Sitting of 7 December 1938

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
OLD AGE PENSIONS.
Mr. Kelly: I desire, along with other Members of this House, to present a Petition praying that His Majesty's Government increase the old age pension to £1 per week to enable these veterans of industry and commerce to retire from employment and live at a standard which will not require them to resort to public assistance. This is signed by over 105,000 people from Yorkshire.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO ITALY).
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether during his forthcoming visit to Italy, he will ask the head of the Italian Government, in view of the implementing of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, to take the necessary steps to ensure that Italian aircraft and pilots shall not be concerned in attacks upon British shipping?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): As I have already made clear to the House, I am not prepared to state in advance what subjects will be discussed during my visit to Rome.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it really the case that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to permit a state of affairs to continue in which this Agreement has been signed with Italy and yet attacks upon British ships by Italian aeroplanes and aviators continue?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MR. HODEN'S RESIGNATION).
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the reasons for the resignation of Mr. Hoden, until re-
  1142
  cently private secretary to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): My Noble Friend has no special information regarding the reasons for Mr. Hoden's resignation.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that we are responsible, as members of the Council, for the Secretariat, will the Minister not make inquiries, and is it not the case that the resignation was partly due to political differences as to the future of the League of Nations itself?
  Mr. Butler: The appointment and dismissal of the members of the Secretariat is a matter for the Secretary-General of the League.

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Menderasked the Prime Minister whether, under the British plan for the withdrawal of volunteers from Spain, approved by the Non-Intervention Committee in July, 1938, and in view of the fact that all volunteers have now left the service of the Spanish Government, it will be necessary for all volunteers to leave the service of General Franco before it comes into operation?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Under the plan machinery is provided for the withdrawal of all the volunteers from Spain. If, on the other hand, they were to be evacuated from both sides without use being made of the Plan, His Majesty's Government for their part would see no reason to be dissatisfied.
  Mr. Mander: If the plan were put into operation, in view of the fact that all the foreigners have left Government Spain, would it not be necessary under the plan for all the foreigners to leave Nationalist Spain too?
  Mr. Butler: The plan cannot be put into operation because we have not had General Franco's acceptance of it.
  Mr. Mander: Would the Minister mind answering the question that I put to him, as to whether, if the plan were in operation, all the foreigners would have to leave Nationalist Spain too?
  Mr. Butler: The answer is that the plan is not in operation.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the recent threat made by wireless on behalf of the Spanish insurgent authorities to bomb 150 towns and villages in Spanish Government territory; that over 70 civilians, including a large number of women, were killed in recent air raids; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. W. Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether the British Government will protest against General Franco's avowed intention to bomb more than too towns and villages in Government Spain?
  Mr. Butler: I understand that an announcement was made by wireless on 1st December that General Franco's air force intended in the near future to bomb certain military objectives in Spanish Government territory, and particularly munition factories and stores, and that warning was consequently given in order to avoid casualties among the civilian population. I can only reiterate the views of His Majesty's Government on the aerial bombardment of the civilian population of open towns, of which General Franco is fully aware.
  Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the threat of a policy of frightfulness which this announcement over the wireless characterises, he will not make a special appeal to the Franco authorities not to carry out this policy directed against the civilian population of Government Spain?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has said what the Government's view is, and General Franco is fully aware of that view.
  Miss Rathbone: Has the hon. Gentleman reason to believe that General Franco has carried out his declared intention of bombing only military objectives, or is it not just the contrary?

  REFUGEES.
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Prime Minister whether he will consult with the President of the United States of America with the object of discussing the possibility of a joint approach to Germany on the question of the treatment of the Jews and the serious problem of refugees with which their respective countries are confronted?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are in close and constant contact with the United States Government on this question through the Intergovernmental Committee. An informal meeting of the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the Committee took place on 2nd December, when all aspects of the question were reviewd.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a large body of people in Germany are horrified at the Nazi treatment of the Jews and would welcome intervention of the character suggested on behalf of the Jews in Germany?
  Mr. Butler: We are in consultation with the United States Government on the matter.
  Mr. Rileyasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement with regard to the work of the Inter-governmental Committee for Refugees?
  Mr. Butler: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Riley: Has the hon. Gentleman any information that the German Government are prepared now to bring their propaganda to an end?
  Mr. Butler: It is a very important matter, which is naturally under consideration.
  Following is the answer:
  The executive authority of the London Inter-Governmental Committee is the director, Mr. George Rublee, who is assisted by a small staff. The director's task is first, to undertake negotiations to improve the present conditions of exodus of refugees and to establish a system of orderly emigration properly organised; and second, to approach the Governments of the countries represented on the committee, who have expressed themselves as able and willing to admit refugees, with a view to developing opportunities for permanent settlement. The task as a whole is complicated by political, economic and financial questions and the director has found it difficult to make much progress with the first part; but he has been able to do much useful work in connection with the second part of his duties.

  1145
  A meeting of the chairman, vice-chairman and director of the committee was held in London on 2nd December. The director was able to report that the prospects for the refuge and settlement of involuntary emigrants from Germany were steadily improving, but that the establishment of organised emigration continued to depend to a large extent on the attitude of the country of origin and the conditions under which the refugees leave their homes. All aspects of the committee's work were reviewed, and it was decided that a meeting of the full committee should be held in the near future, and in any event not later than early in the New Year.

  NORTH CHINA (BRITISH FORCES).
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister whether he can give particulars of the strength of the military and naval forces maintained by His Majesty's Government in North China; and how they compare with the foreign garrison maintained there?
  Mr. Butler: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Day: Have the forces been considerably altered during the last 12 months?
  Mr. Butler: I think it would be advisable for the hon. Gentleman to read the statement that I am circulating.
  Following is the answer:
  The strength of the British military forces in North China on 1st November was 37 officers and 855 other ranks. The strength of the foreign garrisonsin North China on the same date was: United States of America, 555; French, 1,529; Italians, 342; Japanese strength not available. These figures include garrisons at Peking, Tientsin, and certain small detachments in the vicinity of those places. As regards naval forces in North China, the dispositions of His Majesty's ships on the China station are at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, and their allocation between North China and other parts of the station varies considerably throughout the year. On 5th December His Majesty's ships were stationed as follow: one escort vessel at Taku; one escort vessel at Tsingtao; and
  1146
  one cruiser at Wei-hai-wei. There are at the moment no foreign warships in Chinese waters North of the Yangtse, except a number of Japanese cruisers and destroyers.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. Moreingasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a joint statement issued by the British, French, and American Chambers of Commerce and national associations of eight countries represented at Shanghai complaining that Japanese restrictions on foreign trade can no longer be justified by military necessity; and what action His Majesty's Government have taken in the matter?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has seen Press accounts of such a statement and has called for a report.
  Mr. Moreingasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered a communication received during the last few days from the British Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai relating to Japanese encroachment on British trade in China; what are the specific causes of complaint alleged in the communication; and what steps he is taking to provide a redress of the grievances complained of?
  Mr. Butler: No such communication has yet reached my Noble Friend.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the formal declaration of policy of the Japanese Government contending that the Nine-Power Treaty is obsolete, approved at a conference in the presence of the Emperor of Japan on 3oth November; to what extent such policy is antagonistic to British interests in the Far East; and what action he is taking?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend's reports do not indicate that any such formal declaration of policy was made by the Japanese Government on the occasion referred to by my hon. Friend; the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether he has made representations to the Japanese Government on the failure of the Foreign Minister, Mr. Arita, on assuming office, to give to foreign Ambassadors the customary assurance that Japan will adhere to the open-door policy; and whether His Majesty's

  1147
  Government have consulted the Governments of the United States of America and France on this important matter?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government continue to rely upon the specific assurances of respect for the principle of equal opportunity given to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo on more than one occasion by responsible members of the Japanese Government. His Majesty's Government continue to maintain close touch with other interested Governments.
  Mr. Attlee: In these cases do not deeds speak louder than words?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government attach importance to the assurances that they have received.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: Are the British Government getting in fact the fulfilment of the open-door policy? Are we not suffering a great handicap in respect of British shipping? What is the answer to that?

  LIBYA (NATIVES, MILITARY SERVICE).
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the decree recently passed by the Fascist Grand Council incorporating Libya as part of Italian territory, and rendering the native population liable to compulsory military service; and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take, in view of Italy's undertaking in the Anglo-Italian Agreement not to compel natives to undertake military duties other than local policing and territorial defence?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but the undertaking to which the hon. Member alludes affects only natives of Italian East Africa.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL.
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Prime Minister, under which treaty or diplomatic undertaking between Great Britain and Portugal His Majesty's armed forces may be used in defence of Portuguese interests?
  Mr. Butler: The obligations to which the hon. Member refers are contained in certain clauses of the Treaties of 1373,
  1148
  1386, 1642, 1654, 1660, 1661, and 1703, which were confirmed in 1815 and 1899.
  Mr. Mander: Does that apply to the Portuguese Colonies as well as to the mainland?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Gentleman say why this House of Commons should be committed to such ancient Treaties?

  APOSTOLIC DELEGATE.
  Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Prime Minister whether an Apostolic Delegate from the Vatican has yet been appointed to this country; on whose initiative the appointment is being made; what his functions are; and when, and for how long, an Apostolic Delegate has been appointed in the past?
  Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. An Apostolic Delegate is an ecclesiastical official appointed to carry out certain ecclesiastical duties; he enjoys no diplomatic status or privileges. His appointment is a question for the Vatican alone. There has not hitherto been an Apostolic Delegate in this country, but for some time past such Delegates have been appointed to Canada, Australia, South Africa, and India.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Will the hon. Gentleman say on whose initiative this appointment was made? Did the initiative come from the Vatican or from this country? Secondly, are the Apostolic Delegate's functions to include any propaganda in favour of the Holy war against the people of Spain?
  Mr. Butler: On the question of the initiative, as I said in my original answer, the appointment of the Apostolic Delegate is a question for the Vatican alone. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second supplementary question, I do not think I can say anything in answer to that.
  Mr. George Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) can answer that much better, can he not?
  Mr. Logan: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this gentleman who has been appointed is an Englishman and worthy of all the true traditions of the English name?
  Colonel Wedgwood: Is this Apostolic Delegate to assist the Cardinal in his functions, which are purely religious? May I have an answer to that?
  Mr. Speaker: The Minister is not in a position to answer that.

  PALESTINE.

    PROPAGANDA.
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of making representations to the German Government for the cessation of the supply of money and anti-semitic propaganda literature printed in Arabic and German and distributed to Arabs in Damascus and Palestine?
    Mr. Butler: Consideration has been and will be given to all reports received on the distribution of such literature and money in Palestine.
    Mr. Mender: Would it not be in accordance with the policy of appeasement that Germany should cease to stir up trouble for us in Palestine and elsewhere, and cannot the most vigorous remonstrances be made on the subject?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member has asked that consideration should be given to certain reports, and I have said that it will be given.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have any specimens of this propaganda and literature been sent to the Foreign Office for investigation?
    Mr. Butler: I shall be pleased to receive anything that the hon. and gallant Gentleman sends me.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have any been received?
    Mr. Butler: I should require notice of that question.

    LONDON DISCUSSIONS.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any further statement regarding the progress of arrangements for the discussions in London with Arabs and Jews?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Yes, Sir. Invitations to send representatives to
    1150
    London for the discussions have now been accepted by the Governments of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Trans-Jordan and by the Jewish Agency. A formal invitation has been sent to the King of the Yemen. With regard to the possibility of representatives of the Arabs of Palestine also coming to London, as I have already announced, the Government intend to grant facilities to attend the discussions in London to any person at present deported or excluded from Palestine who may be selected. In order that the persons who have been deported to the Seychelles may be readily available, if their services should be required, it has been decided to release them as soon as transport can be arranged. The release of these deportees will be final, and they will be allowed to proceed to any destination except Palestine, to which country their admission is regarded as undesirable in present circumstances.
    Mr. Stephen: Have any steps been taken to have representatives of the Arab fellaheen, as well as the Arab effendis, selected?
    Mr. MacDonald: The selection of the representatives of Palestinian Arabs must be primarily a matter for the Palestinian Arabs themselves.
    Mr. Attlee: How is the selection to be made? Is it to be a selection only of notables, who will select merely people from the upper classes, or will there be any chance for the poorer Arabs to get any representation if they come over here?
    Mr. MacDonald: Obviously, it is not for the Government to select representatives. That has never been suggested. It must be left to the Palestinian Arabs themselves to make their own selection. As far as the different classes in Palestine are concerned, I am not aware that there is much difference of view amongst them on the political questions involved.
    Mr. Attlee: What is the machinery by which the selection of the Arab delegation is to be made?
    Mr. MacDonald: I understand that certain consultations are taking place. I cannot say any more than that.
    Mr. Attlee: Are consultations taking place with the Arab workers or the Arab fellaheen?
    Mr. MacDonald: That is not a matter for the Government or the High Commissioner. We must leave this primarily to the Arabs themselves.
    Mr. Attlee: Is it not a matter for this Government to see that there shall be adequate representation of all sections of the Arabs? Therefore, it is not possible to pass this off by suggesting that this is a matter for the Arabs themselves, unless the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what is the machinery whereby different sections of Arabs are going to make the selection.
    Mr. MacDonald: I cannot make a statement on that matter at present. I am fully aware of the considerations the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I might add this, that I think it probable that if the Government themselves were to intervene in the matter and start to nominate representatives, the result might be that no Palestinian Arab representatives would visit this country.
    Mr. Stephen: Is there going to be any representation, for example, of the Arabs organised in the railway trade union in Palestine?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am not aware yet what Arab representatives may come to London. It is a matter which, in all the circumstances, it is far better to leave to the Arabs.
    Sir Percy Harris: Do not the Government in Palestine extend these invitations to representative organisations; and will the right hon. Gentleman see that the organisations representing the common people are included?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think it desirable that there should be representation of different sections of political opinion amongst the Palestinian Arabs, but I cannot agree that the sort of procedure which has been suggested in some quarters would achieve the object of getting Palestinian representation in London.
    Mr. T. Williams: What was the body that the right hon. Gentleman invited to select representatives?
    Mr. MacDonald: Invitations have been sent, as I announced, to the Governments of certain surrounding countries and to the Jewish Agency. Beyond that no invitation has been sent. No invitation has been formally sent to Palestinian Arab
    1152
    organisations. As I say, certain consultations are taking place, but they have not reached the stage of sending an invitation to anybody.
    Mr. Williams: If it is possible to get representations of all sections, will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to obtain it?
    Mr. Gallacher: What about the Arab High Committee members? Will they be represented? [Interruption.] On a point of Order. Is it not in order to ask whether members of the Arab High Committee, who are in the Seychelles, will be allowed to come to the conference if chosen by the Arabs themselves? Am I not in order in getting information on that point? They are the men who matter. There will be no conference without them.

    CIVIL AIR GUARD.
    Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of pupils, male and female, that have completed instruction, and are now under instruction, for the Civil Air Guard; what proportion are expected to be employed by the Air Ministry in the case of war; the cost incurred to date; and the estimated future cost of this class of flying instruction?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The number of "A" licence holders in the Civil Air Guard is approximately 1,000, of which some 80 are women. This total includes those who have qualified under Civil Air Guard instruction and those who held an "A" licence previous to enrolment. My right hon. Friend is now considering, in consultation with the Civil Air Guard Commissioners, the various directions in which members can serve the Air Ministry in time of war. The cost incurred for the first two months is approximately £25,000 but, in view of the comparatively short experience of the scheme, and variable factors such as weather conditions, I am reluctant to give a forecast of probable future cost.
    Mr. Charles Brownasked the Secretary of State for Air how many applications have been received from the London area for membership of the Civil Air Guard; how many of such applicants have already commenced flying training;

    1153
    and whether the Brooklands Flying Club and the Heston Airport flying school have yet begun to co-operate in the scheme?
    Captain Balfour: The number of applications received from the London area is 5,605, and of this number about half may be expected to qualify for enrolment. The number undergoing flying training at the beginning of November was 551, at seven clubs; the Brooklands Flying Club has found itself unable to participate in the Civil Air Guard scheme; the Airwork Flying Club at Heston Airport was authorised to begin Civil Air Guard training as from 1st November.
    Mr. Brown: How long does the Under-Secretary think it will be before the Government can effectively utilise the voluntary services at their disposal?
    Captain Balfour: As I have said, my right hon. Friend is considering how best the voluntary services of these members can be used for the Air Ministry.
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made in the negotiations between the General Council of the Associated Light Aeroplane Clubs and the Aviation Insurance Underwriters with regard to the insurance rates for the Civil Air Guard scheme?
    Captain Balfour: The question of rates of insurance of aircraft of the Civil Air Guard is not one for the Air Ministry, but is primarily the responsibility of the clubs and the members of the Civil Air Guard. I understand, however, that negotiations with regard to insurance rates for aircraft are proceeding between the General Council of Associated Light Aeroplane Clubs and the Aviation Insurance Underwriters, and these will, I hope, be brought to a conclusion satisfactory to both parties.
    Mr. Robinson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the lack of reasonable insurance facilities is holding up the development of the Civil Air Guard scheme?
    Captain Balfour: Undoubtedly the task of the clubs will be facilitated when the questions which are now under discussion in regard r to insurance rates for this new scheme are settled.
    Mr. Robinson: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bring pressure to bear on those concerned?
    Captain Balfour: It is riot primarily the responsibility of the Air Ministry, but my right hon. Friend will, I know, use his best offices in any way to facilitate a successful conclusion of this question.

    CIVIL AVIATION (DEVELOPMENT).
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the recent development of aviation, he, will give particulars of the manner in which His Majesty's Government or local authorities have, during the last two years, adopted further measures to assist in the promotion of civil aviation in the United Kingdom; and whether the Government propose instituting any further inquiries in this field?
    Captain Balfour: Within the limits of a Parliamentary reply it is not possible to enumerate the several measures that have been taken in many directions by His Majesty's Government to assist the development of civil aviation in the United Kingdom. I would refer the hon. Member to Chapters V and VII of the Civil Aviation Report for the year 1937 in which he will find details of many of these steps. Considerable progress has been made by local authorities during the last two years in the provision of suitable municipal aerodromes, but if the hon. Member is interested in any particular area I will let him have particulars. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend does not think any useful purpose would be served by the institution of a further inquiry.
    Mr. Day: Have any municipal aerodromes been instituted during the past year?
    Captain Balfour: I could not say without notice.

  TRANSPORT.

    UNDERGROUND RAILWAY (DELAYS).
    Mr. Dolandasked the Minister of Transport how many breakdowns have taken place on the underground railway serving Balham and Tooting, causing inconvenience to passengers, during the past

    1155
    five years; and how many breakdowns occurred on the same railway during the previous five years?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I am informed by the London Passenger Transport Board that the number of delays of 30 minutes or more on this line was 21 during the five years 1934 to 1938 compared with 24 during the five years 1929 to 1933. These figures do not, of course, include the period from 27th September to 7th October last during which the tunnels under the Thames were closed.

    STROND ROAD, INVERNESS-SHIRE.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received an application from the county council of Inverness-shire for assistance for the purpose of completing the Strond Road, or has urged or encouraged the continuation of the scheme by the county council, in view of the lack of transport facilities in the district and the heavy local unemployment?
    Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. I have not received any application for assistance, but the county council are aware that I am prepared to consider making a grant from the Road Fund at the rate of 50 per cent. towards the cost of approved works.

    LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend the London Passenger Transport Act to provide for the holding of an annual general meeting?
    Mr. Burgin: I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable trouble has arisen from the creation of the London Transport Board and the Northern Ireland Road Transport Board, both examples of rationalisation, which bring demoralisation and disturbing influences wherever they go?
    Mr. Burgin: I thought that the London Passenger Transport Board was an excellent example of a public utility very well run.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no vote of the ordinary shareholders is taken, and that they
    1156
    are not allowed to have an annual meeting—a most inequitable arrangement?
    Mr. C. Brown: Can the Minister say where such an annual meeting would be held?

    TRAFFIC SIGNS.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Minister of Transport what action he is taking to ensure that the provisions of the Road Traffic Act as to the exhibition of traffic signs not authorised by him are being properly observed?
    Mr. Burgin: It is my desire that unauthorised traffic signs should not be exhibited, and accordingly on 31st August last I issued a circular letter to all highway authorities asking what steps have been, or will be, taken for the removal of unauthorised traffic signs and their replacement, where necessary, by signs which conform to Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I will send a copy of the circular to the hon. and gallant Member for his information.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the existence of a great number of unauthorised signs put up by private owners to call attention to entrance gates to their property, thus endeavouring to throw a responsibility on the motorist which does not in fact exist?
    Mr. Burgin: I am aware of that, and I am anxious that these unauthorised signs should be withdrawn.
    Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Belisha beacons are of any use on the roads?
    Sir Joseph Nall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are certain cases where unusual signs perform a very useful purpose and that their abolition should not be agreed to without careful consideration?
    Mr. Simpsonasked the Minister of Transport what complaints he has received as to the non-effectiveness of road caution signs denoting schools; and whether he will consider the addition of a flashing light to such signs to operate at danger periods?
    Mr. Burgin: I have only received very few specific complaints on this point. I have, however, authorised the experimental use of a flashing school sign in

    1157
    Exeter and am prepared to authorise further similar experiments. I have also authorised for use in the area of the London County Council a sign bearing the words "Beware of school children in streets," to be exhibited when the children are arriving or leaving.

    RAILWAYS (POSITION).
    Sir Joseph Leechasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that although the volume of railway goods traffic is unsatisfactory the volume of railway traffic in returned empties has greatly increased; and what steps he proposes to take to adjust the anomaly by which the present railway freight rates for goods enable road transport concerns to select remunerative goods traffic and to throw the unremunerative returned empties freight traffic on to the railways?
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the serious economic position of the railways, which is prejudicing their efficiency and ability to meet calls that may be made on them in a national emergency, he will consider removing, as soon as possible, the statutory controls and regulations which are a century old and which were put into operation when there was no other form of competitive transport?
    Mr. Burgin: The points to which my hon. Friends refer are aspects of the general question of control over railway rates which is under consideration in connection with the recent representations by the railway companies.
    Mr. Adamsonasked the Minister of Transport the aggregate net railway receipts of the four main line companies for each of the last 15 years?
    Mr. Burgin: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Adamson: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the latest returns are equal to the average over the whole period?
    Mr. Burgin: As one of my colleagues said the other day, that seems to involve an arithmetical sum, but I would rather circulate the figures and let them speak for themselves.
    Following is the answer
    Railway Net Receipts of the four main line Railway Companies.

    Year

    £

    1923

    …

    …

    38,700,000 (a)

    1924

    …

    …

    35,300,000(a)

    1925

    …

    …

    33,400,000(a)

    1926

    …

    …

    17,200,000(a)

    1927

    …

    …

    38,100,000(a)

    1928

    …

    …

    36,800,000

    1929

    …

    …

    40,300,000

    1930

    …

    …

    33,700,000

    1931

    …

    …

    31,500,000(b)

    1932

    …

    …

    26,100,000(b)

    1933

    …

    …

    28,000,000(b)

    1934

    …

    …

    30,300,000(b)

    1935

    …

    …

    30,700,000(b)

    1936

    …

    …

    32,700,000

    1937

    …

    …

    34,400,000

    (a) Adjusted to allow for subsequent changes in accounting practice.

    (b) Adjusted in respect of the revised basis of local rates.

    Mr. Adamsonasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any figures to show the increase in the volume of merchandise carried on the roads since the War and the extent to which the increase is accounted for by new traffic?
    Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. No returns of traffic are made by the operators of goods vehicles on roads, and I am, therefore, not in possession of the figures which the hon. Member is seeking.
    Mr. Adamson: Is it not essential that there should be some basis if there is to be any comparison between road and rail traffic?
    Mr. Burgin: I have no means of ascertaining the total volume of traffic carried on the roads.
    Mr. Adamsonasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the development of the carriage of goods by road as a modern form of transport with pronounced advantages, he is giving consideration to the problem of adapting the railway services to the changing conditions; and has he reached any conclusions?
    Mr. Burgin: Railway services are primarily a matter for the railway company whose managements have constantly under review steps which may be necessary to adapt the railways and their methods of working to modern requirements. I am always ready to bring to the

    1159
    attention of the railways any practicable proposals, and if the hon. Member has any specific suggestions I shall be glad to consider them.
    Mr. De Chair: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the railway companies had to publish their freights on 1st January, and that the road transport people can always under-cut them at any subsequent date?
    Mr. Leonard: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the answer, call the attention of the railway companies to the fact that the Weir Committee in 1931 recommended the electrification of the railways in Scotland?
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Transport whether he has had a further meeting with the representatives of the railway companies; and what was the result?
    Mr. Burgin: Officials of my Department met the general managers of the four main line railway companies last Thursday, and the chairmen and General managers are seeing me again to-morrow.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the difficulties of the railway companies, he is taking any steps to promote the coordination of the railway, road transport, inland waterway, and coastwise shipping services as complementary parts of the country's transport system?
    Mr. Burgin: The whole question of the co-ordination of transport is receiving my earnest consideration in the light of the reports of the Transport Advisory Council on Service and Rates and of the representations made to me by the railway companies and other interests concerned.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister in a position to tell the House what will be the result of his considerations?
    Mr. Burgin: The railway companies have recently submitted a memorandum. They were asked to supply further information. Some of that information has been received, and the chairmen and general managers of the railway companies are seeing me to-morrow in further explanation of their request.
    Sir John Haslam: Will the Minister take care that a huge monopoly is not created, so that there is no individual enterprise
    1160
    whatever in the transport industry in this country?
    Mr. McEntee: When the Minister is giving consideration to the case of the railway companies will he consider whether, in fact, they are not very much over-capitalised?
    Mr. Burgin: That will be one of the questions.
    Mr. Joelasked the Minister of Transport whether, in putting forward their claim in respect of rate-charging, the railway companies equally abandon on their part any desire to continue the advantages of Berating or of preferential taxation of heavy oil and kindred benefits?
    Mr. Burgin: The representations made to me by the railway companies have been confined to a request for the repeal of the existing statutory provisions governing the charges and conditions for the conveyance of merchandise traffic by rail.

    ROAD AND RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. James Hallasked the Minister of Transport the number of persons killed and injured in road accidents attributed to the drivers of commercial road vehicles and to defects in such vehicles in 1937; and the number killed and injured in accidents on the railways during the same year?
    Mr. Burgin: Information regarding accidents on the roads and the railways respectively will be found in the following publications: Road Accidents involving Personal Injury, 1937. Report upon Accidents which occurred on the Railways of Great Britain during the year 1937.
    For an analysis of the causes of road accidents the hon. Member should consult: Report on Road Accidents in Great Britain for the year ended 31st March, 1937.
    Copies of all these documents are in the Library.
    Mr. J. Hallasked the Minister of Transport the number of commercial motor vehicles involved in accidents in 1937; the number of such vehicles for which "A" "B" or "C" licences were current during the same year; and the total number of vehicles of all kinds involved in such accidents during the same year?
    Mr. Burgin: The number of commercial motor goods vehicles concerned in road accidents involving personal injury in Great Britain during the year 1937 was 41,078. At 3oth June, 1937, there were 507,256 commercial motor goods vehicles authorised and in the possession of holders of "A" "B" or "C" carriers' licences. The total number of vehicles of all kinds concerned in road accidents involving personal injury in 1937 was 289,326, of which 199,311 were mechanically-propelled vehicles.
    Sir J. Nall: Is it not a fact that the majority of these vehicles are in the hands of private owners, over whom the Commissioners have very little control?
    Mr. Burgin: The holders of C licences are a very large proportion.
    Mr. Lunnasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered a resolution passed at a large public meeting held in Horbury near Wakefield regarding the death of a school girl caused by a lorry in one of the narrow streets in Horbury; and what observations he has to make on the points in this resolution?
    Mr. Burgin: I have not seen the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. If he will be good enough to send me a copy, I will have the matter looked into and communicate with him.
    Mr. Lunn: Is it not a matter of some concern to the right hon. Gentleman and to his Department that a large number of school children are being killed and maimed, and may I ask what observations he has to make upon that matter?
    Mr. Burgin: The death of anyone on the roads is a matter of great concern to me and my Department, and I have the problem with me every hour of the day. I know of no specific matter to which I can usefully refer in answer to a Parliamentary Question, and I have told the hon. Member that I have not seen the resolution. If he will be good enough to send it to me, perhaps I can make a useful observation upon it.
    Major Braithwaite: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his Department to look at this road, which is a main road through a very busy borough? It has been in this condition for many years and some attention ought to be given to it immediately.
    Mr. Burgin: I will look into it at once.

    ROAD HAULAGE INDUSTRY (RATE SYSTEM).
    Sir F. Sandersonasked the Minister of Transport whether the report of the Transport Advisory Council submitted to him in July, 1937, recommending certain steps towards the creation of a system of rates for the road haulage industry, has now received his consideration; and when he proposes to take steps to implement it?
    Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. I am anxious to bring into being as soon as possible a comprehensive rate system in the road haulage industry. The Transport Advisory Council recommended that an opportunity should be afforded for road hauliers to build up a rates structure for their own industry and should be given time in which to do it. A liaison committee has been set up within the industry, and I understand that real progress is being made with what is admittedly a difficult problem.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Can my right hon. Friend state approximately the time it is likely to take?
    Mr. Burgin: I am afraid I cannot. The problem is an extremely important one, and I think it is far better that the rate structure should be evolved from within than that it should be imposed from without. It is a tremendous problem, and I am quite satisfied that those working upon it in the industry are working in the right direction.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister not think that the time has now arrived, in view of the trouble between the rail and road transport systems, when the Government should devise ways and means to nationalise the transport system of this country?
    Mr. Burgin: That is a rather different question.
    Captain Strickland: Is it intended that these road rates should be published rates, and, if so, has the Minister abandoned any idea of the abolition of published rates for the railways?
    Mr. Burgin: It is intended, as the Minister has tried to say, to await the proposals from within the industry for a road rates structure which is applicable to that industry, and I do not want to speculate on what form it will take.
    Captain Strickland: But is it to be published?
    Mr. Burgin: Well, that is one of the questions.
    Captain Stricklandasked the Minister of Transport whether the reduction of work of the goods-vehicle licensing authorities and their staffs resulting from the longer period of the A, B and C licences recently introduced will permit their employment on any fresh duties to be undertaken by the licensing authorities in the future?
    Mr. Burgin: Until experience has been gained of the work involved in collecting licence fees by instalments I cannot be sure that there will be a net saving to the licensing authorities and their staff of work as a result of the longer licence periods. My hon. and gallant Friend will recall that the Transport Advisory Council in their report on periods of validity contemplated that any time which might be saved should be utilised "in dealing more comprehensively with the prevalent disregard of the law."
    Captain Stricklandasked the Minister of Transport what additional staff, borne on the Estimates of his Department, has been required in the current financial year compared with previous years to enforce the conditions of road transport carriers' licences; and what has been the additional expense?
    Mr. Burgin: During the current financial year an addition of 32 indoor and 30 outdoor officers has been made to the traffic area staffs for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and the conditions attached to carriers' licences. The additional cost will be £5,500 this year, involving an ultimate cost of £16,000 a year.
    Captain Stricklandasked the Minister of Transport the nature of the administrative work of the licensing authorities for goods vehicles which is contemplated in connection with the rates charged by road hauliers for the transport of goods; and what additions to the staffs are contemplated for that purpose?
    Mr. Burgin: My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware of the terms of the report of the Transport Advisory Council on service and rates and of the activities of a
    1164
    committee of the industry which, in accordance with that report, is attempting to evolve a rates structure which shall be "the product of the industry itself." The additional staffs required must depend largely upon the nature of the rates structure, and upon the steps which may prove necessary to secure the enforcement of rates, as envisaged by the council in their report.
    Mr. Butcherasked the Minister of Transport whether, on granting hauliers' licences to railway companies for road-haulage vehicles, care is taken to ensure that the rates lo be charged are adequate to cover the cost of the services to be performed; and whether he is aware that any losses on road transport services sustained by railway companies can be made good from other sources of income and that independent transport concerns are compelled to accept the same rates and, having no other revenue, are only able to discharge their obligations under the Traffic Acts with considerable difficulty?
    Mr. Burgin: When granting carriers' licences the traffic area licensing authorities have no power to attach conditions as to the rates to be charged, but I understand that they take into account any evidence that traffic is being obtained by unfair means. I cannot assent to the suggestion contained in the latter paragraph of my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Butcher: If I send my right hon. Friend particulars of rate-cutting will he look into them?
    Mr. Burgin: Certainly.

    NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD (SUBWAYS).
    Mr. Crowderasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the subways which the Ministry has asked the Middlesex County Council to construct, in co-operation, under the North Circular Road, he would state what would be the measurements of such subways; and the estimated maximum sheltering accommodation which such subways could provide?
    Mr. Burgin: The Middlesex County Council has not come to any decision about the construction of subways under the North Circular Road, and as no plans have been prepared, I am not at the moment in a position to give any measurements.
    Mr. Crowder: If these subways are provided, will my right hon. Friend consider having them so constructed that they can easily be converted into effective air-raid shelters?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the design of a subway and the design of an underground shelter are so totally different that it is almost impossible to have one design which would be suitable for both?
    Mr. Burgin: A question of underground shelters is obviously one which should go to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, but I am perfectly willing to consider that aspect of the matter when the plans are submitted.
    Mr. Lawson: Is there any policy upon underground shelters in the London area? If not, when shall we have a decision?
    Mr. Burgin: Underground shelters in the London area have certainly nothing, to do with the Ministry of Transport?

    MOTOR CAR INSURANCE.
    Mr. Joelasked the Minister of Transport whether it is intended to, introduce a Bill to safeguard motorists from the failure of insurance companies with which they may happen to be insured; and, if so, at what date?
    Mr. Burgin: Legislation on this and other matters relating to insurance is under active consideration, but I am not at the moment in a position to give a definite date by which a Bill will be introduced.

    GREEN LINE COACHES.
    Sir J. Nallasked the Minister of Transport what is the number of Green Line coaches entering and leaving London central area daily; what were the comparable figures in 1935 and 1933; and whether the revenue of the Green Line services is included in the pool between the London Passenger Transport Board and the main-line railway companies?
    Mr. Burgin: The number of Green Line coaches entering and leaving the London central area on a normal week-day in December in 1938, 1935 and 1933 was 569, 572 and 608 respectively. The receipts from Green Line coaches are included in the pool between the London Passenger Transport Board and the mainline railway companies.

    PORTSMOUTH ROAD, THAMES DITTON.
    Commander Marsdenasked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the proposed building to be erected by the Milk Marketing Board at the corner of Giggs Hill Green and the Portsmouth road, Thames Ditton, he has considered the necessity for widening the Portsmouth road or for providing a roundabout opposite Claygate Lane; and whether he can give any estimate of the probable cost?
    Mr. Burgin: This section of road between Kingston and the Kingston bypass is not part of the trunk road. I am informed that the building in question will be set back in accordance with the town-planning scheme, and that the Surrey County Council, who are the highway authority, do not propose to widen the road at present.

    LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY
    Mr. Butcherasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the decision of the London and North Eastern Railway Company to withdraw at an early date over 100 trains from its schedule of services, he proposes to consult with road transport organisations to ensure that adequate travelling facilities are provided for the public?
    Mr. Burgin: The Traffic Commissioners will, no doubt, take into consideration, when considering applications for road service licences, any representations which may be made to them that the public are not obtaining adequate transport facilities because of the withdrawal of certain trains to which my hon. Friend refers.

    MR. EDEN (VISIT TO UNITED STATES).
    Sir Adrian Baillieasked the Prime Minister why it was considered desirable or necessary to give the assent and approval of His Majesty's Government to the forthcoming visit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) to the United States of America; and will he make a statement on the subject?
    The Prime Minister: My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the passage referred to, was replying to an accusation that the Government had neglected opportunities of maintaining

    1167
    contact with the United States of America. He stated that this was not the case and called attention, among other things, to the visit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington who, as a prominent British statesman, could be relied upon to place the British point of view before the American public, and whose visit had been undertaken with the assent and approbation of the Government.
    Sir A. Baillie: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington is not presently a member of His Majesty's Government and is, in fact, only a back-bencher like myself, would His Majesty's Government be prepared to give their assent and approval to the forthcoming visit to the United States of the hon. Member for Tonbridge?
    Mr. Shinwell: On his visit to the United States will the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington state to the American public the differences between himself and the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot answer for what my right hon. Friend will state.
    Mr. Attlee: Will the giving of this assent and approval lend to any speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in the United States of America any official significance?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Mander: Are not the Government obviously very much relieved that the right hon. Gentleman has left the country?

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state who will form the members of the Royal Commission that is to investigate the problem of workmen's compensation?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member would be good enough to repeat his question next week, I hope to be in a position to announce the names of the members of the Royal Commission.

  EUROPEAN SITUATION (EARL DE LA WARR'S SPEECH).
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the President of the Board of Education at Bradford on 4th December last that armaments is the only effective way of dealing with Germany represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the President of the Board of Education at Bradford on 4th December, in which he stated that this country can do nothing to satisfy Germany, and that only armaments speak effectively, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the President of the Board of Education to the effect that there is nothing this country can do to satisfy Germany, that our friendly words and actions are mistaken for cowardice, and that only armaments can speak effectively, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: My Noble Friend made it clear that his speech did not purport to be a statement of policy, but a statement of the admitted fact that there was disappointment in many quarters at the response that the Government's policy of international appeasement, which he himself expressly endorsed, had evoked in Germany. As I have said on a previous occasion, there is no inconsistency between the policy that seeks a friendly settlement of any outstanding difficulties between our two countries and that of strengthening our Defences, which my Noble Friend was advancing in the latter part of his speech.
  Mr. Strauss: Would it not be even more effective to set up a system of collective resistance to any aggression?
  Mr. A. Henderson: Does it not appear that Germany is somewhat difficult to satisfy, having regard to the fact that within a few weeks of the Munich appeasement this country has been subjected to a spate of anti-British propaganda?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether if these statements are true, they do not indicate that the pursuit of a policy of appeasement is futile; while, if they are not true,

  1169
  do they not make it extremely difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to pursue that policy?
  Mr. Shinwell: Did not the President of the Board of Education say that we could do nothing to satisfy Germany, and does that statement represent the views of the Government?
  The Prime Minister: That was not the statement of my noble Friend.
  Mr. Mander: Is it not one of the most sensible speeches made by any Minister for a long time?

  DEFENCE.

    ARMAMENT CONTRACTS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether decisions have been reached regarding the extent to which rearmament contracts have been placed in Scotland, outside Glasgow and Clydeside; and whether firms in other industrial districts in Scotland have had an opportunity of undertaking contracts?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I regret that it is not possible, without an incommensurate amount of labour, to give the value of orders placed in particular areas under the rearmament programme. Considerable contracts, however, have been placed in Scotland outside the districts named.

    FOUNDRY, YEOVIL.
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether his attention has been called to the closing down of the foundry department of Messrs. John Brown and Company, Yeovil, with the consequent displacement of some hundreds of skilled and semi-skilled men; and whether, in the light of the urgent need for pushing on with the Government's rearmament programme, and that this firm are doing war work for the Government, he will take steps to keep these works open?
    Sir T. Inskip: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the foundry formerly belonging to Petters, Limited, at Yeovil. The Westland Aircraft Company, who are now in association with John Brown and Company, have acquired the premises formerly occupied by Petters, Limited, and these premises will be extended for a greatly enlarged air-
    1170
    craft programme. The foundry, which which was part of Petters, Limited, has become redundant and a great part of the plant has been acquired by the Brush Electric Company and will be transferred to their premises at Loughborough, where some of the foundry workers are likely to find employment. The remainder of the men, if suitable, will have opportunities of employment by the Westland Aircraft Company at Yeovil. I would add that the requirements of cast iron in connection with the rearmament programme are small, and that there is ample foundry capacity available in the country to meet them.
    Sir Louis Smith: Is not the right hon. Gentleman somewhat surprised that Members of the Liberal party should not know that iron castings are not used for aircraft?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    OFFICERS (ENTRY).
    Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of executive cadets entered, respectively, from preparatory and from public schools and the number of executive officers entered from the Mercantile Marine and the totals from these sources in 1937 and 1938, respectively; the number of commissions as sub-lieutenant awarded to lower-deck candidates in these two years and the totals from each source for the period?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): As the information involves a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:

    Method of entry, etc.

    Year 1937.

    Year 1938 (to date).

    Dartmouth*

    146

    131

    Special Entry (Executive)

    118

    106

    Transfers from Royal Naval Reserve.

    125

    115

    Totals

    389

    352

    Promotions to Acting Sub-Lieutenant from lower deck.

    13

    17

    Grand Totals

    402

    369

    *Some of the Dartmouth cadets volunteer be extended for a greatly enlarged air- for engineering.

    IMPERIAL DEFENCE COLLEGE.
    Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the waste involved by the policy hitherto pursued by this branch of the Defence Services, he will introduce a rule that all officers posted by the Admiralty to the Imperial Defence College, whether as instructors or students, must be given their next step in promotion, with employment upon the active list, for a stated period of years?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I regret I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. The future employment and promotion of all officers in the Royal Navy must depend on their qualifications and suitability for higher rank, as proved by their services.
    Wing-Commander James: As my hon. Friend is unable to accept my statement, will he look at the figures for last year?
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: With a view to the instruction at the Defence College not being wasted, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that officers are appointed there only when there is a good prospect of their future employment and promotion?
    Mr. Shakespeare: That is certainly the principle on which the election of officers to the college is made. We choose those whom we think most likely to benefit by it with a view to their later appointment to flag rank.
    Wing-Commander James: Is my hon. Friend aware that in comparison with

    —

    Officers.

    Men.

    Aircraft (By Sqadrons).

    His Majesty's Ship "Courageous"

    …

    …

    120

    1,239

    3 Squadrons.

    His Majesty's Ship "Glorious"

    …

    …

    123

    1,237

    4 Squadrons.

    His Majesty's Ship "Eagle"

    …

    …

    77

    765

    2 Squadrons.

    His Majesty's Ship "Ark Royal"

    …

    …

    138

    1,355

    6 Squadrons.

    His Majesty's Ship "Argus'

    …

    …

    38

    452

    1 Squadron.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD (RE-OPENING).
    Mr. Alexander(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what consideration has recently been given to the position of Rosyth Dockyard, and what conclusions have been reached?
    Mr. Shakespeare: After careful consideration, it has been decided that the
    1172
    other Services the figures show clearly that that policy has not obtained in the past?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Well, I am not responsible for the past. I am responsible for the present and future.
    Mr. Attlee: Has there been any inquiry into what becomes of the officers who have attended the Imperial Staff College, seeing that this Government have been in power for a very long time, and that therefore the hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for the action of his predecessors?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The position is that 80 per cent. of the officers who passed through the College are now on the active list.

    AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty particulars of the number of aircraft carriers at present in commission, including the number of aeroplanes, officers and other ranks in the complement and equipment?
    Mr. Shakespeare: There are five aircraft carriers in commission. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the other details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether they are of the latest type?
    Mr. De Chair: Is there any provision in the Anglo-German Naval Agreement relating to the proportion of aircraft carriers as between the two countries?
    Following are the details:
    needs of the growing Fleet require that steps shall be taken to re-open the dockyard at Rosyth on a limited scale. It is contemplated that the facilities to be provided will eventually enable some 200 additional men to be employed, and will render possible the refitting at the yard of some ships of the smaller classes.
    Mr. McLean Watson: May I ask one or two questions, as this is a matter which

    1173
    concerns my constituency? The hon. Gentleman is aware that a shipbreaking firm occupies a section of that dockyard at present. In that part of the yard all the great ships of the German fleet have been broken up. What I want to ask is whether that shipbreaking firm is to receive notice to cease operations in the yard; and, arising out of that, if the answer is in the affirmative—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Shakespeare: I will do my best to assure the hon. Gentleman who has such personal interest in the dockyard. We hope to carry out our policy with a minimum of disturbance to all concerned, and I hope it may be possible to allow that particular company to occupy the dockyard during the currency of their occupation.
    Mr. Watson: The hon. Gentleman has told the House that approximately 200 men will be engaged in the dockyard as a result of the change made. But is he aware that at the moment the shipbreaking concern employs approximately 300 men; and are we going to have a recurrence of unemployment as a result of this announcement, as was the case in 1925, when the dockyard was put on a care and maintenance basis?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said it was not our intention to interfere with that firm during the currency of their occupation.
    Mr. Watson: Will consideration be given to the housing problem that will arise as a result of the reopening of the dockyard; will keymen be required to be transferred to Rosyth Dockyard, either from Southern dockyards or from other areas outside Dunfermline; and what housing accommodation does the Admiralty propose to provide for the men transferred from outside districts?
    Mr. Shakespeare: On the first point, my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord has also been in touch with the Scottish Office, and it is our intention to negotiate with the local housing authority with respect to that matter. On the second point, we will try as far as possible to employ local labour, subject to this, that it may be necessary to go a little further afield for a limited number of keymen.
    Mr. Mathers: May I ask the hon. Member if the contemplated changes will have any effect upon Port Edgar, on the other side of the Firth, immediately or in the near future?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I think not.

    CYPRUS (WATER SUPPLIES).
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a grant and, if so, to what amount, was awarded to the Government of Cyprus from the Colonial Development Fund in response to its recent request for assistance for a scheme of improved water supply; and whether he is satisfied that real progress has been and is being made with a supply of pure and adequate water?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) on 2nd November, a number of schemes for improving water supplies are at present being worked out in detail by the Cyprus Government. This preparatory work is being expedited, but until it has been completed no application can be submitted to the Colonial Development Advisory Committee. I can assure the hon. Member that there will be as little delay as possible in dealing with this important matter.
    Mr. MacMillan: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow that good example in Cyprus by asking the Government to do the same thing for Ross and Cromarty and the Western Isles?

  FEDERATED MALAY STATES (RATING SYSTEM).
  Mr. R. Morganasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has suggested or sanctioned the new system of rating in Malaya under which rates are assessed upon improved or unimproved value of property; and why the system of rating in England is not regarded as suitable to the Colony in question?
  Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the action of levying rates upon site values in certain towns in the Malay States, such as Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh;

  1175
  why the experiment has been allowed in this Colony when the principle has not been accepted in this country; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter to alter this innovation in rating?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I am not aware of the recent introduction of a new system of rating in the Federated Malay States. The principle to which the questions refer has been in operation there for the last 10 years or more. No exception was taken to it at the time by the then Secretary of State, and no complaints have previously reached the Colonial Office.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this system of rating has been adopted in Kenya for many years, and in all our Dominions throughout the world?

  NYASALAND (NATIVE LABOUR).
  Mr. Lunnasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the disintegration of family and tribal life which results from the emigration of Nyasaland natives for labour purposes, as described by Sir Robert Bell in his recent report, he will consider bringing all contract labour in Nyasaland into harmony with the International Labour Office draft convention?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The international convention dealing with the recruitment of indigenous workers will shortly be ratified by His Majesty's Government, and arrangements have already been made for its provisions to be applied without modification to the recruiting of indigenous workers in the Nyasaland Protectorate.

  UGANDA (LABOUR INQUIRY).
  Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the proposals of the committee of inquiry into the labour situation in the Uganda Protectorate with regard to the encouragement of a class of workers exclusively dependent on wages?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: It is not possible to summarise the committee's recommendations within the limits of a Parliamentary answer: but a copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the
  1176
  House. Briefly, the committee's view is that a regular wage-earning class cannot be established until the remuneration offered is sufficiently attractive to compete with the income which the ordinary peasant can obtain by growing crops on his homestead.

  CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).
  Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability of allowing Members of Parliament to be associated with himself in arriving at any final decision as to the future Constitution and Government of Ceylon?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: Pending the publication of the despatches which have passed between the Governor of Ceylon and myself, I am unable to make any statement as to the procedure to be adopted in considering any changes in the Constitution of Ceylon.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is it not a fact that a Parliamentary Commission was sent out to India before each instalment of reform was considered; and will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, also, that a Parliamentary Committee was set up to consider the Government of India Bill?
  Mr. MacDonald: I have not lost sight of those facts.
  Mr. T. Smith: Is any change in the Constitution of Ceylon subject to ratification by this House?
  Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir, it is not subject to ratification.
  Sir H. Morris-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the report of the Donoughmore Commission that the committee system was devised to protect the minorities, he will give an assurance that he will not surrender, by the abolition of the committee system without due safeguards for the minorities, all the minority communities of Ceylon to the rule of the major community; and whether he considers that the period of time, during which the system of government by executive committees has been in force, is sufficient to consider any changes being yet made?
  Mr. MacDonald: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to questions by the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart

  1177
  Sandeman) and the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden) on 16th November.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Is it not the case that the Sinhalese majority have objected to the committee system from the commencement of the Constitution; and what are the reasons now, any more than then, for acquiescing in the matter?
  Mr. MacDonald; Seven years ago the system had only just been started, and a fair period of trial had not been given to it. We have gathered a good deal of experience during those seven years.
  Mr. T. Williams: Before any changes take place, will the House be given an opportunity of considering them?
  Mr. MacDonald: Yes, I think the House will be given an opportunity if it wishes to avail itself of it.
  Sir Nairne Stewart Sandemanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the demand for the reform of the Constitution of Ceylon was ever debated by the State Council; and, if so, when did the debate take place and what was the nature of the division as far as the various communities were concerned?
  Mr. MacDonald: Debates on the Constitution took place in 1932 and 1933. In the former year a number of resolutions calling for an extension of self-government were carried practically unanimously, only certain nominated members dissenting. In the latter year a resolution approving somewhat similar proposals contained in a Memorandum by the Board of Ministers was approved by 34 votes to 14, the majority consisting of Sinhalese members and the minority including all the members representing minority communities except one who declined to vote. So far as I am aware, no proposals for the reform of the Constitution have been debated since 1933.
  Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Have we not been promised a Debate on the question of the Constitution of Ceylon? It seems a long time since we had a Debate on it, and we might learn a lot from what might be said in the House.
  Mr. MacDonald: I can only say that I have not lost sight of that fact also, but I cannot make any further statement pending the publication of the despatches.
  Sir N. Stewart Sandemanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will withhold the report of the Governor of Ceylon on the suggested alterations in the Constitution, to prevent its publication involving him in partisan politics?
  Mr. MacDonald: In 1923, and again in 1929, when the alteration of the Ceylon Constitution was under consideration, the reports and recommendations of the Governor were published without the ill effects which my hon. Friend anticipates on this occasion. I see no reason why the recent correspondence with the Governor should not be similarly published in due course.
  Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Have not recent events proved that opinions are now running very high, and that communal feeling has had time to develop; and is it wise to bring the Governor into this sort of dispute with someone or other?
  Mr. MacDonald: I am aware that feeling is running fairly high on certain matters in Ceylon, but I think that the respect in which the Governor is held is universal among all members of all communites.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: While agreeing with my right hon. Friend's statement with regard to the respect in which the Governor is held, may I ask whether it is not a consideration which my right hon. Friend should bear in mind that His Excellency the Governor is a very new Governor, and has had but a very short experience there?
  Sir N. Stewart Sandemanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the desirability of ascertaining the views of the previous Governor and of officers of State who have served the Colony for long periods, on the suggested alterations in the Constitution of Ceylon?
  Mr. MacDonald: My predecessors and I have had the advantage of learning the views of the previous Governor and of many officers of long experience of Ceylon on the working of the present Constitution and on the question of possible reforms in it.
  Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Do their opinions coincide with that of the present Governor, who, as my hon. Friend has just indicated, has only been there for a

  1179
  year, and was asked, after only six months, to make a report. That seems a very insufficient time to enable him to draw up a report.
  Mr. MacDonald: It would obviously be improper for me to give an opinion on such a question.
  Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask the Governor to read the history of the revolution in this country in 1689?
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that he will take no steps that will diminish in any way the security provided to Ceylon through being in the British Colonial system?
  Mr. MacDonald: The Governor has special powers with regard to that, and I can assure the House that we have that very important question very much in mind in considering the question of reforms.
  Mr. Thurtle: Is there any doubt of the competence of the Governor to report properly on this matter?
  Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir, none whatever.

  SIERRA LEONE.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the nature of the charge brought against Mr. Wallace Johnson before the police magistrate of Sierra Leone and the result of the case?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I am asking the Governor for information on this matter.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the quantity and market value of the gold blocks purchased from a Mr. C. A. Gabbidon by the Sierra Leone Government, and the amount actually paid to him; whether an agreement was made and who were the signatories; what was the criminal charge made against Mr. Gabbidon and the result of the case; why the gold was not returned after the disposal of the case; and whether the parties to the agreement were, or are, in possession of the prescribed licence?
  Mr. MacDonald: Detailed information about the transaction referred to is not immediately available, but I am asking the Governor for a report.
  Mr. Sorensen: When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to have information on this matter and on that referred to in the previous question?
  Mr. MacDonald: I have some information on this matter, but it is incomplete, and a good deal of it is unofficial. I am asking the Governor for a full report on both matters, and, as soon as he can let me have it, I will communicate with the hon. Member.
  Mr. Sorensen: If I put a question down a week hence, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer?
  Mr. MacDonald: I hardly think a week would be long enough. Perhaps I might keep in touch with the hon. Member on the matter, and I will let him know when the information is available.

  COLONIAL DIRECTORS OF AGRICULTURE (CONFERENCE REPORT).
  Mr. Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken in consequence of a report of the Conference of Colonial Directors of Agriculture, held recently in London; and whether the conclusion of Lord Hailey's survey, including those of soil erosion, were considered by them?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I have forwarded copies of the report of the Conference of Colonial Directors of Agriculture to the officers administering the Governments of the various Colonial dependencies, commending to their attention the conclusions and recommendations of the Conference and suggesting that the report should be made available to all officers who are concerned with developmental work. Lord Hailey's African survey was not published when the Conference was held last July; his conclusions, therefore, were not available for consideration by the Conference.
  Mr. Price: Was the question of soil erosion considered?
  Mr. MacDonald: I should like notice of that question. I think it must have come up in some form or other.

  MAURITIUS.
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether

  1181
  there is any special reason why all public and other meetings of a political character are denied to the working people of Mauritius?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: My information does not bear out the suggestion in the hon. Member's question. I am informed that in recent months the Governor has considered it desirable in the public interest to withhold permission for a few particular meetings. These occasions have not been confined to meetings of workpeople. There is no general restriction on public or other meetings in Mauritius.
  Mr. Creech Jones: If I produce evidence which bears out the statement in my question, will the Minister give some attention to this matter? In view of the fact that there are no opportunities for political expression by working people in Mauritius, should not some immediate change be made in the Constitution of that Colony?
  Mr. MacDonald: I will gladly consider any information that the hon. Member has in his possession.

  COLONIES (JUVENILE LABOUR).
  Mr. McEnteeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what Colonies in addition to Uganda, children under 16 years of age are prohibited from working in industrial undertakings; and whether regulations governing the conditions of employment in all other forms of employment, similar to those now in force in Uganda, exist in any other and, if so, in which Colonies?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I am advised that Uganda is the only Colonial Dependency in which the minimum age prescribed for the employment of children in industrial undertakings is as high as i6 years. In the majority of the Dependencies, the minimum age is 14 years, which is the age prescribed in the convention on the subject which was adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1919. With regard to the second part of the question, the position is that in a few Colonies legislation exists under which the employment of children below a certain age is prohibited in any occupation; in certain others there is legislation prescribing a minimum age below which children and young persons are prohibited
  1182
  from entering into labour contracts; and in certain other territories, school attendance is compulsory for children up to a certain age. I do not regard this situation as satisfactory, and I recently addressed a circular despatch to all Colonial Governors requesting them to consider the enactment of legislation making it illegal to employ any child under a minimum age in any occupation. A copy of the despatch is being placed in the Library of the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  REDISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION WITHIN THE EMPIRE.
  Mr. Crowder: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the need of the Redistribution of the Population within the Empire, and move a Resolution.
  ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY (DISABILITIES AND RESTRICTIONS).
  Mr. Higgs: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Disabilities and Restrictions under which the Road Transport Industry is conducted, and move a Resolution.
  REDISTRIBUTION OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORATE.
  Sir Reginald Blair: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the necessity for the Redistribution of the Parliamentary Electorates of this country, and move a Resolution.
  INEQUALITIES OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
  Mr. Daggar: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Inequalities in the Distribution of Wealth, and move a Resolution.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the further protection of wild duck and wild geese." [Wild Birds (Duck and Geese) Protection Bill [Lords].
  WILD BIRDS (DUCK AND GEESE) PROTECTION BILL [Lords]
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

COLONIAL POLICY.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Noel-Baker: I beg to move,
"That, in the opinion of this House, no redistribution of Colonial or mandated territory should be made without the consent of the inhabitants; and that, as part of a general peace settlement, international agreements should be drawn up extending the application of the mandate system to all Colonial territories which are not ripe for self-government, providing equal economic opportunity in such territories for the nationals of all signatory Powers, and establishing as the primary purpose of Colonial policy the welfare and progress of the Native inhabitants."
I make no apology for putting down a Motion on Colonial Policy for this afternoon. This House has two constituencies—the 50,000,000 electors who send it here and nearly 70,000,000 in the dependent Empire over whom we also rule. This House is ultimately responsible for the government of both, and to the latter task we give only a relatively small proportion of our parliamentary time. In consequence, every Member of this House could think of many Colonial questions which deserve debate and which he would like to see debated—the West Indies, the Protectorates, the Rhodesias and many more. But I do not desire this afternoon to raise any of these specific issues. I want to deal with Colonial policy in its broadest aspect as a factor in the international politics of the world, and, in particular, with the demand now made for Colonies by certain Governments, chief among them by Herr Hitler. I want to deal with the problem which that demand creates, and with the solution which we think that problem ought to have.
I start with the general observation about the international situation as it is to-day. I do not think that any hon. Member will dissent from the view that the most important single fact in international affairs at the present time is the general hatred of the idea of war. Indeed, I would venture the assertion that for the first time in history the vast majority of all human beings in all countries consciously detest the idea of war, and consciously desire that war should, by government action, be ended now for evermore. Yet in the last few years three Governments have deliberately forced aggressive war upon their neighbours. And they have not only been guilty of aggression: they have glorified
1200
war as it has not been glorified for 1,50o years. They have militarised their peoples as no people has been militarised since the ancient Spartans. They have carried on a systematic long-term campaign to discredit and to smash the League of Nations, the only machinery by which stable peace can be preserved. They have ridiculed the very idea of international law. They have forced the world into the most terrible arms race there has ever been. Through thousands of agencies, and by the expenditure of millions of pounds, they have stirred up unrest and civil war in many countries, until even such peoples as the Danes and the Swiss have been forced to act in self-protection against this scourge. Every month they plunge deeper into power politics of the most ruthless kind. Every month they bring forward some new demand which can only be obtained by war or threat of war.
The spirit in which they act is shown by a message which the "Times correspondent in Berlin sent as lately as Sunday last. He reported that the Reich Minister for Church Affairs had suspended from office and stopped the salaries of five members of the Confessional Movement's Provisional Administration, including the chairman. This was done, says the "Times" correspondent,
"on the ground that they acted politically by arranging prayer meetings for peace to be held on 30th September."
In the face of such facts not even the most optimistic pacifist, not even, I believe, the Prime Minister himself, can doubt that these Governments have deliberately adopted a policy, the conscious aim of which has now become the creation of new military empires, and perhaps the military domination of the world.
It is in the light of these facts that all great questions of foreign policy must be now judged—among them, and not least among them Herr Hitler's claim that the ex-German colonies should be returned. What is Herr Hitler's claim? On what ground of fact and argument has it been based? What answer shall we give him? What alternative policy shall we offer if we refuse his claim? Those are the questions with which I want to deal. What is his claim? He stated it with brutal frankness at Munich a few weeks ago, shortly after the Conference of Munich. Speaking of the

1201
leaders of the democratic countries, the Prime Minister and M. Daladier, he said:
"They talk of understanding. The word 'understanding' is somewhat incomprehensible to us, because we do not want anything from these men, except perhaps our colonies, which were taken from us on false pretences."
The claim is that the ex-German colonies must be returned, all of them, without exception, without conditions, without the mandate system, and without delay.
By what arguments is this claim defended? By a great variety of contentions, some of them as old as Kaiser Wilhelm and some of them quite new, contentions which, taken together, would make it seem, if they were accepted, that a monstrous injustice had been done to the German people on legal, on ethnographic, on economic and on moral grounds. Let me start with the argument from law. It has been stated thus by General Goering, who said a year ago:
"Whether they like it or not the other Powers will be continually reminded by Germany that their method of Colonial robbery has no basis in any internationally ordered Statute. It is simply a system of illegal possession, repudiated by Germany now and in the future."
Much could be said on either side about the morality of the Allies' interpretations of the Fourteen Points in 1919, and particularly about their interpretation of Point 5, which dealt with Colonies; but the fact remains that by Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles Germany "renounced in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles over her overseas possessions." And in law, whether we like it or not, and whether General Goering likes it or not, that Article is absolutely decisive. I would add that it is not the invaders of Austria, nor the victors of Munich, who can safely challenge the morality on which that law is based.
I turn to the far more important argument about population, an argument which sometimes excites sympathy in our country and elsewhere. Herr Hitler tells us that Germany's "lebensraum," her living-room, is far too small. "Volk ohne raum" is in the forefront of his propaganda slogans. General Goering says that the German people will "suffocate" or "burst" unless they have their Colonies as an outlet for their surplus population. The first point about that argument is that the rulers of Germany, like Signor Mussolini, are doing everything in their
1202
power artificially to increase the population. They are doing so with one purpose in view—to increase the man-power which they hope to use in future wars. That is not an unjust interpretation of what they do; it is the boast they make themselves. We say that if such a policy is applied with such an object, it is no part of the duty of the peaceful world to provide colonial outlets in which that object can be achieved.
But what in fact have colonies got to do with growing population, in the world in which we live to-day? Let me give the House some figures, some of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has used before, but which, nevertheless, it may be useful to repeat. At the last census, according to the "Economist's" calculations, Germany had 140 inhabitants per square kilometre. We have 264, that is, there is nearly twice as great a pressure here in spite of the colonies which we possess. Moreover, only one-tenth of Germany is uncultivable land, whereas one-fifth of our land cannot be cultivated. In spite of all our colonies, we have a net annual increment of population, due to the return of grants from Dominions overseas. Before the War Germany had an annual increase in population of 730,000. She had a total emigration of 25,000, but of these, according to the "Economist," the average emigration to the colonies in the last pre-war years was 33. In 1913 the total number of all the Germans in the colonies, after 3o years of Empire, was 19,70o, of whom more than 3,000 were German soldiers and police. The result of 3o years of colonial effort was that they had transplanted 1/37th of the annual increase in their population. In that year 1913 there were living and earning their bread on the Island of Manhattan alone three times more Germans than in the colonies.
Germany is not a special case in this regard. The same is true of the Dutch, who over a century of history have had an increment of population as a result of the colonies they control; and I think the explanation was given by a Frenchman, who once said that his Government extolled the glories of their African Empire, "and indeed," he added, "there is only one thing wrong with it; it is impossible to live there." The basic truth is this. There are only tiny fractions of the countries which are called colonies

1203
to-day where it is possible, even if it were desirable, for Europeans to live and work. The conclusion is plain. The colonies have not the slightest real significance for the German people as an outlet for her growing population.
Is there more reality in the economic argument used. Dr. Goebbels has said that:
"It will not do that we continue to live as a poor country while the rest of the world is rolling in wealth. We are beggars; we are confronted with difficulties which we cannot overcome by interior methods."
Even Herr Hitler's Minister of Finance, who is relatively instructed in economic matters, has talked as if the return of colonies would help Germany to acquire her raw materials. What is the truth? Again statistics give the answer. In 1914 the imports from the colonies to Germany were only 0.5 per cent. of her total imports, or l0s. in 100. The proportion of her raw materials, at the very outside, indeed the proportion of those raw materials which the colonies produced, was only 3 per cent. And what were those raw materials? Dr. Goebbels has said that coal, iron, oil, cotton, and rubber are the basic materials of modern industry. The ex-German colonies have no coal, no iron, no oil, no rubber, very little cotton and rather less copper. The truth is that what are called colonies to-day are not an important source of raw materials for any nation. As the League of Nations Commission on the subject reported in 1937, raw materials are found in sovereign countries and all the colonies in the world produced only 3 per cent. of the raw materials that are commercially important at the present time. Moreover, the German Government forget that in virtually every raw material market they can now buy on equal terms, that the restrictions which have operated against them have been almost nil, and that by the strangest paradox in history—for myself I wish it had not been true—the other nations have not hampered them as to 001 per cent. in their buying of the supplies which they have needed for the monstrous armament expansion on which they are engaged.
Is the case any stronger with regard to trade? In 1914 the German colonies took 0.6 per cent. of German exports, or 12s. in every £100. To-day no doubt their capacity is a little more, but if it has
1204
increased, it is entirely open to the Germans to take advantage of that increase. Since Germany left the League of Nations, she has had no right to equal treatment in the mandated areas which she used to rule. But she has been given equal treatment all the same. If those places were her colonies now, she might close them to other people's trade and gain a small increase in her own exports, but she could do nothing in comparison with what she would lose by the reprisals of other nations in other markets on a larger scale.
The same conclusion is true of every economic aspect of this matter, and indeed it has been calculated by a committee of experts that if half the British colonies were handed over to Germany to-morrow, and if Germany did everything conceivable to increase their output in the German interest, it would add at the most only a few million pounds a year to the German national income. That would do nothing, or almost nothing, to help the German people to rise from the dire poverty in which so many of them live to-day. It is in quite a different direction that we and they must look for a solution.
I turn to the argument of moral right. Last year Herr von Ribbentrop declared that "Germany claims the right to colonial possessions on principle, for this is a right which belongs to every other nation, even to the smallest in the world." Herr Hitler supported this line of argument in a characteristic way not long ago at Munich, when he said:
"The white race is destined to rule. This is its unconscious urge, which arises from an heroic conception of life and which is entirely non-pacifist. By what right do nations possess colonies? By the right of taking them."
That is an argument of pure prestige. We are back once more to the conception of power as the measure of national greatness—power gained and used, in Herr Hitler's words "by naked force"; power over subject peoples, to do with them what they will. That conception has led to fantastic mathematical calculations in Germany. It is said that Britain has an Empire 105 times the size of the Mother Country, that the Dutch have an Empire 60 times the size of Holland, and the implication is that Holland has 60 times as much honour and respect from the world as Germany can expect. We utterly reject such ideas. We reject them

1205
for our own nation or for any other. If the Dutch owe any element of their national greatness to their Colonial Empire, we think that it is due not to the power they wield over 50,000,000 people, but to the generosity and humanity with which they have ruled those people, and to the service they have rendered to those people and to the world. The idea that prestige is based on power, that power over subject peoples adds to national greatness, is part of the thinking of a bygone age. It is part of the thinking that our generation must destroy if we are to rid ourselves of the nightmare horrors of modern war.
Since, however, Herr Hitler does raise the question of prestige and of Germany's right to have these colonies without delay, there are other things that we must say. I have never argued, and I would never argue, that the Germans as a nation have proved themselves unfit to govern backward peoples. I do not forget the treatment of the Herreros in South-West Africa; I do not forget the suppression of the Maji-Magi rebellion in Tanganyika; I do not forget the fearful record of the man called in Germany "Hanging Peters." But at the same time I remember the answer of the schoolboy who, in an examination on elementary anatomy, said that the principal parts of the eye are the pupil, the mote and the beam. There is no colonial nation, we regret to say, that has not black strains upon its record. And I do not forget that "Hanging Peters" was dismissed by the Kaiser from his post; that Dernburg, Solf and Von LettowVorbeck stood for a new and humane policy towards the natives; and that, as time went on, they seemed to be gaining the upper hand. But who believes that Herr Hitler would think of native rights and welfare, as Solf and Dernburg used to speak and think? Herr Hitler's racial theories in themselves show that his Government and his party are utterly unfitted to be trusted with the fate of subject peoples. It is true that he has promoted the Japanese to the rank of honorary Aryans, but by his personal conduct at the Olympic Games, he has shown that he does not grant the same privilege to the negroes over whom he wants to rule.
His treatment of the Jews is showing us to-day what inferior subject races might expect at his hands. Have hon. Members really grasped the significance of what he is doing to the Jews? All
1206
the Jews who are capable of manual labour, every man from 18 to 60, is in a concentration camp; and Herr Hitler is not hampered even by these limitations, for I have credible reports that boys of 14 and old men of 80 have shared that fate. Those men are not in concentration camps because any court has found them guilty. They are not there for a fixed or legal term. They are there, so it appears, for ever, or until they die, and they are dying very fast. They are engaged in forced labour of the most brutal and brutalising kind. That is slavery, and slavery more fearful than the world has ever known since the Roman galleys. Is Europe which, half a century ago, in a Conference at Berlin, began to wipe out slavery in Africa, going to send back to Africa a government which has re-established slavery in the very heart of this Continent itself? It is unthinkable that we should do so. Men who have torn up every law of God and man cannot now be trusted with the fate of the weaker peoples who are struggling towards civilisation in the dim forests of the backward continents. That argument alone ought to be decisive against Herr Hitler.
But there is another which deserves attention. We are spending to-day £2,000,000,000 in preparing for a war. If that war comes, it will be against the governments which have been guilty of aggression, and because of the policy which those governments have pursued. Is it conceivable that, while there is still the risk that that war will happen, we should give these aggressor Powers new bases from which our shipping and our territories could be attacked? Let the House imagine Herr Hitler in Tanganyika or on the West Coast of Africa to-day. He would break our through communications from the north to the south in Africa; he would isolate Kenya between two hostile Powers; he would increase the threat to the Sudan, which Mussolini's military roads in Abyssinia are intended to create; he would create new bases from which submarines and aircraft could attack the millions of tons of British shipping which use these routes to bring the supplies without which we cannot live. He would make Africa what Europe is to-day, a volcano of fear, turmoil and unrest. And he would begin, I fear, the formation of great black

1207
armies, by which the whole history of the Continent might be changed.
Once more, we arrive at the conclusion that, while aggressive war remains the basic fact in international life, it is impossible that the power of the aggressors should be increased in the way that Herr Hitler now imperiously demands. That conclusion I have tried to put into my Motion, by saying that no Colonial or Mandated territories should be handed over without the consent of the inhabitants. In our view it is fundamental that native peoples should not be handed over as part of diplomatic bargains made by foreign Powers. They are human beings; they belong, as we are finding out, to highly gifted races; and they are destined very soon, as history goes, to rule themselves. It is they who should decide.
And if the peoples of the mandated territories were asked to-day about Herr Hitler, there is no doubt what answer they would give. In Tanganyika the British, the Dutch, the Indians and the Moslems are all, for the first time, united in a single league to resist a transfer. If I am rightly informed, it is very doubtful whether a transfer could be made without the shedding of British blood. Far more significant and important, the natives think the same. I have a report of a speech by a great native leader, Martin Kayamba, at a mass meeting of the native inhabitants, in which he said that they are bitterly opposed to any transfer to Hitler's Germany. I have also, and I think it even more important, a translation of a leading article from a native paper, the only independent paper published in Swahili. My correspondent says that it is regarded by the police as "seditious," but he adds that "the police everywhere are a little bone-headed." In the article, the editor says that they must not be handed back to Germany, and he ends with these words:
"If it is possible for Tanganyika to come under the rule of another regime, then will not we inhabitants be like people who are put in pawn? The thought gives us great uncertainty."
There is only one answer which we can make to the plea that is thus made to us by the inhabitants of the Mandated areas.
I hope that so far I have spoken with a very considerable measure of agreement throughout the House, and I hope that the hon. authors of both Amendments will
1208
make it plain that they agree with the first part of my Motion, and that in their view no Colonies of any kind should be given to Herr Hitler's Government. If they do that, and I beg them to make it plain, then a great part of my purpose, in putting down this Motion will have been achieved.
I pass now to what Lord Beaverbrook and some others regard as the more controversial part of the Motion. We are convinced that it is not enough to say that Colonies are of so little value to Germany that she ought not even to want them, but that they are of such immense value to us that we can make no concessions of any kind. We feel that we cannot argue that we must refuse Colonies to Germany because she might do in them things which other nations are doing in their Colonies to-day. We shall deceive ourselves if we think that this aspect of the Colonial question is not of great importance in determining the future issues of peace and war. It is true that in the modern work, the conquest or the possession of other people's country does not make a nation rich. That is "The Great Illusion," exposed by Norman Angell long ago. It is true that conceptions of prestige and power have no reality and no meaning for educated men and women at the present day. But it is also true that these ideas have immense importance in the minds of some of the rulers of the world. They are, indeed, as someone has very aptly called them, "the unseen assassins of the happiness of mankind." Can any hon. Member honestly survey the history of the last 50 years, the history of Africa and Asia, the history of the origins of the war in 1914; or can any hon. Member look around the world to-day and deny that those ideas are a very potent contributory cause of war? Manchuria, Abyssinia, China, Spain, the mere catalogue of names proves that those ideas, which we on our side call "militarist imperialism," are still a devastating force in world affairs. The ideas are false; but they are still alive. We must have some policy by which they can be exorcised and laid to rest. How can that be done? We believe that it must be done; that, as the "Times" demanded in a leading article three weeks ago, we must "rule out, once for all, the theory that the backward races are ever again to be regarded as a factor in the power politics of Europe."

1209
We believe that that must be done; that it can be done. But it can be done only by a great new start in colonial policy in which all nations must make what they call sacrifices. It can be done only if the false conceptions of the past are driven out by new conceptions founded in the realities of to-day. It can be done only if the ideas of British colonial government at its best are, if I may use the phrase, sublimated in a modern, realistic, universal ideal of common service to mankind at large. We believe it can be done; but it will not be done unless we, as the greatest colonial Power, can prove that we no longer seek exclusive national advantage, economic, political or strategic, at the expense of other nations from the colonies we hold. We have to prove that we are in earnest when we say that we are trustees for these colonies. How can we prove that? We say: only by offering to accept the application of the mandate system to our colonies. Let the House observe the three conditions which we lay down. The first is that it does not apply to places where the inhabitants are ripe or almost ripe for self-government, and we exclude at once not only India, which is a Dominion, but Ceylon, the West Indies, and other places. Secondly, it is to apply to all colonies; all colonial Powers must play their part. Thirdly, it is to be part of a general peace settlement; it is part of the price which all nations must pay for peace. If we are to have peace we must have a change of international system; we cannot get it by staggering on from crisis to crisis as we are staggering to-day.
Mr. Markham: It would help us considerably if the hon. Member would give us a list of the territories which would come under this system.
Mr. Noel-Baker: Broadly speaking the principle would include the African colonies, the Pacific Islands and certain marginal cases which would have to be considered on their merits. As to 90 per cent. of the cases, what I have said would be quite clear. But the new international system which is required can be built only on a return to international law; and it will only succeed if it removes some at least of the causes of war, and among them are what I have called militarist imperialism. Some hon. Members may be ready to sacrifice colonies to Herr Hitler to-day without
1210
any solid guarantees of peace. Surely our plan is far safer than that? What is our plan? It is the acceptance of the three principles upon which the mandate system is based. Those three principles are plainly these: first, that the progress and welfare of the native population must be the primary purpose of colonial government; second, that there shall be economic equality for all nations, and, third, that there shall be full publicity with regard to the administration. But these are also the very principles of British colonial government on which our own statesmen have always boasted their policy was based. The first has never been better stated than it was by the late Duke of Devonshire in 1923 in regard to Kenya. I do not propose to read the passage, but everyone will remember the declaration and how it placed the interests of the natives supreme above those of the settlors or anyone else. Can anyone doubt that it would be an advantage to us to have that principle embodied in an international obligation by which we should be bound? I am certain that it was an advantage to us in Tanganyika when we came to organise the government, and that it would be an advantage to us in the Rhodesias to-day. In any case, that principle, as far as we are concerned, is one which every British man or woman should be ready to accept.
The second principle is that the mandatory Power shall not seek to gain exclusive national advantage, economic or strategic. Again, is there any difficulty in accepting that? Already we have the open door with regard to 47,000,000 out of 68,000,000 people in our Colonial Empire. We have hardly any restrictions on the export of raw materials. There is some restriction with regard to public works, but can anybody doubt that it would be to our advantage to abolish these restrictions if we could get a general system of the kind I have described? It is 40 years since Mr. Joseph Chamberlain urged that we should do it in our own, interest, and Lord Lugard urges it upon us, in our own interest, to-day.
Lastly, the mandate system is founded on the principle of full publicity through the Mandates Commission, the Council and the Assembly of the League. It is debate in this House, it is publicity, which is our only guarantee against abuse and maladministration in the colonial Empire; and we know that this guarantee

1211
works uncertainly and unevenly in many ways. Would it really be a disadvantage if it were supported by the additional international publicity of the machinery of the League? What that publicity may mean in practice has been best expressed by the greatest of our recent Governors, Sir Donald Cameron, who claims from his experience under mandate in Tanganyika that it was a great advantage to the Tanganyikan administration that "from the date of their foundation they had been exposed to the full glare of public opinion, which must be, and does act, as a stimulus and a corrective." Certain it is that on the day in 1922, when the Bondelzwart massacres were debated in the Assembly of the League and the delegates from India and Haiti rose to plead, on equal terms, the cause of the coloured peoples in subjection, something new was born in world affairs, something of infinite importance, and something I hope which will never die.
Lord Beaverbrook says that we want to break up the British Empire; give colonies to Hitler now and see how far and fast you go towards that end.
We believe that by our plan we shall preserve for ever, for ourselves and for mankind, everything in the British Empire of which we can be proud. We want to extend the mandate system, because it has set a new standard of colonial ethics; because in practice it has proved an instrument by which justice and progress can be secured; and, above all, we want to extend it because we believe it will give the peoples, including the people of Germany, a new vision of what colonial trusteeship in our generation ought to mean. We need that new vision, and we need it now. Our generation seems to be afflicted by a kind of curse. It can only think of its problems in terms of conflict; conflict between the interests of the white employer and his native labour, conflict between the interests of subject peoples and the nations who have them in their control; conflict between the colonial and the non-colonial Powers. Can we not show that we in this House understand that the epoch of force and exploitation in colonial countries has long gone by; that it is in the interests of the white man, even in his long term economic interest, if he would only see it, that subject peoples shall be happy, prosperous and free; that it is in the
1212
interest of every nation to ensure that the rivalries of the past shall be ended now and for evermore. I believe that the eyes of other Governments and peoples are on the House to-day. If this Motion was adopted, we might start a process by which, in due course, the curse of distorted thinking might be removed, by which the archaic policies of oppression and exploitation ended, and by which the nations might begin their long and painful journey back to peace.
4.42 P.m.
Colonel Ponsonby: I beg to move, in line I, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"the primary purpose of Colonial policy should be the welfare and progress of the inhabitants of Colonial territories and that, apart from any other considerations, no change in the status of Colonies, protectorates, or mandated territories could at any time be considered which did not take full account of the interests and wishes of the inhabitants."
The House, I am sure, will wish me to congratulate the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on moving his Motion. He has presented the case in a most moderate manner, indeed in such a way that it might have come from an hon. Member on any side of the House. In fact, at one time I wondered why he had not put his name down to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) with which I am in entire agreement. The Amendment which I am moving is divided into two parts. The first part says:
"the primary purpose of Colonial policy should be the welfare and progress of the inhabitants."
That is a general, pious and obvious wish. Some of us, particularly those connected with East Africa, think the time has come to accelerate the development of these territories, but what is required is, in the first place, a feeling of security, and, in the second place, additional capital and the closest possible co-operation between Europeans and the native inhabitants. It is only by the capital, initiative and energy of the white man that these comparatively undeveloped countries can be developed. The second part of the Amendment reads:
"no change in the status of Colonies, protectorates, or mandated territories could at any time be considered which did not take full account of the interests and wishes of the inhabitants."

1213
That is not really very different from the terms of the first part of the Motion, which states that there is to be no redistribution of colonial or mandated territory without the consent of the inhabitants; but it goes a little further by the words,
"take full account of the interests and wishes of the inhabitants "
The question of the interests of the inhabitants rests with this House and with the people of this country. It is almost incomprehensible and unforeseeable that any Government would consider that it would be in the interests of the inhabitants of these countries that they should be transferred to any other form of administration, and also, as regards the wishes of the inhabitants, after the events of the last few weeks, apart from all other considerations, I am certain that the House will agree with the hon. Member for Derby that the wishes of the inhabitants would be only in one direction. There are in the Amendment the words:
"apart from any other considerations."
I do not wish to dilate on these at the moment—no doubt other hon. Members will refer to them—but we have to remember that we have always stood by our trust towards the inhabitants, and we cannot contemplate any breach of that trust. We have also to remember the strategic question, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Derby. The Amendment suggests that there should be no change in the status of colonies, protectorates or mandated territories. What changes are possible? There are only two. One would be the transfer of the mandated territories to foreign Powers, and the other would be the bringing of the colonies under the mandates system, to which reference is made in the Motion. As to transfer to foreign Powers, it is quite clear to all of us that here there is no question of our own colonies. We must narrow down the issue to the mandated territories, and perhaps it is simpler if we keep to Africa, where, as hon. Members are aware, we hold the mandates for Tanganyika, for one-third of Togoland, and for one-sixth of the Cameroons.
As I have recently returned from Tanganyika, I would rather restrict my remarks to that side of Africa. I would remind hon. Members that that territory is one and a half times the size of France,
1214
that there are in it 5,000,000 indigenous inhabitants, about 30,000 Asiatic and Arabic inhabitants, and close on 8,000 Europeans. It is a huge country, one-third of which is infested with tsetse fly, and it thirsts for capital for development, but what it wants more than anything else is a feeling of security. If I may be personal for a moment, I would mention that while I was in Tanganyika, partly as a Member of this House, but perhaps more as Chairman of the Joint East African Board, I attended many meetings—meetings of the mining community, the agricultural community, the commercial community, and so on. At most of these meetings, the nationalities were mixed, there being British, Dutch, Indians and Germans. I would like to pay a tribute to the hospitality which I received from the Germans, and the very friendly nature in which our business discussions with them took place.
Mr. Lunn: You are not a Jew.
Colonel Ponsonby: Of course, at the meetings at which Germans were present, for reasons which hon. Members will appreciate, it was impossible to discuss the question which was at the back of everybody's mind in Tanganyika, that is, the future of that country. Either individuals took me apart, or groups of people asked to meet me, and all of them said this, "When you go back, do obtain from the Government a definite statement as regards the future of the country." In the meantime, business is at a standstill. Existing capital is not being employed, and new capital that would otherwise come in—I have had many instances of this—is being turned away because, as the House will realise, capital is always diverted by uncertainty. Even the Governor himself, in the Budget debate quite recently, stated:
"Until anxiety and uncertainty is dispelled, we must expect development to be relaxed."
This question concerns not only Tanganyika and East Africa generally, but Rhodesia and the Union. After I left—after the crisis—the matter became so acute that there was formed a league which comprises people in Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda. The whole of East Africa is behind Tanganyika in the cry that Tanganyika at all costs must remain British. Subscriptions have been received by the league from all nationalities, resolutions

1215
have been passed at every kind of meeting, and, as the hon. Member for Derby mentioned, there have been demonstrations by the native people. The other day, at a meeting of the Tanganyika Legislative Council, composed of official and unofficial members, there was passed the following resolution:
"That the maintenance of British rule in Tanganyika was in accordance with the wishes and interests of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants."
The Resolution went on to say:
"That it was essential that His Majesty's Government should, if possible, carry their recent statement a little further."
The statement referred to was to the effect that the Government are not contemplating the transfer of any territories under British administration. I am convinced that the Government have no intention of transferring Tanganyika to any foreign Power, but the element of uncertainty clings to the minds of people in East Africa. In the past, definite statements were made by Lord Milner, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), and by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister when he was Colonial Secretary, but recently the statements have not been so clear, and there exists a feeling of uncertainty. I hope it will be possible this evening for the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary to make some statement by which he will make it clear that British administration will be continued in Tanganyika. If he can do so, it will go a long way towards ending the suspense which exists. I hope hon. Members will realise that in the present state of that country and the countries adjoining it, it is vital that confidence should be restored so that the territories may resume their interrupted progress.
I come now to the second aspect of the question, of a change in the status of the colonies. The Motion suggests that there should be an international settlement which would extend the mandates system to all colonial territories which are not ripe for self-government. I understand from the hon. Member for Derby that he refers mainly to the African territories; and obviously, the suggestion could not apply to Ceylon, Hong Kong and the West Indies. The idea behind the suggestion is not, I gather, that of giving a sop to the non-colony-owning countries. That would be of very little
1216
value, for, as far as we know, the countries that desire colonies, especially Germany, require them without any mandate system. The suggestion is made mainly from the idealistic point of view, the idea being that the extension of the mandates system to our other colonies would be better for the world at large and better for the inhabitants of those colonies. Of course, it is asking a good deal to suggest the extension of that system to other countries, because one has no idea whether, for instance, France, Belgium and Holland would agree to such a suggestion. No doubt, if the suggestion were put forward by all these countries, possibly to get together on those lines would not do very much harm, although I wonder whether it would do very much good, so far as this country is concerned.
I do not want to arrogate to this country any special advantages. As the hon. Member for Derby mentioned, the terms on which we operate our mandated territories are very much the same as the terms on which we operate our colonies. There are annual reports to Parliament on the Colonies, and it is only an extension of that system to make the annual reports to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. It is true that representatives of the Colonial Office or of the Governments concerned attend twice a year before the Mandates Commission and discuss matters arising out of the reports, but I am inclined to wonder whether the Mandates Commission really is sufficient to make this wonderful difference to which the hon. Member referred. After all, it has no responsibility for the administration of the territories, it has no powers to advise and is purely supervisory. The question arises as to whether that is so valuable that it should be extended to our own Colonies, and whether we should induce other countries to adopt the suggestion.
As the hon. Member mentioned, Central Africa now is under the Congo Basin Treaties, as revised by the Treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye, and there is very little difference between the conditions under which those countries are administered and the terms on which countries are administered under the mandates system. In the Congo Basin area, there is commercial equality, equal economic opportunity for all, and no differential treatment in any way; and I wonder whether it is worth while attempting to improve

1217
on the Congo Basin Treaties by bringing those countries under the mandates system. It is possible, of course, that the hon. Member might have gone further and suggested the creation of an international pool of colonies, which I have seen mentioned in some newspapers which are animated by the Left; but the hon. Member did not do so. He made a very moderate speech containing very moderate suggestions. Whatever we may think of the mandates system, it is important that we should bear in mind one thing, which is that we in this country never put out best goods into the shop window. We are inclined to carp and to criticise and to say that we do not do things as well as other countries. But it must be said that we are proud of our Empire and of the administration of our Empire. We are proud of the system of government of the backward peoples in the Empire, and we regard it as probably the best form of government for those peoples, and if that is so, then I hope that the House will reject the Motion and vote for the Amendment.
Sir Alan Anderson: Before my hon. and gallant Friend finishes, I would like to ask him one question about commercial opportunities, because it seems to me to be very important with reference not only to our colonies but to the colonies of other nations. He mentioned that the Congo Basin area offered, equal opportunities commercially and that the colonies under the mandate system were almost in the same position. That covers a good deal of Africa, and if we could arrange matters on liberal terms with the European countries which do not own colonies and come to some agreement that the people who had the first right to the colonies were the inhabitants, and that, after that, there should be equality of opportunity for all European and other countries we should, I think, draw the teeth of a good deal of the animosity which exists and allay a good deal of the feeling which has been aroused on this question. That is my impression but I am not sure whether my hon. and gallant Friend agrees with it or not.
Colonel Ponsonby: I suggested that the Congo Basin Treaties went almost as far as the terms of the mandate and, of course, these Treaties cover, as my hon. Friend has said, practically the whole of Central Africa—Kenya, Uganda, Tan-
1218
ganyika, part of Portuguese East Africa, part of Angola, part of Northern Rhodesia, the whole of the Belgian Congo and a little more. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are possibilities in exploring along the line which he has suggested.
5.4 P.m.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I beg to second the Amendment.
Before I come to the main subject of my argument may I refer to the question which was put just now by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson). I suggest that there is another aspect of that question and one of which we here cannot afford to lose sight completely. From time to time, the workers and taxpayers of this country are called upon to supply certain very necessary moneys in order that these colonies may be developed in the interests both of the natives and of immigrants. I think, therefore, that the claim can readily be established that in those circumstances this country ought to maintain some economic advantage in order that those who have contributed from this country should receive some reasonable return.
Leaving that point, I would like to say how much I also agree with the first section of the speech made by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) in presenting the Motion. But I found a curious gap in his argument when he came to put before the House the value of the actual proposal contained in the Motion. I think he did not explain fully what he meant by the words "part of a general peace settlement." If we are to consider this question of extending the mandate system as part of a general peace settlement, the hon. Member must surely see that it would not only be a question of the British Government giving up some of the advantages which he claims that we have at the present time. Others would have to give guarantees which would make it worth our while to give up those advantages. I do not want to press the hon. Member on that point, nor do I seek to expand it any further, since he has not put it himself.
Mr. Noel-Baker: I was not able in the time at ray disposal to deal fully with all the points which I intended to make. What I mean by a general peace settlement is of course an agreement about

1219
armaments and about collective security, the re-establishment of international law and the liquidation of the causes of war, among which we count what we call militarist Imperialism.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that explanation. Later I propose to touch further on that aspect of the question. If I deal in comparative detail with one or two points arising on the wording of the Motion I hope the hon. Member will not accuse me of being a petty critic. First I would compare the wording of his Motion in the reference which is made to "the consent of the inhabitants" with our Amendment. I prefer the wording of the Amendment:
"to take full account of the interests and wishes of the inhabitants."
In those colonies which are not yet ripe for self-government as defined by the hon. Member for Derby, we are dealing, obviously, in the majority of cases, with primitive peoples and I do not feel that the words of the Motion are sufficiently wide in regard to that aspect of the case. It is surely the duty of a trustee to look after, not only the immediate but also the future interests of those for whom he is acting. This is perhaps only a matter of wording because, in principle, obviously, we all agree that the wishes of the inhabitants must be considered. But I would go further and say that it is the obvious duty of a trustee Power to consider the interests, both immediate and future, of the inhabitants under its care. Naturally it is understood that we are not considering the transfer of territories at all, but it is possible that we may have to consider, for instance, some of the difficulties as regards frontier adjustments and boundary adjustments and other problems which have been outstanding for some years in Africa and which can be settled in an amicable and friendly manner.
There is another point in the wording of the Motion. It is suggested that the mandate system should be extended to those territories which are "not ripe for self-government," but it does not say whether that system is to be so extended before the wishes of the inhabitants have been consulted. Does the hon. Member propose that the inhabitants should be given an opportunity of expressing their view on whether they would prefer to be
1220
administered under a mandate or remain under the British flag? If he does not propose to consult them, then I suggest that the second part of the Motion is rather contradictory of the first. On the other hand if he does propose to consult them, how does he propose to get over the difficulty which will arise if the inhabitants refuse to be so conveyed by mandate, after having been governed under the British Crown. In that connection, may I touch upon a personal experience. During the past few months I have had the honour and privilege with others of travelling through some' of the South and Central African territories. In the course of the duties which we were performing there, we had to hear a great deal of evidence from native chiefs their counsellors and their tribesmen. The question which was put to them was perfectly simple. They were asked what they thought of the idea of closer union or amalgamation with another British self-governing colony The effect of that question was remarkable. The native evidence was unanimous, both in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, that they preferred to remain under the British Crown and under the administration of the Colonial Office.
It was perfectly obvious to some of them that in the self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia there were certain advantages, but, in spite of those obvious advantages, they preferred to remain under the protection of the Crown. That evidence was very significant indeed, because the value which these native people put upon the protection of the Crown was not the mechanical value—I use the word "mechanical" only for the sake of the argument—of the protection of the great British people. They attached importance to the protection of the Crown because they understood that protection to be in obligations and duties willingly undertaken by the Crown. I ask the hon. Member for Derby what position would arise in territories where the native inhabitants preferred to remain under British rule as a direct responsibility of the Crown and under the trusteeship of the Crown and refused to be transferred under any extension of the mandate system? I do not believe the hon. Member would wish to ignore the feeling which I have described, and which I found expressed by an overwhelming majority of natives in the case I have mentioned.

1221
The hon. Member refers to territories which are "ripe for self-government." What of the territories which are not yet ripe for self-government, or which do not appear likely to become ripe for self-government within the near future? This raises a very difficult point. What will happen when a territory which is not at present ripe for self-government, reaches the stage when it is considered to be ripe for self-government, under the extension of the mandate system?
Mr. Noel-Baker: When it was ripe for self-government it would become self-governing, exactly as Iraq became self-governing after having been under a mandate.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is the explanation which I expected the hon. Member to give, but conditions in Iraq and conditions in tropical Africa are entirely different. The whole value of our progressive system of colonial Government surely is that we are able to weight the inhabitants of these areas, gradually, with greater and greater responsibilities as they develop a greater sense of responsibility. The hon. Member says that when they are ripe for self-government under his plan they will become self-governing, but he misses out those intermediate stages which are of extreme value and of the greatest importance if we are not to overburden with responsibility local populations which may not be fully equal to the demands of that responsibility. I shall not press that point, but it is a difficulty with which, I hope, some hon. Member opposite will deal before the end of the Debate. There is a real difficulty also in the possible encouragement of the inflow of immigrant settlers and workers which I think the hon. Member foresees as a result of an expansion of the mandate system.
What we want to avoid is any uncontrolled forcing of the system of immigration by any interested Power which was a signatory to such an agreement, and, which by subsidising immigration, would be able eventually to control that colony or mandated territory. In that way, when the territory could claim to be "ripe for self-government" it would become merely a pendant state to one of the signatory Powers. I am certain that that is not the intention. All that I say is that I cannot see how you could devise safeguards against such a thing merely
1222
by a wider extension of the mandate system itself. In whom would remain vested the power of Imperial veto, as is the case in Southern Rhodesia? I think that under those circumstances there is no intermediate stage provided by the hon. Member's proposal. He says that it is the primary purpose of Colonial policy to speed the welfare and progress of the native inhabitants, but I believe that that expression is rather too narrow. I am not one of those who believe that we have been able always to live up to our principles in regard to Colonial administration. Our principles and our aims are very high—they are probably higher than those held by any other Power with Colonial Possessions—but in practice they have been limited in the past in many territories by the small extent of the revenues which we have been able to raise and by the unwillingness of the British people to realise that under certain circumstances, if they are to see more rapid progress, they must find the money for it out of their own pockets. They have been limited again by the fact that extended services necessary in these territories cannot be safely supplied unless there is some possibility that they can be carried with continuity.
But the real point is that if you limit the policy, to the care of the progress and welfare of native people, it implies a complete misunderstanding of the position as it really is in those Colonies and territories where the progress and welfare of both natives and Europeans is so closely interlocked that neither can suffer without that suffering being borne also by the other. How can a European settler, whether he be involved in mining, or agriculture, or anything else, possibly make a success of his undertaking unless he has the co-operation of the native? Equally, though it is dangerous to generalise on these points, how can there be a rapid development in many ways as regards native progress unless there is injected into these native territories the energy, the drive, the educative power, if possible the example, of the progressive type of European settler? Therefore, I would beg the hon. Member to reconsider in his own mind, as I suppose he cannot reconsider it on paper at the present time, the wording of that portion of his Motion which is confined to the interests of the native inhabitants only of the Colonial territories of this country.

1223
There is another aspect of this problem, and it is one which I think we cannot quite leave out of consideration. The Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) uses the same words as those of the Motion. I believe the Mover of the Motion desires to see a greater influx of European immigrants into these territories and that it is probably the idea in his mind that that influx of Europeans can always be assumed to be in the interests of native progress. Do not let us attempt to mislead anybody in this House or outside in that respect. Too rapid an influx of European settlers and immigrants into a native territory can do far more harm than good. If we over encourage that influx, we merely encourage the creation of a situation where the European soon demands an artificial protection for himself, whether it be as regards the rate of labour or anything else, building up behind it a system of colour bar and the most unfortunate obstacle which can possibly be raised to two races living together. It is not in that direction that we shall build up protection for the natives' own products. There again we are running a danger of bringing the two races into conflict, a danger which we should do everything we can to avoid. I hope I have not put into the mouth of the hon. Member for Derby intentions which he has not in his mind. I am only speaking on the words of the Motion and on the remarks that he made regarding that Motion.
When we come to the general topic of the value of his proposals as regards the extension of the mandate system, I cannot help feeling very grave doubts indeed, even after hearing his speech, whether there is real value in his proposal. I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member for Derby is approaching this problem rather more having in his mind the conditions on the course at Epsom than on the course at Aintree. I believe the attempt to run the course at flat-racing speed is more common in the first than in the second, but he will come to a nasty fall, and though we should all regret to see him come to a nasty fall, I believe that if we adopt his policy, we would involve that Empire in an even more catastrophic collapse than he himself could ever be involved in alone. Are we not at this moment
1224
involved in applying a policy which must of necessity be experimental? We are not the only experimenters in Africa, but our experiment as regards colonial administration, in dealing with native problems, is on different lines from those on which experiments by foreign nations are being carried out. Our experiment is based on a system of indirect rule, while the majority of foreign experiments in Africa are based on direct rule. It is essential that if these experiments are to be worked out properly—they may be the last experiments which can ever be made in Africa—they must not be interrupted. A system of indirect rule depends entirely on the trust which can be placed by the native inhabitants in the individual who holds the ultimate control of power, and I have already mentioned one example which I saw in Africa as regards the confidence so felt at the present time. I could give many indications of what would be the result of the policy suggested by the hon. Member for Derby, but I think everyone will agree that the power of the Crown, and the duty and obligations of the Crown, in regard to care for the native interests is one which can easily be understood by the native mind. He knows even in his own local administration that Governments rise and fall, but that the British Crown remains.
On that general consideration, let me turn to the Amendment for one short moment. By the wording of the Amendment neither my hon. Friends nor I wish to weaken for one moment the statement that has already been made by the Secretary of State on the question of transference itself, that the British Government are not contemplating the transfer of British Colonial possessions to any foreign Power. That was a statement with which, I think I am right in saying, not only I but the whole House agrees. We can go very much farther than that. Not only can we say that the whole country agrees with that statement, but I would say that the vast and overwhelming majority of world opinion agrees with it at the present time. Therefore, by the wording of this Amendment we would not attempt for one moment to whittle away the strength of that statement. Rather would we attempt to add to its strength. In our Amendment, as has already been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, we have used, in connection with the impossibility of the transfer of

1225
Colonial territory, the words "apart from any other considerations." As we are not contemplating the transfer of British Colonial territory at the present time, there is no point in discussing in detail any possibilities of such a transfer, because the mere discussion of details in this House might give the impression that at the same time there was contemplated such a transfer.
But it may be that there are other people, outside this House and outside this country, who have in their minds some vague idea that some transference might bring about a peaceful settlement and tend to calm the disturbed state of the world mind to-day. It is for that reason that I would venture to touch on two considerations on which world opinion would have to be absolutely assured before any such transfer could possibly be approved by anybody, not by one State or by this country, but by the world as a whole. I believe that those considerations can be stated very simply. They are each of vital importance. The first type of consideration is what you might nominate as the material consideration, the vital question of Imperial defence in our case and national defence in other cases, and the question of trade and commerce. Those considerations are material in the sense that it is possible to conceive that a solution might be provided at some indeterminate date which none of us in this House would possibly be rash enough to name. Coupled with those considerations, obviously there would be the question of guarantees of disarmament and pledges of actual, definite, tangible, real, and lasting proofs of good will.
It is sometimes said that it would be impossible to deny to a first-class European Power access to colonial territory for all time, because it is claimed that the denial to the people of that country of the opportunity to go out and cut for themselves life in wild territories, under colonial conditions, under pioneering conditions, denies them a toughening process which is available to others, denies them the power, the ability, and the possibility of realising how perhaps their own forefathers worked. All those considerations are based on this definition of a first-class Power. When I think of a first-class Power in these days, I mean not only a Power that is strong and virile, but one where the action of the rulers is based on
1226
Christian principles which are accepted as decent in practice by all the civilised peoples of the world. Unless that standard is achieved, that Power has not the right to call itself first-class. I believe that these two considerations are vital. They are considerations which at the present moment will entirely eliminate from our minds the discussion of the transfer of any British territories to a foreign Power.
I support the Amendment as one who believes deeply in democracy. Our training in democratic rule and practice has taught us that democracy is based on the fact that we have to recognise that the other fellow has a right to his views, and can hold his views and live up to his views just as long as he does not get in the way of or stop the progress in the improvement of the conditions of life of the people of this country or of these dependencies which trust in us. That applies sometimes, unfortunately, to the whole of our approach to international and colonial problems, but it does help us, and it has helped us in the past, to be the greatest colonising nation in the world. It is because we have trained ourselves to try and understand other people that we have been able to achieve progressive colonisation under able administration. I believe that we need no international scaffolding on which to undertake that work. We are perfectly capable of carrying it out ourselves. For that reason I ask the House to reject the Motion, and I feel sure, after what we have said, that nobody need have any fears that in supporting the Amendment we are supporting a weakening Amendment, but rather a strengthening one.
5.33 P.m.
Mr. Ernest Evans: This Debate is concerned with matters which are of increasing interest to a large section of the population of this country, and, to quote a well-known phrase, "that's a good thing." There are many of us who can remember the days when the idea of Empire in the minds of a large number of people was associated with the spirit and practice of flag-wagging, which gave immense satisfaction to those who engaged in it, but created a great deal of displeasure among other people. That displeasure created a prejudice which did a great deal of harm in preventing us from having a due appreciation of the importance and significance of Empire

1227
policy. In recent years, fortunately, opportunities have occurred, and advantage has been taken of them, for increasing our knowledge not only of the Dominions, but also of the colonies and protectorates and of their peoples and problems. I deliberately include protectorates because it is interesting to observe that they do not appear in the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker). It is a pity, because the protectorates are of great importance to this country. More than that, they include people and problems to which we in our position of trustees must pay great attention.
Another thing which has emerged from the Debate is that there is a consensus of opinion in regard to the attitude which this country should adopt to Imperial matters. The Motion starts by saying that the primary purpose of colonial policy should be the promotion of the welfare and progress of the native population. I am a little doubtful of the advisability of trying to summarise in one sentence Imperial policy in regard to a large number of territories which are scattered all over the globe, which are in different states of development, and which have to face problems which vary very much according to the local situation. I think that everybody will agree, however, that the promotion of the welfare and the progress of the native populations in all those territories is an essential feature of our colonial and Imperial policy. While saying that, I would like to support a sentiment which was expressed by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing). It is a great pity that we should say anything which would seem to suggest that we do not appreciate that the development of these territories owes a great deal to the assistance, the honesty, the industry and the initiative of British settlers.
There are many episodes in the history of colonial development which we regret and which can be summarised in the word "exploitation." We all condemn them, but at the same time we must appreciate that the native populations in many of these territories have benefited from the fact that the British settler has introduced a development which has been of great value, and without which progress would not have proceeded as far as it has done.
1228
I hate saying anything which would seem to draw a distinction, to the disadvantage of the one or the other, between the British settler and the native population, because they should be regarded as complementary rather than as antagonistic to each other. I agree that the progress and welfare of the native populations forms the essential feature of our policy and that that is a thing which we must emphasise at the present time. It is not only a feature of our policy at the present time, but a feature which we are bound to try and secure for the future. Whatever may be the changes that may take place in the constitution of any of the colonial or mandated territories, and whatever may be the relationship they may bear in future to this country or any other country, we are bound to secure that in any changes to which we subscribe the utmost is done to safeguard that welfare and progress.
The Motion contains the proposition that in any solution of this problem the wishes of the native populations must be observed. That is an admirable statement of policy to which all Members will readily subscribe. For that reason I want to take this opportunity of pressing upon the Secretary of State that if he attaches importance to this part of the Motion he must appreciate its significance, because it requires that he should encourage every possible standard of improvement in the education of the native population in order to equip the natives, first, to reach an opinion and, secondly, having formed an opinion, to be able to express it. When I refer to education I am not referring merely to scholastic attainments. I am referring to the general development of the mentality and experience of the native populations. I include in it the extension and encouragement of the system of local rule through native councils, native authorities and other agencies which exist in the different parts of the territories with which we are concerned.
The main purpose of the Motion is to suggest that the colonies and protectorates shall in certain circumstances be taken away from the direct control and supervision of the Colonial Office of Great Britain in Downing Street and placed under the control of a mandate system. I cannot say that I have any objection to that, but, on the other hand, I cannot see that it will make any great difference. The only difference it will make

1229
is that we shall have to give an account of our trusteeship to the League of Nations. I do not think that Great Britain need be afraid of having to do that, but from the practical point of view it means very little, because, in view of the information which is obtainable nowadays in regard to the administration of these territories, not only in this country but in other countries, and in view of the increased publicity which is given to all that is done, there is every opportunity for any critic who wishes to point the finger of blame or scorn at the administration of Great Britain to do it. Therefore, I do not think that from the practical point of view there will be much effect on the welfare and progress of the natives.
Another suggestion which has been made is that, apart from handing over the colonies and protectorates to Great Britain under a mandate, there shall be something in the nature of an international mandate. Here I would like to have some more information before giving an opinion about it. I do not altogether like the terms of the Motion which suggest that our settlement of the colonial question is to be regarded as part of a general peace settlement. I would emphasise the view that these territories and the people who live in them are not to be treated as pawns on the chess board of international policy. The people living in these territories have their own lives—it is true that they are not very highly developed—but they have their own lives and ideas, and they are improving year by year.
Mr. Sorensen: Were the natives in the mandated territories consulted?
Mr. Evans: I am not concerned with the past for the moment. I am concerned with what this Motion declares to be the main purpose of our policy, and that is the promotion and welfare of the progress of the native populations, and I am saying that the native populations must not be treated as pawns. They have their interests which must be safeguarded. If they can be better safeguarded under a system in which Great Britain administers them as a mandated country, I do not mind, but in discharging that duty we must pay attention to the real interests of the native population. The question of international administration is full of
1230
difficulties. There has recently been published a valuable survey of Africa by Lord Hailey, a work for which we ought to be most grateful. It is a tremendous contribution to our knowledge of that Continent. I was interested to observe in the foreword to the survey that Lord Lothian, who was largely responsible for the investigation, referred to a speech made by General Smuts in 1929, when he pointed out that Africa was being developed under the control of a number of European powers and that different and often conflicting principles were being applied by them in the administrative, social, educational and legal field. General Smuts was referring to Africa only, but we are concerned here with a larger field. In bringing these territories under an international mandate we should have to face endless difficulties arising from the conflicting views which each country took of their responsibilities.
I do not know how far it is necessary to regard this as a matter that is likely to be of very immediate urgency. It is undoubtedly very present to the minds of the rulers in Germany at the present time. It is true that it has not been brought forward as a matter of extreme urgency up to the moment. The Prime Minister told us the other day that Herr Hitler had told him that while colonial questions did raise difficulties they would not involve mobilisation, but he said that in public many years ago when he expressed the view that colonies were not worth the risk of the life of a single German soldier. Of course, that was some years ago, and I imagine that he thought then that the lives of German soldiers might be required for the purpose of securing ends in Europe. He has secured those ends now, so that he may consider that the lives of German soldiers may be available for this purpose.
The point is that the Government have said that they do not contemplate handing over any colonial possessions to Germany or any other country. What does that word "contemplate" mean? Does it simply means that we would not like to hand over any of those territories to Germany or any other country, or that the Government have made up their minds that they will not hand them over to Ger many or any other country? The statements made in answer to questions in this House in the last few days were received with cheers in this Chamber, and on the

1231
face of them they appear to be quite satisfactory, but I should like to have a little more assurance on this point, and I ask for the assurance not for my own satisfaction but for the satisfaction of the people who live in those territories. Those statements have not allayed their anxieties. I have received letters in the last few days from Nigeria, in particular, where meetings have been held to consider this matter at which the Governor had made a statement very similar to the statement made by my right hon. Friend, and I think by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Prime Minister in this House. In those letters it was said:
"His Excellency the Governor has been graciously requested to represent more fully to His Majesty's Government in England the apprehension and anxiety of the people of Nigeria in this matter with a view to a clear and unequivocal assurance being given as to the future of Nigeria, so allaying the fear and anxiety of His Majesty's 21,000,000 loyal subjects."
Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I had the privilege of spending some time in Central Africa, and there is no doubt at all as to the opinions of the inhabitants of those territories and also as to their anxiety, and that anxiety is doing infinite harm to the public life of the natives as well as to British settlers in that part of the world. I have already said that this subject must be treated from the point of view of what is expressed in the Motion and the Amendment as to paying regard to the wishes and the welfare of the inhabitants, and from that point of view I have not much doubt in saying that the natives in all those territories would infinitely prefer to be left as they are under the direct administration of Great Britain, but that if they had to change the only change they would contemplate with equanimity would be an alteration of the system to the small extent of making Great Britain a Mandatory Power.
I beg the House to remember, when we talk about an international matter and that sort of thing, that if we are anxious to consult the wishes and to promote the welfare of the native populations we have to bear in mind what sort of person the native is at the present time. He is a simple man, his education has not proceeded very far, but I believe he has a brain which is capable of tremendous development if only he had the opportunity of developing it. The result is that the
1232
native must have some symbol before him which will present to his mind what it is that he is asked to do. It was one of the happiest features of the Coronation ceremonies that a number of chiefs from different territories were invited to come over here. They came, and we were glad to see them, and their return has had a very great effect upon their peoples. They have gone back with glowing reports of their experiences in London and the treatment meted out to them by the people of Great Britain, and they have gone back with an increased sense of loyalty to the Crown, or, as they put it, to the King, but it comes to the same thing—to the Crown and to the authorities of the British Government. That is a feature which must be encouraged. Great Britain has assumed obligations to the native populations over wide areas and I believe that the native populations are not dissatisfied with what has been done, but whatever may have been the advantages or disadvantages which we have been able to bring them it is a sacred trust for us not to part with our responsibilities until we are satisfied that they will be better discharged under another system.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Lansbury: The question we are discussing is one of the most important that this House could discuss, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having used his success in the Ballot to bring it forward. I do not intend to deal with the subject in anything like a comprehensive manner, because I understand that there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak, but I would draw attention to the fact that we are discussing a question which is not only a British question but concerns the whole world, and that conditions in the world to-day, both economically and from the territorial point of view, are entirely different from conditions when our forefathers went out to plant the British flag in all parts of the globe. The nations of the world have changed in a thousand and one ways in their relationships towards one another, and Great Britain must look at the matter from an international point of view. We cannot hope for ever to maintain the monopoly which we and our Commonwealth colleagues possess over the world at present. None of us have the right to congratulate ourselves that everything is as it might be or ought to be in the

1233
Colonial Empire, including the Protectorates. If we read Lord Hailey's report, which is a very clear statement of the facts as he gathered them, I think we shall all agree that there is something still to be done.
Then I should like to say a word about the consent of the native inhabitants. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep that in mind when he comes to deal with the territories which South Africa is very anxious to bring within the Union, because that, I think, will be a testing case as to the rights or wrong of this question of not transferring territories without the consent of the original inhabitants. So far as I know anything of history, the peoples whom we have annexed have never been asked whether they would like to be annexed, but they have been annexed, and sometimes in a very cruel manner. But we cannot live in the past. We have to face the facts of to-day. Mr. Pirow, in a statement made after visiting Europe, said that everybody in Europe wanted peace, including ourselves, but that no one was willing to make a real contribution to peace, that is, to make any sacrifices. What he exactly meant I do not know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, let me finish, because I rather agree with you. He did not make it at all clear whether South Africa was prepared to make any sacrifices. I should like the House to understand, what I should think many hon. Members already understand from their travels abroad, and that is what is said by everyone with whom you discuss the economic position life of the world to-day, and what is acknowledged by us too, and that is that the British Commonwealth of Nations have the greatest contribution to make towards real economic appeasement. You have to face this fact, that if you own territory and that territory possesses raw materials which are necessary not only to you but to other nations, you have a great pull over other people, and that pull gives you the advantage both in production and in distributive processes. You can, if you please, so arrange the economic conditions in these mandated territories and colonial possessions as to ensure that you have preference over other people, and you can keep out both individuals and goods. In discussions abroad to which I have listened it has always been pointed out that Great Britain and those who write
1234
about Great Britain and her colonial possessions always forget the fact that the possession of those territories gives us that sort of advantage over everybody else.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting, is he, that there is not a free exchange of primary commodities between the countries in which they are produced and this country? Is it not a fact that what is produced in any British colonial territory is available to any purchaser who cares to go along and bid for it?
Mr. Lansbury: Of course it is. At one time the produce was cocoanuts for a great soap firm in this country, but they have got something else now in place of it, and there was also the cocoa. They possessed powers which came to them because of British ownership by which they could exclude everybody else.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking of a very big firm which makes a lot of soaps, but the biggest activities of that firm are not in British territories at all. I think they are in the Belgian Congo—certainly they have great activities in the Belgian Congo—and not under the British flag. Equally, is it not true that there is no restriction upon any foreign national going into any British or colonial territory and starting any firm to produce anything he likes?
Mr. Lansbury: Of course, and buying from the natives in exactly the same way as we do, but when it comes to actual trade we can insist upon a preference being given to British goods as against other goods. It is no good arguing at this time of day that that is not the case. That is the case that I was making just now and it is the case that has been put to me a dozen times abroad. I undertake to say that it has been made to hon. Members opposite who also have travelled through Europe in the way that I have done. I therefore think that it is not rendering any service to this discussion to attempt to deny that mere ownership does give you advantages over those who do not own. I do not think that there can be any doubt about it—I not only think it, I am sure.
Mr. H. Strauss: In making his statement the right hon. Gentleman spoke not only of colonial but of mandated territories. Surely he knows that as regards

1235
mandated territories the terms of the Covenant and of the mandate secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League, and notwithstanding the fact that Germany has left the League, those circumstances still apply to Germany as well. So far as what the right hon. Gentleman says is meant to apply to mandated territories, it is quite inaccurate.
Mr. Lansbury: It may be quite inaccurate. On the other hand, I am certain that the mandated Power has very much more influence and power to secure trade than the Power that is not mandatory. There is no reason why they should have it. I have heard discussion in this House in which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have gloried in the fact that that is so. There is a dispute between them on that side of the House and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) as to what are the rights and privileges of the mandatory Power. Again, I do not think we ought to waste our time arguing about that. It is certain that if you are in control of a place you can exercise influences which others who are not in control are unable to exercise.
I also want to challenge one other statement that has been made to-night, that we British are really self-denying in what we do in regard to possessions abroad. I am not going to quote anything that negro writers have written about conditions in Africa. Perhaps other people will do so, but I will quote something said by the late Lord Brentford, who was Sir William Joynson-Hicks. Speaking at a Church Missionary Society meeting in London, he said:
"You people must not imagine that we are in India and other places in order to teach the people to be Christian. We are there to make money. That is the business we have in hand."
So let us not talk to-night about our self-denying obligations to the people who are unable to manage their own affairs.
Mr. Vyvyan Adams: What was the date of the speech?
Mr. Lansbury: I think it was just before he died. The hon. Member wants the date, but I cannot give him the date; but it is a very well known statement from the late nobleman. I do not agree altogether with either of the Amendments
1236
which are on the Paper, except that I would not voluntarily surrender any territory anywhere to Germany or any Fascist Power at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members cheer that statement as though it were something new, but I have said it on a hundred platforms and I have said it in Germany as well. I am going to try to put to the House to-night a method which I put forward when I was in Germany by which I think this question of colonies and protectorates should be dealt with. I will begin to do so by reading an extract from a letter which Lord Ponsonby, the late Canon Shepard and myself sent to the "Times a twelvemonth ago. In it we called attention to -No. 5 of President Wilson's 14 points—of course we have nearly all forgotten what Mr. Wilson said, but it is good to remind ourselves of it. In No. 5 point he said:
"A free, open-minded, absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon strict observation of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the people concerned must have equal weight with the equity of the Government whose title is to be determined."
In the letter to the "Times" we said that the application of the principles contained in that point involved, under present-day conditions, (a) the abandonment of the weapons of economic warfare in the shape of quotas and currency restriction and (b)—this is the point I wish to press upon the attention of the House—the abandonment of the private ownership of colonial possessions in favour of the extension of a revised mandate system to all non-self-governing territories, and the establishment of an international colonial service through a League of Nations as the instrument of this new experiment in international cooperation.
I do not think you can settle this question by mandates distributed among a larger number of mandatory Powers. What I think will have to be done in the end is that these territories must be pooled and must be administered by an international civil service. I am sure that if that were done, German administrators and British administrators, working with French and others, would take their part in the work of administering those territories. I do not think that any individual nation would get any advantage

1237
over another if the territories were thus pooled and thus administered. I think that you would be able to safeguard for all countries access to trade and therefore to raw materials where needed; most of all, you would safeguard the rights of emigration, where this was possible, of the peoples from Europe and elsewhere.
I think that the House does not quite realise that one of the greatest problems in Europe to-day has been partially if not entirely created—I refer to the problem of the destitution and misery of people—by the fact that migration has been restricted almost to the point of stoppage; that is to say, emigration from those countries has almost ceased since the War. The result is that everywhere, and certainly in south-eastern Europe, there is terrible destitution and want. When you come to the Jewish problem, there is no one country which seems willing to act quickly in finding room for them. No one denies that there is room for them all, but there is no central authority in the world that can determine where they are to go. My view is that if these territories were internationally administered it would be possible to deal in a much more speedy manner with the question which is facing us.
There is another question. The Polish Government went to the League of Nations long ago and said that there were 3,000,000 people in Poland who must be got out. It is all very well to say: "Where on earth are they to go and why should they go?" but you realise what it means if you go into Poland. We have all been very shocked at what is happening to the Jews who are in what is called "No Man's Land" but there are millions of people in industrial Poland who live on the verge of destitution from one year's end to the other as part of their daily life. You need only to read the statements made at the League of Nations by the representatives of Poland, to understand that that is partly, although not entirely, due to the fact that emigration has been practically stopped. When you go into other parts of the Balkans or farther east you find there arc people starving under all sorts of conditions. Wheat is coming here from one of the greatest of those Balkan countries, from people who have had to be asked to eat bread. They do not eat bread because they cannot afford to do so, but
1238
they, and their Government, can afford to send shiploads of wheat to this country to pay for armaments.
I want to make a plea to the House to-night, one that I have made many times. While we may pass one or other of these Motions to-night, let us remember that the one vital thing to do in the world to-day is to get rid of the hunger of people. You have hungry people here in this country, in America, in Australia and in Europe, and by the million in India and China. I want to ask the House whether it is not time that we got together on this matter. I do not think anything will happen in the world without the cooperation of America but, either with or without America, let us discuss how to make a plan to use these colonies and protectorates. You can plan an international economy of exchange and trade generally. I have heard again and again in this House speeches about planning national industry. The four leading men in Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rumania and Bulgaria said: "You people in England discuss how to plan your internal economy; no one there has begun to discuss how to plan international economy under the entirely new conditions that are facing the world to-day."
We are beating the air in continuing to talk of appeasement and disarmament while that fundamental question is left untouched. I may be too ignorant—probably I am—to take part in a real discussion on international planning, but I am certain that just as within this country you are limiting the production of certain things and trying to organise first this industry and then that because the old ways of private, individual production, fighting one against the other, are played out, so I believe that international competition is playing itself out too. The great monopolists of the world, even with all this talk about war, co-operate together to control first one market and then another. Instead of leaving these matters to the free play of private competition, even between monopolies, I want this country to give a lead to the world, to get the economists and the industrialists and the politicians together to see how we can rebuild on a better foundation, without this competition and strife, the international life of the world. Mr. Wilson said at the opening of the Peace Conference in Paris:

1239
"This conference will only be satisfactory if it satisfies the common people."
All of us here, when we stand before the electors, say the same thing. What are any of us doing to give effect to that? In spite of what dictators may say publicly, in spite of all the disorder in the world, there is throughout the world a real conviction that, if only common sense and reason and good will are applied to the consideration of these problems, and not merely self-interest, personal or national, they can be solved.
6.17 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I do not propose to detain the House for very long, but hon. Members will, of course, expect me to make a statement of the Government's attitude on the important issues which have been raised this afternoon. The question which exercises hon. Members most is that referred to in the earlier part of the Motion—the possibility of the transfer of colonies or mandated territories to the sovereignty of some other nation. There have been, in some of these territories, certain apprehensions of late. Rumours have spread to the effect that we were contemplating transfer; uncertainty as to the future of those territories has been created, and development in those countries has been checked by a sudden paralysing sense of insecurity. I am told, for instance, that in Tanganyika the revenue in the current year will be less by some £200,000 than was estimated. That is not wholly due, of course, to uncertainty about the future, but it is partly due to that cause. Such misgivings ought to be removed. In order to remove them, I do not need to express opinions; I do not need to marshal arguments; I only have to state a simple fact. I do not believe that there is to-day any section of opinion in this country that is disposed to hand over to any other country the care of any of the territories or peoples for whose government we are responsible, either as a colonial or as a mandatory Power. That view has been expressed this afternoon in every part of the House, and it is a view which is shared by His Majesty's Government. We are not discussing this matter; we are not considering it; it is not now an issue in practical politics—
Mr. Bellenger: In spite of what a German leader has said?
Mr. MacDonald: If we were ever to come to a discussion of this question, there are certain things which would have to be borne in mind. In the first place, this country is not the only country concerned. Britain is not the only country which assumed additional territorial responsibilities after the War. Other countries would also be involved, and the question would have to be examined by all countries concerned together. But there is another consideration of very great importance, which is referred to in the Motion, and in both of the Amendments. The peoples who would he most directly and vitally affected by any such proposals are the peoples who live in the mandated territories themselves. We cannot regard them as mere goods and chattels to be disposed of at the will of others; we have responsibilities and obligations with regard to those peoples. We must pay attention to their own wishes; we must consider the wishes of the different sections of the population in those territories.
So far as British mandated areas are concerned, there are not only the large indigenous native populations; in some places there are also European settlers who have put whatever wealth they possessed into these countries, and who have played a great part in their development over the last 20 years. In some places there are important Indian communities. We must have regard to the right of these people to express their opinions on a question which is all-important to them, and we must attach full weight and force to those opinions. It would be impossible to consider any alteration in the status of any of these territories without paying full regard to the spontaneous views of the inhabitants. Moreover, these peoples have certain treaty rights. These peoples have certain material interests in those areas. Those rights and those interests must be fully safeguarded and secured.
But in addition I wish to repeat this also. The relations between the Executive and the Legislature in this country are well understood. In any circumstances it would be impossible for a Government to do anything with regard to this matter without the House of Commons having the fullest opportunity of discussion. In fact, nothing effective could be done without the positive approval of Parliament. So far as this

1241
House is concerned, as I have said, a unanimous expression of opinion has been made from every section of the House in the Debate this afternoon.
I come to the second part of the Motion of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker). It looks forward to the day when what it calls "a general peace settlement" may be possible, and it urges that, as part of that settlement, the mandate system of government should be extended to all colonies, including our own colonies, which are not ripe for self-government. I hope that the House is not going to assent to any such sweeping proposition. I am not going to follow the hon. Member very far into his discussion of a hypothetical future, the circumstances of which we cannot now fore see. He expressed his ideas on that future very attractively; he put forward some impressive arguments as to why we should succumb to them. I have had opportunities of discussing this matter with him and with other hon. Members opposite, and I know that they hold views which are somewhat reassuring on the matter. I know it is held by hon. Members opposite that, if this change which they propose were to take place—if a certain control over our colonies were to be given by us to some impartial international organisation—that organisation would decide that, in all the areas where British administration exists to-day, that British administration should continue to exist. That is very reassuring. But there is nothing about that in the terms of this Motion. There is no guarantee about that in the terms of the Motion, and what this House has to consider is the wording of the Motion we are being asked to pass, and the impression that will be made on the world if it reads tomorrow morning that it has been passed by this House. What we have to consider especially is how the Motion would be understood by the peoples of our colonies whose future we are discussing this afternoon, and I say without hesitation that the peoples of those colonies would view the passage of this Motion with alarm. It would not remove the uncertainty; it would add to the uncertainty which has existed.
What strikes me first about the latter part of the Motion, just as it struck my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), is that there
1242
would seem to be a discrepancy between the second part and the first part. The first part declares that there should be no redistribution of colonial or mandated territory without the consent of the inhabitants; but the second part of the Motion goes on to foreshadow a wholesale redistribution, a transfer from the absolute control of this House and of this Government to at any rate the partial control of some international organisation. I can see no word here about the consent of the inhabitants being required, or even about the wishes of the inhabitants being considered at all. [Interruption.] I am trying to describe the sort of impression that these words will create in the colonies to-morrow morning.
Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the first paragraph said quite plainly that there must be no redistribution except with the consent of the inhabitants.
Mr. MacDonald: If the first part of the Motion is meant to cover the second part as well, I agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Obviously it is."] I have read this Motion very carefully and very anxiously, with a desire to understand it, and I think many hon. Members will agree with me and with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that that is not made at all clear in the Motion as it is drafted. We have to recognise this. It may be argued that the sort of scheme contemplated in the Motion does not, in effect, mean a redistribution of colonial territories, that it does not contemplate the transfer of a colony from the sovereignty of one nation to the sovereignty of another nation; all it contemplates, it may be argued, is the giving of a certain amount of control and power of interference to a certain international body.
It may well be that such an international body would make no alterations in the powers and extent of British administration throughout the colonies today, but, supposing that the international body did decide on some redistribution—and there is no guarantee against that in the Motion; supposing that in a certain case, for instance, the agent governing the country for them should cease to be Britain and should become France—so far as the inhabitants of the territory are concerned theoretical questions of sovereignty do not matter—that would

1243
mean the same alterations in their customs and laws as if the territory had been handed over in complete sovereignty to that nation. They would have to get accustomed to a new language, a new system of law, a new attitude towards native institutions; and I think all those doubts, all those apprehensions, would be aroused in our colonies if the House gave the authority of its approval to this Motion.
I think the House is very conscious that, in fact, the peoples of the colonies are not merely content to be His Majesty's subjects; they are positively happy to be His Majesty's subjects, they are proud of being His Majesty's subjects; and I do not think it would be proper or right that a major change should be made in affairs to which they have grown accustomed, and that a break should be made in a constitutional tie which they highly cherish, without our taking full account of their interests and their wishes. That, I repeat, is an extremely powerful reason why we should not confuse the issue in the minds of our people in the colonies by carrying this Motion. I think it would add to the uncertainty about the future.
Let me take one example, the example of Nigeria, which has been quoted this afternoon. This is one of the richest, one of the most abundantly populated of our colonies. A few weeks back, because of wild, unfounded rumours, which passed from mouth to mouth, there was uncertainty among the people there as to our intentions regarding them. I authorised the Governor to make a statement in the Legislative Council some days ago that His Majesty's Government have no intention of considering the transfer of Nigeria from British administration. I received a message from the Governor saying that that message had had a completely reassuring effect in the colony. But supposing the Government and the House accepted this Motion; Nigeria is a colony not ripe for self-government. Nigeria is a colony, therefore, which we would be saying should be put under the mandate system of government. Acceptance of this Motion would destroy completely the force of the reassurance which the Governor gave on behalf of His Majesty's Government just a few days ago.
1244
There is another consideration on account of which I would urge the House to reject this Motion, and to accept instead the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Seven-oaks (Colonel Ponsonby). The Motion says that all the colonies which are not ripe for self-government should come under the mandate system of government. Gibraltar is not ripe for self-government, Malta is not ripe for self-government, Aden is not ripe for self-government, the Straits Settlements are not ripe for self-government; and, under this proposal, the House is being asked to commit itself to handing over to, at any rate, a certain amount of international interference a whole string of absolutely vital strategic points in our Imperial communications. I do not believe that the House will bring itself to accept that proposition.
I would like to say something on the other two aspects of the matter which are touched upon in this Motion. In the first place, the Motion suggests that equal economic opportunity should be given in the colonial territories to the nationals of all countries signatory to some international agreement. That, of course, raises a good many economic questions. It raises, for instance, the question of access to raw materials. As the hon. Gentleman himself said, in our colonies to-day there is practically no restriction at all on access for anybody to raw materials; but the Government are still ready to consider any proposals which may be brought forward for the more equal distribution of raw materials. It raises, also, the question of Imperial Preference in the colonies; and it would be possible to speak at great length, and to present many arguments why, in the interests of the colonies themselves, a system of Imperial Preference should be-maintained. But I want to make only two points, rather in the direction of getting accord between both sides of the House on this matter.
It is very easy to exaggerate the extent to which Imperial Preference is in operation in the Colonial Empire to-day. When we discuss this matter I think the continent which comes to our mind most readily is Africa; and the area in which Imperial Preference operates in the African colonies is very severely restricted. In East Africa, because of the Congo Basin Treaties, it does not exist except

1245
in Somaliland and part of Northern Rhodesia. In West Africa it is in operation only in Gambia and Sierra Leone. In the Gold Coast it is prohibited under treaty. In Nigeria we became free to introduce Imperial Preference two years ago. The Government decided to refrain from introducing that system in the important colony of Nigeria. In fact, the ideal of equal economic opportunity is almost completely attained already in practice inside the British Colonial Empire in Africa. It does not require any great change in position in these territories to bring about that ideal in practice.
Mr. Bellenger: Does that apply to immigration?
Mr. MacDonald: The second point I would make about this matter is this. Two years ago, the then Foreign Secretary made a statement on behalf of the Government with regard to Colonial Preference. He said:
"The Government are ready, as part of the efforts now being made to effect economic and political appeasement and increase international trade, but without prejudice to the principle of Colonial Preference, to enter into discussion with any Powers who may approach the British Government for an abatement of particular preferences in non-self-governing colonial territories where these can be shown to place undue restrictions on international trade."
We have been as good as our word in carrying out that undertaking. The United States of America came to us with suggestions that in the Colonial Empire these preferences were restricting unduly international trade. As a result of the trade negotiations which have taken place with America, and under the terms of the recently concluded treaty, there are to be reductions in the preferences on something like 200 items in different parts of the Colonial Empire. That is some indication of the Government's readiness to go as far as they can, without prejudicing the interest of the colonies themselves, towards giving equal economic opportunity for different nations and different nationals inside the Colonial Empire.
Finally, I would like to say a few sentences about the other principle of the government of these territories which is laid down in this Motion, and which is also laid down in the Amendments on the Paper. It is said in the Motion that the primary purpose of colonial policy is to be
"the welfare and progress of the native inhabitants."
1246
I am not quite sure why emphasis is placed exclusively on
"the native inhabitants."
There are other inhabitants of these Colonies. There are Europeans, there are Indians, there are Arabs, and there are others. It is quite true that sometimes the interests of one community come into conflict with the interests of another; and then adjustments have to be made, so that those interests can be reconciled. But I do not believe there is any fundamental conflict of interest between these immigrant communities that have settled more lately in the colonies, and the interests of the indigenous native populations. I think a more accurate statement of the principles that we should follow is contained in the wording of the Amendment which says that the primary purpose of Colonial policy is the welfare and progress of all the inhabitants of colonial territories. They have a common interest in the development of these territories, and that policy of fostering the interests of all the peoples of these colonies is a policy which has been accepted by this Government for decades past. There is no difference between us on that matter.
Having made the point, I would emphasise the great importance of our duty to the natives. I think that our first duty is always to them. We have to foster their material well-being and to see that they get fair play in the complicated economic system of the modern world. Our agricultural departments and our agricultural officers all over the Colonial Empire, and our labour departments and labour officers springing up in many parts of the Colonial Empire are doing that work. We have to bring to the natives the benefits of modern medical science so that they may enjoy always a more abundant health. Our medical departments and our medical officers are performing that service day in and day out in every quarter of the globe. The education of the natives is the growing concern of British administrations and the various voluntary organisations who work in close co-operation together throughout the Colonial Empire.
Above all, there is another objective which we keep constantly in view. The great purpose of the British Empire is the gradual spread of freedom among all His Majesty's subjects in whatever part of the world they live. That spread of freedom is a slow, evolutionary process.

1247
In some countries it is more rapid than in others. In some parts of the Empire, in the Dominions, that evolutionary process has been completed, it is finished. Inside the Colonial Empire the evolutionary process is going on all the time. In some colonies like Ceylon the gaining of freedom has already gone very far. In others it is necessarily a much slower process. It may take generations, or even centuries, for the peoples in some parts of the Colonial Empire to achieve self-government. But it is a major part of our policy, even among the most backward peoples of Africa, to teach them and to encourage them always to be able to stand a little more on their own feet. That love of ours of freedom not only for ourselves but for others, inspires policy right through the Colonial Empire, and I believe that the best assurance that these peoples can have that that spirit will continue to be a guide in their affairs is that they should continue their association with the British Empire.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. Amery: I wish to intervene for only two or three minutes in order to refer to the statement which my right hon. Friend made at the beginning of his speech. He has gone a very considerable way, I think, in that statement towards meeting the unanimous feeling of every section in this House, and, I may add, in the country outside. He said very truly that no section of this House is disposed to hand over any of our territories to a foreign Power, and he added that that view is shared by His Majesty's Government. In other words, there is no disposition on the part of His Majesty's Government to-day to hand over any territories, colonial or mandated, at the demand of a foreign Power. He went on to say that His Majesty's Government are not discussing the question, that they are not considering it, and that it is not now an issue of practical politics.
May I just say one thing about the word "now"? "Now" is capable of two interpretations. It may mean no longer, or, in other words, that, after recent events, it is a matter that this country can no longer consider. If my right hon. Friend will tell me that that is the meaning in which he used the word "now" we shall be well content. If, on the other hand, "now" implies a reservation
1248
that the Government are still thinking that they may change their minds and be willing to change their present disposition, then our satisfaction is not quite so great. My right hon. Friend went on to speak of the possibility of the matter coming under discussion, and in that connection he stated very truly objections which, though they were all given their full weight, would be insuperable. The question is what weight will the Government in fact in certain conditions give them, and that does still leave some shade of uncertainty and anxiety. It may be that it is merely tactfulness. I doubt whether that sort of tactfulness really helps in international affairs. On the other hand, it may just serve to keep alive not only anxiety in our own territory but false hopes elsewhere.
I wish it had been possible for my right hon. Friend to say with regard to the whole of our Colonial Empire, mandated or protected, what has been said with regard to Nigeria, namely, that His Majesty's Government had no intention of transferring. If he had said that the whole matter would have been satisfactorily disposed of. I only hope that it may still be possible for the Government in the near future to make that simple and unambiguous statement and put the whole question at rest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible for him to say for the whole of our Colonial Empire what he has already very rightly said about Nigeria.
Hon. Members: Answer!
6.53 p.m.
Mr. Lunn: This has been a remarkable Debate. I have heard every word of it. It is a long time since we have had a speech on Colonial matters to equal the magnificent speech that was made at the opening of the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) was so disarming in all his arguments that, if there had been no Amendments on the Paper, I think we should have passed the Motion nem. con. The Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment apparently agreed with him so much that I found that they were rarely concerned with the Amendment but were more concerned with the speech of my hon. Friend. I admit that there is a considerable amount of agreement upon many points

1249
in the Motion. For instance, we are all agreed in every part of the House that there should be no surrender of British colonial territory to any other Power, and particularly Germany. It has been emphasised many times this afternoon that, in view of the attitude which is taken up by the Government in Germany to-day, and its inhuman, barbarous method of dealing with a race of people who have helped to build it up as much as any other nationals, we could not at this moment, and I suppose not until there is an alteration or a change which will remove these conditions, consider anything in the nature of any part of the territories in the British Empire being handed to them. As it is the nation which is in the picture with regard to anything of that sort, we must take it for granted that the whole House at this moment is in agreement that there shall be no transference of any territory to any one country.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, who has made a very forcible speech on this question, might have given the guarantee of the Government that, as far as they are concerned, there is no intention of handing over any part of the Colonial Empire to any other one country. Such a guarantee has not been given, and so the House must take it that we know where the Government stand at the moment, but we do not know how long the Government will accept the same policy. It is very possible, as we know that the Government shift so often and so regularly, that they will soon change that which is their policy at the moment. I should not be surprised, when we come back after the Recess, if even on this question the Government have a different policy altogether from that which has been stated by the Minister on this particular occasion. It is very difficult to accept the statements of Ministers as to the attitude of the Government almost on anything, whatever it may be.
The Motion that we are discussing has allowed considerable latitude to Members to say where they stand upon different points, and we have found a great measure of agreement in discussing many of those points. The Minister has this afternoon adopted an attitude which I do not remember having been taken up by any Minister before. He has accepted the position that no redistribution of
1250
Colonial territory shall take place without the consent of the native inhabitants. That has not usually been guaranteed in matters of this sort, and I should like to have a guarantee on that one point with regard to the High Commission territories. That is the matter which is under discussion, and there should not be the transference of any of these territories from Britain to any other Empire or foreign Power before the natives concerned have had a say as to what should be their position. It is not an easy matter to get the opinion and consent of natives on any question.
It is easy to say these things, and we say in our Motion that their consent should be obtained, but when we start to obtain the opinion of the people in a given territory or colony we shall find many influences at work to get the opinion desired by the authority which happens to be holding the plebiscite. It will not be easy to get the consent of these populations until we have done a great deal more in the matter of education in the colonies than we are doing. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to take pride in what we are doing in the colonies, but he never answers a question entirely. If one looks at his answers to questions, as was the case to-day, he says that: "It is under consideration" nine times out of 10. He does not tell us definitely what he is doing, although he has taken great pleasure this afternoon in saying what he has done in the matter of education, health and other things, which I do not think he can justify as conditions are at the present time. I believe there is plenty of opportunity for the Secretary of State to do far more, and he could do far more if he did not have the Dominions under his wing as well as the colonies. I really think we ought to have a separate Secretary of State for the Dominions. There are so many things in the colonies which need doing that it is time the right hon. Gentleman attended to that work and to that work alone.
As I say, we are all agreed that no part of the Empire should be given to any other Power. But it is the central portion of this Motion upon which difference exists. That is Labour party policy, and has been Labour party policy for very many years. We do not believe that the present system of control and ownership of the colonies is a satisfactory one, and we suggest that it should be changed "as

1251
part of a general peace settlement." I do not see why we should be taken to task for making that suggestion. It is an important matter that there should be a general peace settlement. The Labour party is a peace party. It accepted the League of Nations, it accepted the idea that collective security could come only by co-operation between the nations of the world, and I think that if we could get international agreement to establish control over all these mandated territories, protectorates and colonies under a permanent mandate system we should be working towards a general peace settlement.
There are many parts of the Empire to-day which are not ripe for self-government, but there are also some that are nearly ripe, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be considering how far he can extend self-government in certain colonies which have not already got it. I wonder how many Members of the House have see the Permanent Mandates Commission at work at Geneva. Is it not true that those parts of the Colonial Empire which are under British Mandate are considered the best governed in the Colonial Empire? I think that can be stated as a fact, and I should like to see some of the non-self-governing colonies placed under an International Commission or under the Permanent Mandates Commission, with a connection with the International Labour Office, which ought to be an important factor in the good government of our colonies. My right hon. Friend dealt with the economic conditions in the colonies, and I agree with much of what he said. There is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not get together a conference of all the Powers which have colonies and seek to achieve the idea of giving peace to the world, which I think would come if we could place all the colonies in every part of the world which are not ripe for self-government under the Permanent Mandates Commission.
7.6 p.m.
Sir Walter Smiles: I will be very brief because I want to leave time for another speaker after me. I stand convicted as a man who has changed his mind, because in 1920 and 1922 or later I must admit that it was my desire and hope that at one time we should be on equal terms with Germany again, and up to about
1252
1928 I never wished to see Germany entirely deprived of her Colonial Empire. But since 1930 onwards I have changed my mind entirely, and I agree with the words of the last speaker—they have a familiar ring to me, being an Ulsterman—no surrender, not an inch. I think there are complaints from other people also about the way the Colonial Empire is administered, but they are not the same complaints as have come from the other side. I read an article the other day by Lord Beaverbrook. It was advertised in all the Lancashire papers. His view was that we do not look after our Colonial Empire, that the Colonies do not give enough preference to Lancashire cotton goods, and in return we do not give enough preference to the goods of the Colonies. I think there is considerable truth in that allegation. Lord Beaver-brook pointed to the example of Porto Rico and said that the trade there had gone up by leaps and bounds since America acquired that territory. I have gone into the case of Porto Rico and I have come to the conclusion that that is rather an artificial one, as that territory has been practically bought up by the Venezuela Oil Company.
On one point I do not agree with the last speaker, because I believe that the administration under the Colonial Office is very much superior to administration under the mandate system. I would point to the case of Palestine. In my opinion if Palestine had been properly administered, as India has been, we should not have been having such trouble to-day. If you had a Viceroy going out, a member of the House of Lords or perhaps an ex-Member from this House, and Palestine had a Civil Service like the Civil Service in India, with the same powers, I think that country would be in a much better state to-day. I believe those who are administering Palestine not only have their eye over their shoulder all the time watching the effect on the Colonial Office and on the House of Commons, but they are watching all sorts of other people—they are watching America and they are watching the effect on foreign countries. I believe that hampers them considerably.
I do not think enough has been said for the men who went out to Tanganyika and other parts of East Africa believing that they would always remain under the Union Tack. Some of those people went

1253
out there with their wives and families and settled down in the belief that they would be secure under the Union Jack and that they were going to make their way there, just as other pioneers have done in the colonies. I think we have a very great responsibility to those people. I am quite sure that at present enterprise is being hindered there and capital will not go into that country while there is such uncertainty about the future. I think that very definitely the time has come for us to say that these colonies in East Africa which are under the Union Jack will stay under the Union Jack. We are not going to yield them up to anyone—not an inch, and no surrender.
7.12 p.m.
Mr. Creech Jones: The mover of the Motion has cogently and eloquently argued his case, and I think there is unanimity in all parts of the House that at no time and under no circumstances should territories be surrendered or transferred to Germany. The Secretary of State has not altogether relieved us of the anxiety which has been felt in that respect. He twitted the Opposition on the ground that if the Motion were carried it would have a disturbing effect, but he has left the matter in such a state that the peoples who are directly concerned are a little apprehensive as to what may transpire when we are considering in the future a policy of appeasement with Germany. I feel, however, that there must be some concession made if peace is to be established in the near future, but such concession must be part of a general peace agreement.
The Amendment suggests that no change should be made without considering the interests and wishes of the inhabitants. The view held on these benches is that that proposition does not go nearly far enough. Reference has already been made to the discussions on the future of the South African Protectorates. That case illustrates the limitations of the Amendment. The people have the right to decide. We feel very strongly that this is not a matter which can be settled as a matter of bargaining; rather is it a thing which should be settled by the people directly concerned. The Amendment does not require the acquiescence of the inhabitants concerned, and therefore we cannot support it wholeheartedly. In some cases, too, we have
1254
direct treaty obligations, which must be respected by this country when any transfer is under consideration. We cannot flout those treaty rights. In any case we must take the line that the people who are concerned must be directly consulted about their future.
I think we have to guard ourselves against any charge of hypocrisy. Some of the speeches to-day suggested an extraordinary smugness in regard to British colonial administration. The Secretary of State made an idealistic speech, suggesting that all was well and progressing satisfactorily in our Colonial Empire. I have read speeches by hon. Members in which it has been declared that our colonial peoples enjoy all the blessings and freedom of impartial justice under British rule. We must admit, however, that there have been very unfortunate and regrettable episodes in British colonial administration, and it seems to me that if we do riot frankly face up to the fact that there are even to-day some very considerable blemishes in our colonial administration, we shall be exposing ourselves to the charge of hypocrisy by the dictators in Europe. It is true that we dare not allow any colonies to pass into the possession of those who hold the racial theories that arc dominant in Europe to-day; but we have to base our objection to the claims of Germany on broader grounds than the methods, good or bad, of German colonisation in days gone by, or in respect of any theory of race which the German Government hold at the present time. Our objection must, first, be based on the fact that the people of the colonies themselves do not desire such a transfer. Resolutions have been carried by the native peoples in all parts of the Colonial Empire, objecting to their becoming pawns in this game, or being bargained about between one Power and another.
In the second place, we must not countenance any movement which involves a further parcelling out of Africa and the extension of national jealousies and frontier obstructions that are already troubling Europe so much to-day. We must not go back to the old Victorian conception that colonial territories exist to be parcelled out among the Powers. That old individualism may have been all right before Africa had been developed and when various nations were vieing with each other in order to get new

1255
markets; but if it is to be perpetuated in the new world in which we exist to-day, it will lead to anarchy, to the clash of Imperialisms, to power politics, to the detriment of the native people, and it will undoubtedly lead to war. Therefore, I suggest that on that broad ground we cannot go back to the old individualism and the scramble for territory, but we must face up to the new conception of how Colonial territories should be developed.
The real problems in Africa are independent of boundaries and call largely for co-operative treatment by the civilised nations. The real problems of Africa are, how are we going to regulate the contract and migration of labour, how develop the continent, economically, how control water and forests rights, how deal with the problem of the health of the native people, the stopping of soil erosion, the development of agriculture, and the resources of the continent—how are we to educate the natives into the work of self-government, and how are we to campaign against disease, which smites men and animals. These are the pressing problems in Africa. It is unfortunate that Africa is full of impossible and irrational boundaries, cutting across tribes, and interfering with the rational development of the economic and social life of that great continent. Therefore, we cannot perpetuate the old national individualistic system, which tolerates irrational frontiers, which lead to an unsatisfactory check on sound economic policy, and which later leads to the growth of the economic nationalism which we know in Europe.
We cannot admit a further Power into the scramble for territory in Africa. Most of the mandatory territory was conquered in the War by the Allies and, as the Mover of the Motion pointed out, there is little argument that can be advanced by the German Government that she should become a Colonial Power because of the needs of her population or because of her need of raw materials and markets. The problem is essentially psychological. There is something in Germany's demand that her humiliation after the War should be completely wiped out and that we should observe one of the 14 points laid down by President Wilson in 1918, which was not included by the Allies in the peace that was made. Germany feels she has a case that only by the extension in
1256
the international field of her sovereignty can her prestige be fully recognised.
Great Britain cannot solve this problem alone, but we cannot drift into another war and allow this clash of interests to bring us to war and to the collapse of civilisation itself. Therefore, we must be prepared to consider conceding in a European settlement with other Powers something of national sovereignty so far as colonial territories are concerned. We ought to bring into conference the colonial powers and announce that we are prepared to discuss this problem whether something of our sovereignty can be conceded as part of the policy of appeasement. The suggestion has been made that a concession might be along the lines of an extension of international supervision, that the principles of the mandatory system might be further applied. I recognise that there are very real difficulties in regard to that. In the Debate this afternoon reference has been made to the methods of French administration and how difficult it would be to interfere with that administration by attempting to impose different conceptions of colonial administration. I suggest, nevertheless, that what is needed is some kind of international supervision so far as all colonial territories are concerned.
When we are talking about mandated territories it is well to remember that those territories are administered by mandate, although they are in the actual possession of colonial power administering. The suggestion which the Secretary of State seemed to make that some international authority would determine which territories should be administered and by whom, is foreign to the mandatory idea. The mandates were distributed by agreement among the Allies, and the sovereignty, conditioned by the terms of the mandate, of the respective nations holding those mandates was admitted. What we ask is, that we should extend the principle of international supervision by offering to agree that we will not be judges in our own case, but rather that in respect of our administration we will submit it to the test of world opinion. We will declare, as far as our colonial territories are concerned, for all the great and noble principles that are embodied in the declaration usually associated with the mandate. I suggest that we should be prepared to consider to what degree we

1257
can extend the mandatory principle by permitting inspection in our own territories by an international authority; whether we can report to an international body on our work and allow appeals to it; and in various ways permit world opinion to criticise the methods which we employ in carrying through the responsibilities that we have undertaken.
What we plead for is that trusteeship in respect of colonial territories shall be made real. We do not want trusteeship merely to mean some cloak for annexation. We want to be subject to the criticism of the world as to the way in which we discharge our colonial responsibilities. Seeing we cannot meet the German claim by surrendering an inch of territory what we ask is that we should consider whether some concession can be made to Germany by admitting her to her place on an international authority, an equal power with the other colonial Powers and representatives of the natives governed, and, further, so far as all colonial territories are concerned, whether the principles embodied in the mandate can be extended to our territories so that we may submit to international examination and supervision.
By a policy such as I have mentioned we could admit Germany to the international authority, recognise her right to share in the administration by a place on that international authority, and extend the principle that certain of her nationals might be employed in the scientific and technical services of the colonial territories. In that way we should be going some way towards restoring German prestige and meeting her claims. This nation, important as it is as a great colonial Power, should declare itself in favour of this new and better idea of administering colonial territories. Living as we do in a new world created largely since the War, a world that is becoming one great unit, it is imperative that we should recognise in colonial development
the contribution that all great Powers can make. We want the wealth and resources of the colonies to be made available for the benefit of the people concerned and the world. We as a great colonial Power should declare that we are willing to carry on our colonial administration under the eye of an international authority, and subject to world opinion. If we do that, and accept the principles associated with the mandates we shall show that we are not ashamed of having our methods checked and inspected by those whose only interest is the prosperity and welfare of the territories and the peoples concerned.
7.29 p.m.
Sir Henry Morris-Jones: One would imagine from the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken that the British colonial territories to which he has referred are among the most dissatisfied and most restless territories in the world. As a matter of fact, surveying the world as a whole, one finds that the colonies of the British Empire are about the happiest parts. We were all delighted with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, and we realise that in his position he was not able to make a categorical statement in regard to the disposal of colonies so far as the demands of Germany are concerned. We may, however, take note of the fact that so far as this House is concerned, if a vote were taken on that particular issue to-day, it would be almost unanimous against the cession of any territory whatsoever to any European Power that we have in mind at the present time. I am sure the Government will take note of the position as it has been disclosed in today's proceedings.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 253

Division No. 12.]

AYES.

[7.30 p.m.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Bevan, A.

Cove, W. G.

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

Broad, F. A.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Dagger, G.

Adamson, W. M.

Buchanan, G.

Dalton, H.

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

Burks, W. A.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Cape, T.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Charleton, H. C.

Day, H.

Banfield, J. W.

Chafer, D.

Dabble, W.

Barnes, A. J.

cluse, W. S.

Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)

Ballenger, F. J.

Clyne', Rt. Hon. J. R.

Ede, J. C.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Cocks, F. S.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Benson, G.

Collindridge, F.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

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

McGhee, H. G.

Shinwell, E.

Foot, D. M.

MaeLaren, A.

Silverman, S. S.

Frankel, D.

Maclean, N.

Simpson, F. B.

Gibbins, J.

MacNeill Weir, L.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Mander, G. le M.

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

Groves, T. E.

Marshall, F.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Mathers, G.

Sorensen, R. W.

Hardie, Agnes

Maxton, J.

Stephen, C.

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Messer, F.

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

Hayday, A.

Montague, F.

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

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

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

Thorne, W.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

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

Thurtie, E.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Muff, G.

Tinker, J. J.

Hopkin, D.

Oliver, G. H.

Tomlinson, G.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Parker, J.

Viant, S. P.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Parkinson, J. A.

Walkden, A. G.

John, W.

Pearson, A.

Walker, J.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

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

Watson, W. McL.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Price, M. P.

Welsh, J. C.

Kelly, W. T.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Westwood, J.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Ridley, G.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Riley, B.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Leach, W.

Ritson, J.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Lee, F.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Leonard, W.

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Leslie, J. R.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Logan. D. G.

Sanders, W. S.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Seely, Sir H. M.

McEntee, V. La T.

Sexton, T. M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Noel-Baker and Mr. Lunn.

NOES

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

Cross, R. H.

Harbord, A.

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

Crossley, A. C.

Harvey, Sir C.

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

Crowder, J. F. E.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Apsley, Lord

Culverwell, C. T.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Aske, Sir R. W.

Davidson, Viscountess

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Holy-Hutchinson, M. R.

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

De Chair, S. S.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

De la Bère, R.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hepworth, J.

Balniel, Lord

Denville, Alfred

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Doland, G. F.

Higgs, W. F.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Dower, Major A. V. G.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.

Drewe, C.

Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

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

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Holdsworth, H.

Beechman, N. A.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Holmes, J. S.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Dunglass, Lord

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Bernays, R. H

Eastwood, J. F.

Hopkinson, A.

Bird, Sir R. B.

Eckersley, P. T.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Blair, Sir R.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Boyce, H. Leslie

Ellis, Sir G.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Bracken, B.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Hunloke, H. P.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Emery, J. F.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Emmett, C. E. G. C

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Joel, D. J. B.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Mostrose)

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Errington, E.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Kimball, L.

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

Everard, W. L.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Bull, B. B.

Fleming, E. L.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Furness, S. N.

Lancaster, Captain C. G.

Butcher, H. W.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Butler, R. A.

Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

Leech, Sir J. W.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Cluckstein, L. H.

Lees-Jones, J.

Carver, Major W. H.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Cary, R. A.

Goldie, N. B.

Lennox Boyd, A. T. L.

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

Gower, Sir R. V.

Lewis, O.

Cazetet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Liddell, W. S.

Channon, H.

Grant-Ferris, R.

Little, Sir E. Graham-

Chapman, A. (Ruthergten)

Granville, E. L.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Lloyd, G. W.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Gratton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Loftus, P. C.

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Grimston, R. V.

Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

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

Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

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

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

Hambre, A. V.

Macdonald. Capt. P. (isle of Wight)

Cox, Trevor

Hammersley, S. S.

McKie, J. H.

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Macnamara, Major J. R. J.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Markham, S. F.

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Sutcliffe, H.

Marsden, Commander A.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Tanker, Sir R. I.

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

Riskards, G. W. (Skipton)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

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

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Thomas, J. P. L.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Titchfield Marquess of

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

Rowlands, G.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. G.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Turton, R. H.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Russell, Sir Alexander

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

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

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Munro, P.

Salmon, Sir I.

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

Nall, Sir J.

Salt, E. W.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Sandys, E. D.

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Schuster, Sir G. E.

Wayland, Sir W. A

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Shaw, Mayor P. S. (Wavertree)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

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

Patrick, C. M.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Peake, O.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Peat, C. U.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Petherick, M.

Smith, Sir Louie (Hallam)

Wise, A. R.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Somerset, T

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Porritt, R. W.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Pownatl, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Wragg, H.

Procter, Major H. A.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Young, A. S. L. (Patrick)

Purbrick, R.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Radford, E. A.

Spans, W. P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)

Colonel Ponsonby and Mr. Orr-Ewing.

Ramsbotham, H.

Storey, S.

Rankin, Sir R.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."
Mr. Collindridge Mr. Collindridge rose—
It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

CENSORSHIP AND RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. Mander: I beg to move,
"That this House, attaching the utmost importance to the maintenance undiminished of British democratic traditions of the liberty of expression of opinion, both in the Press and in public meetings and also in other media such as cinema films, would greatly deplore any action by the Government of the day which tended to set up any form of political censorship or which exercised pressure direct or indirect."
I am submitting to the House a Motion drawn in terms which should make it possible for all hon. Members to accept it, and I very much hope that that will be the result of the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) has an Amendment on the Order Paper, but I hope he will feel that it is not necessary for him to press it, because it is quite possible for the Government to say that they entirely agree with the terms of the Motion while repudiating through the Home Secretary any suggestion
1262
that they have themselves done anything in conflict with its terms. The Motion is not directed at any particular Government, but any Government at any time is covered by it. At the same time, I am bound to base my criticisms on recent actions of the present Government. I think it was the author of the Letters of Junius who said:
" Liberty of the Press is the basis of all civil, political and religious rights of Englishmen."
That is as true now as it was then, but, unfortunately, the situation which exists here is different from that which exists in many other countries. In Germany and Italy the Press is entirely controlled by the Government. Journalists have been made civil servants; they go about in uniform or rather in livery as I suppose I must call it, and are entirely under the control of the Government. Efforts have certainly been made in the interests of the authoritarian States to interfere with the liberty of the Press. In France we have had a recent example where the Minister of Justice refused to sign a decree interfering with the liberty of the Press on the demand of the German Government, and there have been instances in Switzerland and Denmark, as well. I know that representations have been made in this country that some check should be put upon the Press. The

1263
great danger in these matters is that they may lead to a tendency to identify the Government of the day with the State, and suggest that any criticism of the Government of the day is a criticism of the State itself. We want to check any tendency of that kind in this country. It is not in accordance with our traditions, but it is exactly what is taking place in the dictator States. We must be ready to resist attacks on British liberty whether they come from abroad or at home.
I propose to deal only with two particular aspects of this problem. Since I put down the Motion a mass of material has been brought to my attention which it would take me far too long to deal with. I propose to deal only with the Press and the cinema newsreels. No doubt other hon. Members will deal with other aspects of the matter, including the Official Secrets Act, with regard to which I wish to make only this passing reference. The House knows that recently I put one or two questions to the Attorney-General concerning certain actions which took place some years ago with regard to two Lobby journalists. I supplied the right hon. and learned Gentleman with certain information. Apparently that information was not sufficient, and I have now supplied him with more, which has enabled him to identify the incident in question, and it has been authenticated. There are certain variations from the form in which I actually put it down originally, but the substance is the same. It is a fact that in May, 1931, two Lobby journalists were interviewed at the Royal Courts of Justice on behalf of the Attorney-General of the day, in accordance with a procedure which it had been agreed upon in the year before would be followed when any question of Lobby journalists and the Official Secrets Act arose. The actual question was the disclosure of the Government's intention to challenge the legality of agreements under which certain miners were working. The interview took place, and the Attorney-General decided that it was not a case in which any action should be taken. I mention this only to establish that that particular incident did, in fact, take place.
I think it may be said that the liberty of the Press in this country dates from the year 1695, when the Press Censor
1264
ship Law was not renewed. It was omitted by the House of Commons from what we should now call the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. But although that was so, it appears that subsidies continued to be paid by the State to different journals for a number of years after wards. That was quite a usual thing in the seventeenth century. It is interesting to note that John Walter the First, of the "Times," was in receipt of i30o a year, which was paid regularly by the Treasury, and that this was brought to an end when John Walter the Second came in control in 1803. I venture to call the attention of the House to a rather interesting incident that occurred in the middle of last century, when there was an attempt by the Government of the day to interfere with the liberty of the Press. In December, 1851, Louis Napoleon, who was then President of the French Republic, proclaimed himself Emperor of the French. Lord Palmerston, who was Foreign Secretary at the time, publicly approved of the action without in any way consulting the Queen or his colleagues, and as a result he resigned from office shortly afterwards. The "Times" thundered against both Lord Palmerston and Louis Napoleon. The Government were so much disturbed that they tried to stop the mouth of the "Times," entirely without success. Lord John Russell's Government resigned two months later, and Lord Derby formed a Government.
In the Debate on the Address, the Prime Minister ventured to lecture the "Times" as to the proper way in which it should conduct itself as a newspaper, and the great Delane, who was the editor, instructed Robert Lowe, afterwards Lord Sherbrooke, to write two leading articles, which appeared on 6th and 7th February, 1852, setting out the right attitude, as he conceived it, of a newspaper in dealing with public affairs. The articles are exceedingly interesting to read. I will read certain passages from each of the articles, and hon. Members will be able to form an opinion as to whether they bear any relationship to events that have been happening in our own times. On 6th February, 1852, the leading article stated:
"It may suit the purposes of statesmen to veil the statue of Liberty, and to mutter some formulary of disingenuous acquiescence in foreign wrongs, dictated by their fears rather

1265
than by their convictions; but we prefer to await for our justification the day when the entombed and oppressed liberties of Europe shall once more start into life and array themselves under the standard to which we cling. For to what, after all, are the statesmen of England to look for strength and national power, if injuries and offences rise against us, but to the enlightened resolution of the people of England to uphold the principles on which our own policy and independence are founded."
The article on 7th February, 1852, said:
"The duty of the journalist is the same as that of the historian—to seek out truth, above all things, and to present to his readers, not such things as statecraft would wish them to know, but the truth, as near as he can attain to it."
With those words in our ears, one is inclined to say:
"O! for the touch of a vanish'd hand, And the sound of a voice that is still."
I want now to advance to the Press nearer our own times. Let me say at once that I recognise to the full that certain contacts between His Majesty's Ministers and the Press are proper, desirable, and in the public interest, and that nothing should be done to discourage them, particularly when they are contacts with editors and trained journalists who are in the habit of dealing with matters of that kind. I may, perhaps, refer to the interviews which it has been the habit of the Foreign Secretary to hold with editors, both London and provincial, where information has been given and sometimes questions answered. I find, from information which has come to me, that there has been a change in this during recent months; that, for instance, during the period when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was Foreign Secretary, the exchanges were much more frank and free and there was far less of a tendency to press the point of view of the Government, but that under the present Foreign Secretary things are not as happy in that direction as they were at an earlier date. As an illustration of this, I venture to quote an example that occurred on 8th March last. Let me say first that, as far as the Press is concerned, the usefulness of these interviews is destroyed if the meeting is made the occasion for a direct statement without the opportunity of any questions being put, or for a review of the situation which reflects only the point of view of the
1266
Government, and tacitly ignores all others.
On 8th March last, before the German occupation of Austria, Lord Halifax held a conference, such as I have described, at the Foreign Office. The subject was not so much Austria—no surprise development was hinted at—as the forthcoming talks with Italy which resulted in the Anglo-Italian Agreement. Possible talks with Germany were also mentioned. It was stated that the Government did not desire to tell editors how to run their newspapers, but felt it would be in the general interests of the country if pinpricking of Hitler and Mussolini in the British Press should cease during the period of the talks, and that currency should not be given to unsupported rumours which often emanate from European capitals. Lord Halifax was at once asked whether he would include the Paris report of the Hoare-Laval plan for the partition of Abyssinia among those unsupported rumours which the Government had in mind. His reply was most diplomatic and inclusive.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): From whom is the hon. Member quoting?
Mr. Mander: I take full responsibility for what I am saying. It is the impression made on a person who was present on the occasion, but, of course, I have no intention under any circumstances of saying who was the person.
Sir S. Hoare: An anonymous person who was present at a confidential interview.
Mr. Mander: Some person who felt he was serving the public interest in supplying me with this information and showing up the whole thing. Whether the Official Secrets Act is used against me or not, I do not care—I am going on. Lord Halifax appealed to the Press to refrain from comment on the Anglo-Italian negotiations until the result was known. Let hon. Members consider what that means. For months and months there was to be no criticism of what was being done in spite of the feeling of the country. It was commented upon afterwards that once the result had been achieved, the country would be faced with a fait accompli with little hope of criticism at that stage proving effective. Obviously,

1267
that would have been so. The impression gained by those who attended the conference was that Britain did not intend to interfere between Germany and Austria. It was admitted that if there were trouble in Czechoslovakia the position might be different, but it was indicated that even there if the conquest were of the "peaceful penetration" type, the British Government would probably do nothing. And that was six months before the crisis.
I quote that as an example of what has been happening at some of these conferences. While, as I have said, normal contacts are excellent and to be encouraged in every way, it appears that during the crisis the Government did develop a new technique, or, at any rate, they used it very much more strenuously than on any previous occasion. They made direct approaches—I think that is the right word—to the proprietors of newspapers; they were not content to deal with the trained journalists, editors and others concerned. That was at a time when the ordinary flow of information from the Foreign Office was very restricted, no doubt largely due to the fact that the policy being pursued was the personal policy of the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Office knew very little about it. That new technique was carried out by the Inner Cabinet, and I am bound to say that, according to my information—and I assure the House that I have thoroughly investigated, checked and counter-checked, everything that I am saying to-night, or I would not dream of saying it—the person who played the biggest part in that was the right hon. Gentleman who now adorns the Government Front Bench, the Home Secretary. He was a sort of propaganda minister, and no doubt a very admirable one; that he did the job with great strenuousness and ability, I do not doubt for a moment.
These approaches, I am sure, were very subtle; they were very discreet, and there was nothing blatant about them—a "shadowed hint" would describe them. I think the real description was given in a reply which the Prime Minister gave to me recently. I asked him whether advice had been tendered to the owners and editors of newspapers, and he said, "No, neither directly nor indirectly." I pressed him as to whether representations had been made, and he evaded answering that question, but he did say the other
1268
day that the attention of the American Ambassador had been called to a certain film, and the American Ambassador then drew the necessary conclusion. Therefore, I suppose that in these interesting interviews which took place, what the Home Secretary did—I am sure he did it most agreeably—was to call the attention of his visitors to a certain international situation, and hope they would draw their own conclusions as to what they should do about it. I imagine that it would work out in that way. But I do say that there is some danger in pursuing a course of this kind. After all, journalists are used to dealing with these matters. They understand them, and they know precisely how much attention to pay to what they may be told by Ministers, and often it is very great, but rather different considerations arise, if persons who are not so intimately in contact with the daily life of journalism are brought into the picture. I leave it there. I think the dangers are obvious.
I do not want to suggest that all this strenuous propaganda had much effect. I believe that our British Press is the freest in the whole world, that it is perfectly capable of looking after itself and that it would keenly resent any attempt by the Government, however subtle, to instruct it on the particular line which it ought to take about foreign affairs. I do not, therefore, wish to suggest that the Press was very much affected. That is not the point of my remarks. But I was interested to notice that the "Evening Standard" the other night took a rather different view. They think that the danger lies in a different direction. The "Evening Standard" in a leading article said:
"The danger is rather the encroachment of official restriction upon the publication of all kinds of news. This ranges from discussion of the strength and the movement of armed forces known to everyone outside the country, and withheld only from our citizens, to the publication of mere police information. Here is the real insidious advance of censorship which in the end must lead to wide and perhaps fatal breaches in the rampart of English liberties. Beat off the raiders now, before the main host of the enemy is at the gates."
That is the view of the "Evening Standard." Now I propose to be rather more precise in regard to the Press than I have been up to the present, and I propose to mention the names of certain journals. First of all, with regard to the

1269
"Times," I think it is perfectly clear that no special steps were necessary in the case of that journal, in view of the intimate, constant and happy relations that exist between those responsible for that journal and the sources of power and information. I do not propose to say anything about the "Times" except this. We all remember the passage in the leading article which started the rot and which suggested that there should be cession of territory—the first time anyone had dared to suggest it—to Germany. Frankly, I do not believe that paragraph would ever have been inserted if it had been thought that it was unacceptable—I do not say to the Foreign Secretary or to the Government—I say to the Prime Minister, and I leave it at that.
I wonder whether the Home Secretary when he speaks would care to deny, or whether he is in a position to deny, for example, that approaches were made, that contacts were established, that visits were paid to the Home Office, that interviews took place between Members of the Cabinet, particularly himself and those responsible for the "Daily Mirror" which was then conducting a strongly anti-Chamberlain campaign—the "Daily Telegraph" and the "Daily Mail." I wonder whether he would care to deny that he was in communication with Lord Southwood on behalf of the "Daily Herald," that Lord Southwood came to see him and that representations were made to him that it would be of great assistance to the Government if the airraid precautions plan of the Government were not attacked in the way it had been, and if a certain line were taken upon foreign policy. I am informed that the Home Secretary said to one responsible editor about this time that it would be fatal to advocate resistance to Germany, because we were in no position to resist.
Sir S. Hoare: Will the hon. Member be more precise and give particulars of this?
Mr. Mander: I have no intention of giving away the source of my information.
Sir S. Hoare: I beg to challenge the hon. Member. I say that what he is stating is without any foundation at all.
Mr. Mander Mr. Mander rose—
Sir S. Hoare: Will the hon. Member withdraw what he has said.
Mr. Mander: I will certainly. I am bound to accept any statement of that kind that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I can assure him that I have not made those statements without having had up to the present moment—I must bow to what he says—every reason to believe that they represented the truth and that was the view of the person to whom the statement was made.
Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Member ought not to pay attention to irresponsible gossip.
Mr. Mander: The Home Secretary will not be able to get away with it like that. I have made a number of statements which are known to far too many people for him to deny them and say that they are irresponsible. I venture to say that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to speak he will not be in a position to dispute a good many of the things which I have said, because they are very w ell-known to a considerable number of people. There is no doubt about the fact that at that time very unusual pressure was exercised by the Government on the Press. All possible wires were pulled in order to get the Press on to the side of the Government and to get them to represent that the right policy was the one which was being pursued by the Government—a policy which, incidentally, was regarded by the whole of the Opposition and by a very important section of the Conservative party as being a shameful betrayal. That is the position as I see it.
I now pass to the subject of news reels. This is a very important new medium. There do not exist with regard to it the same traditions as those which have been established with regard to the Press over a long period of years in this country. Some of those responsible for news reels try to realise their usefulness as a very important organ of information. Others are not so careful about that side of it, and are perhaps interested more in the purely commercial side. There is no doubt that the difficulties with regard to alleged censorship which exists here are not altogether, but very largely, the fault of the cinema people and the exhibitors themselves. If they would only show a little more courage, if they would only stand up and say, "We are not going to be interfered with by the Board of Censors on political matters," they have, to a large extent, got the matter in their

1271
own hands. I hope that in future they will take a firmer line when any attempts are made to interfere with them. But I do assert that there is, in connection with the news reels, a definite political censorship which is hostile to the Opposition and friendly to the Government. I do not necessarily say that the Government themselves are directly influencing it, but I say that such a thing exists and that there is no question about it.
There is, of course, the British Board of Film Censors of which Lord Tyrrell is the chairman and Mr. Brooke Wilkinson secretary. It is an unofficial body, and it is extremely convenient that that should be so, because, of course, the Government can say, "They have nothing to do with us; they can do anything they like." But that does not prevent useful contacts being established with the Government all the same. This Board of Film Censors is supposed to deal with questions of morals only, but on many occasions there has been political action. Before I proceed to give examples of that I would like to make a brief reference to a new type of film which is coming into use, what is called the "non-flam" film. These films are outside the Act and can be shown in any hall in the country. There is great anxiety among those connected with them lest an attempt should be made to impose some sort of control or censorship upon them, and it would be a great relief to many of them if the Home Secretary were able to say to-night that it was not the desire of the Government that they should be interfered with or controlled in any way, and that they would be allowed to carry on in accordance with the law, without any form of censorship, unofficial or otherwise, such as they fear is contemplated at the moment. I hope this fear can be shown to be groundless.
I pass to a brief reference to a case mentioned in the newspapers yesterday of the filming of scenes of the "Relief of Lucknow." According to the information in the Press generally, the producers of the film were informed by the Board of Censors that owing to the official attitude there would be no hope of a certificate for it, and that it was being banned on the intervention of the India Office. I do not know anything more than that statement in the Press, but, no doubt, the Home Secretary will be able to deal with
1272
that point. It may be a good thing that this film should not be made. I do not know enough about it to express an opinion, but if that is so, let us be told, publicly and openly, that the Government have intervened and think it desirable that the film should not be made, rather than that there should be any suggestion that it is only an unofficial body which has intervened. If there is a proper censorship, let us know about it. Do not let us hide behind the pretence that such a thing as a censorship does not exist.
The first case of political censorship to which I would refer was in reference to the Peace Film which was got up in 1936 by some people associated with the League of Nations Union to put forward a point of view in which at one time the Home Secretary himself was very much interested. It was held up by the British Board of Film Censors as controversial. As a result of Press exposure, it was widely shown throughout the country. Then there was the case of one of the "March of Time" films called "Arms and the League." This took place at the time of the resignation of the late Foreign Secretary, and the film was not shown after the Board of Censors had expressed their view. Then there was another "March of Time" film called "Threat to Gibraltar" showing the threatened grip by the Fascists on the Mediterranean, owing to the situation in Spain. That, again, was banned owing to the intervention of the Board.
The next one was "Crisis in Algeria," showing the possibilities of a North African coup by a Fascist State. That again was badly cut. Many other cuts took place in such films as "Inside Nazi Germany," "Nazi Conquest No. I (Austria),"and" Croix de Feu." In November, 1937, there was a film called "Spanish Earth," which was cut because it contained the outrageous suggestion that Germany and Italy were intervening in Spain. The most important of the films is "Britain's Dilemma," which some hon. Members of this House, I know, have seen. It was shown in the United States under that name, and it was very much appreciated, I understand, by everybody. It was based on events in Europe in relation to the policy laid down in "Mein Kampf." It dealt with the well known events of the retreat from

1273
the League, Manchuria, Abyssinia, Spain, China, and it stopped short at Czechoslovakia. Here, after a number of cuts had been made, it was re-titled "Britain and Peace," but the cuts were made because it was considered dangerous to show in this country what had happened in those instances, in which everybody on this side of the House believed the Government to have been wholly wrong, but apparently it was not desired that more than one point of view should be shown.
Mr. Fleming: In all those instances that the hon. Member has mentioned is it the case that the cuts were ordered at the instance of the British Board of Film Censors?
Mr. Mander: Yes, that is so. The British Board of Film Censors on one occasion indicated to those who were thinking of making a film that it would not be desirable to show anything of an anti-Fascist nature because it would not be possible to convince the Italian Government that the British Government were not in control of the films here and, therefore, that it was not Government propaganda. That is a very deplorable suggestion. I will ask the House to observe that in all these examples which I have given, in every case where cuts have been made nothing anti-Government, nothing anti-Fascist, is permitted, but anything that is favourable to the policy that the Government are pursuing is allowed to go forward. I venture to say that it is not the job of the British Board of Film Censors to deal with political matters of this kind at all. It is monstrous that they should be permitted to carry on this subtle kind of unofficial political censorship. Who asks them to be political? I do not say by any means that it is always done at the direct instigation of the Government—that is not one of my charges to-night, but I believe that a great deal is done on what they believe would be acceptable or otherwise to the Government, according to their own ideas—but I do believe there is pressure by Government Departments or by their friends at times. It is widely alleged in the Press and elsewhere that the Conservative Central Office is not wholly disinterested in or without knowledge of what is going on.
I may, perhaps, be permitted to quote from a resolution which was sent to me
1274
recently, since this Motion was put down, by the News Theatres Association, a body representing from 80 to 90 per cent. of the news theatre interests in this country, and the resolution was as follows:
"News Theatres in association have instructed me (that is, the Secretary) to say that they would resist by every legitimate means within their power the censorship of the news reel, or other screen news, which some might desire to impose—either officially or unofficially, from outside or inside the industry.
I am desired to place it on record that, should the occasion arise, the members of this association would be more than prepared to join forces with the public, the industry, the Press, and others concerned to preserve the complete liberty of the 'Screen Press.'"
I suggest that the Home Secretary could render a very great service in connection with this whole matter if he was able to say in his speech to-night that, so far as the Government are concerned, they do not wish to exercise any influence whatsoever on the British Board of Film Censors, that that board must be guided wholly by its duty of censorship on moral grounds, that if on any occasion the Government do feel called upon to intervene, they will openly say so, but that otherwise it roust be clearly understood that the Government are not interested. I seriously appeal to the Home Secretary to make such a statement to-night, if he feels able to do so, because I am sure that it would clear up a great deal of apprehension and misunderstanding that certainly exist now.
I now come to the last but most interesting case. During the crisis four out of the five news reel theatres played down the Czechoslovakian point of view, but Paramount gave it space and gave a number of pictures of happy life in Czechoslovakia. One hon. Member of this House told me that he had seen it and that he had immediately notified his friends and had urged them to see it, because, he said, "I do not suppose this will be tolerated for very long." It was not tolerated for more than one day. In order to give the point of view of Czechoslovakia—because, after all, I suppose the people of this country have some right to hear that side—Paramount invited Mr. Wickham Steed and Mr. A. J. Cummings to speak during the reel. The film was issued on the evening of 21st September, and it was withdrawn on 22nd September. A telegram was sent by British Paramount News to all its theatres, saying:

1275
"Please delete Wickham Steed and A. J. Cummings' speeches from to-day's Paramount news. We have been officially requested to do so."
Later on they denied that they had been officially requested to do so and said they had done it at their own discretion, but, unfortunately for them, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the whole show away, and I would remind the House of what took place. I asked the Prime Minister on 23rd November:
"Why representations were recently made by His Majesty's Government to the American Embassy for the withdrawal from a Paramount news reel of items contributed by Mr. Wickham Steed and Mr. A. J. Cummings?
Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government considered that certain passages in the news reel referred to, which was being shown at the time of the Prime Minister's conversations with Herr Hitler at Godesberg, might have a prejudicial effect upon the negotiations. The Ambassador of the United States, I understand, thought it right to communicate this consideration to a member of the Hays organisation which customarily deals with matters of this kind and which brought it to the attention of Paramount News, who, from a sense of public duty in the general interest, decided to make certain excisions from the news reel."
He was asked various other questions, but the only relevant reply was:
"I do not know of the other cases, but in the present case His Majesty's Government are grateful to the Ambassador of the United States, and I am glad that the Ambassador and ourselves were in complete accord."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1938; cols. 1727–8; Vol. 341.]
It is very interesting to find such an accommodating Ambassador—very remarkable. The matter was raised again by me later, and the Prime Minister then gave the impression to the House that no such incident had ever taken place. He said, however, at the third time of asking:
"The attention of the American Ambassador was drawn to certain items, and he was asked to look into the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1938; col. 584, Vol. 342.]
There you get a perfectly clear and open case of political censorship by the Government of the day in the interests of the foreign policy that they were pursuing, and it was a foreign policy which was detested by probably half the nation. It is not as if you were dealing with a case where you had national unity and 95 per cent. of the people thinking one thing. That would have been very different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]
1276
If hon. Members say "Why?" I will agree that it is not desirable to have any censorship at all, under any circumstances, but I submit that you must have a sense of proportion. If they wish no censorship at all, I am fully in agreement with them.
What were the words that were withdrawn? What was it that was said by these two gentlemen? I will tell the House. In the course of an objective narrative of events Paramount introduced Mr. Wickham Steed as a former editor of the "Times" and a friend of President Masaryk. We know that he is one of the most distinguished journalists in the world to-day. He then introduced Mr. Cummings in the following terms:
"British Paramount News, seeking still further independent and informed opinion, interviewed the famous foreign affairs journalist, Mr. A. J. Cummings; and for the man-in-the-street's viewpoint sought the popular broadcasting taxi-driver, Mr. Herbert Hodge."
That is what Mr. Wickham Steed said:
"Has England surrendered? Who is 'England'?—the Government or Parliament or the people? The British Parliament has not surrendered for it has not been convened, and still less have the British people. Our Government, together with that of France, is trying to make a present to Hitler—for use against us when he may think the time has come—of the 3,000,000 men and the thousands of aeroplanes that he would need to overcome Czechoslovak resistance. Hitler does not want to fight—oh, no! He only wants to get without fighting more than he would be able to get by fighting. And we seem to be helping him to get it. And all this because British and French Ministers feared to take a risk when they could have taken it successfully and believed they could diminish the risk by helping Hitler to gain a triumph—when he was at his wit's end—instead of standing up to him."
I turn to Herbert Hodge and A. J. Cummings, and the dialogue went in this way:
"Hodge: Well, Mr. Cummings, what do you think of the news? Everybody's saying to me that England has surrendered to Hitler. Do you think that's right?
Cummings: Well, beyond a doubt, Hitler has won an overwhelming diplomatic triumph for German domination in Europe. Nothing in future will stop him but a mass war.
Hodge: I think most of us, although we want peace with all our hearts, would be prepared to go to war if it was a case of either going to war or allowing Hitler to dominate Europe."
I thought that was the policy of the Government. The dialogue continues:

1277
"Cummings: The fact is our statesmen have been guilty of what I think is a piece of yellow diplomacy."
Perhaps that is what the Government did not like.
"If in good time we had made a joint declaration with France and with Russia making clear our intentions, and stating emphatically and in express terms that we would prevent the invasion of Czechoslovakia, I'm certain that Hitler would not have faced that formidable combination. If we were not prepared to go to the extreme limit we should certainly not have engaged in a game of bluff with the finest poker player in Europe.
Hodge: What worries me about it all, Mr. Cummings, is whether we've simply postponed war for another year or two against a much stronger Hitler of the future.
Cummings: I am afraid we've only postponed war; and frankly, I am very fearful about what is yet in store for millions of young men of military age in all the countries of Europe."
I can see nothing improper in these statements. They represented the views of a very large proportion of people in this House and the country, but the Government censored them. They would not allow them to be said. They took every step in their power to prevent the opposition point of view being presented. The other side of it was not interfered with. We could have plenty of pictures of the Prime Minister and we could hear all the "try, try and try again "slogans, and things of that kind. There was no limit to that, but anything that represented the opposition point of view was not to be allowed to be shown in the cinemas of this country. That was a most improper action by the Government.
I hope that the ventilation of this subject to-night, even if the Government try to make out that a great deal of it is not quite as represented, must do a great deal to stop the growth of censorship, direct or indirect, and to prevent it arising in future. I venture to hope that we shall show, in spite of the spread of dictatorship in so many great countries, that we are still a true democracy, that we are prepared to hear all views and to have every aspect of political matters laid before us, and, to the best of our ability, choose that which we think is wisest. If ever this country were to be gagged and bound and our centuries-long liberties interfered with, we may have peace, but it would not be England. I hope that by passing this Motion to-night unanimously we shall show we are the freest people in the world.
Mr. R. Acland: I beg to second the Motion.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Beechman: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add:
"but is fully satisfied that His Majesty's Government have maintained these traditions unimpaired."
I am sure that nobody in the House will regret the fact, that on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) time is being expended on considering the question of liberty. At this time, when liberty is being so brutally assailed in those very countries which owe their existence to its impulse, it is most proper that this House should inquire into liberty and be as vigilant as possible. I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend said in opening when he indicated that in substance we agree. He was very cautious about disclosing his authorities. I noticed that at the outset he was careful to preserve the anonymity of the author of the Letters of Junius, and if it is in order at this late date to give away the name of Philip Francis, I will do so. For my part, I will quote somebody whose name I am not in any way hesitant to announce, and who is known to my hon. Friend as a most reliable authority. I take my stand in this matter of liberty upon this famous declaration of John Stuart Mill:
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friend that if he ever were to find himself in the position of being in a minority of one in relation to mankind—an honourable office for which by his courage in criticism, his pertinacity in questions and his situation in politics he is not altogether ill adapted—I can assure him that I should conceive it to be my duty to do all that lay in my power to see that he had an opportunity of stating his case.
But there are further reasons why it is important that we should do all we can to make sure that we are holding fast to the foundations of our liberties. Liberty has had to be fought for, and it is easily lost. We have seen it lost by the swift and sudden imposition of dictatorships, and I recognise, and we in this House

1279
recognise, that it can be lost by a process of attrition, by a whittling away here, by a paring away there. There is a third way in which, indeed, it can be lost, and that is by a constant carping, by a constant criticism of every and any act of intervention by the State, by a denunciation of every sort of sacrifice that may be called for irrespective of whether that act of intervention or sacrifice is directed to reinforcing liberty or to repressing it.
Therefore, it seems to me that when we come to assess the quality of every restriction that may come up for criticism we have to consider the whole matter, we have to consider liberty in relation to the realities of the modern world, and when we do this I think we find that one of the reasons, and the main reasons, why, after all these years of struggling towards the light, when we thought we were progressing more and more in the field of liberty, there has been of late this cruel and terrible reversal, it is that in spite of all the progress that has been made in the field of liberty the peoples in Europe, and to some extent in this country, feel that progress is being clogged; they feel that they are being shut out in some way, they do not know how, from the immense opportunities and benefits which are being offered in the modern world as a result of the rapid advances in science.
Democracy has to face a challenge. It is not by denunciation of others, not by criticism of others, primarily, that we shall save our liberty, but by showing positively that democracy and liberty can be put to the use of mankind for the purposes which I have indicated. There has grown up in the minds of men, as a result, an antithesis between the idea of efficiency and the idea of liberty. I must say for myself that if it was a question as to which I should prefer, I should he disposed to sacrifice efficiency to liberty, but I think that we in this House feel very strongly that it is only by having liberty that we can have efficiency, that it is only by exposing defects that we can have things work as we want them to work, and that it is only by freedom of discussion that we can have the ideas which make for progress. In that way I should like to remind my hon. Friend that the very first bulwark of liberty is in this House, where he so often asks his questions. He has rather suggested that the Government have been allowing to grow
1280
up an atmosphere in which this liberty is no longer as pristine as it was.
What is at the basis of this freedom of discussion? It is that we should be free to choose the truth. It is not enough to have truth thrust at us; we must be free to choose, and I should like to say that the National Government have, in the most anxious and difficult conditions, done the most remarkable work in preserving the poise of liberty. Only this Session we were all delighted in this House to find that at a time when in other countries people were being put into concentration camps for no crime at all the Secretary of State for Home Affairs was introducing a Criminal Justice Bill which shows how deeply we in this House care for individuals in misfortune who, through social defects, have in fact committed a crime. In the same way the right hon. Gentleman, by his sympathetic handling of the refugee problem, and in spite of conflicting interests—some of them not only conflicting, but by many thought to be superior—has done all he can in that respect. Lastly, I should like to refer to the Public Order Act. There was growing up at the time when that Act was passed a very dangerous and difficult situation, and I do not believe that there is anybody in this House who will not say that as a result of the passing of that Act a very delicate and, indeed, highly dangerous situation has been most adequately dealt with.
My hon. Friend dealt rather particularly with the Press, and I should like to begin by making it clear that there is no censorship of the Press in this country, just as there is no censorship of the British Broadcasting Corporation. They are both free agents, and they collect their news in precisely the same way. I think my hon. Friend almost suggested that it would be an insult to the Press to suggest that they would be subject to improper pressure of the kind to which he was referring. I do not believe, either, that the great magnates of the Press, still less, perhaps, those working journalists who have such a respect for their profession, and such a keen perception, would allow themselves to be influenced in any such ways. If it can be suggested that there is any limitation upon the Press it is to be found far more in limitations imposed by the Common Law and by Statute Law in

1281
regard to libel and proceedings in contempt. I should have thought that the supreme danger to the Press in regard to the satisfactory presentation of news might be the fact that it is a commercial venture, but I think we owe it to the Press to say that in spite of that fact they do certainly run their business as a social service.
There is a further danger, and that is the partisanship of certain papers. It has already been referred to by my hon. Friend. Again I think there are two cures for that. First of all if we have enough papers they cancel each other out; unlike that incident on the films to which my hon. Friend referred where one distinguished journalist, Mr. Wickham Steed, was addressing another distinguished journalist, Mr. Cummings, and both of them were taking the same point of view at a crucial time. I am going to leave it to my right hon. Friend to deal with matters of which he must obviously have far more knowledge than I have. Nevertheless I called his attention to the fact that there was a film at a crucial time which transgressed that doctrine to which I have referred, that there should be freedom of choice. There you had two different men, both with their great skill and influence advocating the same point of view.
Mr. Mander: The point is that there were five news reels whose reels are being shown every night and that while four of them were consistently showing the Government point of view there was only the fifth which attempted for one night to show the opposition point of view. Surely the hon. Member will see that his argument is all on one side.
Mr. Beechman: I gathered that the hon. Member was referring to only one news reel in a particular cinema as the one in which that particular comment was to be found.
Mr. Mander: There were four others.
Mr. Beechman: I was not in that theatre and I do not know the facts. There is one other aspect of the commercial danger of the Press, and that is—if it becomes too commercial it loses its style and distinction, just as if it is too partisan it loses its readers. I seriously suggest that style and distinction are matters of great importance in these days when we have a public which is most enlightened and
1282
most anxious to know the news and most highly interested. Not only in the Press, but in other spheres as well in which public information is given, there is a great tendency to look down upon the public. After the War, when people were tired, there was a tendency to take only little bits of news, but I think it is clear that a different mood is coming over the public now and that they require to 1.e fully informed. It therefore seems the clear duty of a Government to keep in the closest contact with the Press and to give the fullest information and the fullest explanation that may be possible.
There is, of course, a limit beyond which you should not go. I have been interested to see that the Labour Opposition have been rather anxious to go a great distance in controlling the Press. Only a short while ago, on 29th November, the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) was asking the Prime Minister in regard to the possibility or desirability, as he put it, of establishing a special Press and Propaganda Department. It is only right that the words of the Prime Minister in answer to that question should be quoted. They were:
"His Majesty's Government attach great importance to the maintenance of the well-recognised tradition of objectivity and independence in the provision of news by British agencies; and they would deprecate any action that might be interpreted as an effort to introduce official control.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1938; col. 239, Vol. 342.]
That shows clearly the attitude of His Majesty's Government and it seems to be very right. If one had any Press or Propaganda Department news in the paper would at once be suspect and nobody would know in the end what to believe.
Something was said by my hon. Friend about unity. He felt that there might be a Press and Propoganda Department in relation to any matters on which there was unity in this House. Well, let us take liberty itself. The answer to it is that there is only one propaganda for liberty and that is liberty itself. In regard to certain matters which we have been discussing, such as the call based upon the proposed Register, there should be a certain amount of co-ordination where various calls overlap. In regard to this matter of liberty we must have a positive and active attitude, just as we are told we are to have towards peace. It is not

1283
enough any more to base ourselves on the old Manchester School and to say that as long as we get rid of our limitations all is well. We must have a sense of responsibility and bear in mind that we can preserve our liberty only if we are willing, as this country is so willing now, to serve in its cause.
8.51 p.m.
Sir Stanley Reed: I beg to second the Amendment.
I venture to take a few moments of the attention of the House to-night, because I approach this question from a rather different angle from those who have hitherto discussed it. I am not aware that the Mover or the Seconder of the Motion has ever had any active connection with the Press. Therefore, they were taking a remote point of view which to those who have had such experience seemed rather like a journey to Laputa. I have spent over half-a-century in journalism, approximately one half of it in this country and the other half abroad, and in the period which I spent abroad the newspaper Press was working under legal restrictions far beyond those which exist in this country, and yet none of us, no bona fide journalist and no honest editor, ever experienced the slightest discomfort from those restrictions. Believe me, whatever is put on the Statute Book the man who really understands his profession and tries to live up to its principles has nothing to fear from the operation of the law. I think that we should have heard very little about this attempt to curtail the freedom of the Press if it had not been for certain action taken under the Official Secrets Acts. May I say to the Home Secretary that I share the feelings of those journalists who were uneasy at two prosecutions initiated under that Act. I feel that a sense of disquiet was created, particularly in the taking action against the reporter and not the head of the paper. It is a principle in journalism that it is the tall poppy whose head should be cut off. If an offence is committed, it is the head of the paper who is responsible, and who should always be the target for the attack.
I do not want to labour that point, because in practice, if not in the actual form of the legislation, those cases have passed out of the purview of the Act. Everybody without exception admits that the action in the Stockport and Hull cases
1284
was a mistake, and the amplest assurances have been given in this House that those mistakes will not be repeated. The assurances given by the Secretary of State have confirmed the guarantee that no action shall be taken under that Act without his personal sanction. That assurance, confirmed by the Attorney-General, was all that any honest and bona fide journalist could expect. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] May I say that I speak from personal experience, from experience which hon. Members who said "No!" have not had.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I have seen statements from many working journalists on the subject, and they are not at all satisfied.
Sir S. Reed: I claim, with all deference, that my contact with working journalists is probably much closer than that of the hon. and gallant Member, and that my experience of the practice of journalism is very much greater than his. I maintain my opinion that the guarantee given by the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General is an ample protection, because we know Mat it will be fulfilled in the spirit and in the letter. But I would make one personal appeal to the Secretary of State. While that guarantee is assured in his hands, is it equally binding on his successors? I trust that he will take any opportunity which presents itself of putting that guarantee in statutory form, so that journalists may be able to bring their case to the Bar of this House, and the Bar of this House is ample protection.
There is a second point that I would put to the Secretary of State. He has assured us that no action will be taken unless the case is one of serious public importance. "Serious public importance "is a rather vague phrase; it will he interpreted by the Secretary of State for the moment; and I think it would carry the assurance farther if some definition of that phrase could be laid down. I venture to make that appeal to the present Secretary of State because for some year or two it was my privilege to serve under his banner, an unsought volunteer, while he carried through one of the greatest Acts that was ever placed upon the Statute Book. It was also our privilege here to listen to his exposition of a new penal code which was instinct with the spirit of liberality. I am not at all

1285
sure that history will not say that one of the greatest Acts of the present Home Secretary is one which he was not permitted to carry into effect through the action of this House and the feeling of the country. That again is a personal opinion, but one which I hold very firmly. With that knowledge I venture to make a special appeal to my right hon. Friend to remove these ambiguities and make the guarantee statutory, and, therefore, give an even greater sense of security to the working journalists of this country.
I do not want to refer in any detail to the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) in moving the Motion, except to touch very briefly on two points, on which, again, I speak from some personal knowledge. In discussing the relation of government with the Press, he spoke of the value of the contacts between members of the Government and leading newspapers. He did not define those contacts; perhaps I may attempt to do so. Those contacts, where the Government of the day, whether here or overseas, put before responsible editors their views and ideas, and the reasons on which they are based, on great public matters, are of much more value to the Government than to the Press. The Press themselves are probably better without that information, and probably have a freer hand. Hon. Members who have studied this matter will recollect how the great Delane was all against confidential information, and refused it, because, he said, if he obtained it from another source, as he probably would, and used it, he would be charged with a violation of confidence. But from the point of view of the State, of the administration, these contacts are valuable, and we trust that they will be preserved. The hon. Member began to titillate my fancy by describing a new technique, and I listened in anxious expectation to find out what it was. All I could gather from his remarks was that the new technique which he described was some 75 years old, if not more. I hope that, when opportunity arises, he will help those benighted journalists who are in a state of semi-senile decay, like myself, to understand what this technique is, and how we can profit by it.
There is one point on which I find myself in complete, absolute and unqualified agreement with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East, and that is when
1286
he states that the Press can look after itself. The Press can look after itself exceedingly well. It wants no assistance from anybody with an axe to grind, either in this honourable House or anywhere else. More than that, the Press as a whole is inclined to resent, and to resent keenly, any attempt to exploit it for the purposes of creating a side issue or a side attack on the government of the day.
Mr. Dingle Foot: The hon. Member says that the Press can take care of itself, but I gather that he is proposing to introduce during the present Session a Bill to amend the law of libel in order to assist the Press.
Sir S. Reed: I am not proposing to introduce any amendment of the law of libel and slander for the purpose of assisting the Press; I am proposing, when a legislative opportunity offers, to introduce an amendment of the law of libel and slander to prevent the abuse of the existing law of the land for the purpose of "gold-digging" by unscrupulous people. That is not for the protection of the Press, but for the protection of the common morality of the people of this country, and to do away with the race of Dodson and Foggs who are now battening upon the less sc ulous part of the community and seeking to profit from abuse of the law.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton East went a step further, and made a statement which I must challenge. He made the statement that, if the London "Times" had thought that a particular article did not express the views of the Prime Minister of the day, it would not have published it. There is no representative of the London "Times" in this House [Interruption]—I see no representative of the London "Times" in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "At the moment."] It was my privilege to be associated with that paper for about 15 years. It is my privilege now to know some who are in control of its affairs. It may be an impertinence for me to venture to say a word on the question, but I will take my courage in both my hands, and, even at the risk of impertinence, declare that a statement that the London "Times" to-day would not take a line of action which it thought right and proper in the interests of the State because it thought that the Prime Minister did not approve of it, is preposterous, is unjustified, and should not be made.

1287
As I sit in this House, I hear two voices, on both sides of the House. The one says, "We rejoice in, we revel in, and we must preserve, the priceless privileges of a free Press, "and in the next breath we are told that the Press is so little capable of looking after itself that this House must rise and defend it against the insidious attacks of the Government of the day. For that reason the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East hoped that we would accept his proposal as it stood. But, if we had been prepared to accept that proposal in the first place, many of us would not accept it after his speech in support of it. That speech was full of innuendoes, many of them entirely unsupported by facts. There is the suggestion that these innuendoes are made in all knowledge and sincerity, but of course will be withdrawn if the hon. Member is told that they are inaccurate. Because of that attitude, I second the Amendment, and commend it very strongly to the House.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Montague: I rise rather early in the Debate, because, in part of my speech, I propose to take a line different from any that has been taken in the Debate so far, and I wish the Home Secretary to have the ideas that I will put forward in his mind when he speaks. That is the only reason. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) began his speech with a quotation from the "Letters of Junius." The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) began his with a quotation from John Stuart Mill. May I be pardoned for beginning with a quotation from William Pitt, who said:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
I support the Motion, and see no necessity for the Amendment; and I think I am supported in that attitude by hon. Members behind me. But there is something more to be said about freedom of the Press than has been said this evening. I want to speak only on that side of the subject. So far as the news reels and the films in general are concerned, I was threatened with expulsion from my local picture house during the crisis for muttering an interjection during the film that has been referred to. I felt it was appalling that I and other people should have Government propaganda of that
1288
kind, gross and without any covering at all, thrust down our throats at our own expense. I would rather leave that side of the subject, however, because I have only time to say what I want to say about the freedom of the Press. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) is very proud of his profession. He may have the right to be proud of it. But perhaps his pride may, if it does not sustain a fall, at least be pricked to some little extent, by the point of view I intend to put forward.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, when I was called away with a green card, had begun some little historical survey of the general question of Press freedom. We remember, of course, the work of George Jacob Holyoake and others who had to do what always has to be done when it is a question of building up freedom in this country or any other—to sacrifice their own liberty for the sake of that of others. In this House, the right of the Press to report public Debates was very restricted up to comparatively recent times. I do not know whether the hon. Member referred to the famous occasion in which an Irish Press correspondent in the Gallery, by the name of Mark Supple, was concerned. In those days they locked the Gallery door, and nobody could get out until the end of the Debate. There might be something to be said for a suggestion of locking hon. Members in on the same principle. This gentleman took the precaution of assuring himself that he had refreshment in the meantime, surreptitiously. He went to sleep and was awakened by something happening on the Floor of the House, and, forgetting where he was, called on Mr. Speaker for a song. I am not sure it would not be a good idea if we conducted the business of this House upon the principle of the court of St. James's Hall in "Utopia, Limited".
Mr. Buchanan: Why not start now?
Mr. Montague: Perhaps the people in the country would then take more interest in the House, and, incidentally, in questions affecting their own freedom. It is quite within the capacity, I am sure, of hon. Members to provide all the entertainment that is necessary. For instance, might I suggest something on these Gilbertian lines? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary quoted "Iolanthe"

1289
in a recent Debate. May I present a parody to him, which runs:

"Winston's a Member of Parliament,

He fills the House whenever he pleases;

Liberals, Labour Members and Tories

Bow their heads and dim their glories;

As well as the 'Reds,' he goes for the 'blues;

He loves to see Ministers shake in their shoes."

If we conducted business on those lines we should have considerably more public interest in the affairs of the country. Oscar Wilde said:
"In old days we had the rack; now we have the Press."
I remember the newspapers of London, say 40 years ago. It may surprise some hon. Members when I mention that at that time there were no fewer than 20 morning and evening papers in London—counting sport and financial papers, 25. And I have no hesitation in saying that in those days, when there was much more editorial responsibility and less proprietorial dictation, its standard of literary and political criticism was higher, and certainly the standard of independence was higher, than it is at the present time. I notice that the hon. Member who is so jealous of the reputation of the Press did not hear that statement.
There is another side to this question, and it is that side that I intend to put before the House. It is all very well for the Press to talk about its own freedom, and to say that it ought not to be interfered with and that it can look after itself. Indeed, it can; and the people who run the Press can look after themselves and their interests. When we talk about the freedom of the Press, we ought to consider not only rights but duties. Let me give an example. Does anyone doubt that the Minister of Agriculture was compelled—or the Government were compelled to compel him, to withdraw the Milk Bill because of the Press campaign?
Sir S. Reed: I doubt it myself, because a party in this House pressed for its withdrawal long before the newspapers took the matter up.
Mr. Montague: That is my point. That party was a minority. That Bill was brought in as a result of agreement between two sides—the Government side and the industries side. It had to be withdrawn because it was, I suppose, considered to be too Socialistic. I will give another
1290
illustration. A short time ago in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) there was really a Socialistic attempt to carry out the feeding of the people irrespective of private profit. Potatoes were being produced in abundance and could not be used, and there were people starving in that constituency. It was decided to bring the potatoes to the people who wanted them without any consideration of private profit at all, and it worked. But was it allowed to succeed? Not likely. A Press campaign and all the other insidious campaigns got to work and that project was killed, just as the Milk Bill was killed, by powers that are exercised, I do not say upon the authority of the Government, but certainly behind the democratic government of this country as it stands. If there is any question about this let me draw the attention of Members of the House to the leading article in to-day's "Financial News." This is not a popular paper. It is not the paper that the proletariat read, at any rate, but is written for the investing classes and people who have money to invest, and it represents the City point of view. This is the kind of thing:
"The danger is that the Savage Government"—
the Savage Government is the Socialist Government in New Zealand—
"may now consider itself free to pursue an unsound financial policy without fear of consequences … If purchasing power is maintained by the Government's guaranteed price for exports and by heavy loan expenditure, there is a real danger of monetary inflation (as well as the cost inflation which is all we have seen hitherto) if export prices should decline at all seriously."
The article is headed "Financial Savagery." I have no hesitation in saying that that in a paper of this character and stated in those terms is an attempted piece of blackmail on the part of the financial interests of the City of London against the Government of New Zealand in order to sabotage that Government and to enforce a financial blockade at the present moment against that Government. That is one indication of the kind of thing that happens whenever the workers of this country, politically organised and organised in trades unions, have put forward any point of view or any policy which has not the support of the moneyed interests of this country. I will not refer to the events of 1931, but I remember the

1291
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who said in respect of a Government newspaper for which he was responsible during the so-called General Strike
"As between the fire engine and the fire, I refuse to be impartial."
I am now going to deal with the question of the Press and the entire reformation of the methods of presenting news and opinions in this country. We have not the independent Press that we used to have, but a Press controlled by financiers, advertisers, and Press magnates, and these people merge news and views together. I wonder whether it would not be a good idea to divide them, and. at any rate, if that could not be done, at least make every newspaper in the country responsible for every item A news it prints and answerable to this House or some public authority. I know the difficulties in the case, but I am putting these points forward because there seems to be a certain kind of smugness in the Debate so far. There is the assumption that the Press is perfectly right, pure, white and clean, and that there should be no interference on the part of the Government or in respect of the Official Secrets Acts, to all of which I object as much as anyone else. Anything like that is an interference which cannot be tolerated because the Press is so fine, beautiful and so model. That is not the case.
We have to consider this fact. We have had it before and we shall have it again. I have given one or two indications of what I mean. What will happen when we have a Socialist Government sitting upon the benches opposite; a Government that means business and represents the majority of this nation? In spite of all that the hon. Member for Aylesbury says about the Press, and in spite of his belief in the honour and independence of the Press, in connection with which he has spent his life, we know that there will be a campaign against that Government more than equalling in virulence anything that happened in 1931. It is because of that that I refer to the smugness that has been introduced into this Debate. Is there any doubt about it? I was very much interested in that speech, and the hon. Member will excuse me, I am sure, if for his benefit, as well as for the benefit
1292
of other hon. Members, but for his benefit particularly, I quote in conclusion the statement of a journalist who has already twice been referred to, Mr. Wickham Steed, former editor of the "Times," and a leading article from "Truth." In the days to which I have referred when we had 20 newspapers in London, and even earlier than that, there was nothing like this censorship or idea of censorship or interference such as there is at the present time. People were more free. No one thought of interfering with Henry Labouchere or Sir Charles Dilke in what they had to say in furtherance of their republican ideas. I remember a London weekly newspaper, still in existence, and a very important one indeed, at the time of the birth of a Royal Prince came out on the Sunday morning with a streamer right across the front page—a most unusual thing in those days—and that streamer ran:
"Another chunk of Royal flesh to keep."
I make no comment upon the taste of that, but the point is that no one at all thought that that paper had no right to express itself in that way. There was no mystery about it. There was much greater freedom of the Press and of thought allowed long before the War than there is at the present moment. This is what Mr. Wickham Steed says in his recent book "The Press":
"Certain large advertising agents warned the newspapers not to write up the recent international crisis in such a way as to cause alarm which would be bad for trade. None of the newspapers dared to publish the names of those advertising agents."
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, with his knowledge of the Press and his belief in the high rectitude and reputation of the Press? When I say "the Press," I do not want to be held to suggest that every newspaper is to be painted altogether as black as some newspapers may deserve to be painted. There are honourable papers in this country, hut, on the whole, the new system has been bad. It is a system not of editorial responsibility but of the responsibility of people who hold the money and call the tune every time. We did not have such large papers then as we have now. Now there is a demand for page after page of sport, chit- chat and all sorts of things, and the advertisers have to pay for it, and the. advertisers who are paying the money call the tune.

1293
My final quotation is from "Truth" of 16th November this year. This is what "Truth" wrote:
"Can we contend, those of us who are in the business, in face of all we know about the chicanery and venality of journalism, which are nowhere more prominent than in the idealistic publications"—
I do not wish to be charged with misquoting or leaving anything out—
"that we ourselves are not mainly responsible for the anomaly that, until very lately, when a newspaper or periodical was a party in a libel action the jury were against us before counsel had opened their mouths? Can we pretend that we are spotless lambs, shamefully and most unjustly exposed to the ruthless Official Secrets Act. Before we start crying 'Wolf' let us all take stock of our sins of omission and commission and remedy them. Then, and then only, can journalism be certain of having public opinion behind it in the hour of need."
I leave that statement with the hon. Member for Aylesbury.
We support this Motion because there is no question of the danger of official interference with the freedom of the Press—a danger that is due, I suppose, to the complicated political life of our times. Personally, I believe there must be a line drawn somewhere in respect of censorship. I should not like to have the responsibility of drawing it, but I would draw it as far away as I possibly could, because a real democracy is a community which justifies itself by becoming well informed, not only from the standpoint of propaganda, on all sides of a question and upon the philosophy of political, social and other questions, based upon accurate and responsible information. When we get a Press of that character—and I should like to have money enough to produce the kind of daily paper I have in mind—we shall be able, I think, to boast of having a true democracy, if the people are prepared to accept not only the freedom that is demanded, but also the responsibility which must always go with it.
9.28 p.m.
Mr. Granville: I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the lines of his interesting speech, because I desire to speak for only a very few minutes. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), in his speech in introducing this Motion to-night seemed, first of all, to be a little concerned because a meeting took place
1294
at the Foreign Office between the Foreign Secretary and the journalists, and because there had been a suggestion that there should be no pin-pricking of Herr Hitler and Mussolini during certain discussions, and I must confess that I could not follow him upon those lines. But I think that the hon. Gentleman was himself responsible during the time of the Labour Government of 1929 for himself retraining from going into the Opposition Lobby against the Coal Bill because there was a Naval Conference on at the time. I think that action of the Liberal party in refusing to defeat the Labour Government on that issue was not so important perhaps as those pin-pricks that the hon. Gentleman referred to.
Then he spoke of a film "Inside Nazi Germany," which was cut. I saw the cut version in a news cinema, and no ordinary person could hear what was going on because the place was in such an uproar. On the whole, I think the news reels of this country are of a high standard, and are impartial. I have no connection with news reels, but after all, they have been showing for some considerable time in this country. A news reel has to bring some sort of photographic evidence that the news story it is presenting is true, because, quite obviously, any fake will be detected by an audience. The same sort of check cannot be obtained in the ordinary Press. I think it will be found that most film audiences in the ordinary cinemas—not so much in the news cinemas—dislike the talks and tit-bits by Cabinet Ministers and others. They go to the cinema for entertainment, and not for politics. I think that the same body to which the hon. Gentleman referred as having recently passed a resolution were making strong representations some years ago, at a time long before these political talks began, to have these talks deleted from the ordinary news films.
Mr. Mander: That body was started only in the last two months.
Mr. Granville: Well, I think it was a larger body, which embraced the whole of the cinema exhibitors in the country, including some of the news theatres. But the moment you bring on to a screen anything like propaganda you are up against the cinema proprietor. I think the, cinemas are trying very hard to establish the real difference between news and

1295
propaganda. The hon. Gentleman referred to a particular case—that of a talk by Mr. Cummings and Mr. Wickham Steed. He also referred to the pro-Government bias in a number of news films. But when the Prime Minister returned from Munich that was news.
Mr. Silverman: It would have been news if he had not returned.
Mr. Granville: When he returned from Munich he was the Prime Minister of this country, and the people of this country, whether they agree with his policy or not, are interested to hear what he says and to see pictures of him. The same would be true of any Prime Minister. The people who go to see such a film are ten times as numerous as the crowd which goes to see the Prime Minister at Heston Airport.
Mr. Mander: We do not want that and nothing else.
Mr. Granville: All right. What I am going to suggest is that when Mr. Wickham Stead and Mr. Cummings, who represents a newspaper with a strong bias, want to put their point of view, that is propaganda, it is not news, and this House is the place to debate two propaganda points of view. If you make the news reels available for that purpose, I believe you will have disturbances in cinemas all over the country.
As to the question whether an individual is wise in privately and unofficially suggesting that people should have the opportunity of putting forward propaganda on the films, my view is that in Hyde Park you can get all the debate you want. In the newspapers you have the "Letters to the Editor" column, and at the B.B.C. you get the presentation of a variety of views. In the cinema, when you are presenting a news film it is a take or leave it presentation. There can be no repudiation, except such a repudiation as that of the hon. Member opposite, which was so emphatic that he was nearly turned out of the cinema.
Mr. Montague: It was not the news that I objected to, nor the picture of the Prime Minister, but the comments that were made.
Mr. Granville: I must confess that I went to cinemas to see and hear the
1296
news reels, and I had to listen to remarks which I did not like. I also went to cinemas where there was complete uproar. In one, the first 20 rows were packed with Nazis and the back rows were packed with the oppositionists, and it became a shouting match. I wanted to hear the news film, but I had no opportunity of doing so.
To return to the point whether there should be Government supervision, taking all the facts into consideration I think there should not be Government intervention. It should be left to the good sense of the cinema organisations themselves. There is no Hays Organisation in this country, whereby you could create a sort of co-operation between the film industry as to what type of film they should show. I would prefer an organisation similar to the Hays Organisation of America, which would represent the film Industry in this country. If you are going to have complete freedom to show all these news reels, you must be free to show all films. You may show the films of Leni Riefenstahl, of the Nazi Congress at Nuremburg, and films showing what Hitler has done for Germany, If you give that complete freedom and those films were shown in London, you would have the cinemas in complete uproar. This should not be the responsibility of the Government, but it should be the responsibility of the film industry itself.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton also referred to the case of the American Ambassador and the news reel where representation was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by communication to the American Ambassador. As I understand the facts, there was a representative of the Hays Organisation from America in this country, and the American Ambassador, in an unofficial, friendly and private capacity, pointed out to this individual, as a result of this communication, that the presentation of this American news film created a problem for them, and that they would have to face up to the problem and settle it in the best interests of all concerned. That is what the American Ambassador did, no less and no more.
We should remember that the American Ambassador is a great personality and that he goes a long way towards linking up America to this country. He also

1297
has had vast experience in the film industry, far more than most people, and his knowledge of cinema audiences and films is unique. In making this contact he considered that he was doing something which was a contribution to the peace of the world. It was one of his many activities, the basis of which is to create a feeling of friendship between the people of America and Great Britain. Therefore, I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should not make his criticism of this great Ambassador too carping.
Mr. Mander: The hon. Member must realise that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who himself stated publicly what the American Ambassador himself had done. I am criticising the action of the Government, not the American Ambassador.
Mr. Granville: I was saying what was done by the American Ambassador and what his intentions were. With regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he can well take care of himself. I find myself in a great deal of agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman), and I hope that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton will not press his Motion to a Division. If he does, I shall find myself compelled to vote for the Amendment, because I think we still have the best news service in the world, whatever may be the contact between journalists and the various Departments in the day-to-day working. Whatever the Government may be, Labour or National, our system works in the best interests of this country, and I do not believe that there has been any challenge to democracy. If we do not try to interfere with it, we shall continue to have the best news service in the world and the best service for freedom and democracy.
9.41 p.m.
Mr. Parker: I agree with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that there is serious disquiet about Government interference with the Press. The most serious thing is that the Government do not really believe that they are interfering with the Press. I noticed, in answer to a question in the House recently, on 23rd November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"A censorship, I should have thought, means the exercise of some compulsory
1298
power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1938; col. 1728, Vol. 341.]
He argued from that, that because the Government had not a legal censorship and did not interfere in a legal form with the Press, there was not any kind of censorship. There are a number of different forms of Government interference with the Press at the present time. First, there is the negative kind of interference. The best example was over the Hoare-Laval proposals. It is generally known that the Foreign Secretary at that time met a conference of British journalists in Paris and told them to say nothing about these proposals, as everything was very difficult for the Government. One journalist had a copy of the proposals in his pocket at the time. Therefore, he was in a very difficult position. Fortunately, the French Press were not so discreet as the English Press, and published the terms. Then the English newspapers had to publish them. It was a very good thing that those terms were published in the Press and that the public in this country knew what was happening. Had this censorship been carried out in France as well as in this country there would have been a very grave danger that those proposals might have been pushed through before the people of this country knew about them, and before it was possible to form or establish public opinion about the matter. That would have been highly undesirable.
There is also positive interference with the Press. There are a very large number of allegations made about this matter in Fleet Street at the present time, and I hope that in reply the Government will say something about it. In addition to the points that have been made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, I think that it is generally known that at the time of the resignation of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Mr. Eden) an attempt was made to induce all the newspaper owners to give support to the Government rather than to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. That was an unjustifiable and undesirable interference with the Press of the country.
I should like to give the House some information which came to me during the recent crisis. When the "Manchester Evening News" put forward a number of leaders criticising the Munich settlement very fiercely certain advertisers of that paper withdrew their advertisements

1299
When they were asked why they did so they said that Government pressure had been put upon them to do so. The fact that this took place is highly undesirable. There is a great deal of disquiet as regards such Government interference with the Press. The right hon. Gentleman may say that incidents of this kind are not true, but I say where there is smoke there is fire, and the fact that there are so many allegations of this kind needs investigation. If investigation is made I believe it will be found that a considerable amount of Government interference is taking place. Then there is the question of Government publicity and propaganda. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) say that there was no Minister of Propaganda in this country. Surely, he knows that each Government Department has a Press service.
Mr. Beechman: What I said was that there was no censorship of the Press.
Mr. Parker: The hon. Member said that, but he also said that there was no Government propaganda.
Mr. Beechman: And I proceeded to say that the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) asked that there should be a Minister of Propaganda.
Mr. Parker: That was for a special purpose. The point is that each Government Department has its own Press service and that considerable sums of money are spent on publicity by the different Departments. That is a question which ought to be examined rather more fully than it has been in the past. Far too much of the Press publicity by Government Departments goes in glorifying the Ministers concerned rather than in giving information about the work of the Department. There is far too much boosting of Ministers and not enough giving of information to the general public and presenting it in an interesting form. What is the effect of Government pressure on the Press? I think the lack of independence shown increasingly in the Press to-day is partially due to Government pressure. You have only to take two newspapers each of which has a great history, the "Times" and the "Observer." Look at them as they were in the past, and look at them to-day. They are still prosy but intellectually they are
1300
pitiful compared with their former selves. At one time you could say that the London "Times" was the national paper, but I ask you to look at its conduct during the recent crisis. It would not allow a single letter from any reputable person in opposition to the Government to appear in its columns during the crisis. In the days when it was a great newspaper it would have been proud to put in its columns letters disagreeing with its own leader columns, but it had not the courage, the fair play or decency to do that during the recent crisis. That I think is largely due to Government pressure, although in the case of that particular newspaper it may have been due partly to the foreign sympathies of its proprietors. I should like to compare the London "Times" with the "Daily Telegraph," a Conservative paper and one with which I am frequently in disagreement. At least it is an independent paper, a paper which expresses its own point of view. As a result it has largely taken the place of the "Times." For it is prepared to give letters from reputable people who may be in opposition to the Government or who may take a different point of view to its own leaders. In fact it represents, on the whole, educated Conservative middle-class opinion at present, and it has a considerable sense of fair play.
I was surprised during the crisis when, having lunch one day and seeing at the next table two hon. Members, I heard one say to the other, "Why has the Daily Telegraph 'gone Bolshie?" That, I take it, is the point of view of many people who perhaps read the "Times" and agree with the idea of Government interference with the Press—they regard any kind of independence as being "Bolshie." After all, why has the late Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) been called the "Red Duchess." The only reason why she is called the "Red Duchess" is not because of her views on the internal policy of this country but because she has an independent point of view on foreign policy. I understand that she and her husband have been accused of being violent Reds during the present by-election. I ask newspaper proprietors to look at this matter and ask themselves whether they really do gain by submitting to Government pressure. I believe that if you take the circulation of the "Daily Telegraph"

1301
and the "Times" you will find that the "Daily Telegraph" has gone up recently and the "Times" has gone down, and that is due to the fact that one paper is independent and interesting and the other is not.
Again I would ask newspaper proprietors to consider what has happened in Nazi Germany. Once you get newspapers allowed only to express the point of view of the Government people cease to read newspapers at all. The circulation of newspapers in Nazi Germany has dropped to a very small figure indeed compared with what it was when they had a free Press. And, of course, the whole influence of newspapers and newspaper proprietors has disappeared in Nazi Germany. What about other countries? Many of us fear that there is a habit growing up in this country of pressure on the Foreign Office by the German Government to try and prevent criticism of Germany in this country. We have cause for our fears because we have seen what has happened in other countries. Take Denmark. A Socialist paper in that country recently published a question put by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) with regard to the fact that certain Jewish refugee children coming to this country had been found branded with the German Swastika. That was stated in this House and quoted by this newspaper in Denmark. The German Foreign Office protested and that newspaper had to withdraw it, to say that it was untrue and apologise profusely, because the Danish Government was too frightened of German pressure to allow the paper to stick to a statement made in this House.
Mr. Foot: I think we should have the facts right. It was not a question and answer in this House. It was a statement by my hon. Friend of what he himself actually saw.
Mr. Parker: Last summer, when I was in Sweden, I met a number of newspaper editors. They made great fun of the Danes because they said the Danes were so close to Germany that they had not any courage and were afraid to say what they really felt in their newspapers, but that in Sweden it was different and that they were quite prepared to say exactly what they wanted about Nazi Germany if they liked. I understand that recently the Socialist Government of that country
1302
has felt it wise to send out a letter to the newspaper proprietors asking them to be careful what they say about Germany as it might cause difficulties. It shows that increasing pressure is being brought to bear on newspapers in Scandinavia by Nazi Germany. We want to be careful that the same kind of thing does not happen in this country. We know that similar cases are happening in Switzerland and Belgium. As it is, Government pressure on newspapers is becoming stronger here. We know that last winter Herr Hitler was very perturbed by remarks made about him in the English Press, and told the Foreign Office that he would like them to stop, and that he objected to attacks being made on him in this country. I believe that it is essential that we should resist any attempt at interference with our Press from outside. If our British freedom is to continue, we must maintain the full and complete independence of our Press and its right to state what it likes about foreign Governments as well as about our own Government. It seems to me that the influence of the Government over the Press has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
9.56 p.m.
Sir S. Hoare: Ever since I have been in the House—and it is now nearly 3o years—there has always been some hon. Member who has been the champion mare's-nester. I remember that when I first came into the House—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) was also in the House at the time and he will remember it—there was an hon. Member on the Government side—I was then on the Opposition side—who had this childlike passion for mare's-nesting whom we, on our side of the House, used to call the "Mad Hatter." I am inclined to think that the mantle of the Mad Hatter has fallen upon the shoulders of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). We had an example to-day of his passion for mare's-nesting. He came to the House with his Motion. He told us it was a very harmless Motion that we ought to pass unanimously, and he then proceeded to support it, not with direct charges based upon facts, but by a series of innuendoes, a whole number of tentative questions, all of them obviously directed to attempting to discover something, all

1303
of them obviously showing to any impartial Member of the House that once again the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton is looking for mares' nests.
I propose to deal first of all, I will not say with the hon. Member's charges, for he did not make any charges, but with those of his innuendoes that were a little bit more definite than most of the other ones. I will begin with some of his innuendoes about the films and the Press. I will not disguise from the House that at one moment I was inclined to think that they really did not need an answer, but that it would probably be more convenient to the House that we should ignore them—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and that we should go into the Lobby and pass the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friends. As I listened to the hon. Member, however, I remembered what was said yesterday by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) in his very interesting maiden speech. I do not know whether it surprised other hon. Members, but it surprised me when the hon. Member for Bridgwater said that of all the criticisms against the Government, that which had carried the most weight at the Bridgwater by-election was the criticism that the Government were trying to suppress the expression of public opinion in this country. I rubbed my eyes and wondered what justification there was for a criticism of that kind. None the less, according to the hon. Member for Bridgwater, it was a criticism that carried some weight with the electors at Bridgwater, and for that reason I had better deal with it to-night, and deal with it quite specifically.
Let us put an end once and for all to this whispering campaign that a great many people have started in the country. They go from one to the other, and they say, "Oh, yes, the newspapers will only put in what the Government wish; they would have taken a very different attitude in the crisis if it had not been for Government pressure; I have heard of this or that case of the Government threatening this or that newspaper, or bringing pressure to bear with regard to this or that film. "To-night, let me begin by stating quite categorically that there is no foundation whatever for the innuendoes in this whispering campaign.
1304
There never has been any justification for any suggestion that the Government are exercising a censorship either upon the Press or upon the films. There has never been any justification for the suggestion that we wish to suppress the expression of opinion that does not support the Government's view, and I challenge any hon. Member, as I challenged the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton in the course of his speech, to bring any definite evidence to refute the statement I have just made.
Let me now pass to some of the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. [An HON. MEMBER: "Fetch him in."] Yes, the hon. Member has gone.
Mr. Foot: I would like to explain that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) had not realised that the right hon. Gentleman was going to speak at this time; otherwise he would, of course, have been here; and he will be here in a moment.
Sir S. Hoare: It is the hon. Member's Motion, and I should have thought that he would have stayed in the House during the course of the Debate. I hope that the hon. Member opposite will report to his hon. Friend the answer I have been making. Let me deal with the story of the Paramount film. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly explained the position to the House, and subsequently my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave certain additional answers to the questions which were asked on the subject. Let hon. Members remember the actual date on which this incident took place. It was on 22nd September. It was brought to the notice of the Foreign Office on the morning of 22nd September that a news reel was being exhibited, with two speeches, both of which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton quoted this evening, made in connection with a film "Life in Czechoslovakia" and the incidents that were taking place in Czechoslovakia. It probably was the most critical day in the whole course of the crisis. It was the day on which the Prime Minister went to Godesberg. If ever there was a day on which it was necessary to exercise caution and to say or do nothing that was likely to stir up dangerous reactions, it was the 22nd September. We were faced, as hon.

1305
Members will remember, with the urgent danger that a European war might take place within a comparatively few short hours. It was brought to the notice of the Foreign Office that this film waas being exhibited and that these speeches were being made. I ask any impartial Members who were in the House tonight, when the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton read extracts from those speeches, whether they were not the kind of speeches which would have inflamed the atmosphere at that particular moment.
Hon. Members: Where?
Mr. Montague: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean then that speeches of that character must be censored, while all propaganda on the other side must be allowed to be shown? Why not censor the lot?
Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I certainly have no such meaning, as the hon. Member will see when I have finished dealing with this point. The Foreign Secretary was definitely of the opinion that it was undesirable that those two speeches should be heard while the talks at Godesberg were actually in progress on that particular date, 22nd September. There was no general kind of censorship. It was his view, with reference to that film, during the time the talks were going on at Godesberg, that, while he did not wish to apply any pressure—and he did not apply any pressure—and there was no question of censorship, those speeches might compromise the chances of peace.
Mr. Mander: Defeat the Government's policy.
Sir S. Hoare: No, it had nothing to do with the Government's policy. I would ask hon. Members to believe me when I say—though I dare say the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton will not believe it—that on 22nd September, faced with one of the greatest crises that ever confronted the world, we were not thinking of the fortunes of the National Government. We were thinking of much graver issues.
Mr. Mander: Trying to get out of the mess you had got into.
Sir S. Hoare: Nothing of the kind. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend informed the American Ambassador of his
1306
views and asked him to look into the question. The American Ambassador said he would do so and would communicate the Foreign Secretary's views to the managers of the Paramount Company and, on that, the managers of the Paramount company withdrew that particular film, at that time. There was no censorship, there was no undue pressure.
I come to the other two film cases to which the hon. Member made allusion. He alluded to a film which I think is called "The Siege of Lucknow." I will tell hon. Members what actually happened. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, I think about two years ago, was shown a film of the Indian Mutiny and asked his opinion about it. He advised the promoters not to proceed with it because he felt that it was the kind of film that would create the worst kind of feeling in India between the Indians and ourselves. It was the promoters of the film themselves who went to the Secretary of State for India in that case, and put the position before him.
When my right hon. Friend heard that there was to be another Indian Mutiny film, remembering the advice he had given two years ago, he, very naturally, asked for information about this film and discussed the question with the chairman of the Board of Film Censors. He made it quite clear that the responsibility was entirely on the shoulders of the chairman of the Board of Film Censors and that if they decided that the film should go on, there was nothing that he could or would do. But he did make it plain—and I believe it was the right course, and that any hon. Member here would take the same course—that to produce a film depicting scenes of the Indian Mutiny would be undesirable at this time, when we are just embarking upon a new chapter in the constitutional development of India, and when we want to get rid of the differences which there have been between us in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, I think everyone wants to see the new Constitution in India a success. The chairman of the Board of Film Censors heard what my right hon. Friend said on the subject. He discussed the question with the promoters of the film, and the promoters of the film, so I understand, took the same view. They have no grievance in the matter at all and the film, I am glad to

1307
say, will not be exhibited [HON. MEMBERS: "Or produced."] Or produced. I assure hon. Members I am not making any party point—
Mr. Shinwell: Does it follow from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that, in order to avert anything in the nature of disorder in India or any feeling on this matter, we ought to destroy every reference to the Indian Mutiny?
Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, certainly not, but if the hon. Gentleman saw the details of the film, I feel sure he would come to the same conclusion, that at this particular time we do not want a film of that kind, recalling in detail incidents of the Mutiny which may mean humiliation or defeat to one side or the other. In any case, as I say, there was no difference on the subject. The chairman of the Board of Film Censors took the same view, and I understand that the promoters of the film themselves have no cause for complaint.
I come now to the third of these cases which refers to the "March of Time" films. In regard to these, I say categorically to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton that no pressure at all has been put upon the producers of those films, and the fact that this or that incident may have been deleted from a film is, in no way, due to Government pressure. Any action that may have been taken has been taken by the chairman of the Board of Film Censors entirely upon his own responsibility.
Mr. Ellis Smith: In the case of another film which was being made, steps have been taken to have cut out of it a certain historical incident. Would the right hon. Gentleman inquire why the Tolpuddle incident was cut out of the trade union film which was being produced as a documentary film?
Sir S. Hoare: I can only answer for what I am myself responsible for as a member of the Government, and I say that the Government have had nothing to do with any pressure, direct or indirect, to have that incident cut out of any film.
I come now to some of the other innuendoes of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. I come to the innuendoes about the attitude of the Foreign
1308
Office to the Press. The hon. Member gave a description of a confidential meeting which was supposed to have taken place at the Foreign Office last year. I cannot help wondering whether he is really doing a good service to the Press when he comes to this House and purports to give details of what happened at a confidential meeting. I should have thought it was not the way to encourage the free exchange of information between the Government and the Press. I should have thought it was not the best way for an hon. Member, who is not a member of the Government, to maintain the reputation of the Press, but that is for him to judge. What I can say to him is this, that since his speech I have been in communication with someone who was at this meeting, and he tells me that the account that the hon. Member gave of it bears no resemblance to what took place at the meeting at all. I am not going into further detail, because at any rate I am not going to disclose what happened at a confidential meeting, but I can tell him—he may or may not agree—that the account which he gave of this meeting does not in any way represent what actually took place at the meeting.
Mr. Mander: I have no doubt that the information given to the right hon. Gentleman is in accordance with the recollection of the person concerned, but I also had the advantage of talking to someone who was present, and he is convinced that the account that I gave was strictly accurate.
Sir S. Hoare: We must leave the matter there, and hon. Members must judge according to their own inclination as to which story they prefer to believe. I come now to the third of the innuendoes—the innuendo that affected myself. I was apparently the secret Press agent of the Government, feeding the Press up with dope during the crisis, with such immense influence—I wish indeed that I had it—that the Press were tamely taking everything I doled out to them—
Mr. Mander: No, I did not say that.
Sir S. Hoare: —and the result was that there was little or no criticism of the Government during the crisis. Behind all these great events there was this very humble hidden hand directing the operations of this great independent service. Let me say to the House that here again

1309
there is no foundation whatever for the hon. Gentleman's charges. Like every Minister of every Government, Labour, Conservative—I am not sure that I should say Liberal, because it does not look as if there would be a Liberal Government for a very long time—every Minister, in every Government, has his relations with the Press. It is a very good thing for the Minister, and perhaps it is a very good thing for the Press. Every great Department must be in close relations with the Press, and the Press would very much resent the fact if there was not a close contact between the Ministers and their great Departments and the principal newspapers. I will admit the heinous offence that time after time during the crisis and since the crisis I have seen my friends in the Press. I—actually I am making all these confessions to the hon. Member, like an Oxford Group meeting—saw the Lobby correspondents to explain to them the very complicated details of my Penal Reform Bill. What heinous offences! I hope the House will forgive me for them. But as for putting undue pressure upon the Press, I could not do it if I would.
Mr. Mander: I did not say that. I said approaches were made—contacts.
Sir S. Hoare: I have admitted contacts. Of course there were contacts, and my friends in the Lobby tell me there is no more assiduous Private Member in promoting his contacts with the Press than the hon. Member himself.
Mr. Mander: But not with the proprietors.
Sir S. Hoare: Let me not weary the House with these repudiations of the hon. Member's innuendoes, but let me say in a single sentence that there is no justification whatever for the charge that anything in the nature of a censorship, direct or indirect, was exercised during the crisis, or that any member of the Government put undue pressure upon any section of the Press at all. If I wanted evidence to justify what I am saying to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, let me give him this. I take it from a paper with which I imagine he is in large sympathy, the "News Chronicle." It was on 24th November, after some of the hon. Member's questions in the House. It looks as if he is not on very good
1310
terms with his Press. On that day the "News Chronicle" in its leading article used these words:
"On Tuesday the Premier was asked in Parliament whether during the crisis any official or unofficial advice had been tendered by members of the Cabinet to owners or editors of newspapers. The Premier's reply was, "No." As far as the 'News Chronicle is concerned, we can testify that this denial is correct."
I do not think I need say anything more upon that part of the hon. Member's case. The fact is that the Press as a whole want not less contact with Ministers, but more contact. Here, again, I will quote for the hon. Member's benefit, not my own unsupported view, the view of a reprobate Tory like myself, but the view of his own leader, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). "Even during the recent emergency," said the right hon. Gentleman, journalists had complained to him about the extreme difficulty they had experienced in obtaining news about important events, and even of obtaining official confirmation or correction of news that other Governments were giving out.
"Democracy"—
and I can hear the right hon. Gentleman using these words—
"is not an easy form of government to work. It requires strong leadership from Ministers, informed criticism from the Opposition"—
I commend that observation to the hon. Member—
"and sufficient information to enable the public to make instructed judgment. Journalists, therefore, have a vital function to perform, especially in time of crisis, and it should be made easier for them in future."
I agree that journalists have a vital function to perform in time of crisis, and I claim that upon the whole the Press of this country performed their functions during the crisis in a manner fully in harmony with their great traditions. They were not dragooned into taking this or that line as a result of Government pressure.
Mr. Montague: Advertisers' pressure.
Sir S. Hoare: And not as a result of advertisers' pressure. I do not take the view of the hon. Member opposite that the Press of to-day is controlled by advertisers threatening to withdraw their advertisements.
Mr. Montague: I quoted one of the biggest journalists of the day.
Sir S. Hoare: I do not suggest that the Press are infallible, any more than I suggest that hon. Members are infallible, or that Members of this Government are infallible, but I do claim that during the crisis the Press fulfilled their vital functions, and fulfilled them with credit to the traditions of the British Press. There is nothing in the nature of censorship. If there had been we should soon have heard of it from the Press, and I am not so foolish as to think that the Press would have taken that kind of threat lying down. The relations between the Government and the Press were excellent during the crisis, and I challenge any hon. Member to ask those responsible for the papers with which his own party may be connected whether that was not the case. The Press behaved well, and I agree with everything that has been said in the course of the Debate as to the urgent necessity of maintaining these traditions and of doing nothing that would weaken the freedom of the Press.
I did not follow altogether the argument of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). He seemed to me, if I understood him aright, to suggest that newspapers should be answerable to this House for everything that they print. I should be horrified at any such contingency. That the Press should have to answer, presumably, to a majority in this House, and that is to say to a partisan majority, for what they decide to put in their papers or keep out of them—
Mr. Montague: I did not say that.
Sir S. Hoare: Well, the hon. Member will see when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow that he very nearly said it. I was putting it mildly. I cannot imagine anything that would strike more directly at the freedom of the Press. I believe myself that the freedom of the Press, that is to say the free interchange of opinions, is an essential condition of constitutional government, and as long as I am a member of any Government I should always oppose any action that directly or indirectly seemed to challenge the foundations of that freedom.
To-night I might go further and say something about the charges that have been made about the enforcement of the Official Secrets Acts, but obviously there is not time. What I will say is that I stand by every word that I said when I gave the undertaking to the House that
1312
Section 6 of the Act of 1920 would be brought into operation only upon issues of grave importance.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), who made an appeal to me, that I am at the moment looking into the question whether or not it would be practicable to put my undertaking into statutory form. I do not think I can give the House any pledge to-night, and I should be disingenuous if I did not tell hon. Members that it is very difficult to give statutory form to an undertaking that, with the best will in the world, has behind it necessarily a certain amount of uncertainty as to the conditions of the time when it may have to be implemented. None the less—I say this in passing because there is no time to elaborate the argument, and in response to the appeal of my hon. Friend—I am looking into this question. Anyhow, whether I should succeed in putting it in statutory form or not, I can repeat the undertaking that I gave in May that this unusual procedure of Section 6 of the Act will be applied only in cases of the gravest importance to the safety and the welfare of the State.
I have dealt, I think faithfully, with the hon. Gentleman's innuendoes, and I hope that I have said enough to show that it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Member to propose any Motion of this kind at all and that there was no justification for his suspicions; and that being so, if the House thinks fit after this Debate to go to a Division, I hope that hon. Members will insist that the words of the Amendment be added to the Motion. Otherwise, the hon. Member might be able to leave the House to-night with a feeling that his vague and unsupported innuendoes, about which we heard so much in his speech, really had some foundation behind them.
10.33 p.m.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by accusing my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) of being the champion discoverer of mares' nests. He proceeded to deal with the principal charge which my hon. Friend had brought and to substantiate practically all the facts that my hon. Friend gave. I am referring to the question of the Paramount news film. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that this was brought to the notice of the Foreign

1313
Office—he did not say by whom—on 22nd September. He said, of course quite frankly, that it was one of the most critical days of the crisis. He said that what the Government did did not amount to a censure. Of course, formally that was perfectly true, but the effect was precisely the same as though there had been a censorship of the Press. Are we seriously asked by a Minister of the Crown to believe that the conversations which were taking place on that day, or may be the next day, at Godesberg, between the Prime Minister and Herr Hitler would really have been affected by the news films displayed at a London cinema? Is that the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman is seriously putting before the House of Commons? I do not suppose that any hon. Member will believe it for a moment.
The Home Secretary did not dispute any part of the narrative of the film as given by my hon. Friend. The film was concerned with what had been done at Berchtesgaden. What was done there by this country was a matter of acute political controversy. There was the greatest feeling about it. The point which the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to meet was that all the time there were other news films—news films which supported the Government, news films which extolled the Prime Minister; but no sort of check was put upon them. Every kind of propaganda through the news film could be used in support of the Government, but, when there was one film which was critical of the Government, steps were taken to prevent it from being shown to the public. So far as that, which was the principal charge made by my hon. Friend to-night, is concerned, it is admitted in substance by the Home Secretary.
It seemed to me that there was one very remarkable omission from the Home Secretary's speech. A matter of some importance, as I think, was referred to by my hon. Friend, and in greater detail by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) a few minutes ago. He referred to the time, which must be fresh in the recollection of the Home Secretary, of the Hoare-Laval plan. I do not think the Home Secretary was in the House when the hon. Member spoke, but I think he was informed of what had been said. The allegation made was that, at the time
1314
of the Hoare-Laval plan, when the agreement had been arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman and M. Laval the details of that plan were known to the correspondents of British newspapers, but they were asked—I think I may say requested—not to reveal the existence of that plan to their newspapers and to the British public; and, it was only through the medium of the French Press that the news came to this House and to the country. It seemed to me rather remarkable that that, which was one of the most serious of the allegations made from the Opposition benches, was not replied to by the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir S. Hoare: I am delighted to reply to it now. As far as I was concerned, I had no responsibility whatever for what happened. On the day following the Hoare-Laval Agreement I went to Switzerland, and on the next day I had the bad luck to fall on the ice and break my nose; and, as to any dealings with the Press I never had any at any time.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of it in that way. No one has suggested that the right hon. Gentleman himself interviewed the Press. All that we have said is that an interview did take place, on behalf of the Government, with someone representing the Government. To that, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman chooses not to reply.
He went on to refer in his speech to the Official Secrets Acts, and I was glad to hear his assurance that he is considering an Amendment of those Acts. He referred to the undertaking that he gave in May. I do not underrate the value of that undertaking, which was to the effect that the powers of interrogation contained in Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, would not be used without the express permission of the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General. Of course, that undertaking was given in all good faith, but in these days Home Secretarys and Attorneys-General are transient and embarrassed phantoms, here to-day and gone to some other Department tomorrow, and we really need something more than the assurance of some temporary office-holder. That is why we should certainly welcome an amendment of the Official Secrets Acts. But I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman brings in his Bill to amend the Acts during the present Session, he will go very much

1315
further than merely putting into statutory form the assurance which he gave to the House a few months ago.
It seems to me that in this matter the Press have a perfectly legitimate grievance. They are quite right to view with alarm the use against journalists of the powers of interrogation contained in Section 6 of the Act of 1920, because, after all, nothing similar to those powers, nothing that compares with them in any way, is to be found anywhere else in our Statute law. They run completely contrary to the whole trend of our criminal law in this country. Apart from this Section, I do not think there is any other case where people are bound to answer police interrogation. There are obvious objections to compelling people to answer questions which are put to them by persons in authority. Nobody who reads the Debates on the 1920 Bill can possibly doubt that those powers contained in Section 6 were passed by this House in the belief that they would be applied only in order to circumvent spies and spying, and there is no good reason why they should not now be confined to those purposes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that when drafting his amending legislation. I hope he will also consider this: It is a cardinal principle of English law that no man shall be compelled to be his own accuser. There are certain powers of interrogation in the Indian penal code. The right hon. Gentleman has referred in laudatory terms to the Indian code. Even in that code any person is entitled in such circumstances to refuse to reply on the ground that his answer would tend to incriminate him. It is remarkable that His Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom are denied that degree of freedom which is given to His Majesty's subjects in British India.
The right hon. Gentleman rather appeared to suggest that the Motion which my hon. Friend has placed on the Paper was unnecessary. Personally, I do not take that view, and I think that if this Motion is passed this Debate will have served an exceedingly useful purpose, for two reasons. First, because earlier this year the suggestion did come from the German Government that we should muzzle our Press in this country, and prevent it from saying anything which might be offensive
1316
to the German dictator. That sort of suggestion does not come only from Germany. We have heard even in this House from time to time suggestions that we should be prevented from saying things offensive to the dictator in Germany. Secondly, it seems to me that this Motion would be of value because I think the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett), in that maiden speech to which we all listened with great appreciation yesterday, was right when he said that there was widespread fear in the country that our freedom of speech is seriously threatened. It may perhaps be an unfounded suspicion, but I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is there, and it is not due to an accident. It is not due even to innunedoes put about by Members of the Opposition party. It exists, and it is due to the totalitarian temper recently displayed by Cabinet Ministers. Of course, one need not go further than the Prime Minister. First of all, there was the particular passage to which the hon. Member for Bridgwater referred. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a criticism of the Munich Agreement, a criticism which represented what was in the minds of millions of electors in this country, we all recall the terms in which he was rebuked by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister accused him of fouling his own nest, and said that that did not happen in the totalitarian States.
Mr. Baxter: I apologise for butting in, but I remember the incident very well. When the Prime Minister made that statement, the Leader of the Opposition got up and objected, and the Prime Minister said that he was not referring to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Foot: I am speaking from recollection. I have not got the quotation here; but I think that if the hon. Member looks it up he will find that I am right. The Prime Minister did use that phrase in referring to what the Leader of the Opposition said. I was going to say, when I was interrupted by the hon. Member opposite, that of course these things are not done in the totalitarian States for the simple reason that all the critics are inside concentration camps. When remarks of that kind fall from the Prime Minister he has only himself to thank if he and his Government are suspected of totalitarian sympathies. Let me give the hon.

1317
Member another quotation. I go back a few months earlier to the time when this House was dealing with the Anglo-Italian Agreement. I am sure that many hon. Members will recall the peroration that was used by the Prime Minister on that occasion. He referred to Fascist Italy in these terms:
"To-day there is a new Italy, an Italy which, under the stimulus of the personality of Signor Mussolini, is showing new vigour, in which there is apparent new vision and new efficiency in administration, and in the measures which they are taking to improve the conditions of their people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1938; cols. 545 and 546, Vol. 335.]
In the whole of that passage from a Prime Minister of this country there was no suggestion of any kind that there was anything in the Italian Fascist regime to which we here could object. In view of utterances of that kind it is of some importance that we should discuss such a Motion as this and that we should lay it down for the information of some foreign governments and for the information too of some of our own statesmen that this House will not brook any form of censorship or control of the Press.
Finally, I want to say one word about the speech made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. He started off by giving a well-known quotation from John Stuart Mill about persons who might possibly find themselves in a minority of one. I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman will never find himself in that predicament. I agree very strongly with one observation which fell from him in the course of his speech, when he said that one of the great dangers to freedom was the process of attrition, the process of the whittling away the foundation on which liberty rests. That is what we in this part of the House have been saying for a very long time, and we have had many occasions to point to the signs of that process going on during the last six or seven years. When we have done so and have made our protests time after time, I cannot recall that we have ever had the slightest support, assistance, or encouragement from the followers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I remind the hon. Member and one or two of his friends of some of the things which have happened in the last year or two, some of which I think have a considerable bearing on the subject which the House is considering to-night.
1318
The hon. Gentleman said perfectly rightly that the first bulwark of liberty is in this House, and again I would agree with him, but it is the Government which he supports which passed the Unemployment Act of 1934, putting hundreds of thousands of unemployed households under the jurisdiction of a Board without any form of constant Parliamentary control. In the same year we had the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. I remember how we fought that Bill upstairs. Mr. Mallalieu, the Member for Colne Valley, and the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) moved Amendments which were accepted. I remember how that Measure was described by a great Conservative lawyer as the greatest assault on the liberty of the subject ever attempted by an executive Government at a time which was not a time of emergency. I do not think that in making these Amendments we had any support or assistance at all from the followers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We had about the same time the Visiting Forces Bill, the first Bill brought into this House for many centuries which abrogated in some degree the right of any person who thought he had been wrongly imprisoned to sue out a writ of Habeas Corpus. Then we have had the constant encroachments of the Departments. We had only in 1932 the Report of the Committee upon Ministers' powers, making very emphatic recommendations. Nearly all of those recommendations have been constantly ignored in the legislation introduced by His Majesty's Government in recent years. And, finally, we had had the use of the powers contained in the Official Secrets Acts for purposes which were never envisaged or intended by the Parliaments which passed those Acts. For these reasons my hon. Friends and I think that it is essential that Resolutions of this kind shall from time to time be brought before this House, and that is why I hope this Motion will be passed without Amendment.
10.51 p.m.
Mr. Spens: We have just heard a very able party speech from the hon. Gentleman, and I have listened this evening during all the time that has passed since half-past seven to a number of speeches, particularly that of the proposer of the Motion, which were intended to score party points against His Majesty's Gov-

1319
ernment. But I keep wondering, in this world of ours where we are witnessing a struggle of democracy against totalitarian systems, whether there was not an enormous victory for democracy during those days of crisis; that, in fact, though we mobilised, though we called out our Territorials, though we were prepared to meet an invading force at any moment, here in this British democracy we never had to put censorship on the Press at all. Is there any other nation in the world which would have gone up to that very last moment before war without having to muzzle its Press? Surely that was due to two things. It was due, first of all, to the sense of responsibility which the Press showed during those days leading up to the crisis; and, secondly, it was due to the realisa-
tion by His Majesty's Government, that the fight is not between the National Government and the Labour or Liberal Opposition but between the principles of free democracy and totalitarianism. It took no steps whatever to impose censorship of the Press in order to preserve our liberties and show the world that in this country we could use our liberties with discretion and responsibility right up to the very last moment of crisis. For that reason, I hope that the House will pass the Motion, but with the Amendment, so as to do justice to His Majesty's Government and the principles for which they stand.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 124.

Division No.13.]

AYES.

[10.55 p.m.

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

Errington, E.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

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

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Aske, Sir R. W.

Fildes, Sir H.

Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)

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

Fleming, E. L.

McKie, J. H.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

Furness, S. N.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Gtuckstein, L. H.

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

Baxter, A. Beverley

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Markham, S. F.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Marsden, Commander A.

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

Grant-Ferris, R.

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

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Granville, E. L.

Mayhew, Ll.-Col. J.

Bernays, R. H.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

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

Bird, Sir R. B.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Boyce, H. Leslie

Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Grimeton, R. V.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Hambro, A. V.

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

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Hammersley, S. S.

Munro, P.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Hannon, Sir P. J. H,

Nall, Sir J.

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

Harbord, A.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

O'Connor, Sir Terence J,

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

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Bull, B. B.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Butler, R. A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hepworth, J.

Patrick, C. M.

Carver, Major W. H.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Cary, R. A.

Higgs, W. F.

Petherick, M.

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

Hears Rt. Hon. Sr S.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Channon, H.

Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

Pilkington, R.

Chapman. A. (Rutherglen)

Holdsworth, H.

Porritt, R. W.

Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)

Holmes, J. S.

Ramsbotham, H.

Carry Sir Reginald

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Hopkinson, A.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

Howitt. Dr A. B.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Cox Trevor

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

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Crowder, J. F. E.

Hume, Sir G, H.

Rowlands, G.

Cuiverwell, C. T.

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

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Davies Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Russell, Sir Alexander

De Chair, S. S.

Joel, D, J. B.

Salt, E. W.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Shakespeare, G. H.

Durdale, Captain T. L.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Duggan, H. J.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Lancaster, Captain C. G.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Eastwood, J. F.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Somerset, T.

Edmendson, Major Sir J.

Lees-Jones, J.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Ellison, Capt. G. S..

Liddall, W. S.

Spans, W. P.

Emery J. F.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Storey, S.

Emmott, C. E. G. G

Lloyd, G. W.

Strauss, H. C. (Norwich)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Loftus, P. C.

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

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and aim)

Tasker, Sir R. I

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Thomas, J. P. L.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Watt, Major C. S. Harvie

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Mr. Beechman and Sir Stanley Reed.

NOES

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)

Pearson, A.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Mayday, A.

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

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

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Price, M. P.

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

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Pritt, D. N.

Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Quibell, D J. K.

Adamson, W. M.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Ridley, G.

Banfield, J. W.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Riley, B.

Barnes, A. J.

John, W.

Ritson, J

Batey, J.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Bellenger, F. J.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Kelly, W. T.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Benson, G.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Broad, F. A.

Kirby, B. V.

Sexton. T. M.

Buchanan, G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Silverman, S. S.

Burke, W. A.

Leach, W.

Simpson, F. B.

Cape, T.

Lee, F.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Charleton, H. C.

Leonard, W.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cooks, F. S.

Leslie, J. R.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Collindridge, F.

Logan, D. G.

Sorensen, R. W.

Cove, W. G.

Lunn, W.

Stephen, C.

Crippe, Hon. Sir Stafford

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

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

Daggar, G.

McEntee, V. La T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Dalton, H.

McGhee, H. G.

Thurtie, E.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McGovern, J.

Tinker. J. J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

MacLaren, A.

Tomlinson, G.

Day, H.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Viant, S. P.

Dobbie, W.

MacNeill Weir, L.

Watkins, F. C.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Watson, W. McL.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Mander, G. le M.

Welsh, J. C.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Mothers, G.

Westwood, J.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Messer, F.

White, H. Graham

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

Milner, Major J.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Gallacher, W.

Montague, F.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Gardner, B. W.

Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

Wilson, G. H. (Attercliffe)

Garro Jones. G. M.

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

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Muff, G.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Gibbins, J.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

Noel-Baker, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE ROES.—

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Oliver, G. H.

Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Dingle

Groves, T. E.

Parker, J.

Foot.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Parkinson, J. A.

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

Resolved,
"That this House, attaching the utmost importance to the maintenance undiminished of British democratic traditions of the liberty of expression of opinion, both in the Press and in public meetings and also in other media such as cinema films, would greatly deplore any action by the Government of the day which tended to set up any form of political censorship or which exercised pressure direct or indirect, but is fully satisfied that His Majesty's Government have maintained these traditions unimpaired."
The Orders of the day were read, and postponed.

SPAIN.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]
11.3 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Henderson: I desire to bring to the notice of the House certain developments which have recently taken place in connection with the Spanish civil war. The House is well aware that almost every Government associated with the Non-Intervention Committee has refused to grant belligerent rights to the Spanish insurgent authorities until all foreign combatants have been withdrawn from both sides in the Spanish war. Although the whole of the foreign volunteers have been withdrawn from the side of the Spanish Government, large numbers of Germans and Italian troops are still in the service of General Franco, and consequently belligerent rights have not yet been granted as provided for in the agreement of July, 1937. The position, therefore, to-day is that General Franco has no right under international law to inter-

1323
fere with non-Spanish shipping and any attempted blockade on the part of General Franco and his associates would be quite contrary to international law.
What is happening to-day? A very serious position has arisen in the Mediterranean. The freedom of the seas is, for the second time, being menaced. Merchant shipping can no longer carry on its lawful occasions without being subjected to seizure and eventually confiscation, in complete violation of international law. General Franco's warships are patrolling the Mediterranean. They are seizing, and have seized, a large number of non-Spanish ships, taken them into port and solemnly established prize courts to deal with them. I have in my possession a record of the trial of the captain and first officer of a Greek ship. Both the captain and the first officer were sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, and both the ship and the cargo were ordered by the court to be confiscated. Incidentally, reference is made in the proceedings to the "First Admiral of the Mediterranean Blockade Forces." That is an astonishing state of affairs, having regard to the fact that belligerent rights have not yet been granted.
The "Times" of 6th December, reports that a Norwegian ship, the "Norseman," plying from the Black Sea to Oslo, has been captured, taken to Palma, and there condemned by this so-called prize court; and the Foreign Minister of Norway has stated that it is a very serious matter. Of foreign ships with British cargoes, we know that nine have been seized and released following representations by His Majesty's Government. I must confess that I find no reluctance on the part of His Majesty's Government to make either protests or representations, but that seems to be as far as they are prepared to go. It has been stated that 15 ships still remain in General Franco's hands. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case that 15 foreign ships in which British interests are affected, either by way of insurance or British cargoes, are still in the hands of General Franco? I believe it is true to say, incidentally, that since the civil war began more than 7o neutral merchant ships have been illegally seized by General Franco's war vessels.
1324
We were informed two days ago, by a statement issued from the Foreign Office, that an agreement had been made between His Majesty's Government and the Spanish insurgent authorities whereby the insurgent authorities undertook not to interfere with any ship, foreign or British, carrying a British cargo from the Black Sea to this country. I take it that the ships in question are those which are carrying the wheat recently purchased in Rumania. It was also stated that a further list was to be prepared. I understand—I do not know whether the Under-Secretary has received the same information—that what takes place at Palma is this. The ships that are seized by the rebel cruisers are taken into this port and then the owners of the ships are subjected to a form of blackmail by the Spanish insurgent authorities. If they will sign an undertaking not to trade with the Spanish Government in future, their ships are released, and if they refuse to sign that undertaking, their ships are confiscated. That is a very extraordinary state of affairs to allow in these days.
But this arrangement apparently has been made between His Majesty's Government and the Spanish insurgent authorities. We send in our list of ships and General Franco graciously agrees not to interfere. What is the effect of this arrangement? First, it tacitly accepts the position that General Franco is, de facto exercising belligerent rights and that His Majesty's Government are not interested, so long as British ships and British property are not interfered with. I suggest that that arrangement is absolutely contrary to the spirit of Nyon, and the collective reply there of nine Governments to acts of piracy in the Mediterranean which to quote the Preamble of the Agreement "constituted a violation of the rules of international law." The arrangement at Nyon provided for collective measures being taken in defence of international law and morality. To-day His Majesty's Government do a deal with an insurgent authority, which is equally guilty of violating international law. In effect, His Majesty's Government say, "Leave our ships and our property alone, and you will have no trouble with us."
Is this the thin end of the wedge to enable belligerent rights to be exercised de jure by General Franco? Gone, it seems, is our traditional faith in the

1325
freedom of the seas. "Greece, Norway, Sweden, Holland," we say, "Let them look after their own interests, we are no longer interested in international law and morality. "But I would like to remind the House of the great services rendered to this country during the Great War by the shipping of those small neutral countries bringing in supplies that were vitally necessary to our welfare in those years. The French Government have sent a warship to the Straits of Gibraltar to protect their shipping interests. His Majesty's Government send protests. What a humiliating position. But, of course, behind General Franco is the shadow of Mussolini, and so Britain gives way. May I appeal to the Under-Secretary, in spite of the arrangement which has been made with General Franco to protect our own shipping apart altogether from what may happen to the shipping of other countries and apart altogether from this fundamental principle of the rule of international law and morality, not to sacrifice the freedom of action of His Majesty's Government to co-operate with other governments, if necessary to protect our shipping and to combat this unlawful interference with the merchant shipping of the world? Finally, I would urge upon him that this country is not without moral and material power. I suggest that if we were merely dealing with General Franco as a typical revolutionary we should have treated him very differently. It may be that we have to realise that behind him is the power of Germany and Italy. If so, let the Under-Secretary be frank with the House and say so. If, on the other hand, His Majesty's Government are not to be blackmailed by General Franco or any other dictator, I hope they will take steps, in co-operation with other interested governments, to see that it will be made possible for the merchant seamen of our own country and all other countries to carry on their voyages, according to law, without molestation by those who may well be called the pirates of to-day.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. W. Roberts: As I understand the position, the Nyon Agreement does protect neutral shipping in the Mediterranean against being sunk, either by aircraft, by submarines or by surface vessels, that agreement being carried out by the naval Powers of Great Britain and France between them. Why cannot that agreement,
1326
which was the only successful arrangement that the British Government and the other Government concerned have ever made as regards Spain, be extended so that the neutral shipping of the smaller countries can be protected from this illegal seizure? The seizure of ships may not be as spectacular as their sinking without warning, but it is just as illegal, and it is a further extension of General Franco's illegal acts on the sea. The question, therefore, that I want to ask is: What is the objection to British ships—a British naval patrol—being authorised or instructed to go to the assistance of neutral ships, which would be carrying non-intervention officers if going to Spain, or which could easily be found, by examination of their papers, not to be going to Spain? What is the objection to extending the Nyon Agreement so as to prevent these illegal seizures?
11.17 p.m.
Commander Marsden: We hear so much about belligerent rights being granted to General Franco that I would like to have it made clear whether belligerent rights already exist for the Spanish Government—HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Therefore, if we granted belligerent rights to General Franco, conceivably we should also grant them to the Spanish Government. It is true that they would not be of much use to the Spanish Government, because earlier in the proceedings, when the Spanish Government had a preponderating navy, they executed some 300 of their officers, so that we do not hear so much about their navy now. The other point is this: If I take the hon. Member's figures as correct—I am not disputing them—as to the ships stopped, searched or seized, those, I understand, were not English. So I should like to know whether any protest has gone to General Franco, let us say, from the Greek Government, who, I may remind the House, have a navy of their own to protect their own shipping.
11.18 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) gave me notice on 5th December that he was dissatisfied with the action taken by His Majesty's Government to protect British property in the circumstances which he has described. It is my case to show that in fact the action

1327
of His Majesty's Government has been very effective in one particular category of ships and that we have had a great deal of success in another category, and I think it would be well to describe to the House the two different categories. The first was the case, which the hon. Member mentioned, of the grain ships chartered to bring grain from Rumania, the cargoes being owned by His Majesty's Government. The action taken by the Government resulted in the release of two ships which had been detained, the "Mount Cynthos" and the "Nitsa," which were released on 1st December and sailed on 2nd December. This was due to the energetic representations made on behalf of His Majesty's Government by the British Agent. These particular ships have a special character. They were under British charter; their cargoes were the property of the British Government; they were bringing grain from Rumania to this country.
Special instructions were, therefore, given to the British Agent at Burgos and he has since given a list to General Franco's administration of the various ships involved in this trade, of which there are nine British, 14 Greek and one Yugoslav. They are all carrying cargoes similar to the "Mount Cynthos" and the "Nitsa." In response to these energetic representations and the action taken we have received assurances from General Franco's administration that these ships will not be molested. There will, therefore, be no further trouble with these particular ships. I think that it is satisfactory, in view of the representations made from the other side of the House, that we should have ensured that this particular problem will not trouble us again. The Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean has been informed of these assurances, and has been given a list of the ships in respect of which they were given.
Mr. Noel-Baker: How many days were these ships detained?
Mr. Butler: One of them was detained on 23rd November, and the other on 26th November. As I have informed the House, action was taken at the Foreign Office directly the nature of the cargo was ascertained and clear to us, and there was no avoidable delay in the action,
1328
which was successful, in releasing these ships. So much for the cases in which the British Government have a clear and direct interest in the cargo.
There are certain outstanding cases about which the hon. Member asked. There are now 14 foreign ships detained in which there is a private British interest. The House will realise that there is some difficulty in the British Government knowing, at any rate ahead, what particular private interest there may be in certain of these ships. It may be an interest solely in the insurance, or in the charter, or in the cargo. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the seamen!"] In most cases the seamen are foreign, as the ships are foreign ships. Of these cases, the interest in nine was solely in the insurance, in five in the cargo or part of the cargo, and in one in the charter. In all these cases representations have been made by the British Government. We have, of course, as they are foreign ships—and the House must have this quite clear—supported the action taken by the Government concerned—the Government of the flag. The hon. Member asked whether we have been in touch with foreign Governments. In the process we have supported representations made by the Greek, Norwegian, Latvian, Estonian and Netherlands Governments. We have been in touch also with the American and French Governments.
We have not only been in touch with foreign Governments, therefore, but have supported the representations which they have made in respect of their own ships. As the result of those representations, made over a certain period, nine ships have been released, and I am glad to state that two more—the "Norseman" and the "Garoufalla"—have also been released, according to the latest information I have received this evening. In both categories we are achieving success in liberating these vessels, and I am assured by our Agent, though I do not want to give categorical information as to particular vessels, that there are others which he hopes will be released in the near future.
If the House examines the case of the "Garoufalla" they will see the difficulty of this matter and that we have had some success in a complicated situation. This is a Greek ship, carrying a Dutch-owned cargo to Rotterdam, and the only British

1329
interest is that the cargo is insured in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we have secured the release of this particular vessel, just as we have also secured very recently the release of the "Norseman." These are the types of cases in which British interests are involved. In all such cases we put the facts clearly to General Franco and backed up those facts by energetic and immediate representations. We would not and we could not intervene when purely foreign interests are concerned, but we have always intervened when there has been any sort of British interest in the cargo, charter or insurance. This does not mean that we regard this interference by General Franco's forces as legal. The very opposite is the case. It is, as the hon. Gentleman declared, illegal, and by receiving from General Franco's Administration the assurance about the particular grain ships which fall into the first category we do not tacitly or in any other way concede belligerent rights to General Franco. The position as regards belligerent rights is, as I have so often stated to the House, that we accept the Non-Intervention Committee's plan and the position as to belligerent rights taken in that plan. They would be granted only if a substantial withdrawal of foreign nationals had been attained. At this stage I must answer my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Commander Marsden), who asked whether belligerent rights had been granted and whether they were in fact granted to the Spanish Government. The answer is "No," and if we do grant them, they will, of course, be granted to both sides. He also asked whether the Greek Government had made representations. I have answered that by saying that they have made representations and that we have backed the representations of the Greek Government. I think that in my reference to belligerent rights I have answered the point of the hon. Member
1330
for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), and I am just coming to his point in relation to the Nyon Conference.
I have said that we do not regard this interference as legal but, in the peculiar circumstances of the Spanish war, we regard the steps that we have taken as the most appropriate. These latest cases must in our view be regarded as falling within a different category from those which led up to the Nyon Conference. Then ships were being violently attacked and sunk, there was a risk to human life and in the words of lawyers, always dear to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), these acts were contradictory to the dictates of humanity. I have no wish to minimise the seriousness of the present cases, but here the same measures do not appear to us to be called for as in the case of Nyon. But that does not mean that we propose to sit back. The position is being closely watched. Sir Robert Hodgson is pursuing negotiations upon the whole matter, and I hope the House will feel reassured by the comparative success we have had in the various categories.
Let me repeat that in the first category the ships are on their way and we have assurances about them—that is the grain ships from Rumania. In the second category several of the ships in which there was considerable British interest have been released. We think that those measures are the most appropriate in the present difficult circumstances. We are not leaving the matter there, but propose to pursue it energetically.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
TRANSPORT
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LIVERPOOL
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LIVERPOOL
  UNDERGROUND CAR PARKS, LONDON SQUARES.
  UNDERGROUND CAR PARKS, LONDON SQUARES.
  MOTOR-DRIVING TESTS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
  MOTOR-DRIVING TESTS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).
  STREET PLAYGROUNDS
  STREET PLAYGROUNDS
  RAILWAYS AND ROAD TRANSPORT.
  RAILWAYS AND ROAD TRANSPORT.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  DOCKYARD WORKERS.
  DOCKYARD WORKERS.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  CANCER.
  CANCER.
  POST OFFICE (STAMPS).
  POST OFFICE (STAMPS).
  AUTOMATIC SALESMEN, LIMITED.
  AUTOMATIC SALESMEN, LIMITED.
BRITISH ARMY.
  WAR WEAPONS (COST).
  WAR WEAPONS (COST).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE).
  CLOTHING TENDERS.
  CLOTHING TENDERS.
  MEDICINE STAMP DUTIES.
  MEDICINE STAMP DUTIES.
  SOUTH AFRICA (SHIPPING SUBSIDY).
  SOUTH AFRICA (SHIPPING SUBSIDY).
  TRINIDAD.
  TRINIDAD.
  FEDERATED MALAY STATES.
  FEDERATED MALAY STATES.
  CEYLON.
  CEYLON.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  DE-ICING COMPOUNDS.
  DE-ICING COMPOUNDS.
  FOREIGN AIRCRAFT (FLIGHTS OVER BRITAIN).
  FOREIGN AIRCRAFT (FLIGHTS OVER BRITAIN).
  SUB-CONTRACTS (CHESHIRE).
  SUB-CONTRACTS (CHESHIRE).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (JUVENILES, LIVERPOOL).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (JUVENILES, LIVERPOOL).
  SUGAR (RETAIL PRICES)
  SUGAR (RETAIL PRICES)
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, EUXTON (DISPUTE).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, EUXTON (DISPUTE).
  BECTIVE ELECTRICAL COMPANY (DISPUTE).
  BECTIVE ELECTRICAL COMPANY (DISPUTE).
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
  TURKEY (BRITISH LOAN).
  TURKEY (BRITISH LOAN).
  GERMANY (CAPTAIN KENDRICK,EXPULSION).
  GERMANY (CAPTAIN KENDRICK,EXPULSION).
  GREECE (LOAN DEFAULT).
  GREECE (LOAN DEFAULT).
  AGRICULTURE (POULTRY INDUSTRY).
  AGRICULTURE (POULTRY INDUSTRY).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LANARKSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1938.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Erne I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Ouestion, Motion agreed to.

THE MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider the desirability of abolishing the most-favoured-nation clause in all reciprocal trade agreements entered into or renewed in the future; and move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is nearly three years since I had it in mind to put down a Motion in your Lordships' House on this particular question, my reason being that all the advantages which had come in the past as a result of the most-favoured-nation clause seemed to be disappearing. I believe that they have disappeared altogether to-day. This clause was originally devised in the interests of fair play and justice among the countries which subscribed to it, and it was devised under our old Free Trade system which has passed away and, if I may say so with all respect, passed away under the ægis and with the help of my noble friend who will reply to this Motion. To-day, owing to new methods of trade restrictions, the most-favoured-nation clause is more vulnerable than it ever was. Even in the past, under devices such as preferential railway rates, frontier dues, and in certain cases special interpretations, it was possible to ride a coach and four

367
through this clause, and certainly the effect was to whittle away a good deal of its meaning and importance.
I have to go back rather far for my first instance, but I should like to refer to the Russo-German Treaty of 1894. Under that Treaty the Germans had taken the right to import coal into Russia at a reduced rate. Under the most-favoured-nation treatment Great Britain ought to have received the same right. But what happened? The Treaty was altered in order to arrange that this coal must be imported overland. Obviously no coal could be imported overland into Russia from this country to compete with the coal imported by through waterways from Germany. Then there was another case. In 1909 the Russians raised the duty on oatmeal imported into Russia. The Americans protested and threatened reprisals, and again what happened? The Russians altered the regulations and arranged that an appendix should be added to them exempting Quaker Oats as being a preparation of oats and not oatmeal. Under the most-favoured-nation treatment the same consideration ought to have been given to British oatmeal, but British oatmeal was not regarded in that light, and so the Americans rode triumphantly through the clause. Then there is the very historic example of the German concession on cattle habitually living at an altitude of one thousand metres. This admitted the Swiss cattle but excluded all cattle from Denmark.
To-day the devices for voiding the obligations in the clause are no less ingenious and we have now in various countries the quota system, the licence system and quantitative imports; in fact, the growth of economic nationalism to-day has been such that the whole economic relationship between countries has been changed and is producing an entirely new orientation of trade. This has also been helped forward by special methods of trading, such as the barter system and subsidies, which are still employed by Germany on a large scale. To-day we have most-favoured-nation-treatment arrangements with fifty other countries in the world. That is practically the whole world, and under this clause we are bound to give any concessions which we give to one of these countries to all the rest of them. For example, suppose in a trade treaty with Denmark' we get certain concessions
368
from Denmark and give certain concessions in return to Denmark, we have to make the same concessions to every other country with which we have this most-favoured-nation arrangement.
That is the ethical interpretation of the clause, but what actually happens? Take the quota question. In practice, Switzerland, for instance, maintains that quotas and licences are outside the most-favoured-nation clause altogether. Germany, on the other hand, considers that if any quota is instituted it must apply equally to all countries. We in this country say that if quotas are instituted here, they shall apply only for a proportion of a period in ratio to the amount of imports that we have taken from the particular country for a fixed period. With such a confusion of interpretation, such a confusion of thought, such a confusion of application of this clause, surely the time has come when we should do away with it and get back to a proper trading basis. The fact that Japan is one of these most-favoured nations—Japan who, as I said yesterday in your Lordships' House, is doing everything she can to undermine our trade in China, quite irrespective of this most-favoured-nation clause—is, I submit, another reason why we should repeal it. Germany herself is a most-favoured-nation country. She is carrying on a barter trade; she is giving subsidies of a very unusual nature to her exports, and riding through the most-favoured-nation clause all the time.
I should like to give your Lordships another instance of the most recent Treaty which has been entered into by His Majesty's Government—that is, the Anglo-American Treaty which we all welcome in this country. Under that Treaty certain concessions are made by this country to American timber of coniferous species, and that concession takes the form of a reduction not only of import duty on the timber as a whole, but of certain rates upon certain classes of timber. That in itself creates difficulties for the Customs and for the importers of timber. But when I tell your Lordships that under this most-favoured-nation clause these concessions have to be applied to all other countries from whom we import timber, and who have the same most-favoured-nation treatment, I can assure you that the difficulties, trouble, and expense are trebled and quadrupled according to the countries from which we take that timber,

369
like Finland, Russia, Sweden, and so on. Not only that, but the importers who hold stocks of this timber are going to lose considerable sums of money by the reduction of these duties, and His Majesty's Treasury will, I submit, lose revenue as well.
Then again, during the period when this clause was really operating most actively, this country was the manufacturing hub of the world, and other countries were glad to take masses of articles from us. To-day this is all changed. Most of these countries have now set up their own factories. They are manufacturing many of the articles which formerly they took from us, and proportionately, and as a consequence, our export trade has fallen off and continues to fall off. Although we are still the largest and most potential market in the world for imported foodstuffs, raw materials, and manufactured goods, our economic position under the new conditions is growing more vulnerable. This is evidenced by the statistics which I can give your Lordships from eight selected countries. I find that we imported from them in 1937 goods to a total value of £334,000,000. What did they take from us? Goods to the value of £117,000,000. Even after taking into account invisible exports, this must represent to us an enormous adverse balance. You may ask what are these countries? I am going to give you them without naming the exact figures—the Argentine, Denmark, Finland, Russia, Poland, Sweden, Germany and the United States of America; and the most glaring example of them all is Russia, from whom we buy £29,000,000 worth of goods while they take a paltry £3,000,000 worth from us.
Surely, as the greatest importing country in the world, and the most important market for so many countries, not only in respect of primary products but also of manufactured goods, we should use the power which we possess to compel those countries with heavy balances of trade in their favour to take considerably larger purchases of goods than they do. I suggest that the most feasible and most practical way of doing this is by putting on quantitative regulation of imports. But to-day, as I am advised, this would not be possible because of the most-favoured-nation clause. Therefore I suggest to His Majesty's Government that that is another
370
important reason why the clause Should be abolished. I also venture to tell His Majesty's Government that in commercial circles—and I can speak from the point of view of the Federated Chambers of Commerce of the Empire—this is a policy for which they have long asked.
It has been suggested that the effect of doing away with the most-favoured-nation clause might be to divide the world into several large economic groups, trading principally inside their own groups, and that this would not help to extend trade, but would rather contract it than otherwise. Personally, I am not prepared to subscribe to that view. I take as an example the British Empire, which is one huge economic unit spread over one-quarter of the globe, doing certainly more than one-quarter of the trade of the world, and in which the most-favoured-nation clause does not operate; and what do we find? As the result of the preferences we have given within that group, trade has expanded, resources have been developed, and whilst there may have been to some extent an alteration in the direction of the balance of trade in the world, at the same time the members of that group have expanded their world trade as the result of this and are going on expanding it more and more.
There is another reason why I think this clause might be abolished. Already a broadside has been poured into it by His Majesty's Government themselves. In the Anglo-American Trade Agreement to which I have just referred, I find that Article 19 reads as follows:
"Each High Contracting Party reserves the right to withdraw or to modify any concession granted in any territory of that High Contracting Party on any article enumerated and described, or specified, in any of the Schedules annexed to this Agreement, or to impose quantitative regulations on the importation of any such article into that territory if, as the result of the extension of such concession to other foreign countries, any such country obtains the major benefit of the concession,"—
I ask your Lordships to note what follows—
"and if in consequence imports of the article concerned increase to such an extent as to threaten serious injury to producers in the territories of that High Contracting Party …"
Then there is the usual proviso for consultation between the parties if they wish to take action under this article.
This article is a direct negation of the most-favoured-nation clause. It cuts right

371
across it. It cuts right across Article 6 of the same Agreement, which is the most-favoured-nation clause in that Agreement. I venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government that if they have gone so far as to incorporate this clause in this very important Agreement they would not be doing wrong, even though they are not able to go the whole way at present, if they were to incorporate this clause in any other agreement in the future, and try to incorporate it in any agreement which already exists. I want to be perfectly fair to the Government over this. I do not for a moment think it is possible for the Government to say with a wave of the wand: "We are going to abolish this clause at once without saying anything more." I know there are difficulties. Fifty countries are involved. The clause in the agreements with those countries can be repealed under notice of a maximum period varying, I think, from three months to twelve months, but I suggest to His Majesty's Government that there is a way out, and it is this. They should advise these fifty countries that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to do away with this most-favoured-nation clause. They should give, say, two or three months' notice that they are going to do so, with an intimation that they would be quite prepared to continue the existing agreements minus that most-favoured-nation clause, and that in any new agreements entered into and continued the clause would not be included at all.
In conclusion I would like to emphasize that the most-favoured-nation clause does not accord either with the present policy of Protection in this country or with the policy of bilateral agreements. Moreover, as I have tried to explain, it minimises and curtails the immense power which this country possesses as an importing country, and which was enhanced when we adopted Protection within the last few years. The British market is by far the largest market in the world, and there are few countries who do not value it at its proper worth, while there are few who would pay for the privilege of entering it unless they were compelled to do so. I think my noble friend Viscount Runciman, had experience of that when he was at the Board of Trade trying to negotiate agreements with countries under a Free Trade system,
372
and he admitted to us, if I remember correctly—and it is possibly within the recollection of your Lordships—that as soon as duties were placed on various imports his difficulties vanished, so that he was able to come to satisfactory agreements during the term of his very able administration of the Board of Trade. But my view is that unless and until we take power, through the abolition of the most-favoured-nation clause, to use discrimination against all countries who make unfair use of the privilege they obtain from us, we cannot hope to restore British industry to its proper place nor maintain our trade at its economic level. I beg to move.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the question which has just been raised has compelled the mover of the Resolution to cover a range of subjects which go beyond the most-favoured-nation clause because, to illustrate the point under discussion, it was necessary to include references to these other questions. The subject itself, the suggested abolition of the most-favoured-nation clause, obviously is something which would have to receive very long consideration because it would involve a revision of treaties with an enormous number of countries. Therefore my noble friend has suggested a line which might in future be followed rather than expressed a hope that there should be a sudden decision. The most-favoured-nation clause itself is, however, receiving inescapably the very deep consideration of traders in this country who are experiencing progressive difficulties through the welter of increasing tariffs and quotas, exchange control and currency restrictions. And so it is opportune that this question should be debated in your Lordships' House, so important is it.
Two things occur to one. The first is the consolation that industrialists and traders as a whole will feel that when it comes to be dealt with in your Lordships' House on behalf of the Government this question is going to receive the attention of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. It is a matter for encouragement to everybody who wants to help the industry of the country that the noble Viscount's wide experience and ripe judgment are again at the service of the Cabinet on these very intricate matters. Then there is the somewhat curious reflection, that a matter like this, which strikes at the very

373
basis of the economic welfare of the country at the present moment, should, when debated in your Lordships' House, attract only so thin an attendance. This is especially so when one remembers that the members of your Lordships' House include a very large number who have wide experience of, and take a deep interest in, foreign and overseas trade. But I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, in dealing with this debate, will be under no misapprehension, thin though may be the attendance in your Lordships' House, as to the feeling of concern about this whole question.
A few weeks ago I returned from a trip to the United States and Canada, which meant that I was absent from this country during the period of extreme difficulty and concern. During that period, if I may say so, the chief measurement of the problem was the kind of advice that was going to be given to His Majesty's Government by the noble Viscount. An interesting point which must have struck most of your Lordships, as it did me when I returned to this country, was the degree to which there has been speeding up of military preparedness and expenditure of all kinds, while little discussion, attention and thought have been given to the equally important subject of economic preparedness. The spending of this money is a very easy thing for Parliament to decide upon, but the really important question is how we are going to pay. We can do so only by exports from this country—that is, by selling to the rest of the world the product of our labour. This Motion of my noble friend indicates one angle from which that question may receive the very serious consideration of the Government.
To turn for a moment to the most-favoured-nation principle, which has long been the basis of our trade treaties with foreign countries, there is no doubt that there is a strong body of industrial feeling in this country that what has served us up to now is no longer appropriate to the conditions which those engaged in foreign trade have to face to-day. To abolish it entirely is impossible, but is there not some intermediary method—indeed there is one, and there may be more—whereby this traditional principle can be modified? My noble friend suggested discriminatory treatment. We well know that in the originality of thought which motivate; the different Governments
374
in their trading laws, there is the risk of incurring penalties which are imposed on certain countries who follow certain courses of action. We have very vividly before us the treatment by the United States of Germany in return for her new policy. I merely throw out the suggestion which has been put forward by the Federation of British Industries in a memorandum recently submitted to the Board of Trade, that we should have a three-decker tariff—the first applied against those countries which do not accord us most-favoured-nation treatment, the second modifying the treatment which they should receive under it, and the third deliberately discriminating by different duties against those countries who buy materially less from us than we buy from them.
This is an age when admittedly the policy of bilateral trade equation is getting increasing attention. It is the thought which motivates all the autarchic States. Its practical application does bring results. It may well be that His Majesty's Government might benefit the trade of this country if they applied more rigorously that principle to their trade negotiations. One well realises the difficulty of that principle when one considers the most recent Treaty to which my noble friend referred, the Anglo-American Treaty. The situation there is that we buy from the United States four times as much as they buy from us. That is the current balance of trade for the first six months of this year. One can understand, therefore, how fundamentally difficult it is to make a trade treaty which can be satisfactory to both sides in its practical results when you have such an axiomatic disadvantage as that. I should like to avoid any impression of being lukewarm about that Treaty. On the contrary, I think all traders who have a broad outlook will not only greet with pleasure its achievement but congratulate the Government on pulling off what was such an extremely difficult thing. What would have been the result had the negotiations for that Treaty broken down? It serves no purpose now to jolt backwards, but those who have been recently to the United States and have been in contact with Washington, will be able to realise the deplorable sequence of events that might have followed from the disappointment to Mr. Cordell Hull and all the negotiators had the negotiations broken down. But let

375
us be under no illusion. A large part of the hundreds of schedules supposed to have been amended are—I scarcely know the word to use—
LORD STRABOLGI: Window dressing.
LORD BARNBY: —are at least misleading. When you read, for instance, of a duty being reduced 30 or 40 per cent.—that is from 110 per cent. to 70 per cent. specific and ad valorem combined—when it may be virtually exclusive at 40 per cent. what is the good of talking about gain? It is merely playing with words so far as practical results are concerned. Those many industries who need assistance, and had hoped for practical results in return for the immense advantages given to the United States, expected something greater; but instead of practical results all they get is a little consoling assurance of a large percentage of reduction which gives no practical advantage. This question of the conscious control of exports is not only engaging the attention of a very large number of Governments but is receiving their support. Ways in which it can be done have been exposed recently in a most helpful series of three articles in The Times newspaper, which give in some detail the technique followed by Germany. Other countries, not unmindful of what Germany has achieved, think that that is a happy line of procedure and are applying it to their own affairs. That series of articles brilliantly set out the position and will be very helpful to industrial thought.
During a helpful debate in another place there was a most courageous and clear speech by the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade. That speech will doubtless have been intensely resented in Germany, but it was very opportune and its delivery was very fortunate. Surely, while we in no way modify our admiration and support of the policy of the Prime Minister, of appeasement towards Germany, we do not see that that is any ground for our accepting treatment in our foreign trade which seriously encroaches upon the interests of industrialists in this country. This conscious control of industry justifies the thought of those who say, "Well, we in England might as well aim at the stimulation of our exports." After all, we come back to it: whatever we may talk about armaments, the justification of that
376
policy, I repeat again, is that arms have got to be paid for by these exports.
There is a very natural inclination for the industrialists of this country, with the increasing difficulties everywhere, to say: "We cannot be bothered with the export trade. The Government, directly or indirectly, in order to finance their armament programme, in one way or another take a large part of the profits of production. For the balance, we are dependent upon the home market to recoup us for our share of all this expenditure which the Government are embarking upon for their programme." That is not enough. Where are we going to get the credit which is eventually going to pay for the production of arms on this vast scale? Only through exports. There are those who say: "Why not? Let us have the export bounty, and impose an internal sales tax to make a pool out of which to pay for the armament programme." The noble Viscount who moved the Motion suggested that that might involve discrimination. That is a matter for His Majesty's Government to explain and examine. Of course I merely advance that suggestion, without recommending it myself, as one line of thought along which industrialists are thinking at the present moment.
The natural sequence must be the collective purchase of raw materials. We saw yesterday, and it was announced in the newspapers this morning, one of the most impressive events: the re-imposition of exchange control in one of His Majesty's Dominions. The New Zealand Government, finding too great the outward flow of its resources, as it was delicately put, through unreasonable excess of imports—when really it was importing foreign evidences of deposit consequent on the flight of capital from the Dominion—imposes exchange control. Here is Great Britain urging on the world a remission of currency restriction and control, and we find that one of the Dominions has suddenly jumped into the arena and put itself among those who practise exchange control. Already the New Zealand Government are committing themselves to the purchase of all dairy products, butter and cheese, in that country; they take them over at a fixed price and resell them in the world's market at the best price they can obtain, at a loss of about £1 per cwt.—£14,000,000 or £15,000,000 a year. The Canadian Government impose a complete

377
purchase of wheat, at a loss of what amount to their Exchequer?
I merely raise these points because we are being driven towards the collective purchase of raw materials. How is that going to impinge upon the economy of the Dominions within the Empire? Already some of their raw materials are at a disquietingly low price, and they are finding increasing difficulty in getting markets. As a digression, I might just say that we are all bearing vividly in mind what happens once interference with normal channels of trade occurs: the example of tobacco. Before the War South-Eastern Europe—Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, etc.—habitually sent a large part of their tobacco to this country. The War came, and trade with those countries was immediately cut off. The whole taste of this country changed from European to Virginian tobacco, and the result is that now the whole of the imports of tobacco into this country come from the United States, a country where we already purchase very much more than we ought to. We ought not to purchase from America; we ought to purchase from South-Eastern Europe, where we can pay for it, as Germany enforces payment for it, by exporting raw materials: by sending capital goods, which include British wages, giving employment to this country. Here is a vivid example—is there not?—of the necessity for His Majesty's Government to say to the working man of this country: "You ask rightly either employment or its equivalent, but the cost is ultimately loaded on to the pods which we export. All this unemployment pay has to be paid for, and we have a right to say that you should to some extent modify your taste, accept South-Eastern tobacco instead of zoo per cent. American tobacco, and let us pay for it with something we can export to a country that will take our goods instead of buying from a country that does not take our goods to the extent that we buy from her."
To some extent this question and the result involve political considerations. May I illustrate that fact for a moment by pointing to Greece, Rumania, or Poland? Poland, for example, is a country in which the economy is entirely complementary to that of this country. There is need for something to be done whereby we assist the inflow of primary production from that country to this country in
378
substitution of the primary products that come from countries that do not buy to the full extent from us, and pay for it by the export of capital goods which employ British labour and which are the contents of British wages. There is an example of a country of which the economy is essentially complementary to that of Great Britain. Why is it not done?
There are those who say that there is a deliberate desire on the part of His Majesty's Government to refrain from any action which would appear to give assistance to those countries which might be said to take part in political encirclement against Germany. Again, we do not want to hinder by one iota the policy of appeasement towards Germany. But we surely do not want to feel that we must sacrifice industrial interests; and we cannot afford to, because we must have this exchange, we must have this increasing volume of exports. Let us remember that many industries in this country, such as shipbuilding and textiles, are already suffering from an over-valued exchange and insufficient exports, causing further unemployment and cost to the Exchequer, and raising the cost of other products which we can export. It is not reasonable to suggest that a conscious action aimed to increase, through the time-honoured methods of treaty negotiations, trade with countries like Poland and Rumania, should be delayed because there is a doubt as to the prudence, at this moment, of interfering with the political set-up and suggesting that there is political encirclement. There is no threat towards other countries; this is purely a policy of self-preservation. But it does raise a point which very much concerns traders in this country, and one on which it has been hoped that some pronouncement might be made by His Majesty's Government.
Immediate short-term credits are the only machinery whereby we can transfer to these countries who are not able to produce exchange for cash payment, either the products of our labour or the primary products of our Dominions, which in turn are paid for by our labour and exports. The old pre-War system of banking has virtually broken down. The banks will, to-day, not take the risks which they used to take, not because there is any question of the trade-worthiness of possible buyers abroad, but because there is doubt whether the foreign

379
Governments will permit the honest intentions of the purchasers abroad to be carried out. That directly establishes the fact that foreign trade involves considerations of the assumption by the Government in some form of a political hazard. There are those who say that Government loans, in various ways to traders, to help to establish mixed companies for the development of industries within certain other jurisdictions, would in their turn assist to develop manufactures in this country or in the Dominions. That involves some political hazard, but only in that way can we hope to establish the volume of exports which will give us the wherewithal to pay for this expenditure to which we are committed.
It can be said that already there is in existence the Export Credits Department, which was set up to help in this direction. I do not need to remind your Lordships that the Export Credits Department confines itself rigidly to exports from this country. It does not provide for the export of goods or raw materials from our Dominions, and in spite of the brilliant way in which the Export Credits Department has been conducted—by that I refer to the fact that here is a Government Department, running strictly on business lines, achieving a commercial profit in spite of its essentially hazardous business—I think we may assume that no longer in the future will it be possible for a long while on the London market to issue public loans to foreign Governments, and therefore that method for the fertilisation of foreign trade, which is the traditional method, is no longer possible.
There are two points that I would wish to make in conclusion. The Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, in another place last week, emphasized the work that was being done to develop internal organisation in this country in individual trades. By that I mean to say that individual trades were themselves to be put into a position to talk collectively for their industry, so that they might discuss with industries in other countries collectively, and make bilateral agreements for the sharing of other markets. That surely, is a policy by which we feel that the Secretary for Overseas Trade is doing a great service to this country.
380
Finally, I will just emphasize the perplexity of this question of overseas trade and the fact that our capacity to pay depends upon our exports. When we were at school and the University we all learned political economy. At that time we were brought up on the thesis that you can import as much as you like, because those imports can always be paid for by exports. That was the thesis, but we have to-day in the world a competing thesis, that of Dr. Schacht in Germany, who says: "We will import nothing until we have exported the wherewithal to pay for it." That may be heretic political economy, but it is achieving a practical result. I merely dismiss the subject with this illustration, because we must admit that whatever may have been the foundation for the orthodox political economy, the world to-day calls for at least a careful analysis of other economies, and we ourselves might review them. I would repeat that I hope that Lord Runciman, in speaking for the Government, will bear in mind that, although the attendance in this House to-day may be thin, the interest in the country on this subject is an increasing one, and that there is intense anxiety amongst serious thinkers in industry throughout the country.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD): My Lords, may I, in following the traditional custom of this House, ask that I may have extended to me the same indulgence which is always conferred upon maiden speakers? I hope your Lordships will listen to me for a short time with patience, for I trust that I shall not make any prolonged inroad on your time. No one can complain of my noble friend Lord Elibank having raised a subject which has been discussed so very often here and in another place throughout the last twenty years, or that he has ranged over a far wider field than is outlined in his Motion before the House; and my noble friend Lord Barnby has taken us for a world tour, full of interest, and inspired with the most recent experience of American ingenuity and competitive skill. But let me remind your Lordships that the proposal before the House to-day is that we should with one stroke of the pen wipe out the most-favoured-nation clauses which are a characteristic feature of our commercial treaties. It would be difficult to make a greater demand upon

381
the obliterative capacity of the Government, and I have very little hesitation in saying—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt my noble friend? My Motion does not read in the sense which he has just stated. What it does say is: Will the Government consider the desirability of abolishing? It is not demanding or asking the Government to abolish at once.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: I do not see very much difference between what I said and the interpretation put upon the Motion by my noble friend, but I do not complain of that, because I think it is a thoroughly wise proceeding that we should, from time to time, examine our fiscal machinery and overhaul the doctrines by which we are guided. One thing that has been brought home to me is that so many of the practices of the past are based, not upon doctrinaire ideas, but upon practice which has been proved to be practical. Now with that test let us see how we stand under the most-favoured-nation treatment, which plays such a prominent part in our fiscal history. Before we undertook the making of commercial treaties on a large scale we were left with nothing but occasional agreements and a great deal of anxiety as to what the future held for our traders and merchants; and the constant chaffering and bickering and bargaining which went on in the Embassies and Legations led to a great deal of misunderstanding, and ultimately brought no permanent trade benefit to this country. Then some wise and ingenious fellow invented the most-favoured-nation clause. It is not a clause that I should care to repeat from memory, but it certainly does the trick. It provided in the commercial agreements made by this country with its customers throughout the world, numbering in all, I think, some forty-five countries, a means by which we could be assured that in competition in the great markets of the world we got fair play.
The one thing we were anxious to do was to place our merchants and exporters in the position of selling on the same terms as their competitors. To find themselves blocked out of their markets because of the tariffs on those markets, discriminating against us, was the normal experience of the day; whereas the only
382
means by which our merchants could hold their own in those foreign markets was by getting in on the ground floor. That is really the secret of the most-favoured-nation clause: it enables our merchants and exporters to get into foreign markets on the ground floor. I am quite well aware of the fact that there have been many devices during the last few years, particularly since the War, by which the most-favoured-nation treatment to which we have been accustomed in the past was whittled down. The imposition of quotas, restrictions on imports and on exports of the character of prohibitions, exchange controls—all these alike provided obstacles in the way of our trade just as harmful as the tariffs which the most-favoured-nation clause sought to diminish. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to dispense with the most-favoured-nation clause. They have just made an Agreement with the United States of America. In that Agreement full provision is made for equal and fair treatment for our merchants and exporters in the American market. I agree with my noble friend that the number of articles which is dealt with is not a fair indication of the full range of that Agreement. One must examine the articles one by one and see whether or not they are important enough to justify our saying that the American Agreement is to make a substantial difference to our trade.
I think my noble friend went so far as to belittle the subjects which come under the new dispensation, and while he was doing that I looked up the list of some of the principal articles which are affected by the Agreement. First of all—a subject which must appeal to any Scotsman in the House—the treatment of whisky and gin; in both cases a reduction of 50 per cent. under a previous agreement is confirmed in our favour. The treatment of these two alone ought to bring satisfaction in the quarters where whisky and gin are distilled.
LORD BARNBY: It is not the custom in Yorkshire to drink them.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: I leave my noble friend to speak for Yorkshire in that matter, but I point out that whisky and gin are not the only subjects which are dealt with. I look at some of the larger items, and I find china clay, imported into the United

383
States almost entirely from the United Kingdom. The duty was reduced from 2.50 dollars to 1.75 dollars a ton. Ground mustard—almost entirely from the United Kingdom: the duty has been reduced from 10 cents a pound to 7½ cents a pound. Turning to two of our most depressed industries, cotton and wool, I find that the cotton piecegoods categories cover a very wide range and concessions are made on the finer counts—a matter of first-class importance to us. Woollen piecegoods are treated in like manner, and an ad valorem duty on the higher grade cloth is reduced from 60 per cent. to 35 per cent. I submit that these reductions are not immaterial. They have gone in the right direction, and I believe they will bring almost immediate benefit to those producers in this country who are dependent on the American market for their trade, and whose employees are dependent very largely on the good temper and harmony existing between the United States and ourselves.
I have said that in the early days it was found very difficult to make commercial agreements on a basis which brought much satisfaction to our people, but at all events we did succeed in making these commercial treaties with a very large number of countries. I believe something like a score were mentioned by my noble friend, but if my memory is right at least forty-five commercial treaties are operating still between this country and foreign countries, and in those treaties, with very few exceptions, the most-favoured-nation clause plays a part. Let us see how we stand with regard to the rest of the world. The Agreement with America is not the only one which has been reached during recent years. While I was spending my time, profitably I hope, doing what I could for other business men and traders with whom I had been associated all my early years, I succeeded in making agreements with twenty-three foreign countries. They were effective, not in every item of course, but they were effective on the whole, in producing a stability of demand which was of first-class importance to our traders. When I discussed in America with Mr. Cordell Hull the possibility of a trade agreement with this country, he told me over and over again that he had made agreements with no fewer than sixteen countries, and I had to point out to
384
him how much more generous we had been in the obligations into which we had entered. Now I venture to say that he must be having great satisfaction from the approval that has been bestowed upon the Anglo-American Agreement in America as well as here. For let us be quite clear about these matters. Trade agreements which are purely one-sided will never be any good to anybody. There is not the least doubt about it that the long list of articles which are affected in these various agreements will not add uncertainty to the trader's outlook, but will give him an assurance of business for the future.
I hesitate to detain your Lordships over a subject which is so threadbare, but I would repeat again the chief reasons why at the present time we are prepared to examine these topics one by one, country by country, and trade by trade, but at the same time cannot give any undertaking that we are going to dispense with the most-favoured-nation clause. It brings us such distinct advantages that it would be foolish of us and improvident to abandon that clause without having something to put in its place. My noble friend has not made any suggestion excepting that of exclusive agreements within the Empire, and I sympathise very fully with his ambition to extend Imperial trade.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think the noble Viscount did not follow me. I merely referred to the British Empire as an example of where units, trading together under a preferential system with us, had built up a very large trade among themselves and expanded their export trade. It was only an example. What I did try to make clear was that there should be a rearrangement of all our trade agreements over a period of time and that this most-favoured-nation clause should be excluded from those agreements, and later on from any agreements which might be entered into. That was my definite recommendation.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: We are very grateful to the noble Viscount, I am sure, for having made it still more clear what his ambitions are. In the present Government we certainly have given pledges to the Empire, for we have entered into engagements there which are of mutual benefit to us and to them, but we are not going to ignore our

385
foreign trade. It is quite true that our foreign trade is passing through a period of great difficulty, but we intend to continue in so far as we can to encourage trade and traffic not only with those countries which fly the British flag but with other countries that are capable of buying and paying for that which they buy. I would only say in conclusion that one of the things which cause us the greatest anxiety is not the tariff boundaries over which we have to leap. We are finding means of dealing with them one by one, and I do not think the situation is as bad now as it was ten years ago; but we are having to deal with exchange controls and currency questions of the greatest complexity. It is incumbent on us to examine them to the best of our ability, and to make decisions and embark on policy which may be new, but none the less useful because it is new, and to examine them as well as the old theory, with the object of providing for the sale of our goods abroad and the employment of our people at home.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, before I withdraw my Motion, I would just like to say one or two words. I regret that my noble friend does not seem to have followed my speech in the sense that I intended it, and I hope that to-morrow he will read my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT and see that I did express certain things rather differently from the way in which he interpreted them to your Lordships' House. Evidently I must rest content this afternoon with accepting His Majesty's Government's decision that they do not intend to investigate this question, but are content to leave it as it is. I had no reply at all to the point with regard to the Anglo-American Trade Treaty, Article 19 of which cuts right across the most-favoured-nation clause. However, that may have consideration later on. I only wish to end these few observations by emphasizing what my noble friend Lord Barnby stated in the course of his speech, that this matter is of very great concern to all the commercial classes in this country. They are discussing it, talking about it, examining it, and will most certainly bring it up again. They are gradually and quite definitely coming to the conclusion that the only way that this subject can be met is by an amelioration of this most-favoured-nation clause and by the institution of quantitative regulation of imports, which seems to be the only way in
386
which we can get rid of the adverse balance of trade which is assailing us to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE QUOTATION OF COMMONS SPEECHES.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name, which is "That the practice precluding the quotation in this House of speeches made in the House of Commons should no longer be insisted on." I have put down this Motion in order to give your Lordships an opportunity of considering the present rule on the subject, not because it is of enormous importance, but because I cannot help feeling that the present position is rather unsatisfactory. I have not come across an authoritative statement of what the rule is, but as I understand it, the old conception was that it was out of order or, as some Speakers in the House of Commons put it, "irregular" to quote any of the proceedings, particularly of the debates, in the other House. That was an absolute rule originally, I understand, but it certainly is not an absolute rule to-day.
The most recent decisions in another place—I do not know that there are any in your Lordships' House, at least I have not come across them—make a variety of exceptions. They point out that you cannot insist on that rule in that form. I will quote, before I sit down, the most elaborate of these decisions. But even so long ago as 1891, when the matter came up in the other House, the Speaker, who was Mr. Speaker Peel, gave a ruling. Objection was taken to a reference to a statement made by a Minister in this House, and there was a little doubt as to what the rule was, and the Speaker explained what it was. He said that to follow arguments in detail in the other House was irregular, but not to quote any particular statement that was made and, in point of fact, after that ruling a statement of several hundred words—certainly quite a substantial statement—made by a Minister in this House was quoted without further objection. Gradually there seems to have grown up a number of exceptions of that kind. In spite of that, your Lordships will be perfectly well

387
aware that the rule is continually evaded. If anyone wishes to quote a speech made in the other House, as long as he does not mention it is a quotation, no one would think of interfering with what he is saying. There has been introduced a kind of system of what we used to call at Eton "shirking." There, as long as a boy could nominally keep out of the sight of a master when he was out of bounds, it was part of the duty of a master not to notice him, and consequently the rule as to out of bounds in those districts rapidly fell into disrepute and was abolished. There seems to be something like "shirking" as to the practice of quotations in this House when you wish to refer to proceedings in another place, and the explanation is that there is really no sufficient reason for the rule in present circumstances.
The actual incident which has induced me to raise the matter and bring it before your Lordships' consideration occurred the other day here. In the course of the debate on the Italian Agreement, Lord Snell made a quotation from something that Mr. Eden had said in the other House, not with a view to entering into controversy with a member of the other House, but merely with a view to explaining the position he himself took up, which he thought had been well expressed by Mr. Eden. Then my noble friend Lord Crewe, thinking no doubt that if there was a rule it ought to be carried out, expressed an opinion which I will read to your Lordships. He said:
"Surely the noble Lord is aware that it is completely out of order here to quote textually from a debate in another place. Mr. Speaker is always most active in at once stopping any quotation from a debate in your Lordships' House."
My noble friend the noble Marquess, was evidently speaking on the spur of the moment. I think if he will look into the authorities, he will agree with me that as he stated it he has put it rather too high; at any rate as far as that rule has been explained in the other House. I will quote another ruling of the Speaker before I sit down which, I think, makes that abundantly clear, and that ruling, as I understand it, states the present position.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships with any elaborate investigations as to the origin of the rule. It seems to be put on several grounds. No doubt it
388
sprang up when conditions were extremely different from what they are now. When it originally came into existence no doubt it was a breach of Privilege to report anything which took place in one House anywhere outside the walls of that House. Therefore, to quote it in another House evidently caused very great difficulty, because it might technically be a breach of Privilege. There were other doctrines, and one of them was that it might cause bad blood between the speaker who was quoted and the speaker who quoted him in either of the two Houses. That seems to have been a matter of great anxiety in those days. Your Lordships, of course, are perfectly well aware of the curious relic in the other House, where there is a little carpet before the Front Benches below the gangway beyond which it is not in order for a speaker, a member of the House, to step while he is addressing the House. The reason for that, I have always been given to understand, is that it was done in order to keep the two Front Benches of the House sufficiently far apart to prevent a lunge by one or the other with a rapier. That is not a danger that we should feel to be very acute at the present moment, but in those days apparently they did feel it to be acute.
In looking into this subject I came across a very picturesque story. There was a foreign debate between Mr. Fox and Mr. Wedderburn, and before the discussion had concluded it was observed that Mr. Fox was about to leave the House, whereupon the Speaker immediately rose and directed all the doors of the House to be closed until the two members concerned had given a solemn promise that the matter would not be carried any further outside the House. That takes you back to the kind of frame of mind that perhaps prevailed when this rule was brought into existence, and of course that has all disappeared completely now. I really think that is the chief part of the case that I desire to put before your Lordships. It seems to me that the rule has lost its reality now. It has become whittled away in a number of ways by successive decisions in the other House, and if you are to accept the rule as it is now stated in the other House as a guide to our debates, it practically would mean nothing at all.
Let me read the most authoritative decision that I have been able to find, a

389
decision of my noble friend Lord Ulls-water, when he was Speaker in another place. He was asked for a formal decision by Mr. Harry Chaplin as to what the rule really was, and he said this (I am quoting all the material parts):
"If an honourable member enters into a controversy with regard to something that has been said in the other House and endeavours to reply to a speech made in the other House, that would be out of order and very undesirable because the noble Lord not being present here cannot answer or explain any quotation which may be made."
Next comes what is most material for the case I am drawing your Lordships' attention to:
"But I do not think the rule can be carried out in its entirety because it might … be absolutely necessary to refer to a statement made la another place, such as a statement upon some great question of policy or a statement by a Minister giving a concession with respect to a Bill. I think it would be mere pedantry on our part if we were to insist on closing our own mouths so as not to be able to refer to that fact at all. … Therefore we must observe a certain amount of elasticity."
I think that seems to indicate that the rule as it exists at present, if you can call it a rule, is that you must not quote what goes on in the other House unless it is part of the argument that you are desiring to present to the House which you are addressing on the subject which is before that House—that is to say, you must not enter into a discussion with a member of one House under cover of a debate in the other.
I think it would be practically impossible to apply that, but of course it would be quite improper, not under this rule but under any other rule, for a noble Lord here to enter upon an elaborate philippic against a member of the other House because he was discussing some matter in this House. It world be quite irrelevant to do so, and I imagine would be out of order on that ground quite apart from this rule. The truth is that we have passed altogether beyond the period when this rule may have been, and I dare say was, a useful rule, and one can see that in view of another practice which has taken place recently, the extreme frequency of political speeches in the country and not only in Parliament. Supposing in this particular case Mr. Eden had made this statement outside—and I expect he has said very much the same thing in a speech outside the House of Commons—there would not have been
390
the slightest objection to its being quoted in this House. It could then have been quoted perfectly freely. The fact that it was made in the House of Commons really does not seem to me to make any difference.
If the old rule about Privilege disappears, I see no difficulty. I do see, on the other hand, a great disadvantage, which was alluded to by Mr. Speaker Lowther in the extract I have just read. I see a great disadvantage in shutting out from our debates facts which are of real importance in enabling your Lordships to make up your minds on any question which is being debated here. The opinions of Ministers in this country, certainly on foreign affairs, are part of the very substance of our discussions, and it is a matter of the greatest importance obviously to know what Ministers have said on the subject. It is a matter of almost equal importance, perhaps even of more importance, to know what three or four or perhaps more leading members of the House of Commons have said in like manner; and to say that we are not to be allowed to bring what they have said into the consideration of matters that are discussed in this House does seem to me to be a very grave limitation of the material with which we have to deal in order to arrive at conclusions here. For those reasons I venture to hope that your Lordships will accept the Motion which I now move.
Moved to resolve, That the practice precluding the quotation in this House of speeches made in the House of Commons should no longer be insisted on.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like in a word or two to support the noble Viscount's Motion for one or two reasons similar to those he has brought forward. It has always seemed to me that it is entirely artificial that this so-called rule should exist. It has existed, as we all know, in a certain form in the other House as well as here, but I think I can say it has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance in both Houses for a very long time past, by the introduction of that convenient phrase "in another place" indicating that a speech might perhaps have been made anywhere else whilst we all know quite

391
well that the reference is in fact to a speech made in the other House of the Legislature.
Whatever may have been the original reasons in justification of the rule, so far as it ever has been a rule, I suggest that there are very good reasons why it should not be continued in operation now. We have had some very good examples even in this short session. The noble Earl the Leader of the House will remember that only a few days ago we had a debate on the question of a Ministry of Supply. We were compelled, if we were to discuss that matter intelligently, to have regard to proceedings in the House of Commons. We could not have discussed it intelligently otherwise, as a great many of the most material facts relating to the case had been stated in the House of Commons. For example, the speech of the Secretary of State for War was quoted by myself, and I think by others, because it was exceedingly material to the issue before us. When this House has not the responsible head of a State Department among its members, it is inevitable and I think most useful that we should be able to refer to his speech in another place. That debate and many others are clear instances of the many advantages which do in fact arise.
It is a custom of course to refer to such a statement in the form of a paraphrase, lest we should be held to be out of order if we quote the statement verbatim. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be altogether advantageous that we should quote such statements accurately, and we should be able to quote them accurately without being disorderly in so doing. In bringing forward this Motion the noble Viscount is asking us to pay a tribute to frankness, to good sense and to existing conditions of discussion. I am sure that members in both Houses can be relied upon not to abuse this privilege, just as they do not abuse other privileges. They would soon be called to order by the sense of their fellow members, if not otherwise, if they took unfair advantage of the privilege. I think we should rely upon good sense and good traditions rather than upon a rule which has long since fallen into disuse and which, I suggest, it is better to get rid of in the interest of accuracy and usefulness in debate.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has brought forward this Motion, for the matter is of a certain importance, as everything must be which touches in any way on the relations between the two Houses. The noble Viscount told us the origin of his Motion—namely, what occurred on November 3, in the debate on the Anglo-Italian Agreement, when the noble Lord, Lord Snell, read from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Parliamentary Debates an extract from a speech made in another place. He was somewhat abruptly called to order upon this Bench, to our great regret, because it seemed almost discourteous to the noble Lord who is always so conspicuously courteous to everybody else. But it was a very marked departure by one who holds a conspicuous place in your Lordships' House from what has hitherto been the practice of your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, described to us in a very interesting manner the practice of another place. I do not think that what he said went to show that that is in any sense different from the practice that has obtained here—that is to say, that it is in order to make a general reference to a speech in another place, but it has not been held to be in order to read the precise words used in the debate.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If the noble Marquess will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, the first instance I gave of the decision of Mr. Speaker Peel was quite clearly that it was right and proper to read the actual words, and a very large section of the actual speech made in this House was thereupon read by Mr. Samuel Evans.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am very sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, is not in his place, because he would have been able to tell us what the facts are with far greater authority than anybody else, but I think I am accurate in saying that the present occupant of the Chair has definitely called to order members of the House of Commons for reading verbatim extracts from the OFFICIAL REPORT Of debates in this House. The general practice may be taken, I think, to be that a general reference is permitted, but an argument founded on the actual wording of the speech in another place would be objected

393
to. That is obviously not enough for my noble friend Viscount Cecil. With his accurate mind and his legal training, he thinks it as important to be able to quote the precise words used in a speech made in another place as he would if he were arguing a case in the High Court. Most of us, I think, can hardly go so far. Speaking for myself, after a tolerably long occupancy of both Front Benches in turn, I cannot recall a case when anything I had to argue suffered from my not being able to quote a speech made in another place.
In nineteen cases out of twenty it suffices for the purpose of a speech here to describe in general terms what has been said on behalf of the Government or by some member of the Opposition in another place. The twentieth case is that of a definite Ministerial statement, of which the actual wording, and even the placing of a comma, may be of importance. But it has always in the past—I do not say it always obtains now—been the rule that, so far as possible, statements of that kind should be made at the same time on the same day in both Houses of Parliament. But it is also felt to a great extent by us that we are entitled, so to speak, to sit down to a freshly-cooked meal and not have to be put off with warmed-up cabbage left over from the debates in the other House of Parliament. Therefore the suggested change does not seem to be precisely necessary.
But there are also certain positive objections. My impression is that if such a change were made here, a similar change would be demanded in the House of Commons and that it would be objected to—this is only a conjecture; it is not founded on any knowledge—on the ground that it would throw additional burdens on the occupant of the Chair, whether he were the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. It is all very well to speak of comments made on a Ministerial statement, or upon the kind of statement upon which Lord Snell commented the other day. But if you lay down the rule, by adopting the plan of the noble Viscount, that the debates in one House are freely open for discussion in the other, you seem to me to run certain risks. You almost invite the possibility of some indiscreet speech or some apparently contradictory observation becoming the subject of a Question or a Motion in the
394
other House. Lord Addison put that objection aside by assuming that all members of both Houses invariably behave well and that no instance of what our Standing Orders call "taxing" observations would be likely to occur. I do not feel quite so sure.
Viscount Cecil somewhat discounted the idea of any marked collision of opinion between the two Houses, and seemed to think that that was a matter of the past. It is not at any rate a matter of the very distant past, and I should be very sorry to assume as a certainty that there is no such possibility for the future. To take a single instance, there is at this moment no occupant of the right reverend Bench, but I can remember occasions, and I can conceive their repetition, in which the expressed opinions of the right reverend Bench have come markedly into collision with the views held by the majority in another place. I think it is not difficult to imagine a most lively debate taking place on an occasion of that kind. Of course I do not for a moment suppose that there would be anything in the nature of a "slanging-match" between members of the two Houses. If it came to that, I have no doubt that some of your Lordships would do your best, but I am afraid that some of the less responsible elements of the other place would be backed to win in such a competition!
Then there is another point. When a Bill had passed through one House and came to another, there would be a certain temptation, if free quotation from what happened in the first House were allowed, and there might even be an attempt, to make a point either for or against the measure by quoting verbatim what had been said elsewhere. In my view the real fact is that, after all, at present we have two Houses. It is undoubtedly the declared belief of noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench, and of their supporters, that the business of the country could be carried on more expeditiously and quite as efficiently in a single Chamber.
LORD ADDISON: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Precisely; but so long as we have two Houses of Parliament it is highly desirable that their proceedings should, so far as possible, be kept quite independent one of the other; and the invitation which is issued by my

395
noble friend Lord Cecil goes some little way in the direction of merging the proceedings of the two Houses together. For those reasons, I cannot help feeling that this is a case for the adoption of Lord Melbourne's well-known query, "Why can't you let it alone?" If there were a real grievance attaching to the present procedure, the positive objections might have to be faced, but I do not see that the present system inflicts any hardship on anybody. I am prepared to repeat Lord Melbourne's query, and I trust that the Government and the majority of the House will take a similar view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot pretend to speak to your Lordships with the same authority as that of the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I have a considerable standing, I am sorry to say, of years in this House, but they do not, I am afraid, compare with the years of the noble Marquess. It therefore makes me very uncomfortable if I feel that upon a matter of the procedure and order in your Lordships' House I do not entirely agree with the noble Marquess. I am very glad that this matter has been brought before the House, because the intervention of the noble Marquess the other day, when he called Lord Snell to order, was a very important matter, that being the method by which the order of procedure of your Lordships' House is determined. We have no Speaker in the sense of a presiding ruler, who tells us what the rules of the House are. We decide for ourselves, and there is no doubt that the intervention of a noble Lord so influential as the noble Marquess, if it had not been brought before your Lordships' House for consideration, would have been quoted, and properly quoted, as—I will not say an abiding precedent but as a very important precedent, governing our future procedure. Therefore we must not be blamed if we seriously consider what the rule ought to be.
There is, of course, a great deal in what the noble Marquess has said with which we must all sympathise, but let us try and remember how limited the application of this rule already is. That has already been mentioned by my noble friend and relative who is responsible for the Motion before your Lordships, but let me just recite them. I do not think he mentioned
396
one limitation. Although, by the practice of the House of Commons and to some extent by the practice of your Lordships in the past, there has been a certain limitation as to the quotation of what passes in another place, yet that is strictly limited. According to recent precedents there is nothing at all irregular in quoting anything which has passed, so long as it has occurred in a past Session. I am no authority on procedure in the House of Commons, but there, I understand, if the quotation is something said in a past Session there is no objection. The point is that it it is not a quotation ipsissima verba of what has passed in the current Session. Will your Lordships realise to what a paradox, almost, that reduces the rule? The Leader of the Opposition, in the speech which is under consideration, if I may so venture to describe it, was speaking on November 3. According to the rigid rule of the House of Commons—I have not a word to say about the rule in this House—he was out of order, but if he had spoken on November 8 he would not have been out of order, because he would have been speaking in a different Session. He would have been perfectly at liberty to recite what Mr. Eden said in another place if he had spoken a week later. We thus see how modern practice has made the old limitations very difficult to defend.
That is one limitation. Let me take another which has been mentioned. The rule does not apply to a Ministerial statement. You may quote as much as you like a Ministerial statement in either House, even in the same Session, but there is a limitation upon a statement by a member of Parliament who is not a Minister. Mr. Anthony Eden certainly was not a Minister at the moment he spoke, but he had only just ceased to be a Minister. Are we to balance the rule upon a foundation so slight as that? Of course I am not referring to any question of Party politics in this matter, but what the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said was almost as important as what the present Secretary of State said. It was very important indeed, and to say that one should be in order, and the other out of order, seems to me to be a refinement, if it had not been urged by the noble Marquess, I should almost have said to the extent of pedantry.
Again, there is nothing out of order in saying what has passed in another place,

397
provided you do not quote the actual words. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, might have said that Mr. Eden had, in the House of Commons, said in effect, and so forth, and he would have been perfectly in order, but according to the rigid rule he must not quote the ipsissima verba. Most of us, if quoted, would like to be quoted accurately. Your Lordships know as well as I do, how often in a public debate, when a statement is made about the attitude of someone else, a critic rises in his place and says, "When was that said? Where was that said? Will the noble Lord refer us to the words on which he relies?" Of course, because it all turns on the accurate words. The substance of the thing, which is not out of order, is to be passed, while the ipsissima verba must be treated with these restrictions. I venture to think that a thing which by the process of time has been reduced to such a point as that cannot be defended.
Then there is the actual practice. I think if your Lordships will refer to the handbooks on this subject, and also ask people of experience in another place, you will find that this rule is continually broken in the House of Commons. No doubt the Speaker retains a certain control and does not allow the practice to go too far, but the rule is continually broken. Speaking of your Lordships' House—I do not speak with any authority, except that of having been here a very long time—I do not suppose a week passes in which this rule is not violated, if it be a rule. There is no Standing Order to this effect. It is only a practice, and although I do not make any complaint, for a moment, of my noble friend who is responsible for this Motion, or of the noble Marquess for having recited the practice of the House of Commons, nevertheless I would like your Lordships never to forget that the practice of the House of Commons has no bearing whatever upon our practice, except for the profound respect that we have for that great institution. We make our own rules, and we are absolutely independent in that respect and in our own practice.
I can only say that, having sat here for a very great number of years, I think hardly a week has passed in which I have not heard this rule, if it be a rule, violated, and it must be violated, because it is impossible to carry on the business of the country unless you can recite what
398
has passed of materiality elsewhere. Of course there is no rule against quoting speeches made in the country, and quoting them ipsissima verba. Are you really to draw that distinction, and to say that while what a very important Minister, or an ex-Minister, says in the country may be quoted, we are to be hampered when we come to deal with what he has said in another place? Surely upon that foundation nothing solid can rest. I venture to say that what we have to think of is how best to carry on the business of the country. We must be as free as we can and we must be, may I also add, as accurate as we can, and the ipsissima verba are the only certain road to accuracy.
Of course I realise and sympathise with the argument that we do not want recrimination—I think that is the word which was used—between the two Houses of Parliament. We want no element of discourtesy. I should be the last man to desire the slightest word of discourtesy to be uttered as regards the other House of Parliament, and I hope that will always be the practice of your Lordships' House. But it is the practice and does not depend upon this arbitrary and (if I may use the word again) rather pedantic rule; it depends upon the general spirit and temper of your Lordships' House that we do not use language which is discourteous to another place. If it were necessary to have a rule of that kind I certainly should not be prepared to criticise it, but that is quite a different thing from binding us down to this particular provision. I do not know what line the noble Earl who leads the House will take, and for my part I should be very anxious to guide my conduct by his advice. It is upon his advice that we principally depend in a matter of order in your Lordships' House, and if he thought fit to say that he thinks this rule should be abandoned I should not be sorry, and I should be glad that we should be free, if that be your Lordships' wish.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, it is rare indeed that I differ from my noble friend who has just spoken, but I am afraid I am obliged to do so on this occasion. Before I come to the substance of the matter I would like just to make two points. First of all, because a rule is frequently violated it does not at all follow that it ought to be abandoned. There is

399
a rule in this House—I do not know whether it is in writing but undoubtedly there is a rule—against reading a speech, but that is continually violated. At the same time, if the practice of reading were carried to a great length I think it might be very useful to fall back upon that rule. Then my noble friend referred to the absurdity of something being in order on November 8 which was not in order on November 3. That is entirely owing to the practice of beginning one Session immediately on the top of another. There is a rule, I think, in both Houses of Parliament that you cannot take a decision on the same question twice in the same Session. Well, there again you might have something that was out of order on November 3 but which would be in order on the 8th, for precisely the same reason. But it does not at all follow that the rule is a bad one. The only conclusion is that because the Sessions come upon one another so closely a certain appearance of absurdity is shed upon all Sessional Orders whatsoever.
I may say a word or two on the rule as it is in the House of Commons, because not only have I heard many decisions there but I think I have had myself to apply it when in the Chair in Committee, or acting as Deputy-Speaker. The rule was, I think, accurately stated by my noble friend opposite. It is that you may not quote the words of a member of another House for the purpose of answering them, and that I think is really in modern times the justification for this rule. You want to avoid anything like a bitter personal wrangle between members of the two Houses. I believe the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, was absolutely justified in what he said on the possibilities that might arise. I am afraid it might easily degenerate into what I may call a personal duel at long range. An instance—it is an old one now, but I believe it is what you may call a locus classicus on the subject—is when Lord Ashburton in the year 1847, or it may have been 1850, wanted to reply to some criticism by Lord Palmerston in the House of Commons on a mission he had to America or Canada; and Lord Ashburton undoubtedly proceeded to a bitter attack upon Lord Palmerston, and then Lord Lansdowne, who I think must have been Leader of
400
the House under a Whig Government at that time, stopped him. Well, if he had gone on, Lord Palmerston obviously would have replied, and so you would have had this rather unseemly discussion.
Now if that was a danger in that time it is surely a greater danger in this time. I quite agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, as to what might happen in the House of Commons if they were to have an unlimited power of criticising speakers in this House and answering them. I think I can remember standing watching the last stage of the Education Bill of 1906, and I well remember the noble Marquess himself saying that because of its rejection harsh things would be done—obviously meaning in administration. Well, there were certainly members of the House of Commons who took a very different view from him who would certainly have censured those remarks if they had had an opportunity of doing so. And I think I can remember instances later than that when members of advanced views in another place sought to criticise utterances of members of this House simply as part of the political game (I am afraid I must call it) that they were then playing. But quite apart from that, whether it is a political or personal matter, I do suggest that if a member makes a personal explanation in one House attacking a statement made in another, then the member attacked will have a right to reply, and one cannot tell where it will end.
I confess I do not see that there is much hardship in the present rule. A noble Lord in this House or an honourable Member in the other can always say "It has been stated" or "It has been alleged," and he can make his position perfectly clear, but no personal element is necessarily involved, and I am afraid it certainly would be involved if this Motion were passed and adopted, as it probably would be adopted, in the other House. I think the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion said that a personal attack upon some Minister or other member of the House would not be in order. I think so long as grossly abusive language were not used it would be perfectly in order, and though it might not be indulged in here I am afraid it very likely would be in another place. At the same time, the rule no doubt has not been enforced rigidly and there are difficulties in knowing exactly what it is and

401
how it can be enforced. But surely this is a matter which ought to be dealt with by both Houses, because what is done in one must react upon the other; and therefore if it be sought to pursue the subject further, I suggest that the proper course is the appointment of a small Joint Select Committee of both Houses.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not intervene as an authority on Parliamentary procedure, but because it is a melancholy fact that I have had a longer period in Parliament than anybody here present, with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Salisbury.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, you have been here longer than I.
LORD NEWTON: One cannot be in Parliament for over half a century without learning something, and one of the lessons that I have learnt is that disputes between the two Houses are productive of nothing but danger and difficulty. This is, we all know, the most good-natured and tolerant of assemblies—tolerant not only of the members of this House but tolerant of other people as well. We are eminently peaceful, but unfortunately there are many misguided people who regard us with feelings approaching to hatred and who are always anxious to obtain an opportunity to attack us. It seems to me that my noble friend opposite is providing them with an excellent opportunity. He brings forward a Motion which apparently is not reciprocal. We are to be allowed to quote what is said in another place, but they do not obtain the same rights themselves. It seems to me that this is bound to lead to difficulty. I remember quite well being in the Peers' Gallery in another place about twenty years ago when a member made a very vigorous attack upon me personally. He got on quite well until he proceeded to quote what I had said, textually, whereupon he was immediately stopped by the Speaker, the present Lord Ullswater, and he collapsed, much, I will confess, to my disappointment.
I cannot help thinking that if we were foolish enough to adopt this Motion it would not only lead to difficulties in another place, but it would very much inconvenience our procedure. We should have people perpetually quoting long
402
extracts, almost White Papers, in explanation of what they were talking about, and it would ultimately be provocative of any number of personal incidents and personal explanations which, to my mind, are almost invariably very mischievous incidents. In these circumstances I trust that the Government will not support the noble Viscount opposite. After all, what is there to complain of? We can quote almost every word that a man says if we omit a comma or a semicolon, and we should be in order in doing so. Where is the grievance? It seems to me, as was remarked by my noble friend Lord Crewe, that this is one of the cases in which one may well ask "Why cannot you leave the thing alone?" Rather an unusual sentiment to be expressed by a Whig politician, but I am entirely in agreement with him, and I cannot help thinking that the majority of the House will be with him, too. I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Motion myself.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I well remember the incident that gave rise to this debate. As a very new member of your Lordships' House who had spent twenty-eight years in the House of Commons, I must say I was amazed when Lord Snell was interrupted by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Liberal Party, on November 3, because frequently I have known members of your Lordships' House quoted quite correctly and ipsissima verba in the House of Commons without the least objection being taken. The rule in the House of Commons is, as stated by Lord Rankeillour, that the whole question turns on the purpose to which the quotation is put. A more innocent purpose than that of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in his speech on November 3, I cannot imagine. He was not building up any argument against Mr. Eden. He was merely quoting a certain matter which had been put in a particular way, and I am quite sure no Speaker of the House of Commons, least of all Lord Rankeillour, would have ruled Lord Snell out of order if he had made that quotation in the House of Commons.
If the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, wishes to make the rule of this House different from the rule in the House of Commons, I shall vote against his Motion, but if it is to give this House the liberty which is now given to members of the

403
House of Commons and to enable us to do what they are allowed to do by the rulings of Mr. Speaker Peel and Mr. Speaker Lowther, as he then was, then I do think it is a liberty we should have. It did seem to me that Lord Snell was stopped by the House from making a quotation which would have been perfectly in order in the House of Commons. At least that is my experience, and I took it as a new member that we were more restricted, much more restricted, in the use of free speech in this House by the rule as it is alleged to exist now in the House of Lords than we were when I was in the House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Does the noble Lord say it is absolutely permitted to hold up, in another place, the OFFICIAL REPORT of one of the debates in this House and to read an extract from it? My impression was that that had been stopped.
LORD HARLECH: I think I have frequently seen it done, but it is always prefaced by the statement "I am not proposing to base any argument upon this." The member is quoting it for the purpose of illustration. It is quite true, unless that is done—and it is almost invariably done—the Speaker would ask the honourable member if he was making this quotation for the purpose of building an argument on it. If the reply is "Yes," then the quotation has to be stopped; but if, as I think, Lord Snell was using the quotation the other day purely for illustrative purposes, that seems to me to be absolutely innocuous and in accordance with the custom of Parliament. I must say I was surprised when Lord Crewe intervened on that occasion. I only hope that the practice of the two Houses will be assimilated, and that we shall not be deprived of the privilege which ordinary members of the House of Commons have in the matter of quoting speeches made in the other House.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I was nearly a quarter of a century in the other House, and my recollection of the rule during that time is entirely different from that of Lord Harlech. Whenever any member of the other House took the Report of a debate in this House and read from it ipsissima verba, the Speaker at once called him to order. The practice
404
may have altered in the last fifteen years, but that was the practice when I was a member of the other House. It is very important that neither House should be allowed to quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT and to read long paragraphs out of speeches made in the other House which will bring about conflict. That is most undesirable. At the same time, I realise that we have to have the right of alluding to speeches made in another place by saying what we regard to be the purport of a passage stated by a Minister or by a distinguished member of the other place. That has been the practice in both Houses. It is a good practice, and I hope it will be continued. There is something to be said for the argument that the system should be uniform in both Houses in regard to this matter of reading in one House long extracts from speeches made in the other. I do not want to see that practice commenced, and if anything ought to be done in this matter it ought to be the subject of consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses so that the practice may be uniform. In this way we shall avoid the dangers which might arise if Lord Cecil's Motion were agreed to in its present form.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I am very sorry to have been the innocent cause of provoking this very interesting discussion. I ought really to have known better. In fact, I did know better. I knew precisely what was allowable in the House of Commons, but I also felt that your Lordships' House provided the supreme example of the greatest anarchic assembly in the world. We have no rules because no one wants to break them. We live above the law, and on the particular occasion I did not want to argue the matter, but an ex-Minister had made a statement which looked like the very key of the argument, and I thought it might help your Lordships if you had the thought in his words rather than in my own. I was also clumsy, because instead of hiding the paper from your Lordships' eyes I flaunted it in your faces to show, of course, what I was doing. I gathered that the right thing would have been to have given it, and to have said what I wanted by a kind of dishonest evasion.
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said that the right thing in this matter was to let it alone. I do not mind that, but the noble Marquess raised the matter; I

405
did not. Now I do not really mind. It will not put me personally to any great inconvenience. As a matter of fact, when I was in the other House I only had one conflict with the Chair, and that was with my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, who was then Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means. I was a young member then, and I made the same mistake and learned my lesson quite thoroughly. Afterwards I went round to the Chair and explained to my noble friend—I was a great deal more frightened of him in the House of Commons than I am in your Lordships' House—that it was by pure inadvertence that I had done it. He was good enough to say to me: "Don't you trouble. You try to say what you want to say; it is my business to keep you in order." Now we are not guided in that way in your Lordships' House, and we have to do the best we can. I can only say that the next time I want to quote from another place I shall very carefully hide the document concerned, and try to get a reputation for wisdom which I do not deserve.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I confess it is with a considerable amount of diffidence that I take part in this debate. Two noble Lords who have been Leaders of the House for a very long period have each of them expressed opinions on this matter, and I have only been Leader of your Lordships' House for a very short time. Who am I to judge between the two of them when they take entirely opposite views on this question? But I think your Lordships have had an extraordinarily interesting debate on this matter. I confess I find myself almost in entire agreement on one point with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition (Lord Snell). I am not one of those who believe in upholding a custom or a rule when it is allowed to go by default on every possible occasion, and when we pretend to do things which in fact we know quite well we are not doing. Therefore, frankly, I should prefer to see the noble Lord producing the OFFICIAL REPORT and reading from it rather than pretending that he has taken what he quotes from some entirely different source, or suggesting that he is imagining what the speaker has said somewhere else when we know he has it written down verbatim in his notes.
Having said that, I must add that I rather agree with a good deal that was
406
said by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe. I do frankly think that, if the policy of quoting were allowed, there is a very real danger of—I will not say starting a long-range duel between members of this House and members of another place, but at any rate of something being said in this House which might tend to create disagreement between this place and another place. I also see one much greater danger, and it is this. Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, although at one time I was led to hope differently from some remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, are, I gather, in favour of abolishing your Lordships' House. Now it would assist them in that direction if it came to be the custom that a statement made in one House would suffice for both Houses. At the present moment, officially we take no cognisance of what happens in another place. That is subject to a great deal of qualification, because, of course, Bills sometimes come from another place and we know they have come from there, and have not originated in your Lordships' House. But, speaking broadly, a statement made in another place is not taken official cognisance of here. Therefore your Lordships have a right to hear a statement from a responsible member of the Government, and to have that statement made in your Lordships' House, thereby giving this House an opportunity of debating it. I think if we were to take full cognisance of what is said elsewhere this Front Bench might be relieved of a great deal of work, but at the same time your Lordships would be deprived of opportunities of debate. That, I think, would be detrimental to this House.
I confess that I do not entirely share Lord Crewe's view when he says that he has never known of a case when it would have been of advantage to have quoted what was said in another place. I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury will remember the time of the Curragh incident. I see the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, now preparing to take the field. No doubt he will dispute my remarks, but I shall look for support from Lord Salisbury, who was then sitting on the Front Bench, whereas I sat on a Back Bench. What happened in my recollection in 1914 was this. The House of Commons met at an earlier hour than your Lordships, as they usually do, and a statement was made by the Colonial

407
Secretary on what happened. Then, when your Lordships met, a statement was required from the member of the Government who was to reply on the question. In this case it was the late Lord Morley. The difficulty of the Government was that these statements hardly ever agreed. I remember very well that there always used to be one of the Whips or some member of the Liberal Government standing inside the railings in your Lordships' House, in order to rush back to the House of Commons to give them the last version of what was said in your Lordships' House so that the two statements should be made to agree. Perhaps that is not entirely apposite, because the quotations in the cases I have referred to had to be made from memory, as neither the OFFICIAL REPORT nor the newspapers would have had time to print the actual words that had been said in either House of Parliament so that they could be used for the purposes of quotation.
Several of your Lordships in referring to this matter have spoken of a rule. There is no rule. It is merely a custom, and when I am told that the Speaker has said this and the Speaker has said that, as a member of your Lordships' House who has never had, shall I say, the disadvantage of sitting in another place, that leaves me entirely cold. Your Lordships make your own rules and your own customs, and although I see some advantage in both Houses having similar rules and customs, I do not think it is the least necessary that that should be the case on every occasion. Let me take two instances known to all members of your Lordships' House. If members in another place wandered as far from the subject matter on the Paper as your Lordships very often do, they would be called to order before they had spoken for more than two or three minutes. If that was the rule in this House it might be of great advantage to members who sit on the Front Bench and have to answer for the Government. Those who have had to reply for any Government, whatever its complexion, would agree to that. But I think the rest of the House would agree, and probably the public also would agree, that debates in your Lordships' House, as a result of the freedom which we enjoy, are very much wider and more useful than similar debates
408
which take place elsewhere under more stringent conditions. That is a case where we are under an entirely different rule from that which obtains in another place, and it is a case in regard to which we have some advantage. Another case is this. I have noticed that members who come to your Lordships' House after having sat in another place are sometimes in the habit of addressing your Lordships and going out as soon as they have finished their speeches. I am told that that is a custom in another place. It used not to be the custom in this House, and I trust it is not going to become the custom here, although we have had the entry of a considerable number of members from elsewhere in recent years.
Having said that this is not a rule and that it is only a custom, I am bound to say that I should regret very much if your Lordships passed a Resolution on this matter this evening. I rather agree with Lord Crewe that we had much better leave this matter where it is. By that I mean that we should be entitled to quote from speeches made in another place when it is necessary for an argument and where there can be no question of acrimony or of somebody in either House having to get up to make a personal explanation. I do not think that is likely to happen, but I think it must be guarded against, and that we must guard also against any new cause of disagreement between the two Houses. Subject to that, I think that we should recognise the custom which really has obtained in this House for a long period. We have referred to speeches made elsewhere, and we had better be open about it provided we do it with circumspection. Speaking for myself, I should prefer not to have any Resolution on the matter but that your Lordships, having heard what has been said from all quarters of the House, should arrange procedure in future cases accordingly. Then, if your Lordships feel that any speakers are transgressing by going too far in reading long extracts from speeches, we can deal with them as usual by making our own rules of order to suit the occasion and impressing on them that they should behave better.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, after the speech made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House I

409
should not dream of pressing my Motion to a Division. I am very grateful to him for what he has said, and if I may say so respectfully I quite agree with the line he has taken. I recognise that there would be grave disadvantage in an attack being made this House on a speech made by somebody in the other House. That aspect of it had not occurred to me, ant I think it would probably be out of order on other grounds—on the ground, for example, that you cannot attack the proceedings, conduct or character of the other House. I understand my noble friend has explained that he thinks that as long as controversy and recrimination are avoided there is no objection to quoting speeches made in the other House. That is the most I could desire.
Before I sit down may I say to my noble friend Lord Gainford that he really is entirely mistaken, if he will allow me to say so, in his view of what is the rule in the other House? If he had done me the honour of listening to what I said at first he would have heard me quote an instance where exactly the same point was raised. There was a discussion—I think it was on a Tithe Bill—and there was objection to any reference to what happened here. Mr. Speaker Peel intervened and said he could not accept that. Then Mr. Samuel Evans was proceeding to read a statement made in this House and another objection was raised on the ground that he could not read the ipsissima verba. Mr. Speaker Peel said, in the words which I think I have already quoted, that a Member might quote the ipsissima verba, and in point of fact Mr. Samuel Evans did go on and quoted I should think 150 words of a speech made
410
in this House. The same rule was followed by Mr. Speaker Lowther in 1907. The ruling by Mr. Speaker Peel was made in 1891. I am sorry to trouble my noble friend with these corrections, but those really are the facts. The recollections of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, who has had very much more experience than most of us on this question, are quite accurate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn, may I say in justification of what I said previously that I have a clear recollection that on several occasions efforts were made by reading speeches in another place to carry on what was regarded as obstruction? That was objected to by the House, and great cries of "Order, Order," arose so as to prevent the reading of long passages from speeches made in the other House. I think that has never obtained in one House or the other.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course I did not expect that my noble friend Lord Snell would immediately take advantage of what I said in order to read long passages for purposes of obstruction.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WILD BIRDS (DUCK AND GEESE PROTECTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before six o'clock.