just as strongly. This is a new and most dangerous technique of aggression, and we should ponder over it from that general aspect. What happens? You stir up a civil war. You send your agents, and they stir up civil war in a neighbouring country and you do everything you can—short of openly declaring war—to enable the rebels to win.
  Let us reflect what will happen if this trick succeeds here. If this clever and new trick succeeds, do you not think that it will he played elsewhere? Diplomats should have regard to precedents and to the possibility of precedents being created. In more than one central European country it is quite possible for this trick to be repeated with disastrous results for the peace of Europe. In more than one country lying between the eastern borders of the Mediterranean and the borders of India, it is possible for this trick to be repeated with disastrous results. Therefore, I draw this general conclusion. Having regard to the dangerous nature of this trick, it is vital in the interests of decent international relations and of the continuance of peace elsewhere, that this trick should not succeed in Spain and that General Franco should not win. I put it thus negatively because no humane person can bar out the desirability of a cessation of bloodshed by agreement. What hope there may be of that at the moment I cannot tell. Senor Madariaga is a man of very great ability and a man with whom I have had personal relations for a number of years, but at the present time he cannot speak for anybody. He is out of it, and it appears to me for the moment that the prospects of a cessation of bloodshed in Spain are remote. But I do say that on broad interests General Franco must not win. And this trick is

  1821
  to be discouraged on quite other grounds. It is of vital British interest that General Franco should not win.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: What is the trick to which the hon. Gentleman has referred? Is it a trick of the communications between the Communists of Spain and the Comintern before the outbreak of the Revolution, or is it a trick he has suggested long before the intervention of Italy and Germany, or is it a trick after the Italians and the Germans came in?
  Mr. Dalton: The trick to which I was referring was the sending of armed forces by Germany and Italy following upon the preparation of the revolt by German and Italian agents. I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would accept the aid of a member of the Comintern to fish him out of the water if he were drowning. It may well be that a political situation may arise one day not dissimilar from that, and then we shall see what he has to say about it. [Interruption.] Whatever we may say about them, the Comintern are no menace to this country. They are only a nuisance. What bogy is frightening the hon. Member?
  Brigadier-General Spears: I think the hon. Member has forgotten to mention the International Brigade, and perhaps he would like to say a word about that.
  Mr. Dalton: I am willing to answer the question, but de minimis non curat lex. I know the hon. Member will understand that, but the International Brigade was a flea bite. [Interruption.] The International Brigade compared with the German and Italian air forces, was negligible, and, moreover, the mass of equipment which has accompanied the German and Italian totalitarian units has not any counterpart in the arms available for the German and Italian emigres and other persons who constitute the International Brigade. But I am anxious at this stage to say a word about British interests, and I relate this very closely to the Spanish situation. The attitude of some hon. Members opposite up to now leads me to quote these words from a well-known authority:
  "Strategically"…
  That is, from a victory for General Franco—
  "the danger is so obvious that it is difficult to understand the eagerness with which
  1822
  some of the most avowedly patriotic sections of the British public have desired the rebels success. Class-sentiment and property-sense would seem to have blinded their strategic sight."
  Hon. Members: Who said that?
  Mr. Dalton: Who said that? It is not Karl Marx, although the last sentence has a certain Marxian ring. It is not any follower of Karl Marx; it is the military correspondent of the "Times." In his book "Europe in arms" that passage occurs in the course of a most interesting essay on the future of the Mediterranean. I hope that hon. Members who have not read it may perhaps find an opportunity of reading it. I found it most illuminating. Captain Liddell Hart says:
  "This is the possibility of a militaristic Spain, filled with the desire to renew its Imperial role which is already reflected in some of the interviews given by General Franco, and linked with Fascist Italy by a common ambition as well as by the sense of help received in the course of the present rising.…A powerful Spanish Air Force, supplied or constructed by foreign aid, could be a serious menace to the last lap of the Mediterranean route."
  In the course of his argument, Captain Liddell Hart argues that the Eastern and Central sections of the Mediterranean route are threatened by the Italian air bases, while at the Western end this last lap would be seriously endangered by such developments as I have quoted. He continues:
  "And Gibraltar in turn might become as untenable as a base for the British fleet as Malta proved in the last emergency."
  He went on to speak of further dangers which might arise from the creation of air and submarine bases in various islands, not only the Balearics, but the Canaries, off the Atlantic Coast, and he says:
  "There have been reports, formally denied, of a secret promise of these two strategic points to Italy and Germany respectively in return for help rendered. Though the denial may he expected, this does not remove the potential danger. The availability of bases in these islands for the possible use of a strong sea and air power would be scarcely less ominous than the actual cession of the territory."
  That is a very penetrating analysis of the situation, and in view of that, I cannot understand how hon. Members who pre-occupy themselves with considerations of the military, naval and air defences of the Empire can desire a victory for General Franco, unless indeed, as Captain Liddell Hart says, "Class sentiment and property sense" have blinded them.

  1823
  What is the position in the Mediterranean now? The right hon. Gentleman spoke very brave words, on the one hand, and kindly words, on the other. He said that we were not going to have any interference with our right to use this arterial road. He tells me that it should be open to the use of others, of course. We do not wish to conduct a vendetta, least of all would those of us who have other reasons for cherishing tender feelings about Italy wish that there should be such a vendetta. It rests indeed with Signor Mussolini and the future standards of policy he adopts as to whether or not the ancient Italian-British friendship can be renewed. For the moment it is badly damaged, and whether it can be renewed or not depends on that.
  The British Fleet can no longer confidently claim the command of the Mediterranean. I find it difficult to believe that a mere increase in the number of vessels of various kinds in the British Fleet can give us effective command of the passage of the Mediterranean. I find it difficult to believe that, having regard to air and under sea developments. Similarly, if you pass from the Mediterranean to the Cape route, it is not only at the point of the Canaries on the south coast of Morocco, where the possibility of the formation of air and submarine bases is threatened. The Canaries are in General Franco's hands, but I am told that as you go down the African Coast and enter the Gulf of Guinea, the Island of Fernando Po, another Franco stronghold at the moment is stiff with German explorers. Whether that is so or not, it is possible that the Cape route also may be seriously threatened by General Franco's payment of his debts for services rendered. Where will you be then? If through the Mediterranean you can only pass with very great danger and a possibility of heavy loss, and if the Cape route is also threatened at the key points, then where are our Imperial communications? Hon. Gentlemen opposite will excuse me if I say that sometimes 1 am very puzzled at their reactions. I will give an illustration. On Wednesday last the First Lord of the Admiralty reported, as was stated in the "Times" on Thursday, that:
  "It may interest the House to know that a British ship was captured attempting to enter Santander this morning"
  1824
  And the "Times" comment was "Ministerial cheers and laughter."
  Mr. De Chair: Did the hon. Gentleman also see the comment of the "Times" leader, that the cheers were not because of the capture of the ship but were due to the justification which it gave to the First Lord for the action which he had taken.
  Mr. Dalton: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was looking a little uneasy, but in great newspapers like the "Times"—I will say that even in great newspapers like the "Times"—I prefer the record of facts to statements of opinion. The Parliamentary report related what happened here. The leader endeavoured to distribute praise, blame and prejudice, and I am less concerned with that. What the "Times" reports is, that when the First Lord reported that a British ship had been captured there were Ministerial cheers and laughter. [interruption.] I was not in the House at the time. It does indeed bring us back again to the position, which I will not repeat, mentioned in the essay of Captain Liddell Hart.
  Let me say a few words about Gibraltar. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will also think that this is a joke. I base myself here upon an authority—he may or may not be accurate—the author of the "Londoner's Diary" in the "Evening Standard." a paper to which hon. Members opposite owe something. The author of this paragraph says that he himself has been to Gibraltar and seen these guns and has talked to people who have examined these guns. He says, writing on Wednesday, 14th July:
  "More than a week ago I stated that I had seen these guns being placed in position last February, and that the authorities in Gibraltar had been told they were 12-inch howitzers of German make."
  Very formidable guns. He goes on to say:
  "General Franco's batteries are far heavier than is required for the defence of the Bay against Spanish warships. As I stated last week, it is admitted in Gibraltar that they could destroy the harbour in half an hour."
  There is another joke. Will hon. Members opposite laugh at that, as they laughed last Thursday?
  "Only the future will show whether the Gibraltar authorities are right in their view that General Franco will dismantle the guns if and when he wins the war."

  1825
  This leads me to ask a question. I do not know whether it can be answered and I do not press for an answer, but I should like it to be in the mind of the Government spokesman. What reason have they for thinking that if General Franco wins this war he will forthwith forget his friends and treat us as if we had been as good friends to him as have been Germany and Italy? What earthly reason is there for supposing that? One hears, and one is inclined to believe, rumours that there is a strong pro-Franco element in the Cabinet. Very likely the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary does not belong to it, but we all know that Cabinets are never united. The report is that there is a strong pro-Franco element in the Cabinet and also in business circles. There are also rumours, and here I should like an answer if the Foreign Office have any information. There are rumours in the French Press, both of the right and the left that certain oil companies have been making large loans to General Franco, including the Royal Dutch, of which Lord Bearsted is a director. It would be interesting to know whether there is any truth in that rumour.
  It is hoped by the pro-Franco Ministers in the Cabinet, by many people in business circles and by some others that if General Franco wins he will be what is called "easy to handle." It is hoped that a few diplomatic dinner parties and business talks will put things right. It is thought that although he is in the pockets of Germany and Italy he will soon climb out and forget his benefactors. That appears to me to be almost an imbecile miscalculation. The right hon. Gentleman read a passage from Signor de Madariaga about the way Spaniards resent the presence of foreigners. That may be true, but that is on a long view, or at least a middle-distance view. Does anybody believe that General Franco's gratitude to Germany and Italy will fade away within a year or so? If not, even if it only lasts a year or two, then we are entering upon a new and very dangerous stage in the European situation.
  We are going to have our French friends confronted by three potentially hostile military and air forces on the Pyrenees, the Alps and the Rhine. France will be encircled on three sides. In the Mediterranean our communications from East to West will be seriously threatened.
  1826
  The French communications across the Mediterranean from north to south will be equally seriously threatened. British communications round the Cape will also be liable to serious threats. If General Franco wins Germany and Italy will be in a triumphant mood; they will be looking around and be ready for new adventures. That will be a new and a still more dangerous phase of the international situation than any that confronts us now. Therefore, I repeat that it is in the interests of international peace and of British interests that General Franco should not win this war, and I submit that the policy of His Majesty's Government should be directed towards seeing that he does not win this war. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Churchill: Non-intervention.
  Mr. Dalton: It may mean nothing to hon. Members who laugh that British ships have been captured in the last few days by the insurgents, but the conclusion of my argument cannot be dismissed with laughter. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not accept the conclusion of my argument, it will be interesting to find at what point he dissents from my argument that the victory of General Franco will imperil the safety of the British Commonwealth and British communications throughout the world.
  Sir William Davison: Impartiality.
  Mr. Dalton: Is the hon. Member impartial as between his own country and the enemies of his country? Despite the statement of the Foreign Secretary it still remains true that the outlook is very black. Looking back for six years on British foreign policy there have been a number of landmarks which one can see standing out in recent history, and it is well that we should remember and appreciate their significance. In 1931–32 there was the Far Eastern affair, the retreat before the aggression of Japan. In 1932–33 there was the Disarmament Conference, which came to wreck through a combination of causes, and one of the most formidable causes was the refusal of His Majesty's Government either to put forward effective proposals of their own or to support those put forward by other States. In 1933–34 came German rearmament, followed by the late Prime Minister's confession that he had concealed the facts about German rearmament from

  1827
  the country for fear of losing the election.
  In 1935–36 there was the Italian aggression against Abyssinia. Perhaps the conduct of His Majesty's Government on that occasion struck a harder blow at the League as an institution and at our hopes of preserving peace in an orderly fashion than any other incident that has occurred, because not only did they fail to prevent aggression by speaking to Signor Mussolini in good time, but when aggression occurred they applied only the most mild and inoffensive sanctions. They neither stood up to Signor Mussolini nor stood clear of him. Either alternative would have been better, but they chose a policy in which we got the worst of both worlds and we got most of the discredit. Italy was alienated from us, without being hindered in her action, and from that has arisen many of the dangers of which we are now very conscious. Finally, we have had the civil war in Spain, of which much has been said.
  There is this general feature about the policy which has been pursued since 1931, and that is that there has been a continued series of retreats—retreats from treaty obligations, retreats from positions hurriedly taken up and then hurriedly abandoned. The result of all these retreats has been to discourage and discredit those, whether in Japan, Italy or Germany, who have counselled prudence and moderation. You have discouraged all the people who have tried to put a brake on dictators. It was so in Manchuria, it was so in Abyssinia and it is happening again in Spain. In all these cases those in the dictator countries who were trying to restrain the dictators have been discouraged and the dictators have succeeded. That is why, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, the international atmosphere is still so tense.
  Looking back over these six years we have had a series of blunders, betrayals and retreats. Looking forward, I cannot conceal from myself the view that the risk of a major war has been increased rather than diminished by what has taken place. The course of the policy which His Majesty's Government have pursued while it has often been defended as being designed to avoid the risks of war, has in fact greatly increased the risks of war,
  1828
  and the risks of a war fought under conditions far more unfavourable to us than would have been supposed a few years ago. In looking forward, therefore, to these increasing risks, I can only hope that the storm clouds which the right hon. Gentleman sees in the sky will not break, for I have this presentiment—I trust that war may be averted, and we shall all strive our utmost to that end—that if it does come and in such a form that we have to face it in unfavourable conditions, which are largely the outcome of the policy of the last six years, not only will all the values of our civilisation be destroyed, not only will the names of millions be blotted out from the book of life, but this British Commonwealth itself may founder in that great catastrophe. Therefore, let us all take heed while there is yet time of all these portents in the sky.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: We are indebted to the Secretary of State for having treated us this afternoon, very appropriately, considering the circumstances of the Debate, to a comprehensive review of the more critical aspects of foreign relations all over the world, and the official spokesman of the Opposition has followed with no less expansiveness and with very careful and painstaking attention to many details. I notice that the only difference between the outlook of the two Front Benches is that whereas my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs says that the outlook is not entirely black, my feeling after listening to the hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench is that on the whole the outlook is rather grey. I shall not attempt to emulate either the Government or the Opposition in taking so wide a view this afternoon.
  I have a rather precise and localised point to bring before the Committee. I do not at all find myself in agreement with the hon. Member opposite about the origin of the civil war in Spain. It is not true that here there was parliamentary constitutional government functioning in a normal way and that then an unprovoked rebellion was made against that Government by persons of extreme Right Wing views. It is well known that ordinary guarantees for safety and order had largely lapsed in Spain, that it was not safe for people to go out at night over large areas, that murders and outrages

  1829
  were rife, and that constitutional parliamentary government was being used as a mere mask, a screen, to cover the swift, stealthy and deadly advance of the extreme Communist or anarchist factions, who saw, according to the regular programme of Communist revolutions, the means by which they could obtain power. It was when confronted with a situation like that that this violent explosion took place in Spain.
  As the hon. Member opposite approached the end of his speech I began to prick up my ears, first in acquiescence, then in broad assent, and, finally, in lively agreement. I was glad indeed to hear him on behalf of his party taking such a keen interest in problems of Imperial defence, our sea routes through the Mediterranean and our oil and fuelling stations throughout the world. I should like to pay him my compliments upon the strong development he has made on these points and to hope that in the future, if he has not done so in the past, he will endeavour to sustain the Government in providing the necessary military instrumentalities to enable due care to be taken of these matters. But there was one charge which the hon. Member made—it was preferred last week in much more strident terms by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—that the Conservative party were ready to sacrifice Imperial interests because of their prejudice against Communism. I think the hon. Member opposite quoted a distinguished newspaper correspondent who attributed the apathy of the Conservative party in these matters to class interests and property sense. That is equally unkind and equally untrue.
  Mr. Dalton: It was in the "Times."
  Mr. Churchill: I say that the charge which is made, I care not where it is made or whence it comes, that the Conservative party for class interests are prepared to sacrifice British Imperial interests is not true. Resistance to Communism and to a Communist revolution—that is the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton—is not a class issue. Everyone knows that in a Communist or Bolshevist revolution what are called the upper classes, the nobility, the landowners, the financiers, the manufacturers, the clergy, the bourgeoisie, and the bulk of the intelligentsia, are destroyed. They do not last very long, there is not enough
  1830
  of them to go round, and the really successful Communist revolution, once that provender has been used up, begins killing the ordinary working classes, and I have no doubt that you could show that hundreds of ordinary weekly wage-earners have perished in Russia in the revolution for everyone of those classes I have mentioned. After they have begun killing the working classes they, of course, at the same time start killing each other, a process which I am bound to say I have always been able to contemplate with a fairly steady eye.
  It is not at all true to say that resistance to Communism and violent Bolshevik revolution is a matter of class prejudice. It is much more like the reactions which the human body takes when confronted with some malignant growth like cancer. It has absolutely nothing to do with class, and I do not think it has anything very directly to do with what is going on in Spain. But it is certainly in the general interests of the country that the Labour and Socialist party and Left Wing forces generally should take a keen and vigilant interest in questions of Imperial Defence. The hon. Member opposite raised the matter at the end of his speech. It gives unity to parliamentary representations on such a point, and I rise mainly, indeed almost solely, for the purpose of drawing attention to an extremely definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the question of these heavy howitzer cannon which are alleged to have been mounted around or near Gibraltar. The Opposition must not suppose, in their new-found enthusiasm for imperial Defence, that they are the only guardians of our interests in that matter. I can assure the Government—they know it already—that a very great deal of concern is felt on this point, and has been felt for some time, on this side of the House.
  More than four months ago I myself went to the Foreign Secretary and told him all I have heard, some of it from Opposition sources, about these great cannon. The Foreign Secretary showed himself seriously disturbed. I do not mind telling the Committee where I got my information. I got it from my son, who in February saw these heavy howitzers being mounted upon the massive concrete platforms which are necessary. He saw great numbers of workers busy at the task, and he also saw several

  1831
  of the howitzers themselves, although not at a distance from which it was possible to gauge their actual calibre. He came home at once and told me, and I immediately reported it to my right hon. Friend. I have since heard that the War Office had already been informed by the military authorities at Gibraltar. I put this to His Majesty's Government—I think the time has come when we are entitled to ask publicly what are the facts, and what do they mean? Let us consider the nature of these enormous weapons. A 12-inch howitzer, properly mounted on a stable land platform, can hurl a projectile of a ton weight to or 12 miles, and hit a target at that range no bigger than this Chamber with certainty at least 50 times out of too. If these guns are in range of the dockyard and anchorage at Gibraltar they can clearly destroy Gibraltar and render the anchorage and the bay untenable by His Majesty's ships. Can they do so? I do not know. I ask; can they do so? On the other hand, if they cannot do that, what can they do? Are they aimed at the Straits? Can they obstruct the Straits? Can they close the Straits? We ought to know. How many of them are there? Where are they sited? We ought to know. At whose instigation and by whose agency have they been erected? Again we ought to know.
  If the Government do not know I can only say that it would seem to be a very serious lapse from the high standards of our renowned intelligence serviee. If the Government do know I cannot conceive of any reason why the facts, which are undoubtedly known to foreign countries, should not be laid before Parliament, and I ask respectfully and earnestly for full information on this point. Assuming that such cannon have been mounted-I am asking for information; I am not here to make assertions—there are certain serious observations to be made. Weapons of this size and power are not required for any purpose connected with the Spanish civil war. They are certainly not wanted to drive off the fleet of the Valencia Government. This fleet of a few feeble old ships, whose crews murdered their officers without in many cases taking the trouble to find out their political views, is unable either to navigate its ships or fire its guns with any accuracy. It is
  1832
  absurd to suppose that General Franco, a struggling man, fighting on a narrow margin, in a life and death conflict would waste his meagre resources of money and material upon the purchase or the mounting of such enormous guns. We know that in all Spain no such guns existed before the outbreak of the civil war.
  Where then have they come from? They have certainly not come from Denmark or Rumania. They have not come from Switzerland or Sweden. I should like to know, are they from the foundries of Krupps or those at Ansaldo? We ought to know. If the Government know there is no reason why we should not know. We certainly do not give away the secrets of our own defences as long as they are secrets, but when you see the world in the condition it is now, the many dangers there are, the people have a right to be informed of the main facts, the significant facts, which indicate the groupings of the great Powers and the dangers which lie around us. We do not want our people suddenly, one fine morning, to be confronted with a terrible event, and then afterwards to have explanations given of how it all came about. We live in a time, after our experiences of 20 years ago, when we should be told everything that can be told in a manner entirely inoffensive to foreign Powers, so far as the revelation of unpleasant facts can be inoffensive to some people, and of course everything that can be told without injury to our own Defences. If these cannons have come from either of these sources, not only is it clear that they have nothing to do with the Spanish civil war. but they have been put up in relation to purposes and schemes of much wider and much greater significance. We can only judge this when we know the facts.
  I have tried, in following the policy of His Majesty's Government, to preserve a neutrality of mind upon the whole of this Spanish civil war. I am certainly not a partisan of either side, and I hope the House will bear with me in that. My sentiment is not for General Franco, nor is it for President Azana; it is not for General Queipo de Llano, nor is it for Senor Prieto or Senor Largo Caballero; my sentiment, as far as I have one, is for Spain and the Spaniards, not for the triumph of either faction, but that mercy should be shown to the vanquished, whoever they are, and the Spaniards become

  1833
  again one people. I was very glad indeed to hear the Foreign Secretary refer to the letter of Senor de Madariaga which appeared in the "Times" this morning, and which seems to strike a note, true and resonant, which I venture to believe, apart from all the savage tension of the conflict, must be finding its response in many Spanish breasts.
  I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend speak resolutely about legitimate British interests and the determination of the Government to put them first and to let them weigh at their full value. But the question of these cannons is certainly a major British interest. Perhaps it is a world interest. If it affects the Straits, it is not only a British interest but a world interest; and certainly it is an interest very intimately connected with the peace of Europe. It is a major British interest which, I venture to submit, must far outweigh in our minds the relative merits or demerits of the two sides fighting in Spain. We look confidently to His Majesty's Government to see that British interests are safeguarded.
  So far, I think I have carried His Majesty's Opposition with me, in the main, in what I have ventured to say. May I, then, venture to go one step further? Obviously if we are going to raise this question, we must in the first instance address ourselves to General Franco. Whether we should recognise him or not is a debatable question, but in any case we have to recognise the facts. We have to recognise 12-inch howitzers as facts. Any government, I do not care what is its complexion, which has power to mount cannons, capable of destroying a British dockyard, and what is much more important, capital ships of the Royal Navy peacefully anchored in that harbour, or of obstructing the fairway of the Straits, is a government with which obviously we have got to have relations. We have got to have formal relations; they might not always be very pleasant formal relations, but we are bound to have official representatives who can inquire about these facts from General Franco and make to him any representations which may occur to us upon the subject. To leave great ships like the "Hood," the "Rodney," the "Nelson," the "Renown" and the "Royal Oak," lolling about under the potential discharge of cannon of this calibre would be a crime
  against national safety. [Interruption.]
  1834
  Hon. Members opposite begin to laugh. I thought their party was anxious to concentrate serious attention on these events. Let us not have unseasonable levity on the matter.
  Mr. Bellenger: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to hon. Members on these benches, we were laughing at his rather extravagant language, and wondering how ships of the British Navy lolled about.
  Mr. Churchill: The figure was somewhat picturesque. It arises from the idea of a large and heavy body responding rhythmically to the movement of the waves. To go on like that would be exactly the same as letting capital ships anchor over a minefield, of which some foreign Power on shore held the key. Some finger—Bolshevik, Anarchist, Nazi, Fascist, I know not which, for the purpose of which I care not—might press the electric button, and an event might occur which might seriously alter the balance of sea-power throughout the world. Let hon. Members mark this, if such an event did happen, it would not be the end, but only the beginning of a tragic chapter in human history.
  Is this not the time to raise this question very directly with General Franco, who controls this area at the present time? Will any advantage be gained by waiting for a year, when perhaps he may be master of practically all Spain—[Interruption]. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) interrupts me. We always treat him with very great consideration, because he is a unique specimen; he represents the great Communist theory in this House, and at the same time he is perfectly tame and harmless, and he is, I may say, very well broken to the House. I wish, however, to ask a serious question: Will any advantage be gained by waiting for a year, when General Franco will be either master of Spain or, in the hazards of war, will have passed away?
  Now is the time, while the Spanish civil war hangs in the balance, to talk to him about these cannons. Are they perhaps the price he has had to pay for help he has received from this Power or from that Power? I think that is a fair question. Evidently this is a period when he is much more likely to meet our reasonable wishes than later on. Our interests ought not to suffer from our not having duly accredited agents both at Valencia

  1835
  and Salamanca. We may lose heavily in all sorts of ways if, out of a kind of political fastidiousness, we declare ourselves to be following a policy of boycott of any powerful forces in the world which have it in their power to injure us or to help us. Therefore, it is of no use talking about a gang of mutinous generals or a crowd of ferocious Bolsheviks. We have got to watch our British interests in both camps from day to day, and we have got to make sure that our agents have the best chance of having their representations earnestly considered.
  Under the Treaty of Utrecht, I believe, we have legal rights to the immunity of the Bay of Algeciras, provided we also forbid any enemy of Spain access to that Bay. There were also conversations on the subject, I remember, in 1901, which left matters in what I can only call a posture of tacit indetermination. But surely, we should not regard the mounting of these enormous guns, to menace Gibraltar or to obstruct the Straits, as dependent upon the interpretation of ancient treaties. It is a question of good neighbourliness and friendly behaviour of one Power to another. For instance, suppose the French—I take that Power because I know I shall give no offence—mounted batteries of great cannons at Boulogne and Calais which could shell London. They have a perfect right to do so; there is no treaty ground on which we could reproach them; but all the same, I am quite clear that the fact would lead to an entire alteration of our relations with the French Republic. They would be the first to admit that that would be so.
  This is the aspect which I hope my right hon. Friend will put to General Franco with the utmost clarity and in the best possible manner. It is not any use our sending someone there who goes in by himself to this shameful scene and says, "Now then, you mutinous General, what about these guns at Gibraltar? Of course, we are expecting and hoping that you will soon be defeated in order that the larger quarrel between the Stalin Communists and the P.O.U.M., or Trotsky Communists, may be fought out and may clear the way for that even larger dispute which lies for the world to decide between Communists and Anarchists; but meanwhile, young fellow my lad, as you are here, will you kindly give us satisfaction in
  1836
  the matter of these guns? "I am sure that my right hon. Friend, with his engaging manners and the powers of personal captivation which animate his diplomacy, will find better methods than that of putting that particular issue in those particular quarters, but that it should be put, and put at once, I have absolutely no doubt, unless the Government are in a position to remove altogether the alarming facts which I have ventured to recite.
  There is one other serious matter to which I wish to refer before I sit down. I wish to address to the Foreign Secretary a question on this other matter which seems to me to touch our security. Foreigners in this country have hitherto come here as individuals. They have dwelt among us under freedom and the protection of our laws. But during the last two or three years we have seen a development which has recently gained considerable proportions. We are already familiar with the Communist movement and propaganda, and have prepared ourselves by our broad political institutions and also by necessary police measures to deal effectively with that. But now I am told—and here again I am asking for information—that all Germans and Italians living abroad are bound up in regular, national, political organisations, Nazi or Fascist. There may be 35,000 or 40,000 Germans or Italians in this country at any given moment, and all of them are woven together by their respective Governments, under severe discipline. They have to report at frequent intervals to regular centres where they receive instructions as to what they should observe, and what language they should hold in moving about among our population, and what they should do in case of emergency. Actually a Nazi Minister and Department have been set up within the present year in Berlin to direct and concert the action of Nazi Germans living abroad. Nothing like this has ever been seen before and I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he considers that the time has now come or is approaching, when, in conjunction with the Home Office, on whom the administrative action would fall this matter should not be dealt with, both by representations abroad and if necessary by regulations at home.
  I apologise for having pressed these matters which are more specific than the

  1837
  general scope of the Debate would seem to encourage. I have this feeling, that we and the nations who feel with us and our institutions, are gradually gathering strength and confidence. I feel that Parliament men and Parliamentary countries should stand together against the dangers from either side and should be vigilant in guarding their interests. I always take comfort from the rugged words of Pym when he said:
  "None have gone about to break Parliaments but that Parliaments have broken them."
  Let the people of this country which was the birth-place and is still the stronghold of free Parliamentary government set an example to other countries by the vigilance and attention with which we secure the permanence of our institutions.
  6.4 p.m.
  Sir Archibald Sinclair: Of the points with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt in his interesting speech there was one with which I had myself intended to deal. That is the question of the guns which have been mounted near Gibraltar. To-day I wish to confine my remarks within the narrowest possible limits because I know there are a great number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who desire to take part in this Debate and I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this point with so much cogency and force, that, on the merits of the demand which he has made to the Government or at any rate the first part of that demand, there is nothing for me to add. The Committee is entitled to know whether these guns are so placed and are of such a calibre that they can bring under direct menace the units of His Majesty's Navy sheltering in the harbours and dockyards of Gibraltar.
  When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) however went on to suggest that in order to transact this business it was necessary, as I undersood him to say, to recognise General Franco as a ruler of part of Spain I definitely parted company with him. His Majesty's Government at the present time are making proposals under which, on certain conditions, they would be prepared to recognise General Franco not as governor of any part of Spain but as a belligerent, which is a different and a smaller thing. They are only willing to do that if he and those Powers which have
  1838
  supported him hitherto in the field, are willing to abide by certain conditions. But to suggest that we are willing to give so great an advantage as recognition would be to General Franco, to any lawless Power which is able and willing to submit us to an injury or a threat of such a serious character as these guns at Gibraltar constitute, would, I think, be a very dangerous policy for this Government to embark upon and I certainly hope they will not agree to the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping has made. On the other hand, there can be no question that the Government are perfectly entitled through their unofficial envoys at Hendaye and those who are in communication with General Franco on a number of matters to make suitable representations to General Franco, and I shall await with interest the Government's response to the demand which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and which I strongly support, for the fullest possible information which the Government can give us on those points.
  I wish to offer a few observations on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the masterly survey which the Secretary of State gave at the beginning of the Debate, of the whole field of foreign affairs. On the Far East I made two notes. The first was on the importance of the closest possible co-operation with the United States of America. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) dealt with it so adequately that I feel it is unnecessary for me to add anything to what he said, except that we on these benches attach the greatest possible importance to that aspect of Far Eastern policy. There is only one other observation which I wish to make on the Far East. When the right hon. Gentleman said that Japan enjoyed the sympathy of His Majesty's Government in solving its problems, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) interjected, "What problems?" The Secretary of State replied, "Economic problems, problems of population and problems of trade." I hope the right hon. Gentleman's speech means that His Majesty's Government are going to take a fresh view of those problems and that instead of hampering Japanese trade and making it difficult for Japan to prosper in the world and driving her into desperate courses to obtain access to raw materials

  1839
  and markets, they will abandon those measures of restriction and discrimination which they have exercised against Japanese trade. The Secretary of State said that the Government welcomed the approach made to them by the Japanese Government. He spoke of the contributions which His Majesty's Government were willing to make to the solution of these problems. I hope that the Noble Lord who is, I assume, to reply to this Debate will be able to inform the Committee what is the nature of the contribution which His Majesty's Government proposes to make to help the Japanese nation in solving their problems—to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, "Their economic problems, their problems of population and their problems of trade."
  Now I turn for a few moments to the question of Spain. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland took a gloomy view of the prospects of the Government's plan for settling these difficulties. He referred to the possibility or indeed the likelihood of long delays, and said that in the meantime the volunteers would be there and munitions would continue to arrive. The only difference I have with the hon. Member in his, I hope unduly gloomy, survey of the situation, is that I do not see what other policy there is under which these volunteers would be removed. I do not see any policy which offers any greater hope of the withdrawal of the volunteers in the near future or stopping the arrival of munitions from abroad in Spain than the policy of bringing these countries into discussion around the table of the Non-Intervention Committee. But I join with the hon. Member in hoping that delay amounting to deliberate procrastination will not be allowed. This House will be rising shortly for the Recess. I hope that when we have scattered to our homes we shall not read in our newspapers that the Government are allowing indefinite procrastination to take place while these volunteers are being reinforced and fresh munitions are arriving. I hope the Noble Lord when he replies will give us some assurance on that point.
  I was glad to hear two things which the Secretary of State said in this part of his speech. The first was the passage in which he emphasised the importance of
  1840
  preserving the balance of the scheme. That is to say, I take it, that there will be no recognition of belligerency until volunteers are withdrawn. That to my mind is a vital point. I agree with all that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said about the danger of a new technique which might so easily be used in Central Europe or in Near Eastern countries or in the countries bordering on the Levant. There is no question about what the hon. Member said when he was interrupted by the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears). There is no question as to foreigners of the kind who have joined the International Brigade representing any development of a new technique. They are merely volunteers such as have gone often from this country to other countries where fights were going on for the principle of freedom—to Greece, to Italy, and to many other countries. They were individual volunteers, but these so-called volunteers on General Franco's side are organised and sent by their own governments and that does amount to the development of a new and dangerous technique.
  Captain McEwen: Both kinds of volunteers are to be withdrawn.
  Sir A. Sinclair: I know, and I was only emphasising the importance of preserving the balance of the scheme and making certain that these volunteers are withdrawn before the belligerency of General Franco is recognised because they do represent a threat to the order and peace of Europe. I would urge, too, a point which I made in a similar Debate last week, but to which the Noble Lord in his reply on that occasion did not refer. There should, at any rate, be complete withdrawal of the volunteers from the firing line and from the aerodromes before there is any recognition of the belligerency of General Franco. Particularly, they should be withdrawn from positions of strategic importance like these gun platforms outside Gibraltar and places like Majorca and Iviza. I hope the Noble Lord will be able to give us an assurance on that point. The Conservative party conference last year passed a resolution to the effect that the restoration of any Colonies to Germany was undiscussable. They would find it very difficult to maintain that resolution if in fact German and Italian troops were in occupation of gun positions

  1841
  commanding the harbour and dockyard at Gibraltar, if they were in Majorca, if they were in I viza, and if they had submarine bases available to them in the Canary Islands and in Fernando Po.
  The other point which I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State lay stress upon was our friendship with France, and this point of making certain that the withdrawal of volunteers is effective before recognising the belligerency of General Franco is a vital one for France. It is not only the Left in France under the pressure of Communists, as I see it said sometimes in Conservative newspapers, which is pressing for this. No one who reads the French Press can maintain that. Indeed, you will find that it is the Press of the Right, the publicists of the Right, like Pertinax, M. de Kerillis and many others, who are stressing the menace of German and Italian occupation of Spain to the safety of France.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State asked, "If the plan fails, what is the alternative? "I hope the noble Lord will tell us even a little more plainly than the Secretary of State did, though I would like to say that I thought the right hon. Gentleman spoke plainer words to-day than he has spoken yet in these debates on this subject. I was delighted to hear them, but perhaps the noble Lord can make them even a little plainer. If this plan fails, what is the alternative? The alternative to nonintervention is not, as a great many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite argue, intervention. Nobody, except possibly a very small group of Members in this House with whom I am not acquainted, suggests that we should intervene on behalf of either side in Spain, and I would suggest that the alternative to non-intervention is merely the restoration to the Spanish Government of their natural right to buy arms wherever they can and to import them, of course, at their own risk. The alternative, as the Secretary of State said, is the opening of the frontiers, and if France does decide that the time has come to adopt that alternative, I hope she will receive the full support of this country. The reason why I want the Government to make clear that they envisage this alternative is not that I want the negotiations upon which they are now engaged to break down—on the contrary, I hope and pray that they will succeed—but because, if the feeling spreads
  1842
  among the Powers with whom they are negotiating that if the negotiations break down or if undue procrastination is allowed, we shall again retreat, we shall recognise General Franco, we shall do anything to keep out of trouble, then you are giving an incentive to those Powers to procrastinate and even to bring about the breakdown of these negotiations.
  Now I want to say a word or two on the economic factors to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He said it was easier to speak in general terms about the economic factors than to define them or to eliminate them. The right hon. Gentleman himself has managed to speak with admirable clarity as to definition. He spoke to-day, if he will allow me to say so, with admirable clarity about the removal of trade barriers being an effective step in diminishing political tension, and he has spoken before about the central problem being to promote an increase of the exports of all countries, including those of Germany. The Government have overcome the difficulties of definition, or the Secretary of State has, at any rate, admirably, nor do they find any difficulty about elimination, because what they eliminate is any action to follow up the speeches which the Secretary of State makes.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the actual steps, to the three-Power declaration of last September. When that declaration was made at Geneva, the present Minister of Agriculture, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, explained elaborately why it was impossible for our Government to follow the lead which the French Government gave us of expanding quotas and reducing tariffs. The second step to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the Van Zeeland mission. We on this side attached the utmost importance to the mission of M. Van Zeeland, and I was shocked to see how little attention was paid to M. Van Zeeland when he returned from his important visit to the United States. There was no official reception. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that when M. Van Zeeland went, a Belgian journalist came to see me, and he said to me, "M. Van Zeeland was passing through this country yesterday. Is it true that you attach importance to his visit? Is it only you Liberals who attach importance to it? Surely the Government

  1843
  do? "And he went on to say," M. Van Zeeland passed through yesterday, and there was hardly any notice taken of his being in this country." If it was desired to emphasise the importance which the Government attached to M. Van Zeeland's mission, he should not merely have been received in this House by the Prime Minister. We all know that that happened, but that is the least that could happen to a distinguished Prime Minister on a friendly visit, engaged on a mission to which the Government had at least consented. He ought to have been received with great honour. Ministers and high officials of the Government ought to have met him, and the Government ought to have expressed, in no uncertain terms, the importance which they attached to his visit.
  Mr. Eden: I would not like anybody to think for a moment that either any discourtesy or lack of attention was paid to M. Van Zeeland, for whom we all have the greatest possible respect. What in fact happened was that he only stopped here one day, and during that day he had many hours' conversation, both with the Prime Minister and with myself. I am sure that he would be the last person to say that there was any discourtesy on our part. We did not greet him with a lot of ceremony that I am sure he does not like any more than do some of us.
  Sir A. Sinclair: The right hon. Gentleman has misconstrued my remarks. I did not accuse him or the Government of discourtesy, as he will see if he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, but I said that there was not that effort made which was necessary if we were to impress the country, to impress the world, and to impress public opinion in the United States of America with the importance which we attached to the mission of M. Van Zeeland and with our desire to do him honour on his return from the United States of America. Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the agreement with the United States of America to improve, as he said, the economic situation and to establish peace. We know that it has got stuck on one thing after another. We are told it is Australian raisins which are now the obstacles to this agreement, which, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, would improve the
  1844
  economic situation and go far to establish peace. The Government do not give this country, and they do not give public opinion in the United States of America, the impression that they are in earnest, and it requires more than the speeches of the Secretary of Slate, though I pay my tribute to him for them and though I welcome them, to convince public opinion in this country and in the United States that the Government are in earnest over that policy.
  Lastly, I would refer to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the League of-Nations. He referred to the settlement of the problem of the Sanjak of Alexandretta and I am glad he did. The newspapers never pay any attention to the successes of the League—they are not news; they are not good "copy"—and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for drawing attention to this achievement of the League. Then he went on to refer to the reform of the League, and he said that public opinion was divided between those who wished to emphasise the importance of conciliation and those, who wished to strengthen collective security. But what antithesis is there between these principles? They are both vital principles, and both should be combined in any plan for the reform of the League. The hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench referred to the ignoble part that the League had played in the Spanish imbroglio. Of course, it is, I think he will agree, because it had been broken, temporarily, over the Abyssinian fiasco. When the right hon. Gentleman the former Prime Minister, Lord Baldwin, used to say, "If the League fails, we shall all come together and build it up." I used to say in this House that it would not happen, and could not happen, that way; and in fact, as we can all see now, the League of Nations has been fatally weakened.
  There is only one way in which it can be restored. It was very nearly as low in the estimation of world opinion in the summer of 1935 as it is now, and then it was restored by what appeared to be an act of faith on the part of the then Foreign Minister, who went to Geneva and made a great speech in September of that year. Then, as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said, all of a sudden we found that the League was alive and vigorous. Now it can only be

  1845
  restored in the same way. But what we then took for an act of faith, we afterwards discovered to be pure bluff. We did not know it at the time. We thought it was an act of faith, and the world thought it was an act of faith. It is in that way, and in no other way, that the power and strength and influence of the League of Nations can be restored at the present time. That is the way to check divisions on the future of the League and the principles of the League, whether they follow ideological or national lines, and I hope the Noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will be able to give us some assurance that the Government do intend to give an effective lead to the nations of the world in restoring the power and influence of the League.
  6.27 p.m.
  Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) will forgive me if I do not attempt to follow him into a discussion as to how the League is to recover from the fatal accidents to which he has referred, because I want to deal with one or two other matters. Nor do I propose to go to the Far East, with other hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken about the Sino-Japanese situation, because there again, it is a very wide subject and one which is naturally occupying all the thoughts of statesmen, but I rather doubt whether we can do much good in this House by giving our views upon that subject at the present moment. I would only like to say that I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), in which he referred to all the retreats which had taken place in recent years. I venture to think that it would have been better for him to have omitted that word, because I never knew a retreat anything like last Thursday's. But I agree to this extent, that I feel that since the Great War we have been inclined to be bluffed out of our position very largely in the Far East, and I believe there were occasions when, if we had put our foot down rather more firmly, not by threatening war, as is so frequently done in this House nowadays, but by making it perfectly clear that we were not prepared to clear out of Hankow just because there was a momentary Bolshevik rising in that part of the world, I think we should have been in a stronger
  1846
  position. But that is a long story, with which I cannot deal to-day.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness also on a favourite theme, which I am very much tempted to follow but I am not going to, was telling us about the economic situation. Of course, we have to look into the whole matter. He said, referring to Japan, that she was taking desperate courses in order to secure raw material. I do not want to deal with this matter at any length, for the immediate problems that confront us are more vital at this moment, although it is an important question for the consideration of the world. I must, however, make my protest once more against the suggestion that there is any raw material in the British Empire which is withheld from Japan or any other country. The right hon. Gentleman also says that we must help Japan to solve her problems. I am certain that we want to do so if we can, but there are hundreds of thousands of persons in this country whose very livelihood is being affected by the Japanese attack on their markets, and it is more a question of helping them to survive than of coming forward with some great scheme to help Japan.
  I want to come to the vital matter which is affecting the whole of the old world—the question of Spain. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that the question of guns facing Gibraltar is one which cannot be ignored. I look at this question, however, from rather a different angle because I have made some study of it for some years. I spent a considerable time going into the whole question with a Governor of Gibraltar, who was a friend of mine. I should have thought that it was clear to artillerists that if anyone is to make our position at Gibraltar a difficult one they would need to have the guns in the interior of the country where the ships could not blow the battery to pieces and where they could not be picked up easily by ships' guns or artillery fire. That was the case in those days. Everyone who has moved along the road from Algeciras to Tarifa lately knows that it has been done openly. The gun emplacements have been evident.
  Mr. Churchill: Why?
  Sir H. Croft: I will tell my right hon. Friend. It is a reason which will appeal

  1847
  to him as he is a fighting man who does not sit down to be shot at without some riposte. The truth of the matter is that the battleship "Jaime I" shelled Punta Carnero twice daily, and Algeciras was shelled almost daily for a long period of time, and to suggest that General Franco was not to arm himself in resisting this bombardment with land artillery seems to me to be going rather 'outside the picture.
  Mr. Churchill: My hon. Friend will consider the nature of the armaments.
  Sir H. Croft: I agree that it is a vital consideration. At the same time, my right hon. Friend knows also that if you are to have the kind of attack which was being made upon these parts of the country by battleships, you must have heavy material in howitzers and guns. When my right hon. Friend says that we must watch this question, I am of course with him. Passionate supporter of Franco as I am as an individual, I never intervened in the Spanish question until the daily bombardment from the Opposition, who have Spanish influenza with a high temperature, attempted to belittle the attempts of the Government to bring peace, and I never tabled a question until last week. If at the conclusion of the Spanish War we find any attempt on the part of either Germany, or Russia, or Italy to establish themselves in any of these territories, I would say to them, "You have got to go home." It is much better to make that clear now, and not wait until we are disarmed and then insult other countries. We must make it clear before the event and say that it is a thing we will not tolerate.
  The question of belligerent rights is one which is bound to receive our consideration. I will not go into the history of the Spanish Civil War. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland used such sentences as, "There is a new technique," and "You send your agents to stir up trouble." The technique is not so new, however. It is now many years since this technique was adopted by Moscow.
  Mr. Dalton: Do not let us get at cross purposes. The new technique is not in sending agents. It is in sending agents first and armed forces under the control of the Government afterwards.
  Sir H. Croft: I am going to prove that that is precisely what has happened on the part of Russia during the present Civil War. Even in the time of Lenin Spain was the next objective of Russia. Six years before the Civil War parties of Spaniards, to my knowledge to the number of 300, went to Moscow to be trained in the arts of fighting revolutionary procedure. We cannot get away from these facts. They are well known. Therefore, I say the technique is not so new. It is well known everywhere that Russia was taking this very active interest in Spain before the revolution took place. I do not think anybody would challenge the right of this country if she thought it wise to grant belligerent rights to both parties in the Spanish dispute. I think it is also agreed that the only reason we have not done so is because we, with the rest of the old world, have been trying to devise a new experiment, contrary to all precedents, by which we have endeavoured to localise the trouble. The reason none of the countries has granted belligerent rights is simply that they have been trying a sort of collective international action to localise the conflagration.
  Nobody will deny that the intervention of foreign forces in Spain has added to the difficulties and has greatly ruffled the surface of European diplomacy. Under the proposed plan of His Majesty's Government there are two proposals—withdrawal of volunteers and granting of belligerent rights. One of these proposals would appeal to hon. Members on the Opposition benches, and the other would appeal to me, but it is clear that we cannot get one of them alone under the intervention plan. Therefore, His Majesty's Government have done a statesmanlike thing in propounding a plan which may conceivably be accepted merely for the sheer honesty of the proposal, because it does not take sides. Although it might be statesmanship to aim at a solution by the removal of volunteers and the establishment of belligerent rights, I want to suggest that the removal of volunteers has nothing to do with the question of the recognition of belligerent rights according to international jurisprudence. I could give several instances of it, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) interjected that even in Spain this had happened. If my memory is correct there were 10,000 Englishmen under General

  1849
  Lacy Evans in the legitimist war which took place in Spain, and I do not think there was any great outburst in the Liberal party at that time.
  We have this paradoxical situation. The Opposition take exception to granting belligerent rights because they would be granted to the insurgents in Spain, but it must be perfectly obvious that in every Civil War there has ever been one side has been the insurgents. Does this mean that the Opposition say that in every rebellion that has ever occurred, successful or otherwise, people should not have striven for what they believed to be greater freedom or for any other purpose? They cannot carry that argument very far and remain logical. The Opposition have landed themselves in this paradoxical situation. It is not our business to interfere in the form of government of any foreign country, but suppose there were a great movement in Germany or Italy towards, say, a democratic form of Government. The whole basis of the case for the Opposition is that they could not possibly support the idea of recognition of a revolt of that character. We would have to support the existing governments at Berlin and Rome. Not only that, but, as they have said several times, we would have to supply the Government with arms against the insurgents.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: That is no analogy.
  Sir H. Croft: I will take an analogy closer home. Is not the Russian Government an insurgent Government? Was it not formed out of insurgency? It was not even against the Tsar's Government, but against the only democratic Government which had been tried in Russia for many years. It was under Kerensky, and he himself was the leader of an insurgent Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be careful; otherwise he will be finding strained relations with some of his best friends, because I am sure the Russian Government would not approve of our laying it down that they should not be recognised and should never have got there. If we try this argument in the case of civil war in Spain we must have a lot of exploration into the friendships which we have formed in the past.
  The Opposition say that General Franco has not earned the right to be treated as a belligerent. If one studies
  1850
  the precedents of history it will be found that his present situation fulfils the need of the grant of belligerent rights. He has a substantial portion of the country under his control, in fact much more than one-half. He has a substantial portion of the population behind him, again obviously more than one-half. My informants from Red Spain tell me that a large number of Spaniards under the Valencia Government would hail General Franco, if he came into their territory, with great joy as the saviour of their country. Again, he has organised forces and he conducts operations according to the laws of war. These things can no longer be disputed.
  Although it has nothing to do with belligerency, I must refer to something which the Leader of the Opposition said in connection with General Franco. He said that he had broken his oath and that the fragments of what was the Government of Spain at the time of the civil war are still the duly constituted democratic Government of Spain. Owing to the history of Spain the position as to the oath there is somewhat different from what it is in more stable countries. I think it may be truly said that the leaders of the popular Front Government in Spain, some of them, certainly, were guilty of a breach of their oath to King Alfonso in the beginning. In the convulsions in Spain there have been a good many disloyalties; probably the whole of the Army were disloyal at that time; but I do not think that carries us very far. The difficulty is that the word "insurgent," which I have heard so often from the Opposition Front Bench in my 28 years in this House, is no longer respectable. It is only respectable to be an insurgent if you are a real left winger, because then you are probably doing something which is right! General Franco was for many years a loyal supporter of the Republican Government.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Never once.
  Sir H. Croft: The hon. Member may know more than I do, but I venture to suggest that those who have known Franco for many years would say, if it were suggested that he had been disloyal to a great movement representing the whole majority of the nation, that that was not the fact. The fact is that at this general election, from which such sad events have come to Spain, the Popular

  1851
  Front secured 4,350,000 votes, and the forces of the Right 4,570,000, and the voters of the Centre numbered 340,000. That shows that the people of Spain did not demand an extreme revolutionary change in the government of their country, such as took place under the Popular Front Government.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: Would the hon. and gallant Member argue that a minority Government is none the less not a constitutional Government?
  Sir H. Croft: I was not arguing that. I say that the test of noses, the counting of votes, actually showed that there was no great demand for this revolutionary change in Spain, but, as a matter of fact, from the moment that Government was elected it ceased to". govern. From the moment it came into being it broke the laws of Spain and it violated the constitution. Who are the best arbiters on that point, any Member of this House or the man who was President of Spain at the time, President Alcala Zamora, who who was a Left Republican, not a Liberal? He has exposed the whole situation, the chicanery and the jobbery with regard to seats at the time of the election, and how law and order went from Spain when that Government took charge. I could give endless quotations from his speeches, but I do not want to weary the Committee. No one was more qualified to speak than he. He was President before the election, President at the election, President for some months after the election, and he has told us how the soul of Spain was torn and how law and order ceased to exist.
  Long before the civil war took place in Spain there was complete disorder. Large numbers of churches were destroyed, and hundreds of others were disgracefully disfigured. Great numbers of murders took place. In the words of the "Times" as far back as June, 1936, liberty was at the mercy of the mob. In June of that year General Franco implored the Government to restore law and order. He made his great appeal, and, more important than Franco, Calvo Sotelo, went into the Cortes and made that brave speech pointing to a terrible list of disorders and deaths. He was warned at the time by a lady member, who said "This is the last speech you
  1852
  shall ever make," and within a week he was murdered by people who did not even take the trouble to doff their uniforms as police. That was the situation, and everybody who has studied the question knows that revolution was due to break out, planned by Moscow at that very time, and that when General Franco saw the murder of this great and enlightened patriot, no reactionary but a great, broad-minded man, he knew that the time had come when, if he was to save his country, as he believed, he had got to act. That is the truth of what happened before the civil war, but the leaders of the Socialist party here still persist in calling the Government in Spain a democratic and constitutional Government. It split at once after the civil war into four Governments. Bilbao had a Government, Santander had a Government, Barcelona and Valencia too. Everybody knows that one of those Governments has ceased to exist, the other is hard pressed and in a corner. The Government of Catalonia is busy suppressing anarchy among its own supporters, and is utterly discounted by the fourth Government, that of Valencia. There is no unity and no harmony. When hon. Members opposite speak of the democratic and duly constituted Government of Spain, which of the four do they mean? They say that it was a Government of Liberal and Radical tendencies when it was formed. I suppose they have read the remarks of the famous ex-Prime Minister, the Leader of the Radicals, Senor Alexander Lerroux. He said:
  "In the city and province of Valencia not only have Radical Deputies been murdered but in certain villages all the members of the Radical party have been exterminated."
  We should not wish that fate to befall the Radicals of this country. It is an appalling fact that an ex-Prime Minister of Spain should have to tell us that all his followers in the Cortes had been murdered.
  Now I come to the question of foreign intervention, because I think it is almost the basis of the case of hon. Members opposite. Though they speak very sincerely they have probably not acquainted themselves with all the facts and do not know both sides of the question. They get their propaganda from a red angle and nobody has taken the trouble up to now—General Franco has been far too busy—to answer all the gossip and rumour which goes over the wires. For instance, I read yesterday in a respectable Conservative paper an announcement from

  1853
  Gibraltar that General Franco had decided to expel all the British from Spain unless belligerent rights were immediately granted. The thing is grotesque. It is a great difficulty of the Foreign Secretary that these alarmist rumours should be printed day by day, and nine times out of ten are based on no facts at all. No one will deny that General Franco's advance on Madrid was only stopped by "the heroism of the International Brigade," and yet the heroism of the International Brigade was exploited before a single organised force of Italians had landed in Spain. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No!" I Not one single organised force of Italians had been engaged in battle at the time when the International Brigade held up that advance.
  Duchess of Atholl: May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend that it was proved before the inquiry held by the French Government on the three Italian aeroplanes that came down in French territory last year while on the way to General Franco that they had been ordered to join him on 15th July, three days before the insurrection broke out?
  Sir H. Croft: I am very grateful to the noble Lady for repeating what I have heard her say so often before. But that does not alter the facts. [HON. MEMBERS "Yes, it does."]. I am not denying her statement. The noble Lady and I are old colleagues in this House, and I always accept what she says. She would never make a statement here which she does not believe to be perfectly true.
  Duchess of Atholl: I am giving my evidence.
  Sir H. Croft: The Noble Lady's evidence has been thrown into the pot. I am making a speech and the Noble Lady has chipped in with her bit of evidence. I have one or two remarks to make, because I am absolutely determined that this country shall no longer fail to have the truth about intervention. [Interruption.] I have said that I accept what the Noble Lady said. At the beginning of the civil war, even before it broke out, there were stories of aeroplanes. The whole world was humming with them from Moscow to Madrid, months before the civil war broke out. How long was it before the so-called Government of Spain had aircraft in the air? I have been rather drawn off my path,
  1854
  but I want to say this in conclusion: There is absolute proof that there has been no preponderance of foreign intervention on one side or the other.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: We have not had the truth.
  Sir H. Croft: I am going to give it. There have been great forces in the air on both sides. There has been a very substantial force, the so-called international column. It has been very difficult to ascertain the exact numbers. The right hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to get that international column out of Spain. He may send British officers down the front line trenches where they will be liable to get bombs on their heads, but how are they going to discriminate between international communists from France, Spain or Russia if they are all dressed in no uniform at all, as is the case at present? The fact remains that there is there that very large force which played a decisive part at the beginning of the war. Even to-day, in the latest attack by General Franco, two counterattacks were made by international shock troops. They have played a very substantial part in the defence of the Spanish Government.
  I come to the question of the air. Does anybody deny that there has been a large number of machines from Russia and from France? I should not want to mention these facts, but day after day charges are hurled across the Table and one must mention these other countries, though not in an unfriendly way, because we have friendly relationships with all these countries. We cannot have only one side stated all the time. The best proof of the number of foreign aeroplanes on the Spanish Government side is to be found in the number which have been brought down by General Franco's troops, the aeroplanes that are in the bag. It is said that there are only 30 or 40 French or Russian machines, but that is not true.
  Let us get down to the facts. Here are the actual machines which are in the bag. Pursuing planes, Lovie Nieuport, 27; Dewoitine, 12; Nieuport model (5f), 13; observation planes, Breguet National Potez, 19; Russian bombers, Sofia, 12; Natacha, 12; Martin bomber, 13; pursuit planes, Boeing and Rata, 43; Russian and French pursuing planes not separately classified, 86; or a total of 239. I am

  1855
  giving the House this information which is just as definite as any information given by hon. Gentlemen who interrupt over the last few months. They can accept these facts as correct from fellow-countrymen of mine in Spain who have told me that these are the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] If it is a fact that this large number of machines has been brought down, indicating large Russian and French intervention, are we right in pretending that this intervention is only on one side? Does anybody deny that Russian tanks have been one of the most decisive factors in this war? Russian tanks are not made in Spain, are they? They are manned by Russians, are they not? Yes. I know it is good politics, although not very good at the by-elections; but it is regarded as good politics that this Chamber should be turned into the Cortes and that instead of discussing the means test and the Special Areas we should have Spain, Spain all the time.
  The fact remains that as regards tanks and planes, Russian and French intervention has been of a decisive character. When the Italian attack on Madrid, which was so much advertised, took place, they advanced 25 miles and landed up where they started from. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member who interrupts will agree that that was "disappointing." What stopped them was that they bumped into a large number of Russian tanks and there have been far more Russian tanks since, and during the last three weeks, in spite of all the foreign aeroplanes which have been picked up, there are still a large number of foreign aeroplanes in the air. Where did they come from? Has this night flying been only on one side? Is it more wicked to have 4,000 or 5,000 German technicians in Spain, assuming that they went of their own free will, than it is to have 1,500 Englishmen recruited by members of the Socialist party in this country? Five hundred of them have lost their lives already; I do not know who is paying their widows' pensions. If we are honest we shall admit that there has been intervention on all sides, although this Government can never have it said that it has not played the game, from start to finish. The whole world owes a debt of gratitude to His Majesty's Government. The faults are pretty equal
  1856
  on both sides, but that does not alter the fact that the Foreign Secretary was wise in trying to get all foreigners out of Spain. It is not going to be easy, but I beg him to persist in his scheme. The whole of Europe asked the right hon. Gentleman to press his Government to provide a plan. I hope that he will not tolerate any longer this one-sided propaganda which the whole country is beginning to realise is not based on fact.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Lloyd George: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has very vigorously and effectively made a strong case for the complete failure of non-intervention. He says that so far from it having succeeded, everybody has broken it. He admits that Italians and Germans have broken it. He gives us facts to show that the Russians have broken it and that the French have broken it. The whole scheme having been, according to him, a demonstrable failure, he ends his speech by appealing to the Foreign Secretary to persist in his scheme. I am not going to follow him in his account of the history of the events which led to the setting up of the Government of Spain. I will just remind him that it was an election which was declared by a Government supported by the Right. It was art election which was conducted by a Government of the Right. If there was any corruption it was the fault of the Government of the Right, because they had control of the elections, and control of elections in that quarter of the world means a good deal. The election returned a majority of Members of the Left. The hon. Gentleman says that they went on to legislate and to administer in a revolutionary sense. I have been a member of a Government of the Left and I have never seen a single legislative enactment introduced by that Government but that the hon. Gentleman and his associates denounced it as confiscation, pillage, revolution, Socialism, anarchy, and, as cue great statesman said, robbery, the end of all things.
  Sir H. Croft: It was not I who said that. It was the Left Republican President.
  Mr. Lloyd George: He said it after he had been sacked. Naturally you do not say very nice things about those who sack you. When the hon. and gallant Member

  1857
  gave reasons why the Government was not democratic, one extraordinary reason was that it had split. That is one of the best proofs I know that it is a democratic Government. As for Mr. Lerroux, the President, being a Radical and a Liberal, he is just as much of a Radical and Liberal as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not more and probably less. But I would rather proceed to discuss other matters raised by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), because I feel that his contribution was a very important one, coming, as I know, from one who does not take exactly the same view of the dispute in Spain as I do. I do not think that he is quite as impartial in that respect as he claims to be, but, at any rate, the contribution he made was of first-class importance. I am not going to discuss the contentious part of his speech in which he described Communism as a cancer. All that I can say is that I am not a Communist, and I am not likely to be one, but Russia, considering that it is suffering from a malignant and deadly disease—and has suffered from it for 20 years—is showing a most remarkable vitality. As a matter of fact, I had some experience of Czarist Russia. I do not know what the disease was, but the corruption ran right through its veins. There was inefficiency in transport and in all kinds of production, and there is no comparison between Russia then and now.
  I will come to the other part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which, I think, was a valuable contribution, and I would like to press on the Government the questions he has put. I saw this information with great alarm in the papers, but I was not in the least surprised. With these guns placed on the Straits of Gibraltar, at one point about seven or eight miles across, and at hardly any point so wide that you cannot fire across with a great howitzer, if you have got guns of that description there you can practically close the Straits. That is a very formidable fact. It is the thing that really alarms me most of all in the whole of this situation—the close contact between the insurgent forces and authorities and the two great Fascist States in Europe, one of them a State which has made it quite clear that it means to have the control of the Mediterranean. The ruler of that State has said that in several
  1858
  of his speeches; he calls it an Italian lake. It is rapidly becoming an Italian lake.
  Why does the Foreign Secretary imagine that these two very astute rulers, Mussolini and Hitler, are throwing themselves with such energy into this contest? They have their sympathies; so have we all. It is not their sympathies with the political principles of General Franco that has made them send 80,000 troops to Spain, hundreds of aeroplanes, heavy guns, guns that fire right across the Straits of Gibraltar, and can block it at any time. That is not the reason why they have done it. Hitler has not gone there because the insurgents have imprisoned priests. Had they done nothing but that, would he have sent forces to support the insurgents? They are following a very exalted example. He has not sent them there because in Spain they are trying to overthrow the Catholic hierarchy. What is he doing in Germany? Exactly the same thing.
  Mussolini is not sending troops there because he dislikes the way the landlords in Spain are being treated and their land distributed among the tenants. I do not think that would interest him in any way. He has done it by other methods; he is doing the same thing in Italy, in Campagna and Romagna. That is not why they are sending 80,000 men there and aeroplanes, aviators, great technical details and an overwhelming mass of artillery and ammunition which smashed through the mountains into Bilbao and beyond; such a quantity of ammunition that General Franco himself said, in a declaration the other day, that he had expended only 20 per cent. of it in an operation that took nearly three months. They are sending all those forces there for an obvious reason.
  Spain is in the most vital, strategic position for us of almost any country in Europe. It commands the Mediterranean. If you have a hostile Spain, armed with the best equipment of guns, the Mediterranean is closed. More than that; it is on the Atlantic. The whole of that great coast is along the Atlantic, with its magnificent harbours. The Suez Canal would be closed and the alternative route would be imperilled. The Bay of Biscay is our highway from the East, from the South, from Australia, China and India, and you have Spain right on that route,

  1859
  with submarine bases and air bases, which will be much more formidable in the next war so far as the mercantile marine are concerned, than they were in the last War. They were a defensive force in the last War; our aeroplanes were used for defensive purposes. In the next war they will be an attacking force. Here is this great coast, the North Coast of Spain, looking right across France and commanding the southern ports, commanding our traffic in that direction. It will be the whole of that long coast, because Portugal is now in that combination. It has become a non-parliamentary country, which means that it has become an authoritarian state. It is working in close alliance with those people.
  You have got them on both sides of Gibraltar, from Ceuta and from Tarifa to Algeciras. On the other side you have all those great ports. Although Gibraltar is the most startling and sensational revelation of what is in the mind of those very astute men—we are underrating their capacity, their power, their strength, their force and even their vision—there are the Balearic Islands right on the route between France and her North African Colonies. They are there because those people want that country with its great population, its natural resources of copper and iron and its immense strategic opportunities of fighting both France and ourselves, if there is a great struggle in the future.
  In a very eloquent speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was a great difference between 1914 and 1937, because in 1914 nobody thought there would be a war or that it would last as long, and nobody had the slightest conception of the devastation and desolation which would be wrought by it. That is true, but there is another way of looking at it. The Great War has been fought. All those military men since then in the big countries have been reckoning up why they lost, and they know that they lost only by a margin. Let anyone go through the whole of the documents as I have done, and what appears then? It makes you shudder to think how near a margin it was—if there had not been diplomatic errors like the quarrel with the United States of America. They have been at it ever since, working it out. They are considering the possibilities of the
  1860
  future. They do not want war now; they are working for the future.
  It is not that they want war; they want to be in a position where, without war, we dare not face them on any great issue. If Franco wins, with the support of Italian volunteers, German experts and German guns, Spain will be in that combination. I know that the right hon. Gentleman says: "Nobody can conquer Spain and nobody can rule Spain except Spaniards"; they will not make that mistake. An alliance is good enough for them, an alliance from gratitude and from interest. There will be three governments, of one mind and with one conception of how to govern: anti-democratic, anti-liberty. Signor Mussolini never disguises his dislike of liberty. He does not put it second even; he puts it right down there. The next time, there will be three countries in Europe in the vital strategic position for this great sea power. I am amazed that that does not seem ever to enter into the minds of the Government. I hope that the Government will seriously consider what that position is. That does not mean that we should intervene on one side or the other, but it means that we should see that fair play is given to the democratic forces there.
  In regard to intervention, there is no doubt at all that supplies have been coming to the Government, and I am not in the least challenging what has been said on that point. I have no doubt at all from what I can gather that there are about 12,000 volunteers from other countries on the Government side and about 80,000 or 90,000 on the Franco side. There is no doubt that the advantage has been overwhelmingly on his side up to the present. Non-intervention, so-called, has operated in such a way, as far as personnel is concerned, that he has five or six times as many men from foreign countries as the Government have. He has an overwhelming superiority in guns, aeroplanes and all the mechanical appliances. Where did he get them? He has no manufactories that will turn out any of those great guns or aeroplanes. They have been supplied to him by those two great dictators, who are preparing for the hegemony of Europe and to get into such a position that no one dare make war against them because the consequences might be too disastrous

  1861
  The right hon. Gentleman is going to try another scheme. Three have failed. We need no better proof than the admirable speech made by an hon. and gallant Gentleman. The facts and figures are irrefutable. He showed what a complete fiasco non-intervention is—a Daniel come to judgment. Three have failed; what is your guarantee that this will succeed? Your control at the ports will not prevent aeroplanes from crossing. They have got the Balearic Islands; they are just a step across. Those are in the hands of Mussolini at the present moment, and aeroplanes can pass over to Spain. What guarantee is there? Their word? They have broken three agreements. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of another pact which will include two of these Powers, a great pact for Western Europe. What is needed is the restoration of international good faith before you make any more pacts.
  A treaty without faith is no more use than concrete without cement; that is what keeps it together. Here you have got, within 12 months, treaty after treaty broken. Worse than that; international perfidy has become a habit, a policy, a boast. Signor Mussolini said: "I signed an agreement not to send any arms or men to Spain. See what I have done. I have sent first-class aeroplanes, and I am proud of it. I have sent soldiers, gallant men, heroes. The names of those who have fallen will he honoured in every church in Italy." He sends congratulations. He says that it is an Italian victory; yet he signed the pact. He is going to sign this one. The right hon. Gentleman says: "See how we are trusted in Europe." See how we are sized up! The Prime Minister, in one of his week-end songs of praise for himself and his Government, chanted it at Middlesbrough: There had never been anything like it—all Europe praising, trusting us. Yes, trusting that they can take us in for the fourth time. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that these gentlemen, after they have signed that document, will carry it out faithfully? He does well to be silent, because in a very few weeks he will find the same thing going on. I will tell him now what is going to happen. They are now convinced that General Franco has such an equipment, such a superiority, that he can finally win. But he thought so in November of last year, and in the
  1862
  autumn of last year. Suppose he fails, and says, "You did not give me enough; I must have more guns, more aeroplanes, more tanks, more ammunition." Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, if Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler and their advisers are convinced that a little more will enable General Franco to win, to capture Spain for Fascism, to capture the Spanish ports and have guns that can be turned against us in any conflict that under God's will may come to us—does he really mean to say that they would keep faith next time?
  The right hon. Gentleman asks what is the alternative. The alternative is not war. The alternative is, exactly as he himself said, to leave the Spaniards to decide their own destinies. Why not? That is the one thing that has not been tried. [Interruption.] It is idle to say that it has been tried. Do not let us go into the argument as to which of them has broken the Treaty. As far as my right hon. Friend below the Gangway is concerned, I am his humble follower in this respect: they have all broken it. There has been no trial of non-intervention, and there will not be. Why not, therefore, have a straightforward transaction like that which has taken place in every other war—withdraw your controls and let them fight it out?
  Mr. Eden: Foreigners?
  Mr. Lloyd George: Certainly, as long as the Governments do not do it. That is a very different thing. My proposal is that you should substitute neutrality all round for this sham and mockery of nonintervention, which is simply operating on one side. But neutrality does not mean that Signor Mussolini can organise units and that Governments can send supplies. Throw open your market, as you have done in every other war, and let them buy the stuff where they can get it. The right hon. Gentleman talks as if that had never happened before. I will tell him why the Fascist Powers do not like it. He must have noticed how scared they were the moment France said she was going to withdraw observers from her frontier. Why were they alarmed about that? At the present moment they have an overwhelming superiority in material and men, supplied by foreigners. They would like to stabilise that superiority, and, when France uttered the only threat

  1863
  that is going to be effective—not a threat of war, but a threat to open her frontiers—it was then that they got alarmed.
  I noticed that the Fascist Press in Germany said that France had no moral right to withdraw her observers from her frontier. When Portugal did so, she, of course, had a moral right, but when France followed the example of Portugal they said it was an immoral act. Why? Because it was the one thing they were afraid of. I put this to the right hon. Gentleman. He is going to meet these negotiators again, he is going to try to put through another patched-up Treaty. Parliament will not be sitting when the failure of this fourth attempt becomes manifest. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman then will do exactly what he has now suggested. Let us leave it to the Spaniards. Let all countries be neutral. Let us simply—[Interruption.] I am putting forward a definite proposal. Whenever we criticise, the question comes from the other side, "What would you do?" I would simply do what has been done in every war of this kind before. Instead of having this sham, which is only operating on one side, and which may lead us to a conflict, because you have to interfere with the ships of other Powers, let us say, "Hands off Spain"; let us have neutrality. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman. If he finds that this thing fails, let him try the only thing that will give the Spaniards an opportunity of showing on which side their manhood lies.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I intervene now, not because I have the temerarious intention of taking on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). My megalomania is too moderate for me to suppose that I am the appropriate Goliath for that David. But I intervene when I can, and I have one point to make, and some of the things which the right hon. Gentleman said had some relevance to that point. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Liberals below the Gangway that nobody except perhaps a Communist or two wants intervention. But I cannot attach any meaning to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, or to the words
  1864
  of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), if what they are asking for is not intervention tantamount to war. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland told us more than once that it was vital that General Franco should not win, and he told us very frequently that he held as much as anyone else by the duty of protecting vital interests at all costs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs suggested that he was flattering his predecessor by calling his account history. One might flatter him by calling his account geography, and I think one might flatter him by calling his logic logic. He told us that the dictators do not want war now, that they are working for the future, that they want to be in a position where they can dictate to us and where we dare not go to war. He told us that we need not intervene, but that we could see that what he called the democratic side had what he thought was fair play. I cannot understand how in logic that could be done without intervention.
  The general error that I desire to point out seems to me to be an error from the point of view of international law in approaching this matter. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made it when they talked in terms of the natural general right in international law to buy arms where you can get them. I do not pose as an expert in international law, but I have some slight interest in the subject, and some special facilities for getting into touch with persons who are experts in international law, and I think that that is a completely false view of the position. A country which is fighting against rebels, which is fighting a civil war, has, it is true, a right to buy arms elsewhere, but only in a very loose popular general sense, which does not help the argument from the opposite benches. I can perhaps best illustrate my point by putting it in this way: I have a right to go across the road to the shop at the corner of Parliament Street and buy a red tie, but that is a right in a very loose and general sense. The chap in the shop would have the right to refuse. I have a different sort of right to buy half a pint of bitter in the pub two doors down from that. There there is a right to demand and to be supplied. It is only in that

  1865
  second sense of right that the argument used from the opposite benches would have any proper relevance, and in that sense there is no such general right in international law.
  Mr. Dingle Foot: Surely there is a possibility of the disappearance of the first right. Someone might step in and prevent the shopkeeper from selling.
  Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Gentleman returns to the same logical fallacy; he speaks of interference with that right. My point is not whether there would or would not be that right; my point is that it is not a right in the sense which is necessary for the rest of his argument. If that be true in general, it is much more true in the particular case of Spain. It is very particularly true. Under our treaties with Spain, which were, I think, last reviewed and made precise only a very few years ago by an exchange of Notes, there are half-a-dozen grounds specifically laid down on which our Government is entitled to prohibit exports to Spain, and one of those grounds is with respect to weapons, ammunition and war material, and, in exceptional circumstances, with respect also to other materials needed in war. Therefore, I think there is no doubt, either in general international law or in the specific relations between these two countries, that there never has been any right on the part of the Spanish Government to claim to buy arms within the territories of His Majesty's Government.
  Similarly, in international law it seems to me to be nonsense to assert that His Majesty's Government might not at any time during the last eight or nine months have recognised both parties as belligerents. Indeed, it may be argued, though I think not with perfect cogency, and it has been argued by Law Officers in Victorian times, in the sixties and seventies, that we were bound to grant belligerent rights. Certainly no one can argue that we have not been, for the last eight or nine months, fully entitled to recognise belligerency, and it would certainly have very much eased the administrative task of His Majesty's Government if that had been done, by bringing into operation a comparatively well understood body of laws, namely, the laws of neutrality. The administrative task would then have been very much eased, conspicuously, for instance, in the case put by the right hon. Member for Epping Mr. Churchill).
  1866
  Short of recognising belligerency, it was not possible not to recognise insurgency, because the facts compelled the recognition of insurgency. It is certain that, having recognised insurgency, in that very very inconvenient relationship there is a body of rules comparatively and absolutely much less well, understood, and in those circumstances the Government have followed a perfectly respectable body of American and English practice in the line that it has taken, that neither party in Spain can be allowed to exercise blockade or other belligerent rights on the high seas, but that within the three-mile limit either party may be allowed to stop, and even to capture, British ships carrying war materials or performing other injurious services involving a breach of the orders of those parties. I have not the arrogance to inflict my own views about the politics of this matter upon the House, but I believe that the political discussion has been very much muddled by the acceptance of ill-digested and ill-informed dogmatic statements about the international law of the matter. I hope I have not sounded dogmatic in my attempt to correct them. If so, it is not because I regard my voice as authoritative but because to quote precedents and references and so forth would be intolerably long.
  7.47 P.m.
  Mr. A. Henderson: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in his rather technical approach to the subject of Spain. I think the short answer to his argument is that, although it may be technically true that the Spanish Government has no legal right to come into the British market, or any other market for that matter, and obtain her supplies, it is equally true that, if there had not been an embargo placed upon the sale of supplies to the Spanish Government by this and other countries, the Spanish Government, being in friendly relations with the British Government, would have been entitled to come into the British market and obtain supplies, provided of course that individual business men were prepared to supply them. I very much doubt whether any business man who saw a prospect of making a profit on a business transaction would have found it desirable to refuse to enter into a contract with the Spanish Government if this embargo had not been placed upon him. I

  1867
  am sure the majority of the House will take the view that the case could not have been put more forcibly than it was by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).
  May I refer to the position at Santander? There, as the result of the advance following the capture of Bilbao, a bottling-up process is taking place which, unless something is done in the near future, will bring terrible hardship, misery and suffering to many thousands of men, women and children who are at present cooped up there. My information is that in normal times there is a population of roughly 80,000. To-day it is calculated that there are not fewer than 450,000 living within the confines of the city, including 50,000 children. Their position can only be described as terrible. It may be asked why this situation was not foreseen by the City authorities. The answer to that is, perhaps, that the speed of events has made it impossible for them to set up the necessary relief organisations and to take the necessary measures to deal with this excessive population. It may be asked why in a situation such as we find in the Basque country we should expect war to be humanised. Perhaps it is asking too much to expect war to be humanised, but I fail to see that that is any reason why those of us who are not immediately concerned with that terrible conflict should be indifferent to the sufferings of humanity. Is it not possible for the Non-Intervention Committee to consider the question of relief as regards Santander with a view to international action being taken?
  I was very sorry to hear the colourless remarks of the Foreign Secretary with regard to the situation in China. He said the Government did not propose to do anything beyond making representations to both parties, but in the meantime what is happening? Japan is sending large numbers of troops and military supplies into the vicinity of Peking, and even the Foreign Secretary admitted that the situation was full of danger and that in the next few days there might be very serious events taking place in that part of China. What alarms me is the insistence of the Japanese authorities on what they call a local settlement. They seem deter-mined to exclude the central Govern-
  1868
  ment at Nanking from any part in any possible settlement that may take place. Japan is a party to the Nine Power Treaty, Article r of which provides:
  "The high contracting parties agree to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial and administrative integrity of China."
  If North China comes within the jurisdiction of the central Government of Nanking, is it not contrary to the undertaking with respect to the administrative integrity of China for the Japanese authorities to insist on making a settlement with the local authorities and to seek to exclude the Nanking Government from that settlement? Article 3 of the Treaty provides:
  "The high contracting parties agree to provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunities to China CD develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable Government."
  I wonder how the signatories to that Treaty can expect China to develop a stable Government if the Japanese Government first of all take action which has the effect of destroying Chinese government in Manchuria and then, assuming that they are successful, make a separate agreement with the local authorities of Peking. I wonder what the Foreign Secretary would say in the event of the Chinese Government asking the League Council to take action in this matter. After all, China is a Member of the League of Nations, and is entitled to the protection of the Covenant. What would the attitude of the Government be in the event of the Chinese Government asking the League Council to take action? Some may say that is not a very satisfactory solution because the United States, which is one of the signatories to the Treaty, is not a member of the League of Nations and Japan itself is no longer a member, but that was the position in 1931, at any rate as far as the United States is concerned. In October of that year the United States Government accepted the invitation conveyed to them by the League Council and their representative took part in all discussions relating to Manchuria.
  But it is not only a question of the obligations of the Nine-Power Treaty or of the Covenant of the League. There is also the question of the Kellogg Pact. The Japanese Government signed the Kellogg Pact and a greed to a pacific settlement of all disputes in which they

  1869
  might be interested. Therefore, unless we are going to have the Chinese situation constituting another example of the indifference of Governments to their responsibilities and obligations voluntarily undertaken by treaty, whether it be the Covenant of the League, the Nine-Power Treaty, or the Kellogg Pact, I cannot conceive that the Japanese Government would refuse to face up to their responsibilities. Unless we are to assume that Japan is determined at all costs to dominate China, not only in the economic sense but also in the political and militaristic sense, I cannot see why it would not be possible to hammer out a reasonable agreement, preferably at Geneva or, failing that, amongst the nine Powers associated with the Treaty, with a view to preventing this constant friction between China and Japan in the future. It may be that at present China, through lack of unity, is not able to stand up to the military power of Japan, but, taking the long view, I should have thought that in the interest of the Japanese themselves, provided their reasonable interests are safeguarded, there could have been a settlement of all their outstanding quarrels with the Chinese nation.
  With reference to the position in Europe, we have never yet been able to ascertain what exactly took place between M. Van Zeeland and the American Government and our own Government. All the time the situation is steadily deterioriating and it is vital that we should face up to the dangers of the situation. At the same time, I should like to ask the Government whether they have yet made up their minds with regard to the proposed reform of the League of Nations and of the Covenant of the League. The Foreign Secretary referred to the special committee which was set up in September of last year to deal with this question, but I listened to him very carefully, and I confess that I did not find him very illuminating on what the views of the Government were with regard to the future of the League. I should like to ask the Government whether they could give us some information with regard to the working of that special committee. What is the present position? Is it the fact that the committee are of the opinion that there is a number of questions which are ripe for immediate discussion, for example, the universality of the League, the coordination of the Covenant with the Pact
  1870
  of Paris and the Argentine Pact, and the separation of the Covenant from the Treaty of Versailles? What is the Government attitude with regard to these three questions? I hope that the Government will take the view that what we are actually concerned with to-day is, that it is not so much the reform of the League that is required but the reinterpretation of our obligations and responsibilities by virtue of our membership of the League.
  What is perhaps more important than anything is that we require a definition of the scope and functions of the Covenant, especially under Articles 11 and 12. We heard during the Abyssinian episode that Article 11 was not drafted so as to permit of action being taken prior to the outbreak of war. Although we knew that for a period of approximately 12 months prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Abyssinia, the Italian Government were preparing for war, apparently the League Council were unable to take action under Article 11 to deal with a threat of war by reason of omissions in the Article itself. Have the Government any ideas with regard to Article 11? As the Foreign Secretary has indicated, there are two schools of thought, in reference to Article 16, that which desires the League of Nations to be turned entirely into a consultative and representative conciliation organisation, and that which seeks to strengthen the League in order to resist possible aggression in the future. I would like to know where our Government stand on that question? We have reason to believe that there are those in other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations who take the view that Article 16 should be so amended as to avoid the necessity of any military action in the event of an actual aggression. Therefore, I should like to ask the Government where they stand on that question, and, what is of most importance, whether we can rely upon the Government to fulfil their obligations under the Covenant with all the determination that we are entitled to expect if the Covenant is to be made effective?
  Many of us were grievously disappointed with the weak, vacillating attitude of the Government during the months of the Abyssinian controversy. We believed that there was nothing wrong with the Covenant of the League provided the Covenant of the League was

  1871
  applied. After all, the Covenant of the League is only an instrument which depends for its efficacy upon the way in which it is used, and it is no use our Government or any other Government at Geneva wasting time in considering in what way the Covenant should be strengthened, or in devising other interpretations which would clarify the obligations and responsibilities of those countries which belong to the League, if, as far as our own Government are concerned, they are not prepared faithfully to carry out their obligations under the Covenant. I hope that some of these questions will be answered by the Government in the course of the Debate, so that we may be able to make up our minds whether the Government are to be relied upon during the forthcoming months when the League Council meets to deal with this question.
  There is one more point. The House is to rise next week for the Summer recess. The Foreign Secretary will be optimistic if he believes that a Anal agreement will be reached at the meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee tomorrow on the proposals contained in the White Paper. The Foreign Secretary said that the procedure at the Non-Intervention Committee was in the nature of the deliberations of this House, in which the White Paper might be taken as a Bill and that it has secured its Second Reading, and that it was to embark upon the committee stage. Hon. Members of the Committee know perfectly well that in his House there are many Bills of so controversial a nature that it would take a very long time to pass them through the Committee stage unless closure and guillotine methods were adopted. And while it may not be possible to apply such methods to a committee of 27 sovereign nations, I hope at any rate, that everything will be done to expedite the final conclusions of the Committee, and that in the unfortunate event of a breakdown in the Non-Intervention Committee on these proposals following the adjournment of Parliament, the Government will give an undertaking that, in the event of such a breakdown taking place, Parliament will immediately be called together.
  The Foreign Secretary himself has indicated the serious consequences that
  1872
  might well arise in such an event, and if that be so and, with all the possible complications and results affecting peace and war in Europe, it will be of sufficient importance to justify this Committee requiring the Government to give an undertaking that in such circumstances they will immediately call Parliament together.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. De Chair: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), when he opened the Debate for the Opposition this afternoon, said that he found the reactions of Members on this side of the Committee somewhat puzzling. I do not think that he could find our reactions half so puzzling as are the reactions of hon. Members opposite to the conflagration in Spain. The lure of this Spanish conflagration to the Labour party is indeed almost inexplicable. We are all familiar with the phenomenon of moths flying towards the flame. It is possible to understand it in the case of moths, which are insects of an extremely low grade of intelligence, but it is more difficult to understand it in the case of hon. Members opposite, who have been returned to this House by large numbers of voters in the country. Yet their attraction for this civil war is of such a kind that, if they were in power, they would inevitably develop it into a world conflagration. I rather wish that some of them would have taken the advice of the Prime Minister, who cautioned us in a Debate on the subject of Spain not many weeks ago, that in these delicate matters it was like being in a high and tortuous ravine, when even a shout might start an avalanche. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was shouting at the avalanche all the time he was speaking this afternoon, regardless of the fact that the avalanche might descend and crush the people of this country, whom he pretends to represent, along with the people in Spain.
  The attitude of the Opposition towards the civil war in Spain is indeed a puzzling one, and one can only suppose that the Leader of the Opposition has been standing rigidly to attention ever since September, 1935, while the world has flashed rapidly past him. Otherwise it is incredible that he should have learned nothing from the lessons that have taken place since then. Hon. Members op-

  1873
  posite chide us, as ardent Imperialists and defenders of maritime interests in the country, that we do not take a graver view of the capture of such ships as the steamship "Molton" within territorial waters. Surely, if repeated warnings are given by our Government to merchant ships that, if they enter Spanish territorial waters, they do so at their own risk, that quits the Government of further responsibility, and it is surprising to find hon. Members opposite, the Socialists, having such grave concern for these reckless capitalist shipowners. Are we to become naval underwriters for reckless commercial undertakings? Make no mistake: What rewards are received by these ships which penetrate into Spanish territorial waters are for private gain and I should like to know why hon. Members opposite have become so ardent in their defence.
  I think that there is a danger, in considering the foreign situation, of concentrating too much upon the conflagration in Spain, and that is why I welcome the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in taking a broader view to-day. If you are in a house where fire has broken out and you see the flames leaping up through the floorboards in one corner, you may very wisely play the hose-pipe upon them, but you do not want to go on doing that if you find that the floorboards upon which you are standing are smouldering and may at any time collapse beneath you. You have to take steps to deal with the whole of Europe and not merely with that single corner.
  We want to look for a permanent cure for the ills which beset Europe to-day, not merely a palliative, and to apply it. We have to go to the fundamental causes of the grievances which are animating the rival Powers on the Continent to-day. We cannot deny that we made grievous mistakes in 1919 in the framing of the Versailles Treaty. It is perhaps too much to ask that English statesmen at that time, after the heat of an embittered conflict, and taking practical politics as they were in 1919, should have framed a more reasonable or a more just treaty than they did. But as soon as it became evident that they had made mistakes, and as soon as the mists of anger rolled away, they should have taken the initiative in securing a readjustment of Europe on a peaceful and a just basis.
  1874
  One of the most impossible conditions which we imposed upon Germany in 1919 was the exaction of an astronomical figure by way of reparations, when the claims of the Allies were put at 225 milliard gold marks, and subsequently cut down to 132 milliard gold marks, a figure which Germany could not possibly pay. When it became evident that Germany, herself trying to recover from the world War, was unable to pay these sums, a conference was called and the Young Plan was evolved whereby these payments were further whittled down to the more reasonable sum of 28 milliard marks. But in addition there was added the enormous figure of 84 milliard marks to cover our debts to the United States of America. That in itself was an extraordinary condition. You conceded that the nations of Europe could not bear the financial responsibility of paying their debts to America, and then turned round and said to Germany that, under the Young Plan, she should pay all of them. Clearly you were exacting an impossible burden and when reparations finally collapsed, they were wound up by the Treaty of Lausanne. But once you had admitted that the Treaty of Versailles in one of its fundamental conclusions was unworkable and that you had allowed it to pass away without occupying Germany or without applying any of the penalties threatened in 1919 if the Clauses of the treaty were broken, you took away at one sweep support from every other Clause in the Treaty of Versailles.
  It was not too late in 1932 for us to take the initiative and so revise the Treaty of Versailles that the majority of the grievances which the German nation felt could have been met by us. Nor is Germany the only nation with grievances against the 1919 settlement. I am afraid that we have shown a cowardly acquiescence in the breaking of treaties by nations when they are powerful, but we have done nothing to redress the grievances of smaller nations with equal grievances, because they are not in a position to defy the combined might of the allied Powers. There is Hungary, tortured and twisted by the Treaty of Trianon, when over 3,000,000 Magyars were torn from the parent stock. There is a potential danger-spot of Europe. There we have the problem of frontiers causing grievances which are likely to give trouble.

  1875
  Those grievances ought to be remedied in a general settlement.
  A great deal has been said about conditions in the Far East, and I think the Foreign Secretary was right in the attitude he adopted. I was glad to hear him say that our relations with both China and Japan are as friendly as possible, but I am afraid that they have not been as friendly with Japan as they ought to be. When Japan made an agreement with Germany some months ago Sir Austen Chamberlain said that it was an unfortunate and unnecessary thing to happen. On friendship and close relations with Japan our interests in the Far East depend. Before the War we had a Japanese alliance and we could then concentrate our Fleet in home waters and the North Sea, because we knew that the Japanese Navy was patrolling our eastern trade routes and safeguarding our interests in that quarter of the globe. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to repair the bridge to Tokyo, which has been allowed to collapse. There can be no doubt that Japan intends to penetrate into the larger part of Northern China, and experience has shown that we can do very little to prevent it. The hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) referred to the failure of the League of Nations in 1931 to preserve Manchuria from Japan. That was because the people in this country and other countries in the League adopted the attitude which I think Bismarck made famous in a phrase that a dispute in the Balkans was "not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier." This country was not prepared to march as far as the Far East in order to preserve Manchuria, and I do not think that we could or would march to preserve any part of Northern China from Japanese invasion.
  Japan has built or is building a new great wall, a steel wall of men and arms for 3,000 miles along the frontier of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Russia, and intends to make that frontier secure. For that purpose she is building railways and roads, but she finds a difficulty. Those railways and roads cost a great deal of money in the barren and thinly populated area through which they go, with no possible return to the investors. Hence the demand of Japan that the fertile part
  1876
  of Northern China. with its dense population, shall be included in the sphere of Japanese influence. We have no alternative but to allow Japan to a large extent a free hand in Northern China, in return for her friendly interest and her friendly protection in regard to our interests in the Far East if we are in trouble at any future time. The Australians look with great anxiety towards Japan. I do not think that we need to worry about our relations with the Unite States of America if we form a close understanding with Japan. We had an alliance with Japan before the War and that did not prevent our having good relations with America, and it did not prevent America from coming into the War on our side at a later stage. Our kinship with America is the kinship of race rather than one of automatic military commitments, which we shall never be able to secure from the United States Government.
  To come nearer home, the Foreign Secretary spoke of the Mediterranean as a great arterial road for the British Empire. I should call it a British Right of Way, and remarks which have been made from various quarters give rise to great anxiety as to what is happening at the exits of that right of way at each end of the Mediterranean. In the West, the pillars of Hercules are closing in upon us, and at the eastern end we are being crushed between Scylla and Charybdis. We have been squeezed out of Egypt into Palestine, and now we are squeezed out of Palestine presumably to sit with the water up to our chins in the middle of the Suez Canal! No doubt these matters are engaging the attention of my right hon. Friend and I hope he will find a solution for them.
  Our main concern is that of the fundamental division of Europe into two rival camps. In the civil war in Spain we see the rivals wearing the masks of Fascism and Communism and giving a macabre performance in the Spanish theatre. The very real division of creeds is not in Spain but in the heart of Europe, and that is where we fear the clash may come. I know that the Foreign Secretary has from time to time deprecated the tendency to divide Europe into rival idealogical blocs, but those idealogical blocs are already here. If it is raining and you put up an umbrella, you may

  1877
  feel perfectly dry, but it is unreasonable to deprecate a tendency on the part of other people to say that it is raining, and that they are getting wet. Actually, we are faced with this clash of creeds in Europe, Communism versus Fascism. From opposing towers we hear mighty military nations hurling defiance at one another, and we may legitimately ask ourselves whether in the event of a clash we have any interest in fighting for either side to secure the dominance either of Communism or Fascism in Europe, both of which creeds are equally abhorrent to us.
  In conclusion I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to take the opportunity to call a peace conference to consider not merely the dangerous situation in Spain—that is a matter for the Non-Intervention Committee to get on with—but the more fundamental grievances which are the potential causes of war in Europe. It is not after a war that you want a peace treaty. It is before a war that you want a peace treaty, a peace treaty that will make the war unnecessary. If the right hon. Gentleman calls that conference and brings about lasting peace in Europe on a just foundation he will be the greatest Foreign Secretary this country has ever had. If he fails to grasp the opportunity while there is still time he will enter upon the path of increasing commitments which this country will not be prepared to honour or will only honour to the disaster of this people and of the whole Empire.
  8.25 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: There are two or three points in the speech of the Foreign Secretary to which I should like to call attention, briefly. He said that it is a major interest of Great Britain that no great Power, including ourselves, should establish itself on the eastern shore of the Red Sea. With the great development of the air weapon, is it not quite possible for a great Power to have control of the Red Sea without actually, in fact, establishing itself on the eastern shore of the Red Sea? It seems to me that the development of the air weapon to-day has rendered that declaration of major policy rather inconclusive. There is a point in connection with the Capitulations in Egypt to which I should feel grateful indeed if the right hon. Gentleman would give his personal attention, and that is in connection with the effects
  1878
  which the Capitulations will have on the consular courts in Egypt. I think it will be found that the future prospects of the four banisters who have been practising for some years in the consular courts will he seriously affected by the alteration of business in these courts due to these Capitulations, and from information which has been given to me it would seem that their case merits particular consideration. There is a third point—the economic way to peace about which he spoke. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the possibility of setting on foot proposals for establishing an economic office at Geneva; in other words, putting the economic side of world affairs on a similar footing to that enjoyed by the International Labour Office and the League itself. I feel that there is a great deal to be said for completing the mechanism at Geneva by establishing an economic office there.
  The contribution which has really overshadowed the Debate is that made by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on the question of the guns planted near Gibraltar. I hope that what the right hon. Gentleman said may perhaps bring the Conservative party to realise that we are now faced with a threat from General Franco which never would have been levelled at us by the Government of Spain although he overlooked the fact that we need not be supine in face of attack from these guns but can, for instance, retaliate from the air. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should raise the question of these guns with General Franco. In my opinion the fact that these guns have been mounted is a strong argument against granting belligerent rights to General Franco. If we did raise that question with him, what should we gain by doing so? The very fact that we raise the question would be used by General Franco as a pawn with which to bargain for the concession of belligerent rights. I hope we shall never yield to fear what so far we have refused in justice. I should like to ask in connection with these guns whether any communication has been received from the French General Staff in regard to German guns which it is reported have been mounted in the region of the Pyrenees occupied by General Franco and which are stated to constitute as serious a threat to France as the guns mounted near Gibraltar constitute to ourselves?

  1879
  I want to say a word about China. It seems to me that the crux of this dispute is that China wishes to raise her own standard of living by developing her own national resources, while Japan asks China to solve Japanese needs by putting Chinese raw materials at the disposal of Japan. These raw materials are mainly concentrated in the North of China, and China and Japan are, therefore, struggling for domination in Northern China. I think the serious feature of this is that so far Japan has never shown any inclination or aptitude for developing legitimate trade without at the same time trying to exercise political control. The Foreign Secretary made no very definite statement as to our policy or interests in the Far East. He contented himself with stating just what we were doing in this crisis. But are we going to act now, or going to stand aside and see the results which were achieved by the Leith Ross Mission lost to us?
  What action are we going to take? The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, may be going to recommend to the Chinese Government that the establishment of a Non-Intervention Committee is the quickest and most effective retort known to democracy with which to reply to foreign aggression and invasion, but if these events lead to war it must be understood that they are only a pretext on the part of Japan for war, and are not in themselves a proper cause for war. Japan at the moment has troops in Northern China far in excess of the numbers she is allowed to keep there by the Boxer Treaty, and she is making demands on China to which no self-respecting national Power could possibly agree. It is obvious that the time is opportune for Japan. China is growing stronger, and at the present moment there is a crisis in Europe and the Russian Army is severely shaken. I hope that Japan is not thinking of turning these events to her advantage. I think it is necessary that our Government should make matters so clear in the present conversations with the Japanese Government that Japan will not have a pretext for feeling that she is being encouraged to remedy her supposed grievances at the expense of China.
  Two matters might well be called to the attention of the Japanese Government at this moment, and to the attention of the
  1880
  Japanese Economic Mission—the real horror with which many people in this country regard Japanese attitude to the drug traffic and to the smuggling. I would call the attention of hon. Members who are interested in the matter of drugs to the last report rendered to the League of Nations by the Narcotics Bureau, where the most precise and specific charges are laid against Japan of actively encouraging and profiting by this traffic, charges to which the Japanese delegate was unable to make any satisfactory reply. There is all too much reason to feel that Japan is deliberately adopting the policy of promoting the drug traffic in order to undermine the morale of the Chinese, and if they deny that this is their purpose, it is pertinent to ask why the Japanese Government actually subsidise heroin factories at the moment. As regards smuggling, what more wicked instrument of policy could be devised than to encourage smuggling which is of course the one solid item of revenue in China.
  The country, however, which has dominated the Debate so far has been Spain. Judging by the Debate last Thursday and by what has appeared in the Conservative Press since, the whole of the Opposition party ought to have come here to-day wearing sackcloth and ashes.
  Brigadier-General Spears: Hear, hear.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: That is their view. I am glad that the interruption gives point to my remark. My withers are quite unwrung by those views. The Foreign Secretary came to the. House last Thursday night in a very hoity-toity mood, and he read the Opposition in general, and my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition in particular, quite a curtain lecture. It was all sound and fury, and reminded me of the old saying, "A weak man never looks so weak as when he is trying to be forcible." Even the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State was carried away by the general atmosphere and, in a very unusual style for him, emulated the Foreign Secretary, and, as a matter of fact, I thought did it rather better although he caused me as much astonishment as I should feel at seeing a rabbit turn on a weasel. The Foreign Secretary appeared to be venting on the Opposition the irritation which I have no doubt certain members of the

  1881
  Non-Intervention Committee cause him. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary could not endure one word of criticism of his precious plan. He came to the House full of pride in his belated and unexpected paternity of a plan, evidently feeling that Europe had turned to him in its extremity and that, like Pitt, he was going to save Europe. Like all parents, he would not admit the slightest defect in the offspring of his brain, and he seemed to me to speak with a great deal of vanity.
  When the Government's supporters and the Government Press are so angry with the Opposition, I think it indicates that we have touched them on a very tender spot. What was it that we did on Thursday night? What was our offence? On the eve of the meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee which was to consider the plan, we made it clear, as an Opposition, that we could not give unqualified assent to the plan, and we called attention to what are admitted defects in it. Would it have been right to leave members of the Non-Intervention Committee under any misapprehension as to how we stand on that point? Moreover, what are the grounds for the objections which we raised? They are precisely those which I understand are taken up by the French in regard to this new plan. We feel that the plan approaches far more the Italo-German proposals than the Franco-British proposals. We feel that it will give immediate assistance to General Franco, and that the provisions for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Spain must be very considerably tightened up and made more precise and definite. That is exactly what the French are saying. We are told that the main hope for peace is to keep in line with the French. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) received great commendation from the Government Benches, and was thanked on behalf of the Government for calling attention to the necessity for keeping in line with the French. That is our point of view. The objections which we raised to the plan on Thursday night are precisely the objections which the French are raising to it.
  When the Government complain about our having done that, and when I think of the adjectives which were levelled by
  1882
  the Foreign Secretary at the Leader of the Opposition for having raised these matters, my mind goes back to 1929–31, and I remember the hunting and harrying of the Foreign Secretary of those days, the late Mr. Arthur Henderson. Did hon. Members who are now Government supporters ever show the least consideration for any negotiations that he was trying to put through or work that he was trying to do? It is very difficult to deal with Tories; they want to have it both ways. Let me remind them of the motto of the pugilist, "If you cannot take it, you will never be able to give it."
  Events will show that our warnings were fully justified. A great deal of the Debate on Thursday passed in an air of utter unreality. There are two main issues that have to be faced, namely, the complete lack of good faith on the part of the two countries which are mainly concerned if non-intervention is to be effective, and the question, how can Italy and Germany possibly allow Franco to be defeated if by any means in their power they can prevent it? Dictators do not hold office as Foreign Secretaries do; they hold office on the strength of prestige, and if that prestige goes, the whole game is up. Dictators can rule only by an uninterrupted course of success. That being so, Hitler and Mussolini, who have gone so far in Spain, have now reached the point where they have to see the thing through, if they can see it through. If there is any possibility that the withdrawal of troops from Spain will mean the defeat of Franco, why should we think for one moment that, in spite of what they may say in the Non-Intervention Committee, Germany and Italy will ever consent to the withdrawal of those troops? If Franco says he wants more troops, we may be sure he will get them. The lack of good faith of those countries is well known. Even while the negotiations are going on, the cinemas in Rome are showing pictures of victorious Italian troops entering Bilbao, and orders of the day are published congratulating the "Black Arrows" on what they did at Bilbao and Santander.
  It is in this atmosphere that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), in his speech on Thursday night, talked about the concert of Europe. What sort of concert is there in Europe at the present time? There is no concert. If we are to adopt musical

  1883
  terms, we have got to say that there is "hot jazz" and "swing" in Europe at the present moment. Sentimental baritones are out of date, and hot trumpeters are all you get now. There is no concert in Europe. There are two dictators facing two democracies, and a whole lot of small countries which, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, are waiting to cheer the winner. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, who I am sorry is not here at the moment, said that he would have followed Mussolini in the march on Rome. I can well believe it. The right hon. Gentleman has always been ready to follow anybody who could offer him office. I am sorry to have to tell him that his hero, Mussolini, never marched on Rome, but remained in Milan until he heard how things were going, and then proceeded to Rome by train. I am afraid that some of these idols have feet of clay; however, as we get older we see less and less of our feet.
  Some of the statements made in the Debate were grotesque. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was told that he had not made any detailed criticisms. The Foreign Secretary, in saying that my right hon. Friend had condemned the proposals in general lines, was unjust. Anybody who reads the Debate can see that the criticisms were detailed. The failure was on the part of the Foreign Secretary, who made no attempt to reply to the criticisms, but left that task to his Noble Friend. The right hon. Gentleman said that not one nation represented on the Committee wanted this policy of non-intervention to break down. He said, again, that the Governments of Europe knew that if nonintervention broke down the risks of a European conflict would thereby inevitably be increased. But what is the use of the right hon. Gentleman talking of non-intervention as though it were something that was actually in being and functioning? What is the use of drawing these pictures of the consequences which would follow on the breakdown of nonintervention, when we know that nonintervention has never been in being and has never functioned? It has never been anything but a cloak, a means to keep the talk going while Franco got all the men and munitions he wanted. What is happening now is that, the cloak having worn threadbare, the members of the
  1884
  Non-Intervention Committee out of very shame have had to meet together and try to make a new cloak.
  The right hon. Gentleman pats himself on the back because Europe has confidence in him and has asked him to undertake the great task of patching together a cloak to hide the nakedness of the Non-Intervention Committee. But it is a very queer sort of confidence that Europe seems to show in our Foreign Secretary. On one day at the Non-Intervention Committee the Italian and German representatives are making accusations against him of having violated the non-intervention scheme, they call him a trickster, and then they pick on the trickster as the man to produce a new scheme. Which of these statements are we to believe? Are we to believe the representatives of Italy and Germany when they accuse this country of bad faith, or are we to believe them when they select our Foreign Secretary as the only man who is honest enough to produce another scheme of non-intervention? The right hon. Gentleman may flatter himself, if he likes, that these other nations are like 26 Diogenes who have left their tubs and gone out with candles to look for an honest man and that all have happened to light on the same one—the Foreign Secretary himself. But I fear there are other cynics who will regard them as 26 "tough guys" looking for someone to hold the baby. They remind me of cardsharpers walking along the railway station platform and looking into the windows of the carriages to select a likely passenger with whom to have a game.
  I agree that the invitation had to be accepted. We cannot keep on saying that this country has great influence and prestige and ought to lead and then refuse to take the lead when we arc asked to do so. But while I agree that we had to accept the invitation, do not let us have any illusions about the motives which prompted it. read that one of the delegates to the committee the other morning when our Foreign Secretary was being congratulated on his plan asked that a window should be opened because the smell of the lilies was so overpowering. I think myself that those were very artificial flowers which were handed to the Foreign Secretary the other day. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there are only two alternatives, that either

  1885
  these proposals will fail or if they do not fail that the volunteers will be withdrawn and belligerent rights will be accorded. The right hon. Gentleman will not admit the possibility of a third alternative but I believe that every effort will be directed and probably with success to securing a third alternative which would be securing the granting of belligerent rights to General Franco and then humbugging about the withdrawal of volunteers. Events have shown that humbug of that nature has succeeded in the past and I believe it will succeed in the future.
  Although the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in the possibility of that third alternative he did not pretend that the air proposals in this new plan are or can be effective. But without effective control of the air, what use is any plan? The root of the whole matter is the question of the withdrawal of the foreign troops. If the foreign troops are actually withdrawn then I am prepared to agree that the grant of belligerent rights might very well follow and in that matter of the grant of belligerent rights I agree that we must be guided by law and by precedents and not by prejudice. I agree that we cannot refuse to confer belligerent rights merely because it would give an advantage in a direction which did not happen to suit some of us. But before belligerent rights are accorded, General Franco must prove that he is able to stand alone and if the recognition of belligerent rights enables him to declare a blockade, there must be no clandestine naval help from Italy or Germany in such a blockade. It is no use getting the foreign troops out of Spain, and belligerent rights being accorded, if instead of the assistance of foreign troops in Spain, General Franco receives naval help which enables him effectively to blockade the Spanish Government.
  His Majesty's Government must remember that our distrust in this matter is not confined to Italy and Germany alone. It extends to them as well and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland himself said that the non-intervention policy of the Government had continuously operated against the Spanish Government and in favour of Franco. Our confidence has been sapped by the proceedings of the Admiralty in this Spanish crisis—by the paper blockade of Bilbao, the failure to
  1886
  protect British shipping, the failure to afford legitimate aid to our old allies the Basques, and the readiness of the Government to act on partial and unverified information. In the Debate on 20th April the then First Lord spoke about minesweeping at Bilbao but never revealed the fact that the mine-sweeping took place on 1st April. He read a telegram from the master of the merchantship "Olavus" about having seen a mine at Bilbao but did not reveal to the House that the "Olavus" had entered Bilbao a fortnight prior to the Debate. We had all this sort of partial information; we had denials of reports which were afterwards confirmed and always the pretence of having no knowledge. I ask hon. Members to consider for instance the evasions about the guns at Gibraltar and the statements which have been torn to ribbons to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. All these things sap confidence. The people of this country have very good instincts and they feel that there is something wrong when they read of ships of His Majesty's Navy standing idly by while British merchantmen are captured and fired on by rebel ships which have no right to fire at them or to capture them.
  Mr. Stephen: Pirates!
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: At any rate, there is no shadow of legality behind the acts which they commit. The last time we had any dealings with a Spanish Navy of any sort was in the days of Queen Elizabeth. I do not imagine that the present First Lord of the Admiralty would have lasted long under that Sovereign. He would soon have parted company with his head if he had reported to her such events as he has reported to this House in the last week. In this connection I would like, as a former naval officer, to pay a slight tribute to the young officers of the Navy who have had to shoulder such a burden of hard work and responsibility as a result of these events in Spain. I think they have had to carry out orders which in some cases have not been very palatable to them. If Spain wants Franco, let Spaniards alone demonstrate that fact. It is deplorable if foreign intervention is to decide, because I do not believe in this catch phrase about Spain in the long run turning against the foreigner. That is not the history of

  1887
  Spain. The history of Spain is very different. Spain has over and over again shown a great capacity for tolerating foreign domination. For 120 years Spain has sought foreign aid to bolster up weak Governments at home. After Waterloo, Ferdinand asked the French to leave 50,000 men in Spain for five years. Over and over again, for long periods of time, Spain has shown herself susceptible to foreign domination, so do not let us deceive ourselves with this idea that if Franco wins, the next thing would be that the Spaniards would turn round and kick the people who had helped him to win out of Spain.
  I have sat here in this House and watched the pro-Franco feeling on the opposite benches growing. I have sat and listened to things that, 'honestly, I never expected to have to listen to. The Tory party, with five Admirals in its ranks, cheer and laugh over the capture of a British ship, and they regard this treatment of British ships as a pawn in their party game. The humanitarian work which many men and women have tried to do in this country for the Basque children, even that has not escaped the criticism of certain Members on the benches opposite in pursuit of their party ends. Look at the equanimity which they showed about those guns covering Gibraltar, until the right hon. Member for Epping thrust the facts about them down their throats this afternoon. Look at their indifference about British business interests in Spain, their indifference about Imperial interests, their complete indifference about French interests, although the French are supposed to be almost our allies. Such a complete lack of understanding lends colour to the tale that the Tory party is animated in regard to this matter by class prejudice. The Tories cheer Army officers for breaking their oaths. Well, they have a record in that matter, of course, in Ireland, in the events that were led by the late Lord Carson, but do Tory Members really feel that it is creditable in military officers to break their oaths? Is that really what they feel should be the conduct of what is called an officer and a gentleman? If so, all that I can say is, thank heavens there are no gentlemen on the Government side in Spain and that the officers broke their oaths.
  1888
  Hon. Members opposite cheer the Foreign Secretary when he attacks the Leader of the Opposition, and they also cheer the breakdown of the Foreign Secretary's policy. His foreign policy is non-intervention, and any incident which arises in this House to show that non-intervention has broken down and that General Franco is reaping some advantage is cheered by the right hon. Gentleman's supporters behind him. The right hon. Gentleman says that his foreign policy is based upon the League of Nations, but whenever the League of Nations is mentioned on these benches there is mocking laughter from some Members opposite. The right hon. Gentleman says his foreign policy is based on collective security, but whenever do you hear collective security mentioned in this House except to the accompaniment of jeers from. the other side? I wonder how the right hon. Gentleman enjoys hearing everything that he stands for jeered at and laughed at by his so-called supporters behind him? The truth is that events in Spain have revealed a latent drift towards Fascism in the Conservative party, and it will be a disaster for this country if that drift is not checked, and the ideals of democracy are not recaptured.
  We are told that this war in Spain is a war of ideas. That is a war that the Tory party will never take part in. There is no fear of their engaging in a war of ideas. They have no ideas, and they do not like the idea of an idea. Ideas are something which are bad form in the mess and in the hunting field. For 18 years we, the Labour party, have been opposing ideas to slogans. So far the slogans have won, and the result of the work of the party which believes in slogans is, as the Prune Minister said, that even a word will start an avalanche. The country has shown itself prepared at this moment to put up with slogans, and we must put up with the verdict of the umpire, but we shall continue to oppose ideas of slogans, and in the end the ideas will win.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Before the hon. and gallant Members sits down, will he answer a question? He made a reference, not for the first time in this House, to laughter from this side of the House when the announcement was made of the capture of a British merchantman. I am sure he would not wish to mislead the House in any way, but is he

  1889
  not aware that the laughter was occasioned by the complete discomfiture of the Members of his own party when the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), I think it was, stated that the port of Santander was free of entry, and that there was no danger of any kind for ships going in or out, and, on that statement being made, the First Lord of the Admiralty said that in fact that morning a ship had been captured? If I may say so without giving offence, it was the faces of dismay of hon. Members opposite which occasioned the laughter from this side.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: That point has already been fully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). The "Times" report shows that the announcement of the capture of that ship was followed by Ministerial cheers and laughter, and, like my hon. Friend, I am content to go by the "Times" report, and not by opinions.
  9.3 P.m.
  Mr. Harold Nicolson: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down has wandered nautically very far afield. He took us from the drug traffic in China to the arms traffic in Spain. He pushed in his adventurous course even further. He embarked on history, and he ventured to draw a parallel between present conditions and those of the spacious days of Queen Elizabeth. That was a most unfortunate parallel. For if ever there was a Monarch who would have dismissed her First Lord of the Admiralty if he had showed the slightest sign of moving away from the policy of drift, of defeat, of retreat, of delay, in fact of non-intervention, it would have been Queen Elizabeth; and no Foreign Minister and no First Lord of the Admiralty who had behaved or conducted himself in the way in which the hon. and gallant Member wishes he should conduct himself would have lived for one day; his head would have tumbled very quickly upon Tower Green.
  I have with the greatest care been trying to understand and appreciate the speeches that have been made during this Debate by hon. Members opposite on this general question of foreign policy. I have tried to rid my mind of all preconceived ideas and to get at what is at the back of the minds of hon. Members opposite and what they are trying to propose. I
  1890
  must say that the impression of their attitude left on my mind by the Debates of these two days has not been the impression of any organised movement. It was rather the impression of a regatta in which ships of different weight and calibre, including redwings, crossed and recrossed in panic movement without at any single moment the appearance of a sense of direction. I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). I thought that he at least would produce some definite statement, some definite idea or principle to which the many contradictions that the Opposition have offered would be related. I listened with dismay to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I do not think I have ever heard a speech of such magnificent portent made with such an apparatus of force which was so devoid of real logic and of any real constructive thought. The right hon. Gentleman told us that we could not rely for a moment upon the good faith of any of the countries with whom we are now trying to negotiate. He told us in so many words that the opposing Powers, those Powers which are opposed to us in many ways, have now become so strong that they will get what they want without war. This was from a man who preached disarmament; who wished us to disarm and to become impotent, and who now says, "You have done what I wanted and now they have you at their mercy:" I do not think I have ever heard a speech so magnificent in delivery, so youthful in manner and so irresponsible in content.
  I regret that from other speeches from other Members opposite I have not been able, much as I have tried, to find any general pattern or principle to which to relate their policy. I agree with much that they say; I agree with many of their criticisms; I agree even with some of their conclusions. I agree, for instance, that the offer to consider the British plan was not that tremendous demonstration of international confidence which it has been represented on this side to be.
  Mr. Eden: I never said so.
  Mr. Nicolson: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman made no such claim himself, since among the evils which afflict this world to-day the greatest are surely

  1891
  vanity and untruthfulness. If it is true that this was a tremendous compliment, then the Government in making a song and dance about it were being vain; and if it is untrue, then they were being untruthful. We should not make a song and dance about something which we all know is a great and well-deserved compliment to Lord Plymouth personally, but which is not an unusual episode in international affairs. I am glad, however, that it gave to the Dutch Minister, a long-tried friend of this country, an opportunity of executing the final gesture in this diplomatic minuet; a gesture with which he leaves a stage which he has for so long adorned; a gesture which was symbolic not only of his long friendship for this country but also of his age-long devotion to the cause of international co-operation. I agree also with hon. Members opposite that the aviation control provided in the British plan is not very satisfactory and that the grant of belligerent rights to Franco should only be given when the word "substantial" is interpreted in an English sense and not in a German or an Italian sense, and when we are really satisfied that what we are doing is giving recognition to a Spanish insurgent who is a party in the Spanish civil war, and not to someone who, under the guise of being Spanish, is an agent for other countries.
  I want to suggest to hon. Members that we should follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and try to be guided in our judgments by our heads rather than by our hearts. I have tried to find in the intricacy of the statements that have been made by hon. Members opposite to what principle of foreign policy they are really adhering. I think that with all justice I can work it out like this. I think that the idea common to hon. Members opposite is that the aim of our foreign policy should be to combine with other democratic countries in defending democracy wherever it is assailed. If that is a true description of their theory, then surely it is both dangerous and unreal. It is dangerous because we cannot afford nowadays to take this 19th century conception of our duty. In the 20th century we were able to indulge in the great luxury of a missionary foreign policy since we were able, owing to our unassailability, to impose our views, our judgments, our standard of life and of
  1892
  conduct upon other countries. We cannot do that to-day. We are no longer unassailable. We are the most vulnerable country in the world. Therefore, I feel that it is not now a question of our being able to go out to convert the heathen. It is a question of our being able to prevent the heathen coming in to convert us. Therefore, these missionary luxuries, much as I could love them, are dangerous. They are also unreal.
  What really do hon. Members opposite mean by the word "democracy"? Do they mean "government by the consent of the governed"? In that case Italy and Germany would certainly be democratic countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Do they mean the control of the executive by the legislature? If they mean that, then the United States of America would certainly not be a democratic country. Do they mean the right of the individual, to whatever party he belongs, from whatever class he comes, to enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and freedom of writing? If thy mean that, then under these terms Russia is not a democratic country. I cannot but derive an impression that hon. Members opposite, when they talk of democracy, mean only those countries which are governed by groups of people who share their own economic and social views. Therefore, that is a party point of view. I am not accusing hon. Members opposite only of taking a party view of this Spanish controversy or of foreign affairs in general. I think that my friends here are sometimes equally to blame. I find myself, although I have tried very hard to keep my head in control of my heart, catching myself out in allowing emotional attitudes to come uppermost. I know that in the Spanish situation I desire the Spanish Government to win. If I were to say in the House what I think about Franco I should use the most turbulent language, but I try to control it.
  I cannot really believe that it is possible to understand or to appreciate the Spanish situation in terms of our own feelings, sympathies and emotions. We can only do it in terms of what is really best for Spain. It is not in terms of those conflicting emotionalisms that I would appeal to the Committee to get away from partisan prejudices. You cannot run British foreign policy from the party point of view. I know that hon. Members

  1893
  opposite if they were in power would not adopt these partisan policies. It is obvious that they would not be friendly with France when a Blum Government was in power and then change their policy if a Blum Government were succeeded by that of M. Flandin. It is obvious that they would not base their friendship with Portugal on the question whether they approved of its Government, or their friendship with Russia on whether they thought Stalin the greatest hero of his age or a traitor to the pure doctrine of Leninism. Of course they would not do that if they were on this side of the House. They would base their foreign policy, as the French and Russian Governments base their foreign policy, upon the essential interests of their own country, and they would interpret those interests first as the preservation of peace, and secondly as the arrangement of the balance of power—and I do not at all mind using that expression—in such a way that if peace could not be preserved the balance of power would be on our side and not on the other. That would be their policy were they in power; and that is the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  I do not wish to detain the Committee many minutes longer, but I do feel very strongly that throughout these Debates we have on both sides allowed passions and feelings which are, I do not say trivial—indeed they are deep and sincere—but which are after all momentary, to obscure the fact that if the world is going to be rescued from some appalling disaster there must be that dominant flywheel of international force which we call the continuity of British foreign policy. Neither on this side of the Committee nor on that side of the Committee can we allow that flywheel to get out of its centre—or to be deflected through the emotionalism of desires, passions, jealousies and hatreds. In brief, and I do not mind saying it as the right hon. Gentleman is here, I feel that our present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs does represent in his person the greatest possible agreement that this country in foreign affairs could hope to achieve. Some Members on this side of the Committee think that he is far too much to the Left: and some on the opposite side that he is far too much on the Right; but I believe that everybody in the House, except in moments of party passion, realises that we have in him a
  1894
  man of self reverence, self knowledge and self control; a man very modest and very truthful; a man of rather elderly caution; a man who rea lly desires to prolong peace, as Professor Keynes said the other day, every hour, every day, and every moment; a man who holds in his hands, and I believe will be able to preserve, the possibility, the slender possibility, of peace.
  9.19 p.m.
  Brigadier-General Spears: The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who opened the Debate, said and repeated time and time again, that Franco must not win, and went on to develop a thesis of the strategy of the campaign. He told us that Spain in the hands of a hostile Power would be a danger to us. We all know that, and the Government know it. The Foreign Secretary has time and time again declared that that would be a position which the British Government would not accept. But both the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) forgot another main interest of this country, and that is peace. They never mentioned that. They forgot another point. Supposing that the negotiations which are now in being fail and war should ensue, where would Spain be then? We and France would be fighting for our lives on our own frontiers. Spain would be looking after herself. So even on the ground which they have selected to base their arguments upon, there is very little to be said. Our main interest is and must remain the preservation of peace.
  If I happened to be, which I am not, a keen party politician, I should have welcomed last Thursday's Debate, because it showed the complete futility of the Opposition, but personally I regretted it, for it shows that there is a section of the Committee which in an emergency is incapable of taking that high, impartial and disinterested line which the world looks for from Great Britain. The Opposition show complete lack of a sense of responsibility. They fail to appreciate, what the French Socialists certainly have appreciated, that if control should fail, then troops will pour in on either side, sent in by the backers of the two factions in Spain. That means war. The Opposition have adopted the line of the minority of the Socialist party at the Con-

  1895
  gress at Marseilles, which took the extreme view and demanded intervention, and was beaten.
  The Socialists on Thursday opposed the Government without waiting to hear what the other nations had to say. They did what they could to wreck these proposals and never examined what the alternative to the success of those proposals would be. What is that alternative? If our proposals are not accepted, if each country resumes its liberty of action, then troops and munitions will be poured in by the countries supporting the opposing factions, and who can doubt that that will lead to war? The Opposition show the same sense of lack of responsibility over the case of the "Royal Oak," which has been bandied about so much this afternoon. What was the alternative? Would they have had our man-of-war intervene in Spanish territorial waters? If the "Royal Oak" had done that, can there be any doubt that that example would have been followed by Italian ships? Is that what they want?
  The fact is that in the matter of Spain the Opposition have shown themselves completely incapable of showing any impartiality, and even unwilling to do it. They see only a distorted picture. We had an example of it this afternoon. We heard a great deal about Italian and German volunteers, but we had to jog the memory of the right hon. Gentleman to remind him that there had been such a thing as an international brigade. We hear a great deal about German and Italian plots before the rebellion broke out, but we do not hear anything about the Russian intervention before the rebellion broke out. Yet everybody knows that the pundits of Sovietism have long been watching Spain, knowing that there was a most fruitful ground for rebellions because there was misery, and Communism can flourish only in misery.
  Mr. Gallacher: There is not a word of truth in it.
  Brigadier-General Spears: We are told that the Spanish Government represents a great ideal to the hon. Gentleman opposite. It was described by the late head of that Government, Senor Caballero, as follows:
  "We Socialists are tired of evolution. We will now have to resort to revolutionary
  1896
  methods, and the moment we do so we adopt the tactics of Communism. There is no difference between Socialism and Communism. They become one and the same."
  I think that Signor Caballero was speaking the truth when he said that, but that is the Government which is said by hon. Members opposite to have such ideal qualities. I have not time to develop my ideas. Sometimes hon. Gentlemen are a little unkind in the amount of time they take. But I want to put in this plea, and it is a sincere one. I myself have been a non-interventionist from the beginning. I have been terrified by these campaigns waged on either side, because I saw that they could only lead to intervention and to war. The more bitterly hon. Gentlemen opposite attack their opponents, the more violently do they take sides, the more violent becomes the opposition to themselves. Out of the line taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite, Fascism is born, and I beg them to deal with this question objectively and in the interests of this country and of Europe.
  9.30 p.m.
  Miss Rathbone: I have only a few minutes, and I want to concentrate them entirely on the working of the non-intervention scheme, the new proposals and the chances that they may be made to work more successfully. I have been a close student of the non-intervention system from the first, and I have recognised that it is a frank and genuine desire to keep the war from spreading. But from the first it was vitiated because the methods chosen were designed to keep up the appearance of non-intervention rather than to create the reality. In the beginning they flouted the League and set up a new body on which Italy, Germany and Portugal were represented but Spain, the victim of their aggression, was not. This body had no coercive powers, no machinery and behaved just as pacifists and some other people would like the League to behave. It fitted the definition of Christian charity, which
  "suffereth long, and is kind;…is not easily provoked; thinketh no evil."
  It did not turn its own cheek to the smiter, but it did its best to ensure that Spain should do so by keeping arms out of her reach. All the countries which joined sincerely in the Pact, including Russia, stopped the supply of munitions to Spain about a fortnight before Germany, Italy and Portugal even pretended

  1897
  to stop them. The formal proof of that is contained in the dates of signature. But a more substantial proof lies in the well known fact that by the end of September the Spanish Government were practically denuded of arms while the insurgents were saturated with them. Just in time to save Madrid Russia took a hand after giving fair notice that she would do so, in the admirable formula of M. Maisky, that
  "henceforth his country would respect nonintervention in the same way that it was being observed by the other Powers."
  The mistake of "non-intervention by example" was repeated in the ban on volunteers. Again, Germany and Italy took good care to slip all the horses out of the stable before they attempted to shut the door. The Foreign Secretary repeatedly denied that there is any evidence of a large landing of foreign troops since 20th February. I do not think that he could deny that the number of German and Italian troops, armed and sent by their own Governments, is three, four or probably five times as large as that of the foreign troops on the other side, all of whom, except a certain number of Russian technicians, are genuine volunteers. In spite of the notorious facts, Ministers when challenged in the House have invariably insinuated, if they did not assert, that breaches of non-intervention have been equal, on both sides. The unmasking of Germany's and Italy's bad faith has been done not by their fellow members of the Non-Intervention Committee whose duty it was to see fair play, but by themselves. Signor Mussolini no longer makes any pretence of neutrality even to so guileless a listener as the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). Only General Franco, seemingly a little out of date as to what is happening in the world outside, still tries to outdo the gorgeous mendacity of his preceptors by declaring that:
  "The Nationalist Army has rejected systematically all aid from foreign volunteers, because it does not need them in its work of rescuing Spain, and because of its evident technical and moral superiority."
  The other great mistake of the Non-Intervention Committee has been that—true to its policy of keeping up appearances rather than creating realities—during the first nine months of its existence it set up no machinery whatever for checking breaches of non-intervention, or
  1898
  even for obtaining first-hand impartial information as to such breaches. Even when the frontier and coastal control system was set up in May, it placed no observers in Spain itself in ports or towns, or aerodromes. The Committee has been dependent on complaints from the conflicting parties themselves, and the Non-Interventionist Governments on secret reports from their Consuls—men not selected for such a purpose, and frequently suspected of bias. Hence, when we put in this House questions as to the reality of incidents that are reported in the Press, such as the arrival of large contingents of troops, we are always met with the reply: "We have no evidence." An instance in point is that of the guns overlooking Gibraltar, which have been so much discussed in this House. It was fully five months ago that I drew attention to these guns and, putting a question in the House, received the usual reply.
  One of the best parts of the new proposals is that they will place observers in the ports, however little they will function; much better, that it is proposed to send an international commission to Spain to report upon the question of the withdrawal of volunteers. That will involve ascertaining how many volunteers there are, and for whom they are fighting. What I specially want to ask is that account shall be taken of the quality as well as of the quantity of the volunteers, because one key man on either side, a commanding officer, an aviator, a tank driver or an engineer, is worth a hundred or a thousand infantry. General Franco might well be willing to part with his Italian infantry, but he would do his best to retain and to conceal his key men. From the first, Germany had the good sense to concentrate upon sending key men; therefore, if the proposals merely deal with the quantity, and if volunteers are to be withdrawn proportionately to the number fighting on each side, they will not work out fairly if the status of the volunteers is not taken into account.
  Another very important point in the working of the scheme has notoriously been the lack of control over the arrival of aircraft by air. It seems lamentable that proposals dealing with this matter in the new scheme handle it as gingerly as though it were a hot brick which the proposers were prepared to drop as soon as it burnt anybody's fingers. Of course,

  1899
  Franco will not want to have observers placed in his aerodromes, but he can be made to agree if that is a condition precedent of the whole scheme, just as other parts of the proposals have been made conditions precedent. The Foreign Secretary himself has admitted that this is the one vital point on which the issue of the whole war turns. Therefore, it should not be dealt with in so gingerly a manner.
  In view of all this, I suggest that the Government are not justified in resenting, with an air of injured innocence, the suspicions with which we regard the proposals. If the proposals are worked courageously and impartially they might not be too bad, but the British Government have never yet shown courage, or even impartiality. They have subordinated exerything to their desire to avoid provoking Germany or Italy. In pursuit of that end they have not merely flouted the League of Nations and endangered our Imperial interests in India, a struggling democracy, and our own security, but they have smirched the honour of Great Britain in the eyes of the world. A nation is not behaving honourably if it observes strictly with both sides its own international agreements, but at the same time connives at, by glossing over, the persistent breach of international agreements by others. I find that "honour" has become an unpopular word with the younger generation, but, after all, there is such a thing, and in the minds of many of us it is a thing without which, properly interpreted, life is not worth living, either for a nation or an individual.
  I would make one appeal to the Government: If they carry through the proposals, let them do so in such a way that no one will have reason to suspect them, as many of us have been forced to suspect them, of not only desiring to keep out of trouble but of being animated by a real desire for General Franco to win—whatever their motives may be for it—and of a willingness to see him win by the help of his foreign Allies. Parliament is to adjourn, and much may happen in the interval. I have very little doubt that the Government will succeed in keeping out of war. The war may come later, at a time when we have destroyed one democracy after another in Europe, compelling us either to submit—[Interruption.] We shall find ourselves confronted with war at last, at a time when the complete selfishness
  1900
  and lack of principle of our previous policy have left us without one real friend in Europe.
  9.40 p.m.
  Duchess of Atholl: I wish, in the first place, to endorse two appeals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). First, that there should be stricter regulation of foreigners coming into this country. More especially, I should like to see a stricter regulation of persons coming in under what is called the "au pair" system. His second appeal was that the Government should give us information as to this serious matter of the guns said to be commanding Gibraltar and the Straits. This has been causing me deep anxiety, as my right hon. Friend knows, for at least the last four months. I wish, however, to join issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping in his suggestion which is, I understand, that General Franco should be recognised as the ruler of Spain. Any action of that kind would be knuckling down to lawlessness and an encouragement of a regime which he himself admits has brought about a situation which seems full of danger to us. I believe that that suggestion, and, in part the suggestion for recognising General Franco as a belligerent, is based upon an exaggerated belief in the extent to which he has the population of Spain behind him. It may be that General Franco controls more than half of Spanish territory, but it is important to remember that he does not control the Provinces which are richest from the point of view of industrial or agricultural production. We may also ask why, if he felt he had the people behind him, he needed not only Moors, but Italian aeroplanes with him from the moment of his insurrection, and German aeroplanes from two or three weeks afterwards.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: That applies to the other side as well.
  Commander Agnew: There were the Russians too.
  Captain McEwen: What about the Russians on the other side?
  Duchess of Atholl: My hon. and gallant Friends are quite mistaken. At the time there was no Soviet Ambassador in Spain.
  Captain McEwen: How many agents were there?
  Duchess of Atholl: There may have been Communist propaganda in Spain although I have no evidence of its extent. I am prepared to believe that there was some; I only say that there was no Soviet Ambassador in Spain when the insurrection broke out, so that I do not suppose the Soviet Government were concerned in it. Again, I have never seen any evidence to the effect that there were Russian troops in Spain until October, and there was no international brigade in Spain until October or November. I would also say this, which is a very important matter and is not sufficiently known, that although no doubt there was Communist propaganda in Spain before the insurrection, to what extent I cannot say, there certainly was very serious Nazi propaganda and intrigue. Over 4,000 documents were seized in a Nazi headquarters in Barcelona after the insurrection broke out, and articles summarising those documents appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" as long ago as last August. A few months later, a book, "The Nazi Conspiracy in Spain," gave full translations, and in some cases photographs, of the most important of those documents. These show that from 1930 onwards the organisation was corrupting the Spanish Press, influencing politicians, influencing officers of the army and air force. There was the smuggling in of propaganda through the consulates and embassy, and, finally, smuggling in of a great consignment of so-called potatoes in the spring of 1936, which obviously must have been arms.
  It is also well known that there were Fascist groups after the election in February, 1936, which openly said that they would not recognise the results of the election, and the Fascist party greatly increased in numbers in the months between February and July, 1936. Taking that fact into account and the facts disclosed in "The Nazi Conspiracy in Spain" (a perusal of which I recommend to my hon. Friends), they confirm all that I have read as to much work by agents provocateurs in those months between February and July, and this, I believe, accounts for much of the disorder and violence. There was certainly murder on both sides. Among others a well-known judge was murdered by the Fascists. As to the figures with regard to the burning and damage of churches between February and July, to which my hon.
  1902
  and gallant Friend referred, I understand that those figures were shown by President Azana in the Cortes to have been very much exaggerated.
  I come back, however, to my original point, namely, that if General Franco had so many of the people behind him before he begun his insurrection because they objected to Communist propaganda, why was it necessary for him to have foreign aid at so early a date? Why as the months went on did we hear less and less of the Spanish people fighting for General Franco and only of Moorish and Italian troops and of German and Italian aeroplanes? Why has it recently been stated in the "Manchester Guardian," I understand on reliable information, that since the fall of Bilbao General Franco has not felt strong enough to finish the war without applying to Signor Mussolini for 125,000 more men and 500 more aeroplanes? Sometimes it is given as evidence that General Franco has the people with him that it is not necessary for him to guard his lines of communication, but the same applies to the territory of the Spanish Government, from what I saw of the lines of communication in their territory, and I venture to express my belief that the order and acquiescence which appear to exist in General Franco's territory are due to a reign of terror which he expressly enjoined on his officers in orders published on 28th July last year, a copy of which was found on an officer who was taken prisoner in the Guadarramas. More than one person has testified to me personally of this reign of terror and it was the subject of a striking indictment given by the President of the Anglo-American Press Association in a public speech in Paris last November. In this he spoke of hundreds of thousands of men in General Franco's territory having been killed mostly by being put against the wall. Moreover, in view of what was said by some hon. Members the other night about the quiet that is said to have reigned in Bilbao since General Franco's entry, I should like to point out that so far as I know no newspaper correspondents have been allowed in the town since then, and my information is that a few days after his entry no fewer than 40 courts martial had been set up in order to try people who were opposed to him.
  Another indication of the extent to which the two sides can show that they

  1903
  are trusted by the people is this. When in April my companion and I had an interview with Senor Caballero we asked him what would be his policy at the end of the war, if the Government won, he at once said that if he were successful he would provide for a plebiscite. On the other hand, General Franco, when questioned on the same subject a few months ago, said that that was a plan not to be thought of for some time to come. I submit, therefore, that there is evidence of several different kinds which should lead us to accept with great caution any suggestion that General Franco really has behind him the people in his territory, as some hon. Members think. This is a very serious question which should be considered before giving him belligerent rights, as they, of course, would enhance his status and his authority.
  I recognise, of course, that the granting of belligerent rights is to depend on a substantial withdrawal of foreigners on both sides, but obviously it may well be a very difficult matter to carry this out, because I understand that General Franco is still trying to keep up the fiction that he has no foreigners on his side. That statement appeared in an interview in yesterday's "Sunday Times." In this connection it should not be forgotten that the Spanish Government have made no difficulty whatever about saying that they would allow all foreigners on their side to go. The German Government, on the other hand, have indicated that, while they accept the proposal in principle, they want modifications, though it is not known in what direction. Evidently great pressure is likely to be put on our representative on the Non-Intervention Committee to whittle down to the smallest possible extent the requirement that foreigners should be taken out before belligerent rights are granted. In my opinion no belligerent rights should be granted until it can clearly be shown that the vast majority of foreigners have gone, and have gone in the proportions in which they are engaged on the different sides, as we must recognise that the granting of belligerent rights will give an advantage to General Franco.
  Then we have to remember that, from the wording of the scheme, it seems likely to be extremely difficult to provide any air control. I must express my dis-
  1904
  appointment that that paragraph has not been more strongly worded, in view of what my right hon. Friend said to me in reply to a supplementary question which I put to him about a week ago. One has only to look at a map to see that Italian and German aeroplanes can fly into Spain quite easily at night, via Sardinia and Majorca, whereas planes from Russia must come by sea and can easily be intercepted. French commercial planes, of course, can fly into Spain—I do not know if they have done so—and they can be converted into bombers, but not into fighters. Moreover, I cannot remember any correspondents having mentioned that any aeroplanes of a French fighting type have been seen on General Franco's side, whereas we have heard of many Junkers, Heinkels and Fiats—
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: While there is certainly no difficulty about German and Italian planes getting into Spain to help General Franco, Russian planes also have managed to get into Spain to assist the Spanish Government.
  Duchess of Atholl: If belligerent rights were granted to the insurgents, it would, I fancy, be much more difficult for them to get into Spain. We all want to keep out of trouble if we can, but it seems to me to be one thing to be neutral and quite another to join in fastening on the combatants an arrangement which will act unfairly against one party, and that party which, I believe, is united by an historic friendship to this country—I mean the democratic party. It is all very well for my hon. friends to smile, but I would remind them that the hallmark of democracy is freedom of political association, whereas the hallmark of dictatorship is that only one political party is allowed to exist, as it will stand no criticism. To my mind freedom of political association and freedom of religious belief are among the criteria of democracy. Freedom of religious belief is laid down in the Spanish Republican Constitution, and President Azana, since the insurrection, has declared his intention of maintaining that article in the Constitution once the war is over. On the Government side there is indeed a multiplicity of parties, which may mean weakness in an hour of emergency, out at least it means that they are a democracy, whereas on the other side only a single party exists,

  1905
  which, of course, is the hallmark of dictatorship.
  I wish to say in conclusion that General Franco's statement a little while ago to a "Times" correspondent that Gibraltar would not be likely to be a subject of dispute between him and this country, because it had lost most of its importance for us, seems to me to be very ominous in connection with the guns which are alleged to be in position near Gibraltar, and, therefore, I welcome warmly what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of our arteries through the Mediterranean. I only hope he will do his utmost to see that this scheme is made as fair as possible to both parties, and in particular that he will do his utmost to see that the great majority of the foreigners are withdrawn before any belligerent rights are granted, in order to ensure that one day we do not have to defend those arteries against overwhelming odds.
  9.55 P.m.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I think no one will dispute in any quarter of the Committee that we have had a very valuable Debate. It has covered many matters, from China to Peru. I do not propose to go again over most of the ground that has been discussed, beyond saying that I hope the Noble Lord will answer, as I am sure he will, the very specific questions that have been put to him, with much greater authority than I could command, concerning Gibraltar, the Government's plan for non-intervention, the question of belligerent rights while foreign troops remain in Spain, and the rest. I want to bring the Debate back to the principle that runs through all these specific problems of foreign affairs, the general question of armaments and war. I make no apology for doing so in a Debate of this description, because in reality there is nothing else in foreign policy that matters very much except whether we can solve this general problem of the race to war in which we are engaged to-day. It is useless to put off the crisis for a few months, or even a year or two, if in the end we are going into the catastrophe which so many people are coming to think is inevitable. If we drift on as we are drifting now, we on this side of the Committee are convinced that we shall drift to disaster. I want. therefore, to take up what the Foreign Secretary said about the present position and the future of the
  1906
  League of Nations, and I want to press him concerning the solution that they propose and the policy which the Government advocate in dealing with this supremely important matter.
  I am certain that every Member on every side of the Committee recognises the supreme importance of this question. I believe that every Member in every quarter of the Committee shares a common detestation and fear of war. It is a subject on which feeling has become intense. On Thursday, before our Adjournment Debate on Spain, an hon. Member opposite came up to me in the Lobby and said, with passion in his voice, that on the Judgment Day the Labour party would have the fate of millions of their fellow creatures on their souls. I might have replied that there are many on this side of the Committee and outside who rarely go to bed at night or get up in the morning without thinking that the Government may have upon their souls the fate of 100,000 Chinese and Japanese, 100,000 Bolivians and Paraguayans, many Abyssinians, and hundreds of thousands of Spaniards, who might still have been alive if the policy that the Government had pursued had been different from what it was.
  There are many people who think that we are driving at breackneck speed to a general cataclysm in which our civilisation may be engulfed. When our passions are aroused we are all liable to think like Dr. Goebbels, who said, "We National Socialists are convinced that we are right, and we cannot bear that anyone should maintain that he is right, for either, if he is right, he must be a National Socialist, or, if he is not a National Socialist, then he is not right." I often feel like that, and I ask the House and the Foreign Secretary to forgive me if I speak in what seems to be a didactic or a provocative tone. I want to assure hon. Members opposite that I believe in the sincerity of their desire for peace. I am convinced that they want to avert the next war. I am convinced that the Foreign Secretary is striving, with great personal devotion and with untiring industry, to avert that war by the means which he believes best calculated to do so. But everyone will agree that the desire for peace is not enough. The problem of policy is how can the danger

  1907
  resulting from the armaments race, from the present drive to war, be dealt with?
  I believe the Foreign Secretary went to the root of the matter the other day when he said that "the world will always be at the mercy of an international incident until there is a general acceptance of the rule of law. That is a fundamental of the present situation which cannot be escaped." What did he mean? Not that it would be nice to have a Utopia where every Government would do no wrong. He meant that we should never have peace until we could establish some system by which the community of States would keep order in the same way that a national Government keeps order, within the States of the civilised nations of mankind. That is to say, we must have rules which the nations will obey; courts to apply them; machinery to change the rules by peaceful means when injustice supervenes; collective power by which the rules can be upheld if they are challenged and by which the verdict of the courts can be supported, and the reduction of armed forces in the hands of individual States, so that no aggressor can menace the community as a whole.
  We believe that without such machinery we can never hope for the rule of law in international affairs. Since the end of the War that rule of law has been the declared policy of every Government of this country. Our Government played a leading part in establishing the Covenant of the League. It set up rules which govern the fundamental relations of States and which, in the Kellogg Pact and the Covenant, entirely exclude the right to go to war. It set up courts to apply those laws. It established a system of collective security and joint action to restrain a potential aggressor, and to suppress aggression if it began. And the Covenant went very far. It laid down economic sanctions which are complete and automatic. It provided, as I believe, for military sanctions if they should be required, and I think that interpretation is clearly supported by Annex F of Locarno. In any case, apart from legal obligations, it is plain that, if a Government such as ours sets its hand to such a scheme, it is common sense that it should try to make it work, that it should try to ensure that it shall be so strong
  1908
  that no aggressor will ever challenge it. That is why the Phillimore Committee, which in reality made the first draft of Article 16 of the Covenant, said: "We have desired to make it (the sanction) as weighty as possible. We have, therefore, made it automatic, and one to which each State must contribute its force without waiting for the others."
  That system was accepted by British Governments after the War. It was restated in a resolution by the Assembly of 1927, a resolution which was partly drafted by Sir Austen Chamberlain, then the Foreign Secretary. For 12 years the Commissions which prepared the way for the Disarmament Conference sought to work out in detail how that collective system could be made a reality and the way in which the sanctions of Article 16 could be applied. That system was actually used to stop four wars, and in two of those wars, before 1931, the British Government took the lead in suggesting the use of sanctions if they should be required. Precedents were being built up. The law was coming to life, because the rule of law can be established only by building up precedents as each case arises.
  Then there happened in 1931 the lamentable invasion of Manchuria, followed a year later by the Chaco, and a year later by the failure of the Disarmament Conference. Nevertheless, the British people continued to hope that this new system could be brought to life, and the peace ballot proved that there was an overwhelming demand from the people of this country. that the system of collective security, through the League, should be upheld. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. It was on that policy that the present Government came to power. Remember the circumstances of the last Election. The memories of the Disarmament Conference were still alive and the people, through the peace ballot, had just demanded that the Conference should be resummoned, and that it should succeed. The Abyssinian War had just begun, and the people had demanded that it should be stopped. The Government asked for a mandate. What were their pledges? I start with that great speech made at Geneva by the present Home Secretary—a speech which many people thought heralded a new epoch in international affairs, but which we found was only the first shot in a General Election

  1909
  campaign. The present Home Secretary said that:
  "In conformity with its precise, explicit obligations the League stands—and my country stands with it—for the collective maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety, and particularly for steady and collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression."
  And a week or two later the present Foreign Secretary, in a broadcast, which won more votes. I think, than all the speeches in the Election, said, from Geneva:
  "We cannot afford to delay, for at this moment men are being killed and homes are being shattered. Action must be swift and action must he effective if the League is to achieve that end for which it was set up."
  In their General Election manifesto, the Government said:
  "The League of Nations will remain, as heretofore, the keystone of British foreign policy. … We shall continue to do all in our power to uphold the Covenant and to maintain and increase the efficiency of the League. In the present unhappy dispute between Italy and Abyssinia, there will be no wavering."
  Unless there should be any doubt, they went on to say:
  "Our attitude to the League is dictated by the conviction that collective security by collective action can alone save us from a return to the old system which resulted in the Great War."
  I commend these pledges and others that I could read to hon. Members who laugh. I remember that the Conservative party, or some Members of it, at one time called the peace ballot a fraudulent prospectus. I venture to suggest that the pledges of the Government at the last Election were really the fraudulent prospectus, and that, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) said the other day, there has been too much lip service to the League. I recall the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said before the Election that the true purpose of going to the country was to restrain the mischievous activities of Mr. Eden at Geneva. Well, he turned out to be right. I want to ask the question why it is in practice that the Conservative policy is so very different from what they preach? I say with great respect that it is because they go on living in the old world of pre-War days. They do not believe that the rule of law of which the Foreign Secretary speaks has now become the one supreme, the one real vital in-
  1910
  terest of the British people. They do not believe that peace is indivisible; they still believe in the mirage of safety confined to one little corner of the world. They do not believe that security is only possible by an international system; they still hope for safety by national armaments alone. The truth is that the Peace Ballot showed that at the last Election certain slogans for the last Election were required. The slogans were used; they meant everything to the electors, but very little to those who used them.
  I will illustrate that by three quotations from the late Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin. He said in 1934—and the date is important, for the peace ballot had barely begun:
  "It is a curious thing that there is growing up among the Labour party support for what is called a collective peace system. A collective peace system, in my view, is perfectly impracticable, in view of the fact to-day that the United States is not yet to our unbounded regret a member of the League of Nations. It is hardly worth considering, when these are the facts."
  Five months later the peace ballot was having a remarkable success, and then Mr. Baldwin said:
  "Collective security is a difficult subject. We do not know, we cannot tell, what form it may take, but as one who has been studying and working on this question through bad times, through many years, I am driven to the conclusion that the last way we have of ensuring peace is by some means of collective security, and to that end, inside the League of Nations, the whole of Europe must get together,"
  and so on. Then we had the full results of the peace ballot with its overwhelming majority for the League and collective security, and in October Mr. Baldwin said:
  "I am all in favour, and the Government are all in favour (for they see no other course) of adopting as the policy of this country, as far as the League can carry it out to-day, the policy of collective security, and I am convinced that the country is behind that policy."
  These quotations speak for themselves. They explain the gulf between the attitude of the Conservative party and of Members on this side of the Committee. They explain why the Conservative party, which is sincerely in favour of peace, is in favour of the League in theory, but never in practice. But if we demand that the obligations of the Covenant should be upheld, the obligations, which our Government helped to draft and by which we are bound, then hon. Members

  1911
  opposite always say, "You want war." In 1931 the Japanese committed a flagrant aggression. We asked for the rule of law. We asked for economic sanctions. It has been proved in the Abyssinian case that economic sanctions can be applied without war following.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Without success.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Only because they were not continued. Hon. Members opposite greeted us in this House and in the country with frenzied cries of "War, war." There came the Chaco War. We asked for the rule of law. We asked for action by the League. The Foreign Secretary proved, two years too late, that it only needed an arms embargo to stop that war. But we were told that we wanted our country to fight in South America as well as in Asia. In the Abyssinian case, in July, 1936, we asked that the economic sanctions should be kept on; we thought that they were too weak that they had allowed a lot of bloodshed which could have been prevented by an oil embargo, but we knew that they were beginning to exert great pressure, and we asked that they should be maintained. The Government, which had been elected not to waver, decided to take them off; and at by-elections the electors were told on every hoarding that the Socialists wanted to drive them into war. In the Spanish case, we are told, if we suggest the action of the League, that we want war. It remains true that in the recent by-elections Conservative candidates have still been pledging themselves to the League, still saying that they were in favour even of military sanctions, but at the same time the paid canvassers of the Tory party were telling the electors that our policy means war.
  Commander Bower: Will the hon. Member substantiate the charge about paid canvassers? We challenge—
  The Deputy - Chairman (Captain Bourne): If the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) does not give way, no other hon. Member has a right to be on his feet.
  Marquess of Titchfield: Prove that we have paid canvassers.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: It is true that hon. Members opposite may say that they want League action but that the difficulties are
  1912
  too great to be overcome. In the Chaco there were no difficulties of any kind. In regard to Spain if we had acted quickly, directly we knew, as we did last July, that Signor Mussolini had begun aggression, there would have been no difficulty, provided that our Government had meant business. In Manchuria there may have been more difficulty; I do not deny it; but I recall that the two great Conservative statesmen, Lord Cecil and Lord Lytton, both of whom were intimately concerned with handling that dispute, for the first year of the war, were convinced that if the League had been upheld, Japan would have been restrained and all bloodshed averted.
  What about Abyssinia? We knew perfectly well that if the proper method of the League had been applied when Signor Mussolini first murdered Abyssinians at Wal Wal, if then a commission of inquiry had been set up, that dispute would have soon disappeared, because he would have known that we were determined to unhold the Covenant. Later, we could have settled it by an oil embargo in three months, as the League Committee reported. If we had been attacked, the Mediterranean Powers were ready to stand with us. We know that we could have stopped it alone. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Sir Ernie Chatfield, First Sea Lord, surely an authority whom hon. Members opposite will accept, has told us that if the British Fleet had been required to fight during the Italo-Abyssinian War it could have brought that war to an end in a few months. The Conservative party are perfectly prepared to fight in certain circumstances. When Mussolini sent troops to Libya to threaten Egypt, the Government sent the Fleet to steam past Italian shores. Was not that a challenge to war? Is it not certain that if Mussolini had attacked Malta or Egypt or even the deserts of British Somaliland this Government would have replied by force of arms? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Yes. That: is a vital interest in the eyes of hon. Members opposite, but the Foreign Secretary's rule of law, the new system which is to bring peace to the world, is not a vital interest. That is the gulf between the Government and ourselves. And that is why I was profoundly disturbed by what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon. He said that we should never have stable peace until

  1913
  we had an international organisation which could arbitrate on our disputes. But he held out very little hope that in his view any such organisation was possible in the early future. If I understood him aright we cannot use the League where non-member States are concerned. That is to say, we cannot use it in Europe because Germany and Italy are not, there; we cannot use it in America because the United States are not there; and we cannot use it in Asia, because Japan is not there. There is not much serious business left for the League to do; and as far as we can make out the Government have no intention whatever of making any attempt to use the League to establish the rule of law. They have no plan to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) called turning the League into a grand alliance against aggression.
  We submit that this policy has utterly and castrophically failed. They abandoned the League, first on one occasion and then on another, first, when it was difficult perhaps in Manchuria and, secondly when it was easy in Chaco. What has been the result? They have brought us to a condition where there has been war in every continent, where, as a direct result, Japan, Germany and Italy have left the League and the United States has returned to isolation; where the Disarmament Conference has been smashed, and the Washington and London Treaties broken up; where we have gone into an arms race far more terrible than anything the world has ever seen, in which the world is spending three times what it spent in 1932. The Government go on staggering from crisis to crisis, and have been obliged to fall back on what the Foreign Secretary calls "a policy of peace at almost any price." Peace at the price of Manchukuo; at the price of the Chaco; at the price of sending oil to help Mussolini to bomb Abyssinians; at the price of condoning Almeria and allowing Guernica to pass without a single protest of any kind.
  Do not the Government perceive that they have already paid a price which makes war inevitable unless they call a halt? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said this afternoon that the rule of law is being broken up and that the sanctity of international treaties was less to-day than ever before in history. The
  1914
  Government who by abandoning the Covenant have brought us to this pass have no plan. Their responsibility is greater than that of any other Government because this country is the natural leader of mankind. They have to-day no policy for ending our troubles, of re-establishing the sanctity of treaties or of removing the causes, economic or other, which may lead to war. We say that the League can still be used for these purposes, that it is still a practical policy to propose real security, real arbitration, real disarmament and real economic co-operation; that if the Government would come forward with bold proposals which would embrace Europe in a single system, with modified obligations for the rest of the world, if they would come forward with the real proposals for meeting the economic difficulties of Germany and other Powers, by the extension of mandates, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland spoke, by the development of international trade, the development of international public works and co-operation with regard to raw materials—if the Government would do these things, they would find that in the League there are still 58 States who would be with them; that in the League there are 1,500,000,000 people against 350,000,000 outside; and that of the 350,000,000, 120,000,000 are in the United State, who would give their benevolent co-operation in many parts of the world.
  I believe that they would find that such a League would have an attraction to the non-Member States, even to Germany and Italy, which the present policy cannot have. The only way of getting a settlement with Germany and Italy is to make a League of that kind, and to give them equal status and equal rights inside it. Instead of doing that, the Government go on drifting. Our policy is not a policy of war. It is the only policy which can prevent our going back to the pre-1914 system in which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, no Government wanted war, but in which they stumbled and staggered into war because they were pursuing the policy of armament competition. This policy is not Utopian; it is the only policy that is practical to-day. I know the Foreign Secretary wants a policy like that. I know he is very conscious of the forces—the forces of darkness—which are work-

  1915
  ing against him. I believe that if he would try, as an hon. Member said this evening, a great act of faith and courage, if he would stand up for our obligations, stand up for the rule of law of which he spoke, he would see that the miracle of 1935 would be repeated. There are countless homes where mothers are looking at their children with fear in their hearts, and where young men are asking whether it is to be their fate to destroy the heritage which previous generations have left to them. There are great forces on the side of the Foreign Secretary. Let him call upon them before it is too late.
  10.29 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): We have, I think, been fortunate in this House lately in that we have not had an enormous number of Debates on foreign affairs, and my right hon. Friend will certainly agree with me that we in the Foreign Office owe a debt of gratitude to hon. Gentlemen opposite for their restraint. Unfortunately, last week they staged a Debate on St. Swithin's Day, and I am very much afraid that we shall now be faced with one every day for 40 days. But we can say that the Debate to-day is in every respect very different from that which we had last Thursday. Then it was a very limited Debate, a Debate entirely on the Government proposals with regard to non-intervention. Though a good many hon. Members opposite strayed rather wide of the actual proposals, and indeed hardly mentioned them at all, at the same time they did not stray beyond the frontiers of Spain. To-day the Debate has been as wide as possible. It has been limited only by the confines of the globe. It has been, I think everyone will agree, a very important Debate—a full dress Debate in which some of the greatest figures of our Parliamentary life have taken part and if I may say so as a younger Member, it has been a great education to younger Members.
  My right hon. Friend gave the Committee what we call in diplomatic parlance a tour d'horizon. He took the Committee with him on a survey which included the Far East, the Near East, the Mediterranean and Spain, and I think the Committee probably desired that that should be done, because it is desirable
  1916
  that we should, now and then, have a general stocktaking of the international situation. In the kaleidoscope of foreign affairs the relative importance of the various problems is constantly changing. Our attention may be concentrated on one country at a particular time, and we may wake up one morning and find that another country or another area occupies the centre of attraction. It is important, therefore, that we should not ignore areas even though at the moment they may seem peaceful and quiet. It is clear, I think, from this Debate, that hon. Members take a wide view. Many subjects have been spoken of apart from Spain.
  One point about which I should like to say something was raised by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) in the speech which has just concluded. He spoke of the use of the League of Nations and attacked His Majesty's Government for what he regarded as their failure to use the League of Nations, and said that the result was that the world was in a bad way. We know the hon. Member very well now. He is very sincere. He would sacrifice everything for something in which he believed. He would face the greatest dangers and the greatest difficulties, but there is one thing which he cannot face and that is an inconvenient fact. With him, anything which he does not like does not exist, and so we noticed that in his very interesting talk about the League, although he quoted all the failures, he mentioned none of the successes.
  I do not think it is in the least true that the League has had the steady series of failures of which he spoke. The Saar plebiscite, the Hungary-Yugoslav dispute, the dispute concerning the Sanjak of Alexandretta—all these were very considerable successes of the League, and another very great success was the use of the League, in regard to the occupation of the Rhineland. To my mind, that was a shining example of what, I believe, is one of the main purposes of the League, and that is to achieve delay in an international crisis. [Laughter.] This is quite a serious point. Hon. Members who recall the outbreak of War in 1914 will remember how that crisis arose in a moment, like a thunderstorm. There was no machinery to cause delay. If there had been, it is very possible that hostilities might have been averted alto-

  1917
  gether. Last year's crisis was not dissimilar in many ways. It, too, arose suddenly like a thundercloud. Yet the machinery for delay was there, and a war was averted. That seems to me, in itself, to be a definite proof of the ability of the League in these days to preserve the peace of the world. At the same time it is idle to suggest that under every circumstance the League will be successful. The only way in which the League could be entirely successful would be if it were universal, if it had within it every nation in the world, and, of course, that is not true to-day. We have not got in it some of the greatest nations, and we all regret it. The United States, Brazil, Japan, Germany, and, I am afraid, to all intents and purposes Italy, are not members of the League at the present time, and, under those circumstances, it is inevitable that the powers of the League should be limited.
  I will give an example of the way in which they are limited. Take the case of Spain, which the hon. Member for Derby mentioned. Constantly hon. Members opposite, and in particular he, have pressed for different action by the League than that which it has actually taken, but I think they really must face the facts. I do not believe the League is likely to take different action in present circumstances. If the hon. Member were to go to Geneva, he would find there that they recognise, as we all must recognise, that Germany and Italy are not likely to be present at Geneva, and they recognise too that under such circumstances action by the League of the type that the hon. Member wants would only accelerate the division of Europe into rival and antagonistic ideological blocs. We should have, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) said earlier, pacts of mutual aggression, which would bring the danger of war nearer and which would be bad also for the League, for on these ideological issues I am afraid we must face the fact that the League itself would be split, and that therefore there is no chance of that united action which is the basis of the Covenant. That is an example of the limitations which do exist in regard to League action, but, subject to those limitations, I still think that the League is a most valuable instrument, and certainly His Majesty's Government intend to continue to support it.
  1918
  Now, if I may go back to what I was saying earlier, although I agree that there are problems in all parts of the world which cause us very great anxiety, on the whole I think it will be agreed that the account which my right hon. Friend gave was fairly reassuring. I believe he struck a note of what may be called tempered optimism.
  Mr. Lloyd George: China?
  Viscount Cranborne: I will come to that later. Actually the account of foreign affairs given by my right hon. Friend has not been very greatly criticised to-day. Indeed, I honestly thought the reply of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was exceedingly flattering to my right hon. Friend. He hardly mentioned present affairs at all, with the exception of Spain. He gave us an interesting, if slightly biased, historical survey, he talked about Manchuquo and the origin of the Spanish dispute, he talked about the Abyssinian dispute, but I could not help feeling that he could not find anything to say against the present conduct of affairs by the Government, but that he had gone to the Library and mugged up a lot of old stuff, not at all pertinent to the discussion but better than nothing. At the same time, I, personally, feel that this note of tempered optimism which I still think my right hon. Friend used might properly and usefully be struck. A few years ago we always used to say there could be no war in our lifetime, and now there are a good many hon. Members who feel that war must occur at any moment.
  It is true that there are very dark and dangerous problems which cause us anxiety, but there is something to mark up on the credit side. There is the Egyptian Treaty to which my right hon. Friend referred. That has regularised what was a temporary and uneasy relationship between this country and Egypt. It puts that relationship on a proper basis of mutual interest and long friendship, and it has been of real assistance to peace. There is the settlement of the problem of the fortification of the Dardanelles, which shows that an international agreement can be reached without force, which some people think is impossible. Then there is the settlement about the Sanjack of Alexandretta, which is a good example of what the conciliation machinery of the

  1919
  League can do. All these represent definite improvements in the international situation, and they mark also the solution of problems which might have seriously prejudiced the peace of the world.
  It is true, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, that there are still black spots in the world. There is, for instance, the Far East. There can be nobody to whom the events of the last fortnight in the Far East have not caused the most accute anxiety. My right hon. Friend stated very fully the position as he understood it and there is very little I can add to what he said.
  Mr. Lloyd George: I do not know whether the information which appears in the later editions of the evening papers is true, that the Chinese have rejected the Japanese demands and have made counter proposals which have been rejected by the Japanese?
  Viscount Cranborne: We have not had official information to that effect yet, and I cannot answer about what has appeared in the later editions of the papers until we get it. At any rate, I think that it would be probably true to say that, as far as we know, neither the Japanese Government nor the Chinese Government wish to resort to the dread arbitrament of war. There is, of course, an immense danger that they may drift into war, but it is His Majesty's Government's sincere hope that an amicable arrangement will be reached. Their services will 'always be available to assist in such a settlement. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland spoke of co-operation with the United States. He said, "Let us go as far as the United States, but do not let us go ahead of them." I was glad to hear him say that, because that was not the view he took about our action in Abyssinia. We always said we would go as far as other Members of the League but would not go ahead of them, and at that time we got a very different reception from the hon. Gentleman. At the same time, I assure him that we intend to move along with the United States. We have been in touch with them and shall continue to keep in touch with them.
  1920
  There remains much the most important question, and that is Spain. After the Debate last Thursday I rather hoped that we might have been spared too much talk about Spain, but, at the same time, no one can blame Members who have raised it, because it is a most difficult and dangerous situation and is uppermost in all our minds. There were certain specialised aspects on which points were raised, and perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with them first. There is the question of guns in the neighbourhood of Gibraltar which was raised by nearly every speaker. It was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland. On this subject I would say this. I hope the House will not get into the state of mind that sees in every step taken by General Franco a menace to ourselves. They should remember this. We are dealing here with a civil war. As Algeciras was bombarded by the Spanish Government warship "Jaime I" early in the war it appears probable that these guns have been mounted as a defence against future bombardment. It is, after all, not unnatural that General Franco should take such measures. We should take exactly the same measures ourselves under similar circumstances. As to the suggestion that his guns actually dominate Gibraltar, whatever their purpose, I may tell the Committee that the Government naturally have taken notice of all weapons installed in the neighbourhood, as any responsible Government must do. But though I do not think it could be in the public interest to go into details, I will say that the only guns which command the fortress are inferior to those which could be trained upon them, and therefore constitute no present menace to it. Now that is all I can say to-night.
  Mr. Dalton: The Noble Lord said that these Franco guns are inferior to those that could be trained upon them. Does he mean land guns in Gibraltar, or does he mean the guns of the Fleet?
  Viscount Cranborne: The land guns of Gibraltar. That is all I have to say on that subject to-night.
  Mr. Churchill: But that is not nearly enough. What is the nature of those guns, are they r2-inch or are they howitzers? Surely we could be told that.
  Viscount Cranborne: I cannot give the the right hon. Gentleman the information. It would not be in the public interest to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] can tell him this, and surely it is good enough for him and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, that they are not so big as the guns which can be trained upon them. They are guns of a smallish calibre and, as I say, we are confident that they constitute no menace to Gibraltar.
  Mr. Churchill: Then there is no truth in this story that there are these r2-inch howitzers planted on this part of the coast of Spain?
  Viscount Cranborne: There is no truth that there are any 12-inch howitzers which dominate the fortress of Gibraltar or the harbour. That, I think, is clear. At the same time we reserve the right to take the matter up at any time in any manner we consider appropriate.
  Mr. Dalton: We are entitled to the information. It is demanded on both sides of the Committee. The question which I ask the Noble Lord is, I think, a fair and proper question. He says, he does not deny, that they are r2-inch howitzers, the guns that are planted by General Franco on the shores of the Mediterranean in the neighbourhood of Gibraltar. He says they cannot hit Gibraltar from where they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] I ask him, Can they not hit British ships sailing the Western end of the Mediterranean and are they not still a danger to our shipping?
  Viscount Cranborne: I was perfectly correct in what I said, that they cannot dominate Gibraltar or the harbour, and I said they constitute no menace and they could be dealt with, and that applies also to those particular guns to which the right hon. Gentleman now refers. I cannot tell him any more, and I should think no hon. Member would ask for more. He says that he is entitled to information about this and about that, but I do not think any Member of the House of Commons is entitled to information which it is not in the public interest to disclose.
  Mr. Lloyd George: I should like to ask the noble Lord not for information with
  1922
  regard to our guns—it is certainly not in the public interest to give any information of that kind—but we are entitled to know what the information of the Government is with regard to the guns which have been planted by General Franco within firing distance of the harbour and the fort of Gibraltar. There is no detriment to the public interest in letting us know the size of these guns.
  Viscount Cranborne: I cannot give the calibre of the guns, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman perfectly frankly that they do not constitute a menace. I do know the calibre, but my information is that it would be contrary to the public interest to give the details. At the same time, if I give the right hon. Gentleman a perfectly clear statement that these guns, which do fire as far as Gibraltar, do not constitute a menace because they are dominated by guns of a larger calibre, will that satisfy him?
  Mr. Lloyd George: Why should we not be given the calibre of the Franco guns?
  Mr. Attlee: The Noble Lord has not answered the other question. Do these guns dominate the passage of the Mediterranean by ships? Are ships endangered by these guns?
  Viscount Cranborne: Yes, certainly these guns do fire over the Straits. They do not dominate the harbour, but they do fire over the Straits. Even with regard to these particular guns what I said before is, in the view of military experts, true of these guns. In the view of military experts they do not constitute a menace.
  Mr. Gallacher: Where do they come from?
  Viscount Cranborne: I would like to say a few words with regard to the main issue. His Majesty's Government's policy has been clearly expressed again and again. We believe in non-intervention. We believe that if it can be maintained it should be maintained, and that any alternative is too dangerous. We fully recognise that that is not the view of many hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have another alternative. Their alternative is to scrap non-intervention and allow this country to sell arms to the Valencia Government. There are many arguments both for and against this policy, which

  1923
  has been often discussed in this House. But in the view of the Government it would not, in fact, assist the Valencia Government. There seems to be an idea in the minds of the hon. Gentlemen opposite that in this country there is an immense pool of armaments which can be sold to anybody who wants them. That is not the truth. Any arms we have are needed by ourselves and certain countries with which we have treaties. On the other hand, the nations which sympathise with General Franco appear to have large supplies of arms. All that hon. Gentlemen opposite would achieve would be to destroy the dam and allow the full flood to come in.
  The other reason, which is even more important, is that we honestly believe that to destroy non-intervention would greatly increase the chances of a spread of the struggle into an ideological conflict which would engulf the whole of Europe. If we come in on one side other nations will come in on the other side, and sooner or later there would be an incident, and a situation of the utmost gravity would immediately arise. The Leader of the Opposition has often said that if only we were to take a firm stand the dictators would retire. On what does he base this deduction? His position is one with which we are familiar in this country. In regard to the situation in Europe, the mentality of hon. Members opposite reminds me of that of a motorist who goes rapidly along a road, blowing his horn and accelerating even at cross-roads, and saying, "It is perfectly right for me to do so, because the other fellow is certain to get out of the way." In this country, as hon. Gentlemen know, such a driver
  would make himself liable for a prosecution for careless or dangerous driving, and I really believe that if hon. Members opposite had been in power it would have been for manslaughter. In our private lives and in our foreign policy, the aim is to drive carefully and to make allowance for the other driver. It is not nearly so spectacular and dashing to drive safely, but you are far more likely to arrive at your destination.
  The main purpose of non-intervention was to prevent the quarrel from going over the frontiers of Spain, and in that main purpose it has been effective. After a year of the Spanish civil war, the conflict has not extended, and that is something, very much, gained. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that we had had very small results; but peace has been preserved, and I do not think that is a small result. I would remind the House of some words written by Lord Castlereagh in a situation very similar to that which exists to-day. He said:
  "The immediate object: to be kept in view is to inspire the States of Europe as long as we can with a sense of the dangers which they have surmounted Ly their union and of the hazards they will incur by a relaxation of vigilance."
  That was the policy of His Majesty's Government almost exactly zoo years ago, and that is the policy to-day. Hon. Members opposite will say that it is a policy of caution; we say it is the policy of wisdom, and for that policy I ask with confidence for the support of the House.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £84,856, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 265.

  Division No. 296.]

  AYES.

  10.59 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

  cove, W. G.

  Gibbins, J.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Gibson, R. Greenock)

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Dagger, G.

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Adamson, W. M.

  Dalton, H.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

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

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Grenfell, D R.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Day, H.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Robbie, W.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Banfield, J. W.

  Ede, J. C.

  Groves, T. E.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Barr, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Batey, J.

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

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Foot, D. M.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Frankel, D.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Broad, F. A.

  Gallagher, W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Gardner. B. W.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Buchanan, G.

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Hollins, A.

  Burke, W. A.

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

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Chater, D.

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Johnston. Rt. Hon. T.

  cluse, W. S.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Nathan, Colonel H. L.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Stephen, C.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Owen, Major G.

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

  Lathan, G.

  Paling, W.

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

  Lawson, J. J.

  Parker, J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Lee, F.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Price, M. P.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Lunn, W.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Viant, S. P.

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Walkden, A. G.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Walker, J.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Ridley, G.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Maclean, N.

  Ritson, J.

  Watson, W. Mol.

  MacMillan, M. (Western isles)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. 0. (W. Brom.)

  Westwood, J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  White, H. Graham

  Mander, G. le M.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helena)

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Marshall, F.

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Maxton, J.

  Sexton, T. M.

  Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

  Messer, F.

  Silkin, L.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Montague, F.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

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

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

  NOES.

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

  Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Cox, H. B. T.

  Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

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

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Holmes, J. S.

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

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Cross, R. H.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Ansley, Lord

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Assheton, R.

  De Chair, S. S.

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

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

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

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

  Denville, Alfred

  Hulbert, N. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Hunter, T.

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Dower, v Major A. V. G.

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

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

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  James Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Bainiel, Lord

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

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

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Beit, Sir A. L.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Emery, J. F.

  Levy, T.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Lewis, O.

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Liddall, W. S.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Entwistle, Sir C. F.

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

  Bracken, B.

  Errington, E.

  Llewellin, Lieut, Col. J. J.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Brass, Sir W.

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

  Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Fleming, E. L.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Bull, B. B.

  Furness, S. N.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Burghley, Lord

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Ganzoni, Sir J.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Butler, R. A.

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

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  McKie, J. H.

  Cary, R. A.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Maonamara, Capt. J. R. J.

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

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Magnay, T.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

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

  Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Channon, H.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Markham, S. F.

  Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

  Grimaton, R. V.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)

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

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

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  Guinness, T. L. E. B.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Hambro, A. V.

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

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

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

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

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

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

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  1926

  1927

  Munro, P.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Neven-Spenoe, Major B. H. H.

  Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Taylor, Vice-Adm.

  E. A. (Padd., S.)

  Nicholson, C. (Farnham)

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Thomas, J- P. L.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Rowlands, G.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Royds, Admiral P. M. R.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

  Turton, R. H.

  Peaks, O.

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Wakefield, W. W.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Salt, E. W.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Petherick, M.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

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

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Pilkington, R.

  Savory, Sir Servington

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Scott, Lord William

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Selley, H. R.

  Wells, S. R.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

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

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Asaheton

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

  Radford, E. A.

  Simmonds, O. E.

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

  Raikes, H. V. A.M.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Ramsden, Sir E.

  Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Wise, A. R.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Rayner, Major R. H.

  Spans, W. P.

  Wragg, H.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Storey, S.

  Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

  Reid, Captain A. Cunningham

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

  Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

  Major Sir George Davies and

  Remer, J. R.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Lieut-Colonel Kerr.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. Thurtle rose—
  It being after Eleven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  SUBSIDISED AIR SERVICES (FOREIGN AIRCRAFT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  11.11 p.m.
  Mr. Simmonds: I desire to refer to a matter which is of great national importance because it affects our prestige, and also, in due course, will seriously affect our export trade. This House has placed in the hands of the Air Ministry sums of moneys to subsidise the use of British manufactured air liners flown by British pilots on British air lines, but I am sure that it will come as a great surprise to many hon. Members to know that the moneys that the House has voted with that end in view are to-day being utilised by the Air Ministry to subsidise foreign manufactured air liners on British air lines.
  1928
  I have raised this matter at Question Time on many occasions since February last, but when my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air told the House a week or two ago that the position to-day was exactly as it was in February, I felt that it was necessary that I should take this opportunity to place the facts before the House. Last year the Secretary of State for Air granted a subsidy to British airways for an air service from this country to Scandinavia. For a time the type of air liner that was then being used of British manufacture was found to be not entirely satisfactory, although it is fair to say to the manufacturers of that aircraft, that many other air lines in all parts of the world find that type of air liner to be eminently satisfactory.
  The fact remains that British Airways appealed to the Air Ministry that they might use foreign manufactured air liners on this air line, notwithstanding a Clause in their agreement to the contrary. The plea was that there was no suitable British machine, but, as a matter of fact, there was at that time a British machine of General Aircraft Companies, Croydon, which had just made a very meritorious flight to Australia, and, unfortunately, was brought down through faulty navigation on a reef between Australia and Tasmania. This air liner, curiously enough, was turned down, for two reasons—first, because it was claimed to have

  1929
  too high a performance. That was a novel form of protest. Secondly, it was claimed that the air line company could not use an air liner which had not been used for at least a year by another air line company. If our subsidised air lines are going to refuse to operate British aircraft because they have not been previously operated by other companies, then it will be manifest to every hon. Member that we shall very soon be out of the business of manufacturing air liners unless we can persuade our foreign air line customers to utilise British air liners before we have the courage to operate them ourselves.
  It was further maintained that the use of the "Croydon" air liner might have held up the opening of the air line for about four months. That, I understand, from a diplomatic point of view was undesirable. I cannot think that the German and Scandinavian Governments, with whom our Government had made this arrangement, would have been so insistent after we had put to them our desire to utilise British aircraft on this line. In any event the Air Ministry gave permission for the utilisation of these foreign air liners. My hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary had no part or lot in this decision. That decision on the part of the Air Ministry had immediate and, as some thought, entirely expected results. The first was that the Commonwealth Government of Australia, which had always adopted a most Imperial view towards aircraft, and had forbidden the importation of any foreign air liners into Australia, immediately had to review its position in view of the clamour of foreign interests. The result was that when Sir Archdale Parkhill, the Minister of Defence in Australia, was over at the time of the Coronation, he made it abundantly clear that the reason why Australia was now flooded with American and to a lesser degree German machines was that the British Air Ministry had shot away from under them the whole condition on which Imperial preference was given to British machines in Australia.
  Secondly, the foreign aircraft manufacturers seized on this gratuitous advertisement on the part of the British Government, and advertised throughout the technical Press of the world virtually hat the British Government had no faith in any type of British air liner, and that it was their type of air liner which had
  1930
  come to the rescue of the British aircraft industry. As a result, after a few weeks this propaganda, which was highly skilled in its direction and in the manner in which it was carried out, began to have effect, and I should not be exaggerating if I said that among the air lines of the world this country ceased to be taken seriously as a manufacturer of civil air machines. Most alarming was the fact that the Air Ministry did nothing effective to insist that the use of these foreign air liners should be only temporary. On 7th July, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air
  "whether he will appoint a committee representative of the British operators of air liners to formulate the specifications of the principal types of air liners which will be required during the next five years; and whether he will consider assisting financially the construction of prototype aircraft to these specifications? "
  To that he replied:
  "It has always been, and will continue to be, the practice of the Air Ministry to consult the principal civil aircraft operating companies in regard to experimental types of civil air liners, and it is not considered that the formation of such a committee is necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1937; col. 335, Vol. 326.]
  The hon. and gallant Member seemed to be so satisfied with what the Air Ministry had done that I thought he could scarcely know the position and accordingly on 12th July I asked him this further question:
  "when a specification for a medium-sized air liner was last issued by the Air Ministry after consultation with the principal civil aircraft operating companies?"
  To which he replied:
  "Such a specification was last issued in 1929."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1937; col. 885, Vol. 326.]
  In the light of the developments of the last eight years, the fact that no specification for this type of most needed machines has been issued since 1929 and the unhappy sequel is the purchase by British subsidised air lines of American and German air liners should encourage the Air Ministry to review this procedure and see whether in fact it ought not to be changed. The Air Ministry has in the last few years ordered two types of civil air liners but they are so different from any air liner that no operator wanted to operate them and in fact neither of these types ever went into production. The

  1931
  Under-Secretary may tell us that the De Havilland Albatross aircraft is the answer to these particular requirements, but I hope he has not been informed to that effect. The De Havilland Albatross may be a very desirable air liner for Transatlantic experimental flights, but it is an all-wood air liner, and the requirements of the air liner operators, as they have said over and over again, are for an all-metal machine. This aircraft, therefore, does not fill the bill. The need for the co-operation of the Ministry is clear, because one famous air company, the Douglas Company, spent £100,000 to develop the famous Douglas air liner. It is, therefore, obvious that no aircraft manufacturing company can contemplate that expenditure without the support of the Government. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to tell us now whether the Air Ministry would appoint a committee or will take some other effective action so that we can have British air liners on British subsidised air lines.
  11.24 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I have followed the remarks of the hon. Member, and I think that, for the most part, his facts are correct, although some of the deductions which he wishes the House to draw are incorrect. In the brief space of time at my disposal I may perhaps review the situation as a whole. The original agreement with British Airways involved the use of the de Havilland 86A, and laid down that the company was to replace the machines in June, 1937, when we had in view the "Albatross," to which the hon. Member has referred. The de Havilland 86A proved unsatisfactory, and consequently, after reviewing the situation, the Air Ministry allowed the agreement to be modified to the extent of the Company using the Fokker machine for its night service and the D.H.86 by day. The hon. Member asked why the "Croydon" machine, to which he alluded, was not put into commission by the Company. He mentioned that one was brought down in the Timor Sea. He did not mention that, in point of fact, that was the only one that was ever built. No other of that type could have been available for nine months. That was a time lag which we could not afford to put up with. That I think is a sufficient
  1932
  answer to the point raised by the hon. Member with regard to that particular machine. The Fokker machine proved unsatisfactory for the night service, and therefore extended permission was given to British Airways to use the Junker and the American machine, the Lockheed.
  People may wonder whether we put any limit of time during which these machines will be permitted to be used by the Company. I have said already that the original agreement contemplated the D.H. 91, the "Albatross," coming into commission about 1st June of this year. As the House knows, the "Albatross" machine has already been manufactured, but it was considered—and perhaps it is only reasonable—that the Company should have a certain use of the foreign machines for which permission has been given. It is laid down that the permission for the Junker machine extends to 31st March, 1939, and for the Lockheed machine, which does the day service, to 1st June, 1938. In the White Paper which has been laid before the House with regard to the Agreement, it is laid down that:
  "during the initial stage of the proposed Agreement, the Company will be allowed, subject to certain conditions; to operate with their existing fleet of aircraft, but provision will be made in the Agreement for the replacement of these aircraft by British aircraft at as early a date as may be practicable, subject to suitable financial adjustments."
  That paragraph will supersede the dates which I have just mentioned. The hon. Member insinuated that we were pouring national money down the drain simply in order to ensure that British airways use foreign aircraft. I think that puts the position in a wrong light. He talked a great deal about our prestige but I cannot help think that under the system of competition with similar airways which exists in the world it is a substantial advantage that an important Continental route should be preserved for a British company against the time when suitable British aircraft may be in commission. If the situation had been such that there was no suitable aircraft available and that permission was not granted to the company to use foreign aircraft, there would have been no aircraft suitable for the company to operate. Therefore a civil route would have been lost to this country.
  With regard to the help which the Air Ministry have given, we have produced a D.H. 91 "Albatross." The hon.

  1933
  Member said he hoped I had not been informed that that was a suitable machine for British Airways. I have been so informed, and I am quite satisfied with the information. Referring again to one of his questions and my answer to it, he asked what action was being taken by the Air Ministry at present. I can assure him that the answer which I gave him then was a perfectly sound answer, and does in point of fact represent Air Ministry policy. We are considering this question. Some people may say that it should have
  1934
  been left to purely commercial operations, without Government assistance. That is, at all events, a point of view, though I do not necessarily say that the Air Ministry agrees with it, but I can assure the hon. Member that the interest of our aircraft, in this matter as in all others, is under the constant consideration of the Ministry.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  SANJAK OF ALEXANDRETTA (STATUS).
  SANJAK OF ALEXANDRETTA (STATUS).
  INCOME TAX (CODIFICATION COMMITTEE).
  INCOME TAX (CODIFICATION COMMITTEE).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENSIONS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENSIONS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  ALBERT MEDAL.
  ALBERT MEDAL.
  AEROPLANE MANUFACTURE (FOREIGN INSTRUMENTS).
  AEROPLANE MANUFACTURE (FOREIGN INSTRUMENTS).
  LAND DRAINAGE, ROTHER VALLEY.
  LAND DRAINAGE, ROTHER VALLEY.
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  UNIVERSITY OF WALES GRADUATES.
  UNIVERSITY OF WALES GRADUATES.
  HINDLEY AND WESTHOUGHTON.
  HINDLEY AND WESTHOUGHTON.
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (OFFICES).
  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (OFFICES).
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).
  HOSPITAL STAFFS (LANCASHIRE).
  HOSPITAL STAFFS (LANCASHIRE).
  FASCIST MEETING, LONDON (ARRESTS).
  FASCIST MEETING, LONDON (ARRESTS).
WEST INDIES.
  TRINIDAD (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES).
  TRINIDAD (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES).
  CIVIL CONTRACTS (PENAL CLAUSES).
  CIVIL CONTRACTS (PENAL CLAUSES).
  PRESS LAWS.
  PRESS LAWS.
  ROYAL NAVY (ALBERT MEDAL).
  ROYAL NAVY (ALBERT MEDAL).
TRANSPORT.
  RIVER DON BRIDGE, GOOLE.
  RIVER DON BRIDGE, GOOLE.
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LONDON.
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LONDON.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES (EXPENDITURE).
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES (EXPENDITURE).

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Craigmyle—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ABERYSTWYTH RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
COULSDON AND PURLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
COATBRIDGE BURGH EXTENSION, ETC. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
FERGUSON BEQUEST FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
ROYAL SAMARITAN HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN GLASGOW ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Contributory Employees
3.—(1) On and after the appointed day all such persons as are mentioned in the next succeeding subsection shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to participate in the benefits of the appropriate superannuation fund maintained under this Part of this Act, and persons so entitled shall, unless they are such persons as are mentioned in the proviso to subsection (1) of Section six of this Act, contribute to that fund in accordance with the provisions of that section.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE, moved, in subsection (1), after "this section," to insert "and to the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to officers appointed in a temporary capacity." The noble Viscount said: The Government Amendments to this clause and to the other clauses, with the one exception of the Amendment relating to military service, are really drafting Amendments, or Amendments put in to clarify the intentions of the Government which, since the Bill left another place, we do not consider to be sufficiently clear. The first Amendment is purely drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, at end insert ("and to the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to officers appointed in a temporary capacity").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power to admit employees of statutory undertakers and certain associations]:
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to add to the clause:
"(6) Where a local authority under Section 101 of the Local Government Act, 1929, make a grant to a voluntary organisation for the provision of maternity and child welfare, services, the provisions of subsection (1) of this, section shall apply in relation to that organisation, and to health visitors and superintendents of welfare centres employed by those organisations as they apply in relation to statutory undertakers and to employees of those undertakers."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to a matter which was overlooked rather in the other House. It raises no question of principle or of controversy. If noble Lords will look at Clause 5, they will see that it empowers the local authority, where it makes an arrangement with a voluntary organisation which has been doing some of the work which is a statutory obligation on the local authority, to arrange with that voluntary organisation, when their officers are included in any scheme, to include them on the terms here prescribed. If noble Lords will look at subsection (5) of this clause they will see that in the other place the local authority were empowered, when they came to an arrangement with voluntary organisations which had been employing midwives, to arrange that the midwives so employed by voluntary organisations should be incorporated in the superannuation scheme as, and when, the local authority took over that organisation. The discharge of duties under the Midwives Act is a statutory obligation on the local authorities, and the voluntary organisation in this case is performing these duties on behalf of the local authority. That is the case with regard to midwives.
The case is identical with regard to officers employed in maternity and child welfare services. The officers on maternity and child welfare services were overlooked in the other House, and it is to remedy that omission that this Amendment is on the Paper. It is in the same terms as

543
subsection (5), only it relates to health officers and others employed by infant welfare associations. These associations are working for the local authority, carrying out part of the statutory duty of the local authority, and gradually up and down the country these organisations are being taken over by the local authority. This is to provide that where that is the case those who have been doing the work for the voluntary organisation—work which has been in fact paid for by the local authority in the main—will be incorporated in the scheme, and on incorporation will not lose any of the benefits which might otherwise be lost to them because they had previously been employed by a voluntary organisation. It is to remedy this deficiency that this Amendment has been placed on the Paper. I am indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, for pointing out that in the Amendment the word "make" should be used instead of "makes" as appears in the Amendment as printed, and I move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Addison.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to say one word in support of the noble Lord's Amendment. The noble Lord has explained the purpose clearly, and it is not my intention to deal with it to any extent. I only want to say that his Amendment receives a measure of support from this side of the House, and I hope the noble Viscount will be able to indicate his acceptance of it. It is a very necessary Amendment if the Bill is to be complete.
VISCOUNT GAGE: May I say at the outset that any provision designed to improve the lot of those who work in the employment of voluntary bodies as auxiliaries of the local authorities and thereby to increase the efficiency of the valuable services rendered by those bodies must, in principle, commend itself to those ultimately responsible for the health of the nation, and, I can confidently say, would naturally command the sympathy of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health. I am afraid, however, that, attractive as this Amendment may well appear to some noble Lords, I must ask the noble Lord not to press it at this stage
544
of the Bill. The subsection as it stands was accepted by the Government as an Amendment in the House of Commons. It relates, as will be noticed, only to midwives employed by a voluntary organisation with whom the authority responsible for midwifery services have made arrangements under the Midwives Act of last year. The duties imposed on the local authority, and consequently the services required of these midwives, are definite and specific—they are to be, so to speak, "on call," as and when required, to attend women needing the midwifery service for which the local authority are in law responsible. Their salaries are such as may be determined by the agreement and, in effect, the local authority indirectly pay those agreed salaries through the voluntary organisation—an important point in the superannuation scheme. They are as nearly as may be in the same position as midwives directly employed by a local authority.
The position of health visitors doing maternity and child welfare work is analogous, but not identical. The financial arrangements between the authority and the voluntary body are not the same. Services are not similarly specified, salaries are not specifically controlled and subsidies are not so directly related to salaries. It was considerations of this kind which led the majority of the SelbyBigge Committee to reject suggestions designed to secure the same object as the Amendment before the House. The case of the midwives, which, I submit, can be clearly differentiated, was not, of course, before that Committee, who reported some years before the Midwives Act was passed. If an attempt were made to cover the case which the noble Lord seeks to cover, amendment of the Bill would logically have to be carried much further than he proposes. You could hardly differentiate between health visitors engaged on child welfare work and those similarly engaged on work in connection with the blind, the tuberculous and the mentally defective, as employees of voluntary bodies whose financial relations with local authorities are for the most part indistinguishable in principle from those of child welfare organisations.
I do not wish the noble Lord and those for whom he speaks to regard this as necessarily the last word on the matter for all time. My right honourable friend

545
has undertaken to explore the possibilities in another matter affecting the superannuation of nurses and health visitors, to which the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, alluded in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Earl had a vision of amending legislation. I certainly am not bold enough to say it may not be necessary on a complex subject of this kind. In any case my right honourable friend authorises me to say that he will explore this matter in conjunction with the other, and it may be that consultation with the local authorities and others concerned may throw a different light on the considerations which, as at present envisaged, compel me to ask that the Amendment should not be pressed.
LORD ADDISON: In view of the statement of the noble Viscount I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I take it that the undertaking given by the Minister is one which will be fully applied to this as well as to the other matters to which he referred. I am well aware of the difficulties and the technicalities which are involved, but I am quite sure that with good will under an energetic Minister, such as we now have, they should be overcome. In those circumstances I shall not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Reckoning of contributing and non-contributing service, war service, and service of persons indirectly employed.
(3) In the case of a contributory employee who left the employment of a local authority in order to serve in His Majesty's forces or the forces of the Allied or Associated Powers during the late war, the period during which he so served shall be taken into account for the purposes of the last preceding subsection as if it had been a period of service within the meaning of this Act:
Provided that, in the case of an employee who, after the eleventh day of November, nineteen hundred and eighteen, voluntarily extended his term of service in the forces, no period of such service during any such extension shall be taken into account.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The first Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting. I can explain it if necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 28, leave out from ("day") to ("any") in line 3o.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment in my name is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 33, after ("1922") insert ("in relation to his said employment").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (3), in the proviso, to leave out all words after "Provided that" and insert "no such service after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty, shall be taken into account." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to which I referred on Second Reading, and it was also referred to on Third Reading in another place. It is designed to meet the point that certain municipal employees may not have been able to return to their municipal work after serving with the Forces at the Armistice. The clause as it stands would probably have covered the case of a man who was not demobilised until some later date, but the proviso would have prevented the reckoning for superannuation purposes of any time subsequent to that date in which the man continued to serve with the Forces as a result of voluntary extension of his services. It is felt that doubts might well arise as to the exact circumstances in which a man did continue in the Forces, and it might be difficult to establish whether his continuance was in fact an extension or not. Therefore we propose to put in a date and to remove the reference to the voluntary extension. The date selected is that which has been agreed by the Treasury for Civil Service purposes, and we think it a sufficient extension to meet all the cases that ought to be met. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 12, leave out from ("that") to end of subsection and insert ("no such service after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty, shall be taken into account").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Teachers]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment in my name to this clause is purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 32, leave out ("1935") and insert ("1937").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Actuary's certificates and periodical valuation of superannuation fund]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment down in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 30, after ("shall") insert ("within three months after receiving the valuation and report").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Adaptation to this Act of certain provisions of local Acts and of provisions of certain schemes]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment which I move to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 15, leave out ("or within such further period as the Minister may allow").(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Modification or replacement of local Act superannuation schemes]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendment down in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 38, after ("section") insert ("and to the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to officers appointed in a temporary capacity").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Reduction of superannuation allowance during re-employment and adjustment of rights thereafter.
31.—(1) If a person entitled to a superannuation allowance under Part I of this Act, other than an allowance payable to him in
548
respect of service rendered without a disqualifying break of service as a designated employee and a contributory employee, proposes to accept further employment with any local authority, he shall inform that authority that he is so entitled and, if he enters their employment, shall forthwith give notice in writing that he is so employed to the authority from whom he receives the allowance.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to subsection (1):
"and if he fails or wilfully neglects to give such notice he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment not exceeding three months."
The noble Viscount said: I cannot think it right that the clause should omit to state the penalty to be imposed. The penalty which I suggest in my Amendment is, I understand, from my noble friend, looked upon by himself and his advisers as somewhat savage, but if he has any alternative proposal to make should be glad to consider it. It does seem to me a little absurd to forbid a thing and then to have no penalty in regard to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: While it is true we do look upon the penalty suggested by the noble Viscount as a somewhat savage penalty, at the same time we do appreciate the point which my noble friend has raised. I would like to point out to him that this is by no means a solitary instance of omission in a measure of this kind of any specific penalty. I understand that it has been held by the Courts that where a Statute involving public interests (as this measure does) enjoins a duty on a person and that person wilfully fails to comply with it, he commits a Common Law misdemeanour, to which a penalty automatically attaches. It is unnecessary, therefore, to introduce a specific provision, such as the Amendment proposes. I would also like to point out that we do not think there is much likelihood in practice of the pension-paying authority remaining in ignorance of the pensioner's reappointment. Local authorities will doubtless find out—and can, if need be, be advised to do so, and indeed it is the intention of the Ministry to advise them to do so—information on the point from any applicant for appointment whose age is such that he may

549
already be in receipt of a pension, and these authorities would naturally notify the pension-paying authority. I think that with that safeguard—the fact that it is a Common Law offence—the noble Lord will be satisfied.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am satisfied with a great deal of what my noble friend has suggested, but on the question of likelihood, I think every likelihood in a Bill should be considered. As, however, persons who contravene this clause will be liable to some penalty I am quite satisfied and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Decision of questions, and appeals to the Minister]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 8, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Schemes, rules and regulations]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 27, at end insert:
("(3) The Minister may extend the time within which any scheme under this Act may be or is to be made or submitted.")—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to.
Clause 40:
Interpretation.
40.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
"officer" means an employee as to whom either of the following conditions is satisfied, that is to say:—

(a) that his duties are wholly or mainly administrative, professional or clerical; or

(b) that his remuneration is at a rate greater than two hundred and fifty pounds
550
per annum and that he is not an employed contributor within the meaning of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936;

THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, in the definition of "officer," to leave out "either" and insert "any," in order afterwards to add to that definition:
"or
(c) directly and regularly employed on duties in any hospital or institution maintained by a local authority."
The noble Earl said: The object of the two Amendments which stand in my name is to bring council servants as well as council officers into the compulsory superannuation scheme. As the Bill is drafted council officers come under the compulsory scheme whereas council servants come only under a permissive scheme, a scheme which in the view of the local authority it is desirable should be brought into force. In order to make the real object of the Amendment clear to your Lordships I am afraid I shall have to tell you the history of superannuation schemes as regards Poor Law officers or, as they are now, public assistance officers.
As far back as 1864 when the Poor Law was administered, as your Lordships know, by boards of guardians, an Act was passed dealing with both officers and servants. So many anomalies arose that in 1896 a compulsory scheme was set up on a 2 per cent. basis which applied not only to officers but to every wage-earning employee That worked very well until the Local Government Act of 1929 came into force and the boards of guardians were abolished. In the meantime, in 1922, an Act was passed which applied to the council officers and made it permissible for a superannuation scheme to be brought into force for both officers and servants. When the boards of guardians were clone away with public assistance officers and servants came under the 1922 Act, but an option was given them either to continue under the 1896 Act or to come under the 1922 Act in cases where it was applicable to them. Since the 1st April, 193o, employees of the council have not been eligible under the 1896 Act, and therefore they come under the 1922 Act, which applies to county council officers. The purpose of this Bill is to set up a compulsory scheme for county council officers, but it leaves the servants of the council with only a permissible scheme.
It seems to me that you will get two people doing identical jobs dealt with in two ways, one coming under the compulsory and one under the permissive scheme. A servant of the council who was under the board of guardians before 1930 would come under the compulsory scheme whereas any servant of the council who had joined the service since 1930 would come under the permissive scheme. That is an anomaly which should be done away with. To give an example, in the past nurses had to do all sorts of jobs which might have resulted in their being looked on as servants, but now owing to the emancipation of the nursing profession nurses do not have to do the rough jobs and orderlies do them. The orderly becomes a servant. I may take another example which I will term that of the "black squad." Those of your Lordships who know anything about ships will understand the men I refer to, the men who tend the furnaces below. They have to come up and clear away the refuse of the operating theatre. It seems to me that they run just as many risks as the people in the operating theatre, yet they do not come under the compulsory scheme. I very much hope that the Government, who lately have been sweetly reasonable towards Amendments in this House, may consider this Amendment favourably and if they cannot accept it now will promise that something will be done on the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 39, leave out ("either") and insert ("any").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: I hope that the Government are always reasonable, but I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. I would like to remind the noble Earl that a similar Amendment was moved in another place and the mover expressed satisfaction with the Minister's reply. Apparently the noble Earl, although he belongs to the same Party as the honourable member in another place, is not satisfied. The object of the noble Earl's Amendment is to make the whole staff of any hospital or other municipal institution compulsorily superannuable. That is a fundamental alteration of the principles of the Bill, which limits the obligation imposed upon local authorities to the superannuation of whole-time officers. Although the Amendment is drafted in wide terms, embracing hospitals
552
and any other municipal institution, I understand it is moved primarily on behalf of that body of municipal employees which corresponds to the old Poor Law staff of the board of guardians. These employees, as a whole, used to be compulsorily superannuable by virtue of the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896. In fact, what the Amendment proposes is a complete reversal of the considered view of Parliament expressed in 1929 when, by the Local Government Act of that year, the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act of 1896 was specifically repealed in its general application to the public assistance staff of the authorities who then displaced the guardians, though the position, as regards superannuation rights, of existing Poor Law employees to be transferred to the new authorities was, of course, safeguarded.
The Act of 1896 was a superannuation Act applicable to a particular service, quite distinct at that time from all other local government services and administered by a different set of authorities. But when the county and county borough councils became the public assistance authorities after the Act of 1929, it was no doubt recognised by Parliament that the persons who would be employed in their service in the performance of public assistance (or what had formerly been known as Poor Law) duties would not form either the largest or the most important part of their staff, and that, inasmuch as there was not in force any Statute which compelled them to superannuate the rest of their staff, it would be impossible to continue to require the compulsory superannuation of their public assistance staff. If the Amendment were made, it would mean that, in addition to whole-time officers, part-time officers and servants employed in any sort of hospital or institution—Poor Law, public health or of any other description—would be compulsorily superannuable. I have tried to show that we do not think there is any case for again making Poor Law employees as such, or any particular class of them, compulsorily superannuable, and we do not see that there is any case for singling out any other type of "institutional" employee for this privilege. Even if the argument based on the old position of Poor Law employees under the Act of 1896 were accepted as relevant, there would be no case for making a distinction within the category of Poor Law

553
employees between those employed in institutions and outdoor staff—as, for instance, part-time relieving officers, district medical officers, and so forth, all of whom used to be compulsorily superannuable under the Act of 1896. I hope that the noble Earl is satisfied with that explanation in the same way as his colleague in another place was satisfied.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am afraid I am not so accommodating as my colleague in another place. I am not at all satisfied. It is perfectly true that this Amendment, or an Amendment very similar, was moved in another place, but since then a deputation has been received by the Minister of Health of those for whom I speak—the National Union of County Officers—and I was hoping that, as a result, the Minister might have been more accommodating. The noble Viscount said with regard to the Local Government Act, 1929, that this was not envisaged. Many people, however, who were employed by councils took it more or less for granted that some Act envisaging compulsory superannuation for all wage-earning employees of councils was thought of at that time, and they thought that when this Bill was brought in it would envisage also the servants of councils. I think that is the general view held by a very large number of employees of councils. I understand that this particular Amendment will affect somewhere in the region of 200,000 people. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Earl will correct me, but I am told that the number is perhaps 200,000. It should therefore have a big effect. I am sorry that the noble Viscount who speaks on behalf of the Government will not accept the Amendment. I have no intention of troubling your Lordships by pressing it to a Division, but I am quite prepared to have it negatived.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to say, before the Question is put, that I do not think it is true that the Government ever gave any undertaking to employees engaged after the passing of the Local Government Act that they would be put into compulsory insurance. Perhaps the noble Earl is talking about those who were previously in compulsory insurance and, after the passing of the 1929 Act, were given the right to opt whether they would go on under the old terms of the
554
1896 Act or go into voluntary insurance under the new Act.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I do not say that the Government gave any undertaking; I merely said that I thought it was generally understood by county council officers and servants as intended.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Repeals and construction of references]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 28, leave out lines 28 to 31.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
First Schedule:
VISCOUNT GAGE: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 32, leave out ("1935") and insert ("1937").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule:
VISCOUNT GAGE: The Amendments in my name to this Schedule are really drafting and consequential, but I can explain them if necessary. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: With your Lordships' permission, I will put the Amendments en bloc. There are several of them.
Amendments moved—
Page 47, line 11, leave out from ("as") to the end of line 14 and insert ("is remuneration for duties corresponding to the duties in respect of which he was, immediately before the appointed day, subject to the Act of 1896;"
Page 47, line 17, leave out ("the said part of his remuneration") and insert ("so much of his remuneration as aforesaid")
Page 47, line 21, leave out ("the said part of his remuneration") and insert ("so much of his remuneration as aforesaid")
Page 51, line 6, after ("subsection") insert ("(3) of Section three and subsections (5) and")
Page 54, line 44, at end insert—
("4. Where the fund out of which the remuneration of a mental hospital employee was or is paid by the body under which he was

555
or becomes such an employee is not the fund out of which superannuation allowances are paid to such employees, the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be prescribed."—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.

CHAIRMEN OF TRAFFIC COMMIS SIONERS, ETC. (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RATING AND VALUATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERAN NUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move, That this Bill be now read a second time. The general object of the Bill is to secure that there shall be provision by all local authorities in Scotland of facilities for the superannuation of their employees. The Bill is a comprehensive one which not only amends existing statutory provisions but also consolidates them in a separate measure for Scotland. The principles of the Bill are generally the same as those of the English Bill which has already been before your Lordships. The Bill provides for the compulsory inclusion in a superannuation scheme of all whole-time officers of local authorities in Scotland. From returns which have been obtained from Scottish local authorities it appears that some 60 per cent. of such officers already enjoy the benefits of superannuation. This Bill will extend these benefits to the remaining 40 per cent. and, by making the amounts of pensions and the conditions under which they are granted uniform throughout Scotland will facilitate the free movement of staffs which is desirable in the interests of efficient local government. In this connection it may be noted that provision is
556
included in the Bill, and in the corresponding English measure, to ensure that local government officers will be able to retain superannuation rights if they move from service in the one country to service in the other.
The Bill leaves to local authorities the discretion they already possess as to the superannuation of their other employees, but it simplifies the machinery for bringing them into superannuation and improves the position of superannuable servants as well as officers in important respects. For example, the Bill enables superannuable employees to count for superannuation purposes all past local government service, and, in so far as it is service in the course of which they have not paid contributions, they will be able, in return for a payment to be prescribed, to reckon it as contributing service. Where an employee, owing to age or ill-health, is given less arduous duties with a consequent reduction of pay, he will be able, if he wishes, to continue to contribute as if his pay had not been reduced and thus secure his full pension. In calculating pension, which will continue to be based on the last five years' average pay, periods of unemployment and reductions of pay owing to sick leave are to be ignored. An employee will be able, in return for the surrender of part of his pension, to secure an annuity for his widow. The Bill does not affect the position as regards transfers between the State and municipal services, which is governed by regulations made under the Superannuation Act, 1935. Special provision is also made for the admission to the scheme of registrars and their staffs, and for reckoning the service of persons indirectly employed on local authority duties.
In order to secure schemes which are actuarially sound, some grouping of local authorities is necessary. Under the Act of 1922 no local authority can have a separate scheme if the number of officers or servants who will be included in the scheme is less than fifty. While it is proposed to retain the minimum of fifty in Scotland it is essential to the proper working of a scheme that the membership of each fund should be as large as circumstances permit. Many counties and large burghs, and all small burghs, have less than fifty whole-time officers, and in order to make actuarially sound

557
schemes the employees of small burghs are to be grouped with employees of the county, and, where there are less than fifty contributing employees, county and large burghs are to be grouped. The larger authorities, who will be required under the Bill to establish separate superannuation funds, will be liable to accept as contributors to their funds the officers and pensionable employees of smaller authorities, who will pay their equivalent contribution to the same fund. Much preparatory work both by the Department and by local authorities will require to be done before the scheme can be brought into operation. In order to allow time for this the Bill proposes to fix the 16th clay of May, 1939, as the appointed day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULA TION) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 72.]
Clause 2, page 2, line 36, leave out from ("the") to ("extent") in line 37.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the subsection affected by this Amendment is that dealing with the important duty which will fall on the district committees in deciding what benefits in kind are to be allowed in lieu of cash wages, and what value is to be placed on those benefits. The Amendment, which deals only with the valuation aspect of the committee's duties in this respect, was made in response to representatives that if the committees were left entirely without guidance in the matter of the value to be placed on the
558
various items comprised in benefits in kind, they might come to diverse conclusions which might operate unfairly as between the various districts. There is no suggestion that uniform equivalents should be laid down. Obviously the value to be placed on, for instance, a supply of coal must be related to the price of coal in the particular district concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before your Lordships agree I should like to ask my noble friend for some further elucidation of this question. The Bill as it originally stood left these perquisites, and their value, to be assessed by the local committees, and it is essentially a local problem. These perquisites are of an extremely varying character; they vary as between farm and farm. They vary very often by reason of the farm's position in the county, or the character of the farming which is being carried on there. To take my noble friend's illustration of coal, it is obvious that coal delivered at a farm which is ten miles from a town has a higher value on the farm than coal delivered within a mile of the town. The perquisites are a most valuable asset to the farm worker because they ensure that whatever obligations he has incurred he always has enough to feed and warm him, and to keep him in a fit condition to carry out the arduous work of the farm. Moreover, these perquisites are very valuable as a means of good will between farmer and worker, because while the perquisites are almost always of a high character a farmer who wishes to be friendly with his men will see that these perquisites are of a uniform good character, and the men, as I know from experience, are extremely prompt to respond to advances of this kind. These committees have got to work in an atmosphere of good will, and the working out of a point of this kind seems to me essentially a matter for these committees. I can imagine no better way in which they could get to work. Moreover, the value put upon these perquisites is precisely a point on which local knowledge is required, and it is of extreme importance that a man's own representative on the local committee should be associated, and closely associated, with the value put upon a perquisite.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, as I endeavoured to point out to the noble Lord when I spoke before there is, I think, no suggestion that a uniform equivalent should be laid down. It is plain that there should be some general uniformity of practice in regard to the value of such things as a house, milk, coal or potatoes, or anything you may like to suggest, but the point of the Amendment is to give the committee that guidance which I think it is obvious they will need on the question of valuation. Such general guidance on this particular aspect of their functions will not interfere in any way with the power given to the committees to determine the appropriate minimum wages for the district, and with that assurance I hope the noble Lord will feel satisfied.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 38, at end insert ("and, subject to regulations made by the Department in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section eight of this Act, the value at which they are to be so reckoned").
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 3, Page 4, line 14, after ("the") insert ("Department and to the").
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this clause deals with the procedure to be adopted by the district committees when they have made a decision affecting a minimum rate. At that point the next step lies with the Wages Board. The Amendment lays it on the committee to notify the Department as well as the Board. There is some convenience in the Department being immediately aware of the committee's decision, and the Amendment was therefore accepted in another place.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 7, page 6, line 7, at end insert:
("(2) In any proceedings against a person under this section it shall lie with that person to prove that he has paid wages at not less than the minimum rate.")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Amendment follows the terms of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act of 1924, which applies to England and Wales. It was omitted from the draft Scottish Bill because it casts the onus of proof on the accused person. It has been restored on representations that without it it might be extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove its case, since probably the only documentary evidence of actual rates of wages paid would be in the hands of the employer. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, when the Matrimonial Clauses Bill was before your Lordships we had to listen to long dissertations by noble and learned Lords on the iniquity of placing the burden of proof of innocence on the accused, and I hope that those noble and learned Lords who, as Lords of Appeal, are Scottish Judges, and have a locus in this business, will say whether this provision in a Government Bill makes any difference to their view or not. As a matter of practice farmers do not, as a rule, keep receipts for wages, and this will force them to keep such receipts. Moreover, those receipts are often lost. Perhaps some unscrupulous person might even make away with one, and once having lost his receipt, the farmer is entirely in the power of the man he has employed, who may be discontented. In all my memory of reading of cases concerning farm servants in the local Press I can recall no single case where a Sheriff has ever had any actual difficulty in practice in ascertaining what wages had actually been paid to any man, and I do not think that the passage of this Bill will make any greater difficulty than has been found before.
Moreover, it is practically acknowledged by those who have promoted this Bill that the one danger of the Bill is that it may drive a wedge between farmer

561
and farm worker. This Amendment is almost devised for that purpose. Let your Lordships imagine what happens at almost any time. A farm worker sends his child up to the farmer and asks for an advance of £1 on account. The child is going up to get the milk allowance in any case. The farmer sends down and says he cannot give the pound unless the man comes up and writes out a receipt. There you have bad blood made at once, and yet under this Bill, with this Amendment in it, that is precisely the kind of situation that will be brought about time and again. I enter my wages in my account books, but I never exact receipts from my men, and I do not think they would altogether like me if I did. They are intelligent men and some are well educated, and this kind of thing all makes for trouble.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's feeling and his interest in this matter. Perhaps I can give him this much assurance. In moving this Amendment in Committee the Lord Advocate made plain that abuse of the provision was very unlikely in Scotland, where the system of public prosecution is universal. It would be the first duty of Crown Counsel in every case to examine carefully the evidence tendered in support of the prosecution, so that the risk of frivolous or vindictive prosecution, such as the noble Lord seems to be afraid of, would, I think, be very small. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 6, line 9, after ("whether") insert ("or not")
Page 6, line 10, leave out ("not") and insert ("a fine is imposed")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, these Amendments are both drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 7, page 6, line 10, leave out ("in addition")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting, and is consequential on the other changes made at this point. The same is true of the two Amendments which follow. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 6, line 10, leave out ("fine if any") and insert ("worker")
Page 6, line 28, after ("pay") insert ("to the worker")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 8, line 6, at end insert:
("(a) for prescribing the general principles on which a committee shall determine the value of the benefits or advantages (not being benefits or advantages prohibited by law) which may be reckoned as payment of wages in lieu of cash;")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 2. I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
In the Schedule, page 12, line 11, leave out ("may, if at any time they deem it expedient") and insert ("shall")
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN, who had given Notice of a Motion to disagree with the Commons Amendment, said: My Lords, this Amendment makes it obligatory on the Minister to appoint two independent members to each local committee. In many parts in Scotland—where I live at any

563
rate—this Bill has occasioned great perturbation among farm servants. They have not perhaps had a very happy experience of the present Government's benevolent intentions towards them. The Scottish Housing Act has operated very greatly to their disadvantage, and they know it. They often address questions to me on the subject asking what the real intentions of the Government are and whether the Government are aware that they are borne upon so very hardly by this benevolent, but I submit, somewhat unwise Act. The consequence of that is that they are very much alive to the possible consequences of this Bill, which they do not think will operate as much to their advantage as its promoters maintain. Therefore the good will and good feeling and sense of co-operation between farm workers and farmers which have long existed in many parts of Scotland are prejudiced.
In my own part and, I believe, in Ross and Cromarty, in Banffshire, along the southern coast of the Moray Firth and I should say right down to Galloway, you will find in every part farm workers quite prepared to work in cordial co-operation on these local committees with farmers and vice versa, and I think it would have been much better had these independent members not been appointed, or if the Government were not compelling themselves to appoint these independent members, because it is like calling out the military and telling them to load with live cartridges when three or four people are assembled together in a street. It is panic legislation, it is assuming that they will not work together in harmony which, I can assure your Lordships, in most parts of Scotland they are very willing to do. It is also going to be very difficult to find independent members. There are not so many people with a real practical knowledge of country affairs who are not themselves engaged either in farming or in something very closely connected with farming. Moreover, there is always the danger that an independent member may serve upon a committee in an adjacent district, and it would be a grave disaster to any committee to have an independent member bringing in the experience he has got from a neighbouring district to help his judgment in another district, for this reason, that the districts vary very much among themselves, and it is quite
564
impossible to bring the experience of one district to help out one's knowledge in another.
There is another danger, which is that these independent members are to be appointed by the Department and presumably by the Minister, and as they come from the Department they will be suspect both to the Chairman and to the committee. They will be tempted possibly to have their own private communications with the Department behind the back of the Chairman and though I have no doubt the Government will discountenance such action, these independent members will never be clear from the suspicion in the minds of the farmer and the farm-worker that they may be in such close touch. For all these reasons, I think it is a great pity that this Amendment has been made in the Bill, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some reassurance on the subject or else agree to delete these words
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, was good enough to inform me some time ago that he felt strongly about this Amendment. He and I consulted together, and I hope this afternoon our consultations will come to a good result. On this occasion I hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion. When the Bill left your Lordships' House it provided that the two independent members should be appointed if the Department deemed it expedient. The discussion on the Bill in another place, however, showed that widely divergent views were held as to the occasion and purpose for which such appointments would in practice be made. For instance, certain members thought that it was the purpose and intention of this provision that it should be used to inject into a committee at the height of a dispute two additional members. It was suggested that the powers of appointment so exercised would enable the dispute to become immediately a matter of Parliamentary debate and controversy as being an administrative act by a Minister. This would be clearly undesirable.
It follows, moreover, from that suggestion that, if the power of appointment

565
at discretion was used at any time before a dispute arose, complaint would be made that the power had been unfairly used with a view to prevent Parliamentary discussion of any dispute that might subsequently arise. In making any such appointment, too, it would be difficult to avoid the risk of suspicion that it was designed to influence the proceedings of the committee in one way or another. In these circumstances it is felt that it would be better that the two independent persons should be members of the committee from the outset and that it should be so laid down by Parliament. Further consideration, too, has suggested that the fear that it might be impossible in outlying districts to find two suitable persons for appointment is exaggerated. No insuperable difficulty has arisen in comparable parts of England and Wales.
Some doubts have been expressed as to whether it is desirable that there should be two independent members on the committee at all, but there are strong arguments in favour of their presence. Experience in England and Wales, where a similar Act has been in operation for over twelve years, has shown that their presence on the committee has been of the utmost value. Moreover, in the absence of these members, a very heavy burden would fall on the independent chairman; there would be a danger of his finding his position intolerable. This might lead to frequent changes of chairmanship, and consequent dislocation of the committee's business. The addition of the two independent members has also this further advantage, that they will be available for nomination as vice-chairmen, so that in the absence of the chairman, the chair will be taken by a person who is familiar with the work and personnel of the committee. In these circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will see his way not to press his Motion.
LORD SALTOUN: May I ask whether the chairman will be consulted about the independent members? Can the noble Lord give me an assurance on that point?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think I could give an undertaking that that will be the case, but the information I have received from the Department is that in nearly every instance this consultation will certainly take place.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his statement, and I accept his assurance with much gratitude. Before withdrawing the Motion, I would like to thank him for the very free-handed way in which he has put his time at my disposal to get this question thrashed out.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
In the Schedule, page 13, line 14, leave out ("(of whom at least one shall be a woman)")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the provision that the Agricultural Wages Board should consist of equal representation of the two parties, including on each side a woman, follows the recommendation of the Caithness Committee's Report. The National Farmers' Union of Scotland have represented that, since there are not very many women farmers, there is not much point in making it obligatory on the employers to appoint a woman to the Board. The position of the workers' side is different in this respect, since there are numerous women employees. It will be recognised that the Amendment does not imply in the least that no woman may sit on the employers' side of the Board. It will be competent for the employers to elect or nominate a woman, or several women, if they choose to do so.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL FORMERLY MARRIAGE BILL.
Petition for the rejection of; of Reginald de Mornay Davies; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. We are now rapidly approaching the stage in the passage of the measure which may properly be considered "journey's End." It is perhaps the most far-reaching and most important Bill of a domestic character which has been introduced into this House for a generation. The deep and sustained interest which the House has taken in it has shown how ready and how well qualified it is impartially and sympathetically to consider any legislation which intimately affects our home life. Supporters and opponents alike have surrendered, in the interests of the Bill, much to which they attach importance, value, and weight. On Second Reading the House devoted no less than two full days of Parliamentary time to the Bill, and the unusual procedure was adopted of holding a late night sitting in order to consider it. Numerous Amendments have received meticulous attention and, as a result, a constructive piece of legislation which is long overdue and urgently required has now emerged. All supporters of the Bill desire to tender thanks to the Government for setting aside so much Parliamentary time and assisting the passage of the Bill, a privilege which is but rarely accorded to a Private Member's Bill.
The debates, I suggest, have served a great purpose. A well-instructed public opinion has steadily developed and advanced, and as the Bill now stands amended we believe it receives the support of the large majority of thoughtful men and women throughout the country. The sanctity of family life to which we attach such great importance has not been assailed and has not been weakened. On the contrary, it has been protected and strengthened. The Bill gives expression to the widespread determination that the interests of an injured spouse and of his or her children, as the case may be, shall be adequately safeguarded and fully protected. In cases of cruelty, cases of desertion, and cases of incurable insanity or of gross depravity relief in future will be given. Surely there cannot be any who can or who will resist this Bill on humanitarian grounds. Where the companionship, the sympathy and sweetness of marriage have for ever passed away; where it is no longer a real marriage but merely a sad memory; where all that
568
makes marriage sacred and happy has gone, this Bill attempts in the interests of the man and in the interests of the woman and of the child, and, above all, in the interests of the State, to unravel the tangled skein.
I respecfully venture to commend this Bill to the House because it will remove misery and it will relieve distress, and because it recognises the gravity of the evils arising from judicial separations, which inevitably lead, as has been ably pointed out in this House by many speakers, to illicit unions. Those of us who happen to be in charge of the Bill are only too unhappily conscious that many hard cases will still remain, but we take comfort in the hope and knowledge that the Bill deals with some of the major difficulties which afflict domestic life. It will tend to discourage ill-considered, rash marriages, and marriage of those who, under present conditions, are not reluctant or ashamed to rush into easy and early divorce. It will remove the grievous hardship imposed by the ill-assorted and unhappy marriage, extending throughout the very lifetime of an injured or aggrieved partner.
It is fortunate indeed that, although the Bill raises matters on which there are wide and deep-seated differences of opinion, it is a non-controversial measure from a Party point of view. Those of us who are piloting the Bill realise that we have been travelling along the edge of a precipice of acute religious controversy. We have used every effort to proceed, as far as may be open to us, by way of tolerance, by way of understanding, and by way of a true appreciation of the views of those who are not in agreement with us, and who oppose all forms of divorce. We recognise that government in such matters must be by mutual toleration, and we have left no stone unturned to preserve the marriage tie in its highest social sense.
Turning, if I may, to another aspect of the Bill, I desire to emphasise my firm belief that this Bill will do much to alleviate the hard lot of the poor person. It is very difficult for a spouse in the absence of adequate means to follow up the adulterer or deserter. This is particularly so in the case of a poor married woman—a case which has been alluded to in this debate in such moving and eloquent terms by the noble and learned

569
Lord, Lord Atkin, and other speakers. While this; point may not be fully met, it is indeed greatly aided and assisted by the legislation which is now proposed. Clause 1, for example, also helps poor persons. The waiting period becomes a period for reconciliation. They can always seek separation orders from magistrates, and evidence given before a magistrate can be used subsequently when proceedings are taken for divorce. Perhaps most important of all, I am given to understand on good authority that the machinery under the Bill, and the rules and regulations which will be framed elsewhere in future under the Bill, will give very special consideration to the claims of poorer people. The Bill serves all classes of the community, but will prove of special advantage to the ill-treated or the deserted wife in poor circumstances. I venture to regard it, indeed, as a charter of hope for the poor and the distressed.
During the passage of the Bill through the House many members have received a large volume of correspondence, much of it of a distressing character, and I have not been excepted in this matter. I have not felt justified, however, in taking up much time of the House with such individual cases; but as typical of one perhaps the House will generously permit me to refer to a communication that I have received. The letter reads:
"I am married to a man who having made my life a hell was not satisfied, and finally threw nitric acid over my face and body, for which he received seven years penal servitude. He still threatens me from prison and intends to claim me on his release if he can find me. Under existing laws he can still do so. I have spent nine months in hospital and shall be in and out for the next twelve months for plastic surgery."
And here comes a still more pathetic and even more tragic passage in the letter:
"I wonder if it is worth while going through with it as no doubt he will do more damage next time. I cannot remarry and so secure the protection of another man unless this Bill is passed. You will appreciate how anxious I am that this Bill should become law and give me a chance. I only wish you and your fellow members could see how terribly disfigured I am. I have been left with a baby to care for and my health and strength are gone. What am I to do?"
A most pathetic communication, but one, I am sorry to say, typical of a good many that I have received.
Seldom in the history of legislation has a Bill promoted by a member who has only recently joined Parliament re-
570
ceived such close and sympathetic attention. The measure has, indeed, stirred the heart of the country. In so far as it may be permitted to me on such an occasion, in such surroundings, I venture to offer cordial and hearty congratulations to Mr. Herbert for so rightly interpreting and so happily advancing the cause of so many unfortunate and so many distressed people. I respectfully commend this Bill once again to the approval of the House in the hopeful belief that it may obtain the same generous measure of support which has already been accorded to it. I trust that ere long it may reach the Statute Book and take its place as a sound constructive measure, upholding the marriage tie, advancing domestic happiness, and strengthening the due observance of the laws and Statutes of the land. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, I think I am expressing the feeling of every member of your Lordships' House when I say that, whatever our opinions may be with regard to this measure, the noble Lord who has just spoken has treated us with every consideration, not only with tolerance but very happily in every direction. I should like to say a few words to-day because I have not taken part in these debates. I did take part some years ago in a debate which was initiated by the late Lord Buckmaster, on this very question. I think that everyone in this House really wants to make the world better, and the only difference between us is which is the best way to do that. A very large number of noble Lords in this House have read the Report of the Royal Commission, but that was made a very long time ago, and since then there have been very many changes in every direction. Everybody will realise the irregularities which occur and the uncertain and disastrous state of the law which has been shown on many occasions. Everyone likewise will agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down when he says this matter is one of considerable importance. So far as the country is concerned, no one really knows what the opinion of the country is, and I am rather inclined to think that it is quite possible it might be in opposition to the result of the Division to-day, though of course it is impossible to say that definitely.

571
With regard to Clause 1, I realise that there are very many noble Lords who look upon this question from a different angle, and I realise that their opinion may be just as valuable as my own, but to my mind the consideration of Clause r is one of the most important matters that have come before Parliament, and I have been in Parliament nearly forty years. I consider the decision taken last week to be of supreme importance. My reason is that I believe that if normally there are no divorces during the first three years after marriage that will be a general help to the maintenance of the marriage system in this country, and we shall not then adopt the system which we see and dislike in many of the States in America. No doubt it will have its difficulties, and I agree with the statements which have been made about evidence. There is no doubt that those difficulties will have to be overcome in some way.
The noble Lord who has just sat down said that he moved on humanitarian grounds, and I do not deny that for one moment. At the same time I look at the question of divorce for insanity from a very different aspect. I would like to support what was said by the most reverend Primate and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in regard to this question. I dare say many of your Lordships have had the opportunity of knowing of cases where men have returned to sanity after ten or even fifteen years. It seems to me that we are taking a very big step in making this change. In one particular the Bill goes further than the law in those American States where they do not make insanity a ground of divorce. I do not know what the law is at this moment with regard to all the States in America, but I know that when President Theodore Roosevelt called a conference to consider the divorce laws the experts unanimously decided to exclude insanity. I think that is a very strong argument.
I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Davidson, for whom many of us had a great affection, said in this House that he would not deal with the question from an ecclesiastical point of view, and therefore as a mere layman I feel it very difficult to say anything from that point of view. Nevertheless, as a member of the Church of England I rather desire to say one or two words. We are a Christian country. Some people seem to doubt that
572
but there is no doubt about it in reality. We date our letters from the birth of Christ, we have our Coronation services and other services and we really do acknowledge the divinity of Christ. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, and I really believe that we ought to look at this question and consider it in the light of what He would do if He were here in human form, although I can realise that those who think His view is no better than that of Confucius or Mahomet taking a totally different attitude from the one I take up. I do not want to say any more in regard to the question except that I am very sorry to have to vote against the Bill. I recognise that great efforts have been made to overcome difficulties but I feel that it is necessary for me to vote against it. I would only like in conclusion to quote the words of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, afterwards Lord St. Aldwyn, whom many of us knew in both Houses of Parliament:
"I think all of us would agree that if there is to be a change in the policy of this country it ought to be made so that it should last. It ought to be made, therefore, as the result of a strong sentiment of deep, real conviction on the part of the great majority of the people in this country"
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I only intervene for a few minutes because I think I ought to say that after careful reflection I see no reason to depart from the attitude which I tried to explain on the Second Reading of this Bill. I said on the Second Reading that if in its passage through Committee either it was made from my point of view worse, or if what I regarded as vital clauses were weakened or tampered with, I might find it necessary to vote against the Bill on Third Reading. The Bill has emerged after the most careful scrutiny from your Lordship's House rather better than worse. As to the much debated Clause I, if it is worth while to have a time limit before any petition for divorce can be presented, at least this Bill makes provision to guard against abuses which must have eventually arisen. I deeply regretted that your Lordships did not see fit to remove the ground of insanity from the grounds permitted for divorce, but at least that clause was in the Bill when it was first introduced and there is no change in that respect. I will only refer in passing to Clause 12 protecting the conscience of the clergy and to Clause 4, which, although

573
I most heartily wish with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that it could have been made much stronger, certainly does strengthen the powers of the Court in dealing with open and notorious abuses of the existing law to which attention has been called over and over again. I regard that clause and some others as so valuable that I do not think it would be honest on my part, however much on other grounds I may wish to do so, to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.
But it is one thing to be ready to do what is possible to improve the existing State legislation or to remove the abuses to which it gives rise; it is another thing actively to promote the extension of that State legislation. Therefore, if a Division is challenged I can only repeat what I said before, that I shall be compelled to stand aside. That decision, though it has brought much understanding support has also, not unnaturally, given rise to a good deal of criticism and misunderstanding—sitting on the fence, facing both ways, and all the rest of it. I am not perturbed, because I think that position arises from the necessities of the case, from the conflict between the law of the Church as declared in the Marriage Service and the law of the State. Ever since 1857 the Stat., has seen fit to depart from the principles of the Church in this respect. Under this Bill the position will be worsened rather than improved. But it may be, and I have always acknowledged the fact, impossible for the State to impose Christian principles by law upon a mixed community when many of its members have neither the religious faith nor the assisting grace to enable them to live up to the Christian standard. That is the reason that in my judgment makes it the more necessary for the Church more resolutely to maintain that standard for its own members and to do all it can to uphold it for the whole community. As a guardian of that standard, my Lords, how can I bring myself to vote actively in favour of a Bill which contains some provisions which seem to me inconsistent with that standard?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the speech which was delivered by the roost reverend Primate expresses the view at which I have humbly arrived and with which I should not be justified in detailing you: Lordships for more
574
than a very short time at this stage of the Bill. The noble Lord who moved the Third Reading just now began his observations by stressing the importance of the Bill. I entirely agree; it is a very important Bill. It is going to affect, as he justly pointed out, the domestic life of millions of our fellow-subjects in one way or another. In my view, however, it is even more important in principle than it is in its actual effect. The most reverend Primate has declared that this Bill is not in accordance with the rule of the Church of England, and he thinks that that rule was first departed from in 1857. He may be right, but I am convinced that the people of this country believe, rightly or wrongly, that the provision with regard to divorce made in 1857 was in accordance with the Christian rule of marriage. I cannot bring myself to doubt that this cannot possibly be said of the present Bill. I do not think that position has been challenged by anybody except by that—if he will allow me to say so—brilliant controversialist, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
His argument was founded exclusively on one or it may be two texts in the Gospel according to St. Matthew. With all respect to him, even assuming that his interpretation of those texts is right—and he knows very well that there is dispute on that point—and assuming that you are to judge only by those texts and by nothing else, it yet seems to me quite impossible to maintain that this Bill is in accordance with Christian rule. For it is perfectly plain that by that rule divorce is absolutely forbidden except for one cause, which is admitted by the present law; and this Bill extends that cause in several directions. Therefore, though it might be argued, and I have no doubt was argued in 1857, that the divorce law as then enacted was in accordance with what was conceived to be the teaching of the New Testament, I do not see how anybody can maintain that this Bill is of that character. Moreover, I am not going to attempt to deliver—it would be very improper for me to attempt it, and this would not be the place where I should attempt it in any case—a theological argument. I will merely say that the other passages of the New Testament which refer to marriage certainly do not support any view as to freedom of divorce or the extension of divorce. Indeed, as I read

575
them, without any question they regard marriage as indissoluble according to the Christian doctrine.
As the most reverend Primate has just said, no one who reads the Marriage Service of the Church of England can question that it expresses, without doubt, the doctrine and position which the Church of England adopts. Twice over, as noble Lords will no doubt remember, each of the parties to the marriage, with every solemnity which words can give, promises that the marriage shall be indissoluble, shall be lifelong in all circumstances. There can be no doubt at all that this is the teaching of the Church of England. I readily admit, however, that this does not in itself dispose of the matter. A very important question remains which, although it has been alluded to in these debates, has not perhaps been treated very fully; nor am I going to attempt so to treat it now. But the great question which remains, when you have arrived at the position which I have ventured to describe, is whether it is right that the State should impose the Christian rule of marriage upon all its subjects. If you look at these texts of the New Testament, I do not think you can doubt that none of the declarations therein contained was directed to what might, or might not, be the law of the State. Indeed, you will recollect the reference to the Mosaic law, which apparently allowed a much freer system of divorce: that was admitted as an exception. No disapproval of it as an exception was expressed; it was merely said that that exception was made in the primitive view of marriage, and the primitive law of marriage, because of the weakness of human nature—or, as it is put in our Authorised Version, "hardness of heart"—of the Jewish nation. Therefore I venture to submit that in this matter the rules laid down were rules of morals, as indeed I think all the rules in the New Testament were, and not rules of law.
Therefore you come to the question how far and in what circumstances it is right that the State should try to enforce a rule of morals on its subjects. For the purpose of this part of my argument I do not weigh on the Christian side of the matter; it applies to any rule of morals. It is the teaching of experience that where the State insists, or tries to insist,
576
on a rule of morals—particularly in matters of this kind, sexual matters—which is in advance of the morality generally accepted, of what the old jurists used to call "positive morality," the morality, that is, of the people generally, the result has usually been disastrous. I am dealing with rules of morals, mind you; I am not, of course, dealing with questions where other people's interests are affected. I do not attempt to lay down a universal principle in this very difficult matter. I feel that if it can be shown that the present rule about divorce is not supported and is not approved by the conscientious convictions, the morals, the positive morality of the day, then it is a matter of the gravest doubt whether any attempt should be made to maintain it.
If that contention is right two consequences seem to me to follow, both of which are important. One is that you must be satisfied, as far as you can be, that the proposed change has the support of public opinion, which I have tried to describe. There is nothing more difficult than to ascertain what is public opinion on any particular question. We have in our Constitution no direct machinery for enlightening us on that point with regard to any particular question, but in this case we have two facts which it seems to mc, in default of any considerable evidence to the contrary, are very weighty. First, of course, we have the findings of the Royal Commission, which have been so often referred to in these debates, not in themselves, I admit, based upon public opinion, but based upon very considerable inquiry and considerable evidence—the sober view of men who were certainly extremely well qualified to express an opinion on that subiect—and it seems certainly probable that that opinion, which has never been violently attacked since it was given, did represent the public opinion of this country.
Then we have, of course, the decisions of the other House. At some time or other we have all said, at any rate those who are engaged in active politics, that the majority of the House of Commons does not represent the opinion of the country, but I do not see how you are to justify the whole conception of representative institutions unless you do assume, broadly speaking, that that is the case. It may well he that the public

577
opinion of the country has changed. It may be that a new Election would give a different result, but there is no particular reason that I know for supposing that if there were a dozen General Elections it would change the opinion of the House of Commons on this question. This House of Commons, remember, is a House of Commons with a very large Conservative majority, and therefore one which is, or presumably is, averse from change, and is not likely to do anything unnecessarily in the teeth of the opinion of the majority churchmen, or a majority, at any rate, of the leaders of the Church. Therefore I think that its repeated votes are strong ground for believing, and indeed, without anything on the other side, conclusive ground for believing, that the people of this country are in favour of the provisions of this Bill, and conscientiously believe that the marriage law ought to be changed in this respect.
I do not deny that personally I regret that opinion. In spite of the very hard cases, and no doubt there are very hard cases under the present law—in spite of all that I doubt very much whether the experience of the world has shown that a relaxation of the moral law on the whole tends to the advantage and happiness of the people. I am not impressed, certainly, with the condition of affairs where that process has been carried very far, and I have grave misgivings, I do not conceal, as to whether, broadly speaking, and taking everything into consideration, not fixing your mind on one particular set of hard cases, but looking at the whole results, the whole effect of this kind of legislation, on the fibre and moral well-being of the people, it will turn out ultimately be to the advantage of the people or to their happiness. For the reasons I have given, however, I do not see what else can be done. To enforce the stricter rule against the opinion of the majority of the people, or to try to do so, I cannot believe would be wise or just, or likely to be permanent in its results. For that reason I am unable to vote against this Bill.
There is one other consequence which I roust say greatly confirms the conclusion at which I have been forced to arrive. The most reverend Primate has just said that it is incumbent upon the Church to insist upon its view of what is right all
578
the more because the State has taken a different view. That is, to my mind, one of the most important results of this Bill. You have here, as I see it, a clear division between the law of the Church and the law of the State, and that is recognised by the Bill. Clause 12 is a clear admission that that is so, and that the State cannot enforce on the Church its view of the marriage law. That seems to me a precedent of enormous value and enormous importance. You have now the proposition established that, although the Church cannot enforce its views on the State, neither ought the State in any matter of religion and morals to attempt to enforce its views on the Church. That is a great step towards one of the most desirable things, as I think it, that we can have—the freedom of the Church.
That is a question which, as your Lordships know, has been very much discussed in recent years, and has been the subject of considerable inquiries by the Church and by Commissions appointed by the authorities of the Church. It will have to be considered in the future. It will come up undoubtedly for settlement in the near future, in my humble opinion. Then it will be of great value to be able to point to this clear precedent and admission that the law of the Church and the law of the State are different; that while the Church has no right to enforce its views on the State neither, in a matter of morals or religion, has the State any right to enforce its views upon the Church.
LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, I feel I am entitled, without any apology, to intervene in this debate, because during all the preceding stages of the Bill I have sat upon the Cross Benches mute and dumb, while four of my noble and learned colleagues gave active and eloquent assistance to your Lordships in making up your minds as to what attitude you should adopt. I confess that I derived some mild amusement during the process, for I could never understand why it was that your Lordships should listen with such bated breath to the views on the question of divorce of lawyers. To me the question is not at all a question of law, although a question of law did here and there crop up in the course of the discussion, for instance, in the case of the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to Clause 4. That certainly did involve a legal ques-

579
tion, and it was a refreshing sight to see that for once, and for once only, my four noble and learned colleagues found themselves in the same Lobby. The question of divorce is not a legal question; in my opinion it is a social question and a religious question; and I could never understand why it was that the opinion of a Lord of Appeal should weigh in the consideration of this matter any more in the scales than the opinion of any one of your Lordships.
Having now with candour, but with great affection—I will not use the vulgarism "debunked," but shall I say justly appraised the true value of, my learned colleagues as divorce experts, let me now say a few words about the Bill. The Bill starts off by striking certainly a humorous note—it may be unconscious humour, but humour there is. For it claims as its first object the true support of marriage. Well, well, that may be a very clever paradox, but it appears to me to be a blatant untruth; for if it had been written out in full, and had been written out not only fully but truthfully, it would have run: "Whereas it is expedient for the true support of marriage to create a few more grounds for the dissolution thereof." Like all true humorists the draftsman has left something to the imagination, and he has left those essential words out of the Preamble. But there are in this Bill features which are certainly not open to objection. May I mention one?—the clause, I think it is Clause 4, which endeavours to defeat those collusive proceedings which are making a mockery of the Courts, and are rapidly reducing marriage to the condition of a partnership terminable at will. A second beneficial provision is the one which affords relief to the consciences of clergymen of the Established Church in England and the clergymen of the Church in Wales; and had a Bill been brought forward for this purpose it could, I conceive, have met with no opposition in any House at all.
But this Bill, though it incorporates those good features, goes far beyond that. It is a Bill mainly and essentially to extend the grounds for divorce, and that is the reason why I, who am fundamentally opposed to divorce in any shape or form, must vote against this Bill. The Bill as it came from another place contained Clause 1 in its original form—the
580
five-year clause. My noble and learned friend Lord Atkin, in speaking on the Second Reading, while rejoicing at the Bill as a whole, described that as a terrible clause. How divergent are our views, for I should describe this as a terrible Bill with Clause 1 as its single redeeming feature. But there it is, and I venture to think that our treatment of Clause 1 in this House does not redound to our credit. Let us see what has happened. Of course there was no bargain—no bargain of any kind, such a thing is impossible and unthinkable. But this much I do think is clear, that Clause in its original form was put into the Bill in another place for a twofold purpose—to secure support and to allay opposition; and those purposes it achieved. The goods were delivered, and the goods reached your Lordships' House in good condition. And what did we do here? We have cut down the price to vanishing point, and your Lordships were only prevented by a narrow majority from stopping the cheque altogether. Judged by any standard of commercial integrity, that seems to me to be not a creditable performance.
This question of dissolving the marriage bond upon which people differ so profoundly is, as I have said, both a social and a religious question. Theologians may dispute as to the meaning of certain Scriptural texts, but so far as I am aware no theologian has yet advanced the view that divorce was sanctioned or authorised by Christ upon any grounds other than the ground of adultery. And this Bill goes far, very far, beyond that, for it introduces amongst its fresh grounds a ground for which no moral delinquency could be attached or imputed to anyone. It is said—and this is one of the arguments—that if divorce is once accepted, if you are to look upon divorce as an established institution of this country, then the rest must follow, and it is further said that those who object to divorce should not oppose the extension of an accepted principle. I utterly deny that proposition. If in one's judgment a thing is vile, if in one's judgment a thing is unchristian, I declare that by one's conscience one is bound to oppose any extension of the sphere of operation of that evil thing.
Those of us who adhere to the old faith are but a small minority in the country. We are only a tiny minority in either House of Parliament, while in this House

581
only is Christianity represented as such. And it is for these reasons that we Catholics looked forward with anxiety and hope to hear what lead would be given in this House by the Lords Spiritual to the members of the Established Church who compose the great majority of the Christians in this country. I take leave to say that the disappointment has been general and has been grievous. The hungry sheep looked up and were not fed. The most reverend Primate, in his speech on the Second Reading, described the principal proposals of this Bill as being contrary to Christian principles. Yet he gives no vote against the Bill. On the contrary, he voted for the exclusion of the amended Clause 1. These things are difficult to a plain man to understand. How it can be I know not, and the only conclusion which one can draw is that the sheep of his flock are of so many breeds that no diet is found which will agree with the constitutions of all. About this matter we Catholics, at all events, have no doubt, no hesitation, and no difficulty. We believe divorce to be an evil thing. We believe it to be contrary to the teachings of Christ, and we believe that the holy bond of matrimony, once validly established, can, and should, only be dissolved by death. For these reasons I will vote against this Bill, and I urge your Lordships to adopt a similar course.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. EDMUNDSBURY AND IPSWICH: My Lords, I would like to say a few words on this issue, which is one of very supreme importance. The earnestness of the speech to which we have just listened and of those delivered by the noble Lord who moved the Third Reading and by the noble Viscount opposite, are indicative of the serious feeling felt throughout this House on this issue. But it is bound to have the effect of increasing the number of divorces. Those of your Lordships who feel (as indeed we all feel in a sense) that divorce is an evil: those who feel it is wrong, cannot but deplore anything which will produce a larger number of these divorces: those of us who feel that divorce is not the root of the evil, but that something lies at the back of it which has to be faced and somehow met, and which this Bill seeks to meet in an equitable, just, and helpful way, cannot deplore the fact that the number of divorces is increased if wrongs are thereby put right. I
582
have no doubt that on both sides of the House, with regard to this Bill, there will be a feeling not only as to the number of divorces that take place under it or apart from it, but as to the effect which this Bill and previous legislation must have upon the feelings and beliefs of the country as a whole with regard to marriage. Those of your Lordships who oppose this Bill, and for whose opinions I have profound respect and whose arguments I am conscious have great weight, do so with a feeling that this kind of legislation is bound to weaken the sense of the obligation which marriage ought to carry with it. Those of us who are prepared to support this Bill question that.
We do not think that the ideal of marriage is upheld so long as there is any large section of the community which is suffering a sense of grievance, that the law about marriage is unjust, and there are people who feel themselves to be placed in a false position from which they cannot get free. We think that this Bill is likely to help, and not hinder, the true state which marriage ought to be. I have no doubt your Lordships were impressed by the very grave words in which the noble Viscount said that, without any question, this Bill was contrary to Christian principles, contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, and contrary to the law of the Church. I confess I disagree with him in every one of these statements. And I disagreed with him certainly when he said here was a divergence between the law of the Church and the law of the State in this matter which ultimately would only be solved by complete freedom and separation of those two bodies in respect of that legislation. The most reverend Primate will not, I am sure, think it disloyal of me if I disagree with him also. He has urged that this Bill is against the law of the Church. No doubt it depends, in part, upon your conception of what the government of the Church really is: but for several hundreds of years the law of the Church and the law of Parliament have been linked together, and you cannot get the law of the Church unless it is approved by Parliament, and all the proceedings which have taken place in the past in respect of the law of matrimony have been laws of the Church and laws of Parliament too.

583
I would like to remind your Lordships that the Church to which the noble Lord (Lord Russell of Killowen), who spoke so earnestly and warmly, belongs, did for centuries practically give divorces. When you had a law of nullity on such an artificial footing as that upon which the mediæval Church proceeded to give decrees of nullity, and when, along with that, you had the fact that the children of any marriage which had been declared annulled were nevertheless legitimate, I find it quite impossible to distinguish between that and the law of divorce. Surely, legitimate children are children of a legitimate union, and if the children were legitimate, then the union was legitimate, and the nullity was, in fact, a decree of divorce. In our own day, in our own Church, when Bills were before Parliament which dealt with this matter, they received episcopal support from the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. They were Bills which have all along had in support of them a measure of Church opinion. Why is it to-day that Church opinion has in certain circles hardened very much against granting any divorce? Surely it is simply because of the fact that they see this large number of divorces taking place, and there is the feeling, deeply rooted, that this increased number of divorces does indicate a weakened sense of the obligations of the marriage vow.
The noble Viscount, when he was instancing the law of the Church, said that in every marriage each party repeatedly vows a lifelong union. Certainly, and it is true to say that no marriage, no Christian marriage, could be put forward on any other footing. It is our conception of what marriage ought to be. But I will ask noble Lords to consider what happens in this case. Every Christian man baptised into the Church is baptised with a vow binding upon him at all times, and in all circumstances, that he will renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil. Every Christian man, when he kneels down, confesses he has not kept that vow. The Church meets that with the law of forgiveness, and certainly, if persons who have been unfaithful to one another, will confess their sin and say they are going to try to do better, that is the one solution we should all desire and pray they will have the grace to seek
584
and the strength to enable them to fulfil. But surely when one of the two partners has utterly repudiated his vows and obligations, when one partner has deserted the other or subjected the other to constant cruelty, you have got to meet the position in a new way. The Church has always had to face this, and I believe that Our Lord's teaching is consistent with facing it in the way in which this Bill proposes to face it. I have in my own experience come across instances in which the happiest unions have followed after release has been given, unions on which I am quite certain that God's blessing rests.
I do not believe this is a State Bill divorced from Christian feeling. I believe it represents the truest Christian feeling of this country. I think it is in accordance with Christ's spirit. I think it will tend to promote that sense of sympathy and helpfulness which people in distress look to Christ and His Church to give them, and consequently I cannot think that it will damage Christian feeling in the community. It is often said that persons ought to be prepared to submit to sacrifice and accept a hard lot, feeling that it is for the good of the community that they should do so, that it is something they must hear and be prepared to bear. God forbid that there should be any check put upon the finer examples of this Christian spirit, but you cannot get this Christian spirit if you compel somebody else to consent to what involves a great sacrifice on his part and which he regards as radically unjust and unkind. The heart must go with it, and it is because of that feeling that I think we are mistaken when we insist upon the letter of the bond, disregarding the spirit that lies behind it.
What is real, true marriage? It is not a contract, not tying a man and woman together for life, but the love and the loyalty of the parties which will lie behind that. Thank God a very large proportion of the weddings in this country do reach a great height of the Christian ideal. A good many others do not succeed in rising to a great height; nevertheless the parties to them make a good thing of it, putting up with one another's infirmities and carrying along on the lines of which we all approve. But where you have these terrible cases in which a man and woman are utterly divorced from one another, where one is neglected or treated with ruthless cruelty, I cannot feel that

585
it is in accordance with the mind of Christ that we should say: "Never mind, you are tied up and nothing must release you." Therefore, it is that I am prepared wholeheartedly to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, after what my noble friend Lord Salisbury said the other day about Scotsmen taking part in a debate of this character, I feel that perhaps I ought not to have intervened, but I am justified by the fact that I was married not far from here, in St. Margaret's, Westminster, a good many years ago, by the Lord Bishop of Durham, who is supporting this Bill. In view of that I think that perhaps I am on safer grounds than if I had spoken purely from a Scottish point of view. At this stage of the Bill we are arguing, or talking about it, from quite a different point of view from that which was present to our minds during the Second Reading, Committee stage, or Report stage of it. We are now at that vital issue: Is this Bill going to be law, or is it not? If the Division with which we are threatened to-day goes in fax: our of those who are against the Bill, then it is an absolute certainty that the Bill will be lost and that a measure which finds great support in the country will be defeated.
It seemed to me, as I listened to these debates and followed the many lights which have been thrown upon it from an expert point of view, whether by lawyers, or by doctors, or by Bishops, that there is one point which has not been sufficiently brought forward during our discussions. It seems to me that your Lordships' House has considered this question perhaps too much from the point of view of the older generations and not from the point of view of the generations who will be affected by this Bill more than others. In these days of equality of man and woman, there is little doubt that the younger generations regard these questions from quite a different point of view from that taken by those whom I will call the old and sere and yellow generation. Wherever I have gone amongst the younger generation in the country and have spoken to them about this Bill, one and all, as far as I have been able to ascertain, have shown themselves not only to be in favour of it, but most emphatically so.
586
I believe that if the Division which is in front of us goes against this Bill the younger generations will lose a great deal of their faith in your Lordships' House, a faith which at the present moment stands high. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that before you go into the Division Lobby on this Third Reading you consider what the view will be, not of people of our age, but of all the younger generations who are looking forward to the passage of this Bill as one that meets modern conditions and the modern point of view. Twenty-five years ago a Royal Commission recommended provisions of a similar nature to those that are contained in this Bill, and during those twenty-five years those who have believed in those provisions have grown stronger in their belief. If your Lordships find yourselves at the end of this Division as the slaughterers of this Bill, I do not dare to think what will be the views of these younger generations and even older generations who are looking forward to the relief which will be given to them by certain provisions contained in this Bill. I rose to say those few words only, because I believe that that side of the whole issue has not been taken sufficient notice of, certainly not in the speeches to which I have listened. I hope that your Lordships will think of that side of it before you register your vote in the Division Lobby.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I had no intention when I came to the House to-day of inflicting myself upon your attention, but the direct reference to me which the noble Viscount made seems to call for a very few minutes intervention in your Lordships' debate. Since this Bill was introduced it has been discussed with so much solemnity, so much ability, so much care in your Lordships' House that public opinion has been attracted to it with increasing closeness, and the effect of that has been, I think, to make it quite clear that the serious mind of the Christian Churches in this country is in favour of the Bill. Only to-day I read "Methodists and Divorce." The Methodists are a very important community amongst the Christians of this country. What do I find? By a very large majority they welcome this Bill as an endeavour to remove the anomalies and hardships of the existing law. When, therefore, I heard the most reverend

587
Primate and the noble Viscount speaking as if it were an assumed matter which could be stated without risk of challenge, that this Bill introduces a conflict between the law of England and the principles of Christianity generally, I will confess to your Lordships that I felt a shade of indignation which I am only able to put aside, to dissipate, by remembering how strong are their convictions and how lofty are their characters.
The noble Viscount was good enough to make a reference to me. I am always a little restive when people introduce a polite reference to me by calling me "brilliant," and when that adjective leads on to the substantive "controversialist" I suspect a definite hostility. The noble Viscount who I am glad to see has now returned to his place—some magnet seems to be attracting noble Lords who were absent to return to their seats—adopts an oracular style which tends perhaps to clothe what he says with an impressiveness somewhat in excess of the soundness of the proposition. He was good enough to say that I rested my whole case, which I ventured to put before your Lordships some time ago in the Second Reading debate, on a single understanding of a text which was in itself doubtful. I cannot flatter myself with the belief that your Lordships will still retain in your minds what I said, but if by some miracle you should do so, you will remember that I built my argument upon a very much larger foundation than that. I pointed out, in answer to the most reverend Primate, who had quoted the text of St. Mark as if that were an unchallengeable pronouncement of our Saviour, that it was in conflict with the (Ecumenical tradition and that St. Matthew's Gospel indicated that apostolic understanding of the words of Christ did admit that for an adequate cause marriage was dissoluble. I indicated that when the sense of a text in the Gospel is doubtful both in text and meaning, reference is normally made to the tradition of the Christian Church, and that, I would point out to the noble Viscount, is various.
It is quite reasonable for the noble Viscount and other noble Lords who are members of the Roman Catholic Church to identify the Western tradition with the tradition of the' whole Church Catholic. It is natural for them to take that view,
588
but the rest of us, who regard our tradition of the understanding of Christ's word and the tradition of the Eastern Church as not less authoritative, are entitled to say that here we have a second great interpretative instrument by which the Gospels must be understood as speaking with various voices. It is not open to the noble Viscount in his oracular manner to say that it is the one and only declaration of the Christian mind. Roman Catholics may take that view, but their assumptions are not his. His argument fails in its primary premise.
I venture to ask your Lordships to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill. I dissent from the noble Viscount's interpretation of that clause which allows the clergy of the Church of England to stand out of the operation of the Bill. I dissent because it is news to me that the clergy are to be identified with the Church of England. That clause is a concession to clergymen's consciences, a very wise, a very politic and a very necessary concession, but it leaves the question of a conflict between Church and State, if there be one, entirely unaffected. I venture once again to ask your Lordships to accept this Bill not only because I am convinced that it will remove many hardships which ought to be remedied, but because I am persuaded that it will bring the marriage law of this country into closer harmony with the principles of Christ.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I hope you will bear with me for a few minutes as I find myself in a rather peculiar position as it seems likely that I shall be the only Lord Spiritual in this House who, when a Division is taken, will find himself in the Lobby with the Not-Contents. I do not wish to go again into the question which has been debated and on which my brother the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham have expressed opinions, the question of what is or is not the Christian doctrine of marriage. I shall go into the Not-Content Lobby because I believe this Bill to be fundamentally an anti-social Bill, quite apart from the interpretation of certain texts in the New Testament. I believe it is anti-social because it is not for the true support of the institution of marriage. I have not heard in this House, nor have I been able in reading the report of the debates in another place to

589
find, any real argument to show that it does support marriage. It has been taken for granted again and again that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Russell of Killowen, said just now, it is quite obviously a Bill for increasing divorces. If that is supporting the institution of marriage, well and good; but I cannot see it. I notice that those in charge of the Bill have seen to it that when the Bill goes back to another place, it will no longer be the Marriage Bill but the Matrimonial Causes Bill. I think that is a very good thing, and I congratulate them on having changed the name, because it seems to me that they have been getting a little unhappy about this question of supporting marriage, and they will not call attention to the fact that it is really something else.
I believe it is a bad Bill. I am sure that any legislation, in this country or anywhere else, ought to be, if it is good legislation based on sound principle. I do not believe that this Bill is based on any principle at all. We have heard any amount about hard cases and difficulties, of which we are perfectly aware, and I am the last person to ask that we should simply do nothing about these hard cases. But I submit that this is not the way to deal with hard cases, because, as I ventured to say on the Second Reading, it is going to create a great many more hard cases through weakening the defences which are set up by a sound public opinion. It is simply a further instalment of the 1857 Act. It seems to me to be the most curious bit of legislation, because it rewards the wrongdoer with exactly what he wants to get. That has been proved up to the hilt.
I know that you may say that this Bill contains safeguards against collusion. Of course, as a layman, one has to listen very carefully to noble and learned Lords who say that that is so. I hope it may be so, and that the Bill will prevent collusion. As a matter of fact, however, what happens? Here is a contract. Whatever else it may be, it is a contract, and a person who deliberately breaks it gets away with the breach and gets exactly what he wants, which is his freedom. It seems to me a most extraordinary way of rewarding what we all recognise as wrongdoing—except in the case of insanity, in which the wretched man or woman, as has already been pointed out,
590
is not responsible at all. In all these other cases of desertion, cruelty and so on, there is wrongdoing by one of the parties, and the law now., in England, is going to reward the wrongdoer by giving exactly what he or she wants, which is freedom to leave his wife or her husband, as the case may be, and contract another marriage. That does seem to me to be the most topsy-turvy kind of legislation.
I understand that this Bill was brought forward to prevent collusion. I have discussed this matter with a great number of people and with a considerable number of lawyers. They all admit that you cannot stop collusion over matters of this kind, because, as my right reverend friend sitting on this Bench said just now, advocating the Bill, if love and loyalty have gone—those were not his exact words—why try to keep the marriage going? That is exactly the point. Who is to say when love has gone? The only parties who can possibly say when love has gone are the husband and the wife. They alone know. That is the real point to which you come in the end. And this is, as I say, only an instalment of something further. There IS no principle except to end up in exactly the thing that you want to prevent now, which is divorce by consent. That is the end to which we shall come, and if you think that is good for the nation and is going to uphold the most fundamental thing in our social structure, well and good.
Forgive me for referring again to what I said on the Second Reading. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, referred to the young people. I wish to say that I take quite another view of the young people. I believe that a few years ago a great many of the young people would have welcomed this Bill, but today the young people are beginning to see ghastly results accrue from simply playing fast and loose with the marriage tie. I have seen a great change among a considerable number of young people. This is an educational Bill, and I beg your Lordships to realise that if this Bill passes into law the great bulk of young people, and of older people, will take their direction from the law of the land. There is no nation in the world, I believe, which respects law more than we do, and I do not believe there is any country in which

591
legislation has so great a power in forming public opinion. It goes out that your Lordships by a majority—it may be a big majority—and the House of Commons by a majority, believe that this is all right. The people have not and never will follow all the debates, but they feel that if this is the law, then it is quite right to do it. You are starting off on a campaign of educating the younger generation. In fifty years time or less I do not believe that people will look back and bless us for that work. I said that I was not going, and I do not mean, to enter into a controversy with regard to what is or is not the Christian law. My last word is this, that I am going to vote against this Bill because I believe that it is against the most fundamental law of God with regard to the procreation of the human race, its upbringing and its education in the ultimate problem of life, which is how to live together.
LORD CROMWELL: My Lords, I submit that if you follow the argument of the right reverend Prelate to its logical conclusion, it means that a law founded on the Christian principle should be a law of punishment of the wrongdoer. I submit that a far finer object to concentrate on under the Christian spirit would be to frame laws for alleviating the lot of those who have had wrong done to them. Before I sit down, to illustrate my argument, if I may: if again you follow the argument used by the right reverend Prelate to its logical conclusion, then anyone who is found torturing a cat should by law, in return, be tortured himself. However much any of us might believe that that would be a very good way of stopping cats from being tortured, I hope that never in this country will justice not be mixed with mercy.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, having troubled your Lordships on several occasions before in these debates, I did not this afternoon intend to speak again. I think, however, that there is one thing which still needs to be said. I will be very brief, more especially in view of the two speeches delivered by the two right reverend Prelates who have answered what fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. It would be unfortunate if it were
592
to go out as a result of this debate, without challenge, and without challenge from a layman, that this Bill is in any way inconsistent with Christian principles. The noble Viscount said that it was perfectly plain that the Act of 1857 was consistent with Christian principle but that this Bill was not. The noble and learned Lord upon the Cross Benches, Lord Russell of Killowen, would not agree that the Act of 1857 was consistent with Christian principle, and Scottish legislation has shown that no Scotsman would hold that this Bill is inconsistent with Christian principle. It is apparent, without going into argument, that there are grave divergencies of opinion.
Speaking as a humble but entirely devoted member of the Church of England, I should only like to emphasise the point that I would not support this Bill if I believed it to be inconsistent with Christian principles, nor do I believe that any of your Lordships would support it if you had such a belief. The authority and eloquence with which the two right reverend Prelates have spoken have made it unnecessary for me to pursue that point further, but I think it important that it should be definitely announced that we who are supporting this Bill are not supporting something that we believe to be inconsistent with Christian principles. The noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches spoke with his authority, eloquence and sarcasm about the Preamble. I would only say, with regard to that, that we recognise the deep sincerity with which he holds his view. Will he not give us credit for holding our views with equal sincerity? It may be incomprehensible to him, but we believe that this is a Bill for the true support of marriage; that it is paring away the anomalies and hardships which have cumbered the marriage law for so many years; that it is a reform which is overdue and which is greatly desired by the great majority of the people of this country; and we hope that by a decisive vote your Lordships will give it a Third Reading to-day.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 3a?
The Lordships divided:—Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Durham, L. Bp.

Greville, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L. Bp.

Hampton, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Jessel, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Aberdare, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Bath, M.

Addison, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Reading, M.

Ailwyn, L.

Lamington, L.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Latymer, L.

Albemarle, E.

Arnold, L.

Maugham, L.

Bathurst, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Melchett, L.

Bessborough, E.

Bethell, L.

Meston, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Blythswood, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Drogheda, E.

Carnock, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Haddington, E.

Cautley, L.

Palmer, L.

Lucan, E.

Clwyd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Mansfield, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Remnant, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cromwell, L.

Rennell, L.

Midleton, E.

Denham, L.

Roche, L.

Stanhope, E.

Denman, L.

Rowallan, L.

Strafford, E.

Desborough, L.

St. Levan, L.

Wicklow, E.

Doverdale, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Eltisley, L. [Teller.]

Seaton, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sherborne, L.

Dawson of Penn, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Snell, L.

Devonport, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Strabolgi, L.

Elibank, V.

Gainford, L.

Teynham, L.

Exmouth, V.

Glanusk, L.

Wright, L.

Mersey, V.

Corell, L. [Teller.]

Samuel, V.

Greenway, L.

NON-CONTENTS.

Halifax, V. (L. President.)

Poulett, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Selborne, E.

Holden, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Howard of Glossop, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Argyll, D.

Lovat, L.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Morris, L.

Salisbury, M.

Rankeillour, L. [Teller.]

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Rockley, L.

Denbigh, E.

Berwick, L.

Russell of Killowen, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Daryngton, L.[Teller.]

Stafford, L.

Munster, E.

Dormer, L.

Strickland, L.

Nelson, E.

Elton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, accordingly.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 6. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think perhaps I owe the House some explanation as to why, having put down this Amendment again, after having moved it on the Report stage, I do not propose to move it now. On Report I moved the Amendment on the advice of one of the leaders of the Divorce Court. I understand that my noble and learned friend Lord Drogheda has interviewed my friend who is a leader in that Court and has satisfied him. Therefore I will not detain your Lordships by moving the Amendment now.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Eltisley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

SUMMARY PROCEDURE (DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
WATFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.

AMENDMENT OF THE MILK MARKETING SCHEME, 1933.
Made under subsection (11) of Section and Part II of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, as amended by the Third Schedule to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF RAMSGATE ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Ramsgate:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at seven minutes before six o'clock.