Sitting of 21 June 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Salford Corporation Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
West Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bucks Water Board) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Land Drainage Provisional Order (Louth Drainage District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Church Stretton) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cirencester) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Horsforth) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Llandrindod Wells) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Mid-Staffordshire Joint Hospital District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Rawmarsh) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wath upon Dearne) Bill
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords] (by Order),—
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WESTHOUGHTON COLLIERIES (FLOODING).
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the closing down of the Westhoughton collieries and the abandonment of pumping operations is causing the water to reach close to the top of the shaft, and this is causing apprehension to the workmen in the adjoining collieries who realise the danger of this accumulation; and whether he will instruct His Majesty's inspectors to examine and make a report upon it?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I have had a report on the position at Westhoughton and adjoining collieries. Although the level of the water at Westhoughton Collieries has risen during recent months and is still rising, it appears that there is no likelihood of any other mine being seriously affected for some considerable period, and that at present there need be no cause for apprehension as to the safety of persons employed. The position is being closely watched by His Majesty's Inspector of Mines and the officials of the collieries in the neighbourhood.
    Mr. Tinker: While I appreciate the answer that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me, I trust that he will keep a careful watch on the position, as

    861
    there is great feeling among men working in adjoining collieries. They, as well as men working in Westhoughton, realise what it means, and it would be well if their fears were allayed. I hope that the Minister will watch this matter closely.
    Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir; as I said, the position is being closely watched. I may add that it will be closely watched in the future.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman put it a bit better than that? Is it not possible to get these colliery companies to agree to establish a co-operative pumping scheme? Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some of these companies whose pits are flooded are spending more upon legal charges in the High Court now than would make their pits safe?

    EXPLOSIONS (STATISTICS).
    Mr. Sextonasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal-mine explosions attributable to the use of electricity in England and Wales, and Scotland, respectively, during the last available 10 years, together with the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents arising from such explosions in each of the 10 years?

    >Accidents from Explosions caused by Electricity, at Mines under the Coal Mines Act.

    Year

    Scotland.

    England and Wales.

    Number of Fatal Accidents.

    Number of Deaths.

    Number of-fatal Accidents.

    Number Injured.*

    Number of Fatal Accidents.

    Number of Deaths.

    Number of Non-fatal Accidents.

    Number Injured*

    1928…

    …

    3

    5

    —

    9

    1

    3

    —

    —

    1929…

    …

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    9

    1

    7

    1930…

    …

    1

    1

    1

    11

    1

    2

    —

    2

    1931…

    …

    1

    10

    1

    2

    1

    8

    —

    3

    1932…

    …

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    27

    —

    36

    1933…

    …

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    6

    —

    17

    1934…

    …

    2

    4

    1

    7

    1

    2

    2

    7

    1935…

    …

    1

    3

    1

    5

    —

    —

    1

    2

    1936…

    …

    2

    3

    —

    2

    2

    61

    1

    2

    1937…

    …

    1

    2

    1

    4

    1

    9

    1

    4

    Totals

    …

    11

    28

    5

    40

    10

    127

    6

    80

    * Including persons injured by explosions which proved fatal to others.

    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines the number of explosions of firedamp in the coal mines of Great Britain, France and Germany, respectively, from 1931 to 1937, with the number of lives lost in such explosions in each country; and whether he will submit this information for consideration by the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines?
    Captain Crookshank: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Sexton: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether these figures warrant the abolition of this form of haulage in mines?
    Captain Crookshank: It depends upon what one means by warranting. I think that is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. Shinwell: Have any special means been taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department to deal with the large number of accidents from this cause?
    Captain Crookshank: That is quite another question. I am asked about the number of explosions.
    Mr. T. Smith: Do the figures show that there has been a tendency in the last few years for explosions from electricity to increase?
    Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the figures for himself and make his own deductions.
    Following is the information:
    Captain Crookshank: As the answer to the first part of the question comprises a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT; and I will also communicate them to the Royal com mission.
    Following are the figures:

    863

    Number of explosions of firedamp and the number of persons killed thereby at Coal Mines in Great Britain, France and Germany (Prussia), during the years 1931–37.

    Year

    Great Britain.

    France.

    Germany (Prussia).

    Number of explosion involving death.

    Number of persons killed.

    Number of explosion involving death.

    Number of persons killed.

    Number of explosions involving death

    Number of persons killed.

    1931

    …

    …

    12

    107

    —

    —

    2

    18

    1932

    …

    …

    13

    69

    —

    —

    2

    9

    1933

    …

    …

    8

    35

    —

    —

    2

    11

    1934

    …

    …

    11

    296

    —

    —

    3

    13

    1935

    …

    …

    7

    37

    —

    —

    3

    25

    1936

    …

    …

    9

    71

    Not yet available

    3

    32

    1937

    …

    …

    13

    63

    Not yet available

    OIL FROM COAL (FALMOUTH COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS).
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will issue a White Paper outlining the steps the Government propose to take to implement the recommendations of the Falmouth Committee?
    Captain Crookshank: No, Sir; there is no need for a White Paper in view of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th May, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rush cliffe (Mr. Assheton), to which I would refer the hon. Member.
    Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman recognise that his general reply gives no indication of detailed Government policy, and, in any event, will there be an opportunity for the House to discuss the report, either on the basis of the report itself or on a White Paper, in relation to legislation?
    Captain Crookshank: The last question must not be addressed to me; as to the first, no doubt the hon. Gentleman has studied Clause 2 of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Dalton: Would the Minister read the very valuable report just issued by the Labour party on the subject of oil from coal?
    Captain Crookshank: I cannot say how valuable it is until I have read the contents.
    Mr. Dalton: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the contents? We will send him a free copy.

    EXPORT TRADE.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can now make a statement in reference to the consultations he has recently had with representative bodies in the coal-mining industry on the difficulties of the export trade, particularly in the French market; and whether consideration has been given to the possibilities of the industry providing, from its own resources, organised assistance to the export trade?
    Captain Crookshank: Consultations are still proceeding, and, as regards the French market, officials of my Department, accompanied by representatives of the United Kingdom coal trade, are meeting representatives of the French Government and French coal trade in Paris on 27th June, in order to discuss the position with them.
    Mr. Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to retain the export markets for British coal in the face of subsidised competition from certain European producers, he has considered giving the same form of Government assistance to retain our export trade; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?
    Captain Crookshank: I would remind the hon. Member that the request for financial assistance for the coal export trade, submitted by the Joint Standing Consultative Committee for the Coal Industry in December, 1936, was withdrawn in March, 1937. It has not been renewed.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that last week, in the last example—the contract for the State railways—the price of Welsh coal was reduced from the current price by 3s. per ton, but that the contract was lost because the Germans reduced their price by 5s. per ton; and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman not have a consultation to see whether the Government can give assistance, and whether the owners can create, out of the very high profits made in the inland market, a pool from which the export trade can be assisted?
    Captain Crookshank: That is a question for the industry itself.
    Mr. A. Jenkins: Since 1936, has any application been made by the coalowners of this country for consideration to be given by the Government to the question of a subsidy on the exportation of coal?
    Captain Crookshank: The position is as I have stated in my reply.

    COAL-CUTTING MACHINES AND CONVEYORS.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal-cutting machines and the number of conveyors in use in the mines of Great Britain during 1937?
    Captain Crookshank: During the year 1937, 7,781 coal-cutting machines and 7,300 conveyors were in use at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in Great Britain.

    CANADA (FOREIGN POLICY).
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what communication has been made by the Canadian to the British Government with regard to the position taken up by Canada that she is bound by no commitments to remain neutral or engage in war, as stated by Mr. Mackenzie King at Ottawa on 24th May?
    The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Lord Stanley): Mr. Mackenzie King's statement on 24th May related to Canadian foreign policy generally, and was made in the House of Commons of Canada. The statement did not call for any communication to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, nor, in fact, was any such communication made.
    Mr. Mander: In view of the importance of understanding the foreign policy of the Dominions, will the Minister make arrangements to have a copy of the speech placed in the Library?
    Lord Stanley: Yes, Sir.

    DEFENCE (DOMINIONS).
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will place in the Library a copy of the speech made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand on 2nd June to the deputations of the Defence League?
    Lord Stanley: I have not yet received any copy of the speech to which the hon. Member refers, but, on the receipt of a copy, I will arrange for it to be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Mander: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister of New Zealand said that when it came to compulsion they would not start with flesh and blood; and will he convey that idea to the British Cabinet?
    Lord Stanley: I do not think that that point arises out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the figures that Canada and the Union of South Africa have agreed to expend for the current year upon either naval and/or air defence?
    Lord Stanley: The provision made in the current Canadian Estimates for naval and air defence is as follows: Naval, $6,639,232; Air, $11,686,517. These figures do not include any part of the cost of headquarters administration. I understand that the Estimates of the Union of South Africa for 1938–39, are not yet available, but I will make inquiries on the subject and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. Day: Are the figures for Canada actual or estimated?
    Lord Stanley: I think they are actual.
    Mr. T. Williams: How much of the fund set apart in South Africa for the air service will be spent in Germany on German aeroplanes?

    NEWFOUNDLAND (FISHERMEN).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the annual report of the Commission of Government of Newfoundland the number of males engaged in the catching of codfish is given in the census for 1935 as 34,645. whereas the numbers estimated by the commission as employed in 1937 in the various branches of cod-fishing total less than 24,000; that whereas the earnings for fishermen other than those engagegd in cod-fishing are given in the census for 1935 as $136,463, the value to the fishermen of these catches as estimated by the commission for 1937 totals over $800,000; and whether he can furnish an explanation of the apparent discrepancies between these figures?
    Lord Stanley: I have made inquiries of the Governor in the matter, and understand, as regards the first point, that the figure of 34,645 given in the 1935 census represented the number of males who were cod-fishermen by vocation, though not necessarily engaged in the fisheries at the time, whereas the figures given in the Annual Report of the Commission for 1937 were confined to men actively engaged in the fisheries in that year. The Governor further explains that a drop in numbers occurred in 1937 owing to the shore fishery being unremunerative and to other sources of employment being available. As regards the second point, the Governor states that the figure given in the 1935 census for the earnings of fishermen other than those engaged in the cod fishery is considered to have been an under-estimate, due presumably to the difficulty of collecting reliable information.

    MIGRATION.
    Mr. Annesley Somervilleasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what progress the Oversea Settlement Board have made with their examination of the problem of migration?
    Lord Stanley: I have recently received from the Board an interesting and comprehensive report embodying the results of a general survey on the question of migration from the United Kingdom to the Dominions, on which they have been engaged during recent months. I propose to arrange for this to be issued in
    868
    the form of a Command Paper within the next fortnight.
    Mr. T. Smith: Does the report make any definite reference to the question of the renewal of migration?
    Lord Stanley: I think the hon. Member had better await publication.

    SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are committed to the principle of transfer to the Union of South Africa of the High Commissioner's territories; whether the terms under which these territories would be administered and controlled in the event of their transfer have yet been communicated to him; and when he expects to be in a position to inform the House about these terms?
    Lord Stanley: The position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in this matter was made clear in my predecessor's statement in the House on 29th March. As then explained, it is contemplated that the terms on which His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa would propose that the Territories should be administered in the event of transfer will be set out in the memoranda which are to be issued by the Union Government. As, however, I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 14th June, it is not expected that these memoranda will be available for some little time.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Are we to understand from the reply of the Minister that there has been no change in policy on this question of transfer, since the exchange of views in the early part of this year?
    Lord Stanley: We have made no change at all since the statement was made in this House by my predecessor, to which I have referred in my answer.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Is the policy of the Government the same as it was before the recent exchange of views?
    Lord Stanley: I think I answered that question myself only a few days ago. The policy is exactly the same.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of protests have already been made by members of the Basuto tribe?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    WOOL YARNS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. Levyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the increasing quantities of imports of cheap wool yarns at prices at which our spinners cannot compete; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Certain complaints of foreign competition in woollen and worsted yarns have been brought to my notice, but, although imports from one source have increased, the total imports of such yarns in the first five months of this year were less than in the corresponding period of last year. Any question of an increase in the import duty is a matter for consideration in the first place by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this country is unequalled in the production of cheap woollen yarns of any price, and that this question must refer to some foreign yarns?

    GERMANY.
    Mr. Manderasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to assist British exporters, in view of the serious competition and loss of trade they are meeting with in overseas markets from German subsidised exports, particularly affecting Wolverhampton metal products?
    Mr. Stanley: The action which it may be possible to take to help British exporters in overseas markets varies according to the circumstances of the case. I have received representations from the makers of edge tools and hand tools in Wolverhampton in regard to the difficulties which they are experiencing in overseas markets, and I am considering whether there is any assistance I can give in the matter.
    Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he hopes to be able to make a statement on the subject?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any evidence as to the German motor-cars that are being sold in this country at abnormally low prices; and what action he proposes to take to prevent unemployment being caused here in order that Germany may obtain English currency to assist in financing her rearmament programme?
    Mr. Stanley: As the hon. and gallant Member will have seen from the Resolution which has been put down by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is now proposed to bring the McKenna duties, including the duties on motor cars, within the scope of the Import Duties Act. If these proposals are approved and the necessary changes made in the law, it will then be open to the United Kingdom interests concerned to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee if they consider that there is a case for increased protection.
    Mr. Levy: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to bring to the consideration of the Exchequer the fact that there are other commodities which are suffering the same disability, and which we hope will have the same consideration?
    Mr. Cartland: Would my right hon. Friend consider asking the Import Duties Advisory Committee to look specifically into the question of these imports and report to the House?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir; I think there is no reason why the motor car industry should not follow the ordinary procedure and, if they think they can make a case, make it before the Import Duties Advisory Committee, like every other industry.

    ARMAMENTS EXPORTS (TYNE PORTS).
    Mr. Sextonasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of armaments, with their description, exported from Tyne ports, and the countries of destination during 1935, 1936, and 1937, respectively?
    Mr. Stanley: The total declared value of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores of United Kingdom manufacture, exported from Newcastle, North Shields and South Shields, was £104,000 in 1935,

    871
    £68,000 in 1936 and £11,000 in 1937, but particulars of the descriptions of goods included in these figures are not readily available. Details of consignments from individual ports to individual countries could not now be compiled in respect of 1935 and 1936, and their compilation for 1937 would involve an unjustifiable expenditure of time and labour.
    Mr. Sexton: Seeing that in the Great War British-made arms were used against British forces, will the right hon. Gentleman advise a national prohibition on the export of arms?

    MILLING.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government are taking to ensure a revival in the mills throughout the home corn-growing districts of this country?
    Mr. Stanley: If my hon. Friend has any specific proposals in mind, I shall be happy to consider them.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the importance of wheat offals to the home producer, and would not the opening up of these mills do much to help the home producer? Further, is he aware that, owing to the stranglehold of the millers, no hope can be held out to the rural communities unless the Government intervene in their interests?
    Mr. Stanley: That would be a general consideration rather than a specific proposal.
    Mr. De la Bère: May I have an opportunity of telling my right hon. Friend afterwards all that I wish to say?
    Mr. Stanley: I cannot guarantee that it shall be all.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does the request for specific proposals indicate that the Government have no policy?
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of mills used for the milling of corn (wind, water and power mills) which are at present operating in this country?
    Mr. Stanley: The number of mills in use for the milling of corn cannot be stated
    872
    precisely, but it is believed to lie between 2,000 and 2,500. Of the larger establishments, employing an average of more than 10 persons, 432 were recorded in Great Britain at the Census of Production, 1935.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend consider doubling this number, in order to assist the rural community?
    Mr. Stanley: That may form the basis of our conversations when they are held.

    JAPAN AND CROWN COLONIES.
    Sir John Haslamasked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of export trade in 1936 and 1937 between Japan and the Crown Colonies?
    Mr. Stanley: The value of exports from Japan to such Crown Colonies as are specified in the Japanese trade returns, was 196.4 million yen in 1936 and 222.9 million yen in 1937. It is probable that exports to the Crown Colonies which are not so specified are relatively unimportant.
    Sir J. Haslam: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a good deal of this is at the expense of Lancashire, and that we should like to see an alteration in the policy?
    Mr. Stanley: Obviously, we want to do everything we can to help Lancashire, but I cannot quite accept my hon. Friend's statement. I must point out that during the same period the exports of United Kingdom goods to Crown Colonies rose by no less than £10,000,000.

    BALKAN STATES.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can specify the action taken by the Government to facilitate trade between the Balkan States and the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Stanley: Under existing agreements, the basis of trade between the United Kingdom and the countries referred to by the hon. Member is, broadly speaking, the most-favoured-nation principle, which, in the view of His Majesty's Government, is in general the policy best calculated to promote international trade. As I stated in the Debate on the Board of Trade Vote on 15th June, His Majesty's Government are at all times anxious to adopt any course which would increase the trade between the United Kingdom

    873
    and foreign countries on a basis of mutual advantage, and I can assure the hon. Member that as regards the Balkan States no possibility of this kind will be overlooked.

    JAPANESE GOODS (IMPORTS).
    Captain Sir William Brassasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the recent rapid rise in the imports of cheap Japanese shirts into this country; and, in view of their cheapness, which renders the import duty of very little avail, will he consider introducing a quota system instead of the present tariff system in dealing with certain Japanese imports?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware that there has been some increase in the imports of shirts from Japan. If the British interests concerned consider that there is a case for further protection it is open to them to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. There is no power to impose a quota restriction on imports of these goods.
    Sir W. Brass: Would my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to the Shirt and Collar Manufacturers' Association that they should get in touch, through him, with the Japanese importers, with a view to an agreement?
    Mr. Stanley: There have been cases where agreements have been made between the interests in this country and the Japanese importers, and these have worked very well. If there is any possibility of anything being done in this case, I shall be glad to try to assist.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that capitalist interests in this country are buying in cheap goods, quite regardless of the effect on the workers of this country; and does the Minister not realise that the only way to solve this problem is to abolish Capitalism?
    Mr. Stanley: I have seen it stated that co-operative societies are still buying Japanese goods.
    Sir W. Brassasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the dissatisfaction caused in Lancashire by the imports of cheap Japanese cloth in the grey, finished in this country and re-exported under the British quotas, he
    874
    will consider having inserted in all future trade agreements in connection with quotas for British cotton goods the words "spun, woven, and finished in England," as signifying an article of British origin instead of the present labour content basis?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. I will bear my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion in mind.
    Sir W. Brass: Is my right hon. Friend aware that goods are imported in the grey marked "Made in Japan," that the mark is cut off when they are sent to the finishers, and that they are then re-exported to other markets, marked "Made in Britain"?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, we have had some complaints of that kind; in fact, in connection with several of the trade agreements we are working to a formula on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Sir W. Brass: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that re-exportation of these goods has a bad effect on the price of real British goods?
    Mr. Tomlinson: In view of the situation in Lancashire, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Cabinet to reconsider their policy of protection, which is not protecting Lancashire at all?

    RUSSIA.
    Captain Ramsayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether when negotiating a new trade agreement between this country and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics he will stipulate for an aggregate amount of goods which Russia must purchase annually from this country on the lines of the Russo-American Trade Agreement?
    Mr. Stanley: I am not at present able to add to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Board of Trade Vote on 15th June on the subject of trade between this country and the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend remember, when conducting trade negotiations with the Russian Government, the immensely favourable balance of trade Russia has with this country, which puts us in a very strong position?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    COASTING VESSELS.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom is the only important maritime country in Europe which allows coasting vessels to be officered by uncertificated persons, he will take steps to remedy this unsatisfactory position?
    Mr. Stanley: The Merchant Shipping Acts do not require that coasting cargo vessels should carry certificated officers, but I have no evidence that the position is unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman unaware that, as stated in the question, this is practically the only country that allows uncertificated officers on coasting ships; and will he consider the matter from the international aspect as well as from the aspect of safety?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not consider that the fact that we may be the only country which does a particular thing is necessarily any reason for altering it. I have had no evidence to show that the practice in this country is in any way endangering the safety of ships and crews, which is the only argument for making an alteration.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many coasting vessels are so under-manned that the only person on watch, in addition to the mate, is a boy at the wheel; that in the case of foreign-going ships the Board of Trade Circular 1707 calls for, in addition to the officer on watch, a man at the wheel, one on the lookout, and a spare hand; and whether, in view of the fact that coasting vessels operating in waters of maximum congestion are urgently in need of manning regulations conforming to those prescribed for foreign-going vessels, he will initiate an official inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. Stanley: The Board of Trade have no power to deal with manning except on grounds of safety, and my information does not show that from this point of view coasting vessels are undermanned. I know of no reason for instituting a special inquiry.
    Mr. Smith: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of Circular 1707, which I
    876
    quote in my question? If I supply him with a list of firms that consistently under-man their ships, will he undertake to look into it?
    Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Gentleman must be under some misapprehension. Circular 1707 deals only with foreign-going ships.
    Mr. Smith: Yes, and I am asking whether, if it is good for the foreign ship in British waters to be manned in such a way, it is not equally good for British ships to be equally manned?
    Mr. Stanley: I think the difference is not between foreign and British ships, but between foreign-going and coasting vessels. Obviously, the conditions obtaining in the coastal trade are not always the same as those in the foreign-going trade.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, entirely apart from safety reasons, coastal vessels are undermanned, particularly as regards officers?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. Any action that I can take is based entirely on questions of safety. The only power I have is on questions of safety, and in August of last year I addressed a special instruction to the surveyors that the closest watch was to be kept on the manning of these coastal vessels from the point of view of safety.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the excessive hours that these officers have to be on watch contribute to safety?
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade how often in the course of a year coasting vessels are visited by Board of Trade officers for general and crews' quarters survey?
    Mr. Stanley: Coasting vessels are dealt with in the same way as other vessels, and Board of Trade surveyors carry out general and crews' quarters inspections of them in the course of their various duties at the ports. So far as possible, inspections are made at least once a year, but, if local information shows more frequent inspections to be necessary, they are made.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of

    877
    dissatisfaction among the seamen employed in our coastal vessels at the condition of crews' quarters and because of the need for more frequent surveys?
    Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member has any instance where surveys have not taken place at the regulation intervals I shall be glad to have particulars.

    RUSSIAN TRADE.
    Captain Ramsayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that whereas British liner services to Russia, until fairly recently, carried nearly all of United Kingdom manufactured exports to Russia, the whole of this is now being carried by Russian vessels; whether this is in accordance with the trade agreement between the two countries; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. Stanley: According to my information, British liner services, which carried the bulk of British manufactured exports to Russia before the War, have not been running to Russian ports for the past 12 years. In 1936, some 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom manufactured goods exported to Russia was carried in Soviet vessels, but this is not in itself out of accord with the provisions of the Anglo Soviet Trade Agreement. As regards the last part of the question, I am not at present able to add to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Board of Trade Vote on 15th June on the subject of trade between this country and the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order. Ought not the hon. and gallant Member for Franco—I beg his pardon, the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles (Captain Ramsay)—to have made sure of his facts before he put this question down?
    Captain Ramsayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British ships now carry only 9.2 per cent. of United Kingdom imports of Russian timber, the balance being carried as to 33.6 per cent. in Russian ships and the remaining 57 per cent. by other flags chartered at cut rates by the Russian Government; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to this state of affairs?
    Mr. Stanley: I am aware that, in 1936, British ships carried 9.2 per cent. of the Russian timber imported into this country, and that Russian and other foreign ships carried 33.6 per cent. and 57 per cent. respectively of such imports. As to the second part of the question, I can add nothing to the answer I have already given to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Captain Ramsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this chartering of ships at cut rates amounts to a serious attack on the standard of living of our seamen?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. Not only on this aspect of Russian trade, but on others as well, I have already expressed, both in answer to questions and during debate, the dissatisfaction we feel with the results of the Russian Trade Agreement.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend indicate why it should be a matter for satisfaction to the party opposite that British shipping is not employed in this trade?
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is so desirous of bettering relations and trade with Russia, will he do his very utmost in that direction?
    Mr. Stanley: Russia can do a great deal to help us by buying goods manufactured in this country instead of simply filling their quota under the agreement by buying re-exports, which give very little employment to our people.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to encourage the use of British ships wherever possible?

    COMPULSORY INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLES).
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Departments concerned have now completed their consideration of the recommendations of the Board of Trade committee on compulsory insurance, directed to secure the payment of claims by third parties for injury caused by motor vehicles; and whether he has any statement to make?
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has given consideration to the report of the

    879
    committee on compulsory insurance, and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the committee?
    Mr. Stanley: The Report of the Departmental Committee on Compulsory Insurance has been under consideration by the Departments concerned with a view to legislation being prepared on the basis of their recommendations. I am not, however, at present in a position to make any further statement on the subject.
    Mr. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is almost a year since this report was published, and eight months since one of his colleagues informed me that the report was under consideration? Is there to be any time limit to this consideration?
    Mr. Stanley: This matter concerns the business of the House, and I think hon. Members will agree that the House has not been neglectful of its business in the interval of eight months.
    Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Home Secretary with a view to dealing with this matter?
    Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member is referring to the question of workmen's compensation, he will realise that it is not covered by the consideration of the Committee to which these questions refer.

    SPAIN.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total sum which has been claimed to date against Lloyd's and other insurance companies in respect of damage done to British ships by attacks from the air and from sea in Spanish waters by aircraft or ships under the control of General Franco?
    Mr. Stanley: The information desired is not available.
    Sir W. Brass: Is it not the fact that these vessels are specially insured against war risks?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. Wiseasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for
    880
    samples of the latest Regular and Territorial Army recruiting posters to be exhibited at an early date in the Tea Room of this House?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir. Arrangements have been made for some 15 Army recruiting posters to be on exhibition to-morrow in the Tea Room.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War the deficit on the recruiting establishment of the Territorial Army as at the last convenient date?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: On 1st June, the Territorial Army was deficient of 20,394 officers and men, as compared with 48,235 on the corresponding date last year.
    Mr. Day: Is it proposed to make these services more attractive?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: We have already made them so attractive that the deficiency has been reduced from 48,000 to 20,000 in 12 months.
    Mr. Day: Is the proficiency bounty to be increased?

    VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE, ALDERSHOT.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Secretary of State for War whether suitable alternative employment is to be offered to six instructors who are losing their jobs as a result of the closing of the Aldershot Army vocational training centre?
    Mr. Morganasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in closing down the Aldershot vocational training centre, the whole of the staff has been transferred to the Ministry of Labour which is carrying on elsewhere the work at Aldershot; and, if there are any exceptions, will he explain why the men are being rejected?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Arrangements have been made for absorbing, either in the Ministry of Labour centres or in other War Department establishments, the great majority of the staff in question. The numbers for whom re-employment has not yet been definitely arranged are one plasterer and two welders, who have not been employed at the centre very long. Every endeavour will, however, be made to absorb them, and a position for one of them is already in view.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT DEFENCE.
    Mr. Daltonasked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of antiaircraft batteries and of guns contained therein which are manned by the Regular Army in this country?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press me to add to the information already published.
    Mr. Dalton: Is the gun, of which particulars have been published, to be regarded as part of the forces available for defending our cities from aerial attack in the event of war?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Clearly, as long as England needs them they will be available for that purpose.
    Mr. Dalton: Is it contemplated that in adding up the forces that will be available in England, these guns will be specially included?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Certainly, unless conditions arise which make the need greater elsewhere.
    Mr. Davidson: Can we take it that the Minister will spare one of them from England for Scotland?
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for War the number of anti-aircraft units now established in Scotland; and whether those units have, in fact, their full complement of 3.7 mobile and 4.5 fixed guns?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part of the question is six, and to the second "No."
    Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair to Scottish local authorities, who are spending huge sums in air-raid precautions, that they should know that in Scotland no units are sufficiently armed for the defence of this country?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is not the case. If the Scottish local authorities wish to give regular assistance, Glasgow, for instance, might encourage men to join the Territorial Army.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Glasgow local authority hesitate when the Minister cannot give a straightforward answer to a question?
    Mr. Shinwell: What is the use of men joining the Territorial Army in whatever numbers, if guns are not available?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know why a persistent attempt should be made to say that no guns are available. The plain fact is that they are available.

    PRACTICE FIRING, KINGHORN.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now fully considered the representations made on behalf of the burgh of Kinghorn, expressing the anxiety of householders in the burgh in connection with any resumption of heavy gun-fire from Kinghorn battery; and if the efficiency of the personnel manning the battery could be maintained by a continuance of the limitation of practice firing of the 9.2-inch guns with full charges to the battery at Inchkeith?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes," and to the second part "No," but every effort will be made to avoid unnecessary interference with amenities.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY BADGE.
    Colonel Nathanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state when the Territorial Army badge will be ready for general issue?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Royal Mint has manufactured 250,000 badges. Eleven thousand badges have been issued, and the rest will be issued as they are numbered. Their Majesties the King and Queen have already received badges Nos. 1 and 2, which they graciously accepted. It is hoped that those entitled to this distinction will wear it.

    BEACHLEY ARMY SCHOOL FOR BOYS.
    Mr. Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for War the average cost per student per year in the Beachley Army School for Boys?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The estimated average cost for each boy is £126 a year, or, if the rental value of the school and the Treasury contribution in lieu of rates are added, £138 a year each.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that much of this work might be done under the education authorities of the country in technical schools much better than it is done at this school?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: That had not occurred to me, and I should be most happy if the hon. Gentleman would send me his suggestions.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey this information to a number of his hon. Friends who think that local authorities have been extravagant in regard to the education of the working class?

    CIVILIAN COAST-DEFENCE AND ANTI-AIRCRAFT PLANT ATTENDANTS.
    Mr. Ralph Beaumontasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet authorised the improved wages scheme that has lately been decided upon affecting the wages of civilian coast-defence plant attendants employed under the Royal Engineers at the Portsmouth defences?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. Authority was given on 16th May for an increase in the ranges of wages of all civilian coast defence and anti-aircraft plant attendants directly employed under the Royal Engineers in Great Britain.

    COLOURS.
    Mr. Beaumontasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that whereas the colours of a Regular unit are provided and repaired through ordnance those of a Territorial unit cannot be provided or maintained, either directly or indirectly, from Army funds or the public funds of county associations; and whether he will consider amending the regulations so as to enable the colours of Territorial units to be provided from the same source as those of Regular units?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The facts as stated are correct and I will with pleasure reconsider the matter.

    AERIAL WARFARE.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the policy of the Government respecting the possible complete cessation of aerial bombing for police purposes by British aircraft and in view of international apprehension concerning aerial warfare, he will announce categorically that such police bombing will not again take place; whether he will consider the immediate despatch of a definite proposal to the chief military
    884
    Powers that aerial warfare shall not be undertaken under any circumstances; that existing military aircraft shall be dismantled; that no further military aircraft or aircraft munitions shall be manufactured; and that each Power shall agree to the interchange of observers during this process of aerial disarmament?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on r6th June. As regards the latter parts of the question, I think these matters will best be dealt with in the course of the Debate this afternoon.

    AUSTRIAN LOANS.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, at the instance of the German Government, the Bank of England has transferred to the Reichsbank the sum of £5,000,000 sterling which constituted the reserves in London of the Bank of Austria; and whether, in view of German repudiation of liabilities incurred by the late Austrian Government in this country, he will cause German funds to a similar amount to be sequestrated as security for this indebtedness?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 16th June.
    Mr. Gallacher: I am not aware of what that answer happens to be, but I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is not the case that Germany is claiming all the assets that belong to Austria but is refusing to meet any of the liabilities of that country?
    Sir J. Simon: I will send the hon. Gentleman, if I may, a copy of the answer to which I referred and he will see for himself.
    Mr. Petherick: Can my right hon. Friend arrange a similar sequestration as a set-off to the Russian debt to this country?
    Mr. Gallacher: I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an answer to a very simple, plain and direct question. Is it not the case that Germany

    885
    is claiming all the assets that belong to Austria but is refusing to meet any of the liabilities? Can he answer that question "Yes" or "No"?
    Sir J. Simon: I think that the suggestion I made was a reasonable one and that the hon. Gentleman will like to look at the answer to which I referred, but in this matter, as I have already stated in the House, discussions are proceeding, and I do not propose to say anything more.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether anything will be done to prevent this country again becoming the victim of an Aryan sense of honour?

    TRUSTEE ACT.
    Mr. Asshetonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appoint a committee to consider the desirability of amending the Trustee Act?
    Sir J. Simon: I see no sufficient reason for considering the amendment of the Trustee Act at the present time.
    Mr. Assheton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very general opinion both in the City and in Lincoln's Inn that the Trustee Act should be revised in view of the fact that some of the best securities, such as those of the Port of London Authority and the Electricity Board, are not available as trustee securities and that there are so many indifferent investments, such as preference shares in some of the railways, which are available?
    Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend, no doubt, is aware that there has been a committee looking into this some years ago, and the general report of the committee was in favour of the law remaining substantially as it stands. Of course, the Trustee Act does not proclaim any list of securities but lays down certain tests to be applied to determine whether a particular security can claim to be a trustee security. That is the nature of the test, and I do not think that it could be altered in that way.
    Mr. Assheton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the circumstances have altered very considerably since that committee reported?
    Mr. T. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the stock of the Central Electricity Board is not now regarded as a trustee security, whereas investments in decayed property are so regarded?
    Sir J. Simon: I think it is important that we should realize—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree—that the Trustee Acts do not give a list of trustee securities at all. Parliament lays down in general terms what Parliament thinks to be an adequate test, and, therefore, it has quite a general application and is not a question of any particular stock.

    FOREIGN BALANCES, LONDON.
    Mr. Dayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information as to the la test available figures of foreign balances and /or foreign liquid balances held in sterling in London?
    Sir J. Simon: No official estimates are available.
    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any estimates are to be published on the recommendation of the MacMillan Committee?
    Sir J. Simon: I think that if anything is published by the Government it must be regarded as official.

    ESTATE DUTY (CHATSWORTH ESTATES COMPANY).
    Mr. McGovernasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the late Duke of Devonshire turned his estates into a company, named the Chatsworth Estates Company, for the sole purpose of preventing the Exchequer from drawing the legal and necessary taxation and, in consequence, the State will receive only a few thousands instead of £1,000,000; what steps he proposes to take to prevent this form of evasion of taxation; and whether he intends taking any action against the persons concerned in this case?
    Sir J. Simon: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers, but I am not prepared to accept the conclusions he draws in regard to it. I would remind him that the charge of Estate

    887
    Duty in cases where property has been transferred by a deceased person to a company was the subject of legislation in 1930, the operation of which is under constant observation by the Inland Revenue.
    Mr. McGovern: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer state the amount of money involved in this form of evasion, and is he aware that there is grave discontent among a large section of the working-class that they should be penalised continually for small things in relation to the means test, while rich men, who belong to this Government, are evading, by legal means, their obligations to the country?
    Sir J. Simon: I must not be understood to subscribe to the view that in every case where there is a transfer of this sort, what follows is evasion. The Act of 1930, passed by the Government of that day, was directed to the very purpose of preventing that, and, as I have already said, this case and all other similar cases are very carefully examined from that point of view.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that sort of thing is quite proper?
    Sir J. Simon: I do not know the circumstances of this case other than what I have stated, and I am not aware that an investigation of the facts would show anything to the contrary.

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Unemployment Assistance Board have communicated to him the reports of their inspectors regarding the housing conditions under which some of the applicants to the Board are living; and, if so, whether he can give the name of the local authority whose housing position was such that they were unable to help in a case in which 26 human beings, 10 of them adults, were occupying a house of three rooms?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): Yes, Sir. The case referred to occurred in Buckhaven.
    Mr. Johnston: Can the Under-Secretary state whether the housing position
    888
    is still the same in Buckhaven that the local authorities are unable to deal with a case in which there are 26 human beings housed in one dwelling of three apartments?
    Mr. Wedderburn: With regard to this particular case, the number of persons has been so far reduced from 26 to 15, and that makes up 11½ units according to the overcrowding standards. As there are only three rooms in the house, it is still very badly overcrowded. The authority intend to provide accommodation for the sub-tenants as soon as it is available.
    Mr. Buchanan: Will the hon. Gentleman make a representation to the Unemployment Assistance Board on this matter that, instead of publishing general reports, which may reflect upon any particular case, they should make the report definite in character so that it may be understood to whom it applies?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The Board can bring cases of bad housing to our notice which we take up with the local authority concerned. I do not know whether it would add to the value of their report if we made a practice of stating the name of the authority or not.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the report as it reads would apply to any part of Scotland and is a reflection on local authorities generally, whereas if it stated definitely the places concerned, it would not be a reflection on every local authority?
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses now being built by the Glasgow Corporation and the number completed in the past three months; and whether any estimate has been made of the number to be completed each month?
    Mr. Wedderburn: At the end of May, the Corporation had 3,314 houses under construction and 1,398 approved but not begun. The numbers of houses completed in March, April and May of this year were 248, 264 and 283 respectively. With regard to the last part of the question, I am informed that the average monthly output during the next 12 months is expected to be about 290 houses.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses were allocated for grant purposes to the

    889
    1930 and 1935 Housing Acts, respectively, for the respective years to 15th May, 1936–37, and 1937–38 and what was the average grant payable for the whole of the houses for each of these respective years?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I regret that the complete information desired by the hon. Member is not yet available. The provisional information involves a number of figures and I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Westwood: May we learn now whether there is an increase in grant in the last year as compared with 1936–37?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I think we dealt with that matter in the Debate on 29th March. It was stated then that the average had been £11 15s. We thought the average for the last available year was under £11 but it was not certain.
    Following is the information:
    Statement showing the numbers of houses so far allocated for grant purposes to the Housing (Scotland) Acts of 1930 and 1935 respectively for the years 15th May, 1937, and 15th May, 1938, and the average grant payable in respect of those houses.

    Year ended.

    Houses allocated to 1930 Act.

    Houses allocated to 1935 Act.

    Average grand over year.

    £

    s.

    d.

    15th May, 1937

    9,905

    2,183

    11

    15

    0

    15th May, 1938

    2,169

    2,092

    1,900 of the 13,988 houses completed in the year ended 15th May, 1937, have not yet been allocated between the Acts of 1930 and 1935, and the average grant for that year is accordingly subject to adjustment. 10,400 of the 14,688 houses completed in the year ended 15th May, 1938, have not yet been allocated between the Acts of 1930 and 1935 and accordingly it is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the average grant for that year.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses approved for grant purposes from 15th May, 1937, to 15th May, 1938, and how this compares with the years 1935–36 and 1936–37?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The numbers of houses in State-assisted housing schemes included in tenders approved by the Department of Health for the years ended 15th May, 1936, 1937 and 1938, were 15,417, 28,301 and 14,031 respectively.

    SHEEP FARMING (WOOL. CLIP).
    Mr. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the serious plight of many sheep farmers in Scotland and that a large proportion of last year's wool clip has not yet been marketed; whether there is any prospect of this year's clip being marketed; whether, in view of the steep fall in mutton and lamb prices, he will state how far this fall has been conveyed to consumers' prices; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure conditions in which sheep farming can be maintained as an agricultural occupation?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I am aware that the prices of fat sheep and lambs have fallen during recent months, and that while the whole of the 1936 wool clip was cleared at good prices early in 1937, the bulk of the 1937 clip has not yet been sold. I regret that I am unable to make any forecast of the prospects for the sale of wool during this year. Reductions in retail prices of home mutton and lamb have not reflected the fall in market prices; in the same way the rise in retail prices last year did not reflect the substantial rise in market prices. In reply to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend has recently discussed the situation with farmers' representatives. The Government have no control over most of the factors which affect the prices of home-produced sheep and wool, but, in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, my right hon. Friend is in consultation with the representatives of the Dominions about supplies. Reference to these consultations has already been made in previous replies in the House, and I am not at present in a position to give any further information.
    Mr. Johnston: Can the Under-Secretary add to his answer some indication of what is going to happen if in addition to the bulk of last year's wool clip, not yet marketed, there is added this year's wool clip? What will be the effect on the sheep farming community in Scotland?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I cannot give a forecast of the state of the wool market.

    DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the new Scottish offices on the Calton Hill, Edinburgh, will be completed and ready for occupation?
    Mr. WedderburnIt is expected that these offices will be completed and ready for occupation in August, 1939.
    Mr. Mathers: How are we to interpret the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the better arrangements for the government of Scotland, which he linked up with the opening of these offices? Will those new arrangements come into force whenever these offices are occupied?
    Mr. Wedderburn: If the hon. Member is referring to the Gilmour Report, I suppose that any action arising from that would have to be taken in such time as to be ready for the completion of these buildings.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the occupancy of these buildings confer any power of self-government upon the officials?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The officials have no power of self-government.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Under-Secretary inform the correspondent of the "Daily Record" of that fact?

    PARATYPHOID OUTBREAK, ISLE OF LEWIS.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any official report has been received by the Department of Health for Scotland regarding the outbreak of paratyphoid fever at Aignish, Isle of Lewis; whether full investigation regarding sources of infection has been or is being made; and whether he has any further statement to make in the matter?
    Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, Sir, I understand that the investigation by the county medical authorities suggested that there was no common source of infection such as milk or water but indicated the possibility of the outbreak having arisen from the consumption by one of the patients of shell-fish on the seashore. The Department of Health were advised by the county medical officer on 18th May that
    892
    there had been no fresh cases for three weeks, and that the outbreak might be regarded as over.
    Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that about two months after the epidemic or outreak took place there was apparently no investigation and no report, will the Under-Secretary explain when the investigation was made?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The Department received from the medical officer of health on 27th April a report of an outbreak of paratyphoid. The first case was brought to the notice of the assistant medical officer of health for Stornoway on 15th April, and according to the latest reports there have been no other cases since 27th April.

    WATER SUPPLIES, WESTERN ISLES.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make regarding the numerous complaints which have been and are being made to the various authorities responsible for public health in local authorities and in the Government with regard to the urgent need for adequate and safe water supplies in the Western Isles, especially in those districts served only by contaminated surface wells?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I regret that I am not in a position to add to the replies given to previous questions by the hon. Member on the subject of water supplies in the Western Isles.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that very often the water supplies that are contaminated are the source of outbreaks such as are mentioned in the question, and that it is a matter of extreme public importance that we should have some assurance that the Scottish Office is really busy on this question?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I am aware that there are many defective water supplies in many parts of the Highlands.

    HERRING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make regarding the urgent appeal to him from the Stornoway Town Council for assistance in dealing with German buyers and the German fisheries government department, whose action in refusing to pay more

    893
    than 6s. below even the minimum prices for herring as laid down by the Herring Industry Board caused a temporary complete stoppage of the fishing; what action was taken by him or by the Herring Industry Board; and whether he has plans for dealing with such emergencies in future, especially with regard to the possibility of the Government entering the market to prevent the abuse of a buyer's monopoly or providing other temporary guarantees?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The temporary stoppage of herring fishing at Stornoway on 1st June was due to the unremunerative prices offered by the German buying organisation, which caused curers to cease operations. The position was reported to the Herring Industry Board by their area committee by telegram on the morning of 2nd June. The board immediately got into touch with the German buying organisation in Berlin, and on 3rd June were able to arrange for improved prices. Information to that effect was telegraphed to Stornoway the same afternoon, the herring fleet proceeded to sea that night and curing operations were resumed on the morning of the 4th of June. In reply to the last part of the question, the Herring Industry Board have power to deal with such emergencies as is shown by their prompt intervention on this occasion.
    Mr. MacMillan: Can the Under-Secretary indicate the increased price that was obtained as a result of that intervention?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I am informed that there were 18 different kinds of herring, all of which sold for different prices. Therefore, I cannot go into the prices, but the increase was of the order of 10 per cent.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons covered by National Health Insurance who are approved with societies who have no additional benefits and the total of persons covered by National Health Insurance in Scotland?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The total membership of approved societies which have their head offices in Scotland or have separate valuations for Scotland is 1,650,000. Of this number, 370,000 are
    894
    members of societies which have no additional benefits.
    Mr. Buchanan: Will the Under-Secretary take steps to see that something is done to aid the societies that are unable to pay additional benefits, and thus bring them into equal relationship with the other societies?
    Mr. Wedderburn: That question has often been raised before. I do not think it would be possible to make any alteration without upsetting the basis on which the business of the approved societies is conducted.

    AGRICULTURE.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total acreage in Scotland under agricultural development for the years ended March, 1936, and 1938, respectively, and the number of persons employed in agriculture for the same period?
    Mr. Wedderburn: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Davidson: Has the acreage under production increased or decreased in the period mentioned?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I think the arable acreage has slightly decreased, and the grass acreage slightly increased.
    Following is the statement:

    —

    At 4th June, 1935.

    At 1st June, 1937.

    Acres.

    Acres.

    Agricultural land:

    Land under crop and grass.

    4,598,55

    4,571,166

    Mountain and heath land used for grazings.

    10,383,100

    10,481,100

    Total

    14,981,647

    15,052,266

    Agricultural employees:

    Regular

    97,567

    94,913

    Casual

    15,896

    15,842

    Total

    113,463

    110,755

    AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total estimated

    895
    number of persons required for air-raid precautions services in Scotland and the number of volunteers up to date?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The estimated number of persons required for air-raid precautions services in Scotland, including fire precautions services, is 115,000. Information showing the number of volunteers up to date is not yet available.
    Mr. Mabane: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State whether returns are being obtained for Scotland at the same time as the returns as to the number of volunteers for England?
    Mr. Wedderburn: Returns are being obtained and some local authorities have quite a substantial number of volunteers, but there are seventeen authorities which have not yet told us how many volunteers they have.
    Mr. Mabane: Will they have to be submitted by 31st May as in the case of England?
    Mr. Davidson: Can the Under-Secretary say whether the numbers are satisfactory?

    POLICE COURTS (EVENING SITTINGS).
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Lord Advocate whether he is prepared to issue instructions to Scottish authorities favourably to consider holding police courts in the evening instead of in the morning as at present?
    Mr. Wedderburn: When the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill becomes law it will be necessary to issue a circular to the appropriate authorities explaining its provisions, and it is proposed to include in the circular a recommendation that favourable consideration should be given to the question of holding police courts in the evening.

    AFFORESTATION.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the right hon. Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners (1) whether any requests have been made to him by colliery owners for a supply of young trees to plant on pit heaps;
    (2) whether any requests have been made to him by local authorities for a supply of young trees to plant on disused colliery sites and pit-heaps?
    Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): No requests have been
    896
    made to me by colliery owners for a supply of young trees to plant on pit heaps. It is not the practice of the Department to raise supplies of plants in excess of its own requirements, but plants can be obtained from the nursery trade.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that owing to the restricted interpretation of Section 36 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, an unjustifiable burden of maintaining large numbers of able-bodied unemployed is still left to be borne by the distressed areas; and will he introduce the necessary amending legislation?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I cannot add to my reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for the Everton division of Liverpool (Mr. Kirby) on 28th April, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    ELDERLY PERSONS.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a large proportion of the male applicants for unemployment assistance are 45 years of age or over, and that 48 per cent. or more than 250,000 are in this class, 140,000 are turned 55 years of age, one-third of whom have been unemployed for more than three years; and what is being done with a view to bringing this age group into employment?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of these figures. The attention which I have given to the problem which they present has satisfied me that there is no single solution which is generally applicable having regard to the wide differences in skill or physical capacity of the men concerned. I should point out that the revival in trade resulting from the Government's general policy has, in recent years, provided opportunities of employment of which large numbers of the older men have availed themselves. Employers generally would do well to realise, as many of them have proved from practical experience, that these older men provide a valuable field for the recruitment of steady and reliable workers who will render good service if they are given a little extra consideration at the outset.

    897
    My Department is prepared to assist any employer who has suitable jobs to offer, to select suitable men from the unemployed register.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decrease in employment at the end of 1937 in Durham was 58 per cent. in the age group 18–34, 8.7 per cent. in the age group 55 and upwards in Durham, and 6.5 per cent. in South Wales? Can he tell us whether he has a definite scheme to deal with these people who are being very slowly absorbed into industry?
    Mr. Brown: I hope to say something on the matter in the Debate on Friday, but as to the figures I would point out to the House that in two years, May, 1935–37, taking Great Britain as a whole, the number of unemployed of the age of 45 and over had fallen by 120,000, a decrease of 21 per cent., and that there was a decrease in those over 55 in the same period of 47,000, or 14 per cent.
    Mr. T. Smith: Will not the Minister bring in shorter working hours in some of our basic industries?
    Mr. Brown: The general answer to that is that the House knows that a lot of discussion has taken place at Geneva on this issue, and that no definite result has yet been arrived at.
    Mr. Smith: There has been a lot of conversation taking place in this country on shorter working hours, but nothing has been done by the Government.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men scheduled as weavers in Lancashire, and who have little or no opportunity of regaining weaving, are deprived of an opportunity of acting as labourers on Government contracts?
    Mr. Brown: That is a different question from that on the Order Paper.

    SMALLHOLDINGS, ISLE OF ELY (DRAINAGE RATES).
    Mr. de Rothschildasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered representations from the Isle of Ely County Council with regard to the increasing burden of drainage rates on the
    898
    smallholdings administered by the council; and what conclusion he has come to on the question of alleviating this burden?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Although I have not received any representations from the Isle of Ely County Council on the subject mentioned for some years, I am aware of the council's views. I do not feel, however, that I can take any action in the matter.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that the burden of drainage rates on smallholdings throughout the country has been greatly increased by the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and will he appoint a committee to examine this matter?
    Mr. Morrison: The question of a possible amendment of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, is now under consideration, but I am not prepared to say in advance what amendments are necessary. I think it would be difficult to justify any differentiation between smallholdings and other holdings in the matter of drainage rates.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the burden on the whole agricultural community wants alleviating?

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Frank Collindridge, esquire, for the Borough of Barnsley.
BILL PRESENTED.
  ANGLO-TURKISH (ARMAMENTS CREDIT) AGREEMENT BILL,
  "to confirm and give effect to an agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the Turkish Republic; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Stanley, Captain Euan Wallace, and Mr. Butler; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (No. 2).
  Mr. Whiteley: I beg to move,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal Sections eight and nine of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, relating to the amount of compensation payable and to substitute other sections therefor."

  899
  The Bill is to deal with one principle of our compensation law which, I think, everyone realises must have further attention. The Bill deals with one point, and that is to increase dependants' allowances and the payments to those totally or partially incapacitated at their work. There are many reforms needed in our compensation law, but many of us think that this is by far the most important and the most urgent. It has long been felt by hon. Members in all parts of the House that compensation payments to widows and dependants are far from adequate, and this has been strongly emphasised in recent days by an industrial disaster causing the loss of very many lives. Immediately the general public of the country respond in a very generous way by subscribing to a fund in order that the dependants of those who have been lost and those who are totally or partially disabled may have some addition to the amount which they receive under the existing compensation law. Naturally, we thank the general public for their generosity at such times, but there are cases occurring every day in the ordinary routine of industrial life about which the public have little knowledge where the dependants receive only what the present law gives them. When public funds are necessary in order to augment what is received under the law to-day, so as to give a little more security and a little more comfort, I believe that the time has come when the compensation law in this respect ought to be altered. This Bill seeks to make the provision more adequate in cases of that kind.
  There is then the question of the workmen who are totally incapacitated. We believe that the compensation to such persons ought at least to equal the amount that they were receiving when they were engaged in their normal work. After all, it is not difficult for any one to understand that when a man is totally incapacitated by accident, he needs more treatment and more nourishment if an attempt is to be made to give him the opportunity of regaining normal health and strength as early as possible. That means, of course, that he and his family are put to a very great deal of additional expense in endeavouring to secure that normal health and strength again. The same argument applies to the man in receipt of partial compensation. There are scores of instances where men who
  900
  are partially incapacitated are engaged in some kind of light work. We feel that those men ought to receive, in addition to the wages they get for doing that light work, an amount of compensation, which, added to their wages, would bring the amount up to the wages which they would normally receive when following their normal occupation.
  Nobody can be satisfied with the state of affairs which we feel is growing up in this respect. In going from place to place, one hears of one case after another where people who are in receipt of partial or total compensation are forced by the circumstances of life to appeal to the public assistance committee for relief. That is a matter of which I think we ought not to feel very proud in our legislation. The other day, at Question Time, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) raised this matter and dealt with it very severely. Therefore, I draw the attention of hon. Members to this very important matter, because we cannot be content with any system which depends upon public generosity to provide this greater comfort and security. It is our duty in this House to see that in our legislation adequate provision is made which is worthy of the industrial services rendered to the nation by these people. This Bill is an effort in the direction of increasing the allowances for compensation and giving greater security to these people.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Whiteley, Mr. Ritson, Mr. R. J. Taylor, Mr. W. Joseph Stewart, Mr. Tinker, Mr. Westwood, Mr. E. J. Williams, Mr. T. Smith, Mr. Batey, and Mr. Sexton.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (No. 2) BILL,
  "to repeal Sections eight and nine of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, relating to the amount of compensation payable and to substitute other sections therefor," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 5th July, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

  GREEN BELT (LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Amendments to—
  Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the removal of the restrictions attaching to certain land which is consecrated as a burial ground in the urban district of Harrow; to authorise the sale of such land and its use for building or otherwise; and for other purposes." [Stanmore Unused Burial Ground Bill [Lords].

  STANMORE UNUSED BURIAL GROUND BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1938. CLASS II.

  FOREIGN OFFICE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £71,143, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—[Note.—£35,000 has been voted on account.]
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
  We asked for this Debate in order to raise the question of the aggressions now going on in various parts of the world in violation of the Covenant and the Kellogg Pact, the question of the new illegal and barbarous methods by which these aggressions are being conducted, and the question of the relation of these events to the maintenance of the rule of law by which alone, as the Prime Minister once said, we can hope for a stable epoch of peace. There are three aggressions now in progress, in Abyssinia, China and Spain. Of Abyssinia I propose to say nothing, save that Italian sovereignty was never less established than it is to-day and that the recognition of that sovereignty, if it were granted, would be a dishonour and a crime.
  I must say a little more of China. The Japanese assault on China a year ago was a Covenant-breaking aggression quite as flagrant as that on Abyssinia. No one doubts that that is true. World opinion has never been more unanimous than it is on the side of China. The unhappy Japanese people have still very many friends; the Japanese militarists have none. They have conducted their aggression by methods which are worthy of Attila the Hun. I will not dwell on the fearful massacres of non-combatants and of prisoners, of which some hon. Members
  920
  have had ocular proof, nor on the sufferings of refugees, who have been driven literally by millions from their homes by the Japanese, nor on the treatment of the women and the civil population, nor on the suffering of the Chinese wounded who, for want of transport and Red Cross material, often have to be carried for days on end on the backs of coolies before their wounds can even be dressed. To all this horror there has been added the systematic and merciless bombardment of the civil population from the air. The Mayor of Canton the other day sent a telegram to the mayors of all the great towns of Europe and America giving a description of the bombardments which day by day have been launched against his town. Some British journalists have translated his general picture into more vivid pictures still. I read only one:
  "Everywhere there are poignant scenes. Here a little girl tearing desperately with tiny hands at masonry under which her mother was killed; there boys giving a drink to their mothers also trapped; children searching in vain for parents; parents searching for their children; mangled bodies everywhere."
  It is stories like that which have frightened and sickened the conscience of the world. What is more frightening still is that these methods are being adopted as a deliberate military policy to win the war. That has been done in Spain. When Barcelona was bombarded on 16th, 17th and 18th March the Insurgent aircraft dropped bombs saying that they would bomb the population every three hours until they surrendered—"Give in, or you will be destroyed." The "Times" of 8th June reported an official Japanese spokesman as saying that they were going on with the air bombardment in order to show the Chinese the futility of resistance and to end hostilities as speedily as possible. But what is most frightening of all is that world opinion is becoming accustomed to these matters and that governments are doing nothing to bring them to an end. We have never believed that it is possible to humanise war. The only way to humanise war is to abolish it. The only way to prevent atrocities from the air is to abolish air warfare and national air forces altogether.
  When Lord Baldwin was urging that policy on the country six years ago propagandists here who were opposing him and who were subsidised by certain vested interests used to tell us that the

  921
  bombing plane—here I am quoting—was humane and effective and that it was a dove of peace in comparison with an ordinary army clearing up an area of country. They used to say that a little logical international law would abolish all the real objections to air bombardment. Those same voices are now those which tell us that it is futile to fly to stop or control air bombardment of a civil population and that there is nothing in international law which condemns what is being done. Sometimes they whisper to us that pernicious doctrine, "New weapons make new laws." They were wrong both times; they are wrong in principle, they are wrong in application; and there is no doubt in the world that bombardment of the civil population is a violation of international law. In 1923 there was a conference of government theorists at The Hague. The British representative was Sir Cecil Hurst, now the President of the Permanent Court of International Justice. They drew up a code of rules for air warfare, in which they did not make new law, in which they applied law which they all recognised to exist. They said:
  "Aerial bombardment of the civil population is prohibited."
  They went on to say, in an Article to which I draw special attention, because it relates to the point on which I wish to speak at greater length about the bombing of ships in Spain:
  "The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in the immediate neighbourhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited."
  That is to say, where there was not a land battle. They added:
  "In cases where the objectives specified are so situated that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civil population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment."
  These rules have not been ratified by governments, it is true, but there is no international lawyer in the world who has not said that they constitute the valid, binding law of air warfare at the present time. I could quote opinion after opinion—I have a volume of them here—from the leading British authorities, who urge that point. The doctrine that "New weapons make new laws" was put forward by the Germans for the submarines in the last War. It is an utterly pernicious doctrine. Our Government have always resisted and rejected it, and we say that,
  922
  faced with the present situation, it is the duty of Great Britain to-day to uphold international law and to take effective action to do so—action which will safeguard vital British interests, which will help to bring these aggressions to an end by the withdrawal of the invading forces, and which will promote the most vital of all British interests, namely, the re-valorisation of international law and the restoration of the sanctity of the Cove-man t and Kellogg Pact.
  We believe that such action is urgently required. We believe it is urgently required for China, to which I shall now refer. We believe it would have succeeded over China a year ago. Events have proved that Japan is not strong enough to challenge the world, that the Japanese people detest the war, detest even this limited adventure on which they are now engaged, and we believe that if we had done no more than impose the boycott on Japanese exports which we imposed on Signor Mussolini, by that measure alone we could have dried up the resources with which the Japanese are buying the oil and minerals without which their campaign could not be continued. We believe still more that firm action is needed to-day.
  We ought to treat this Japanese aggression as a Covenant-breaking war. We ought openly to help China in her magnificent resistance. We wish that the Government would now propose to the League an embargo on Japanese imports. But, if they will not do that, we wish that at least they would give to China, as I believe they have considered giving, a guaranteed Government loan. They are going to give a Government loan to Turkey, and for the first time in 20 years it is to be a loan for the purchase of arms. They are going to give that loan, if they get the sanction of this House, in order to serve British interests. But it is a gamble in power politics. Such gambles have, gone wrong before; the money has been lost and the arms have been used against the nation which gave them. But if arms for Turkey will promote British interests, a Government loan for China will do so ten times more. We earnestly hope that our Government will take a lead in carrying such a loan through.
  I pass now to another important aspect of the present cataclysmic disregard of international law, an aspect of supreme

  923
  importance to this country both in peace and war, of supreme material importance and of supreme symbolical importance, because the action of the Government might well determine the future course of international affairs. I am referring, of course, to the recent bombing of British ships in Spanish waters. I want to begin with a very brief summary of the facts. Half the merchant shipping of the world still flies the British flag. For many years a great part of the seaborne trade of Spain has been carried in British ships, to our great advantage. During the last 12 months 140 British ships have been engaged in that trade. In the Government ports on the East Coast of Spain since the beginning of the civil war there has been almost continued interference with British ships. The second episode was in August, 1936, when a Spanish Government cruiser, "Miguel Cervantes," saw outside a port a British vessel which it believed to be engaged on un-neutral service on the Rebel side. The British Government took action and checked that interference, and I believe that since then no attempts have been made by the Spanish Government in any way to interfere with British ships.
  The same cannot be said for General Franco. The Committee will remember all too well the lamentable episode of Bilbao and Santander and Gijon a year ago. They will remember the capture of 10 British ships and their detention for a period of months. Hon. Members may perhaps have forgotten that the Government could only tell us that five of those 10 were quite certainly captured in territorial waters, leaving us not unjustifiably to infer that the other five were captured on the high seas. While this was going on in the north of Spain we had the pre-Nyon piracy in the south. On 30th October the first sinking of a British ship by an aeroplane was reported. At the end of 1937 two ships had been sunk, three had been badly damaged—all these on the high seas—and six, so the Government said, by action taken by the Salamanca authorities. In addition, another vessel had been injured by a mine, another had been slightly damaged and 21 ships had been attacked without damage being done.
  That was the record for 1937. General Franco and his allies naturally drew the
  924
  conclusion that everything was permitted, and the attacks quickened. On 31st January the steamship "Endymion" was sunk by a torpedo and 10 lives were lost. On 4th February the "Alcira" shared this fate, this time bombed on the high seas by two aircraft. From now on the attacks became more numerous on the high seas, in ports and on ships in territorial waters, a mile or two miles or more off the shore. The Government told us that by 28th March four ships had been sunk, 10 captured and detained, 12 seriously damaged, and that there had been on British ships 20 other attacks which had missed their mark. In the 12 weeks which have passed since the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs gave us that information, these numbers have been more than doubled. From 25th April to 21st June, that is to-day, five British merchantmen, a British dredger and a British schooner have been sunk. From 25th April to 21st June, 16 others have been seriously damaged and more have been slightly damaged, including seven in the last week. One has been attacked on the high seas without success. In addition, the British port of Gandia has been attacked, though it was exclusively British property, used only for British trade, a port at which British destroyers and cruisers were in the habit of calling and where everything was marked with British colours which, according to the "Times," could be seen for miles. One morning the port was attacked, the wharves were wrecked, a schooner and a dredger were sunk and 120 yards of warehouses were destroyed.
  Let me turn to another aspect of these attacks. Most of them have been made without adequate warning to the ships' crews. In consequence there have been 21 people killed on British ships and over 31 have been wounded. In addition, two non-intervention officers have been killed, and in the last attack the aircraft not only bombed these vessels, but came down and machine-gunned their crews on the decks. That many of these attacks have been deliberately made is evident. You cannot hit a ship from an aeroplane unless you fly pretty low; and, if you fly low, you cannot fail to see Union Jacks displayed all over a ship. In fact there is ample evidence that these aircraft did come very low. The "Aleira" was sunk by an aeroplane which circled three times round her at a height of 100 feet.

  925
  The "Brisbane" was sunk by a plane which came so low that it nearly hit the mast. The "Maryad" was set on fire in Alicante. On the day before she had been warned by an angry Franco agent in a Franco port that this was to be her last voyage. In another case the ship was reconnoitred with a searchlight on the night before, and at dawn an aeroplane came down and sank her. The "Greatend," says the "Times" was "singled out as a target no fewer than four times in three weeks." The harbour at Gandia was attacked, and the schooner and dredger sunk, by aeroplanes from 300 feet—about the height as the "Times" said, of the cliffs of Dover. The Under-Secretary told us on 3rd June that he was sure that five of these attacks had been deliberate. I know one firm whose Masters have told them of at least a dozen attacks which have been deliberately made on that firm's ships alone, and the owners collectively say that more than 40 of these attacks on ships can be proved to have been deliberate. The "Times" Diplomatic Correspondent supported that view when he said that
  "the attacking machines have come so low that their target could hardly be accidental";
  and in another review of the facts he said that the whole campaign was "deliberate and systematic."
  May I summarise these facts? Of 140 vessels engaged in the Spanish trade in the last 12 months, 10 have been sunk, together with two smaller units; 10 have been captured and detained; 28 have been damaged more or less seriously, some of them being almost total losses; and a larger number have been slightly damaged. The number actually hit cannot be less than 50, and, in addition, a large number have been attacked without success. Nearly 60 people have been killed and wounded. Everyone of these attacks has been carried out by Franco's forces, and there is overwhelming proof that a great number of them were deliberately made.
  Reviewing these facts, the diplomatic correspondent of the "Times" said, on 9th June, that it was evident that Franco and his foreign allies had a fixed determination to use bombers "as means of smashing their way to victory." I ask the Committee: What does it mean, if Franco and his German and Italian allies are to be allowed to smash their way to
  926
  victory against the Spanish people by bombing British ships? It means that, having failed to win in the field, having failed to establish a blockade at sea, having no belligerent right even to try to establish a blockade at sea, they are trying to effect a blockade and to cut off all trade with the outside world by the use of bombing aircraft. And the vital question for us is this. Are we to admit the validity of a blockade by bombing aircraft? Are we to accept the methods by which it is at present being established?
  I know that some hon. Members think with great sincerity that British ships ought to stay out of these waters altogether; that the owners send them and the masters take them because of the high profits to be made; that many of them are British in name only; that they exploit the protection of the British flag and that it is contrary to our national interest that these ships should go there. They argue, these hon. Members, that if the ships insist on going there, they should be left to their fate. And many people outside the House believe—I hope no one here believes it—that these ships are engaged in carrying contraband and war material to the Spanish Government forces.
  May I examine that view as fairly as I can? To begin with, these ships have not only the right to fly the British flag, but we have been told by the Government themselves that it is a great advantage to us that they should do so. In fact only 27 of them have acquired British nationality since the civil war began, leaving 113 which were British before that date. And suppose that the number were much greater than 27. The Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade told us on 3rd June that these ships took our flag because our law allowed them to do so, and that that law worked to our advantage. He said the whole of our history had shown
  "the enormous advantage to this country of having a large mercantile navy which in time of trouble and national emergency could be requisitioned under our control, rather than under the control of some other country."
  He went on to say that he hoped
  "no change would be made in the policy which had been ours for centuries, and under which our mercantile navy had grown to its present proportions."
  He virtually dismissed the suggestion that the crews of the ships were not British. In the second place, this trade is of mani-

  927
  fest advantage to our country. The Government of Spain have taken £2,250,000 worth of British exports in the last six months and £2,000,000 worth of Australian wheat. Do these things mean nothing to us at a time of falling trade?
  Next, I say it is a gross libel on British seamen and their captains to suggest that they are moved by greed for money. General Franco is not only trying to blockade Government ports by the use of aircraft. He is trying to do it by corrupting the masters and crews of neutral ships as well. May I read to the Committee a human document? This is a letter from the master of a British ship. I omit names, but I have a photostat of the original, which I will give to the Prime Minister when I have finished. When this captain was at a port at one end of the Mediterranean he was approached by a diplomat belonging to Franco's organisation, who proposed to him that he should put his ship at their disposal for capture. The captain goes on to say:
  "He offered me 13s. per ton for the cargo, to be paid into any bank I might name. This man knew all the Nyon routes; guessed closely our average speed and pointed out a position six miles south of (a certain island) and guaranteed to have a vessel there to order me into port. All I had to do was to telegraph the day and time of sailing to (a certain address in Rome) and everything would be attended to."
  This man, he further says,
  "gave me the impression of being an ex-naval officer. He had a good knowledge of navigation and was a well-educated man."
  The captain concludes:
  "I have never yet committed barratry, and I do not intend to start now."
  I think that disposes of the theory that these are moved by greed of gold. If British crews were after easy money they could get it by taking Franco's bribes to give up their trade; but they have refused to do so. And I think the same is true of the owners. They may have high profits; but they are taking tremendous risks. They lost £330,000 worth of ships in a single week. Many of them have gone out of the business, not because they wanted to, but because they were faced with ruin if they continued. It is no less ludicrous to suggest that these vessels are doing a trade in contraband. The "Times" Diplomatic Correspondent told us the other day that
  928
  they were "supervised" and "controlled" at every point; and the case of the "Stancroft" at Gibraltar has proved beyond a peradventure that no such trade in contraband is going on. It was shown in that case that only 0.3 per cent. of the cargo was even suspect and even that was released by the Court. It was also shown that a good deal of the evidence adduced for the prosecution was very suspect in its source. What is the trade in which these ships are engaged? I will read part of the telegram from the Under-Secretary for Agriculture in the Spanish Government to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
  "I manifest you by my honour that English steamer Thorpehaven attacked with bombs in the night of 7th and 8th transported 5,900 tons of corn which this Ministry has to distribute between the rationed civil Spanish people."
  In fact, there was no need for the Under-Secretary to make his adventure with the English language; it is obvious that these ships are engaged in taking food and other vital supplies to the Spanish people. Hon. Members who have raised this point are ardent supporters of non-intervention, but what is the meaning of non-intervention? Why are there observers on these ships? Because they control what is done; their very presence is a guarantee that there is no contraband; it is a guarantee that these ships are engaged in a trade of which Parliament has deliberately approved.
  Thus the real issue is narrowed down to the question: Are these attacks legitimate in international law? I am not going to weary the Committee by a long argument about it. It is plain beyond all doubt that this trade is legitimate; that we ought not to recognise General Franco's blockade; and that the methods which he is using constitute a dangerous attack upon British rights which involve a vital British national interest. I do not propose to dilate upon the true character of the war in Spain—a war of aggression, in which we ought to be supporting the Spanish Government against the invaders, under the Covenant of the League. I set that altogether aside for the present purpose. I accept the Government's hypothesis and consider only the old rules of international law. The Diplomatic Correspondent of the "Times," who evidently consulted high authority before he wrote, said, on 10th Tune, that:

  929
  "deliberate attacks on merchant ships break every canon of international law,"
  and he said further that
  "International law, as well as every humanitarian principle, has often been broken by the airmen serving General Franco."
  Naval law has been of great importance in British history. We have always insisted that merchantmen may only be sunk in most exceptional circumstances, and then only when provision has been made for the safety of the passengers and crews. We protested violently—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will be able to tell us all about it—when Germany tried to blockade this country by a submarine campaign conducted in violation of the established rules. The United States came into the War to uphold those rules. At Washington, in 1922, we drafted a convention which, in 1930, we turned into definite binding rules, declaring and confirming the law by which we stood between 1914 and 1918. At Nyon those rules were applied to aircraft, and it was specifically laid down that if aircraft broke them, then the protecting warships should fire on those aircraft.
  Some people, including, I believe, hon. Members of this Committee, have argued that these rules may be all very well, but that they cease to operate in territorial waters. Why? The rules are rules for submarines applied to aircraft. There is no limit in the case of submarines to the high seas. The rules do not cease to operate when ships are in territorial waters. Why should they cease to operate for aircraft? It is, indeed, quite plain that to attack ships in territorial waters by aircraft and to sink them without making provision for the crews, is to commit a war crime. Any other view makes absolute nonsense of the wholes international law of contraband and blockade, by which we, as a country have always stood. This law is really vital to our national interests. The bombing in Spain is what the "Times" diplomatic correspondent has called it, "pre-Nyon piracy." And, finally, I have a question and answer which I could read to the House, but it would take too long, because it occupies a whole page, in which the Admiralty themselves accept that view, for I drafted my question in such a way as to ask whether the bombing of ports distant from the battle front where neutral ships might be lying was
  930
  legal. The Admiralty replied saying after a review of the facts, that they have "ample ground for insisting that these incidents shall cease," and they went on to say that it was plain that the aircraft were dropping their bombs in such a manner as to cause indiscriminate damage, and that that must not be done if British lives and property were there.
  What does all this mean? It means that if the Government now accept the air bombardment of Barcelona, Valencia, and Alicante, without effective action to prevent it, they will be allowing three new practices, all contrary to international law and all very dangerous to Great Britain if another war should come. The three new practices are these: the direct bombardment of the civil population, the indiscriminate bombardment of commercial ports which are not blockaded and which are distant from the battle front, and, thirdly, and perhaps most important, the direct attack on neutral ships engaged in non-contraband trade. I hope hon. Members will remember how much we depended on neutral ships in the last Great War.
  When the "Times" Diplomatic Correspondent called this "pre-Nyon piracy," he went on to say that it "required pre-Nyon methods of countering it." The Prime Minister tells us there is nothing he can do except to protest and enter claims. It seems to us that he approaches the problem in the spirit of Colonel Blimp in last Saturday's "Topical Budget":
  "Gad, Sir, it is high time we warned Franco that if he sinks another 100 British ships, we shall retire from the Mediterranean altogether."
  I want, if I may without impertinence, to ask the Prime Minister a question. What would he have said if these attacks had been made by Spanish Government aircraft, piloted by pilots from the Soviet Union? I mentioned earlier an occasion on which a Spanish Government cruiser stopped a British ship, which had the good old English name of "Jebel Ferjon." I have the most serious reasons for thinking that that ship was carrying munitions to Franco's troops at Melilla. When this happened the "Daily Telegraph" carried a despatch from Sir Percival Phillips, in which he stated that when this news reached Gibraltar the battle cruiser "Repulse" started at once to hoot her siren to call in her officers, who were at lunch all over the Rock;

  931
  within an hour she was at sea, her decks cleared, and with her crew at gun stations she steamed at full speed to the spot. Sir Percival went on to say:
  "The cruiser His Majesty's Ship 'Codrington' also left this morning. I am informed that her commander has been given instructions to fire, if he is obstructed."
  It was not quite like that at Bilbao and Santander. It was not quite like that this spring. After the "Stanwell" had been attacked by bombs which were dropped from so low that two of them were successfully aimed through her open hatches, and three British seamen were killed, after that had happened, the Prime Minister said in this House:
  "If we find that it is a deliberate attack, the authorities responsible will be informed, and full compensation will be claimed."
  It is true that the late Foreign Secretary brought a new spirit and a new method to the protection of British rights at Nyon; and it is true that in the early days of February after the "Endymion" and the "Alcira" had been sunk, he publicly announced that protests and claims would no longer he enough, and he issued a Note in which he said, speaking of aircraft:
  "His Majesty's Government reserve themselves the right henceforth, without any further notice, to take such retaliatory action in the event of any recurrence of these attacks as may be required and appropriate to the particular case."
  The late Foreign Secretary left his office; and the Prime Minister has gone back to the system of claims and protests, in the spirit of Colonel Blimp. I am bound to say that, for the present purpose, I should prefer the spirit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the matter of the Metro-Vickers engineers. The House will remember how the Chancellor of the Exchequer painted a grim picture of the dangers which threatened those two engineers. In retrospect the perils do not seem so grave, in comparison with the deaths of 21 sailors and the wounding of many more; but faced with the threat to two of our competitors, the Chancellor said this:
  "I ask myself this question, and I ask it with great anxiety and put it to the Members in all parts of the House: What would you have the British Government do when they have this information about fellow subjects of their own who are in this peril? Would you have them do nothing? Would you have them conduct polite inquiries without taking any other steps?"
  932
  Then, having spoken of certain action that he proposed, he went on to say:
  "I know of no way in which I can bring home to these deluded inhabitants of Soviet Russia what is going on."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 5th April, 1933; col. 1783, Vol. 276.]
  I suggest to the Government that they might find some way of bringing home to the deluded inhabitants of Franco's Spain what the British people here are thinking. On that occasion they withdrew our Ambassador from Moscow, and they put an embargo on Russian trade. They can do the same to-day. They can withdraw Sir Robert Hodgson, and they can give the Duke of Alba his passports; and I believe that General Franco sets so high a price on our quasi-recognition that that step alone would very likely be enough to stop the attacks. They can also put an embargo on trade with Franco's Spain, and they can try to get other genuinely non-intervening Powers to do the same. They will tell us, of course, that it would damage other British economic interests. Our trade with Russia in 1931 was £7,000,000, and in 1932 it was £9,000,000; that is to say, £9,000,000 worth of British exports went from this country to Russia in the year before the embargo was put on, yet the Government were ready to risk a permanent diversion of that trade from this country. Well, Sir, I am not arguing now that they were not right, but I do say that, if they were right then, they ought to do the same to-day in regard to Franco's Spain.
  There is another action which the Government can take. Everybody knows that these attacks are being conducted by Italian aircraft. The Prime Minister has no more faithful supporter in the Press than "Scrutator" of the "Sunday Times," and "Scrutator" said on Sunday last:
  "It is not pleasant to think that the aero-planes that sank the British ships may well have been supplied by Powers whose neutrality was never more than a fiction which is assumed or dropped at convenience. There never was a clearer case of legal wrong done to a great naval Power on the element where it is most sensitive to injury."
  I have a copy of the "Frankfurter Zeitung," of 11th June, and it says—I will not trouble the Committee with the German—that the pilots and the aircraft which are sinking our vessels are Italian; and the Germans ought to know. In the three months since the Prime Minister

  933
  signed his agreement with Italy the Spanish Government have captured 46 Franco aviators, and of the 46, 31 were Italians, 13 were Germans, and two were Spanish. There is no doubt about the figures, and hon. Members can visit the aviators if they want to do so. Let the Prime Minister say to Signor Mussolini, who is so impatient to bring his Treaty into force, "This Treaty will never be brought into force unless these attacks are stopped, and stopped to-day," and I guarantee that the attacks will stop and that his Treaty will have brought about the only appeasement which it is ever likely to produce. There is another measure which the Government can take. General Franco has funds in this country, which the Government could impound to pay our owners a little compensation for the ships which have been lost. We impounded £60,000,000 worth of Russian gold, and I believe it is still impounded, awaiting the time when claims and debts will be settled. There is a precedent on which the Government can act.
  There is another measure. General Franco has a commercial fleet of about 100 vessels, or rather more. They fly his flag. I am not sure that they were on the Spanish register before the civil war, and I am not sure that they have all got Spanish crews, but they supply General Franco with many things he needs. Well, we could detain those vessels at Gibraltar, exactly as General Franco detained our 10 vessels in his ports a year ago. Some of my naval and military friends suggest more active measures. They say that destroyers could be posted off the ports and that when attacks were made on British ships they could open fire on the aeroplanes that made them.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Suppose the aircraft had gone?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The aircraft have to come very low. I have also had it suggested to me by naval officers—the Government could examine it on technical grounds—that we could post an aircraft carrier beyond the three-mile limit and that when a raid was on it could keep a patrol in the air. The Prime Minister may have seen a letter in the "Sunday Times" of last Sunday, by Admiral Usborne, who, I believe, has generally been in favour of General Franco, in
  934
  which he said that it would be quite easy to stop these attacks. All that we should have to do would be to tell
  "the Burgos Government that for every British ship deliberately attacked from the air a Spanish nationalist warship would be taken or sunk, and attacks would cease immediately,"
  because General Franco would never risk them.
  I suggest one last measure. You can take anti-aircraft guns off the nonintervention list, and if you call that intervention, you can take them off the list for both sides. Let the Spaniards get the guns, and if you do not want to protect the Union Jack, they will do it for you. These are all things that the Government can do. They are certain to be effective, and it is fantastic to call them intervention. But the Government do not want to do them; and I ask the question, Why? If I may encroach further on the patience of the Committee, I should like to read one or two extracts from the Rome correspondent of the "Times." On 18th May the Rome correspondent said:
  "Signor Mussolini, it is believed, has no intention of concluding an agreement with Paris that does not include a settlement of the Spanish problem, and will accept no settlement that does not recognise General Franco as master of the whole of Spain."
  The Prime Minister wanted the Anglo Italian Treaty so much, that it is as plain as day that he accepted the condition which the French refused. The next message is again from Rome, on 6th June, when British opinion was greatly agitated about the bombing of our ships:
  "Generally speaking the Italian view"—
  and in a totalitarian country there is no view but the Government view—
  "is that General Franco has a good deal the better of his opponents in the air, thanks largely to the efficiency of the Italian pilots and machines which he has at his disposal. Any proposal which would tend to place restrictions on air bombing, however justifiable its object, is apt to be regarded with suspicion."
  The next message is two days later and is again from Rome:
  "The Italian Government are anxious to see the war in Spain ended as quickly as possible and think that the Nationalist superiority in the air will help to this end. Any restrictions placed on bombing would therefore be deplored."

  935
  The next message is on 13th June from Rome, the day before the Prime Minister's statement last Tuesday:
  "Italian political observers … have now come, with considerable relief, to the conclusion that the British Government are not going to move in the matter. At first it was feared that the British Government would find means of putting pressure on General Franco to restrict the use of his air force in such a way as would lessen his chances of winning the war rapidly; but Mr. Chamberlain's decision not to give up his holiday, and Sir Thomas Inskip's remarks yesterday, are held to suggest that the Cabinet has not been able to devise any practical means of restraining General Franco without abandoning the principle of non-intervention."
  They were quite right, because next day the Prime Minister told us that nothing would be done. We have seen the joy with which his announcement was received in Berlin and Rome; and since he made his pronouncement seven ships have been bombed in seven days. I ask the Government whether it is to bring a speedy end to the Spanish war by the victory of General Franco that we are allowing British ships to be bombed? If so, there never was a more lamentable mistake in British history. The Spanish war will never be ended by the victory of the invader. It will only end when the invaders have first been withdrawn; and the only hope of securing the general withdrawal of foreign troops is to stand firm for international law. If there is any new ray of hope on the horizon, any hope that this ghastly holocaust can be ended, it will be strengthened if you show that you now mean to stand for British rights under international law.
  Here we have an unparalleled example of an attack upon those rights. The vital interests of Great Britain, as a neutral and as a belligerent, are at stake. If we continue only to retreat before the aggressor the world will say, as it is saying now, that there is no surrender to blackmail which you will not make. Stand firm and the horizon may clear more quickly than you think. If we look back over the years during which retreats before aggression have brought us ever nearer to war, three events stand out like beacon lights against the black clouds of gathering storm. They are Morocco in December, 1936; Nyon in August, 1937; and Czechoslovakia in May, 1938. If we now save the British ships, as we so easily can, perhaps the
  936
  historians will say that it was to-day that we took the turning which led us at last to the road which brought us peace founded on the rule of law.
  4.50 p.m.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) began his observations by making some general remarks upon the horrors of modern war as brought about by the practice of bombing from the air. With those general observations I do not think anybody in the Committee will disagree. Indeed, if it were not that China is so far away and the scenes which are taking place there are so remote from our everyday consciousness, I think the sentiments of pity, honor and indignation which would be aroused by a full appreciation of those events might drive this people to courses which perhaps they have never yet contemplated. We have to face the fact that the inventions of scientific men which led up to the practical development of means of flying in the air have introduced into warfare new methods, new scope and new horrors which have, in fact, materially changed its character and have incidentally brought into the open a whole series of new problems which were never present to the minds of our ancestors.
  The hon. Member spoke about international law, and he quite truly said that it was entirely wrong to lay down that new weapons make new laws. I agree, but I must make this qualification, that new weapons may introduce new conditions which require if not a recasting, at any rate an elaboration, of existing laws, because the old laws must provide for circumstances which they did not have to provide for under the old conditions. The fact is that there is at present no international code of law with respect to aerial warfare which is the subject of general agreement. There are certain rules of international law which have been established for sea and land warfare. The principles which underlie those rules are applicable to aerial warfare and are not only admitted but insisted upon by this Government. They do not entirely meet the case which we have to meet to-day.
  The hon. Gentleman skated very lightly over difficulties, which are in themselves very formidable and for which no complete solution has yet been found. I was asked a question a little time ago on this subject, whether the Government were

  937
  taking any steps to concert with other countries some international understanding on the rules of aerial warfare. Some impatience was displayed on the benches opposite because we had not yet taken such a step, but I explained then, and I repeat it now, that it is no use throwing out a general invitation to other people to come and talk about it unless we can put before them something concrete and practical which can form the subject of discussion.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Why not put it before them?
  The Prime Minister: That is what I am going on to say. The British Government are engaged upon a careful survey of the position with a view to trying to formulate a practical scheme which we can put before other countries for their acceptance or modification as the case may be.
  Mr. Bevan: Cannot you hurry up?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is very clever, and I have no doubt he could think of these things much quicker than we can. The party opposite has not yet produced anything of a practical character.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would want to be understood as implying that we were overthrowing the rules drawn up in 1923 by the conference of which I spoke.
  The Prime Minister: I am not suggesting throwing over anything. What I am saying is that we have not anything yet which is sufficiently concrete and which deals in a sufficiently practical manner with the various difficulties, some of which I was proposing to explain. I think we may say that there are, at any rate, three rules of international law or three principles of international law which are as applicable to warfare from the air as they are to war at sea or on land. In the first place, it is against international law to bomb civilians as such and to make deliberate attacks upon civilian populations. That is undoubtedly a violation of international law. In the second place, targets which are aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be capable of identification. In the third place, reasonable care must be taken in attacking those military objectives so that by carelessness a civilian
  938
  population in the neighbourhood is not bombed.
  These are three general rules which we can all accept and which we do accept, but it is obvious that when you come to put them into practice they give rise to considerable difficulties. Let me say at once that we cannot too strongly condemn any declaration on the part of anybody, wherever it may be made and on whatever side it may be made, that it should be part of a deliberate policy to try and win a war by demoralising the civilian population through a process of bombing from the air. That is absolutely contrary to international law, and I would add that, in my opinion, if any such policy is followed, it is a mistaken policy from the point of view of those who adopt it, for I do not believe that deliberate attacks upon the civilian population will ever win a war for those who adopt them. The difficulty arises when one of the forces engaged in aerial warfare, being accused of deliberate bombing of civilians, deny that they were bombing civilians or that it was deliberate, and allege that they were in pursuit of military objectives. Again, what is a military objective? Surely these are not matters which can be passed over as if they were of no importance. Suppose a church is used as the headquarters of a division. Is that a military objective or is it not?
  Mr. S. O. Davies: It depends upon what side it is on.
  The Prime Minister: That shows the attitude of mind with which hon. Members opposite approach this question. If we are to have international agreement we must not approach it from the point of view of whether our sympathies are on one side or another; we have to adopt a rather more detached spirit than that. We must try to lay down rules which will be accepted by all sides and will be carried out in practice. I say that reasonable care must be taken, in attacking military objectives, not to go outside those objectives, but it is extremely difficult in practice to determine whether in fact the dropping of bombs which have killed civilians in the neighbourhood of military objectives is the result of want of care or not. Suppose a man makes a bad shot, which is not at all unlikely when machines are going at over 300 miles an hour and

  939
  when, as I am informed, in taking aim you have to release the bomb miles away from its objective—it seems to me that it is extremely difficult to lay down exactly the point at which reasonable care turns into unreasonable want of care.
  Difficulties of this kind are great enough to baffle us in finding any easy solution, and I do not think we shall serve any useful purpose by shutting our eyes to that fact and attempting to lay down rules which do not provide for the difficulties which certainly arise in practice. In making any proposition of the kind we have, first of all, to satisfy ourselves that we have obtained some practical solution of the question, but when we have done that our difficulties are not at an end, because we still have to obtain the agreement of others, and anybody who recollects what enormous difficulty there was in obtaining international agreement when the provisions for disarmament were discussed at Geneva will realise that we are by no means out of the wood when we ourselves think we have found what seems to be a satisfactory code of rules.
  Agreement upon matters of this kind depends very largely not only upon the reasonableness of the proposition that is put forward but upon the general international atmosphere which prevails at the time, and it is therefore one of the objects of His Majesty's Government so to improve that general international atmosphere that we may have a better chance of obtaining agreement as to the way in which aerial warfare should be regulated. As I have said, the sort of difficulties which I have indicated make it extremely difficult to prove to the general satisfaction what has happened in a particular case, but I am bound to say that in the opinion of the British Government far too many instances have occurred, both in China and in Spain, where these general rules have been plainly disregarded and where there has been a deliberate attack upon civilians.
  I come now to the question to which the hon. Member devoted a good part of his speech, namely, the situation in regard to the attacks upon British ships in Spanish ports. The hon. Member asked me what I would have done, or what would have been my attitude, if the attacks had been made by Spanish Government aeroplanes upon ships carrying aid to General Franco. I could not
  940
  help wondering what would have been the attitude of the Labour party in those circumstances. I am thinking how they would have dwelt on the portentous profits which were being made by the people who owned those ships. Would they not have said that people who take these risks must look after themselves? [Interruption.] Yes, that is what we say about people who take these risks. I am not saying anything new. I am repeating what I have already said. As regards attacks upon ships in territorial waters, after a careful and exhaustive examination of all possible methods of giving them aid, the British Government have come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to do so short of intervening in the war, and thereby cutting across the whole policy which they have been following since the beginning. The hon. Member made what I thought to be a very unfair comparison between what he alleged to be the action of the British Government or British warships in the case of an attack by a Spanish Government ship and their inaction in cases of attack on ships carrying aid to the Spanish Government. I am sure that the hon. Member was trying to be fair, but I do think that that particular contrast was an astonishing instance of how his judgment is warped by his sympathies in this matter. There is an important difference between the two cases. In the one case the attack was on the high seas and in the other case the attacks were in territorial waters That makes all the difference.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: A great number of the attacks by General Franco's forces have been on the high seas, at least half, and a great many have been unsuccessful attacks.
  The Prime Minister: We are talking about policy now. A particular attack may take place and there may be no British ship within reach at the moment to punish the aggressor. We cannot help that. We cannot have a British ship in every square mile of the Mediterranean. If the hon. Member was attributing to us—and I do not think his words could have meant anything unless he did mean it—a deliberate difference in policy according to whether the ship to be attacked was carrying aid to one side or the other—
  Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman apply these highly moral principles

  941
  about profiteering to the ship that was taking aid to General Franco? If not, why not?
  The Prime Minister: We must have one question at a time. I did not assume to myself any high moral principles. I was merely imagining what the Labour party would have said. It was they who assumed these high moral principles that there should be no profiteering. What I was dealing with was the difference between ships on the high seas and ships in port. I say again that the hon. Member was unfair and unjust—and incorrect—when he suggested that since my right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary resigned we had changed the policy which had been adopted by my right hon. Friend. That is not true at all. We still maintain the policy which he laid down for action on the high seas in the event of attacks on British ships, but, as I say, we cannot undertake in every single case of attack that there shall be British warships within reach. Always, if they are in reach, due protection is given.
  Mr. McGovern: What is your Navy for? Only to be reviewed by the King?
  The Prime Minister: I listened with some care to hear what the hon. Member had to propose as a practical method of preventing these attacks upon British ships in port. It is not a nice thing to hear of British ships being attacked in port. As far as I know there is no foundation for any suggestion that these ships have been carrying arms or munitions. They have, of course, been carrying food, coal, oil and other stores which are of value in carrying on the war, and no doubt that is the reason why they are being attacked. We do not admit the right of General Franco or anybody else to attack these ships. What we say is that we do not believe any practical means of preventing it, without adopting a policy which would be completely at variance with that which we believe to be in the true interests of this country, has been found.
  The hon. Member made one or two definite suggestions. The first was that we should withdraw our agent. That seems to me the first process in the withdrawal from the Mediterranean at which the hon. Member sneered so effectively. What good is it going to do to withdraw our agent? The hon. Member seems to
  942
  think that we have only to take Sir Robert Hodgson away and immediately General Franco will give up what he supposes, at any rate, to be one of his most effective weapons for carrying on this war. I do not think that is an effective suggestion. The second suggestion was that we were to cut off trade. It is questionable whether the cutting-off of trade would bring General Franco to pay more attention to our protests than he has done hitherto, for I have never known a war stopped for want of financial resources, and the effect of a stoppage of trade, even if it were shared in by other countries, is extremely doubtful. The hon. Member is confident that everybody else will come in with us, but I do not share his confidence, and, as I say, I am very doubtful whether a stoppage of trade would bring about the consequence which the hon. Member anticipates; but I am quite certain that a very considerable amount of damage would be done to other kinds of British trade.
  Then there were various suggestions which were made by his military and naval friends. This is the problem which you have to meet—I put it to the House the other day; you have here aeroplanes which drop their bombs long before they come within sight of the objective at which they are aimed, and you cannot tell whether those aeroplanes are going to make an attack upon a ship or not until they have actually made the attack, when they are flying at 200 or 300 miles an hour. The fact is that the only possible way of intervening effectively by antiaircraft gunfire, is to fire at every aeroplane that appears as soon as you get news of its presence. That becomes at once an act of intervention; at any rate, we are not going to change our policy to please Members of the party opposite. The hon. Member thinks that we can impound the balance belonging to General Franco in this country and he says that we impounded £60,000,000 belonging to the Soviet Government. I wonder what his authority is for that statement. I was for some time at the Treasury and I had a good many transactions concerning Russian affairs, but I recollect no impounding of £60,000,000 of Russian money.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If I remember rightly, in 1915 or 1916 £60,000,000 worth of Russian gold was sent here, and was

  943
  retained by us after the Soviets came in as a guarantee that claims for debts would be settled. I understand that still to be the situation.
  The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Member is mistaken in saying that we have impounded £60,000,000 of Russian money and that we hold that here now. I am afraid that is far from being true. In any case, I do not think that he can imagine that we have our hands on a sufficient amount of money belonging to General Franco to be able to use that as a lever to prevent his bombing our ships.
  We have left General Franco in no doubt about our views on this subject. I need not recite now the number of times that we have protested, first against the bombing of open towns and villages, and later against the bombing of British ships, especially where, as it seemed to us, the bombing of those ships was deliberate. There is nothing easier than for hon. Members opposite to bring up all sorts of suggestions and say that you have only to adopt this or that and the whole thing would stop. If they were on this side of the House instead of on that—[An HON. MEMBER: "Franco would be done for."]—and had our responsibility instead of as at present having no responsibility at all, I doubt whether they would be so lighthearted in suggesting measures the efficacy of which is doubtful, and certainly might run the risk of involving us all in a general European war. I am afraid that while war continues we must expect a succession of these incidents and of the horrors against which we have protested. The one satisfactory solution of the Spanish question would be a termination of the war. That would put an end to all these difficulties at once.
  Mr. David Grenfell: The right hon. Gentleman should clear up a doubt which exists in the minds of Members of the Committee. Does he wish the Committee to believe that there is a single case of attack upon a British ship in which there was not a deliberate aim by those who took part in it to destroy that ship, and does he wish the Committee to believe that he has dismissed all those doubts by his passing reference to an aeroplane travelling at 300 miles an hour, and that happens to throw a bomb which happens to hit a British ship?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member does me less than justice. I have said distinctly more than once that there were a number of cases in which it appears to us plain that the attack on the British ship was a deliberate attack. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are you going to do about it?"] Only yesterday we sent a note protesting against it, and reserving our subsequent claim for compensation. It does not seem to me to matter very much, from the point of view of principle, whether the attack is deliberate or accidental in all cases or only in some cases. There should be no cases. I cannot say that we have proof in every case that the attack was deliberate, and it is possible that in some cases it was not; but it still remains that in many cases it was deliberate. As I have pointed out, we do not admit the right of General Franco to bomb our ships, whether deliberately or by accident, and if we do not take stronger measures than protests at this present time it is because, having the responsibility that we have—[Interruption.]—and believing that our policy of non-intervention is of greater importance than—[An HON. MEMBER: "The lives of British sailors.] "The lives of British sailors," says an hon. Member, but if we began to engage in war it is quite certain that the lives of British sailors would not be saved.
  Mr. Stephen: Inconsistent. Scrap your rearmament programme.
  The Prime Minister: We have to think of all British citizens. When the hon. Member interrupted me I was just saying that in our view there was only one satisfactory solution of our difficulties and that would be the termination of the war, but whether that would be possible by any action that we could take, I do not know. Hon. Members opposite are familiar with the situation when, in the course of an industrial strike, attempts are made to bring about a cessation of the dispute by mediation on the part of a third party. They know how difficult it is to find a moment when both sides are willing to listen to reason from someone else, particularly if a particular side thinks it is within sight of victory. It is unwilling to listen to any idea of compromise. The same sort of difficulty arises in a situation like that with which we are confronted to-day. All we can say is that we shall, from time to time, try to take soundings

  945
  with a view to seeing whether there are any favourable prospects of success and that, when that time comes, we shall be only too glad to offer our services, either alone or in conjunction with others, to bring this lamentable conflict to an end.
  5.25 p.m.
  Sir Archibald Sinclair: I am sure that other hon. Members will share my feeling of disappointment that the last passage of the Prime Minister's speech was so short. The newspapers have been full lately of the demand which Signor Mussolini is making upon the Government that the Anglo-Italian Agreement should be brought into immediate effect and of the proposals that the Government, in return, are supposed to be making for peace in Spain. I certainly hoped that if that was the policy of the Government and that if the Government were doing anything to bring that about, the Prime Minister would have given us some clear indication of his intentions. Let me, therefore, ask the Under-Secretary whether he will be good enough in his reply to answer these questions: Has Signor Mussolini asked us to bring the Anglo-Italian Agreement into operation, in advance of a general settlement in Spain, and, if he has done so, what has been the Government's reply? The right hon. Gentleman said that as for peace, all he could say was that "We shall from time to time take soundings and see if we can get anybody else to help us to bring peace about in Spain." That was a very disappointing announcement, after all the paragraphs of apparently inspired authority which we have seen in the newspapers during the past two or three weeks.
  If there is any question of bringing the Anglo-Italian Agreement into operation and of trying to define what the Prime Minister has hitherto always refused to define, in spite of our cross-examination, "What is a settlement in Spain?" I would say that it cannot be regarded as a settlement if a substantial proportion, or even the whole, of the Italian infantry is moved out of Spain, while Italian airmen, staff officers, tanks and guns remain; and also their aeroplanes, to bomb peaceful shipping, and women and children in Barcelona, or in quiet little towns like Granollers. That would not be regarded in this country as a settlement but as a betrayal of the Spanish people who are fighting for their freedom against
  946
  German and Italian aggression. Meanwhile, we also read in the newspapers of pressure on France to close her frontiers and we see that the French Government have, in response to repeated requests by the British Government, consented to do so. My hon. Friends and I think that that is unjustifiable, except on two conditions, both of which must be fulfilled. First of all, there must be complete control of all the ports in Spain, so as to make certain that no war material goes into the ports of General Franco any more than into the ports of Government Spain; secondly, there must be a truce to the fighting in Spain. We believe that if that truce could once be declared, it would be very difficult to start the fighting again.
  We have to consider not only the Italian, but also the German position in Spain. Railways, mines and other industries are falling rapidly under the control of the Germans at the present time. In Bilbao before the civil war there was hardly a German living in the town, yet when Herr Hitler held his recent plebiscite on the Austrian Anschluss he sent a ship to Bilbao, and 500 families recorded their votes there. In the general staff and in the Government departments there are Germans. They do not wear uniform in the streets, but they are doing vitally important and almost indispensable work for General Franco and his forces. Officers are exchanged; General Franco's officers are being trained in Germany, and German officers are coming to help General Franco's staff in Spain. The relations between the National Socialist party in Spain and the Falangist party, which is the largest and most vigorous of those parties which are supporting General Franco's administration, are drawing ever closer. The Government say that never in history have the Spanish people submitted to the domination of an alien race, but the German propagandists in Spain are promising to revive the glories of the Empire of Philip II, and he was not a Spaniard, but a Hapsburg. Aerodromes are being constructed near the frontiers of France, and within easy striking distance of the munition industries of the south-west of France. On the borders of Spain, on the German frontier, the Italian frontier, the Balearic Islands, on the flank of the French communications with North Africa, France is being encircled.

  947
  If we want to understand Herr Hitler's policy, we must begin by studying its most complete and authoritative exposition, "Mein Kampf." Let me quote from the French translation of that book. On page 699 I find these words:
  "The mortal enemy, the pitiless enemy of the German people is, and remains, France";
  and on the following page:
  "If we pass in review the allies which Europe can offer us, there are only two States, England and Italy."
  We know that, after the sanctions period, Signor Mussolini formed a close alliance with Herr Hitler, which is called the Rome-Berlin axis, where Germany was given what amounts to a free hand in Central Europe, with Italian support, while Italy was to have German support for her Mediterranean ambitions. As events have turned out, the plan has so far worked better for Herr Hitler than for Signor Mussolini, but it would be dangerously premature to suppose that it has been abandoned. If Signor Mussolini had really wished to establish peace and order in the Mediterranean, and to put the brake upon Herr Hitler in Central Europe, would he not have attached importance to carrying with him, not only Great Britain, but also France? On the other hand, if the policy of the Anglo-Italian Agreement was entered upon by Signor Mussolini with the full cognisance and approval of Herr Hitler, was it not because it was intended to drive a wedge between France and Britain?
  Therefore, it was most unfortunate that France was not associated with us from the beginning in these negotiations. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State, were the French Government not willing to be associated with us in these negotiations? Did they not want to be associated? Did they ask to be associated with us; and, if so, what was the reply of His Majesty's Government? As things have turned out, we seem to have left France to negotiate alone with Signor Mussolini, and, by so doing, to have exposed her to diplomatic rebuffs and public insults at his hands. Now from day to day we read in the newspapers of British pressure on France to do this in Prague, or that in Moscow or Madrid, or to close the Spanish frontier, or to modify some other policy which the French believe to
  948
  be in their own interests and in the common interests of our two countries. The Government, and their supporters in this House and in the Press, gave the country to understand that their new Italian policy was going to put pressure on the Rome-Berlin axis in favour of peace and order. The pressure so far seems to be all on the Paris-London axis, and to be in the direction of allowing the Fascist Powers to control the destinies of the free people of Spain.
  So far does our compliance with, not to say subservience to, the wishes of the dictatorship Powers go, that the Government, which through the mouth of the ex-Foreign Secretary made in February a strong and determined protest against promiscuous air bombardment, and promised to take the lead in devising measures to suppress that practice, is still merely engaged, as the Prime Minister has just told us, in clearing its own mind. The Prime Minister says it is no use throwing out general invitations to other people to join you in this enterprise unless you have something specific and concrete to propose; so the Prime Minister is making a survey in order to devise a practical scheme. He told us the three rules of international law which now govern air bombardment, and he described to us the difficulties in their application. Was there a single Member here who heard anything new in that statement of the Prime Minister?
  Every one of those difficulties in the application of the present rules has been discussed in this House and in international conferences year after year for many years past. Were they not all surveyed at the time of the Disarmament Conference? Every one of these factors in the situation is perfectly well known to the Government, and must have been known to the Government when the ex-Secretary of State made his statement to this House on behalf of the Government in February last. We ought not to be fobbed off by these statements that the case is so new, the material is so novel, there are so many new aspects to be considered, that the Government need time to survey the position and devise their scheme. The whole of the material was available in February, when the ex-Secretary of State made that statement in the House, and the Government ought to have got far past the stage of surveying the difficulties.

  949
  The Prime Minister said that we must not pass over the difficulties in applying these rules of international law which govern air bombardment; but the Prime Minister and the Government are passing over cases in which these difficulties do not arise at all—cases in which the aeroplanes have been seen by reliable witnesses to have come down low, within a few hundred feet, and to have deliberately bombed and machine gunned peaceful merchant ships. The air of unreality which invests the Government's handling of this problem is heightened by the fact that its conception of impartiality compels it to address its admonitions on the barbarity of using air bombardment as a weapon of terrorism to both parties in the civil war, and restrains it from giving any credit to the Spanish Government for refraining from this horrible practice. The Government's interpretation of the obligations of non-intervention prevents it either from helping the victims to protect themselves against these outrages, which it condemns, or from following up its unheeded protests to the guilty party by any effective measures of restraint. Neutrality between the parties in a civil war, yes; but neutrality between the bomber and his innocent victims, when the bombers are all on one side and the innocent victims all on the other side, is neutrality between right and wrong.
  Hon. Members opposite are gravely preoccupied about the menace of Bolshevist propaganda in Spain. The success of the Spanish Government, deprived as it was at the outbreak of the civil war, by the defection of its most responsible officers in the Army and in the police, of the means of maintaining order—its ultimate success in restraining licence and restoring the essential guarantees of individual liverty proves that these fears, although not altogether unfounded, as I have said before in these Debates, were exaggerated. But let us make no mistake about this, that the feebleness of the Government's policy in the face of the aggressive dictatorships, its connivance at flagrant breaches of the Non-Intervention Agreement by Germany and Italy in Spain, its refusal to fulfil the obligations of the League of Nations Resolution, to which it was a party, to give help to China in its struggle against the Japanese aggressors, in enhancing among the peoples of the world, not only the
  950
  prestige of the Fascist dictators, but also, among the masses of the peoples in the world, the prestige of Russia.
  The people of China, exposed to indescribable suffering and massacre at the hands of the Japanese aggressors, looked to the democracies for help, and we, instead of giving them a loan, sent them well-phrased resolutions; but the Russians sent them aeroplanes. The Spanish people, in their agony, turned to us for help, and the Prime Minister sent protests to Saragossa; but the Russians sent anti-aircraft guns to Barcelona, which keep the raiders at such a height that the lives of the people are saved. Protests do no good; they are contemptuously rejected. An hon. Member near me says that the Russians sent aeroplanes, too. I tell him frankly that, seeing how flagrantly the Non-Intervention Agreements are being broken by Germany and Italy, I am glad that the legitimate Government of Spain, which is represented here at the Court of St. James's by its official Ambassador, is enabled to get some material—nothing like as much as the insurgent forces are receiving from their friends, but some material—to enable it to defend itself. The protests of the Government to General Franco do no good; they are contemptuously rejected. They irritate the insurgents and their allies, and their futility mocks the suffering of the Spanish people. Yet the Prime Minister, who is such a realist, thinks he is earning the eternal gratitude and friendship of the Spanish people. The truth is that, however much we may dislike and distrust the Bolshevist dictatorship, it is idle to ignore the effect of the Prime Minister's policy in enabling the Russians to prove themselves the only effective champions of the victims of aggression and frightfulness in China and in Spain.
  Nor will this Government even defend our own shipping. I would repeat a question which was put to the Prime Minister, and which he did not answer, by the right hon. Gentleman who made that masterly opening speech from the Front Opposition Bench. Is it the policy of the Government to encourage or to discourage shipping from entering the British register? Surely, when we are spending £2,000,000,000 on armaments, we ought to encourage the greatest possible number of ships to enter the British register, and thus to become available for our purposes

  951
  in time of war. It is even suggested that there is something illegitimate in British shipping companies maintaining our export trade with Spain in present conditions. In my view, we ought to be proud that such cowardly arguments find no acceptance from masters and crews of British ships, who, in the face of hardship, danger, and disparagement from the Government to which they are entitled to look for protection, are maintaining our export trade with that part of Spain which is still controlled by the legitimate and constitutional government.
  Does His Majesty's Government still regard attacks on peaceful merchant shipping from the air as contrary to international law? The Prime Minister said that British ships must go there at their own risk. Does that mean that the Prime Minister is prepared to acquiesce in the establishment by General Franco of an air blockade of Spanish ports by bombing peaceful shipping? He has told us that he was sending protests, that he would send another note—I think he had even sent a note yesterday. But apart from the notes, for which no doubt General Franco has a convenient receptacle, the whole of the Prime Minister's speech was an invitation to General Franco to maintain and intensify his air bombing. The ships which take these risks, he said, must look after themselves. He said it was impossible to protect them without departure from non-intervention, but if non-intervention involves us in passively submitting to attacks on our shipping, it is time that the policy was radically revised. The Prime Minister's only reply to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) when he said, what would the Government do? was, what would the Labour party have done? But does the Prime Minister really think he is justified in refusing protection to British ships which are now being attacked by pirates from the air in Spanish waters, merely because he thinks that in different circumstances a Labour Government would refuse such protection? That, surely, was the feeblest argument which could be used in support of such a policy.
  The Prime Minister said there has been no change of policy since the ex-Foreign Secretary resigned. The change is that the Prime Minister has tied himself to Italy by the Anglo-Italian Agreement, and it is
  952
  untrue to say that the Government is impartial, in any sense of the word, as between the two sides in Spain. They are longing for the early victory of General Franco, so that the agreement may come into force. One question in particular I would address to the Under-Secretary of State, and I would ask him for an answer at the end of the Debate. Has the death of the British non-intervention observer in the ship "Brisbane" been reported to the Non-Intervention Committee, and if so what steps has that august body taken to assert its authority and protect its servants in the execution of their duties?
  We are also told that the grant of belligerent rights to General Franco would solve the problem. It would not. It would make this bombing neither legitimate nor, from General Franco's point of view, unnecessary. The Republican fleet has recently beaten General Franco's fleet in a naval action and whereas at this time last year General Franco's fleet was supposed to have command of the sea, the Republican Fleet is now definitely the stronger. Therefore, unless General Franco is prepared to abandon his illegal and criminal effort to impose on Republican Spain a blockade from the air, there is no reason to suppose that, even if belligerent rights were granted to him, he would stop these deliberate attacks on peaceful ships. When we say give the Spanish people anti-aircraft guns to defend themselves and their women and children and our ships against massacre from the air, the Government say, "That would mean war." When Germany sends aeroplanes it does not mean war, when Italy sends troops it does not mean war, when Russia sends anti-aircraft guns and, as my hon. and gallant Friend reminds me, aeroplanes to Spain, it does not mean war. Why is it only British anti-aircraft guns that would provoke a war?
  At least one step could be taken without the slightest risk of provoking a war. The Prime Minister could ask Signor Mussolini, if he values British friendship, to join him in representations to General Franco that the bombing of British ships must stop. Here is a step which could not possibly mean war. Will the Government adopt it? Why have they not done so already? But if we are to pay the Prime Minister the compliment of imitating his realism we must recognise that the Italian Government are deeply implicated. I do not know the exact number

  953
  of General Franco's aeroplanes, but I have received many estimates, all of them running into hundreds. Scores of them are manned by Italian pilots. Nearly all of these Italian aeroplanes are under the command of Italian officers, and are supplied and equipped and maintained by the Italian Government. Some are engaged in the deliberate bombing and machine-gunning of British ships. If we had sent hundreds of aeroplanes to help the Spanish Government, if these aeroplanes, manned by British pilots, were sinking Italian ships carrying munitions of war to General Franco—imagine, if you can, that they were sinking Italian ships carrying peaceful merchandise and killing Italian sailors and non-intervention observers, protected, if that is the right word, by the flag of the Non-Intervention Committee—does any one doubt for one moment that Signor Mussolini would forthwith denounce the Anglo-Italian Agreement? How can it be consistent with British interests and honour, to maintain it in such circumstances? There is only one reason why the Government have sunk so low as meekly to suffer such insults and such injuries from Signor Mussolini and his airmen, and that is that the Prime Minister's political fortunes are bound up with the Anglo-Italian Agreement. If it had to be torn up, the ex-Foreign Secretary would be proved right and the Prime Minister wrong. Signor Mussolini knows that his airmen can bomb our ships and machine-gun our sailors with impunity because so long as the Prime Minister is in control of British policy the Government's hands are tied by that agreement. Signor Mussolini should be warned that the next time a British ship is bombed or machine-gunned by Italian aeroplanes the agreement will be torn up.
  Now in conclusion, I wish to refer to the short Debate which took place on the Adjournment last night. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) referred to an article which appeared in the "Montreal Daily Star," which stated, on high British authority, that the additional undisclosed difference between the ex-Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to which the ex-Foreign Secretary referred in his resignation speech in this House was on a question of policy in regard to the United States of America. Now this is obviously a matter of great public interest in which Members
  954
  of all parties and people outside the House of Commons do take, and are entitled to take, an interest. It was raised by my hon. Friend in a speech of studious moderation and restraint, and there can he no possible doubt that he was amply entitled to raise it. If the Prime Minister had replied in equally courteous terms, if he had said that he did not judge it to be in the public interest to give any further explanation at this stage of the differences between himself and the ex-Foreign Secretary, I have no doubt my hon. Friend would not have pressed the point. Instead, the Prime Minister chose to make an unprovoked, and I venture to say undignified, attack on my hon. Friend. It has often seemed to me that one of the Prime Minister's weaknesses, if I may say so to him with great respect, in handling foreign affairs is that he does not seem able to foresee the effect of his words and actions. The main effect of his speech last night was to ensure that the fullest publicity should be given to my hon. Friend's speech, and the attention of political observers, not only in this country but in every country in the world, was directed to the interview which has appeared in American and Canadian papers.
  Challenged by my hon. Friend last night, the Prime Minister did not deny that he had given the interview—and let me say to him quite frankly that the story which is in circulation, and if it is untrue the sooner it is denied the better, is that this interview was given by him on or about 10th May to 12 or 14 American and Canadian journalists. I am not so much concerned about the differences between the Prime Minister and the ex-Foreign Secretary about the United States, because, although that is of immense importance, I am prepared to leave it to the Prime Minister and the ex-Foreign Secretary to decide at what moment a disclosure would be in the public interest; but I am much concerned at the contents of the remainder of the interview. I hold in my hand a sheet of the "Montreal Daily Star," and there is on the front page a signed article by a gentleman of the name of Mr. Joseph Driscoll, dated "London, May 14th." He said:
  "This correspondent is now privileged to shed what can truly be called official light on the real British attitude towards Czechoslovakia, Spain and Abyssinia.…"

  955
  And he goes on—
  "Perhaps the most dangerous spot in the world is Czechoslovakia. What do the British in authority think about it?"
  He proceeds:
  "These British think there is little danger of immediate war in Europe. To the query, will France and Russia fight for the Czechs? they answer, "How can they fight?"… Nothing seems clearer than that the British do not expect to fight for Czechoslovakia and do not anticipate that France or Russia will either. That being so, then the Czechs must accede to the German demands, if reasonable."
  If that was so—and thank heaven it is not—what would it matter if the demands were reasonable or not? The Czechs would have to submit anyway. But in truth I think that, from the point of view of peace, no more dangerous statement of British policy could go out than that. I have recently been in contact with some French public men. I have been enormously impressed by the determination of France to fulfil her obligations to Czechoslovakia. While I was in France M. Flandin made a speech which has since become somewhat notorious, and in a signed article in the "Populaire" on Monday of last week M. Leon Blum, who, of course, is no longer in the Government, replied to that speech with a statement clear, firm and reasonable and leaving absolutely no doubt that every Frenchman, and at any rate he was speaking for the organised working classes of France, was determined that French obligations to Czechoslovakia in the hour of danger should be fulfilled.
  The French are convinced that nothing but the firmness shown then did save peace. It was saved first by the firm, wise, conciliatory policy of democratic Czechoslovakia; it was saved secondly by the firmness of France; and the Prime Minister certainly played his part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, let us be quite clear how he played it. He played it by instructing the German Ambassador, if the inspired reports in the newspapers can be believed, to draw the attention of the German Government to the importance which His Majesty's Government attached to the fulfilment of our obligations to France if she was engaged in defending Czechoslovakia from unprovoked attack. However well it was wrapped up and however diplomatic the language, it meant that the Prime Minister had thrown the sword of Britain into
  956
  the balance of power, and that action was decisive for the maintenance of peace, and any retreat from that position such as is indicated in this article would imperil the foundations of peace.
  In this article it is stated that a very high British authority had authorised this statement. I have told the Prime Minister and the Committee the story which has reached me and I have given the Prime Minister an opportunity of denying it, if it is not true.
  Mr. Mabane rose—
  Sir A. Sinclair: I am not going to give way. I am perfectly entitled to make my full explanation, and I ask the hon. Member not to interrupt. I am in possession of the Floor and I am entitled to make my explanation. The first point is that the interview was given on high authority. The second point is that I have told the Committee frankly and given the Prime Minister an opportunity of denying it, if it is not true, that the belief, which is apparently widely entertained, is that this is the report of an interview given on or about the 10th May to 12 or 14 American and Canadian journalists by the Prime Minister. The third point is that when my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton challenged the Prime Minister last night and asked whether this interview was given by him, the Prime Minister did not deny it. I think that, having regard to the material which is in this interview, it is in the high interests of this country and of world peace that these statements should be denied, and, therefore, I think that I am performing a public service by giving the Prime Minister an opportunity of denying them.
  Mr. Mabane: Is there any point in the article which states that the interview was given by the Prime Minister?
  Sir A. Sinclair: If I could have quoted that I should not have given these three reasons.
  Mr. Mabane: Then why make the suggestion?
  Sir A. Sinclair: The Prime Minister is here. Let him answer for himself.
  The Prime Minister: I must protest against any assumption on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that because I do

  957
  not deny that I gave the interview, that therefore I am admitting it. I made it perfectly clear last night, and I repeat it again now, that if I were at once to begin admitting or denying any gossip which may go round about as to the authenticity of any alleged interview at any time, when I refuse to give an assertion one way or another, that would be taken as evidence against me. I say that I will not either admit or deny the truth of the stories to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
  Mr. Mander: May I put this question?
  The Chairman: I think that I must point out to the Committee that I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, as, speaking generally, I do not think he was out of order, but we are getting now very close to the question of the Debate of the Prime Minister's personal conduct in connection with an interview, a matter which is perfectly proper to raise on the appropriate occasion. The Prime Minister's salary is not included in the present Vote, and therefore the Prime Minister's conduct in a matter of this sort, apart from the definite question of Foreign Office policy, is not a matter which can now be debated.
  Sir A. Sinclair: I shall certainly confine myself, as you have been good enough to say that I have already done, to the issues of policy, and shall not allow myself to be drawn off the track. This article goes on to say:
  "Having signed the Italians on the dotted line Britain would now like to contact the Germans."
  I acquit the Prime Minister of any suggestion that he used that phrase.
  "This brings up the question of a Four Power Pact but the British prefer to label it something else"—
  I have no doubt they do—
  "because a Four Power Pact might signify to some a dictators' committee to dictate to the rest of Europe…It is admitted that Britain would like to swing Germany and Italy into a working agreement with Britain and France to keep the peace of Europe. Soviet Russia is excluded on the ground that it does not work well in harness, with the proviso that some day Russia, if she behaves, may also be admitted to membership."
  That I consider to be a very grave statement of policy. I have constantly protested against the cold and hostile references which the Prime Minister makes to Russia. We ought to encourage Russia
  958
  to take her share in the maintenance of international order and peace. I am sorry that the Prime Minister does not deny that he has made this statement. I feel sure that it would be in the interests of the country and of world peace if he would do so. In fact the information which reaches me is so specific and is in such detail, that, unless he does deny it, I really must assume that he did say it.
  The Chairman: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I have already said.
  Sir A. Sinclair: I should not think of challenging your Ruling, but the Prime Minister has undertaken to answer for foreign policy in this House, and I venture to submit to you, with great respect, that I am entitled to argue that the Prime Minister should make his statements on foreign policy not to parties of American journalists but to the representatives of the people in this House.
  Viscountess Astor: Oh!
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is assuming the truth of a supposition which I do not think the Committee can debate here.
  Mr. Mander: Would it be in order to put this point to the Prime Minister in order to clear the question up whether it is not a fact that this interview took place on 10th May at a luncheon given for the purpose by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor).
  Viscountess Astor: I would like to say that there is not a word of truth in it.
  The Chairman: The Question to De debated on this Vote should be the Foreign Office.
  Sir A. Sinclair: I will content myself by saying that it is a great pity that the Prime Minister does not repudiate this interview. My only object in raising this matter was to get it thoroughly cleared up. I very much regret that the Prime Minister cannot give a frank denial of it. I hoped that he would be able to give what I am anxious to get, namely, a repudiation of the policy. A policy such as is outlined in this interview would, in my opinion, be a dangerous policy. It would be dangerous to peace, dangerous to freedom and democracy and fatal to

  959
  any hope of national unity in these critical times. If it has been adopted as the policy of His Majesty's Government, Parliament and the country ought to be told. I believe that the peace of the world cannot be established on the basis of a policy of this kind. I believe that it will be disastrous to try to exclude Russia from Europe, and that the peace of the world can only be established by agreements based on the principles of international good faith and third-party agreement.
  6.11 p.m.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Why is it that, when almost the whole of the world is praising the policy that has been pursued and is being pursued by the Prime Minister of this country, practically the only people who endeavour to impede the work of the Government and the Prime Minister are hon. Members who sit opposite? They talk perpetually of peace. It seems to me that they seek to gain party advantage by pretending that the Government are not just as anxious for peace as they profess themselves to be. Peace, in my opinion, is not a party question at all, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that the voice of this country would have more weight in the councils of the world if it was the voice of all of us in this House, united behind the Prime Minister in an honest and earnest attempt to find a solution of the difficulties with which the world is faced to-day. I was present last night when the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), on the Adjournment, raised the question which has been referred to by the right hon. Baronet. It would be out of order for me to refer to the subject of the speeches that were then made, but I do not think that there is anybody here, upon whatever side of the Committee he may sit, who does not believe that one of the most important things to seek, if world peace is to be assured, is friendship and co-operation between the United States of America and the British Empire.
  I would ask Members of this House whether a speech such as that to which we have just listened, full of innuendo and mischief making—[Interruption]—deliberately full of innuendo, designed to make mischief, is going to help to achieve
  960
  the peace which the right hon. Baronet prates so much about. If we are to find a solution of the world's difficulties, it is essential that we should find some agreement between ourselves and the United States of America. It should be the endeavour of every soul in this Committee to avoid either by the spoken word or the written word saying or writing anything which would make that agreement less easy to fulfil and to achieve.
  I listened with interest, as I am sure did every Member of the Committee, to the speech of the hon. Member who opened this Debate from the Opposition. He will acquit me, I am sure, of any desire to say anything that might be rude, but his speech seemed to me to be far more a collection of quotations from the speeches and writings of other people, which he used with great skill and effect, than the expression of his own opinion upon the matters which we are now trying to discuss. Of late years there seems to have arisen throughout the world a sort of feeling that ultimately war must be inevitable. I do not believe that war is inevitable, but I am sure that, unless statesmen and politicians throughout the world adopt rather a different attitude, they may well find that war becomes inevitable. We may differ from the forms of Government obtaining in other countries, but we are not more likely to find a solution of the differences between ourselves and those countries if we refuse to discuss those differences with the only people in those countries who are able to speak for their own people.
  You can do two things with dictators, just as you can with any other human being with whom you are brought into contact in your private life; you can fight them or you can be friends. If you desire to pursue the former course, no discussion is necessary, but if you desire to be friends, you must sit down and discuss the differences and difficulties which separate you. The days of hermits have gone. It is impossible for individuals or countries to divorce themselves from what is happening to other countries and to other individuals. If world peace is to be assured we must make a beginning somewhere. I think it is agreed, however much we may differ as regards methods, that it is vital for the peace of Europe that some agreement should be found between this country and the people of Italy as a first step towards

  961
  International understanding. The Italians are just as anxious to resume good relations with us as we are to resume good relations with them.
  It is not the slightest good trying ceaselessly to turn up what has happened in the past. We must deal with matters as they exist to-day, not as we think they ought to exist, nor as they existed in the past. Since the conversations were initiated by the Prime Minister with the Italian Government, that Government have honestly tried to fulfil their undertakings. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members opposite may take a different view. Whether we like it or not, Abyssinia is now part of the Italian Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] So far as we can make out no action we could take could alter the fact that Abyssinia is part of the Italian Empire. In the name of peace and common sense, why not admit the fact?
  Mr. Stephen: Because it is not true.
  Sir A. Southby: The hon. Member says that it is not true. I should like to hear arguments from him to prove what he says. Just because Anglo-Italian friendship is essential, there are many people to-day in this country and elsewhere who are doing everything in their power to impede that friendship. It is true, and everybody knows it, that as soon as some measure of agreement was reached between ourselves and the Italians there was a flood of munitions and men from France into Government Spain. Feeling on the Spanish war runs very high in France and Italy, and the only result of such action must be, and was designed, to irritate the Italian Government.
  Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. and gallant Member accused me of stirring up feeling. Does he think it very helpful to accuse France of designing a policy deliberately to irritate Italy?
  Sir A. Southby: I did not interrupt the right hon. Member while he was speaking and he might show the same courtesy to me. If he had waited with a little patience to hear the rest of the sentence he would have saved himself that interruption. I therefore welcome the statement which I have seen that there is hope that the frontiers will be closed between France and Spain and that the flow of munitions, from whatever country to either side in Spain, can be brought to an
  962
  end. I take no sides in the Spanish war; it is a matter for the Spanish people. There is, to-day, in Italy a feeling of great uneasiness, following upon the events which took place recently in Austria. The Italian people are naturally friendly to us and they have seen what has happened by reason of German action in Austria. I would remind the Committee that one of Rudyard Kipling's characters once said that it was not ties of sentiment which bound nations together, but ties of common funk. There is real feeling in this country and in Italy that the sooner we get back to good relations the better it will be not only for our two countries but for the rest of the world.
  Almost throughout the world the Prime Minister has been praised for the action he has taken and for the policy he is pursuing. The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland mentioned M. Flandin. I will read an extract from a speech of M. Flandin, in which he said that:
  "Under the direction of Mr. Chamberlain, in whom the qualities of a great statesman manifest themselves more clearly every day, the decisive action of British diplomacy has enabled us to avoid the worst."
  I promised to be brief and I intend to keep that promise, but I should like to make a passing reference to the question which has occupied a good deal of our attention this afternoon, that is the bombing of our ships in Spanish waters. I have said before in this House, and I am still of the same opinion, that we would have been wiser to have granted belligerent rights to both sides in Spain. If that had been done, there are certain perfectly well understood and well established rules of international warfare which could have been put into operation. All that I am concerned with is to keep this country out of the quarrel in Spain and to bring that quarrel to a close as speedily as possible. The aerial weapon is a horrible one, and I wish it could be abolished. I think the whole Committee listened with great attention to what was said by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) when he spoke of the horrors attendent upon the use of the aerial weapon. Because it is so horrible I believe that all the countries of the world will have to get together and abolish it. It is impossible to discriminate between what are called legitimate military objectives

  963
  and the destruction of the civil population, and I welcome what was said by the Prime Minister when he said that the Government are examining the question with a view to formulating some workable scheme which might be put before the nations of the world.
  The limitations of the aerial weapons have been disclosed in the wars in China and Spain. Docks, railways, government offices, the seats of government, etc., are legitimate targets. As in this country so in Spain, those targets are often surrounded by the houses of the innocent civilian population. We should not be too hasty in accusing either side in Spain of deliberately bombing the civilian population. I do not believe it is their desire in many cases deliberately to bomb the civilian population. Unfortunately in attempts to bomb what are universally accepted as legitimate targets, the civilian population have suffered because of the impossibility of registering accurate shooting with bombs. This House would be a perfectly legitimate target for enemy aircraft in war time. Further up the river, a short distance away, are two large power stations, which would be perfectly legitimate targets, but across the river is a large hospital which would not be a legitimate target. I do not think that any hon. Member would deny that an aeroplane flying at 300 miles an hour, 20,000 feet up, would find it impossible to distinguish between those three targets, and that if it aimed at this House, the hospital might probably be hit. That is what is going on in Spain.
  I do not deny that there have been instances—the fact is admitted—of deliberate attacks upon shipping in Spanish ports. In many cases those ships have been lying in docks and those docks are perfectly legitimate targets. Therefore, those ships are liable to be hit. It is impossible to find means of protecting them when they are lying alongside something which the whole world admits is a legitimate target for attack. When ships visit harbours which are the scene of a terrible struggle such as that going on in many harbours in Spain, those ships do it at their own risk. I am against any interference with British ships going about their legitimate business upon the high seas, but I realise the almost insurmountable difficulty of finding a means of pro-
  964
  tecting those ships and ensuring their safety in the harbours of the belligerents. Something might be done on the lines of having safety zones in harbours into which the ships could go, which could be agreed upon by both belligerents.
  I am not suggesting that the ships are carrying contraband; if they do so, they do it at their own risk and they must take what comes to them, but I would remind the Committee that ships doing even legitimate trade with Spain are making vast profits. There is no doubt about that. Many of those ships have only been British for a very short time. They came under the British flag for protection. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. I do not know why.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member has just said that we cannot protect them.
  Sir A. Southby: The hon. Member interrupts so often in this House that the only speeches he listens to are his own. I have stated that when a ship goes alongside a dock which is a legitimate target of attack, it is almost impossible to find means of protecting that ship. I have also said that something might be done on the lines of having safety zones. Many of the ships trading with Spain are British ships which have been engaged in perfectly legitimate trading with Spain for years, but many of them are not.
  Miss Rathbone: Does the hon. and gallant Member recollect that the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), whose pro-Franco sympathies are well known, stated that 27 ships out of 140 engaged in this Spanish trade had become British since the war? That is one less than one-fifth.
  Sir A. Southby: I do not dispute the hon. Lady's arithmetic. I said that many are not British ships. We have most of us received a letter to-day, signed by some shipowners, on the subject of the bombing of British ships. I take at random one of those companies. In 1933 the gentleman who signs for that particular company was employed by another firm. About 1934 he purchased a steamer. Then he did certain chartering for voyages to Spain, and after that he appears to have bought several old ships. All those ships were paid for, I think perfectly rightly,

  965
  in cash, out of the proceeds of very profitable trade done with Spain. I give that as an instance to show that there is a trade which has grown up during the troubles in Spain which is exceedingly profitable, and we have to bear that in mind when we are discussing the whole question of the protection of our ships in Spanish waters.
  There may be, and no doubt there are, hon. Members on the other side who differ profoundly from the Prime Minister. Immense burdens lie upon my right hon. Friend's shoulders. Before it is too late may I ask hon. Members opposite whether something cannot be done to make the support of the Prime Minister and the foreign policy of this country something which is very real and above Party? I believe the country is behind the Prime Minister and that the rest of the world thinks that the country is behind him. If the rest of the world once gets the idea that this country is divided, and if intemperate speeches or writings make it appear that there is a really serious rift in this country, that there is dissatisfaction with the policy of the Prime Minister or with his conduct of his office, then I think we shall bring a world war immeasurably nearer than it is at the present time. If there are those on this side of the Committee who feel that they differ in any degree from the policy which the Prime Minister has endoavoured to cam, out, I would say to them, as I would say to every person in the country, at a time when the foreign outlook is exceedingly grave: "If you are not prepared to row the boat, don't rock it."
  6.30 p.m.
  Colonel Wedgwood: I cannot congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) on his come back. The really serious part of his speech, the supposition that he faithfully reflects the general body of opinion of the naval officers at the present time, even that will not strike terror into the hearts of the Labour opposition in this country. The real question we all have to face, including the hon. and gallant Member is: Is war to be avoided at all costs and, if so, how best? There is something worse than war, and that way leads to more certain war. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), in his speech to-day, put forward views which in any other period of our history would have
  966
  met with the unanimous support of this House. He gave us a tale of what has happened to British ships in the last six months and to British seamen and trade. He put forward four alternatives to the policy of scuttle, whereby the British Government might stop this insolent treatment. Every one of the proposals he made was practicable, and every one would have done more to banish the fear of war from the world than this perpetual policy of running away.
  I wish I could make the Committee see what is going on in its proper historical perspective. I believe that our conduct during the last six months, since the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was changed, is one of the worst blots on English history. Let me give the Committee an illustration. In Queen Elizabeth's reign the Netherlands were fighting as desperately against Alva and the Spaniards as the Spanish people are now fighting against the same hidalgos. The struggle went on for years with the bulk of British opinion strongly favouring the Netherlands, not solely for their religious convictions, but also because it was desirable to keep the Netherlands free from the all-embracing empire of Spain. All that time Queen Elizabeth, exactly like the present Conservative Government, refused to assist William of Orange and the Dutch. When at last, after William of Orange had been murdered, and public opinion in England got too strong on the matter, Queen Elizabeth permitted Sir Philip Sidney to take over an expedition of Englishmen to Holland to help the democratic side in fighting against Philip of Spain, and very nobly they carried out their job. In that case at least, at the worst time, we helped neither side. We did not help the Spaniards against the Dutch, and we did not help until nearly too late the Dutch against the Spaniards.
  In that war, in exactly the same way as to-day, towns were wiped out, every man, woman and child was put to the sword in Naarden. In Haarlem, after a six months' starvation, they murdered nearly all the better class, and Leyden, but for a famous storm at sea, would have suffered a similar fate. Exactly the same thing has happened in Badajos, in Barcelona and in Bilbao—a merciless liquidation of all people who dared to fight for liberty against the tyrants of Spain. At any rate, we did not help the

  967
  Spaniards. Now we are actually engaged in holding down the victim of oppression while the victim is being kicked by the bullies. A more dastardly piece of history I cannot imagine. We are refusing to allow anti-aircraft guns, which might save these people some of the destruction, to be sent to the Spanish people in order to save their towns, their property and their children. With a depth of hypocrisy we have never touched before we are pretending that we are impartial, pretending that we are avoiding intervention, and all the time submitting to our new friends, the Roman Government. The great new Roman Empire, is intervening busily while we come to an agreement that their intervention shall continue, and that ours shall never take place.
  It has become worse in the last few days, because we have seen the British Government, knowing that the German and Italian intervention is going on, knowing that these butcheries are being committed by people who have pledged themselves not to intervene in the war, not only refusing to intervene ourselves and refusing to allow anti-aircraft guns and munitions to go into Spain, but actually bringing pressure to bear on the French, who have a more decent record in this war than we have, to close the frontiers; so that the last chance of these poor devils in Barcelona is taken away. In the years to come, when generations of the future look back on the history of this country during the last four years, since we betrayed Abyssinia, destroyed the League, and helped in the strangling of the last flicker of democracy in Spain, they will write this period down as the most damning in British history. We are responsible, this House is responsible, as long as this hypocrisy goes on.
  Let me give one other illustration. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell in this country, whom the Nazis desire to claim as the ideal dictator, who passed the first Reform Act of this House and had three or four Parliaments to his credit, he heard that there was persecution of the Vandois by the Duke of Savoy. Oliver Cromwell did not advocate a policy of non-intervention. He told the Duke of Savoy that unless he stopped murdering the Protestants in the Vandois, that Great Britain would interfere. Did that bring about war? No, it brought about an immediate cessation of the persecution, and brought
  968
  such respect for Great Britain on the Continent that there was no more fear of war as long as Cromwell ruled. That is an example of what I desire to urge, that the only hope of peace is that the nations of Europe shall respect the one nation which has no wish for war, and whose whole policy is the maintenance of peace. If England is not respected by Italy, Germany or Franco, if we lose the respect, which means a reasonable, decent fear, of the people who are war-makers, who believe in the use of force as against law to shape the fortunes of humanity—if we lose their respect, we lose that peace for which we and the democratic nations stand. Every time we follow the advice of a miserable naval officer of this degenerate age—it is not the spirit of Nelson we have heard to-day—
  Sir A. Southby: I have no objection to the right hon. and gallant Member referring to me as a "miserable naval officer of this degenerate age," but I very much resent his using that term about naval officers who are now serving in the Fleet.
  Colonel Wedgwood: I was talking of the naval officer we have heard to-day, and I do not withdraw one word I have said. The sort of speech and policy advocated by the hon. and gallant Member does this country much injury here and abroad, and I hope it will not do him any good in saving his seat when he goes to the country.
  6.42 p.m.
  Sir Malcolm Barclay-Harvey: We have listened to a most remarkable speech from the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). As I listened to his description of what is happening in Spain I thought he was putting forward, not insincerely, a completely perverted point of view. I cannot agree for a moment with the right hon. and gallant Member that we are holding down the lamb which is being slaughtered. One of the things which has undoubtedly proved a strong bulwark of peace in Europe during the last two years has been the policy of non-intervention-which has been pursued by His Majesty's Government. The right hon. and gallant Member also referred to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) and said that he thought it did more harm than anything else in Europe. It seems to me that my hon.

  969
  and gallant Friend's remarks are in accord with views of the enormous majority, judging by the Press reports, of the people of the world, who take exactly the opposite point of view from that of the right hon. and gallant Member and hon. Members opposite, and I am certain that my hon. and gallant Friend when he goes back to his constituency, as we shall all have to do in the not very remote future, will find that his remarks to-day will bear good fruit. Like other Members, I propose to be brief, because I have given an undertaking that I will not speak very long. I am sorry the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair is not in his place, because I want to enter my protest against his treatment of the Prime Minister this afternoon.
  Mr. Bevan: I rise with great deference, but I want to put a point of Order. The hon. Member is the second hon. Member who has informed the Committee that he has given an undertaking not to speak long. That is an astonishing thing to hear when we are in Committee, and I want to know to whom the undertaking has been given, and why it has been extracted. We are in Committee, and if I approached the Chair and asked for my name to be put down I should be informed that names are not taken in Committee as they are in the House, and if any undertaking has been asked for, I think it is a complete violation of the Rules of the House. If it has been done, I want to know to whom the undertaking has been given.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): It is quite obvious that no undertaking can be expected from any hon. Member. At the same time, in this Debate there are a great many hon. Members who wish to speak, and the Chair has requested hon. Members fortunate enough to catch the eye to condense their remarks into the shortest, possible time so that as many hon. Members as possible can take part in the Debate.
  Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of Order. I understand that no undertaking could be given except to the Chair. Do I understand that hon. Members now being called have seen the Chair and put down their names? If so, must other hon. Members who wish to speak resort to the same means?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. It is very common for hon. Members on all sides to intimate to the Chair that they desire to speak. That does not mean that only those hon. Members will be called by the Chair.
  Mr. Maxton: Further to the point of Order. Do I understand that there is now some practice by which those who give promises to be brief will be called and that those who wish to remain free as the way in which they address the Committee are to be barred? If there has been an understanding, at what stage in the Debate did it begin to become operative?
  The Deputy-Chairman: No, the hon. Member certainly misunderstood me. Various hon. Members have intimated to the Chair their desire to be called, and they have been asked to confine their remarks to as short a time as is convenient for making their points. It is the desire of the Chair, in a Debate such as this, to call hon. Members representing all sections of opinion. Certainly it must not be understood that because any hon. Member has come to the Chair with such an intimation, there is an undertaking on the part of the Chair to call him, or that if other hon. Members rise whom the Chair considers it more desirable to call at that moment, they will not be called.
  Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: In view of that point of Order and what you have said, Captain Bourne, I may say that my use of the word "undertaking" was perhaps not wise. Of course, no bargain of any sort was struck, and I merely said that I would be brief because I know that there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak. Reverting to the speech made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who I am sorry is not here at the moment, I think that the right hon. Baronet's treatment of the Prime Minister this afternoon undoubtedly was not what one would expect from an hon. Member.
  Mr. McGovern: Why?
  Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: It was worthy only of the right hon. Baronet. He absolutely refused to accept the Prime Minister's reasons for not being able either to confirm or deny certain statements which were made, and earlier in his speceh he made a personal attack on the

  971
  Prime Minister when he said that the purpose of the whole of my right hon. Friend's conduct in regard to Spain was to ensure his own political future and to see that the agreement with Italy went through. That was a very unworthy suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman to make.
  Mr. E. J. Williams: Not at all; it is perfectly true.
  Mr. Maxton: Did the hon. Member tell the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that he was going to make this personal attack on him?
  Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: Unfortunately, I was unable to hear the interruption of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). [Interruption.] Anything which the hon. Member says is always unfortunate if anybody listens.
  With regard to Spain, I do not think there is any hon. Member who does not view aerial warfare as a whole with the utmost distaste, or who does not agree that, if it were possible, the best means of dealing with it would be to stop it. As that is not possible, I am very glad that the Prime Minister and the Government are doing their best at least to get some satisfactory basis on which the horrors of modern warfare may be alleviated. I welcome that statement very much. As to what is happening in Spain at the present time, I am astonished by the attitude adopted by the Opposition parties this afternoon. They have constantly urged the course of action for which the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) asked in his speech. On the one hand, the hon. Member was glad that we are selling £3,000,000 worth of materials to Republican Spain, and, on the other hand, he advocated the cutting off of trade with General Franco. Surely, if it is desirable that we should sell goods to Spain, it is desirable that we should sell goods to both sides.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The difference between the two cases is that General Franco is now making illegal attacks on British rights.
  Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: I do not think that even if we did what the hon. Member wants, it would make the slightest difference in the matter of Franco's attacks.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Why was it done over the engineers?
  Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: Because the circumstances were entirely different. The point of view which was put forward very ably by the hon. Member for Derby was that this trade is entirely legitimate. The hon. Member quoted figures showing how many ships were employed in it, and said that 27 of them had recently come under the British flag. With regard to the policy of permitting any ships to come under the British flag, if they are going to remain British ships and give service to us in any future trouble, of course, that is a wise policy for us to pursue, but if they come under our flag only when they think that they have something to gain by so doing, and leave it immediately afterwards, having in the meantime caused us a very considerable amount of inconvenience, then we should consider very carefully whether it is worth retaining that policy or not.
  As to the trade which is being conducted by other British ships with those ports, hon. Members have said that it is purely altruistic, and that it is not merely for the sake of filthy lucre that they run the risks. I will give to the Committee an instance of some of the profits that are being made by those ships. The current rate for coal to Algiers or Oran from this country is 7s. 6d. per ton, but if it goes to Barcelona or Tarragona, it is £1 6s. per ton. I have it on very good authority that by a special arrangement with the trade unions, the seamen, quite properly, are given a bonus for going to those dangerous ports. The suggestion has been made that these profits should be classed as war profits. That would be a very good thing from everybody's point of view, and I think that it would largely stop the trade. To my mind, this trade is one of the worst possible forms of war profiteering.
  Mr. G. Strauss: Is not all shipping done for the purpose of making as much profit as possible?
  Sir M. Barclay-Harvey: What surprises me is that hon. Members opposite in this matter are supporting the war profiteers. Many hon. Members opposite decry profiteering by British manufacturers who are making arms for the British people, but now they are supporting war profiteers because they happen to be helping the side in Spain which hon. Members

  973
  support. The whole matter seems to me to come to this, that these people are carrying on this trade for the purely selfish motive of making large profits. I do not complain about people making profits, but when these people claim that they must have all the protection we can give, I think we have to consider whether this is a reasonable ground for involving our country in a European war. Having listened to some of the bellicose speeches made by hon. Members opposite, I believe that this is not a reasonable ground for involving this country in a European war. Nobody deplores more than I do the fact that there have been these attacks on our shipping, which certainly are resented very bitterly, and if we can find any method short of war which will enable us to stop them, by all means let us carry it out; but do not let us allow a thing of this sort to involve the British Empire and the British people in the horrors of a European war.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: The hon. Member for Kincardine (Sir M. Barclay-Harvey) made an astonishing case for the point of view which he and his friends hold. He seemed to take exception to the fact that a number of shipowners whose ships are plying between the ports of this country and the ports of Spain are animated by purely selfish motives and by the desire to make profits. I wonder where our own country would have been during the Great War if we had taken exception to the flow of neutral shipping, which brought munitions and food stuffs to this country, on grounds that they were animated merely by a desire to make large profits and by purely selfish motives, and that our idealistic English mentality would not permit supplies to be received because of that. It is astonishing that hon. Members of the Conservative party should make such a charge against those who are carrying on their legitimate occupations.
  What is the position? There is a so-called civil war taking place in Spain. There has been no recognition of a state of belligerency. That means that, as far as the rules of international law are concerned, there is only one legitimate Government in Spain, and that any ship, whether it be a British ship or the ship of any other country, is entitled to enter any of the ports of Spain for the purpose
  974
  of its lawful occasion, trading. It is, I believe, without precedent in the history of this country that the Prime Minister should state that those ships carry on their lawful trade in those ports at their own risk. There are many cases on record in the books which deal with international law which clearly prove that in the past the British Government, as well as the Governments of other countries, have always insisted that where fighting was taking place, following a revolution in a country, the revolutionaries had no right to interfere with the lawful trading activities of the nationals of another country. There is a case which is almost analogous to the position in Spain at the present time. A revolution broke out in Brazil in 1893, and the insurgent leaders were supported by a number of Brazilian warships in the inner harbour of Rio de Janeiro. They intimated to the Government forces which were defending the forts of the city and the port that they were going to bombard those forts and the city as well. I find that the commanders of the German, English, French, Portuguese, American and Italian naval forces communicated to the admiral in charge of the insurgent ships the following decision:
  "First, they do not recognise the right of the insurgent forces to interfere in any way with commercial operations in the bay, operations which should be allowed to be accomplished everywhere, except in the actual lines of fire of the batteries of the land fortifications. In consequence, they have decided to protect merchandise not only on board their countries' vessels, but also on lighters, barges and other means of maritime transport."
  I find that on 1st December, 1893, the commander of the United States naval forces gave notice of his intention to protect all American ships proceeding to or discharging in the clocks, and caused an insurgent vessel which had fired at the boat of an American ship to abstain from further acts of molestation by giving evidence of his purpose to return the fire and sink her if she persisted. That is only one example of the prevailing point of view with regard to interference with the lawful commercial operations of foreign shipping in any port where civil strife is taking place. Now for the first time the British Prime Minister says to the Mercantile Marine, "You will enter any of these ports at your own risk and the British Forces will no longer protect you." The Prime Minister said, "Look at the difficult position that we are in.

  975
  You have an aeroplane flying about 300 miles an hour. How can you decide whether it is going to attack a part of a port or a British ship? "The same difficulty applies with regard to the supplementary agreement made to the Nyon arrangement. There it is provided that British naval ships shall fire at any aeroplane which attacks a British ship on the high seas. If it is impossible to tell whether an aeroplane is going to bomb a ship until it is too late to resist, the same criticism will apply to the Nyon Agreement, and therefore that agreement must be worthless. But, of course, that is not the position at all. Any British warship can resist an attack on a merchant ship whether on the high seas or in a Spanish port. Therefore, provided there is the will on the part of the Government to take drastic action to defend merchant ships in Spanish ports, they are entitled to do so. Then the Prime Minister said that would be cutting across our policy of non-intervention. But the same argument would apply in the case of the Nyon arrangements. I hope the public will not be misled by the Prime Minister's argument.
  I was somewhat disappointed by the rather colourless reference to bombing, especially of civilian populations. When this matter was discussed during the tenure of office of the late Foreign Secretary we were told that a survey was being made. Nearly three months later the Prime Minister repeats that a survey is being made on this question of the bombing of the civil population. How long is it going to take, and when can we expect it to be completed and expect some action on the part of the Government? The question has become one of vital importance to the welfare of civilisation. According to the announcement of Japanese Imperial headquarters, during May alone there took place 1,800 air raids on Chinese towns. Between 28th May and 11th June Canton was bombed 12 times in 14 days. It is estimated that 3,000 civilians were killed and 5,500 wounded. On two days, 6th and 7th June more than 1,000 houses were destroyed. My hon. Friend who initiated the Debate referred to the telegram from the Mayor of Canton drawing attention to the terrible sufferings of the civilian population. In Spain there have been constant air attacks upon Barcelona,
  976
  more than 1,000 casualties in three days, at Alicante, 378 men, women and children killed, apart from wounded, and 500 casualties at Granollers, a comparatively small town. The British Minister at Barcelona has reported that there were no military objectives there. It is only too apparent that the Spanish insurgent authorities are carrying on an indiscriminate attack on the civilian populations of the parts of Spain that are opposed to them.
  Captain McEwen: The report, I think, was not that there were no military objectives, but only small ones.
  Mr. Henderson: I think in his reply to me yesterday the Under-Secretary said that, according to the report of the British Minister, there were no military objectives in the centre of the town but that there was a factory on the outskirts and that all the bombing had been directed against the centre of the town. It is more evidence that the Spanish insurgents are carrying on this indiscriminate attack upon the civilian population. Is it not possible to do something to stop this slaughter? Both the Prime Minister and Mr. Cordell Hull, the United States Secretary of State, recently made speeches agreeing to co-operate with other nations in humanising, by common agreement, the rules and practices of modern warfare. Is it not possible to do something more than merely make speeches? Is it not possible to bring about, either through a conference or through diplomatic negotiations, some kind of agreement between the nations which will prohibit the bombing of civilian populations once and for all? Pious wishes will not get us very far. I hope the Under-Secretary will go a little further than the Prime Minister, and will give us some indication as to when this survey is likely to be finished, and that as soon as it is finished the Government intend to make contact with the United State and other Governments in order to attempt to end once and for all this terrible method of modern warfare. I do not altogether agree with some of my hon. Friends who take the view that it is not possible to humanise warfare. Not so many years ago it was the custom to massacre all prisoners of war, but that practice came to an end.
  I should also like to draw attention to the proposed Evion Conference next month and to ask whether the delegation

  977
  from this country is to be under the control of the Foreign Office or of some other Department. Perhaps we might be told who are to compose the delegation? The question of Jewish and political refugees has become an international question to-day, and it is time the matter was recognised as such. I hope the Government are going to that conference with the intention of doing everything they can to ease the terrible plight of these unfortunate Jewish refugees. I believe the treatment of the Jews in Germany and Austria has sent a feeling of horror throughout civilisation. It is about as inhuman as it could be. It seems to me that the Germans are animated by a kind of sadism run mad. I hope the Government will seek to persuade the Evion Conference to make friendly approaches to the Governments concerned to modify this policy of persecution, impoverishment and racial discrimination. If that fails, something will have to been done to deal with the position. Whatever one may say about the rights of a particular country to do what it likes within its own borders, I believe that the oppression that the Jews are suffering to-day is the concern of every man and woman who has any regard for the decencies of life. I hope the Government will realise that they may have to face up to a very difficult problem. According to a recent decree in Berlin, at least 25,000 Jews will have to leave each year, and another 25,000 from Austria, and unless some alternative home is to be found one can only imagine the terrible position in which these unfortunate people will find themselves. The problem of the Jews is very largely the result of the appalling economic conditions in Central Europe and I believe that if the Government, in co-operation with other Governments, will make some attempt to improve those conditions, the present anxieties of the 5,000,000 of Jewish population in Central Europe and the Balkans will be considerably lessened.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Most of the speakers on the other side to whom I desired to reply have left the Chamber and I shall not, therefore, go at any great length into the arguments which they have used. I would only remark that the passion for freedom of discussion which animates Members of the Liberal Opposition seems seldom to extend very much further than
  978
  the delivery of their own views, and they do not show a great willingness to remain to hear the views of others. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who is now in his place, if I appeared to include him in that remark and I wish to make a reference to something which he said. We have had during this afternoon some very bad history and some very bad law. It was, if I recollect rightly, the much maligned Star Chamber which first held when somebody tried to use in evidence a saying of Sir Richard Spark, clerk, "who was not sworn," about what he had heard from another, "who was not brought afore us," that that was not evidence: and it was, I think, that good Tory judge, "Bloody" Jeffreys, who established what is, among, the most important of our fundamental liberties, namely, that what the soldier said is not evidence. But apparently it appears to be considered on the other side of the Committee that what an Opposition Liberal reads between the lines of what a trans-Atlantic journalist hints that some unavowed person told him had been said by somebody else, is the most irrefutable of all arguments.
  I intervene, however, not so much to deal with the law of evidence as to say a few words about international law. I do not pose as an expert upon it. We have heard two experts upon it to-day and I wish to suggest that there are more dubieties in the points on which they expressed themselves pretty positively, than they admitted. I wish first of all to be slightly autobiographical and to defend myself against any charge of bias. There are, I know, some people on the other side of the Committee who want General Franco to lose in the present war in Spain. I believe there are a few people on this side who want General Franco to win. I do not believe that anybody even on the other side really believes that the principal object of His Majesty's Government is that General Franco should win. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] For me, I do not care a hoot which side wins. I wish there had never been a war and I wish it could be stopped without either side winning. I have no prejudices either way, and I am perfectly prepared to believe that, as far as the interests of this country are concerned it might be better if General Franco were to lose.

  979
  If I may say so without arrogance, I have one qualification to speak on this subject which probably no other hon. Member who has spoken possesses. I spent the first years of my life and coniderable portions of my later years on tramp ships and I know something about tramp skippers and sailors, and nobody who knows anything about me would suggest that I have insufficient sympathy with them. There is no other class of men with whom I have greater sympathy—least of all tramp owners.
  Mr. McGovern: Do you know the language?
  Mr. Pickthorn: Yes, I know that too. Nobody shares more than I do the natural feeling that we would like it to be established that any British ship can go anywhere it likes, whenever it likes, and that if any foreigner becomes tiresome, that foreigner should be blown to blazes. That is a natural British reaction and I have sometimes been tempted to suppose that there was less of that normal, healthy, primary British reaction among hon. Members on the other side than was desirable. But I do think that it is a reaction which must be controlled by a certain amount of reflection and even, if the effort be not excessive, by a certain amount of inquiry. Otherwise, we do no service to the sailors who go to sea in tramps, the men who are the founders of the greatness of this country, and through whom our greatest service to the world has been rendered, because the open use of the seas for carriage is the great contribution which we have made to the universe. But, as I say, we do no service to those people by pretending or assuming that the law in this matter is clearer than it is. It is extremely unclear. If I could speak for long enough I believe I could persuade hon. Members how unclear it is. I cannot in the few minutes at my disposal go into all the arguments, but I hope to persuade hon. Members at any rate that this matter is not as easy as has been suggested by the experts opposite.
  So far, in the speeches from the benches opposite, His Majesty's Government are being asked to do something in the way of putting forcible coercion upon what is really a foreign Government, whether it is fully recognised as
  980
  such or not. Any Private Member ought to be extremely slow to make that suggestion. The answer, so far, from this side has, in the main, been to the effect that there are immense practical difficulties, and up to a point that is a very good answer. But a point may come at which His Majesty's Government may tell this Committee and the rest of the world that they think there is something here which makes it essential that forcible coercion should be applied and no Government should ever do such a thing without being prepared to see forcible coercion turned into war. We have had a recent lesson upon that point. If the Government ever did go as far as that, I think we would have to consider not merely whatever practical difficulties there might be in the way of putting pressure upon these foreigners—Franco or whoever it might be—but also the fact that one must not do such a thing unless one is certain that one's own legal case is a good one. I think it likely that our legal case would be a good one, but I am sure that neither this country nor the foreigners will be persuaded that it is good, unless hon. Gentlemen opposite admit the difficulties and then face the difficulties when they have admitted them.
  The hon. Member who opened the Debate for the Opposition and also the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) seemed to me not to face the legal difficulties in the way of treating the Franco Government in the way in which they wish it to be treated. They did not face the fact that the difficulty which Franco is in arises very largely from the fact that he has never been recognised as a belligerent and has therefore not been able to exercise blockade rights. There is strong authority in this country and even stronger authority among American jurists for the view that in this respect General Franco has been less than fairly treated. I do not say that that view is correct. But I do say that until you know yourself and get into the minds of the British public the answer to that theory held by English and American jurists, you are not entitled to go any further.
  Again, there is the argument about the flag covering the ship. I hold fully the view that it is good policy on our part to allow our rules for registration under the British flag to be as easy as they are, and without a great deal of persuasion I

  981
  would not wish to see that principle abandoned. But we must not forget that, here too, difficulties are involved. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will remember that at the beginning of the last War we announced that though we had not ratified the Declaration of London we would accept it upon this point. But we soon found that the thing was impracticable, and our courts and the French courts had to announce, I think in October 1915, that they would no longer be bound by registration, that they would no longer be bound by the flag, that they would have to go through to the realities and that if they found that the actual practical control was not in British hands or in neutral hands, they would not treat a ship as a British ship or a neutral ship as the case might be. I do not suggest for a moment that the present case is on all fours with that case, but unless we know exactly the reason why we cannot at all allow France now the line we took then, it is intellectually lazy and morally rather ignoble for us to press any further than we are already doing for coercive action.
  Again there is the question of what is contraband, on which I think speakers on the othere side have been much too positive. I do not know what is or is not contraband in this case. An hon. Member opposite described this as a "so-called civil war." I do not know what else he would call it.
  Mr. Henderson: It may have started as a civil war, but as a result of intervention on the part of Germans and Italians, it is now a mixture of a civil war and a war of aggression by Germany and Italy.
  Mr. Pickthorn: If it is a mixture of a civil war and a war of aggression by those two countries, an international war, it is all the more difficult to see how what is or what is not contraband can be established by the decree of a quasi-neutral Power, which is what we are. I suggest that that gives the whole case away. I am not prepared, as I say, to declare what is or what is not contraband, but I am prepared to say that the case put from the other side to the effect that what the British Government declare to be contraband or not to be contraband decides the question, cannot be accepted. That cock will not fight. I was speaking this morn-
  982
  ing to a man who is, I suppose, one of the two or three greatest international lawyers in this country, and the last man who could possibly be suspected of any sympathy with Franco or Mussolini or Hitler, and he had no doubt that the great majority of these ships are carrying what we certainly would regard as contraband if we were at war. Again, I do not say that there is no answer to that, and if there were time I could give answers, more or less conclusive, to a large number of these points. It is like many another legal question—there is a great deal of weight on both sides. But as long as those who press for coercive action do not honestly admit these legal difficulties and dubieties and persuade us of the answers to them, they are estopped from trying to force us into coercive action which might easily become violence and might then quickly become war.
  There is another point of the same kind. Speakers from the other side have made no distinction between what is inside the three-mile limit and what is outside it. In fact the hon. Member for Kingswinford seemed to go rather out of his way to avoid any such distinction. Incidentally, if I may deal with it in parenthesis, I think his Rio de Janeiro analogy was a poor one. There is no sort of analogy. I do not think there has ever before been an insurrection which has continued for 2½ years and in which the insurrectionists have gained more than half the country and half the population, and which has continued to be treated as an insurrection.
  Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that in the case of Rio de Janeiro the commanders of the various naval units concerned warned the insurgent commander that in the event of interference with their nationals, or the property of their nationals, they would interfere with the insurgents, although they were themselves within the three-mile limit?
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding me of an even more conclusive answer to his argument than I had intended to give. It is that upon that occasion the commanders of all the foreign warships which had anything to do with the matter were unanimous as to what they wanted to do. In the present case we are a very long way from that position, and that seems to blow the hon. Member's analogy out of the

  983
  water. I was, however, dealing with the difference between what is outside and what is inside the three-mile limit. Once a ship is tied up there is very good reason for holding that it is no longer to be treated only and wholly as a ship. Here I think the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) was rather less than fair—I am sure unintentionally—in his quotation from the Hague Agreement of 1923. He stopped short at a point where the Hague Agreement holds—I am not giving the exact words—that anything which is used for purposes of lines of communication or as a centre of transport, may properly be treated as a military objective, and cannot be demilitarised merely by putting a few civilians into it. Therefore it becomes extraordinarily difficult to say whether any port in a country which is the scene of civil war is or is not a military objective. It is even possible to argue that a ship when it is in port and tied up to the bollards is not a ship in every sense of the term. All this talk about blockade is largely beside the point, because from first to last there is no blockade in this. A foreign ship tied up at a quay in a foreign port may be argued to be a piece of fixed alien property, and I think there is not any doubt that fixed alien property has no more right to protection where military operations are going on than has a piece of the property of the inhabitants of the country.
  Mr. Bevan: We are not at school.
  Mr. Pickthorn: The hon. Member who interrupts has been speaking most of the afternoon, and I have done my best to follow the sense of his interruptions, but I have not altogether succeeded on this occasion as on others. I am quite prepared to believe that it may be necessary now, or the next day, or in 10 days' time, or 100, for the Government to use coercive powers against some foreign Government in order to maintain the traditional British right to use the seas of the world; but I suggest that nobody ought to press for such action unless he is clear in his own mnid, first of all, how he proposes to overcome the practical difficulties, and, secondly, how he intends to convince the great mass of his countrymen, and foreigners, that on all legal points we have an absolutely good
  984
  case. I have heard so far no attempt to meet those difficulties from the other side of the Committee.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. Maxton: I am provoked into intervening in this Debate by the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), to which we have just listened.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Then it did some good, at any rate.
  Mr. Maxton: I thought when I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister that I had listened to the worst speech I had ever heard from any British statesman, and I thought we had reached absolute rock bottom, but the back benchers who have spoken for the Government since seem to have made things even worse. I am particularly interested in the hon. Member for Cambridge University being so anxious that we should make sure of the legality of our conduct in defending British citizens and British ships before we take any steps at all. He said that we must be quite sure that we are on perfectly legal ground, because if we are not on legal ground, that great legalist General Franco would be considerably annoyed.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I did not refer to General Franco in that connection.
  Mr. Maxton: Then which of the great exponents of international justice is he concerned with? He denies that it is General Franco. Is it his ally Signor Mussolini, or is it Herr Hitler?
  Mr. Pickthorn: Mainly the inhabitants of this country.
  Mr. Maxton: Do I understand that the hon. Member who represents Cambridge University thinks that there is a big body of opinion in this country that would have to be persuaded that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to try and preserve their rights and their proper avocations? I do not believe there is such a majority in this country. I think the majority of the people of this country have been tremendously resentful in these recent weeks. I know that in the seaports, in Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff, Swansea, the common folk there think it is simply damnable that British seamen can be done to death, that the British

  985
  Navy cannot move, that the British Government cannot move, that no steps can be taken along either diplomatic or trade lines.
  Remember this, that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), in opening the Debate to-day, made suggestions that were first diplomatic, secondly commercial, thirdly financial, and only fourthly was the question of military or naval power put forward as a possible step to be taken; and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, with apparently the support of his back benchers, stands up in this Committee and rejects every possible step. He does not put forward any possible alternative step, but simply says that, in the face of the threats and the acts of this rebel traitor General, who two years ago was an underground plotter in the cafes of Europe, His Majesty's Government are completely powerless to take any step of any description whatever. That is the position we are in to-night, as stated by the Prime Minister, and the hon. Member for Cambridge University, with great knowledge, with great experience, a recognised authority on international affairs, comes into this Committee and puts the prestige of his university and of his own knowledge behind this attitude of incapacity on the part of the Conservative Government of 1938 to defend British citizens and the British flag against the attacks of a rebel General.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Sandys: Frankly, I was disappointed by the attitude adopted, on this question of the protection of British shipping in Spanish waters, by the Prime Minister this afternoon. I could not help thinking, as I was listening to my right hon. Friend's speech, how that speech would react upon General Franco. It was not so much what my right hon. Friend said as the language and, shall I say, the spirit in which he approached this problem. I am sorry to have to say it, but I cannot help thinking that the result of my right hon. Friend's speech will be the intensification of these attacks upon British ships, and that that speech will cost British lives. In reply to a supplementary question of mine last Tuesday, the Prime Minister asked me whether I had any practical proposal to put forward as to how we could deal with this question, and, if so, he promised to give it careful consideration.
  986
  Before I say anything about what I would suggest myself on this question, I would like to deal very briefly with two points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). First of all, he said there was some doubt about the legal position. I cannot see that there is any doubt at all that these attacks are completely unjustifiable from a legal point of view. I recognise that there may be many difficulties in the way of stopping the attacks, but how the legal position can be called in doubt I really fail to understand. I would draw the Committee's attention to the attitude adopted by the British Government on this question at The Hague Conference in 1923. They then stated what they considered to be the position of aircraft in war. The British statement concluded with the following passage:
  "Belligerent aircraft are not under any circumstances exempt from the universal rules of war, and if an aircraft cannot capture a merchant vessel in conformity with these rules, the existing law of nations requires it to desist from attack."
  That is the position. I could elaborate it at length, but I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee in doing so. As regards this question of belligerent rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University seemed to suggest that General Franco had been unfairly treated, in that belligerent rights had not been accorded to him, and that if they had been accorded, the legal position would have been different from what it is to-day. As one of the few Members of this House who have consistently, from the very beginning, pressed for the according of belligerent rights, I must point out that my hon. Friend is not correct. I maintain that, even if belligerent rights had been accorded, even if these ships had actually been carrying munitions of war and in fact, even if they had been flying, not a neutral flag, but the Spanish Republican flag, these deliberate attacks upon merchant vessels by aircraft without warning, wherever they might have taken place, would still have been entirely contrary to, and in direct violation of, established international law.
  Mr. Emmott: Does the hon. Member suggest that even if they had been flying the Spanish Republican flag, that would have been so?
  Mr. Sandys: Certainly.
  Mr. Emmott: My hon. Friend's suggestion is that attacks on ships carrying the Spanish Republican flag, if belligerency rights had been recognised, would have been illegal. Surely he cannot say that.
  Mr. Sandys: I repeat it. Even if these ships had been flying the Spanish Republican flag, and belligerent rights had been accorded, the ordinary rights of the sea have got to be afforded to merchant vessels to whatever nationality they may belong, including belligerents. If my hon. Friend looks up this matter, I think he will see that there is no doubt about this aspect of the problem at all. As to what we can do to stop these attacks and what action we can take, I was disappointed by the answer which the Prime Minister gave to me the other day in reply to a supplementary question of mine, in which he said:
  "I have said that I do not think any action which we can take is practicable to stop these attacks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1938; col. 45, Vol. 337.]
  That does, I think, sum up the attitude which His Majesty's Government are taking on this question. If the Prime Minister means that nothing that we can do can entirely prevent these attacks, I agree with him. Certainly there is nothing that we can do which would altogether prevent the possibility of a recurrence of these attacks, in the same way that nothing which the police can do can prevent the possibility of crime. But if, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend means that there is nothing which we can do which would effectively deter General Franco from repeating these attacks, then I cannot agree with him.
  The Prime Minister last Tuesday re-referred to a proposal for the establishment of a neutral port, which had been put forward by the Burgos authorities. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that that proposal is not a practical one. The offer was conditional upon our consenting to restrict the commodities in which we would be permitted to trade. Because Parliament has voluntarily restricted trade with Spain and has forbidden certain articles to be exported to that country, that does not mean that we can be dictated to by either party in Spain as to what cargoes our ships shall or shall not carry. But the main objection to this proposal is a strategic one. The result of the adoption of this proposal would be
  988
  that almost all commerce would be concentrated towards this one neutralised port. I have no doubt that General Franco would faithfully observe his undertaking not to bomb the ships. But what would happen once the cargo had been unloaded? It would be an easy matter for him to concentrate his aircraft on the approaches to this one port and to make the whole trade with the port perfectly valueless to the Spanish Government. Very soon, in fact, our trade with Republican Spain would be brought to an end altogether.
  What action can we ourselves take to deal with these attacks? Surely we cannot accept the view that there is no action which we can take which will deter further outrages of this kind? There are two methods of stopping these attacks. The first is the indirect method, that of reprisals; the second is the direct method, that of active protection. I am not in the first instance advocating the use of reprisals, but I think that we must nevertheless reserve to ourselves the right to resort to reprisals if everything else should fail. Let us, however be quite clear what reprisals are. Reprisals are not in any way inconsistent with neutrality or with a policy of non-intervention. I cannot accept the view expressed by the Prime Minister and by another hon. Member that if we were to take retaliatory action of any kind it would amount to a resort to war, that we should be engaging in hostilities and that it would constitute a departure from the policy of nonintervention. That is not the fact. Reprisals are punitive action taken by a country in peacetime in order to obtain the redress of a wrong or the prevention of its repetition without having recourse to war. The very purpose of reprisals is to avoid having to resort to war.
  Another thing which seems to have been overlooked is the fact that reprisals have already been resorted to in the Spanish civil war, in particular by the Germans. I will quote one typical instance, the "Palos" case. On 27th December, 1936, the German ship "Palos" was stopped by a Spanish Republican cruiser and was taken into Bilbao. On 30th December, at the demand of the German Government, the ship was released, but part of the cargo, consisting of war material, and one Spanish subject who was on board were detained by the Spanish Govern-

  989
  ment. The German Government claimed that as belligerent rights had not been accorded, the war material and the passenger should have been released also. When the Spanish Government refused a German warship seized two Republican merchant vessels. That is a clear and typical example of reprisals with the purpose of redressing a wrong.
  I am not, however, advocating that we should resort to reprisals, at any rate at this stage. I prefer the direct method of protection. What can be done in the way of active protection? No one seriously suggests that we should set up British anti-aircraft guns in Spanish ports. That would be entirely inconsistent with our policy of non-intervention. What is more, it is entirely unnecessary. A year ago our ships were being sunk all over the Mediterranean. Now, as the result of the Nyon patrols, these attacks have been stopped up to the three-mile limit. Again, I would like to take up the hon. Member for Cambridge University on the question of the three-mile limit. The three-mile limit has practically no application to the rules of war, and has no significance in regard to the present problem. Its chief purpose is in peacetime to decide how far the law of a country extends, mainly for the enforcement of Customs regulations, and for the arrest of criminals. It does not affect belligerent rights, which if accorded apply equally to the high seas. Why not, therefore, extend the protection which has been so successful under the Nyon Agreement right up to the moment when a ship enters a harbour? That would not be inconsistent in any way with the policy of non-intervention. No action would be taken by our warships unless some illegal attack were made on British ships. Unless such attacks were made there would be no interference whatever.
  There is only one category of ships that we cannot protect, and that is the ships which are alongside the quay. There is no adequate protection for them short of sending our warships right into the harbour. I recognise that a ship alongside a quay tied up to the docks is from a height indistinguishable from the shore. If I were the Prime Minister or the President of the Board of Trade I would tell British ships to remain in those harbours as short a time as possible, and only as long as is necessary for loading and unloading If they have to wait for another cargo they
  990
  should come out of the harbour and enjoy the protection of British warships outside. If a ship is bombed by a high-flying bomber while it is alongside, there is, I think, no action we can legitimately or reasonably take. On the other hand, if, as in recent cases, there is clear evidence that ships have been deliberately sought out and that aeroplanes have flown around and have fired machine guns at the crew, that is a different matter. If there is reliable evidence that ships have been deliberately bombed, we should then, in my opinion, demand immediate compensation from the offending authorities. If that compensation is refused, we should then in the last resort adopt a policy of reprisals. By reprisals I mean that we should seize goods, money or securities in this country belonging to the offending party, or, alternatively, if that does not meet the case, then we should instruct a British warship to arrest a merchant vessel belonging to the party concerned.
  That is what I propose, and I ask my right hon. Friend to give these suggestions, which are offered in all humility, careful and sympathetic consideration. Whether my right hon. Friend can see his way to accept this or not, I submit to him that effective action of one kind or another must be taken. For two years we have persistently withheld belligerent rights from the combatants in Spain: that is to say, we have refused to let them even so much as search our ships. Are we now going to let them sink them? Can we, as the greatest maritime power in the world, afford to abdicate in the face of violence our legitimate rights as neutrals? Can we in these humiliating circumstances afford to acquiesce in deliberate, unprovoked and, from every point of view, unjustifiable attacks on peaceful merchant shipping? I submit to the Government and to the Committee that we have here a solemn duty, not only to ourselves, but to all other seafaring peoples, to do everything that is within our power to resist violence and to uphold the law of nations. It is, moreover, a duty which we cannot honourably ignore.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. W. Roberts: Without going into the question of belligerent rights, I would like to add to what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) has said, that if, as the hon. Member for Cambridge Uni-

  991
  versity (Mr. Pickthorn) suggests, there was no basis for our objection to having our ships bombed in ports, on what ground does the British Government protest? If, in fact, the Burgos authorities have got a perfect and complete answer, why have they not made it? In fact, the hon. Member for Cambridge University is, as so often happens in these cases, more a belligerent on General Franco's side than even General Franco himself, and provides more specious arguments than even those which Franco's lawyers are able to find. I want to study the position of British shipping companies. I support what the hon. Member for Norwood said in his last sentence, when he pointed out that it has always been in the past our role to defend neutral shipping. The bombing of ships has affected us most, but that is because to a large extent neutral shipping has been driven out of trade with the Spanish Government by such practices as seizing ships, detaining them illegally, seizing cargoes and other methods against which the British Government have not provided the neutrals with protection.
  To some extent the old-established British firms trading with Spain have also been driven out by a species of blackmail. I would like to give an example of what happened recently to one old-established firm. The owner had a ship sunk off Valencia. He was thereupon sent for by the representative of General Franco in this country and informed, not that General Franco had any regrets for sinking his ship, but that, as it appeared that he dared to trade with the Spanish Government, he should not have the right for the rest of his merchant fleet to call in the Canaries or Teneriffe. That is an extraordinary situation. Are the British Government reduced to allowing to remain in this country the representative of a Government which is "illegally and deliberately," to quote the words of Ministers, bombing our British ships who has the effrontery to inform the owners that they shall not dare to call in any Nationalist ports, ports which are of great importance to the British Merchant Navy?
  We are being driven out of the trade with General Franco. The President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a question of mine to-day, gave me some remarkable figures. In the month of May, 1935, before the war began, 240 British
  992
  ships called in ports which are now under Nationalist control. During this May, 185 British ships called at the same Nationalist ports, a very considerable reduction. On the other hand, before the war began, only 73 German ships called in those ports, and in this month there were 121. We hear a great deal of talk from the opposite benches about a few German motor cars which are imported into this country. A trade which was worth some £16,000,000 to us is taken by the method of bombing our ships out of it and blackmailing them into avoiding that trade, and the British Government do nothing whatsoever about it.
  The position of British traders has been very difficult in Nationalist Spain, and the propaganda which General Franco and his friends in this House and elsewhere have made recently on his behalf has not made it easier. In the first quarter of this year I understand that the trade in coal was worth £300,000 with Nationalist Spain, but the trade with General Franco was worth one-tenth of that figure, and yet our trade with the whole of Spain in coal used to be worth several million pounds. Our shipping losses in bombed ships in two or three weeks recently amounted to very nearly £500,000. We are told of the enormous profits which are being made in the Spanish trade, but somebody has to bear those losses. Underwriters are not there just to meet losses out of the goodness of their hearts. If our losses in shipping have amounted to some £500,000, in a few weeks, they are borne by the shipping industry.
  Captain Arthur Evans: May I ask the hon. Member this simple question; does he know that the premiums which are quoted by Lloyd's to the owners of ships are in relation to the risk they run?
  Mr. Roberts: Yes, I have always understood that that was the basis on which Lloyd's did quote. The increase in insurance rates, which have gone up fourfold, comes out of the freights. An hon. Member has pointed out that the rates for coal have gone up to a high figure and that is what accounts for it. It is not that the owners are making vast profits, but that they are paying four times the amount of insurance, which in any case means far more upon the value of the cargo than upon the value of the hull, and in addition wages have

  993
  gone up. When Conservatives stand up and say that British sailors must not be defended from illegal bombing because the owners of the ships may or may not be making profits, I wonder why they did not take the opportunity of reminding us of that during the Great War.
  Propaganda has been pretty effective, and the deliberate impression has been created that these ships are engaged in a sort of illicit trade. It has been suggested that they are on time-charter. I have taken the trouble to find out how many ships are on time-charter to the Spanish Government. I may not have got them all, but my inquiries from the best authorities whom I could consult show that just over 200 ships are employed in trade with the Spanish Government and a little more than 10 per cent. of them are on time-charter. Some of the oldest established firms have lost ships in the last few weeks. I am not an authority on international law, and I quote from a paper which is not usually considered to have Left tendencies not so much because of what it says as because this quotation will show the striking change which came over the semi-official Press of the Government lately. On 11th June the "Times" remarked:
  "Clearly international law as well as every humanitarian principle has often been broken by the airmen serving General Franco."
  Up to that date the "Times" and other sections of the Conservative Press had given the impression that the British Government were really going to do something. Of course that impression had been given before, and as far back as 7th February Sir Robert Hodgson went so far as to point out to the insurgent authorities that they could not rely upon British patience very much longer. He said:
  "Their patience is not inexhaustible and they have come to the conclusion that the time has come to let it be known once and for all that they cannot continue to deal with these cases solely by protests and claims for compensation which have failed to check attacks or to secure any material satisfaction for the damage clone. It should, therefore, be made known to General Franco that His Majesty's Government reserve to them selves the right henceforth, without any farther notice, to take such retaliatory action in the event of any recurrence of those attacks as may be required by and appropriate to the particular case."
  I quote that from one of Sir Robert Hodgson's notes to suggest that the way
  994
  the British Government have suggested on more than one occasion that the limit had really been reached, and that at last we were going to put down our foot, has only left the prestige of Great Britain lower than it was before. We say that our patience is exhausted, but what happens? The Prime Minister returns from his fishing holiday, and we find that the British Government have absolutely unlimited patience to put up with any amount of further bombing of ships.
  I would suggest on this question of belligerent rights that General Franco has been exceedingly fortunate. He has taken powers far in excess of anything which he would have obtained had he been granted belligerent rights, and in addition to that he has all the advantages which he has derived from the Non-Intervention policy. He is actually carrying out a blockade—an illegal blockade—which he might not have had the right to do in a certain way had he been granted belligerent rights. Further, we are blockading large stretches of the French frontier now, and by our action preventing the importation of arms which, had belligerent rights been granted, we should have had a perfect right to import, if we could, to either side. General Franco, therefore, has advantages which have been overwhelming, arising from Non-Intervention control plus the rights he has taken which are greater than would have been his if he had been granted belligerent rights.
  We are told that this has been done in order that the Anglo-Italian Agreement may come into force. An hon. Member opposite said that he judged that public opinion not only in this country but in Europe was behind the British Government's policy. I would refer only to the fact that out of 13 countries on the Council of the League of Nations nine refused to record a vote of confidence in the policy on Non-Intervention this April, which did not suggest that the public opinion of the smaller countries of Europe, of South America and the rest of the world was very much behind this policy of Non-Intervention, which they, at any rate, have come to believe is a farce. After all, the South Americans have had recently an example of a revolution stirred up with Fascist money and propaganda.
  But the Italian Agreement is dependent now upon a settlement in Spain. Though

  995
  we are not told what the settlement is, we understand that the agreement was made only on the understanding that General Franco was going to win by the middle of April. I have sometimes had a feeling about the British Foreign Office that the one thing they really wanted to know about Spain was who was going to win. In early April they thought they had found the answer for certain, and that it was General Franco. Unfortunately, opinion about that seems to have changed. He does not appear to be likely to win for another six or nine months at the earliest. The most charitable explanation that I can find for the policy of assisting General Franco to win quickly is that it springs from the defeatism of the Tory party. I say the most charitable explanation is that they think and hope he is going to win, but some of us do not think he will necessarily win, in spite of all the assistance that the closing of the frontier and non-intervention may give him.
  We might consider for a moment what happened after the previous agreement was signed with Italy, about a year ago. The ex-Foreign Minister admits now that large forces of Italian troops were landed in Spain almost simultaneously with the signing of that agreement. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee not merely to the number of ships which have now been sunk but to the dates on which they were sunk. In February, there were two attacks and one British ship was sunk. In March there were two attacks, neither of which sank the ship concerned; but although there had been no attack from the early part of March, on 15th April, when the Anglo-Italian Agreement was signed, the first attack occurred and in the 10 days thereafter five attacks were made. In May there were six attacks, and in June, up to a few days ago, there were nine attacks. In fact, just as after the Italian Agreement—the Gentleman's Agreement—of last year, Mussolini took the opportunity of raising his price by sending reinforcements immediately to the forces that were already there, an act which the ex-Foreign Minister has suggested was a violation of the spirit of the agreement, so, immediately following the signing of the present agreement, intensified attack on British ships has taken place.
  996
  It seems as though we, in pressing forward for a ratification of this Anglo-Italian Agreement, are to be humbled as far as Mussolini possibly can, because it is suggested that these attacks are being carried out not by Italian but by German bombers. Some very semi-official rumours have been going about, and they seem to have been coming from very official quarters. Some people prefer to believe a rumour rather than a fact, and a rumour is very often more effective for that purpose. These rumours have been given a certain amount of official credence, but when we come to this House and ask whether any correct information is available we are informed that there is no information. The only effective and successful action that has been taken in connection with Spain has been the Nyon Agreement.
  I do not believe that the present policy of the Government will lead to peace in Spain, either by mediation or in any other way. The only possibility of effective mediation is to give some kind of equality of conditions between the two Governments. What have you done now? You have closed the French frontier. You have persuaded the French to close that frontier in accordance with the British plan of November, under which it was to be closed only after the commissions went out, or just before. You have done it without closing the Portuguese frontier, which is of great advantage to General Franco. You have allowed him to establish an effective and illegitimate blockade, and yet you ask him to accept mediation when you have given him that great advantage. Another point is that the Italian armies in Spain are back in the line there from which they were withdrawn in the middle of April. Yet you expect us, and me, to believe that mediation can be effective when you have given General Franco every advantage in your power to win a speedy victory. The present policy of the British Government is designed to get a quick victory for Franco. If it were designed for mediation and for the establishment of peace, some of us might be prepared to accept it. We understand that you have secured agreement in the Non-Intervention Committee, and I would like to ask one specific question: When is it anticipated that that agreement, if the Press this evening is to be believed, will come into force? Is my estimate a reasonable one

  997
  that the earliest time at which volunteers could be withdrawn is about three months from to-day?
  There are a good many historical parallels no doubt, for the present situation. I came across one from 24th June, 1738, just 200 years ago. At that time an administration had been in power in this House for a considerable time and had considerable respect in the country. On 24th June an Address was carried, not in this House but in another place, dealing with the molestation of British ships by Spanish Government forces. That Address was carried against the Government and that was the beginning of the end of their administration, and they had been in power for a very much longer time than the National Government. Robert Walpole's downfall resulted from the widespread dissatisfaction with the handling by the Government of that Spanish problem. I would like to quote these words from one of Carteret's speeches:
  "No search' is the cry that runs from the sailor to the merchant and from the merchant to the Parliament; and from the Parliament it ought to reach the Throne."
  I suggest that "no bombing" is also a cry that runs from the sailor to the merchant, and from the merchant to the Parliament, and that we also hope that it will reach the Throne.
  8.22 p.m.
  Captain A. Evans: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), who presented a careful examination of the international law aspect of these unfortunate circumstances and this lamentable situation. I am not an international lawyer, and I, therefore, do not consider myself competent to express a view on this very delicate and intricate subject. I must confess that I was surprised to learn from my hon. Friend that there was no necessity, in the present situation, to have regard to territorial waters outside Spain, in other words, the three-mile limit, and that British ships were entitled to the protection of the British Navy up to and including the shores of the territory of Spain, whether under the jurisdiction of the Spanish Government or of General Franco. I was always under the impression that strict regard, whether in peace or war, had to be paid to territorial
  998
  waters, because they were regarded as part of the territory of the country which they surrounded. As I say, I am not competent to express an opinion, but no doubt my hon. Friend is competent to do so.
  After having listened to the speeches during the whole of the afternoon, I notice that certain facts have emerged and are reasonably clear. In the first place, it is well for us to remember that the Prime Minister announced in this House that all adequate steps would be taken, and indeed had been taken, to protect the Red Ensign and British ships on the high seas, outside territorial waters. No one will challenge the action of the British Navy in giving practical effect to the decision of the Government, but I am surprised that during the speeches of Members of both Oppositions no mention has been made of the fact that from time to time His Majesty's Government have thought fit to issue a warning, and indeed to appeal, to the British Mercantile Marine not to enter this trade and run unnecessary risk. In spite of different views which have been expressed with regard to that appeal, I think it is the unanimous view in the House that, even if it is disregarded and our ships are bombed while in Spanish ports by enemy forces opposed to the Spanish Government, that is, to say the least, a matter for regret, and for my part I am thoroughly convinced that, if it were possible for His Majesty's Government in general, and the Prime Minister in particular, to satisfy themselves that they had means at their disposal to bring about an immediate cessation of these activities on the part of certain people in Spain, that would be done at the earliest possible moment. But what is the practical issue which is before the House to-night? We have to consider what can be done to bring about this desirable state of affairs without at the same time involving this country, first of all in intervention, and subsequently in war. Listening to the speeches, I have not heard any practical suggestion from anybody as to how those ends can be achieved.
  I give place to none in my admiration of that adventurous and courageous spirit which has made the Mercantile Marine of Great Britain what it is to-day. We know that in the old days the Elizabethan buccaneers sailed the high

  999
  seas in search of profit of all kinds, and gladly ran the risks of death in search of that profit, being quite prepared to share all those risks in the same way as they were prepared to share all the profits. If they failed in their quest and got into trouble with the Spanish forces of the day, they knew that they would be disowned by the Government of this country, and we know that a number of interviews took place between Queen Elizabeth and James I and the Spanish Ambassadors of those days on the very debatable question whether those buccaneers had been commissioned by the Government of Great Britain or not. But the courageous Cardiffians, for instance, of to-day, who face these risks, are not quite in the same category. They are prepared to share the profits, but in the pursuit of those profits they do not shoulder the whole burden of the risk. They undertake a risk which inevitably must be shared, not only by the men on the ships, but by the men and women of the whole nation. The question is whether these men are entitled at this particular time to run those risks. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) had in mind, I think, a circular issued by the Committee of British Shipowners Trading to Spain, which has been sent to all Members of the House. In paragraph 2 of that circular they use these words:
  "Profits in this trade"—
  that is to say, in the trade with Spain—
  "have in recent months certainly not been abnormal."
  I draw attention to the fact that they only refer to recent months. But, after all, that is not an authoritative body, or, indeed, an authoritative statement. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the "Journal of Commerce and Shipping Telegraph" of to-day—
  The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): This is rather far from the Foreign Office Vote.
  Captain Evans: I submit, with great respect, that the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Opposition referred to this particular point, and I was only endeavouring to show that the shipping interests which are engaged in this trade are engaged in it for abnormally high profits, and engage in it at their own risk. In view of the fact that a certain section of the British shipping industry is de-
  1000
  manding protection from His Majesty's Government, I venture to think I should be in order in quoting from the official document of that industry which desires to make representations on this point. I would like to draw attention to these words:
  "In the meantime it is to be doubted whether the discussion in Parliament will be influenced by the unsigned statement issued by the Committee of British Shipowners Trading to Spain. A clear clarion call on this subject, if issued by the Chamber of Shipping and signed by the leading British shipowners, especially those whose ships are regularly engaged in trade with Spanish ports, would undoubtedly demand and receive the serious consideration of those who are responsible for the foreign policy of this country during the present troublesome time."
  Earlier they used these words—
  The Temporary-Chairman: I really cannot allow this on the Foreign Office Vote.
  Captain Evans: In view of your Ruling, to which I gladly bow, I will leave the point. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that I think it is generally acknowledged that these men who are anxious to obtain the protection of the British Navy run certain risks of their own accord, but if the inevitable happens, and those risks result, as they may do in some cases, in death, what is it that the Opposition parties immediately do? They call on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as representing the Foreign Office, to give an explanation of how these attacks came to be made. We admit, of course, that as a result of these risks many brave men of the British Mercantile Marine have lost their lives. Many of my own constituents have unfortunately lost their lives. But if the demand of the Opposition which has been made across the Floor of this Chamber to-day, both by the Socialist party and by the Liberal party, were put into operation, it would not be a question of 20 Mercantile Marine seamen losing their lives, but in all probability the horrors of war would be visited on the whole nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "War with whom?"] It is quite clear, from the speeches to which I have listened, that what is really in the minds of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches is that, if the Government were persuaded to take action which might lead to a break of relations between General Franco and ourselves, then the Anglo-Italian Agreement woud be at an end, and I do not think they have disguised from the House,

  1001
  or, indeed, from the country, that that is their real object. We on this side, who have the greatest admiration for the policy of the Prime Minister at the present time in his endeavours to retain peace in Europe, do not wish to see the Anglo-Italian Agreement come to an end before it has been put into operation.
  Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Does my hon. and gallant Friend think that the desire for firm action is limited to His Majesty's Opposition?
  Captain Evans: Certainly not, but I think it is generally agreed in all parts of the House that that firm action must take a course which would not lead to war, but to peace.
  Hon. Members: "War with whom?"
  Mr. Adams: Does my hon. and gallant Friend not recognise that firm action four weeks ago about Czechoslovakia produced peace, and not war?
  Captain Evans: That is a matter of opinion, and I do not want to be drawn off this particular subject by the question of Czechoslovakia at this time. I should be happy to do so at some other time. What is the practical aspect of this case? We are concerned with one aspect of international law which, if I understood aright my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon, does not indeed exist. It has been the earnest endeavour of the Government for some time past to form a code of international law as it affects aerial warfare, and the Prime Minister told us this afternoon that in fact that code does not exist. One of the first things we can do is to continue those endeavours to bring the civilised nations of the world together in order to get an agreed interpretation on that matter. Let His Majesty's Government pursue the policy they are pursuing to-day, of saying frankly to a certain section of the Mercantile Marine, "We will use all the forces of the British Navy to protect you legitimately outside territorial waters, and we earnestly appeal to you not to engage in this particular trade for one reason, and one reason only, that there are certain circumstances in the world of which you are just as well aware as we are; His Majesty's Government have the responsibility of dealing with that situation, and we do not want any act by any section in this country to embarrass the
  1002
  Government in their desire to bring about a peaceful end to the dispute." If we are only realists, and realise that any policy of intervention will involve us in war—[HON. MEMBERS: "With whom?"]—and concentrate upon a policy of renewed effort to bring about a truce in Spain, by those means alone can the world be brought back to sanity.
  8.39 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: I was wondering what had led the hon. and gallant Member to make the speech he has just delivered, but I can no longer wonder, because it has been suggested to me—and I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will correct me if I am wrong—that he proposes to leave Cardiff, South, which he now represents, and that his name now appears on the list of candidates at the Conservative Central Office for a safer constituency.
  Captain Evans: I do not know if the hon. Members suggests that I am afraid to fight Cardiff, South, again, but I think he will agree that that is an unjust charge, when he remembers that on different occasions I have unseated three Members of his own party in that constituency.
  Mr. Bevan: I would be the last to make any unjust suggestion. I was merely pointing out the singular association in the fact that the hon. and gallant Member has decided to leave Cardiff, South, that he makes a speech which must be unpalatable to his constituents, and that he makes it when his name is on the list of candidates at the Conservative Central Office for safer seats. So what we have heard is not so much a contribution to the Debate as a supplication to the Prime Minister. That would not deter me from expressing a great deal of sympathy with one or two sentiments which fell from the hon. and gallant Member's lips. He referred to the fact that people who had ventured outside their own frontiers to other parts of the world in order to make large profits, and took risks in doing so, did not in the past expect the Government to protect them. He referred to the fact that members of the British Mercantile Marine—owners of these ships—are making large profits in the Spanish trade, and that they ought to be prepared to take the risks, too, and not expect us to share those risks. There is a great

  1003
  deal in what he says. It has been a contention of Members on this side, over and over again, that we ought not to be involved in war protecting Englishmen when they go into all parts of the world where they have no business to be, getting large profits.
  If his view represents that of the Conservative party, that we are not to be involved in any risks for Englishmen in other parts of the world where our writ does not carry—if that is to be laid down as part of the Conservative policy as a general principle—there will not be much disagreement on these benches. But the hon. and gallant Member confines that principle to when it involves sending food supplies to the Spanish people and the Spanish Government, because we have been told by the Prime Minister that we are not in any circumstances to be involved in the risks of war in order to defend British seamen in the Mediterranean. But we run the risk of war if anybody dares to put a finger on the Sudan cotton fields. We sent a most belligerent note to the Mexican Government defending British oil interests, and only a few days ago a British police officer lost his life in Trinidad defending residents against the outraged natives of Trinidad. So I understand that the hon. and gallant Member does not extend this principle to cover Englishmen wherever they are in other parts of the world, but it is to be applied only to the Spanish war.
  Captain Evans: I thought it must be clear to the hon. Gentleman, as indeed it is clear to the Committee, that Spain to-day is the real danger spot. If only we can settle affairs in Spain, the prospects of peace are much more rosy in the world than otherwise.
  Mr. Bevan: I understand we are to defend British citizens abroad only if the man attacking them is smaller than ourselves. If it is a couple of helpless negroes, down with them; but if it is the Duke of Alba, back him up. I never heard a more disgraceful suggestion. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman's principles had been applied in the past, Clive, instead of being honoured and his descendants enjoying large estates, would have been clapped into prison, because if anybody was after loot Clive was. The British Empire has been built up very
  1004
  largely in that way, and now, as a matter of fact, we are having to keep the sons of the successful buccaneers of the past, because we have declared that where Englishmen are, there the British flag protects them. It is remarkable to compare the state of mind of Conservative Members of the House to-day with what it was at the time of the trial of the Vickers' engineers.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—I am sorry that he is not here—says that in this matter we could see the principles of international jurisprudence clearly only if we restrained our natural indignation. I must admit that comparing the atmosphere this afternoon with what it was then, we have not only been guilty of restraint but of sheepish docility, because on that occasion the back benches opposite prevented the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) from speaking for ten minutes. We had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, and from the President of the Board of Trade, the most provocative speeches about the conduct of the Soviet Union. The suggestion has been thrown out this afternoon that we should not protect British seamen because their employers are making enormous profits, but there was no suggestion made at that time that because Messrs. Vickers were making exorbitant profits out of Russia action should not be taken. The fact of the matter is that hon. Members opposite are really driven to great extremes in finding some means of defending the policy which they have now taken up.
  The suggestion also has been thrown out that there are some complications concerning international law. If there is one thing that bores me it is to hear debates about international law. Everybody knows that there is no such animal, and that as long as you have no international organism you cannot have international law. If international law is the basis of our policy with regard to Spain, then under what has been called international law the Spanish Government should have been able to buy arms all the time. There is no question of international jurisprudence. It is international humbug. It is simply a question of people who find the realities of the situation too difficult entering into abstract generalisations in the hope of

  1005
  being able to escape more easily. International law, if there be such, cannot arise because no belligerent rights have been granted to Franco. He is not known to the law, and you cannot have relations between one who is known to the law and one who is not. A great many of the speeches have been entirely beside the point in trying to establish the legal claims of this side or the other. They have been wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
  We have to ask ourselves not how, but why it is that the British Government are not protecting British seamen in Spanish Government ports when going about their lawful occasions. The Prime Minister said that we cannot protect them, so that we can leave out the question of profits at once. They do not arise. Suggestions have been made from this side, and from that side of the Committee, as to what protection can be given. I and my hon. Friends are not suggesting that there are no difficulties in the way, but I should have thought that the first thing that you would do with a man who was doing something to you that you did not want him to do was to let him know that you did not like his doing it. You would at least break off friendly relations with him. You would not seek his company on every occasion. We could see the realities of this situation more clearly if we substituted the name of Italy for the name of Franco. We are speaking about Franco, and consequently have got into all sorts of absurdities. The man at fault is Mussolini. We want the bombing of English ships stopped and Mussolini is the man who is bombing them. Can anybody deny that? The Prime Minister did not deny the authentic statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) this afternoon. There has not been a single denial, so that therefore we assume that these facts are correct and that men, women and children and British ships are being bombed by Italian aeroplanes, manned by Italian pilots, with Italian shells or bombs. We know that there are emplacements in the Balearic Islands. This bombing could not be effected were it not for the fact that Mussolini favours it. We are now dealing with Italy.
  We are to assume that the Prime Minister is anxious to stop bombing. I should have thought that the first thing he would
  1006
  do would be to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and ask Mussolini, giving him the benefit of the doubt and allowing him to have an alibi to save his face, to send a note to his pal General Franco. Why does not the British Prime Minister do that? In the second place, he might even ask Mussolini himself, if he wanted to be so bold, to stop the bombing. Why does he not do it? Because, we are told, it is injudicious to send such notes to Italy because she is not the legal authority, although she is the actual authority, and it would affect the relations between Italy and this country. Therefore, we are driven to the conclusion that one of the conditions of relations with Italy is that Italy must be allowed to murder British seamen whenever she likes.
  We are informed that one of the reasons why we take no steps to protect our seamen is because we should be involved in war. In war with whom? There are only two nations with whom we could be involved in war. And so it is the assumption of the Conservative party and the British Government that one of the conditions for peace with Italy is that Italy shall be allowed to murder British seamen. Let us admit that the British Prime Minister is in some difficulty about what to do. He is in this difficulty that his friend Mussolini is exploiting him. Suppose for a moment that it is difficult to frame a set of proposals which would protect British ships and seamen adequately without involving yourselves in war or international provocation, who is exploiting the Prime Minister's difficulties? It is his pal Mussolini. Here is the man with whom we are going to establish a treaty. He knows that his friend the British Prime Minister is in trouble, and he takes advantage of it in order to get his own way with the British Government.
  Why was there this continued outrage against the British Mercantile Marine? It is almost inexplicable. One of the reasons was in order to bring pressure to bear upon the British Government to influence the French Government to close the Pyrenees. That object, we are told by to-day's Press, has been accomplished and the Spanish Government is now being prevented from having any help which it might have been receiving across the French-Spanish frontier. Therefore, the bombings have secured their first objec-

  1007
  tive. The second objective was to try and bring about an effective blockade of Spanish Government ports, a subject to which the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) has made his contribution, and to which the Prime Minister made his contribution this afternoon. In effect, the Prime Minister says to the British Mercantile Marine: "I am not going to protect you. If you go to Spanish ports you do so at your own risk. I have already informed the bombers that I cannot stop them. They are, therefore, entitled to go on with their bombing." That means an effective blockade of the Spanish Government ports, either because ships are afraid to go there or because the rates of insurance are too great to make it possible. Therefore, the two objectives have been accomplished, with the assistance of the British Government.
  We on this side do not accept the statement that there are any risks of war involved in protecting British seamen in Spanish ports. We believe that the refusal of the British Government to do it, is not because they desire to maintain the doctrine of non-intervention, unimpaired, but because there is on the Government side of the House a deep sympathy for Franco, a deep desire for him to win, which they have up to now concealed from the country by manoeuvres in this House and by manoeuvres in our foreign policy. We are now witnessing no other than a piece of naked class policy by the other side. They are anxious to bring about the victory of their friends. They say that they will take no risks at this moment in order to protect British seamen. I hope that we shall remember that fact when they ask us to take risks in order to protect their friends.
  The Prime Minister has told us the condition under which he will go to war. It is a very dangerous thing to say to the British people. When they realise that Englishmen are being bombed and killed in Spanish ports, and that the Government are making no effort to prevent it; when they realise that those British seamen cannot look to the British Parliament for any help, it may create in the minds of the British people what is called American psychology, which means that whenever an American is killed in any part of the world, they ask what was he doing there. The time may come when
  1008
  the Government may call the spirits from the sea but they will not come out. They will not work up the indignation of the British people about some atrocity against an Englishman in some other part of the world, because they will have numbed the British people into insensibility by their short-sighted policy.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Lloyd George: I should not have intervened at this late hour had I not considered that the position which has been created by the attitude of the Government, and more particularly by the speech of the Prime Minister, is an extraordinarily grave one. In my judgment, it involves a complete reversal of the attitude and the policy of the British Government as it has been declared by successive Governments and successive Prime Ministers for generations. I am glad that the Prime Minister is now present, because I should like to begin with his speech. Quite frankly, I thought it was a distressing speech, a very deplorable speech, coming from the Prime Minister in his great position, and wielding the power which he does. It was a very pitiable declaration. During the Whole of the time I have been in this House I have seen many Prime Ministers, representing several parties, and I do not know any Prime Minister in any party who would have made that speech. Frankly, I do not know of any House that I have seen which would have tolerated it.
  Let us deal with the facts. They are facts that are accepted. I do not think the Prime Minister challenged the facts as they were stated in the very powerful and very fair statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker). What are they? A number of British ships, plying a perfectly legitimate trade, a trade which has been sanctioned by the Government, with a country with which we are on friendly terms—their Ambassador is still here and we recognise their Government—have been attacked, bombed, torpedoed, sunk, and about 30 British seamen have lost their lives. They were plying a trade recognised by the Government as being perfectly legitimate. In the northern ports of Spain the Germans are conducting their business. I am not talking now about their carrying munitions, which they do. They are carrying on a perfectly legitimate trade

  1009
  in the purchase of materials and the export of their goods. British ships are conducting the same trade on the east coast of Spain. They have done it for centuries. They were doing it at the beginning of the war and they have continued to do it during the war. They are not carrying any contraband. The Government have set forth the kind of commodities which are legitimate for the plying of trade with Spanish ports. The British ships are carrying wheat, coal, etc. The London Chamber of Shipping has gone into the matter very closely. I should say that the vast majority of the members of that chamber are Conservative, and from what I hear are on the whole inclined to sympathise with Franco, but they examined the cargoes carried by these ships and came to the conclusion that there was nothing which contravened the regulations of the British Government.
  These ships have been attacked, some of them destroyed, some of them on the high seas, and some in ports, and nothing is to be done. The Prime Minister elaborated the theory that they were attacked by aeroplanes flying at a speed of 300 miles an hour and that as the bombs had to be let loose long before they got to their objective you could not assume that the attack was made upon British property and British lives. That is a very disingenuous argument, and I am surprised that the Prime Minister of this country should use it in the face of the facts. He knows perfectly well from the information he has received, some of it elicited and announced in this House by his own Ministers, that the attack was deliberate upon one particular ship. There was first reconnoitring to see where the ship was, and then came the attack in daylight, a quite deliberate attack with a clear definite purpose, on that British ship which was conveying goods to Spain which the Government themselves said was a perfectly legitimate cargo. The aeroplanes came down within 100 feet, they have come down within 300 feet in other cases. It is not a case of bombs being let loose half a mile or a quarter of a mile from the objective, but of the aeroplane hovering over the objective which it had already designated and dropping its bombs with the cruel purpose of destroying that ship and those on board. They have even come down and used machine guns, not for destroying the
  1010
  ship but for destroying the seamen. It is not very straightforward to tell the House of Commons and through the House of Commons the country that it was something in the nature of an accident.
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him. He has accused me of not being straightforward, and of asserting that on account of the speed at which aeroplanes fly and the distance at which bombs have to be loosed you cannot tell whether the attack was made on the ship or on something else. That was not my argument. My argument was in this case that it was not possible to say whether an attack was meant on the ship until the attack was made. The question was whether it was possible to defend a ship by anti-aircraft fire, and I said that we could not defend a ship by anti-aircraft fire unless we were prepared to fire at all aeroplanes.
  Mr. Lloyd George: If that is the case the Prime Minister admits that the attacks made upon these ships in ports were deliberate.
  The Prime Minister: I said so.
  Mr. Lloyd George: That makes it all the more serious, and there is absolutely no excuse of any sort or kind. If the Prime Minister is conscious, knows, that these attacks were deliberately made upon British ships with a view to destroying them and with a view to killing British seamen, there is no excuse at all for not taking strong action. It is quite true that you cannot protect every British citizen who goes recklessly into the zone of action and may happen to be hit by a shell. Nobody pretends that you should immediately take action, that you should have reprisals because someone is killed in those circumstances. I agree. The man is taking his own risk if he does that. But that is not the case here. These are ships chartered to go there, and are going there purposely. As a matter of fact the Italians ascertained that it was a British ship, knowing perfectly well that it was not carrying contraband because there was an observer on board and because they have the guarantee of the British Government that no ship will leave our ports with contraband for Spain. In spite of that it is given no protection of any sort or kind. The Prime Minister says in effect that he protested; that he has sent a series of protests. Has he

  1011
  followed his protests up by any action? The Germans did, and the Italians would have done it if similar outrages had been committed on their ships plying an innocent trade.
  The Government are behaving like a bevy of maiden aunts who have fallen among buccaneers. They just say "Talk nicely to the gentlemen, don't ruffle them," and, above all, "You must not ask impertinent questions about them whatever you do." In fact anybody who does is treated with a sort of vixenish tartness. The Prime Minister says, "Leave it to us, dearie." This is really not the way in which to treat vital interests. Our shipping is the greatest in the world and we are naturally proud of it. It is not merely our interest to protect it; it is our glory. We have always done so until to-day, and for the first time when 30 British ships are attacked, several of them sunk and British sailors killed deliberately by bombers from countries with whom we have been shaking hands, all we do is to utter a futile word of protest, not to the owners of the bombing machines and their pilots, but to Franco.
  What more does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says "Well, if we were to do anything to protect our flag, what could we do?" In the first place, we know exactly where these aeroplanes came from. They came from the Italian camp in the Balearic Islands. We know where they are, and we could bomb those aerodromes until they stopped it. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, but that is war." War with whom? Is it war with Franco? He would not make war. Is it war with Mussolini? Mussolini could not make war without accepting the responsibility for sending aeroplanes to sink British ships. Is he prepared to do that? I do not be-live it; and if he did, well, we should have to stand up to him at last.
  What is the excuse which the right hon. Gentleman has given for this? He says that, after all, it is only ships that are in port. What difference does that make? A ship starts from here to go to its destination. It starts with an honest cargo. It is to deliver that cargo with the consent of the British Government, because the rules have been laid down by the British Government and all these shipowners conform to them. The Chamber of Shipping of London has said so. But some of these
  1012
  ships have been attacked on the high seas. Why was not some action taken about that, because the Admiralty undertook protection for them? The extraordinary answer was given that there was no British man-of-war on the spot. There was plenty of evidence about the attack, there was abundant testimony as to who had done it; but there was no British man-of-war on the spot. A murder is committed—let the murderer off because the police did not happen to be there. Evidence does not matter; it is only if it so happens that a policeman is on the spot at the moment that you prosecute; if not, you do nothing. What an amazing doctrine.
  I am not going to recall Palmerston and say what he would have done. I will not recall Disraeli and say what he would have done; but I know that if Gladstone, Henry Campbell-Bannerman or Asquith had behaved as the right hon. Gentleman has done and delivered the speech which he did in defence of it to-day—I apologise to their memories for that supposition for argumentative purposes—every man on that side of the Committee would have stood up and howled at him. There has been an argument as to what the Government would have done if the position had been reversed, if there had been in Spain an elected government composed of the great aristocrats of Spain, the great financiers of Spain, the great capitalists of Spain, and the rich hierarchy in Spain. Supposing they had been elected, and there had been a Socialist insurrection against them, what would have happened then? The right hon. Gentleman says, "Ah, what would you have done on that side?" I am not responsible for my hon. and right hon. Friends and I do not know what line they would have taken, but I am entitled to say this, that I was against interfering with the Soviets in their own country. I thought it was a bad policy. But if the Soviets had sunk British ships and attacked British vessels on the high seas, I am not the only one among millions in this country who do not belong to the party here, who would have protested with all their hearts and voted against any Government that tolerated it for an hour.
  But the right hon. Gentleman is content with futile protests. I was hoping that he would say that something would be done. As far as I am concerned, I should have taken very strong action if I had

  1013
  been in the position of the right hon. Gentleman. First of all, I would have seen that those aerodromes were bombed until they stopped sending bombing aeroplanes to destroy our ships and drown and mutilate our sailors. A suggestion was made by Vice-Admiral Usborne that a Franco ship should be destroyed in retaliation.…
  Mr. Crossley: That was not Vice-Admiral Usborne's conclusion.
  Mr. Lloyd George: Vice-Admiral Usborne threw out several tentative suggestions. That was one out of many that he made.
  Mr. Crossley: That was not Vice-Admiral Usborne's conclusion, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the conclusions of that letter in the "Sunday Times," which I read very carefully.
  Mr. Lloyd George: I read it carefully not merely once but two or three times. I assure the Committee that Vice-Admiral Usborne threw out several tentative suggestions. The one which I have mentioned was among them, and I entirely agree with it. That the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say. It is perfectly legitimate to do that if our ships are being attacked. What does the right hon. Gentleman do? He does nothing. The fact of the matter is that from the moment the right hon. Gentleman rejected the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the late Foreign Secretary, a wise and far-seeing suggestion that we should first of all clear up the situation with Mussolini before coming to any pact, he was hopelessly entangled. Any sensible man would have known that it was a dangerous thing to come to terms with a man who is committed to the conquest of Spain for his own avowed purpose and policy of establishing a Fascist regime by force of arms. It was a fatal thing to do without clearing up the situation beforehand. That was the very sagacious advice which the right hon. Gentleman the late Foreign Secretary gave to the Prime Minister.
  What has been the result? The result of his not accepting that good counsel has been that he has placed himself in a position where his own personal reputation is in conflict with the interests of the British Empire. He is now involved in
  1014
  making that Anglo-Italian Pact a success. He is driven from one position to another in doing so and with a stubbornness which, as I once reminded him, is one of his most notable characteristics, he sticks to it, although it is quite clear that he took the wrong course. He is now involved in a position where he cannot even protect vital British interests without endangering an agreement upon the success of which his personal repute depends. I cannot conceive a worse position for any statesman, especially an obstinate one, to put himself into. Since the right hon. Gentleman first of all differed from him, and since his resignation, no one can deny that things have got worse. I think within a few days after the Pact was signed, Austria was invaded. The situation in Eastern Europe has become more and more tense. The one thing that saved Czechoslovakia from the fate of Austria was the fact that they did not follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman and make merely futile protests, but mobilised their Army. In the third place, since the right hon. Gentleman's resignation, more and more British ships have been attacked, openly, with impunity, deliberately, in broad daylight. They have been encouraged by these fatuous protests which the Prime Minister is content to make.
  See what he has done in the last few days. Non-intervention involves fair administration, but he cannot treat both parties alike. As a matter of fact, the rebels had something like seven to one in aeroplanes and far greater odds in heavy artillery. They had organised divisions of the Italian Army invading the country. There was nothing of that kind on the other side. During that interval the disparity between the forces was met up to a certain point, and the victory which seemed to be imminent for the insurgent forces was suddenly checked. Now I see in a paper which supports the right hon. Gentleman that France has closed her frontiers at Mr. Chamberlain's request. Was there any request to Portugal to close her wider frontier, through which overwhelming munitions and material of war have been poured in to the insurgent forces? Has he seen that nothing is coming in through Cadiz and the Northern Ports? No. The whole of his intervention has been to give the Government forces no opportunity to

  1015
  defend themselves against their deadly foes who are destroying their cities and killing their civilians, men, women and children.
  I am sorry for the position that France has been put into, France with her noble tradition of always going to the help of nations fighting for liberty, for right and for independence. The French people have made great sacrifices for that. No country in Europe has made greater. On the other hand, you have the opposition there of all the organised forces of society, of business and of the hierarchy. We have had the spectacle of one French Government after another alternating between the impulse of a fretful conscience and the beating of a faint heart; and the decisive word in each case came from the British Government. We intervened to prevent the sending of material to help the Basques, who had not a single anti-aircraft gun to defend their towns. We have intervened again and the Prime Minister has put himself in a position where the only thing that will redeem his reputation for foresight in entering headlong, against the best advice, into this Italian agreement is, I will not say a Franco victory, because it would not be a Franco victory, but a German and Italian victory.
  I am quite conscious that we are divided in our sympathies. There are very good friends of mine who have taken the Franco side from the start, though I do not know that they are quite as zealous about it now as they were. There are also a great many friends of mine who have taken the other side. But, apart altogether from these sympathies, there are deep British interests involved in this struggle and the Prime Minister is completely ignoring them in his calculations. Even if you withdrew every volunteer and every gun on the other side, Franco could not win without the German and Italian aeroplanes, the great organised forces of Italy and the still more potent intelligence of the Germans.
  What is the position now? First of all, the Germans have fortified the Northern ports. They have built aerodromes overlooking the Bay of Biscay, our high road to the Southern Atlantic and to the Mediterranean and vital to France. They have planted heavy artillery on both sides of the Straits of
  1016
  Gibraltar and the harbour of Gibraltar will be under the fire of those guns. There are Italian aerodromes in the Balearic Islands, on the sea route between France and her African Empire, and on our communications with Southern France. The Germans have a lien on the valuable mineral resources of Spain. Formerly they were largely in our hands. They have captured the shipping and other trades for most of the ports—for all the ports except the Republican ports—and they are destroying our ships there so that our trade in those ports should go as well. Yet the Prime Minister says, "Well I cannot interfere; I can only write letters and notes."
  They are doing another thing that is much more vital in the contingencies of the future. The Germans and Italians are establishing a government in the most strategic peninsula on the high seas of the world—Spain. Every great soldier has realised that, from Hannibal and Caesar to Napoleon. Wellington and Castlereagh knew it. It is one of the most vital strategic peninsulas in the world. It will have a government established by them—a government that cannot exist without their support. Mussolini says, "I am not going to annex Spain; I am not going to keep any of the territory of Spain." Why should he? You will have three Fascist countries—the most formidable triple alliance in the world. There will be three Fascist countries, and the Fascist government in Spain will depend for its very life on the support of the other two.
  Have you ever calculated what that would mean if there were a war? The right hon. Gentleman says there must not be a war. We will all say that. But why are you spending £2,000,000,000 upon rearmament unless you think that war may come and you want to be ready for it? Against whom are you building your aeroplanes and your ships and your forces? Not against France; not against Russia; and, as far as I can see, not against Japan. Against whom are you building? Well, everybody knows that, just as in the time before 1914 when we had the great competition in dreadnoughts, you are building against the menace of regenerated militarism in Central Europe. They, of course, are preparing too. They are establishing themselves in this vital position and they

  1017
  have captured it without the loss of as many men as they lost in a single day's skirmish in the Great War.
  What a Government! In an Empire with interests in every corner of the globe it is essential to us that we should have free access to other parts of the world and that we should not be kept under the same kind of peril as we were subjected to before by the submarine. It is a peril which has been doubled, trebled, aye, made a hundredfold more terrible, as these bombing aeroplanes prove. Yet we have allowed this to go on and the only answer is a speech like that which we heard to-day. What a declaration! The right hon. Gentleman says he wants peace and that he is working for all-round peace. That is not an original idea. Everybody has said that, and meant it. The only thing that is original is the way in which he has set about doing it. That a statesman who is at the head of affairs in this country should say that he is working for peace as his objective—that is a noble ideal. That he should persevere in it against every obstacle, makes it all the more commendable. But if, in pursuit of that high aim, he takes a wrong course and sticks to that in spite of every warning of fact—that is not statesmanship, it is sheer dunderheadedness.
  9.42 p.m.
  Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: In the very enthusiastic speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) there was one thing of which I think the whole Committee will approve and that was his tribute to France. It is well that one who has borne such a great part in the government of this country should have made some amends for the prolonged attacks he has made upon France for a period lasting 10 years. We were also, I am sure, interested to hear that had my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) still been Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs there would have been no trouble in Austria and further, in that case, something different might have occurred in Czechoslovakia. I venture to submit that to-clay there is a glimmering of hope in the Press of the world that we are approaching a more peaceful state of affairs and I cannot believe that some of the speeches which have been delivered to-day, creating new
  1018
  hostilities where at least there were some tendencies in the direction of better understanding will help forward the peace of the world.
  I do not want to follow the right hon. Gentleman who quoted many witnesses including Vice-Admiral Osborne. I would point out, however, that Vice-Admiral Osborne's article recounted certain things which the British Navy could have done but stated, conclusively, that none of those expedients would be advisable. The right hon. Gentleman has given us one policy and has advocated the pursuit of that policy. He has said definitely that His Majesty's Government ought to bomb the Balearics. That is his definite contribution to the peace of the world.
  Mr. Lloyd George: I did not say "Bomb the Balearics." I said, "Bomb the aerodromes from which these bombers came."
  Sir H. Croft: The right hon. Gentleman would advocate that our country should send our Air Force on a bombing expedition against the Italian aerodromes in the Balearics. I must point out that that has been done frequently, and that many civilians have been killed and wounded in precisely similar bombing attacks on the Balearics, on Palma and Majorca in particular, as he is now advocating. I think no one in this Committee approved of the ruthlessness of the German riposte when one of their ships was threatened and her sailors were injured. Immediately there was a bombardment of the most ruthless character, and now we know that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs approves of that kind of policy. With the whole world at this moment in such a volcanic condition, I cannot help thinking that his speech is the worst service that has ever been paid to the cause of peace. But let the country note.—[Interruption.]—No one has done more to condemn the Communist rule of the other side in Spain than has the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGovern: The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) says that I have condemned the Communist rule in Spain. I have all along stood for the Spanish Government, and I have condemned, not only Russia, but any other Power dominating the internal affairs of Spain.
  Sir H Croft: I must make one other reference to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who said, in reference to the intervention of the Germans in Spain, which we may all deplore, "Why have you allowed it to go on?" May I ask once more how that action could have been stopped without our intervention on the other side? The whole tendency of his speech was that this country should abandon its role of attempting to take as far as possible a neutral attitude, and definitely take sides. I do not believe that that is the desire of the people of this country.
  Now I want to refer to the whole atmosphere of this question. It is very easy for us to get incensed when we see things happening, but it was during the Premiership of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that this country altered its decisions with regard to air warfare, and I would remind him, so strange is the turn of the wheel, that when he was Prime Minister it was the King of Spain who appealed to this country and asked this Government whether he could not intervene in order to try and humanise war between ourselves and Germany at that time. The right hon. Gentleman's War Cabinet, I think it was, received that proposal with great courtesy and expressed the view that they hoped that the point of view might be put before the German people and that something might arise out of it. Then the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee declared this:
  "The day may not be far off when aerial operations, with their devastation of enemy lines and destruction of industrial and populous centres on a vast scale, may become the principal operations of war, to which the older forces, of military and naval operations, may become secondary and subordinate."
  That was admitted at that time by the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee.
  Mr. Lloyd George: What Committee?
  Sir H. Croft: A Committee dealing with air warfare. It was reported, if the right hon. Gentleman wants the reference, in the second report of the Prime Minister's Committee on Air Organisation and Home Defence against Air Raids, dated 17th August, 1917, Appendix II—"The War in the Air." Secondly, he was one of those who stood loyally beside Field-Marshal Foch at that time, and Field-Marshal Foch, when the right hon.
  1020
  Gentleman was contemplating raiding communications, ports, and dockyards in Germany, said this:
  "The bombing air service can, however, in quiet periods act on the morale of the enemy people or against enemy industrial, establishments, which is its secondary function."
  Then we had a list of the objects of such counter warfare:
  "To carry war into Germany by attacking her industry (munition works), commerce economic crises), population (demoralisation)."
  Did the right hon. Gentleman dissent from that policy? I am asking this only in order that we may not be charged with being guilty of hypocrisy. I ask him further if he himself was not the prime mover for an independent Air Force which was to carry out this same kind of function which General Franco, rightly or wrongly, is carrying on in Spain at the present time. Am I not right in saying that the object of this force was to carry the war into Germany by attacking her industry, commerce and population? I would give one more quotation, to show to the Committee what was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman then. His own Minister of Munitions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said:
  "Our air defences should consistently be directed at striking at bases and communications, upon whose structure the fighting power of his armies and his fleets of the sea and of the air depend. Any injury which comes to the civil population from this process of attack must be regarded as incidental and inevitable."
  Why have I mentioned these facts? It is because these are exactly the main criticisms which have been made from these benches to-day against those who are engaged in civil war.
  Duchess of Atholl: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that Germany was not a neutral but a belligerent?
  Mr. Lloyd George: This is a very important point. Let me point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman what was happening at that time. The first attack upon the civilian population by air bombers came from Germany. They attacked London and killed hundreds of people, women and children among others, and we allowed it to go on for a very long time before attempting anything in the nature of reprisals. In the meantime they had declared the indiscriminate sinking of merchant ships.

  1021
  They sank thousands of our sailors and several million tons of our shipping, and these things that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned were in the nature of reprisals, but you cannot say that anything done by British ships to Franco justifies his actions.
  Sir H. Croft: I accept every word that the right hon. Gentleman has said. He is absolutely right, but I do not think that that exonerates him from the fact that when he had seen these terrible things happening against our country, he thought he would go to any extreme to bring the war to an end, to stop the tragedy which was then going on. I want to say one more word with regard to what would happen supposing the calamity of a civil war ever occurred in this country, which God forbid. Not many centuries ago a fellow Welshman of the right hon. Gentleman's, an ancestor of mine, resisted the King in this country for several years, leading the Welsh people successfully, against the duly constituted democratic Government of Great Britain. I am ashamed to think that it went on for so long and was comparatively successful. But supposing you had again such a ghastly state of affairs as a civil war in this country, with Wales, let us say, in the position of Catalonia, and supposing you had 140 Spanish ships absolutely sustaining the life of Wales in that civil war against England, does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that with all that great flotilla of ships entering into Cardiff, Milford Haven, Pembroke, day after day, in the view of England alone keeping that war going, we would not endeavour to inflict any injury that we could upon such ships coming into the territorial waters of this country?
  When the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington was Foreign Secretary, he and his colleagues—it is no good saying there is a change of policy in this respect—from the very first, in the attacks on Santander, Bilbao, and Gijon, all along that coast, definitely stated that if British ships entered those ports, they did so at their own risk. His Majesty's Government have never failed to warn British shipowners. Everyone congratulates British seamen on running blockades and buccaneering and other dangerous pursuits of that kind. We have always been proud of our seamen. Let us remem-
  1022
  ber that this is not the Prime Minister's policy. It has been the policy of this country all through the war. We have told shipowners and their captains that if they enter these ports they do so at their own risk. It may be deplorable, but that must happen if you do not admit that there is a war going on and claim that there is only one Government in Spain. If that is true, then you ought to call for redress from the Government which has not succeeded in maintaining peace in that country.
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. Grenfell: When the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) was referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and to the actions of his family in the gallant little country of Wales, I did not know whether I should feel flattered or not, but I must confess that I feel sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has fallen so badly from grace. We have always been known as a valiant and loyal people, and I am distressed beyond measure to hear an Englishman speak as if the lives of fellow-Englishmen did not matter. If anything came out of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech it was that there were all manner of technicalities which would excuse him from taking responsibility for the lives of his fellow-countrymen. I do not know, where to apportion the responsibility, but it is sad to reflect upon this lack of a common racial pride and mutual responsibility upon which this country's greatness has been largely built. When I say that, I speak as a Welshman who has a dual loyalty in these matters. My pride as a Britisher is not built on the kind of sentiment that is often expressed in this House. It has not been built on the kind of arrogant militaristic sentiment which is expressed from time to time, but on the kind of political accommodation which we manage to maintain in this country where different races are able to live together and where mutual recognition and liberty have been firmly established for some time.
  It is that which gives me racial pride, and it is that which is involved in the question with which we are concerned to-day. We have heard echoes of the Great War, the war that was to end all war. It was the war to establish peace and security for the peoples of the world.

  1023
  I am sure that everybody is disappointed to find that we have now two major wars taking place, one in far off China, a war on a large scale, and one in Spain nearer to our door, and not so far away as the Prime Minister seemed to imply in certain remarks he made. It is not a civil war. It is a war of foreign countries on Spanish soil with large-scale transport of troops from overseas and a new technique of invasion from the air. It is no doubt a war of aggression by outside Powers. That is implied in the term "pact of non-intervention" about which we have listened so much in this House and for which so much credit has been claimed. The object of the non-intervention pact was to restrict intervention. Intervention having taken place with the knowledge of His Majesty's Government, of the French Government, and of people in Europe and throughout the world, it was deemed necessary to introduce a kind of political expedient. This pact of non-intervention became necessary because two large and powerful States were intervening in Spain and sending their troops and war material to destroy the constitutional Government.
  Aggression and non-intervention are the two outstanding features of this controversy to-night. From these two conditions spring the dangers to which the Prime Minister has to come, I am afraid, and which he seems to hold in his mind as justification for doing so many things for which we in this House can find no explanation. Aggression is a fact and non-intervention, instead of being a political fact to carry out its ostensible purpose, has become a farce. It has become a subject for laughter, and if it were not such a tragedy it would be the most ridiculous arrangement that the political life of Europe and the world has witnessed. It is, in fact, not doing anything to prevent intervention. The Germans are in charge of the Spanish rebels. They are directing operations. No one has any doubt on that point. Berlin gives orders to Burgos and Rome sends aeroplanes and cannon fodder. It is done openly with an arrogance that surprises the world in view of the fact that these people have signed their names, with 27 signatories, not to intervene in Spain. The Italian Press claim victories and even publish casualty lists, while Signor
  1024
  Mussolini grants decorations to Italian war heroes in Spain.
  This pretence of non-intervention has been paraded in this House and the farce has been perpetrated by the frequent meetings of the Non-Intervention Committee itself. All the while this greatest of all international crimes goes on. The Prime Minister will say that it is not our intention that it should turn out in this way. Our intentions were good when we joined M. Blum and the French Government, but people have gone to queer places by following good intentions. While we can claim to follow the path of good intentions ourselves, other nations have not followed that path. They have never deviated from their original purpose. Far from having desisted from intervention, it has grown apace and has been increasing. Aeroplanes go by hundreds where before the pact of nonintervention they went singly. If nonintervention had prevented the war from spreading there would have been no war now, but it really was not designed to prevent war from going on in Spain.
  Whatever the Prime Minister may claim for himself, not from the beginning have we joined with sincerity and seriousness in the purpose of maintaining the peace of Europe and non-intervention in Spain. I have been convinced from the beginning, and I am to-day more convinced than ever, that there will be no peace in Europe on the basis of the present alignment of forces in Spain. There cannot be any peace in Europe until we have real non-intervention and restore to the Spanish people their full rights of self-government. This war has continued for two years on Spanish soil in order to satisfy the ambitions of dictators. There is no other object. The welfare of the people of Spain did not require foreign troops to be sent into Spain. The people there were solving their constitutional troubles, were growing up politically, were spreading the benefits of political liberty, and it was intervention which put a stop to all that. We have in Spain the hirelings of dictators who desire to extend their sway. Spain is a stepping-stone to still further acquisitions for Fascism, and Parliament will deceive itself if it thinks otherwise, as we have deceived ourselves when, having put questions to Ministers and having received no adequate replies, we

  1025
  have turned away from facing the realities of this very difficult situation.
  All the time unparalleled brutality has been witnessed in Spain. I saw something of it when I went to Spain with other Members of this House, and that was a long time ago. It is now more than DS months since I was in Spain, but I saw enough then to convince me that it was not civil war in Spain. I saw the foreign 'planes over Madrid, I saw the brutality of the treatment meted out to the people of Spain, but much as I was moved by the sympathy which instinctively arises in one who witnesses such sights I have never allowed even that feeling to prevent me from trying to cast a fair judgment upon events and developments in Spain from time to time.
  I have seen all the weapons of destruction brought to the shores of Spain and landed there. I have a long list in my pocket of war material sent to Spain this year. There has been no halt in the supplies. They have been pouring in constantly. I could give a list of cargoes of men and materials sent to Spain—weapons of destruction on land, at sea and in the air, poured in for the use of those who are seeking to defeat the constitutional Government in Spain, a Government which is just as constitutional as is our own Government. That Government has been attacked by illegal and unscrupulous methods. Our own Government do not seem to have any convictions regarding the rights and wrongs of that struggle.
  I have waited for some pronouncement from the Treasury Bench upon the merits of this Spanish struggle, but not a word has come to us. Ministers seek to be excused, and excuse themselves, and find all sorts of explanations for things which we should condemn as utterly wrong if they happened in our country. If our country were attacked by an outside force the Prime Minister would be the first to call upon me to join hands with him to resist the invader; but the Spanish people who have rallied with such wonderful courage and energy to defend their native land have received scant sympathy from Members on the other side of the House. For our Prime Minister the role of Nero has been reserved by the Italian Government. He is expected to provide slow music for the martyrdom of Spain. We joined with 27 nations in a pact of non-
  1026
  intervention. The first effect of that pact was to stop the Spanish Government from buying arms for its own defence. Nonintervention was meant to cripple and shackle those people who were fighting for freedom, to tie their hands and to prevent them from using their limbs in their own defence. By that pact arms were denied to them, but nothing effective was done to stop Italian and German intervention.
  The Prime Minister said to-day that he disagreed with those who hold that it is right to attack the civil population in order to win a war, and I was glad to hear him say that much. There is much that he left unsaid, but I welcome that statement because the world is witnessing tremendous events. We are embarking upon a new method of warfare, which is being used in Spain because Spain has no influential friends. We can afford to treat Spain shabbily, and so the weapons of destruction from the air have been employed freely. Republican Spain has no friends in the British Government, and it has been left to a few Members on the Opposition benches who are not always moved by party politics but by humanitarian motives to protest on Spain's behalf in this House. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new system of the destruction of human life on a large scale which we may live to regret if it is allowed to grow until it becomes accepted by nations large and small throughout the world. The Prime Minister has said that he deplores it, but he must know that while the pact of non-intervention prevented the Spanish Government from buying antiaircraft guns it did not prevent German and Italian bombing planes being sent to bomb Madrid and the other cities of Spain and though they have been busy at it for nearly two years nothing has been done by the Non-Intervention Committee.
  Now it is the turn of British ships: that is the main subject of discussion to-day. I am glad the issue has been narrowed down. We can apply the touchstone, the test of nationalism to the professions of some hon. Members in this House. They do not mind what is done to Spaniards, because they dislike their politics. Some of those hon. Members have not uttered one word of sympathy for their fellow-countrymen who have been done to death in Spanish ports while following their lawful occasions in the cause of the Spanish people. These people have been murdered at their work. Their ships have been

  1027
  sunk by submarines and by bombs from the air. They have been torpedoed. They have been shelled, although they have not been guilty of the slightest illegality. From the charter which authorised the loading and dispatch of their ships to the last act of delivery there has been no illegality on the part of owners, officers, or crew who served on those vessels, but those people have been shelled day after day, and the shelling goes on at an increasing rate. Indeed, it is the purpose to do so. These people are not bombed by Franco's planes; the Germans and Italians are doing it, taking advantage of our complacency, and of the House of Commons that has been lulled into security by the pact of non-intervention.
  These people are doing a thing that they would not have dared to do had the pact of non-intervention not been signed. The German newspaper, the "Angriff," a few days ago printed this:
  "Every merchant ship which enters the ports of Red Spain must be bombed without mercy."
  That means English ships. There are no other ships. At any rate, the great majority of these ships must be British ships, and this German newspaper says that if they go into the ports of Red Spain they must be bombed without mercy. What is the Government's reply to that? What do they say to the Germans? What do they say to the Italians? These ships are English ships. The Prime Minister told us to-day that they could not be protected. It was dangerous to do so. We did not know the way in which it could be done, because it was risky to attempt to stop it, although these people say that the ships must be bombed without mercy. There is no mercy from any quarter for them; no mercy from that side of the House, and no patriotism to defend these people.
  You tell these people not to go. You told them not to go into Bilbao. They were kept outside. Hon. Gentlemen were not anxious only to save the lives of British seamen; they were more anxious to stop supplies from going into Bilbao. Were they not vocal in this House; did they not raise their voices? Their protest was that they wanted to save the lives of British seamen. The Prime Minister says that they would like these vessels not to go into territorial waters.
  1028
  That means that the Prime Minister of this country has said that these British ships and these seamen must give up their livelihood. They must stay at home, and the ships must lie on the flats and go out of commission, even though work is offered. When a livelihood is offered to these seamen the Prime Minister says: "Let them stay at home. If they go into territorial waters we cannot protect them." In fact, these ships are to give up a few million pounds a year and the livelihood of British sailors.
  It has been charged by the friends of General Franco in this House that those people are getting too much for their services and are being too well paid. I do not know whether it is regarded as wrong of them to ask for an increased reward for facing a greater risk. The risk is there and everybody knows it, but do Britishers, as a nation, say that any risky occupation must be refused by Englishmen in order that they may retain their respectability? Do we say: "Stop our people going underground, because it is dangerous. Therefore, do not let them go underground, because we cannot give them full protection underground. Let them stay on the surface"? Do we say: "Do not let them go to sea at all because they may be drowned, even if they are not torpedoed by General Franco and his friends "? It seems a ridiculous position.
  These people who are told that they must not go to Spanish waters, against whom are they to be warned? From where does the danger come? Is it from Franco? It is not. These people are afraid that they were warned off because Italian and German planes are actively operating off the coast of Spain. British seamen are to be told that unless they choose to stay away the Government cannot give them any protection against planes sent by the Italian and German Governments to destroy them while they are at work. It is an awful plight to which we have come. The Prime Minister said that he was afraid that it might lead to a war. I would ask him: Who would declare war upon us? Suppose we gave protection to these boats and men in Spanish territorial waters and that was deemed objectionable by someone concerned with the military situation in Spain; who is to declare war upon us? Is it General Franco? No, on his life, not General Franco. Is it Italy? Why should

  1029
  Italy declare war upon us for protecting our vessels and our seamen while at work? Is it Germany who is to declare war upon us? Are we to refuse to do our duty by our own people because of a threat of hostilities coming from either Germany or Italy?
  It may be said that we Labour men are great fire-eaters in the House of Commons whenever we wish to criticise the Government, but I do not believe in war; I believe it is the most futile and foolish weakness of mankind, a terrible thing. But if we are to be responsible for the safe custody of our people, what is the use of talking about our prestige or anything else if Germany or Italy is likely to declare war upon us and shift their scene of action, having conquered Spain, as they imagine? I think something should be said about the neglect somewhere in the political life of Europe that has allowed these people to acquire so much arrogance and power. Italy and Germany want Franco to win. Whom do the Government want to win? [HON. MEMBERS: "The same."] Do they? I am 10th to believe it. I do not believe that any intelligent body of people cannot see the danger of a Franco victory from our own standpoint, even if no questions of humanitarianism or anything else beyond the interests of this country were involved. I am amazed at the attitude of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth and hon. Members in other parts of the House to whom I have listened, who appear to have no regard for the consequences of a victory in Spain which would put General Franco in the pocket of Herr Hitler, who would rule over Spain and have full control and command of all the strategic points of advantage which the Spanish peninsula affords.
  The battle is going on, and the Government appear to be content, but I feel sure that, if the House of Commons realised all the implications, if the whole truth were known about this business, Members of the House would want to wash their hands of the whole dirty business of collusion with Italians and Germans who are working for the defeat of the liberties of the Spanish people and for the extension of their power and authority over all free peoples everywhere. We have heard to-day about the receding prospect of a Spanish settlement because of the receding prospect of an
  1030
  end to the war. I would like to know what kind of settlement it is to be. Is it to be a Franco victory? Are we to wait until both sides have spent themselves in fighting, starving and suffering the full effects of all the outrages that have been carried on? Is the war to go on until both sides fall from exhaustion, and are we then to have any voice at all in determining the conditions under which the struggle shall be ended; or are Mussolini and Hitler to be left in full control of the situation? Is it now too late to stop this dangerous farce from ending in a most gruesome and disgusting tragedy?
  I would like the Prime Minister to consider whether this pact of non-intervention, which has been so repeatedly riddled by brutal violations, should not be denounced. Do the Government shrink from denouncing the pact now? What are the alternatives to a continuation of this farce? Is destruction to go on to the bitter end, with laurels for the dictators and a crown of thorns for the Spanish people? Should not the Government at this stage consider making a demand for a prompt withdrawal of foreign arms from Spain? Possibly it might not necessitate an armistice, but it might require an armistice. It may be too difficult now to withdraw from operations all the foreign war material and the large foreign personnel without a stoppage of the whole hostile operations in Spain. It might be that an armistice would be a necessary prelude to the withdrawal of foreign volunteers. Those who have prevented an armistice from being applied, who have made the seas unsafe for the food ships of Government Spain, have obligations. His Majesty's Government have a full share of those obligations.
  I would ask whether His Majesty's Government have thought out in some sequence the steps that might be taken even now to avoid further bloodshed in Spain. It is becoming a horrible thing in contemplation—it is horrible and terrible enough at the present time—to look forward to six or 12 months of mutual extermination, with continual accessions in the quality and volume of war material from foreign countries. The Government have some responsibility. They were part authors of the pact of non-intervention, which has never worked from the beginning. I would like the Government to consider some order of the withdrawal of

  1031
  troops and the question of an armistice, with safeguards and guarantees of mediation. I do not know what is to be the plan: I cannot see it; but something must be done if Spain is to be saved from further disasters. The Spanish people are the victims of the political follies of Europe and ourselves. They are being betrayed in the pact of non-intervention. We should now make good the sufferings and the losses that have been imposed on the people of Spain. The tragedy is being enacted before the unsympathetic eyes of statesmen who profess liberal doctrines. The peace of Europe is further threatened by the illogical consequences of the dishonest policy of non-intervention. We should now make an honest effort at conciliation, in the cause of peace. I use these words as my own. I think there is no shame in ending a nonintervention policy which was never an honest effort, and which has necessitated constant camouflage and deceit. Now we should attempt an honest effort to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of the Spanish people.
  10.24 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): After listening to the speech of the hon. Gentleman I think many of us will have regretted that many of the previous speakers, instead of tending, as I think we all agree they have done, to widen the area of conflict in this House and the world, did not restrict themselves to the more noble path on which the hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks. He concluded on a note which I shall willingly take up, that the policy of the Government should be to make an effort to save peace. That has been, and will remain, the energetic policy of the Government. If I develop that point I think it will be seen that gradually, by degrees, by stages, we are drawing nearer to agreement in many matters. The whole object of our policy has been to widen the area of agreement. Quite apart from its own inherent merits, the Italian Agreement was made in the interests of appeasement in Europe, and it has been made clear to us, from exchanges of view which have naturally taken place between the two Governments, that it is in the interest of both to bring the Agreement into force as soon as possible.
  1032
  The Spanish situation has naturally been discussed, and the House will remember that the Spanish problem remains, as far as the Government is concerned, a precondition for the entry into force of that Agreement. There is no doubt that we are surely—and I am sure that the Committee will agree with me—widening the area of international appeasement in considering the various possibilities not only of eliminating the civil war as a cause of international friction but of bringing it to an end itself. His Majesty's Government regard it as of primary importance to register progress where they can, and I am very glad to be able to tell the Committee to-night of the very distinct progress which has been made on the Non-Intervention Committee during the course of its sitting to-day.
  The hon. Gentleman asked us in his concluding speech to encourage the prompt withdrawal of foreign arms. That is precisely what we are doing. The agreement that was reached to-day on the main provisions of the British plan, as it was discussed on the Non-Intervention Committee, means that we have got a long way nearer to putting that plan into practice for the reimposition of control and the withdrawal of foreign nationals. It is in this international way and by this international effort, whatever the difficulties may have been, that we wish to proceed. It is not, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) tried to make out, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has exerted pressure in such a way as to deprive the Spanish Government of munitions. Our object has been to bring in an international plan to make non-intervention more of a reality than it is at the present time, and to work this international plan not in a one-sided way, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out, but fairly on all sides. Surely, that is an achievement. It has always surprised me that in the great difficulties of this International Committee we should have been confronted throughout by the opposition of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Portugal?"] The whole question of the reimposition of control naturally includes all frontiers, and to that extent our plan is a very great improvement.
  Mr. Lloyd George: This is really rather important. By the intervention of the

  1033
  Government the French frontier has been closed, and I want to know from the hon. Gentleman what has happened with regard to the Portuguese frontier?
  Mr. Butler: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will listen to my remarks. I cannot accept his statement as he has made it, but I can say what the Government have achieved. The Government have achieved, under the able chairmanship of Lord Plymouth, during the course of to-day an agreement on the main provisions of the plan, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, involves the reimposition of control of the land frontiers and the strengthening of the sea observation scheme. It was made difficult because it had not hitherto been possible to reconcile the views held by the Soviet Government with those of other Governments represented on the sub-committee with regard, first of all, to the categories into which the foreign volunteers should he divided; secondly, to the restoration of the observers on the land frontier; and, thirdly, to the strengthening of the sea observation scheme.
  During the past few weeks we have not had an opportunity of acquainting the Committee with the progress that has been made. I am now happy to say that the general progress has culminated in the agreement to-day, which means that there is general agreement on all these subjects. On 2nd June, the representatives of the various Governments concerned, including the Soviet, accepted a proposal put forward by the chairman in regard to the first two points. Those related to the categories into which the foreign volunteers should be divided, and to the restoration of observation on the land frontiers, but this agreement was subject to the condition of the Soviet representative that additional measures acceptable to his Government on the third point, that is, the strengthening of the sea observation scheme, were agreed to by the rest of the committee. The first and second proposals involved, first of all, a division of the volunteers into four classes, those attached to the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, and the civilians. Arrangements, in accordance with which a minimum number of each of these classes will be evacuated in certain set periods, were reached. Secondly, the question to which I have referred, the restoration for a specified period of observers on the land
  1034
  frontiers, was agreed to, simultaneously with the putting into effect of certain agreed measures for strengthening the sea scheme on the date appointed when the counting of volunteers was to begin. That is as far as the committee reached on 2nd June.
  Ever since that date the chairman, Lord Plymouth, with a patience and tenacity to which I have already paid tribute, has been investigating the possibility of strengthening the sea observation scheme by discussion with representatives of the various Governments concerned. As a result of further discussion with representatives of the various Governments, he was able to-day to put forward a fresh proposal, which involves a strengthening of the scheme of observers in the ports to be visited by ships. This proposal, which makes it far more difficult, in fact virtually impossible, for a ship to enter a Spanish port without an observer, or without being observed, has been unanimously accepted to-day.
  Duchess of Atholl: May we know exactly what the proposal is, because there have been one or two different schemes proposed?
  Mr. Butler: If I dealt with the scheme in toto, I should not be able to deal with the points raised by hon. and right hon. Members in the Debate. If the Noble Lady will study the Press communiqué to-morrow she will see the proposal in its general outline. The proposal involves a larger number of observers and a scheme by which an observer who goes in on a ship shall remain in port to observe other ships which may have got through without an observer. The general result of the proposal is that the scheme of observers is much tightened up, and it will be extremely difficult for any boat to get through without being observed.
  Mr. Noel-Baker rose—
  The Chairman: The hon. Member has made his speech, and he must realise that the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House is not obliged to give way.
  Mr. Butler: They have still to consider several points of lesser importance and they have still to reach a decision on the question of the financial provisions and the contributions of the various Governments to the scheme, but it means that in the near future it will be possible to

  1035
  submit a plan to the two contending parties in Spain, and as soon as the acceptance of these parties is notified to the committee, it will be possible to put the plan into operation. After all the difficulties, delays and disappointments I am glad to be able to report this amount of progress.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) raised the question of the unfortunate sad death of the British observing officer on board the "Brisbane" and asked whether it had been reported to the Non-Intervention Committee. At this morning's meeting the chairman expressed their deep regret at the death of this officer. [Interruption.] [An HON. MEMBER: "Who killed him?"] This observer was carrying out an international task and I hope I may be permitted also to express my regret at his death. In order to avoid any possible danger of such an occurrence in the future the sub-committee agreed that, subject to the agreement of the main committee, the two Spanish parties should be requested to allow observing officers to land in ports under their control for the purpose of taking refuge against possible air attack.
  Having now dealt with the progress of the Non-Intervention Committee and their work in the path of peace, which I should have thought would have been accepted by the party opposite, I come to the question of the bombing of ships. I should like to pay a tribute to the clarity and sincerity of the speech of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), who said that we should save ships as we so easily can. Let me examine that statement. If we examine the various remedies proposed by the hon. Member, and even more if we examine the remedies proposed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, we find that the only easy method of saving these ships is by joining in the war, and this view is borne out by an article in to-day's Journal of Commerce and Shipping Telegraph, in which I think the question is put on behalf of a great number of people in the shipping industry:
  "There appears to be only one 'simple' solution, and that is to declare war on General Franco, but one seriously doubts whether the country would rally round any British Government which commenced hostilities purely in
  1036
  answer to an appeal made on behalf of ship owners who send their ships into ports after being warned that the risks they run are their own and are not the responsibility of the British nation."
  I should say that this article expresses, as I am sure the House will wish me to do—I have done so on many occasions—our deep regret at the loss of life which has occurred on board ships undertaking this great risk in Spanish ports. When we come to examine the remedies we find the position is, in fact, as stated in that article. Let me start with the heroic remedies proposed by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs who said he would bomb the aerodromes in the Balearic Isles; he would destroy them, and stand up to Mussolini at last. I should like to ask whether in the words of the statement in that article there is any substantial body of opinion in the country who would stand behind the right hon. Gentleman in any such proposal. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Gallacher: Listen to the rats squealing.
  The Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Butler: I can give the right hon. Gentleman an immediate answer to that question, and that is the decision of the electors of Stafford at the by-election. The right hon. Gentleman quoted a distinguished naval authority in support of another proposal, that every time a British ship was bombed we should destroy one of General Franco's ships. I think it important in this connection to read the further suggestions of this distinguished admiral. At the end of his letter, he said:
  "In the light of this consideration it might be unwise to create a new set of precedents which later would react against us."
  That is exactly the view of His Majesty's Government. He went on, I agree not very warmly, but I am quoting him textually:
  "These considerations make the Government policy of compromise understandable."
  He continued:
  "If Franco will agree to the proposal to allot a part of the harbours, presumably remote from the docks, to neutral shipping, which shall not be attacked there, the danger to British lives will be greatly reduced."
  He concluded by saying:
  "It will be interesting to see whether, should either solution be adopted, British

  1037
  shipping will make use of it, or deliberately accept the risk of being bombed by continuing to unload along side the docks."
  Let us reduce the temper a bit from the heroic, warlike bombing suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman to the more peaceful and normal suggestions of the Government. The writer of that letter, the conclusions of which I have just quoted, says that there is something in this idea of safety zones, and, therefore, I would like to report the small progress that we have made in our energetic examination of this particular matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), in the course of his very interesting speech, raised a point to which we have from the very beginning attached great importance, and that is that the risk to British ships is very much increased by the great delay to which they have to submit while in these harbours. We have found on inquiry that at present British ships have to wait in these harbours as long as 18 days in some cases before unloading can begin. We have, therefore, made inquiries of the Spanish Government as to whether they could suggest any remedies for this delay, and they have informed us that the various Government Departments concerned are examining the possibilities, which I shall now describe.
  They suggest, in the first place, a concentration in the place of dispersal of labour and transport. They suggest the erection of air-raid shelters for the crews and dock labourers close to the ships. They suggest an extension of the hours of work so as to accelerate the unloading of ships while they are in port; and they suggest, finally, the limitation of the size of ships. The local representatives of the shipping companies with whom we have examined these proposals are all in favour of the above suggestions, and we shall therefore pursue them, for what they are worth. We do not claim that they constitute a solution of the problem, but in response to the hon. Member and others who have raised this subject, I would say that we have attached particular importance to this aspect of the question.
  We have also been considering the possibilities of getting agreement on one or more free ports in the territory under the control of this Spanish Government. That suggestion was mentioned in the statement made recently by my right
  1038
  hon. Friend the Prime Minister. At that time, he pointed out the difficulty of not having two ports, one in the Barcelona section and the other in the Valencia section of the country under the control of the Spanish Government. There is no doubt that without two such ports the suggestion loses a lot of its value. We have considered this question, in the first instance, with British shipowners, and we are now in a position, after the discussions which have been going on in the last day or two, to revert to the consideration of this suggestion which, as the Committee will remember, came originally from General Franco. I have not attempted to magnify any success that has been achieved, but it shows that we are making an effort to palliate the difficulties of the situation.
  May I revert to some of the semi-heroic remedies which come in between the right hon. Gentlemen and these? The hon. Member for Norwood suggested that we should escort British merchant vessels through territorial waters up to the entrance of the port. We think that suggestion cannot be distinguished from intervention. The entry of a naval vessel into territorial waters must, according to all the rules of common sense, mean intervention. Moreover, the problem has arisen from the bombing of the ports themselves, and by the mere escort of a vessel to the entrance to the port we should not be likely to give protection. We might even give a false sense of security which, above all, we want to avoid. The hon. Member for Derby suggested that an aircraft carrier should steam up and down outside the three-mile limit so that presumably its aircraft, could attack aeroplanes. I do not want to under-estimate the value of such a suggestion, because every suggestion is worth considering, but the only way that these aircraft could be successful is by taking part in the defence of the ports in question. Moreover, as you cannot tell, when you see an approaching aeroplane, whether or not it intends deliberately to attack a ship—you have no means of divining what is in its mind—to be effective you would not only have to take part in the defence of the port but to attack all oncoming aircraft. We maintain that to use aircraft in that manner cannot be distinguished from intervention in the Spanish war.

  1039
  To sum up what I have been saying, the main issue can be simply stated. There is a war in Spain. Trade in its ports involves great risks. While a strong case can be made out for it being legitimate for British ships to go there on their lawful occasions—
  Sir A. Sinclair: Is it not legitimate?
  Mr. Butler: It is legitimate—we cannot guarantee the safety of those ships without taking part in the war, and that we are not prepared to do. I have been looking round for some adage in which to sum up the difference between our policy and that of the party opposite and I find it in the writing of Smollett as follows:
  "Well hast thou taught me how the piercing eye
  Of calm sagacity excels the dint
  Of headstrong resolution."
  On the opposite side we have the dint of headstrong resolution and here we have the cairn sagacity.
  We have been asked by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Henderson) about the decision of the Government on the subject of the conference at Evian. In March the United States Government asked the British Government whether they would be willing to co-operate in setting up a special committee composed of representatives of a number of Governments for the purpose of facilitating emigration from Germany and Austria. We replied in April that we welcomed this proposal and shared the concern which prompted the United States Government to take this initiative. We told them that we desired to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with a view to giving effect to the United States proposal. A meeting was accordingly convoked to deal with refugees from Germany and Austria and will take place at Evian on 6th July. His Majesty's Government will be represented at this meeting which will be attended by representatives of some 30 other Governments.
  The hon. Member asked me what sort of delegation we were sending. The delegation will be, as he described it, under the Foreign Office and I hope we shall be able to secure the services of some distinguished person of high rank in the public service to represent us. I am afraid I shall not be able to announce the names of the delegation to-night but it may be possible to do so as early as to-morrow.
  1040
  The Committee realise, judging by the number of letters which I have myself received from hon. Members, the seriousness of this problem of refugees from Germany and Austria at the present time. One of the main difficulties of a conference of this sort is, of course, finance. While we have not yet received from the United States Government, for purposes of publication, the agenda for this conference, we know it is proposed that the financing of emergency immigration should be undertaken by private organisations within the respective countries and no country will be expected or asked to receive a greater number of immigrants than is permitted by its present legislation. Those are the general bases of policy to be discussed at this conference. The United Kingdom representatives will receive in due course full instructions from us and, no doubt, the main object of the conference will be to improve and enlarge the facilities for the admission of immigrants to countries of refuge both here and in other parts of the world.
  I think that is the main question on the subject of refugees which was put to me but I know that considerable interest has also been evinced in the House in the present position of Jews in Germany. The latest action in response to the recent decree issued in that country on the subject of Jewish property, is that His Majesty's Government have decided that British interests can best be protected through action designed to secure the narrowest possible application of the decree where they are concerned. With this object in view, His Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to inform the German Government that His Majesty's Government formally claim the right to extend their diplomatic protection to British subjects who under German law, are regarded as Jews, if they are deprived of their property or their liberty as a result of the decree. I would remind the Committee that, in the first place, the decree only demands registration and that it does not necessarily follow that those who register their property will then be deprived of it, as the decree says, "in the interests of German economy." I have taken special care to inform the Committee of the action on which we have decided in the matter.
  To conclude this Debate I think I can safely say that all who interest themselves

  1041
  in foreign policy regard themselves as realists. Hon. Members opposite regard themselves as realists because they say that they will save democracy by intervening in the Spanish War.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—We say that we are realists because we are determined to keep this country out of war and to save peace. It is impossible to save democracy by taking any risks of going to war,
  and the object of our dual policy of international conciliation and national strength, is to save our democracy from War and so to retain it in peace.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £71,043, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 278.

  Division No. 241.]

  AYES.

  [10.59 p.m.

  Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

  Groves, T. E.

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

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)

  Price, M. P.

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

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Adamson, W. M.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

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

  Hardie, Agnes

  Ridley, G.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Riley, B.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Hayday, A.

  Ritson, J.

  Barnes, A. J.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

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

  Batey, J.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Benson, G.

  Hicks, E. G.

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Bevan, A.

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Broad, F. A.

  Hopkin, D.

  Sexton. T. M.

  Bromfield, W.

  Jagger, J.

  Shinwell, E.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Silkin, L.

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

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Buchanan, G.

  John, W.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Burke, W. A.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

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

  Cape, T.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Cassells, T.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

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

  Chater, D.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Lathan, G.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Stephen, C.

  Collindridge, F.

  Leach, W.

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

  Cove, W. G.

  Lee, F.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Leonard, W.

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

  Daggar, G.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Dalton, H.

  Logan, D. G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lunn, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Macdonald. G. (Ince)

  Tinker, J. J.

  Day, H.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Debbie, W.

  McGovern, J.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Maclean, N.

  Walkden, A. G.

  Ede, J. C.

  MacNeill Weir, L.

  Walker, J.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Maxton, J.

  Watson, W. McL.

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

  Milner, Major J.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Frankel, D.

  Montague, F.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Gallacher, W.

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

  Westwood, J.

  Gardner, B. W

  Muff, G.

  White, H. Graham

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

  Nathan, Colonel H. L.

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wilkinson, Ellen

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Green, W. H. (Deptford)

  Owen, Major G.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Paling, W.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Parker, J.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Pearson, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.

  NOES.

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Boulton, W. W.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Bracken, B.

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

  Barrie, Sir C. C.

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

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

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

  Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Aske, Sir R. W.

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

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

  Assheton, R.

  Bait, Sir A. L.

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

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

  Bennett, Sir E. N.

  Bull, B. B.

  Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bernays, R. H.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

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

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Burghley, Lord

  Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Burton, Col, H. W.

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

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Butler, R. A.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Cary, R. A.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Reid, Sir D. D. (Down).

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

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hunloke, H. P.

  Remer, J. R.

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

  Hunter, T.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Channon, H.

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Clarry, Sir Reginald

  James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Clydesdale, Marquess of

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Rowlands, G.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

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

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Russell, Sir Alexander

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

  Keyes, Admiral of the Float Sir R.

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

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

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Salmon, Sir I.

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

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Salt, E. W.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  Latham, Sir P.

  Samuel, M. R. A.

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Crooke, Sir J. S.

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

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

  Lees-Jones, J.

  Scott, Lord William

  Cross, R. H.

  Leigh, Sir J.

  Selley, H. R.

  Crossley, A. C.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Levy, T.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Lewis, O.

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Liddall, W. S.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Dawson, Sir P.

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Simmonds, O. E.

  De la Bère, R.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Denville, Alfred

  Loftus, P. C.

  Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

  Dodd, J. S.

  Lyons, A. M.

  Somervell Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Dower, Major A. V. G.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Drewe, C.

  M'Connell, Sir J.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Spens, W. P.

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Duggan, H. J.

  MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

  Dunglass, Lord

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

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

  Eastwood, J. F.

  McKie, J. H.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Eckersley, P. T.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

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

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Maitland, A.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Ellis, Sir G.

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

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Elliston, Capt. G S.

  Markham, S. F.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Emery, J. F.

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

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

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

  Touche, G. C.

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

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

  Train, Sir J.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Fleminx. E. L.

  Mitchell, H. (Brantford and Chiswisk)

  Turton, R. H.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

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

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Furness, S. N.

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

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Moreing, A. C.

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

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Goldie, N. B.

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

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

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

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Munro, P.

  Watt, Major C. S. Harvie

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Wayland, Sir W. A

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Gretton, Col. Rt Hon. J.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

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

  Grimston, R. V.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

  Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Patrick, C. M.

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

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Peake, O.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Hannon. Sir P. J. H.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Harbord, A.

  Petherick, M.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Pilkington, R.

  Wragg, H.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Porritt, R. W.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Hepworth, J.

  Purbrick, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Raikes, H. V. A. M.

  Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel

  Higgs, W. F.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Kerr.

  Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. Jagger rose—
  It being after Eleven of the Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.
  11.13 p.m.
  Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to move,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Powers) Measure, 1938, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  So far. as I am aware there is no controversial matter in this Motion, and consequently I shall occupy the House for only a moment, though, of course, if more information is required, I shall be very happy to give it. The main purposes of this Bill are two. For the administrative convenience of the Ecclesiastical Commission several anomalies are removed. For instance, there is more than one authority entitled to settle tables of parochiar fees. That is found to be inconvenient, and under this Measure they will all be settled by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with the consent of the Bishop of the diocese concerned. The most important object of this Measure is to enable the Commissioners to do what the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty are already doing for the convenience of incumbents, and that is to pay their stipends in equal quarterly instalments instead of at the time when the dividends, or whatever the payments may happen to be, are received. This is a convenience, but it requires legislation to enable us to do it. By the final Clause there is a removal of the limitation which was fixed in, I think, 1850 on the amount of remuneration which can be paid by the Commissioners to the two paid Church Estates Commissioners. Their responsibilities and labours have increased very largely, and it is proposed that the limitation shall be removed, but Treasury authority will be required for any payment which is made.
  Resolved,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this
  1046
  House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Powers) Measure, 1938, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  11.15 p.m.
  Sir Francis Fremantle: I beg to move,
  "That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parsonages Measure, 1938, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
  The House has before it the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, showing that the object of this Measure is to consolidate and amend the law in regard to the sale, acquisition and erection of parsonages. All proper measures and provisions are made to respect existing rights.
  Sir John Birchall: I beg to second the Motion.
  Sir A. Southby: I have one or two questions to ask with regard to an alteration which is apparently to take place with regard to the consent to the sale of a parsonage. In the district in which I live this question has become rather acute. I understand that in the new Measure the consent of the parochial church council is dispensed with and the sale of a church parsonage is a matter only for the bishop and the incumbent. There is often very strong feeling in localities about the sale of old or historical parsonages. Can the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion tell us why the consent and authority of the parochial church council, who are representative of the laity in the parish, is to be taken away and very old parsonages may be removed against the wishes of the local inhabitants, who may not agree with the views either of the bishop or of the incumbent?
  11.17 p.m.
  Sir F. Fremantle: I remember that there is a definite provision made, by which the parochial church council is to be notified; if the parochial church council does not exist, then the church wardens have to be notified, and their approval and their opinion—I think that is included in the Measure. I say it to-day, but I cannot tell you exactly where it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is in the Bill.
  Sir A. Southby: Can the hon. Gentleman say whereabouts in the Measure it is?
  Sir F. Fremantle: It is in Clause 12 which provides that the powers conferred

  1047
  by this Measure should be exercised in relation to any benefice, and that where there is no parochial church council, as I have said, notice shall be given to the church wardens. [Interruption.] I think it is in Clause 9.
  Mr. McGovern: Postponed till next Wednesday, Sir.
  Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. I suggest that the hon. Member postpone his Motion till to-morrow.
  Sir F. Fremantle: It is in Clause 12 (1)
  11.19 p.m.
  Sir Joseph Nall: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  This matter is of vital importance to many parishes. I have no doubt there is an explanation of the point which has been raised, but it should be made clear on another occasion. It would obviously be improper to proceed with the Motion owing to the lack of information which is at present before the House.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  CHIMNEY SWEEPERS ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

BRITISH ARMY.
  WILLINGDON REPORT.
  WILLINGDON REPORT.
  DECEASED SOLDIER'S ESTATE (PRIVATE G. BAILEY, R.A.M.C.).
  DECEASED SOLDIER'S ESTATE (PRIVATE G. BAILEY, R.A.M.C.).
  VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRES.
  VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRES.
  PERSONNEL (DEFICIT).
  PERSONNEL (DEFICIT).
TERRITORIAL ARMY.
  WOMEN.
  WOMEN.
  BADGE.
  BADGE.
  GERMANY (REFUGEES).
  GERMANY (REFUGEES).
  SPAIN.
  SPAIN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  SLEEPING SICKNESS.
  SLEEPING SICKNESS.
  HOUSING SCHEMES (RECREATION FACILITIES).
  HOUSING SCHEMES (RECREATION FACILITIES).
  LAND ACQUISITION, WYCOMBE.
  LAND ACQUISITION, WYCOMBE.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (STATISTICS).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (STATISTICS).
  DIPHTHERIA.
  DIPHTHERIA.
  PRISON COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
  PRISON COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.
  PRISONERS (POLICE RECORDS).
  PRISONERS (POLICE RECORDS).
  POLICE PENSIONERS.
  POLICE PENSIONERS.
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT (BROADCASTING).
  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT (BROADCASTING).
  SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  INCOME TAX (CHURCH COLLECTIONS).
  INCOME TAX (CHURCH COLLECTIONS).
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY.
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION (FOREIGN ORDERS).
  WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION (FOREIGN ORDERS).
  ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT IN NAVAL HOUSEHOLDS).
  ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT IN NAVAL HOUSEHOLDS).
  PALESTINE.
  PALESTINE.
CIVIL AVIATION.
  AIR ROUTES, GREAT BRITAIN.
  AIR ROUTES, GREAT BRITAIN.
  CROYDON AIRPORT (WIND SLEEVE).
  CROYDON AIRPORT (WIND SLEEVE).
  MUNICIPAL AERODROMES (EXPENDITURE).
  MUNICIPAL AERODROMES (EXPENDITURE).
SCOTLAND.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, GREENOCK.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, GREENOCK.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  POLICE DIVISIONS, GLASGOW.
  POLICE DIVISIONS, GLASGOW.
  CONTRIBUTORY AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  CONTRIBUTORY AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  LAND PURCHASE, KIRKCALDY.
  LAND PURCHASE, KIRKCALDY.
  BRITISH SHIPPING, PACIFIC OCEAN.
  BRITISH SHIPPING, PACIFIC OCEAN.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
STANMORE UNUSED BURIAL GROUND BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
INFANTICIDE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CALNE WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
GATESHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (The EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the object of this small Bill is to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Secretary of State under the Marriages Validity

31
Acts, 1905 and 1924. The Order to be confirmed by the Bill is the normal type of Marriage Provisional Order and, as your Lordships will be aware, the Order has no effect until it has been confirmed by Parliament. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (KEIGHLEY) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

COAL BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
General provisions as to functions of the Commission under Part 1.
2.—(1) The Commission shall not themselves engage in the business of coal-mining or carry on any operations for coal-mining purposes, other than searching and boring for coal, but shall be charged with the duty of controlling and managing the premises acquired by them under this Part of this Act, by granting coal-mining leases and otherwise, in such manner consistently with the provisions of this Act as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
(2) The Board of Trade may give to the Commission general directions as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions under this Part of this Act in relation to matters appearing to the Board to affect the national interest, including all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM) moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:
"(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to exercise their functions as owners of the fee simple in coal and mines of coal and of the property and rights to be acquired by them therewith in such manner as they may think best for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
(2) The Commission shall not themselves engage in the business of coal-mining or carry on any operations for coal-mining purposes, other than searching and boring for coal, but shall grant leases for those purposes:
Provided that the Commission may carry on any operations for those purposes which may be requisite for preserving in good order premises that are not for the time being subject to a coal-mining lease."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment to Clause 2 which stands in my name has been framed to meet the criticisms and objections which some of your Lordships entertained to the original Bill. It is now in different wording. There is a proviso added, to carry out an undertaking given on the last occasion, the proviso being to make it perfectly clear that the Commission may carry on any operations for these purposes which may be requisite for preserving in good order premises that are not for the time being subject to a coal-mining lease. I hope it will not be improper if I say a word with regard to the words which appear at the end of subsection (1). I have formed the opinion, as I am sure have some of your Lordships, that the noble Lords who object to my Amendment on the Paper have expended a considerable part of their lives in promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coal-mining industry, and I confess it seems to me that it must be due to some misunderstanding that noble Lords wish to strike out those words in subsection (1) of my Amendment. The Commission must exercise their functions, and I confess that for my part I am unable to see any better objects to carry out than those which are mentioned at the end of subsection (1). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GAINFORD,LORD GAINFORD, who had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out "in such manner as they think best" in the proposed new subsection (1), said: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has entirely misunderstood my attitude in moving this Amendment. I am grateful to the Government for the way in which they have met the arguments which were directed against the clause as it originally stood. I accept whole-heartedly the words of this Amendment. The only words I take exception to are the words mentioned in my Amendment to the Amendment, namely "in such manner as they may think best," which I should have thought

33
were unnecessary. The point that I want to make is as to whether it was necessary that a Commission of this type should exercise judgment irrespective of the facts which would justify its coming to a conclusion. If the Commission exercise their proper functions in "promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry" nobody would take exception to it, but if you leave in the words "in such manner as they may think best" it means that in addition to their having those powers, to which no one can take exception, they can act upon a prejudice and not upon definite grounds. It is for those reasons that I thought these words might with advantage be deleted from the Bill.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out from ("therewith") in line 4 to ("for") in line 5.—(Lord Gainford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government have done their best to indicate the objects which should animate the Commission in carrying out the very important duties which will be confided to them. It seems obvious that a direction to exercise functions for promoting these objects must imply a discretion as to how the exercise of those functions will best promote the objects in view. Therefore I do not think this Amendment is necessary.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I want to ask the noble Lord on the Woolsack a question with regard to his Amendment, because the wording is different from what it was in the first version of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi moved an Amendment on what was Clause 41 with respect to the Commission when they were considering the making of an order, having regard to the effect of the order, if made, on employment in the district and upon social conditions, and matters of that kind. For the information of the noble Earl the Leader of the House I may say it is to be found in the OFFICIAL. REPORT of May 26, column 628. That Amendment was defeated, but it did receive substantial support, and I gathered from the Government that they would at all events give friendly consideration to what was intended.
34
I see that in the revised form of the subsection now before the House it is provided that it shall be the duty of the Commission to exercise their functions "as they may think best for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry." May I ask if that revised form of words covers the sort of consideration which was implicit in the Amendment which we moved? That Amendment did suggest that they should take into account the amount of employment to be afforded in the coal-mining industry and that if a compulsory order for amalgamation would diminish the employment in the coal-mining industry that fact should be taken into account. Does this revised form of words mean that circumstances of that kind will be taken into account when the Commission exercise their powers "for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry"? I only ask for information because, if it is not taken into account, when we come to the proper clause I should like to bring the matter up in the form of an Amendment.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, perhaps I can answer that question. The Government have considered this matter and they feel that it is not necessary to put it either into this clause or later on in the Bill, for the reason—which I think I stated on the last occasion—that the Provisional Order Committee, both in this House and in another place, would undoubtedly, when there was a question of amalgamation and so on, consider what its effect would be on the number of people employed in the area and whether it would be necessary to close pits. I think there is no question whatever that either House of Parliament would consider that very seriously, and therefore the Department of Mines and my honourable and gallant friend do not feel that it is necessary to put it in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I pointed out that the ground on which this subsection was put into the Bill in another place, as stated by the President of the Board of Trade, was that it would give Parliament an opportunity of raising

35
matters, and it was only required for that purpose. He said he did not think the provision would be exercised. I am informed it is quite unnecessary because at any time it is open to Parliament to raise any question it likes. These words are not necessary for that purpose. Furthermore, they seem to be very bad drafting having regard to what follows in the Amendment that is going to be moved subsequently by the Government. The Bill states in one sentence in Clause 2 that it shall include "all matters affecting the safety of the working of coal." Lord Crawford pointed out on the Committee stage that it was quite absurd to give a Commission of this kind opportunities to deal with matters of safety. Matters of safety, he showed, were regulated under other Statutes, and had to be carried out by the owners of collieries through their mining engineers, who were responsible people.
It is quite absurd to entrust safety to a Commission of this kind who know nothing about underground coal-mining. But if this provision is left in the Bill, and the proviso which is to be moved immediately afterwards by the Lord Chancellor is introduced, that will make it read that
"nothing in this subsection shall be construed as conferring on the Board any power to give a direction in relation to any matter regulated by or under the Coal Mines Act, 1911."
In one sentence, therefore, the Bill will say they are to have power, and in the next sentence that they are not to have power. It seems to me perfectly absurd to try to legislate in that kind of way, making an assertion in one part of the clause and putting in a provision immediately afterwards to say it does not operate. There is no reason whatsoever why this subsection should be in. It is quite superfluous and it has not been found necessary in other Acts of Parliament. When the Electricity Act of 1926 was passed no such provision was put in, and yet any question can be raised in Parliament. As I have said, the words are really superfluous and therefore I beg to move that they be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment which
36
has been moved by my noble friend Lord Gainford. As he has pointed out, the proviso which will be moved presently by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Leader of the House betters the objection which we had before to this subsection in regard to safety; but the Coal Mines Act, 191r, so I am informed, only applies to safety, and there still remains the objection to the Board of Trade being able to give general directions to the Commission. What are the general directions going to be? They may be very objectionable indeed. As the noble Lord has just reminded your Lordships, the Leader of the House told us on the Committee stage that these powers were unlikely to be enforced, but, on the other hand, the noble Earl will be the first to admit that he cannot speak for future Governments and future Administrations. The Mining Association feel very strongly on this point, and after all they are gentlemen highly qualified to voice such objections and to know the technical difficulties which might arise out of words such as these. You are putting in the hands of the Commission powers which landlords have never had, and in granting leases in future they may be able to impose on colliery owners all sorts of restrictions of an impossible nature. They would be able, under the general directions, to say to them, "We will not grant you a lease unless you use mechanical appliances of a most expensive sort"—possibly appliances not at all suitable to that particular pit.
I would really submit to your Lordships that this Coal Commission, constituted as it will be under the definition which comes later on, will not contain persons qualified to give highly technical and highly dangerous directions of this sort. I hope your Lordships will insist either Ripon the removal of this subsection, which appears to us to be quite unnecessary for the proper working of the Act, or else on the redrafting of what, as Lord Gainford has pointed out, is a ridiculously badly drafted subsection.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I should have thought that the reasons my noble friend Lord Dudley has just given to the House were sufficient reasons for the retention of this subsection. He said that the Commission were going to be given powers of all sorts and kinds and

37
that they might do some very extraordinary and dangerous things. The whole object of this clause is to enable matters to be brought before Parliament. Once you bring in a Government Department the Minister responsible can have questions asked of him in either House of Parliament and the whole question can be raised. The whole object of this subsection is that the matter should be able to be brought before Parliament and also that the President of the Board of Trade should be in a position to say, "I do not think it is advisable from the national point of view to start a whole new coalfield, although, no doubt, from the mining industry's point of view it might be advisable because you would be able to get your coal cheaper from these new areas than from those already being worked." The Government consider, and I hope Parliament will agree, that that would be inadvisable from a national point of view for the simple reason that you will throw a whole number of people out of employment; their houses, villages and schools and so on would become unnecessary as they drifted away from the place where they were employed, and that is a matter Parliament would desire to stop.
That is all. That is why the President of the Board of Trade should be able to give general directions to the Coal Commission and he should be cross-examined and have to defend his case in this or the other House of Parliament. That is all that is intended by the whole of this subsection. But the Government realise that in putting in the provision with regard to safety it might perhaps be thought that the Board of Trade were interfering with regard to the safety provisions of the Bill and therefore, to meet the views your Lordships expressed on a former occasion we have put down this proviso so as to limit that question in regard to safety to what your Lordships desire. I hope very much that the two noble Lords will not press this Amendment, because I do not think the provision is going to do any harm and it might safeguard the mining industry from all those dangers expressed by my noble friend Lord Dudley.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I shall not put the House to the trouble of a Division on this point but I think it is possible that the Board of Trade might unduly interfere with the work of a Com-
38
mission in which the Government apparently have little confidence. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as conferring on the Board any power to give a direction in relation to any matter regulated by or under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or by or under any other enactment relating to the control or management of a mine within the meaning of that Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this proviso is proposed to be inserted in order to comply with the promise given on the last occasion and to make it perfectly clear that the Coal Mines Act, 1911, will not be interfered with in any way by the Board of Trade.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Commission to acquire fee simple in coal.
3.—(1) The Commission shall acquire in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act the fee simple in all coal and mines of coal together with such property and rights annexed thereto and such rights to withdraw support as are hereinafter mentioned, subject to such servitudes, restrictive covenants and other matters adversely affecting any of the said coal or mines as are hereinafter mentioned, and subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the retention of interests arising under coal-mining leases or created by working facilities orders.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or created by working facilities orders" and insert "and of certain other interests." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is really consequential upon a very important concession which it is proposed to make by an Amendment standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, and myself in Clause 5, with reference to interests in coal or a mine of coal in or under land formerly copyhold which were preserved to the tenant on enfranchisement. I think that that Amendment on Clause 5 and this Amendment should be taken together. Perhaps the next formal Amendment and the first two formal Amendments on the next page had better be taken with the one I have just mentioned on page 2, line 36.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("or created by working facilities orders") and insert ("and of certain other interests").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to these words "of certain other interests"? He was proposing to allow this Amendment to stand over until he had taken an Amendment to which this Amendment was consequential. I quite understand that, but when he moves the main Amendment to which the anterior Amendment is consequential, would he please explain why he thinks it so desirable that words of this character, "and of certain other interests," should be inserted in the Bill? They are vague and wide and unusual words to insert into an Act of Parliament. I have no doubt that they are intended to refer to what the Bill describes as "retained interests." I fancy that is their intention, but perhaps when the noble and learned Lord speaks to the Amendment he will be good enough to explain why he selects these particular words for insertion here. They do not appear to be entirely appropriate or entirely adequate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I deal with that point now? There are so many points to be dealt with in this Bill that I think I had better do so at once. I think it becomes clear if you go back to the beginning of the clause and to the words "subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the retention of interests arising under coal-mining leases." It is proposed to substitute for the next words "and of certain other interests." You have only got to read this part of this Bill and to go back again to the beginning to see what it is which is stated to be retained. In other words, if you read the Bill and the sentences together it is only a statement calling your attention to the fact that not only do you retain certain interests under coal-mining leases but you retain certain other things which are going to be made perfectly clear in the Amendments, if they are carried, which I propose to move in a minute. I think if the noble Lord thinks it over he will agree that that is a satisfactory explanation.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I have not quite followed all the procedure in your Lordships' House during the short
40
time that I have been here, but I rather think with great respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that we cannot pass over the Amendment on page 2, line 36. We have to save it in some way if I might respectfully put that position to the noble and learned Lord.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I bow to the better knowledge of certain other people with regard to the procedure of this House. Therefore I am willing to explain the page 2, line 36 Amendment, and in order to do so to explain at the same time what is the real meaning of this Amendment. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that when the matter was before you previously, the Government took the view with regard to minerals under the land that it would be better to treat them logically in just the same way as other minerals are treated, and to allow an interest in these copyhold minerals to be acquired by the Commission and to be treated just as if they were an interest under the leasehold land. Some of your Lordships thought that would occasion very great difficulty. There was an Amendment down on the last occasion and certain considerations have been put before members of the Government. I may say that these considerations have had very careful consideration and that the Government have come to the conclusion that the wiser course will be to treat copyhold minerals, in so far as they are not cases where the copyholder has the right to work coal in or under the land, as being retained interests so that the Commission will not acquire those rights at all.
I think it is my duty to tell your Lordships shortly why that change of opinion, and, if I may, why that not insubstantial concession is now being made on behalf of the Government. I shall do it as shortly as I can. Perhaps your Lordships are aware that copyholds no longer exist, but that the enfranchisement of all the copyholds in the land left the rights of the lord of the manor and of the tenants who mine the minerals quite untouched. Apart from special customs in regard to the property in the minerals, as I explained before, the right was in the lord of the manor, and the right of possession was in the tenant and still is apart from certain customs, but the result of the right of possession of the land in the copyholder extended downwards, with the

41
result that the interest of the copyholder in minerals has been regarded in some at least of the authorities on this difficult matter as amounting to an estate in the land. Although apart from custom he cannot take the minerals, which are not his, he is supposed to be in possession of them in right of some interest.
The result was, until the passing of the Mines Facilities Act, 1923, that except in the case of agreement or except in the case where there was a special custom neither the tenant nor the lord of the manor could work and get the minerals at all. If that had been universal it would be still possible to deal with the problem which arose, but unfortunately there are special customs in various parts of the country which are exceedingly diverse. There are customs under which the lord of the minor may be entitled to get the minerals without the consent of his tenant. There are customs under which the property in the minerals is vested in the tenant. Finally, the lord of the manor may have a special and limited right to work and get the minerals without the consent of the tenant. So there is no hard and fast way in which you can divide up the position of the tenant and say that he has got an interest in the normal case or in all cases which ought to be the subject of valuation and which ought to pass to the Commission. That is the general position as regards minerals.
When we came to deal with the present Bill it was found there was this difficulty. There is a difficulty with regard to justice, which seemed to require the Government to make a concession to the mineral owners. It was this, that there are cases—it is difficult to express any opinion as to how many, but undoubtedly there are cases—where lump sums have been paid by colliery companies to copy-holders, which lump sums have never been included in the global income and therefore form no part of the global sum which has to be divided. These lump sums were partly for the purpose of enabling coalowners to get the coal, partly to enable them to let down the surface and partly to enable them to work under the soil of the copyholding tenant. In other words, there are three separate items. Then there are cases where royalty payments have been made by colliery companies to copyholders. Therefore you get this difficulty, that the
42
royalty payment to the copyholder (say, for the purpose of simplicity, twopence a ton) is paid partly for the right to let down, partly for the right to create underground workings, wayleaves underground, and partly in respect of the copy-holder's interest in the coal. For the purposes of registration under Section 2 of the Registration Act—everybody has to comply with it who requires compensation—it would be necessary separately to register the rights in respect of the coal and the rights in respect of the power to let down.
That will raise, I regret to say, enormous legal difficulties. It might require a very large number of costly and protracted actions before you could ascertain what it was that had to be registered as passing to the Commission for the global figure, and what it was that did not pass to the Commission but had to be paid for separately. The actions in question might involve a great deal of delay, because not only, as I can tell your Lordships from experience, would they be difficult actions in many respects, but they would involve the customs of the manor, and as soon as you deal with proceedings in which customs of the manor have to be ascertained, you may have to embark on an inquiry which may require months of investigations before the case comes on and many days of hearing when it does come on. The result would be, as the Bill stands, that an inquiry into all these matters might involve a great deal of delay as well as a very great deal of cost which ultimately would have to be paid by the Commission under the terms of Clause 34 (2) of the Bill as it stands. The result of this might be that the vesting date, which under Clause 3 (2) is now a date which may be extended, might be considerably prolonged, and the delay in the opinion of His Majesty's Government might be very serious.
The Government have come to the conclusion, as regards the copyhold minerals other than those which are possessed by copyholders who have a right to work apart from the consent of the landlord, that these copyhold minerals had better be reserved so that they do not any longer make a claim against the global figure and so that there is in effect a windfall—it may be large or it may be small, I will express no opinion about that—to those coal-owners who are not in that position and

43
who have a right to share in the £66,000,000. I think it is just as well to put a pleasant face on something which may be a little bit distasteful to those who have to propose this Amendment, and so I will say that I think that a good many people will have reason to be pleased—namely, the coalowners who are going to get some benefit from this—that the copyholders are not going to be injured, that the proceedings before the Valuation Committee will not be delayed, and finally that the Coal Commission will be spared payment of a very large and unknown amount of costs by the step which the Government are taking.
I am not technically entitled to refer to the Amendment to Clause 5, but that explains why the words "created by working facilities orders" on page 2, line 36, are not sufficient. We suggest instead that the words "certain other interests" are sufficient to show what is meant, because the retentions will be retentions of interests arising under coal-mining leases, those created by working facilities orders, and one or two other small matters.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, there are certain matters to which I would like to refer in dealing with this question, but before doing so I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord very much indeed for the very great personal trouble which I know that he has taken in connection with this matter. This is not a question of bargaining, but a mere question of justice, which has given a certain amount of difficulty in working out, and I congratulate the Government upon having come to their conclusion. I had an Amendment down myself which dealt with the matter in a slightly different way. This Amendment of the Government deals with the matter in an admirable way, but has not quite the same symmetry as mine, and, of course, if I am not satisfied in regard to certain points—I understand a certain amount of investigation is going on—I want to reserve my right to raise those points on the Third Reading. There is a question also of a possible dealing with disputes raised under my Amendment, but in view of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord I will not deal with the matter now, and I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, speaking as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for dealing with this point. I am quite sure that it will give great satisfaction. There is just one question which I would like to mention, and that is the determining of legal rights by reference to the Courts. I would like to know if that question will be dealt with.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask another question? Having regard to what I understand will be the effect of this Amendment, the global figure will, of course, be available to pay so much more for the other coal which will be acquired. Therefore, I can quite understand that those who share out of the global figure will naturally be rather happy at this concession, because the global figure will not be distributed over quite so much coal. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us what percentage of the coal he expects will be automatically, by this Amendment, excluded from transfer to the Commission?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, might I perhaps emphasize the importance of that question? The noble and learned Lord said he could not state what the amount involved would be, but can the Government give us any indication at all of the kind of proportion this bears to the whole coal of the country. Is it a question of one million, or half a million, or five millions? It is important in future discussions of this matter that we should be able to form an estimate of the proportion that this hears to the whole.
LORD CROMWELL: Would it be right to say that it does not refer to coal at all, but only to certain rights over the working of coal? If so, it is a question which was never considered by the Greene Committee at all, and therefore not valued.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may reply to the last speaker first, so far as I remember it is not coal in the true sense, but it is a right in coal and accordingly that right is an interest in coal which ought under the Bill as it originally stood to have been separated from other rights and valued, a matter which would have taken a great deal of time. Then I am asked how much difference this makes to the Bill. As

45
your Lordships will readily understand, the Government have tried very hard to get some estimate as to how much is going to be given up, what value of windfall to the other coalowners is involved. I have great difficulty in answering the question, because nothing definite can be stated, but it is fair to state that according to the opinion of those best entitled to form one on this matter the sum is not a very substantial one, and is quite small as compared with the global figure of £66,000,000.
But, your Lordships will remember this. If the matter were strictly considered, all the lump sum payments ought to be accounted for. Then you have to consider the royalty payments which have been made in a rather generous way to the copyholders—namely, twopence as compared with sixpence. That twopence does not represent what is being given up by this Amendment, because the twopence should include the right to let down and make underground workings, and in no case does it include coal property so called, but such rights as the copyholder has to prevent coal being worked, because it happens to be in his possession. So the figure in question, if it could be ascertained, would to some extent, indeed to a considerable extent, be done by ascertainment of how much the twopence per ton paid to these copy-holders ought to be attributed to a right in the coal, and that sum, as I am advised, would not be a very substantial one. Much as I regret it I am not able to give any close approximation of the figure, but I am satisfied that the Amendment in my name is one which is in the true interest of the public, and which ought to be accepted. With regard to the remarks of Lord Daryngton, I am very glad to have been able to afford some assistance to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and I welcome what has been said on their behalf.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I on behalf of my noble friend Lord Addison make it clear that we are not asking for the amount of money involved, but is it possible to give any estimate of the amount of the interests in coal involved?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I do not think it is possible to do that. The amounts are very small indeed. Very often the claims of the copyholders
46
amount to what I may call a nuisance value to those working in the colliery, in that they cannot get through underneath the copyholder's land in order to get the coal which lies beyond it. Therefore I understand that a good many of these payments are really a charge made on the passageway under the surface. The amount of coal which comes under this clause is so small that, as I understand it, the State would probably lose more in having to take all these cases to Court and pay the costs than they would do by actually meeting these claims.
LORD ADDISON: Then would this make it impossible to drive a passageway under the copyholder's land?
EARL STANHOPE: It would be bought under the retained interests, which would be bought outside the global figure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I add that, as regards the question of underground roads, that is covered by Clause 16 of the Bill?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the next is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("as") and insert ("which").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Retention of leasehold, etc., interests carrying right to work.
(4) A right to work granted by an order of the Railway and Canal Commission under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, either as originally enacted or as extended by Section thirteen of the Mining Industry Act, 1926 (in this Act referred to as a "working facilities order"), shall, in so far as it creates an interest in any coal or mine of coal, be a retained interest.
(6) In this Part of this Act—
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved an Amendment to make subsection (4) read as follows:
"A right to work granted by a working facilities order shall, in so far as it creates an interest in any coal or mine of coal, be retained interest."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment. It takes out words from this clause and puts them into the definition clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, leave out from ("by") to ("shall") in line 35, and insert ("a working facilities order").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords the next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line a, leave out ("mine or coal") and insert ("coal or mine").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"(6) Interests in coal or a mine of coal in or under land formerly copyhold which were preserved to the tenant on the enfranchisement thereof shall be retained interests, except in a case in which the tenant has, by custom or otherwise (except by virtue of a coal-mining lease), the right to work coal in or under the land without the licence of the lord."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, the reason for which I have already explained.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (6):
"(c) references to a retained copyhold interest shall he construed as references to an interest that is a retained interest by virtue of subsection (6) of this section."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this paragraph is consequential on the clause which your Lordships have already agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Compensation payable in respect of acquisition as a whole.
(4) The Central Valuation Board established under the Third Schedule to this Act shall prepare and deposit with the Board of Trade a map showing a division of the whole of Great Britain into regions (in this Act referred to as "valuation regions"), and shall allocate a part (in this Act referred to as a "regional allocation") of the said sum of sixty-six million, four hundred and fifty thousand pounds to each valuation region.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN had given Notice of two Amendments in subsection (4)—namely, to leave out "a" ["allocate a part"] and insert "such," and to add to the subsection the words "as they may estimate to bear the same relation to this said sum as the value of the fee simple of the coal and mines of coal in the said region bears to the value of the fee simple of all the coal and mines of coal acquired under this Act." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I raised this question in a somewhat different form on the Committee stage. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said he thought it was a matter mainly for the decision of the House, and that it might be considered further on the Report stage. I can explain the point very briefly. In subsection (4) of Clause 6 you will see that the Central Valuation Board established under the Third Schedule to this Act is instructed to allocate a part of the £66,450,000 to each valuation region, but there is nothing in the Bill which states the principle upon which it shall make that allocation. There is nothing to prevent its allocating for one reason and £66,000,000 for another, and I think it ought to be clearly defined in the Bill what are the principles upon which the £66,000,000 should be distributed among the various regions.
It seems to me quite clear that the principle upon which the sum should be distributed should be the relative value of the coal, as ascertained by the valuation authority in each region, and the relation which that valuation bears to the £66,000,000. If the total regional valuations amount to, say, £100,000,000 or £120,000,000, then each region should get approximately 10s. in the pound of its valuation. At any rate the only principle of justice is that each region should get its fair proportionate amount of the total. This Amendment is put down in order to secure that that principle is adopted. I believe the Government are not unfriendly to that proposal, although they propose a somewhat different form of words, and in that confident expectation I move the Amendments which stand in my name.
Amendments moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("a") and insert ("such").
Page 7, line 15, at end insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am not at all sure that what the noble

49
Marquess says is not probably correct, and if it would meet his point I should be prepared to move two manuscript Amendments. The first would be at page 7, line 12, to leave out from "allocate" to "to" in line 15, and the second would be in line 15, at the end insert:
"a part (in this Act referred to as a 'regional allocation') of the said sum of sixty-six million, four hundred and fifty thousand pounds, being a part bearing the same proportion to the whole of that sum as they may estimate the value of all principal coal hereditaments in the region to hear to the value of all principal coal hereditaments in Great Britain."
If my noble friend will withdraw the Amendments which stand in his name I shall be prepared to move the two which I have read out.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, if the Government are of the opinion that they are making a concession in this matter I hope they will disillusion themselves immediately. The Bill gives to the Central Valuation Board absolute, dictatorial powers in the matter of the division as between one region and another. There is no indication in the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Lothian has said, as to how that division shall be made, and the Amendments proposed by my noble friend and, with modifications, accepted by His Majesty's Government, still have in them the most unreasonable words, which are "as they may estimate." That does not take away the dictatorial powers of the Central Valuation Board at all. Any reasonable man knows—it requires no explanation—that there is no real method of ascertaining the proper proportion which should go to one region or to another region until the actual valuations in those regions have been completed. There is no other means of making a true estimation for the reason that when the global figure, which has been the subject of so much adverse comment, was agreed it was taken as being the average of the net rents which had been received by royalty owners over a period of years. There was no estimation then of the value of the undeveloped coal.
It is quite true that when it was agreed that a certain number of years' purchase should be applied to that original global figure, it was assumed that the undeveloped coal was included by reason of the fast that, of course, coal now in work would be to some extent worked out. But
50
there was no exact means of ascertaining what was the value of the undeveloped coal, and undeveloped coal cannot be known as to its value until, in fact, it has been valued. Consequently when this Valuation Board is required under the Bill to apportion the £66,000,000 as between regions it is bound to do so very largely in the dark. The Central Valuation Board is to consist of persons nominated by the Board of Trade and equipped with dictatorial powers to compel each region to accept whatever figure they think proper to allot to that region. The regions are not unlikely to object strenuously to that allocation, partly because they will consider that their coalfield is worth more than the sum allotted to it and partly because, of necessity, they cannot be acquainted with the value of other coalfields. None the less the Central Valuation Board are to have this arbitrary authority to force on a region such figure as they may consider adequate to the occasion. There was not in the Pill, until this particular Amendment was accepted, any provision to compel the Central Valuation Board to sub-divide the whole of the £66,000,000.
That absurdity is got rid of by the partial acceptance of my noble friend's Amendment, but there still remains this objectionable feature, that the Central Valuation Board are to have the power to estimate upon a certain basis how these regions shall receive their allocation. It is one of the worst parts of the Bill. It is one of the most foolish and futile parts of the Bill, and Parliament ought not to pass a Bill which contains such a complete futility. The Central Valuation Board are asked to perform the impossible. They are driven back upon the exercise of arbitrary powers with no indication as to how they can exercise them. I do not think I can put the matter more strongly than that, but, naturally, we are not anxious to make the fools of ourselves that this Bill requires us to do in respect of the lack of instruction to the Central Valuation Board. That is not a fair thing to ask Parliament to do.
Although my noble friend's Amendment does to some extent improve a ridiculous situation, it does not improve it to the extent that it ought to improve it on the action of His Majesty's Government themselves. It is not really possible for the Central Valuation Board to

51
allocate to the regions the sums it is fair the regions should receive until the valuations themselves are complete. That may be, of course, a very long period of time, as the regions have got themselves to be created. It would be better, when the regions have been set out, that the allocation should wait until the Central Valuation Board have at least some indication as to the respective values of the different regions. I should personally be quite prepared to accept as a sop, if I can put it no better, the Amendment to the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, but to suggest that it is a concession, or to suppose it is sufficient, is really to ask the House to believe that which is hardly accurate. I can raise no further objection to the Amendment which Lord Munster has proposed, but do not let him think for a moment that I and those who act with me are satisfied it meets the case we presented before and possibly may have occasion to present again when it comes to the Third Reading.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I only rise to say this, that the noble Lord will recollect that in the Memorandum which was sent to the Mines Department by the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee, and which was published, I think, at the beginning of last year, the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee themselves recommended that there should be a global figure, and that that global figure should be divided up between the various regions in the country.
LORD HASTINGS: Exactly, quite so; but I do not think it is proper that the noble Earl should confront noble Lords in this House with what the Mineral Owners Joint Committee decided or did not decide. The noble Earl is dealing here with noble Lords who have not, of necessity, any connection with the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee at all. He has got to satisfy this House that toe proposals in this Bill are sound, and that they are going to make themselves into a proper Act of Parliament, and it is net proper for him to suggest that this, that, or the other has been agreed to by the Mineral Owners' joint Committee, who have no influence over this House and should not have.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, will the noble Earl be so good
52
as to repeat the two Amendments to my noble friend's Amendment? I would like to understand them before they are put.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendments, by leave of the House, are as follows:
Page 7, line 12, leave out from "allocate" to "to" in line 15.
Page 7, line 15, at end insert "a part (in this Act referred to as a 'regional allocation') of the said sum of sixty-six million, four hundred and fifty thousand pounds, being a part bearing the same proportion to the whole of that sum as they may estimate the value of all principal coal hereditaments in the region to bear to the value of all principal coal hereditaments in Great Britain."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have only got one suggestion to make. For my part I should be very happy to accept those words subject to one slight alteration. The effect of my alteration would be to omit the words "they may estimate," so that the Amendment would then read:
"being a part hearing the same proportion to the whole of that sum as the value of all principal coal hereditaments in the region bears to the value of all principal coal hereditaments in Great Britain."
If the Government will agree to that I shall he very happy to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I should like to add my voice to what has been urged by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The Government have in their form of words accepted the principle that the regions should have allocated to each of them the proportional sum which their particular valuation bears to the whole. Now once that principle is accepted, as obviously it has been, surely it should not depend upon estimate at all but should depend upon the actual facts. I would beg the Government to abandon the phraseology which they have adopted in the noble Marquess's Amendment—namely, the phraseology about the estimation—and give us the plain relation of the regional valuation to the global whole.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the noble Viscount opposite seems to think the Government have made a great concession over this. We felt it was always in the Bill; at any rate the intention was in the Bill. All that has happened now is that

53
the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, thought it should be made clearer, and the Government have agreed. Therefore, in order to make the matter clearer, we suggest that these words should be put into the Bill. It was always the intention this should be done in this way. We are unable to accept the proposed Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh because, obviously, this must be a question of estimation. As I suggested on a previous occasion, valuers in one area may take a different standard from the valuers in another area; therefore it is necessary that the Central Board should have to take those matters into consideration and make their estimate as to what those various values should be. You cannot take one particular area and say, as its figure amounts to, say, £20,000,000 and that is twice the sum which will be available, therefore we will give them £10,000,000; because someone else might have valued on a much lower scale. Therefore it would not be fair to divide that particular valuation by two. We feel that it is necessary to take the whole of these matters into consideration, and to leave the words as they are in the proposal which is now before the House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I can only speak again by leave of the House. May I in one word suggest to the noble Earl that, in view of the fact that your Lordships' House has already decided that the vesting date is not now to take effect until all the regional valuations are completed, there can be no objection whatever to leaving out the estimation, and relying on a question of fact.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I would suggest that we accept the Amendment proposed by the Government to my words. I think it is purely a verbal Amendment; the effect is just the same. I think the point raised by Lord Balfour of Burleigh is a good one, and might possibly be considered on Third Reading. But, as I take it, the effect is this. The Central Valuation Board is a valuation board. It has got to discharge its function according to the accepted principles of mineral valuation, and it is so constituted as to give it that duty. It is constituted of one independent person, a member of the legal profession, who has to determine the award, and of two other independent persons, and, in respect of each valuation region, one person who
54
has been engaged in mineral valuation in that region and has a knowledge of coal-mining and has had experience in the valuation of minerals. It will, therefore, have a majority of expert mineral valuers upon it, and it is called upon to give an estimate. Perhaps "estimate" is a bad word, but it is, I take it, a decision in their professional capacity that they will give. They will state what in their view the valuation of each of the coal hereditaments in each region is as compared with the total coal in the whole country. That is the effect of this Amendment.
From that point of view I think it clearly defines what I understand is the intention of the Government, and I am, therefore, very willing to accept the Amendment proposed, though possibly on Third Reading the actual use of the word "estimate" might be reconsidered if it is thought that it does not have the effect which I think it does have. My view is that the word "estimate" in relation to the composition of the Board does in fact give instructions to the Central Valuation Board to act in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, recommended.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I hope before the Question is put the noble Earl will reply to the point which was made by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. As it has been inserted in the Bill by your Lordships' agreement that the vesting date shall not take place until after all the regional valuations are concluded, what possible objection can there be to base those on fact rather than upon assumption? The noble Earl, I think, has not replied to that very important point. There cannot possibly be any objection, I submit, instead of waiting for the Third Reading of the Bill, to settle this matter here and now. It seems quite unreasonable and unnecessary that an estimation should be taken at all. Why not base it on fact? As the Bill stands at present, the vesting date cannot take place until all the regional valuations have been completed. I hope the noble Earl will reply to that, otherwise I would press my noble friend to move his Amendment to the Government's Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is really a simple point. I think noble Lords who have objected to the Government Amendment are really under some misconception. The whole

55
point of the regional valuations is to split up the coal area of England so as to enable the persons in charge of particular districts to value the coal in those districts on the same principle and on the same basis, and it would be quite wrong to think that if in sixteen or eighteen areas—I have forgotten how many there are—the figures attained by the regional valuers were A, B, C, D down to X, say, in amount, you could add all those up and say that the allocation should be in accordance with the amounts which they had ascertained. The valuers in Durham may value on a different basis from the valuers in Kent, and it would be quite unfair to take the amount of all the valuations in Kent and say that should be the amount for that area, and take all the amounts ascertained in the Durham area and say that was the fair value of the Durham coal. Therefore it is that the persons who are going to determine the regional allocations are the Central Valuation Board—expert people who will ascertain the fractional amounts which the various districts are entitled to. It is not a question of fixing, so to speak, in the first instance the amount of a particular region, but of ascertaining what proportion of the whole that region is entitled to, and these valuers being experts, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has already stated, it is a thing which they will do in a professional way and it must be a matter of estimation. It is not a matter of fact; it is a question of an estimate—in other words, of the opinion of expert valuers. That is what is suggested in the Government Amendment which I think your Lordships might properly accept.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): May I ask your Lordships one question? If it is impossible to accept the value put upon the coal in a district by people who have valued it, how can they accept the value put upon it by people who have not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether I may be permitted to point
out to the noble Lord that he begs the question. It will not be true that they have not; they will ascertain what the proper regional valuation is.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I understood that the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, will withdraw the Amendments which stand in his name on the Paper. When the noble Marquess has withdrawn his two Amendments, perhaps my two Amendments may be formally put.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the manuscript Amendments which stand in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, leave out from ("allocate") to ("to") in line 15.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the second manuscript Amendment which I have read to the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, at end insert ("a part (in this Act referred to as a 'regional allocations') of the said sum of sixty-six million, four hundred and fifty thousand pounds, being a part bearing the same proportion to the whole of that sum as they may estimate the value of all principal coal hereditaments in the region to bear to the value of all principal coal hereditaments in Great Britain").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to move the omission of "they may estimate." If that be carried there will be a further small consequential Amendment to be made.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Leave out ("they may estimate").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Whether the words "they may estimate" shall stand part of the Amendment?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor)

Bath, M.

Ancaster, E.

Crewe, M.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Dartmouth, E.

Reading, M.

Grey, E.

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

Zetland, M.

Iddesleigh, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Addington, L.

Gorell, L.

Midleton, E.

Addison, L.

Greville, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Amulree, L.

Harlech, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E

Arnold, L.

Holden, L.

Munster, E.

Belstead, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Poulett, E.

Biddulph, L.

Killanin, L.

Radnor, E.

Bingley, L.

Luke, L.

Spencer, E.

Boston, L.

Rennell, L.

Stanhope, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rushcliffe, L.

Wicklow, E.

Sherborne, L.

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Cranworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Halifax, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Samuel, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Tredegar, V.

Forester, L.

Templemore, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Hereford, V.

Harris, L.

Northumberland, D.

Horne of Slamannan, V.

Hastings, L.

Wellington, D.

Ridley, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Middleton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Aberdare, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Askwith, L.

Mowbray, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Phillimore, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Cromwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Saltoun, L.

Daryngton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gainford, L.

Shute, L. (F. Barrington.)

Elibank, V.

Gerard, L.

Teynham, L.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on the main Amendment, I would like to ask a question. It is not for us on these Benches to intervene between the Government and their supporters below the gangway on this side, but is it clear on the Amendment as it stands that when all these parts, whatever proportion they may bear to the total national valuation, have all been allocated, the total allocation will then be £66,000,000?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if that question is addressed to me I should say that it is a very simple matter of English and, I should add, of arithmetic. The parts of the whole are exactly equal to the whole.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
"Compensation to certain persons.
.—(1) In addition to the compensation payable under Section six of this Act the Commission shall pay to the persons who—

(a) were on the tenth day of November nineteen hundred and thirty-seven and had been regularly for not less than five years before that (late engaged (whether
58
as individuals or as partners in firms) in or in connection with the business of the administration or management of acquired interests in coal, mines of coal or acquired property and rights; and

(b) in consequence of the provisions of this Part of this Act have suffered loss in respect of sums paid by them in the purchase of or of a share of the goodwill of their said business or otherwise in connection therewith

compensation in respect of such loss.
(2) The compensation to be paid by the Commission to any persons so entitled shall be such annual sum for a term of years as shall recoup to such person the said loss together with interest thereon during the said term at the rate of five per centum per annum and shall be payable at such time or times and in such manner as may be determined by agreement between the Commission and that person or failing such agreement by arbitration under subsection (3) of this section.
(3) Any difference or question required by subsection (2) of this section to be determined by arbitration and any difference or question which may arise as to whether any person is entitled to receive compensation from the Commission under this section shall be referred to the arbitration of a tribunal of three arbitrators who shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the President of the Law Society the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution and the President of the Land Agents' Society and, save as aforesaid, the provisions of the Arbitration Acts 1889 to 1934 shall apply to such arbitration."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Darcy to take charge of this Amendment and with the leave of the House I will move it. Your Lordships will recollect that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, moved an Amendment framed with the intention of securing compensation to all displaced mineral agents and their staffs. The arguments are not necessary to be gone over again, nor would it be proper that I should attempt to go over them, for the reason that the Amendment was taken to a Division and was defeated by a majority of one. It is not therefore possible for me to raise the same point again. But an Amendment has now been put down which raises an entirely different point. When I was speaking to Lord Saltoun's Amendment in Committee I mentioned the fact that no reference had been made to the loss of capital invested in these businesses which would be caused by the passage of this Bill into an Act. It is that particular point which is dealt with in this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Darcy.
It is a fact, common not only to the practice of mineral agents but to the majority of other professions, that a man when he seeks to join that profession as a principal has to pay the market value of the partnership which he seeks to acquire. There are, of course, cases where the whole goodwill of a business is purchased, but it is much more usual that a qualified mineral agent desiring to participate in an existing business of mineral agents should acquire a partnership in that business for a sum of money. Very substantial sums are paid for these partnerships—sums which are taken into calculation by the Inland Revenue when estimating the value of a mineral agent's property passing at death, so that a complete acknowledgment of the existence of this vested interest exists. We have cases which have come to notice of sums ranging up to £9,000 which have been paid for partnerships of the character which I have indicated. The passage of this Bill into an Act, with the consequential vesting date which the Bill contains, will not necessarily bring to an end the employment either of the principals or of the staffs in mineral agency offices. There is at least reasonable expectation on the
60
part of some—possibly the majority—that they may continue to be employed under the Coal Commission, providing they are willing to accept such employment, which is an important proviso. We thought when in Committee that the expectation of the income which these men and their staffs had was inadequate, and representing that view we were defeated, as I have already said, by one vote.
But we never challenged the other point to which this Amendment refers, and that is, the certain fact that whereas these individuals may conceivably preserve some portion at least of their income by passing into the employment of the Coal Commission, yet it is absolutely certain that the arrival of the vesting date must bring these businesses to an end. There will cease to be any value in a partnership in the business of a mineral agent. Its market value, for which they have paid, will cease to exist, and this Amendment seeks to provide a measure of compensation for those persons who are deprived of the possibility of ever realising the investment that they have made in these particular businesses. The Government have said constantly that they rest themselves upon the principle of paying fair compensation for all expropriated property. It is a little difficult, in face of this Bill, for the Government to maintain that particular contention. Still, in deliberately confiscating half the property of every royalty owner, which this Bill is doing, at least it is leaving to the mineral owner half his property; but in the case of the mineral agent it is deliberately taking away the whole.
If the Government attach any importance to their principles in the matter of paying compensation in cases of compulsory acquisition, they cannot deny that here they are contravening those principles by depriving these mineral agents of the whole value of their investment. This Amendment is framed to give to those agents an adequate compensation, spread over a term of years, and I think it would be difficult, in view of the certain fact that the mineral owners have had the payment of their expenses in the matter of agency capitalised and deducted from their own compensation, to deny the justice of the claim which is now made both by the mineral agents themselves and by the mineral owners on their behalf, that the value of these investments

61
should not be taken away from them without compensation. The House will be quite clear, I hope, that this Amendment has no relation whatever to the Amendment moved and defeated in Committee. This Amendment is unable to preserve the position of the staffs of the mineral agents. We have been bound, in view of the decision of the House at an earlier stage, to give that up, but we now desire, if possible, to convince the House that the case of the mineral agents in the matter of their investments in their businesses is not one which can be disposed of without sympathetic consideration. I suggest that the best method of disposing of it is to accept the Amendement in the name of Lord Darcy, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.(Lord Hastings.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, my noble friend has raised a subject which we certainly discussed on the last occasion, because I remember that he himself raised this very point, although, as he said, the argument turned more on the income side than on the capital side. I wonder if he realises where his argument would lead us. Has he never heard of the system of purchase in the Army? Surely he must have known how in the old days officers used to purchase their Commissions. Many years ago purchase of Commissions was abolished. What compensation did officers get? None. Surely he must know that there are innumerable cases of men who acted as agents in regard to imports from foreign countries. Not many years ago a former Government went to Ottawa, made arrangements with the Dominions, and imposed duties on foreign imports. From time to time quite recently import duties have been imposed on new articles, which duties have seriously decreased or completely stopped the sale of those articles in this country. What compensation has been paid to the men who had bought that business of being agents for those imports? None. Now my noble friend suggests that mineral agents in this case should be treated entirely differently.
I venture to think that once you open the door to the paying of compensation in cases of this kind you are going to get the State into very heavy liabilities, and prevent the State from doing many things which he, I am sure, as much as
62
I myself, would desire. I am sure the noble Lord, for instance, has been watching imports coming into this country and stopping British employment. If we are going to pay compensation to anybody who has paid for a share in a business we shall be getting into serious difficulties, and for these reasons I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has quoted a number of instances where no compensation has been paid, but in the case where a local authority is abolished the employees of that authority do get compensation.
EARL STANHOPE: That is quite a different matter.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not think that the cases to which the noble Earl referred are quite on all fours with the case touched by this Amendment. Take the case of purchase officers. My father was a purchase officer. It is perfectly true that he lost the capital which he had invested, but he did retain the power and opportunity of being advanced in his career without cost to himself. If the noble Earl is going to give to the mineral agents the same opportunity of advancement in their profession without cost to themselves, I am sure that this Amendment would not be pressed.
LORD CROMWELL: My Lords, I think the instances given by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, are not applicable in this case. In the present case property has been taken over by the State which has paid an income and is to continue to pay an income. If the State takes over property which has produced an income in the past and is to continue to produce an income in the future, surely it is only fair that a portion of the income should be used by way of pension for those officials who have been displaced.
LORD STRABOLGI: May we be informed before coming to a decision how many people are affected? Is it known, approximately, how much the Amendment would cost? I am personally in favour of paying compensation to persons who may lose their employment as a result of Parliament's action, and I would like to compensate all the miners who are displaced under Part II of this Bill. It

63
is the same principle. Their capital is their skill, which they have acquired in going down the pits as boys, and if they are being displaced by these amalgamations I think they ought to be compensated, too. I am prepared to support the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on this point if he will support me on my point about the miners.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House quoted a number of the evil doings of his predecessors in government. I never suggested that this was the first unjust Government. Injustices have been perpetrated upon people in this country by a long succession of Governments.
EARL STANHOPE: Is my noble friend in favour of paying compensation to the agents of foreign importers?
LORD HASTINGS: No, certainly not, but the noble Earl referred in the first place to the question of the failure to pay compensation when purchase in the Army was abolished. That was the point I had in mind. There, of course, was a case which was truly analogous to the present case. The other cases which my noble friend quoted were not at all analogous. That is why I reminded him that, whereas two wrongs cannot make a right, I yet did not accuse this of being the first of the unjust Governments. There is no occasion—it would not be proper for me—to repeat what I have said, but I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that there is no exact estimate of the number
of persons who are affected, because it is not possible to know exactly how many partners there may be in any particular business. But roughly speaking there are 200 such persons involved in this particular matter. The House will remember that the sum of money which would be capitalised in respect of agency costs, that is, expenses of management, was in the neighbourhood, if I remember rightly, of £3,000,000. Approximately £3,000,000 was taken off the royalty owners' compensation in respect of expenses of management. Quite clearly 200 persons are not going to divide among them anything approaching £3,000,000. The compensation would be vastly less than that.
At no excessive cost the Government, by accepting this Amendment, could do something to minimise the hardship which must inevitably attach to this community by reason of the loss of their certain employment—their future employment is hypothetical. They could do something to minimise that loss, something to diminish the number of persons whose disfavour they are gaining by this Bill, something to re-establish a somewhat tarnished reputation in the matter of this Bill. There are so many advantages in the acceptance of this Amendment that I trust even now that the Government will accept it, and if my noble friend declines to do so I shall invite the House to go to a Division on the subject.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 44; Not-Contents,48.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Gainford, L.

Tredegar, V.

Gerard, L.

Bathurst, E.

Harris, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Aberdare, L.

Hastings, L.

Dudley, E.

Addington, L.

Marley, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Addison, L.

Middleton, L.

Grey, E.

Arnold, L.

Mowbray, L.

Lindsay, E.

Askwith, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Midleton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Redesdale, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Cranworth, L.

Saltoun, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cromwell, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Strabolgi, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Daryngton, L.

Teynham, L.

Elibank, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wolverton, L.

Home of Slamannan, V.

Faringdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

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

Wellington, D.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Bath, M.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E, Erne.)

Reading, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Forester, L.

Zetland, M.

Halifax, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Hereford, V.

Greville, L.

Ancaster, E.

Samuel, V.

Harlech, L.

Feversham, E.

Heneage, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Amulree, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Jessel, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bingley, L.

Luke, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Boston, L.

Mamhead, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Monkswell, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rennell, L.

Radnor, E.

Sherborne, L.

Spencer, E.

Clinton, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Windlesham, L.

Wicklow, E.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 8 [Rights and obligations arising from contract for sale to have effect in respect of interim period]:
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, since I tabled two Amendments to this clause another Amendment has been put down by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Leader of the House to insert a new clause after Clause 9. I have handed in a manuscript Amendment to this new clause, and in the circumstances I do not propose to move the Amendments to Clause 8.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after Clause 9:
Acquisition by the Commission of right to arrears of rent.
".It shall be within the competence of the Commission to take from the person entitled thereto an assignment of any debt due from a lessee in respect of rent payable before the vesting date for premises that are to vest or have vested in the Commission, and. in the case of such rent becoming payable at any time within the twelve months next before the vesting date, the Commission shall, on being required so to do by notice in writing served on them by the person entitled thereto at any time before the expiration of twelve months from the vesting date, take an assignment of any debt due from the lessee in respect thereof at a price to be determined by agreement between that person and the Commission or, in default of agreement, by arbitration."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Government have carefully considered the point raised by certain noble Lords that it would put the landlords in some difficulty if they had necessarily to press their tenants for immediate payment of rents during a period not too long before the date when the property passes to the Commission. After careful consideration the Government have thought fit to draft a new clause after Clause 9 which, as Lord Middleton
66
properly said, is intended exactly to cover the point of his Amendment, though perhaps a little clearer from the legal point of view, and differing in this respect, that the Government are unable to see that it would be wise for them to consent to anything except an assignment of debts for rent becoming payable at any time earlier than twelve months. In other words, up to twelve months this is a concession in the direction which Lord Middleton proposes, but, as he says, he has an Amendment in manuscript to substitute two years for twelve months. Having carefully considered it, the Government think two years would be too long and would expose the Commission to certain risks. The position would be that during the two years before the vesting date, if that Amendment were passed, landlords would have no inducement at all, as far as we can see, to recover from their tenants the sums which may be due from them, and as they are ceasing to be landlords they might perhaps from kindness of heart or some other motive think: "It does not matter to us now, the Coal Commission have got to take over these liabilities and these rights as against the tenants, and we therefore will do nothing." That of course is not so much to be anticipated in the case of the Government Amendment, which is limited to one year, but we cannot think it is very reasonable to ask the Commission to take over the arrears for a longer period. In these circumstances I beg to move on behalf of the Government the Amendment that stands in my name and in that of the Leader of the House.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, I still think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has not quite appreciated the

67
situation fully in regard to this Amendment. He is still under the impression that it is meant wholly as a concession to royalty owners. I would beg him to believe that it is equally for the benefit of the Coal Commission. I have had to deal with these things many times myself, and I know perfectly well that the more you can put the responsibility on a new owner, after a sale has taken place, for recovery of rents and so on for some period before the transfer, the less the obligation for the new owner as well as for the late owner and for the man who pays the rent. It is a matter of great satisfaction to those with whom I am associated that the Government have admitted the need for dealing with the matter of arrears of rent. In the circumstances I have not moved the Amendments that I tabled first with regard to Clause 8, and I do not propose to say any more about the principle involved. The only point on which we differ is the question of two years or twelve months. Before we drafted the Amendment that stood in my name on Clause 8 we considered the whole matter very fully and very exhaustively. Actually any period less than two years serves scarcely any useful purpose whatsoever. Some of us would have preferred a longer period because, in fact, a great many of these arrears have been allowed to run on for two, three, four, and even five years, and very often, when times change, rents for quite a number of years are recoverable. We hoped that the Government might accept the period of two years.
There is this point to be considered. In most agreements that are made rents run from January to December, and the Commission will take over in July, so in all probability, if only a concession of twelve months is made, the concession is really in respect of about six months. I think we are entitled to ask the Government to be consistent. The problem arose in the Tithe Act of 1936, and the Government dealt more generously in those circumstances than they do in these. Of course the circumstances are not wholly alike; still, in those circumstances, the Government allowed the arrears in respect of tithe rent to be made payable to the tithe owner when the proceedings for recovery had been commenced before the expiration of two years from the date on which they became payable. I think we are only
68
asking for consistency, and it is really only a small concession that we are asking. I hope the Government will agree to the Amendment as being a reasonable one. I would once more emphasize the fact that it would be very much to the advantage of the Commission to have these greater powers than the lesser ones indicated by the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed new clause moved—
Line 7, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("two years").—(Lord Middleton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, will you allow me to say one word with reference to the Tithe Act, which has been carefully considered on behalf of the Government as a possible precedent for the term that Lord Middleton seeks to enforce by the Amendment to the proposed new clause? Your Lordships will remember that the whole of the Tithe Act was due to a serious agitation, accompanied in some cases by violence, as regards the recovery of the tithe, and the Tithe Commission was armed with powers for collecting tithe rentcharge which had never existed in the tithe owner and which it would have been impossible to give to the private tithe owner. The section in question also gave the tithe payer a right of appeal to a properly constituted tribunal, which had power, on compassionate grounds which were connected with his pecuniary means, to scale down the amount of the tithe which the tithe payer ought in the circumstances to be bound to pay. Those are very exceptional cases which do not arise here at all, and I am afraid we cannot regard that as any precedent in the present case.
I have already given my reasons for thinking that a period of twelve months is as much as you can fairly ask the Government to take over in regard to arrears. I would add that in a great number of cases payments are not made yearly, but at shorter periods, and I do not quite accept the view that in the normal case this clause will only operate for six months. From what I know of the facts I think the clause will generally operate for a very considerably longer period. I am sorry that on behalf of the Government I cannot accept Lord Middleton's Amendment. There was some doubt whether the Government

69
should go as far as they have gone, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, I must press the Amendment. In the Committee stage I moved an Amendment very much in the same sense, but I withdrew it because I was not aware then of the support I should receive in the House. I received reproaches from many mem-
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 10:
Apportionment of rent and determination of questions on severance of subsisting leases.
10.—(1) In the case of every coal-mining lease subsisting on the vesting date in the case of which either—
(a) a severance of the reversion immediately expectant on the lease is effected, by the vesting in the Commission by virtue of this Part of this Act of that reversion as regards a part only of the premises which are comprised in the lease; or
bers of your Lordship's House who had never spoken in the debate and who told me they would certainly have suported me. I shall, therefore, press the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the proposed new clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Munster, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Radnor, E.

Forester, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rosslyn, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Spencer, E.

Greville, L.

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

Stanhope, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Wicklow, E.

Harlech, L.

Heneage, L.

Wellington, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Holden, L.

Elibank, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Bath, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Jessel, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Samuel, V.

Luke, L.

Reading, M.

Mamhead, L.

Zetland, M.

Addison, L.

Palmer, L.

Amulree, L.

Rennell, L.

Ancaster, E.

Arnold, L.

Rushcliffe, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Belstead, L.

Sherborne, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Biddulph, L.

Stanmore, L.

Feversham, E.

Bingley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Daryngton, L.

Templemore, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Home of Slamannan, V.

Gerard, L.

Portland, D.

Ridley, V.

Harris, L.

Hastings, L.

Bathurst, E.

Aberdare, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Lamington, L.

Fizwilliam, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Middleton, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Mowbray, L.

Lindsay, E.

Clifton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cromwell, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Redesdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Saltoun, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Elphinstone, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Teynham, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gainford, L.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment to insert the proposed new clause agreed to.

(b) a severance of the interests arising under the lease is effected, by the vesting in the Commission by virtue of this Part of this Act of those interests as regards a part only of the premises which are comprised in the lease and the immediate reversion in which is vested in the Commission;
and the lease does not reserve separate rents for the premises vested in the Commission and those not so vested, the rent reserved by the lease shall be apportioned, and, in all cases in which an apportionment of that rent is required in relation to the like severance for the purposes of a valuation under the Third Schedule to this Act, the apportionment under this subsection shall be made on the basis of the apportionment made for the purposes of that valuation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "and the lease does not reserve separate rents for" and insert:
"the several parts of the premises, the rent reserved by the lease shall be apportioned, and the parts of that rent to be apportioned to the several parts of the premises shall, in default of agreement between the Commission and any other person entitled in reversion immediately expectant on the lease and the lessee, be determined by an arbitrator selected by agreement between the parties or, in default of agreement, by the Lord Chancellor in the case of England or the Lord President of the Court of Session in the case of Scotland.
"(2) Where an apportionment of the rent reserved by a lease has been made for the purposes of a valuation of a part of the premises under the Third Schedule to this Act, an arbitrator shall have regard to that apportionment for the purposes of a determination under the preceding subsection."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down by the Government by way of providing a solution of certain difficulties which were raised on the Committee stage. The main point is this: where an apportionment of rent is necessary under this clause, it is proposed by the clause that the matter shall be settled by arbitration. Some question was raised on the Committee stage as to what was the best way of settling such a question of apportionment. If I may speak from my very large experience, I would suggest that mere matters of apportionment, involving as they do valuations, are much better settled by an arbitrator than by the Court. Indeed in substance the Court in such a case acts upon conflicting evidence given by valuers, whereas in fact the better plan in normal cases is for a single valuer to deal with the matter—he is of course an arbitrator for this purpose—and very likely he will not require any evidence at all.
The second point is this. There was a question whether the valuation of premises under the Third Schedule should be binding on such an arbitrator or on the Court as the case might be, and it has been thought better, as there may be special circumstances in a particular case, that the arbitrator should be told that he must have regard to the value put upon the premises under the Third Schedule to the Act but should not be in every case bound by it. This is an Amendment which I think carries out the general wishes of your Lordships as they were
72
expressed when the new Clause 10 was being discussed on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 34, leave out from ("for") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I have really nothing to say, but in respect of the second subsection, which provides:
"Where an apportionment of the rent reserved by a lease has been made for the purposes of a valuation of a part of the premises under the Third Schedule to this Act, an arbitrator shall have regard to that apportionment for the purposes of a determination under the preceding subsection,"
it is a little difficult to understand why an arbitrator should be tied in this matter. If he is, he ceases to be an unfettered arbitrator. The royalty owners feel that if these matters are to go to arbitration the least that they are entitled to expect is that the arbitrator should approach the subject with an open mind and that he should not be bound by the decisions of one of the interested parties, or the purpose of his arbitration rather falls to the ground. I had not proposed to move at this stage an Amendment to the Amendment, but unless the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is able to explain away a circumstance which appears to be inexplicable, I propose to put down an Amendment on Third Reading to ensure that the arbitrator shall have an unfettered decision.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to that I will only say that it is inconceivable that the arbitrator should not be told what has been done in the previous valuation made for the purposes of the Third Schedule, and it was thought by the Government that saying merely that he should have regard to that apportionment was equivalent to saying that he should not be in any way bound by it. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, the idea that the striking out of subsection (2) would carry out his wishes is really quite unfounded, and possibly it might be dangerous, because the arbitrator might say, "I have this apportionment" and might think that he was bound by it, whereas this subsection tells him that he is not. However, the

73
noble Lord will have an opportunity of considering the matter further.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there follow some consequential Amendments in subsection (2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 5, after ("with") insert ("a reference to arbitration under subsection (1) of this section or with").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 8, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("that") in line 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 11, leave out ("Court") and insert ("arbitrator or the Court, as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment, which again is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 14, leave out ("an") and insert ("a reference or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Powers of Commission for consolidation of leases before the vesting date]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is mere drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 37, leave out ("to receive") and insert ("beneficially to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Right of freeholder in possession of coal to lease thereof.
12.—(1) A person carrying on the business of coal-mining immediately before the vesting date, who is then beneficially entitled (whether or not subject to a mortgage) to the entire fee simple in coal or a mine of coal that is
74
not subject at that date to any coal-mining lease, shall have the right, if he has made an application in writing in that behalf to the Commission before the vesting date, to a grant from the Commission of a coal-mining lease comprising any coal or mine of coal specified in his application to which he is so entitled and any property and rights that vest in the Commission therewith:
Provided that a person shall not be entitled under this section to a lease the grant of which would interfere with the exercise of a right granted by a working, facilities order, or with the use or exercise under a coal-mining lease of any property or right comprised therein.
(2) A lease granted under this section shall be granted for such a term, commencing on the vesting date, as the person entitled to the lease may require, not being longer as regards the coal comprised therein than may be reasonably requisite for enabling that coal to be worked out, and subject to conditions with respect to rent and otherwise which shall not in any case be more onerous to the lessee than the conditions customary in the district or, where there are no customary conditions or the customary conditions are not applicable, than the conditions to which a person not entitled to the benefit of this section might reasonably have been expected to agree, and the conditions of the lease shall, where the person entitled thereto acquired the fee simple in the coal before the tenth day of November nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, be so framed as to secure that his financial position in respect of his business of working the coal shall not be adversely affected by the operation of this Part of this Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "Provided that," to insert:

"(a) the right under this section to a grant of a lease of any coal or mine shall be conditional upon the applicant's satisfying the requirements of the Third Schedule to this Act as to the registration of particulars thereof under the Registration Act and the making of a claim for compensation for the fee simple therein, and to his complying with the provisions of that Schedule that impose upon him any duty in connection with the valuation of the fee simple therein; and

(b)"

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment proposed to remedy a mere omission in the drafting of this clause. It is clear that it was never intended that where under Clause 12 there is a right to grant a lease of any coal or mine the person having that right should not comply with all the other provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act and satisfy requirements as to registration and as to making a claim for com-

75
pensation. Accordingly this is in the nature of a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 32, after ("that") insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "agree" and insert:
"Provided that any person who acquired the fee simple in the coal before the tenth day of November, 1937, and who obtains a lease under this section shall take in lieu of compensation as provided by Section six of this Act a lease for the term and subject to the conditions herein mentioned save only that the rent annually payable thereunder throughout the said term or any renewal thereof shall be one peppercorn."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is what has been termed a peppercorn proposal in order to simplify the operations of this Bill in connection with working proprietors. The proposal is a very simple one, that the coal shall be transferred to the Commission and that a peppercorn shall be handed to the Commission as recognition that the coal shall be worked exactly in the same way as it would have been worked if this Bill had not come into operation. The principle of this Amendment has been accepted by the Government already in words which are now in the Bill as it passed through Committee stage, and I have to thank the Government for the way in which they have endeavoured to carry out the principle. I am proposing again a peppercorn rent, but I do not want them to think that I am departing from any arrangement in proposing the words which are upon the paper. The Mining Association, having considered this matter very carefully, have asked me to put a certain number of arguments before the Government and to ask them to consider whether the peppercorn arrangement is not preferable to the one which they have accepted. They have accepted the principle that all working proprietors should not be financially injured, and they are also proposing an Amendment, to which no exception is taken, that they shall not be put in a better position owing to their coal being transferred to the Commission. We are agreed absolutely in principle, and the only question between us at the moment is whether the pepper-
76
corn system is not more just and less complicated.
Three arguments have been given by the noble Earl the Leader of the House against the peppercorn proposal. The first was that the mineral owner might make arrangements with a colliery company to sell his coal at any time before the vesting date with the result that it would become freehold coal and in that way the object of Part I of the Bill would be frustrated. My Amendment meets that objection, because it provides that coal which has passed after November last year shall not be considered. Then the noble Earl said that an alteration of the global figure would be necessary, but it appears on investigation that that will not be the case, because the freehold minerals would be valued exactly the same as all other minerals. The only practical difference would appear to be that the Commission would not have to borrow so much and therefore it would be in a better position by the £8,000,000, or whatever was the sum of money involved. There is therefore no real point or force in that argument. The noble Earl's third point was that it was necessary to make provision for the continuance of the liability of working proprietors for Mineral Rights Duty and Miners' Welfare Levy. This point seems to be met by an Amendment on the Paper in my name a little later on which makes suitable provision to deal with the Mineral Rights Duty and the Welfare Levy. The noble Earl's point that it might be necessary to pass a Financial Resolution in the other House to deal with the matter, is of no moment because it is quite easy for the Government, by Amendment of the present Finance Bill, or an alteration of the Finance Bill during the next two years, to meet that particular point.
The President of the Board of Trade in another place put forward arguments in opposition to the peppercorn rent proposal. He was opposed to it on the ground that it gave an option to the working proprietor either to take the capital compensation or to adopt the peppercorn rent alternative. This objection has been met by the Amendment which I have put down under which the peppercorn rent becomes compulsory and uniform in every case. Mr. Oliver Stanley also said that there would be no incentive to the working proprietor to press for a proper

77
valuation of his minerals and that these might be valued at an unduly low figure. This objection has been met by the Government's Amendment to paragraph 12, sub-paragraph (6) of the Third Schedule, under which the Commission may appeal against valuations of working proprietors' minerals. The third objection of Mr. Oliver Stanley was that no provision was made in respect of the working proprietors' present liabilities to Mineral Rights Duty and Royalties Welfare Levy. This objection is met by the Amendment to Clause 12, page 15, to which I have already referred. Therefore all the arguments made against this simple proposition of a peppercorn rent have already been met. All the arguments urged by the Government in either House have been met in one form or another, and I believe satisfactorily met.
On the other hand, if we proceed to deal with the proposals that are on the Paper together with the Government's Amendment and the Amendments in the name of Lord Home, we are up against two or three very different complicated propositions. Take, for instance, the colliery proprietor's liability for local rates in Scotland. It appears that at present it depends on the amount of coal which he works. At present if no coal is raised in a year there will be no liability to local rates, but in future, if the colliery proprietor is liable to pay an annual rent to the Coal Commission whether coal is worked or not, he will be liable to rates on the amount of the rent. That seems very unfair and it will have to be met in some form or other.
Another strong argument against the method proposed by the Government is that it is very difficult to carry out the principle that the working proprietor shall not be in a worse pecuniary position. We have no assurance that the rate of interest will always be reasonable. Let me give a case. Suppose a working proprietor receives £50,000 as compensation for his minerals and invests it in Defence Loan at, say, three per cent. He will receive about £1,500 per annum in interest. He will then have this amount available for paying rent to the Coal Commission. In addition he will have to make an annual payment by way of repayment of the capital sum within the time of the working out of the minerals. Let us call this sum £1,000 per annum. The amount he should be called on to
78
pay in rent is, therefore, £2,500 per annum. There is nothing in the Amendment of the Government which precludes the Coal Commission from fixing any percentage that seems fit to them in any individual case, as representing the return which should be obtainable on the capital sum. They might, for instance, fix six per cent., which would make the total rent £3,000, plus the £1,000 already referred to, or £4,000 in all. In other words, the working proprietor would have to be a loser to the extent of £1,500 a year. I mention just that case to show how complicated the Government proposal is as compared with the proposal of a peppercorn rent. I do not, however, want to press the peppercorn rent Amendment against the wish of the Government and then to lose the one on the Paper, although I think mine is a better proposal.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 7, leave out from ("agree") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new proviso.(Lord Gainford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In order to save the next Amendment, the question I will put is that the words from "agree" in line 7 to the end of line 10, shall stand part of the clause.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord opposite that the peppercorn rent proposal is undoubtedly simpler than the one which the Government have put on the Paper, but, as my noble friend knows, there have been some difficulties in regard to the matter. We were not satisfied that it did not need a Financial Resolution. Therefore for that reason, and for the reason that I think some people might feel that by the payment of a peppercorn rent only the ownership of the coal would not pass to the Coal Commission, but remain in the hands of the working owners, I am afraid we feel that it is necessary to stick to the Amendment which we have suggested and which we have discussed at great length on the two sides. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, as the person who originally moved the Amendment with regard to a peppercorn rent in this House I have to acknowledge with great gratitude the way in which the Government have met the proposals which we made. It was

79
perfectly plain from what the noble Earl stated on the last occasion that the Government entirely accepted the principle of what we put forward. The Government, just as everybody else, realise that it was perfectly unjust to take away from working owners a very great proportion of the money which they had invested in coal. Nothing could be more to the detriment of the coal industry in this country than that. Accordingly the Government met the situation very readily, and I think, as the noble Earl indicated a moment ago, that the Government would have accepted the suggestion of the transfer of all the coal held by the freehold owners to the Commission upon payment of a peppercorn rent but for the fact that if that were done simpliciter the freeholder would be getting an advantage in respect that he would be free from the Welfare Levy and the Mineral Rights Duty.
Accordingly we have to make provision by a subsidiary Amendment for the continuing payment by the freehold owner of the Mineral Rights Duty and the Welfare Levy, but we get the answer from the Government that anything of that kind would involve a Financial Resolution in another place and perhaps a recommital of the Bill. So it was suggested then, and repeated to-night by the noble Earl, that that is really the impediment which stands in the way of what after all is the very simplest method of curing this difficulty. Nothing could be plainer or simpler than the fact that the man who has purchased his coal for the purpose of working it should be left in possession of it but pay nothing by way of rent. That would leave him in the same position and would give him the fair deal to which he was entitled.
The difficulty is still here. I was at the negotiations with the noble Earl and the President of the Board of Trade which resulted in the form of words which is at present in the Bill. We were neither of us, as the noble Earl will remember, committed to that particular form of words; we were only committed to the principle, and we parted each expressing a desire to get a better form of words if we could. The better form of words which I devised is in an Amendment which I put on the Paper, but of course I will not urge that in controversy with either my noble friend Lord Gain-
80
ford's proposal or that of the Government. That I do not propose to press this evening at all. But may I suggest this? I do not know whether I have entirely forgotten the methods which our financial practices compel us to follow in another place, but it is going to be a considerable time before the vesting date occurs. Accordingly, it does not seem to me to be a complete objection to the proposal of a peppercorn rent that a Financial Resolution will be required in another place in order to put proper obligations upon the freehold owner. I am inclined to suggest that that matter could be cured in the Finance Bill of next year; it does not require to be cured at once. There is plenty of time ahead of us before anything practical requires to be done, and I would beg the noble Earl who leads the House to consult the advisers of the Treasury upon this matter and see whether we cannot remove this impediment to what, after all, everybody acknowledges to be the simplest method of treating the subject. I would ask the noble Earl to take that up with his advisers and see whether that cannot be done.
I have of course considered very carefully the terms which the Government propose in their Amendment. It is obvious that they have been labouring to find an honest and reasonable way of dealing with this matter, but I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that even this form of phraseology remains very complicated. It is going to require a considerable amount of investigation and argument if that particular method is followed, and I fear that there may be very many recourses to arbitration to set out what the right result should be. My noble friend Lord Gainford has raised the question of interest, and I do not like to dilate upon that subject because it is a very highly controversial one, but at any rate you can readily find many people who would disagree as to the assessment at any particular time that is to be put upon the value of money. And if we try to place the freehold owner of coal in as completely advantageous a position as he previously was, without improving it, that may be a very difficult question for which to find the proper solution.
The result of what I have been saying comes to this. Let me say quite frankly that if the Government find it is too

81
difficult to adopt a simple method, which has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Gainford, then I readily acquiesce, and I express my thanks to the Government for the way in which we have been met all through this matter in connection with this particular subject of controversy. But, on the other hand, I foresee very many difficulties arising out of arguments upon whether the freehold owner of coal is really being put in a worse position, or a better position, or in the same position, and I think if we can avoid that we ought to do it. If the method I have suggested, by having a provision made in some later Finance Bill, could be adopted, then it seems to me that would be the easiest method of treating the subject.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, those of your Lordships who are not as familiar with this particular clause as those who sit on this side of the House will have realised that this is not in any way a disagreement with the Government on a question of principle. It is purely a matter of trying to find the simplest form of machinery, and I must say I do not think that the noble Earl the Leader of the House was very convincing in his objections to this original proposal which, in spite of all the discussions that have taken place since this Bill was first introduced, still remains the best and the simplest because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Home, has said, it has so far proved beyond the powers either of the Government, or of the Mining Association, or of any of us who are trying together with the Government to do so, to find the best form of words. I feel first of all that there cannot be any substance in the objection of the noble Earl that there would be a feeling that the Commission did not own the minerals which are affected under this clause just as fully as all the rest of the minerals, because they would go through exactly the same machinery as regards valuation as all the rest of the minerals. They would have to do that, otherwise the whole machinery of valuation would break down.
The only difference would be that the compensation money would not actually pass, and, as soon as that compensation money passes into the hands of the colliery owners, it complicates the whole machinery of this clause, because it is the desire both of the Government and of ourselves that colliery owners should be no
82
worse off in the future after the valuations have taken place, and also no better off. They should, in fact, be in exactly the same position. But as soon as the compensation money has passed to the colliery owners that principle becomes exceedingly difficult to achieve, owing to the fact that the interest received on the compensation money has to be related to the rent which will be payable by the colliery owners in the future. If it is related on a fairly low scale—that is to say, if it is related to gilt-edged Government securities—there is, as far as I can see, nothing to prevent the colliery owners investing that money at a higher rate of interest and therefore being better off. On the other hand, if the Government relate it to a rather high rate of interest, which the cautious colliery owner feels he would be taking too high a risk in investing the compensation money to achieve, then he would be worse off because he would not be justified in taking that risk. So it does enormously complicate the position at once.
I hope the Government will very seriously consider whether it is not worth while to give up any small objections they may have. I really do not know what they are, but as far as I can see there is no fundamental objection in regard to the Financial Resolution because, as other noble Lords have pointed out, that can be put right in next year's Finance Bill. Before we part from this Bill I hope the noble Earl will tell us whether that is so or not. I feel that your Lordships would wish to simplify this Bill in every possible way. The main criticism of the Bill is that it is so badly drafted and so complicated. What we are doing here, although we are not in disagreement in principle, is that we are making this machinery still more complicated because the Government will not accept this very simple proposition. For the sake of simplification and for the sake, as your Lordships would wish, of sending the Bill back to the other place in a better and more simple form, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I rise only to reply to one or two points which have been made in the course of the speeches we have just heard. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has, I know, considered most seriously and most carefully

83
the various alternatives to meet this point, but we cannot help feeling that the method we now propose is better than that of a peppercorn rent for the reasons which were stated by the noble Earl who leads your Lordships' House. We much hope that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment will withdraw it and that your Lordships will be prepared to let the proposals of the Government in regard to freehold coal go through in the form in which they stand on the Paper.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, all I have to say is that I am disappointed at the Government not saying that they will, at any rate, consider this matter again before the Third Reading. If the Government are, I will not say obstinate, but obdurate in this matter, I have no alternative but to withdraw this simple method of securing justice for the working proprietor. I do not want to make another speech on the alternative, but I do press the Government in connection with this matter that, when we accept the alternative, they will give an assurance that the rate of interest will be a reasonable one. What we anticipate under the proposal of the Government is that it will be very difficult for the working proprietor to be assured that he will not be in a worse financial position. If we could get an assurance that the rate of interest will be a reasonable one it might meet us to a very large extent. What we are really afraid of is that a very considerable expense must be incurred in arbitration in connection with any alternative to the proposal I have put on the Paper. That is undesirable because we do not want to have a great deal of money thrown away on arbitration which might be avoided by the simpler method of a peppercorn rent. In the circumstances, however, I feel I have no alternative, for the moment, at any rate, but to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "not be adversely affected by the operation of this Part of this Act" and insert:
"neither be adversely affected nor improved by the fact that, in lieu of his remaining entitled to the fee simple in the coal, compensation of the amount ascertained under Section seven of this Act becomes payable in respect thereof, and he becomes liable to a periodical payment of rent of an amount fixed
84
by reference to the time requisite for enabling the coal to be worked out, and ceases to be liable as proprietor thereof for the payment of Mineral Rights Duty and Royalties Welfare Levy."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the Amendment that the Government prefer to that proposed in regard to the peppercorn rent. With reference to the point raised in regard to interest by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, I think we must leave it somewhat open for this reason. There may be cases in which a colliery company might pay off a mortgage which they had originally raised for the purchase of the minerals, and that mortgage might be at a very high rate of interest. The noble Lord and I agree that we want to leave the colliery proprietor in the same position as before, neither better nor worse off, and therefore it would be unfair if he were to use the money in that way. It is just as much in the interest of the Commission as of the proprietor to avoid endless litigation or arbitration, which is not good for business and is often extremely expensive. We shall do our very best to meet all the ordinary cases and settle them reasonably, and where there are exceptional cases there should be exceptional means to carry out what we both desire—namely, that the proprietors should be no better off and no worse off than before.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 12, leave out from ("shall") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new words.—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, I do not profess to share the difficulties of the noble Earl, but I am not going to make any difficulty about them now. I do not wish to add anything further to what I have already said except this, that we shall still be in possession of this form of words which the Government have put forward at the Third Reading, and I am not to be taken as wholeheartedly accepting them at the present time.
EARL STANHOPE: I have no doubt the noble Viscount will go down with his flag still flying!
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl did not say he is going to guarantee they would be in the same position because they might be better off owing to the fact that a colliery proprietor might be able to invest his compensation money at a higher rate. He

85
did not say he might be worse off. He could not guarantee they would not be worse off because the rent might be related to a rate of interest he could not achieve without undue risk. It is only fair to give the two instances. Although the noble Earl could not guarantee he would not be better off, he equally could not guarantee he would not be worse off.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD: The point in my next Amendment, to add words to subsection (2), has been met by words in the Fifth Schedule and therefore I do not propose to move it.
Clause 15 [Provisions as to obtaining information for purposes of Part 1]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause is consequential on an Amendment to which your Lordships have already agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 25, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 29 and insert ("a person having a retained interest and that relate to the premises in which that interest subsests").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Powers of the Commission in relation to underground land other than coal.
16. In respect of any underground land not vested in them by virtue of this Part of this Act, the Commission shall themselves have the right, and shall have power to grant a licence to any person, to do any of the following acts in the course of operations carried on for coalmining purposes on or after the vesting date, that is to say, to enter upon, remove, execute works in, pass through and occupy any such land and to do all such other acts in relation to any such land as are requisite or convenient for the purposes of any such operations:
Provided that neither the Commission nor a person to whom a licence has been granted under this section shall be entitled by virtue of this section or of the licence
(e) to do any other act which, if this section had not been enacted, would be actionable as a trespass or as a nuisance and which, if done, would be likely to cause actual damage of a substantial amount.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY had given Notice of an Amendment, in paragraph (e) of the proviso, to leave out "of a substantial amount" and insert "other than of a purely nominal character." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is, I think, one which will not take very
86
long to explain. It was moved in Committee stage in a slightly different form—that was, to leave out and not to insert the words that are here suggested. The words which are in the present Amendment are more or less taken from what the learned Lord Chancellor said in the debate when, in discussing that Amendment, he said that "substantially" here means other than nominal. I think there is general agreement in regard to what is intended. There is possibly a certain fear that the words in the clause at present might be interpreted in a different way from what is intended, I think, both by the Government and by those who moved the original Amendment. I do not like to say anything about the meaning of words such as these when the noble and learned Lord is here to interpret them in a much more effective manner, but I do hope the Government, as this small Amendment is really intended to clarify the meaning of the words more than anything else, will accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government accept this Amendment, subject to one alteration. If the noble Viscount would substitute the word "amount" for the word "character" then the Government could accept the Amendment. What we want to get at is that the amount should be a nominal amount. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept the Amendment in that form.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I agree to the correction suggested by the noble and learned Lord, and will move the Amendment in the form he suggests.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line z6, leave out from ("damage") to the end of line 27 and insert ("other than of a purely nominal amount").—(Viscount Ridley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:
Power of the Court to appoint receiver and manager on the application of the Commission.
".In any proceedings in which the Commission claim to recover possession of premises vested in them from a lessee thereof, or other relief in respect of a breach by the lessee of his obligations under the lease, the Court in which the proceedings are pending may, on the application of the Commission, make such order as it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling operations for coal-mining

87
purposes to be carried on on the premises, or for the preservation thereof, during the continuance of the lease and during any period that may elapse between a determination thereof and the granting of a new lease, and the provision to be made by any such order may include the appointment of a receiver of the rents and profits of the premises, with liberty, subject to such terms and conditions as the Court may think fit to impose, to manage the undertaking, to use for the purposes of the order any fixed or movable plant or machinery of the lessee in or upon the premises, and to do all such other acts and things as may be or become requisite for those purposes."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a clause to empower the Court to appoint a receiver and manager. It is of some importance, although it looks very technical. Its importance consists in this. As your Lordships know, a part of this measure from the beginning has been that the Coal Commission shall not enter into and carry on the business of coal-mining. I think that is an idea which has received the support of the majority of the members in this House. On the other hand, there is a possibility from time to time that a particular lessee may meet with unfortunate circumstances. He may become bankrupt, or, again, he may prove to be a person who does not comply properly with his lease and who is obdurate and against whom proceedings have to be taken, or, apparently, he may be unwilling to pay the rent. In any of these cases the Coal Commission, however unwilling, may be driven to take proceedings, and the difficulty is that (apart from this proposed Amendment) having taken proceedings the Coal Commission would have to enter but they would not be allowed to work.
It is true that under a previous clause which your Lordships assented to to-day they could prevent flooding and do salvage work, but they could not keep the mine going. It may be absolutely essential in the interests of the Coal Commission, and, if I may say so, above all in the interests of the men employed in the mine, that the working should continue if it is possible to carry on the mining of coal in that mine. Accordingly this clause has been drafted to allow an application to the Court for the appointment of what may be shortly stated as a receiver and manager until the Coal Commission once more get a tenant who can enter and work the coal himself. It looks
88
rather technical, but these words are almost common form, and will be readily understood by anybody who has ever been concerned in an application to the Court for the appointment of a receiver and manager. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 20, insert the said new clause. (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I take no exception to the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord provided he is willing to accept certain words at the end of the sixth line of the new clause of which I have given notice. The words I propose to add I have handed in to the noble and learned Lord. I propose, at the end of the sixth line of the Government's Amendment which ends at the word "fit" ["the Court in which the proceedings are pending may on the application of the Commission, make such order as it thinks fit"] to add the words "having regard always to the rights of third parties." The purpose of this Amendment is, as the noble and learned Lord has described, one that can be quite acceptable to the surface owner and the colliery proprietor. But there is here a question which the Court will have to decide. It is probable—in fact I think it appears to be certain—that the Court would have power to grant to the Commission an order which would override the rights of a surface owner to distrain on the fixed plant and machinery in respect of arrears of surface rent, and which might also give power to the Commission to grant new leases comprising such surface without reference to the surface owner. It is, I am quite certain, not intended by the Amendment to expose the surface owner to any such risks. He clearly must have his position safeguarded in the circumstances which are envisaged by this Amendment moved by the Lord Chancellor.
His rights might be jeopardised, and I think would be jeopardised, if the Court were called upon to make an order enabling the Coal Commission to do certain essential things, for without the power to use the surface machinery it is clear the Coal Commission would not be able to operate the mine, and yet the surface machinery and the plant upon the surface would unquestionably belong to, or would be the subject of a lease from, the surface owner. I think it is obvious that the

89
rights of the surface owner in this matter should be protected, and the words which I propose to insert are very simple. They do not interfere in any way I think with the purpose of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, and they do give to the surface owner that protection which we think to be essential and which I greatly hope the noble and learned Lord will agree is essential. I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 6, after ("fit") insert ("having regard always to the rights of third parties").—(Lord Hastings.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I quite appreciate the reasons which have led the noble Lord to propose this Amendment, because of course nothing could have been further from the idea of the draftsman of this clause than to enable the Court to utilise property belonging to somebody who is not a party to the action, and to direct the receiver and manager to do something with it. But I rather hope that the noble Lord will accept my positive statement that the Courts do not act upon that footing. When there is an application of this sort, the Coal Commission will be the applicant as the landowner, and prima facie and in a normal case the tenant will be the only defendant. When the matter comes before the Court on an affidavit stating the facts and asking for the appointment of a receiver and manager, nothing is less probable, and indeed nothing would be more wrong, than that the Court should make an order which affects the interests of third parties who are not before it. It never does such a thing, it would be quite wrong if it did, and if such an order were made in regard to the interests of some third party the third party interested would at once apply to the Court and get such an order set aside to the extent to which it appeared to affect him.
In other words, while I quite agree with what the noble Lord says, that the interests of people in mines or mining machinery which do not belong to the landlord, and in relation to which the landlord has no rights, ought not to be affected by the mere appointment of a receiver and manager. I can assure him that nothing of that sort will take place under such a clause as this, which follows, mutatis mutandis, the usual form of clause
90
which is applicable in such a case. I hope the noble Lord will accept my view that, although he is right in his objects, the objects are sufficiently safeguarded by the fact that the whole matter is left to the discretion of the Court upon the evidence before it.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I need hardly say that I am very glad to accept the specific assurance given to me by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the fears which I had expressed are not likely to be realised. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment which I suggested to him.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment to insert the proposed new clause agreed to.
Clause 21 [Amendments of working facilities enactments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on a previous Amendment which your Lordships have accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 45, after ("that") insert—
("(a) this subsection shall not apply to the granting of a right required by reason of the subsistence of a retained copyhold interest; and
(b)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I suggest that this might be a convenient moment for us to break off our proceedings, because we are now about to enter upon a new part of the Bill. If your Lordships agree I suggest that the House should reassemble at quarter past nine o' clock.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, might I suggest that we might proceed for a few minutes longer on the understanding that we shall not need to return after dinner to-night and on the understanding also that with an earlier sitting to-morrow we should complete this stage of the Bill by dinner time?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I am in some doubt about that. As your Lordships know, there are on the Order Paper to-morrow an introduction and then three Church Measures, so that we certainly shall not begin our work on the Coal Bill until half-past three at the earliest. We

91
are now only on Page II of the Amendments, of which there are twenty-six pages, so that we are nowhere near halfway through yet, and as my noble friend knows there are several matters with regard to the Schedules which will require a good deal of discussion, as they did on the Committee stage. As the House has assembled with the idea that we should have a long sitting to-day I am anxious that we should have that long sitting, so that we may meet at a reasonable hour to-morrow and not sit after dinner then.
LORD HASTINGS: I would like to draw the attention of the noble Earl the Leader of the House to the difficulty in which we are going to find ourselves after dinner in regard to the Second Schedule. The Second Schedule was very controversial and it has been the subject of interminable negotiations between the two parties interested in this Bill, those representing the royalty owners and those representing the coalowners. They having come to an agreement, then His Majesty's Government stepped in with an alternative proposal. As that alternative proposal was put into my hands only after the tea hour this evening, between five and six o'clock, it has of course been quite impossible to arrive at any agreement with those other parties who are deeply interested in this matter. What I feel may happen is that when we reassemble after dinner we shall have to postpone the Second Schedule until to-morrow. If the noble Earl is willing to do that, that is another matter, but I certainly shall not be ready to debate it this evening.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is the new proposal on the Amendment Paper?
LORD HASTINGS: Our agreed Amendments in respect of the Second Schedule are on the Amendment Paper, but the Government are very anxious that we shall accept something different, and there is a probability that we may be able to accept it. It has up to now been impossible to discuss the matter; clearly, while the House is dealing with the Report stage, we cannot be discussing outside. As long as the noble Earl understands the difficulty in which we are, I have no objection to continuing after dinner.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I venture to express the hope that
92
we shall continue to sit to-night, as we have all been brought here with that intention, but I would support the proposal of my noble friend, that if there is one particular Amendment which would cause difficulty we shall agree to postpone that, as we did on the previous stage of the Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: That is perfectly satisfactory.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine o'clock.]
Clause 24:
Reduction by the Commission of rents.
24.—(1) If at any time, on an estimate made by the Commission, it appears to them that their annual surplus for future financial years is likely on the average to exceed the amount which is at that time the prescribed appropriation to reserve, they may reduce any such rents within their control as are specified in the next succeeding subsection by amounts not exceeding in the aggregate one-half, or if the value of the reserve fund is then greater than the prescribed minimum reserve the whole, of the estimated excess of their annual surplus over the prescribed appropriation to reserve.
(2) The rents which may he reduced under the preceding subsection shall be—
(a)….
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "may reduce any such rents within their control as are specified in the next succeeding subsection by amounts" and insert "shall make such reductions in rents as they may consider reasonable taking all the relevant circumstances of each case into account." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to move this Amendment. I rely on the next Government Amendment being accepted which meets the same point.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (2), after "shall be" and immediately preceding paragraph (a), to insert "any of the following at the discretion of the Commission, that is to say,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to give effect to a promise made at a former stage of the Bill to make it clear that the rents in this subsection are not to be taken in the order printed but may be taken in such order as seems best to the Coal Commission. I hope that it will clear up the doubt expressed on a former occasion about this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 4, at end insert ("any of the following at the discretion of the Commission, that is to say,").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31:
Competence of the Commission to acquire associated minerals and rights.
31.—(1) It shall be within the competence of the Commission to acquire—

(a) the fee simple or a term of years or other interest in any minerals or substances other than coal that are capable of being economically worked in association with coal that is being, or is proposed to be, worked; and

(b) the benefit of any right to be exercised in respect of any land for a coal-mining purpose.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on a former Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 27, at end insert—
("(a) a retained copyhold interest in coal or a mine of coal,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of two Amendments in paragraph (a) of subsection (1)—namely, to leave out "worked," where that word occurs for the first time, and insert "gotten," and, after "with," insert "the working of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my first Amendment is to make it clear beyond all question that only minerals or substances other than coal are to be acquired which are actually gotten in association with the working of coal which are in the same strata and are brought to the surface through the same shaft. That is the intention of the Bill, but it would appear as the clause now stands that it might refer to other minerals even if they are lying in a different stratum provided they can be mechanically worked in association with coal. That would not be desirable and it establishes an ambiguity which should not be permitted to find a place in the Bill if it can be avoided. This Amendment does not alter the structure or purpose of the Bill, but it will avoid ambiguity which is likely to arise and which may possibly cause trouble later. My noble friend Lord Gainford says that we had, when discussing this matter, agreed that the word "won" would have
94
been better than "gotten," because there has been a legal decision defining the word "won" and not the word "gotten." I am entirely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor in this matter, and if he would prefer the word "won" I have no objection, but in effect "gotten" and "won" mean entirely the same thing.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 30, leave out ("worked") and insert ("gotten").
Page 28, line 31, after ("with"), insert ("the working of").—(Lord Hastings.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I see no objection to the acceptance of these Amendments, and I think in this context the word "gotten" is quite correct.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 43 [Interpretation]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, because all these words are unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, leave out lines 18 to 25.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to insert in subsection (1):
"'Mortgage' includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth;"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to give effect to a promise made to Lord Bertie of Thame on a former stage of the Bill, that the word "mortgage" should be defined. We have now put it in the definition clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 39, at end, insert the said definition.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, before that Amendment is passed I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question. This Amendment provides that "mortgage "includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth. It occurred to me that it might conceivably have some reference to what is found in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 20 of Part IV of the Third Schedule, wherein it is stated in effect that beneficiaries under a settlement have the right of application to a Court. I was wondering whether a mortgage defined as

95
it is proposed to be defined in the Amendment before the House would have any consequential effects upon those settlements which are brought under the purview of that sub-paragraph. My own legal knowledge is naturally inadequate to answer a question of that kind, but if I might be permitted to invite the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the point, I should be more than satisfied with any reply that he might give me. It occurred to me that this Amendment might conceivably have been drafted without remembering that a previous Amendment brought in by the Lord Chancellor had taken effect in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 20.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am fairly confident that the fear expressed by the noble Lord is not well founded, but it is a little difficult at a moment's notice to be perfectly certain without reading the whole clause through. Perhaps he will accept my assurance that I will look into that before the next stage.
LORD HASTINGS: And if the Lord Chancellor finds that he is not entirely satisfied he would himself put down an Amendment to rectify it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I would.
LORD HASTINGS: I am very glad to accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 10, leave out from ("land") to ("surface") in line 13.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the next Amendment is really a drafting Amendment. These words were left out of Clause 5 and we now propose to put them in here.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 24, leave out from ("order") to end of line 20, and insert ("means an order of the Railway and Canal Commission under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, either as originally enacted or as extended by Section thirteen of the Mining Industry Act, 1926").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Application of Part I to Scotland]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the first Amendment is drafting. The word "freeholder" does not occur in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 42, leave out ("and 'freeholder' means such a proprietor").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 43, at end insert ("'sub-demised' means sub-let").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment again is a question of drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 1, leave out from ("under-lease") to ("an") in line 2, and insert ("and' sub-demise' means sub-lease; and reference to a lease or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 7, leave out from ("security;") to ("chattel") in line 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is also purely drafting, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 15, leave out ("or the Court of Appeal").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (6):
"(7) Any question which is required in pursuance of this Act to be referred to arbitration shall be referred to a single arbiter agreed on by the parties or appointed in default of agreement by the Sheriff;
(8) In any arbitration in pursuance of this Act, the arbiter may, and, if so directed by the Court of Session, shall, state a case for the opinion of that Court on any question of law arising in the arbitration."
The noble and learned Lord said: Lords, this Amendment is required because the law relating to arbitration in Scotland is not so perfect, if I may say so, as the law of this country, and the consequence is that these subsections have to be inserted. It is really a question of drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 17, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment again is pure drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 30, leave out subsection (9). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(15) Section six of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, as amended by Section four of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1895, shall have effect as if the following further proviso were added thereto, namely:—
"Provided also that, notwithstanding anything contained in Section six of this Act, works, buildings, erections or plant used by a lessee of coal (as defined in subsection (4) of Section three of the Coal Act, 1938) for the purpose of working, cleaning or treating such coal shall not be entered in any Valuation Roll or Supplementary Valuation Roll prepared in terms of this Act for the year ending at the term of Whitsunday first occurring after the vesting date as defined in subsection (2) of Section three of the Coal Act, 1938, or for any year thereafter, by reason only of the fact that the said works, buildings, erections or plant are built or erected on land not let by the lease or leases or such coal."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it may be true, as the Lord Chancellor has just said, that the law of Scotland is not so perfect as the law of England, but if that be so then we ought to be very anxious to prevent Scottish law becoming even more imperfect than it is. That really is the reason I am moving this Amendment. It is an Amendment which applies entirely to Scotland, and it depends on the Scottish law of valuation which, if this Bill were to be passed in its present form, would be rendered more burdensome than it is at the present time. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if for a moment I indicate the history of
98
this matter. According to the Scottish Valuation Act, 1854, it was provided in the case of mineral leases that the valuation should be assessed in this way. If it was a lease of thirty-one years or under the valuation was to be taken at the actual rent which was paid by the mineral lessee. If the rent was for a longer period than thirty-one years then other considerations had to be taken into account, and the rent was one of the factors. The buildings put upon the ground formed other ingredients in the valuation. In the year 1895 a change was made in the law of Scotland to the effect that leases of thirty-one years and under should not be taken for valuation purposes at the actual rent as previously, but that other considerations might come into play. For example, buildings on the surface would be taken into account in assessing the annual value at which the property could be let, as the Act expressed it, taking one year with another, but in the case of particular erections upon the surface which were employed solely for the purpose of preparing the coal for the market by washing or cleaning or otherwise, in those circumstances such erections could not be taken into account provided that the minerals were leased along with the surface.
Now your Lordships will immediately see what takes place under this Bill. The Coal Commission having become the proprietor of the coal, no longer is the coal lessee in the position of having a lease where both the coal and the surface is let to him. Accordingly, the advantage which up till now the coal lessee has had in the respect that his buildings erected for the purpose of preparing the coal for the market would not automatically be taken into the valuation has been taken away and he would be assessed upon a larger sum than he has ever previously had to pay upon. It is obvious that that is a new burden put upon the coal lessee which had never been contemplated, and which arises solely from the fact that now you have the Coal Commission in possession of the coal and the lease to the lessee no longer embraces both the coal and the surface. I am sure that the Government do not want to bring about that result. There is no reason why these assessments should be increased upon the colliery lessee. Accordingly this Amendment provides

99
that in future valuations there shall not be taken into account, any more than there has been in the past for the purposes of the assessment to be imposed upon the colliery lessee, the buildings which he has erected upon the surface in connection with his operations for the purpose of preparing his coal for the market. That is the simple proposition which I put to the House, and I am perfectly certain there is no ground in either reason or equity upon which the Government can defend their present position.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 26, at end insert the said now subsection.—(Viscount Horne of Slamannan.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I have never found the law of Scotland imperfect, but I have found it quite beyond my comprehension. May I make this suggestion to my noble friend. This Amendment as it stands is one which I am advised we could not accept, but while it has not yet been found practical to devise a formula which would enable all the cases to be satisfactorily dealt with, we are perfectly prepared to examine further the proposals of my noble friend, and in consultation with him, and I hope that by doing that we may find a workable solution of the difficulty with which the Amendment which he has moved is designed to deal. Perhaps in those circumstances my noble friend would be good enough to put himself into communication with the Secretary for Mines and to discuss the matter with him forthwith.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before my noble friend Viscount Horne of Slamannan tells us whether he is going to withdraw this Amendment or not, may I just add one word in support of it? The noble Earl, Lord Munster, who has said that he finds the law of Scotland incomprehensible, was sympathetic and I therefore will not detain your Lordships by putting forward further arguments in support of the case which was made so very clear by my noble friend Viscount Home. I only want to add my voice to his, as this is a matter which does come from the North of the Tweed, and I can assure your Lordships that after having with very considerable difficulty mastered the substance of the Amendment, I am perfectly certain that it is one which your Lordships would wish to accept.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, I am always a very amenable person; in fact all my life I have suffered from being too amiable. I am in consequence very prone to accept the suggestion which the noble Earl has just made to me, but I warn him that upon this matter I am very implacable, and that the case which I have presented is one of so formidable a character that he will find it extraordinarily difficult to alter the line of thought upon which I have been moving up till now. I am content to withdraw the Amendment for the moment; but we meet again at Philippi on the Third Reading, and I shall ask him to consult his advisers and see whether that which we ask in this Amendment cannot be accepted in the same terms in which we have put it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46:
Duty of the Commission to reduce number of coal-mining undertakings where necessary in interests of efficiency.
(2) The Commission may, at any time, if they are of opinion that adequate progress in the reduction of the number of coal-mining undertakings is not being made, make a report to the Board of Trade recommending that the powers of the Commission under the said Section thirteen of submitting amalgamation and absorption schemes should become exercisable in any area specified in the report as an area in which such progress has in the opinion of the Commission been inadequate, and such report shall set forth the proposals of the Commission in regard to that area and the advantages which are expected to follow therefrom.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "and a scheme of compensation or alternative employment for the mine workers displaced by such reduction of coal-mining undertakings." The noble Lord said: My Lords, if your Lordships will be good enough to look at page 44 of the Bill you will see there Clause 46, a very important clause dealing with the duty of the Commission to reduce the number of coal-mining undertakings where necessary in the interests of efficiency. Your Lordships will remember that this was the subject of very close debate on the Committee stage. My noble friends Lord Snell and others have handed in a manuscript Amendment, which is also in Lily name, and which I may perhaps explain very briefly. If your Lordships will look

101
at the second subsection of Clause 46 you will see that that important subsection, if I may epitomise it, reads:
"The Commission may … if they are of opinion that adequate progress in the reduction of the number of coal-mining undertakings is not being made, make a report to the Board of Trade"—
then I miss out the Intermediate sentences and it goes on:
"and such report shall set forth the proposals of the Commission in regard to that area"—
that is Number one—
"and the advantages which are expected to follow therefrom."
That is Number two.
Of the disadvantages, your Lordships will observe, there is no mention. The disadvantages we fear are these. That if you reduce the number of undertakings, if you close down pits, you will throw men out of work. We do not think it is fair to take away the livelihood of working men or others engaged in the coal industry without compensation, and therefore we propose to add a third proviso that not only shall the Commission, when putting forward their proposals for closing down so-called redundant pits, specify the advantages to the Board of Trade, but they shall put forward a scheme of compensation or alternative employment for the mine workers displaced by such reduction of coal-mining undertakings. My noble friends and myself were encouraged by the speech earlier in to-day's proceedings made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and by the speeches of other noble Lords, who sit on what I believe is irreverently called "the mountain." I understand that noble Lords who sit below the gangway on this side of the House are spoken of as sitting on "the mountain." It is a position of great advantage from which they put forward very cogent arguments, and the particular argument that encouraged my noble friends and myself to seek their aid and the aid of other noble Lords was that used by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and others in pleading for compensation for mining agents whose livelihood was taken away under this Bill.
In the subsequent Division, in which I am sorry to say we were narrowly defeated, my noble friends and myself supported the principle, and I am sure that every one of your Lordships will agree with the old adage which we use in Yorkshire, "What is sauce for the
102
goose is sauce for the gander." If it is right to pay compensation to mining agents it is right to pay compensation to those workmen who find it difficult to turn to any other occupation, except perhaps that of soldiering. The noble Earl, the Leader of the House, knows that they make very good soldiers. These men are born and bred in the coalfields, they go into the pits as young lads and learn their trade at the coal face. It is a highly skilled occupation and if their livelihood is taken from them they are virtually ruined. They are as much entitled to compensation as any other class of the community or any other mine workers. I am sure I shall carry your Lordships with me in that. Everyone would wish to see them compensated. It may be said that the country cannot afford it, or that the industry cannot afford it. That should have been thought about before the Bill was introduced. If you are going to bring about compulsory reduction of undertakings you must think of the people affected. At the very beginning of the Bill in Clause 2 it is laid down that the Board of Trade shall have regard to the national interest before approving schemes and the same principle should apply in Clause 46.
That is our case. I do not know from what the Government have told us that there will be a great many of these compulsory schemes. I understand that the Government hope is that voluntary arrangements will continue and progress, and that the big stick, so to speak, of the Commission will not be used frequently. I hope that will be the case, but where it is used it is not right that mine workers should be left without any compensation or alternative employment. During the earlier stages of these debates certain accusations were levelled against noble Lords that they were perhaps actuated by regard for vested interests, and, if I may say so, they were very properly resented. Here is a chance for your Lordships to act in the interests of the poorest section of the great mining industry, the weekly wage earners. It is all very well to say that these men can go to the unemployment insurance. They do not want to do so. They want alternative employment, or they want to go on being pit-men. My information is that in the coalfields it is becoming difficult to find young men willing to go into the pits. Formerly it was the ambition of young fellows to follow

103
their fathers into the mines. To-day they see the unemployment which exists and they no longer wish to do so. It will be a loss of a great national asset, and for that reason alone, taking a broad national view, which I know your Lordships always take in this House, I hope that this Amendment will receive support.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 34, at end, insert ("and a scheme of compensation or alternative employment for the mine workers displaced by such reduction of coal-mining undertakings"). —(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, Lord Strabolgi has reminded the House that hitherto the seats in which we have been sitting have been known as "the mountain." May I take it that for the future they will be known as "Olympus." With regard to this particular matter, we debated it in another part of the Bill in Committee. I ventured to point out then, that if schemes of amalgamation were brought into effect the interest of the surface owner was likely to be very much affected. Villages in which he has a definite human as well as financial interest were likely to be rendered derelict, and their occupants workless, and I suggested then that it was to the interest of the section who are now mineral owners, but would then be only surface owners, that they should support the arguments which were adduced from the Labour Opposition Benches. I hold the same opinion now. I admit the great difficulty of providing alternative employment, but I do not admit the difficulty of providing compensation. Lord Strabolgi is right in saying that these men, while they can draw unemployment pay when discharged from their regular employment, do not want to do so and would prefer, and I think rightly prefer, either the alternative employment which is sought for them or compensation in respect of their loss of employment.
It occurs to me that inasmuch as a surplus of £2,000,000 per annum is to be taken out of the pockets of those to whom it now belongs, by the action of the Government, and is not to be placed in the pockets of the general taxpayers, it should primarily be earmarked, if it must leave the possesion of those who now own it, for those whom this Bill will most greatly distress. Next to the royalty owners, who are the immediate objectives
104
of the Government's attack, those miners who are displaced by reason of the operation of Part II of the Bill are those who will be most affected. It would seem to be poetic justice that money taken from the mineral owners should, if it is to go to anybody, be given to those whom the Bill afflicts—those who are displaced from employment in the operation of compulsory schemes of amalgamation. On those grounds I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I think they are sound grounds, and I commend them to those in the House who are the owners of what are now prosperous pit villages, and may find themselves the owners, as the result of this Bill, of derelict pit villages, and who owe a debt to the men who are living in reasonable prosperity in these villages now but who may be under the Bill reduced to a condition which will be akin to the position which the royalty owners in many instances will be reduced to by the action of His Majesty's Government.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there is a small point which I think is worth considering in connection with this Amendment. If the Commission made a scheme as is suggested in this clause and had to put before the Board of Trade the advantages which would follow therefrom, and if that scheme involved putting a certain number of miners out of work and placing them on unemployment benefit, the Commission would automatically be putting the gains from their scheme down to the Board of Trade and the costs down to the taxpayer. It appears to me that as a matter of common accounting something of the nature of Lord Strabolgi's proposal should be passed.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I feel that there is a good deal of substance in this Amendment. There are, as your Lordships probably know, a very large number of small working colliers all over the country, and particularly in the Midland district from which I come—little men, working small surface pits entirely on their own, very often entirely staffed by members of their own families. They make a living out of these pits. They are very often a great nuisance to the larger pits, but they make a living out of this gleaning work, as I may term it, which the larger pits could not possibly do. It is perhaps reasonable to argue that these pits are uneconomic, and these

105
men are probably the sort of people which the amalgamation schemes will largely aim at. They are able to obtain leases very easily from the present coal-owners because the present coalowners would find it very difficult to lease these small pits, most of which are partially worked out, to anybody else, and it is reasonable to suppose that when the coal is vested in the Commission and amalgamation schemes are put into force these small men will have their livelihood taken away.
I presume that they will be compensated under the machinery of the Bill in the same way as the owners of any other displaced colliery will be compensated. I hope their compensation will be adequate. But I do feel that there should be some provision to insure their alternative employment in the pits. They are not wealthy men, they are ordinary working colliers. Apart from those people, I feel, agreeing as I do with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that everything should be done to encourage young men to go into the coal-mining industry. There is very great difficulty at the present time in getting pit-boys, and collieries all over the country are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain labour. and if you are going to make the prospect of future labour more insecure by this principle of compulsory amalgamations, the Government will be doing a great deal of harm to the coalmining industry. I can see no reason whatever why this Amendment should not be accepted.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, may I first of all, as one who has not got this Bill entirely at his finger tips, register a modest protest against the number of manuscript Amendments that we have had at this stage? I do not refer particularly to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, because it is fairly easy to understand and he has made it very clear in his speech; but I must confess that in the course of our debates to-day I have found myself in considerable difficulties because of the number of manuscript Amendments. With regard to this Amendment, it is one which arouses, I think, a very natural sympathy in practically everybody's mind, as did the Amendment which dealt with the similar circumstances of the mineral agents. But there is this point that occurs to me: if your Lordships
106
agree to this Amendment and in fact agree to the principle of what may be called contingent liability, where is it going to end? The mineral agent and the coal miner are directly concerned in the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has talked about derelict villages. There are in those villages probably village shops. What about the shopkeeper? Is he to be compensated for his loss of business? Is the Omnibus Company which runs buses to that village to be compensated for their losses? Where is it to end, if the principle is once conceded?
I have in mind—I have not the details, I am afraid—a similar Amendment on the Livestock Industry Bill. I am not at all certain that I did not move the Amendment myself. It was on that part of the Bill which dealt with centralised markets. Your Lordships will remember that three centres were to be selected for centralised markets, and it was suggested that auctioneers dispossessed by such centralisation should be compensated. That Amendment was refused by His Majesty's Government and indeed I think received little, if any, support in your Lordships' House. The principle is exactly the same here, and I would suggest to your Lordships that before agreeing to this Amendment you should consider what is involved by accepting the principle of contingent liability.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My noble friend Lord Radnor says that shopkeepers will lose. It seems to me that if the miners are paid compensation they will not lose.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I would like to say one word with reference to what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said with regard to manuscript Amendments. I should like to say at once to your Lordships that nobody deplores more than I do the need for trying to carry on our legislation under these conditions, but I do want to say that that lamentable state of affairs must not be imputed to those of us who are attempting to improve this Bill other than the Government. The fact is that we took the Committee stage of this Bill now more than a fortnight ago, and a great number of matters were left over for discussion and consideration on the Report stage, which we have now reached. The Government's Amendments, including all

107
their attempts to meet those difficulties which had been raised, only reached us yesterday morning. That put us in the most terrible difficulty. We have done our very best to produce our own efforts, but quite obviously it was for the Government, I think I may say, to lead the way.
I am quite sure the Government did the best they could, but what has affected them is, of course, the intervention of a certain holiday which did take place. I suppose the Government had to have holidays like other people, and I suppose the people who work for the Government had to have holidays like other people. The fact remains that the Government's Amendments were not in our possession until yesterday morning, and because, as so often happens, the Government have put down an Amendment and we have either put down a new Amendment or an old one, there must be some clashing between the two. In order not to hold things over till another stage we are doing the best we can by way of manuscript Amendments. I am going to have some to offer to your Lordships myself shortly, and therefore I take the opportunity of saying it is not our fault. We are doing the best we can.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am not suggesting that the noble Lord was to blame, because there have been as many manuscript Amendments from this side as from that.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: With regard to Lord Strabolgi's point I would like to say it is a point that commands my very warmest sympathy, but that does not blind me to the fact that it is a point we have to examine rather critically. I would like nothing better than to see compensation go to the men who are going to be displaced. I would like better still to see them get alternative employment, but it is no use your Lordships' House commanding the Government to give these men alternative employment. That is a thing we have been trying to do for years, and it is not a thing that can be done to order. As to compensation, that is difficult. There is unemployment benefit, although it may not be as much as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment would like to see; but while my heart commands me to support this Amendment, my head indicates that it would be wiser to reject it.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I agree with a good deal of what my noble friend Lord Balfour has just said, and I must apologise to noble Lords opposite that the Government Amendments appeared on the Paper somewhat late. But may I remind noble Lords that even if they had appeared earlier it is not as a rule customary—I do not say it does not happen—that Amendments are made to Amendments on the same stage of the Bill? What has been the habit of your Lordships' House is that Amendments are put on the Paper and criticised, and then further Amendments are moved on the next stage of the Bill. Those who have seen the conduct of affairs in your Lordships' House know how difficult it is for either the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or the Lord Chairman to put Amendments to Amendments and for the House to be able to follow them. Therefore, though I admit that the Government Amendments did appear late, really the proper method is to amend these Amendments on the next stage of the Bill.
As regards the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite, of course, like everyone else, I have great sympathy with him, but does he quite realise what it entails? It entails only compensation to miners who lose their work through compulsory amalgamations. It leaves those who lose their work as the result of voluntary amalgamations without any compensation at all. It leaves a man who loses his work because there is a reduction of employment in a particular mine again without any compensation. I submit that neither he nor I would care to see one man compensated because, through purely fortuitous circumstances, he lost his job owing to an amalgamation being compulsory while another man across the road lost his job and got no compensation because the amalgamation was voluntary.
Further than that, the noble Lord rather jumped to the conclusion that because there was compulsory amalgamation pits would be closed. That does not follow at all. Nor does it follow, even if a particular pit was closed, that more men would not be required for work in one of the other collieries in the district. Generally speaking, the same amount of coal would have to be raised, although you may close one or two pits, and amal-

109
gamation might take place without closing any pits in order to get better working conditions. It by no means follows that men will lose their employment in that district. For these reasons, both for the fact that you cannot differentiate between a man who loses his job for one reason or another, giving compensation in the one case and not in the other, and for the fact that really I think the noble Lord is reading more into the clause than is intended, I am afraid I must resist the Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am very glad that Lord Strabolgi has moved this Amendment because it gives me the opportunity of saying, what I have said already, that the object of this Bill is to improve the conditions in the trade of mining and to improve, if possible, the conditions under which miners work. To my mind there is no other justification for this Bill but that. If something can be done in a case where miners are displaced from their work by compulsory amalgamations, I think it is a right and proper thing to do. As to the difference between a voluntary and compulsory amalgamation I agree there is an inconsistency there. As to compulsory amalgamations, in some cases I think they will displace miners, and the quantity of coal mined and the number of miners employed may be reduced, but if in fact that does take place we have here an opportunity of compensating those displaced by what your Lordships might agree to call the modernisation of industry. We have an opportunity of doing so because, under this Bill, there should be available a surplus which could be used for that purpose.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that this Bill upsets the present relationship beween the surface and the coal and that it creates entirely new conditions in the coal trade. The only purpose that should be aimed at is to improve the conditions in the coalfields themselves and to my mind this is a way of doing it. I do not feel sentimental about it. I think it is a sensible and practical thing to do. Your Lordships have on more than one occasion discussed the problems which have arisen in what are known as the Special Areas, and those conditions are very often the result of the closing of redundant pits; not the closing of pits by compulsory
110
amalgamations but their closing as a result of trade conditions or the working out of the coal in the collieries themselves. Those who have seen the conditions which very often prevail in those districts would be only too glad to do anything which was possible to improve them. Supposing, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House has suggested, a colliery was to be closed somewhere and miners were to be transferred to another district to work at another pit, what is going to happen about the housing of the men transferred? Where are they to live? There are problems of this kind now in the North of England in what are known as the Special Areas. In some cases miners who want work could be given work at pits twenty or thirty or forty miles from where they are living, but there would be no houses for them to occupy if they were transferred to the new spheres of work. That is the sort of thing that I have in mind more than considerations of a sentimental kind. For those reasons I think this Amendment is one that is worth the serious consideration of your Lordships.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will press this Amendment to a Division. The noble Earl has referred to the case of miners unemployed as the result of voluntary amalgamation. The whole case is, I venture to suggest, wholly different. This House is entitled to take the view that it would rather do partial justice than not attempt to do any justice at all.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very much obliged to those of your Lordships who have supported this Amendment. May I continue the argument of the noble Lord Lord Darcy with regard to the differences between voluntary amalgamations and compulsory amalgamations? If I may respectfully put it to the noble Earl who leads the House, there is a world of difference between men thrown out of employment by an ordinary amalgamation between private capitalist interests and men thrown out of work by an Act of Parliament. That is the difference. The noble Earl has only to visualise the easy "wicket" he presents to the agitators in the coalfields, the men who can go about and say: "This is the Parliament that made such a fuss about these vested interests and rights of royalty owners, but it swept aside the case of the unfortunate men who lose their

111
livelihood and homes by these amalgamations." That is the difference. The ordinary play of the market is a different thing. The men are used to that, and they accept that. They say: "That is the result of the capitalist system. One day we will alter it; in the meantime we will put up with it." But when Parliament steps in and brings about these compulsory amalgamations and men are ruined, naturally they become very upset and bitter.
EARL STANHOPE: They may possibly say: "This is the result of going some way in the direction of nationalisation."
LORD STRABOLGI: That is a different story. If you have complete nationalisation, then you unify the whole industry and you can make your adjustments accordingly. That is quite a different matter. As I ventured to suggest at an earlier stage of the Bill, when I had the honour of speaking for my Party on one of the days of the debate on the Second Reading, if you adopt half measures of this kind you are bound to create frictions and stresses which you otherwise would avoid.
The other matter which I should like to stress is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. It is of course a fact that where you have this Commission who can make schemes for the compulsory closing down of pits, they may be asked by a permanent official of the Board of Trade or by the President of the Board of Trade, "What about the men who are going to be displaced?" and their answer may be, "That is all right; they are going on to unemployment insurance—they are going on to the dole." But that means that they are going on to the taxpayer, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said, and are going on to the rest of industry, and on to their fellow workers who are employed. That is really very bad accountancy indeed. I think that the strongest argument for the Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself is that presented by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, when he spoke of villages derelict as the result of the closing down of those so-called redundant pits. Your Lordships have, I am sure, seen derelict villages and you do not want to see any more; you do not want to have any more brought about by any decision of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I hesitate to interrupt, but I was quoting my noble friend Lord Hastings.
LORD STRABOLGI: My noble friend Lord Radnor spoke about ruined shopkeepers and ruined transport workers. That is a fact, of course; you can devastate areas purely in the interests of efficiency, and you can show a balance-sheet advantage. You can devastate the whole of a valley depending upon coal mining, you can ruin the local doctor, the local chemist, the other local shopkeepers and everyone else concerned; and you can show a balance-sheet profit and you can justify to the Board of Trade that it is a fine thing. But there is a much greater responsibility on Parliament than that, and I think that this Amendment would give some extra safeguard against such unfortunate events as those following this Bill. I have to press my Amendment.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, I intervene in this debate with very great reluctance, and I am tempted to do so only because I feel that there are certain practical considerations which are being left out of account. We are all very eager to see people who through lack of employment are left derelict, put into a position in which they can get alternative employment, and if they cannot get that alternative employment we should be eager to see that in some way or another life was made not unduly uncomfortable for them by reason of the fact that action has been taken which has robbed them of their jobs. That I take it is the opinion of all of us; but when you come to look at the practical suggestion which is made here, I am sure your Lordships will come to the conclusion that it cannot be worked out. For example, take the case of alternative employment. There are no people less easy to move from their villages than mining communities. It has been the experience of everybody who has been dealing with the Special Areas, in Durham, South Wales and Scotland, that you cannot suitably move the miners from the villages in which they live. Their reluctance to move is one of the great features of their existence and constitutes one of the great problems with which the Government are faced in finding employment for men in the Special Areas. It is really one of the most difficult questions with which the Government have been confronted, and it has not been solved by all

113
the efforts of the experts and all the goodwill of Departments of Government which have applied their mind to this subject. You may as well rule out the suggestion of alternative employment.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I would like to remind my noble friend that colliers are ready and willing to travel twenty-five or thirty miles a day in a char-àbanc to another pit. I agree that they do not wish to leave their homes, but they are willing to travel every day to work in another pit.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: No doubt, my noble friend has experience of certain instances of that sort, but taking the problem by and large everyone knows that the position is as I have described. Turning to the question of compensation, I would ask on what basis are you going to provide compensation for the man displaced from his work as a collier? Is it to be on the basis that he is never going to do any work any more in his life, or how are you going to assess it? The State has come to his aid to the moderate degree which unemployment insurance brings about in providing him with something that preserves him from absolute want, but when it comes to assessment of compensation on what basis does anybody believe that compensation could be assessed? I do not believe there is any basis.
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I be allowed to answer the noble Viscount? He was a distinguished member of the Government which passed the great Railways Act of 1921 when compensation was provided for the railway workers displaced under amalgamation. There was no difficulty about it.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: If my noble friend was familiar with railway establishments he would understand that railway men's wages are a totally different matter from the piecework earnings of colliers. The situation is not in any way comparable. I do not believe anybody from the practical point of view could sit down and frame a scheme of compensation which in the generosity of his heart he has proposed to your Lordships. I hope it will not go out from this House that we are in any way of harsh mind with regard to the conditions of colliers, or that we are not as desirous as anybody else to give them as good conditions as can be given, but I am afflicted with the practical difficulties and I think we would only involve ourselves in a position of ridicule if we sent to another place an Amendment which really could not be worked out.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Ridley, V. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Wellington, D.

Tredegar, V.

Gerard, L.

Hastings, L.

Dudley, E.

Aberconway, L.

Holden, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Aberdare, L.

Saltoun, L.

Grey, E.

Addington, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Biddulph, L.

Teynham, L.

Cromwell, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Radnor, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Stanhope, E.

Heneage, L.

Wicklow, E.

Jessel, L.

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

Lamington, L.

Davidson, V.

Luke, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Middleton, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Horne of Slamannan, V.

Mowbray, L.

Bath, M.

Phillimore, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Amulree, L.

Redesdale, L.

Exeter, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Rennell, L.

Zetland, M.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Belstead, L.

Sherborne, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Bingley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Feversham, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

De Saumarez, L.

Windlesham, L.

Munster, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Clause 47:
Powers of the Commission as to obtaining information for purposes of Part II.
47.—(1) Any member or officer of, or technical or professional agent appointed by, the Commission, authorised in writing by the Commission to make inquiries on their behalf as to any coal-mining undertaking specified in the authority, may, so far as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of obtaining information required by them for the discharge of the functions to be performed by them by virtue of this Part of this Act, enter any premises used in connection with the carrying on of that undertaking, and may inspect any such premises and may measure or weigh any stocks, and may take copies or extracts of any accounts, books, plans, or other documents, and may require copies or extracts of any such accounts, books, plans, or other documents to be delivered to the Commission.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert:
"Where information is required by the Commission for the discharge of the functions to be performed by them by virtue of this Part of this Act and the Commission consider it necessary for the purpose of obtaining such information to cause an inspection to be made at any premises used in connection with the carrying on of a coal-mining undertaking the Commission may after giving notice to the persons carrying on the undertaking authorise in writing."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will remember that at the earlier stage of the Bill general expression was given to the point from the various parts of the House that the power given in this clause was really far too wide to give to the officers of the Commission, who could go into any coal undertaking and inquire into any sort of subject without any warning. The Government recognised the force of that objection, and we have tried to meet your Lordships by this Amendment. I hope it meets the point made by your Lordships on a former occasion.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 25, at the beginning insert the said words.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for meeting the point, but my views on amalgamations are pretty well known. I am absolutely in favour of voluntary amalgamations, I think they may do very good work. These compulsory amalgamations, however, are not only irritating but will do a good deal of harm. Moreover, I believe that the Commission as in the past will find it very difficult to find cases
116
where compulsory amalgamation is necessary. But, being established with powers which they have to exercise, they will naturally look about in every possible direction to try to find a case for a compulsory amalgamation which they can put into operation.
Whilst I recognise that the noble Earl has to a large extent met our criticisms, he has not carried out the full undertaking given by the Government on the Committee stage. I should like to read the passage of the Lord Chancellor's speech on May 26, reported in column 657 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He used these words:
"What occurs to me is this. As the clause stood in the Bill originally, I agree there was nothing about what was 'reasonably necessary,' and there was therefore this to be said that if the Commission should take the step of seeking certain information on their own motion it would be impossible to resist it without the liability to a penalty, but the clause has already been altered by the Amendments admitted so that it has the effect that it is only if the Commission act reasonably—and what is required is 'reasonably necessary '—that they have the power to make these inquiries."
We recognise by that that there have to be sufficient grounds for making inquiries, but if the Commission are tempted to make roaming inquiries this Amendment still enables them to do so.
The words to which I want especially to direct the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack are these: he then went on to say:
"There are various words which can be inserted in the clause which will make that clear. I think it is also clear that notice should be given to the undertakers and that they should be told what it is in respect of which information is required."
In the Amendment of the noble Earl there is nothing about the information which ought to be supplied to the undertakers. That, as I understand it, was an undertaking by the Lord Chancellor, that not only should notice be given in writing, as indicated by the noble Earl's Amendment, but that the information should also be supplied. If the noble Earl, who will find me very amenable, of course, as he has already done to-day, will undertake between now and the Third Reading to introduce words which will amplify that, so that not only should notice be given to the owners but that notice should be given in regard to the character of information which is required, I shall not further

117
trouble the House on this matter. Of course, if I cannot be met in that way I feel bound to move my next Amendment, which will at any rate limit the opportunity of this roving Commission to find a case for amalgamation and make all sorts of inquiries into every district to which my next Amendment would limit it. I think I have made a reasonable request and I hope the noble Earl will meet me on that point.
EARL STANHOPE: I shall certainly be very glad to consider whether I can introduce any further words. I do not think I can quite give a pledge, because I am not quite sure whether it is really possible. As the noble Lord opposite knows, what is required is information to see whether amalgamation is feasible and desirable, and that is rather wide. It might be not only the financial situation but what were the conditions in regard to the coal face and the galleries and shafting and all the things about which the noble Lord knows a great deal and I know very little; it might be difficult to find words to cover the whole of that, unless they were such general words that perhaps the noble Lord would not agree to them; but I would be very glad to consider the matter between now and the Third Reading.
LORD GAINFORD: By leave of the House, if I may reply, as I have indicated I wanted an Amendment put down. It was, of course, only because the Government placed this Amendment on the Paper yesterday that I have not been in a position to suggest words, but I do feel that not only should notice be given that inquiries are going to be made, but the information required ought to be indicated to the undertakers. I hope that the Government will see that words can be found between now and the Third Reading. Therefore at the present moment I do not move my next Amendment, but of course, I will hold myself free to move it, if necessary, on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential on the last.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 27, leave out ("authorised in writing by the Commission").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this is consequential also.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 28, leave out ("any") and insert ("the").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 29, after ("authority") insert ("and any persons so authorised").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 3o, after ("obtaining") insert ("such").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the last Amendment to this clause is also consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 31, leave out from the beginning to ("enter") in line 32.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.

  CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF THE COAL COMMISSION.
  5. A member of the Commission shall, within three months after his appointment, sell or dispose of any interest or securities which he may hold in his own name or in the name of a nominee for his benefit in any undertaking carrying on the business of coal-mining or supplying or selling coal or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice of an Amendment to insert after paragraph 1:
  "2. At least two of the members of the Commission shall be persons who have had practical experience in the coal-mining industry."
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, whether this paragraph is a happy one is a matter of opinion, but I can assure your Lordships that I and those assisting me spent quite a long time trying to get words here which would carry

  119
  out precisely the object of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who I think was chiefly concerned, and perhaps also Lord Hastings, to make sure that the Commission should contain two persons who have practical experience and who, according to the suggestion made, should also have had positions of responsibility in the coal-mining industry. The difficulty we had was in finding words which would carry out what I think everyone desired without excluding persons it could not be intended to exclude. When you put in the words "practical experience and responsibility" as suggested in the next Amendment by the noble Marquess, you are in this difficulty. Responsibility to whom? What sort of responsibility? Everybody connected with a mine has some sort of responsibility, and yet that is not what is intended. If you mean persons who are engaged in the actual conduct of the work in the mine, the difficulty is this, that you do not want to confine the choice to persons who have occupied the post of mine manager.
  You do not want, I think, to exclude people who are eminent experts in connection with the coal-mining industry, who have been in it all their lives, but who, as it happens, have not been mine managers, but occupied, perhaps, some higher position or some consultative position such as those eminent experts whom your Lordships are accustomed to consult on questions relating to mining. You do not want also to exclude persons whose business has been mainly in connection with helping the persons engaged in the industry to carry on their business to the best advantage without having held actually the position of ordering coal miners what to do or seeing in a practical way whether the mine is conducted according to the rules of the Act and according to the best principles of avoiding accidents. After making three or four efforts we came to the conclusion in the end that the simplest and most satisfactory was the paragraph which stands in my name and in that of the Leader of the House. We do not think that the word "responsibility" carries out what is really intended. Therefore we are not able at the moment to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, but consider that the paragraph we have suggested carries out the object we all have in view. I beg to move.
  LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, was unable to remain in the House to discuss this question, but he asked me to say a word in connection with this particular Amendment. He thought that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack might accept these words as an alternative to his own proposal:
  "At least two of the members of the Commission shall be persons who have had administrative or other practical experience in the coal-mining industry."
  If the noble Lord would accept those words I am sure it would meet with the wishes of the noble Marquess.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I had not previously been aware of these words. I think they will be quite satisfactory to the Government and I am prepared to accept them.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 51, line 8, at end insert: ("(2) At least two members of the Commission shall be persons who have had administrative or other practical experience in the coal-mining industry").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord puts that to the House, may I remind him that amongst those who supported my noble friend Lord Lothian in originally questioning the proposals of the Government was myself. I desired to be quite sure that the Coal Commission could not be packed with civil servants, and we were given to understand that words would be drafted to exclude civil servants from the sole occupation of the positions on the Coal Commission. Is the Lord Chancellor able to tell the House that the inclusion of these words "administrative experience" does cut civil servants out of membership of the Coal Commission? If not, I shall oppose the Amendment.
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, may I point out to the noble Lord that it is "administrative…experience in the coal mining industry."?
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I asked the noble and learned Lord Chancellor if he could assure me that these words did exclude civil servants from the occupation of the posts on the Coal Commission. If he bears out what the noble Earl the Leader of the House says I am delighted to accept the Amendment, but not otherwise.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a qualification which is not of a negative character but of an affirmative character. The persons must have had administrative or other practical experience in the coal-mining industry. It is not whether somebody will be excluded because he has once been some sort of civil servant. He might have been a postman in the County of Durham who had become by a series of accidents a person with administrative or other practical experience, and whether such a man is intended to be excluded I do not know, but I do not think the present clause would exclude him. What the clause is intended to do is to say that if people are to be appointed they must have this qualification, and therefore, prima facie, an ordinary civil servant will be outside the clause, but the fact that there may occasionally be someone who not only has these qualifications but who also has been at some date a civil servant seems to me to be a matter which need not greatly trouble the mind of the noble Lord.
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lord, the noble and learned Lord is quite correct in saying it need not necessarily trouble me, nor would it. What I want to avoid is the insertion of words which would enable civil servants with administrative experience in the Department concerned with mines to occupy all the positions on the Coal Commission. That is all I desire to be assured about, and the words which the noble and learned Lord himself first moved "shall be persons who have had practical experience n the coal-mining industry" clearly does exclude such persons, but the words he has accepted, suggested on behalf of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, might conceivably let them in, and that is why I object to the words. I like the noble and learned Lord's own Amendment better than I like Lord Lothian's.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is difficult to satisfy everybody. On the whole the Government have done their best here to meet the wishes of the House. If the noble Lord wants my opinion, my opinion is this. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it is my opinion that persons who are merely civil servants and have acquired an experience in that capacity are not persons who have
  122
  had per se an administrative or other practical experience in the coal-mining industry.
  LORD HASTINGS: I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion made by the Lord Chancellor.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment on the Amendment Paper, in the name of Lord Lothian, is not moved. There is then an Amendment to leave out from the word "coal" in line 3o to the end of line 31, in paragraph 5. That Amendment appears in the name of the Marquess of Lothian.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think there has been some error in the printing of the Amendment Paper. This Amendment should stand in the name of the Lord Chancellor. Your Lordships will recollect that during a previous stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Crawford raised the question of the membership of the Commission, and as to the securities which the members might hold. After a prolonged debate on the Committee stage I moved to leave out the words "or the manufacture or sale of by-products of coal or machinery or plant for coal-mining." We have considered this matter again, and those words in our judgment are the best words to omit from that paragraph to meet the point raised by my noble friend Lord Crawford.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 51, line 3o, leave out from ("coal") to the end of line 31.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HASTINGS: The next Amendment, in the name of Lord Darcy, to add a sub-paragraph to paragraph 9, would have been a consequential Amendment to the Amendment as to mineral agents' compensation, had it been carried, but as that Amendment was defeated this Amendment cannot be moved.
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I suggest that perhaps this would be a convenient moment to adjourn our debate until to-morrow. I see that there are on the Paper a good many Amendments proposed to the Second Schedule, and therefore this is rather a convenient point at which to stop. If that is the wish of your Lordships, I will move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl Stanhope.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR NAVIGATION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BLL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I venture to remind your Lordships that the House meets to-morrow at three o'clock.
LORD STRABOLGI: And on Thursday at three o'clock too?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes.
House adjourned at six minutes before eleven o'clock.

OSSETT CORPORATION BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Reported, without amendment.

  SUDBURY GAS ORDER, 1938.
  Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Sudbury Gas and Coke Company Limited:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  HASLINGDEN UNION GAS ORDER, 1938.
  TORQUAY GAS ORDER, 1938.
  CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (GARSCUBE LANDS) ORDER, 1938.
  READING GAS ORDER, 1938.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to Which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

TOTTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1938.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, that they have received and considered a report from the Board of Trade upon the Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

CLEARING OFFICE (TURKEY) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1938.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the
126
Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Order does not raise important questions of policy and principle; that the Order is founded on precedent, inasmuch as it provides for the further variation of an Order which has received already the approval of the House; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (WINTER ADJUSTMENTS) REGU LATIONS, 1938.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that they have considered a Memorandum by the Minister of Labour; that in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle; they comply with the terms of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the Special Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (HIGH COURT JUDGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (HIGH COURT JUDGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (ADAPTATION OF LAWS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1938.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the India and Burma Orders Committee.