Sitting of 2 March 1937

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Newquay and District Water Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any public assistance is being paid to persons in full-time employment in the counties of Ross and Cromarty, Argyll and Inverness; and, if so, can he give the numbers of the counties, respectively, and the total sums being paid weekly?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): From inquiries which I have made I find that in the counties referred to one person in full-time employment is being paid public assistance. The county is Inverness and the amount of relief being paid is 10s. per week. I am obtaining full particulars of this case, the circumstances of which are very exceptional, and will communicate them to the hon. Member.

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, STIRLING.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the membership of the justices of the peace advisory committee of the county of Stirling; when they last met; and when there was issued the last list of newly-created justices of the peace for the county?
    Mr. Elliot: At present, the advisory committee consists of the Lord-Lieutenant, Sir George Murray Home Stirling, Baronet (Chairman), Sir Norman A. Orr-Ewing, Baronet, Captain Howard J.
    148
    Kennard, David Weir, Esquire, and Bailie John Jarvie. There are two vacancies, which have occurred since the last meeting of the Committee on 17th April, 1936. The last list of newly created justices was issued on 29th June, 1936.
    Mr. Westwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these two vacancies are likely to be filled?
    Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I cannot say. I understand that these appointments are made by the Lord Chancellor.

    LIGHTING, WEST WENIYSS.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Fife County Council decided to instal electric light in the village of West Wemyss in place of gas; that they removed the gas fittings; that the electric light has not been installed and that the village has been without light of any kind all the winter; and will he take steps to see that this is rectified at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the position as regards the street lighting of West Wemyss is substantially as stated by the hon. Member. The matter is one within the control of the local authority, who are in negotiation with the other interests concerned. I hope these negotiations will be completed at an early date, and I will communicate further with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the difficulties has been the refusal of one of the landowners to allow the cable to go through his grounds, and cannot steps be taken to see that there is no further hold up?
    Mr. Elliot: I understand that it is a question of possible damage to the retaining walls of a county road which may follow from the digging of a trench. It is a question of obtaining security against that. I understand that negotiations are proceeding.
    Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this village is willing to be amalgamated with Kirkcaldy, and will he arrange that that should take place so that the services of Kirkcaldy can be carried out in that village, which is not being attended to by the County Council.

    SMALL HOLDINGS.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many holdings have been constituted by the Department of Agriculture in the industrial belt of Scotland during the last five years; and how many have been provided from the commencement with equipment for development on intensive lines?
    Mr. Elliot: 878 holdings have been provided outside the crofting areas in the last five years. As regards the second part of the question, holdings intended for intensive cultivation are furnished with a standard equipment which the tenant is free to adapt or augment for his own purposes.
    Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, especially for small holders with small resources, it would be well for the State to undertake further duties in this regard?
    Mr. Elliot: It might be well to provide for equipment, but, of course, that would raise the cost to the small holders.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints he has received during the last three years from smalholders, regarding dampness and insanitary conditions in houses on holdings; what is the largest number of complaints from any single scheme; and whether the dwellings are properly inspected and passed as fit for habitation prior to occupation and, if so, by whom?
    Mr. Elliot: I regret that the information asked for in the first two parts of the question is not readily available. As regards the last part of the question, all dwellings are inspected during construction and completed ready for occupation to the satisfaction of the appropriate officers of the local authorities in whose districts the work is being carried out and of qualified officers of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.
    Mr. Mathers: Is there any continuing examination of these dwelling houses?
    Mr. Elliot: I think they are only examined if and when a complaint is made about them. I think that takes place quite frequently.

    HOUSING (GLASGOW).
    Mr. T. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what negotia-
    150
    tions, if any, have taken place between himself or his Department, the building trade organisations, and the Corporation of Glasgow for the speeding-up of working-class houses in that city?
    Mr. Elliot: I am at present discussing with representatives of the building trade organisations the question of the measures to be taken to secure better progress in housing in Scotland as a whole, and as part of that object I have recently had an informal meeting with members of the Glasgow Corporation Housing Committee.

    MARRIAGE LAWS.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now had time to consider the report of the Morison Committee on the Marriage Laws of Scotland and if he proposes to bring in any measure to give effect to the recommendations this Session; and, if so, will he before such proposed legislation is framed receive representations from, and have consultations with, the representatives of the Salvation Army with a view to that religious organisation being added to the list referred to on page 15 of the report who are recommended to receive power to proclaim a marriage and to issue banns of marriage?
    Mr. Elliot: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave on 28th January last to a similar question by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. Cassells). As regards the second part of the question, I should be glad to consider any representations by religious or other organisations regarding the committee's recommendations.

    SPAIN.
    Captain Ramsayasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that agents of the Communist party have recently procured for military service in Spain, under false pretences, a number of young men in Scotland, by promises of well-paid work in peaceful pursuits, whereas on arrival in Spain they were forced to undertake military service; and, if evidence as to this is furnished, will he take steps to prosecute the persons responsible?
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I shall be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with any particulars in his possession.
    Captain Ramsay: May I ask whether the Scottish law at present is capable of dealing with such an offence, or whether these persons are to be allowed to go free?
    The Lord Advocate: I should like to see the particulars first.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is there any way of ensuring prosecution against the purveyors of these slanders?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    PIT BATHS (LINDSAY, WEST FIFE).
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the miners at the Lindsay pit, West Fife, made an application for the installation of pit baths in 1930 and that they have repeatedly raised the matter since but, owing to the many demands before the welfare committee and the lack of finance, no hope can be offered of an early installation; and what steps, if any, his Department is taking to expedite the general installation of this essential part of pit equipment?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I understand that, except for a notification from the colliery company in 1930 that the workmen of Lindsay Colliery had ballotted in favour of pithead baths, the Central Miners' Welfare Committee did not receive any communication on the subject until February of this year. Meanwhile, baths have been or are being built in the Fife and Clackmannan District at a number of other collieries in the order recommended by the District Miners' Welfare Committee who have considered the application from Lindsay Colliery. With regard to the second part of the question, I am in consultation with the Central Miners' Welfare Committee regarding the question of accelerating generally the provision of baths at collieries.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the many collieries in West Fife and other places
    152
    that are urgently waiting for baths, can the Minister give us any hope that there will be big acceleration, and that some ways and means will be found of accelerating the provision of pit baths?
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Will the Minister inquire into the necessity of there being more finance for the purpose? That is the only impediment in the way.

    BUNKER COAL.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary for Mines whether the committee of shipowners, engineers, and shipbuilders which is considering questions relating to the use of coal and oil fuel in the merchant marine will be charged with the investigation of the problems arising from the difficulty of obtaining bunker coal of the right quality, at the right time and place under the marketing schemes, and the consequent tendency to convert coal-burning tonnage to oil?
    Captain Crookshank: This Committee, on which coal interests will be represented as well as shipping and marine engineering interests, is to examine the possibility in the national interest of obtaining an increased use of coal for bunkering purposes and to formulate proposals designed to secure that object. I think that these terms of reference are wide enough to enable the Committee, in its discretion, to consider all aspects of the problem, but I must not be taken as accepting the suggestion in the question that difficulties of supply are due to the marketing schemes.
    Mr. White: Is the Minister fully seized of the fact that it is not the present policy of the coal trade to facilitate trade in bunkers, and that the gradual extension of oil burning is inevitable?
    Captain Crookshank: It is in order to consider these matters in their widest aspects that the committee has been appointed.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the Mines Department informed the British Trawlers' Federation in 1930 that bunker coal for fishing vessels should be classed as export supply, but that the Northumberland Committee reject this view, to the detriment of the fishing in-

    153
    dustry in Aberdeen; and whether he will make representations to the Northumberland Committee?
    Captain Crookshank: In 1934—not 1930—bunker coal for fishing vessels was classified in the Northumberland scheme as export supply. This relates only to quantitative regulation and does not affect price regulation, which, I presume, the hon. Member has in mind. If the British Trawlers' Federation is dissatisfied with prices fixed under the Northumberland scheme, it is open to it to complain to the district committee of investigation.

    HORSES.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Secretary for Mines the number of horses, ponies, and other animals used for haulage purposes in the mines of Great Britain; the number in each district; the number of horse inspectors in the service of the Mines Department; and the number of prosecutions, if any, for cruelties and other infringements of the law for each year since 1926?
    Captain Crookshank: There are at present eight horse inspectors in the service of the Mines Department. As the reply to the remainder of the question involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:

    Horses employed belowground at 30th June, 1936.

    District.

    No. of Horses on the Colliery Books.

    England and Wales.

    Northumberland

    3,164

    Durham

    9,758

    Cumberland and Westmorland

    133

    Lancashire and Cheshire

    170

    Yorkshire, South

    2,208

    Yorkshire, West

    2,489

    Nottinghamshire

    1,477

    Derbyshire, North

    1,986

    Derbyshire, South

    192

    Staffordshire, North

    58

    Cannock Chase

    1,090

    Staffordshire, South and Worcestershire

    429

    Leicestershire

    553

    Warwickshire

    179

    Shropshire

    244

    Forest of Dean

    255

    Somersetshire

    69

    Bristol

    30

    Kent

    —

    South Wales and Monmouthshire

    7,396

    North Wales

    124

    Scotland.

    Fife and Clackmannan, Kinross and Sutherland

    17

    Lothians (Mid and East) and Peebles

    49

    Lanarkshire, West Lothians, Stirling, Renfrew and Dumbarton

    714

    Ayrshire, Dumfries and Argyll

    51

    GREAT BRITAIN*

    33,136

    * Including particulars in respect of mines under the Coal Mines Act in Cleveland, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire.

    Prosecutions in regard to horses employed at mines in Great Britain.

    Year.

    No. of Charges.

    No. of Convictions.

    1926

    16

    16

    1927

    82

    78

    1928

    301

    291

    1929

    401

    131

    1930

    50

    50

    1931

    40

    38

    1932

    38

    34

    1933

    10

    10

    1934

    25

    25

    1935

    16

    16

    1936

    16

    15

    EXPORTS (NORWAY).
    Mr. Chaterasked the Secretary for Mines whether there is any shortage of coal for export from the North-East Coast to Norway; and whether that country is experiencing any difficulty in obtaining from this country the quantities of coal which form the quota Norway must take from Britain under the Anglo-Norwegian trade agreement?
    Captain Crookshank: I have recently received from the Norwegian State Coal Committee two complaints of inability to obtain particular qualities of coal, and they are at present under investigation by my Department.

    WHITEHAVEN COLLIERIES (REOPENING).
    Mr. Cape(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information about the prospects of reopening the Whitehaven Collieries?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Negotiations between the Nuffield Trustees, Special Areas Reconstruction Association, Limited, Coltness Iron Company, Limited, Whitehaven Collieries, Limited, and the Lowther Estates, Limited, have resulted in an agreement being arrived at whereby a new company will be formed immediately to work the Whitehaven Collieries. This is a large colliery undertaking in West Cumberland which ceased operations in October, 1935,

    155
    causing unemployment to nearly 2,500 people who formerly worked at the mines. The Coltness Iron Company, Limited, which has wide colliery and other interests in Scotland, in Warwickshire and in South Staffordshire, has agreed to become responsible for the management of the Whitehaven Collieries, and the new company will be under its control. The effect of the arrangement will, I anticipate, be that in a large measure the problem of unemployment in Whitehaven will have been solved and the hope of prosperity restored to the town and district.
    Mr. F. Anderson: Has a definite agreement been arrived at, and, if so, how many men are likely to be immediately employed?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that repair work will commence at once, and the company inform me that they hope within four months to be employing 400 men, rising to 1,000 at the end of the year, and then to get back to full production.
    Mr. T. Williams: In the event of an expansion in coal sales, will this not mean the closing down of some other colliery?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman knows that that by no means happens.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Is there not an acute shortage of coal at this moment?
    Mr. Garro Jones: While appreciating aid from any source, may I ask what element of enterprise has been brought in by the Nuffield Trustees which could not have been brought in by the Government at an earlier stage?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question down, a good deal of information will be given.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    DOMINIONS.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will open negotiations with the whole of the Dominions in order that the maximum amount of bulk trading can be arranged between the United Kingdom and the Dominions?
    The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I would refer the hon. Member to the
    156
    answer which I gave him to a question on 25th February. The object of all our trade discussions with the Dominions is to facilitate the expansion of inter-Imperial trade to the maximum that is consistent with the interests of home producers and consumers and of export trade generally.
    Mr. Smithasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether, in view of the official declaration made by the Minister of Finance for New Zealand that his Government desired an expanding market, he will say what steps are being taken to co operate to bring about this object;
    (2) whether he has considered the offer of the Finance Minister of New Zealand to utilise the whole of the credits that come from the sale of their products in Great Britain for the purchase of manufactured goods from Great Britain if mutual arrangements are made; and whether he will take steps to accept and act upon such offer?
    Mr. MacDonald: Discussions are in progress with the Minister of Finance of New Zealand with regard to matters arising out of the trade agreement between the United Kingdom and New Zealand and to trade questions generally. Pending the outcome of these discussions I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Has not the Minister of Finance for New Zealand asked that there should be more butter coming this way than has come lately?
    Mr. MacDonald: That is a question which is covered by the question already asked me, and I have just given an answer to it.
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of the very important statement which the Finance Minister for New Zealand has made as to increasing the purchases of manufactured articles here in certain conditions, can the right hon. Gentleman say when those negotiations are likely to end?
    Mr. MacDonald: Naturally, the very important statement which the Minister of Finance has made is receiving very careful consideration, but it would be impossible for me to give any approximate date when the discussions which are going on may be concluded.

    AUSTRALIA (UNITED KINGDOM INVESTMENTS).
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the amount of British capital invested in Australia?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: There are no official estimates available of United Kingdom investments overseas. I have, however, obtained, through the courtesy of Sir Robert Kindersley, a tentative estimate which is based on careful but not yet fully completed research. According to this the amount of United Kingdom owned securities and private investments in the Commonwealth of Australia is £540,000,000.

    SUGAR (SOUTH AFRICA AND AUSTRALIA).
    Mr. Morganasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to what extent South Africa and Australia subsidise the production of sugar; and what is the present approximate cost of this assistance per ton of sugar produced in each case?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am informed that no subsidies are paid in respect of the production of sugar in the Commonwealth of Australia or the Union of South Africa. There is, in fact, an excise duty of £ 1 per ton on all manufactured sugar retained for consumption in the Union. As I said in answer to a question by the hon. Member on 23rd February, there is a system in each of these Dominions by which the internal price of sugar is maintained at a fixed level. I understand that the level in the case of Australia is approximately £13 sterling for raw sugar per ton and in the case of the Union of South Africa approximately £12 10s. per ton.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen: Have not the various States, apart from the Commonwealth, got schemes for subsidising sugar?
    Mr. MacDonald: The answer I have given covers all the States, but in fact there is only one State which has any very great interest in sugar; and that is Queensland. Practically no sugar is produced outside that State.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the internal price compares with the world price?
    Mr. MacDonald: I should like to have notice of that question.

    GLYCERINE.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons for the recent heavy increase in the price of pure glycerine; whether there is any connection between this increase in price and rearmament; and what action is being taken to prevent profiteering in this commodity?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman): I understand that the rise in the price of glycerine in recent months is due to an expansion of normal industrial demand, and that the effect of the Government's rearmament programme on the position can be regarded as negligible.
    Mr. Williams: Does the answer imply that the Government are taking no steps whatever to prevent this gross profiteering in what is not only a necessity for rearmament, but also in medicine?
    Mr. Runciman: I have pointed out that 'the rise in the price is a natural movement of the market.
    Mr. Williams: In view of the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, that the public would be safeguarded against excessive profiteering in connection with the rearmament policy, do the Government intend to take any steps to prevent this profiteering in medicine?
    Mr. Runciman: We cannot control world prices in London, but every effort will be made to prevent undue profiteering in connection with the rearmament programme.
    Mr. Williams: Is it not the case that only one firm in this country produces pure glycerine and, therefore, that it would be an easy thing to find out the source of this profiteering?
    Mr. Runciman: I am afraid that I cannot accept that statement.

    IMPORTS.
    Miss Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total volume of imports into this country of goods for which there is no provision for manufacture in this country?
    Mr. Runciman: I regret that this information is not available.
    Miss Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to the information being prepared?
    Mr. Runciman: If the information could be collected and prepared, I should be glad to see that done, but I am afraid it is not available.
    Miss Ward: In view of the need for the establishment of new industries in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having a complete survey made of all new industries which might be established?

    IMPORTED DAIRY PRODUCTS.
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade what advantage, measured in pence per 1b., is derived by exporters to the British market of dairy products from Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Australia and New Zealand by reason of depreciated currencies and export subsidies direct and indirect?
    Mr. Runciman: If my hon. Friend will let me know any particular country or commodity which he has specially in mind, I shall be glad to give him whatever information is available. I fear I could not give a comprehensive estimate in reply to my hon. Friend's question.
    Sir P. Hurd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to observe that the question does in fact specify the commodities—dairy products—and also the countries?
    Mr. Runciman: If my hon. Friend will let me know on what products he would wish to have inquiries made, I will have that done.
    Sir P. Hurd: Is it possible to take measures to give fair play to British producers if we are not told what is the extent of these currency and other discriminations?

    FILM INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether replies have now been received from the various sections of the cinematograph trade with their suggestions on the proposed amendments necessary to the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and whether he can now give particulars as to when it is proposed to introduce the necessary amending legislation?
    Mr. Runciman: Further observations have been received from certain sections
    160
    of the industry in regard to the report of the Departmental Committee on Films and these are receiving consideration. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on this subject to the hon. Member on 23rd February.
    Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in making an announcement in regard to the amendment of this Act, which shortly expires, is causing very grave harm to the industry?
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: Are we to understand now that the amending Bill is not to be introduced during this Parliamentary Session?
    Mr. Runciman: No, Sir; the right hon. Gentleman is not to understand that.
    Sir John Mellorasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the estimate of the Board of Trade that net payments for film royalties contributed over £5,000,000 to the United Kingdom's adverse balance of international payments of a revenue character for 1936, the Government will consider taking steps to secure that in future payments for foreign films shown in the United Kingdom shall be more evenly balanced by receipts for British films shown abroad?
    Mr. Runciman: My hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Departmental Committee which reported in November last recommended that only further measures could correct the present situation, and will he endeavour to make an early announcement of the Government's policy?

    POULTRY INDUSTRY.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyteasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet given notice to terminate the trade agreements with Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, and Sweden, in order that the Government may be free to deal with the present situation in the poultry industry; and if such notice has not been given, when he proposes to give it?
    Mr. Runciman: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers to his questions on this subject of 16th February.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: If the right hon. Gentleman is not taking effective action in this matter, will he make way for somebody who will?
    Captain Hedgers: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the urgent need for further stability in the poultry industry, he can give any guarantee that the new trade agreements will be completed by the end of this year?
    Mr. Runciman: It is impossible for me to say how soon the new trade agreements can be made.
    Mr. Thorne: Is it in order for an hon. Member to give notice to the President of the Board of Trade to get out of his job?
    Mr. Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present difficulties of the poultry industry in the country, he will consider the advisability of exempting feeding stuffs used by poultry farmers from Import Duties?
    Mr. Runciman: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) on 18th February.
    Mr. Turton: As maize in grain, which has not a duty, has risen most in price, does not that show the fallacy of Free Trade economics?

    RUSSIA (COLOURS AND DYES, IMPORTS).
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of paint, varnishes, and dyes exported to Russia during the year ended December, 1936, and the week ended 15th February, 1937, or the nearest available date; and what was the value of the same material imported into Russia from Germany for the same period?
    Mr. Runciman: During the II months ended November, 1936, the value of colours, dyes, varnishes, etc., imported into the Soviet Union from the United Kingdom and Germany amounted to 270,000 roubles and 4,404,000 roubles, respectively. Comparable particulars for any later period are not yet available.
    Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it rather strange that, while the two countries in question are at loggerheads politically, they can kiss one another when it comes to trade?

    JAPANESE COTTON CLOTH.
    Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take with regard to the recent serious increase in the importations of Japan cotton cloth to this country which is exported, after being finished here, as cloth of United Kingdom origin?
    Mr. Runciman: As I have previously explained, the nationality to be attributed to goods imported into other countries is determined by the regulations of the importing country and not by United Kingdom regulations. As regards Empire countries, cotton and rayon tissues must have been spun, woven and finished in the United Kingdom in order to obtain admission as United Kingdom goods into most of the Colonies. In the Dominions generally and India there are regulations laying down the amount of Empire labour and materials required before goods can secure admission at the preferential rates of duties accorded to British goods. In the case of Australia, the minimum percentage of United Kingdom content was increased for cotton piece goods in the summer of 1936; the question of increasing the content requirements in Canada and in the Union of South Africa is under examination. As regards foreign countries, where a reserved share of the market is in some way guaranteed to United Kingdom goods, His Majesty's Government endeavour to ensure that the benefit should only accrue to textiles spun, woven and finished in the United Kingdom. Such requirements are in operation in Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania and Uruguay; the possibility of enforcing similar requirements in Argentina is under discussion with the Argentine Government at present.
    Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of what has been done, in the course of the last few years the amount of such cloth has risen from nil to nearly 20,000,000 square yards, and that this is causing very great anxiety among the cloth manufacturers of Lancashire?
    Mr. Runciman: I am afraid the figures that have been quoted by the hon. Member are more or less correct. There is undoubtedly an enormous increase, and we are watching the matter with very great attention.
    Mr. Holdsworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction throughout the whole of the textile industry regarding this sort of thing, and will he consider amending the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, or something of that description, in order to prevent this sort of thing being done?
    Mr. E. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the accusation that is being made that materials manufactured in other countries are shown at the British Industries Fair as manufactured in this country, and if so, what steps is he taking to deal with it?

    STEEL (PRICE).
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any estimate of the percentage increase in the price of steel during the last month; and whether he is doing anything to secure that users should obtain supplies at a reasonable price?
    Mr. Runciman: So far as I am aware there has been no increase in the price of the main steel products during last month. I am assured by the British Iron and Steel Federation that they are endeavouring to control prices at a reasonable level. In this they are acting in consultation with the Import Duties Advisory Committee who are keeping a close watch on the position.
    Sir P. Harris: As the steel producers now have more or less a monopoly as a result of Government legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman make it his business to see that the users of steel are not exploited by the producers?
    Mr. Runciman: I have already pointed out that this matter is being very carefully watched by the Import Duties Advisory Board, and until we have information on the subject we cannot do anything.
    Mr. Paling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has told us at least four times that he is keeping close watch on situations? When is something likely to accrue from that watching?

    CANADA (CORONATION GOODS).
    Mr. Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the duty on Coronation novelties imported into the Dominion of Canada from this country has been raised; and, in view of the terms of the Ottawa Agreement, what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. Runciman: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the steps recently taken by the Canadian Government to fix the value, for duty purposes, of Coronation goods at 100 per cent. in excess of the invoice value of such goods. This valuation, however, does not apply to United Kingdom and other goods entitled to entry under the British Preferential Tariff, and the second part of the question accordingly does not arise.

    INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
    Sir P. Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the speech of the President of the Board of Trade at the National Liberal Club on 24th February, to the effect that the best thing that could happen to the world is to have a free exchange of commodities and services, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): I have seen only summarised Press reports of this speech, but it is clear from them that the words mentioned were part of a sentence in which my right hon. Friend expressed the sympathy which: His Majesty's Government feel with the views urged by the Secretary of State for the United States. For a statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government, I would refer the hon. Member to the speech made by my right hon. Friend at the British Industries Fair Banquet on 15th February, in which he remarked that there can be no great volume of international trade unless it works on the principle that in return for the goods we sell and the services that we render we are prepared to accept goods and services in return.
    Sir P. Harris: Is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to be in favour of the free exchange of commodities and services between all countries?
    Mr. Chamberlain: That is a repetition of the question on the Paper.
    Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Is it not a fact that the range of duties in the United States described as free trade has usually been approximately 30 per cent. in the past?
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot go into that now.

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVES REGISTRATION ACT).
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the position as regards the Natives Registration Act in Southern Rhodesia; when it will come into force; and whether any modifications or alleviations of the restrictions will be made by administrative action?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The date on which the Act will come into operation, which was originally fixed for 1st January last, has been postponed until 1st June. I am informed that the postponement is due to certain difficulties in determining the boundaries of townships for the purposes of the Act. As regards the last part of the question, I feel sure that in so far as the Act provides for administrative action, it will be the desire of the Southern Rhodesia Government to administer it sympathetically.

    BECHUANALAND (RAILWAY AGREEMENT).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, under an agreement concluded last month, the claim of the Union Government of South Africa to purchase a section of the railway from Vryburg to Palapye, in Bechuanaland, is recognised; if this recognition was accorded in consideration of an undertaking not to press the claim for 33¾ years; whether, seeing that under section B of this railway agreement the consent of His Majesty's Government is essential, such consent has been given; and whether he is prepared to give an assurance that this agreement will in no way affect the full and free consideration of the political future of the Protectorate of Bechuanaland?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: An agreement of the nature referred to in the first two parts of the question was recently concluded between the Governments of the Union of South Africa and Southern
    166
    Rhodesia and the Mashonaland and Rhodesia Railway Companies. It was explained to the parties concerned that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom feel that as under the agreement the option to purchase the section of the line in question is not exercisable until a period of 331 years has expired, it would not be possible for them to bind themselves now to a definite course on the expiry of that period. His Majesty's Government in the Union have, however, been informed that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will gladly undertake to maintain contact with them on this question and will give careful consideration to such proposals as the Union Government may wish in due course to make. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

    IRISH DESTITUTE PERSONS.
    Sir William Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that destitute persons who have come from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, and are unable to obtain employment, are repatriated into Northern Ireland, whereas the much larger number of destitute persons who have come to Great Britain from the Irish Free State are not deported back to the Irish Free State, but remain a charge on British funds; and whether steps will be taken to prevent the continuance of this anomaly and to protect the British taxpayer from this burden, especially as reciprocal treatment for British unemployed citizens in the Irish Free State is not obtainable?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The position is that under existing legislation persons becoming destitute in any part of the United Kingdom may be returned to that part of the United Kingdom to which they properly belong, though they do not on that account cease to be chargeable to public funds in the United Kingdom. There is, however, no provision for deporting British subjects from the United Kingdom, from whatever Dominion they may come, and therefore it is impracticable under existing legislation to remove persons compulsorily to the Irish Free State. As regards the second part of the question, the possibility of making a reciprocal arrangement with the Irish Free State Government for the repatriation of

    167
    destitute persons has in previous years been under examination, but so far it has not been found possible to conclude any such arrangement. I am informed that it is not correct to suggest that in this matter there is discrimination in the Irish Free State against British unemployed citizens.
    Sir W. Davison: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the position of the Irish Free State is quite different from that of any other Dominion, and will the Government consider what steps are necessary to prevent this unfair differentiation between Northern and Southern Ireland which operates unfairly on the British taxpayer?
    Mr. MacDonald: The position of the Irish Free State is, of course, different from that of other Dominions in this matter on account of the geographical situation. On the other hand, a matter of principle is involved which is of interest to all the Dominions, and I can assure the hon. Member that I am watching the situation very carefully.
    Mr. Logan: Would it not be possible in putting this question for the hon. Member to specify the particular areas from which they come so that we could have definite information? In particular localities they have to be domiciled for 12 months before any relief can be given. Is it not the same in other parts of the country?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Would it not be possible to put an import duty on Southern Irish human beings as is placed on Southern Irish animals?
    Mr. MacDonald: That question had better be put on the Order Paper.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is possible to get a fairly reciprocal agreement with the Government of the Irish Free State?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    COASTAL TRADE.
    Mr. T. Johnstonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a Dutch vessel, the "Atlas," was loaded at Grangemouth on 11th February with a cargo of iron bars for
    168
    the Thames; whether there is any shortage of British coastwise shipping; whether profits made upon charters taken by foreign owners are subjected to Income Tax by the British Treasury; and whether it is intended to compel the ironmasters who receive advantages from a British tariff to give a preference to British-owned vessels in the British coastal trade?
    Mr. Runciman: I am aware that the "Atlas" loaded a cargo of steel bars at Grangemouth on 11th February for the Thames. I am advised that there is no general shortage of British coastwise shipping, but I am unable to say whether a suitable British ship was available at the time required to load this cargo. The third part of the question is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I understand that the profits arising from the business of shipping carried on in the United Kingdom by a foreign shipowner would be within the general charge of Income Tax. Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1923, authorises the conclusion of arrangements with foreign countries for the exemption of such profits on a reciprocal basis, and an arrangement of this character has been concluded with the Netherlands. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. Johnston: Arising out of that amazing answer, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give the House the name of the ironmaster who took this charter?
    Mr. Runciman: That is not the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Johnston: In view of the public interest which has been aroused by this matter will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give the name of the iron-master?
    Mr. Runciman: I cannot do so without notice.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether equal facilities are afforded to British shipping on the coasts of Europe, as were accorded to this Dutch craft on our coasts?
    Mr. Runciman: The hon. and gallant Member should put a question on that point on the Order Paper.

    BRITISH SHIPPING (ASSISTANCE) ACT, 1935.
    Sir Charles Barrieasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the results of the operation of Part II of the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935?
    Mr. Runciman: The result of Part II of the Act is that 50 vessels of approximately 186,000 tons gross have been or are being constructed. The total estimated cost of these vessels was £3,686,923, while the total amount advanced to the shipowners concerned was £3,548,124. Ninety-seven vessels of 386,000 tons gross, including 49 British vessels of 238,000 tons gross, have been or will be demolished.

    WAGES.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the practice in operation in fixing the wages of masters of foreign-going vessels; what standard is adopted in this matter by the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee in examining claims for subsidy; and if he is aware that on certain ships to which subsidy payments are made the wages are as low as £22 per month?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): Rates of pay for masters are fixed by private agreement between the owners and the master concerned. So far as I know, no standard rates of pay for masters have been agreed upon and the second part of the question therefore does not arise. With regard to the last part of the question, I have no information on the matter?
    Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Maritime Board the necessity of re-establishing the masters' panel?
    Dr. Burgin: That is another matter, but I will convey that suggestion to my suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

    BRITISH COLUMBIA (SECURITY FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT).
    Mr. Johnstonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will obtain and place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the British Columbia Security Act against financial fraud?
    Mr. Runciman: Copies of the Security Frauds Prevention Act of British
    170
    Columbia and of three amending Acts have been placed in the Library of this House.

    SHARE-PUSHING.
    Mr. Johnstonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the activities of a firm of share operators called F. Reid Price and Company, offering for sale shares where profits are unlimited; whether he is aware that on previous occasions this firm has failed to settle with customers and has pleaded the Gaming Act as a defence; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. Runciman: My attention has been drawn to the activities of the company referred to by the right hon. Member. The whole question as to the steps to be taken in respect of operations such as these is being considered by the Departmental Committee on Share-pushing which I appointed last December.
    Mr. Johnston: In this particular case, seeing that the Gaming Act has already been pleaded as a defence, can the right hon. Gentleman not get into touch with the Director of Public Prosecutions in this matter?
    Mr. Runciman: I would prefer that the matter should be dealt with by the committee in the first place, and if action were then considered necessary, I should be prepared to take it.

    INDUSTRIAL SURVEY.
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to relieving unemployment in the depressed areas, the Government will undertake, at an early date, an industrial survey for the purpose of ascertaining the employment capacity of existing industries and the possibilities of new industrial expansion and development?
    Mr. Runciman: Industrial surveys of the regions of heavy unemployment were made for the Board of Trade by the Universities in those regions in 1932 and have recently been, or are being, brought up to date.
    Mr. Day: Were any of the trade unions consulted when these inquiries were made?
    Mr. Runciman: I have no doubt that the Universities took advantage of every means they had for collecting the information.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade the total premiums paid to insurance companies in respect of workmen's compensation; the total amount paid to injured workpeople; and the total costs of administration and profits for each year from 1926 to 1936?
    Mr. Runciman: It will take some little time to extract the information desired by the hon. Member as far as it is available, and I will, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY (NORTHERN IRELAND).
    Sir Hugh O'Neillasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the possibility of raising units for the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): It is proposed to form a Territorial Army and Air Force Association for the County of Antrim and to entrust it with the responsibility for raising and administering certain units of Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers required for the manning of coast defences at Belfast, together with an auxiliary Air Force Squadron which will be formed by conversion of the Ulster Special Reserve Squadron. I am glad to announce that Viscount Massereene and Ferrard, Lord Lieutenant of the County, has consented to be president. I hope that the Association will be formed in the near future, and that recruiting for the units in question will start immediately.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Are any units to be raised in County Down?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ADDITIONAL INFANTRY BATTALIONS.
    Sir David Reidasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is able to make any statement regarding the raising of additional battalions of the Regular Army?
    Mr. Cooper: In 1922 it was reluctantly decided, as part of the post-war economy measures, to disband the 2nd Battalion The Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers and to amalgamate the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the Royal Irish Fusiliers (Princess Victoria's). I am glad to announce that the two additional infantry battalions whose formation has been approved will be raised by restoring both these historic regiments to their former two-battalion basis, and provision is being made accordingly in the Estimates for 1937.
    Sir R. Ross: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when considering the desirability of drafting any senior officers to these new battalions, that promotion in the one-battalion regiments has been abnormally slow?
    Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman state exactly what has been done about the formation of those four new battalions which was announced a year ago in the Army Estimates?
    Mr. Cooper: Steps have been taken to form these two. The question of forming the other two is still being considered.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: When shall we hear about the other two battalions?

    COURT-MARTIAL (MAJOR SANDFORD, R.E.).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allenasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether the commander-in-chief, India, when granting confirmation of the proceedings of the general court-martial, held at Quetta on 8th January, 1934, for the trial of Major Sandford, R.E., had before him the original record of the proceedings in the handwriting of the Judge Advocate of the court;
    (2) whether the proceedings of the general court-martial held at Quetta on the 8th January, 1934, for the trial of Major Sandford, R.E., which are presumably in the custody of the Judge Advocate-General, are the original record of the court in the handwriting of the Judge Advocate as taken down by him at the trial in accordance with Rule of Procedure No. 94?
    Mr. Cooper: The proceedings of the general court-martial referred to, which are now in the custody of the Judge

    173
    Advocate-General and were before the commander-in-chief in India at the time of confirmation by him, are, although typewritten and not in the handwriting of the Judge Advocate, the original proceedings of the trial within the meaning of the Army Act and Rules of Procedure, being properly signed by the Judge Advocate as responsible for their accuracy and duly authenticated by the signature of the President of the Court, in accordance with that Act and those Rules. Rule of Procedure 94 does not require that the original proceedings shall be in the handwriting of the Judge Advocate.
    Sir W. Allen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that the original proceedings at the court-martial were, in accordance with Rule 94, written in the handwriting of the Judge Advocate at the trial and were accepted there as the original proceedings; were these proceedings not re-copied in his own handwriting, and was not a third edition typed; and will the right hon. Gentleman say by what authority the president of the court-martial signed such a copy without initialling the alterations and without the assent of the accused according to Rule of Procedure No. 100?
    Mr. Cooper: I understand that the original copy was re-copied and then typed out for greater accuracy, and signed by the president of the court. I do not think that that is an unusual procedure.
    Sir W. Allen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that, according to the Rules of Procedure, the president must initial any alterations that there may be from the original? I beg to give notice that on the introduction of the Army Estimates I will call attention to the court-martial of Major Sandford, R.E., and move a Resolution.
    Mr. Speaker: This is not the time to give such notice.

    WAR DEPARTMENT LANDS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War the total area of land owned or held by the War Department in Great Britain for military purposes, in addition to the land hired during the training season?
    Mr. Cooper: The total area of land, including foreshore, owned or held under leases exceeding 21 years by the War
    174
    Department in Great Britain on 1st January, 1937, was 250,648 acres. I regret that information regarding leases under 21 years is not readily available and could only be obtained by a considerable expenditure of time and labour.
    Mr. Day: Could the Minister give the figures separately of land owned or held?
    Mr. Cooper: Not without notice.

    PALESTINE SERVICE (CLOTHING ALLOWANCE).
    Brigadier-General Spearsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that troops ordered to Palestine were charged with the cost of sun-helmets; whether any part of the sum so charged has since been refunded; and why any charge should be made?
    Mr. Cooper: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Kincardine and Western Division of Aberdeen and Kincardineshire (Sir M. Barclay-Harvey) on 10th November last.
    Brigadier-General Spears: Can any justification be advanced for making a charge to soldiers for equipment with which they must be provided when going on active service?
    Mr. Cooper: I dealt with that point in a reply to a supplementary question on the occasion referred to.
    Miss Ward: Am I to understand that unemployed men on the Army Reserve who were called up were also charged?
    Mr. Cooper: Those called up were all treated in the same way.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: It was stopped out of their pay, was it not? And they expect to get more men!

    THE CORONATION.
    Lieut.-Colonel Mooreasked the Lord President of the Council whether it is intended to locate the Coronation seats already reserved for the relatives and friends of Members of Parliament in the immediate vicinity of Westminster?
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): It is hoped to allocate two seats, on payment, to each Member of Parliament; these seats will be situated in New Palace Yard.
    Captain Harold Balfour: If any hon. Member feels that it is not right that his relatives should be, to some extent, a charge on the taxpayer, will the Lord President arrange that he will receive the gift of the difference between the cost of the seat and the charge for the seat?
    Mr. MacDonald: Yes, if any hon. Member takes that view, and wishes to pay the full cost of the seat.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    INCOME TAX (ALLOWANCES).
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that unmarried women wage-earners with dependants receive no Income Tax allowance for a housekeeper, whereas a widower or widow has an allowance on £50 in respect of a housekeeper, and also receive no allowance for a female relative employed for the care of an infirm parent, the allowance only being given in respect of a female relative in charge of a brother or sister of the taxpayer; and, as in the first case the unmarried woman taxpayer is in the same position as a widow or widower and in the second case the unmarried woman taxpayer has more frequently to provide a relative for the care of an infirm parent than for a brother or sister, will he consider extending the appropriate allowances to the unmarried woman taxpayer?
    Mr. Chamberlain: I am afraid I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on 5th November last in reply to a similar question.

    DEFENCE SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can estimate what sums will be expended this financial year and in each of the three succeeding years on armaments and Defence which will not come within the Estimates for the three Services or other Defence Votes?
    Mr. Chamberlain: Provision for expenditure on Defence preparations is made in the current financial year under certain Votes other than Defence Votes; for example India Services Vote, Home Office Vote, Board of Trade Vote, etc. The provision proposed for such services in 1937–38 is included in the Estimates
    176
    which will shortly be laid before Parliament. I am not prepared at the present time to forecast the rate of expenditure in succeeding years.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figure for this year? I have asked him for the total figure which does not come within the orthodox Votes?
    Mr. Chamberlain: I said that it will be in the Estimates that will shortly be presented.
    Mr. Garro Jones: I am asking whether for the more convenient information of the House the right hon. Gentleman can assemble the figures and give us the total.

    ROAD TRANSPORT (TAXATION).
    Mr. Morganasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has consulted with representative industrial organisations as to the effect on overhead costs of the present heavy taxation of road transport; and, if not, whether he will arrange to do so at an early opportunity?
    Mr. Chamberlain: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him on 16th February by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade which, although it applied to a narrower form of inquiry, is equally applicable to that which my hon. Friend now suggests.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (AIR TRAVEL FACILITIES).
    Mr. Mabaneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give authority for Members of Parliament to obtain tickets for travel by air between London and their constituencies in exchange for Parliamentary travelling vouchers?
    Mr. Chamberlain: A scheme under which Members may travel to and from their constituencies by air, where suitable arrangements are available, was announced in the House on 15th July, 1935, and particulars were circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of that date. Special Warrants are issued for this purpose and are obtainable on application to the Fees Office.
    Mr. Mabane: Does this enable Members to travel by air without paying the excess cost over the railway fare?
    Mr. Chamberlain: My recollection is that they are asked to pay the difference between the railway fare and the air service fare.

    ARMAMENTS (PROFITS).
    Miss Cazaletasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to allay public uneasiness, he will consider issuing a White Paper stating the exact measures which the Government are taking to prevent excessive profits being made by contractors engaged in the Government's rearmament programme?
    Mr. Chamberlain: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the statement I made on this subject in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Defence Loans Bill on 25th February. I do not consider that the issue of a White Paper is called for at the present time.
    Sir Archibald Sinclair: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the statement to which he refers has not allayed public uneasiness, as this question by the hon. Member shows, and will he therefore consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member and publish a White Paper?
    Mr. Chamberlain: If the right hon. Gentleman can give me an assurance that the publication of a White Paper will allay what he describes as public uneasiness.
    Sir A. Sinclair: If the right hon. Gentleman would show me a draft of the White Paper I might be able to give him that assurance.
    Mr. T. Williams: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the reply of the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the excessive increase in the price of glycerine, and will he take any steps in that matter?
    Mr. Chamberlain: I understood my right hon. Friend to say that the rise in the price of glycerine had nothing whatever to do with the armament programme.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    STAFFS (LEAVE).
    Mr. Jaggerasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in determining the complements of Civil Service staffs, provision is made for the normal amount of leave, in accordance with a statement by the Industrial Court in paragraph no of award 1,418?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The Industrial Court in the paragraph of the award referred to said that
    "the Court are satisfied that the normal amount of leave must necessarily be provided for in determining the complement of staff in any Department, and that the staff as a whole may properly be asked to bear the burden of any extra work which they may be called upon to perform individually owing to the absence of their colleagues."
    In fixing staff complements due regard is paid to the considerations mentioned in this statement.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY.
    Mr. Duncanasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the regulations laying down the terms the Treasury is prepared to offer to employés of Government Departments who enlist in the Territorial Army have been issued; if so, what are they; and, if not, when they will be issued?
    Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I hope that the necessary instructions will be issued this week, and I will arrange for a copy of them to be sent to my hon. Friend.

    NATIONAL DEFENCE COMPANIES (UNIFORMS).
    Mr. Smedley Crookeasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the newly-formed volunteer force of fire-fighters against incendiary bombs are to be supplied with badges, he will reconsider his decision and have badges and uniform served out to members of the National Defence units, so that those ex-service men who are again offering their services may at least be put on an equal footing with those who now volunteer for the first time?
    Mr. Cooper: I fear that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument for the issue of uniform to members of the National Defence Companies. Badges have already been issued.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Pensions how many pensions were commuted in part in the last five years; and whether the outcome of such commutations is, on results, regarded as satisfactory and meriting extension?
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): The number of cases in which part of a disablement pension was commuted in the past five years was about 700. From the experience of my Department and the inquiries which have been made from time to time I am satisfied that it would be unwise in the interests of pensioners to relax the statutory regulations by which commutation is at present governed.
    Mr. Logan (for Mr. Kirby)asked the Minister of Pensions the number of men in receipt of service pensions who died during the year 1936; what number left widows; and how many such widows qualified for widows' pensions from his Department?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: I would refer to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke) on 25th February last of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    INDIA (AIR GLIDING).
    Mr. Turtonasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action he proposes to take in connection with the offer of the German Air Ministry to introduce gliding into India?
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Butler): I have no knowledge of such an offer.
    Mr. Turton: Will my hon. Friend communicate with India on this matter, and if a question is put down after the Easter Recess, will he be able to give me a reply then?
    Mr. Butler: I should prefer my hon. Friend to give me the information in his possession.

    INDUSTRIAL NURSING.
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any memorandum indicating the policy of the Council of the College of Nursing with regard to industrial nursing and to the care and health of the employés in factories; and whether, in that case, he will see what practical steps can be taken to give effect to its recommendations?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): Since the
    180
    question was put down I have, as no doubt have other hon. Members, received a copy of a memorandum on this subject from the College of Nursing, and it will receive my careful consideration. The policy of the College, of which I have been kept fully advised, is to provide special training for nurses employed in industrial undertakings or wishing to take up such employment. This policy has the full support of the Factory Department and both medical and other inspectors have given lectures to the nurses attending the courses.

    AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Home Secretary what is the rate of rise of pressure across the filter when arsenic smokes are present in the area in a concentration of 0.6 grammes per cubic metre and are breathed through a civilian respirator?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The concentration of arsenical gas mentioned in the question is extremely high and such as can only be produced in quite exceptional circumstances. It is considered that such concentrations are unlikely to be encountered by the general civilian population under ordinary practical conditions, and the question as to the behaviour of the civilian respirator under these hypothetical conditions has, therefore, no practical significance.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Home Secretary for what period of time the civilian respirator is calculated to give complete protection, respectively, when phosgene is present in the air in a concentration of 10 grammes per cubic metre, and when mustard gas vapour is being given from the ground when the atmospheric temperature is 15° C. and there is no wind?
    Mr. Lloyd: The concentration of phosgene mentioned in the question is extremely high. Such a concentration would be very difficult to maintain under ordinary practical conditions. It would, therefore, be misleading to give the period for which the civilian respirator affords protection against such concentrations. The Government are, however, satisfied that this respirator will afford protection against such concentrations as are likely to be encountered by the general civilian

    181
    population under normal conditions. The civilian respirator will protect the wearer for very long periods against mustard gas vapour under the conditions mentioned in the question.

    FISHING INDUSTRY (RESEARCH).
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that His Majesty's Ship "Challenger" was built for fishery research work but has been used for other purposes; and whether, having regard to the necessity for exploratory work on behalf of the fishing industry, he will concert measures with the President of the Board of Trade to meet that need?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member, but he does not consider that present circumstances warrant the withdrawal of His Majesty's Ship "Challenger" from the survey work on which she is at present engaged on behalf of the Admiralty.
    Mr. Garro Jones: May I have an answer to the last part of the question, which asks whether some measures can be taken to substitute another vessel for the "Challenger"?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: The "Challenger" was originally built for the survey of new fishing grounds. At the moment the fishing industry is not suffering from any shortage of supplies of fish, quite the contrary, and, therefore, my right hon. Friend does not think it advisable to incur the heavy expense of taking over the "Challenger."
    Mr. Garro Jones: Did the hon. Member get the information that the fishing industry is not suffering from a shortage of new fishing grounds?

    DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (MARRIAGE).
    Major Colfoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members of the diplomatic service are married to ladies who are not of British birth; and whether any rules exist or are contemplated which would necessitate the resignation of a British diplomat who marries a foreigner?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): Twenty-six members of the permanent establishment of the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service are married to ladies who were not British subjects at the time of their marriage. The answer to the second part of the question is No, Sir.
    Major Colfox: Is it not the case that the United States of America have put similar regulations into effect in their diplomatic service, and if they do it, why should not we?
    Viscount Cranborne: I believe it is a fact that the United States of America have done so, but I do not see that that is any reason why we should do it.
    Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Is it not all to the good that the relations between British diplomats and foreigners should be as intimate as possible?
    Mr. Thorne: Does not the Noble Lord think that a man has a right to choose his own wife?

    PASSPORTS (FEES).
    Mr. Mabaneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the total receipts for passport dues in the current financial year up to the present?
    Viscount Cranborne: The total amount received up to 25th February is £176,750.

    WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
    Mr. Bellenger (for Mr. C. Wilson)asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the consideration of the insurance of property against war risks on land?
    Dr. Burgin: I cannot add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 3rd February, but I can assure him that the Government are alive to the importance of the matter.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (PARAGUAY).
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reasons why the Government of Paraguay have decided to withdraw from the League of Nations?
    Viscount Cranborne: Paraguay's reasons for withdrawal were given in a telegram

    183
    to the Secretary-General of the League despatched in February, 1935; they arose out of dissatisfaction with the League's decisions in connection with the Chaco war. Particular objection was taken to the fact that the embargo on export of arms had been raised in respect of Bolivia but maintained in respect of Paraguay, and that the question of responsibility for the dispute had not been investigated as demanded by Paraguay.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: Can the Prime Minister make any statement with reference to the business for Wednesday and Thursday?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. In addition to the business that has been announced for consideration to-morrow, we hope to take the Second Reading of the Public Records (Scotland) [Lords] Bill. On Thursday, in the event of the Third Reading of the Defence Loans Bill being finished before Eleven o'Clock, we shall take the Second Reading of the Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners, Etc. (Tenure of Office) Bill and of the Statutory Salaries Bill.

ROAD TRAFFIC (LICENSING OF VEHICLES).
Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the granting of licences to use goods vehicles and public service vehicles on roads."
This is a moderate Bill, and I am confident that the Ministry will seize avidly upon it to remedy certain injustices. It relates to the road transport industry and deals with the procedure on application for certain classes of vehicles both for goods and public service passenger vehicles. It aims at providing a remedy for certain definite grievances which have arisen owing to that procedure, and as a result of the experience of the working of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. It is estimated that the number of goods vehicles on the roads of this country is about 460,000. The "A" licences for public carriers number about 100,000, the "B" licences for limited carriers 56,000, and "C" licences for private carriers 304,000.
184
The system for regulating the use of those vehicles on the road is by means of a licensing authority. This experiment was introduced in 1933 in the Road and Rail Traffic Act, and, as is always the case in new administrative experiments, certain unforeseen difficulties arose. The first Clause of the Bill will, I hope, deal with some of those difficulties. It deals with the question of notices of objection and requires that when notice of objection to a licence is presented, specific particulars should be given with that notice and not generalities, as at present happens. The applicant for a licence does not, as a rule, know upon what particular point objection is to be raised until the actual day when he is in front of the Traffic Commissioners. The onus of proof should be upon the objector. The present procedure is that the onus is upon the applicant to prove that the facilities do not exist. A negative is always very unsatisfactory to prove. It is not easy and it is generally most unconvincing. The Bill would require the applicant to prove that employment for his vehicles is waiting, and it would be up to any objector to prove that the application was redundant. That is a simplification of procedure making it easy for both sides.
The third point is that renewals of "A," "B" and "C" licences should be automatic unless it is proved that the applicant has so altered his carrying capacity that he has increased it, or that he has not been fully using the carrying capacity which he had, or that he has not been observing strictly the conditions of the licence that was granted to him. That is the whole of Clause 3. The system of licensing should not be used to force hauliers off the road. They are carrying out a most useful and necessary work for the community and for the trade of the country. I would draw attention to articles which appeared in the "Times" last week by Sir William Beveridge, rather underlining the necessity for road transport in the event of this country being involved in war. If we drive these vehicles off the road by any means we shall be making a great mistake. This provision as to automatic renewals should give some security of tenure to the holders of "A" and "B" licences.
Clause 4 is very vital and necessary. It says that there shall be no disclosure of the business of the applicant for the

185
licence by the Traffic Commissioners to a third party. There have been very bitter complaints that information which has been extracted from the road haulier has been used by competitors for canvassing his customers. I would like to read particulars of one case from a letter which I have received on this subject. It says:
"At the hearing of the renewal of our application for goods licences on Monday last, we had a lengthy discussion on the procedure of the court, and the question of railway opposition. The deputy licensing authority gave a ruling to the effect that he was entitled to instruct us to supply him with an analysis of our tonnage carried on various routes together with the tonnage for short distance haulage. We were applying for a renewal of our "A" licences when the railway company insisted on my defining what a trunk route was. I refused to do this, owing to the fact that I contended an "A" licence was granted and could be operated anywhere in the United Kingdom. After four or five hours of the cross-examination, the Commissioner adjourned the case so that we could bring forward some of our customers to prove the suitability of the service in comparison with the railway. We were also instructed to let the railway company have our figures in turnover, monthly tonnage, half yearly tonnage and yearly tonnage, and in addition to this he instructed us to prepare a three year analy.1s of the tonnage carried, with comparisons during each year showing the increase or decrease. During the hearing we discovered to our amazement that the railway company had taken a copy of the confidential document which was handed to them for inspection, namely, our turnover for the year and other important matters which we consider should never go outside the Commissioners' court."
The Clause with which I am dealing proposes to stop any disclosure from the Commissioners' Court to competitors of the business, and we consider that it is most important.
The remaining two Clauses deal with the passenger side of the business. The first of them says that representations should be considered into the position of coach and omnibus proprietors. The Traffic Commissioners have the power to impose upon coach and omnibus proprietors conditions as to routes, fares, and frequencies of service, but the Commissioners have no power whatever to regulate the conditions of the railway companies in these respects. This appears to be one-sided and to require a corrective, and the Clause lays down that only competitors on the road shall be entitled to lay objections to a licence of this kind.
186
The last Clause deals with the duration of the licence, and really does for the passenger side what the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) did for goods. Under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, passenger licences had to come up for renewal every 12 months. I do not know that that is in the direct public interest, and it is suggested that the period should be three years. The main point is that we want more security of tenure for road operators. The man who invests money in the business, who has to pay for one lorry £110 in tax plus 10 per cent., and then has to pay legal fees, which are in some cases very large, in order to get his renewal, together with other taxation, should know that at the end of 12 months he will be able to continue his licence. I trust that in this short time I have given to the House a sufficient explanation of the necessity for the Bill, and I now ask leave to introduce it.
Colonel Sir George Courthope: I desire to oppose the Motion which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. My reason for doing so is this: While it is very difficult from a verbal description, though my hon. and gallant Friend has been perfectly clear in what he has said, and I make no complaint about it, to gather exactly what the intention of this Bill may be, it is quite clear from my hon. and gallant Friend's remarks that he proposes to deprive the railway companies of some of the powers which they now have. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is the interpretation which I place upon his words. In these circumstances, I did not wish it to be felt that, if no voice was raised in opposition to this Motion, that was generally accepted by the railway companies among others. Quite evidently the railway companies cannot tell, till they see the Bill and have an opportunity of examining it, what the position is, but, although I do not propose to put the House to the trouble of a Division, I felt it necessary, as a railway director, to make it quite clear to the House that by keeping silent they were not necessarily assenting to the Bill which my hon. and gallant Friend has moved.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen, Captain

187
Strickland, Mr. Arthur Reed, Mr. H. G. Williams, Vice-Admiral Taylor, Sir Reginald Clarry, and Mr. Remer.

ROAD TRAFFIC (LICENSING OF VEHICLES).
  ROAD TRAFFIC (LICENSING OF VEHICLES) BILL,
  "to amend the law with respect to the granting of licences to use goods vehicles and Public Service vehicles on roads," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EARSDON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.
  First Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read;
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to synchronise the dates of purchase of the several portions of the electricity undertaking of the Isle of Thanet Electric Supply Company Limited; to make new provision with respect to the purchase of the whole of that undertaking; and for other purposes." [Margate Broadstairs and District Electricity Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make better provision with respect to the laying and maintenance of pipes for the supply of water within the limits of supply of the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Company and for purposes connected therewith." [Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Bill [Lords.]

  RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL [Lords],
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  AIR SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936).
  Estimate presented, of the further Sum required to be voted for Air Services for the year ending 31st March, 1937 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  1ST ALLOTTED DAY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1937 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £175,660,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance, and other Grants, and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, namely:

    CIVIL ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.

    £

    Foreign Office

    55,000

    CLASS I.

    House of Lords Offices

    25,000

    House of Commons

    110,000

    Expenses under the Representation of the People Acts

    50,000

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    130,000

    Privy Council Office

    4,500

    Privy Seal Office

    1,300

    Charity Commission

    13,200

    Civil Service Commission

    7,500

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    52,000

    Government Actuary

    11,000

    Government Chemist

    27,000

    Government Hospitality

    30,000

    Import Duties Advisory Committee

    20,100

    The Mint

    10

    National Debt Office

    500

    National Savings Committee

    36,000

    Public Record Office

    13,000

    Public Works Loan Commission

    10

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    28,000

    Royal Commissions, etc.

    12,500

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    20,000

    Secret Service

    175,000

    Coronation of His Majesty

    250,000

    Tithe Redemption Commission

    10

    Scotland:

    Scottish Office

    38,000

    CLASS II.

    Diplomatic and Consular Services

    650,000

    League of Nations

    70,000

    Dominions Office

    18,500

    Dominion Services

    200,000

    Irish Free State Services

    1,110,000

    Oversea Settlement

    12,500

    194

    £

    Colonial Office

    57,000

    Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

    327,000

    Colonial Development Fund

    150,000

    India and Burma Services

    412,000

    Imperial War Graves Commission

    70,000

    CLASS III.

    Home Office

    1,925,000

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    24,400

    Police, England and Wales

    6,145,000

    Prisons, England and Wales

    560,000

    Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales

    97,000

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

    10

    County Courts

    10

    Land Registry

    10

    Public Trustee

    10

    Law Charges

    40,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    34,000

    Scotland:

    Police

    250,000

    Prisons Department

    63,000

    Approved Schools, etc.

    22,700

    Scottish Land Court

    3,700

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    16,000

    Register House, Edinburgh

    10

    Ireland:

    Northern Ireland Services

    4,500

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

    17,600

    Irish Land Purchase Services

    1,190,000

    CLASS IV.

    Board of Education

    18,000,000

    British Museum

    88,000

    British Museum (Natural History)

    45,000

    Imperial War Museum

    4,000

    London Museum

    2,000

    National Gallery

    15,200

    National Maritime Museum

    3,000

    National Portrait Gallery

    3,000

    Wallace Collection

    3,800

    Scientific Investigation, etc.

    120,000

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

    900,000

    Broadcasting

    510,000

    Scotland:

    Public Education

    3,200,000

    National Galleries

    5,000

    National Library

    1,100

    CLASS V.

    Ministry of Health

    6,000,000

    Grants to Public Assistance Authorities, England and Wales

    180,000

    Board of Control

    62,000

    Registrar General's Office

    32,300

    National Insurance Audit Department

    55,000

    Friendly Societies Registry

    15,000

    Old Age Pensions

    16,600,000

    Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions

    6,000,000

    Ministry of Labour

    9,500,000

    Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

    1,150,000

    CLASS VII.

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    108,000

    Houses of Parliament Buildings

    43,000

    Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain

    130,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    54,000

    Osborne

    4,000

    Office of Works and Public Buildings

    155,000

    Public Buildings, Great Britain

    564,000

    Public Buildings, Overseas

    60,000

    Royal Palaces

    41,000

    Revenue Buildings

    580,000

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    75,000

    Rates on Government Property

    1,500,000

    Stationery and Printing

    850,000

    Peterhead Harbour

    11,000

    Works and Buildings in Ireland

    11,000

    CLASS VIII.

    £

    Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

    91,000

    Ministry of Pensions

    15,000,000

    Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

    610,ooo

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    845,000

    CLASS IX.

    Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

    18,500,000

    Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland

    2,300,000

    Total for Civil Estimates

    £144,960,000

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    Customs and Excise

    2,100,000

    Inland Revenue

    2,600,000

    Post Office

    26,000,000

    Total for Revenue Departments

    £30,700,000

    Total for Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments

    £175,660,000"

    3.55 p.m.
    Mr. David Grenfell: I beg to move, "That Item Class II, Vote 1 (Foreign Office), be reduced by £100."
    I move this reduction in order that we may get one more opportunity of discussing in this Chamber the policy of the Government in regard to the international situation and particular aspects of that situation. We have had Debates and discussions on many occasions with a view to eliciting the fullest information for the benefit of Members and of the people in the country in general, and questions have been put across the Floor of the House; but we find that the information supplied to us is very scant. Nothing has really been said, nothing more is known as the result of the Debates which have taken place in this Chamber time and again in recent months, and we are endeavouring again on this occasion to elicit from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the Government's policy is in regard to several of the outstanding features of the dangerous foreign situation that has been reached.
    Every Government in Europe is deeply involved in secret diplomacy, more secret and more profound than Europe has known for many years. We have lapsed right back to the old condition of international intercourse which was so strongly denounced and which was so largely held

    197
    responsible for the catastrophe which occurred in Europe in the period from 1914 to 1918. The situation is that, while we have relied for many years upon the League of Nations, while our people in this country, perhaps more than those of any European country, have been taught to rely upon a system of collective security guaranteed by the League of Nations itself, we now find, strangely, that in the House of Commons hardly a reference to it' comes from the Government side. It is true that we see occasional distant references to the problems of collective security and the guarantees of collective security, and to our own desire to maintain collective security, but there is no indication that any Member in any part of the House is convinced by these professions that collective security through the League is now attainable. Therefore, we ask the Government to tell us exactly where we stand with regard to collective security, with regard to our membership of the League, with regard to our adherence to the League and our confidence in the League.
    Europe is now being over-run by a system of Government propaganda unequalled in the history of the world. Never have Governments carried on such intense propaganda, such insidious propaganda, such bold and dangerous propaganda for the undermining, not only of existing political alliances and bonds, but for the undermining of the sovereign condition of various States themselves. Europe is overwhelmed with this kind of dangerous propaganda; intrigue and subterranean methods of all kinds are in daily use. I saw some time ago an estimate of the sum of money that is being spent on international propaganda at the present time. I do not think that anyone has any but the vaguest idea of the amount of money that is spent or of the number of persons involved in this very dangerous business of destroying international confidence and internal confidence State by State. I do not think that anyone in this country knows the extent of the propaganda that is being carried on here. I hope that the Government will have something to say in public on the matter, so that the world may hear our view in condemnation of this very dangerous and insidious method of attack.
    It is war by imputation, by internal corruption, which is taking place in
    198
    Europe to-day. It is the mining and counter-mining of confidence. Not only do we find plots being hatched and positions for destructive action being taken, but we witness occasionally the acts of the diplomatic dynamitards who wish to blow up these positions, disturbing the whole world with a shock from which it is very difficult indeed to recover. The great Powers which were the backbone of the League system, the great Powers which always have assumed a greater responsibility because of their greater political influence and their greater strength, are falling back; they are not now determined to collaborate; they are not professing joint obligations within the League. They are dividing, and I do not know how the line of demarcation in Europe is being drawn. It is quite clear that there is a line of division in Europe. The lesser Powers, merely satellites of the larger Powers, move within the orbits of the larger States, and their position therefore does not matter as much, but the position of Germany, of Russia, of France, of Italy and of Great Britain, in regard to the outstanding dangers which beset us, should be made clear.
    There are very dangerous centres in Europe. All the large nations are arming against some danger, though the danger is not specified. It is an amazing fact that in this year 1937 Europe will probably spend more than three times as much as was spent on armaments five or six years ago. Our own country is not exempt, for in the next five years we shall spend three times the amount of our normal expenditure on armaments, that is £300,000,000 a year instead of the aggregate of about £100,000,000 which was formerly deemed to be adequate for the purposes of our defence within the League system. Now that the League system is more or less discredited and we ourselves have almost discarded the League—I ask for an assurance to-day on that point—we are compelled to spend three times as much as we did when we trusted the League and believed that there was security within the League.
    No one knows the exact figure of armaments expenditure by Germany, but it is safe to say that out of the total of £2,200,000,000 or £2,500,000,000, which Europe is to spend in 1937 on armaments, Germany and Russia alone account for two-thirds of the whole. They are not spending these large amounts to face a

    199
    common danger. The expenditure is largely direct competition in armaments, in which these two nations lead. They lead in expenditure, in the number of men and of machines. It is a colossal aggregate expenditure. Men of the fighting forces are being numbered by millions, tanks and aeroplanes by tens of thousands. In this arms race we find ourselves involved, and not one word of guidance has been given by the Foreign Office as to the extent to which we are committed in the prosecution of this highly dangerous competition. A tremendous effort, almost the maximum effort is being put forward by almost every country in Europe, and some time or other there will certainly come a breaking point. In some countries the breaking point is very much closer than they imagine.
    This programme is not only an attempt to achieve individual strength or comparative strength. It is an ostentatious programme of rivalry. The intention of the Government, though that is not specifically stated, is in the next five years partly to impress our neighbours in Europe and partly to attract within our orbit other nations which see our greater strength and preparations for any conflict that may ensue. I am sure it is demoralising. If we are to complete in a display of strength for the purpose of winning hesitant or timorous friends, it will be a complete demoralisation of diplomacy in every way. We hear a good deal about gestures in this House. In recent times we have heard of gestures which have become notorious throughout the world—the coarse and brutal gestures of certain individuals in international discussions. These armaments are a kind of gesturing which is highly dangerous indeed, and highly provocative.
    We wish to know whether the Government are really compelled, in the interests of national safety, to spend this money, whether this large programme is absolutely necessary or whether it is part of a diplomatic manoeuvre that is being pursued. The expenditure alarms every thinking person in this House. There is no guarantee in it. This £1,500,000,000 is to be spent in the next five years, and no one can say that that is the last word. The expenditure may easily be double that amount before the five years are over. Once we are in the race our interests, our pride, our diplomatic
    200
    effectiveness are all involved. The piling up of armaments is quite useless for all purposes except the purposes of war itself. Thousands of tons of steel and munitions are being turned out every week now. They will perish in the rust and decay which must follow unless they are brought into the purpose of destruction.
    One is compelled to ponder over the spectacle of Europe proceeding along these lines. One is compelled to ask, in the terms of the Old Book, "What shall it be in the end thereof?" Where shall we stop this kind of madness? The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day said something which has been very much quoted in the country but not quoted correctly. His words were, "There is no justification for the fear of imminent war." I saw a newspaper placard the same evening, which gave the Chancellor's words as "No fear of war." I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that, but he did not say it. I would like him to state now what he meant by the use of the word "imminent" Who is in charge of the time-table? Who controls the time-table? Where is the authority for deciding how near war may be to us? I do not think it matters so much whether this war is to come next week or next year; the urgent thing is for this House to ask, Can we do something; what is the chance of the Government preventing war? That is the point; that is the thing that people want to know.
    When one views the preparations for war in Europe one is compelled to recognise that there are certain definite danger points. There is Spain, which has been referred to in Debate after Debate. We have all kinds of attempts made to evade the real issue, diplomatic attempts made in this House. I say that without meaning offence. I suppose that diplomacy is carried into this House, for some of the replies given to Members savour of a diplomatic character. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary has never admitted what is palpably clear to all, that what is taking place in Spain to-day is not a civil war. There is an international war in Spain. Spain has been invaded by three foreign Governments definitely, by the trained soldiers and the equipment of two very powerful Governments indeed. From the beginning German and Italian troops have taken

    201
    part in this battle against the Spanish Government. There can be no doubt at all about that. It is true that there are volunteers on the other side. I do not suppose it possible to stop volunteers going to the one side or the other, out of excess of religious zeal, misplaced zeal, under the impression that the Catholic faith was being attacked on the one side and defended on the other. I do not believe that that is true at all. Does anyone imagine that Herr Hitler would be sending his troops to Spain to defend the Catholic faith? All that is part of the pretence; it is part of the attempt to enlist the political and military interests of various countries.
    There is a struggle in Spain which can be understood only by taking a long retrospective view. The clash is there, but it has been produced and intensified and the weight of impact has been added to by the appearance of enormous numbers of German and Italian troops. I see that newspapers estimate the number of Germans and Italians at 90,000. I am assured by people who have fair ground for judgment that no fewer than 50,000 Italians and Germans are actually on the spot, trained men representing military units of Germany and Italy. There are a few volunteers helping from other countries. In this condition, with the troops of Germany and Italy there, can we pretend that this is not an international war? Is there any use in pretending that it is purely a civil war, whether certain individuals have joined in the fighting without authority on the one side or the other? We are not assured one bit by the latest declarations in regard to non-intervention. What is the use of pretending now that you have successful and efficient non-intervention, if there are 60,000 Germans and Italians fighting on one side against the Spanish Government? It is folly indeed and a great disservice to this House and to the cause of peace to allow this development to take place and to ignore the evidence which comes to us from Spain itself.
    But that is not the only danger spot. What about Soviet Russia? Some time ago there was a suggestion that the Germans, the Poles and Japan had a joint pact for an attack upon Russia, which was to take place without warning, in order to destroy her independence. That appears to have faded into the background, but the apprehension still remains
    202
    in Russia. They believe that Germany is preparing. It is not very easy for the Germans to assume that responsibility, for Russia has been compelled to build up an enormous system of defence which is, perhaps, as disturbing to the balance of Europe as is the great German preparation itself. Nothing is said about the danger of an outbreak of hostilities between those two countries. The House should note that Germans and Russians cannot come into conflict except after crossing the territories of neutral countries whose only interest it is to prevent an outbreak between Germany and Russia, and to see peace preserved on both sides of their frontiers. In that category we put Lithuania, Poland and Czechoslovakia, which is in daily apprehension of an attack from Germany. There is no suggestion that aggression can come upon Czechoslovakia from any other quarter than Germany. It is not enough for His Majesty's Government to report German statements of reassurance to Switzerland and Belgium, which do not reassure. But there is no such statement at all emanating from Germany in regard to Czechoslovakia. The Committee would be mistaking indications in Europe unless it had very close regard to the prospects of retaining unimpaired the sovereignty of that small nation of 15,000,000 people.
    I do not wish to appear here as a violent critic of Germany. I have expressed my views in the past regarding the situation of Germany following the collapse of 1918. But it is true to-day that all Germany's neighbours are apprehensive and nervous about her alone. There is no other element of danger. There is no one else causing anxiety or giving a hint of aggression. There is no fear of aggression in Middle Europe except from Germany with its 70,000,000 people, with its great tradition of knowledge and scientific power, with its wonderful capacity for organisation, a nation which has taken the wrong turning, we believe, and has assumed a kind of claim of national superiority which impinges upon the rights of everyone and causes great fear. Everyone of the neighbours of that country is nervous and apprehensive.
    I should like to ask whether the Foreign Minister has spoken as plainly to Germany as the circumstances warrant? Germany should be asked de-

    203
    finitely whether she wants peace. What kind of peace does she want? Does she stand for peace all round? Cannot we find out from Germany directly? [An HON. MEMBER: "We have missed the boat"] It is not yet too late, but it may be too late very shortly indeed. We must ask aloud, so that all Europe may hear, how, and upon what terms, peace can come to Europe. Will the Foreign Secretary to-day make a declaration which will be heard everywhere, which will give a sense of security and a new confidence to the whole of Middle Europe and to Western Europe, which is almost as apprehensive as the East itself? There is a new Europe. It is not the Europe even of five years ago. The situation has been deteriorating every day. After the Great War, when the Austro-Hungarian Government broke down as the result of the strain of the War itself, when Russia collapsed and Germany was defeated after fighting on her neighbours' territory East and West for four years, a great territorial redistribution had to take place.
    There are people who say that Germany was unjustly treated. I think Germany was stupidly treated in 1918, but when we remember that Germany had fought her battles on her neighbours' territory, and when we remember the feelings of all the people who stood in defence of their rights and of their homes, we can excuse a great many things. After all, what was intended to be done was partly to prevent Germany from being strong again to repeat the aggression. It may not have been the most wise feeling, but it was a very natural feeling due to the knowledge of inferiority possessed by a large number of Germany's neighbours. A large number of new States simply had to come into existence and, when we examine the situation and assume that Germany is intent upon expansion, we must try to put ourselves in the place, for example, of the Czechs. Are they to believe and to accept German superiority? Those smaller States will not tolerate an invasion of their countries if they can possibly help it. The Little Entente is, perhaps, the best example of a number of nations who have come together, not for aggressive but for defensive purposes, within the scope of the League itself.
    204
    We shall have to take Europe just as it is. It is very important that we should recognise the economic disabilities which beset every single country in Europe. The treaties were responsible for the great conomic disorganisation which has existed ever since, and from which there does not appear to be any escape. It would be a very bad thing if we shut our eyes entirely to this problem, in which Germany is involved as well as the rest of Europe. I should like to know what is the reply to Germany's demand for the return of her colonies. Before that question is answered, I should like to ask, Is that all that the Germans want? If a bargain were struck—I am not suggesting that there should be a bargain—and Germany were given any or all of her colonies, would she promise not to disturb her neighbours? Is there any further ambition? Is she content to arrive at peace exactly on the ground that she occupied in 1914? That is a question that should be put to her.
    If she wants to be given a superior position to that which she enjoyed in 1914, her complaint is not against the Treaty of Versailles and the other treaties. Her complaint is made in the demand for superior rights, because she believes in her superior virtue—the right to trespass over her neighbour's land. The world will not accept that too readily. Will Germany give guarantees? What are we prepared to do? After all, we cannot go forward with equanimity to this daily degradation of international relations. We cannot go forward to the risks which drive people down on the French frontier 200 feet below the surface, and which compel us to put a network 30,000 feet high to protect London—down and down like moles to seek cover, and up in the air to prevent an attack which may come upon us. That is not the way to security. I should like to know what the Government are prepared to offer. Are they prepared to take a bold initiative now? The initiative that I suggest they should take is to invite all the nations to join in a world peace convention at once before the war, which may come upon us like a thief in the night. We should work for a world economic settlement before the forces of destruction on land and sea and in the air begin their deadly work—before it is too late. The Government have a solemn

    205
    responsibility as well as influence in the councils of the Nations. We have a solemn responsibility towards our own people. We cannot wait complacently for that with the satisfaction provided in the Chancellor's hint that war may not come this year. Can we look forward with complacency to a war which may come next year? If it is still a year or two off, it still gives us time to provide the one alternative to war. That alternative is to strive to build up a world understanding which will enable all the nations to find satisfaction for their economic wants and for world co-operation in the development of raw materials and trade facilities for all the world on equal terms.
    4.29 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): We have just listened to a speech of characteristic sincerity and moderation on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition. I have no desire in what I say to attempt anything in the nature of partisan polemics. I appreciate the difficulty of the path that one has to tread on these occasions if one is not to be charged, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with enjoying party controversy; or if, on the other hand, I must avoid the charge of attempting what is known, I believe, as the "Baldwin confidence trick." There was one comment with which the hon. Gentleman opened which, I thought, was just a little surprising. He complained that in these days there was too much secret diplomacy. There may be some secret diplomacy, but I confess that from time to time in recent weeks I have had cause to wonder whether there was not too much open diplomacy.
    I would like to seek to give to the hon. Gentleman some information on the points which he raised, and let me take, first of all, the situation in Spain. The hon. Gentleman complained that we had diplomatically closed our eyes to realities in this dispute. I do not accept that charge. From the first we have supported, deliberately supported, the policy of non-intervention. We have taken initiative after initiative on its behalf. That policy admittedly has had a checkered career, but it has, I submit to the Committee, proved the right one. We have never wavered in our own allegiance to it and in attempts to make it operative. It is no exaggeration to say that, but for the patience and perseverance of Lord Ply-
    206
    mouth, who has shown notably the characteristics which foreigners like to associate with our race, we should never possibly have reached this agreement.
    It is all very well to complain, as hon. Members can do, that it has taken months to get this agreement and that meanwhile there has been much intervention. That is perfectly true, but the very existence of this non-intervention agreement and the work which has been done have reduced the international significance of this intervention and, therefore, the international danger arising from it. The Committee will recall that I reminded it once before that M. Blum told us that in his view Europe was on the brink of wan last August and that the Non-intervention Committee saved it. He would be a bold man who would contradict that judgment, for the French Prime Minister was in a good position to judge, but certainly, if that was the case last August, to-day that danger has been infinitely reduced. It has been our chief concern, as we thought it our chief duty, to seek to reduce the risks of the conflict spreading beyond Spain, and the agreement reached a few days ago should go far completely to remove that danger. To that extent it has contributed to the peace of Europe, and beside that achievement I submit to the Committee that minor matters of criticism, important though they may be, sink into comparative insignificance. Hon. Members may still be opposed to the policy of nonintervention—it is a perfectly possible attitude to take up—but those who take it up must produce an alternative, and they have never done so; and I think the reason why they have never done so is a very simple one. There is only one alternative to non-intervention, and that is intervention, and intervention by this country would obviously largely increase the dangers of a European conflagration.
    I want to deal with just one point in that connection. I have often heard it said that France, for instance, would have taken a much more active policy in respect of the Spanish dispute, had it not been for the fact that we, His Majesty's Government, were always pulling at their coat tails. There is not a word of truth in that. I have never had a single approach from the French

    207
    Government at any time during this dispute, either direct or indirect, except in support of the policy of non-intervention, and I think that deserves to be said in fairness to all concerned. Equally it would be foolish to belittle the work which has been done by this Non-intervention Committee. Organising a system of international control of this kind is no small work, and when one considers the partisan passions which have been aroused then I think we do owe a special debt of gratitude to those who have worked for it.
    I wish to say one word about the position of one particular country, Portugal. Those who know the recent history of Portugal will be aware of the very strong feeling which there is in that country against any form of international supervision. That feeling has nothing whatever to do with the present dispute, but dates back to certain events some 10 years ago, which had important repercussions on internal Portuguese politics. I need not go into that matter at the present time, but even making every allowance for that, it was clear that if this control scheme was to work at all, there must be some supervision of the Spanish-Portuguese frontier comparable with that which was being carried out on the Franco-Spanish frontier. In those conditions we have been active in an attempt to secure a solution of this problem, with the result that the Portuguese Government have now intimated that they agree to the appointment of British officers to supervise the Spanish-Portuguese frontier. They have explained that their consent is due to their long-standing friendship with this country and to their confidence in His Majesty's Government. I feel sure that the Committee will appreciate the attitude of the Portuguese Government and welcome the fact that a solution of this difficult problem has been found possible; and no less will the Committee appreciate the comments of the French Foreign Minister on this matter, in a speech which he made in the Senate last week, from which I should like to quote one or two sentences. M. Delbos said:
    "In order to meet Portuguese susceptibilities, His Majesty's Government, thereby making a new contribution to the cause of peace, proposed that British officers should be substituted for the officers of other countries in working a control system on the
    208
    frontiers of this country (Portugal). British loyalty (he continued) is, in our view, the best guarantee for the effective carrying out of this control. In drawing attention to these various achievements, important as well as opportune (he continued). I admit that they are belated, but what would have happened if we had lost our patience and our sang froid, if we had engaged in a policy of intervention? In acting as it has done, the Government, supported by Parliament, has well served the cause of France and of peace."
    I do not think the Committee as a whole will quarrel with a single one of those words.
    What next? As soon as this control scheme is in operation, which we trust it will be next week, then the next task that awaits us is what I believe is called, in the jargon which has sprung up around this matter, indirect intervention, the most important part of which is the question of securing the withdrawal of those nationals who are at present fighting in Spain. If that can be accomplished—and I understand that the Committee will start on that task very shortly—we shall have taken another step towards the final settlement of this civil strife in Spain. I maintain that the Government are justified in saying that their policy towards the Spanish conflict has proved the right policy and that after many anxious months it is beginning to bear fruit; and they intend to persist in it.
    Meanwhile, we have continued to do what we can in respect of humanitarian work. I do not suggest, of course, that anybody in this country thinks that we are doing that work for other than wholly humanitarian purposes. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that when this trouble is finally over, many people in Spain will feel perhaps a special gratitude towards the country which concentrated on this work. Our consular officers have continued their efforts to try to obtain facilities for the evacuation, from various ports, of Spanish refugees, and where these efforts have been successful transport has been afforded in His Majesty's ships. At the Foreign Office we have been in close touch with the various organisations in this country which have been trying to bring help to the Spanish population, and we have offered such advice and such assistance as we can. I give two examples. A cargo of provisions, provided by the General Relief Fund and other organisations, was recently transported from

    209
    Gibraltar to Malaga on one of His Majesty's ships, and a cargo of food was similarly transported from Alicante to Almeria, on the Government side, at the request of the Spanish Government.
    That, for the moment, is all that I wish to say on the Spanish situation, but I would like to endeavour to meet the hon. Member's request for more information upon the Government's policy as a whole, and more particularly in reference to the League. The hon. Gentleman was extremely gloomy about the future of the League, and though I am far from belittling the setback of the Abyssinian dispute, I think it is perhaps rather a pity that it is precisely those who care most for the League who seem to revel in being the most gloomy about it. Admittedly the League has been in difficulties, but it is very far from being entombed yet, and in that connection I should like to draw the Committee's attention to what was done at Geneva at the last meeting of the Council.
    Among the matters which we had before us at that time was a dispute, which threatened to have very grave consequences, between France and Turkey about Alexandretta. That dispute is just the kind of dispute which the Council can handle with success. There had been Long negotiations previous to the Council meeting, both through diplomatic channels and directly between the principals of the two countries, and they had failed to reach agreement. At Geneva, thanks in a very large measure to the services of an admirable rapporteur, the Foreign Secretary of Sweden, M. Sandler, whom we are happy that we shall have the opportunity of welcoming to this country very shortly on an official visit—thanks largely to his efforts, this question was resolved. It is particularly gratifying to His Majesty's Government that that dispute between two countries with whom we have very friendly relations should have been placed in a fair way to settlement. The British delegation was glad to be able to play some small part in this settlement, and I would like, if I might, to quote to the Committee the words which were used by the Turkish Prime Minister. Speaking in the Turkish Parliament after the agreement had been reached at Geneva, he said this:
    "From the beginning the attitude of His Majesty's Government was marked by a real anxiety to find a settlement capable of satisfying these two countries who were her friends."
    210
    He continued:
    "His Majesty's Government will be entitled, not only to feel satisfaction that their efforts to facilitate a Franco-Turkish settlement have succeeded, but also in seeing the confidence of the Turkish nation in British policy justified."
    I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that, from information which we have had, the local feeling at Alexandretta and in the Sanjak, which is itself most intimately concerned, is also very well satisfied with the settlement. From these events we can surely draw some encouragement for the League's work in the future. It is quite true that the solution of this dispute created very little stir in the world. It was almost unperceived, but such is, and must always be, the essence of any diplomatic success. When we succeed the world perhaps gives us half a smile of gratitude and passes on, because the moment the crisis is resolved, it ceases to have any news value at all. But if, on the other hand, we fail and that failure has important consequences, then, accumulatively, we hear more and more about it.
    An hon. Gentleman opposite a few days ago asked me a question about the number of disputes which had been settled by the League of Nations since 1931. I had no idea when this question arose. We found that there were ten, and on looking through that list several of them were definitely of major international importance—the Saar, for instance, and the trouble between Hungary and Yugoslavia after King Alexander was murdered, and a number of other disputes of considerable political significance. Of course, the two failures—they must be admitted as failures—Manchuria and Abyssinia, completely dominated in the public mind the success which we achieved in other spheres. That is inevitable. I am not complaining, but I say that that being the case, we can surely hope that we may yet be able to achieve some more results like the recent one between France and Turkey.
    I am sorry that I can give no similar happy account of the progress of our negotiations for a new Western agreement. Many matters, including, no doubt, the complications created by the Spanish civil conflict, have militated against our progress, and now that this conflict seems less likely to spread beyond the borders of Spain, we have to make another effort to make progress. I appre-

    211
    ciate that, even if we can do that, we shall have made only the first step towards a general settlement, which is our aim and our resolve. Yet a start must be made somewhere. While admitting the difficulties, we are not prepared to despair yet of the possibility of getting the nations concerned round the table on this issue and achieving some results. The hon. Gentleman put to me just now a very fair question on the subject of colonies. I had not intended to mention this subject, but since the question has been asked I think it is desirable that I should answer it, lest there should be any misunderstanding anywhere. A few days ago a question was put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) to this effect:
    "Whether, to dispel ill-founded German expectancy, he will state in unmistakable terms that His Majesty's Government cannot contemplate the cession to Nazi Germany of any territory whatsoever under British political control."
    My Noble Friend answered:
    "As has been previously stated, His Majesty's Government have not considered and are not considering such a transfer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1937; col. 817, Vol. 320.]
    That statement of my Noble Friend remains the policy of His Majesty's Government, and I have nothing whatever to add to that reply.
    May I be allowed to say a word or two on the subject of general foreign policy, as to which the hon. Gentleman also put to me some questions, and more particularly in respect of our own position and our own commitments? In the course of the Debate on rearmament, all of which I was not privileged to hear but all of which I have read since my return, many questions were asked about our commitments, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was good enough to read a passage from a speech which I had made in the country not very long ago; and in the last Debate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted that statement again and asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) whether he quarrelled with that statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked two questions—and I beg the Committee to believe that I am not raising this in order to score any kind of de-
    212
    bating point, because I want us to understand where the divergence is, if indeed there be divergence.
    My right hon. Friend asked two questions: Do the Opposition consider that our arms should not be used for any of the purposes I had described; or, do they consider that our arms should be used for any purposes in addition to those which I had described? The right hon. Gentleman answered that speech, and in answering it he made two observations, which, I confess, seemed to me in that context to be somewhat strange observations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley said:
    "I quite admit that vagueness has some advantage in foreign affairs, but I believe that they (the Government) will find that the dangers of vagueness and obscurity at this moment are greater than their advantages. A great many people would now say that if in 1914 it had been clearly understood, if we had not been vague and obscure, that if Germany attacked Belgium or France, we should come in, perhaps the risk might not have been taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1937; cols. 2227–38, Vol. 320.]
    That is the right hon. Gentleman's answer. I am not prepared to say, nor do I feel qualified to judge whether his comment on 1914 is justified or not; but it was precisely to meet that line of thought that I sought, in the speech at Leamington which my right hon. Friend quoted, to make our position clear. He said that our arms might, and if the occasion arose would be used in defence of France and Belgium against unprovoked aggression in accordance with our treaty obligations. Let me repeat that, if a new treaty could be negotiated, we should be ready and willing to extend a similar understanding towards Germany. The mutuality of the Locarno Treaty was always particularly welcome to the spirit of the people of this country.
    Miss Rathbone: What about Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to make my speech in my own way. I am dealing with the first of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley to show that the 1914 parallel really does not stand at all. It does not stand in the sense that we have not made our position clear. We have made it as clear as words can make it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to complain—this is, of

    213
    course, a different and also a most important point—that we were not so definite about our general Covenant obligations. It is quite true that, in the speech to which my right hon. Friend referred, I drew a distinction between our obligations towards France and Belgium, and, it may be, towards Germany, and our general Covenant obligations. If I did that, it was not because the Government were seeking to deny their general Covenant obligations, but because, so far as military action is concerned, the obligations of the Covenant are less far-reaching, less specific and less precise than were and are our obligations under Locarno. Let me put this point. If the Covenant obligation had been as precise as the obligations we undertook under Locarno, then, if that had been the case, there would have been no need for a Locarno Treaty at all once Germany became a Member of the League.
    It may be argued—a.nd now I come to the hon. Gentleman's point—that the Covernant obligations should be as precise in respect of military action as are those of the Locarno Treaty. It may be argued that all nations ought to undertake in advance to have recourse to military sanctions. That is arguable, but this is the point—that is not the present Covenant. Such a commitment would not only go beyond the Covenant, but it would go beyond the Geneva Protocol of 1924, and that at a time when the League is relatively in a weaker position. It may be that in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite a policy of universal military commitment, at any rate for Europe, is the policy which should be worked for. That may be their view, but I do not know; they have never told us. But to advocate that policy is to go beyond the Covenant—let us have no doubt about that—and to favour a course to which no Government should set its name, unless it is absolutely convinced that it can carry it through, and also that certainly cannot even be approached with our armaments at their present level and with the membership of the League what it is at the present time. Nothing—and I think that all Members in the House of Commons will agree with this—can be more illogical than to say that we wish this policy of universal military commitment worked for by the League to-day and not provide the necessary armaments. If we cannot endorse this
    214
    policy of universal military commitment—and we do not endorse it—we are, of course, bound by the Covenant and shall continue to base our foreign policy upon that instrument. In the circumstances, I submit that the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made is fully in accord with our obligations as they stand to-day and is fully in accord with national opinion in this country. In the light of what I have said, I would respectfully like to repeat the Chancellor of the Exchequer's two questions and to ask, do the Opposition consider that our arms should not be used for any of the purposes described in that quotation, or do they consider that our arms should be used for any purposes in addition to those which were there described?
    May I reply to one observation of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. From time to time they complain that we make speeches about the League of Nations but we do nothing to restore its authority. I do not accept that.
    Mr. A. Bevan: That is nothing.
    Mr. Eden: I said that I stand by the Covenant, and the description which I have given is one with which no one who knows the Covenant will quarrel. The hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have said that we would take no action. I do not believe that the League will be served—and I do not suppose that they advocate it—by the sudden taking of some heroic pose at Geneva, but by seeking to aid it, as we did in the Franco-Turkish dispute, to solve disputes by peaceful means. When I hear that criticism I sometimes wonder whether what is in the minds of hon. Members is, that we are not pressing forward with the reform of the League. Let us be perfectly frank about that. There are at present among the members of the League extremely widely divergent views on the subject of reform, and there are widely divergent views also within the members of the British Commonwealth. We have at one end of the scale those who would not be sorry to see all sanctions taken out of the Covenant altogether, and we have at the other end of the scale those who would like to make military sanctions automatic. These schools of thought are represented and there are shades in between like those who say that sanctions should always be worked out in each case, before deciding

    215
    what should be done, and each case judged on its merits. I submit that if we were to attempt, at this moment, whatever our individual views, to force an individual view through, we should run the gravest risk of smashing the League to bits.
    Mr. Gallacher: What is your view?
    Mr. Eden: I have said already what my view is. The League is at present in a state of convalescence and when a person is in a state of convalescence that is not the moment to offer the patient a choice between two dangerous operations. It is surely wiser to give him time to regain his strength. Before I conclude, I wish to make one observation in connection with the speech made a few days ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George). Perhaps without offence and without wishing to cause rivalry within the family leadership, I may be allowed to say that many of us would like to hear the hon. and gallant Member more often. In that speech he spoke as one who had been through the last War, and who was horrified and amazed to find us using the language and working upon the objectives, which those of us who were in the last War thought had gone for all time, and to rid the world of which we thought we were serving. In that respect I am in absolute agreement with the hon. and gallant Member, but yet if hon. Members of this Committee study the reactions abroad of our own rearmament programme, they will find that that programme has been almost universally welcomed. Countries with as widely divergent political views and systems as France and Hungary we find using very much the same language, and the Radical party in France, if I may say so, are taking a very different view from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends below the Gangway.
    Sir Archibald Sinclair: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we supported all the rearmament Estimates?
    Mr. Eden: I was not here, but I was under the impression from the speeches which I read that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends took a different view.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I said that rearmament was an inescapable necessity.
    Mr. Eden: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman but I was under the impression that he had voted against it.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Not against the Estimates, I did not vote against rearmament, but against the policy of raising the money by loan.
    Mr. Eden: The point which I wished to make was that almost throughout the world this rearmament has been welcomed. The reason is simple. It is because there is nobody abroad who does not realise that this country is not going to engage in a war contrary to our own undertakings under the Covenant. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) said the other day that he would not vote for armaments for what he called a national capitalist policy. I am not sure that I understand what that means. A national policy could be quite a good policy, if it is a policy of peace, and a capitalist policy could be a good one, provided, no doubt, that all the capitalists were cooperators. But if by that statement the right hon. Gentleman meant, as I think he did, that he was not prepared to vote for arms to allow this nation to indulge in a war of Imperial aggrandisement for selfish ends, we absolutely agree with it. Nobody has ever asked for arms for that purpose, and nobody in Europe or in the world imagines that this country would employ her arms in that way.
    I conclude by saying that we must all regret the necessity for this arms programme, but it is our conviction, and I believe in their hearts the conviction of nearly every Member of the House, that with Europe and the world as they are to-day, for this country to have greater power will aid the forces of peace—on this condition, that we never forget that this rearmament is a means to an end and not an end in itself. There may be fresh opportunities to reach agreement on limitation under our programme and I agree that those opportunities must not be missed. It is even possible that by this route, which none of us wish to take, we shall reach the goal which we all desire to attain, and this at least I claim, that His Majesty's Government in the policy which they are now pursuing, in their statement of their commitments and in their rearmament, are making the best contribution in their power to the preservation of world peace.
    5.7 P.m.
    Mr. Mender: The right hon. Gentleman in the happier and sunnier position which he has been occupying during the last few weeks, has naturally not been closely in touch with the Debates in the House of Commons, and I think he unintentionally did those of us who sit on these benches some injustice. We have voted throughout for the whole of the Government's rearmament programme. We opposed the Loans Measure the other day because we are opposed to the method by which the Government propose to raise the money. It was for that reason and for that reason only that we voted against it, but the Government will find that we shall again support them when the Estimates come forward, if those Estimates are suitable for the purpose.
    Before passing to the wider questions dealt with by the Foreign Secretary, I would like to refer to the position in Danzig, about which I hope the Noble Lord, the Under-Secretary, will tell us something when he replies. I am sure nothing will help the unfortunate 400,000 people who live in that great city more than the knowledge that Members of this House are keenly interested in all that is going on there. There is a lamentable situation in Danzig. It represents, I fear, a League failure of the first order, and the responsibility is with the League. I have had the privilege of visiting Danzig on various occasions, the last being in October, 1936, and the deterioration in the situation then was striking. I am afraid there is no doubt about the fact that Germans living there, who are in opposition to the Nazi Government, are being treated in exactly the same way as Germans in the Reich in similar circumstances. They are in concentration camps; they have been tortured in many cases, and I am informed, on reliable authority, that large numbers of the inhabitants of Danzig are in danger of being put to death as a result of the unchecked terrorism which is being exercised there, owing to the failure of League authority. I agree that it is a very difficult situation and it is hard to know how we are to help, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary desires to do all he can. The one sure remedy, of course, would be to make the whole League system function. Short of that, the best thing is for the Foreign Secretary to watch the situation, and to
    218
    exercise privately what pressure he can through the League Council, through the Polish representatives and others, and for Members of this House to show themselves keenly interested in the fate of those for whom they have, to some extent, a trusteeship.
    During part of his speech the Foreign Secretary kept repeating dramatically the words "We stand by the Covenant." I do not wish to go into past controversies, but I must be permitted to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he thinks that that remark would sound very impressive to an Abyssinian. That alone shows the weakness of such a statement. After that episode I am afraid the assurance that we stand by the Covenant is not very helpful to countries threatened by aggressive neighbours. The Foreign Secretary did his best to bring out various League successes in recent years, and made a reference to the settlement of the Alexandretta question in which he naturally did himself less than justice. I propose to try to remedy that omission. While the Foreign Secretary of Sweden rendered useful service in that matter, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself by his skill, so often shown, as a negotiator, played a very big part in bringing about a solution of the troubles between the two countries concerned. The Foreign Secretary asked whether we were worried by the fact that no progress had been made in the reform of the League. I do not think we are, because the League in its present form, to my mind, if you have the will to make it work, is capable of functioning and dealing with most of the situations which arise. Amendments require to be carried out in Article 11 and in various other respects. But it is not the League itself which requires reform; it is the representatives of the different States who require reform, and I am inclined to think that those remarks are not wholly inapplicable to the representatives of this country. A little more vigour and determination, more evidence to the world that these great armaments are going to be used for League purposes, would be far more effective than any mechanical change in the constitution of the League.
    The right hon. Gentleman took again the two very relevant and valuable questions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer posed in the Debate of last

    219
    Thursday, and I shall endeavour to the best of my ability to give specific answers to those questions. The first was "Do the Opposition consider that our arms should not be used for any of the purposes described by the right hon. Gentleman?" The answer is: "No." We think they would be properly used for those purposes. The second question was "Do the Opposition consider that our arms should be used for any purposes in addition to those described by the right hon. Gentleman?" The answer to that again is "No." But that is not the whole answer. The whole point is that the arms are available to be used for those purposes, and are to be used for no others, but will they be used for those purposes? That is where the difference between us lies. There is a lack of certainty in various parts of Europe as to whether we are going to use our arms for those purposes, and I hope to go into that question a little further. If the Foreign Secretary's speech were before us in the form of a Bill, I should like to move certain Amendments to it, to the effect that the word "may" should be omitted, and the word "will" inserted in its place. There is one passage to which I would refer and that is where he said, speaking of our arms:
    "They may, and if the occasion arose they would, be used in the defence of France and Belgium against unprovoked aggression in accordance with our existing obligations."
    I should like to amend that sentence, leaving it unchanged down to the word "Belgium," and then substituting the words:
    "and any victim of unprovoked aggression in accordance with our existing obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations and our Treaties."
    Why not include them all in one round phrase like that? There is another sentence to which I should like specifically to refer. He said:
    "In addition, our armaments may be used in bringing help to the victim of aggression in any case where, in our judgment, it would be proper under the provisions of the Covenant to do so."
    I suggest that the word "may" should he deleted and the word "will" be inserted. What objection could there be to that? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be improper to say—
    "In addition, our armaments will be used in bringing help to the victim of aggression
    220
    in any case where, in our judgment, it would be proper under the provisions of the Covenant to do so."
    What are our obligations under the Covenant? The right hon. Gentleman suggested that they are vague. They are not as definite as our obligations under Locarno, but they have been interpreted, as he well knows, in the famous Annex F. of the Treaty of Locarno. That explains the way in which in our opinion and that of the signatories of the Treaty, Article 16 of the Covenant, the Military Sanctions Clause, should be carried out. This is what it says:
    "In accordance with the interpretation of the obligations resulting from the said Article on the members of the League, it must be understood to mean that each such member of the League is bound to co-operate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant and in resistance to any act of aggression to an extent which is compatible with its military circumstances and which takes its geographical circumstances into account.'
    I take it that that represents the policy of the British Government at the present time, that they are prepared to stand by that interpretation, that in considering whether we should go to the help of any particular country under the Covenant we should have regard to our geographical position and our military circumstances, and that we should feel bound to co-operate loyally and effectively in resistance to any act of aggression. It is perfectly obvious that that is the policy of the British Government and must be its policy until it has been repudiated.
    How would that work out in practice? Let me take two cases. Would that mean that in the event of some dispute in South America we should be obliged to take military action there? I am only giving my own interpretation of what it means, and I should say "Certainly not." South America is a very long way off. We might be asked loyally to co-operate in carrying out any economic sanctions that might be agreed upon to be applied to certain countries, but if you are going to put on any economic sanctions you must be prepared, as the Abyssinian crisis showed, in the long run to hit back if you are hit. To that extent we might be involved from the military point of view. It is no good pretending that you can have economic sanctions without the possibility of having to use military sanctions to defend yourself if the aggressor objects to what you are doing.

    221
    Let me come to another very relevant case, the case which I was going to say is in the minds of all the statesmen of Europe at the present time. What about Czechoslovakia? Under the present interpretation of the Government's policy nobody quite knows in Europe what would happen if Germany or any other State—obviously it would be Germany, if anybody—made an aggressive attack on Czechoslovakia. Should we be there under the Covenant, or not? On the answer to that question depends whether that attack will ever be made. If it is believed that we should not be there the attack will be made, but if it is known for certain that we shall be there the attack will not be made. I should have thought that if in accordance with some closely integrated and co-ordinated scheme it were known that we were prepared to co-operate—let us be plain about it—with our Air Force and our Navy, we should arrive at a situation in which peace would be absolutely secure. I do not think it is any good attempting to deal with the specific questions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put without facing right up to them in detail and saying whether we are prepared to stand up to this aggression or not. If there is one country which we ought to support in the interests of world peace it is one of the few remaining democratic States which exist in Europe, Czechoslovakia. It is very interesting to note that even in the last few days they have made wise and generous concessions to their German minorities, which show that as far as they can they are willing to play the game and to conciliate any reasonable criticism that may come from within their own borders.
    What is the result of the present uncertainty? I hoped that the Foreign Secretary could have been more definite. The present uncertainty is that nobody knows what we are to do in the East of Europe. The German menace is developing from day to day. No one knows where they may go next. We know that there is a long list of possible countries that may come under the lash. We know that the British colonies are on the list, and it is very interesting to read in the Press to-day a statement made by the German Ambassador, who is making one of his frequent journeys to his own country and is carrying on political work there of a very valuable nature, I have
    222
    no doubt. As far as I understand his remarks, he says that there are only two alternatives in regard to the German colonies or some of them, and that is that they must be returned voluntarily or else they will be taken by force. There can be no other meaning of the words which he spoke at Leipzig yesterday, and I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has been equally plain in what he said, to the extent, at any rate, that the question had not been considered and was not under consideration at all.
    The one test we have to apply to any country that says it is in favour of peace is this: "If there is a dispute between your country and another, are you prepared to submit it to a third party's judgment, and to abide by the result?" If they are not prepared to do that, they are not in favour of peace. If they are not prepared to do that, they are in favour of war. It is no use asking the German Chancellor to give assurances that he will be satisfied with this, that or the other thing, because we have learned from experience that his assurances are not worth the paper they are written on. I hope there will be no more waiting for the Saturday orations, no more waiting to hear the wonderful new peace declarations of Herr Hitler. It is always the same. It is perfectly useless. There is only one language which is understood by Germany at the present time, and until that language is used and made clear with the utmost firmness on behalf of the world, or the greater part of the world, we shall make no progress in the hopes and aspirations for peaceful development which I know the right hon. Gentleman has as much at heart as anybody else.
    The reply may be made to me: "Do you want to fight for Austria, for Czechoslovakia, for Memel, or for all these different places?" If the question is to be put in that way, the answer is: "Of course, not"; but if it were put in this way: "Are the people of this country prepared to apply themselves to the only known and effective action which can in the long run keep their country out of war and themselves from being killed?" which I maintain is the situation to-day, then, surely, the only answer can be "Yes." If it were known that we were going to act on these lines it would be quite unnecessary for any action to be taken. It is no good unless you have

    223
    concerted action. There may be difficulties in negotiation with different countries who may act alternatively against each other, and it might well be that the most effective method would be to set up some form of commission under the League of Nations which would have as its permanent full-time task the collecting of information and the studying of the possible action that might have to be taken from time to time in certain eventualities.
    It may be suggested that that is an armed alliance. There is no alternative to an armed alliance with the world as it is at the present time. The League of Nations itself is an armed alliance against an aggressor, whoever he may be, and if any particular country by its policy, Germany for example, deliberately decides to stay out of the collective system of security, whether it be the Franco-Soviet Pact or any system that might be built up on the same lines, I should like to say that they will be encircled and rightly encircled. I want to see the aggressors encircled, whoever and wherever they may be. I am certain that until we have some certainty upon these lines any prospect of a general settlement is hopeless. Until we get order as a result of a general settlement there is no hope for peaceful change. As long as aggressive nations feel that there is a chance of getting what they want by force they are naturally not going to turn their attention to accepting something else which they can get as the result of peaceful, conciliatory action.
    Let me say a few words with regard to what the Foreign Secretary said concerning Spain. It may be that he is on the verge of a great success for his policy of non-intervention. I sincerely hope that it may be so, but I cannot help thinking that if a different policy had been shown during the last few months, we might have been much nearer to settlement than we are at the present time. If the same kind of firmness as was shown by France and by us in connection with the proposed German military occupation of Spanish Morocco had been shown on various other occasions, we should be very much nearer the end of the troubles than we are. Let us be quite frank about what happened in Spanish Morocco. I understand that German troops were going to land in Morocco and they were told that if they
    224
    did they would be turned out by force, and the whole thing came to an end. If a little more firmness in regard to the sending of troops to Spain, whether they be 60,000 or 90,000, had been used at an earlier stage, probably they never would have been sent. We do not know whether this agreement is going to work, but it may be that if it does work it will be because the Fascist States feel that they have now such immense superiority in trained men that they are bound to win.
    If that really is the position, surely my right hon. Friend would not claim it as a success for his policy. It would be a terrible failure for his policy. I hope he is going to succeed in persuading these people to go out. How he will do it I do not know. But what is going to be the position on the coasts which are being watched now by Germany and Italy? My information is that in certain recent incidents the German and Italian Fleets have co-operated in attacking the Spanish Government, as in the case of Malaga. Quis custodiet ipos custodes? Who is going to watch the watchers? That is a real point, and perhaps we can have some information upon it. Are there going to be British ships in Valencia and other ports? If so, it will be some assistance, but to leave the whole thing to these two fleets would be really asking for trouble.
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider, as I am sure he will, using the good offices of the League of Nations at any time that may seem appropriate. If, for example, it seems that the Spanish Government are willing to welcome a commission to make inquiries and give advice in a purely friendly way, or if they are willing to welcome a development of the present inspectorial system, something in the nature of an international force to maintain order during a plebiscite, I think we should be ready to offer it. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is watching the situation, and will act if he sees an opportunity, but, obviously, it cannot be done unless there is good will on the part of those we desire to help. I hope the Government will make it much clearer than they have up to the moment that they will, not may, use the whole of our resources in accordance with the Treaty of Locarno against any aggressor. Only in that way shall we get a situation when we shall not have to use these forces,

    225
    because no aggressor dog will ever dare to bark.
    5.33 P.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: May I crave your indulgence, Captain Bourne, and that of hon. Members, on rising to address the House for the first time? In the first place, I should like to congratulate the Government on the arrangements, already so far advanced, to prevent the further dispatch of volunteers and munitions to Spain, and though other nations are entitled to their share of the credit I think it is satisfactory to know that in no small measure this has been due to the tact and tenacity of the Foreign Secretary and to the monumental patience of the Noble Lord who sits in another place. Time and again I have heard the Non-Intervention Committee over which Lord Plymouth presides referred to in contemptuous terms and described as a farce. I have defended it, not on the ground that it has succeeded in preventing intervention, but rather on the ground that it has afforded a very useful safety-valve, and has helped materially to prevent the spread of the Spanish conflagration. I confess that I little expected, after months of sterile discussion, that they would suddenly produce so comprehensive a scheme, which appears to have a large measure of support behind it.
    I think the question which many hon. Members must be asking themselves is, will this system be reasonably effective, does a common determination to make it effective exist, or is it just another paper scheme, another pretty picture? We shall not readily forget another picture which greatly disappointed us, the picture of 52 nations banded together in defence of the freedom and independence of a fellow member of the League. That picture proved an illusion, a mere mirage, which floated rapidly away, disclosing a drab prospect of disillusionment. I do not wish to make any controversial statements on this occasion, but I should like to say that that unhappy result was in no way due to any act or omission on the part of His Majesty's Government. This plan to isolate the Spanish conflict is conceived on an infinitely smaller scale, but if the will to make it effective is there, I suggest that it is one of the most hopeful signs we have seen for
    226
    many a long day. This scheme which could only be arrived at by international agreement has involved considerable sacrifices on the part of the nations who are parties to it. We know that the Soviet Government exercises a very firm control over its citizens. When we hear of mass meetings all over Russia, calling for volunteers, demanding active intervention in Spain, when we read of voluntary subscriptions which have been contributed by the Russian workers from their hard earnings and, no doubt, extremely exiguous pay, we know perfectly well that these demonstrations and demands have not only been actually encouraged, but indeed, initiated and inspired by the Russian Government. Now that Government has seen its way to take up a new attitude, to issue fresh directions, to execute what amounts to a political volte face, in order to combine with other nations, with Germany and with Italy, in concerting measures to reduce this Spanish quarrel to what it ought to be, an affair of Spain alone.
    Surely that is no small thing. I do not suppose for a moment that in Russia abrupt changes of direction in policy are fraught with the difficulties and embarrassments which are sometimes experienced here. Doubtless in Russia things are not the same, but, at the same time, it must be admitted that the Russian contribution to this scheme has involved definite concessions, and sacrifices in varying degrees have been likewise demanded from Germany and Italy. In Germany the National Socialist Government have destroyed the kind of Socialism which commends itself to hon. Members opposite. Herr Hitler has frequently proclaimed himself the implacable foe of Communism. The overwhelming majority of the Spanish Government supporters are the protagonists of either Communism or Socialism. In these circumstances it is no easy matter for Germany to withdraw the helping hand which she has been extending to General Franco. I trust that there is some significance in the fact that for the first time, as far as I am aware, since the advent of Herr Hitler to power Germany has entered into an agreement to which Russia is also a party. In the case of Italy, in addition to a hatred of Communism and Socialism, we have also the religious element. Although I must differ from the hon. Member for Gower (Mr.

    227
    D. Grenfell) I would say that they have a common bond of religion between themselves and the Spanish forces of the right, and I am one of those who believe that the religious bond is still very strong and that even in these modern times its strength can very easily be under-estimated. To-day we see these States, which frankly many of us regard as being in the ranks of the potential aggressors, coming together with us in order to isolate the Spanish conflict.
    I do not want to be too optimistic, or to get too far from realities, but surely it is definitely a move in the right direction. Now that we have roused ourselves from our lethargy, now that John Bull is doing his daily dozen, getting fit and strong, it is becoming increasingly apparent that our prestige is growing and that the nations in Europe are looking to us for a lead. Happily, although we may differ as to the avenues of approach, I believe that this House is almost in complete agreement as to what the ultimate objective of our foreign policy should be. Though Press reports from Rome may not be of a reassuring character, I have by no means abandoned hope that, as time goes on and as the intolerable pressure of competitive and unproductive expenditure on armaments makes itself felt, as the futility of it all begins to sink into the nations, they may in due course approach the matter on the right lines and combine with us in a wider sphere in establishing a permanent basis for peace. In conclusion, I thank you Captain Bourne, and hon. Members of this House for the patience and consideration shown to me.
    5.43 P.m.
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: May I be allowed on behalf of the House to express our congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member who has just addressed us. I am sure we all hope that it will not be very long before he addresses us again. The Foreign Secretary in his speech said that he wished to avoid party polemics, but I am afraid that he strayed from the straight and narrow path before he sat down. He reiterated the challenge that has been put from the Government Benches several times during recent Debates on Defence, and in particular he asked us to answer the two questions based on his Leamington speech ad-
    228
    dressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right hon. Gentleman for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). I have had some experience, not so much as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), in the practice of cross-examination, and I am wondering whether these two questions were not drafted by the Home Secretary. They appear to be perfectly innocuous on the face of them, but, like many other questions put in the law courts, they are questions which it is dangerous to answer by either "Yes" or "No." There are some questions, such as "What time is it?" that cannot be answered by "Yes" or "No," and the second question is one of that character. The first question is perfectly innocent:
    "Do the Opposition consider that our arms should not be used for any of the purposes described by my right hon. Friend?"
    I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by referring again to the Foreign Secretary's speech at Learnington, for it has been referred to many times and hon. Members will remember it. The right hon. Gentleman said that we are under a definite obligation to go to the assistance of France and Belgium, and, in the event of a Western Pact, Germany, should she be a victim of unprovoked aggression, and there was also a reference to Iraq and Egypt. Those are called our definite obligations. The Foreign Secretary then went on to say:
    "Our armaments may be used in bringing help to the victim of aggression in any case where, in our judgment, it would be proper under the provisions of the Covenant to do so. I use the word 'may' deliberately, since in such an instance there is no automatic obligation to take military action."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer then asked:
    "Do they consider that our arms should be used for any purposes in addition to those which have been described by my right hon. Friend?".—OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1937; col. 2227, Vol. 320.]
    At first glance it would appear that the obligations to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was referring were what he called our definite obligations, but at second glance the question also includes what I may call the discretionary obligations in regard to the larger area. If we were to answer that question by a simple "Yes," the Government would have a debating point, although there would be no basis of reality in that point, for I cannot conceive of any other case,

    229
    beyond the sets of circumstances to which the Foreign Secretary referred, where this country might be called upon to take military action. But I cannot give a plain and simple answer of "Yes" to that question because I do not accept the interpretation of the Foreign Secretary that in every case, except in the cases of France, Belgium, and Germany—in the event of a Western Pact—Iraq and Egypt, we have the right to-day merely to exercise our discretion as to whether we should take military action.
    May I remind hon. Members that our existing obligations were not undertaken by the Labour party? The Treaty of Versailles, which included the Covenant of the League of Nations, was the work of a Coalition Government composed of Liberals and Conservatives. Be that as it may, for good or for bad, we have existing obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the difference between the Government Benches and hon. Members on this side is as to what are our obligations under the Covenant. May I remind the Committee of the provisions of Article To of the Covenant? There is, first of all, an undertaking:
    "To respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League."
    Article 16 provides that:
    "It shall be the duty of the Council in such case"—
    that is to say, a case of aggression—
    "to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval or air force the members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League."
    I wonder what Czechoslovakia, and any other country not included in the short list, if I may so call it, of the Foreign Secretary, will say when they become the victim of unprovoked aggression, and the British Government say, "We will exercise our discretion as to whether or not we shall render them assistance." The famous 1921 Resolutions provided that
    "the fulfilment of their duties under Article 16 is required from members of the League by the express terms of the Covenant and they cannot neglect them without breach of their treaty obligations."
    I agree that under the 1921 Resolutions it was, and is, understood that first of all economic and financial sanctions shall be applied, and I agree with the Foreign Secretary that there is no provision in the
    230
    Covenant for automatic military sanctions immediately a country has been declared to be an aggressor, but I suggest that the effect of the Articles which I have read to the Committee must be that ultimately, if it becomes necessary to defend and protect the Covenants of the League and thereby to protect and defend the victim of aggression, military sanctions must be enforced. The responsibility is not placed upon each State member, for, as is stated in the Articles I have read, it is the duty of the Council; but provided the Council determines that in a given case military force must be used against a given aggressor country, we have no escape unless we are going to break our treaty obligations under the Covenant.
    Therefore, I cannot possibly agree with that part of the statement of the Foreign Secretary in which he said that outside certain countries—France, Belgium, Germany, Iraq and Egypt—we have a discretion in the matter. I agree with the appeal of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) when he asked the Foreign Secretary to make it plain where this country stands by substituting the word "shall" for the word "may" in the statement of policy to which I have been referring. Frankly, speaking for myself, I welcome the statement of the Foreign Secretary as far as it goes, but as far as I am concerned, it does not go far enough. I do not believe you can have a pick-and-choose collective system of security, accepting the obligations of the Covenant only when it suits your particular interests. Moreover, I believe it is contrary to the obligations which we have already incurred under the Covenant.
    At the same time, I fully realise the difficulty of undertaking specific obligations in all the four corners of the earth in present circumstances. It is idle to deny the fact that the League of Nations, has suffered a severe setback in recent years. At this juncture, it is not for me to apportion responsibility, but that is the present position, and consequently there may be something to be said for regional pacts; but I cannot conceive that a Western pact, restricting our obligations to France, Belgium and Germany will have any substantial effect in stabilising peace throughout Europe. I do not believe you will ever secure peace in Europe

    231
    based upon an effective system of collective security if our specific obligations are to be restricted to those three countries. I would like to know where the Government stand in this matter. In his speech in the House on 26th March, 1936, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
    "I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that you cannot divide peace in Europe. Under the League we are interested just as much in the preservation of peace in the East of Europe as we are in the West, and our obligations under the League will apply equally whether aggression takes place in the Eastern or Western parts of Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1936; col. 1541, Vol. 310.]
    Mr. Eden Mr. Eden indicated assent.
    Mr. Henderson: The Foreign Secretary agrees, but I should have thought that that statement of policy was a little inconsistent with his Leamington speech, for, in the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are obliged to play our part, under the Covenant of the League, in respect to Eastern Europe, and therefore there can be no question of discretion in going to the assistance of a country in the East of Europe in the event of unprovoked aggression. I hope the Foreign Secretary will reconsider his statement of policy and will go just a little further, and base that policy on the statement, as far as Europe is concerned, which I have just quoted, that peace is indivisible. May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether there has been any change of policy on the question of a pact for Europe? Some time ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether there had been any change of policy as far as an Eastern pact was concerned, and whether the Government still regarded an Eastern pact as a cardinal factor in a general European settlement. What is required to-day, however, is not an Eastern pact and a Western pact, but a European pact, including all the countries of Europe, and including Germany on a full basis of equality. But if Germany will not come into the European pact, let us get on without her. Why should Germany be allowed to impede the organisation of European peace and security?
    I do not believe there is any hon. Member who is not anxious to give Germany a square deal; but I must confess that when I read the speeches of German statesmen in regard to colonies and when
    232
    I then look at the terms of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, under which the old Germany was seeking to dismember Russia, by taking away Lithuania, Poland, the Ukraine and the Caucasus—and was seeking, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), to acquire a complete economic and political domination of Greater Russia—I feel that we are entitled to be somewhat suspicious of German intentions. Speaking for myself, provided that Germany were to come within the comity of nations, were to play her part in establishing an effective system of collective security in Europe and throughout the world and were prepared to accept all the obligations that membership of the League of Nations involves, then, and not before then, would be the time to discuss with Germany her grievances in regard to the necessity for her commercial and political expansion.
    The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked what he called two honest-to-God questions. I would like to ask the Government an ordinary simple question, and perhaps they will give me an honest-to-God answer. Where do the Government really stand to-day on the question of collective security? We have had speeches from the Foreign Secretary breathing the spirit of international idealism. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, as far as I am concerned, there is very little in a good many of his speeches with which I would disagree. But other Members of the Government speak in an entirely different key. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, speaking in Glasgow on 6th January, 1937, interpreted the obligation of this country under a collective system in this way:
    "We are not to be caught in any net of European intrigue. We will fight, if the necessity comes upon us, to defend our vital interests, and only our vital interests. It is our vital interests that have led us to make certain engagements in Western Europe on which our Foreign Secretary has spoken on more than one occasion."
    Last week-end he spoke of the obligations to France, Belgium and Germany. How are we to have a system of collective security that is worth the paper on which it is written if each member of that system is to decide for itself what are its own vital interests, and only if they can do that are they prepared to accept their obligations? I hope that the Foreign

    233
    Secretary will agree with me when I say that the most vital interest of this country is the preservation of world peace. Then the Secretary of State for War spoke on 18th October last in London, and said:
    "Every man who joins the Army to-day is contributing his mite towards bringing the fact into the minds of those who might be preparing for war that Britain is strong, that her will must prevail, and that disturbers of the peace must be punished."
    Was there ever a better example of prewar mentality and of the spirit of rank nationalism? Why should the will of this country prevail rather than the will of any other nation? The only will that is going to maintain peace is the will of all those nations represented in the collective system. What is the reaction of a German or a Frenchman or American to such words? Hon. Members have travelled as much as I have, and they must have come across a good many foreigners who do not take the same view of us as we take of ourselves, and when a responsible Cabinet Minister talks about enforcing the British will on other countries there immediately comes a reaction against that point of view. That sort of speech is inconsistent with a system based upon international co-operation; it is consistent with the domination of one particular nation like our own, however peacefully inclined we may be.
    Then I come to the Home Secretary. I am sorry that he is not in his place to-night; he was very anxious to find out whether I was in my place the other night when he spoke. What did he say? After 19 years he discovers that the League is not universal. He also discovers that some of the constituent States in the League are not to be depended upon. May I ask for another honest-to-God answer to this question? The Home Secretary expressed his view the other night in a very clever critical speech which I was very sorry to hear from a Member of the British Government. There may be imperfections in the League of Nations, but I was sorry that he should have made this statement, especially in a Defence Debate when the Government were seeking to justify their huge armaments expenditure as being for the purpose of carrying out their obligations under the collective system. This is the question I would ask. Do the criticisms made by the Home Secretary mean that the Government take the view to-day
    234
    that the collective system is not in present circumstances to be depended upon as a practical system? If the Government take that view will they say so, so as to let the country and the world know where they stand on this all important question; or are we still to take the view that the Government accept the view of the Prime Minister when he said in November, 1934, at Glasgow, that
    "the collective peace system is, in my view, perfectly impracticable in view of the facts to-day. It is hardly worth considering when these be the facts whether a collective peace system should be undertaken."
    Is that the view of the Government? Was that their view 18 months ago when Italy invaded Abyssinia? I hope the Government will be frank with the House and the country.
    The Home Secretary in the same speech accused the Opposition of being prepared to arm for collective security but not for national Defence. There is not a word of truth in that statement. Those who understand the collective system know perfectly well that in supplying arms for the purpose of carrying out our obligations under the collective system we are at the same time providing for our own national Defence. What some of us remember is that in the years that preceded the outbreak of the Great War there was no collective system and that there was only a system of national Defence with or without alliances. Those who read the Debates of pre-war days will be able to recall the stress that was laid in those days on the necessity for providing this country with adequate Defence forces. We had in 1914 the most powerful naval armada the world has ever known. The same thing was going on in America, France, Germany, Russia, Japan and Italy; all these countries were arming to the teeth and not one of them would have admitted that it was for the purpose of aggression.
    In 1937 we are back where we were in 1914, except that we have one bulwark against war that we had not in those days, namely, the collective peace system. I am left untouched by the sneers of the Home Secretary at the derivation of the term "collective security." What does it matter? We all know what it means and what it implies. It implies the system whereby the security of each nation shall be the concern of every other nation belonging to that system. Do not

    235
    let us quibble about legal or non-legal definitions. The basic idea which that term represents is known to us all. Pleas are often made from the other side for unity. If there were an invasion of these islands there would be no need to talk of unity. We on this side of the House love our country just as much as hon. Members on the other side. That is not the question which divides us.
    If the Government want the co-operation of Members on this side of the House they will have to do some things which they have not done heretofore. They will have to give zoo per cent. loyalty to the League of Nations. That applies not only to the Foreign Secretary, but to his colleagues. I am not going to throw bouquets at the Foreign Secretary, but I am afraid that I have not the same trust in some of his colleagues as I have in the Foreign Secretary himself. Therefore, I say that we must have zoo per cent. loyalty to the League of Nations from the Government. That does not mean merely speeches; it means action. It means that the Government will have to make it plain to the House, to the country, and to the world that they will pursue a peace policy just as actively as they are pursuing their armament policy, and that they will leave nothing undone to bring about some measure of disarmament. I know that it is unfashionable these days to talk about disarmament. Four or five years ago it was very fashionable. Signor Mussolini says to-day that disarmament is dead. All I can say in reply is, "Long live disarmament!"
    I hope that the Government will carry on with their efforts to bring about some sort of convention for the limitation and regulation of armaments. I hope that they will do something effective so far as economic problems are concerned. My hon. Friend who opened the Debate asked the Government whether it was not possible to resuscitate or have some sort of world economic conference. The Prime Minister said the other day that this was not an appropriate time to have a world economic conference. I should have thought that there never was a more appropriate time. The international situation is deteriorating day by day, and our Government and the other Governments in the world must be prepared, instead of making speeches in support of the policy of co-operation, to get together
    236
    and get round the council table—for they will have to get round the table either this side of a great war or the other side. I should have thought that in the interests of our civilisation the Government would try to do all they can to bring the nations together in the near future. By doing that the Government will show that they are sincere in their determination to pursue just as active a peace policy on the lines I have suggested as an armaments policy. Then, not until then, will be the time to ask for the co-operation of hon. Members on this side of the House.
    6.12 p.m.
    Sir Austen Chamberlain: I should like, if I may, to associate myself with the tribute which the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) paid to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who a few moments ago made his maiden speech, and to repeat what the hon. Member said, that we hope it will not be his only contribution to our Debates. I should like also to express my appreciation, if the hon. Member will accept it, of the very interesting, very moderate and very fair speech with which the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) opened the Debate. Although it was necessarily cast somewhat in a critical mood, although he asked a good many questions, the net result was to show how wide is the basis of agreement between the two sides of the House as to the present European situation and as to the part which this country should play, and how comparatively small are the differences that exist between us. The hon. Member made only one constructive suggestion, which was taken up by the hon. Member for Kingswinford. The hon. Member spoke of another international peace conference in the first part of his speech, but whether he meant a political conference, or, as in the next division of his speech, he meant an economic conference, I was not clear.
    Mr. Grenfell: I suggested an international peace conference to prepare the way for a world economic conference.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: I venture to suggest that we do not want a new conference or a new agreement. The agreements that exist between all the nations are quite sufficient for the purpose if the nations intend to observe them. The difficulty is not that enough treaties have not been signed, but that enough treaties are

    237
    not kept. The Kellogg Pact excludes, if you keep your obligations faithfully, war in pursuit of national policy. It only admits war in defence of your own country or of a nation which has been wantonly attacked. No new political treaty signed by 52 or more nations, as I think the Kellogg Pact was, can strengthen the obligations. What is wanted is the will to keep obligations when national strength seems sufficient, or is sufficient, to obtain a purpose which cannot be won without force. Is the proposal for another world economic conference at the present time more hopeful? A few years ago we had one which achieved nothing. There was no such basis of agreement among the nations that met in London as, even from the beginning, gave any prospect of a successful result. A great world conference on which all attention is centred and which leads to no beneficial result had better never have been held. It does not leave things as they were; it leaves them worse. Unless you have prepared the ground sufficiently, got a sufficient measure of agreement to make a conference fruitful, it is the wrong way to go about it. Has anything happened since the London conference to make us think that a conference so summoned at this time would be more fruitful? I thought I heard a right hon. Gentleman opposite say "Yes."
    Mr. Holdsworth: I said "Yes."
    Sir A. Chamberlain: For myself, I do not know what has happened. For the success of such a conference, obviously the co-operation of the United States is essential. All the utterances of the American Government which I have read are in favour of pursuing their object, which is the same as ours, by bilateral agreements, and, in fact, they are not prepared to enter into general obligations. Germany has complained of her particular need of raw materials drawn from tropical possessions, and the League of Nations, under whose aegis, I presume, both hon. Members opposite would wish this new conference to meet, have appointed a committee to examine the supply of raw materials from tropical countries to Powers which have no such possessions. They invited the complainant, Germany, to nominate a representative, but Germany has refused. I take just those two instances, and I ask
    238
    what would be the good of summoning a great international conference of 5o or 6o nations, and flinging on the table economic problems which exist to-day, when clearly the result which is foreseen or hoped for by the hon. Members opposite is negatived by the attitude of the United States, a perfectly reasonable and arguable attitude, which I do not criticise, and when Germany, even when you choose the point which she has made specially her own, refuses to co-operate? I do not think that is a direction along which we should make progress, and I prefer the less demonstrative but quiet and persistent effort of His Majesty's Government.
    Before I leave the speech of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment may I say how entirely I agree about the dangers of international propaganda? It is a new feature in the world. It is true that in old days you sometimes had a kind of Press warfare between the journalists, and occasionally you had speeches of a perhaps threatening or menacing character shouted, as it were, across the border, but systematic propaganda and interference in the affairs of neighbouring or other States is a new feature, and a very dangerous one. The only comfort I find is that I do not believe that it will be successful. This attempt to create what in the phrase of the day—which I am bound to use, though I dislike it—is a kind of ideological division of the world, is, I think, bound to fail. The ex-Emperor of Germany constantly appealed to the common interests of emperors, and suggested a resurrection of the old Dreikaiserbund, proposing that in the dangerous democratic days in which they were living before the War emperors and kings should stand together, but even emperors and kings, even dictators in the long run, are not governed by sympathy for brother emperors and kings or brother dictators, but by the national interests and the national feelings of their own country, and I do not believe that a permanent basis can be found in a supposed resemblance of internal politics. The political theory of either Bolshevik Russia or Nazi Germany, when it is translated into the terms of more liberal nations like our own, becomes wholly unmeaning, and, indeed, actively misleading.
    I want to say a few words about the League of Nations and about the speeches

    239
    of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and the hon. Member for Kingswinford which were directed particularly to it. I find myself in complete agreement with the terms of the Foreign Secretary's Leamington speech. He has defined, in my view quite clearly and unmistakably, the definite obligations which lie upon this country to go to war immediately the casus foederis arises, and the only difference, as far as I can see, between the attitude of the spokesman of the Liberals and the hon. Member for Kingswinford and the attitude of the Government is that they contend that under the terms of the Covenant we are bound to undertake the same obligations towards every country which may become at any time a subject of aggression as we have taken in respect of France and Belgium, and did take under Locarno in respect of Germany.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent my position. I made it clear that I agree with the Foreign Secretary that there was no automatic military sanction binding under the Covenant, but I said there would have to be an ultimate military sanction if economic and financial sanctions were not sufficient to protect the Covenants of the League.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: That, I think, is not exactly the line taken by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, and it is certainly not the line taken by other Members of the Labour party.
    Mr. Mander: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I based our obligations wholly upon the Annex F of the Treaty of Locarno, which he himself drafted?
    Sir A. Chamberlain: I had a share in drafting it. I do not want to take all of it to myself. It expressed what were our obligations and expressed them accurately, and I do not depart from them, but I say that in any case the views expressed by those two hon. Members do not express the views of all the Opposition. There is the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who was lately the leader of the Labour party. He retired from that leadership and went to the third bench below the Gangway opposite because he was not prepared to employ any sanctions at all.
    Miss Rathbone: Therefore, he had to retire.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: Yes, he retired because the bulk of his party did not agree, but he retired in company with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). He was here a little time ago, and I am sorry that he has found it necessary to leave, but, of course, no notice could be given to him, because it is an accidental allusion arising out of this discussion. At the time of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol demanded sanctions from the Government, when the Government and the League were not applying them. I challenged him across the House to say whether he was prepared to go to the length of war and he said, "Yes." Now the hon. and learned Member has accompanied the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to the third bench opposite because he, too, is not prepared, and was not prepared in the case of Abyssinia, to vote those sanctions. When the hon. Member for Kingswinford asks the Government to say that in any case when called upon by the Council of the League to supply armed force it is our bounden duty to do it, does he think that this country is prepared to accept that obligation?
    Mr. A. Henderson: It is already accepted under the Covenant.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I agree that Article 10, which defines in general terms the duties, goes very wide and very far, but it is in my view incompatible with other Articles, and notably with Article 19, to which special importance appears to be attached. But he has referred to the interpretative Resolutions of the Assembly, and the Assembly defined the duty of members of the League in regard to sanctions very much in the language of Annex F, which commends itself to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. That Annex was drafted as an expression of the obligations of members of the League as defined by the Resolutions of the Assembly. In other words, in regard to the amount of military assistance given, or whether military assistance should be given, though it lay with the Council to make a recommendation it rested with the nation concerned as to whether it should accept the recommendation or not. It is not therefore a binding obligation.

    241
    Do not hon. Members agree with the Foreign Secretary that the most deplorable thing of all is that any Government should pledge themselves to action of that gravity unless they were certain that, if the occasion arose, the country would give them that general, not to say universal, support which is necessary in such cases? Do they think, when they ask the Government to say what exactly at this stage they would do in the event of Austrian independence being menaced, if Czechoslovakia were invaded, if something happened at Danzig or something else in one of the Baltic States, and to say here and now: "We will march with all the Forces of the Empire available for the occasion," that the country would endorse that?
    Miss Rathbone: You did it for Belgium.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: There I differ. I watched the public during the Abyssinian crisis. It was never unanimous or nearly so. A very considerable body of opinion, the great majority, were quite prepared to apply economic sanctions, and the case seemed suitable for them. But then it became plain that economic sanctions might easily lead to war. I am glad to note the expression of opinion by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton to-day that it is no use putting on economic sanctions unless you are prepared to accept the consequences. As I have said before, the moment you put on economic sanctions, the issue of peace and war passes from your hands into those of the State against which you have acted.
    If you had said to the people of this country, "This is going to be a big matter, not to be settled merely by your serving soldiers and sailors, and the first step which we shall ask you to take will be to reimpose conscription," would they have been prepared to do so in such a quarrel? Were they prepared for that, on behalf of such a cause? I think they were not. You would have had a very rude shock if you had taken that step, and you would have found it impossible to carry it through. Nothing could be worse than any British Government pledging this country, or asking Parliament to pledge this country, when they could not for-see the circumstances or the occasion, and when neither the Government nor this
    242
    House can be sure that the case is such that, if it did arise, the people would gladly make and maintain the necessary sacrifices.
    I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will maintain the distinction between cases in which we are pledged to immediate action and those in which we shall play our part in the attempt of the League to secure a peaceful settlement, and where we shall very likely, when the time comes, play a part not dissimilar from that which we should play if Belgium or France were invaded to-morrow. But it is not safe in such cases to pledge our country long beforehand to take that course, because it is not certain that, in the circumstances of the time, if the danger arose, the people would arise and would respond to and honour the pledges that you had given. But it would be a great mistake for anybody to think that because we do not pledge ourselves to take action in that case we never shall do so. I hope no Government will make that mistake. What we will do then will be within the discretion of the people and the Parliament of the time, but the spirit of the country will be what it has always been, and its contribution, if it feels that it ought to and can make one, will be one that no enemy will find negligible.
    6.37 p.m.
    Sir A. Sinclair: I have often listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), sometimes with agreement and sometimes with disagreement, but I do not think I have ever listened to him before with a sense of bewilderment. That was the feeling I had when he sat down. The Secretary of State told us in his opening speech that this country stood by the Covenant. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham told us that he agreed with the Secretary of State. He then told us that the interpretation of the Covenant was perhaps a little obscure. He traced it from the interpretative resolutions of the Assembly down to the Locarno Conference, and to Annex F of the Locarno Treaty for which, he tells us, he was not solely responsible, but for which he said he accepted his full share of responsibility as a fair, just and accurate definition of the responsibilities of this country under the League. He then told us that he was very doubtful whether this country would act up to the responsibilities involved. I understood him to

    243
    say that he was very doubtful whether, when the time came, we should in fact act up to them. Here are the words of Annex F:
    "In accordance with that interpretation, the obligations resulting from the said Article on the members of the League must be understood to mean that each State member of the League is bound to co-operate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant and in resistance to any act of agression"—
    it is not confined to Western Europe—
    "to an extent which is compatible with its military situation and takes its geographical position into account."
    There can be no question that we are perfectly capable of acting, for example in the case of Czechoslovakia. There would be no difficulty whatever in using our Fleet on the coasts of Germany or sending aeroplanes to that country. It can be done, and according to this Annex of the Treaty of Locarno, the obligation rests upon this country to do it. It is exactly that obligation which the right hon. Gentleman questions whether this country is willing to carry out or not.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we were prepared to fight for Austria or for Czechoslovakia, or whatever the case might be. It depends so much upon how the question is framed. If it is framed in that crude way, the answer obviously would be in the negative. Nobody here wants to fight for Austria as such, or for Czechoslovakia as Czechoslovakia, but we are prepared to bend the whole energy of the country, so far as we can influence it and we believe it to be the will of the people, to build up a system in which the reign of law will be effectively maintained and buttressed by a system of collective security. We believe that the people are prepared to take the risk involved in doing it.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: Are you prepared to tell them what you did not tell them before, what those risks are?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I am only a humble Member of the House, but I certainly have always denounced, from the first speech I made on the Abyssinian situation, the opinion which I know was sincerely held by many people, that you can have economic and financial sanctions without the risk of military sanctions.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: What was the meaning of the Peace Ballot?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Its meaning was clear. It meant that the people of this country were prepared to support collective action up to the point of using armaments if that was necessary. I am told that 72.4 per cent. of the voters in the Ballot declared themselves willing to use military measures in support of the Covenant.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: How many of them would have enlisted?
    Sir A. Sinclair: I believe a far greater number than voted in the Peace Ballot. It is quite a different thing to ask for a vote in cold blood for the use of armaments which we all abhor. All progressive opinion in this country abhors armaments, but it was the representatives of progressive opinion who very largely signed that Peace Ballot. They were men and women who abhor the use of force. It was a very different thing to ask them in cold blood to put their signatures to the declaration that they would be prepared to use force from what it would have been to ask them, when the case had actually happened, and when some country with whom they were in active sympathy was a victim of aggression.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to Abyssinia. I do not think that a worse illustration could have been chosen. Why should we have been interested in Abyssinia? What proportion of the Members of the House, let alone of the country, had ever taken the slightest interest in Abyssinia until Italian aggression? We almost disliked Abyssinian rule, because progressive opinion had little if any sympathy for autocratic emperors, or with the institution of slavery, which was undoubtedly one of the institutions of that country. You could not have had, from the point of view of those who support the League of Nations, a worse case on which to appeal to public opinion. In spite of those disadvantages, public opinion saw at once the main issue in Abyssinia.
    Miss Rathbone: Honour.
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, I would say it was honour and the rule of law, and the effort to buttress the rule of law by a system of collective security. There was no doubt of the response. All over the coun-

    245
    try great meetings were held, attended by masses of people far greater than even many distinguished Cabinet Ministers were able to command when they were talking about the policy of the Government at the time. Then came the General Election, a general election fought on loyalty to the Covenant; and it was on that appeal, I venture to say, that the Government got their great majority at the Election. Then came the Hoare-Laval conversations in Paris, and the Prime Minister, after he had come down here to support the line which the present First Lord of the Admiralty, as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had taken, and after he had told us that unfortunately his lips were sealed but that if we only knew the facts we should all troop into the Lobby after him, told us three days later that the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had resigned.
    The Prime Minister had changed his view on the action taken in Paris because, between the receipt of the then Secretary of State's report and the second debate in the House of Commons, he had realised that an issue had emerged which affected the sense of honour of the British people to an extent which he had not previously understood. That is what he told the House of Commons. The fact is that, on the question of the possibility of building up a rule of law in Europe, of substituting order for anarchy in international relationships, the people of this country feel with an intensity which the right hon. Gentleman does not now appreciate, which the Prime Minister last autumn did not appreciate, and which, I am sorry to say, I do not believe the majority of this Cabinet and of the elder statesmen in this country appreciate to this day. I hope that as a result of this Debate the Government may pluck up a little courage to take the line which I believe will command the support of the people of this country. If they face the opposition which they will find in their own ranks at first, I believe they will be able to overcome it and will be able to carry the country with them. How necessary it is to show how vacillating is the policy of this Government has been indicated by the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon; the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down himself admitted that he does not feel sure, any more than
    246
    the Government as a whole feel sure, that they would have the country behind them in this matter.
    There is one other thing to which I wanted to refer, if the Committee will forgive me for going back to the question of Abyssinia. If there was any misgiving in some quarters—and I do not say that the country was united to the extent of 100 per cent.—about the expediency of a strong policy, it was very largely due to the fact that the Government were spreading tales, or, at any rate, tales were spread, presumably emanating from Government quarters—people used to come and tell you on good authority—that the Fleet had no ammunition, that it was in a position of trembling weakness in the face of the Italian Navy. We all know that the sailors themselves were indignant at these unfounded suggestions, but these stories were spreading through the House of Commons and in the newspapers of the country, and, of course, that undermined to some extent the confidence of the people in a forward policy. But if the Government had had the courage to give a strong lead, I believe that we should have carried that League action in the Abyssinian dispute through to success, and that we should not now be faced with the situation with which we are faced to-night, when we see the reports of the speech made by the head of the Italian Government.
    I am very sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the Committee. I never intended to rise at all, but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman brought me to my feet, and, as I am standing, I would like to refer very briefly to the attack—not a very serious attack, but rather an unfair attack—which the Secretary of State made upon me and my party, after the encouraging opening, to which the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) referred, in which he said he was not going to take a partisan line. He made out that, whereas all the progressive countries in Europe had been in favour of the Government's measure of rearmament, we on this bench opposed it. He did not attempt to include hon. Members above the Gangway in that charge; he did not dare to represent to foreign countries the House of Commons divided into two, with the whole of the Opposition parties opposed to the Government's policy of rearmament. That would rather have

    247
    spoiled the political effect. But he thought that my party was small enough not to matter, was small enough for him to be able to make a partisan score at our expense. It was a very unfair score.
    He said he had read all the speeches in the Debate, but I do not think he can have read mine very closely. If he had, he would have seen that I said that rearmament was an evil and dangerous but inescapable necessity, for reasons which I gave to the House at that time. I explained the reasons why we had no confidence in the foreign policy of the Government, either with regard to their past performances, to which, we hold, is largely due the pass to which this country has been led, or with regard to their future policy. But I pointed out that it was not a rearmament Measure that we were discussing, but a defence loan Measure, and I criticised the whole financial arrangements which the Government were making. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman, even if he had read the speeches, could not have read the Financial Resolution which we were discussing, or he would have seen that it had nothing to do with the merits or demerits of a rearmament policy, but had only to do with a loan policy, and that was the reason why we voted against it. I wanted to make that clear.
    In conclusion, I would make this appeal to the Government. Let them come down fairly and squarely for firm action to create—none of us pretends that it exists at the moment—an effective system of collective security. The right hon. Gentleman represented the League as being in fragments, after the Abyssinian dispute, fragments which were so loosely held together that he did not dare to raise awkward questions like the reform of the League, for fear that it would shake to pieces. Let him take his courage in both hands and re-create the League in a more effective form, as a stronger structure than it has been hitherto. But, even more important than that, or at any rate as important, is the pursuit of a constructive policy. I do not want to go too far into that; I know that in speaking like that to the right hon. Gentleman I am preaching to the converted. Nobody has said more clearly than he that "the central problem which we have to face is the possibility of securing an
    248
    increase in the volume of world trade, which will involve an increase in German exports as in those of other countries." I want to see the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues taking vigorous action on those lines. When we see that, if we ever do see it, we shall realise that there is a new spirit in the Government, and we shall then know that the Government are really basing their policy on loyalty to the Covenant of the League.
    6.55 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that the Committee can have been much impressed by the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party about his attitude towards armaments. He says that armaments are an inescapable necessity, but he is not prepared to accept the only method available for paying for them—
    Sir A. Sinclair: I said that I was not prepared to support a Defence loan.
    Mr. Sandys: I think it is generally accepted that a loan is the only method by which we can meet the vast expenditure at the present time without crippling industry and placing the country in a position of extreme economic embarrassment. Apart from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to vote the money, I am sure that his fiery speech would have made Signor Mussolini considerably afraid. I propose this evening, in the few remarks which I wish to make, to confine myself to answering two specific accusations which were made by the hop. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) against the Government in regard to their foreign policy. Much the same accusations were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition a few days ago, and I think he made them with rather less moderation than the hon. Member for Gower.
    In the first place, they accused the Government, and so did the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party, of infidelity to the principle of collective security; and, secondly, they accused the Government of pursuing a policy which is calculated to lead to war. Those are two very serious charges. In regard to the first, the Opposition's case has been put by various Members of the Labour party, and it was in particular put very concisely by the hon. Member for

    249
    Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) the other day in an interruption which was much commented upon later on. In support of this argument the Opposition allege that the magnitude of the Government's rearmament plans is a proof that they have abandoned the policy of collective security. It is argued that, if the Government really believed in collective security, they would, in reckoning the extent of our defence needs, have counted in as an asset—I think this was the point put by the hon. Member for Kingswinford —the armaments of other League countries, and would have made a corresponding reduction in their estimate of our requirements. That was the point put by the Opposition. Judging by the way in which they speak, and by the way in which they have spoken this afternoon, it would seem that many hon. Members opposite are altogether unfamiliar with the text of the Covenant. The hon. Member for Kingswinford is, perhaps, an exception; he goes about with a copy of the Covenant permanently in his pocket. In particular I would ask them to read Article 8 which contains recommendations regarding the level of armaments to be maintained by members of the League. Article 8 recommends the reduction of national armaments—this is the actual wording of the Article—
    "to the lowest point consistent with national safety and with the enforcement by common action of international obligations."
    I think the Covenant itself provides the answer to the accusations of the Opposition. Article 8 lays down, as the ideal level of armaments to be aimed at, a level which is not merely sufficient for national safety, but which is also sufficient for the enforcement by common action of international obligations. It is plainly evident that the Covenant was never intended to provide nations with an excuse for shirking their individual defence responsibilities. It is clear that the framers of the Covenant regarded membership of the League not as absolving nations from their primary duty to protect themselves, but as imposing on them further liabilities arising out of their obligations under the Covenant.
    I ask hon. Members opposite to come down for a moment out of the clouds. I ask them to examine the practical implications of their theory that it is safe for a country in reviewing the strength of its defences to reckon in as an asset
    250
    the armaments possessed by other League Powers. Let us, as an example, apply their theory to Abyssinia during the last few years before the Italian invasion. According to hon. Members opposite Abysisnia should have congratulated herself upon her rare good fortune in having as a neighbour in Eritrea and in Italian Somaliland, nice and near and handy to protect her, a fellow-member of the League who possessed a powerful army and a powerful air force, the strength and numbers of which were happily being augmented by reinforcements month by month. In fact, according to the calculations of hon. Members opposite, Abyssinia's defence requirements would actually have diminished in proportion to the growth of the Italian armies along the banks of the Red Sea.
    I utterly fail to follow the tortuous train of thought of hon. Members opposite when they speak about collective security. Whenever other countries, other League members, build armaments, hon. Members opposite ask us to reckon these armaments as an asset and as a contribution to collective security. If, on the other hand, Britain builds armaments they allege that that is clear proof that the Government have abandoned the policy of collective security. They cannot have it both ways. Hon. Members opposite are putting the cart before the horse. Collective security is not a substitute for national defence. Quite the reverse. National defence is the basic pre-condition, the foundation itself of collective security. A country which is too weak to protect its own people is hardly likely to be in a position to go to the help of others. A Power whose defences have fallen below the minimum commeasurate with its geographical responsibilities, is a liability and not an asset to the system of collective security. Let there be no mistake. Collective security, if it is to be security at all, must be collective force, and not merely collective impotence.
    Mr. Bevan: But collective, not national.
    Mr. Sandys: The Opposition never seem to tire of accusing the Government of infidelity to the League of Nations and to the principle of collective security. We on this side might for a change examine the attitude of the Opposition towards the League. In a recent newspaper article the right hon. Member for South Hackney

    251
    (Mr. H. Morrison)—no doubt busy elsewhere to-day—gave a very frank and lucid explanation of the Labour party's attitude towards collective security. This is what he wrote:
    "If it were deemed right that British armament expenditure should increase in order that we should make our contribution to collective security, Labour would have to share the responsibility for the increase."
    So far I do not quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman. I would agree with every word. However, he went on to say:
    "But we must first ask the Government against whom will these arms be used. Will it be against Germany or against Russia? Will it be against Fascism or against Socialism? The Government flatly refuses to tell us. We must therefore flatly refuse to support their armaments policy."
    Mr. Bevan: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear," but we on this side of the House have always understood collective security to consist in a general undertaking by all League members to come to each other's assistance if attacked regardless of whom the aggressor might be, and most certainly regardless of the aggressor's internal politics.
    Mr. Bevan: Do you accept that?
    Mr. Sandys: The conception of collective security of the right hon. Member for South Hackney evidently differs materially from ours. According to him there should be one rule for the Fascists and another for the Socialists. If the aggressor should be a Fascist nation, then of course we should go to the assistance of the country which is attacked. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman is apparently prepared to condone aggression if the aggressor happens to be a Socialist State.
    Mr. Gallacher: It is not possible.
    Mr. Grenfell: The hon. Member is putting his own interpretation on the document from which he professes to have quoted.
    Mr. McGovern: Where is it from?
    Mr. Sandys: "Forward."
    Mr. McGovern: What is that?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not know. I am told it is a very reputable newspaper very much read by hon. Members in the north.
    Mr. Cove: John reads it every week.
    Mr. Sandys: If it were a Socialist State the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to condone aggression. If I am inferring something inaccurate from what the right hon. Gentleman said, it is open to any Member of the Opposition to put another complexion on it. That is the purpose of debate. In other words, the fulfilment or not by Britain of her solemn obligations under the Covenant should, according to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, be made dependent on the internal political complexion of the aggressor. From that, at any rate, we on this side can judge for ourselves whether the Opposition in their attitude towards collective security are always inspired by that impeccable impartiality which they would have us believe.
    Let me pass on to the second accusation made by the Opposition against the Government. The hon. Member for Gower accused the Government of stimulating an international race in armaments and of pursuing a policy which would lead to war. He spoke with the greatest possible moderation, but his leader a few days ago said much the same thing with much less moderation. Hon. Members opposite, who are such lovers of international arbitration, would not wish to be judges in their own case. They would, doubtless, be ready to listen to the opinions of foreign countries. The Foreign Secretary referred to the manner in which our rearmament policy had been welcomed on all sides abroad. I would invite hon. Members opposite to observe what the foreign Press has been saying. I would like to read one or two extracts.
    Mr. Cove: We have read them.
    Mr. Sandys: They do not seem to have created much impression, and I am sure hon. Members on this side would be glad to hear these statements read out once again. Hon. Members opposite never like anything to be read which does not coincide with the point which they are trying to put. In Norway the Liberal newspaper "Tidens Tegen" writes:
    "None of the great Powers has shown its good will in the reduction of armaments and support of the League more than Britain. In the interests of democracy and peace Britain must be strong and invulnerable."
    A newspaper of Czechoslovakia, the "Prager Presse," says that our rearmament is creating a bulwark of democracy

    253
    and peace. In Hungary—the "Pesti Hirlap" writes:
    "We firmly believe that Britain wishes to prevent and is able to prevent war."
    In Poland the Government organ "Gazeta Polska" declares:
    "A strong Britain is a guarantee of peace."
    In Sweden the leading newspaper "Nya Tidning" writes:
    "England is arming to fulfil her responsibilities as the chief guardian of international order."
    In France the Press of all parties without exception welcome British rearmament. The following extract from the "Intransigeant" is typical. It says:
    "Nothing is better calculated than British rearmament to assure the peace of the world to inspire the small countries with confidence and with courage and certain powerful nations with prudence. Britain is saving civilisation."
    In fact, the only countries that share the Opposition's misgivings in regard to British rearmament are Germany, Italy and Japan. Is it a mere coincidence that the only countries that are uneasy about our rearmament are the militarist nations, the dictatorships, three highly armed Powers, two of which have left the League and the other of which has flouted it? Is it a mere coincidence that all the loyal members of the League, all the democracies, and all the little Powers welcome British rearmament as a guarantee of peace? The verdict of the world provides the answer to the accusations of the Opposition. The world has shown that it trusts Britain to use her strength for peace.
    7.18 p.m.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am afraid that some of my hon. Friends have been a little impatient while the hon. Member has been speaking, but I do not share their views at all. I have listened to his quotations from the foreign Press with considerable interest, even if only to hear his impeccable pronunciation of their titles. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) threw a shaft of light on this question which the whole Committee will welcome, even from the point of view of showing us where the right hon. Gentleman himself stands. He seems to suggest that this country would not be prepared to face up to the facts, even the facts of war in cer-
    254
    tain circumstances, those circumstances being such to which we have given our word and our bond. It would be interesting to ask him whether he himself took the opportunity in 1925 of explaining to the country the implications of the Locarno Treaty. Did he tell the country at that time that, as the result of Britain's guarantee of her word and her bond, the Locarno Treaty in certain circumstances might lead to war? Did he explain to the country then that those engagements which Britain entered into might have meant, in certain circumstances, conscription? I suggest that he did not. I am thinking, as the result of listening to him to-day, that Locarno itself, before the ink was dry' on the Treaty, became another scrap of paper. The whole Committee I think will agree that what we should aim at in these discussions on foreign affairs is the greatest common measure of agreement between all sides of the House in arriving at a policy which will have one end only, and that is peace. I am prepared in those circumstances, if the Government are prepared to lead, to support them if they will give us a policy which I am convinced will mean universal peace.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and, 40 Members being present—
    Mr. Bellenger: I am convinced that my hon. Friends on this side would willingly support a policy of rearmament if it was to take its place in that system of collective security which I am certain the majority of Members believe is the only safe measure of peace that this sadly troubled world can provide. Let me go back in retrospect and remind the Committee of the different instruments that have been made by the elder statesmen themselves, most of whom did not fight in the last War, which was a war to ensure peace and to make the world safe for democracy. These various instruments were made for one purpose alone, if we are to believe in the sincerity of their authors. First of all, we had the Peace Treaties of 1918 and 1919 and the Covenant of the League of Nations, which was a series of engagements not entered into freely by certain of the contracting parties. Those who were defeated in the War had to sign these treaties under duress.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: They were not admitted for some years.
    Mr. Bellenger: As far as my memory serves me, Germany, at any rate, signed one of those treaties under protest.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: Of course she signed the Treaty of Versailles, but her entry into the League was a subsequent voluntary act.
    Mr. Bellenger: Quite, but I am suggesting that the Treaties of Versailles and Trianon and other similar engagements were signed by certain contracting parties under duress. The Kellogg Pact which came later, and which was to outlaw war, was entered into freely by all the nations who signed it, and the contracting parties who signed the Locarno Treaty also signed freely. But those treaties have been thrown overboard by many of the contracting parties. We are entitled to ask what is the Government's policy in view of the realities of the situation that face us. Our criticism of the Government is that they have no complete policy for peace. We suggest that the only policy for peace is that of collective security. I know that the subject bristles with difficulties, which I am not going entirely to neglect, but we suggest that the Government's foreign policy is a collection of bits and pieces not forming one cohesive whole or a complete picture. When it came to a question of one member State of the League of Nations being declared the aggressor by 5o odd other nations, what was the Government's policy? We know it quite well. They first of all attempted to buy off that nation with a little piece of the British Empire. The Secretary of State for the Dominions, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, suggested offering Ethiopia an outlet to the sea if she would agree to some of Italy's terms.
    If the Government are determined to protect British interests wherever they may lie, and want to rearm for that purpose only, let them say so. Let them say they do not believe in the League of Nations. But they do not say that. They say, "We are as sincere as you are for the League of Nations and all that it stands for, and collective security." The Versailles Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations provide for the rectification of frontiers. Is it going to be suggested that Germany to-day has
    256
    no cause for grievance? That cannot be said because the late Foreign Secretary admitted that Germany must have had some just complaint and he went to Geneva and suggested a remedy for it. We have to consider whether we can keep a nation like Germany in the position that she was in in 1918, when she was forced to sign an unjust Treaty and, if you say that Germany has just grievances, you have to provide a way of settling them. In case it may be suggested that I hold pro-Nazi views, I deny it straight away. I look upon the system of government in that country with intense disgust. But is it suggested that we are not ready to concede certain things to a Hitler Germany to-day and that, if Hitler went to-morrow, we should not have to concede the same things to a more liberal and progressive Government? This demand for the return of some of her colonies is not merely a Hitler or a Nazi demand. It is made by the whole German nation. It is impossible for Britain to say that she will for ever deny to Germany access to some of those colonies of which we stripped her in 1919.
    I am prepared to agree with the definition of British interests that the Foreign Secretary laid down in his Leamington speech, interests which we in this country would, if necessary, go to war for, but the significant part of that speech was not in what he said but in what he left out. What has he to say with regard to the mandated territories? Will the Government under any circumstances return Tanganyika to Germany? There are other mandated territories that we hold which I think we could very well return to Germany, under suitable guarantees, of course, and I know, from my contacts with German people, that they would be quite prepared to enter into binding engagements to keep the peace of the world for a long term if only England would listen to some of their just grievances, which I suggest they undoubtedly have. As I said last week, it is futile for us simply to go on as we did in the nineteenth century believing that we can hold this Empire that we won by right of conquest. It is impossible for us to do that and to say to nations like Germany and Italy, "You shall not have any of those parts of the world that the British may hold." I know it is not a popular policy to suggest that, but I do suggest that when

    257
    the Foreign Secretary leaves these important points out of his speech, other nations begin to wonder what we really mean.
    I do not think Germany is concerned for a moment about the frontiers of Belgium or France, but she is concerned with the Eastern part of Europe, and that particular part has been left out of the Foreign Secretary's pronouncements. We have to come to a decision sooner or later, and we on these benches suggest that the Government should come out clearly and say what they are prepared to do if, as is quite possible, Germany does violate the frontiers of Czechoslovakia. Are there no British interests in that part of Europe? We know very well that we have considerable interests there. What is our reaction to the suggestion that the Hapsburg monarchy should come back to Austria? What about the Anschluss between Austria and Germany? What about Memel, Danzig, and all those other explosive spots in Europe? The Foreign Secretary glides over them, but they are the spots that will cause the explosion which the President of the Reichsbank referred to in his speech when he said that if certain things were not done, there would be an explosion in Germany.
    Mr. Gallacher: You want Germany to get them all.
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not want Germany to get them all, but I want justice for Germany, just as for any other country, and she has not had it so far.
    Mr. Morgan: Is the hon. Member advocating an extension of the German regime at the expense of British Colonies or not?
    Mr. Bellenger: I suggest that some of the mandated territories that we now hold will go back sooner or later to Germany, and the Government, when they say they are not considering that question, are not quite accurate. It has been under the consideration of this Government.
    Mr. Morgan: Whether the Colonies or mandated territories require German rule or not?
    Mr. Bellenger: That is not the point. Were they consulted when they were handed over to British control? Of course they were not. All this talk about the native inhabitants deciding for them-
    258
    selves which country they would like to rule them is all rot, and we know it. None of our Colonies were ever consulted when we took them over. When the Secretary of State says that intervention in Spanish affairs means war, that is the argument that is always thrown at these benches, whenever we advocate a forward policy or a policy with some vigour and energy in it. I feel that under certain circumstances, as the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) said to-day, if aggressor nations push their policy too far, we cannot avoid war, and I believe that that is the motive that has actuated the Government in their rearmament policy. They see the danger spots. I do not suggest that this country would want to be an aggressor. Why should we be? We have all we desire. When we talk about collective security, certainly some of my hon. Friends on these benches ought to consider the question of collective security for capitalism. Capitalism is not asking for any more conquests. It is concerned to rest on its oars and to keep what it has, but my hon. Friends never lose an opportunity of seeing that our grievances are pressed against the capitalist forces, and we are endeavouring to get as much off them as we can.
    The only difference between that analogy and the realities which exist in Germany and elsewhere is this, that we are prepared to get what we demand by constitutional and peaceful means, and I fear that to-day there are certain countries in Europe which, although they may have just grievances, are adopting the wrong policy to get them righted. What we ask of the Government is this: What are you going to do if those nations press their grievances in too bellicose a manner? Is rearmament, unilateral rearmament, your answer? It may stave off war for a time, but it will not result in that peace which you say you so keenly desire. We on these benches say that if you want to ensure peace, rearmament is not the right policy. It must be this system of collective security, which I know may be difficult to define, but which is undoubtedly a reality, and this system of collective security envisages nations, including Germany, Italy, and Japan, which are prepared to come to some arrangement to ensure a settlement of the just grievances of any nation, not by force of arms, but by conference and

    259
    argument. I would hope that, if the Government are really sincere in their protestations about peace, although perhaps some of this rearmament may have been forced upon them by the acts of certain other nations, they will endeavour to do their best to bring about in those countries a measure of disarmament, because while armament or rearmament is there, it cannot lead to peace, but, in my opinion, can only lead to one end, and that end is war.
    7.38 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The hon. Member who has spoken and the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), who spoke for the Liberal Opposition, both passed strictures on my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness waxed particularly eloquent about public opinion in this country and referred to great public meetings which took place up and down the land in order to protest against the Italian action in Abyssinia, and he said those meetings were attended by great audiences. That is true, but the right hon. Gentleman forgot that in the middle of the Abyssinian crisis there arose a greater and much more critical situation as a result of the German reoccupation of the Rhineland, when the Treaty of Locarno was broken and when agreements which bound Germany much more tightly than did the Covenant were broken. We saw no protest from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition or from hon. or right hon. Members opposite, but my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham spoke in the country and did stand by the Locarno Treaty. Is it surprising that when he saw such an exhibition of running away as occurred when hon. and right hon. Members opposite deserted the ship at that critical moment, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham should have been a little bit doubtful with regard to public opinion in this country and have taken the right course in warning us of the dangers of committing ourselves when he saw an agreement which he himself had made destroyed? Hon. Members forget that episode.
    As soon as it had passed away, they began talking about our word and our
    260
    bond so far as Abyssinia was concerned, but they spoke with a very hollow voice when they spoke about our honour after having run away over the Rhineland episode. The whole question turns on that particular problem. Where was collective security then? That was the moment to urge upon the country the necessity for collective security, when we were really threatened and when there was a pistol at the heart of this country. We did not hear anything about collective security at that time, and it is humbug on the part of hon. and right hon. Members to make charges against the right hon. Member for West Birmingham so far as the observance of international obligations is concerned.
    Sir Hugh Seely: Was Germany a member of the League at that time?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am sorry that the hon. Member does not realise that the Locarno Treaty was binding even after Germany had left the League, and that does not affect our position. We were signatories, and we were bound under the Treaty of Locarno, and, if indeed hon. and right hon. Members opposite are correct, under the Covenant as well, to go to the assistance of the Powers being attacked. The violation of the demilitarised zone placed on us and on the French and on the Germans as well an automatic obligation that practically amounted to the same thing.
    Mr. Gallacher: You are all at sea.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: It is the same thing. We were bound tightly under the Locarno Pact. The hon. Member and his friends say we were bound under the Covenant, but we were more bound under the Treaty of Locarno. That argument will not do. This Debate is to a large extent an extension of the debates which have taken place in this House during the last fortnight, and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) opened it to-day, as everyone has admitted in a most charming manner. I think the Opposition were wise in putting up the hon. Member to open the Debate, as he was able to smooth out the path of the Opposition. Efforts have been made to-day, for the first time, to answer the questions which were put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, and by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lumley).

    261
    Those questions have not yet been replied to by the Leaders of the Labour party, and I trust that they will not fail to answer if they can, this evening, because they are, after all, the alternative Government, and the country is entitled to know what line they would follow, what policy they would pursue, what would be the obligations which they would undertake, if they were called upon to form a Government. They are in a position different from that of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and other hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, who may, of course, some day form a Government, though it looks at the moment as if it would be rather a distant date.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite, however, are putting themselves forward as the alternative Government, and we are entitled to know, and the country is entitled to know what is their foreign policy, and in what way they differ from the policy laid down by the Foreign Secretary? We are entitled to know, moreover, whether we are likely to be committed to any form of automatic military action, because some of the speeches made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite bring us perilously near to that position. As far as I can see they tried to cover up the position by speaking of a conference. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham showed how impossible it was to bring the nations of the world together in present circumstances. I wish with hon. Members that it was possible, and that there was some hope, but it is clear that to-day a conference would only make matters worse. I trust that the party opposite will cease the meaningless incantations which we hear up and down the country, which have no other object than to hide the deep divisions in their party and to conceal the fact that they have no policy whatever.
    During the course of this Debate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) referred to the past. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a habit of going into past history rather than discussing the present. I think that the question of Manchuria is important for this reason. There was a question in which, apart from China, the nearest Member of the League of Nations was thousands of miles away. America and Russia were not Members of the League
    262
    of Nations then, and of course America is not a Member of the League to-day. The only way of bringing pressure upon Japan was to send an expedition to the Far East. Did hon. and right hon. Members opposite tell the country of the dangers that would be involved and did they point out that the forces of this country would be sent far away from Europe, leaving these shores unprotected, in order to enforce the decisions of the League? If we had gone to the country and told the people that their sons were to be killed because Manchuria was to remain a part of China, would the Government have received the support of the people?
    These are the sort of questions which should be put frankly to the country when we are discussing these questions. Collective security is talked about a great deal by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it does not, as some hon. Gentlemen frankly admit, exist at the present time. It is an aim to be achieved and certainly not a weapon on which to rely. It is a military question; it is not a question with which you can deal by vague phrases and saying, "If we have collective security it will be all right." We have to think of it in terms of navies, armies, air forces, and to relate it to the area in which we live, to our geographical and territorial position, and to correlate our plans with the various general staffs. Those are the sort of questions you have to go into, and you have to decide how far it is practicable to go, but it is quite useless merely to go round phrase-making. That, is full of danger.
    Mr. George Griffiths: That is what you did at the last Election, you know.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The hon. Member is wrong.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am not, I am right.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: We faced the facts, and told the people at the same time that, if we had to go into collective security, we should have to have forces to support it. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did nothing of the kind. They said it was unnecessary to have further forces.
    Mr. Griffiths: What did the Prime Minister say?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) had a cer-

    263
    tain amount to say with regard to Germany. I think that he misunderstands the present attitude of the Nazi Government. Herr Hitler, it is true, the other day, repudiated war guilt, but he said nothing which would wipe out the fact that Belgium was the object of a perfidious and infamous attack. The German people at the present time are indulging in a pursuit which they followed before and which, I am afraid, is having some effect on the hon. Gentleman. There is a great deal of distortion of history going on at the present moment. The Germans are trying to persuade themselves that they won the War, and that they were only brought to their knees by a blockade. They forget that they themselves tried to carry out a blockade and failed; but we, on the other hand, succeeded. They seem to forget many things with regard to those four terrible years, but the difficulty in dealing with Germany at the present time is that from this distortion of history arises their claims for colonies. They are trying to persuade the world that they are the innocent victims of great Imperial Powers. The hon. Gentleman said that we had to give them up and that the matter had been under consideration. I would like him to give me his authority for that statement. I do not know whether he can give me any authority for that statement. It is an important point.
    Mr. Bellenger: Obviously, I have not the actual occasion. Nevertheless, I say that the Government have had it under consideration. They could not have done anything else, otherwise what answer could they give to the several demands for these colonies? They must have discussed it in some way.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I say that if they discussed it at all, the answer has been "No."
    Mr. Bellenger: Why are you so constantly questioning your own Government, then?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I will come to that point. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has not any definite information. It is clear that we have really not been contemplating the return of the colonies. But I would ask the Committee to consider whether the surrender of colonies and submission to threats—that
    264
    is what it is—would really solve for one moment the question of Czechoslovakia, as the hon. Member who opened the Debate pointed out, or in any way solve the Eastern problem of Germany in which she is much more interested than in colonies. Dr. Schacht threatened us with an explosion if the colonies are not given up. All I can say is that I hope that this country will never submit to blackmail of that kind. All we can do, if he is threatening us with an explosion, is to make sure that the explosion is inwards and not outwards. The Government are doing all that they can do through the rearmament programme to make sure that that is done. Does the hon. Member really think that, placed as we are at the present time, and facing a Government such as the present German Government, which is militarist through and through, and which is the protagonist of a policy and of a faith entirely antagonistic towards that held in this country, and which has broken agreement after agreement—does he really want to allow them to have ports from which submarines can operate and aerodromes from which aircraft can prey upon the commerce of the British Empire, and, indeed, not of the British Empire only, but upon the commerce of all nations? To surrender the colonies in present circumstances would be an act of strategic madness, quite apart from being a political error of the first magnitude.
    Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Member should not misrepresent me. I am not suggesting that Britain should hand over any of her Colonies to Germany. I did not suggest anything of the kind. The only question which I raised was that of the previous German Colonies, which are mandated territories, either under our control or under the control of France or somebody else.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I quite understand what the hon. Member said, but my remarks apply equally to the mandated territories, and it was to the mandated territories that I was referring. I wish that the Government had been more definite earlier on with regard to this question. I do not think that the question would have been so prominent in Germany as it has been. The only possible way of dealing with the present Government in Germany is to be firm and resolute. It is an integral part of policy, espe-

    265
    cially in dealing with this particular question, to do all we can to preserve the League of Nations as it at present exists. I see no reason why we should adopt the defeatist attitude towards this question. It is true that weaknesses have been shown in the structure. Any institution which is being built up, especially such a grand scheme as the League of Nations, will show some weaknesses, and what we should do is to repair those weaknesses rather than throw up our hands in despair. Whatever else it does, the League makes the world alive to the dangers which surround peace-loving nations.
    The hon. Member who opened the Debate said something with regard to German propaganda. I think that the present attitude in Germany is a very dangerous one. They are believing only that which they wish to believe, with the result that they are drawing a lot of very inaccurate conclusions, especially with regard to this country. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is being attacked in a paper called the "Anglo-German Review," which, I think, rather wishes that he will disappear from his present office. These attacks will, of course, only establish the Foreign Secretary more firmly in the confidence and in the hearts of his countrymen, but they are a sign of the kind of insidious attacks which are being made throughout not only this country but the world. I do not know what grounds the Germans have for supposing that we are going to give way on any question in the future, and why they think the public opinion here so weak. I can only assume that certain noble and nervous marquesses give them ground for supposing that they really represent the opinion in this country.
    As a result of the action taken by the Government and their determination to carry out this rearmament programme, we are actually becoming the leaders of a great combination in the world, a combination of all the peace-loving nations. It seems to me that we have many friends, and that those who are likely to be the aggressors may find that the surprises will come from us and our friends in the future rather than from the dictatorships. Democracies, I believe, when once roused have a tenacity and resolution which is irresistible. It was the democracies which
    266
    won in the last War, and the autocracies which collapsed. For that reason I do not for a moment believe war to be inevitable. I think that as every week we grow stronger, so every week peace becomes more established. But it will require firmness, decision and unity in this country if we are to come successfully through the difficult year which lies ahead of us. We all share the Chancellor's disgust at the fact that we have to spend these vast sums on instruments of destruction. It seems to be madness, but we have been forced into this race against our will, and I think we should show the dictatorships that we are out to win, and that we have the golden bullet which will enable us to win, if they do not come to terms.
    In the meantime we shall do what we can to come to an arrangement with the dictatorships, if possible. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will spare no effort to come to an arrangement by which we shall gain a measure of disarmament, if such an arrangement is possible. The right hon. Gentleman has said so again and again, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will support him on that question. He has stated repeatedly that he is trying to find a basis of negotiation, and if such a basis has not been found, the fault does not lie either with Members on this side of the Committee, or on this country at all. That is a misconception and misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member opposite who seems to be infected to some extent by German propaganda. That is the only conclusion at which one can arrive from his speech. As I say, we are trying to come to some arrangement, and in the meantime it seems to me that we must translate a large part of our vast resources into armaments as is necessary, in order that liberty and peace may be preserved from the dangers which surround them at the present time.
    8.3 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: I would not have intervened in this Debate but for the speech of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Emrys-Evans). In 1932, I listened to scores of speeches from hon. Members opposite on the Sino-Japanese dispute, and on the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself towards the incidents of that time. I expect if one remained

    267
    a Member here for another 10 or, 15 years one would continue to hear Conservative Members making speeches in the same tone as those to which we have listened ever since 1932. The hon. Member who has just spoken fell into the same error as many of his colleagues in imputing to hon. Members on this side a desire to go to war with Japan in 1932 and to send British husbands and British sons to fight for Chinese territory. No hon. Member on this side ever suggested anything of the kind. No hon. Member sitting here ever asked the Government to send British soldiers to China or Japan.
    What we said was that the moment the then Foreign Secretary, the present Home Secretary, declared that he had made up his mind that sanctions should be ruled out and that conciliation alone should be used in that case, disarmament was made well-nigh impossible. That was the date on which a deadly blow was made at the League of Nations as an effective force for peace. I can understand the hon. Member saying that the League has failed because the nations within it were not united, and had never worked out what sort of effective force would be required to subdue Germany, or Italy, or Japan or any other aggressor nation which broke the peace. I can appreciate that argument, and I recognise that the nations which were members of the League failed in that respect. But in my view the commencement of the weakening of the League was in 1932.
    I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, the present Home Secretary, recalls the statements which he made in the House at that time. He said we were friends of Japan and friends of China and that we were not going to interfere in that dispute. As I view it, we at that moment abrogated our obligations to the League and Japan, having been given a free hand in China, declared subsequently to the Disarmament Conference that she would not be governed by any decision reached at that conference. As a result of Japan's statement, the United States declared that if Japan were to be permitted to do as she liked in regard to rearmament, her signature to the Nine Power Pact must be regarded as invalid. No matter how long the Disarmament Conference continued after that there was little or no hope of its success. Whatever hon. and right hon. Gentleman may say about the National
    268
    Government's efforts to secure disarmament, after 1932 the situation made it well-nigh impossible. I suggest to the hon. Member who has just spoken that when next he speaks on foreign affairs he should vary the tone of his remarks and try to get nearer the facts as regards the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself. Our view is that if the League had effectively applied sanctions, Japan could have been defeated in her enterprise, and the League could not only have preserved itself, but made itself an effective force for the preservation of international peace, without sending a solitary soldier to Chinese or Japanese territory.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: That is the point. The hon. Member's opinion is that sanctions could have been enforced without sending a soldier to Japan. We do not share that view. The Abyssinian experience, which I am sure should convince hon. Members opposite, and the Rhineland experience too, show that unless you are prepared to back up your word with troops, sanctions will not be effective. Unless you speak to the public in this country and tell them that they must be prepared to fight for sanctions, I do not think that sanctions will ever be effective. Bear in mind too, that when you speak to the people of this country the people abroad listen to you. You must tell your own people in the first place, and then it will be heard abroad.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member has not helped his case by that intervention. No hon. Member on this side has declared that this country ought to go to war for Abyssinia as such, or China as such, or Czechoslovakia as such, or for any other nation as such. The maximum that we have said is that as loyal members of the League we should join in utilising such machinery as does exist. Improve the machinery if you can, and as you ought to, by all means, but use such machinery as exists at any given moment for the application of economic sanctions or other sanctions, not as an individual nation but in association with all the other members of the League, and in that way apply sanctions in the most rigorous fashion.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The hon. Member talks about applying "economic or other sanctions," in conjunction with other nations. Does not that include military sanctions? Would not the closing of the Suez Canal have been a military sanction?

    269
    Would he tell the people of the country that if the other sanctions were applied, it would mean that they would have to fight?
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member remains in the Dark Ages and is still thinking in terms of one nation. I am speaking of effective action by the League of Nations.
    Mr. Ermys-Evans: They might have to fight.
    Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member carries the argument to its logical conclusion he will find that it comes to this. When all the loyal members of the League have agreed to apply economic, diplomatic or other sanctions to an aggressor nation, and it is found that the nation in question is stronger than all the loyal members of the League, in so far as these economic, diplomatic or other sanctions are concerned, then, in the last resort, the League would have to use force. But the League as a League using force is a very different proposition from that suggested by the hon. Member and many of his hon. Friends. They constantly repeat that hon. Members on this side want to go to war for China, for Abyssinia, or for Spain, when they know in their hearts that there is not an atom of truth in those statements.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I never said that hon. Members opposite wanted to go to war, and I think that is a wrong way of putting it. But they are in favour of taking action which would lead to war, and, therefore, they should be frank with the country, and tell the people "If we go to Spain or if we go to Abyssinia it is possible that there will be a European war." But, of course, they do not want and none of us want to go to war.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member does not get much further with these successive interjections. I am not concerned about the interjections themselves, and if they helped to clear the air they would be well worth while. But the hon. Member must bear in mind that we are not to be moved by such statements from the point we have always maintained—that as long as this country is a member of a League, whose object and whose duty it is to preserve the peace of the world, we must think in terms not of one nation but of a combination of nations. Whatever
    270
    action may be taken, should a League State become an aggressor, it would not be a question of one nation dealing with that aggressor State but all the nations, so long as the loyal States fulfil their obligations, and when the appropriate moment arrived then we should determine whether or not economic sanctions were sufficient to make war a non-paying proposition.
    My point is simply this. In the repeated statements made from these benches during the last five years we have said that if the loyal States, including this country, had admitted their obligations in full in 1932 we should not have been in our present position of having to borrow £400,000,000 for rearming, on the top of our normal expenditure. Assuming that the hon. Member's point were carried to its logical conclusion, and that the whole of the League States had combined to go to war with japan—a very remote possibility—to establish once and for all the real power and prestige of the League, would the sacrifice then have been greater than the sacrifice we are now making? Is it not the case that because the League—the League is not this country, but 53 States—had made one-tenth of the sacrifices for peace and the establishment of an effective League, we should have been saved the sacrifices which we are now making, and which ire leading us to war.
    Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not repeat the statement that he has made this evening about our position. He made no definite charges but he did put up dolls so that he could knock them down. He talked about sending British soldiers to Japan to fight for Chinese territory. We have never suggested that anything of the kind should take place. The dolls that he erected were his own dolls, and I have no objection to his action in knocking them down. In his later point he referred to the question of colonies. He said that we ought not to relinquish one square yard of any colonies to Germany. He was anti-Nazi and very pro-democracy.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: That is not a fair charge. It is a very improper charge. What I said was that I was a supporter of democracy. When I said I am a believer in liberty and constitutional Government, I meant it.
    Mr. Williams: If I have misrepresented the hon. Member, I apologise. To misrepresent him is the last thing I wish to do. I do not see any point in misrepresenting any hon. Member, but when he referred to colonies he coupled them with Germany, and spoke of the men in Germany and their mentality. Then he went on to refer to certain mandated territories. I hope that I am not misrepresenting him, and if so perhaps he will correct me, but I understood him to say that he would not object to sending British soldiers to stand by our mandated territories and Colonies. Is that a fair interpretation of what he said?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member would not object to sending British soldiers, husbands and sons, to safeguard mandated territories against would-be aggression from Germany. The hon. Member has a curious mind on this subject. Mandated territory is not British territory. It is not part of our Colonies. It is territory administered by us under the authority of the League of Nations. It is part and parcel of League responsibility. The hon. Member is prepared to send British soldiers alone to fight for mandated territory, which is not British territory.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: It is British territory.
    Mr. Williams: Surely, the hon. Member would not argue that Tanganyika and Palestine are British territories. They are mandated territories, mandated to this country by the League of Nations.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: The sovereignty is vested in us. We have certain obligations towards the League, but the sovereignty resides in us.
    Mr. Williams: Would the hon. Member agree that if the League of Nations desired so to do, they could withdraw the mandate?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: No. That is not so.
    Mr. Williams: The point that I want to make with the hon. Member, and I think I shall be right in the end, is that the territory handed over by the League of Nations is territory mandated to this country, to be administered by us.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: It was not handed over.
    Mr. Williams: It was handed over to this country by the League to be administered by this country on behalf of the League, and the hon. Member suggested that he was prepared to fight for that territory, not as a combination of nations who are members of the League but as one nation. If he is prepared to stand by the League of Nations in one respect where territory is involved, which we at the moment are administering, why is he unwilling in other circumstances to be as loyal to the League in association with other member States? That seems to be the fog which the hon. Member is in.
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am not in a fog. I have said that the sovereignty resides in us. The sovereignty was never handed over to us by the League. We have certain obligations to the League, but the sovereignty resides in us; it is part of our territory.
    Mr. Williams: The hon. Member wants to go beyond the point. He is a sort of two-headed political donkey. I do not mean that in an offensive sense. He argues both ways. He first of all refuses to be loyal to the League when we are called upon to fulfil an obligation, but in the second place where certain territory is concerned he is prepared not only to stand by the League but to stand by this country and to fight for territory of that description. That is a very weak argument, and it would lead this country into all sorts of difficulties if it were pursued. I am satisfied that the Foreign Secretary would not feel disposed to follow the line of the hon. Member.
    When the League of Nations, collective security and allied questions are referred to in this House in future, I hope that hon. Members will no longer declare that hon. Members sitting on these benches wanted to go to war with Japan, or wanted to go to war over Abyssinia, or wanted to go to war over Spain. We have declared from the first that if the machinery had been built up so that the League could have been as effective as it ought to have been, we would gladly have shared our full responsibility for dealing with Japan when they broke the law of the League by entering Chinese territory. We repeated the same thing

    273
    with regard to Abyssinia. If the whole of the States had been willing to fulfil their obligations we should not have shirked our responsibilities as a member of the League of Nations. Economic sanctions were only partially applied to Italy. We did not apply oil sanctions, because the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and other Ministers said that it would have led us into war.
    I do not want to go to war. I hope that this country will not have to go to war again, but if we do and I had the choice, I would much prefer going into war with 49 nations beside me than to stand alone. We have failed the League of Nations, in association with other States. Probably we are not entirely to blame for the complete collapse of the League, but we have a tremendous amount of responsibility if we stand for as much in the councils of the world as some hon. Members think we do. We have been wobbling here and there, nobody has quite known where we have stood, everybody has lost confidence in us, we have lost confidence in ourselves, and we have now to resort to the ancient policy of rearming so that we may be as strong as any would-be aggressor. For that situation the Opposition accepts no responsibility at all. Until we get back to a League policy and a League state of mind, until we do our best to make the League the effective force it should be for peace, there will be no confidence, security or stability in international affairs. We have no power to prevent the Government proceeding with their rearmament policy, but I hope the armaments which will be produced may never be used in war. I am convinced that should we ever be called upon to use the weapons we are now producing in any kind of war it would be largely due to the failure of the National Government between the years 1931 and 1937.
    8.28 p.m.
    Mr. Lennox-Boych: I am sorry to intervene even for a few moments in the sparkling and witty dialogue between the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Emrys-Evans) and the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), but I have a point of view which is not perhaps universally held in the House or even on these benches, and I should like very briefly to express it. The hon. Member for the Don Valley is always interesting, and although he once called me, and
    274
    probably will do so again, the Devil's Advocate, he makes speeches which are particularly interesting to me. When he accuses hon. Members on this side of the Committee of making the same speech on the same theme in the same terms on every occasion, I am lost in amazement at his failure to apply that rather sweeping criticism to his own speeches. I have heard the hon. Member for the last five years on at least five occasions in every year make the same speech, and one result of his request is that I shall never again accuse him of wanting to fight Japan, Italy and General Franco single-handed, but shall confine my strictures to the fact that he wants to engage these three enemies in a maritime war in conjunction with 49 other nations, only three of whom have more than six gunboats between them.
    On the subject of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria I would ask him to cast his mind back to the remarks which were made by Mr. Stimson in America and realise that effective action against Japan, which I myself should have deplored, could never have been successful but with the whole-hearted concurrence of the American Republic. One thing I think stands clear from the speech of the hon. Member, and that is that when the history of these times comes to be written the most curious feature of this strange and amazing period will be the readiness with which the hon. Member and his colleagues, who have done their utmost to disarm this country on the seven seas, yet are anxious to rush the country into war; not alone, I agree, but with 49 other nations whose succour would be little less than useless. I am not going to send presents to the hon. Member but I would urge him to get a copy of two books, one "Left Wings over Europe" with a sub-title, "How to Make War About Nothing," and the other an American book "How to get into other people's wars."
    Let me make one brief reference to the speech of the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), who drew a most engaging picture of 8,000,000 of people who were ready to take part in some European conflict. I represent a constituency where I suppose the Left Wing forces have been particularly busy. I took an active part in opposing the Peace Ballot, but for which I think the

    275
    Emperor of Abyssinia would still be at Addis Ababa. I believe that over 70 per cent. of the people in my constituency recorded their vote in favour of military action against the aggressor. Within one month I had trebled my majority and was returned to this House, although I had consistently said that I should vote against His Majesty's Government if they engaged in any measure which was likely to lead to war with Italy. I cite that recollection to suggest to the Committee something of the muddle-headedness with which the signatures of millions of people who signed that declaration were obtained, without realising to what they were committing themselves. I would ask hon. Members whether they are satisfied that they would get an equally overwhelming majority now if they had another Peace Ballot in favour of automatic obligations—with the personal and unpleasant consequences of an affirmative signature—which have been ruthlessly brought home to a disillusioned people. When the Emperor of Abyssinia was here, the object of universal sympathy, a most distressing and sad figure, I do not believe that more than a tithe of the signatories to that Peace Ballot would have joined any army to restore him to his dominion. Speaking for myself and for other hon. Members, the pledge which was given by the Prime Minister at the last election which was most warmly applauded was the undertaking not 10 lead this country into war.
    The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) made an interesting contribution to the Debate, and he made a confession which I hope will not be lost sight of, that it was impossible to envisage economic sanctions which did not run the risk of war. That is a very different attitude from that which his party took up at the last election. When we challenged Independent Liberal opponents that this was the dilemma—are you prepared to run the risk of fighting Italy, and if so why do you oppose our proposed rearmament programme?—they had a satisfactory answer that war would not arise. The hon. Member said that it would be a good thing if His Majesty's Government would say, in regard to Czechoslovakia, that if Germany or any other aggressor attacked her the whole strength of the British Empire
    276
    would be banded together to protect Czechoslovakia if she was invaded. Why the Czechs alone? Where is this universal automatic obligation to police the world going to stop?
    I believe that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and still more the speech he made at Leamington, which I whole-heartedly approve, mirrored the policy which is acceptable to the great mass of the British people, which believes that we should limit our obligations. Under the Covenant of the League of Nations, to which we are pledged at the moment, we have certain universal peaceful obligations to use our best endeavours to bring about conciliation, but our only automatic military obligations are to protect our own Dominions and the territories of France and Belgium, which, for over three centuries, have been indistinguishable from our own from the point of view of national security.
    I hope I may be allowed to put in a brief plea on the general subject of sanctions. I have never found any escape from this difficulty, and if my right hon. Friend could give me some escape I would be deeply grateful to him. I have always been opposed to military sanctions, and I am almost equally strongly opposed to economic sanctions, for the reason that if they are employed against a powerful enemy, and are successful or show any risk of being successful, that enemy will take military action to get out of what would otherwise be an inescapable difficulty, and if economic sanctions are not going to be successful they will merely act as pinpricks and, without adding anything to the pacification of the world, will exacerbate the feelings of the nations.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) inaugurated this Debate. I hope I may be allowed to call him by hon. Friend, despite the etiquette of this House, because I once fought against him in a General Election. I think it is to the advantage of this House and the country that I was unsuccessful. I am always glad to hear the hon. Member's speeches, which are inspired by a clear head and a warm heart, not always frequent occurrences on the benches of the House of Commons. I join with the hon. Member in deploring the arms expenditure of every Government in the world, and I very much wish that this

    277
    gigantic sum could be devoted to the instruments of peace; but I am wholeheartedly behind the Government in the absolute necessity of a rearmament programme at the present time.
    I would like to put one question to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, who spoke on behalf of his party. Are hon. Members in his party definitely in favour of this programme or not, in the light of present circumstances? They have so long tried to shelter behind a series of quibbles that people who are anxious to discover the truth have not the remotest idea. Their votes and their speeches are frequently completely at variance. I believe there used to he in the dim ages a tradition in the House that if a Member spoke one way and voted the other, his speech counted. I think it would be an excellent thing if the same principle could be revived for the benefit of the Liberal party, who would find that their historical position would not suffer from that clarification of their actions.
    To return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gower, his speech was a moderate one, and I join with him in hoping that His Majesty's Government will make an emphatic declaration to the German Government, not at Geneva, but through the ordinary diplomatic channels, to the effect that there is "nothing doing" on the colonial question. I do not intend to go into the different arguments in this matter, but there were more Germans in Paris before the War than in the whole of the German Empire. If Germany had the complete trade of Tanganyika, which she would not be allowed to have under the Mandate, it would represent only one-half of one per cent. of all the raw materials and two per cent of the total trade—
    Mr. G. Griffiths: I would like the hon. Member to clear up one point. Did he say that there were more Germans in Paris before the War than there were in the whole of Germany?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should have said that there were more Germans in Paris than in the German overseas Empire. I am grateful to the hon. Member for calling my attention to that slip. The hon. Member for Gower sketched a brief outline of the conditions in Spain, and I hope the Committee will forgive me if I close my speech by making one or two
    278
    references to that turbulent country. The hon. Member for Gower avoided the note of controversy in what was indeed a wise and statesmanlike speech, but many people who hold the same political views as he does are not so restrained as he was when they are making speeches in the country. Foreign commentators do not altogether realise the relative importance of different people who make speeches in England on foreign affairs. I think it is important that something should be said to express the other point of view, perhaps couched in terms of some political bitterness, as an offset, not to what the hon. Member for Gower said, but to what some less instructed colleagues of his have said in the country.
    Mr. Gallacher: Are you not one of the irresponsible speakers?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One cancels out the other. The hon. Member for Gower, when speaking in Edinburgh on this subject a few months ago, said:
    "If you are in favour of intervention in this Spanish situation, you must be prepared for war and must take the responsibility for it."
    I very much hope that when the hon. Member goes round instructing his own followers, he will repeat that very sensible observation. The policy of his party is based on a number of assumptions with which I would like to deal. They say that the Government should have been ready to weigh the scales in favour of the legitimate Government of Spain because it is a constitutional Government. I am not sure on what they base that argument. Is it on the ex parte statements of such men as Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell who, having done their very best to minimise the importance of the national flag and having tried to diminish the strength of the national Fleet, find the first vital for protection against air raids, and the second, a useful avenue of escape from Spain? Or is it on the actual facts of the election? If they base their argument on the election, let me deal with it. An election was held in 1936: 47 per cent. of the Spanish people voted for the "Left" and 49 per cent. voted for the "Right." Those hon. Members who, like the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, are bewailing the absence of proportional representation, will be able to understand something of the anger of General Franco now.
    Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Member tell us the number of people over 21 years in Spain who have no vote?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not know the number, but it seems to me to be irrelevant to the present argument. The Government have had plenty of opportunities of altering the franchise, and have not done so. Before dealing with the situation that developed after 1936, I would like to deal with the revolution that took place in 1934. At that time, two years before the General Election, there was a legitimate and equally constitutional Government of the "Right." There was a bloody revolt, and the streets of Oviedo swam with blood as they do to-day. At least 4,000 people were killed. Hon. Members opposite did not at that time display the least distress that the constitutional Government of Spain was being attacked by rebels, and I am forced to believe that their opposition is limited to attacks by the forces of the "Right" on the so-called legitimate Government.
    Mr. T. Williams: Without agreeing with either of the revolutions, will the hon. Member also refer to the revolution caused by monarchists and militarists in 1932, when the first Republican Government was in power?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That was suppressed, with the approval of the hon. Member, and I am not aware that anybody on this side of the House applauded the action of the monarchists in that revolution. I certainly did not defend them, and I do not see why I should apologise for them now. Having given the figures of the 1936 election, may I proceed with my argument? One would have thought that, as the forces of the "Left" were elected by that very meagre vote of 47 per cent. of the whole, they would have gone very carefully about their business and governed the country in a moderate way, paying some respect to the opinion of the majority which had actually voted against them. I have no doubt that the Spanish Government meant to do that; it is perfectly conceivable that that was their intention. Their broadcasts, to which I have listened, in common with others, may well have been—
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. How far have the rights and wrongs of
    280
    the various Governments in Spain in the early 30's anything to do with the subject now before the Committee?
    The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Lennox-Boyd.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not doubt that the Spanish Government intended to do that, but what happened, as everybody knows, is that power was taken out of their hands and passed almost immediately into the hands of extremists, the main body of which had as its watchword "extermination." Then those of us who are loyal Christians and who believe in progressive development and social reform, and not in wild Communism, saw those people holding our point of view gradually and ruthlessly liquidated in Spain. Then Senor Sotelo, who made speeches in the Cortes giving the names of people who had been murdered and the list of churches which had been destroyed, was howled down by the opposition party, and, unlike what happens in this country, instead of being answered like the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) would answer a Member in this House, he was murdered outside the Parliament House. When he was murdered no action was taken to find or arrest his murderers, and what was true of this leader was true of a great many other people who were respectable people of the Right in Spain before the Revolution. I would earnestly ask my hon. Friend who, I know, is a fair-minded person—
    Mr. Grenfell: Is the hon. Member going to exhaust the catalogue of crimes on both sides in this unhappy conflict? If he does not know, perhaps it will interest him to learn that 5,000 people were murdered in Valladolid because they were workmen and members of trade unions.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not palliate the murders on either side, and both sides have a great deal to answer for on the final judgment day, but while the people who murdered citizens of the Left were brought to trial and punished, those who murdered citizens of the Right were not, because the Government were not powerful enough to do it. I would like to refer my hon. Friend to a letter in the "Times" to-day from the Bishop of Gibraltar, who says that after visiting Spain each year for four years he had

    281
    seen a progressive deterioration in the organs of government and had
    "witnessed the burning of the historic church of Niebla in April, 1936, one of several hundreds of buildings wantonly destroyed under the eyes of authority."
    Certainly the stories of the intellectual clerics of the Left do not give the whole picture.
    The second argument used by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the policy of non-intervention which the Government has so successfully followed has helped General Franco. I would like to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman said a few weeks ago, when he stated that Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia were the main producers of armaments, but that Great Britain has no armaments surplus of home requirements, and that, being democracies, Great Britain and France would have to allow equal sales to both sides. Germany, Italy and Russia would be tree to go to the sides they preferred, but Germany and Italy, being closer to Spain, would have been able to give more, and so the Government of Valencia might, in fact, have suffered more if the policy of non-intervention had been dropped. Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee also say that the scales had been weighted by Italy and Germany, but they make no reference to the incredible activities of the Russian Ambassador to Madrid in the course of the last few months, or to the elaborate preparations made in Russia for this particular trouble. If my hon. Friend is inclined to doubt what I am going to say, I would refer him to a book published in Paris in 1933 and written by the present Foreign Secretary of France, who says that when he was in Moscow,
    "I saw a room specially consecrated to the future Spanish Communist Revolution, with its newspapers, the Red Flag, La Paldera, etc., its portraits of Castilian Bolsheviks, its scenes of strikes and tumults. From which it appears that the Soviet count that its first successful contagion will be among our friends south of the Pyrenees."
    I will send my hon. Friend a copy of that book, which I earnestly commend to his attention. Finally, we are told that it is to our interest to stop General Franco from winning. For the life of me I cannot see why. It must not be assumed that if General Franco wins Spain will be antagonistic to us. A great many strong
    282
    States have been built up in the past, but the strength of Britain has been greater than theirs. This will not be a new Fascist State and this is not, as is said by the enemies of General Franco, a Fascist revolution at all. My hon. Friends say that we should intervene. I have a great respect for the military records of a number of Members on the other side. The Leader of the Labour party and the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) need not hesitate to be proud of what they have done for the defence of our common heritage, but I would like to ask them whether they are satisfied that we should really, intervene without the aid of our Dominions, and whether they have made up their minds whether our Dominions agree with them. Mr. Menzies, the Attorney-General in Australia, made a speech a few months ago to Members of the House. He cut through all the constitutional talk that has been going on, and said of Australia's attitude to a war in which we were engaged—these are not his actual words:
    "Of course, we should be in it, because if the King of England is at war all the King's subjects are at war too."
    Is it not, therefore, only common sense as well as an act of loyalty to our Empire to act in a united fashion if we are to take action likely to lead to war? If the hon. Member has information to the other effect it would very much surprise me. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side have not always held the point of view that they seem to hold now, judging from some of the remarks made by them at their party conferences and in the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party, when speaking last September in Cornwall, said:
    "There were those whose impulse was to say we must rush to help our Spanish comrades, but on these matters they must consult their heads as well as their hearts."
    At Edinburgh he said:
    "It was all very well to say that they must insist on international law being carried out, but how were they going to insist? The danger of European war could not lightly be brushed aside."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), after saying that it almost broke his heart, indulged in this picturesque sentence:
    "Is this conference prepared to have a battle between democracy and dictatorship over the bleeding body of Spain?"

    283
    Well might the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), in an article on the labour attitude which he wrote recently in the Press, refer to their plea for the abolition of non-intervention and say that it was nonsense to cry "Away with non-intervention," and then to crab recruiting at home. Whatever was defensible, he said, this blend of sentiment was not. The coup de grace was applied by the leader of the Labour party on the County Council when he said in explanation of these changes of view:
    "Our party is passing through an intellectual crisis."
    When we reflect that they took up a different attitude at Edinburgh until two Socialist speakers from Spain had made eloquent speeches, I think that the country will be glad that men who are ruled by their hearts and not by their heads are not in control of our destinies to-day.
    8.53 P.m.
    Mr. McGovern: I have been very interested in the various points of view that have been put across the Floor of the House to-day. I felt amazed when I listened to the speech of the Foreign Secretary, because there was no clear indication as to the road this country was travelling other than that we were arming to the teeth in order to prepare for all eventualities and to take on any aggressor that may be in the field. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech very carefully, and I have listened to him time and again, and I always feel that there is something which he holds in the background that he is afraid to disclose to the House as to the real aims and objects of his policy in relation to the foreign situation. In relation to the Spanish situation, he and the Government have proved themselves the friends of General Franco and have shown that the policy of non-intervention is a fallacy. There never has been a policy of nonintervention. There has been such a policy so far as the Spanish Government are concerned, which has assisted Franco and the bestial hordes of Fascists that have been pouring from Italy and Germany with their machine guns and aeroplanes into that unhappy country to deal death and destruction.
    I want to ask the Foreign Secretary whether if, for example, Australia had
    284
    been invaded by a foreign Power in the way that Spain has been invaded, he would have stood aside and said that a policy of non-intervention was the policy that ought to be pursued, and would have allowed forces to be poured in that part of the world? In relation to the struggle in Spain, have the Spanish Government no rights? They have been assailed by the forces of Franco, Mussolini and Hitler. We all realise that if it were a war between the Spanish Government and the people of Spain who had attacked them under Franco that the war would not have lasted one week. Had it not been for the fact that Moors, Legionaries, Italians and Germans were poured into that country, the war would have been over long ago, and Europe could have settled down to a policy of contentment with a Government able to bring security, progress and reforms in Spain.
    I am not urging that our Government ought to go to war with Franco; I am saying that the Spanish Government were entitled to enter the market to buy arms with which to arm the population to repel the invaders—the Moors, the Legionaries, the Italians and Germans and those sections of the landed nobility and officer class who broke their pledges to the Spanish Government on 19th July. All I claim is that they were justly entitled to expect that this Government, which had sat with them at the League of Nations, and which boasts of being proud to share in the troubles of other countries, should have allowed them to come to this country for arms with which to defend themselves against those who began this civil war.
    We are told from time to time that this is a war between Communist forces and those who are backing Christianity. Is Mussolini one of the Christian forces? In a pamphlet, called "Man and God," Mussolini wrote:
    "God does not exist; religion is scientifically absurd, an absurdity; in practice it is an immorality. It is a disease of the mind among men."
    That is the man who is helping to restore Christianity in Spain. And listen to what his assistant said on the wireless:
    "Butcher the Marxists as you would butcher pigs."
    Those are the Christians who have invaded that country and whom the right

    285
    hon. Gentleman opposite has been assisting from the beginning of this civil war in Spain. I claim that our Government cannot say "We must stand aside" and then, if Franco should be successful and join forces with Hitler and Mussolini in order to form a triple alliance to oppose the interests of this country, appeal to our working classes to help to beat back the bestial hordes of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. If Fascism and dictatorship on the Continent had to be defeated, the way to defeat them was to give the Spanish people the opportunity to defend themselves against this dictatorship.
    People talk with their tongues in their cheeks when they say that the Government of Spain was a communist government which was preparing for revolution and that Franco and his officers had stolen a march on it and prevented that revolution from taking place. Everyone who has inquired into the situation knows that the revolutions in that country have always come from the working class, who have been ground in the depths of poverty and despair not only by feudal landlords, not only by the agents of the aspiring capitalists, small as they were in numbers, but by the very Church itself, steeped in greedy, selfish soulless materialism. The Church used the pulpit for political purposes, to repress the aims and aspirations of the working classes, and called for days of prayer prior to a general election in order to assist the forces of the Right and to prevent the Left from winning through. Do not let us have any more hypocrisy such as we had from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) about the great struggle which is taking place in Spain, how the Right have always acted nobly and the Left always behaved monstrously.
    The workers of Spain have been cruelly maltreated, as scarcely any other peasants or working class in the world have been maltreated. They have been ground down into poverty and tears, but even in their hour of agony they, have struck out against the combined forces of reaction in Spain, and they ought to have been encouraged by the Governments of the world which pretend to be democratic and say they are interested in preserving democracy. We talk about men like Hitler and Mussolini restoring Christianity in Spain, but they are not Christian in their outlook at all. There is always this difference
    286
    between the capitalist atheist and the Communist atheist, that the Communist atheist is always used to feather the economic nests of the ruling class and to keep the working class in subjection. These people in Spain have been denied munitions. They have gone out with their bare bodies in order to beat back the forces of reaction, and their children have been bombed and terrorised, and our Government, which pretends to be the saviour of humanity, has stood aside and allowed this to go on without giving the legitimate Government of Spain and the people of Spain the opportunity to defend themselves.
    I also say frankly that in relation to the Spanish problem the whole working class movement has failed, and failed in a most horrible and crude manner. The leaders of it have been afraid of this nightmare, or this ghost or religious bogy which has been thrown up. They have been afraid to face up to the Roman Catholic-hierarchy in this country. Every man who has a Roman Catholic population in his division has succumbed to that overwhelming power, that electoral force in his division, and failed to stand up for that which he believes to be right. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not so."] I did not say all had done so, but I said that was the position in the main, and I can prove it if seriously challenged. I say it is the duty of a working class movement to defend the workers of every country when they are attacked by the ruling class, and if there is a reactionary element it is their duty even to swim against the tide for a period and instruct the people as to the road along which they ought to travel in repelling this insidious monster. We ought to have been able to demand from this Government action on behalf of the Spanish working class. How can we pretend to be the friends of democracy and the friends of the working class, in all parts of the world if we stand aside-and allow this mass murder to go on without seeing that the Spanish people have proper means of defending themselves in their own country?
    I have never called for war. I have never called for this country to go to war. If this were a working class Government I should expect them to assist the Spanish people; but I will never ask a capitalist Government to go to war to assist the working class, because I know such a thing would be an anomaly that

    287
    would never come about. Pretending to be the friends of democracy, the Government ought to have said to the legitimate Spanish Government: "You are attacked by officers who broke their word, who broke their oath to the State, you have been attacked by a section of the people in Spain, and we will give you, according to international law, arms with which to defend yourselves and to beat back this monster that is in your midst." Germany and Italy may march on to triumph in Spain, although I cannot see them doing so. When I was in Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia and elsewhere, I saw man-power that amazed me, imbued with grim, dogged determination that they were never going back to the poverty from which they were emerging. Having been given the power to defend themselves, they were determined to die rather than go back to that poverty. We should remember that, when assessing the man-power of that country.
    Everywhere that Franco has moved forward, the male population has moved backward, and although the Spanish Government control only about a half of the territory of Spain, they have almost two-thirds of the man-power of that country. In Madrid I met scores of young men who had crept over the hills every night for two and three quarter miles, burrowing on their stomachs, to get into the forces of the Spanish Government and to fight Franco's forces. One young man's brother was starved to death by the Moors because when he was going to be shot he cried: "Long live the International proletariat." He was set aside for special treatment. In front of his mother and this young boy of 18, II of them were shot but he was set aside. Then the Moors were set upon him, and in front of the mother and brother he was hacked to death because he wore a trade union badge. These beasts of the jungle who are controlling this territory speak in the name of Christianity. Christianity has never been prostituted to such depths as it is in Spain, in the Catholic Press of this country and by the bishops and clergymen of that territory. Fancy Moors coming out and having sacred badges placed upon their rifles by the bishops before they went into action. If that be religion, the sooner the world is cleansed of it the better. I believe that religion
    288
    can be high and idealistic, and that it can be an inspiring thing in the lives of men, women and children, if it is used to the best advantage, but when it becomes a sordid, soul-destroying thing allied to the economic machine for the suppression of the ideals of man, it is deadly.
    The Foreign Secretary may take no notice of my words here, but I would say to him with all the power at my command: "Remember that time is moving fast in this country, and that even in a year, or two years at the most, Fascism may be knocking at your doors here." You cannot distinguish between Franco, Hitler and Mussolini, because they are a triple alliance. Franco is in the pockets of the others. He is being financed, and man-power is being supplied to him. The army is holding a complete stranglehold over Franco and his forces. Franco may win, and if you have to meet them all within two years do not come to the working class of this country and say: "We are fighting the battle of Democracy. We are fighting against dictatorship," after you have denied to the working class of Spain the right to defend themselves. They are going down in a bloody struggle in that country. After close scrutiny, I say that Spain is the nearest approach that I have ever seen to a miracle. I saw how men have welded together a machine of a military character, imperfect as it may be, out of nothing. They have created it since 19th July. I say: "All honour to the Spanish working class," who are struggling to-night. If I cannot be depended upon to defend them in their hour of trial, I could not be depended upon to do the same for the British working class if their hour of trial should come.
    I make no bones about it. I am with them in their struggle against Franco. If the Government will not assist them in the military fashion they ought to have allowed those weapons to go, while weapons have been pouring in from Hitler and Mussolini. The Foreign Secretary seems to be turning a blind eye to that situation. He seems to have one eye open against the Spanish Government and the other eye closed, so far as Franco, Hitler and Mussolini are concerned. As to whether this country is moving towards war, I content myself by saying that we are marching remorselessly towards war. War will take place. I am confident that

    289
    the forces of Italy and Germany are marching towards the abyss. They are in danger of destruction in their own countries, and they will go to war in order to seek to build up their Empires.
    I should have liked to have made a reply to the hon. Member upon the Labour benches who put across a policy which I was astounded to hear. He advocated the return of colonies to Germany. This country is not all that I would wish it to be, nor is the rule of this country, but I will never be a party to handing over any man into the hands of the German Hitler or Mussolini. I will never willingly say to them: "You must go to the dictator." Do you think I want to hand over Palestine to Hitler or to put any of the African States into the arms of Hitler? Hand over the colonies to Hitler, and they will make him more aggressive. It will put the people of Germany more behind him. They will say, "We must back this policy of aggression. Hitler has laid it down that colonies must be returned, and the others, hearing him, have surrendered the colonies to him." I stand, as a Socialist, for every colony belonging to the people themselves. It is the policy of Socialism that the people should rule themselves, but, not having a government or a people in favour of that policy just now, I say that rather than hand over the colonies to Germany I would rather see them under the -Mandate as they are at the present moment. I have no time for any argument of that kind being used in this House.
    With regard to the League of Nations, I am willing to say that it is a fine conception of an effort of settling disputes and of arranging things throughout the world. It is a splendid ideal to struggle for, but let us be practical men and women in a country in which we are asked to give some contribution as to what ought to be done. The Peace Ballot has been argued about to-night. I had some of the people at my door. I saw them going round, and the essence of the thing that was put to the people was: "Are you in favour of peace?" Everybody says he is in favour of peace, and the Tory, the Liberal, the Nationalist, the Socialist, and the Communist could sign such a declaration, as subscribing to peace. At public meetings people said to me: "There is no need for war.
    290
    Economic sanctions are sufficient." I said, "Let us take this a little further. As a gamble, are you prepared to argue that economic sanctions may not be successful and that we may require to go to war? Are you prepared to back war?" I always found them invariably to say, "We will deal with that situation when it arises." I want to deal with it now.
    If I am to demand the application of sanctions in a so-called collective way by a few nations, I want to know what is the next step. I do not want to advance one step and discover that a fatal mistake has been made; I want to think out my policy to its logical conclusion. Sanctions under a League of Nations are a splendid ideal, but I say that there never was and never will be a League of Nations so long as capitalism exists, because the nations are split up into different camps with different economic conceptions and different economic interests. Germany was not in the League; America was not in the League; Italy was not in the League; Japan was not in the League; who was in? Holland, Switzerland and a few States that mean nothing in a military sense. Let us get down to brass tacks. Had war taken place, France and Britain were the two countries that would have been required to bear the brunt of the whole situation. If hon. Members wish to argue along those lines, they are entitled to do so, but let us have honest discussion, let us have the ultimate aim in view, and let us have the steps thought out beforehand. I would put this question to hon. Members, independently of political parties: If war had taken place over Abyssinia, and France and Britain and even Russia had joined in the struggle, and if Japan and Italy and Germany had resisted, seeing opportunities of colonising and taking territory, would not that have been a first-class war? Am I to go down to people in Glasgow or in the country and say, "We have got to fight for Manchuria; we have got to fight in the Chaco war; we have got to fight because the Rhineland has been invaded; we have got to fight for Abyssinia; we have got to fight in every quarter"? My reply is, "No." I measure these things in terms of myself. I have a boy of 21, and I am not prepared to encourage him to go and fight for Abyssinia, or China, or the Rhineland, or any other part of the world.

    291
    If hon. Members are willing to do that, let us be sure that they know what they mean. Do they mean that they are prepared to join the Army? There are plenty of people in this House who talk glibly of sanctions and going to war in a collective sense. Will they join the Army? If they are going to join the Army, let them get on to the recruiting platform. I agree with the hon. Member who said that the basis of collective security must be individual armament, because there can be no collective security unless you have powerful armaments to resist if it comes to war. Why shirk the issue? Why not say, "We will go on encouraging, devising, building, stimulating collective security, but we will provide the gunboats, the bombing planes, the chasing planes, the destroyers, the submarines; we will provide the gas; we will provide all the modern means of war"? That to my mind, is the conclusion. If I believe in collective security, I believe in individual rearmament of the States that are going to supply the collective security against Hitler, against Mussolini, against Japan if necessary. In order to beat any combination that may be displayed in a war, you have to have armaments to deal with it. We are marching towards that abyss to-day.
    The Government of this country are not facing the situation in a realistic manner. Germany and Italy are arming; the contradictions of capitalism are there; the rival imperialist interests are there; and we have no policy of a working-class kind in this country to oppose them. We could rouse this country at the present moment if the Labour party, united with every section of working-class progressive thought, could go to the country and say, "War is the outcome of the rivalries of capitalism, and we have to return a working-class Government here that will use the opportunity to establish, not democracy in its Tory sense, but democracy in its Socialist sense." In that way we could return a Government that would change the face of history, and, instead of marching to death and destruction, as we are to-day, we could march forward to peace, progress and prosperity. You may try from without to crush those countries and to repel them, but in the end salvation can only come from within the country. The German working class, the
    292
    Italian working class, can overthrow the rulers when they are determined to do so. After hearing the words on Spain that roused me to proceed along these channels, I say that I look to the future with hope and courage and determination. A working-class Spain, a working-class France, a working-class Britain is the solution of the problem, and not capitalist government with its rearmament policy.
    9.22 p.m.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I felt sure that, before the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) had finished his speech, he would make an appeal for the United Front, and would offer his accustomed blandishments to the Labour party to join in that concentration. He has told us repeatedly, and with great sincerity I am sure, that we are marching to war. If that be so, surely there never was a better or more powerful justification for the policy which the Government are now pursuing of keeping out of trouble and rearming our forces so that we may properly defend our shores. The hon. Member's speech, and especially the first part of it, surely shows the danger that would have come upon us had we followed his advice and intervened in the Spanish dispute. He painted a dreadful picture of conditions in Spain, and the atrocities of the anti-Government forces. But I have heard the same kind of impassioned attack upon the Spanish Government by an emissary of Franco. The truth is that here in this country we cannot possibly take sides in that conflict, even on the evidence of a Member of the House of Commons; the only conclusion is that we had better remain out of it. The hon. Member urged that the Spanish Government should have had the right to enter the arms market. The question has been put before, and I repeat it again to the hon. Member now: Would he give the same right of entry into the arms market to Hitler if he were attacked by some subversive movement, or to Mussolini if his Government were being undermined? If that indeed be the hon. Member's argument, he is throwing himself open to the charge of arming by this country of the very men whom he would oppose—Fascist rulers in all parts of the world.
    Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the hon. Member to consider the reverse question?

    293
    Would this Government refuse arms to Hitler if there were a rising in his country?
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. Member need not put that question; I was answering an argument of the hon. Member for Shettleston, and was putting to him a reasonable reply.
    Mr. McGovern: Is it not a peculiar thing that this Government, while preventing the Spanish Government from getting arms, have allowed arms to go to Franco?
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I can only accept the assurances that have been given by the spokesmen of the Government. Those assurances, which have been repeatedly given to the House, are that we have put on the fullest embargo against the export of arms to those forces. We are sending no arms to either side. In another part of his speech the hon. Gentleman urged that this Government should enter with its forces into any part of the world where the working classes are being attacked?
    Mr. McGovern: I do not want to be misrepresented. I have never suggested that we should send forces. I would never encourage this country to go to war with Franco, but I claim that the Government of Spain, as a legitimate Government, should have access to the armaments market.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I took down the hon. Member's words. He said that our duty was to go to the defence of the working classes, in whatever part of the world.
    Mr. McGovern: I was speaking for myself, and of a Labour movement.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I understand. His case was that this country should go to the defence of a particular section.
    Mr. McGovern: No, no. Do not misrepresent me. I said that I as a Socialist, and the entire Socialist movement of this country, should be expected to aid working-class people in distress in any part of the world. I do not mean a Government. I mean a working-class movement as distinct from a Government.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He meant that had there been a Labour Government in office
    294
    he would have expected it to take an active part.
    Mr. McGovern: I must keep the hon. Member right. Had there been a Labour Government in this country I would have expected it to have given the necessary arms to Spain, so that the Spanish Government might have defended itself.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am glad the hon. Member now confirms what I am saying. He said that in certain circumstances—the circumstances being that there was a strong left wing Government in this country—he would have had Great Britain intervene by the sending of arms. My own contention has always been, and it is confirmed by reports that I have received from Spain, that had we done as he asks, and opened our markets to the Government side, that would have involved also the supply of arms by the fascist powers to the other side, and the net result would have been that the Government which the hon. Member so eloquently supports would have suffered, because in fact more arms would have gone to the insurgents and that ultimately might have led to European war.
    The House at the end of this long Debate has to make up its mind not only what is right for this country but, equally important, what the citizens of this country will regard as being right. I was looking the other night at some of the speeches made by leaders in this House in the years just before the last War. I remember a speech by Mr. Asquith, in which he replied to certain suggestions that this country should arm on a large scale in order to intervene here and there for the preservation of world peace. He said that that would have involved great armaments, that our country might have been able to meet the cost; but he turned it down then, as the Government turn it down to-day, on the ground—and it is vitally important to a democratic country —that the people would never have stood for that kind of armament.
    My contention is that the people of this country would not to-day stand for the policy contemplated by the Opposition, and expressed in the words of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). The hon. Member said that his party is not anxious to go to war. Nobody has suggested that the hon. Member is a bellicose individual. Our

    295
    criticism is that the policy of the Labour party by sheer stupidity would have led us into war. I am not an authority on foreign affairs, but I think I am expressing the point of view of the ordinary man —the farmer, fisherman and miner whom I am sent here to represent—when I say that in the view of the ordinary Scotsman, Englishman or Irishman there are three main principles to be observed in the foreign policy of this country at the present time. The first of these principles is that our country must constantly aim at peace. Aggrandisement, desire to extend our authority, our ownership, our possessions—all that must be set aside.
    That should be the first principle of British foreign policy to-day, seeking after peace. The second is that while our country should play its proper part in leadership, in great world issues, while it should strive to extend understanding among the peoples of the earth, while it should endeavour to encourage the growth of the rule of law, at the same time our country should to the utmost limits of honour keep out of other people's troubles. That I believe profoundly to be an important principle in the minds of the ordinary people of this country. Thirdly, I think this principle would be suggested by that ordinary citizen—that, in the interests of self-defence and international, prestige, we should resume at the earliest moment our historic role as the most powerfully armed nation in Europe. That is a statement that, as an 'ex-soldier who went through the last War, one makes with regret and despondency. There is almost hopelessness in the thought that we should have at this time to think again of armaments. But what other course is open to us?
    I agree largely with the second part of the hon. Member's speech, in which he said that we must face this problem as practical men, and the practical problem to-day is that we are confronted, in a number of points in Europe, with potential aggressors armed as no nations have been armed before. We are faced also with the fact that collective security, magnificent ideal as it is, splendid objective to which we should work, is at present no longer a thing in which we can repose the safety of the realm. I wish it were not
    296
    so, but it is true. There is not a Member of this House who would place the safety of those who are dear to him in the hands of collective security alone at this time. Other steps must be taken, and they are that we should provide ourselves with adequate arms for our own defence. That is the policy which is now being pursued by the Government, and I am certain—in spite of all that is said from other parts of the House —is a policy which has the support of the vast majority of people in this land. If you ask the ordinary man in the street why the Abyssinian incident was a failure, he will tell you that had this country been as well armed then as it will be in a year or two years' time Mussolini would never have stepped from his own shores. That is the plain man's view which I put to the House. The plain man seeks peace. He seeks no interference in other affairs, but he asks for a solid, sure defence of his native land.
    9.36 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I should like to make a reference to the portentous manner in which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) delivered himself of a mass of absurdities, inaccuracies and inconsistencies. I have not time to go into the various questions that he raised, except to say that in connection with Spain his facts are wrong, his atrocities are on the wrong side entirely and his suggestion that the insurgents are endeavouring to instal Christianity in Spain against the wishes of the Government will not hold water for five minutes. As has been pointed out, the insurgents are being aided by the Mohammedan Moors, and there is Mussolini, a notorious Atheist. The Nazi Bishop has re-written the Sermon on the Mount to bring it more into harmony with German militarism. [An HON. MEMBER: "What religion does Stalin profess?"] Stalin does not profess any religion other than Communism. He does not profess any religion. You do not find anyone who is supporting the working-class side in the Spanish trouble hoisting the religious banner. When you get the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire hoisting the religious banner in company with the pagan Hitler, the Atheist Mussolini and the Mohammedan Moors, it is a queer combination. You have to look, not to religion, but to something else for a common denominator.

    297
    In regard to sanctions, the hon. Member said that when they are successful the nation against which they are imposed will make war. Was there ever such an absurdity? The nation against which they are levelled is already at war and, if sanctions are successful, it means that they are making it impossible for the nation that is then at war to continue at war. The First Lord of the Admiralty, who, as Foreign Secretary, made such a good job of it that he had to be thrown out, said that our difficulty arose from the fact that a new situation had arisen in Europe. He said that if oil sanctions had been effectively applied, the war in Abyssinia would have been brought to a speedy termination, but he was afraid that Italy, driven desperate, would make war in Europe. When oil sanctions are applied it is impossible for Italy to continue the war in Abyssinia and so the war comes to a speedy termination. When it is impossible for Italy to continue the war in Abyssinia, Italy will start a new war in Europe. Are we children, that you come out with such nonsense? Even the Foreign Secretary hinted at that absurdity.
    As things stand to-day, without another penny on armaments, the peace nations are more powerful than the aggressor nations. Everyone refers to Germany, Italy and Japan as being the aggressors. The strange deposit that has landed on these benches, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), is the only one I have heard who comes out representing the Nazi demand for colonies. All the other Members refer to Germany, Italy and Japan as being aggressive. You have aggressive nations in Europe and out of Europe, and you have nations which are not aggressive. It is true that there are peace nations in Europe, and that there are nations that are driving to war. Germany and Italy pile up armaments and the others pile up armaments. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer all say, "Look at these great armaments in Europe. They are driving us steadily towards war on the Continent. We will pile up armaments, but while the armaments on the Continent are driving us towards war, the armaments that we will pile up will help us towards peace. Armaments over there are for war.
    298
    Armaments here are for peace." What sort of humbug is this? Those are for defending Socialism and these are defending Capitalism. We want to defend peace.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer put two questions to us. I remember debating once with an opponent who tried to work this trick off on me. He sat up all night and prepared a few trick questions. While he was talking and I was working out the line of my reply, he suddenly threw these trick questions in order to try to get my mind away from the line of argument. It is an old trick and a shabby one. It has often been played. Anyone who is preparing a line of argument for a discussion cannot allow himself to give his attention to questions directed in that manner, but when you sit back and look at them, what amazes me is the infantile vanity that could produce such questions. The answer is so simple. Are we for using British armaments for any object apart from those mentioned by the Foreign Secretary? No. Are we for using British armaments for the object mentioned by the Foreign Secretary? No. Are we for using British armaments for anything? No, because we know that as soon as they are used it is destruction for civilisation, according to the honest Prime Minister.
    Therefore, instead of concerning our minds with how we are going to use armaments, our minds are concerned all the time with how we can unite the forces of peace and prevent armaments being used for anything. Get the peace nations together. Why does not the Foreign Secretary get a clear understanding with France, Soviet Russia, Czechoslovakia, and the other nations in the League for the building up of peace? Let us centre all our attention and energies on building up peace. But no, you pile up armaments and you throttle peace. We are for building up peace and throttling war and all those who stand for war. We want to reverse the process that is being carried through by the Government, and if we do not defeat you here to-night, out in the country we will raise the forces that will defeat you there. I challenge the Government to go to the country with this programme, and if they do, I will guarantee that they will never occupy those benches any more.
    9.47 P.m.
    Captain Cazalet: I would like to intervene for a moment in order to correct one or two impressions which the last speaker has given in regard to the conflict in Spain. I think I am the latest visitor to that part of the world, and I am afraid that, from the point of view of the Opposition, I visited the wrong side and came back with the wrong view. I realise that Spain is one of those countries to-day in regard to which it does not make the least difference what evidence is produced. Whatever the personal evidence that is produced as to facts, those who believe certain things will continue to believe them. Therefore, I will not weary the Committee with my own views, impressions or experiences, but we have one thing in common at any rate. We both desire one side to win. I desire General Franco to win, and equally passionately hon. Members opposite desire the Goveriment side to win. Where I differ from them is that while they at any rate advocate a policy which would mean intervention on the Government side, I have always felt that intervention by any country in Spain was unwise and foolish, and that intervention by this country would be criminal folly.
    I quite appreciate some of the motives which animate hon. Members of the Opposition and that they think they are supporting and wish to support in Spain a constitutionally, legally, democratically elected Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to think that that is their motive, and I can produce, though I do not suppose it will have much influence on them, any amount of evidence to show that that Government is not constitutionally or legally elected. [Interruption.] It is quite clear that hon. Members are conscious that there is evidence to that effect. The President of the Republic at that time, President Zamorra, has made a public statement to the effect, and he himself now says that the election when it took place was entirely unconstitutional. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, that is the evidence of the President himself, though hon. Members may not accept that. There is another ground, and that is that hon. Members know, if they want to know, what happened during the five months when that Government was in office, from February to July. They know the number of buildings that were
    300
    burned and destroyed; they know that over 1,000 people were murdered; they know, and if they do not perhaps they will allow me to tell them, that a Conservative member of the Spanish Parliament, after denouncing the Opposition—a practice they indulged in every day—went to his home and in a few hours was publicly murdered by policemen in uniform, and no effort was made to find the murderers.
    Mr. W. A. Robinson: Good old Black and Tans.
    Captain Cazalet: It is clear that these facts are unpalatable to hon. Members opposite, and the curious thing is that those hon. Members who are so opposed to Communists in this country always seize every opportunity of embracing them abroad. Apparently, as long as they keep at a distance, they do not mind them. Are hon. Members really content that any Government which would allow the state of affairs to continue in Spain which took place in the early months of last year does deserve the support or loyalty of the masses of the people it was supposed to govern? I quite realise that the opinions of hon. Members opposite are largely influenced by the fact that they are frightened—and perhaps there is some ground for that fear—that if and when General Franco wins—[HON. MEMBERS: "He never will."]—I at any rate am not bold enough to prophecy, but hon. Members opposite are. All I can say is that I confidently believe he will, but hon. Members opposite are afraid that if and when General Franco wins, German and Italian influence will dominate Spain—
    Miss Rathbone: And Gibraltar.
    Captain Cazalet: I believe they largely exaggerate the danger from those quarters. [Interruption.] I am not a Nazi. I am as anti-Nazi as any hon. Member on those benches. One hon. Member from those benches gave a figure to-day of 90,000 Germans and Italians helping General Franco's side. It is no good saying that one does not believe that figure, but I am convinced that it is overwhelmingly exaggerated. The figure is nothing like that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who interrupts gave evidence as to what he had seen on the Government side in Spain, and I allowed him to speak without interruption, and if I

    301
    say what I saw on General Franco's side, I am entitled to have as good eyesight as the hon. Member. I certainly saw Germans there. There is a good number of Germans there. All that I say is that the number has been grossly exaggerated. Furthermore, I wish to make this point: I confess that there are Germans on General Franco's side, and that they have given considerable assistance, but not a word do I hear of the French and Russians on the other side. [Interruption.]
    The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): Order.
    Captain Cazalet: I have plenty more that I can say, and I quite appreciate the interruptions, which show that it is high time that these facts were stated to the Opposition. I say that France and Russia, although having agreed to a policy of neutrality, have sent aeroplanes, men, guns, and ammunition, and then the Opposition hold up their hands in horror because some Germans and Italians are helping the other side.
    Duchess of Atholl: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean that the French Government have sent aeroplanes and men to Spain?
    Captain Cazalet: That was the interruption that I hoped I should get from the Opposition. I have seen French aeroplanes which have been shot down on General Franco's side. Do hon. Members imagine that over 100 aeroplanes could leave France to help the Government side in Spain without the French Government knowing anything about it? I have no desire to bring that accusation against the French Government. Everybody who is prepared to face facts would not allow himself to be bamboozled by Bolshevists.
    Miss Rathbone: Was the "Times" correspondent?
    Captain Cazalet: Everybody knows perfectly well that the French poured in munitions, aeroplanes and men. I do not deny that the Germans and Italians helped the other side, and it would spoil their case to deny it.
    Mr. McGovern: On a point of Order. Is it proper for the hon. and gallant Member to make serious reflections upon the French Government by suggesting that they sent aeroplanes? They are our allies.
    The Chairman: I have listened very carefully to the hon. and gallant Member, and I have not heard him say anything that reflects upon the French Government.
    Captain Cazalet: The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) talked about the enthusiasm and ardour which he saw among those who were supporting and fighting for the so-called Government of Spain. I can also pay equal testimony to the other side as I have also seen hundreds and thousands of men showing equal ardour, enthusiasm and determination. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Moors?"] The Moors at the moment form a very small part of General Franco's forces. I have seen these hundreds and thousands of men on General Franco's side fired with just as much enthusiasm as anybody on the other side, and they are determined that never will they allow their country to be dominated by a Government that is intimidated, influenced and assisted by Communist countries. I apologise for the discontinuity of my remarks. Much has been said about these matters, and there are many things I should have liked to have said to-night, but at any rate we can hope that peace will soon come to this distracted country of Spain, and that in the future she will be allowed to govern both her country and her colonies, and that it will be the government of Spain by Spain without the intervention of foreign countries.
    9.59 P.m.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I believe that everybody in all quarters of the Committee will agree that we have had to-day a very opportune and valuable Debate. To my mind the great importance of the Debate, as has been agreed in different quarters, is the broad general policy with regard to disarmament and the preservation of peace which the Government have pursued. It is to that part of the subject that I desire to devote the greater part of what I want to say to-night. But I want by way of introduction to say a few words about what is after all the most urgent question in foreign affairs at the present time, namely, the situation in Spain. It would give me a great deal of pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), and I should like to discuss with him the murder of Calvo Sotelo, and to inquire whether he is aware of the

    303
    dastardly murder of a Republican officer by which the murder of Sotelo was preceded; whether it was not the fact that, after this officer had been given police protection for months, he demanded that it should be taken off, and within a few hours he was found murdered in the street with 40 bullets in his body; and whether the hon. Member is aware that it was this officer's men who on their own initiative went to the headquarters of Calvo Sotelo because they knew that it was his organisation which had committed the murder and they took reprisals. He said that nothing was done to these men. The Government put these policemen on trial for murder, and the procedure was going forward when General Franco's revolt began.
    I do not want to follow the hon. and gallant Member into the constitutionality of the present Government. I suppose that he would tell us that the Government had not a majority of votes at the last election. Certain it is that the Government which conducted the election was a Government of the Right and that it was conducted on the basis of the Constitution, and that the Popular Front got within 20,000 votes of those which were cast by all the other parties together. Have we never had a Conservative Government in this country with a minority of votes, and would we for that reason have justified bloody revolution? Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not inquired enough into the subject to know that supporting the Government to-day there are many parties who did not support the Popular Front at the last election.
    Captain Cazalet: I am fully aware of all these facts. Unlike hon. Members opposite, I wish to hear both sides, and I have ample evidence to answer every question. The only point was that the Government were responsible for finding those murderers and bringing them to trial.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Which they were in process of doing, as they had done in nearly every other case when reprisals had been made for murders the Fascists had committed.
    Mr. Remer: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many murders were committed during that period and how many persons were convicted?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Nobody knows. I believe that there were powerful organisations in Spain endeavouring to create disorder. I regret that fact, from whichever side the disorder may have come. I think that some of it was from the Left, but I do not think that that justified the action of the rebels who, instead of supporting their Government to maintain order and to obtain justice for themselves and their parties by constitutional means, threw their country into a terrible civil war. But I want to come to the main facts of the present situation, on which I want to say a few words. The principal fact is that at long last some system of control over the so-called non-intervention agreement is, we hope, about to be introduced. I do not want to say anything to disparage the work of the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues, but that system has taken seven months to obtain, although they assured us throughout that time that there was an urgent danger of international war and although the Government of Madrid very quickly accepted almost every proposal that was made to them. That is not a great credit to the methods of the old diplomacy that agreement has been finally secured. We on this side believe that better results would have been obtained if from the beginning we had treated the Spanish business as what it was, a case of international aggression, and had taken it before the League. In any case control is coming. I beg of the Foreign Secretary and of the Government to see that it is not, as the non-intervention agreements have been up to now, another sham. I beg of the Foreign Secretary not to fall into the error which I venture to think he has fallen into in the past, of doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) called turning a blind eye to the facts, or, as I should phrase it, allowing himself to believe too easily what he wants to believe.
    Just before Christmas the Foreign Secretary made an eloquent speech, of great parts of which I very warmly approved. There was a passage in that speech about Lord Palmerston's policy in Spain in 1836, in which the right hon. Gentleman quoted the fact that the Spanish Ambassador had asked for the help of the British Government then, flattering himself that he was going to receive it, and that Lord Palmerston had refused. As was pointed out later by one

    305
    who is, perhaps, the greatest living authority on the history of that period, Professor Webster, Lord Palmerston, when the Spanish revolution developed, not only allowed Spain to buy arms in this country, but allowed 10,000 British subjects to enlist, suspending the Foreign Enlistment Act for that purpose. He sent from our own arsenals 250,000 rifles for the Government troops. He even considered placing a British general in charge of the Government forces and he did allow the British Navy to fight for the Government and to hold the ports of the country against the rebels. Why did he do it? Because, as Professor Webster explained, he thought it was to the British interest that constitutional Government should prevail in Western Europe, and he saw that the resistance of the Spanish rebels was being prolonged by the fact that they were being financed to the tune of £50,00 a month by the reactionary Powers. I quote this incident because I think it illustrates the danger that the Government may allow themselves, too easily, to believe what they want to believe. Someone had supplied the Foreign Secretary with some of the facts; and I wish I thought that this was the only occasion on which it had happened.
    Let us look at this business of non-intervention and control from the point of view of the Government of Madrid. They say—it is not my view, but what they say—"We have already won this war twice. We won it against Franco's officers in the first fortnight. Then we had to start again because of the Moors whom Mussolini's aircraft brought to Spain. We won it against the Moors after fearful losses because, for several months, we were without arms. Now we are face to face with these tremendous forces of Germans and Italians and we haw still to win against the foreign invasion which is proceeding." How was this result brought about? They say, and I am bound to say that for my part I think they have a strong reason on their side, that on the one side we imposed the embargo, depriving the Government of rights which have always been recognised in international law, knowing all the time that the Fascists were not doing it on the other side, knowing that the Fascists only came in when they thought they had put in enough stuff to win, and that when they did come in they continued to violate the agreement on a large scale.
    306
    I do not believe that anybody thinks that Russia really violated that agreement on any considerable scale until the middle of October when she came to the Non-Intervention Committee and said she was going to observe it as the other Powers were doing. Those of us who said that our policy was wrong were always taunted with the fact that even the Russians themselves were not supplying arms. The same thing, alas, has happened about the volunteers. On 1st February I asked the Foreign Secretary whether, if he prohibited volunteers without a control there would not be a danger that there would be a one-sided observance of the prohibition and that the Fascists would rush in an enormous number of troops before control had been completed. The Foreign Secretary said, "The hon. Member's reflection has not escaped me," in a tone of voice which made me hope that while the right hon. Gentleman would not mind 5,000 or 10,000 Germans or Italians, 50,000 would be a different thing. Mr. Vernon Bartlett tells us that from a neutral source he has learned that Franco has 60,000 Italians and 30,000 Germans. I happen to know, though I cannot divulge the information which was given to me in confidence, what his source was, and I hope and believe that the Foreign Secretary knows it too.
    Mr. Eden Mr. Eden indicated dissent.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I believe it is serious information. But we do not require to rely upon him. We have the diplomatic correspondent of the "Times" writing on 17th February after the meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee of which he stated that the proceedings had deepened the impression that some of the principal Powers were deliberately playing out time in the hope that the issue of the war would meanwhile be decided in their favour by force of arms, and he went on to say:
    "The inflow of Italians has been extremely rapid in the last eight weeks and it is not impossible that their total number has risen within that period from a figure below 10,000 to one within measurable distance of 50,000."
    Sir A. Chamberlain: Can the hon. Gentleman say the numbers engaged on the other side?
    Earl Winterton: Russians and French!
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid I have not the whole of the figures.
    Sir A. Chamberlain: It is very material. My recollection is that the statement was made that there were 40,000 volunteers and 30,000 on the side of the Madrid Government.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Mr. Vernon Bartlett, who has been on the Madrid side for some time, says that casualties have reduced their international brigade to 7,000. I do not wish to dwell on the matter any further but I think it is admitted that there are volunteers in considerable numbers on the Government side but those who are with the rebels are not volunteers; they are troops—Government troops—and I think it is also admitted that their number is in excess—and greatly in excess—of the number on the Government side, and that they have been going in in great numbers during the last few weeks. My purpose is to beg the Foreign Secretary to see that this control, if it is brought in, is made effective and impartial as between the two sides and that it is not another sham. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that our honour, as well as our interests are at stake, in seeing that this is done.
    Now I admit that we should regard it as disastrous if Fascist aggression were to succeed in Spain, and that for two reasons. First, because we believe that it is a new technique of aggression and that one success leads to another. They began with Austria in 1934. The Foreign Secretary has suffered enormously from the intervention in Danzig. Then there was Palestine. He will be aware of the statement of Sir Ronald Storrs, who was Governor of Jerusalem and of Cyprus, and who said that he had not the least doubt that the Arabs who were making the trouble had the support of foreign Governments and that gold came from foreign countries into Palestine.
    Earl Winterton: He included Russia.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I have not had the opportunity of discussing it with him.
    Earl Winterton: I have.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: But in any case it is certain that he meant the Fascists.
    Earl Winterton: He meant Russia and Italy—on both sides.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not care where intervention comes from; I want it stopped. I believe in real non-intervention.
    308
    The second reason why we deplore what has happened in Spain, the one-sided application of these agreements and the Government's policy of turning a blind eye to patent facts, is because that policy is undermining the law upon which the League of Nations is built. It is undermining the Covenant and the Kellogg Pact. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said to-day: "Give us no more pacts. Let us apply the pacts we have." I agree, and every time we turn a blind eye to an aggression we destroy the value and restraining power of these pacts.
    The Foreign Secretary talked about the prestige of the League of Nations. He begged us not to belittle what it had done. I do not think that we on this side are likely to do that. We say on every platform that the League of Nations is the only hope of the civilisation in which we live. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the League has done good work in recent times. The last 10 disputes which it has settled since 1931 have been worth settling, although they compare with a list of about 100 which were settled in the 10 years before.
    Mr. Eden: No. Twenty-four.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: There were more than 50 cases taken in the Permanent Court alone.
    Mr. Eden: No.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Certainly. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the two failures which there had been, Manchuria and Abyssinia, dominated the rest, and that people took no notice of the successes because of the failures there had been. He said, or he implied—I do not want to misrepresent him—that it was due to the fact that journalists liked discords and quarrels better than diplomatic successes. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if he did not mean that. I should have thought that that statement was rather ungenerous to the Press. I think the significance of the failures is deeper than that. In the first place, there have been four and not two failures, because we must add the war in the Gran Chaco and the war in Spain. The significance of those failures is this, that if you have a law at all you must uphold it, and if you do not uphold it it ceases to be a law. Without a law you cannot have

    309
    a League of Nations that is worth while. If you are going to uphold the law you must envisage the use of armed force. In our view the purpose of British armed forces is to uphold world law in order that we and the other nations may have peace. We regard that as overwhelmingly the predominant interest of our people, in comparison with which the defence of any given Colony or any other kind of diplomatic interest is of very secondary importance.
    The Foreign Secretary asked us, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked us the other day, whether we are content with the Foreign Secretary's statement in the country about the Government's policy for the preservation of peace through collective security. We were asked whether we approved of it. I say without hesitation, and I believe that I am in agreement with my hon. Friends on this side, that we do not. I believe that it has almost every disadvantage that you can conceive. Take the famous case of Czechoslovakia. We are always asked whether the British working man would fight for Czechoslovakia. The Government by their plan want to escape the obligation of fighting for Czechoslovakia. As the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) pointed out, if we accepted that obligation, we should probably get a system in Europe under which an attack will never be made; but if we do not, are we going to escape?
    Did the Foreign Secretary read a speech by M. Blum, in which he said that France would certainly fight for its allies and would uphold the Covenant if they were attacked? Any French Government would do the same. If France fights for Czechoslovakia, what shall we do? Are we staying out? The Foreign Secretary says that he is going to avoid the difficulties and dangers of 1914. But the danger in 1913 did not come from Belgium but from Serbia. The danger to-day is that something will start in the east and that France, under the alliance system, will be in the same position as in 1914. She cannot afford to allow Germany to win. Shall we fight? We shall have the same choice. Shall we go in or wait to fight another day?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: Will the hon. Member explain the attitude of his hon. Friends and himself on the question of
    310
    the Rhineland. Why did they not take a stronger line at the time?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid I do not follow the hon. Member's question. The Government under the policy which the Foreign Secretary has outlined are definitely contemplating the possibility of using our armed forces in war. In the last War we won after immense losses and after we had made alliances, starting with Russia, then very soon bringing in Rumania and Greece, and most of Europe. Then we brought in a large part of Latin America, and then Japan and China. All of them made a contribution to the victory we secured. What is the alliance which the Foreign Secretary is proposing? He is proposing an alliance with France, Belgium, Holland, Egypt and Iraq. He is not facing the prospect that in such a war the Irish Free State may well be neutral, that South Africa may be neutral, and possibly Canada as well. And are the Government quite certain that the British people will fight for the oil wells of Iraq if Turkey goes in with Germany again? And do they really believe that they will win a war of major importance with an alliance such as that? We must come back to fundamentals and recognise that unless we restore the validity and binding force of international law, the Covenant and the Kellogg Pact, there is no hope for mankind.
    On that point the policy of this party has always been perfectly clear. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will do us the kindness to read the written declarations adopted by our party conferences over a long period of time they will see that our policy is clear, whereas on many occasions the policy of the Conservative party has not been very clear and the Conservative party has been split from top to bottom. On the general question of pooled security, in our first manifesto on the subject issued in 1917, while the War was going on, we said that the peace of the world could not be secured unless the peace-loving nations were willing to pool their armed strength, and we have always desired that the armed strength of the peace-loving nations of the world should be pooled. We supported the principle laid down by the Phillimore Committee, which drew up the first draft of the Covenant, the draft which, in fact, the British Government put forward in

    311
    Paris when many Members of the present administration were present. The Phillimore Committee said:
    "Article 2 contains the sanction we have proposed. We have desired to make it as weighty as possible. We have therefore made it unanimous and automatic, and one to which Bch State must contribute its force without waiting for the others."
    I admit that that was not what the Covenant ultimately said, although I believe that the Covenant contains a general though "imperfect" obligation to use military strength if it is required to uphold the Covenant against attack. But if the Government once accept, as they say they do, the principle of collective security, if they envisage even economic sanctions for the world at large or even for Europe, surely that principle of the Phillimore Committee is only common sense. If you have sanctions, make them as strong as you possibly can, and use all your power to make the combination which you will have, if aggression occurs, overwhelming against the aggressor. We believe that if only His Majesty's Government would accept that principle, and would go to Geneva in the near future and propose a great new policy founded on that principle, they could transform the world situation in a very short time.
    I am afraid the Government have come to think of saving peace in terms of war, and some members of the Government, if one is to judge by speeches, are even thinking in terms rather of victory than of preventing war. We believe that if the Government accepted the principle that sanctions, if you have them, shall be strong—as strong as you can make them—then immediately they would get support for that principle, the fullest support, from France, from Russia, from the Little Entente, from Belgium and Holland, from the Scandinavian countries, from Finland, from the Republic of Spain—when it has won its present war—and I would add with some confidence, from Poland as well; in any case, they could make in Europe a combination which would be irresistible if a challenge came. I ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower asked this afternoon, that the Government shall not drift on as they are doing now, with expanding armaments which none of them like. The Foreign Secretary has always said that an increase of armaments is not a policy. The
    312
    Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that this programme will mean degrading the standard of living of our people for a generation. The Prime Minister, at the Guildhall, told us that the armaments expansion would increase the dangers of war, and he said that if war comes the whole of our civilisation will be wiped out.
    In face of that situation, surely it is time to put forward some policy to stop this drift to war. It must be a big policy, because the situation is of great danger. There must be an economic policy, and for that when can you ever hope to have the United States and France in a better frame of mind than they are today? Make a beginning. Start real work. Organise the machinery of the League of Nations for a prolonged and intensive study, with the full power of the British Government behind it, to find out what can be done to better the international trade and economic conditions of the world. Disarmament—let us go to Geneva and say, not as in 1932 and 1933 what we will not accept, but what we will accept. Let us go back to the programme to which the Government were at last brought by public opinion, the programme of March, 1933, to see if that cannot be made the starting point. Above all, because it is the crux of everything, let us accept real collective security of the kind we discussed in 1933, which would not mean military sanctions only, but would mean control, the definition of aggression, the "preventive boycott," the organisation of civil aviation, and some kind of international air force.
    If the Government will accept that programme we believe that they can get immense support throughout the world. Unfortunately, they do not accept it. Their policy, in spite of the speeches of the Foreign Secretary, is based on the statement of the Home Secretary, who said that he was not prepared to lose a single ship in the cause of Abyssinian independence in view of the greater dangers that there were near at home. That seems to us as perfect a repudiation as one can find of the principle of collective security. The issue then was not Abyssinian independence, but the upholding of the Covenant. If the League had triumphed we should have finished with Fascist aggression and we should not have had the great dangers that now press upon us.

    313
    Is the thing practicable? We believe that it could have been done over the Abyssinian question. I only quote in reply to speeches that have been made the words of Sir Ernie Chatfield, the First Sea Lord, in October last:
    "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."
    Can it be done? Are the people ready for it? Will they have it? I venture, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who asked how many people would enlist on behalf of the League, to quote a personal experience. In July of last year there was a by-election in Derby, which was in the same week in which sanctions were taken off Italy. The Government candidate plastered the town of Derby with posters saying that sanctions meant war. I never shirked that issue. At one of my meetings where I had said I believed that military sanctions would be justified if they were required, a working man rose at the back of the hall and said, "I fought in the last War, and I have two sons. We will none of us fight in an Imperialist war of the old kind. We will all of us fight for the Covenant the day that we are asked to do so." The large meeting cheered that man to the echo. I believe that that is the feeling of this people and of the other nations of the world. If the Government propose a real policy founded on the sanctity of the new international law which we have accepted, it is not the peoples who will fail.
    10.34 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): The recent Debates we have had on international policy have all tended, perhaps inevitably, to take something of the same form. A portion of the time has been occupied with what we all admit is the immensely urgent, though rather limited, question of Spanish affairs, and the remainder of the time has been occupied by the other great questions of foreign policy. The present Debate and the speech of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), who wound up for the Opposition, have been no exception to that rule, though it is true that there has been, perhaps, rather less concentration to-night upon the affairs of Spain and rather more upon the general
    314
    situation. With regard to Spain, and the main question of whether non-intervention was right or wrong, I do not think I can usefully add to what has already been said by my right hon. Friend and by the Government in the past. We still believe that the policy which we adopted, the policy of nonintervention, originally initiated by the French Government, was right; we supported it wholeheartedly and we continue to do so. Our object was a simple one; we meant to prevent the trouble from spreading beyond the borders of Spain. We believe that object has been achieved, and we are confirmed in that belief by the agreement which has been reached during the last few days with regard to supervision.
    That agreement is a source of the utmost satisfaction to the Government and, I believe, to the vast majority of the people in this country. I got the impression during the last Debate we had on this subject that hon. Members were sceptical that anything ever would be achieved, and honestly I do not blame them. The complications and difficulties and hitches seemed absolutely endless. But now an agreement has been achieved and the next thing is to operate it, and we have no reason to suppose that this agreement will not be properly operated. The hon. Member for Derby said he hoped the agreement would not be a sham, and hoped also, as I understood him, that my right hon. Friend would not let himself think what he wanted to think. I make the same appeal to the hon. Member. I assume from what he has said that he did not like non-intervention and that he thinks that it would have been right for us to intervene on the side of the Government of Spain.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I think we ought to have allowed the Spanish Government to go on buying arms until all Powers had effectually stopped the sale of them. To forbid the sale of arms ourselves while the Fascists were supplying them was, in fact, to intervene against the Government of Spain.
    Viscount Cranborne: The view which the French Government and we took was that non-intervention was the truest form of impartiality. At any rate it is our view that the agreement is an earnest on the part of the nations that they want to

    315
    limit their intervention, and we should regret it—I hope we shall not have to regret it—if hon. Members opposite damned the agreement before it was given a chance. I can assure the hon. Member for Derby that we desire as much as he or anybody else that the supervision which forms part of the agreement should be effective and impartial, and whatever His Majesty's Government can do to that end they will do. For the measure of success which has been achieved thanks are due to all those nations who have sunk their individual views in a common compromise, and thanks are especially due, as my right hon. Friend said, to Lord Plymouth, who has had a most unenviable task on the Committee. We have often heard of the patience of Job, I honestly think the patience of my Noble Friend might become equally proverbial. He has achieved a very considerable success, and I am quite certain that all Members of the House, whatever their views on the main question, will wish to express their appreciation of what he has done. So much for Spain.
    I now come to the wider aspect of international affairs. We have had during the last few weeks what amounts to two Debates on these general subjects, on the Government's proposals with regard to rearmament. Those Debates have inevitably trespassed on the ground of foreign affairs, as this Debate inevitably trespassed on the ground of armaments, because the Government's proposals are, after all, the main new factor in the international situation since the House last discussed these questions. I must confess that in the earlier Debates last week most of us on this side of the House, I think, were profoundly disappointed by the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. At a very serious moment, it may be a very fateful moment, in the history of Europe, one might have expected helpful and instructive criticism. I do not think we got it in those Debates. We got no recognition of realities, but merely an ordinary attack on party lines.
    To-day there has been a completely different atmosphere. We have had an extraordinarily good Debate with very thoughtful and helpful speeches from all sides. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) both made contributions which were extremely help-
    316
    ful in educating the public and the House. It is true that the hon. Member for Gower still says that His Majesty's Government have no foreign policy. I thought that that accusation had been completely demolished on 18th February by the Prime Minister, when he referred to certain speeches at Leamington and Bradford by my right hon. Friend. It is true also that there is still a certain amount of harking back to the Government's wicked past. Mention was made today of Abyssinia, of disarmament and Manchukuo. I will not myself deal with those points, partly because I have only a very short time, but more because, whatever may be true about those incidents in our past, they are irrelevant to the present question before the country.
    That question is very simple. The Government have declared their policy and have said that certain armaments are necessary to carry it out, both for the defence of the country and for their international obligations. The Government say that those things are necessary, but it is apparent to us by their votes that hon. Gentlemen opposite think that they are not necessary. Some hon. Gentlemen have made an effort, by what I may call drawing a red herring across the trail, to point out that they are not voting on the merits of the Government's proposals, but on the Government's record. They say they could not support a proposal of a Government whose record has been so bad. I submit to them that that is not a line likely to appeal to the people of this country.
    I will give hon. Gentlemen a very simple analogy of what I mean. It is the analogy of a sailing boat crossing a very turbulent sea. In this boat are two seamen, a helmsman, that is, the Government, who is quite ready to take responsibility, and there is another seaman, that is, all hon. Gentlemen opposite. There are also a number of passengers, who are the men, women and children of this country. The helmsman says to the other seaman: "A storm is blowing up. Will you help me to shorten sail?" Suppose that the other seaman—that is, hon. Gentlemen opposite—were to reply: "No, I will not help You. I always said that you were steering a very dangerous course, and now you must deal with the situation as best you may." Would that be likely to command the respect and approval of the passengers?
    Mr. Attlee: The Noble Lord is not quite right. He is rowing the boat as hard as he can on to the rocks.
    Hon. Members: It is a sailing boat.
    Viscount Cranborne: I suggest that what the passengers would say would be, "We do not really care who is responsible, and the situation may have been avoidable or it may not. All we care is that the boat may sink. Everybody must do what he can to avoid it." I believe that to be the attitude of the men and women of this country at the present time, and that the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite will be very generally and very rightly condemned.
    This is the most true, because whatever hon. Members opposite may say, there is not much difference between the policy of hon. Gentlemen here and hon. Gentlemen there. The Prime Minister, as I have already pointed out, has said that British forces will never be used for aggression. Everyone knows that that is true. Hon. Members on the Labour benches take exactly the same view, and so do Members of the Opposition Liberal party. Everyone is agreed that British forces are not to be used for aggression. We stand for collective security; hon. Gentlemen opposite stand for collective security, too. I must confess that, after several days' debate, I am still a little bewildered as to what hon. Members opposite mean by collective security. Each one of them seems to have his own interpretation. Hon. Members who are familiar with Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" may remember the incident where Humpty Dumpty used the word "glory," and Alice questioned the meaning. I should like to quote the two following sentences, which appear to me to be relevant to this situation:
    "'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less'.
    'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things'.
    'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master; that is all.'"
    That seems to me to be the principle that animates hon. Gentlemen opposite. To some of them collective security seems to be an automatic obligation to fight everywhere, and to others it seems to be
    318
    a sort of magic talisman, the possession of which insulates the nation from attack, whether it is armed or not At the same time, it is obviously not fair for me to attempt to criticise hon. Gentlemen opposite unless I am prepared to suggest a definition which would appeal to hon. Gentlemen on this side. The Home Secretary did last week, in his usual very lucid and brilliant manner, deal with the subject, but, since there still seems to be a certain amount of obscurity, I would like to try in a few words to define what collective security means to most of us. I suggest that it means that the forces which stand for a system of international law and order should be stronger than those which are against it. To carry that idea one stage further, what practical application has this principle—because it is no use having a principle unless it can be put into practical application? I suggest to hon. Members opposite that the forces of law and order should not merely be strong enough to win a war. That would not be enough, because, once war broke out, we are all agreed that the world would be plunged into chaos and misery. Hon. Members will recollect that Lord Grey once said that that conception would be merely to light a big fire to put out a little one, and that is an object which none of us have in mind. I suggest that the real object is that the forces of law and order should be so strong that war will not break out at all.
    The hon. Member for Derby said that collective security was there to uphold the law. I suggest that we should add to that, "and to maintain order." If we accept this conclusion, obviously it must be an essential duty of any nation that supports collective security to ensure that the forces at its disposal are strong enough for the purpose for which they were created. There must be no doubt at all about it. It is much better that they should be too strong than that they should not be strong enough. If they are not strong enough, obviously you have the worst of both worlds; you have the expenditure and you have the war too. That is a result for which none of us wish. I do not say that the provision for which the Government are now asking is too strong; the Government do not think it is; but, even if it were, it would be better than if it were not strong enough. Unless hon. Gentlemen opposite prove, and they have not done

    319
    it yet, that the provisions which the Government are making are grossly extravagant, they are not justified in opposing this proposal.
    The hon. Member for Kingswinford asked for an "honest-to-God" answer to the question, "Does the Government take the view that the collective system is a reality?" The answer I give him is, "Yes, if it is a reality—that is, if it has sufficient strength behind it." The antithesis is not between collective security and armaments, but between collective security and war. That is the view we take, and I believe it is the view taken in all parts of the House. The armaments necessary to carry out this policy must be conditioned by two considerations. The first is the armaments of other nations, and the second the manner in which the policy of collective security is interpreted. With regard to the first, I do not suppose there is any difference in any part of the House.
    We all want the general level of armaments reduced, and we all think it is much too high. We have the case of Italy, which we are told has 8,000,000 bayonets. They are said to be merely to support an olive branch, but we all feel that it might possibly be supported on a slightly less monumental base. Then we have Germany, which has 36 divisions. Though we appreciate that they are merely for self-defence, we all wish that conditions could be agreed in which so vast an accumulation of defensive forces would be unnecessary. We have Russia, which has hundreds of thousands of men and an air force bigger perhaps than that of Germany; and France, which has immensely powerful defensive forces and is straining every nerve to increase them. We all deprecate these armaments, and our aim is to create such conditions as will render them unnecessary.
    This brings me to what was said by the hon. Members for Gower and Derby, and the appeal that was made to the Government to call a world conference with the object of avoiding war. Everybody on this side honours their motives, but we know the immense complications in the present situation, and the difficulty of finding any basis of agreement which would be acceptable at the present time. I know that in the heat of Debate many hon. Members opposite say it is this Government which was entirely responsi-
    320
    ble for the failure of the Disarmament Conference. But they do not really think that. They know just as well as we do that that Conference failed largely because of historical, traditional enmities between various other nations, which bred suspicion. That situation exists still. They know, too, that any failure of a world conference would do a great deal more harm than good. His Majesty's Government are not in principle against such a conference, or against anything that would bring about a settlement, but they do recognise the extreme delicacy of the situation. I assure hon. Members that there is no course of action, including this, which is not constantly in the minds of the Government. If the moment came when such a proposal was practicable they would not hesitate to take that course. They would do anything they could to cut the Gordian knot.
    As to the second consideration, the manner of interpretation of the policy of collective security, I had thought, and I still think the Government have made their position absolutely clear. It is there open for everyone to see. It was laid down in speeches at Leamington and Bradford by my right hon. Friend. I sometimes suspect that hon. Members opposite hanker after a rather more interventionist policy—I do not mean in the specialised sense in which it is used in regard to Spain but more generally. The hon. Member for Kingwinford was at issue with my right hon. Friend over the interpretation of our obligations. This is a very difficult and technical point and it has been very fully debated by others far more fitted to deal with it than I am, and at this hour I cannot he expected to go fully into it. But, in any case, if there is a difference between us it is not a difference of principle. It is really a difference of degree; for everyone in the House admits that we have interests in peace which are not limited by our Locarno obligations. May I quote a few words from my right hon. Friend's speech at Bradford:
    "If I were to say that Britain's interests in peace are geographically limited, I should be giving a false impression. If our vital interests are situated in certain clearly definable areas, our interest in peace is world-wide and there is a simple reason for this. The world has now become so small—and every day with the march of science it becomes smaller—that a spark in some sphere comparatively remote from our own interests may

    321
    become a conflagration sweeping a continent or a hemisphere. We must therefore be watchful at all times and in all places. We cannot disinterest ourselves from this or that part of the world in a vague hope that happenings in that area will not affect us."
    So, if there is a difference, it is a difference of degree. The main object of British policy is peace. I appeal therefore to hon. Members opposite to moderate their attitude—I think it has been moderated today—towards the steps that the Government are taking to implement this policy. Why give an appearance of disunity which in reality does not exist? It is frequently said that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose. But any doctrine can be carried too far. There are situations where there is only one course, and I suggest that this is one of them. If we took the narrow party view, I think
    most hon. Members on this side would very much like the Opposition to go on on their present line. It is doing us a great deal of good in the country. But there is a wider view than one of mere party. There is the national and the international view, and it is this that we ought to take. We have three great common principles, the defence of our ancient liberties, the fulfilment of our obligations and, greatest of all, peace. Let us stand strong and united for these and, if we do, I believe we shall yet prevail.
    Question put, "That Item Class II, Vote I (Foreign Office), be reduced by £100."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 243.

    Division No. 97.]

    AYES.

    [10.59 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Paling, W.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Groves, T. E.

    Parker, J.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

    Hardie, G. D.

    Potts, J.

    Ammon, C. G.

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Price, M. P.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hayday, A.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Banfield, J. W.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

    Barnes, A. J.

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Ridley, G.

    Barr, J.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Riley, B.

    Batey, J.

    Hollins, A.

    Ritson, J.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    dagger, J.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Benson, G.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Rothschild, J. A. do

    Bevan, A.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Rowson, G.

    Bromfield, W.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Brooke, W.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sexton. T. M.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Short, A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Silverman, S. S.

    Cape, T.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Simpson, F. B.

    Cassells, T.

    Lathan, G.

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

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Leach, W.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, F.

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

    Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

    Leonard, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Dalton, H.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Logan, D. G.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McEntee, V. La T,

    Walkden, A. G.

    Dobbie, W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Walker, J.

    Ede, J. C.

    McGovern, J.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    MacLaren, A.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Maclean, N.

    Welsh, J. C.

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

    MacNeill, Weir, L.

    Westwood, J.

    Foot, D. M.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    White, H. Graham

    Gallacher, W.

    Mander, G. le M.

    Wilkinson, Elton

    Gardner, B. W.

    Marshall, F.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Garro Jones, G. M.

    Maxton, J.

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Messer, F.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Milner, Major J.

    Woods, G. S. (Finshury)

    Gibbins, J.

    Muff, G.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Green, W.. H. (Deptford)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Mr. Whiteleyand Mr. Mathers.

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

    Owen, Major G.

    NOES.

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Albery, Sir Irving

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

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

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

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

    Beit, Sir A. L.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

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

    Birchall, Sir J. D.

    Assheton, R.

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Bird, Sir R. B.

    Blindell, Sir J.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Petheriak, M.

    Bessom, A. C.

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

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Beulton, W. W.

    Hamilton, Sir G. C.

    Pilkington, R.

    Bowatar, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Hannah, I. C.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Boyce. H. Leslie

    Harbord, A.

    Radford, E. A.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Raikes, H. V. A. M.

    Bracken, B.

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Brass, Sir W.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

    Rankin, Sir R.

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

    Brown, Cal. D. C. (Hexham)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Rayner, Major R. H.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

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

    Read, A. C. (Exeter)

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

    Holmes, J. S.

    Reid, Captain A. Cunningham

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

    Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

    Remer, J. R.

    Burghley, Lord

    Hopkinson, A.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Cartland, J. R. H.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Howitt, Dr. A. B.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cary, R. A.

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

    Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Castlereagh, Viacount

    Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

    Hulbart, N. J.

    Rowlands, G.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hunter, T.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Jonas, L. (Swansea W.)

    Russell, A. Wast (Tynemouth)

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

    Keeling, E. H.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Channon, H.

    Kerr, Calonel C. I. (Montrose)

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Christie, J. A.

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Salt, E. W.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Kimball, L.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

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

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

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Sandys, E. D.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Latham, Sir P.

    Scott, Lord William

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

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

    Lees-Jones, J.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

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

    Liddall, W. S.

    Somerset, T.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lindsay, K. M.

    Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Critchley, A.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

    Crooke, J. S.

    Lumley, Capt. L. R.

    Spens, W. P.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

    Lyons, A. M.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Cross, R. H.

    MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

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

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Storey, S.

    Dawson, Sir P.

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

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    De Chair, S. S.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MeEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Danville, Alfred

    McKie, J. H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

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

    Dodd, J. S.

    Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Donner, P. W.

    Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J,

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

    Magnay, T.

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

    Dugdale, Major T. L.

    Maitland, A.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    Duggan, H. J.

    Manningham-Bullar, Sir M.

    Train, Sir J.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

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

    Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Markham, S. F.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Turton, R. H.

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C

    Mailer, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Warrender, Sir V.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

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

    Waterhouse, Captain C.

    Findlay, Sir E.

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

    Watt, G. S. H.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Morgan, R. H.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Furness, S. N.

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

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

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Ganzoni, Sir J.

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

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

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

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

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Goldie, N. B.

    Munro, P.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.

    Granville, E. L.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Palmer, G. E. H.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Patrick, C. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Peat, C. U.

    Sir George Penny and Lieut.-

    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

    Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

    Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
11.2 p.m.
Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: I wish to raise the question, of which I gave notice yesterday, of the possibility of supplying verbatim reports of broadcasts by the British Broadcasting Corporation to the Library of the House. I put a question yesterday to the Postmaster-General which explains the position I desire to bring about. I asked him
"whether there is any practical difficulty in furnishing to the House of Commons Library daily verbatim reports of broadcasts, since Members of Parliament are unable, through lack of time, to check the complaints of constituents either by listening-in or by visiting the British Broadcasting Corporation? "[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1937; col. 14, Vol. 321.]
Some weeks ago the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) put a similar question and the Postmaster-General told him that verbatim reports were always available at the British Broadcasting Corporation and that Members of Parliament could go there and see the reports for themselves. I submit that Members of Parliament have not the time to do so. Another suggestion made by a right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side was that we might have a room here in which Members, when they so desired, could listen to broadcasts. I submit that that is not sufficient, because many of the broadcasts to which our constituents object take place in the morning when Members are not ordinarily here. The Postmaster-General, in his reply yesterday, said, first, that the number of words broadcast weekly was in excess of 400,000 and he intimated that that would be far too large a volume to stock in the Library. I would point out that, on a rough calculation, the number of words spoken in this Chamber in a short week of from four days and part of a fifth amounts to double that number, and the records of our proceedings are printed and we have many copies of them in the Library. Another point is that we do not propose that these reports should remain in the Library in perpetuity. They are of ephemeral interest, but they should be available for a week or To days, so that Members could investigate the weight, or otherwise, of the complaints which are made.
326
The Postmaster-General also said that the compilation would involve a great amount of labour, and he did not think it fair to ask the Corporation to undertake this extra work. I would point out that every broadcaster has to furnish a copy of what he is going to say in typewritten script before he delivers his broadcast. It would be simple for the Corporation to require broadcasters to supply that copy in duplicate and for one copy to be sent here to be filed in our Library. One hon. Member said that we required copies of only the news bulletins. I do not consider that it sufficient. We require, above all, verbatim copies of the broadcasts to schools which take place very often. We do not require verbatim copies of such technical subjects as the habits of frogs and ants. I should like to limit the copies of broadcasts to contentious subjects, on which people in this House have different opinions. We should like to see what force there is in the complaints of our constituents. The Postmaster-General said the difficulty was not with the people who heard the broadcasts but with the people who heard unfair accounts of them. That is an argument for our point of view. It is because those accounts may be unfair that we want to see the genuine accounts; then we shall be able to judge.
There has been a great deal said about the garbled report of a certain broadcast. I compared that report with the verbatim report, and I did not find that it was so garbled as some people tried to make out. I would ask the Postmaster-General whether it is possible to arrange for what I ask. We have erected this enormous Corporation, and it is very powerful. It is no use the Postmaster-General saying that it is impossible to ask the British Broadcasting Corporation to do this, because Parliament, after all, is supreme. We are democratically elected, and we are representative of the people of this country. We can compel the British Broadcasting Corporation to do what we want. I demand that they shall be told in no uncertain voice that they ought to send these reports here, so that we can judge. This House spends many hours weekly in the making of eloquent speeches, and we spend a great deal of money—I believe £40,000 a year—in having reports of our speeches printed and circulated to people who do not read a word of them. All that money

327
is spent in sending these speeches out, and meanwhile the Broadcasting Corporation is getting direct to the people. Every word that is spoken through the broadcast is listened to by many thousands of people, who never trouble to read a single word that is uttered in this House. For that reason, if we are still to go on representing the people of this country and their real wishes, we ought to have some control over the stuff that is put out.
11.18 p.m.
Mr. Muff: I wish to put the other point of view. I am in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member in thinking that the British Broadcasting Corporation many times is very partial, especially to one party, and I have come to the conclusion on several occasions that the party opposite receive more attention than the party which sits on this side of the House. I am, I suppose, a wireless fan. I listen in on every possible occasion and, having a sense of humour, I hope, I have come to the conclusion, on balance, that the British Broadcasting Corporation performs a very difficult job in a very splendid manner. Sometimes when I have listened to the news—by the way, the news is practically a replica of the news we get on the tape—I have thought that it was somewhat partial, and then when I have examined my own point of view I have come to the conclusion that it was because the news was not what I personally liked. I have sometimes upset my family on a Saturday evening when I have learned over the wireless that my favourite football team has lost for the eighteenth time and are going into the Third Division. I cannot congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on his fan mail; the decorous maiden ladies who insist on writing to the dear General on their own personal affairs. I have never received any letters like that.
Sir A. Knox: Is it because of the type of constituents the hon. Member has got?
Mr. Muff: I do not think it is. I have listened to the hon. Member for Kings Norton (Mr. Cartland) and the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) and to Mr. Selfridge, and I got into a rage, but then my sense of humour came back to me, and I realised that this had been arranged to present different points of view. I have come to the conclusion that these various points
328
of view must be put. I hope that we shall long preserve our British sense of humour. I think that the hon. and gallant General must be an Englishman, but I hope we shall long preserve our sense of humour, and also that tolerance whereby we can listen to unpleasant facts, both in this House and over the wireless, in the children's hour too, which I believe is a favourite time when the hon. and gallant General likes to listen in. I trust that the Postmaster-General will not take too much notice either of the hon. and gallant Gentleman or of the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons).
11.22 p.m.
The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): I regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised this question. I do not think that he fully realises all the implications of his proposal. At the present moment the British Broadcasting Corporation receive a number of letters from all quarters, and a considerable number of letters from hon. Members, criticising their programmes. Naturally they pay special attention to any recommendation from Members of Parliament, and when I get any such recommendations I send them on at once to the British Broadcasting Corporation for their full consideration.
Mr. Buchanan: Are all hon. Members treated alike?
Major Tryon: Certainly. The hon. and gallant Member asks that verbatim reports of broadcasts should he put in the Library so that Members could keep in touch with broadcasts and see that they are being run on proper lines. He said he hoped that they would be compelled to broadcast on certain lines. I would respectfully remind the House that we have had three Debates on the B.B.C., and that the Government's recommendations were carried. Under them the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the B.B.C. is entrusted to the Governors, and not to the Postmaster-General. It is perfectly obvious what would happen if the hon. and gallant Member carried out his plan. It would mean that whenever any Member of this House heard something on the wireless which he did not like, which would happen probably on every political broadcast, the Postmaster-General would have to answer questions in this House.

329
on a matter which the House has taken out of his hands and entrusted to the Governors.
That is a very serious proposition. The hon. and gallant Member is seeking to put the Postmaster-General in an impossible position. The Postmaster-General would have the responsibility placed upon him, and the power would be entrusted to someone else. If that attitude were pursued to the extreme it would mean that there would come a demand that there should be a Minister not only responsible for the B.B.C. but definitely in charge of the B.B.C. This matter has been deliberately taken out of politics as far as possible, and above all, broadcasting has not been nationalised, as some of the more extreme Labour Members would wish. But apparently there is now a demand that this matter, which only a few weeks ago was entrusted to the Governors, should be taken away from the Governors and controlled by a Minister responsible to this House. That may be a good plan, but it is direct Socialism. I think that is a very serious proposition. It would be necessary to have a Resolution of the House tearing up this Charter and to make the Minister—I sincerely hope it will not be me responsible to the House for the music broadcasts, the news broadcasts, and so on. I should like to be saved from the discussion on the music.
Sir A. Knox: I did not ask for that, but only for copies of these broadcasts to be placed in the Library.
Major Tryon: The hon. and gallant Member forgets that the reason he gave for wanting copies was that we should control the B.B.C. I have dealt briefly with the constitutional issue, which I think is very serious. The proposal would involve having 400,000 words every week placed in the Library for hon. Members to read, and I am told that about 1,000 of the 1,300 pages would have to be specially typed out. I under-
330
stand that the Corporation are perfectly willing that hon. Members should have free access to every broadcast.
Sir A. Knox: How?
Major Tryon: If hon. Members communicate with the B.B.C., the B.B.C. will be only too happy to let them know what is being said. This is not a proposal which is in my hands. It is a proposal that certain papers should be placed in the Library. That is not a matter for me to decide. In fact, I understand that it rests with the Chair as to whether these papers should or should not be allowed to be placed in the Library.
11.29 p.m.
Mr. George Balfour: This matter of broadcasting is under the control of Governors with whom we may disagree, and it is of such great national importance that we must in certain events resume the control of this House over the Governors. Only last week I happened on one of the rare occasions when I listen-in, to hear a broadcast with regard to population, and I have never heard a more disgusting broadcast. It was non-political, but absolutely destructive, in my opinion, of home life. Every one of my friends whom I asked as to their opinion said it was a filthy broadcast destructive of home life which put the production of families merely on a wage basis. It is that kind of broadcast that Members of this House require to have before them so that they may say in the firmest possible way, if necessary, "We must again bring before this House the charter of the B.B.C. so that it can be revised and a new charter granted giving proper control to an independent body other than the Governors."
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS).
  BRITISH ARMY (TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS).
  BRITISH ARMY (TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS).
  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (WHITE WALTHAM SITE).
  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (WHITE WALTHAM SITE).
  DANGEROUS DRUGS (THEFTS).
  DANGEROUS DRUGS (THEFTS).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  COAL INDUSTRY (SUNDAY LABOUR).
  COAL INDUSTRY (SUNDAY LABOUR).
  THE CORONATION.
  THE CORONATION.
  SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS (STATISTICS).
  SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS (STATISTICS).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

BRITISH SHIPPING (CONTINUANCE OF SUBSIDY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
GENEVA CONVENTION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
REGENCY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
MARGATE, BROADSTAIRS AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate in their application to Scotland certain enactments relating to persons under the age of eighteen years; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

RESERVE FORCES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion of Lord Arnold, made on Wednesday last, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to British foreign policy and to the need for a change therein which will bring it more into accord with the realities of the existing situation.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the noble Earl who replied for the Government at the end of the debate last week made an eloquent and, I think, a valid plea that we should not, because the League of Nations was in difficulties, really abuse it. I very much share that view, all the more because he admitted that the League in its present form did require a very great deal of critical examination. The League was a noble and, in the end, an irresistible ideal but, as the experience we have already had shows, there are certain very definite limitations upon its power, and I venture to suggest that it is essential that those limitations should be recognised and obeyed. The first is, as the noble Earl put it, that it is not universal; the second that in its present form it has no power to alter the status quo. And there are
392
two other difficulties. The first is that in Europe to-day there is no homogeneity in the political institutions among the nations themselves. There are Communist States, there are Fascist States, there are Democracies. I think there are really seven or eight dictatorships in Europe to-day, and the attempt to make the League of Nations work coherently in those circumstances is obviously extremely difficult. Finally, the League has no power to diminish what in my view is by far the greatest cause of international discord to-day—namely, the extravagancies of economic nationalism.
It is really going to take a long time before the League of Nations can assume that position, influence and power in the world which everybody hoped it would assume when it was founded in 1920, and I think we have got to face the problem of how we are going to deal with the Contemporary world, a world in which the League of Nations itself is not a very powerful force. Why is it that Europe is so constantly the cause of trouble and war in the world? I venture to think that if Europe could become normal the chances of world war would be extremely small. It is Europe which is the main focus, the main centre from which the threat of war throughout the world now springs; and the fundamental reason for that is not the ambition or the malignity of any particular race or people, it is the fact that to-day it is divided into twenty-six sovereign States. The difficulties of Europe are far greater to-day than they were in 1914. Then there were seventeen sovereign States, now there are twenty-six, and I do not think in considering the problem of Europe you should ever lose sight of the fact that anarchy lies at the root of its troubles. And among those troubles the economic frontiers are far more serious than the political. I think there is no nation in Europe to-day which would dream of going to war merely about territorial frontiers. It is the stresses, the unemployment, the dictatorships which spring out of the division of Europe into twenty-six economic watertight compartments, not one of which except Russia can live on the resources within its own boundaries, that are the main reason for its troubles to-day. Economic frontiers rather than political frontiers are the most serious problems we have to deal with.
That being so, I venture to think that the real problem we have got to face is not

393
so much the prevention of war, desirable as that may be, as to consider whether there are any means whereby, if a war does break out—and nobody in present conditions can say that that is a risk which must not be faced—it can be prevented from spreading into a world war. The real problem which confronts the statesmanship of this country and all other great countries of the world to-day is whether we can avoid a repetition of what happened prior to the outbreak of war in 1914—the position in which we gradually got integrated into a state of alliance systems which staggered from one power crisis to another till finally the accident of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, or the mistakes made by Foreign Secretaries afterwards, precipitated the whole world into war. That is by far the greatest problem which confronts mankind to-day.
There are three solutions which have been or may be propounded for that situation. There is, first, the solution which is now generally known as collective security. And I would like to differentiate, if I may, between collective security in the form in which it is now advocated and the ideals of the League of Nations. The very essence of the League of Nations system was a peace system embracing all nations in the world within which there should be no alliances, endeavouring by peaceful means to remove the causes of war, and, if a nation refused to deal with its questions by pacific means, then bringing, in the last resort, absolutely universal economic pressure to bear upon it in order to force it to continue to resort to pacific means. But the very essence of the system of collective security as it is preached from many platforms at this moment is that it should be an armed alliance to resist armed aggression; the essence of it is militarisation. Those aspects of it which are concerned with removing the causes of war are, so far as the public are concerned, largely in abeyance.
It seems to me that the recent argument for collective security—that is, the argument that the nations who are satisfied with the status quo, the nations which want to prevent any alterations, should enter into something like a military alliance in order that they may be overwhelmingly and collectively stronger than any nation that seeks to alter the status quo—is nothing else than the
394
modernisation of what in my view has been the fatal policy which has been maintained by the French Government ever since 1920. That is a policy which in the first fifteen years of peace concentrated on keeping Germany without arms and encircled, and which is now concerned in building up a system of armed alliances about it, a policy, I may add, for which we and the United States of America must bear our full share of blame, because we were unwilling to ratify that treaty of guarantees to France against unprovoked aggression which is now often lost sight of, but which, from my own experience, I can say was one of the vital elements in the settlement which emerged from the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. This new alliance system, now ennobled by the phrase "collective security," began with the military alliances between France and the Little Entente and Poland. It has now been extended to Russia by the Treaty of Mutual Assistance between France and Russia, a Treaty which has its duplicate or its parallel in the Treaty between Czechoslovakia and Russia. That is one side of the alliance system. Inevitably, as has always happened in the past and as under any system in which alliances are involved between sovereign States always will happen in the future, that system has begun to produce an alliance system on the other side. It produced what is called the Rome-Berlin axis, it produced the Anti-Comintern Agreement between Germany and Japan.
We already see in outline the fatal vertebras of the alliance system in an even more terrible form than began to emerge in 1904 in Europe. That is in effect, as I see it, the policy now advocated by a large number of those—by no means all—who stand for the principle of collective security. Collective security is supported by three groups of people. First, there are the genuine believers in peace who are hypnotised by the beauty of the phrase, who do not realise that there is no such thing as collective security in a world of sovereign States, but who believe that if they give their adherence to it, or if this country gives its loyal adherence to it and makes the necessary agreement so freely recommended by the Left and by nobody more enthusiastically than by Lord Strabolgi who spoke last week, and that if there is agreement between Russia

395
and France and ourselves then we shall have in some way exorcised the spectre of war. It does not do anything of the kind. It produces a counter-alliance, and in the end we go from one crisis to another, like the Algeciras crisis, the Agadir crisis, the Bosnia-Herzegovina crisis, the Balkan crisis until finally we get to a state of tension in a world knit by alliances, so that by accident a fool or a knave presses the button which lets off a world war in its most violent, totalitarian and savage form. That is the first group which supports it.
The second group consists of those who frankly want an Anti-Fascist Alliance, people who are much more preoccupied with the dangers of Fascism than the dangers of Communism, people who feel that Fascism is a menace to their own ideals, a menace in particular to trade unionism and so on, and who, therefore, frankly want this country to become part of an Anti-Fascist Alliance. I see myself no fundamental difference between the two systems of government. They are both wholly unfriendly to and completely contradictory of the institutions in which we ourselves believe. They are both based on the idea that peace is going to come to the world by the democracies allying themselves with each other. Really if you took sides in that ideological conflict, as it is called, which is rising in Europe, the only result would be that if we ever did become involved in such a conflict we should be split inside this country from top to bottom. I think that argument for collective security can only produce as the inevitable result both war and confusion at home.
Finally, there are those people whose ideas are based upon fear of Germany. There are people, old diplomats, high officials, public men, who seem to be convinced that because Germany is largely isolated, with a population of more than 70,000,000 people, because it has a totalitarian Government—that Government itself the product of the policy of its neighbours, including ourselves, in great measure—with a country to the East whose armaments are at least three times as great as those of Germany, Germany is considering an attack on the peace of Europe and the liberty of its neighbours. I confess that when you consider that Germany occupies the most dangerous position in Europe, that she
396
has no natural frontiers, that modern air services mean that she is more liable to be destroyed than any other nation, infinitely more liable than ourselves, I think the German fear is to a large extent a bogey. I do not say that Germany is easy to deal with—I do not think she is—but that we should drift into a policy which, in effect, says that the only way of dealing with Germany is to surround her in such a way, both economically and politically, that an internal explosion is inevitable, is to condemn ourselves and the world to world war. It is the most fatal policy of all.
While that policy is seldom publicly avowed, you have not to go very far before you find that it exists in the minds of a considerable number of people in this country. As I see it, if we attempt a system of collective security, which I would differentiate from the League of Nations, that system is bound in the very nature of things to be put to a practical and dangerous test, a test which is inevitable in a crisis between sovereign States with no over-ruling authority, a test which, if it ever comes, would lead to the still more terrible test of war. I think we have to consider very carefully the lessons of the Abyssinian crisis. We entered upon that venture in September, 1935, as I ventured to point out in your Lordships' House, without really having considered the inevitable consequences of threatening to use force against a sovereign State. At the end of it we found ourselves imprisoned between the alternatives of having to yield, or to run at any rate the very grave risk of war which might become world war. That alternative, that dilemma, is inherent in any system of power politics as between sovereign nations. In every crisis in Europe to-day that is a serious crisis you are inevitably going to the edge of the question of power. The Foreign Secretary, I thought, made a very wise and statesmanlike speech at Leamington, in November last, in which, after dealing with the way in which we had deceived ourselves as to the realities of the world during the whole Abyssinian crisis, he stated, and stated quite clearly, those matters about which he believed that this country would be willing to face war, and those matters about which it probably would not, and certainly would not be prepared automatically to use military weapons, but about which it would

397
naturally feel grave concern. The defence of the British Commonwealth, the defence of France and Belgium against unprovoked aggression, the defence of Egypt and the defence of Iraq were matters about which he gave notice to the world that this country would feel that it would have in the last resort to go to war.
Since that time the clarity of ideas involved in that speech seems to me to have been a little dimmed, and we hear speeches such as that made by the noble Lord who opened this debate—a very remarkable speech, if I may say so—in which he said that the Foreign Secretary of Czechoslovakia and, I think, the President of that great Republic indicated that in their belief Great Britain was prepared to defend the status quo in Eastern Europe in the last resort by arms. The noble Lord who spoke for the Labour Party specifically invited the British Government to endorse that policy and, implicitly, to go to war to prevent any alteration in the status quo in Eastern Europe by forcible means, for it is admitted that there is no other means by which in present circumstances any alteration could be made.
Now I will ask your Lordships to consider some of the facts which are implicit in the situation. First of all the Franco-Russian Treaty of Mutual Assistance, if it becomes a military alliance, which I understand it is not yet, makes it inevitable that if a crisis develops into war fie German Army must strike westward. I will not develop that argument here; I endeavoured to do so in a speech I made some time ago. Nobody who traces the history of the pre-War era will fail to realise that Germany, being in a central position, if it has to face a war on both fronts, will inevitably be driven to the same conclusion as that to which General Schlieffen was driven: that if it is to get a quick decision it must strike first at the most vulnerable enemy and the enemy which is most easily within reach. Therefore the Franco-Russian Treaty of Mutual Assistance has the inevitable effect that, if a war breaks out, it tends to make certain that the war shall be in the West and directed at the West and will not be concerned in the first instance with Eastern Europe.
May I press the question a little further? Let us suppose that a crisis arises in Eastern Europe, arises not be-
398
cause any nation proposes to march across the frontiers of its neighbour with flags flying and aeroplanes overhead, with destruction in every one of its acts, but arises, as it may well arise, through economic trouble, through conflict between local Fascists and Communists or conflict started by irredentist minorities, or through the bitter feelings, for instance, in a country like Hungary, where nothing has yet been done to remedy those grave defects in her frontiers. A crisis arises in which serious disturbance begins to appear in Eastern Europe. You are liable then to have common action by the Little Entente against Hungary. You are almost certainly going to have a strong attitude by the German Government, possibly a move by Russia, ending up in threats of action by France. How is that crisis going to develop? If it comes near to the real crisis of war, are Poland and Rumania going to invite the Russian army on to their soil? I think it is extremely unlikely. Is Italy going to intervene? She may; on the other hand, she may have decided that she can do better by making terms and keeping out.
What will be the position which will confront this country? for that is the question I want to examine. The question is whether this country will intervene, either economically or in a military way, in some form of coercion. The first question it will ask is whether it is going to use the Navy. The Navy, I hope and believe, is in a first-class condition, but the central experience of the last War was that naval action took four years to have a decisive effect, and that under conditions during which the blockade round Germany was about as complete as it is ever likely to be in history. I understand—or certainly it appears to be the fact—that it is not our intention to intervene in Europe with an Army. It is the official policy of the Labour Party, as set forth by my noble friend last week, that in no circumstances ought we to undertake to send any troops to the Continent of Europe, and indeed I think it is almost certain that such troops as we have will be required in Palestine or some other part of the British Commonwealth.
You are therefore left with the question of the use of the air arm. So long as this country is a democracy—and I hope it will long remain one—the decision

399
whether it will take so fearful an action as that will obviously have to rest with Parliament, and you will in effect have a debate on whether the Air Force is to be used to bomb some other country whose Air Force can certainly reach this country, in the knowledge that, if the debate seems likely to go against that country, London will be bombed before we can bomb that country. I venture to predict that if we got to a crisis in South-Eastern Europe that is the form in which the decision would undoubtedly come to this country. I think in those circumstances that the policy enunciated at Leamington is infinitely wiser and safer for this country than the universal commitments which we are so continually being pressed to adopt in the name of collective security, whereby we undertake to guarantee all the frontiers, bad as many of them are, in Eastern Europe.
And if we did get embroiled, what should we be fighting for, generally speaking? The only possible cause we could be fighting for would be to insist on the maintenance of the anarchy of Europe; that Europe should remain divided into twenty-six States each with tariffs to the skies and armed to the teeth. I venture to think that that is not a cause for which it is worth laying down the lives of British men. So I reject, not the League in the only form in which I think it can begin to grow again, but the system of collective security in the form of the military alliances which it is now beginning to make.
The second policy is the policy which was put forward by Lord Russell last week and may again be put forward by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby to-day: the pacifist policy. Lord Russell used, I thought, a very striking phrase, and I am not sure that it was not a true phrase, when he said that if we did become involved in another general European war, after the war had gone on for a little while there would be a universal rebellion by the peoples against their Governments, for they would refuse to participate any longer in the senseless brutalities of modern war. To my mind that does not solve the problem of what happens when peoples tear down their Governments, because peace only springs from government. And if what happens is that the peoples tear down their Governments, the
400
end will be the picture so brilliantly described by Mr. H. G. Wells in his book and his film called "The shape of things to come." I do not think pacifism can solve the problem, for the reason that it does not create the conditions upon which alone peace is possible, which is the maintenance of government.
I venture to ask whether there is not a third policy, directed, I confess, mainly to the supreme question of deciding whether it is not possible to create a system which, in the conditions of to-day, may not end all war but can prevent local wars spreading into world wars—which is the real calamity which besets mankind; whether it is not possible to do more than we are now thinking of doing to isolate wars instead of spreading them into universal wars, as I think the system of collective security would inevitably do. That does not mean isolation. Isolation in the ser se that you can make yourself indifferent to the rest of the world is obviously quite impracticable. The question is whether you cannot apply the system which we have adopted with considerable success in the case of Spain to Europe and if necessary to the Far East—non-commitment to either side, and non-intervention.
I venture to think that we ought to pay a good deal more attention than we have vet done to the policy which is now being pursued by the United States. In the first place it is going to have very considerable consequences for ourselves if we do become involved in war. It is going to be impossible for us under the neutrality legislation which is now in existence, and which will almost certainly be renewed, to buy arms or any form of implements of war in the United States. It will be impossible for us to raise loans in any shape or form. And it will be possible for a President, either under the pressure of public opinion or because he is not as friendly to this country as I think the present President is, to deny us raw materials and foodstuffs as well. That would be a very serious change from the position we were in in the last War when, I venture to say, without the ass stance which we derived from the United States, both before the entry of the United States into the War and afterwards, we certainly could not have attained victory.
But there is more also to be said for the American attitude to Europe. I spent

401
some time there, and I found that the fundamental problem is this. The root of the trouble in Europe is the fact that in an area no larger than the United States it is trying still to live as twenty-six States. We found in this country that until we united the Crowns and the Parliaments there was no order, no prosperity, no peace. Canada found that, until it united its ten Provinces, it could get no order and no peace. So did Australia, so did South Africa, and so of course—in the greatest instance of all—did the great American Commonwealth. All the English peoples have realised in practice as well as in theory that until we overcame the boundary created by sovereignty we could have neither order, prosperity nor peace, and they say in America that that is the fundamental problem which confronts Europe. They say: "Did our intervention solve the European problem last time? No. We may have been to some extent to blame for not joining the League of Nations, but the League of Nations itself could not solve Europe's problems. They can only be solved by Europe itself." The United States will only intervene if Europe breaks out into the rest of the world so as to threaten the interests at any rate of the Monroe system.
It is a very striking fact that during the nineteenth century—or rather, I should say from 1815 to 1914—there was no world war. There were continuous world wars in the eighteenth century and in the seventeenth century, and there was another world war in the beginning of the twentieth century. Why was it that the nineteenth century—or from 1815 to 1914—was a period without world wars, a period in which humanity made perhaps the greatest advance in all its history? There were several wars in Europe, there were several wars in the Far East, but none of them became world wars, whereas earlier wars had done so. The reason was fundamentally twofold. It is developed in a brilliant essay by that well known American publicist, Walter Lippmann. The first reason is that Great Britain kept out of the alliance system of Europe; and the second is that it had a paramount Navy. He asked: What is a world war? and replied that a world war is any war in which Great Britain is wholly involved because the British Empire is world-wide, and any war in which Britain is wholly involved inevit-
402
ably forces the United States to come in, either with her or against her.
But during the whole of that century as long as we kept detached from the alliance system of Europe—the alliance system which is beginning to reappear in the name of collective security—and as long as we had a paramount Navy, there was no world war. It was only when we joined the alliance system of Europe and Germany began to re-create a Navy—a thing which she has specifically renounced the intention of doing to-day—that once more the danger of a world war reappeared. To-day it is impossible for us to create that condition by ourselves. We are not strong enough. But it is possible for the United States and ourselves to do it together. And if it is true, and I believe it to be true, that the policy of neutrality on the part of the United States cannot be made effective unless Great Britain also adopts that policy, it is not inconceivable that the United States would be willing to extend her Monroe doctrine sufficiently to make possible co-operation between the United States Navy and ours to prevent an explosion either in the Far East or of Europe across the seas.
If you can get such a combination as the democracies of the Monroe doctrine system and the democracies of the British Commonwealth sufficiently closely integrated as to be invulnerable from external attack, and sufficiently integrated to be able to stand outside the vortex of a European war, you will create a centre of stability and strength and peace in the world which may exorcise for ever the spectre of another world war. It is sometimes said that this is impossible because of the air. The air, of course, makes it more difficult, but I have yet to learn that any nation voluntarily invites addition to the numbers of its own enemies. In Spain we have been able to prevent the extension of that dangerous conflict, and I do not think that the experience in Spain in the least proves that because of the air every war must inevitably become a world war. There is not a vestige of foundation for that belief.
The second argument is that if we withdraw to that extent from Europe—and I do not suggest that we should withdraw from our Locarno obligations—I do not see why this should drag us into war, any more than the obligation we sustained

403
during the whole of the last century to defend the independence of Belgium. What matters is that we should not be drawn into any form of alliance system or counter-alliance system. I venture to think that if we withdraw from Europe, it is the best contribution we can possibly make to the peace of Europe to-day. Anybody who has any familiarity with what is going on in Europe knows that the central question in European diplomacy to-day is whether Great Britain can be drawn in on either side. I think the day we make it perfectly clear that in no circumstances will we be drawn into the conflict between Fascism and Communism, or any of the other domestic conflicts of Europe, we shall take the greatest step we can take to induce the nations of Europe to come to terms, to reduce their tariffs, and to make a lasting peace.
I would, therefore, urge the Government to pay rather more attention than I think they have yet done to the possibilities of more intimate association with the United States. I greatly hope that the journey recently taken by Mr. Runciman will lead to a more active co-operation between this country and the United States and with Mr. Hull in his policy in trying to remove the economic causes of war. I think there is room for co-operation very much more if immediate effects in diminishing international tension are to be achieved. I venture to think it is worth while considering whether, by a closer approximation to the policy of the United States, it is not possible to build up effective insurances against any European war which may break out spreading into a world war. If we do that we shall have done well by mankind and well by ourselves, because democracy itself will not be able to stand another world war. To fight it you will have to abandon your Parliamentary system and the financial needs could not be met by ordinary democratic methods. I venture most earnestly to suggest to the Government that they should give more attention to this method of preventing world war than perhaps they have hitherto done.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am afraid I am going to disappoint the noble Marquess who has just sat down because I do not intend to weary your Lordships with a further description
404
of what is called my policy. My intention this afternoon is to speak about Government policy. I spent the week-end with midnight oil analysing the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, who concluded the debate last Thursday, and a speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and I was somewhat surprised to find that the two noble Lords had said the same thing, which in the Government of to-day is somewhat unusual. If I may take some remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, at the conclusion of his speech, I would like to say that when he threw his bouquets at the Government, with remarkably little applause from the Benches behind him, I felt inclined to add one myself because I trunk great credit is due to the Government for having helped to settle the Dardanelles question and the Alexandretta dispute, and for having concluded the Treaty with Egypt, in regard to which I think they acknowledge a debt also to the Labour Government that was in power five or six years ago. I would add also that I support their policy with regard to non-intervention in Spain. I think it was a wise policy, extraordinarily difficult to carry out. It must go further to be effective, but I think the endeavour itself has been in the right direction.
It is, however, rather to the Government's general policy and the result of that policy in their rearmament programme that I want to draw your Lordships' attention to to-night. To begin with, the League of Nations. All who hay e faith of any sort, although it may be waning, in the League of Nations, desire to see that body strengthened, and I think that everyone of that frame of mind wants to see the League of Nations all-inclusive because unless that is the case there is no possibility of getting its authority listened to. As the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, told us, there are two schools, one saying that the League's military force should be strengthened and the other saying that its coercive force should be abolished. He said that "His Majesty's Government do not favour either of these extreme courses," and the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, in his speech at Southampton, said that "the truth probably lies between these two extremes." You can see that they said very much the same thing. This via media policy sounds the height of wisdom; but it is not choosing between

405
two extremes, it is sitting between two stools, which is not an enviable position for anyone to adopt, and it really means indecision on the part of the Government. They cannot make up their minds. Now, I cannot believe that there can be any question that if you could withhold from the League of Nations all power to use force and could eliminate Article 16 from the Covenant, one of the first results would be that the United States and, I believe, Germany would join the League. By that means you would get what is desired by us all, a very much more all-inclusive League. The Lord Chief justice recently, in an article referring to the League of Nations, said "Inasmuch as its ends are pacific its means ought to be pacific also," and I entirely endorse that sentiment.
Let me now pass to the subject which has been so admirably and clearly dealt with by the noble Marquess who has just sat down—collective security, which he says is a phrase which has hypnotised people. I should like to make a plea for plain English. I really think it would be a great advantage, because my noble friend who was here a moment ago—Lord Strabolgi—said that 75 per cent. of the Labour Party were in favour of collective security. I wonder how many of the 75 per cent. understand what collective security means. I try to understand it, but it is one of those vague phrases which has caught hold of the popular imagination and this use of phrase and metaphor is really very misleading. The most reverend Primate, whom I see in his place, used one of these phrases the other day. He said "Christians are entitled to draw the sword for a righteous cause," and one sees a man in armour brandishing a sword and standing on a monster—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I do not think I said that.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think I am correct in saying that the most reverend Primate used the expression—"the sword."
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I think it is St. Paul.
LORD PONSON BY OF SHULBREDE: Well, my Lords, the moat reverend Primate ought to have brought St. Paul's words up to date. Instead of saying the
406
sword, he should have said chlorine, phosgene, mustard gas, lewisite, and thermite, and then asked his fellow Christians whether they were justified in using these in defence of any cause at all. I want plain English. I know these gases are not plain English. They are very far from being English, and they are very much objected to by more than 90 per cent. of our population. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi said that the Labour Party believe in collective security. I believe that is so. That is their official policy, but what I think is amazing is that they should think that the Government believe in collective security. That is the surprising thing. The Government do not believe in collective security. They always evade the issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons last week only used the term in a quotation; and I carefully listened to the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, and noticed that he did make one reference to it in a sort of "Oh, I must not forget to mention that" voice. I did not see a full report of the speech by the Leader of the House at Southampton, but I believe he just mentioned it.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): More than that.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The report I saw was not a full one, and it did not give any of the noble Viscount's oratorical trimmings. But at any rate the Government do not believe in it. They did not believe in sanctions—the mistake they made was ever saying that they did—and sanctions really are a form of collective security. Their policy of today means that they do not believe in collective security, otherwise why should they be arming in this way, with this vast programme of armaments? It means that they do not believe that anybody will come to our assistance should we be attacked; and, as the noble Marquess has well pointed out, there is considerable opposition in this country to the idea of our going to the assistance of anybody and everybody should they find themselves in danger in various parts of the world. The noble Marquess who has just sat down has demolished collective security. I think other speeches have demolished collective security too, and the Government will feel strengthened in what is their secret opposition to collective security. But we have got a new phrase

407
now. It has cropped up just recently, and it is that of "regional pacts." Both the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, and the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, emphasised regional pacts. The noble Earl spoke of pre-war alliances. He wanted to dismiss them; he said that policy was a failure. The noble Viscount referred to exclusive alliances as a policy that must be dropped. But regional pacts were all right.
Let us get down to the definition more closely. What is the difference between exclusive alliances and regional pacts? Probably I shall be told by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that regional pacts are drawn up and an invitation is given to others to join so that they should not be what is called exclusive. That is to say, if you have a regional pact with A, B, and C you invite D. E, and F to join, and therefore it is all right. But when your regional pact with A, B, and C is drawn up because you fear the aggressive tendencies of D, E, and F, it is not likely that D, E, and F are going to join. It is just that insincere type of diplomacy which is disastrous. Regional pacts are not going to solve this very difficult problem, and I thoroughly endorse what was said by my noble friend in the admirable speech he made in opening this debate with regard to the renewal of Locarno. I would ask whether, in replying to this debate, as we are expecting the Leader of the House to do, he can now tell us what the attitude of Belgium is with regard to the renewal of Locarno. I do not believe that the renewal of that or any other regional pact will be anything more than a return to the exclusive alliances which were so disastrous in former times.
May I make another criticism? I cannot believe that the new method of shouting across Europe is a good one. We have a well-paid Diplomatic Service, and I really believe it would be a good thing to use it. It is true that if one person shouts you have got to shout back, but we ask questions when we shout and they are not answered, and we hesitate as to whether we should shout again. And with certain Powers we always use the tone of the schoolmaster. I do not know why we should do that. Really these Governments of great populations and
408
great historical units must be allowed to manage their own affairs for themselves, and it is not in the hectoring schoolmaster tone that we are likely to get agreement and an amelioration of any tension that we have with them. I agree that there may be disputes, but do let the leading statesmen of Europe quarrel privately. I am not asking for secret diplomacy. Parliament and the people should know all the real decisions that are made or any agreements that are come to; but there is a great gap between that and this new method of shouting.
I do not think we are helping the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary has got a very difficult task in his negotiations with other Powers just now. Dictators are a nuisance. I do not want to interfere with the internal affairs of any country, but I cannot have any sympathy myself with dictators. If I were living under the Nazi régime in Germany I should be in a concentration camp as a pacifist and Socialist; and if I were living under the Soviet régime I should have been shot long ago—although I should not have made any confession! The Government have given Mr. Eden, in these very delicate negotiations with Governments that are so very far removed from our method of governing, a bludgeon. I do not believe that Mr. Eden in his heart of hearts is thankful to the Government for being given a bludgeon. He has now gone into his conferences with the menace of armaments, and I do not believe that improves the atmosphere in a conference. In fact, anybody who has read the negotiations that took place in the various disputes before 1914 can see that amicable settlements were reached in the most crucial questions until the moment arrived when the Powers thought that they had their people behind them and their armaments equipped; then the war card was played and you got war.
The Government pretend that they have not gone in for competition, that they have no desire to compete, that they have no desire to go in for an armaments race. But undoubtedly they have done so. A runner cannot enter into a race with a firm determination to be abreast of those in the forefront without speeding up all those who are in the race. We see the way it has been done in certain parts of Europe, and only this afternoon, as recorded in our newspapers, Signor Mussolini thinks it necessary to go a

409
little further in his rearmament. And this disastrous position of an armed Europe is surpassing anything that the world has ever seen. The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, said we were not going to be aggressors. He said this was all for peace and for defence. When has anything else ever been said by any nation that has armed? That has always been the pretext. As my noble friend Lord Russell, in his admirable maiden speech, said last Thursday, that has been the pretext for rearming on the part of all nations time after time.
We have had impressive speeches from Prime Ministers about the dangers in front of us and I need not quote them, because they have been quoted times without number. But I should like to quote some phrases with which I am in absolute and complete agreement. They are very short and they are these:
"The truth is that so long as we have armies whatever the justification we plead for them, we shall have wars. The kind of army will not determine how it is to be used. If we admit that force is necessary for national defence then every other militarist evil follows. … The ground we hold is that the problem of defence is not how to protect ourselves by force against enmity but how to remove enmity."
It could not be better put. They are the words of the Lord President of the Council some years ago before he fell. Now he is in favour of expenditure on armaments going on and on and up and up!
This armament policy which is being undertaken is a result of the vacillating decision of the Government with regard to the main international questions which are now before the world. They give no lead with regard 1o the revision of the Covenant. They say nothing at all with regard to a conference on the causes, economic and territorial, of the complaints that there may be between nations. I hope—and I do not see that there is any prospect of it—that anyhow we shall not embark on another Disarmament Conference. It is complained that we should not talk of war. Who is to blame? I do not want to talk about war, and the vast majority of the people do not want to talk about war. It is the Government who insist on us talking about war and talking about nothing else. I find all classes of people are talking about it. When they are not talking about the test match or the Coronation, both of which
410
will soon be over, they talk about war. They are forced to do it. In every village ladies who have nothing else to do are having classes in gas and anti-air-raid drill. Taxation reminds us of it. The countryside is being desecrated by aerodromes placed in many of our most beautiful spots, and it is a new form of patriotism to approve of that. We have got this war complex forced on us by the Government. As a working man said to me the other day, if they would not go on talking about it we might get through, but if they go on talking about it they will have it, and the Government are solely responsible for that.
May I ask the Government, envisaging this world war and making all these preparations for it, have they drafted their propaganda, because everybody knows nowadays that propaganda is the most important thing after arms and munitions? You have got to inflame the population against the enemy. Now the people of this country will be very reluctant even against a proved enemy to bomb their towns and centres of population and to destroy thousands of lives of men, women, and children. You will want very strong propaganda. I dare say the Government have got it ready. The usual sort of thing will be forthcoming, the leaflets and pamphlets and paragraphs that are usually drawn up in wartime. Any of them will do, and they can leave a blank so as to put in the name of the enemy at the last moment when they know who it is. They will want very strong propaganda to make the peaceful, peace-loving, sensible people of this country eager, and they will have to make them eager before they will consent to destroy the men, women, and children of another country by hundreds of thousands, whatever that other country may have done.
I really think that this policy of the Government is not defence for security but preparation for attack, an aggravation of the danger. We want national defence, but real national defence is in the opposite direction. Money by the hundred millions can be ear-marked by means of hysterical warnings and the creation of some panic—that is what the Government are doing at the present time—against some indefinite enemy abroad when we have a very definite enemy here at home We want national defence for the unemployed against idleness and demoralisation, we

411
want defence for children against inadequate education, malnutrition, and ill-equipped accommodation. I fancy that if a very few millions were proposed by the Government for that there would be an outcry that it was waste. We want defence for mothers against the tragic losses of infantile mortality. We want defence for our cities against the cancerous growth of slums, we want defence for the sick against disease, we want defence for those who die for want of hospital accommodation. The voluntary hospital system is breaking down. You can see it a hundred yards from here or at Hyde Park Corner. They cannot get money for equipment or to build hospitals sufficiently large.
Need, ignorance, crime, disease, exploitation—these are the enemies against which we ought to spend all our money, all our enterprise, all our genius and the whole force of our youth. Reconstruction of that sort would not cost one quarter of what this programme is going to demand of us. Rearmament is antagonistic to reconstruction. The Government pursue reconstruction tentatively, half-heartedly, cheaply, but they pursue this expansion of armaments with an enthusiasm with which they try to infect the whole country and with reckless extravagance. The Government have been confronted with a direct choice at a tremendously important moment in the history of the world's civilisation. Instead of taking the remunerative road towards real national defence such as I have described they have chosen the downhill course which leads to death, destruction, devastation, ruin, and the crumbling of such civilisation as we have reached. It is for these reasons, my Lords, that I support my noble friend Lord Arnold in his demand that the Government policy should be based on the realities of the situation.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down indulged, as he was fully entitled to, of course, in some rather entertaining criticism of His Majesty's Government, and he said some of the things which have always been said of every Government that has ever existed during my lifetime. His speech, if he will allow me to say so—it is not usual with his speeches—was almost entirely negative.
412
As I understood him, he was against various suggestions, but he was most against rearmament. That was the thing that really moved his indignation. I suppose everybody in the world, certainly everybody in this country, is against rearmament. The Government themselves have used language almost as forcible as that which has just fallen from my noble friend, but they do not see how they can possibly go on, in the position they now are, without some strengthening of the armaments of this country.
May I venture to make this suggestion to my noble friend? There seem to me to be the proverbial three possible courses. You may have red hot rearmament, red hot increase of armaments, everybody standing by themselves. He and I would agree, I think, that that is an impossible policy. You may have complete pacifism, the abandonment of all armaments. I think he would agree that whether that policy is right or wrong it is a quite impracticable policy; there is not the slightest chance of its being adopted in this or in any other country. If you do not have that, then I submit that you must come to the system which he so eloquently sneered at, the system of collective security. It is the only other plan. Either you must have some system by which all the nations of the world will unite to keep the peace, or you must have either red hot rearmament or complete pacifism. I will come in a moment to what my noble friend Lord Lothian said, because I do not think his system is substantially different. He wants a different League of Nations; that is all.
Before I go on with the rest of what I want to say I would like to ask a question. My noble friend who will reply for the Government is not in his place at the moment, but I hope some other member of the Government will take a note of my question and pass it on to him. I am glad that our efforts at non-intervention in Spain have reached at any rate a relative success, and if my noble friend Lord Plymouth will allow me, I should like to offer my humble congratulations to him on the great tenacity and the great patience with which he has conducted negotiations which must have been very trying. What I want to understand is how the scheme which has been evolved is going to work, and I should be glad of any information which can be

413
given me without disadvantage. I understand that there are to be British and French ships on the west of Spain, German and Italian ships on the east of Spain, This is the question which has been put to me by those who are interested in the sending of relief: Suppose a food ship goes to assist what is now called the Government part of Spain; what security is there that it will not be arrested by the German and Italian ships? Or, if that does not happen, what security is there that they will not "tip the wink" to the nearest rebel cruiser? I do not know whether that is a real danger or not, but those who are actively engaged in this work think that it is a real danger. I shall be glad to know whether it is part of the scheme that there will be officers of other nations on board these blockading ships who will be able to watch whether they are really doing their duty in stopping arms and soldiers and not going beyond their duties.
I desire to say a few words now about the argument initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. His suggestion is isolation—he said he was not afraid of the word—not as a final or complete policy, if I understood him rightly, but as a step towards complete pacifism. That policy, to my immense surprise, was warmly greeted and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, only he wants isolation as a step towards increased armaments. That is a curious alliance which has gone on for some time now between pacifists and die-hards. I confess that it does not appeal to me very much. I have known instances of that kind of alliance more than once in my political life, but I cannot remember any case in which such an alliance has been successful for both parties. Indeed, I cannot see how it can ever be so. Sometimes one party has done the other and sometimes the other has done the one, but one or the other is bound to be done in an association of that kind. I venture to warn my noble diehard friends that they are up against pretty hot customers when they are dealing with my noble friends on my right.
What is this policy of isolation? Put into the rigidly plain language that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby prefers, it is the abandonment of our present alliances. That is what it means. You are to abandon your alliance or your undertakings under the League Covenant with
414
all the other Powers in the League of Nations and the Locarno arrangements with France and Belgium, and if there are any others they are to be abandoned, too. If that is not what is meant, then I should be glad to have an explanation of what is meant. I cannot say that that is to me a very attractive proposal. My noble friend Lord Lothian said that he was not exactly in favour of isolation, but in favour of non-commitment and non-intervention. The distinction is not very clear in my mind; I do not see how exactly the two differ. Even Lord Arnold does not propose never to have any relations with foreign countries; all he proposes is not to enter into any kind of obligation to defend them if they are attacked, or any agreement which will oblige them to defend us if we are attacked. But my noble friend Lord Lothian's proposal is, to my mind, at any rate, an entirely novel one. I never heard it put forward before. Indeed, it is one of the great charms of his speaking that every time he speaks he has a new prescription for dealing with the new situation in which we find ourselves. But this particular novelty seems to me, I must say, more ingenious than plausible. He says that the right thing is to have an Anglo-American alliance.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, I never said anything of the kind, and I do not believe in it at all.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I have used the wrong word. It is an Anglo-American understanding by which the two countries shall act together. Will that do?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: If I may say so, that we should not form part of the European alliance system and that America should not form part of it either, or of an Oriental alliance system, and that we should keep outside either of the two alliance systems. That is the essence of it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Surely there is more than that, otherwise it does not come to anything at all. Surely it was an undertaking that we should, with America, keep the peace of the world. That is the basis of the idea, or otherwise it would not be worth while.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The idea is to avoid being drawn into a world war because a war starts in Europe or the

415
Far East. It is avoiding ever being drawn into a world war, not trying to keep the peace of the world.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: How are you going to prevent a world war at all unless you take action of some kind or another to prevent it extending itself? I know the ingenious phrase that the noble Lord quoted from Mr. Lippmann, that a world war necessarily involves the engagement of this country; but it is not true. A world war might well take place without the engagement of this country, though if we kept out of it the war would not be a world war, as far as we were concerned. In that sense you must admit that to be true of any country in the world.
Now I venture to think that any system which is going to be based on Anglo-American co-operation in any practical sense is really not a thing that is worth considering. Feeling in America—my noble friend, I know, knows a great deal about that, and I know a little—against any such a proposal would be overwhelming, and it would be still more overwhelming if you told them that we proposed to maintain one part of our European obligations—namely, the obligation to defend France and Belgium. That seems to me to be a perfectly impossible combination of ideas. More than that, I am very doubtful—but I shall come to this later on—whether you can have an obligation to defend France and Belgium and yet maintain anything that can possibly be regarded as a non-intervention policy. To that extent I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. Putting that addition to the non-intervention policy aside for one moment, it does essentially mean this: that we are to stand alone. That means that we are necessarily to abandon our obligations to France and other people. France will have to look elsewhere. I do not think that some noble Lords ever really make allowance for the extreme difficulty and danger of France. Her position is that she has only a population of forty million and her hereditary enemy—it is no use blinking the fact—with a population of seventy million at least and possibly more, is just across her frontier. She is in constant fear, and no one who has talked to the
416
French people can doubt it, of the possibility of invasion, and if she is deprived of any assistance from us she will have to look elsewhere. She will have to make some other arrangements if she can.
There is one conceivable possibility of arrangement: she might come to terms with Germany on the footing that they should agree to divide up the British Empire. I wonder whether that has ever been considered. It may seem to some noble Lords a very extravagant proposition, but I was rather interested to observe the other day, in reading an extraordinarily interesting book that has just come out, "The Life of Lord Grey," by Professor Trevelyan, a passage quoted from Lord Grey as having been uttered by him in 1911. He then thought there was no immediate danger of war, and he said that there would be no danger unless some Power had ambitions for what he called a Napoleonic policy. Then he proceeds to describe what he means by that policy:
"That would be a policy of first of all separating the other Powers from one another, taking them in detail, crushing them if need be, and forcing them into the orbit of the policy of the strongest Power. The result would be—"
this is what he says; he was dealing with the proposal of isolation—
"one great combination in Europe, outside which we should be left without a friend."
These were the words of a statesman who, I see, was described by Sir Austen Chamberlain, perhaps not with any exaggeration, as the greatest Foreign Minister since the days of Castlereagh. He was certainly a man of the most temperate judgment, as anyone who knew him will agree, yet he thought quite deliberately that there was an appreciable danger that if we tried to stand out of Europe altogether we might find ourselves faced with a combination of the whole of Europe against us. My Lords, that may be a danger which you say you do not believe in and are prepared to risk, but it seems to me a terrible danger to run, and I at any rate would not recommend any policy which made it even a possibility.
I heard with great interest the kind of eulogy of Germany which I have often heard in certain quarters of this House. The most striking was that of Lord Mount Temple, in which he read a

417
great part of the last speech of Herr Hitler to show what a wonderful and reasonable man he was. I will not make the obvious reply—or perhaps I will make the obvious reply—that those words, however noble they may be, must be controlled by the actual facts of German policy. Nobody can really seriously doubt that, when the present German Government say they are so much in favour of peace, what they mean is this: "We desire to get certain things, we should much prefer to get them peacefully, but if we cannot get them peacefully, we will get them somehow." That is no unfair reading of what they say. In this morning's newspapers you will see that this, in almost as many words, is what the German Ambassador to this country, speaking at Leipzig, said about the German Colonies only yesterday. He said practically in so many words: "We want these Colonies; we think we ought to have them, and if you don't give them to us we shall have to take them." That is really what he said.
That is really the underlying idea, as I venture to suggest, of a great deal of the so-called peace talk that you hear from German statesmen. When they have shown a genuine desire to co-operate with other nations, when they come back to the League of Nations, when they come back to the International Labour Office, when they are prepared genuinely to enter upon serious negotiations for the reduction of armaments, when they abandon their perpetual periodical onslaughts through their newspapers on this country and on that country—then I shall listen with much more attention to the pacific speeches which are occasionally made, I think for consumption in this country and elsewhere. I feel very strongly that a policy which is based on isolation, generally coupled with reliance on the certainty of peaceful action by Germany, is not a policy which it is safe to recommend to this country, and I doubt very much whether my noble friend Lord Arnold believes in that policy at all. He thinks it is a first step. But he does not really believe that you can stop at a policy of isolation and not go any further. Nobody can. If you are going to have armed isolation you are inviting attack. You are cutting yourselves off from all help from other people, yet you remain armed—it is an invitation to every other country to attack us.
418
What the noble Earl, Lord Russell, thinks—because he said so in the most specific and definite terms—is that the only policy is complete pacificism. He has published a little book, a very able book, as everything he writes is, and he explained most clearly what it is he wants. I will read a passage partly for the benefit of some of my diehard friends. This is what he says:
"Every argument … is in favour of the policy of gradually disarming the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, disposing"—
a very cunningly chosen word—
"of India and the Crown Colonies, and announcing that we intend never to fight another war. This policy is simple, straight-forward and intelligible: it gives hope for our own country"—
not very much I should have thought—
"and an example which others may follow."
If I were a betting man I should be very glad to offer a hundred to one against any other country following such a policy. That evidently is not the whole consequence of the policy, and Lord Russell, with admirable lucidity and candour, states, in another passage:
"If we had no armed forces we might have to obey the orders of a foreign Government which we should feel to be humiliating, and we should have to take a back seat in international affairs."
It is not only humiliating, but just consider what it means. We are absolutely disarmed. An armed Power on the Continent says: "We require you to make a contribution to the great cost we have been put to in keeping up an Army in order to keep you in order." We should have to do it. We should have no resource except to pay. I really do not understand how anyone who reasons on the subject can be in favour of a complete pacifist policy. Of course, I understand, and I respect, those who say, "Whether it is right or wrong, whether it is going to produce disaster or not, we believe that war is wrong; we will not contemplate it, and, whatever the consequences to our country, we are prepared to risk those consequences on purely conscientious grounds." But those grounds are not the grounds on which that policy is put forward in this House, or in the book which I have quoted.
There is another objection to the policy of isolation, which brings me to the question of disarmament. I do not see how if you are going to have a policy of isola-

419
tion, and a policy consequently of taking from the League of Nations all the coercive part of it, you can ever hope for a policy of general disarmament by international agreement. No one who has had anything to do with that controversy will contradict me, I am satisfied, when I say that the great difficulty has always been to know what you are to do when Country A says: "We are not prepared to disarm unless we are sure that we shall not be utterly destroyed by doing so." You say: "But everybody disarms." "Yes," they say, "but suppose our neighbour does not disarm and only pretends to. What then? If we made ourselves perfectly powerless to resist, how are we to defend ourselves?" The only possible answer is: "Then all the other countries will come in and defend you." If you have a policy which rejects that answer, then you can have no general disarmament.
Indeed that seems to me, if I may say so to the Government, the only point on which I feel dissatisfaction with their more recent declarations. I am very grateful both to the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, and the Leader of the House for their recent speeches. If it is not impertinent for me to say so, I think they were admirable and of great value. But there is one difficulty which I found even in Lord Plymouth's speech. It is the old difficulty. He says, that "we will never fight unless our vital interests are involved." That seems to me a very difficult saying. What are vital interests? I know it is said we are vitally interested in France and Belgium—our frontier is on the Rhine, and all the rest of it. But why is that said? What is our special interest as to the ownership of Alsace-Lorraine, for instance? In itself does it really matter to us whether it belongs to Germany or France? I cannot see that it does. Our only vital interest is peace, and that seems to be an essential to any sound League policy. You must be clear that you are not fighting for particular countries but for the maintenance of a new international system of order, the destruction of that anarchy which the noble Marquess so justly deplores, or else you have no defence for your system, and you have no advantage in it. I know people say to me: "Would you have fought for the independence of Abyssinia?" Put in that way I say No.
420
"Would you fight for the independence of Czechoslovakia?" Put in that way I say No. "Would you fight for the possession by France of Alsace-Lorraine?" Put it that way I say No. But I would fight to prevent a breach of the peace, because I think that of far greater importance than anything else—any other conceivable interest that we may have. That is the only serious difficulty I feel about the Government's statement. I do not say anything about their past policy.
I do very earnestly press upon them that to suggest to the world that there are some interests which are vital apart from peace is to say what is not really true, and what is very pernicious, and it means that we shall fight for some things and we shall not fight for others. It means therefore that you are not going to give a real guarantee to any of those countries and that therefore you cannot expect them to disarm. It means an end of all hope of international disarmament. You must give your general guarantee if you are to have general disarmament. That is the contention I venture to put to the Government. And I want to add just this. Any of these discussions that take place, the kind of argument that passes to and fro as to whether we can with such and such a force meet the possibility of such and such a force coming against us, and things of that kind, belong to a past age. The thing that matters to us now is not victory but peace. I agree with my noble friend, we have got to secure peace if we can. I do not think you can secure it by pacifism or arguments; I believe that in spite of our difficulties, in spite of so called failures that have taken place, you can secure it by international co-operation, and I believe it is the only possibility by which it can be secured.
For that reason I have never been able to vote against the armament policy of the Government. I still find myself utterly unable to oppose it. It is said that it is very lavish. So it is, but there may be advantages in that. If the idea is that we want to show the world that whoever comes against us, we are prepared, it may be right—I do not know—to put the figure high. It is for these reasons that I feel unable to follow my noble friend who has just spoken, in his denunciation of rearmament. I agree with every word he said about it being deplorable, about

421
the urgent needs we have in this country upon which more money could be spent, but unless you can secure peace none of these things can be done, and as I am unable to agree that you can secure peace by pacifism I am bound to support rearmament. If you are to have international co-operation, we must be ready to do our part. I accept that doctrine and therefore I support it. I say with all earnestness to my noble friend Lord Lothian, that I agree with him that the great evil of Europe is anarchy, and I agree with him that until you get rid of that anarchy you will not succeed in having permanent peace in Europe. He says that this is all because Europe is divided into twenty-six States, but he knows as well as I do that that is a situation you cannot avoid. It may be it was wrong to break up Austria-Hungary, but it was inevitable. Cannot you bind these States together in some way or another so that you will have the embryo of a federal system in Europe which will ultimately develop in that way? That seems to me the only way and, although I should delight in any assistance that we might have from the United States and I agree that the friendship of the United States is valuable, yet I do feel that to aim at the federalisation of Europe, even imperfectly, even if we can only take a very small step in that direction at the present time, is the only hope for the future. I therefore hope we shall persist in supporting the Government policy by every means in our power.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the subject of this debate has been approached from a number of different angles and in the speeches on both days your Lordships have taken great interest. This afternoon much has been said on the point to which the noble Viscount who has just sat down devoted part of his speech—namely, as to how far it is possible that this country can be isolated in the event of a war. The noble Lord who opened the debate, Lord Arnold, in his very powerful speech desired to point out that it was in no way impracticable. My noble friend Lord Lothian, from a different standpoint, concluded that a particular attitude taken by the United States and ourselves would not only prevent us from being involved in such a war but would be of marked assistance in keeping the peace of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby,
422
also believed that it would be possible for us to isolate ourselves by undertaking as rapidly as possible to disarm ourselves, even in an armed world.
The attitude of standing aside is very often a most attractive one. Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, was a most attractive figure who refused to be troubled even when people came to blows in his presence. As I say, an attractive figure. So far as it is possible for this country to take up a position of indifference to what is happening in Europe, it seems to me that if isolation continued, two conditions would be required, neither of which is applicable to this country. One case, of which, of course, the principal is the United States, is that of a country geographically far removed from the possibility of attack and in the highest degree able to supply itself with all the necessaries of life. Obviously we are in no way in that position. The other instance is at the opposite end of the scale. Take the instance of Holland. Holland possesses a number of Colonies of the greatest value and holds these Colonies by the acquiescence of the Great Powers of the world. There are three great naval Powers in the Pacific, and all the determination and historical courage of the Netherlands would not enable her to hold those Colonies against their appropriation by any one of these three. I shall not discuss the reasons—because they are so obvious—why the Colonies of the Netherlands may be regarded as one of the safest possessions in the world; and as we are one of the three Powers concerned, we should be under no kind of temptation to deprive her of them. But neither the conditions of the United States nor the conditions of the Netherlands are applicable to this country, and for that reason it appears to me almost impossible for us to shake off a great measure of responsibility for what is happening in Europe.
Speaking of responsibility, the Great World War has been mentioned. I do not know how often it has occurred to your Lordships that that was a world war because we made it so. If this country had stood aside in July and August, 1914, the whole course of history would have been different. The United States, Japan and Portugal would never have come into that War at all. It is pretty safe to say that Italy, in the first stages at any rate, would have remained neutral,

423
and if she had joined in the War at all would have joined in later on the side of the Central Powers with a view to the determination of matters in the Adriatic not altogether unfavourable to herself. Greece, it may be supposed, would have joined Germany, and I think it would have to be concluded that the Russian breakdown would have occurred certainly as soon as it actually did, if not sooner, and that in spite of all the valour of the French soldiers and the capacity of their Generals it would have been impossible for them to resist in the last resort the overwhelming numbers which would have been brought against them by the Central Powers which, it must be remembered, would have received free supplies certainly from the United States and, I dare say, to a large extent from ourselves. That is, I believe, a sketch of what would have occurred and, quite apart from any moral considerations in the matter, as the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches has pointed out, Lord Grey and his colleagues in the Government foresaw what the ultimate result to Europe would be if events had been allowed to take that course. As I say, apart from all moral considerations, that was the practical justification for our entrance into the War.
It is surely altogether impossible to foresee, if war should unhappily break out in Europe, how we might become involved or how we might be able to stand aside from it. It is surely impossible to foretell, not merely the method in which such a war may break out, but who would in fact be involved in it. Assuming that it is impossible for us in the long run to maintain an attitude of complete isolation, it seems to me there are only two other courses which it is possible for us to take. One is to revert to the old system of trying to maintain the balance of power between the various formidable elements in Europe. That did not always answer so badly; but one difficulty which would confront the Foreign Office and His Majesty's Government now would be to know how it would be possible, so to speak, to watch the pieces on the chess-board and to say precisely how that balance could be maintained. It is, of course, a simple line of argument to say that you would be largely guided by the character of the Governments of the different countries, and that you would be prepared to support those who hold
424
democratic faith as this country does and oppose those, whatever their complexion, which are not popularly governed. That may be so, but, if so, it would be an entirely new departure. Alliances and understandings in the past had very little relation to the character of the Governments of the different countries taking part. Nobody could suppose, for instance, that there were not a large majority of people of Republican faith in France who thoroughly disliked being bound up with the Imperial régime of Russia but who had to make friends with Russia because Germany was on the flank of France. I therefore dismiss the nation that it is possible for this country to try to re-create, and perhaps even to control, the balance of the Great Powers of Europe.
Therefore, it seems to me, we are driven to the solution which I believe is favoured by His Majesty's Government—in fact, we know it is from what they have stated in public—that is, to endeavour to assist in reorganising and strengthening the League of Nations in order to bring the general public opinion, principally of Europe but also of some countries outside Europe, to bear on the problems which have to be faced. On one point I find myself greatly in agreement with my noble friend Lord Cecil. What I think has happened is not so much the failure of the League as the failure of disarmament, and it will have to be, I cannot help feeling, through some approach, which I fear will have to be a very gradual one, to further attempts at a gradual diminution of armaments that safety is most likely to be found. I do not differ greatly from Lord Cecil in feeling that the measures upon which this country is now engaged need not be an objection to that course. The facts of the case, and the feeling which has awakened, rightly or wrongly, in the beginning of the armaments scare, sufficiently explain that without going into any further particulars.
I think most of us feel that too heavy a burden has been placed on the League of Nations. Tasks have been set before it which, not its original constitution but the development of its personnel, has made it impossible for it to fulfil. I think you have to go back to the abstention of the United States from Geneva to find the real reason for this. It was not only the loss of assistance from America, whether material or economic, but the effect of that

425
abstention on the minds, I fear, of many of the countries composing the League, which was to diminish what they considered their moral responsibility for enforcing the objects of the League. They may not in those circumstances have thought it necessary or felt it incumbent upon them to enforce the collective provisions of the League. It is not surprising, therefore, that we, to whom their enforcement must, at any rate, be inconvenient, and may be dangerous, should think twice or three times before we combine to take the action which is desired. I cannot help thinking, though without a very great degree of confidence, that the road, it seems to me the only one, on which His Majesty's Government can travel may at last bring them to the goal which we all desire to see reached.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, the debate has covered a wide field, and I only propose for a very few moments to direct your Lordships' minds to the realities of the existing situation which we are called upon to consider by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. I do not think any one of us can look round on the conditions of the world to-day without being convinced that there is more fear, more national selfishness and self-sufficiency and less, co-operation than there was a year or two ago. There is fear of war, of aggression, of attack from the air, fear of shortage of essential commodities—whether foodstuffs or raw materials—an increasing tendency for each nation to seek its security in its own territories and to get those essential commodities under its own control. I believe we are very largely responsible for that condition of affairs.
Since the War the world has been looking anxiously to us, for a lead, and I fear it has not got a lead of the kind that it wanted. I believe it was largely for us to take a lead in the revision of those clauses in the Peace Treaties which were made when men's passions were high, and that were even then intended to be modified as conditions changed. I think there is only one instance of a peaceful change of treaty conditions, and I duly appreciate the share which His Majesty's Government had in bringing that into being. But we have waited until those changes have been made unilaterally one by one, and then have contented ourselves with somewhat petulant protests about the sanctity of treaties.
426
Cannot we now admit that we have made mistakes in this direction in the past, that we have done (under different conditions it is true) many of the things that we are blaming other countries for doing in the last few years? Cannot we admit our mistake in having a policy that followed on events instead of foreseeing them and seeking the solution to problems before they become burning national issues? I readily admit many of the difficulties of His Majesty's Government. In framing their policy they have not had that whole-hearted support from the country as a whole which they might have been led to expect. There has been in the country a moral dry rot and a decay of standards both in youth and age, as I and some of my friends have been seeing as we travel about England, and of which many of our leaders seem to be singularly unaware. This has led, and must lead, to a moral revolt.
On the other hand, I have also been seeing in this country, and many other countries, the beginning of a moral and spiritual awakening which is leading to a new confidence among many people, a new freedom from fear and inferiority, the creation of a new atmosphere in which alone conferences can be successful and problems can be solved. Particularly in this year the nations of the world are looking to us in this country to give a lead. That lead can only be given by statesmen who are wholly committed to the will of God and whose backing is a public opinion alive to the real spiritual and moral issues. At a time when the statesmen of the Empire are coming together the supreme issue may well be to re-examine the true foundations on which our Empire rests. When those foundations have begun to rot great empires of the past have crashed. These are some of the realities of the situation. I believe it is in the light of these realities, and only in the light of these realities, that our statesmen can face the practical issues which are before the world to-day.
We must set ourselves to remove the causes that lead to war. A policy which I think would be more effective than armaments is to try to understand and to meet the needs of other nations, to see whether we cannot share with them the resources in raw materials and in markets and in spaces for development which have been

427
entrusted to us, to see if by sharing we can build the world prosperity for which there has been a call by many of the influential leaders of the world. A smaller share of such prosperity may well be greater than the whole of the chaos which is the alternative with which we are faced. I am convinced that men of good will in many countries of the world will give a firm and loyal support to such a policy. What is needed to bring British foreign policy into accord with the realities of the existing situation is not the steering of a middle course between the opposing forces of revolutionary activities existing in the world to-day, but what may well prove even more revolutionary, a policy founded upon the will and purpose of God, which has never been fully tried, seeking to apply His answer to the problems which have not been solved by the wisdom of man.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, one of the most striking and attractive features of debates in your Lordships' House is the way in which opinions on great issues such as this cut across all ordinary Party boundaries. During these two days I have found myself somewhat in agreement with most of the speakers but I fear completely in agreement with hardly any of them. To a very great extent I sympathise with the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, but I was not able to follow him in what, to him, was the logical conclusion of the policy of isolation. He went further than I could go in suggesting that that should be accompanied at the same time by apparently the more or less complete abandonment of all our forces. To my way of thinking, and I believe that it is a view shared by the great majority of people in this country, His Majesty's Government are absolutely right in pushing on with rearmament as fast as is possible, because I believe that a strong and well armed Britain is the greatest factor for peace that could exist in the world to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, appealed even more fervently for complete disarmament, but I submit that he gave away his case completely when he admitted that had he been in Russia he would not be alive and that had he been in Germany he would have been in a concentration camp. I think he was a
428
little optimistic as regards his position in Germany. Unfortunately totalitarian, dictatorial nations are not subject to arguments based upon good will and pacifism. I have not had the privilege of meeting either Herr Hitler or Stalin, but I have met Signor Mussolini and he made it perfectly clear that he had neither liking nor respect for pacifists. So far as the British Empire was concerned he would respect it and be its friend just as long as it was prepared to keep, and if necessary to fight to keep, its possessions. That attitude I think is one which is shared by Germany, except that I am not quite so certain of the friendly intentions of Germany.
The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, made an impassioned appeal for us to be more sympathetic towards Germany. I am not myself in any way inclined to hostility towards that country, but at the same time I do not think I am speaking for myself alone when I say that it is impossible to regard Germany as the equal of other civilised nations as long as she continues her present policy of the persecution of racial minorities and all forms of religion which do not happen to coincide with the extreme form of almost Slate Theism which the German Government is apparently trying to establish. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, turned, I thought, somewhat pointedly in my direction when he commented acidly on the temporary alliance between those whom he was pleased to call diehards—a description I repudiate—and the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, and warned those whom he designated diehards that Lord Arnold and his friends were what he termed hot customers. We fully appreciate that, and in supping with them we will take not only a long spoon but one well insulated against heat.
Now I would come to the position in which the Government find themselves to-day. The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, rather gave away the Government's case when he said, quite rightly, in speaking of the League of Nations, that from the very beginning it had suffered from lack of universality and that unfortunately its situation had been aggravated in the last few years. I feel that that is a point which cannot be overstressed. To put it colloquially the League never had a chance from the start and unfortunately the League has an even less fair chance

429
than it had then. At the beginning of its career it suffered from the defection of the United States of America. It still suffers from that, and also from the disappearance of Germany and Japan and the virtual abstention of Italy. I suggest that it is poor compensation for the loss of those great countries that the League should have acquired the doubtful benefit of having Soviet Russia as a Member. Collective security, which I understand it is the intention of the Government to try to rebuild—or rather to build, because up to now it has never existed—can surely never work until such time as all the Great Powers are again Members of the League of Nations. Until that time surely we must depend upon our armed forces, which as I have said the Government are very rightly increasing, although, equally rightly, with the greatest reluctance.
We should also have a foreign policy which will as far as humanly possible keep us out of foreign entanglements. We have at the present time far too many commitments. We are bound by various articles of the Treaties immediately following the War and the position to-day may easily become one of extreme danger. We might be called upon to go to the help, for example, of a country often mentioned in this debate, Czechoslovakia, and at the same time find that once we were engaged there we should have to devote our attention to some other infinitely more vital place and no longer have the wherewithal to do it. It is not possible for us in any circumstances, as far as I can see, to build up our forces to such an extent that we can undertake at one time the responsibility of maintaining the peace of Europe and the much more vital responsibility of ensuring the safety of our own country and our own Empire.
So far as that country of Czechoslovakia is concerned, it is possibly the greatest danger spot in Europe to-day, where unfortunately there are a great many other danger spots. If we were to be called upon to assist Czechoslovakia, we should not be assisting a homogeneous unit, but one of the worst geographical jokes perpetrated by Messrs. Lloyd George, Clemenceau and Wilson. It is a country of an impossible shape and of about fifteen million inhabitants, of whom rather less than half belong to the ruling Czech race. The remainder are minorities of several different kinds—Hungarians,
430
Poles, Slovaks, none of whom enjoy the benefits of being ruled by the Czechs, but those who enjoy it least are the so-called Slovak-Deutsch Germans, some three million in number, of whom some two-thirds are very strongly Nazi in their sympathies. Were an attempt to be made by the Germans to invade Czechoslovakia, there is little doubt that they would find the country immediately torn by dissension and not capable of putting up a very good resistance, good though her Army might be. In those circumstances we might well find ourselves in the position of having to support an already lost cause, and to support it with such force, as I have said, that at home we might be put in a position of very great danger. I submit that we ought to have a foreign policy which will keep us much freer of entanglements than the one with which we are faced, or may be threatened, at the present time.
In conclusion I would draw the attention of your Lordships, and especially that of the Government, to one of the most cogent arguments used by Lord Arnold: that in order to prosecute any war successfully you must have at least 90 per cent. of the population behind you. At the present time, for any war except a war fought in defence of our own Empire and our own interests, we should not find 50 per cent. of the people of this country behind any Government that proposed to enter such a war. Our position would be made more dangerous by twenty, fifty or a hundred times. How far we could be judges of when it would be necessary to intervene, of when our interests were involved, would be a matter for the Government to decide. I would not go so far as Lord Arnold in saying that we should never be drawn in except when directly attacked. Should Spain, for example, decide that she was willing to sell or otherwise hand over the Canaries to Germany, I think we should be absolutely entitled to say that we refused to allow anything of the sort to happen, as it would be a very grave threat to our own national security.
But I am convinced that until we get some foreign policy of that sort, not only will our position in Europe be a dangerous one but also, should that position lead us into war, we should not have a united country behind the Government. To enter into any war at the present time would be terrible, but to enter into one

431
unless we were 99 per cent. unanimous would be an absolute disaster. Finally, I do not believe that war is inevitable. I think that with decent statesmanship in every country we ought to be able to avoid it altogether, and I suggest that our best way of doing so is an approximation of our foreign policy in the future to the lines I have indicated rather than those which we seem to be following at the present day.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Allen of Hurtwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly till tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, before we adjourn may I say that I understand that it is proposed that we should meet at three o'clock to-morrow and that we should resume this debate after the conclusion of the business that at present stands on the Paper.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Saint Paul's and Saint James' Churches (Sheffield) [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

WALTHAM HOLY CROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL, [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 8th and 23rd of February last discharged, and Bill committed.
FOLKESTONE PIER AND LIFT BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 16th and 23rd of February-last discharged, and Bill committed for to-morrow.

CHORLEY GAS ORDER, 1937.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Chorley:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.