Sitting of 30 June 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cirencester) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wath upon Deanne) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    GOVERNMENT WORKS, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour whether lie is aware that labour is being imported from Ireland for employment at Government works in South Wales; and what does he propose to do to stop this breach of his undertaking that local labour shall be engaged?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): My inquiries show that, apart from 18 skilled men brought forward from Northern Ireland to make good a shortage of such workers, labour is not being imported from Ireland for employment at Government works in South Wales. A few men have come on their own initiative and have obtained employment direct with the contractors but, in the main, the labour employed consists of men engaged, either locally or from neighbouring areas, through the employment exchanges.
    Mr. Williams: Does not the Minister think that persons in the locality should have a preference, when there is such a large volume of unemployment there?
    Mr. Brown: I am assured that that is mainly the case.
    Mr. A. Jenkins: Will the Minister give an undertaking that where suitable labour
    2090
    is available locally, he will direct that only local labour should be employed?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot give such an undertaking for reasons which I have already explained to the House, on more than one occasion.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Surely this is a breach of the undertaking which we have had from the Minister on many occasions, that local labour would be employed?
    Mr. Brown: No; that is not an accurate statement of the case. The only undertaking I have given is that vacancies notified to the Bridgend Employment Exchange will be brought to the notice of suitable qualified men in the locality or in neighbouring areas.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Does the Minister think it right that labour should be imported into an area where there is so much unemployment?
    Mr. Brown: I have already answered that question.

    WEST CUMBERLAND SPECIAL AREA (DISTRICT COMMISSIONER).
    Mr. Andersonasked the Minister of Labour how the recent appointment of a commissioner for the West Cumberland Special Area was made, and the qualification required for the occupation of this post, the salary paid, and the qualification of the present occupant?
    Mr. E. Brown: The new appointment to the post of District Commissioner in the West Cumberland Special Area was made by the Commissioner for the Special Areas of England and Wales, who took all the circumstances into consideration, and is satisfied that the gentleman in question possesses the necessary qualifications for the post, which is of an administrative character, involving a wide range of activities. The salary to be paid is at the rate of £1,000 per annum.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that there is general dissatisfaction with this appointment; and is he further aware that, if my information is correct, this person has had no previous experience except in the scholastic world; and surely men who are more closely in touch with the work in the Special Areas should be appointed to these positions in the first place?
    Mr. Brown: With regard to the first part of the question, that is not my information. The Special Commissioner takes the view, and it is my own view, that general administrative ability is more important in this matter than commercial experience.
    Mr. Anderson: Was any advice taken from people in the locality before such an appointment was made?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly. We are in the closest touch with the board of the West Cumberland Industrial Company on which there is plenty of industrial experience.

    ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the hardship caused by the regulations of the Unemployment Assistance Board in the cases of applicants who resume work in employment where it is the practice to retain a week's wages in hand and in which cases the Board take the earnings as available resources in the current week and deprive these men of allowances, so that they have neither wages nor allowances; and will he take steps to review the position with a view to mitigating this hardship?
    Mr. E. Brown: The Board have no power to make a determination for a person in full-time employment. If, however the person is already in receipt of an allowance when obtaining full-time work and determination normally remains in force during the first week of employment at least. During this period where hardship might otherwise occur because payment of wages is deferred, the Board's officers have power to adjust the allowance as may be necessary by increasing the proportion of the earnings allowed for personal requirements. My information is that it has been generally found possible by the exercise of such discretion to obviate hardship, except in cases that lie outside the Board's legal powers.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that in certain cases which came to my notice recently, men on the Saturday before a holiday found themselves without wages or allowances; and will be give serious consideration to changing the regulations so as to deal with those cases?
    Mr. Brown: I always give serious consideration to points put up by Members in this House, but the hon. Member
    2092
    knows as well as I do—speaking in advance of the case which he is sending me —that the difficulty here lies not in the law or with the Board, but in the industrial arrangements between the two sides.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered a communication from the Nantyglo and Blaina Trades and Labour Council; and whether the Unemployment Assistance Board, in view of the importance attached to their regulations, which provide for the exercise of discretionary powers by the local area officer, will ascertain if such powers are exercised by the officer in charge at their office in Nantyglo, Monmouthshire?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir. With regard to the second part of the question, I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that they have no reason to suppose that the area officer at Nantyglo, Brynmawr, does not exercise his discretion in a proper manner.
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour what instructions have been issued to area officers with regard to reduction of allowances where unemployed persons have received payment for holidays for periods of employment prior to the commencement of their last period of employment?
    Mr. Brown: I presume the hon. Member refers to applicants for Unemployment Assistance who receive holiday pay in respect of a previous period of employment. The Board inform me that such holiday payments will in general be treated as earnings and their officers are dealing on this basis with individual cases as they arise.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that the Greenock Trades Holiday started on Tuesday of this week and that there is great resentment among those who are drawing unemployment benefit, at the holiday pay being taken into account as a result of which they have lost several days' benefit? I have here the signatures of 1,218 such men, with their addresses.
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons who have suffered reductions in unemployed allowances since the operation of the Unemployment Assistance

    2093
    Board in Glasgow; and the total amount of reductions up to date, giving separate figures for the Maryhill division?
    Mr. Brown: I regret that information precisely in the form desired by the hon. Member is not available, but in the Board's administrative district of Glasgow r and in the Maryhill area, the numbers of applicants at the end of April last who were receiving allowances which had been reduced by way of adjustments under the "Stand-still" arrangements were 3,932 and 280 respectively. This excludes adjustments of allowances made in consequence of personal earnings declared at the exchange at the time of payment. I regret that the total amount of reductions up to date is not available.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tendency is for these reductions to increase recently, and will he examine it from the point of view that these reductions, when those people go on to public assistance, throws a burden on the local authorities that ought to be taken by the National Exchequer?
    Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There cannot be any recent case, as the whole thing is completed, and there will be no more reductions on account of differentiation of scale.
    Mr. Davidson: If I send the right hon. Gentleman different information, will he investigate it?

    Special Area.

    24th May, 1937.

    16th May, 1938.

    Total number registered as unemployed registered as unemployed (insured and
    uninsured).

    Percentage unemployed among insured persons aged 16–64.

    Total number registered as unemployed (insured and uninsured).

    Percentage unemployed among insured persons aged 16–64.

    Durham and Tyneside

    108,777

    19.2

    106,574

    18.5

    West Cumberland

    10,758

    27.9

    9,441

    24.2

    South Wales and Monmouthshire

    108,251

    24.7

    124,169

    28.7

    South-West Scotland

    63,427

    17.2

    63,395

    17.2

    All Special Areas

    291,213

    20.7

    303,579

    21.5

    BARNSLEY.
    Mr. Collindridgeasked the Minister of Labour the number of wholly unemployed and the partially unemployed at Barnsley on the latest available date, and the comparative figures for 1937?
    Mr. Brown: I will certainly do so.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that if a man in Yorkshire gets a 1½d. rise per day, that is taken into account when he goes on to public assistance?

    SPECIAL AREAS.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed and the percentage of unemployment in each of the main groups of Special Areas in Great Britain, and in the Special Areas as a whole, in May, 1937, and May, 1938?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Smith: Do the figures differentiate between the wholly unemployed and other categories?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the return.
    Following is the statement:
    Table showing for each of the main groups of Special Areas the total numbers of persons, aged 14 and over, insured and uninsured, registered as unemployed, and the percentage rate of unemployment among insured persons, aged 16–64 (exclusive of persons within the agricultural scheme), at 24th May, 1937, and at 16th May, 1938:
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The table below shows the number of unemployed persons, aged 14 and over,

    2095
    on the registers of the Barnsley Employment Exchange and Juvenile Employment Bureau at 16th May, 1938, and 24th May, 1937, distinguishing those who were wholly unemployed (including casuals) and those who were temporarily suspended from their employment:

    —

    16th May, 1938.

    24th May, 1937.

    Wholly Unemployed

    5,539

    6,174

    Temporarily Stopped

    2,809

    7,206

    Total

    8,348

    13, 380

    The figures for 16th May, 1938, have been compiled in accordance with the revised procedure for counting the unemployed, introduced in September, 1937, under which persons subsequently found to be in employment at the date of the count are excluded from the figures.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour what instructions have been issued to Employment Exchange officials regarding questions where pay for holidays has been granted since July, 1937, to persons now in receipt of unemployment benefit, either wholly or part time; and, where certain days are regarded as annual holidays, what arrangements have been made to ensure that the unemployed person is in no way penalised?
    Mr. E. Brown: In the class of cases to which the hon. Member refers a number of claims to benefit have, owing to the extension of holidays with pay, been made in circumstances for which there is no precedent. It is not within my power to issue instructions as to the decisions to be given on such claims. It is necessary to obtain decisions from the Umpire in a sufficient number of typical cases, and this is being done as quickly as possible. I understand that hearings before the Umpire are to take place to-morrow. I cannot, of course, forecast what his decisions may be.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very cheap sailings from Greenock to the Western Islands and the Isle of Man and that these men were willing to go there, but that because they were not able to sign at the Employment Exchange and the Unemployment Assistance Board centre they lose their allowances; and will he not look into the matter?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. and learned Member sent me a very long and interesting letter the day before yesterday, and I will send him a detailed reply as soon as I can. We shall do all that we can to give effect to holidays with pay as soon as we can, but the House must understand that every trade brings up its own problems.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the representatives from the Ministry of Labour who will attend the Umpire to-morrow have the right hon. Gentleman's instructions to support a policy of not robbing the people of the value of holidays with pay?
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that this pay for holidays is deferred pay?

    TRADING ESTATES.
    Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement about the trading estates in the depressed areas; and whether it is proposed to extend them?
    Mr. E. Brown: On 31st May, 1938, 45 factories had been completed on the Team Valley Trading Estate; 43 of these had been occupied by tenants, 36 of whom had begun production. As regards the future, 45 factories were then in course of construction for tenants and a further seven tenants had been secured for factories which had not then been begun. Negotiations were proceeding with 112 other possible tenants. At the same date on the Treforest Trading Estate 16 factories had been completed; 14 had been occupied by tenants, 10 of whom had begun production. Eighteen factories were in course of erection to meet the requirements of tenants, and negotiations were proceeding with a large number of possible tenants, and it was expected that at least 28 tenancies would mature from those negotiations.
    Mr. Jenkins: Can the Minister tell the House the number of people employed on the Treforest estate?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will do my best to give him the latest figures.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour the number of men, 21 years of age and over, who are employed in the factories on the Team Valley estate?
    Mr. Brown: The latest information which I have about the age grouping of workers in the factories on the Team Valley Trading Estate is that given to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on 12th April. The information was to the effect that about the middle of March when the total number employed was 758, those under 18 numbered 321. The total number now employed is over 1,000, and the proportion under 18 is probably about the same.
    Mr. Batey: Should I be justified in assuming, on private information sent to me, that there are only 387 men over 18 years of age employed on the Team Valley Estate, which means that the Government have spent over £3,000 for each man employed in the factory?
    Mr. Brown: I think it would be unwise to assume that.
    Mr. Dalton: Could not the Minister endeavour to bring the figures up to a more recent date?
    Mr. Brown: I will see what I can do in this matter, but the House must remember that I have no powers in the matter. I must ask the trading estates to get from them—and they are mostly small people, with not much clerical assistance—a number of facts, which I have tried to do, but I will look into the matter again and see what I can do.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Minister of Labour (1) the expenditure for 1937 of benefits paid from the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the amount paid for administration;
    (2) the expenditure for 1937 of payments paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board and the amount paid for administration?
    Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    In the calendar year 1937 the approximate expenditure on unemployment benefit (including agricultural benefit) and on unemployment allowances and the total cost of administration of unemployment insurance and of unemployment assistance respectively, were as follow:

    Unemployment insurance.

    £

    Benefit

    33,615,000

    Cost of administration

    5,100,000

    Unemployment assistance Allowances

    36,740,000

    Cost of administration

    4,680,000

    PATTERN MAKERS AND SHEET-METAL WORKERS.
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Minister of Labour how many pattern makers and sheet-metal workers, respectively, were unemployed on 1st June this year, and what were the corresponding figures for last year on the same date throughout the country as a whole; and how many such skilled men were unemployed on the same dates in Glasgow, Greenock, Coventry, Birmingham, Liverpool and Birkenhead, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am having the available information extracted and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Kirby: Is it not a fact that unemployment among these workers is increasing rapidly, and how can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that fact with the statement of the Government that there is a shortage of skilled labour in regard to the rearmament problem?
    Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Member had better await the statement and then if necessary put a further question, which I will do my best to answer.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the scarcity of domestic employés, especially in seaside resorts; and whether, as the result of his recent inquiries into this problem, he has any proposals to make for improving the present position?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have not yet completed my consideration of the results of the inquiries to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate being able to help in this problem in time for this season?
    Mr. Brown: I am not sure about that. As I have informed the House more than once, I am intending to have discussions with the representatives of a series of organisations on this matter.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the difficulties of seaside resorts in this matter, and does he know that in one of the most attractive of them, Colwyn Bay, waiters, waitresses, and maids, have to be imported, in spite of considerable unemployment among the insured population?
    Mr. Brown: I am well aware of the facts, which are not confined to this country.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shortage of domestic labour is very largely due to the low wages paid and to the bad conditions under which they are employed; is he not aware that the Trades Union Congress is now setting up a union for these workers, and will he do whatever he can to help?
    Mr. Brown: As far as my answers went, they showed that wages were not the principal issue, but if the hon. Member tells me that conditions of employment are bad, I will say that I have had a good many representations made to me on the subject. As regards the other point, as the hon. Member knows, the Trades Union Congress is taking action in the matter, and it is not my duty to do its task for it.

    SCOTLAND.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed in Scotland for the years ended March, 1937 and 1938, respectively?
    Mr. E. Brown: The average numbers of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland in the years ended March, 1937, and March, 1938, were 265,935 and 241,820, respectively.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that along with this small decrease in the registered unemployed, we have a considerable increase in the number of people on Poor Law relief, and will he—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is asking for figures, and the Minister has given them.
    Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. May I submit to you that the Poor Law relief figures, to which I was referring, relate very much to people registered on the unemployment books who go from there to local relief and if you had allowed
    2100
    me to finish my supplementary question I think I could have shown that it was perfectly in order?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asked the Minister to state the number of unemployed, and the Minister gave the number.

    HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken in respect to the setting up of a special section in his Department to deal with holidays, with pay, and the spread-over of holidays; whether further consideration has been given to the granting of a statutory right to all workers of holidays, with pay; and whether it is the intention of his Department to examine the problem of holiday congestion and the ways of avoiding it?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) on 2nd and 23rd June. The question of holiday arrangements in all its aspects will receive consideration by the Inderdepartmental Committee.
    Mr. Creech Jones: My question is whether further consideration has been given to the proposal for granting a statutory right to all workers. Have the Government considered introducing legislation covering all workers?
    Mr. Brown: I have already pointed out in the very long reply to which I have referred the hon. Member that we are bringing in a Bill to deal with the first steps.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Are we to take it that the Government have not yet decided to implement that part of the report which recommends that there should be an enactment to cover all workers?
    Mr. Brown: I would not accept the statement in that form. I think the hon. Member had better look at the original answer, which covers every major point.
    Mr. George Griffiths: And means nothing.
    Mr. Macquisten: Will "workers" include employers, some of whom work very hard?

    NEWSPAPER CANVASSERS.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conditions of labour among newspaper circulation canvassers, particularly with regard to the actual hours worked in contrast to those contracted for?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have no information regarding any recent difficulties in connection with employment of the kind mentioned. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of the cases he has in mind I shall be prepared to consider the matter.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that these canvassers, besides the ordinary working day, have to work several hours at night filling in forms, and that they have to give away papers free in order to keep their jobs, thus creating an artificial circulation; and is he aware that the "Express" and the "Daily Mail" are the worst offenders?
    Mr. Brown: I would not accept that statement at all in advance of evidence. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me the evidence on which he bases his statement. The dispute two years ago did not refer to those two papers at all.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the "Express" paid £750,000 last year on this job?

    CINEMATOGRAPH WORKERS (HOURS AND WAGES).
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour what further action he now proposes to take following the inquiry recently held into the hours of employment and wages of cinematograph workers in Great Britain?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am not yet in a position to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 16th June.
    Mr. Day: Will it be possible to give a decision on this matter, which has been going on now since 1929?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member keeps on making that statement, but it is not accurate. There was an inquiry in 1929, but I began inquiries about 18 months ago, and I have a vast amount of information which we are now collating. At
    2102
    the present moment I cannot say when it will be possible to make an announcement. The hon. Member will understand that we are bringing the matter up in order to see whether improvements are necessary, and, if so, how they can be obtained. That is my desire.
    Mr. Day: Did not the Minister's predecessor give the same promise, and can he not now say when some definite action can be taken?
    Mr. Brown: I have told the hon. Member that I cannot. I will do so as soon as I can.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Are we to understand that 18 months is well below the average of delay in the case of this Government?
    Mr. Brown: That is not so, as the Government's record shows. It is a wonderful constructive record.

    CATERING TRADE (WORKERS' CONDITIONS).
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now completed his inquiries into the catering trade conditions; and has he any statement to make?
    Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. Discussions have been commenced for the purpose of reviewing conditions in this field, but they will take some time to complete.
    Mr. Davidson: In view of the great importance of this question to many workers in this country who are working under very bad conditions indeed, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication as to when he will be able to submit a statement?
    Mr. Brown: I would remind the hon. Member that the field is so wide that it will take some time.
    Viscountess Astor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when Miss Bondfield was Minister of Labour this was thoroughly known and that nothing was done?

    FAMILY ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to set up a committee to consider

    2103
    and report upon the desirability of establishing family allowances and the conditions under which such grants should be made?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister yesterday to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, East (Mr. Boothby).
    Mr. Adams: Arising out of that answer, of which I was fully aware, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of this matter in all parts of the House, and will he not undertake to bring it before the Cabinet for further consideration?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend said.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this renewed interest in the matter is largely due to the revelations made in the Unemployment Assistance Board's report as to the terribly low wages paid in this country, and will he, as Minister of Labour, take steps to raise the general wage standard of the country?

    AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
    Sir Louis Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability of arranging that, after a certain date, it shall be a condition of remaining on the Government contract list that adequate arrangements shall be made to protect the employees in the factories concerned against the dangers of air raids?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Steps are being taken to impress upon the principal firms holding Government contracts the view of the Government that every employer of labour should take suitable precautions for the protection of his workpeople, and the safeguarding of his plant, and arrangements are under consideration for securing periodical reports upon the progress made in these respects in establishments working upon Government contracts.
    Sir L. Smith: Will my hon. Friend be able to give the House information from time to time?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman puts a question down.
    Miss Wardasked the Home Secretary when works engaged on work in connection with the rearmament programme are to be made eligible for air-raid precautions grants?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Government have not in contemplation any grant to such works in respect of precautions which all employers are expected to undertake.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that these firms are carrying out just as essential service to the nation as public utility companies, will my hon. Friend reconsider his decision?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Government are proceeding more on the lines of the reply given to the question by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane).

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Sir Arnold Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in anticipation of the deliberations of the proposed Royal Corn-. mission, he will institute sample inquiries through Unemployment Assistance Board, or otherwise, with a view to ascertaining what proportion of applicants for public assistance are in receipt of weekly payments or have received lump sum settlements under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or, as stated on pages 109 and 117 of the Unemployment Assistance Board's Annual Report, are regarded as ineligible for certain employments owing to the risk of contracting industrial diseases?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): The Commission will have ample facilities for making inquiries into matters relevant to their deliberations, and I think it must be left to the Commission to consider what inquiries should be instituted.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the Royal Commission that is to consider the Workmen's Compensation Act; and can he announce the names of the Commission and their terms of reference?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on 22nd June.
    Mr. Tinker: If my hon. Friend repeats his question in a fortnight's time, will the answer be ready then?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think I could give any such undertaking.

    HIGHWAY OFFENCES (LONDON).
    Mr. Dayasked the Home Secretary the number of persons who were reported and dealt with by the Metropolitan Police for the 12 months ended at the last convenient date for contravention of the Highways Act, 1835, by interrupting the free passage of the highway and failing to keep to the left or near side of the kerb?
    Sir S. Hoare: Separate figures in respect of these two offences are not available and the information asked for could not be obtained without considerable research. During the year ended 31st May last there were in the Metropolitan Police District 29,315 summonses for various offences of obstructing the highway, including those mentioned by the hon. Member; and in addition 4,141 cases were dealt with by written caution and 222,518 cases by verbal warning or advice. It will be appreciated that these totals consist mainly of cases of obstruction by vehicles.
    Mr. Day: Were these particular cases dealt with by warnings?
    Sir S. Hoare: I have given the answer at the end of my reply as to the numbers dealt with by warning.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: What authority have the police to give a warning to a person who has not committed an offence?
    Sir S. Hoare: Perhaps I should have said "advice."

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.

    NEW STATION, SAVILE Row.
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Home Secretary the price paid for the site of the new Vine Street police building; what is the accommodation that the new building is to provide; what the building is estimated to cost; and whether the plans were prepared by the staff at Scotland Yard or by a firm of outside architects?
    Sir S. Hoare: The new police station to be erected in Savile Row will replace the existing stations at Vine Street and Great Marlborough Street and be more centrally
    2106
    placed for the area to be served. Both building and site costs in this part of London are high, and it is estimated that the cost of the new building will be about £130,000: in addition £61,828 has been spent on the purchase of the necessary freehold and leasehold interests and there is a ground rent of £3,665 per annum. The plans have been prepared by a firm of outside architects in consultation with the Receiver's department. I am sending the hon. Member a schedule of the accommodation to be provided.
    Mr. Mander: Is any special extra accommodation being provided for Members of Parliament?

    RECEIVER'S DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Home Secretary in what way appointments to the accounts section of the Metropolitan police receiver's department are made; and whether any of the members of the staff are qualified chartered accountants by examination?
    Sir S. Hoare: The staff in question is recruited from executive, higher clerical and clerical officers and the senior posts are filled by promotion. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Home Secretary the number of the staff in the architects section of the Metropolitan police receiver's department at the end of each of the following years: 1922, 1927, 1932 and 1937; the total of salaries and wages paid to such staff; and the total value of the work carried out for the department, by contract or otherwise, for which the architects section was responsible for each of the above five-year periods?
    Sir S. Hoare: As the reply to the hon. Member's question involves a number of figures, I will, with his permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The numbers of the staff and the total of the salaries in the architectural section of the receiver's department for the four years for which I understand the hon. Member to require the information were:

    Staff.

    Salaries.

    £ s. d.

    s.

    d.

    1922–23

    …

    12

    4,012

    14

    11

    1927–28

    …

    6

    3,761

    17

    8

    1932–33

    …

    9

    4,513

    14

    7

    1937–38

    …

    108

    32,190

    0

    1

    The value of the work done during the five-year periods shown below was as follows:

    £

    s.

    d.

    1922–27

    …

    …

    364,968

    9

    10

    1928–32

    …

    …

    412,534

    16

    3

    1933–37

    …

    …

    777,087

    14

    11

    £1,554,591

    1

    0

    As regards the last period, it should be explained that the figures represent only actual payments for work done by contractors and do not include the value of the very large volume of work by the staff on drawings and plans and the preparation of schemes in contemplation but not yet carried into execution.

    PRIVATE HIRE CARS (DEPARTMENTAL OMMITTEE).
    Mr. Crowderasked the Home Secretary whether, when setting up the committee which is to investigate the question of competition between taximeter-cabs and private motor-car hire firms, he will arrange that a separate report shall be issued with regard to the London area?
    Sir S. Hoare: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I hope to be in a position to make a full statement on Monday next.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that this is a rapidly growing problem in London and that a decision and action on it are urgently desirable?
    Sir S. Hoare: I am well aware of the urgency of the problem and to the particular urgency in London, and it is on this account that I hope to deal with it in my answer next week.

    INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (EYE INJURIES).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that it has been estimated that each year in Great Britain some 250,000 eyes are injured in the course of industrial employment, many of them resulting in permanent damage to sight; and what steps the Government are taking to enforce preventive measures generally and especially in the coal-mining industry?
    Sir S. Hoare: The information in my Department does not suggest that the number of eye injuries in industrial employment can be anything like 250,000 a year, but undoubtedly the number is very considerable and the matter is one of serious concern. In addition to some special provisions dealing with the subject in existing Codes of Regulations, there is a Section in the new Factories Act as to the provision of goggles or screens and I have already issued in draft some Regulations applying that Section to certain processes. In many cases, however, screening is impracticable and there is great reluctance on the part of the workers to wear goggles, and their co-operation is essential if preventive measures are to be generally secured. The Act of 1937 also contains new provisions as to the lighting of factories, which should have an important effect in preventing eye strain. As regards the coal mining industry, the hon. Member should address his enquiry to my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines.
    Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that many technical experts have expressed recently the opinion that more stringent measures are necessary?
    Sir S. Hoare: I think that the measures that are being introduced should go a long way in the direction of improvement if there is co-operation between employers and workpeople.

  EDUCATION.

    PARENTS' HOLIDAYS (CHILDREN'S ABSENCE).
    Sir William Jenkinsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he proposes to revise the regulations governing the payment of grants in respect of elementary schools to include provision for the payment of grant in respect of the absence of children with their parents while on their week's holiday with pay?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): No revision of the grant regulations is necessary, but my Noble Friend proposes to take the necessary administrative action to safeguard local education authorities against loss of grant.
    Mr. Thorne: In the event of parents having holidays with pay taking their

    2109
    children away with them, will the local authorities penalise them in consequence of their absence?
    Mr. Lindsay: Definitely no.

    LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. Loganasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (1) whether he is aware that the Liverpool Education Committee is considering the issue of statutory notices of its intention to build council schools in Roman Catholic areas; whether this is in conformity with the desire of the Board; and, if not, what action does he intend to take;
    (2) whether, in view of a recent circular he sent to Liverpool education authorities asking for reorganisation plans to be forwarded to him by 30th June, he is now in a position to make a comprehensive statement in regard to the provision of non-provided schools, grants and maintenance of religious rights in such reorganisation, in conformity with the national compromise and the Education Act, 1936?
    Mr. Lindsay: A letter was received from the Liverpool local education authority two days ago setting out in a general way their proposals for providing the additional school accommodation which is needed in the dockside area. Proposals are included for the issue of notices for a number of new council schools, which appear to be intended for children now in attendance at Roman Catholic schools which are not suitable for their existing numbers. This letter is now being considered and I am not yet in a position to say anything further on the matter.
    Mr. Logan: Although the position is delicate, and I do not want to put the Minister in an awkward situation, may I ask whether, if I put a question down in a week's time, I can have something more definite about the City of Liverpool in regard to this involved question, or would a fortnight be better?
    Mr. Lindsay: I could do with three weeks.

    SIZE OF CLASSES.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will give sympathetic consideration to establishment schemes of staffing submitted by local education
    2110
    authorities designed to effect continuous progress in the reduction in the sizes of classes?
    Mr. Lindsay: Local education authorities' proposals for teaching establishments designed to effect a reduction in the size of classes will, as hitherto, be sympathetically considered by the board, but for reasons which I have previously given in the House, drastic or precipitate reductions cannot be contemplated at the present time.
    Viscountess Astor: In the meantime, will it be possible to have supplementary teachers to help with these large classes?
    Mr. Lindsay: I should like to point out that during the last five years the number of classes of over 40 children has dropped by nearly 28 per cent., and that every year the classes are getting smaller and smaller.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that there are thousands of children in classes that are so large that it is impossible for them to get proper education?
    Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. Friend explain what he means by "drastic reduction"?
    Mr. Lindsay: As stated in a reply given by my Noble Friend to a delegation the other day, drastic reduction meant reducing the size of classes to 30 or 35, and that would mean an expenditure of something like £26,000,000.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the classes at Clivedon at the week-end are over 40?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Would the Parliamentary Secretary be prepared to recommend to the President the possibility of removing smaller rural classes and the small classes due to reorganisation from the establishment scheme?
    Mr. Lindsay: I should like notice of that question.

    GYMNASIA (COST).
    Mr. Edeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what has been the average cost of gymnasia provided for secondary and elementary schools, respectively, during the last convenient period, differentiating between the cost of a gymnasium included

    2111
    in a school at the time of building the school and one built subsequently as a separate contract?
    Mr. Lindsay: In general for gymnasia of the same size there is no difference in cost as between secondary and elementary schools. During the last 12 months, the average cost of a gymnasium of the usual brick construction has varied between £3,500 and £4,400, according to size. With regard to the last part of the question, however, the board have not had enough experience to enable them to give any reliable figures.
    Mr. Ede: Is the hon. Member aware of the tendency for the cost of these buildings to increase, and is that due to a rise in building costs or to the additional requirements of the Board?
    Mr. Lindsay: There have been no additional requirements by the Board recently.

    UNIVERSITY STUDENTS (ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the total number of students, male and female, entering English universities in the latest year for which figures are available; the number of such students who originated in elementary schools; the total numbers entering Oxford and Cambridge Universities; and how many of these originated in elementary schools?
    Mr. Lindsay: According to the annual returns made to the University Grants Committee, the total number of new full-time entrants (male and female) to the universities in England and Wales (excluding Oxford and Cambridge) for the academic year 1936–37 was 7,398, and of this number 3,197, or about 43 per cent., began their education in a public elementary school. The former figure, however, includes students from overseas who, in 1936–37, formed over 10 per cent. of the whole body of full-time students in England and Wales; if these are omitted the percentage would be 48. For the University of Oxford, the total number of new full-time entrants was 1,555 and for the University of Cambridge 1,932. No exact figures are available as to the number of these students who began their education in a public elementary school; an approximate calculation however gives about 350 for Oxford
    2112
    and 400 for Cambridge. If deduction is made of the students from overseas the percentages of students of public elementary school origin are—Oxford 25 per cent. and Cambridge 23 per cent.
    Mr. Jenkins: Could the hon. Gentleman state the number of the children in elementary schools and the number in public schools and the percentages of those who enter the universities of this country?
    Mr. Lindsay: It would be extremely difficult to get that figure—I have made a shot at it—and having got it I do not think it would do very much good because there are a great many other considerations to be taken into account which I should be very glad to explain to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is that there has been such a heavy fall in the last ten years in the proportion of women to men in the universities?
    Mr. Lindsay: No, Sir.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    INFANTILE PARALYSIS.
    Sir A. Wilsonasked the Minister of Health what investigations, wholly or partly financed by the Exchequer, are at present in progress in this country into the cause and cure of infantile paralysis?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): A member of the staff of the Medical Research Council is giving his whole time to the investigation of this and cognate diseases. A statement as to the progress of this work will be found in the annual report of the council for the year 1936–37.

    HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, BRIDGEND.
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the Government munition works which are under construction and the increased number of accidents and sickness to an increased number of residents thereby entailed, he will inquire into the hospital accommodation of Bridgend and district?
    Mr. Elliot: Increased hospital provision for the region which includes the district in question is now being made.

    WATER SUPPLY, IRWELL VALLEY.
    Mr. Andersonasked the Minister of Health whether he has seen the notice

    2113
    of the Irwell Valley Water Board, published on Saturday, 25th June, 1938, prohibiting the use of water for certain purposes owing to the low state of the water in the reservoirs of the board; whether he will state the areas and townships supplied with water by the board; the average number of consumers in 1937 and five and 10 years ago, respectively; the assessment values for the same periods; the maximum days' supply in normal circumstances; and whether the present storage capacity is sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of the consumers?
    Mr. Elliot: I have seen the notice, which I understand will be withdrawn this week-end. The present storage capacity is sufficient for 155 days' supply in normal circumstances and is regarded as sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of the consumers. I am ascertaining the further information asked for and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Anderson: In view of the fact that year after year such notices have to be issued and that the area is increasing considerably, will the Minister make representations that the water supply should be increased as early as possible?
    Mr. Elliot: I will make a note of the hon. Member's suggestion.

    REFUSE TIP, DONCASTER.
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the nuisance which has been created, and the danger to the health of adjoining residents, by the dumping of all sorts of refuse in the sand tip, Hyde Park, Doncaster; and, if so, will he take steps to get the local authority to have the nuisance abated as early as possible?
    Mr. Elliot: I am informed by the local authority that steps have been taken by them to abate this nuisance.
    Mr. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is no delay having regard to the discomfort suffered by the residents?
    Mr. Elliot: I understand that steps have already been taken.
    Mr. McEntee: Can the Minister say when Hyde Park was removed to Doncaster?

    LAND ACQUISITION.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Health what was the result of the arbitration to decide the price payable by the Margate Corporation for the site of 150 feet by 18 feet fronting the Parade and Canute Road, the owner having claimed £1,500; and what was the previous rateable value of this land?
    Mr. Elliot: The price determined by the official arbitrator for the site (which measures 150 feet by 118 feet) was £1,112; the previous rateable value was £22.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the parish council of Kidlington, Oxfordshire, was in negotiation for land adjacent to the churchyard, for burial purposes, with the owner, Count A. Samoyski, but had to abandon the project in view of the price wanted, namely, £500, for altogether one acre, plus £30 for redemption of a tithe rent and the obligation to build a stone wall; whether he has approved the purchase of two acres from the same or another owner in Langford Lane, and, if so, at what price; and whether he will state the rateable value when last occupied of each piece of land in question?
    Mr. Elliot: I understand that negotiations are still proceeding for the acquisition by the council from this owner of land adjoining the churchyard. No approval of the purchase of land in Langford Lane has been given.

    PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS (MARGARINE).
    Mr. Andersonasked the Minister of Health the number of public institutions which are supplying margarine instead of butter to their inmates; and how many children are being so supplied?
    Mr. Elliot: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Health the number of applications for widows' pension that have been rejected in England, Scotland, and Wales during the three years ended to the last convenient date?
    Mr. Elliot: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Day: Are not the figures very substantial and can the Minister say how he reconciles those figures with the statements made by Government candidates at the last two elections?
    Following is the answer:
    The numbers of applications for widows' pensions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act in England, Scotland and Wales which were rejected in each of the three years ended 31st December, were as follow:

    In 1935

    …

    …

    …

    12,911

    In 1936

    …

    …

    …

    12,788

    and in 1937

    …

    …

    …

    12,141

    SATELLITE TOWNS.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Health whether, in the provision of further trading estates, it is his intention to give consideration to the desirability of planning for satellite towns, where practicable, in connection therewith; and whether this question was reviewed during the inception of the Team Valley Trading Estate?
    Mr. Elliot: The provision of trading estates is not within my province, and accordingly the first part of the question does not arise. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 23rd June.
    Mr. Adams: I received the answer of the Minister of Labour which has been referred to, but he did not appear to have understood the question. May I inquire whether the Minister is aware that immediately adjoining the Team Valley Estate were many hundreds of acres of virgin estate which might have been planned and utilised in connection with the Team Valley Estate but which to-day are being indiscriminately—
    Mr. Speaker rose—

    REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, LINDSEY.
    Mr. Haslamasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the
    2116
    protest from the Spilsby Rural District Council, the Wainfleet Parish Councils, and any other neighbouring parish councils against the new registration scheme put forward by the Lindsey County Council under the Local Government Act, 1929; whether he is aware that there is a strong feeling in the parishes of Wainfleet All Saints, Wain-fleet St. Mary, Friskney, Thorpe St. Peter, and Croft against the proposed abolition of the present sub-station for the registration of births and deaths at Wainfleet, which will entail considerable inconvenience and hardship, particularly in the case of the outlying districts in the parishes above mentioned; and whether he will consider these representations before he gives his approval to the scheme?
    Mr. Elliot: The registration scheme referred to has not as yet been submitted for approval; but I am informed that representations from the councils mentioned in the question have been made to and considered by the county council. Upon the submission of the scheme any outstanding local representations will certainly be considered before approval is given.
    Mr. Haslam: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask whether he is aware that the present substation at Wainfleet is maintained at only a trifling cost, that it is run by an ex-service man, and that as it is open after working hours it is of very great convenience to a large and scattered working-class population.

    HOUSING (SITE VALUES).
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many local authorities view with alarm the way in which the price of land is increasing and the adverse effect which such fact bears upon the rentals of houses erected upon new sites acquired for building purposes; and will he introduce measures to prevent this increase in the value of land, which cannot be justified excepting for the fact that the value is enhanced by the creation of amenities by local authorities?
    Mr. Elliot: I have received representations from one authority on this

    2117
    question, but I am not aware of any general evidence of any substantial rise in cost. Local authorities have wide powers of acquisition, and I am not satisfied that further powers are required.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ramp in land values is causing very serious embarrassment to local authorities in the matter of rehousing and is having an adverse effect upon the rents which have to be charged to people with limited incomes, and cannot he do something to stop this exploitation of people by land owners in this country?
    Mr. Elliot: It is for local authorities to make representations in the first place, and only one authority in the whole country has made such representations.
    Mr. Stewart: That ought to be sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to get on with the introduction of reforms.

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE (CLUTTON, SOMERSET).
    Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the wholesale clearance orders which have been made in the villages of Timsbury and Paulton, in Somerset, by the Clutton Rural District Council; and whether this is with his approval?
    Mr. Elliot: I am aware that the rural district council have made a number of clearance orders in respect of properties in the villages of Timsbury and Paulton. In taking this action, and submitting the orders for my confirmation, the council have proceeded in accordance with their statutory powers and duties. My hon. Friend may be assured that before deciding whether to confirm the orders I shall give the fullest consideration to all the evidence before me, including the report of my inspector, who will hold a public local inquiry into the orders in the course of next month.
    Mrs. Tate: Could I have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will give this matter his personal attention, as I have inspected the houses myself and know that a very large number of them can be made perfectly sound, and that it would be nothing less than wanton destruction if they were put into a clearance order?
    Mr. Elliot: I have undertaken to give the matter my personal consideration.

    PAULTON, SOMERSET.
    Mrs. Tateasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the acute housing shortage in the village of Paulton, in Somerset, and that people wishing to take employment in the printing works there are obliged to go in by char-à-bane or bicycle from adjoining towns and villages; and whether any plans are in course of preparation to meet the situation?
    Mr. Elliot: I will make inquiries in the matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    CIVIL SERVICE SPORTS COUNCIL (GRANT).
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Health what arrangements are now in contemplation to assist sport and recreation among the civil employés of the Crown?
    Mr. Elliot: The Government have decided to ask Parliament to provide an annual grant of £20,000 to the Civil Service Sports Council towards the purpose mentioned. As the hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware, of the total of 550,000 persons comprising the Civil Service, upwards of 400,000 represent industrial, manipulative, clerical and analogous staff at remuneration which does not exceed £4 per week. In view of what is being done in other fields of industry, I feel most hopeful that the House will consider it proper that this contribution should be made.

    MOTOR CARS (HORSE-POWER TAX).
    Wing-Commander Wrightasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of levying a higher rate of horse-power tax on those cars which are not manufactured in the United Kingdom the importation of which is depriving British workmen of employment?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The suggestion in the question has been put forward on several occasions, but I fear that it involves such difficulties as render it unacceptable. In particular, differentiation of horse-power tax by reference to the origin of the car is impracticable for licensing authorities.

    GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN LOANS.
    Mr. Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with his negotiations with the German Government, he has received any request for a reduction in the rate of interest on the Dawes and Young loans?
    Sir J. Simon: I am not yet in a position to make any statement in regard to these negotiations, but I hope to be able to do so at a very early date. In the meanwhile I desire to make it clear that those who from now onwards buy Austrian or German loans from foreign holders do so at their own risk.
    Mr. Price: Has the question of the Austrian debt been raised during the negotiations in connection with the German loans?
    Sir J. Simon: It would be better for me not to make any statement on the matter to-day. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I hope to be able to make a statement at a very early date.

    ISLE OF MAN (REARMAMENT CONTRIBUTION).
    Mr. Hely-Hutchinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make regarding the desire of the Isle of Man to make a contribution to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of the rearmament programme?
    Sir J. Simon: I have been informed that it is the intention of the Government of the Isle of Man to offer to His Majesty's Government a contribution of £100,000 for this purpose. I am glad to

    Numbers of sheep, including lambs, offered for sale at certain representative markets in the countries and during the periods named.

    —

    Thirteen weeks ended 22nd June, 1938.

    Thirteen weeks ended 23rd June, 1937.

    Fat

    Store.

    Fat.

    Store.

    England

    …

    …

    …

    525,491

    82,799

    463,589

    93,361

    Wales

    …

    …

    …

    47,747

    7,083

    43,684

    14,852

    Scotland

    …

    …

    …

    310,389

    176,578

    269,463

    138,281

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    883,627

    266,460

    776,736

    246,494

    MUTTON AND LAMB (PRICES).
    Sir H. Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is
    2120
    take this opportunity of expressing my warm appreciation of this generous offer, which, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I am very glad to accept.
    Mr. Gallecher: Is the Minister aware that the Isle of Man Government are also considering pensions of 30s. per week for married couples, and will he give some consideration to that matter also?

  AGRICULTURE.

    SHEEP SALES.
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of sheep offered for sale in the home markets of England, Scotland, and Wales during the last three months for which figures are available and the same figures for the three corresponding months for last year?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Figures are not available of the number of sheep offered for sale in all markets in Great Britain during the periods mentioned, but with the hon. Member's permission I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the numbers of sheep, including lambs, offered for sale at certain representative markets in England, Scotland and Wales during the 13 weeks ended 22nd June and during the corresponding period last year.
    Mr. Price: Can the Minister say whether the drought has had any connection with the numbers coming on the market in recent weeks?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, in my opinion it has.
    Following is the table:
    aware of the serious position of many farmers in North Wales, especially in the county of Denbigh, owing to the slump in

    2121
    the price of mutton and lamb; and whether he intends taking any steps to improve the present position?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am fully aware of the difficulties that are being experienced by farmers in England and Wales as a result of the decline in prices of fat sheep and lambs and that these difficulties are shared by producers in North Wales and Denbigh. As regards the second part of the question, I am not in a position to add to recent replies on this subject.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: Can the Minister not exercise some of the powers which he has in regard to imports, and is he aware that in some parts of my constituency farmers are gradually becoming bankrupt on account of the drop in the price of lamb?
    Mr. Morrison: In the first five months of this year, the combined imports of both mutton and lamb were nearly 150,000 cwts. less than in the corresponding period of 1937. As I have stated, I am in consultation with the Governments of the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand on the subject of reducing further the imports during the present year.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that the present position is felt not only by farmers in North Wales but by farmers in all parts of the country, and is he still not prepared to do anything? If he is still to stand, he cannot stand still.

  SCOTLAND.

    ISLAND OF BARRA (SANDBLOW).
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to protect the land of the Department of Agriculture's holders at Eoligarry, and the land of other communities, in the island of Barra, from encroaching sand which is rendering the land useless?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The protection of land of this nature is a matter that is constantly under review by the Department of Agriculture in respect of estates owned by them. The prevention of sand-blow is the normal duty of the tenants of machair land, but the Department have in exceptional cases undertaken the repair of damage of an abnormal character by various means, such as planting
    2122
    of trees and bent grasses. Such action will continue to be taken when occasion arises at Eoligarry, and elsewhere in the Western Islands, on land owned by the Department.
    Mr. MacMillan: On a point of Order. I really could not hear a single word that the Minister said and I should be obliged if he could give the reply again.

    WESTERN ISLES.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether His Majesty's Government will now recognise the Western Isles of Scotland as a Special Area in view of the failure of staple industry, the severe and prolonged unemployment, arid the lack of any prospect of recovery without Government assistance?
    Mr. Wedderburn: It was made clear during the passage of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act last Session that it was not intended to alter the areas defined in the Act of 1934.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that all the conditions under the Special Areas (Amendment) Act were fulfilled, as was proved in the discussion which we had during an all-night sitting in this House, and can he give us any reason why the Western Isles were left out of it, in those conditions?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think that the machinery of that Act has ever been found suitable for the Highland counties, which receive preferential treatment in a number of other ways.
    Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that the Act is not suitable, that no legislation has so far been proposed for the Western Isles and that they receive preferential treatment only because they need it, will the Minister introduce legislation, in consultation with the Minister of Labour, at an early date?

    SMALLPDX AND VACCINATION.
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any deaths resulting from vaccination have been recorded during the last 10 years; and whether there have been any deaths from smallpox in the same period?
    Mr. Wedderburn: In 1927 there were two deaths from the effects of vaccination, in 1928 one, in 1930 one, and in 1931 one. Two deaths from smallpox occurred

    2123
    in 1930. No deaths from either cause occurred between 1931 and 1936, the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. McGovern: Can the Minister say whether those who died from smallpox had been vaccinated?
    Mr. Wedderburn: Not without notice.

    DEBT RECOVERY AGENTS.
    Mr. McGovernasked the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Procurator-Fiscal has been drawn to a practice by certain debt recovery agents in Glasgow, where they get a form signed empowering them to collect debts and taking legal court and poinding charges from both creditor and debtor; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?
    Mr. Wedderburn: Various cases of the type referred to have been brought to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend, and are at present under examination by Crown Counsel. My right hon. and learned Friend cannot at this stage make any statement on the matter.
    Mr. McGovern: Would the hon. Gentleman convey to the Lord Advocate the desire of a large number of people who are suffering from the actions of these debt recovery agents that there should be a tightening up of the law to prevent these practices, which are going on in the east end of Glasgow especially?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The Lord Advocate is well aware of the representations which have been made but, as I said, matters are being discussed with Crown Counsel.

    SHADOW FACTORY, SPEKE.
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Secretary of State for Air with reference to the declared intention to increase the capacity of the shadow factory at Speke by some 40 per cent., whether he will make it clear whether this proposed increase relates to the present capacity of the Speke factory or to the original plans?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The 40 per cent. increase referred to was relative to the estimated full capacity for production of Speke factory as originally planned.
    Mr. Kirby: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the statement by the
    2124
    Minister is looked upon in Liverpool and district as intended to convey the idea that there is to be a 40 per cent. increase on the original plan, and will he stop making propaganda speeches on these lines?
    Captain Balfour: I hope that my answer will clear up any misapprehension.
    Mr. Pilkington: When is the enlarging of the factory to begin?
    Captain Balfour: It will begin right away.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS TERRACE.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the First Commissioner of Works stated in the House on 27th June, 1934, that he anticipated raising the level of the Terrace by seven inches in about 10 years, when major repairs to the paving would become necessary; and whether this is his present intention?
    The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Loftus: If my right hon. Friend is going to incur any expenditure on this building, will he give priority to a modern air-conditioning plant for this Chamber?

    TRADE AND COMMERCE (SUBSIDISED IMPORTS).
    Mr. Higgsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to investigate the desirability of introducing anti-dumping laws in order to reduce the importation of subsidised commodities?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): This subject has been considered on a number of occasions in the past, and the conclusion has been reached, with which I agree, that our existing tariff system is adequate to deal with competition of this kind.
    Mr. Higgs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that other countries, including some British Dominions, apply antidumping laws against this country with success?
    Mr. Stanley: I am not sure that those methods are very successful.

    COAL INDUSTRY (SAFETY CLASSES, BOYS).
    Mr. Whiteleyasked the Secretary for Mines the number of safety classes in mining held for boys, and the districts, with their numbers?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): During the Session 1937–38, 531 safety classes were held at 353 training centres in 25 counties, and 13,991 boys were enrolled. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the detailed particulars.
    Following is the statement:

    Safety Classes for Boys employed at Coal Mines—Session
    1937–38.

    County.

    Number of

    Training Centers.

    Classes.

    Boys Enrolled.

    Scotland.

    Ayr

    7

    8

    192

    Dumbarton

    1

    1

    26

    East Lothian

    1

    2

    50

    Fife

    14

    38

    1,055

    Lanark

    18

    31

    642

    Midlothian

    3

    3

    74

    Stirling

    4

    6

    102

    West Lothian

    8

    9

    188

    England and Wales.

    Cumberland

    1

    1

    16

    Durham

    65

    106

    2,824

    Northumberland

    24

    38

    660

    York

    47

    47

    1,989

    Derby

    26

    28

    733

    Leicester

    1

    2

    28

    Nottingham

    27

    40

    1,269

    Lancaster

    9

    29

    772

    Stafford

    9

    19

    471

    Denbigh

    1

    3

    146

    Brecon

    1

    1

    22

    Glamorgan

    52

    60

    1,566

    Monmouth

    12

    16

    390

    Carmarthen

    9

    9

    205

    Kent

    6

    25

    367

    Salop

    4

    6

    116

    Warwick

    3

    3

    85

    Great Britain

    353

    531

    13,991

  BRITISH ARMY.

    COAST DEFENCE (CIVILIANS' WAGES, PORTSMOUTH).
    Mr. Ralph Beaumontasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the improved wages scheme affecting the wages of all civilian coast-defence plant attendants employed under the Royal Engineers, which he authorised on 16th May, has not yet been brought
    2126
    into effect at the Portsmouth defences; and whether he will investigate the cause of the delay and issue instructions for the authorised increases of wages to be made immediately?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Rates under the new scheme have now been fixed by the local military authorities for the eight coast defence plant attendants at Portsmouth and Gosport, and result in increases in all cases. Payment of the increased rates, with effect from 16th May, is to be made on Saturday next, 2nd July.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYéS (TERRITORIAL SERVICE).
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers and servants of local authorities are disinclined to enlist in Territorial units unless their service in the event of mobilisation is allowed, as was formerly the case, to count for superannuation; and whether he will take steps with this end in view?
    Sir V. Warrender: I have seen no evidence that the consideration referred to in the question has in fact acted as a deterrent to enlistment in the Territorial Army. To permit embodied service in the Territorial Army to count for superannuation in the case of officers and employés of local authorities would require legislation.

    VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE, ALDERSHOT.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Army vocational training centre at Aldershot closes on 30th June, and that two members of the staff, one a welder and the other a plasterer, both family men, have been thrown into unemployment as a result; and what steps, if any, are being taken to utilise their experience, particularly at the present time, when their qualifications are outstanding?
    Sir V. Warrender: I regret that it has not yet been possible to find employment for the men in question, but, as my right hon. Friend stated on 21st June, every endeavour will be made to absorb them.

    GERMANY (BRITISH SUBJECTS' PROPERTY).
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister the present position with regard to the case of Mr. Robert Wiener, a British born subject, concerning his property in Germany; whether he is aware that the property of Mr. Wiener's firm in Dusseldorf, valued at about £2,000, has been expropriated by the State insurance office, and that the so-called compensation awarded in blocked marks is equal to about one-tenth of the value; and whether he will take steps to protect the property of British subjects in Germany from treatment in this manner?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full statement on the facts of this case.
    Mr. Mander: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that American and French subjects are not treated in this way, because their Governments will not tolerate it?
    Mr. Butler: I would rather that the hon. Gentleman read the statement I am circulating.
    Following is the statement:
    In the autumn of 1936, the Provincial Insurance Institute of the Rhine Province in Dusseldorf felt obliged to acquire a number of sites in order to enlarge its offices. Among these sites was the property owned by Mr. Wiener. While, apparently, it proved possible for the Insurance Institute to reach agreement with other property owners concerned, it proved impossible to do so in the case of the property owned by Mr. Wiener, since the latter required that the purchase price of the site should be transferred to him abroad. The Insurance Institute applied to the authorities for permission to make this transfer, but it was refused. In these circumstances, the Provincial Institute was obliged to have recourse to expropriation, in accordance with the Prussian Law of 1874, which authorises the expropriation of property in the public interest. On 17th February, 1937, the Prussian Ministry of State ruled that the expropriation of Mr. Wiener's property was necessary in the public interest, and the Reich's Ministry of Economics, by a decision of 20th October, upheld this ruling. Under the Prussian Law, compensation is
    2128
    payable to the full value of the property expropriated. Failing agreement between Mr. Wiener and the Provincial Institute, the amount of compensation payable to him was fixed by the Regierungsprasident of Dusseldorf. In accordance with Article 30 of the Law, it was open to Mr. Wiener to appeal within six months against the President's decision. No appeal was lodged by Mr. Wiener.
    It is not, I think, suggested that the amount of compensation awarded was unreasonable. Mr. Wiener is, however, anxious that this amount should be transferred to him in this country, and on this point the German authorities have felt unable to make an exception to the general regulations which prohibit the transfer of capital from Germany. It is, however, I understand, open to Mr. Wiener to reinvest in Germany the amount awarded to him in compensation.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin in connection with the treatment of British subjects who are Jews in Berlin; and what steps he is taking to obtain compensation for the confiscation of their property and for their exclusion from the Berlin Stock Exchange?
    Mr. Butler: A report has been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin regarding the recent anti-Jewish activities in that city, but no case has been brought to the notice of my Noble Friend of the confiscation of the property of any British subject or of the exclusion, on racial grounds, of any British subject from the Berlin Stock Exchange.
    Mr. Thorne: Would the hon. Gentleman like to hear my views and the views of my constituents?

    EUROPEAN POWERS (PACT).
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister the nature of the proposals for the establishment of a four-Power pact between Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy in substitution for the League of Nations contemplated by the Government; and whether this will involve the ending of the Franco-Soviet pact?
    Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government do not contemplate any proposals of the nature suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Mander: Is not this the policy stated in the now famous Driscoll dispatch to the "Montreal Daily Star," which is so well authenticated; and do I understand the hon. Gentleman now to repudiate that policy?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member had better understand what I said, namely, that His Majesty's Government do not contemplate any proposals of the nature suggested by the hon. Member.

    ANGLO-TURKISH AGREEMENT.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the intention of His Majesty's Government to guarantee a loan to the Turkish Government for the purchase of arms?
    Mr. Butler: The necessary legislation to confirm the Anglo-Turkish (Armaments Credits) Agreement will be introduced shortly, and a statement concerning this Agreement will then be made.

    SPAIN.
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister the present position with regard to foreign domination of the Straits of Gibraltar; what recent reports have been received by the Government on the subject; and whether they are satisfied that the passage of British ships in war time through the Straits is assured?
    Mr. Butler: As regards the present position, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister the circumstances of the attacks upon the British ships "Farnham" and "Alpha" by Spanish insurgent aeroplanes; and, in particular, whether he has any information as to the country of origin of the attacking aeroplanes?
    Mr. Butler: As regards the attack on the steamship "Farnham," I have nothing to add to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Lambeth, North (Mr. G. Strauss). My Noble
    2130
    Friend has received no reports of any attack on a British steamship "Alpha," nor any information regarding the country of origin of the aeroplanes which attacked the "Farnham."
    Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have now received any reply to their protest to the Spanish insurgent authorities regarding the bombing of British ships?
    The Prime Minister: The reply of the Burgos authorities is being brought by Sir Robert Hodgson, who is expected to arrive in London to-day.

    GREAT WAR (BRITISH DOCUMENTS).
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the publication, in a condensed form, of the British documents on the origins of the War, thereby enabling a much wider study and understanding than is possible from the 10 or more volumes now published by the Stationery Office?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate the motive which has led my hon. and gallant Friend to make this suggestion, but I am inclined to think that the value of this publication lies in its completeness and in the fact that it contains all the important political despatches, etc., of the period covered; and that this value would be seriously impaired by any process of condensation.
    Mr. McGovern: Cannot the reasons for the Great War be given in one sentence —the economic rivalry of capitalism?

    CAPITAL SHIPS (TONNAGE AND GUNS).
    Mr. A. V. Alexander(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decisions have yet been reached as a result of discussions on escalation with those Naval Powers with whom His Majesty's Government are in treaty relations?
    The First Lord of the Adirmalty (Mr. Duff Cooper): As a result of the escalation discussions which have been taking place during the last three months in virtue of Article 25 of the 1936 Treaty, a protocol providing for a new displacement

    2131
    limitation of 45,000 tons, to replace the existing Treaty limitation of 35,000 tons, was signed to-day (30th June) by representatives of the United Kingdom, France and the United States. The existing maximum gun calibre of 16 inches remains unchanged. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India not having directly participated in the escalation discussions did not sign the protocol, but with their consent official notes were communicated to the United States and French Embassies in London to the effect that they concurred in the new limitation. This protocol will be published as a Command Paper in due course.
    A protocol in similar terms was signed to-day by His Majesty's Government and the German Government. Agreement to the terms of a similar protocol with the Government of Soviet Russia has not yet been received, but it is hoped that a satisfactory reply will be received shortly.
    The new upper limit of 45,000 tons is higher than His Majesty's Government had desired, but represents the lowest figure on which agreement could be reached. His Majesty's Government have informed all Naval Powers with whom they are in treaty relations that they do not intend for the present to build any capital ship which exceeds a standard displacement of 40,000 tons, and they trust that the other European Naval Powers will similarly refrain from exceeding this figure, for individual capital ships.
    The two British capital ships of the 1938 programme will carry i6-inch guns, and will not exceed a standard displacement of 40,000 tons.
    Mr. Belienger: Will this agreement which has been come to with Germany affect in any way the total tonnage agreement between this country and Germany?
    Mr. Cooper: No, Sir; the proportions will remain exactly the same.
    Mr. Leach: May I ask how Germany comes to be included in this arrangement, in view of the terms of the Versailles Treaty?
    Mr. Cooper: A naval treaty has been signed with Germany for some years.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate
    2132
    opening any conversations with the Japanese Government arising out of these agreements?
    Mr. Cooper: His Majesty's Government are always ready to discuss this matter with the Japanese Government.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to initiate such a discussion?
    Mr. Cooper: That is not a question that I could answer without notice.

    COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (REPORT ON THE COMPLAINT OF MR. SANDYS).
    Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges?
    The Prime Minister: The Report of the Committee of Privileges set up by this House—which, I may say, is a unanimous report—will be, I believe, available in the Vote Office this afternoon. At the same time, it may perhaps be for the convenience of hon. Members if I read it to them now.
    "The following is an extract from the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons on the 29th June, 1938:
    Privilege,—Complaint made to the House by Mr. Sandys, Member for the Norwood Division of Lambeth, of an order by a military Court of Inquiry summoning him to appear in uniform before that Court To-morrow morning for the purpose of giving evidence.
    Ordered, That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.—(The Prime Minister.)
    The Committee of Privileges, having been set up, have held two meetings and report as follows.
    The scope of the privileges of hon. Members and of the House itself is not laid down in any complete code to be found in a statute or elsewhere. It is largely a matter of laws and customs and we have not been able to find any precise precedents for the circumstances of the present case.

    2133
    Those circumstances are that the House, having taken note of the statement of the hon. Member for Norwood on the 27th instant, had in effect recognised that important issues were involved and was about to set up special machinery to investigate those circumstances.
    Before, however, the Select Committee had actually been set up, the hon. Member for Norwood, being a Territorial Officer, received a summons to appear before a military Court of Inquiry into the circumstances of the leakage of information which had formed part of the subject of his original statement, in order to give evidence.
    In these circumstances, without making any reflection upon the military Court, it appears to us that the summons to the hon. Member for Norwood might well appear to be an attempt to induce the hon. Member to give certain information at a time when the House was proposing to set up a Select Committee to consider among other things the propriety of the hon. Member being asked to give such information.
    Accordingly, your Committee find that, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, a breach of the privileges of the House was in fact committed. We do not, however, recommend that any further action should now be taken."
    Mr. Attlee: Will a Motion be placed on the Order Paper, and when will it come up for discussion?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, a Motion will be put down. I cannot at the moment say when it will be possible to take it, but I hope to make a statement on it very shortly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister to state the business of the House for next week, and also the business to-day in the event of the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?
The Prime Minister: The business for next week will be:
Monday—Second Reading of the Anglo-Turkish (Armaments Credit)
2134
Agreement Bill, Motion to approve the Clearing Office (Turkey) Amendment Order, Second Reading of the Milk (Extension and Amendment) Bill and Third Reading of the Essential Commodities Reserves Bill.
Tuesday—Report and Third Reading of the Fire Brigades Bill and Third Reading of the Imperial Telegraphs Bill.
Wednesday and until 7.30 p.m. on Thursday—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Coal Bill. The business to be taken after 7.30 p.m. on Thursday will be announced later.
Friday—Supply; Committee [14th Allotted Day] [Second part]. The Estimate for the Mercantile Marine Services will be considered.
During the week it is hoped that there will be an opportunity of disposing of outstanding business, including the Committee stage of the Money Resolutions for the Milk Bill and the Anglo-Turkish Agreement Bill.
With regard to this evening's business, it is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule as a precautionary measure. As I informed the House yesterday, after the Debate on the Motion for a Select Committee it is essential to conclude the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and obtain the Third Reading of the Bacon Industry Bill. We also desire to obtain the Government of India and Government of Burma Orders, which are exempted business and do not, I understand, raise any points of controversy.
Mr. Attlee: With regard to Monday's business, might I ask that the proceedings on the Second Reading of the Milk (Extension and Amendment) Bill and the Third Reading of the Essential Commodities Reserves Bill should not be continued to a late hour if the first Order should happen to occupy a long time.
The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot give any definite undertaking. We shall see how business goes on. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that our programme is rather congested.
Mr. Attlee: I appreciate that there is a rather congested programme, but that is a heavy programme for Monday.
Mr. Gordon Macdonald: With regard to the Coal Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are Lords Amendments of a substantial character, and that it might be necessary to carry the Debate on beyond 7.30 in order to dispose of it?
The Prime Minister: I am aware that, but it is hoped to dispose of it.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 139.

Division No. 263.]

AYES.

[3.56 p.m.

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

Crowder, J. F. E.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

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

Cruddas, Col. B.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Davidson, Viscountess

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Albery, Sir Irving

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Kimball, L.

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

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

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

Davison, Sir W. H.

Latham, Sir P.

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

Dawson, Sir P.

Leigh, Sir J.

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ'e)

De la Bère, R.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Apsley, Lord

Denville, Alfred

Levy, T.

Asks, Sir R. W.

Despencer-Robertson, Major.J. A. F.

Liddell, W. S.

Assheton, R.

Doland, G. F.

Lindsay, K. M.

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

Donner, P. W.

Lipson, D. L.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Dower, Major A. V. G.

LIewellin, Colonel J. J.

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

Drewe, C.

Lloyd, G. W.

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Loftus, P. C.

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

Duncan, J. A. L.

Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)

Balniel, Lord

Dunglass, Lord

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Eastwood, J. F.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Baxter, A. Beverley

Eckersley, P. T.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

McKie, J. H.

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

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Maonamara, Major J. R. L.

Beechman, N. A.

Ellis, Sir G.

Macquisten, F.A.

Belt, Sir A. L.

Maori, Capt. G. S.

Maitland, A.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Elmley, Viscount

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Bernays, R. H.

Emmott, C. E. G. C

Manningham-Buller, Sir M

Blair, Sir R.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

Blaker, Sir R.

Errington, E.

Markham, S. F.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Marsden, Commander A

Boyce, H. Leslie

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

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

Bracken, B.

Everard, W. L.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Fildes, Sir H.

Mayhew, Lt. Col. J.

Brass, Sir W.

Findlay, Sir E.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Furness, S. N.

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

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Fyfe, D. P, M.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

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

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

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

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

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

Gluckstein, L. H.

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

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

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Moreing, A. C.

Bull, B. B.

Goldie, N. B.

Morgan, R. H.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)

Burghley, Lord

Grant-Ferris, R.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

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

Burton, Col. H. W.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

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

Butcher, H. W.

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Butler, R. A.

Grimston, R. V.

Munro, P.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Nall, Sir J.

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Hannah, I. C.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Cortland, J. R. H.

Harbord, A.

Nloolson, Hon. H. G.

Carver, Major W. H.

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

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Cary, R. A.

Haslam, Henry (Horneastle)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

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

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Palmer, G. E. H.

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

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Patrick, C. M.

Caralet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Peat, C. U.

Gazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Perkins, W. R. D.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbl'n)

Hepworth, J.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Channon, H.

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Petherick, M.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Higgs, W. F.

Pilkington, R.

Clarke, Frank (Dartford)

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

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

Holdsworth, H.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

Holmes, J. S.

Porritt, R. W.

Colman, N. C. D.

Hopkinson, A.

Power, Sir J. C.

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Hors-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Procter, Major H. A.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Radford, E. A.

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

Hume, Sir G. H.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

Hunloke, H. P.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hunter, T.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Hutchinson, G. C.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

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

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Cross, R. H.

Keeling, E. H.

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Crossley, A. C.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

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

Turlon, R. H.

Remer, J. R.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

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

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Smithers, Sir W.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Somerset, T.

Warrender, Sir V.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Watt, Major G. S. Harvie

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Wayland, Sir W. A

Salmon, Sir I.

Stanley, Rt. Han. Lord (Fylde)

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Salt, E. W.

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

Wells, Sir Sydney

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Samuel, M. R. A.

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

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

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

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

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

Sandys, E. D.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Scott, Lord William

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Withers, Sir J. J.

Selley, H. R.

Tacker, Sir R. I

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Shakespeare, G. H.

Tate, Mavis C.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

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

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Simmonds, O. E.

Touche, G. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Captain Hope and Captain

Dugdale.

NOES.

Arland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

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

Parkinson, J. A.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Pearson, A.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, .)

Hardie, Agnes

Pethiok-Lawrenes, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Adamson, W. M.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Poole, C. C.

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

Hayday, A.

Price, M. P.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Ridley, G.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Riley, B.

Bonfield, J. W.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Ritson, J.

Barnes, A. J.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Batey, J.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Bellonger F. J.

John, W.

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Sanders, W. S.

Benson G.

Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Bevan, A.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sexton, T. M.

Bromfield, W.

Kelly, W. T.

Short, A.

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Silkin, L.

Burke, W. A.

Kirby, B. V.

Silverman, S. S.

Cluse, W. S.

Lunsbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Simpson, F. B.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Lawson, J. J.

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

Cocks, F. S.

Leach, W.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Collindridge, F.

Leonard, W.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cove, W. G.

Leslie, J. R.

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

Daggar, G.

Logan, D. G.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Dalton, H.

Lunn, W.

Stephen, C.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

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

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

McEntee, V. La T.

Stokes, F. F.

Day, H.

McGhee, H. G.

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

Dabble, W.

McGovern, J.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

MacLaren, A.

Taylor, F. J. (Morpeth)

Ede, J. C.

Maclean, N.

Thorne, W.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Thurtle, E.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwetlty)

MacNeill Weir, L.

Tinker, J. J.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Mender, G. le M.

Tomlinson, G.

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

Marshall, F.

Viant, S. P.

Foot, D. M.

Mothers, G.

Walkden, A. G.

Gallaoher, W.

Maxton, J.

Walker, J.

Gardner, B. W.

Messer, F.

Watson, W. McL.

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

Montague, F.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

Wilkinson, Ellen

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Muff, G.

Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

Grenfell, D. R.

Oliver, G. H.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

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

Owen, Major G.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Paling, W.

Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)

Parker, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Groves and Mr. Charlton.

Question put, and agreed to.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
4.6 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
"That a Select Committee
be appointed to enquire into the substance of the statement made on 27th June in this House by the hon. Member for Norwood and the action of the Ministers concerned, and generally into the question of the applicability of the Official Secrets Acts to Members of this House in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties."
The Motion, I think hon. Members will see, naturally falls into two parts. The first part directs the Select Committee
"to inquire into the substance of the statement made on 27th June in this House by the hon. Member for Norwood and the action of the Ministers concerned."
The House has heard the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) and it has also heard the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. This afternoon it will hear the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who has not hitherto had an opportunity of making such a statement. I do not myself propose to offer any comments upon the statements that have been made upon this part of the subject, because that is the matter which is to be referred to the Select Committee, and it appears to me that it would be altogether improper on my part to attempt to prejudge any comments they may desire to make.
The second part of the Motion, perhaps the more important part, is that which directs the Committee to inquire
"generally into the question of the applicability of the Official Secrets Acts to Members of this House in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties."
That is, obviously, a matter of the first importance. It is one which is concerned not merely with any recent events but with the future position of Members of Parliament in relation to the Official Secrets Acts.
The other day the Leader of the Opposition invited me to state on this occasion, at the beginning of the Debate, what was the attitude of the Government towards this question, on the ground, I think, that unless such a statement were made hon. Members would not know what the practice of the Government would ultimately be, and would feel
2156
themselves in some position of embarrassment, and perhaps even of anxiety. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation I said that I must have time to consider that proposal before giving a reply. I have considered it and I have taken the opportunity of consulting my colleagues in the Government also. The conclusion at which His Majesty's Government have arrived is that this is not an opportunity which His Majesty's Government can take to state a view upon that subject. We are asking the Select Committee to report. That Committee will in due course make its report, and that, it seems to us, will be the moment when the Government should state their attitude towards anything that the Committee may have to say. I think it is clear that this question may cover a very wide range of cases. I can conceive of cases where information obtained by a Member of Parliament, information of a secret character the disclosure of which might be an offence under the Official Secrets Acts, might nevertheless be used by such an hon. Member in such a way as to be of great benefit to the nation. On the other hand, I can also conceive of cases where such information, however it were obtained, might be used in such a way as seriously to affect the safety of the realm.
There are here two different interests, the interests and privileges of the House of Commons, the right of free speech on the one hand, and the safety of the country on the other. The matter was put perhaps compendiously a long time ago, at a period in the history of our country when a very considerable disturbance of constitutional practices was taking place, and is to be found in the Journals of the House of Lords of 1641. We learn that it was laid down that:
"Privilege of Parliament is granted in regard of the service of the Commonwealth and is not to be used to the danger of the Commonwealth."
In those circumstances it seems to His Majesty's Government that the Select Committee for which I am moving, and which I think it will be agreed is as representative of all sections of the House as one can very well make it, ought to be left unhampered in the execution of its task by any dictum laid down in advance as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government. Whilst, of course, it is not for me to say what are to be the limits and

2157
the Rules of Order in the Debate this afternoon, I think that perhaps as Leader of the House it is not inappropriate for me to suggest that I hope that hon. Members, in the discussion which is to take place this afternoon, will, at any rate, not try themselves to do the work which they are going subsequently to ask the Committee to do.
The Committee will have power to take evidence. They will have the opportunity of ascertaining all the facts of the case. It may well be that all the facts of the case are not yet before this House, and in those circumstances it surely would be desirable, as far as possible at any rate, to let the Committee make their investigation before we attempt to form any judgment upon what the results which that investigation may disclose. I do not think that in the absence of any statement by the Government as to what their attitude is at present on the point which the right hon. Gentleman opposite put to me, any hon. Member of the House need feel that he is under any menace or has any need for anxiety. As far as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood is concerned, he has already received assurances in that respect which completely free him from any threat, and, as far as I know, there is no other Member of the House who is in any similar or analogous position; and I think, therefore, that we can well afford to wait, without any further declaration on the part of His Majesty's Government, until the Select Committee which is to be set up has given us its report.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: The House will realise that on this matter, which concerns this House very intimately, the discussion must be limited in extent. On previous occasions on the question of the setting up and the appointment of a Select Committee, the Ruling from the Chair has been that it would not be in order to deal with the merits of the case or to criticise the action of the various persons concerned as that would be anticipating the work of the Committee which it was proposed to set up. I think that the House will see that there is a great deal in that, and I think they will perhaps sympathise with me if I try to the best of my ability to keep the Debate on these lines. The Select Committee which it is proposed to set up has to consider, first of all, the substance of the statement which was made
2158
by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) and the action of Ministers. So far the hon. Member for Norwood has stated his case, and the right hon. Gentleman the learned Attorney-General has stated his case, but the other Minister who is concerned in this affair—the Secretary of State for War—has not had an opportunity of stating his case. I feel sure that the House would not like him to be treated unfairly if he was not allowed to state his case, but I do not think that these statements ought to be made the chief subject of debate on this occasion. Clearly, it would be unwise and irregular to move a Motion that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into a question of facts if the House took it out of its hands, prejudiced any findings and anticipated the work which it was asked to do.
Mr. Attlee: On a point of Order. While I think that everyone must agree that we should not prejudice the work of the Committee we are setting up, I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make clear exactly how far this Ruling goes. I have a recollection of other Committees in which there has been a proposal to set up a Select Committee, in which the House did, as a matter of fact, discuss the whole substance of the matter. I would refer to the Marconi inquiry, and particularly to the Amendment, which, I think, was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) on what is known as the Campbell case. When he moved that Amendment the Debate did not alter its character, but continued to be a discussion of the incidents and the rights and wrongs of the case.
Mr. Speaker: In making the statement I did make and in dealing with the matter I did not say definitely that I was going to rule anything out of order. All I asked was that the House would assist me in not allowing the Debate to go beyond what it should do, and so prejudice the finding of the Committee it is proposed to set up.
Mr. Bellenger: I understand that the Secretary of State for War is going to be called and will make a statement touching upon one of the points which is being referred to the Select Committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask whether it will be in order for any hon. Member who may catch your eye to refer specifically to some of those statements which the right hon. Gentleman may make in the course of his speech.
Mr. Speaker: The House will remember that I only referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, saying that it would only be fair to allow him to make a statement considering that the other persons concerned had already been allowed to make a statement to the House. I must leave it to the right hon. Gentleman.
4.21 p.m.
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The general matters, matters of great public importance, in which the House is interested will be referred to the Select Committee, and the only statement that I propose to make with your leave, Mr. Speaker, and with the leave of the House, is a brief one concerned with the facts as I became aware of them and with the action that I took at each particular stage. I should have been quite ready to make this statement before the Committee, but, as you have said, other statements have been made. I think that it might be the wish of the House that, these statements having been made public, I should be put into the same position as my hon. Friends who have already spoken. I propose accordingly to make precise and concise remarks.
On Wednesday evening, 22nd June, I received a minute from the General Staff. Attached to it was a letter and a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) which had been sent to me at the War Office in the ordinary way, not marked "Private" or "Personal" or "Secret" or "Confidential." After acknowledgment, it had been passed to the appropriate department to be dealt with, so that I could be given the material for a reply.
The minute from the General Staff was in the following terms:
"We are greatly concerned that Mr. Sandys should have been in possession of such information. Not only does it appear that he was conversant with the details of a secret scheme, but that he was kept up to date in the subsequent changes agreed to by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, such as the diversion of guns. It was quite unnecessary to impart such information to a junior officer, and, further, it is obviously not in the public interest that a question of this nature should be asked."
I must inform the House of the nature of the document from which certain facts mentioned in the Question has been extracted, and could only have been extracted. The document was the emer-
2160
gency plan of Defence of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief drawn up at a date in April last. It contained emergency directions showing the exact dispositions to be taken by our guns and the exact numbers and the sources from which they were to be provided. It was a document of the highest secrecy. It was marked "Secret." The instructions were that it was to be kept under lock and key, and, further, that subordinate officers should be informed only of such details in it as was necessary for them to take appropriate action. The proposed question of my hon. Friend showed not only knowledge of the secret scheme, but of a modification that had subsequently been made.
The General Staff were naturally concerned to discover how the disclosure to my hon. Friend had come about. They proceeded to make their own inquiries. In these serious circumstances I sent the relevant papers to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, asking for his advice, and I saw the Prime Minister on the morning of Thursday, 23rd June. He told me, in view of the grave importance of the matter, to lay the facts before the Attorney-General. The concern was not merely to ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Question. It was to discover how the information contained in a secret document could have been divulged. For me to ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Question, which was only one aspect of the necessary action to be taken, would have placed me in a difficulty. My hon. Friend has told the House, and I will quote his exact words:
"The purpose of this letter"—
his letter to me—
"was to draw the Secretary of State's personal attention to the facts referred to in the Question and to give him the opportunity"—
that is, to give me the opportunity—
"if he thought fit, of asking me not to put down my Question."
I think it right to read my hon. Friend's letter in full to the House. This is the letter:
"When we had a talk the other day about the anti-aircraft defence position I told you that before taking any further action in the matter I would consult with you again. I am accordingly sending you a copy of a question which I am thinking of putting down for answer on Tuesday, 28th June. As, however, I do not wish unnecessarily to create alarm, I am anxious, before doing so, to give you an opportunity privately to contradict the statements contained in this question."

2161
I was unable to contradict the statement contained in this question, privately or otherwise. The facts in the question were true. I saw the Attorney-General later in the day on Thursday. I told him it was my desire to see my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood myself and this, although I felt some difficulty in doing so, because of the terms of his letter to me, which, as the House will recall, virtually made it a condition of the withdrawal of the question that I could deny the facts. The Attorney-General said that as the communication from the General Staff disclosed the commission by someone of a serious breach of the law he thought he probably ought to see my hon. Friend himself. He could put the position as disclosed in the General Staff's communication before him and deal with any legal points and ask him whether he was prepared to assist in the investigation of this breach of the law. The position of other people, not in this House, was involved.
After discussing it, I asked the Attorney-General to see my hon. Friend and to tell him of my own readiness to see him, which he did. On Monday last, the General Staff having completed their preliminary inquiries relating to the circumstances of the disclosure, the normal procedure was followed and a Court of Inquiry was ordered to be assembled. I may say, incidentally, that that decision was taken before any Debate had arisen in this House. The fullest information on these matters will he laid before the Select Committee. I think it will be wrong for me to go into any further detail at this juncture. At no stage has any suggestion been made that criticism of the Government's activities or inactivities should be suppressed. Members of this House have their duties in that regard. The General Staff also has a duty, which must be safeguarded. They are entrusted with the safe guardianship of our plans of defence.
4.32 p.m.
Mr. Attlee: I rise to support the Motion moved by the Prime Minister, and I am very glad that the Government have accepted the proposal, that first came from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), of a Select Committee to deal with this matter, because the matter involves very important issues. It is, I think, fundamentally a House of Com
2162
mons matter, and we are fortunate that on this occasion we have not had that party division which sometimes makes discussion on the setting up of a Select Committee somewhat acrimonious. Here we have an issue arising which concerns the rights of the whole of the Members of this House. The issues are very far-reaching and are of the utmost importance to this House, this country and to democracies throughout the whole world. They involve the liberties and the rights of the Members of this House acting in the performance of their duty to their constituencies. They involve the practice of our Parliamentary institutions, and they raise questions as to the relationship between the Executive and the Members of this House, and also the question of the relationship of the Executive to the Law Officers of the Crown.
I do not intend, in view of the fact that it is pretty clear that this proposal will be accepted by the House, to attempt in any way to anticipate the findings of the Select Committee or to go at any length into the actions of the Ministers of the Crown involved. There is, as a matter of fact, obviously some controversy as to the exact facts. We have merely had ex paste statements, and the Committee will have to investigate those statements. In my view, quite apart from the statement of the hon. Member for Norwood, there are in the statements of the Ministers themselves matters which give ground for some disquiet and warrant for an inquiry. I should like to say here that I think the hon. Member for Norwood in bringing these matters before the House did his duty as a Member of this House, responsible, as we all are, for the rights of the Members of the House. I do not think he could have done otherwise. There are certain matters which might very well be discussed this afternoon, and that is the kind of issue that will come before the Committee.
I do not want to go into the questions particularly concerning Ministers, although I think, perhaps, some of us may have been struck by the procedure that was actually followed by the Minister concerned. I would, however, raise one point which we shall expect the Committee to look into, and that is the exact position in this matter of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is a Minister and a Member of the Government, and he also holds a semi-judicial position. He has, in his functions, the

2163
initiation of prosecutions; he is the officer who gives his fiat for actions under the Official Secrets Acts. Therefore, he is in a very special position, and it seems to me that there might he some question as to why he was the agent of the Secretary of State for War in approaching the hon. Member for Norwood.
I indicated when this matter was first raised that it seemed to me to involve some of the principles that we discussed in this House in the Campbell case. The position to-day is not exactly the same. In that case a prosecution was initiated and then withdrawn in circumstances which the majority of the House thought needed inquiry. There were allegations of undue influence and of pressure, and the House was concerned as to whether the Attorney-General was in fact carrying out his functions in that judicial manner which is required of him. I am not alleging that the Attorney-General has not done so in this case, but I do say that that is a matter on which we ought to have an assurance. In the discussion on the Campbell case the position was very well put by the present Lord Horne:
"If the administration of the law should become subject to any considerations of political expediency then justice, as we have known it in this country for centuries, would disappear. Civilised communities can only enjoy full liberty if the political executive is excluded from interference with the mechanism of the administration of justice. It is for this reason that the very salutary rule has been observed in this country that the Attorney-General, in forming his opinion on matters of prosecution, is entirely free from any political influence whatsoever. He acts in a judicial capacity, and no Minister and no political party is entitled to interfere with him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, 1924; cols. 581-2, Vol. 177.]
I suggest that those considerations also apply to the Attorney-General when he has to consider the initiation of a prosecution. He has, of course, to consider whether it is in the public interest that a prosecution should be initiated or action should be taken, and what he must not do is to take into account political or other outside considerations. It will be one of the functions of the Select Committee to see that those principles have been observed. I think that is important because I have noticed the tendency increasingly manifested since 1931 to confuse the interests of the nation with the interests of the political party in office, and to confound the Government of the
2164
country with the body of persons for the time being holding office. That is an error which is quite often made by those who do not understand Parliamentary institutions, and that that should be done at all is a very grave danger to our liberties.
The idea that the interests of any political party are the same as those of the Government or the nation is a very dangerous one. It is an approximation, I think, to that false conception of the State which obtains in Fascist countries. What we want to be sure of always in these matters is that where action is taken there is a genuine apprehension of danger to the State, and not merely to the interests of Ministers or of a political Government. We cannot be too careful in guarding our country from these pernicious doctrines of the totalitarian States, where liberty has been suppressed. But there is a much larger issue, indeed I think the main issue which will come before the Select Committee, and that is the possible use of the Official Secrets Acts against a Member of this House, acting in pursuance of his Parliamentary duties. I should like to make it plain that on this matter we are considering the privilege of a Member of this House in pursuance of his Parliamentary duties. We as Members of this House do not claim to be free and above the law, but we are entitled to that protection which is necessary for us in order that we may carry out those functions with which we have been charged.
There can be no greater blow to democracy than the admission of any right of the Executive to hamper, hinder or restrain Members of this House from carrying out their duties to the nation. We claim our right in this House to be free from molestation. The freedom of Members from pressure by the Executive was fought for and won years ago, and it must be defended against attack, even if that attack should be cloaked under anxiety for national safety. That is not to disregard national safety, but let us remember that liberty has on occasions been attacked under pretence about the safety of the people. Also we should remember that Members of this House, acting in pursuance of their Parliamentary duties, are responsible to this House alone, and not to any other court. That is well established.

2165
Looking for a moment at the issues raised by the possible use of the Official Secrets Act, the real danger is that it gives the Government the power to interrogate persons and to force them to state the source of their information if it is thought that that information has been obtained by a breach of that Act. The successive Acts that were passed were to deal with one thing, and that was with spying. We find that they deal mainly with the question of the protection of fortresses and public buildings, and this power of interrogation was intended to be ancillary to dealing with the spy menace and for the protection of the country against spies. These Acts passed through this House with surprisingly little debate, because the House was assured of the extremely narrow scope of the Official Secrets Acts. If it had been suggested that the Acts could be used, or might be used, to restrain the Members of this House from fulfilling their functions, it would have been vehemently rejected. These Acts were directed against people who were acting against the interests of this country. The Acts allow the assumption that persons are acting wrongly, but we cannot have the assumption that Members of this House are deliberately acting against the interests of this country. We claim the right to have the most favourable construction put upon all our actions.
No one will deny that the Government mut be armed with powers under the Official Secrets Act to deal with spying. No one will deny the obligation of all public servants to preserve inviolate official secrets. Such provision is essential to the carrying on of government, and we are proud of the integrity of our Civil Service and of their readiness to serve any Government. We are proud of the loyalty of our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen. We should think it intolerable if in any way there was a relaxation of the obligations of honour and of law that bound them; if there was any suggestion that they could intrigue against the Government of the day by giving information away. We must all stand absolutely firm on that. We on these benches would be the last to suggest any breach in that tradition, but even on occasion this obligation cannot be absolute. There is a borderline where you get a conflict of loyalties. There have been cases where members of the public service,
2166
having exhausted all efforts to get reforms through Ministers, have had to resort to Members of Parliament, and it is far better for them to resort to Members of Parliament than to newspapers. When that does happen members of the public service or of the fighting forces are faced with a painful dilemma, but, after all, in coming to Members of this House they come to hon. Members who have been chosen by the nation for a particular purpose, and it is Parliament which is ultimately responsible for the administration of this country.
Ministers are not the masters of Parliament; they are its servants; and every one of us has a duty to make himself acquainted with the subject-matter with which we have to deal. It is our duty to understand all the Departments of State, and it would be an extraordinarily dangerous thing if anything were done which would impair the efficiency of this House. That is where I see the danger of the application of the Official Secrets Act to Members of this House. I am not judging whether that occurred in this case, but the fact that it has been applied to Members of Parliament shows the possibilities. It is not so much the actual application of the inquisitorial powers of this Act to Members of Parliament, as the apprehension. If it is once thought that Members of this House can be brought up and interrogated and obliged to give up the sources of their information when they speak in this House, on the ground that it was suspected they were using official information improperly got, there would soon come a cutting away of Members of this House from the public service, and there would be apprehension among members of the public service when mixing with Members of Parliament. They might easily say something which a Member might use afterwards, and it might be traced to them.
You have to check the dangers early, and I think there would be danger in this way. Under this Act, not merely used as a means of interrogation to try and find out whether there has been a breach, an hon. Member would be obliged to state the sources of his information, and he would be cut off then from nonofficial sources who might not like to give information. We should get a most undesirable situation in which there would be two lots of people in this House, those able to find out things, and know, and

2167
those people who were not. There would be a wide breach between Ministers and the rest of lion. Members. Unless Members of Parliament can have reasonable access to knowledge they cannot criticise Ministers effectively. It is our duty to criticise Ministers who are in charge of the administration. It would draw an artificial distinction between Members who had been in office and Members who had not. That is an issue raised by the use of the Official Secrets Act and this power of interrogation.
I am not going to anticipate in any way what will be the recommendations of the Committee, but I do say that the supreme issue raised, on which the House will expect guidance, is the reconciliation between the exercise by the Government of powers which it is necessary they should have for the safety of the country, and the exercise by hon. Members of rights essential for preserving the liberties of a free and democratic people. That is the issue, and I think an avoidance of conflict will be effected less by any hard-and-fast line of theory than by actual practice. Mostly in our constitutional matters we settle these things in practice rather than in theory. In practice Members of Parliament do not abuse their privileges; we are not a House of spies and traitors, and the House has its own method of dealing with hon. Members and of keeping them within bounds. I think it is essential for the life of this House that this House itself should make itself responsible for hon. Members. There is a danger in any suggestion that there should be some outside court or sanction brought in.
I have tried to deal with this matter from a rather broad standpoint, the point of view of what is the real welfare of this country in this matter. It is wrong to try and draw an artificial distinction whether it is between this House and the people or whether it is between the safety of the State and the preservation of our Parliamentary rights. We need the safety of the State and we need the preservation of our Parliamentary rights. I have tried to indicate some of the issues which have come out of this incident on which we require guidance. I beg all hon. Members, irrespective of party, to realise that this is not a light matter, It is a very big matter, and involves rights
2168
which we have had from our forefathers, which we have to protect and hand down to our successors. In these days, when liberty is challenged and derided in other countries, we should be specially vigilant to set an example to the world of the preservation of our Parliamentary rights.
4.54 p.m.
Sir Archibald Sinclair: I shall endeavour to imitate previous speakers by preserving the non-partisan atmosphere of this discussion and to keep my remarks as short as possible. This is a very serious question because it touches the rights and privileges and, therefore, the opportunities of Members of Parliament to serve the people. The Leader of the Opposition has said that the present safeguards for the security of the country and the rights and privileges of Parliament are by common-sense practice rather than by laying down hard-and-fast rules of procedure. Therefore, the first point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the novelty of the practice which has been followed on this occasion. There is nothing novel in hon. Members of this House being in the possession of information which has been obtained from official sources, but the novelty lies in the endeavour to put pressure on an hon. Member to reveal the sources of his information. I support the Motion now before the House because I believe that Parliament is on firm and hallowed ground in protecting its Members from obstruction or molestation in the discharge of their duties.
Never has it been thought improper that Members of Parliament should inform themselves fully on all matters concerned with the interests of the State and their constituents. In the eighteenth century this House was largely composed of hon. Members who were in fact employed in the service of the State, Generals, Admirals, Ambassadors, Governors, and people in high positions in great public Departments. Gradually there came a division of the functions, but all through the nineteenth century there was still close contact, which has remained until to-day, between Members of Parliament and servants of the Crown. All through the nineteenth century and in the present century there have been a series of great and useful Debates which would have been impossible if Members had not been free to obtain the relevant information. I need not go as far back as the investigation

2169
into the Crimean War. One of the first cases in which I took an interest when I was a boy was the building up of our young Air Force before the War, and I remember, although I was not a Member of the House, the late Lord Brentford, who was then Mr. Joynson-Hicks, declaring that he knew how many aeroplanes we had and told the then Secretary of State for War that he had sent people to find out. He said quite frankly that he thought it was his duty as a Member of Parliament to inform himself of the state of our air defences at that time, and no Minister of the Crown ventured to gainsay his action. During the War we had inquiries into the shell shortage and many other similar things; the Dardanelles—
Mr. Churchill: By which I was vindicated.
Sir A. Sinclair:—and then came the passing of the Official Secrets Act of 1920, amending and strengthening the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts, 1889 and 1911. The Act of 1920 gave power to the Commissioner of Police and certain other officers to submit to interrogation anyone who was believed to possess information about an offence or a suspected offence under any of the Official Secrets Acts. Since then, 18 years ago, many speeches have been made in this House, many Parliamentary questions have been put, and many letters have been written to the Secretaries of State and Ministers of the Crown which have been based on information which has undoubtedly come, and was within the knowledge of Ministers as having come, from official sources. I myself have had correspondence with the War Office on more than one occasion from which the head of that Department must have known that I got my information from official sources. There was a great controversy in the last Parliament between the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the then Prime Minister about the state of our defences and the right hon. Gentleman used a great deal of information which must have come to him from official sources, and which everybody knew, which the Government knew, had come to him from official sources; but nobody criticised his action.
More recently, a few weeks ago, we had most important and fruitful Debates in which striking speeches were made on
2170
the air problem. One was started by the hon. Member for Berwick (Sir H. Seely) and the other by a most impressive speech by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). Every Member of this House, and every Minister of the Government, knows perfectly well that those speeches were in part based upon information which was received from official sources. They were most fruitful Debates, and they have, in fact, resulted in great and substantial reforms in the Services which were then under criticism. But do not let us think that this matter applies only to the Defence Departments, and that it is only Members who are interested in the Defence Departments who are exposed to these dangers. The Official Secrets Act covers equally all the activities of the Government. The Member who raises the question of the Unemployment Regulations and happens to have received from some source an official circular which he is able to quote in the House will be just as liable to be called up and asked for the source of his information.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is not only official sources which will be dried up, but unofficial sources as well. People would think that they would be injured, that they would invite the disfavour of the Government, if they gave to Members of Parliament information of which Members of Parliament might be compelled, by threat of prosecution, to divulge the source. I think that the very useful Debate which was initiated by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) would probably have been impossible, or at any rate would not have been carried through, if it had not been for the belief of the people who gave him the information that there was no fear he would be called up and subjected to pressure to reveal the sources from which he had obtained his facts. Until now, nobody has attempted during the last 18 years since the last Official Secrets Act was passed, to use the Official Secrets Act to molest or obstruct Members of Parliament in the discharge of their duties. I remember well that when my hon. Friend the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), in introducing a Bill to amend the Official Secrets Act, said that under the present powers of that Act. Members of Parliament could be requested to reveal the sources of their information, hon. Members opposite almost with one voice

2171
shouted "No." That is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There were gusts of laughter at the apparently ridiculous nature of the suggestion which he made.
Certainly, the Government have the right to exact strict loyalty, discretion and obedience from their servants, but Members of Parliament are responsible to the people whom they represent in this House. They are not responsible to the Attorney-General or to any Minister of the Government. It would be deplorable if all sources of information were dried up. There may be some dangers, but there are great safeguards. There is the power of Mr. Speaker to disallow questions. There are great safeguards, and there are still graver dangers in the encroachment of the Executive upon the rights of Parliament. Governments are too apt to confuse danger to themselves with danger to the State. It is my submission that free Parliamentary criticism and the ventilation of grievances is a vital safeguard for the security of the State. Secrecy is no safeguard either politically or militarily. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that we have to combine and reconcile the safety of the State with Parliamentary rights. I believe we shall combine them best by having the greatest possible freedom in our Parliamentary discussions.
When the generals of Napoleon III declared to him that his Army was ready to the last gaiter button, it was on the eve of one of the greatest military disasters in history. It would have been far better for France if the French deputies had been free to probe the official assurances. It would be no security to the State to deprive Members of Parliament of the right, the duty and the opportunity to probe into these matters in this House. That is not to question the duty owed to the Government by the Government's servants; but if irresponsible public servants are giving away information to the detriment of the State—and no case has yet been proved that public servants are giving away information irresponsibly and indiscreetly to the detriment of the State —the remedy is not to threaten Members of Parliament with pains and penalties. Let the Services discipline themselves.
We have had, so far, good relations between Parliament and the Services.
2172
What detriment has occurred to the public interest by the freedom which Members of Parliament have enjoyed? The Prime Minister, or the Secretary of State for War, said that this freedom might be used in such a way as to affect the safety of the Realm, but it has not yet been so used. Therefore, do not let that freedom be tampered with now. Parliament is, and must remain, supreme over the Services—the Navy, the Army and the Air Force—and over the Government of the day. We see in other countries the danger which comes when armies arrogate to themselves powers which they ought not to possess within the framework of a free country. There was an occasion before the War, in 1914, when the Army in this country was believed to be arrogating to itself the right to take independent action; and it is rather remarkable to observe that that was on the eve of a great international crisis, and it probably was one of the factors which gave to foreign countries the idea that we were not so strong as we appeared and that there was a dangerous weakness in the free constitutional system of this country. We must protect the constitution of this country against that weakness, and ensure the supremacy of Parliament.
In view of what you said, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment at length on the statement which the Secretary of State has made. I will say, however, that I was glad he made the statement, and that he had an opportunity to make it. But I do not think the House will be prepared to consider that he treated the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) with the courtesy that he had a right to expect. The right hon. Gentleman has always treated me with great courtesy, and I have no complaint myself; but to make a point of the fact his letter was not marked "secret," or "confidential" or "private," and to suggest that because it was worded in such a way as to indicate that he proposed to put these questions unless he received an assurance that the information which he had sent was not true, to suggest that such an intimation, in so far as it was expressed in the letter, could not possibly have been removed by a personal interview and personal discussion with his colleague, seems to me to go far beyond the bounds of courtesy. It also seems to me to be sheer nonsense

2173
to suggest that an invitation to an interview with the Attorney-General, at which the Official Secrets Act is a subject of discussion, is not clearly putting pressure upon a Member of Parliament to reveal the sources of his information.
In conclusion, I am not at all sure that the Select Committee will not have to request that its terms of reference may be widened. The powers in Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, affect not only Parliament, but the Press. Free discussion and criticism are the lifeblood of dynamic democracy, and unless we stand up for our faith in our ideals, then certainly those who believe in totalitarian systems of government in the world will win. We have got to show an equal faith to theirs in the ideals in which we believe. I hope, therefore, the Select Committee will not only uphold the privileges of Parliament and the freedom of Members in the exercise of their duties, but also recommend certain modifications in these new powers which Parliament gave to the Executive 18 years ago, and which have proved capable of dangerous abuse at the expense both of the Press and now of Parliament itself, and which are therefore injurious to the free working of democratic institutions.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. Churchill: I shall certainly endeavour to fulfil in the spirit as well as in the letter the obligation which you, Mr. Speaker, indicated to us at the beginning of this discussion, and certainly I agreed with the Prime Minister when he said that it would be very foolish for us to attempt to do the work of the Select Committee for them. It is quite certain that in this House we could not go into the personal issues involved. Each one of these cases which have been presented to us represents only the most abridged form in which the Member or Minister concerned would state his points, and in order to form any judgment upon the merits, it would be necessary to have a far longer statement and to have it thrashed out by examination and cross-examination. Therefore, I can assure you, Sir, that you will not find that I shall endeavour to open in any detailed way the personal question involved; though I consider that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition, in certain remarks which he made upon the minor aspects of this case, the question of the usage of
2174
Members by Ministers, was fully justified in saying what he did. I propose to confine myself to a comparatively small number of general observations which I believe it is appropriate to make on such occasions, as they are intended to have a suggestive effect to the Committee which very soon will begin its labours, and also because there are certain points at the present time which are of real importance and on which it is really important that opinion should be expressed in this House.
Of course the Select Committee will certainly consider the position and dual character of a Member of Parliament who is also a Territorial Force officer. There are a good many, I am glad to say a great many, in this House who also render that other form of service. This arises from long custom. Admittedly it raises sometimes difficult cases, but the House has always wished its Members to serve in the forces—in the auxiliary forces, not of course in the regular forces—and those coats of arms which we see upon the panels of the Gallery, arouse in our breasts treasured memories of those who made that service good to the end. My long experience, not only as a Member but as having been head of all the fighting Departments in peace and war, for I think a longer time than anyone else, will perhaps induce the House to allow me to say a few words upon what I suppose to be the usual practice in these matters.
Again and again I have heard yeomanry and militia officers belabour the Government in this House with material which they had derived from the fact that they were serving in units of the Territorial Force. During the War and in later years I must recognise that more technical characteristics have crept into our armaments, and the issues are not as simple as they were in the days of the militia and the yeomanry before the War. But I must say this. I have never known in my experience any Minister who would have resented information given to him by a Parliamentary colleague even though that information came to him through that Parliamentary colleague being an officer in the Territorial Force. We all have different duties to discharge according to the station which we occupy. A Member of Parliament has a duty to discharge. If he has information he must try his best to make that information effective

2175
upon the Government. He must make sure that a Minister knows the truth. He has not only the right, but the duty, to force an unpalatable truth upon the consideration of a Minister, and the vehicle and the instrument which he can use for that purpose—the only instrument which he can use—is the possibility that, in the ultimate issue, he may, subject to his discretion, at the last moment utilise the procedure and opportunities of Debate and Question Time in this House.
The responsibility of Members for National Defence at the present time is a very real one. It is a prime duty to keep up to the mark a Government which has been repeatedly found in error and default, a Government which has a bad record in this matter, a Government which has admitted woeful miscalculations and mistakes. The intervention of the House of Commons, the basis upon which such discussion starts, has been vindicated as, step my step and year by year, the measures have been taken which are now recognised as necessary, and as they have been extorted one by one from His Majesty's Government. I say that the House must guard this liberty of Members above all things, because it affects the safety of the country. Conversations with Ministers and correspondence with Ministers play a great part in the inner life of the House of Commons. When such correspondence refers to the possibility of future Parliamentary action, such as a question, a speech or a Motion, I am inclined to hold the opinion that it is in fact a privilege. Otherwise it is covered by friendly confidence.
I take my own case. I have on several occasions written to the Prime Minister upon matters connected with the air. I have even sent him documents and I have given him information which I think he has found out afterwards not to have been incorrect. I have always received the utmost courtesy from the right hon. Gentleman and he has always written back to thank me for this information. But I am bound to say that it came to me with a shock of astonishment to learn that he would have been entitled to send the Attorney-General to me to ask me where I got that information. The most remarkable case that I can recollect was when over two years ago we had a deputation to the late Prime Minister, Mr.
2176
Baldwin, as he then was, to which about a dozen Members of both Houses who were Privy Councillors went. For two long sessions, on two successive days, we unfolded a vast mass of complicated detail relating to the bad conditions of the defences of the country and made recommendations to improve them in the future. I need scarcely say that if we had been asked where we got this material, we should have refused, certainly, to offer any assistance to the Government in that matter. I have been trying to calculate what our collective liability would have been to punishment on the maximum scale. It certainly would not have fallen far short of 800 years. But the late Prime Minister, like his sucessor, received us with the utmost consideration and never ventured to ask any questions which it would be improper to put to hon. Gentlemen serving this House, and the only complaint I have to make about what happened on that occasion, is that although what was said eventually proved to be true, very little effective action was taken.
All this is part of the inner life of the House of Commons from which Ministers would be mad to cut themselves off, and they would be mad to divorce themselves from the Members of the House, as they will certainly do, if they attempt to hold over the heads of Members the powers of the Official Secrets Act. I remember that I was Secretary of State for War at the time this Act was passed. I therefore looked up the previous records in order to make sure that I had not left anything unexpected behind me, as one may well do in the course of a long and busy life. But I do remember now, very strongly and very clearly, how this Act was never intended to be put to the purposes for which it is now being used, and I see that the then Attorney-General, now Lord Chief Justice of England, in moving the Bill in the House opened with these words:
"Unfortunately one of the things which increase and develop in an imperfect world is the ingenuity of spies, and another is the elaboration of the systems and methods of spying."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 2nd December, 1920; col. 1537, Vol. 135.]
Later on he entirely disclaimed any suggestion that it was intended to apply the Measure in its penal aspects to the Press. Evidently there has been a completely new interpretation of this Measure and it

2177
is that interpretation which has played a part in involving us in these very lengthy discussions. The Government clearly consider themselves—or they did a few days ago—possessed of hitherto unsuspected powers under the Official Secrets Act, and as far as one can judge they have not by any means excluded from their minds the possibility of using these against Members for statements made in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties It is perfectly clear that the decision to which the House is coming, to support the Prime Minister's Motion, will bring that question forward as a most grave and urgent matter, which must be settled one way or the other and which I have no doubt can be settled only in the sense that the obligations of the Official Secrets Act shall not extend beyond the interpretation which was always put upon them up to a few years ago.
Many Members have brought themselves within the scope of this new interpretation of the Act. In every part of the House they sit. There was scarcely, as has been well said, a speech made in the long and successive Debates on Defence, which would not, if the Government chose to use these powers—and apparently they have still not entirely banished from their minds the prospect—come under them. There is scarcely one Member who has taken part in those Debates who might not be invited to give the answer to what I think the Attorney-General called a request to co-operate with him—that is to say to betray the confidence of his informant. There is another serious objection to this Act in its new interpretation—in the extended and novel interpretation which has crept in, and is now I think going to walk out. That is that the Ministry claim to be and become in such a marked way the judges in their own case. They are able to say, "This is an official secret," and very often without, as in the present case, it being disclosed at all to the House, they can plead that the public safety requires a matter to be kept secret.
The Official Secrets Act was devised to protect the national defences and ought not to be used to shield Ministers who may have neglected the national defences. It ought not to be used to shield Ministers who have strong personal interests in concealing the truth about matters from the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
2178
I am choosing my words with care. I am not saying that is so at the moment. I am taking the case that if there were a Minister who had strong reasons to believe that he would be convicted of inefficiency, he would have a strong interest in preventing the disclosure of facts which would support that charge. The Nazi and Fascist States exercise such powers over their Parliaments or what is left of their Parliaments, but at least they use them to strengthen the defensive energies of their countries. We must be careful that these powers are in no way used to keep public opinion quiet, or to prolong inaction or neglect. You may blame a Member who commits the indiscretion of making our weaknesses public, but how much more must you blame a Minister or an administration which has prepared the conditions of that weakness beforehand!
Mr. Gallacher: Your own side do not like it.
Mr. Churchill: I am not concerned as to whether what I say is liked in any quarter of the House. I am concerned in stating a case which I believe it is my duty to state. I do trust that the Committee—I do not intend to go at all into the personal issues—will examine the action of the Attorney-General, whose well meaning, upright character endears him to all of us, but nevertheless it does seem to me that a mixing-up of functions is very much to be deprecated and that informal discussions upon matters which may take a criminal turn are not consonant either with the standard of British justice or with the propriety of Parliamentary life.
There is another series of questions which arise, upon the military aspect, which I trust will be borne in mind by the Committee in the course of their examination. No one must attempt to exonerate officers who make unauthorised disclosures of official information, even from the highest motives—no one should condone or defend that—but it is still true, as I think the Prime Minister mentioned in his brief remarks, that sometimes great advantages have been derived from irregular and improper action. There was the shell shortage in the War, in time of war, which was obviously brought to the public notice by a grave breach of trust, a breach of faith, and a disclosure of confidential materials, not to Parliament, but to the Press. That

2179
was deplorable, but we got, as a result of it, the Ministry of Munitions, and eventually the troops got their shells. There was a case in the War where a man, a spectator, leapt from the Gallery on to the Floor of this House, and when picked up in an injured condition explained that it was his protest against the delay in supplying the troops with steel helmets. He was seriously injured, but the troops got their steel helmets.
The most remarkable case of irregular action, which I think I must mention, because this aspect must be borne in mind by the Committee as part of the general atmosphere in which they consider these matters, was, of course, the convoy system. Here were junior officers in the Admiralty who went behind the backs of their superiors, through the Committee of Imperial Defence, to the Prime Minister and to Mr. Bonar Law, and convinced those Ministers in charge of our safety that their chiefs at the Admiralty were wrong about the convoy system. Of course, they took their lives in their hands, but they saved ours. And while I am of opinion that any person in official employment who in any circumstances departs from his strict duty cannot have his action condoned, nevertheless he does it at his own risk, and good results have sometimes followed.
But the House must not underrate the strain which is put upon persons who know the facts when they see that an altogether misleading impression is being given to the country by Cabinet Ministers. It is a strain which in certain circumstances and with certain temperaments becomes unendurable, and I am bound to say that I think the answers which the Secretary of State has given must be considered to arouse that sense of strain.
Mr. Maitland: On a point of Order. Is this relevant to the Motion?
Mr. Churchill: I am endeavouring to deal with the question in a general way, and I say that we have had statements or speeches about the anti-aircraft artillery which are misleading, which I have characterised in this House as misleading, and which are in some ways more to be criticised because very often they are verbally and literally true. The point that I am approaching is this: It may be that
2180
such statements do comfort the country, even if they deceive it, but the question which I think the Committee should turn its attention to, dwell upon, and weigh carefully is whether this kind of statements deceive possible foreign adversaries. I should have thought there was no branch of our defence upon which it was more easy for information to be obtained than about the state of our anti-aircraft artillery. There are thousands of men in the units. They know perfectly well what the main facts are, what are the weapons they have and what are the
weapons they have not. They are, I have no doubt, indignant at the misleading statements which they consider are made about them.
In the days when I was at the War Office and the Admiralty, before and after the War, we never had any great difficulty in acquiring information about the equipment of foreign forces nor about the size of the munitions plants which supplied them. The scale and the rate of production can be judged by the simplest of all tests, namely, what is the number of men proceeding to and from work in any particular plant, and there are many other cross-checks, but that is one. No doubt many things can be kept secret, but the general condition of equipment of armies and the general scale of the plants by which that equipment is supplied are, I am sure, well known to all the War Offices in Europe. Therefore, if the Secretary of State's speeches give an impression which misleads the country, I fear that they do not mislead foreign staffs who know already the true facts only too well.
Here I must point out that if any further confirmation were needed, it has been supplied in a statement which was issued two days ago on the authority of the War Office, where we are told that the final design of the 3.7-inch gun was only approved a year ago. We are also told that the factory at Nottingham, which was a bare site a year ago, is now producing a regular supply of 3.7-inch guns. I say that that statement, added to other facts, would enable any foreign intelligence service to make a complete picture of the output of the 3.7-inch gun. I make these points, which I think I am justified in slowly elaborating to the House because they are highly relevant, and I hope the Committee will not exclude this aspect from their examination. The

2181
world is told that there is a factory at Nottingham, and it is told that it was a bare field a year ago. The general size of the plant can be observed by passersby, and from those data and others which are available from this point and that there seems to be no difficulty in establishing a very fair opinion of what the output of those guns is and is likely to be in the immediate future.
I trust—naturally I am not going to attempt any challenge to the statement which the Secretary of State made of a specific character—that the Committee will pay particular attention as to whether the facts which were adduced in the question of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) really represent an important revelation of matters which are not known abroad. We have not the terms of the question before us—we cannot judge—but the Committee should certainly make it one of the essential elements of their inquiry, because it is very easy for us to get the idea that there is some great public interest which requires these facts not to be stated, whereas, as a matter of fact, the harm is already done in the knowledge which is possessed abroad; and what is needed is a greater effort here and greater vigour in proceeding with our defence.
I have only one more general observation to make, and I think it will be one which will not raise controversial feeling in any quarter. People say, "Why should Members of Parliament, of the House of Commons, have a special privilege? Why do not they take their change with the rest of their fellow-countrymen?" The answer is that we in this House are exposed to special liabilities. It has not been necessary to use these powers for a long time, but the House accepts fully the position that it has the power to discipline its Members itself. We have the power—the House has—by a majority to send any Member to prison, not to the Clock Tower but to Brixton Gaol, and keep him there at any rate as long as the House is sitting, a very formidable power, which can be exercised without any law, but simply because the House is dissatisfied with something that some Member has done or said. That is the answer to be made by Members of Parliament to the country when it is suggested that they are asking for some special favour. For the discharge of our Parliamentary duties we are
2182
prepared to accept our self-disciplinary powers, but we cannot tolerate the intrusion of any external authority whatever.
5.42 p.m.
Colonel Wedgwood: I have no criticism to make of the action of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys); indeed I think that throughout he has set a model for every other Member of this House, and I hope that, whatever happens as the result of this Committee, other Members of Parliament will act in future with no less courage and independence. Before I touch on the question of the Official Secrets Act, there were two things in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that I hope he will correct before this Debate ends. We must not have it on record that any Member on the Treasury Bench, in any circumstances whatever, expects letters to him from Members of this House to be marked "Private" or "Secret." The essence of the superiority of the British Parliament over every other Parliament is that we treat each other as equals and with confidence. What we say to each other in this House is not repeated outside, and it would be inconceivable that any Minister should treat a letter written to him by an ordinary Member of this House, one of his colleagues or one of the Opposition, as being anything which he could possibly use to the detriment of that Member. When Ministers write to me it is right that they should put "Confidential" on letters that they do not want me to pass on to complainants, but letters that I write to a Minister are letters that he will have to pass on to his permanent officials, and if they were marked "Private" or anything of that sort, it would mean that you did not trust the Minister. We must preserve the absolute equality of all Members of this House, both those in office and those who are bank benchers.
The second matter to be cleared up is this. We are still having this military inquiry. What is this board of officers inquiring into? Is it inquiring into who has committed the crime of giving information to a Member of Parliament or into who has committed the crime of giving information to a foreign Power? If it were a question of giving information to a foreign Power I would have no objection to the court being held, but that the War Office or the Army should now hold an inquiry into whether one

2183
of the Members of that Service had betrayed information to a Member of Parliament is not permissible. Giving information to a Member of Parliament in the interests of the country is no crime. Whatever that is under the Official Secrets Act, it is not a moral crime and it is not an unpatriotic service.
This is only one phase of the eternal war between the bureaucracy and a free Parliament. The bureaucracy naturally tries constantly to strengthen its position as being the servants of the Government, and weighs down the balance, against democracy in its favour. When it comes to the Army holding an inquiry into whether some of its subordinates, acting as they believe in the interests of this country, have given information to a Member of Parliament, it becomes ominously near protecting, not the country, but the honour of the Army. I am old enough to remember all the crimes committed by the L'etat major in Paris, the persecution and imprisonment of Dreyfus, the denial of justice because that justice would have injured the honour of the Army. All that was done once in France and we do not want to have it here. We are not going to have the Government setting up a fetish of the honour of the Army and to keep absolutely secret, not that which will injure this country if it becomes known, but what may injure the honour of the Army or the Government.
This question goes beyond the question of Privilege of Members of this House. The essential strength of the democratic system of government is that while the totalitarian state may be more efficient by making everybody more disciplined, more docile and more silent, the one thing the democratic state has to balance against that machine-like efficiency is free criticism through Parliament and Press, the spread of information and knowledge, and the courage to use that knowledge in improving the government, even a National Government. All over the Continent the governments in the different countries and the bureaucracies behind them have abrogated to themselves the power and the name of being themselves the State. The party has become the State. Here the party has not become the State and never will. We are not discussing a question of party. This is
2184
a question of how we can save this country from danger in future, the danger of being beaten by a foreign Power. I say that the best safeguard against that is that Members should still have the courage to find out and to bring to the notice of the Government what they think is wrong, and that members of the services, not only the fighting services, but all the services, should treat Members of Parliament as though they were colleagues in a great enterprise and not as a danger to be avoided and to be kept in ignorance.
I speak as one who has practical experience of giving information to the Government. All through the War there were going from this House people who were temporarily in the Army. There were at least 60 or 70 Members of this House who were fighting all over the world. Many of them were killed, and many are now dead or have left the House. There are still two or three in the House. I do not believe there was one of those Members who was not writing letters to the Prime Minister or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). They were sending special information which they had collected on the spot, over the heads of their military superiors, to rnembers of the Government. It was done by Aubrey Herbert, by Freddie Guest, and by Godfrey Collins above all. Godfrey Collins actually telegraphed at his own expense direct from Mesopotamia to Sir Austen Chamberlain, who was Secretary of State for India, and revealed the horrible state of affairs in Mesopotamia, which was then put right. In that particular case the military authorities tried to make trouble about it, but they were suppressed at once. Godfrey Collins was a Member of Parliament and was entitled to communicate directly with any other Member of Parliament, and more particularly with Ministers free from censorship. We all of us did that and we were not merely approved of, but urged to do it. Freddie Guest, as a result of his communications, was summoned back and made. Chief Whip, and a very good thing too. There we have actions exactly similar to that which the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) has been taking, which was not only approved of by the Government, but which performed

2185
a useful service in strengthening this country in time of war. If we ever get back into that state of affairs I hope that every Member of Parliament will follow the actions of their predecessors and help in the same way, but not by marking their letters "Private" when they send them to the right hon. Gentleman.
5.54 P.m.
Mr. Sandys: I only intervene for a moment with apologies to the House in order to correct an impression which may have been created unintentionally by the Secretary of State in his statement. Before making the statement which I read to the House on Monday, I showed it to the Attorney-General in order that he might know exactly what I was going to say and be able to reply to it. If I had seen the Secretary of State's statement I would have asked him, not to alter anything, but to clarify one or two points. With the permission of the House I would like to do that. I shall be asked to give evidence before the Select Committee and I am reluctant, therefore, to speak to the House. But I do not know how far the evidence of the Committee will be published and I do not want a false impression to go out. My right hon. Friend, referring to my draft question, said that the document from which this information had come contained a reference to the disposition of guns. That means, I presume, the sites where the guns are placed, and it would obviously be a very secret and important matter. My right hon. Friend, no doubt, knows all about that document. I do not. I do not know anything about the emplacement or disposition of guns, and my question contained no reference to it whatever. My right hon. Friend did not say that the question contained that reference, but the impression might have been created that it did. My question referred, as I think he said, to the number of guns. My right hon. Friend also made reference to my letter and drew special attention to the last sentence, in which I said:
"I am anxious before doing so to give you the opportunity privately to contradict the statement contained in this question."
My right hon. Friend emphasised the word "contradict." As the statements were, he said, true, he could not contradict them. The reason why, as I thought I explained in my statement on Monday, I said to him that I was anxious that he should have an opportunity to contradict
2186
them, was because in our previous conversation, to which I referred in my statement, I had mentioned to him approximate figures, which were very close to the actual figures which I subsequently sent him in the draft question. He had then denied that those figures were correct. That is why, when I sent the precise figures, I asked him to contradict them if they were not correct. That is how the word "contradict" came into the letter.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend a question on another matter. I was expecting him to ask me not to put the question on the Paper, because it contained more precise figures than I myself would have cared to put on the Paper. The reason why I included these precise figures was because my right hon. Friend had denied in our previous conversation the more general figures. The question I want to ask him is this: Does he suggest for one moment that if he had asked me not to put that question on the Paper in the public interest, I would ever for a moment have thought of putting it on the Paper? This is not the first time I would have withheld or withdrawn questions at the request of a Minister. Naturally in this case, more particularly as I am concerned with the Service in question, it would never have occurred to me not to have complied with his request. That is all I wish to say to the House, and I apologise for having intervened in a Debate in which I should have preferred not to take part.
6.0 p.m.
Major Macnamara: I hope to adhere to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and not to trespass into the region of personalities or the past. My right hon. Friend thought it necessary to ask us to produce the atmosphere in which the Select Committee should work later on, and it is because of certain very grave matters that affect a number of hon. Members in this House that I propose to say one or two words about that atmosphere. There was one sentence in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition which I should like to take up. He made, if I may humbly say so, what I considered to be a most admirable speech, and if the Debate had ended there neither I nor, I think, certain others of my friends on this side of the House would have wished to add

2187
one word to it. In the circumstances, however, I think there are one or two things which we shall have to try to say. He said in his speech that we must not confound the interests of the Government with the interests of the country. Are we not apt to confound interests of this House with the interests of the country?
Mr. Kelly: Are there any other interests?
Major Macnamara: Yes, there are. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, this is not fundamentally a House of Commons issue. It is an issue in which a great Service, among other things, is interested, as well as the House of Commons. He talked about spies, and said no one would deny that the Government should be enabled to defeat spies. It will be necessary soon for no foreign nation to pay one single spy to come to this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] I shall explain why in the course of my speech. Our first object must be the best interests of the country, and one's first reaction to this whole matter, if I may say so as a serving Territorial Army officer, is that it is all a very great pity. All of us who have taken an interest in Army matters were beginning to feel that the War Office was tackling fundamentally the Army's problems, and I do not think anyone can deny that a very great change, a very great impetus, has been inculcated into the War Office since my right hon. Friend the new War Minister has taken charge. Another factor in the situation which I am afraid will have to be discussed before the Select Committee is that Territorial officers are serving in the Territorial Army and in the House of Commons. All that was to the good. It was perfectly well understood by those in that dual capacity, and I hope nothing will be done to hinder it in future. We have also to face the factors that there is an Official Secrets Act and that there are Members of Parliament. Supposing the Official Secrets Act did not apply to information given to hon. Members. What would then be the situation? All Civil Servants, all officers in the Army, would then be immune from prosecution if they gave information.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Dingle Foot: Why would it not still be an offence, under Section 2 of the Act
2188
of 1911, to make an unauthorised disclosure?
Major Macnamara: I am assuming—I am not arguing as a lawyer; I am arguing from the commonsense point of view —that if this House decides that its hon. Members are to be allowed to be given information by civil servants and officers, and that hon. Members do not give their names away when secret information is given, that it means that civil servants or officers in the Forces will be at liberty to give secret infoimation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—well, will be able to give information to Members of Parliament and know that, providing they can trust those Members of Parliament not to give their names away, they will he safe. That will mean that there will be no secret information at all in the end. It does not take long to work out how Members of Parliament will get at civil servants or officers. There will be no secret information at all, and I personally cannot see how the Government can be expected to govern unless they can keep secrets in their Departments, and unless Members of Parliament have to respect the Official Secrets Acts in the same way as other people. Some will argue that the State will not be served unless Members of Parliament are unbridled, but Members of Parliament can always deduce things in the same way as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has so often deduced them, by looking at figures, facts, and programmes, and so on, and civil servants or officers, if they feel that their consciences demand that they cannot go on serving while knowing that certain things are going wrong, will always have the traditional way of dealing with such a position, that is, to resign as a protest.
We have had the question of the Territorial Army raised in the House this afternoon. I beg hon. Members not to make too much fuss about or to exaggerate too much the importance in connection with this matter of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) having been a Territorial officer, because I think that is only incidental. I think he will agree with me that the secret information came to him because he was a Member of Parliament and not a second-lieutenant in an artillery battery. The two matters are quite distinct. I do not know what he does in his unit as a gunner officer.

2189
If he were in my unit, under my command, in my company, he would still be drilling with the recruits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap." "Play the game."] My point is that it is quite wrong to exaggerate the importance of the fact that he is a Territorial officer, and I very much hope, for the sake of the Territorial Army, that that point will not be considered or come up for too much discussion, because this whole matter arises out of his being a Member of Parliament and not a member of the Territorial Army.
There are several courses open. We can exclude Territorial officers from being Members of the House of Commons, or we can exclude Members of the House of Commons from being Territorial officers in the future, as a result of this Select Committee. I very much hope that no such decision will be arrived at, and that the point will not even be discussed by the Select Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there are other people in this House possessing secrets besides Territorial officers, who may know some of the very minor secrets. We might as well exclude members of secret committees, or for that matter exclude all Cabinet Ministers, who have a dual loyalty. After all, Territorial officers have up to now understood perfectly well their dual functions and have always been able to draw the line satisfactorily between the two; and I may say that this whole matter is very much regretted in the Territorial Army, which feels it very much.
The second course is to make the Official Secrets Act applicable as much to hon. Members as it is to the man-in-the-street, and I for one cannot see why that should not be so, in spite of the fact that people have talked of Privileges and so on. I have asked myself time and again—What is the real point? Is this House really thinking of the country or is it more jealous of itself and its own privileges in this connection? The man-in-the-street wishes to be governed efficiently, but he understands the line that can be drawn between efficiency and licence. He does not see why a Member of Parliament should be exempt frm the law in this matter and be able to bandy information about in this House, with all the publicity that means, when he is not allowed to do so at a street meeting or in
2190
the Press. There is, of course, the possibility of making Territorial officers who serve in this House give an undertaking that so long as they are Territorial officers they will respect the military discipline which they voluntarily serve under, and if they find they are unable to do so they can resign from the Territorial Army and be only Members of Parliament.
I think it will be a very great pity, as I said before, to exaggerate the facts that the hon. Member for Norwood was in the Territorials, but as the matter has been mentioned I should like to reiterate that Territorial officers have understood their position before in this House and the Territorial Army hopes they will continue to do so.
I hope that the Government will put as their view, and that the Select Committee will decide, that hon. Members have no privileges which will excuse them from divulging the names of those who give to them information which they have taken on oath not to give to anyone. That would solve all the difficulties. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh at my suggestion, but it is a strong point of view which I personally hold and have put the whole way through my speech. I consider that it would be very much better if hon. Members were brought into line with the common law of the country in this respect. I do not think that will make the slightest difference to our being able to deduce facts from the programmes and figures and general information which we have been able to get in the ordinary way in the past. If our generation does not begin to realise that our peculiar task or job is that of a link to build a bridge between the past and the future, a strong bridge, with unshakable foundations, across the anarchical torrent of unloosed science, I think that our generation deserves to sink and go under in that very slough which, in its ignorance, it thinks is freedom and is really licence.
6.16 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Henderson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken will forgive me if I suggest that he is about 300 years too late in the speech which he has delivered. It may also interest him to know that the Privileges of this House have been long established as part of the constitutional law of this country and are recognised as such by all courts of law. He said that it was a very

2191
great pity that this Debate had to take place; I agree with that, and I hope that the Secretary of State will also forgive me when I suggest that he has blundered for once in connection with this matter. I suggest to him that he has been guilty of an error of judgment on a comparatively small matter and that as a result the House and the country are now faced with a major issue, raising questions of fundamental importance to the political life of this country.
As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) has said, it is the practice in this House for Ministers to communicate with Members of Parliament when they desire them not to raise particular questions. The opportunity was given to the Secretary of State for War, but, unfortunately, he thought fit to call in the Attorney-General. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken that those who support the Motion have no desire to condone any breach of trust on the part of a civil servant or of any one else in the public employment of this country. What we do say is that no pressure should be brought to bear upon Members of Parliament in the execution of their Parliamentary duties. We are entitled to feel strongly on the matter when we gaze around Europe and witness almost daily Parliament after Parliament either being closed down or their members being treated as trained robots merely to re-echo their master's voice. That is not the position of a Member of this House, and I hope that it will be a long time before that position is accepted.
In regard to the Attorney-General, one salient fact confronts us to-day, and it is that, according to the Attorney-General himself, he sent for the hon. Member for Norwood. He said:
"I was asked if I would see him and put the legal position before him, and ask him whether he was prepared to assist in tracing the disclosure by giving either to me or the Secretary of State the source of his information."
Later on he said:
"I put the legal position before him and asked him the above question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1938; col. 1537, Vol. 337.]
That is clearly an intervention on the part of the senior Law Officer of the Crown, seeking to influence the mind and action of an hon. Member of this House,
2192
in relation to a matter which concerned his Parliamentary duty. I suggest that the Committee which is to sit will be in a position to recommend to the House that the Section to which the Attorney-General referred and the powers conferred by that Section smack somewhat of the third-degree method of interrogation.
May I point out to the House, as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that it is very doubtful whether Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, should have been brought into the discussion at all by the Attorney-General? The right hon. Member for Epping referred to the statement made by the then AttorneyGeneral—now the Lord Chief Justice—during the Second Reading of the 1920 Act, when he suggested that the purpose of the Act was to deal with questions of spies and spying. I also have been engaged in some research work during the last two or three days, and I have discovered something much more specific than the statement of the then Attorney-General during the Second Reading. During the Committee stage of the Bill there was a discussion on Section 6 itself, and the late Sir Donald Maclean, who moved an Amendment, expressed very serious misgivings about the operation of Section 6. The then Attorney-General made this statement:
"I am not sure that my right hon. Friend has quite done justice to the limitations of the provision which this Clause contains. We are dealing only with offences or suspected offences under the principal Act or this Act. In other words, to put it shortly, we are dealing with spying and attempts at spying. What is it that the Clause provides? It is the moral duty already of every good citizen, if he has information about spying or attempted spying, to communicate that information to the authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1920; col. 966, Vol. 136.]
I respectfully suggest to the House that at the time this Act was placed on the Statute Book it was the view of His Majesty's Government, and certainly of their Law Officers, that Section 6, which confers these powers of interrogation upon chiefs of police and other senior police officers, in a way which is not allowed in any other connection in this country, was aimed at spying. Any hon. Member who has had the experience which, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had, in the law courts of this country

2193
will, I think, agree with me that, in the ordinary criminal case, no police officer is permitted to take a man into a private room and subject him to the interrogation which is permitted by Section 6 of this Act. The explanation of the existence of this power is to be found in that statement of the Law Officer of the Crown in 1920, that this Section had to be restricted in use to dealing only with spies and spying.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has dealt with the facts surrounding the question that was sent to him by the hon. Member. I hope that he will forgive me once more if I point out that many of us are entitled to be more than suspicious with regard to the Court of Inquiry. I do not propose to go into that aspect of the matter tonight because it will probably be out of order, but the Secretary of State, who is also a member of the legal profession, knows that a Court of Inquiry has no power to compel civilians to give evidence. It is a curious coincidence that the hon. Member for Norwood is an officer of the Territorial Army and was called upon to give evidence by reason of the fact that he was an officer of His Majesty's Forces. If he had been only a Member of Parliament he could not have been subpoenaed to give evidence before that Court of Inquiry. There is a suspicion that His Majesty's Government are inclined to suppress any activities on the part of hon. Members of this House which are inconvenient and liable to raise matters which they prefer to keep under cover.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: No.
Mr. Henderson: The hon. and gallant Member speaks with authority; I merely said that there was an impression. We know that there has been no previous case in the history of this country, so far as the records go, in which an hon. Member has been invited to interview the Attorney-General in relation to a speech or to a question which he desired to put in the House of Commons. It is without precedent and, having regard to the background of events throughout the civilised world, we are entitled to be very suspicious of an Executive when it seeks to hamstring and restrict the activities of private Members. I hope that, as a result of the deliberations of the Select Committee, it will be placed beyond all doubt
2194
that private Members of this House will be able to make their speeches and put their questions to Ministers without fear or anxiety on their part as to the operation of an Act of Parliament such as the Official Secrets Act.
To the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last I would say that he has raised matters of fundamental importance to this House. It is no use his suggesting that this Motion seeks to place Members of Parliament above the law; nothing of the kind. There is no suggestion that any Member of Parliament should not be subject to liability under any Act of Parliament if he breaks the law of this country, but we say that pressure should not be brought to bear upon a Member of Parliament who receives information in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, without prejudice to the right of the Executive or of the courts of this country to punish his informant if that informant has broken the law. Once you destroy Parliamentary privilege and make it impossible for Members of Parliament to listen to anyone who comes to them with information which, rightly or wrongly, is conceived to be in the public interest and which that Member of Parliament should receive, issues will be raised which will strike at the very foundations of Parliament. I hope that it will now be decided beyond a peradventure that the privileges of this House are still to be maintained and will be enforced, in order to protect any hon. Member in relation to his Parliamentary duties.
6.30 p.m.
Sir Arnold Wilson: I propose to conform very closely to the suggestion which you, Mr. Speaker, have made as to the limits of the discussion on this Motion. I congratulate the Secretary of State for War on his statement. He made it quite clear that the first initiative in this matter came from the Army Council. Edmund Burke, in his "Thoughts on Present Discontents," says:
"Public life is a situation of power and energy; he trespasses against his duty who sleeps upon his watch, as well as he that goes over to the enemy."
The Army Council have shown themselves vigilant, and have not slept upon their watch. Whatever the decision of the Select Committee on the general issue may be, the Army Council were vigilant

2195
and took immediate action, and their chairman is the Secretary of State for War. Apart from that, I find in Erskine May a passage which, I venture to suggest, deserves careful consideration, possibly by the Select Committee, and certainly by the Government:
"Thus far the course adopted by the House has led for the present to a fortunate termination of its contests with the courts of law; but it must be acknowledged that the position of Privilege is unsatisfactory. Assertions of Privilege are made in Parliament and denied in the courts…a well considered Statute…is the only mode by which collisions between Parliament and the courts of law can be prevented for the future. It is not desired that Parliament should, on the one hand, surrender any Privilege that is essential to its dignity and to the proper exercise of its authority; nor, on the other, that its Privileges should be enlarged."
My submission is that this trouble would probably not have occurred had there existed a Statute embodying the Statutes passed in the fourth year of Henry VIII and the thirteenth of Charles II, and the other enactments which are the statutory basis of our privilege of free speech. All our privileges, except the right of access to the Crown direct through you, Mr. Speaker, and that of drinking at our leisure in this building at any hour, are, I gather from Erskine May, statutory privileges, and nothing but advantage could be gained by preparing a single Statute making the position of Members of Parliament perfectly clear. At the present moment the Index to the Statutes shows some 20 or 30 Acts of Parliament all of which may be invoked. Let us make the position clear as soon as possible after the Select Committee has been set up.
This discussion has tended to suggest that Members of Parliament are likely to be put in fear by the mere suggestion of the possibility of action under the Official Secrets Act. We are not people of that sort. We are unlikely to give way to any threat if we are conscientiously convinced that we are performing a public duty. I know of no Member of this House who would not be content in an emergency to say, "Very well, I will go to the Courts and will make my defence before the Judge, and let him be the judge of Privilege." My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) would not have hesitated. We are not likely to give way to threats. Far more disabilities were imposed upon the public
2196
generally and, incidentally, upon Members of Parliament, by the Defence of the Realm Acts, but, as far as I know, they never had the slightest effect on Members of Parliament. When I was a servant of the Crown I had frequent communications with and from Members of Parliament. The risk I took depended upon the use to which Members of Parliament (such as the late Sir Godfrey Collins) would put such information as I gave them but no evil result ensued. Apprehensions expressed to-day have no justification in history.
The Leader of the Opposition, in a speech with most of which I thoroughly agreed, mentioned a conflict of loyalties. I was reminded of a dialogue in Galsworthy's play "Loyalties," One man says to another, "I hate half-hearted friends. Loyalty comes before everything"; and the other replies, "Ye-es, but loyalties cut up against each other sometimes." This is not an unusual case of a conflict of overlapping loyalties. We have loyalties to the Church and to the nation to which we belong. Not long ago there was a conflict of loyalties, between Ireland and the Kingdom as a whole. There have been conflicts at times between one group in this House and another group, based upon matters wholly foreign to the Legislature.
These conflicts of loyalties, on which Mr. G. D. H. Cole wrote a magnificent paper in the "Aristotelean Society's Proceedings" which profoundly interested me at the time, we have to harmonise as best we can in this House, but let us regard it as one to be resolved by the Select Committee and not by analysing Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Henderson) will forgive me if a say that he has quite overdone, at this stage of our proceedings, his detailed references to that Act. The proceedings of this House are based on the assumption that those concerned on either Front Bench, and on all the back benches, are gentlemen, and behave as such. Once that assumption proves false, the system breaks down. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood is the victim of a conflict of loyalties, which has to be resolved, between his duty as a Member of this House and his duty as an officer of the Territorial Army. That resolves itself into a question between his duty as a servant of the Crown in Council and as a servant of the

2197
Crown in Parliament, for be it remembered that the Army is not subject to Parliament in the same way as some other services. The Army is subject to the Crown in Council. We can withhold supplies, but we cannot dismiss or disrate an officer. The pay of the Army is settled, not by Acts of Parliament, but by Royal Warrants which are not laid before Parliament, but are issued proprio motu by the King in Council. The distinction has been blurred lately, but there is a real difference between the Crown in Parliament and the Crown in Council; and the Crown in Council controls the armed forces of the Crown.
We have heard much—perhaps too much—of the dangers to which Parliament might be subjected by the Executive. We have to consider, also, the dangers to which the country and Parliament might be subjected if the Executive felt that they were being unduly hampered by Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is more difficult to-day than ever before to separate times of war or emergency from a time of peace. We must trust our Executive to use with discretion the powers placed in their hands. Whatever Government may be in power, we may do so with confidence. Burke, speaking to his constituents in 1780, said:
"It is not to be imagined how much of service is lost from spirits full of activity and full of energy who are pressing forward to great and capital objects when you oblige them to be continually looking back. Whilst they are defending one service they defraud you of a hundred. Applaud us when we run; console us when we fall; cheer us when we recover; but let us pass on—for God's sake let us pass on."
We have been in trouble over this matter for the past week. I hope it will be disposed of before long. But meanwhile, when it is disposed of and a solution has been reached do not let us under-rate the extent of the anxiety that has been caused throughout the country and throughout the Territorial Army. Let us get a settlement, and as quickly as possible.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. Foot: It is rather remarkable that within the last half-hour we have heard two speeches on the subject of a possible conflict of loyalties where a Member of this House is also a member of the Territorial Army, and that any Members of this House should have suggested that in
2198
such a situation there can be any doubt as to where a man's first loyalty should be. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Major Macnamara), who endeavoured to belittle this matter and who represents a certain school of thought on the benches opposite, put forward, as I thought, one of the most remarkable arguments I have ever heard. He endeavoured to persuade the House that there would be no secrecy, and that no official secrets in the possession of civil servants would be safe, if Section 6 did not apply to Members of Parliament. He said that he was not a lawyer, but I thought he might perhaps have looked up the terms of the Official Secrets Acts before coming to this House, and the dates of those Acts. If he had, he would have observed that this power of interrogation never existed, and nothing like it ever existed, before 1920; and I do not suppose that even he would maintain that no official secrets were kept, or that there was no official secrecy, before 1920. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) made the very remarkable statement that we, as Members of Parliament, are most unlikely to be threatened with the machinery of Section 6. If that be so, one wonders what we have been debating all the afternoon.
Sir A. Wilson: Surely it has been made perfectly clear, by the statements which have already been made in this House, that no threat was in fact made.
Mr. Foot: I should have thought that the words used by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) and by the Attorney-General were perfectly clear. The hon. Member for Norwood said on Monday:
"When I inquired what would be the consequences were I to refuse to comply with his request, he read to me the text of Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, and pointed out that I might render myself liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years."
Then the Attorney-General, in his statement, said:
"I put the legal position before him, and asked him the above question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1938; cols. 1535–7, Vol. 337.]
To what Act of Parliament do the words "the legal position" refer?
The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): Perhaps I might be allowed to correct a misapprehension under which, I think, the hon. Member is labouring. I

2199
quite see how it has arisen. When I used the words "I put the legal position before him," I was not referring in any way to Section 6. I put before him the position which arises out of the other parts of the Act if a breach has been committed. When I put the legal position before him, I asked him if he was willing to cooperate. In drawing the inference that he did from certain words that I used, he was drawing a false inference.
Mr. Sandys: I do not quite clearly understand what the Attorney-General has said. Surely he does not suggest that he did not read Section 6 to me?
The Attorney-General: No. I said that quite clearly in my statement. Another part of my statement has been read and it was suggested that the words "the legal position" included, at that stage, Section 6. All I rose to point out was that when I used those words "the legal position" at that stage in my statement I made no reference to Section 6—at that stage.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that I was answering an interruption by the hon. Member for Hitchin. It is abundantly clear that the existence of Section 6 was very much in the minds of both the hon. Member for Norwood and the Attorney-General. I do not suppose that it will be maintained for a moment that the question of the use of the powers in Section 6 had not been considered by the Government before the interview took place. The hon. Member for Hitchin said that we were most unlikely to be threatened, and suggested that if we are, Members of Parliament would be able to say, "We will have it taken to the courts, and see what the courts will say." We know what the courts are bound to say if there is a refusal to give information when it is required under Section 6. The courts have no option. But a Member of Parliament, if Section 6 be invoked in his case, is put in this position: Either he must reveal the source of his information or take the risk of making a martyr of himself. There may be cases in which he is prepared to take that risk; but is it not clear that if this Section is used it will limit the number of subjects on which Members will feel willing to put questions in this House?
2200
There has not been any discussion, I think, about the terms of reference of the Select Committee. It appears to me that those terms of reference are rather narrower than they need be. It would be open to the Committee, of course, to recommend that the powers contained in Section 6 of the Act of 1920 should never apply to Members of Parliament in any circumstances, or at any rate when they are doing anything in connection with their duties as Members of this House. But we can imagine that the Committee may not be able to go so far as that. Suppose they come to the conclusion that the use of the powers contained in Section 6 against Members of Parliament would only be justified in extreme cases, where the safety of the State was clearly involved. They might reach that conclusion. Then they would have to decide whether this is such a case. They cannot decide that without examining the terms of the question that was put down by the hon. Member for Norwood, and also probably the terms of the documents about which it was alleged there has been a leakage. It will be necessary that they should go into that subject if they are to decide this particular question. Can we be told by whoever answers on behalf of the Government, whether it is the intention of the Government in moving this Motion that the terms of reference should cover those subjects and that it shall be open to the Select Committee, under the terms of reference, to go into the actual terms of the question and the documents in respect of which it is alleged that there has been a leakage?
The hon Member for Hitchin and the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford referred in this connection to Parliamentary Privilege. As I pointed out to this House on 24th May, no question of Parliamentary Privilege can, as I see it, possibly arise where a Member is interrogated in pursuance of Section 6, and at any rate if he is interrogated outside the walls of this building. The Committee is not being set up, as I see it, to consider a question of Privilege. If that were the question involved, it would be another issue that we should have to refer to the Committee of Privileges. We are sending it to a Select Committee. That Committee will have to consider a much wider question, as to what the effect will be on the normal activities of Members of Parliament if

2201
there is to be the constant threat, or the constant idea in their minds, that in certain circumstances these powers may be used against them. This is a criticism that I have to make of the terms of reference of the Select Committee. Suppose the Committee come to the conclusion that the use of these powers is only justified in cases of great public importance.
That will be a conclusion not so very different, after all, from the conclusion reached by the Home Secretary a short time ago, when he assured the House, in dealing not with Members of Parliament but with Pressmen that the permission to use this power would be given only in cases which the Attorney-General considered to be of first-class public importance. Suppose the Committee came to a similar conclusion, and also to the conclusion that the only way to make certain that that would apply in future would be to amend the Official Secrets Acts. It is doubtful whether they could make such a recommendation under the terms of reference. No doubt they could do so in reference to Members of Parliament, but only in reference to Members of Parliament. That would be, indeed, to create an entirely new form of Parliamentary Privilege, which no Member of this House has ever desired.
It is not unlikely that this Committee would wish to recommend some drastic amendment—let it he hoped that they will—of the 1920 Act. It seems a little doubtful whether, under these terms of reference, they will be able to make any recommendation to that effect. I put this question only because it is necessary that we should be quite clear about these terms of reference. I think this inquiry is exceedingly necessary, and not only because of the instance which has given rise to it. I hope that it will lead not only to elucidation of the events of the last few days, but to a very thorough, drastic and far-reaching amendment of the outrageous powers conferred by the Official Secrets Act, 1920.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. Stephen: I do not want to take part in doing the work of the Select Committee which has been set up, as some hon. Members to-day seem disposed to do. I simply take part in this Debate to say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that we support the Motion for the setting up of this Committee. I might say to the hon.
2202
Gentleman who has preceded me that perhaps the terms of reference are not as wide as they ought to be, but I would not be disposed to agree with him that the interpretation of those terms of reference should be left to the Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it is for the Select Committee themselves to interpret the terms of reference, and I have not sufficient faith in the Government to take their interpretation. As I see the question that is before us, the Government have interpreted the working of the Official Secrets Act in such a way as to cause misgivings to all the Members in this House, and I am not anxious to add to their work of interpretation.
We realise that the issues here are of very great importance with regard to the maintenance of liberty in this country. I was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), who seemed to take the attitude that there should be no Select Committee at all, that there was nothing to inquire into, and that the one thing we had to be careful of to-day was not to do anything that would shake the confidence of the members of the Territorial Forces. There was really no question in his mind that if a Member of Parliament came into jeopardy hereafter he would be quite prepared to go into Court without any question of Privilege at all. There is a matter of very great importance involved in this question of the Privilege of Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister referred to a principle that was laid down in connection with the question of Privilege which was referred to in the Journals of the Lords in 1641. My mind also went back to the same period and I recalled that the very question at issue here was of such great importance then that it resulted in the head of a king rolling in the dust. On this occasion, perhaps fortunately, the question of the King and his head does not enter into it, but there may be other heads available—those of the Secretary of State for War and the Attorney-General. It may be just as well that there should be a few heads available for us.
The question before us now is the setting up of a Select Committee in which the House has confidence when it appoints it. It is given terms of reference to enable it to go into the matter, to discuss the principal circumstances which brought the question into the foreground again, and

2203
also the general questions resulting from this particular incident. I think that that procedure is an appropriate one for this House to adopt, and I hope that, as a result, this Committee will be in a position to arrive at a proper finding with regard to the proper Privilege that should extend to Members of Parliament in carrying on their work.
6.59 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I want to make a remark about the powers of the Committee with regard to its terms of reference. I see that it is to inquire into the allegations of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). I think it should have power also—and I hope it will be found that it has—to inquire into the position of the hon. Member for Norwood in another way. It is believed that an improper disclosure has been made of a State secret. There appears to be no body which has the power, or at least which is going to exercise the power, to inquire of the hon. Member himself into the exact circumstances in which he ascertained the information which formed the subject of his proposed Question. It may well be that while the military Court of Inquiry is, for its part, finding out how the disclosure took place, some person or persons may find themselves the subject of an accusation of having improperly disclosed a secret. In that case I think it is vital, in the interest of any person or persons who may in this way subsequently be accused, that it should be known by someone—and the only body possible seems to be the Select Committee that we are moving to set up—whether the hon. Member for Norwood himself asked for the information which he in some way obtained, or whether, on the other hand, that information was volunteered to him, because it seems that it will be vital, if the ends of justice are to be met and the interests of any accused person safeguarded, that that information should, in fact, be made available.
The Committee is not asked to find on the general question of Privilege. The Committee of Privileges has decided that to summon the hon. Member for Norwood to a military court at a time when the matter was sub judice in another way in the House was a breach of Privilege, but the Select Committee presumably
2204
will not be asked to decide whether or not this House is going to be above the laws which it has helped to make. It surely must be the case that until Parliament shall decide, if it should decide, to amend the Official Secrets Act, Members of this House are just as much subject to its provisions as any other citizens of the land. Again, it appears that there can be no question of a conflict of loyalties. If a Member is also an officer in the Territorial Army, it is surely possible, without amending any Acts or discontinuing any practices which have prevailed in recent years, for those two duties to be carried on without any conflict at all. There are no two loyalties, for two loyalties would be treason. The only loyalty must be to His Majesty.
7.4 P.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): There are indications that the House is getting to a point when it might be ready to agree—
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Am I to understand that the Debate is to be finished? I have been here from the beginning and have been trying to get in.
Mr. Speaker: I only heard the right hon. Gentleman say that there were indications.
Sir J. Simon: You warned us, Sir, at the beginning that there might be a danger, or the possibility of danger, of some impropriety or inconvenience to-day in discussing the merits of the matters that are to be referred to the Committee. It seemed to me that the Leader of the Opposition showed exactly how it was possible to make a speech on this subject without in the least transgressing your guidance or running into those dangers. It seemed to me that he discussed with complete appropriateness not the merits which will hereafter have to be looked into and reported upon, but the sort of question which the Committee, when appointed, might be expected to address its mind to. That, I should think, is a perfectly proper thing for us to discuss to-day. There must be many in all parts of the House who felt sincere admiration for his speech. I agree with a great deal of what he said. He did throughout discuss the nature of the difficulties and the sort of problems which he thought this Select Committee would have to face and

2205
deal with. So far so good. When they have done it and have made their report, the opportunity will arise, and will certainly have to be provided, of considering what it says, and the House will determine what sort of action it will take. There was a great deal of difficulty in steering the course which he so successfully steered, and that is illustrated by some of the speeches which have followed. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) began, as he often does, by saying he wished to follow more or less along the lines indicated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, which no doubt he wished to do, but in the course of about five minutes all his good resolutions went by the board, and we had a very rhetorical demonstration as to what was his judgment on these matters. I looked with some anxiety to see whether he was going to be a member of the Committee. Fortunately in the circumstances, it cannot be said that he prejudged anything that he is going hereafter to pronounce upon, although he expressed very strong opinions on certain points.
I do not want to add anything to what has been said on the definition of the issue, except on one point to which I will refer later, but one or two questions have been asked me with which I should like to deal. First of all the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was quite right when he said that it is not for the Government to say what the Committee will or will not consider. The Committee will construe, as every Committee does, its terms of reference, and we may assume that they will construe them with sufficient generosity, and will not be too technical or too narrow, and, therefore, I should expect that the sort of questions that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) was anxious to mention may well be matters that will come within the consideration of the Committee. I should not have thought necessarily that the Committee would consider it within its function to recommend the outline of a revision of a Statute from one end to the other, but even that is a matter which it will be for the Committee to say, and certainly not for the House of Commons or the Government to debate about now.
Mr. Foot: Surely it is for the Government to say what they mean by this Motion they put on the Paper and how
2206
wide its terms of reference are intended to be.
Sir J. Simon: The words are pretty plain. They are, I think, the words of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). He himself is content with them and the Government are content with them. I have not heard generally any objection to them, and we may safely leave the matter in the hands of the Select Committee to deal with.
The hon. Member for Norwood put two questions to the Secretary of State for War. I should like to say on my right hon. Friend's behalf that it is not want of courtesy or of attention which has led to his not again intervening and dealing with the point raised. It is merely that he feels, as we should all feel, that it is very desirable that we should not get led into personal controversy on some of the detailed incidents at this stage. No doubt, the Secretary of State and the hon. Member will be giving evidence before the Committee and, when the Committee has heard it and everyone has asked all the questions that he thinks right, we shall, no doubt, get an orderly and impartial report from our colleagues on the Committee. That will be the time to go into these matters.
There is one exception that I would make to my resolve not to add any observations of my own. It really arises from a remark made by the Leader of the Opposition. He said—and almost every speaker in all parts of the House has confirmed this in one way or the other—that, of course, no one would ever dream of denying that officials charged with secrets must keep those secrets. They must not disclose them to critics of the Government, and must not intrigue against the Government of the day—this applies to all Governments, whatever their composition—and no one must condone what would be in those officials an undoubted breach of their duty. In connection with that point the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Major Macnamara) put his finger on the real difficulty. I do not pronounce upon it—I do not think any of us ought to—but I think it is one of the issues with which the Committee will have to deal. If we really mean, as we do, that officials must keep secrets and that it is a grave breach of their duty if they do not keep them—and Members

2207
of Parliament all know that if they disclosed secrets they would be breaking their trust and their oath—it follows that a very serious responsibility would follow to anybody—I am not referring to the hon. Member for Norwood; I do not know the circumstances—who provides himself with information from such officials on the assurance that he will not give the officials away. It seems to me that that is a very great difficulty and, no doubt, it is one which will be considered in due course by the Select Committee. It does not seem to me that it is much use our putting on record that of course we would never condone any official breaking his trust, and all the rest of it, if at the same time it is alleged that public service can be rendered in certain circumstances by inducing officials to break their trust on the terms that they shall be seen safely through it. That is plainly a matter which will have to be considered closely and carefully by the Committee. I do not know, and I do not seek to know now, what the answer to it is, but it is a very considerable difficulty which will have to be solved by the Committee.
Mr. A. V. Alexander: In the 27 years since the Act of 1911, when has this difficulty even been projected in this form?
Sir J. Simon: I do not differ from that reflection. But, if you are going to have a committee analysing these things, that is one of the matters that they will not be able to overlook. There should be no doubt about all this being on record. Someone said—I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite—that until now no one had attempted to use the Official Secrets Act against a Member of Parliament. I do not think, at this stage at any rate, that is a fair way of stating the matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has heard the facts, as he ought to hear them, and acted with due responsibility, and those of us who know him have great confidence that he will be shown to have acted in this matter with his usual discretion. He has told the House perfectly plainly that he has not done anything of the kind that is suggested. This is one of the matters, no doubt, which will have to be investigated by the Committee, and at any rate, do not let us, in setting up the Committee, take it as an agreed
2208
proposition that that has happened at the present time.
Mr. Attlee: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to me?
Sir J. Simon: No, I am not. I took the liberty of saying, I hope, without impertinence, that it seemed to me that the Leader of the Opposition was most scrupulous and careful throughout in stating what were the issues to be considered, and never at any stage pronounced any judgment on any of the facts.
I will venture one speculation at the end, and it is only a speculation. I must say that I would not expect, as a result of all this, that we should get some cut-and-dried code. All our Parliamentary traditions go to show, as has been said by an hon. Member during the Debate, that we are really carrying on our work here on the basis of good sense and mutual understanding without trying, to set up too many rules and regulations. That is really, if I may say so, the nature of the law of Privilege of this House. You cannot buy a book and read in it paragraph after paragraph what the law of Privilege is. That is not the way it is done at all. What is done is, that early in our history the House of Commons has claimed certain liberties for itself and its Members. We do that in November when you, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of every Parliament, claim certain liberties because we have developed a whole series of Parliamentary traditions. You cannot find it anywhere in the book. I think it is pretty well laid down nowadays, and accepted, that we ought not at any rate to extend our claims for Members' Privileges in all sorts of novel directions. We are the interpreters of our Privilege, and nobody else can interpret it. No court of law in the land can say, "I will lay down what Parliament shall do." That puts a very great responsibility upon those who happen to be Members of Parliament at any particular time.
We here are the guardians of our Parliamentary institutions, which will pass on long after we have gone, and what we have to do is to guard them, and, it may be, in certain cases, to interpret them and give them a more precise application. This is a tremendous responsibility which every one of us has to discharge as far as we can without partisanship and without any desire to

2209
score a point about some current controversy. I am very confident that the hon. Gentlemen whose names are proposed to serve on this Select Committee will discharge their duty in that spirit, and I expect that when their report is brought back to the House, we shall find that it is in that spirit that the House as a whole will desire to discuss it.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I want to make one or two observations in connection with this very important matter. I have asked myself the question, what would have been the attitude of the Attorney-General had it been myself or a back bencher on this side of the House who had been involved? I am quite certain that he would have been prepared to go much further than he has on this occasion. There is another point to which I want to draw attention. The Secretary of State for War is getting the heavy weight of the blame. Almost everyone who has directed attention to this "unfortunate affair" has concentrated upon the Secretary of State for War. I would remind the Members of this House—and I am not going to discuss what the Select Committee should do—of the actual tendency of mind which has been developed recently on the part of the Leader of the Government. The Prime Minister recently paid a high tribute to Mussolini and to the Fascist system in Italy. When the Secretary of State for War goes to the Prime Minister and reports this case, it is the Prime Minister who advises calling in the Attorney-General, showing the natural development of the very great friendship between himself and Mussolini, and this should not be forgotten. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister made one sensible remark in the course of his short talk. He said that he could conceive of information of a very secret character being given and as a result great good resulting to the nation, but the converse also would apply. Obviously, if very secret information is given and results in great good to the nation, if such information had not been given the consequence to the nation might have been very bad. We have a case in point here.
The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), speaking with all the weight and lack of penetration of the brass hats, says that he is proud of the promptitude with which the Army Council acted. What is
2210
it upon which they have acted? A very serious evil has been revealed. The whole character of the discussions which took place between the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) and the Secretary of State for War was in connection with very terrible weaknesses in our defences. That was the subject of discussion. The Army Council has acted with great promptitude. What to do? To repair the serious weaknesses? No, that is the last thing that the Army Council would think of doing. It has not acted with great promptitude to repair the serious weaknesses; it has acted with great promptitude to attack whoever was responsible for revealing the fact that there were serious weaknesses. A week or two ago I produced in this House a photostatic copy of Employment Exchange documents referring to the report of an inspector about one of the unemployed. I was advised by certain legal men that I was running a risk of being brought under the Official Secrets Act. There was also the case of a member of the Press not very long ago.
We are discussing here privileges of Members of the House of Commons, but as Members of the House of Commons we are only entitled to have privileges while serving the people. Although we are above the brass hats and are responsible to ourselves only so far as the various Governmental administrations are concerned, we are not above the people. Our privileges come from the people, and our privileges are also their privileges. I mean by that—and this is the kernel of the question which is not understood by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that, if a Member of Parliament is to do his duty and to serve the people of the country in the way that they should be served, whatever passes between a constituent and his Member, no matter what position he is in or what oath he has taken, that should be privileged. That is the only way in which this problem can be solved. It has always worked that way. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) gave case after case, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) gave instance after instance during the War of Members of Parliament getting all kinds of information and taking it up with the responsible Minister. The important issue that

2211
should always be before us is the cause for which the information is given and is being used.
We had the famous case five years ago of Compton Mackenzie the great novelist. He wrote a book. There was information in that book in connection with matters that had happened 20 years before, but the brass hats got at him and he came under the Official Secrets Act. Under the Official Secrets Act the question is not asked, Was this information given and used for a good purpose? Once you come under the Official Secrets Act all that the court has to do is to decide the question, Has this man published a secret, and does this particular secret come under such and such a section? And the Court decides, "Aye" or "No." That happened to Compton Mackenzie. Nobody ever suggested that he was doing anything that could do any serious harm to anybody. They got at him and said that if he tried to defend himself, the prosecution and the judge would be very annoyed and all the rest of it, and he would probably get a year or two years' imprisonment, but if he pleaded guilty he would get off with a fine. That is what he was persuaded to do, and he pleaded guilty. Nobody can tell what offence he had committed in the sense of having done any harm to anybody. Not only do they use the Official Secrets Act in such a manner, but the very book, with the parts taken out that were complained about, is still under the ban and not allowed to be published.
When discussing the question of Privilege, let us remember the Privileges of the Members of the House of Commons in relation to the people of the country. If we have a proper understanding as to the position between Members of this House and the military on one side and the people of the country on the other, we shall be able to escape much of the difficulty that is confronting us at the present time. The Prime Minister is responsible for the Attorney-General being called in. It has been suggested that we should not discuss what the Select Committee will have to consider, and I do not want to bias the findings of the Committee, but if I could be assured that an adverse decision on the part of the Committee so far as the actions of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for War and the
2212
Attorney-General are concerned, would mean their resignation, anything that I could possibly do to bias the Committee would be done. I am certain—and I say this as a result of the experience that I have had of the Government since I came to the House, and especially since the present Prime Minister took office—that while we have the present Prime Minister and the present Government the menace will always be there to Members of this House, to the people of the country and the nation as a whole.
7.32 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I had not intended to take part in the Debate but for some remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) and the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Major Macnamara). I regret they are not present, but what I have to say in regard to their speeches will be said in no captious spirit of criticism or with any desire to give offence. I understood the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne to express some fear that as the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) has successfully claimed Privilege, officers who may come under suspicion in the course of the military Court of Inquiry may suffer because the hon. Member has not attended the inquiry. I am not in the confidence of the hon. Member for Norwood but I think it may be safely said that if there was any fear that some officer or official was going to be unfairly accused or to suffer in any way unjustly, the hon. Member for Norwood would be the first to take the necessary steps in order to see that no injustice of that sort was done. Therefore, the fears expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne were groundless.
I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford, and I regret that he did not develop the theme that if such action as the hon. Member for Norwood has taken goes unreproved, in future no foreign country need employ spies. I am at a loss to understand what the hon. and gallant Member meant by that remark, and I regret that he did not develop it. It was going far beyond the mark for him to suggest, as he did, that if the Official Secrets Act is not applied to Members of Parliament, officers and civil servants will become perfectly immune in regard to

2213
giving away secrets and official information, and that in consequence there will in future be no such thing as secret information. So far as I am aware, the Official Secrets Act has never yet been invoked or applied against a Member of Parliament and the terrible consequences which the hon. and gallant Member foreshadowed have not yet occurred.
The point to which I wish particularly to call attention is this. The hon. and gallant Member has, quite obviously, with great sincerity and great honesty been seriously thinking on the question of his dual responsibility as an officer and a Member of Parliament. From his remarks he appeared to me to have decided that his duty as an officer comes first. I think he went completely contrary to the spirit and the feeling of this House in suggesting that Members of this House ought not to enjoy such privileges as have been successfully claimed by the hon. Member for Norwood, and also in suggesting that Members of Parliament ought to be brought into line with the common law of the land in these matters. He claims to speak on behalf of the man-in-the-street. The man-in-the-street would lose one of the main defences of his liberty if Members of Parliament were reduced to the position which the hon. and gallant Member suggests they ought to hold in this matter.
Since I have been a Member of this House I, too, have considered very seriously the question of duty and responsibility as a retired naval officer and as a Member of Parliament. As far as I am concerned I have no hesitation in saying that the officer or the retired officer who becomes a Member of this House accepts a far larger and graver responsibility to the country, which comes before his opinions and his responsibilities as an officer. The position of a Member of Parliament in receiving information is one of very great difficulty, especially so when a Member of Parliament has been an officer, or is an officer. He finds very particular difficulty when a serving officer comes to him with information. The situation puts him into a position of great difficulty. I see the First Lord of the Admiralty present. Perhaps he will allow me to say that I found myself in such a difficulty in regard to my action in raising matters concerning motor boats for the Navy. I felt it right and proper
2214
to refrain from using a great deal of information which I had, because it had been put at my disposal by serving officers, and, therefore, I felt, rightly or wrongly, that I should not use it.
We must stick to the position that officers and civil servants must understand that they are not as a general rule entitled to disclose secret and official information. If they do so to a Member of Parliament they are undertaking a very grave responsibility, which can only be justified if national security or national interests are at stake. In my opinion they are not justified in disclosing information about awkward Departmental matters, or in order to gratify feelings of irritation against superior officers, or in revenge for slights which they may think they have suffered, or because of thwarted ambitions. They should only disclose information if they feel that by remaining silent detriment will result to the Service or to national security.
The practice in these matters has justified itself on the whole; the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We must not forget that if questions are put on the Order Paper and the Minister feels that it is not in the public interest to reply, he has always the power to say so. If the Minister does not feel justified in giving the information asked for, he also has the power to ask the Member concerned to take the question off the Order Paper, and I should think there are extremely few cases on record where a Minister has asked a Member to take a question off the Order Paper where that request has not been immediately complied with. The other side of the matter deserves consideration. Information is given from time to time as a result of which we have found that good results have accrued to the public service. We have had the two instances of recent changes at the Air Ministry, which many of us think are going to work out to the advantage of the Air Service and of the country, and we have also had the report of the Cadman Committee. In both those cases good has resulted to the country and the public service through certain information being given to Members of Parliament. It will be a bad day for our public liberties and bad for national security if civil servants and officers cannot feel that in the last resort, if all proper representations to their departmental and service chiefs have been made and have failed, they cannot

2215
resort to Parliament through the agency of a Member of Parliament.
It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister dislikes opposition. In the "Manchester Guardian" the other day, in a leading article, it was stated that the Prime Minister always displays petulance whenever the Opposition benches oppose. There is very little doubt that the Government have been rattled by a good deal of the just criticism over their many failures in relation to rearmament. They have realised that many of the speeches made on this subject, and especially those delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) have shown clearly that officers and others have spoken to Members of Parliament about weaknesses and failures in our rearmament programme, that have perturbed them. It is undoubtedly the case that that is so, and I think the Government wanted to put an end to a practice which inconveniences them. They have turned on the hon. Member for Norwood but, with great respect to him, I think that they have been flying at higher game in taking the action that they have done. They have shot at a pigeon hoping to bring down a crow. In what they have done they have shown great ineptitude. It was very inept to put the Attorney-General on to the hon. Member for Norwood in the way they did. It was extraordinarily inept that he should have been summoned to appear before the military Court of Inquiry wearing his uniform.
Mr. Ede: And his sword.,
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: By their ineptitude they have taken the most effectual course that they could take in order to arouse sympathy on behalf of the hon. Member whom they wished to attack. I feel sure that the result of these proceedings will be to confirm afresh the privileges which Members of Parliament enjoy in these matters to enforce recognition of the fact that the power to give information to Members of Parliament is a valuable safeguard of our liberties and our security, and to give a check to the drift towards totalitarian theories of Government which have been becoming very apparent in this House in recent days. As so often happens, I believe that our liberties and our
2216
privileges will in the end be extended by this ill-judged and maladroit attempt to curtail them.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Emmott: With a good deal that has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) I agree, but it seems to me that there was possibly a latent contradiction between two parts of the interesting argument which he addressed to the House. At one moment he appeared to be arguing that there was a wide range of matters which serving officers should not disclose to Members of Parliament. With that the whole House will agree, but a little later he argued that officers should always feel that they can properly approach Members of Parliament for the purpose of putting them in possession of information which they think should be disclosed to them.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to do me an injustice. In fact, I said nothing of the sort. I said that civil servants should feel that if they really believe national security or the interests of their service were at stake they can approach Members of Parliament, but I said that in doing so they undertake a grave responsibility which can be justified only by the national security being at stake.
Mr. Emmett: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his correction, but it seems to me that the correction really reveals the latent difficulty and contradiction in the whole of this subject. I confess that I find it difficult to address to the House any detailed argument which shall not conflict with your Ruling that Members participating in the Debate should as far as possible avoid that kind of argument which will be more suitable to the consideration of the Select Committee than to this occasion; but I cannot help thinking that the Select Committee which is about to be set up will welcome illumination by this House of the subject which it will have to consider, and will, in fact, welcome any indication of the opinions of hon. Members which may be available to them. Therefore, I should like—and I propose to be brief—to offer one or two comments upon arguments which have been addressed to the House to-night.

2217
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) suggested that the present position of the Government is that it is improper for hon. Members to inform themselves on certain subjects. He actually said that "never before has it been thought improper for Members of Parliament to inform themselves on the subjects with which they are concerned." Nor is it now considered improper for Members of Parliament to inform themselves on such subjects. The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that information from official sources has always been properly disclosed to hon. Members. Of course it has, and the present complaint is not that information has been made available to an hon. Member from official sources. The complaint is quite different: it is that a certain kind of information which it was improper to disclose has been made available from official sources to an hon. Member. In that argument the right hon. Member for Caithness appeared to me to be seriously misrepresenting the position of His Majesty's Government. Then he went on to suggest, as did other hon. Members, that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) had been threatened with pains and penalties. That again, I submit, is a complete misrepresentation of the position. The hon. Member for Norwood was not really threatened with pains and penalties, and anyone who reads carefully the statement made by the hon. Member and the statement made by the Attorney-General on Monday will agree that that is so.
I come now to make a few observations on the speech of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He addressed a powerful and interesting argument to the House, and in the course of it he urged that it is the duty of Members of Parliament to give information to Ministers. Certainly, but here there is no question of giving information to a Minister; the Minister already had the information. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he could never have imagined any Minister refusing to receive it. But the Minister did not refuse to receive it.
Mr. Gallacher: Is it not conceivable that the officials in a particular Department might keep the real condition of affairs from the Minister?
Mr. Emmott: It is conceivable, possibly, to the hon. Member, but not to
2218
me, Really the whole argument of the right hop. Member for Epping seemed to ignore this fundamental circumstance,that the question proposed to be put by the hon. Member for Norwood revealed an improper disclosure of information. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood intervened during the Debate and pointed out very properly, or rather informed the House, that his question did not contain any reference to the disposition of guns, but only to certain other matters. But it was not necessary for the question proposed to be put by the hon. Member for Norwood to refer to the disposition of guns, to reveal that in fact there had been an improper disclosure of information. Then the right hon. Member for Epping used it as an argument against the Government that Ministers must not be judges in their own case; it was not for them, he suggested, to say, "This is a secret thing; this is secret information, and must not be disclosed." I suggest to the House that in this connection the argument that Ministers must not be judges in their own case is really, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, a misuse of words. Who else, I ask, is to determine these matters except Ministers? Who else is to determine what are the secrets of the State, if not the Ministers? This is surely one of the most important, one of the most essential, functions of the Executive.
I come finally to the particular questions, which are also general questions, raised by this incident. The informant of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood appears to have considered—one must say this in ignorance of the precise terms of the question he proposed to ask, and in ignorance of the precise information disclosed to him—that certain circumstances of which he was aware were detrimental to the interests of this country. He disclosed these circumstances to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend considered it his duty to use this information in the normal course of his Parliamentary activity. But how was this information obtained? It was obtained in my hon. Friend's capacity as an officer in the Territorial Army. That seems to be an essential point.
Mr. Sandys: May I interrupt the hon. Member? I feel that he is putting me in an impossible position. I cannot answer, either to confirm or contradict the statement which he is making. The hon.

2219
Member is making statements not of opinion but of fact, of which he knows nothing, and I would suggest to him that as the matter is coming before not only a Select Committee of this House but possibly also before a military court of inquiry he should not make statements of this kind upon wholly insufficient information.
Mr. Emmott: I will willingly accept the suggestion of the hon. Member, and will pursue this part of my argument no further. In fact, though, I assumed that I was on ground which was not disputed, and I merely wanted to follow arguments which had already been addressed to the House by hon. Members in the course of this Debate, and I think that if he had been willing to hear what I intended to say my hon. Friend would not have quarrelled with it. I conclude by observing that the Attorney-General was, in my opinion, bound to take notice of the matter which was brought to his cognisance, and that the charges which have been brought against the Government this afternoon in relation to the action of the Law Officers are wholly unjust. But all these are questions which will properly be considered by the Select Committee that the House is now about to appoint.
7.59 P.m.
Mr. Bellenger: I am afraid it has been impossible for hon. Members to take part in the Debate without giving a different interpretation to the suggestions which were made by Mr. Speaker at the beginning of the discussion. I have a few points to put on this matter with which, in my opinion, private Members are very much concerned. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in his speech referred to the action which he, in company with several Privy Councillors, took when they approached the late Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, and in the course of conversations placed before him very secret information, and the right hon. Member for Epping told us the late Prime Minister must have been aware of the source from which they drew their knowledge. Speaking as a private Member of this House I say quite confidently that right hon. Members like the right hon. Member for Epping and Privy Councillors are well able to look after themselves. I am very much concerned, as a private Member, that whatever rules or orders are to be laid down as a result of the
2220
deliberations of the Select Committee shall be applied equally and fairly to every hon. Member, whatever may be his prominence or his insignificance.
The Debate has taken an unusual course, because, although we were asked to keep strictly to the terms of the Motion which is before the House, we listened first of all to what I might call the deposition of one of the chief defendants, the Secretary of State for War, and the right hon. Gentleman merely followed in the footsteps of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) and the Attorney-General. I suggest to the House that this is a rather unusual procedure, but apparently it is one which the House desired. In listening to the Secretary of State for War, I was struck by something which he said as to the action taken by the Attorney-General, and as in the course of the Debate certain hon. Members took it upon themselves to make suggestions to the Select Committee, perhaps I may also make a suggestion, namely, that the Select Committee should inquire into the action of the Attorney-General when he interviewed the hon. Member for Norwood.
We were told earlier this week that when the hon. Member for Norwood saw the Attorney-General at the latter's request, the Attorney-General did not see him in his legal capacity as a Law Officer of the Crown, but as a colleague, and had what I believe was termed a friendly conversation. But it has since transpired that the Prime Minister himself was so impressed by the seriousness, or apparent seriousness, of the situation which had arisen that he instructed the Secretary of State for War to approach the Attorney-General and put the matter in the hands of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In those circumstances, I submit that it was not a friendly discussion as between one colleague and another that took place between the hon. Member for Norwood and the Attorney-General. Something apparently happened there which indicated that the Attorney-General might have to take certain proceedings later on, and from things which we have learned from the Attorney-General, evidently that was in his mind, for otherwise I presume that the Official Secrets Act would not have been mentioned. We learned from the hon. Member for Norwood that an undertaking was given by the Attorney-General not to take any action against

2221
him at present, and further, we learned that, at the request of the hon. Member for Norwood, the words "at present" were struck out. I suggest that the Select Committee might inquire as to whether the Attorney-General himself has not committed a serious dereliction of duty in allowing his judgment to be warped by political considerations.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that out of the deliberations of the Select Committee there should emerge no cut and dried code. I must say that I am entirely in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that if matters affecting the conduct of Members of Parliament in the course of their Parliamentary duties are left in the hands of the House of Commons itself, hon. Members, wherever they sit, need not be afraid of the consequences to themselves. Hon. Members must realise, wherever they sit, that they have responsibilities and duties to the State just as much as any humble individual in the State who is not protected by priviliges as we are; but I am sure that those who rise to the position of Member of Parliament realise what are their duties to the State just as much as any Minister of the Crown. Therefore, when hon. Members, in the course of their Parliamentary duties, obtain certain information, I am sure that they would not use that information in any way likely to affect the true interests of the State.
I would like to tell the House of my own experience—quite a small one—in this direction. I was interested in the manner in which Bren machine guns, which I am given to understand are the most modern weapons and the most potent weapons which the infantry can use nowadays, were being provided. I was concerned as to whether those Bren machine guns were being provided with sufficient speed and in sufficient numbers, and I was also concerned as to whether the Army was adequately provided with anti-tank guns. I attended the manoeuvres in company with other hon. Members last year, and it was painfully obvious to us, to the general public and to the foreign military attaches, who also attended the manoeuvres, that the Army was seriously short of Bren machine guns and anti-tank guns. At those manoeuvres, anybody who was not entirely blind must have observed the long pieces of wood that were being used
2222
to represent Bren machine guns and the large boards used by the Guards to represent anti-tank guns.
I do not think it is a breach of secrecy to say that even an eminent French general, the French Commander-in-Chief, I think, who was over here, had to walk, as we Members of Parliament also had to walk, all over the place before we could find an anti-tank gun. That was common knowledge. I followed up my experience by putting a question in the House, which was allowed by the Table, asking the Secretary of State for War what was the state of provision of that equipment to the Army. The right hon. Gentleman replied that it was not in the public interest to give an answer in the House to that question. Thereupon I wrote to him telling him that I thought it was necessary for Members of Parliament, if they were constructively to criticise the Government, to have that information, and I further suggested that the information was in possession of our competitors abroad. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to go to see him, and I may say—and here again I do not think it is any breach of confidence—that the right hon. Gentleman gave me more than the information for which I had asked. He gave it to me freely. I have had that information, which was given me by the Secretary of State himself, in my possession, but it was obvious that I would not use it in the House of Commons or in other places. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State realised that it was permissible that Members of Parliament interested in this matter should have that vital information.
Sir Henry Fildes: Can the hon. Member give any reason why he has not been prosecuted?
Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps it is because I have not the associations which the hon. Member for Norwood has.
Mr. Poole: Might I suggest that the reason is that the Secretary of State for War knows who is the person who supplied the information, inasmuch as he supplied it himself?
Mr. Bellenger: I give this case to the House only to show that supposedly secret information is sometimes given even by a Minister of the Crown. It is true that it is given in confidence, but what is the difference between information of this

2223
secret character which is given by the Secretary of State himself to an hon. Member who requests such information and that which is derived by an hon. Member in a different way, but which is nevertheless in the same secret category? It seems to me that the whole matter turns on the question how the hon. Member uses the information.
Sir John Haslam: Does the hon. Member mean to infer that the Secretary of State is not allowed to give information and that any member of the Army Council or any serving officer can give any information he desires to a Member of Parliament? Surely, the Secretary of State is in a different position from an ordinary servant of the Crown.
Mr. Bellenger: I do not know how the hon. Member for Norwood got his information. We are assuming a great deal in this Debate. It may be that he got it in a perfectly legitimate manner, but the whole complaint about the hon. Member is that he had in his possession certain secret information which was against the best interest of the State. I suggest that that is not the crime, but that if any crime be committed, it is in using the information against the interests of the State. Nobody suggests that the hon. Member for Norwood has done that. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech this afternoon, laid down a general proposition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer commended and with which I think all hon. Members agree, namely, that no excuse can be found for servants of the State who break their oath of secrecy. That is not the point at issue. It is quite within the Army Council's power, and quite within their right, to set up a Court of Inquiry to ascertain whether any Army officer has broken his oath of secrecy. That is a matter entirely for the Army Council and the Secretary of State. But that is not the only issue which has appeared in this affair, because undoubtedly pressure was brought to bear—as many of us think, illegal pressure—on the hon. Member for Norwood to divulge the source of his information.
There is a moral to be drawn from all these discussions. Although it is not within the terms of reference of the Select Committee, it is this, that Members of Parliament are ipso facto responsible people, just as much concerned as
2224
Ministers of the Crown in the proper conduct of the State's affairs. Therefore, it seems to me to be necessary that Members of Parliament should be adequately provided with information on which they can make up their minds as to whether the course of the Government is a right one or wrong one. The Government have appealed to all parties in the House, in the matter of National Defence, to assist them in their efforts to make the State safe. How is it possible for hon. Members to judge whether the Government are genuine in their intentions unless they have in their hands the information by which they can judge the Government's actions?
Sir Patrick Hannon: Does that statement mean that the Defence organisation of this country, with all its complexities and intricacies, affecting the welfare and safety of our people, could be divulged indiscriminately?
Mr. Bellenger: It does not mean anything of the sort, and I have not suggested that it does. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Norwood wanted to know the disposition of antiaircraft guns, their location, and so forth. What we are concerned with is whether the anti-aircraft guns and various other weapons of defence with which the Government say this country should be provided are being adequately provided. That is all the hon. Member for Norwood was concerned about and it is the only thing about which hon. Members are entitled to ask. Obviously, it is no part of our duty to go into matters which are for the General Staff, in regard to the placing of our defences. We must have sufficient confidence in the General Staff to know that they will deal with those questions, and we do not want to know about such matters. But when it comes to a question of the equipment of our Defence forces, a matter with which the Government are concerned, then, I maintain, it is our duty to have more than the meagre and indeed, sometimes—as hon. Members have suggested—inaccurate information which is given to the House by Ministers of the Crown.
Therefore the moral of these proceedings is that hon. Members should be more adequately equipped with information if they are to take an effective part in vital Debates which affect the safety of the

2225
country, a subject in which hon. Members of all parties are concerned. It is no monopoly of one party, although that if often assumed by the Government. It might be in the interests of the Government. It might be in the interests of the Government, and it would certainly be in the interests of hon. Members, if information could be provided for Members under suitable guarantees and in suitable circumstances, both on Defence and on foreign policy, so that hon. Members, who are a responsible body of individuals, can make up their minds on those subjects. Possibly then the Government might receive more co-operation in dealing with those matters, if they supplied us with this information.
8.17 p.m.
Sir P. Hannon: I believe that this incident in relation to the Official Secrets Act has been magnified far too much. I believe the country outside is thinking much more of national problems affecting the nation's welfare than of this incident, which is occupying so much of the time of the House. To think that the question of safeguarding secrets affecting the defence of the country is to be subjected to the processes of Debate in this House, in the manner which we have seen during the last three or four days, will cause serious reflection among the people of the country. The privileges of this House are on a very high level and must always be guarded and preserved, but the defence organisation of the nation and the secrets relating to it, are of even greater importance for the welfare of our people and the maintenance of their liberties, than even the privileges of this House. I believe that in this Debate we have been making mountains out of molehills.
Mr. Alexander: The hon. Member means that the Government are doing so.
Sir P. Hannon: No, I mean that those who want to attack the Government are doing so. I have watched carefully the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter. They say, "Here is an opportunity to shy some bricks at the Government." When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) was First Lord of the Admiralty there.vas no Minister whom I can remember during the years I have been in this House, who was more anxious to safeguard the interest of the State. But now he regards
2226
the incident as an opportunity of making an attack on the Government, [HON. MEMBERS: "He has not said a word."] I have watched the constant consultations which have been going on during the last few days on the Opposition Front Bench and those who know the right hon. Gentleman, and the faculty which he has of developing and expanding incidents to the largest possible measure, know that he was in his element yesterday, because he felt that something had been done to put the Government in a difficult position. I would only say that I hope that in the minds of the people in the country outside, this incident will be estimated in its true proportions and in its correct perspective. There are great problems to be solved in this country and I feel that the time of Parliament is being wasted in dealing with a question of this king instead of continuing to dispose of our ordinary business. Here we have had all these speeches made about this question—
Mr. Gallacher: You are making one yourself.
Sir P. Hannon: Those of us who have been concerned for many years about the Defence problems of this country—and we do not owe much to the hon. Gentleman opposite in relation to the defence of this country—know that the preservation of the secrets of our Defence organisation is of more importance to the nation than even the Privileges of Parliament.
8.22 p.m.
Mr. Kelly: The speech to which we have just listened, if it is read at all in the country, will amaze the people. It is interesting to hear that the hon. Member is one of those who have been endeavouring in recent years to preserve the secrets of Defence. That will surprise many people, and I hope his remark will be noted. We are also told by him that Parliament is wasting time in discussing this question. If so, who is responsible? We did not raise the question. It was raised by His Majesty's Government and, therefore, according to the hon. Member, His Majesty's Government are wasting the time of the House. The hon. Member referred to secrets affecting the safety of the country. I have not heard yet that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) has made known any secret to anybody, except the

2227
Minister. Do I understand from the hon. Member that it is a danger to the safety of the country to make known to a Minister that there is something wanting in guns or munitions? Really, the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) ought to think more than once before he delivers a speech such as that to which we have had to listen. He would do well to confine his attention to the manufacture of guns upon which he is engaged, and to leave the other side of the matter to other people. I hope he knows and that he will be able to tell us at any time what his particular people are engaged upon in this connection.
I want to know how far the Government intend to carry this matter. There are many Members here who have been engaged for years in the various Service departments. Recently I sat on a committee at the War Office under the chairmanship of the Financial Secretary. Information with regard to these guns, and with regard to much other material, is known to Members of the House. Many Members could tell His Majesty's Ministers of shortages which are dangerous to the country and also matters concerning the allocation of guns and other materials more important than guns. Are we to understand, that any hon. Member who possesses such information, without having had to go to an officer of His Majesty's forces for it, is liable to these proceedings. I do not say that the hon. Member for Norwood went to an officer for information. Probably he did not—he had no need to do so. The information could have been given to him by hon. Members on this side of the House.
Sir P. Hannon: On a point of Order. Do I understand that details of Defence preparations, guns and so forth, are being discussed in this Debate, or are we discussing the appointment of a Select Committee?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): Yes. We are supposed to be discussing a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee, but I do not think the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has so far made it necessary for me to say he is out of order.
Mr. Kelly: I am not taking the matter any further. I am not surprised that the
2228
hon. Member for Moseley does not wish the subject to be discussed in view of his own statements made a little earlier. The suggestion is now made that someone has made known that there is a shortage of a particular type of guns. Am I to understand that if the hon. Member had pointed out that there was a shortage of machine tools or gun cotton, or that the Departments were not making enough preparation for the production of that particular product, he would be liable to be hauled up before some tribunal and have it hurled at him that he was acting against the interests of the country? Am I to understand that this concerns not only with regard to the 3.7-inch gun, but that if an hon. Member of this House happens to point out that the factories which the War Office, the Admiralty, and other Government Departments promised would be ready within two years are not to be ready within four years, that Member is to be hauled up? That has happened. The Minister for the Coordination of Defence had it placed before him, told to him and written to him, but at least he had a great deal more appreciation of the position than had the Secretary of State for War, and he did not call in the Attorney-General to cross-examine and threaten the particular Member who called his attention to the matter.
I hope this inquiry will take place, and will take place quickly, and that we can get to questions which are of real concern to the life of the people; and I hope that for once we shall have the assistance of the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham. It will be new to think of him helping us with regard to the problems that bear so heavily upon the people of this country.
Sir P. Hannon: I do not know why the hon. Member says it will be new. I have been in this House for a good many years, and I have taken a share in every problem that has been discussed, and I do not know of any occasion on which I have not made my modest contribution to the Debate in the same direction as that in which the hon. Member is interested.
Mr. George Griffiths: What about the means test?
Mr. Kelly: Exactly. I have been saved the trouble of answering the hon. Member by the reference to the means test

2229
and other matters of that kind against the interests of this country supported by the hon. Member. I hope this inquiry will speedily take place and that the hon. Member for Norwood will be cleared of this charge that appears to be levelled against him at this time. I hope there will be freedom for Members of this House to be able to deal with all matters affecting the life of this country, and that there will be no threat of the Official Secrets Act being hurled against them if they attempt to do their duty to the people of the country.
8.29 p.m.
Mr. Sexton: Statements were made by the Front Bench, and they were in a somewhat tabloid form, so that I do not think it would be wise to endeavour to criticise them, but I wonder whether it is conducive to the safety of the realm, of which we hear so much, if secrecy is to stifle investigation. It is far better that Ministers shauld be curbed than that a Member should lose his rights and privileges in this House. It seems to me very unfortunate that the Attorney-General undertook the task of cross-examination which he did, because I find that Section 8 of the principal Act, the Official Secrets Act, 1911, states that a prosecution under the Act can only be instituted by or with the consent of the Attorney-General himself. In the 1920 Act, which was an, amending Act, Section 6 states who are authorised to interrogate a person suspected of committing an offence. Those persons are
"a chief officer of police, or…a superintendent or other officer of police not below the rank of inspector appointed by a chief officer for the purpose, or…any member of His Majesty's forces engaged on guard, sentry, patrol, or other similar duty."
Therefore, I complain that under the Act of 1920 the only persons who can apply this test of questioning are those specified there, and that by implication those who are not mentioned there are not authorised to ask any questions at all; and in my submission the Attorney-General had no right to question the hon. Member on this matter or to bring to his notice that if he refused to answer, he might be guilty of a misdemeanour and imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will bear in mind the request
2230
which Mr. Speaker made to the House as to matters which will he the subject of the inquiry by the Select Committee.
Mr. Sexton: This battle between various sides of the House and the Government side has been going on for years. We on this side thought that the conflict between the Commons and the Crown had been finally settled years ago, but now there seems to be another conflict arising between the Commons and the executive power of the Government. We, as individual Members who are not in the Government, are very jealous of our rights and privileges, because we are jealous of democratic rule. In these days of the decline of democracy we in this House must be ever on our guard against invasions, whether from persons or from Executives, because such invasions are really attacks on the ancient and precious rights which were won by our forefathers. Therefore, I say that there are still John Hampdens in this country, and there are still hon. Members of this House who are prepared to stand up boldly for the rights and privileges of the Members of this House. We on this side and, I believe, on all sides of the House are so jealous of those rights and privileges that we believe this inquiry to be a right and proper thing.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Alexander: I should like to say in the first instance, in speaking to this Motion, that the Opposition feel that they have considerable ground of complaint at the manner in which the later stages of this Debate have been conducted. When we are discussing the Privileges of Members of this House at large, it is just as well to remind the Government that the Opposition also have privileges in the arrangement of the conduct of Debate, and that it is nothing short of an insult on such an occasion for the Government, in their arrangements for the conduct of the Debate, to act as if they could close down the Debate without a word of consultation with the Oppostiion. If the Government think they can facilitate their business in that way, they are very much mistaken. This Debate would perhaps have been brought to a conclusion very much earlier if they had had the ordinary courtesy that is expected of a Government to engage in proper consultations with the Opposition. Now I come to the subject of this Debate, and in the first place—I

2231
see the Chief Whip has just entered the House, and I need not say what I have said again, because he will be able to read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, but I will just repeat that the Government will not in any sense get facilitation of business from this side unless they observe a reasonable and decent courtesy.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): The moment I realised that I had made an error—I admit that the error was mine—in not having had the full consultation that I usually have, I did the first thing which it was proper and right to do, and that was to offer a full apology to the right hon. Gentleman; and I regret that a mistake has been made.
Mr. Alexander: We accept the apology, but it does not mean that we do not make a public protest. We put it on record that we warn the Government that we are not going to have that kind of treatment. With regard to the matter we are discussing, I noticed that towards the end of his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the position of the Attorney-General and said that he had little doubt, because of his knowledge of his colleague, that he would come out of this inquiry completely justified. If testimonials in advance are to be given, Members of the House, speaking in their individual capacity, might give a testimonial in the other direction. May I say about the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), who certainly does not represent my political views, that I am confident he will come out of this inquiry as completely justified as the Attorney-General. I look back with some pleasure to 30 years ago when I used to organise the political opposition to the father of the hon. Member. He himself sat in this House and rendered distinguished service to his party, and I am confident that his son, who is sitting in the House to-day and is the subject of much of this Debate, will, from what I know of him, come out of the inquiry with great satisfaction to the House and to himself.
I feel that the constitutional issues and the special issues which are likely to be raised in the inquiry were dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition better than by any other Member in the Debate to-day. It would not be reasonable to
2232
ask the House to listen again to some of the points that were covered in that extraordinarily lucid and comprehensive speech, but there are one or two things which need to be said from this side of the House. Those of my hon. Friends who have protested, in common with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), about the present situation in relation to the Official Secrets Act have not driven home this point as it should be driven home, that if we consider what were the actual statements made to the House on Monday and again yesterday, and the statement to-day of the Secretary of State for War, we find that we have for the first time had it revealed to-day that the actual advice, or the initiation of the procedure, which has been followed in the case of the hon. Member for Norwood was made by the Prime Minister. Surely every private Member of the House has good reason to be extremely suspicious of the attitude of the whole of the Executive in this case, especially as in his statement to-day the Prime Minister himself has indicated that the general question of Privilege and other matters have been the subject by him of consultation with his colleagues. Therefore, instead of the situation being as we understood from the statement of the Attorney-General on the first day on which the matter was raised, that he was acting only under instructions from the Secretary of State for War, although of course that statement in itself is quite true, we now find that those instructions from the Secretary of State for War were made directly upon the initiative of the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet, the Executive of the day, have confirmed that action.
The Official Secrets Act has been on the Statute Book since 1911, and not once in 27 years has any action of this kind been taken by any executive Government against a Member of the House on such a ground. We are to infer from the speeches to-day that we are in a somewhat difficult period, a period when the House is asked to make provision from time to time for heavy expenditure in respect of armaments, aircraft defence, and the like. The period through which we are passing is not by any means the first period of the kind. It was the kind of thing that had to be discussed week after week in the period immediately preceding the outbreak of the War in 1914. The Leader of the Liberal party this afternoon made

2233
a brief reference to a passage which I had looked up this morning and which I will quote. What was the position in 1914? It was that the Official Secrets Act had been on the Statute Book for three years, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who addressed the House this afternoon, was in March, 1914, either Attorney-General or Home Secretary. He would, therefore, be cognisant of the position usually adopted by the Executive of that day in relation to the Official Secrets Act which they had put on the Statute Book three years before. Let me read a passage from the Debate on the Army Estimates on 24th March, 1914. The hon. Member who is speaking was afterwards Lord Brentford, one of the most loyal House of Commons men whom I remember in my experience of the House, and he put the position very plainly as to the line he took in regard to the preparations for war at that time. There was, he said, a very grave shortage in aircraft provisions, and in referring to a previous Debate, he stated:
"Let us see what we have really got for the five squadrons, or, rather, what we had within a week of 25th February this year. I will admit that the right hon. Gentleman has been getting more machines during the last fortnight, but when he made his statement he led the House absolutely to believe that we had 161 efficient machines and five squadrons on a war footing. I am going to give—I feel that I must give to the House—details as to the conditions of the five squaddrons. I have received the details from his own officers. I think it only fair to say that I have not spied on the right hon. Gentleman's machines this year. We had a controversy last year on this matter, and I admitted to the House perfectly frankly that I had sent people down to find out the condition of our aeroplanes, and I justified my position to the House. This year things are such that officers who are total strangers to myself have, without any communication from me, come to me and have written to me since 25th February with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I have been supplied with descriptions of the machines, and I propose to read them in order that the House may realise the condition of the squadrons within 10 days of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1914; col. 235, Vol. 50.]
That, I suggest, is a typical excerpt from speeches criticising the Liberal Government of that day, of which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member, as to the lack of the provision of armaments, in bulk or in quality. The right hon. Gentleman had had behind him for three years the main body of the legislation which is on the Statute Book
2234
for the safeguarding of official secrets, but there is no record that at any time action was taken of the kind which is now taken, apparently, on the advice of the Prime Minister and with the full support of the Executive, against the hon. Member for Norwood.
While this is a matter for all Members of the House to consider in relation to Privilege, I cannot help feeling that there has been more in this case than the mere point put by the Secretary of State for War about safeguarding a secret in a particular document. I think there has been a great deal more of resentment in the action which he has taken, because of the line of criticism adopted in the last few weeks towards his public statements, both inside and outside the House, in relation to the progress of rearmament. I could quote a whole lot of those speeches, but I will mention only this one. It was thought so much of that the "Times," on 16th May, printed it with the heading:
"Explanation of A.A. defences. Men, guns and lights."
It was an almost bombastic defence of the marvellous way in which the situation was being changed since the present Secretary of State for War had been in office, and from the wording of it one would imagine that there was no immediate difficulty with regard to anti-aircraft defence. I will quote one sentence from the middle of it:
"They had started to reinforce those 3-inch guns in appropriate districts with 3.7 guns. A little over a year ago the final development of the 3.7 gun had not been approved, yet although the difficulties of manufacture were well known production was in ecess of any estimates that he had seen reported."
That was being done with the idea, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), of misleading the British public into a false sense of security, and we cannot quite get away from the feeling that the action which has been taken by the Secretary of State for War against a member of his own party, on the advice of the Prime Minister—
Mr. R. J. Taylor: Do not forget to mention that.
Mr. Alexander:—has been resentment at the questions and general criticism levied at the Secretary of State for War, who ought to be here now listening to what I have to say. After the exchanges in the Debate to-night between the hon.

2235
Member for Norwood and the Secretary of State for War it is necessary for us to remind the House of the position of the Secretary of State. I know that he is very able in many ways; one of the principal is his great flair for publicity. I have no doubt at all that when there has been anything which could be acclaimed as a success on his part nobody has been so able as he in making the fullest possible broadcast of the facts, but there is always the Ganger that the reflex may be that if you make a failure you can be equally clever, and perhaps equally unscrupulous, m the steps you take to cover up the failure. That is the feeling which has been left in the minds of many of us who have listened to the various steps taken—the requests to the Speaker, the explanations, the answers—by Ministers on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.
The actual facts of the case will be dealt with by the Select Committee, and I do not need to say anything about them, but I must say that when I listened to the interjections by the Attorney-General at an earlier stage to-night and during the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) I felt there was a growing rather than a lessening doubt in the minds of hon. Members as to what was the true position of the Attorney-General in this matter. The doubt is certainly not got over by the generous tribute which the Chancellor was good enough to pay to his right hon. and learned colleague; he has been loyal to him and given him a good pat on the back; but when one makes a comparison of the statement of the Attorney-General to the House the other day with what he has said to-night it seems to me that he is shifting about from point to point so that he cannot be fastened down, as it were. I cannot believe that anybody will deny that in this situation, with the full authority of the leader of the Executive Government, through the channel of the Secretary of State for War, the Attorney-General, who ought to have been in a completely judicial position, was sent to the hon. Member for Norwood to put, as he said, the legal position before him. What for? [Interruption.] Well, I do not think the hon. Member for Norwood would be so easily frightened. It was to persuade him by a sort of explanation of the legal position to realise that under the Act there
2236
would be grave danger if actual help were not given by the hon. Member by disclosing the source of the information which he had given.
That is a most reprehensible position, and whatever comes out of the Committee of Inquiry about the facts of the case on which the Government took action we have to stand fast for the hardly won rights and privileges of the Members of this House. The matter upon which the Committee of Privileges has reported today we cannot debate further to-night, but I think an exceedingly difficult position has arisen when we find that a military court of inquiry has been sitting this day upon the details, the facts, of a case which the High Court of Parliament has referred to its own Select Committee, and that we ought not at any time to have tolerated that position. If in the present circumstances the Executive Government of the day show a tendency to favour this policy, this use of the Official Secrets Act and we as a House give into that, what will become of the wider precious element of political liberty of the individual citizen? Some people have been inclined to apologise for the amount of privilege that hon. Members of this House claim, but what is often forgotten, it seemed to me as the Debate went on, is that this House has the right, when necessary, not only to punish its own Members, but to do so sometimes more severely than in a court of law.
That very privilege of the Members of this House is the best guarantee for the individual freedom, in the political sense, of our wider citizenship. Every time we receive a message from the other place, through the instrumentality of the visit of Black Rod, those doors are slammed in the face of the messenger, who comes with a Message from the Crown, and we demonstrate in that way the Sovereignty of the people over the Sovereignty of the Crown. That does not mean that we do not acknowledge the Sovereignty of the constitutional Monarch. It means that, in the light of our constitution and of our history, we refuse to give up any of the rights of the common people. We ought never, in the course of the development of the history of this House, concede to the Executive Government what we are not, and have not been for hundreds of years, prepared to concede to the Sovereignty of the Monarch.
Ordered,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to enquire into the substance of the statement made on 27th June in this House by the hon. Member for Norwood and the action of the Ministers concerned, and generally into the question of the applicability of the Official Secrets Acts to Members of this House in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties."
Committee nominated of: Mr. Assheton, Colonel Clifton Brown, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Maxwell Fyfe, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Mr. Mabane, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Peake, Mr. Petherick, Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Raikes, Mr. Lees-Smith, and Mr. Walk-den.
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
Ordered,
"That Seven be the quorum."—(The Prime Minister.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 28th June].
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Entertainments duty to cease at the end of financial year.)
    Section one of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, and Section one of the Finance Act, 1935 (which relate to entertainments duty), shall cease to have effect on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.—[Mr. A. Herbert.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    8.59 P.m.
    Mr. Alan Herbert: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    After the interesting, important but rather varied entertainment which we have had to-day perhaps I might, without apology, ask hon. Members to turn their minds to the legitimate drama. Some Members of the Committee would like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Patronage Secretary for making it possible for us to discuss the very important question of the Entertainments Duty, which is of national, not sectional, interest, and to do so with rather more leisure than was possible the other
    2238
    night. So many bricks—or half-bricks—have been thrown about to-day that a few roses might not be out of place: and perhaps I might congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his lieutenant on the very distinguished and good-humoured manner in which they have piloted their first Finance Bill through this rightly vigilant Committee.
    The Clause which I am moving does not go nearly so far as the suggestion which was made last year, and I think again this year, in the memorial signed by more than half the number of Members in this House, that the Entertainments Duty should be removed entirely from the living theatre and concerts. That suggestion would, if adopted, reduce the revenue in the present year by about £1,000,000, and hon. Members might justly recoil from that suggestion with horror and dismay. This new Clause does not affect the revenue in the current year by a single penny. What it says is that the tax shall come to an end at the end of the present financial year. If the date suggested is not correct, that could be altered. The tax could end in May, temporarily, if necessary for a second or two; that is to say, my right hon. Friend could reimpose the duty in his next Budget exactly as it is to-day. But in preparing the next Budget the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury would be forced to face the question: Are we to reimpose this tax in this or any form and, if so, upon what entertainments, with what exemptions? and so forth.
    This duty is not, like the income-tax, imposed anew every year. It was not mentioned in the Budget speech, although the right, hon. Gentleman has been bombarded with correspondence in the "Times" and with constant memorials and deputations, and although he went out of his way to refer to taxes on beer, whisky and other important commodities. Then, in the Budget debate, though the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Colman) made a substantial and sensible speech on the question, the right hon. Gentleman did not find time to mention it in his Budget reply. I know that he was somewhat pressed for time. So, year after year, the only opportunity of questioning this tax is for some humble private Member to put down a new Clause which may or may not be called. Quite apart from the merits of this tax there is a very strong feeling that if it is not to be taken out of the present system of things the

    2239
    decision, if it comes back in any form whatever, ought to be deliberately made and justified by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his next Budget speech.
    We all know that this tax was originally intended to be temporary, to meet war purposes. I have many quotations with which I will not weary the Committee; but the suggestion was that it was somehow unpatriotic to be amused during wartime. Further, many people were earning far more money, for example, as munition workers, during wartime than they had been doing in peace, and this duty seemed a good way of getting some of it out of them. Those conditions have all gone. I would remind the Cornmittee that in the Finance (New Duties) Bill, in which this duty was first imposed, taxes were proposed on matches, cider, perry, and soda-water syphons, and there was another tax which was very interesting indeed. A tax of this nature was proposed upon certain railway fares, but that tax was not successful in reaching the Statute Book in the Finance (New Duties) Act, and I think hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that information. Certainly it is not difficult to imagine what would happen now if it were suggested to those very patriotic hon. Members of the House who rightly guard the interests of the railways that a tax of, shall we say, 10 per cent. should be placed upon railway tickets, without reference to profits or losses.
    The tax on the theatre did go through, and here it is. My right hon. Friend may reply that the particular crisis which this tax was framed to meet still survives, owing to the foreign policy of foreign governments, and that would be a perfectly good reply. But, however grave that crisis was, it was not intended, and the Financial Secretary of those days, Mr. Montagu, carefully said so, to do anything either to cripple or injure, much less kill, the theatre; and if it can be shown, as I think it can, that the theatre, although I do not think it will ever entirely die, is being gravely injured, and to some extent other entertainments also, I think there is some justification for reexamining the tax.
    May I attempt to give the Committee a few figures? In this I ask for their indulgence, because I am not very good
    2240
    at figures. I think it may not be a waste of time if I mention once again the rates of this tax. The basic rate, of course, is 20 per cent., that is to say, 20 per cent. on the original price of admission—1d. on 5d. That rate does not cover the whole range, because there are various gradations, but it was the original basic rate, and, in the cinema at any rate, it goes a long way. In the theatre, taking the 12s. 6d. stall, that figure consists of ios. 6d. plus 2s. duty, so that the duty amounts to 19 per cent. The price of a lower stall, say ios. 6d., is made up of 8s. 10d., plus 1s. 8d. duty, or 18.8 per cent. for duty. On an 8s. 9d. seat the tax is 19.3 per cent., on a 5s. seat, 17.6 per cent., on a 3s. 6d. seat, 16.6 per cent.; while in the case of a 2s. seat the tax goes down to 14.2 per cent. In the case of the cinema, owing to the small but much appreciated concessions made in 1935 to the living theatre, which I think were quite deserved, the figures are a bit harsher. On a 9d. seat the tax is 20 per cent., on a 10d. seat, 25 per cent., on a 1s. seat, 20 per cent., on a 1s. 3d. seat, 20 per cent., on a 1s. 6d. seat, 20 per cent., and on a 1s. 10d. seat, 22 per cent. I do not guarantee the arithmetic of this last figure. I ask the Committee to speculate what would be the response of any other industry in this country if it were proposed that a tax of 20, or 19, or even 15 per cent. should be placed upon its receipts without reference to profit or loss, and if, when the industry complained, it was told airily that it could pass on the tax to the consumer, and all would be well.
    After those figures, I do not think the Committee will be astonished to hear the next set of figures that I propose to give. They are the figures of actual losses, and in some few cases profits, on some recently acted productions. I am in some difficulty about these figures, because many of the managers who at my request gave them to me asked that the names of the plays and theatres should be regarded as confidential. The reasons for that are, I think, obvious, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not insist that I should disclose the sources of my information, still less that I should attend at the Treasury in cap and bells. I propose, first of all, to refer to two of that great man Mr. C. B. Cochran's productions. Many people say

    2241
    that Mr. Cochran is very extravagant and lavish, that he spends too much money, and they wonder how he can ever expect to earn any profit. But these two productions (two interesting and elevated plays, one by one of our greatest dramatists) were by no means lavishly expensive. The total losses amounted to £3,400, and the total paid in Entertainments Duty was £4,200. In this case, as in so many others, the loss is less than the tax, which means that, if only some proportion of the tax had been left in the hands of the manager, it might have been possible to carry the run along.
    I will now take two of Mr. Cochran's big productions—expensive revues—with one of which I had the honour to be concerned, and with the other of which I was not concerned. The first of these, I am delighted to say, showed a profit—it was a pleasant surprise to me—of £7,000. I might add that on a show of that kind the production costs would be at least £10,000, and, of course, the running expenses are tremendous, so that a profit of £7,000 after a run of about five months is not very excessive. On that production, which showed a profit of £7,000, the tax amounted to £16,000. On the other show, hich was similar in character, there was a loss of £2,000, but let the Committee observe the astonishing fact that in this case also the tax was precisely the same, namely, £16,000. Therefore, on these two shows the total profit was £5,000, and the total tax £32,000 (apart, of course, from income-tax). I have here a total of 12 productions which showed as a whole a loss of £5,000 but in the case of which £28,000 was paid in tax. Again, Mr. Anmer Hall wrote in a letter to the "Times": "During this past winter I produced Mr. O'Neill's play "Mourning Becomes Electra," and at the conclusion of a run of eight and a half weeks, and with the aid of my bars, which functioned more effectually than ever before in the history of the theatre, I closed with a balance of profit of £130. But the Customs and Inland Revenue Department were more fortunate, for during the same period I paid them £940."
    Mr. Walter Payne, the President of the Society of West End Managers, told me that of 53 productions in the last two years, (these figures, I believe, were taken at random from two or three auditors) 43 lost £214,000, and To made
    2242
    £50,000. I have not the figures of tax for them. I can quote numerous examples of this character, and so can anybody else. Mark you, although I am taking no highbrow line, in order to justify myself to the front Bench I took the trouble to find out a few of the more cultivated and elevated plays. That is to say, these are not the kind of vulgar or corrupting productions that upset the Bishops.
    This is not a question of enriching the managers. It is a question of keeping in being, and healthy being, a socially valuable enterprise. I have so often seen in my own experience how little money may be necessary just to turn the corner. I have seen numbers of times how at the beginning of a run, managers, authors, designers and musicians spend, rightly, many months preparing the show; it starts well: the critics are kind; all looks well. The actors are drawing pretty good wages and salaries, and paying Income Tax, and rightly; the authors drawing good royalties, and paying Income Tax, and rightly; all those golden girls, not paying Income Tax perhaps, but sending presents to their mothers; and all is doing splendidly. But the manager, who is taking the risks, is not receiving a penny of profit; he is still paying off his production account. It is very often six weeks, or it may be more, before he begins to receive any profit; and all that time the State is putting its hands into the till and grabbing 15 to 20 per cent. on the basic prices.
    Is there a single industry in the world where the same thing would be done or suffered? But that is not the end of the story. Two months go by; perhaps a little bit of profit begins to appear; then there is a heat wave, or a Coronation—[Interruption.] Oh, yes there is nothing worse for the theatre than public festivals—or a strike, or somebody takes up the street outside the theatre, or there is one of those mysterious and fatal waves of antagonism to the theatre, and people cease to come. Now every week brings a loss. The manager keeps on saying, "Another week or two"; and then there begin those tragic conferences when it is decided whether or not the notices are to be put up. Only a few hundred pounds might turn the corner. Far more than those few hundred pounds has been taken by the State, and will never come back. The show finishes.

    2243
    The golden girls go clattering up the stairs for the last time: they may or may not get another job. The actors pack up their grease paint: they may or may not get another job. The stage-hands shake their heads and go home: they may or may not get another job. But all that hive of industry is dead. And a play is not like a soap-factory: the whole process of manufacture must begin again.
    That kind of picture, sad though it is, can be reproduced, I know, in many another industry; but there is one kind of picture that I will wager cannot be reproduced in any other—the picture of the Monday when the manager who has taken the risk of this precarious and difficult enterprise goes to his backer or his banker, or perhaps the bankruptcy court, and has to say: "We have all worked hard and done our best for five or six months; nobody has been greedy; for five months we have entertained and even uplifted the public; and the result is that I have lost you several thousand pounds, and the State has taken £16,000." Yet people say, "Why do not you improve the accommodation at your theatres? Why do you not pay your actors and actresses more? Why is Leicester Square, that old haunt of the theatre, given over to the cinema?" Well, what do you expect with a tax like that?
    I think I ought to face frankly the question which is always asked, which has been asked by many Members in private discussions on this question, "What would the managers do if the tax were remitted; would they pass the remission on to the public?" I am not here in any representative capacity. I have never been a manager—I hope I never shall be. I cannot answer for them; but I would say first, if this Clause is accepted, as of course it will be by the right hon. Gentleman, its great beauty is that the right hon. Gentleman may put that question to the managers when he is preparing his next Budget. Let him say to them, as he says to the brewers and other people when he is proposing to review a duty, "What will you do; will you pass it back to the public?" That does give him a hold on them. He may become not only a collector of revenue, but a reformer as well. He may say, "What about paying more money for rehearsals?" But I think it is fair
    2244
    to say that the public will get some, if not all, of the benefit of the remission of tax. To pass on the whole benefit would be a rather generous line to take. It should be remembered that during the time that has elapsed since this tax was imposed, though the costs of production have increased, I am told, between 100 and 150 per cent., the basic price of tickets has not increased at all.
    Here is a letter to the "Times" from Mr. Payne. He says that if no per cent. of the takings were retained at the box office, managers would then be able (a) to deal with prices of admission to the public, (b) to produce more and better plays, (c) to increase the minimum rates of lower-paid artistes and other theatrical workers, and (d) to avoid the at present crippling losses. I do not think that you can say fairer than that. As I say, I am not giving any undertaking or guarantee, because I have no right to do so. Once more, it is not a question of taking money away from the State and giving it to greedy managers; it is simply one of enabling the money paid by the public to entertainment houses to be used to keep the business going in a proper manner.
    I apologise if I have been too long; but it is time this question was considered thoroughly. Last year, when I moved the same Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman in a very courteous and friendly speech said that if I devoted my ingenious mind to producing sound proposals for classifying entertainments for the purpose of this tax, I might do a great service. I might reply that I am not, after all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I thank God every day that I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I do not mean anything personal. Therefore, I might say that it is not really for me to frame the taxes. If the Chancellor decides, as I am sure he long ago decided in his heart of hearts, that this is a thoroughly bad tax, it is for him to give his mind to the invention of another. But I seldom refuse a challenge and I will do what I can. The first broad distinction that I would make, as I have already indicated, is between entertainments—vicious, virtuous, good or bad—which are profitable and those which are not, though it may be that it is not practicable to make that distinction. Secondly, there is a classification already on the Statute Book, because in the Act

    2245
    of 1935, where it was decided quite rightly to reduce the tax upon what is called the living theatre, you have these admirable words:
    "The said duty shall be charged at the reduced rate where all the performers whose words or actions constitute the entertainment are actually present and performing and the entertainment consists solely of one or more of the following items, a stage play, ballet, whether a stage play or not, the performance of music, whether vocal or instrumental, a lecture, a recitation, a music hall or other variety entertainment, a circus, or a traveling show."
    With that on the Statute Book it is not necessary to seek any other classification. The real objection to this sales tax, profit or loss not considered, upon the theatre, and indeed, to be logical, upon the cinema, is that it is a tax upon the things of the mind, and no civilised State puts taxes upon the things of the mind. We should not think of putting a tax upon newspapers, though in the days when my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was young they did. It was only about 1850 or 1860 that there ceased to be taxes on newspapers. [Interruption.] I warned the Committee before he came in that my arithmetic was not very good. I should hesitate to use the word "art" but for the fact that in the original Act the dangerous word "art" is several times used. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "the application of skill to subjects of taste, as poetry, music, dancing, the drama, oratory, literary composition and the like". That corresponds closely with what we already have in the Act of 1935, and what many of my hon. Friends would do if they had the power would be quite simply to take the tax off all entertainments which are the products of musical or dramatic art, and performed by living people, according to that definition. After all, exhibitions of painting and sculpture are already exempt, because they are educational, even when they are miserably attempting to get a profit. What is the distinction between them and musical and dramatic art I do not know.
    Last year the right hon. Gentleman said something about the difficulty of distinguishing between good artists and bad. I do not think that is necessary. I am now trying to help him to take a rather highbrow line and say, "I may not want to help the managers and I will not bother about the authors, but I will do something
    2246
    on cultural lines because it is a bad thing to tax art." On these principles, there are few entertainments so low in the scale that a man will not take away from them some kind of mental enrichment, some flash of beauty, some enlightenment or understanding of the problems of life, something that makes it wrong and barbarous to tax musical or dramatic art as if it was a bottle of whisky or a packet of cigarettes.
    The right hon. Gentleman last year said there were many other things. "Some Members might think it more important to enlarge the Income Tax relief of married persons, and there may be other suggestions. We cannot very well in advance declare that this is the one instrument in the whole collection of instruments of torture which will be here and now abolished." I do not ask him to do that. I would ask hon. Members again to vote for the Amendment because they will not reduce the revenue by a penny. All they will be doing is to say that in the next Budget my right hon. Friend, whom we all admire and love, is to consider the entertainment tax anew and decide whether it shall be reimposed in its present form or be placed only on the cinema or the theatre, or whatever he likes. I ask hon. Members to put out of their minds the suggestion that, at such a time, when there are so many poor people who want bread and boots, we cannot consider letting the theatre off a tax of even £1,000,000. That is a wrong way of looking at it. The poor are more interested in organised entertainment than the rich, and I think we can defend some remission in the tax on the ground that we are going to do something for a valuable national institution.
    At all events, let us consider the tax upon its merits, without reference to or comparison with other taxes or other causes. But if anyone is going to wander about in that way I too shall be tempted to stray; for I have an alternative tax in my mind. I will undertake to raise £20,000,000 by a tax on betting if I am permitted to alter the law in the proper way. So I am not entirely destructive. I know the right hon. Gentleman conceives himself as being hemmed in by the thin ends of innumerable wedges, and therefore he is tempted always to say to A, "If I do anything for you I cannot do anything for B." But if that argu-

    2247
    ment is to prevail it will be idle for any of us to put down amendments. Let us consider the tax on its merits and decided that it is, as I am perfectly convinced it has been for many years, a bad tax in essence, in character, in rates and in incidence. I think that no State can properly be described as civilised if it declines for one reason or another to put a tax upon the great activity of betting but for twenty-two years maintains a "temporary" tax of nearly 20 per cent. on the plays of Shakespeare, the music of Handel and Beethoven and the healthy laughter of the people.
    9.36 p.m.
    Mr. Mabane: I am sure that the Committee will agree that my hon. Friend the senior Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) has presented a very powerful case in favour of his Clause, and again I would emphasise the nature of the Clause. It is ingenious in its character. My hon. Friend is not asking that the entertainment tax should be abolished or reduced this year, but is merely asking the Committee to agree that this tax should come to an end at the end of the present fiinancial year and that there should be placed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer an obligation to introduce the tax in a remodelled form when he introduces his next Budget. It is because the Amendment proposes such a remodelling of the entertainment tax that I, personally, find myself able to support it, and I hope that many Members of this Committee will also be able to find themselves in a position to support it also. [An HON. MEMBER: "In the Lobby?"] Wait and see. After all, this year is a very difficult year in which to argue any reduction of taxation, unless it is possible to argue that reduction is the only way to maintain the tax in its highest possible yield. I am not at all certain that, in connection with the entertainment tax, that argument can fairly be used. I am certain that, if we were merely to confine our attention to those forms of entertainment to which my hon. Friend has referred in which the living performer takes part, it would be very easily possible to argue that unless there is reduction in the tax the yield from these forms of entertainment is likely to be reduced.
    It may be argued, on the other hand, even if the tax obtained from entertain-
    2248
    ments provided by living performers is reduced, nevertheless there will be an increase in the amount of tax obtained from the cinema. That may be true. If it is true, it is not an argument which impresses me or one which I like. I firmly believe that in these days the best national interests are served when at last we are paying attention to the manner in which our people get their leisure by the maintenance of those forms of entertainment which may most properly be described as active, those forms of entertainment provided by living performers. I do not support this Amendment as one who is very much concerned to reduce the tax on the cinema. There may be Members of the Committee who desire to argue that the tax on the cinema ought to be reduced also, but for my part I am concerned primarily with a reduction of the tax on what is called the living theatre. It is for one or two very definite reasons, which I wish to offer to the Committee, in addition to those which were presented by my hon. Friend. In the first place, I am satisfied that the living theatre, both in London and in the provinces, is an essential part of English culture and reflects the English spirit in a way that the cinema never can do. The cinema reflects a cosmopolitaa habit of mind, and even in this country the cinema has never endeavoured seriously to represent English culture.
    I suggest as my second reason for this Clause having my support that in the living theatre the audiences assist in the truest sense of the word actively, and that a vigorous theatre in this country induces many people not professionally interested in the theatre to occupy themselves in those forms of theatrical effort which are perhaps the essential condition of the development of a real community spirit. The third reason is that the entertainment tax is in fact killing the living theatre in this country. My hon. Friend gave some very interesting figures of profits and losses on productions in London and of the taxes that have been paid on particular plays. I have in mind at the present time two plays which have recently been produced in London which by common consent were plays of the highest quality but which resulted in ultimate losses for the producers, which contributed considerable sums to the Exchequer, and which would have had their run continued for at least double the

    2249
    length of time had the entertainment tax not been imposed upon them. It is really a very practical matter. The incidence of the entertainment tax has made the London theatre, and by reflection the theatrical enterprises in the provinces, something of a racket, if I may use an American term in this rather appropriate connection. It has become of a very precarious nature.
    There are very few regular theatrical managements left in this country. There are few if any managements comparable with the old managements of Alexander, Tree and Irving. There certainly are one or two theatrical managements which endeavour to put on continuously plays of good quality in London, and subsequently to send them round the provinces, but, on the whole, plays in London are now produced by introducing one or two people who imagine themselves to be interested in the theatre to put up £1,000, £1,500 or £2,000 for no reason but the reason that they believe the living theatre should be well supported. That £1,500 or £2,000 is perhaps exhausted after a three or four weeks' run with empty houses, and the play comes off. The consequence of that, as my hon. Friend has said, is that actors and actresses are thrown out of work, the theatres are dark, there is no play and the general tone of the London theatre tends to fall. I am quite satisfied that, if this tax were modified to the advantage of the living theatre, we should see a revival of that kind of theatrical management that we knew in the past and that made the London theatre to be regarded with the greatest respect throughout the world.
    I would suggest one other reason. A play is put on with a modest but adequate amount of capital sufficient to enable the play to continue, if things go really badly for three weeks. At the end of two weeks may be the management see that it is not going very well and notices have to go out and the play finishes. Often it has been observed that a good play may begin with small audiences, and after three weeks it may begin to look like being a success, and at the end of six weeks the corner may be turned and a loss converted into a profit. The very fact that the tax takes such a substantial proportion of the receipts of the theatre often prevents a play being continued in its run for a sufficient length of time to enable the loss to be turned
    2250
    into a profit. It may be that the Treasury prefers the cinema and has no compunction in taking action that may damage the living theatre, but I do not think that can be true of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we can look to him as a man who, above all, would be likely to desire to see the living theatre continue.
    We are asking for very little in this Amendment, we are asking for a very small crumb of comfort from the lips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he replies. Perhaps we cannot expect him to accept the whole of the Amendment, but we should be very gratified, and it would be very heartening to many of those who are engaged in this profession in London and the country, if he would undertake to observe during the course of the coming year exactly how the theatre is going along, to consider seriously whether its present position and prospects are damaged in the way that we suggest by the Entertainments Duty, and to assure the Committee that if his examination convinces him that the living theatre is being damaged in the way we suggest, then before he presents his next Budget he will take into consideration the arguments that we have advanced to-night and, on cultural if not on financial grounds, consider the Amendment of this tax, so that the living theatre may have a better chance.
    Unless the House is prepared to consider a little more seriously than it has done in recent years the effects of the entertainments tax on the living theatre, Parliament may find, perhaps too late, that it has taken upon itself the responsibility for killing one of our most characteristic and traditional institutions, the living theatre.
    9.48 p.m.
    Mr. Poole: I was interested in the way in which the Mover of the Amendment stated the case. The way in which he led us through the history of the industry was very interesting and has shown those of us who are not actively identified with the industry something of the difficulties with which it now has to contend. But I am not satisfied that he has told us the whole of the story, because while he told us of the very serious losses that have occurred on various productions he omitted to speak of the very excellent returns which have been forthcoming on other productions.

    2251
    I have risen primarily to say what I can in support of the Amendment as far as the living theatre is concerned. I have been concerned with the very serious position which is becoming apparent in the provincial towns. I live in the town of Walsall, which has a population of 106,000 people, and it may surprise the House to hear that there is in that town not one single living theatre. The last theatre which made provision for productions of that type has now been demolished and there is going up in its place an architectural monstrosity which will in the near future be showing moving pictures. That will be the only form of entertainment in the town, not because we in Walsall do not love art, but simply because it has not been possible, I presume, for the industry to put on in Walsall a theatre production of a scale which would justify a sufficient attendance to merit the production continuing in the town.
    In my innocence, when I first read the Amendment I must confess that I did not approach it from the line on which the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert) has presented it. Immediately I saw the Amendment I thought that it was an attempt to remove the tax from the theatre-goer, because I understood that the major portion of the tax was borne by the patrons. I imagined that the object would naturally be to hand over the relief in the amount which the theatre-goers would pay for their entertainment. Be that as it may, I should like to refer to one very common occurrence which I find in the cinema industry, and which ought to be discouraged. I hope the Home Secretary will at some early date direct his attention to it. I have noticed it particularly prevalent in the City of London, where cinemas which have seats at varying prices, 1s. 6d., 2S. 6d., 3s. 6d. and up to 8s. 6d., are in the habit of announcing that there is seating accommodation only in the higher priced seats and that there is no accommodation available in the lower priced seats. But if one is bold enough to go inside one finds an abundance of seats at the lower prices. In that very unfair way some of the cinema managers are filling their higher priced seats, because they know that people are not prepared to stand.
    I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the Amendment and
    2252
    accept it, because I understand that it will involve him in no financial responsibility so far as the current year is concerned. This gives the Chancellor of the Exchequer 12 months opportunity to consider whether he will or will not continue this taxation in the next financial year. If relief is given from this taxation so far as the living theatre is concerned, I hope that it will be applied in a certain ordered way and that it will not be swallowed up in the industry by giving increased profits to those who are engaged in the ownership and the production. I hope that if relief is given it will, first of all, go to the poorer paid performers. The condition of many of the people engaged in this industry, especially in provincial productions, is an extremely grave one. I have on many occasions during my previous employment come up against the position of companies many of them composed of numbers of young girls who have been visiting provincial theatres where they have had a bad run and have not had the necessary finances to get them to the next town in the circuit. They have had the distasteful task of having to wire to the advance managers asking them to guarantee the expenses of the company on to the next point. In some cases the managers have not been prepared to give that guarantee, and consequently young girls have been stranded in provincial towns without friends and without means. If the relief in regard to this taxation will only go in some small way to meet a position such as that, it will accomplish something.
    Secondly, if this relief is granted the public are entitled to some consideration, inasmuch as they are mulcted of the tax. They have at least the second claim to any relief which is given. In the third place, some of the relief should go to improve the standard of production and to enable the provinces to get a better type of show. The money would serve a useful purpose in that direction. It is a tragedy in our national life that we see springing up—I have nothing against the cinema industry—particularly on large housing estates, adjacent to cities and towns, no other forms of entertainment than the moving pictures. There is nothing which makes an appeal to the dramatic and artistic nature of our people, and as a consequence our young people are growing up knowing nothing better

    2253
    than Americanised ideas of art, which cannot but have a harmful effect on them. I am concerned with the American influence of the cinema upon the lives of our young people, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the Amendment so far as the living theatre is concerned and by so doing help to improve the artistic and dramatic standards of this country.
    9.58 p.m.
    Mr. Assheton: I should like to add my plea to the very formidable case which has been put by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) and other hon. Members, that at least the tax on the living theatre should be remitted. I do not know what other hon. Members feel but I take the view that a tax on plays is every bit as bad as a tax on books. Hon. Members of this House do not have the same opportunities of going to plays as other people and have to get their entertainment from books and in other ways, and I imagine that they would be very annoyed if the books they have to buy were the subject of a tax. A tax on plays is as uncivilised as a tax on books. Last year when this matter was raised the Chancellor of the Exchequer was new at the Treasury and, since then, he has had a year in which to consider this matter. I hope he can make a concession on this occasion. We are fortunate in having a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is a man of culture, a man of learning and intellect and devoted to the arts, and if such a man continues to tax the theatre and does not tax betting, I confess that I shall find it difficult to understand the workings of his mind.
    10.0 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: I rise to put three points to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first is that as far as I know the British Government is the only Government in Europe that taxes the theatre instead of subsidising it. In Germany, before the Nazi flood wiped out much of what civilisation there was in that country, almost every small provincial town considered the theatre as part and parcel of its civic life. In Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Poland, and of course in Russia, enormous subsidies are given, and in many of the small towns on the Continent the whole civic pride is settled around the opera house and the theatre.
    2254
    Here, in what I suppose is one of the richest countries in the world which does not really need this revenue, we have this vexatious tax which everybody connected with the theatre says is doing a very good deal of harm. In the second place, there was growing up in this country a number of repertory theatres and companies. Anyone who has ever had any connection with the repertory movement from the heroic days—they were really heroes and heroines who attempted to do this task in the early days—knows that wherever you get a repertory theatre it invariably becomes a school for dramatic art. Wherever you get a repertory company you get a small group of dramatists writing for that theatre, but it is very difficult for them to keep on their feet when they have the millstone of this tax around their necks.
    There is not only the question of the repertory theatre but also the amateur theatre. There seems to be some highly placed official who is using his misplaced ingenuity in finding out where any small body of people are going to act a small play or something written for their company, and then he comes down upon them for this entertainment tax. I know a case in the North of England where the mere fact of having to pay this tax limited the performance to one show, and in some cases the proposal had to be abandoned. In these days we are all concerned about our young people; we want to take them off the streets and give them something to do. We also want to find something for the unemployed, but if a show is given by the unemployed they have to pay this entertainment tax if a charge for admission is made. There is another point which I think we are forgetting. Our provincial theatres it is true are practically nonexistent now and we do not want the Americanisation of the artistic life of our country. It is not only a question of the theatres; where is the reservoir of talent to come from if the living theatre is closed down? It means that the reservoir of talent for our films will be dried up.
    I have had a previous experience of appealing to the Prime Minister to help certain employers of labour in this country who were unfortunately engaged in making profits, and it has been made perfectly clear that anybody who makes a profit in this country can be protected, except on the high seas. Here we are

    2255
    asking for a concession on behalf of people who are not making profits except on certain occasions, but at least let us penalise those people who are making profits. If we want to have a tax surely it should be on the profits that are made and not on the gross takings, whatever the profits may be. In this country we have subsidised everything from sugar beet to tramp shipping. I do not know anything about betting but I know something on the question of cosmetics, and I guarantee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer by putting a small tax on face powder and face cream would get ten times as much as he does by this tax on theatrical art. I see the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) looking at me with great regret, but I am only proposing to tax an alternative form of art. I was told by a woman in a salon this afternoon that the alluring contents of one of these mysterious bottles actually costs 6d. to produce, but is being eagerly bought by my gullible sisters for 12s. 6d. I suggest to the Chancellor that in those circumstances there is a field of profit which would stagger even Mr. Cochran, with his large ideas. There is the possibility for him to recoup himself in that direction. I plead with the Chancellor to accept this Amendment which would give him an opportunity of forcing his officials to look into the whole question again before the Budget next year.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. Higgs: Probably I attend the theatre less frequently than any other hon. Member, but I consider this to be a thoroughly bad tax, and I support the remarks of other hon. Members who have spoken against it. I consider that it is particularly bad in regard to performances in person. I would remind the Chancellor that the removal of this tax would not interfere with the National Defence Contribution. I would also like to draw attention to a point which has not yet been made in this interesting Debate. On several occasions it has been suggested that the acceptance of an Amendment of this nature would involve a loss to the Exchequer of £1,000,000, but that is not so. If this tax were removed, the profits of the theatres would be greater, and the Chancellor would recoup himself to a very great extent by an increased revenue from Income Tax.
    2256
    It is possible that at an early date the amount received in Income Tax on the profits of the theatres would be greater than the deficit of £1,000,000.
    Hon. Members have already emphasised the importance of the question of the competition of mechanical entertainment with performances in person. I think the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) made a very interesting point when she said that if this tax were not removed, we should lose even the source of supply of artistes for mechanical production. The theatres in the West End are at the present time receiving no more per seat than they received in 1914. I cannot think of any other business organisation to-day which is getting no more revenue per unit than it did in 1914. This tax is equivalent to a turnover tax, and I am convinced that hon. Members would not for one moment permit such a tax to be imposed upon industry. That is the standpoint from which I think this matter should be viewed. There are alternative sources from which the tax could be obtained, particularly football pools, and so forth. This Amendment is unique in that it would not come into force immediately, and thus the Chancellor would have plenty of time in which to consider alternative forms of tax if they proved to be necessary, which I very much doubt. Let me say in conclusion that the repertory theatre in Birmingham is exempt from this tax, for some reason or other, and were it not so, that theatre would not exist to-day. I believe that many more theatres would be in existence at the present time were it not for this abominable tax.
    10.10 p.m.
    Mr. W. Astor: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider sympathetically the substance of this Debate, even though he may not be able immediately to accept the Amendment. The sincerity with which different speakers have stated their views may be proved by the fact that, whereas in the past I remember my right hon. Friend's predecessor complaining that people who proposed taxes proposed that they should be imposed on habits in which they did not indulge, in this case my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert) has suggested a tax on betting and the hon. Lady the

    2257
    Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has suggested one on cosmetics, both of which they would have to pay. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University puts on his bets with the same judicious moderation and skill as the hon. Lady puts on her cosmetics. But seriously, since the War we have had a period almost of cultural renaissance. Never have we had a more creative period in the arts, in writing, in poetry, and in the drama, than we have had in England during the last 20 years. That is the opinion of no less a critic than the late Colonel Lawrence. We are in a way charged with the preservation of the cultural inheritance of Europe. At a time when culture is being debased for propaganda purposes, in England we have the chance of keeping it free. Moreover, we have had the benefit of the immigration into this country of artists from abroad. One need only mention the Ballets Jooss, which have come to found an artistic home in England. As has been pointed out, this is no mere perquisite of the rich, for at the "Old Vic" and the "Sadler's Wells" the highest forms of art have been appreciated by all classes.
    I know from contacts which I have had with people connected with the theatre how very often the Entertainment Tax makes a difference between profit and loss. Surely, as a capitalist Government, we should encourage the making of profits and then tax them afterwards. Let us not put a tax on raw materials, on turnover, on the processing. If a similar tax were put on some exporting industry, there would rightly be protests, for hon. Members watch very carefully the Import Duties Orders which they think may affect an industry both as regards profits and employment. If it be true that we want people to make profits, and if either the actor receives a large salary or the impressario a large profit, then the myrmidons of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be after him, with all their usual vigilance, for Income Tax or for Super-tax. If his profits are moderate, he will be taxed when he indulges in a glass of beer and a cigarette, and if they are larger, when he indulges in his bottle of champagne and a cigar; and if he buys a house, they will get him for rates as w ell. Surely, it would be much better to allow the profits to be made and then to tax the profits, and thus make employment and allow the cultural life of this
    2258
    country to be enriched. At a time when we are considering the better use of leisure, I hope my right hon. Friend, with his long tradition of sympathy for all that is best in the intellectual and artistic life of this country, will consider sympathetically the substance of this Debate, even though he may not be able to accept the Amendment this year.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: We have had a very interesting Debate and I think it is an excellent thing that this subject should have come up for discussion at this time and not in the small hours of the morning. Speaking also for those who sit on these benches, I wish to say that we intend to support the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert) in his proposal. We do so the more confidently because it would not alter the balance of the Budget for the present year. The hon. Gentleman tried, I do not think quite successfully—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer no doubt will agree—to put forward a case for bringing the duty to an end on 31st March next year so that its application could be reconsidered in the following year. I think it would have been better if he had made the date 30th June instead of 31st March, and I think that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were prepared to accept the hon. Member's proposal that very small alteration could be made.
    This tax is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a great number of other people, a bad tax. It is bad in form, and bad in substance. It is bad in form because it is entirely unsatisfactory in its working. It seeks to tax, not profit, but the attempt to make profit, thereby rendering the profit in many cases unmade and unmakeable. It is bad in substance because it is wrong to tax the things of the mind. I do not think it is a sound plan to tax a form of activity because it is regarded as entertainment. It is not right that on that account it should come under the ban of the Chancellor and become subject to a special form of taxation. It is a tax which affects not merely the lighter forms of amusement but some of the most serious forms of dramatic and other art and in our view it is deleterious not only to the managers and others concerned in these enterprises, but also the public who are entitled to use their leisure in the way which they consider best for

    2259
    themselves. Actors and actresses set out in their very precarious profession to benefit the public and they ought not to be subject to this special and peculiar burden. We thoroughly support most of the proposals in the new Clause and we shall vote for it if it should prove to be the case that the right hon. Gentleman has hardened his heart and finds himself unable to meet us.
    10.19 p.m.
    Sir J. Simon: I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman has said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—to the effect that we have had a very interesting Debate.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert)—my representative—made so entertaining a speech that I shall have to consult with the authorities on whether he does not come within the scope of the Entertainments Duty. I should like to make clear to the Committee one or two points about this tax which have not, I think, been made entirely plain in the very interesting speeches we have heard. We must get our facts right before we can consider how we can improve the situation.
    The hon. Lady opposite referred to the repertory theatre, and I rather think my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) did also. I may remind the Committee that whatever may be said about the tax, it is provided in the present law that it shall not be applied to entertainments like the Old Vic, the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, and most of the repertory theatres, because of the provision which exempts from duty entertainments provided by a society, institution, or committee not conducted or established for profit and provided for partly educational purposes. A generous construction has, very rightly, been put on that provision, and I am glad to think that in fact, generally speaking, the repertory theatres and theatres like the Old Vic, are exempted.
    Miss Wilkinson: That does not apply to the ordinary provincial commercial companies.
    Sir J. Simon: On the other hand, of course, you have to bear in mind that this duty covers a very much wider range of things than we have been speaking
    2260
    about to-night. It covers horseracing, "the dogs," football, and, for the purposes of the duty, even cricket is reckoned as an entertainment. I can understand it being said with a good deal of reason that in point of fact this tax known by the name of Entertainments Duty does gather within its net things of many very different kinds. I am sure I sympathise very much with the hon. Member for Oxford University when he says that he feels particularly distressed when he finds a duty taxing what he called "the things of the mind," and I remember that last year, when he made another very entertaining and instructive speech, he sought to suggest that the best line to take would be to draw a distinction in substance between good entertainment and bad entertainment. He pointed out that it did not seem right to put the same burden on all the very finest dramatic productions as on shoddy and inferior productions, not of the sort which ought to be encouraged.
    I pointed out at the time that it was a very difficult distinction to draw in a taxing Statute, and I invited my hon. Friend to apply his ingenious mind—and he is a very ingenious and a very successful legislator—to the subject of how really we could improve the present position of the tax. Though I am making no complaint, the fact is that from the time he made his speech last year until to-night I have had, so far as I know, no contribution from him on the subject; and all the opportunity that I have had of considering it—and I have done my best—has been at my own motion in the Treasury, with many people whom I have consulted, subject always to a deputation which I received from those representing stage interests, and I must say that I find the problem extremely difficult.
    There are one or two other observations that I should like to make. One is as to the history of the tax. It has existed for a good many years now. I heard the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down join in denunciation of this tax as a monstrous form of imposition, but I will not do more than say in reply that in fact it has survived two Labour Governments. Some relief was given in 1935 by my predecessor when he recognised that it was necessary to try and draw some distinction between the living theatre and the mechanical theatre. The result is that the tax does not operate

    2261
    in the same way or so severely in what is called the living theatre. When thinking about this matter I have been concerned as to whether or not the suggestion which has been made in several quarters for the removal of the tax from the living theatre would operate to restore it to a position such as it used to enjoy. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Poole) told us that in the great town of Walsall there is not any theatre showing at all now, and we find the same thing in other places. We have, however, to consider that the cinema is now offering entertainment of a very high order with scenery of unexampled magnificence and splendour. It is offering it in the small towns and, indeed, villages, just as in the great capitals, several times a day, and being a great and prosperous industry, it is offering it in big newly built premises.
    My concern is whether the old historic living drama is really suffering simply because of this tax. It is a serious consideration how far it can be revived by such means as the removal of the tax. We have tried to give it assistance by making the rate of duty in the case of the living theatre smaller than that in the case of the cinema. That has been of some assistance, but it remains true that this preference has not produced all the results that were hoped for it. There may be good reasons for that, but the fact of the matter is that when the tax was put on, the immediate result was that the prices of the seats went up. When the partial remission was made in 1935 the price of the seats did not go down, so that it is not really the case that the removal of this tax would necessarily encourage greater attendance of the public because it would be calculated to make the seats in the theatre cheaper. It may have the result of lengthening the run of some pieces and relieving those who have to pay the tax, and in that way of course it would be of assistance to dramatic artists.
    Having considered the difficulties in which the living theatre finds itself to-day—and we must all recall famous names of which theatrical history has furnished so many examples—I still am of the opinion that its present position cannot be explained by reason of the incidence of this tax. At the same time I would say frankly that while a great many taxes are open to objection—I
    2262
    doubt whether it is possible to find any good tax—I do share a great deal of the feeling against this particular form of tax. As something has been said about the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I see opposite a right hon. Gentleman who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the days when I was one of his junior colleagues—I would remark that in the course of the year he surveys all the taxation which is in being as well as considering the possibilities of new taxes, and it is not the case that a Chancellor of the Exchequer merely lets 12 months go by and then says, "Let us turn round the handle again and out it will all come just as before." I have spent some time with some of my advisers on this subject during the present year, and I should very much appreciate suggestions from my hon. Friend or anybody else as to the possible or desirable way to proceed in this matter.
    It is natural for people who feel that this particular tax is a bad one to say simply: "Get rid of it," but something else must be found. I am grateful to the hon. Lady opposite for a suggestion she has made, and on some occasion it may be discussed, and I know also that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University has views upon the taxation of betting, but I would remind him that that was attempted by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer with not very successful results. The position is, however, that we cannot proceed on the basis that we can get rid of this tax in the first instance and then look round for something else to replace it. The hon. Member's proposal merely states that the tax shall be one which will terminate on 31st March. It has been pointed out that by selecting that date we should leave a gap, and I thought perhaps the hon. Member had selected it for fun, just for the purpose of making the Chancellor of the Exchequer an "April Fool" the next morning. In any case there would not be time to get any new money by a new tax so early in the year as that.
    To come, however, to a broader point, what he is suggesting about this one particular tax is something which is quite exceptional. If we were to accept it we should be saying, in effect, that while the tax on tea is to continue unless somebody alters it and the tax on petrol is to continue unless somebody alters it,

    2263
    this Entertainment Duty is to be marked out as something which we are prepared now to bring to an end, leaving necessarily a gap which would have to be filled, thinking in that way to force Parliament and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider what can be put in its place. I do not think that we can proceed in that way. I am bound to follow the course of preserving the sources of taxation which we are authorising this year, leaving them to flow, in order that we may see as the year advances what they produce and what our needs are—and our needs are likely to be very great. We must preserve this tax, along with some other imposts which in their way are, no doubt, also objectionable, so that in due course they may be surveyed and that whoever is responsible for the Budget next April may then make his proposals about them. I have told the Committee quite frankly what are my own reactions on this matter, and I would assure them they are quite genuine and are not felt for the first time to-night. I offer to the Committee and to my hon. Friend this assurance: I am willing to make it my business, with the help of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary, to examine the working of these taxes, and I will offer the assurance that I will during the year have them studied from every point of view, recognising, as I do, that there is great force in this argument, especially as applied to the living theatre.
    I am not of opinion that we should treat this particular tax, whatever else may be said about it, in a wholly exceptional way, by condemning it to death on a date about a year ahead without making provision as to how the gap is to be filled. I am certain that the proper way in which this should be done is not that way at all, but to call upon those who are responsible to review during the year, with all the help they can get, the working of this impost, in order that it should not be renewed next year automatically and without further consideration. I offer that assurance in all sincerity, not because I have found the best way to deal with this matter but because I share the feeling expressed by a good many Members in all parts of the Committee that, really and truly in this country, this ancient home of culture, art and literature, this tax ought not to be allowed automatically to continue without very serious examination.
    Mr. A. Herbert: I would thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much for the kind way in which he has received this new Clause and, in view of what he said, and if the Committee will permit me, I would now beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 191.

    Division No. 264.]

    AYES.

    10.37 p.m.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Gallacher, W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Gardner, B. W.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

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

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

    Banfield, J. W.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lathan, G.

    Bellenger, F. J.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Lawson, J. J.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

    Leach, W.

    Benson, G.

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Bevan, A.

    Greenwood. Rt. Hon. A.

    Lunn, W.

    Broad, F. A.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Bromfield, W.

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

    McGovern, J.

    Brown, C. (Mansfield)

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    MacLaren, A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

    Maclean, N.

    Burke, W. A.

    Groves, T. E.

    MacNeill Weir, L.

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Marshall, F.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Maxton, J.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

    Collindridge, F.

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

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hayday, A.

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Daggar, G.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Dalton, H.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Owen, Major G.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

    Paling, W.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Holdsworth, H.

    Parker, J.

    Day, H.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Pearson, A.

    Debbie, W.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

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

    Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)

    John, W.

    Poole, C. C.

    Ede, J. C.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Price, M. P.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Ridley, G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Westwood, J.

    Riley, B.

    Stephen, G.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Ritson, J.

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

    Stokes, R. R.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Sexton. T. M.

    Thurtle, E.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

    Tomlinson, G.

    Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

    Viant, S. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Mr. Mothers and Mr. Adamson.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    NOES.

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

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

    Piokthorn, K. W. M.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Gledhill, G.

    PilkIngton, R.

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

    Goldie, N. B.

    Power, Sir J. C.

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

    Gower, Sir R. V.

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Apsley, Lord

    Gridley, Sir A. B.

    Radford, E. A.

    Asko, Sir R. W.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

    Assheton, R.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Ramsden, Sir E.

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

    Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Darke)

    Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

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

    Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

    Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

    Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

    Hannah, I. C.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)

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

    Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Balniel, Lord

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Remer, J. R.

    Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

    Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

    Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

    Barrie, Sir C. C.

    Hepworth, J.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Herbert, Capt, Sir S (Abbey)

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

    Beauthamp, Sir B. C.

    Hopkinson, A.

    Russell, Sir Alexander

    Bernays, R. H.

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

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hulbert, N. J.

    Salmon, Sir I.

    Bower, Comdr. R. T.

    Hunloke, H. P.

    Salt, E. W.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Hunter, T.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Hutchinson, G. C.

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Brown, col. D. C. (Hexham)

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

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

    Browne, A. C (Belfast, W.)

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'It N'w'gt'n)

    Soott, Lord William

    Bull, B. B.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

    Burghley, Lord

    Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Unitis.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Kimball, L.

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

    Carvor, Major W. H.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

    Cary, R. A.

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

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Channon, H.

    Leas-Jones, J.

    Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

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

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

    Somerset, T.

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Liddell, W. S.

    Spans, W. P.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Lipson, D. L.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Loftus, P. C.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Cross, R. H.

    Lyons, A. M.

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

    Crossley, A. C.

    Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Tacker, Sir R. I.

    Culverwell, C. T.

    Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

    Tate, Mavis C.

    Davidson, Viscountes

    McKie, J. H.

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

    Davies, C. (Montgomery)

    Maclay, Hon. J. P.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

    Maitland, A.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    De la Bère, R.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Turton, R. H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M

    Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

    Doland, G. F.

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

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

    Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.

    Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

    Walt, Major G. S. Harvie

    Drewe, C.

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

    Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

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

    Wells, Sir Sydney

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Moreing, A. C.

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

    Dunglass, Lord

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

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

    Eastwood, J. F.

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

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

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Munro, P.

    Wise, A. R.

    Emmott, C. E. G. C.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    Errington, E.

    Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

    Wragg, H.

    Erskine-Hill, A. G.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

    Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

    Everard, W. L.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Patrick, C. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Peat, C. U.

    Captain Hope and Captain

    Furness, S. N.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Waterhouse.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Petherick, M.

    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Supplementary provisions as respects preference for British hydrocarbon oils.)
  Amendment made: In page 51, line 27, after "oil" insert "home."—[Captain Wallace.]
  Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)
  10.47 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move, in page 59, line 7, at the end, to insert:

  54 & 55 Vict., c. 39.

  The Stamp Act, 1891.

  In the First Schedule, the words "DOCKET made on passing any instrument under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom

  0 2 0," the words "CONGÉ D'ÉLIRE see GRANT," the words from "GRANT or LETTERS PSTENT," to "And see section 74," and the words "WARRANT under the sign manual of Her Majesty 0 10 0."

  This Amendment and the next are really consequential on new Clauses which have been agreed to.
  Mr. Paling: What is the effect of the Amendments?
  Captain Wallace: If the hon. Member will look at the Fourth Schedule, he will see that it deals with enactments which are repealed. The Chancellor the other day moved a new Clause in order to repeal certain Stamp Duties, which the Committee agreed to, and a necessary consequence is the repeal of certain words of the Act which is specified in the left-hand column. The second column contains the short title of that Act and in the third column are the precise words which are to be repealed.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: It is really rather interesting that words which have an historical significance should be repealed in this casual way in the Schedule. Some information should be given.
  Captain Wallace: They have to be repealed in order to carry out the will of
  2268
  the Committee, as indicated in the adoption of the new Clause. If we did not repeal these words, the new Clause, to which the Committee has assented, would not have proper effect.
  Mr. Benn: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is repeating over and over that these are consequential on some other Amendment of the Bill, but I am asking for information. The congé d'élire, if my recollection serves me, is the power exercised by the King before the bishops are appointed. If we repeal this, is any alteration to be made in connection with the appointment of bishops?
  Sir J. Simon: I think the point is clear. The Clause to which reference is made puts an end to charges in connection with certain formal documents, one of which is the conge d'élire, which previously required a stamp as a contribution to the Revenue. We are ending that. We are not ending the conge d'élire of Bishops.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 59, line 43, column 3 at the end, insert "and Section thirty."—[Captain Wallace.]

  NEW SCHEDULE.—(Enactments relating to certain Customs Duties repealed.)
  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 36.

  The Finance Act, 1925.

  In section eleven the words "section three" and the words "(whether under this Act or under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915)"; the First Schedule; paragraph 3 of Part III of the Second Schedule; and in Part III of the Third Schedule the words "Goods on which a duty is imposed by section 3 of this Act …Two-thirds of the full rate".

  16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. 22.

  The Finance Act, 1926.

  Section three.

  17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 10.

  The Finance Act, 1927.

  Sections three and four.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  18 & 19 Geo. 5, c 17.

  The Finance Act, 1928.

  Sections seven and eight.

  23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 19.

  The Finance Act, 1933.

  Sub-sections (1), (2), (4) and (5) of section thirteen; in subsection (2) os section twenty the words "a duty of customs chargeable under section three of the Finance Act, 1925, and"; section twenty-one; the Fourth Schedule; and Part 1 of the Sixth Schedule.

  1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6.

  The Finance Act, 1937.

  Sub-section (4) of section three.

  1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 17.

  The Cinematogrpah Films Act, 1938.

  Sub-section (5) of section twenty-five.

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
  This Schedule is consequential on the repeal of the McKenna Duties.
  Question put, and agreed to. Schedule added to the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

  BACON INDUSTRY BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. T. Williams: We do not intend to oppose the Third Reading. We agree to the establishment of a Bacon Development Board with adequate powers. We should, however, have preferred that the independent members of the Development Board should be a majority, but unfortunately the House rejected the proposal that we made yesterday. We agree also that without rationalisation of the bacon factories we can never hope to have a successful bacon industry in the country. The rationalisation scheme, faithfully carried out, will lead to any
  2270
  future success. We are not opposed to any principle of guaranteed prices so long as those prices follow an efficient industry with an efficient costing system. As far as we have been able to ascertain, the Ministry have not at their disposal a real costing system which would determine once and for all both the cost of the production of the pig arid of the bacon. We do not oppose guaranteed prices so long as regulation is not to be used to excess and to the disadvantage of the consumer. We are not opposed to regulation as such so long as it forms part of an efficient marketing scheme and is not used exclusively to provide scarcity and high prices, and to bolster up inefficient industry in the production of pigs or of bacon. To reduce the saleable supplies of bacon by bolstering up inefficiency is inimical to the interests both of consumers and of the State.
  The aim of this House, and the Ministry of Agriculture in particular, should be efficiency in production of pigs and of bacon, and the organisation of plenty rather than of scarcity. This Bill sets out to do some of these things, which may or may not succeed, but the producers, if this Bill is given the Third Reading, will again be on trial. They have been on trial with milk, they are on trial with beef and with slaughter-houses, and so far little or nothing has emerged from them. The House is willing to give them one more chance, and I hope that both the House of Commons and the country will judge them on the results they achieve as a result of this Measure.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.
  10.58 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1938, he made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament "
  I think it has been customary on other occasions with Orders of this nature, which

  2271
  are comparatively minor and non-controversial in character, to give, in connection with the first Order, some remarks on all the Orders so as to save time, and with the permission of the House I will follow that procedure on this occasion. The first Order relates to the Government of India (High Court Judges) and corrects a drafting error in the Government of India (High Court Judges) Order, 1937. The three Orders to be moved simply contain drafting Amendments. They are cases where the original Order had certain definite intentions, but owing to certain drafting irregularities those intentions are not now being carried out. In the original Order it was provided that the conditions of service of such judges should continue to be governed by the rules to which they were subject immediately before the commencement of the Order.
  The intention, when the Order was drafted, was that the conditions of service of judges appointed prior to 1st April, 1937, should remain unchanged. Section 104 of the Government of India Act, 1919, made certain provisions for the payment of judges, but those provisions were contained in the Act and not in the rules under the Act. As that is so, they are not continued in force by paragraph 27 of the Government of India (High Court Judges) Order, 1937, although they have been made applicable to judges appointed after the 1st April of that year by paragraph 23 of the Order. The draft Order amends paragraph 27 of the Order, in order to bring into line the judges who were serving before that date.
  The Second Order, the Government of Burma (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1938, simply corrects the position in exactly the same way as is done by the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order. The third Order, the Government of Burma (Adaptation of Laws) (Amendment) Order, again corrects a drafting error. It has come to light that the adaptation made by the original Order in Sub-section (5) of Section 48 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, has the effect of depriving, as from the 1st April, 1937, subjects of Indian States not resident in British Burma of the right to refund under Section 48 of the Act. This Section sets out the circumstances under which various categories of persons are entitled to refund
  2272
  of the tax. It is clear that the position which has resulted from the adaptation in question was never intended, the more so as it is directly repugnant to the spirit of Section 45 of the Government of Burma Act, which prohibits discrimination in matters of taxation against British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom and India, or the subjects of any Indian State. The object of the draft Order is to rectify this mistake, which was obviously a drafting error.
  I think on previous occasions there have been certain questions raised regarding the procedure under which these Orders are taken in this House, and although the procedure is now tolerably well known, perhaps I might say a word upon it. These Orders under the Government of India and the Government of Burma Acts differ from the Orders on other subjects to which the House is accustomed, in that they are subject to amendment, and the Orders when finally approved by Parliament have to be approved in similar form by both Houses. It is on that account that on this occasion we do not actually approve the Orders. The Orders have not yet been considered in another place, and it is possible that Amendments may be made there. It is on that account that it is convenient in connection with each Order that I should move that the Debate be now adjourned.
  Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Lieut.-Colonel Muiritead.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1938, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—[Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead.]
  Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Adaptation of Laws) (Amendment) Order, 1938, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead.]
  Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Cornmittee) considered, read the Third time, and passed.

  ALIENS RESTRICTION (BLASPHEMY) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven Clock.

  POST OFFICE (EMPIRE AIR MAIL).
  POST OFFICE (EMPIRE AIR MAIL).
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.
  BURNING PIT-HEAPS.
  BURNING PIT-HEAPS.
  WIDOW'S PENSION (MRS. SARAH AUSTIN).
  WIDOW'S PENSION (MRS. SARAH AUSTIN).
ACQUISITION OF LAND.
  PERRANZABULOE.
  PERRANZABULOE.
  CARDIFF.
  CARDIFF.
  ADMIRALTY PURCHASE, PORTSMOUTH.
  ADMIRALTY PURCHASE, PORTSMOUTH.
  LONGSHORE MOOR, SHEFFIELD.
  LONGSHORE MOOR, SHEFFIELD.
  HEBDEN BRIDGE.
  HEBDEN BRIDGE.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITMENT).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITMENT).
TRANSPORT.
  MINERAL TRANSPORT STANDING COMMITTEE.
  MINERAL TRANSPORT STANDING COMMITTEE.
  ACCIDENTS, KINGSTANDING ROAD, BIRMINGHAM.
  ACCIDENTS, KINGSTANDING ROAD, BIRMINGHAM.
  MOTORING OFFENCES, ROYAL PARKS.
  MOTORING OFFENCES, ROYAL PARKS.
  ROYAL NAVY (MEDITERRANEAN).
  ROYAL NAVY (MEDITERRANEAN).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ASSISTANCE (WINTER ADDITIONS).
  ASSISTANCE (WINTER ADDITIONS).
  HOSIERY INDUSTRY.
  HOSIERY INDUSTRY.
  ALLOWANCES FOR CLOTHING.
  ALLOWANCES FOR CLOTHING.
  PORT TALBOT.
  PORT TALBOT.
  DUNBRECK COLLIERY, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  DUNBRECK COLLIERY, STIRLINGSHIRE.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  POLICE (PENSIONS).
  POLICE (PENSIONS).
AGRICULTURE.
  MUTTON AND LAMB (PRICES).
  MUTTON AND LAMB (PRICES).
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  POULTRY INDUSTRY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  SPAIN (BRITISH SHIPPING).
  SPAIN (BRITISH SHIPPING).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (COASTING TRADE).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (COASTING TRADE).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock. The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BUCKS WATER BOARD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHURCH STRETTON) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HORSFORTH) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LLANDRINDOD WELLS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (RAWMARSH) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to he printed, and referred to the Examiners.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable the Trustees of the British Museum to accept a certain bequest made to them by the late Lord Rothschild, and for purposes connected therewith; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 1aand to be printed.

GLASGOW AND RENFREW GAS ORDER, 1938.

  HYDE GAS ORDER, 1938.
  THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

RUNCORN AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1938.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved, with modifications.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved, with modifications.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHESHUNT URBAN DISTRICT ORDER.

  EPSOM AND EWELL BOROUGH ORDER.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before this House on the 14th instant, be approved.
  Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Depart

  425
  ment under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before this House on the 14th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (KEIGHLEY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Pill: Bill reported without amendment.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received, I should like to take this opportunity of replying to three questions which were addressed to me on the previous stage of this Bill by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The noble Earl asked why the working of overtime is not limited to six weeks in this Bill as it is in the case of the Shops Act. I should like to point out that in the case of shops there is, as we generally recognise, extreme pressure of work over a short time, particularly during the Christmas period. Accordingly the Shops Act provides for concentration of overtime work in a short period of six weeks, with an allowance of overtime up to twelve hours in any one week. The Departmental Committee did not consider that this limitation to six weeks was appropriate to other industries, and accordingly both in Section 98 of the Factories Act and in this Bill overtime may be spread over a period of twelve weeks, the weekly allowance being reduced to six hours. I think it is clear that the overriding limitation of fifty hours a year is the same in all cases.
The noble Earl raised another question and proposed that the dinner interval
426
should be extended from three-quarters of an hour to one hour in all cases where the meal is taken off the premises. This follows the provision of the Shops Act, 1912, which was of course designed to deal with indoor employees in shops who take their dinner off the premises. But so far as van boys are concerned, the boy who takes his dinner during the round at some convenient stopping place would, I think, appear to be no worse off that the shop assistant who takes his meal on the premises and three-quarters of an hour should in our opinion be sufficient, particularly as under the Road Transport Act the driver is only required to take an interval of half an hour. In the case of page boys in hotels and clubs the meal will no doubt be provided on the premises. If, however, in the case of any other of the classes of employment to which the Bill applies, it should he found as a result of experience, that three-quarters of an hour is insufficient, the Home Secretary has power to deal with the matter by way of Regulations under subsection (6) of Clause 1.
Lastly, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about waiters at residential hotels who did not come under the Shops Acts. I am advised that where an hotel has a restaurant which caters mainly for nonresidents, the young waiters there would be under the Shops Acts. It is not, however, proposed that waiters in the residential portion of the hotel or in an hotel which caters solely for residents should be brought within the scope of the Bill. These waiters or waitresses are purely domestic servants and in the smaller hotels will no doubt be employed in other domestic duties. As regards page boys and lift boys in residential hotels, they were included in the Departmental Committee's inquiry because it was represented that this class of employment was urgently in need of regulation, but to go further and attempt in this Bill to control domestic servants in all types of hotels and boarding houses would raise an issue which I think is entirely outside the scope of the present legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 1 [Conditions of employment]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the first Amendment in my name is merely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("total") insert ("number of").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Options as to application of Act]:
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice of Amendments, in subsection (1) and subsection (2), to leave out "both" and insert "either." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these Amendments are designed slightly to extend the option which is included in Clause 2 of the Bill as it stands at present, but my noble friend Lord Munster has later on got a further Amendment—I think it is an additional clause after Clause 10—which entirely covers the point that I proposed to raise. I am referring now, with your Lordships permission, to the four Amendments in my name to this clause. I should like to say that I think my method of amending this matter is rather better than that of the noble Earl's, because it is much shorter, but in the circumstances I will not move.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out Clause 2. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Amendment to leave out Clause 2 is really consequential, because your Lordships will observe that I intend to move to insert a similar clause after Clause 10, which, I think, will be the most appropriate place for it.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 2 — (The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:
Hours of young, persons employed in retail trade from factory.
"Employment wholly or mainly outside a factory in collecting, carrying or delivering goods, carrying messages or running errands, being employment for the purposes of retail trade or business carried on from the factory, shall, for the purposes of subsection (5) of Section fifteen of the Shops Act, 1934, be deemed not to be employment in the business of the factory and accordingly the Shops Acts shall apply with respect to that employment."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new clause is designed to remove a doubt which has arisen in connection with young persons engaged in the retail sale and delivery of bread and milk. The provisions of the Shops Acts apply to
428
these young persons, the majority of whom operate from shops, but I am advised that some start their rounds direct from the bakery or milk pasteurizing plant. Such premises are factories within the meaning of the Factories Act, and subsection (5) of Section 15 of the Shops Act, 1934, which is referred to in the new clause, excludes from the Shops Act persons whose hours of employment are regulated by the Factories Act.
Amendment moved—
After clause 5, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not want to question the merits of this new clause, but apparently it was only put on the Paper quite recently. We regard this as an agreed Bill, and I should like an assurance that these and other important Amendments in the name of the noble Earl are generally agreed by the Trade Union Congress side of the original arrangement.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think I am perfectly correct in saying that all these Amendments have in fact been agreed between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the bodies to which the noble Lord has referred.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Enforcement.
6.—(1) Except as provided by the two next following subsections, it shall be the duty of the local authority to enforce within its area the provisions of this Act, and for that purpose to institute and carry on such proceedings in respect of contraventions of, or failures to comply with, those provisions as may be necessary to secure the observance thereof, and to appoint inspectors; and an inspector so appointed shall, for the purposes of his powers and duties, have in relation to any premises in connection with a business carried on at which young persons to whom this Act applies are employed all the powers conferred on inspectors in relation to factories by Section one hundred and twenty-three of the Factories Act, 1937, and that section and Section one hundred and twenty-five of that Act shall have effect accordingly; and an inspector may, if so authorised by the local authority, institute and carry on any proceedings on behalf of the local authority.
(2) For the purpose of the enforcement of the provisions of this Act in their application to young persons employed by a railway company, or employed in the employment mentioned in paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of Section ten of this Act, an inspector appointed under the Factories Act, 1937, shall have the same powers and duties as he would have if

429
those provisions were provisions of that Act, and as if the premises in connection with the business carried on at which those persons are employed were a factory.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER had given Notice of two Amendments in subsection (1)—namely, to leave out "Except as provided by the two next following subsections" at the beginning, and at the end to insert the following proviso:
"Provided that, for the purpose of the enforcement of the provisions of this Act in their application to young persons employed as mentioned in the two following subsections, the provisions of those subsections respectively shall have effect to the exclusion of the provisions of this subsection."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the first two Amendments to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out from the beginning to ("it") in line 8.
page 6, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl Of Munster.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, is it quite clear that these are drafting Amendments which have no substantial effect in regard to the class of page-boys in hotels and clubs? Are those boys left in no worse position after these Amendments are passed than they would have been in had they not been passed? One of the organisations closely concerned with these matters had some doubt about this, and I should like the noble Earl to answer the question I have put.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I understand they will be in no worse position. I had no idea of the doubts to which the noble Viscount has referred and I will certainly look into the matter before the next stage of the Bill. I think I am correct in saying that this proposed change leaves them in precisely the same position.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert "An inspector appointed under the Factories Act, 1937, shall have the same powers and duties." The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is proposed that in the case of railway companies the administration of this Bill shall be undertaken by the Home Office factory inspectors and not by local authorities. It
430
was considered desirable that in the case of a railway company which operates in the area of a large number of local authorities enforcement should be in the hands of one central authority. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, at the beginning insert ("An inspector appointed under the Factories Act, 1937, shall have the same powers and duties."—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, after ("company") insert ("elsewhere than at a residential hotel").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out from ("Act") to ("as") in line 31.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Young persons to whom Act applies.
10.—(1) Except as provided by subsection (3) of this section, this Act shall apply to a young person employed by an employer in any of the following employments, where his employment by that employer is wholly or mainly in that employment or in two or more of those employments taken together, that is to say:—
(d) employment at a place of public entertainment or amusement, or at a turkish bath, in carrying messages or running errands, or in the reception of or attendance upon persons resorting thereto;
(3) Nothing in this Act shall apply—
(a) with respect to the employment of a young person whose hours of employment are regulated by or under the Factories Act, 1937, the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and the Acts amending that Act, the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1875, or (except in the case of a young person to whom this Act applies by virtue of an election made under subsection (1) of Section two thereof) the Shops Acts;
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (c), to insert:
"(d) employment in connection with the business carried on at any premises where a newspaper is published, in carrying messages or running errands;"

431
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Viscount Bertie has asked me to move this Amendment. The whole of this matter was thrashed out in Committee when the arguments for this Amendment were put forward. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with them again, unless you particularly wish to hear them.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. Your Lordships will recollect that at an earlier stage the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, raised a point as to whether young persons employed in the newspaper business were covered by this Bill. In order to make quite certain that they are covered His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (1), before "turkish bath," to insert "public swimming bath, bathing place or." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a precisely similar point. It is designed to clear up doubt as to whether young persons employed at these places are covered by the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after ("a") insert ("public swimming bath, bathing place or").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, in regard to this matter also, I told my noble friend Lord Bertie that we would be prepared to consider this question. We had thought that a public swimming bath came under the definition of "public entertainment," but in order to make it quite clear we are prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice to move, in subsection (3) (a), after "1937," to insert "the Railways Act, 1921." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is exactly similar to one moved by my noble friend Viscount Home on the previous stage of the Bill. It was withdrawn on that occasion because conversations were still in progress with the
432
Home Office as to whether it was possible to exclude from the operations of this Bill railway van boys. I spoke to your Lordships on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill on that subject and I forecast on that occasion that an Amendment would be moved. I have no desire to repeat in detail the arguments I used on that occasion, but I think it is desirable that I should put before your Lordships very briefly some of the arguments, so that you may fully realise the situation as far as railway companies are concerned.
These railway van boys are employed in assisting the men who drive the vans. There is no desire on the part of the railway companies that they should work unduly long hours. In fact, quite the contrary is the desire of the railway companies. But, owing to the nature of their work, it is impossible to avoid on occasions that they should work a considerable number of hours in overtime. Either owing to the difficulties of traffic or, it may be, difficulties caused through customers, they cannot get back to their depots at the time they are supposed to finish work. Equally it is impossible for the railway companies to replace them when their ordinary hours of work are finished because they do not know where they are. This matter was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, on the Committee stage, when he said:
"… I think I must point out that the young persons employed by the railway companies who would be excluded from the Bill by this Amendment "—
that is, the same Amendment as the one I am now dealing with—
"are in fact being employed for substantially longer hours than the standards recently adopted and approved by Parliament in the Shops and Factories Acts …"
On the face of it that is quite true. Apparently they do work very long hours on occasions, but the reasons that cause them to work overtime also operate to give them short time on other occasions.
The time that they are saved, however, does not appear, because the railway companies—who I think are almost unique amongst big employers in this respect—have an arrangement with the trade unions concerned by which their employees have a guaranteed day and a guaranteed week. That is to say, if a van boy, by the operation of the traffic or something of that sort, happens to

433
come back to the depot an hour earlier than he should and there is no job for him he goes off, but he is paid for the time that he is off work because he has a guaranteed day. So, although it may appear on occasions that these boys work long hours, in fact they actually get a very large number of hours off, although the shorter hours they work do not appear. This question of the guaranteed day and the guaranteed week is really the crux of the situation. If the hours are limited as they will be under this Bill when it becomes an Act, the railway companies will have to consider making a breach of their agreement with the trade union concerned for a guaranteed day and a guaranteed week. It is an agreement which I believe the unions concerned value very highly indeed, but your Lordships can perfectly well understand that it is impossible for the railway corn-panics to maintain the guaranteed day and the guaranteed week for these boys if it means paying them, not only for overtime in one week, but also for a good many hours which they have off, probably, in subsequent weeks. It does make a very definite breach. I may say also that owing to the guaranteed day and guaranteed week it is impossible to arrive at any spread-over arrangement such as there is in existence under the Shops Acts.
I would like to put it to your Lordships again that these boys are not, as is so often the case with van boys, in a blind-alley occupation. I pointed out to your Lordships be-ore that these boys come in as van boys and spend the whole of their working life as members of the railway staff. It is therefore in no sense a blind-alley occupation. It seems to me that when this legislation is brought into force it will bring good employers down to a dead level with worse employers. That is the only conclusion one can arrive at. The railway companies are in fact better employers than employers who are being legislated for by this Bill, and one can only regard this as an unfortunate tendency. There has been public recognition of the fact that the railway companies are good employers. On that I should like to quote what was said by the Minister of Labour in another place on the Road Haulage Wages (No. 2) Bill. He said:
"… but: in attempting to improve what is defective machinery in the road haulage
434
industry we ought not to do anything which would have any adverse effect on the admirable machinery for collective bargaining in the railway world …."
This provision, as far as railway van boys are concerned, undoubtedly will have an adverse effect upon the arrangements which are admitted by the Minister of Labour himself to be admirable. It is a matter of great regret to the railway companies, but unfortunately His Majesty's Government can see no way in which to meet their views, and in those circumstances I feel that there is no purpose even in my moving tile Amendment which stands in my name.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment which stands in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, leave out from ("person") to ("agriculture") in line 18 and insert ("in or in connection with").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following clause:
Option to apply either this Act or the Shops Acts in certain cases.
".—(1) An employer who employs young persons at, or in connection with the business carried on at, a residential hotel, a place of public entertainment or amusement, or a public swimming bath, bathing place or turkish bath, being young persons to whom apart from this section the provisions of this Act would apply or the provisions of the Shops Acts would apply, may give notice that he elects that the provisions of this Act shall apply to all such young persons as aforesaid for the time being so employed by him as aforesaid or may give notice that he elects that the provisions of the Shops Acts shall apply to all of them.
(2) When a notice given under the foregoing subsection has taken effect, then, until another notice withdrawing that notice takes effect, the provisions of this Act or of the Shops Acts, as the case may be, shall apply to all the young persons aforesaid, and, in the case of young persons to whom apart from this section those provisions would not have applied, shall apply to them subject to the prescribed adaptations and to the exclusion of the provisions of the Shops Acts or of this Act, as the case may be:
Provided that, where the provisions that are to apply are the provisions of the Shops Acts,—

(a) those provisions shall have effect with the substitution in subsection (5) of Section nine of the Shops Act, 1934, and in Section one of the Shops Act, 1912, for references to half-past one o'clock of references to one o'clock; and

435

(b) Section five of the Shops Act, 1934, shall have effect only in the case of young persons employed in connection with the business carried on at a residential hotel, and in the case of those persons shall have effect notwithstanding anything in subsection (6) of that section (which enacts that the provisions of the Shops Act, 1934, shall not apply to any person employed in a residential hotel who is not such a shop assistant as is therein mentioned).

(3) A notice to be given under subsection (1) of this section, and a notice withdrawing such a notice, shall be given to the local authority in such form, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, and any such notice shall have effect as from such date after it is given as may be prescribed."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is really consequential upon the leaving out of the second clause in the Bill, and its object is to enable the owners of residential hotels and places of public entertainment to bring all their young persons under one code of regulations instead of having some under the Shops Acts and some under this Bill. Perhaps I need not weary your Lordships with any lengthy explanation of it, but the House will realise that it is really consequential upon leaving out the second clause.
Amendment moved—
After Clause so, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, may I express my thanks to the noble Earl for this Amendment, which replaces the ones which were put down in my name earlier.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause II [Regulation of all employment by one employer]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out Clause 11. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is practically drafting. Your Lordships will recollect that Clause II deals with cases where a young person to whom this Bill applies is also employed in some other employment by the same employer. This clause has been redrafted for the sake of clearness and has been inserted as part of Clause 0, in which it appears to be in a more appropriate place.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 11.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on leaving out Clause 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, at end insert:
("(2) Where a young person who is employed as mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) of Section ten of this Act, is also employed by the same employer in any other employment (not being employment mentioned in subsection (3) of that section), any reference in Section one or three of this Act to employment or to hours worked shall, in relation to that young person, include a reference to that other employment and to hours worked therein").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Application to Scotland]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the two Amendments to this clause are both drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, leave out ("any reference") and insert ("references to the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, and").(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 14, leave out ("a reference"), and insert ("respectively references to the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937, and").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

INHERITANCE(FAMILY PROVISION) BILL.
Amendments reported(according to Order.)

BAKING INDUSTRY (HOURS OF WORK) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, on the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill I should like to take the opportunity of saying a few words of thanks to His Majesty's Government and to the members of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament whose friendly co-operation has made possible the passage of this very valuable measure of social reform into law. There is, however, one name with which this Bill will always, I think,

437
be especially closely associated. Mr. Banfield has, like many other trade unionists, spent his life in the endeavour to improve the lot of his fellow-workers, and I should like the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT to record our grateful appreciation and recognition of this his crowning achievement on behalf of the employees in the baking industry.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN rose to call attention to the arrangement of the business of the House, and to move That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the same. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the Motion which I have placed upon the Paper is to call attention to a state of affairs which has arisen, not as a result of any neglect or act by any particular person, but as a result of changes which have taken place very gradually over a long period of years. In the time of your Lordships' grandfathers it was the custom for all, or nearly all, noble Lords to shut up their country houses on or about May 1 and to come up to London for three months. In those days the London season corresponded with the Session of Parliament, and noble Lords were able to combine business with pleasure and to achieve 100 per cent. of attendances at your Lordships' House with very little inconvenience.
But things are very different nowadays. There are a great many noble Lords who do not come up to London for the London season, and even if they do come up for the London season they can by so doing achieve not more than 50 per cent. attendance at this House. Nowadays the House sits nearly all the year round. In 1937 there were only two months, August and September, during which the House was not in Session and the House sat for thirty-four weeks. Unless my arithmetic is at fault, and I worked the thing out as carefully as I could, the average number of hours the House sat during each week was six. The result of this is that any Peer who lives in the country must, if he wishes to make 100 per cent.
438
of attendances, come up to London thirty-four times; he must spend three whole days in London, and out of those three whole days he will on the average spend six hours in this House. It is clearly impossible for anybody living far from London to do anything of the kind, and what many noble Lords do is to come to London whenever it is convenient and hope that their visits may correspond with something of interest in this House. What they do, in fact, is to come down here and "take pot-luck."
It might be supposed that there would be some halfway house: that noble Lords might stay at home and come up when there is important business. This, however, they cannot do, and for two reasons. The first is that, although the House only sits for an average of six hours a week, the business is pretty evenly distributed throughout the year, and there was hardly one of the thirty-four weeks when there was not some business of importance in this House. The second reason is the shortness of notice. The usual procedure is that we get our Order Paper—at least I do—on Friday evening and I then have to decide whether it is worth my while to come up on the following Tuesday. I cannot claim to be a very busy man, but my engagements, such as they are, are fixed up long before that. Suppose that I am offered an engagement two months ahead, it is no use to say, "Oh, I can't do that, because I shall be occupied with the House of Lords"; because I have no idea whether the House will be sitting. But even the Order Paper we receive on Friday is not final. Only last month the Sea Fisheries Bill was put off at two days' notice to make way for the Coal Bill, and a noble Lord who was coming from Scotland to speak on the former Bill would have left home before he received notice of the change. That is unless he had taken the precaution of asking the Clerk to send him a telegram. I had to do that last week, when I was asked by the noble Earl the Leader of the House to postpone this Motion. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the telegram is very largely used in the arrangement of the business of this House. Whether there is any other legislative chamber in the world which arranges its business by telegram I do not know, but I should be inclined to doubt it.
Apart from the difficulties which are caused by the shortness of notice there is the question of local administration. I think it will be generally agreed that it is highly desirable that noble Lords should take part in local administration. They have the time and the ability, and not only that, but the experience which noble Lords gain by taking part in local administration enables them to discuss the many measures concerned with local administration which come before this House. I do not know whether my county is in any way peculiar, but nearly all the business is done on Wednesdays. The Quarter Sessions meet on Wednesday and so does the Standing Joint Committee; the County Council meets on Wednesday, except when it clashes with the Quarter Sessions, and then it meets on Tuesday; the Education Committee meets on Wednesday. My diary shows that last year I had thirty-two such Wednesday engagements. The petty sessions with which I am concerned sit on Thursday. Nobody expects to be able to attend all these engagements, but if one is not prepared to attend a very large proportion of them one has no right to sit on these bodies at all. The general upshot is that if one lives any distance from London it is impossible to combine an active share in local administration with regular attendance at this House.
It is no use to complain unless one is prepared to suggest a remedy. The ideal thing, I think, would be that this House should sit for only one week in the month. If it were to sit only on the third week in the month, and even if it only sat for three days of seven hours each, it would get through just as much as it does now, and Peers who live a distance from London would have an opportunity of coming up and attending, because they would be able to make their arrangements in advance. But, apart from that, there are other steps which might be taken. The first is in connection with Bills. There are two facts which I do not think can be disputed. One is that the Government are in full charge of the time available for Parliament, and the other is that Government Bills are always passed. Theoretically, they can be thrown out, but I have been a member of this House for seventeen years and I have never known a Government Bill to be thrown out. When a Bill comes up from the
440
House of Commons it is for some reason or other received by the Front Bench in this House with astonishment. Even such a Bill as the Coal Bill; apparently nobody expected it at all, and the whole programme of business was changed at short notice to make time for it. I see no reason why all the stages of a Bill should not be laid down beforehand. Perhaps the word "provisionally" might be added as a precautionary measure. When a Bill is introduced into this House the Second Reading and other stages could all be put down with some such word as "provisionally" after them, and when it is understood that those dates will be adhered to it will be an enormous convenience to those Peers who live a long way from London.
Another reform which I suggest is that when once a Notice is on the Paper it should not be removed or transferred to another date except by leave of the House, and should not be allowed, as is the case nowadays, to wander about the Order Paper. I could suggest other measures, but perhaps this is hardly the time and place to do so. If a Committee is set up, as I hope it will be, that Committee will go into all these questions. I do not know what support I shall receive for this Motion. I wrote to several noble Lords, who I know are interested, and asked for their support, but they had engagements in remote parts of these islands, and were not able to get here, and some of those who would have been here yesterday are unable to get here to-day. Whether or not I receive active support I have a very large body of silent supporters. Not only to-day but almost every day on which this House sits you will see a large number of vacant seats. Every one of those vacant seats, I submit, represents a supporter of my Motion. This House has something like 800 members. I do not imagine that they would all wish to attend, but I have worked out the Divisions for last year, and I find that the average number of Peers taking part in Divisions, although some of those on the Marriage Bill were very large, was only 69. That means that there attended on an average, even at important debates, only 69 members of the House. As I have said, it would be idle to pretend that all the 800 members would wish to come to the House, but a large proportion of them do wish to take part in our pro-

441
ceedings, and I am convinced that the only reason why they do not come is that under the present system of arrangement of business it is perfectly impossible for them to attend with any regularity unless they live in London. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the arrangement of the business of the House.—(Lord Raglan.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I venture to say just a few words on this Motion, with which I have great sympathy, but I can assure the noble Lord who moved it that we all know what the Government reply will be. I will give it before I sit down. The noble Lord has given a very clear explanation of why attendance has been falling off. There are four categories of Peers. There are those who are in constant attendance here whenever the House is sitting. There are those who come when they can, when they are interested in some subject, or if they happen to be passing through London. There are those who will come in response to an urgent Whip, and that is a considerable number. Finally, there are those whom no wild horses would bring here, and there is a considerable number of them. For about five or six years I belonged to the first category, and attended absolutely regularly. I have drifted into the second category, in which I think the noble Lord is, too. Therefore I sympathise very much with him in not knowing what the business is going to be a little way ahead. Also, I very nearly missed this debate. If I had not got into the habit of keeping an eagle eye on my Order Paper I should have missed it.
The Government will say that unfortunately they do their best to arrange business as it comes from the House of Commons; that they are not their own masters in the matter; that they are obliged to conform to the regulations of another place in respect of business; that they cannot tell from week to week what may be urgent and what may not be urgent; and that on the whole they do the business very successfully. However that may be, I do think that there has been a certain clumsiness of late in the methods of arranging business, and I cannot help thinking that more warning might be given of the date of the Second Reading or important stage of a first-class Government measure. At the same time, it is not easy to arrange the business of your
442
Lordships' House, and the hours of our sitting are short.
If the Select Committee is set up for which the noble Lord asks I think there are one or two other matters which might be considered as well—for example, what I may refer to as the banquet question; that is to say, when important leaders of His Majesty's Government suddenly find they have to go to a banquet, and the final stages of business here before the banquet takes place are very hurried, and very often debates are spoilt in that way. I have found that very frequently. I think that ought to be dealt with. I think whoever is in charge of a Bill in this House must give up his banquet. He has plenty of notice of either of those points of Government business and he should make his choice. I often think it is very hard on the noble Earl the Government Whip, who, I think, discharges his very difficult duties to the complete satisfaction of all of us, that he has to fit in a number of speeches into inadequate hours; and in that connection I should like to have it laid down at what time legitimately can the expression "at this late hour" be used. I have heard it used at five o'clock, and I think this idea that it is impossible to endanger our dinners is quite wrong. As a member of the Kitchen Committee, I wish that noble Lords would make more use of the kitchen here for the dinner hour.
I do not want to interfere with the general business arrangements in this House. I should say that our procedure on the whole was almost the best procedure that can be imagined for a deliberative assembly, because it is procedure by consent; but if there is, as the noble Lord has pointed out, any falling off in the attendance, to which I think he is right in drawing attention, it is, I think, that the importance of this House has lessened; and on the whole I do not deplore that particular fact.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I feel after the speech of the noble Lord that I ought to apologise to your Lordships for intruding upon your time at this early hour. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has moved this Motion for a Select Committee. I do not know whether a Select Committee is quite the right procedure. I am not at all certain that the correct procedure would not be a Court of Inquiry before which the Leader of the

443
House should be commanded to appear in uniform; but that might perhaps trespass in directions which would be undesirable. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, that times have changed and habits have changed, and that the House sits longer.
The point which I wish to make to your Lordships is perhaps a smaller point than his. I quite appreciate that in arranging the business of this House there is considerable difficulty, because the business that comes before this House is more or less imposed upon it by what happens in another place. That is inevitable, I think, and cannot be helped. But there is a certain inconsequence about the way in which not only is the business arranged, but is altered. I am a fairly busy man, and many of your Lordships are much more busy. I think I perhaps come somewhere between the second and third categories of Peers mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, in that there are times when there are Motions or Bills before your Lordships' House in which I am definitely interested. We have a certain normal procedure regarding hours, for instance. The House normally meets at 4.15. There are times when, for apparently no reason, the House meets at three o'clock; this afternoon is one of them. I look at the Order Paper, and quite frankly I cannot see any reason for a three o'clock meeting this afternoon. There is no more business on the Order Paper I think—
THE EARL OF ERNE: A League of Nations debate.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: A long list of speakers.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Maybe there is a League of Nations debate in prospect, but is there any reason why we should not meet to continue that debate after dinner and conclude it in that way? Because, as I say, many of your Lordships are busy people, we make our engagements a long way ahead, and a sudden earlier meeting makes considerable difficulties for those who, like myself this afternoon, are interested in a particular Bill. I might also in reference to that same Bill mention the fact that the Committee stage without very much warning was altered from a Tuesday to a Wednesday. I am given to under
444
stand it was because the railway companies were unable to conclude their discussions with the Home Office in time for the Tuesday meeting, but I am also given to understand that on that particular occasion it was the Home Office who could not grant an interview to the railway companies in time for the discussions to take place on the Tuesday. These alterations at the last moment in our Order Paper and in our hours of meeting make it difficult very often for busy members of this House to attend regularly, and consequently, on occasions, we get disappointing attendances. I do hope that possibly in the future, as the result of this debate, those who have the ordering of the business of the House will try so far as they can not to make those alterations at the last moment, because I am quite certain that that has a great effect upon the attendance here. But in spite of that, I feel that the Select Committee suggested is not quite the right procedure to deal with the question.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, there are perhaps several things I might say about this Motion. There is one matter which has not been touched upon which I think I ought to mention to your Lordships. At the present time of the year we are meeting rather frequently at three o'clock. From the point of view of Private Bill Committees that does not so much matter, as most of them are finished, but if we met at three o'clock in the earlier part of the year it might cause great inconvenience. Sometimes we have as many as four Committees sitting, and if noble Lords who are sitting on those Committees have to rise from their work at three o'clock, the fact might prolong the sittings of the Committees, with increased expense to the promoters and others, and generally cause a certain amount of inconvenience. Therefore, I bring this before your Lordships in order that the point may be taken into consideration when suggestions are made for early sittings of the House.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I am very glad to have heard what the Chairman of Committees has just said, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Newton, who has a Motion on the Paper with the object of judicial business being conducted in one of the Committee Rooms,

445
will bear it in mind when he moves his Motion in a fortnight's time. The noble Earl on the Woolsack has shown that we should not benefit in the least because we should really be impeding the progress of private business upstairs. Lord Ponsonby alluded to what he called the banquets question, and suggested that these banquets were pleasures. A good many of these public functions, to which the noble Lords on the Front Bench and others have continually to go, are by no means always in the nature of pleasure, and in addition they are not infrequently functions at which some really important speech has to be made.
I play a humble part in helping the noble Earl opposite to arrange business here, and I think that the business of this House is arranged as well and conveniently as it could be done anywhere. I cannot imagine any assembly where the work is more expeditiously or more sensibly conducted. The noble Lord opposite who moved the Motion has suggested that every stage of a Bill should be laid down two or three weeks in advance. How can one tell how many days the Coal Bill, for instance, is going to take on Second Reading or in Committee? Noble Lords go to my noble friend opposite, the Chief Whip, in numbers, and say "I want to speak to-morrow." You cannot get twenty-four noble Lords into one day if they all want to speak for half an hour. Some weight must be attached to considerations such as these, and I shall listen to the reply of the Leader of the House with interest.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, may I begin by expressing an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, for having asked them, as it appears unnecessarily, to put off their Motions from Wednesday to to-day. My reason for doing so was that, after inquiry, I found that my hopes that the Third Reading of the Coal Bill would be finished in one day were unlikely to be realised, and it seemed extremely probable that noble Lords who were interested in that measure—and there were a great many of them—might say towards the end of Tuesday's sitting that it should be continued on the following day and be given precedence over all other business. If
446
that had happened, a great injustice would have been done to the two noble Lords who had Motions on the Paper. Their business would have come on really late at night, not at what Lord Ponsonby describes as "this late hour," but really late, just before dinner, when the House might be getting very thin. I thought it was in their interest as well as in the interest of your Lordships that I should ask them to postpone the business.
On the general question, I am not going to base myself only on the fact that we have to await in many cases measures coming up from another place. I do want to point out this to your Lordships, which sometimes is forgotten, that neither I, nor the Lord Chancellor, nor my noble friend the Chief Whip of the National Government has any control over your Lordships' business at all. Your Lordships manage your own business, and neither I nor any other Peer can call any member of this House to order; neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Lord Chairman. Your Lordships, I repeat, settle your own business. It is impossible for us very often to know how many Peers are going to take part in debate. Only on the last stage of the Coal Bill several noble Lords, as is customary, came and told the Whips that they wished to speak. Three other Peers then jumped up in the course of the debate and made speeches, and the fact remains that there were eleven Peers who spoke on that occasion, yet the whole of our business was clone in less than two hours and a half. If it had been an earlier stage of the Coal Bill, or many of the debates on foreign affairs, and your Lordships found a list of eleven Peers going to speak, every one would have said, "That is at least three hours and a half, if not four hours." Therefore when the noble Lord suggests that we should be able to plan out well ahead what we are going to do, the answer is that very often we find that your Lordships suddenly take a considerable interest in a particular measure and we have to give up time to it.
Let me, however, say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the complaint made by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. I am fully aware that many of your Lordships, either from reasons of taxation or Death Duties or because you are taking a great part in local govern-

447
ment, do not any longer find it possible to attend the sittings of the House as used to be the case in days gone by. The whole trend of local government indeed is such that it affects the lives of the people in every kind of way, and Parliament has placed increasing duties on local authorities which it takes them far longer to fulfil than did their duties in the old days. Therefore it becomes extremely difficult for your Lordships to attend as you did before. Then may I say that neither I nor those who advise me arrange our business for the benefit of Peers who live in London. That is very far from being the case. We endeavour to plan out the business of this House in a way, I think, that has only recently been done. Fortunately the Leader of the House now has the advantage of a private secretary with considerable experience of the affairs of your Lordships' House, and the result is that we make out a programme periodically as to what shall be carried through in the course of the next few days. The Whips of the three Parties get these forecasts of business, and we are able to plan out a good deal further ahead than used to be the case only a few years ago. The result is, I hope, that the business of your Lordships' House does not in the end get rushed through in the way it used to be.
Even in the short time that I have been Leader of the House we have had several occasions when a Bill has had to be passed through all its stages by a certain date because the Act it was to replace would lapse only about three weeks ahead. That has entailed finding time for the Second Reading, the Committee stage, Report, and Third Reading to get it through in time for the Royal Commission, and that has sometimes meant altering the whole of the rest of the programme. That is why occasionally we have had to change the business at short notice. But, so far as we can, we do our utmost not to change the business except when we believe it is your Lordships' wish that that should be done. My sole object as Leader of the House, in setting forward the business, is to try to meet the wishes of the majority of your Lordships, even if it sometimes means, as it has meant in this particular case, having to ask noble Lords to postpone a Motion or put back
448
business for a day or more in order to deal with other business.
I doubt whether Lord Raglan has appreciated how great is the increase of business not only with local authorities but in Parliament itself. Just let us see what we are faced with at this moment. We have twelve Public Bills on the Order Paper now in various stages of progress, and I understand that ten more Bills are due to be considered by your Lordships' House which have not yet arrived here, but which have got to be finished, if possible, before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. Noble Lords will realise that that becomes somewhat of a jig-saw puzzle. The result is that sometimes we have asked your Lordships to sit earlier. There, again, I am not in a position to dictate to this House, nor is any other noble Lord. What happens is that I sometimes suggest to your Lordships we should meet at an earlier hour. If the noble Earl the Lord Chairman were still in the House I should have said that I should think that it was his duty to inform your Lordships when Committees were sitting upstairs, or doing business elsewhere which would make it inconvenient for the House to meet earlier. Both I and every other noble Lord would at once give such an intimation full consideration.
The reason we met earlier to-day is that, the League of Nations being the subject under discussion after this Motion, we thought many of your Lordships, as in times past, would wish to take part in that discussion. From my experience of two and a half years at the Foreign Office I know that these League of Nations discussions are not only taken part in by a large number of Peers, but each of those Peers speaks for a very long time. It is by no means uncommon that we should go on until the dinner hour, or at any rate long past what my noble friend opposite described as "this late hour."
As regards banquets, may I say that so far as I am concerned I must admit quite frankly to your Lordships that I have taken advantage of being Leader of your Lordships' House to escape from obligations of that character which, personally, I extremely dislike. I think I have only had to go to two since I have become Leader of your Lordships' House. That is not always the case with other members of the Government, who are

449
required to be present at some semi-official functions, and who, as I think my noble friend Lord Mersey stated, are expected, unfortunately for themselves, to make really important speeches. But it is not members on the Front Bench who are responsible for this banquet business. It is your Lordships yourselves, because, as I am quite certain my noble friend behind me, Lord Lucan, would say—and indeed as is also the case with either of the two other arties—it is by no means easy to keep a House as the dinner hour approaches. When I am told that the proper thing to do is to meet later and sit after dinner, I wonder if the House would be as full as it is now if we were to try to do so.
I admit that a large number of your Lordships attend here because you feel it is your duty to do so and because your predecessors sat here. It has become your duty in the ordinary course of succession to attend here. I quite recognise that there are noble Lords to whom Party politics, or even public affairs in Parliament, do not appeal. They are doing extremely valuable work, public and private, elsewhere. But what does surprise me is that there is apparently no hesitation whatever amongst gentlemen in accepting the honour of a scat in your Lordships' House and then not seeming to realise that it carries with it any obligation whatever.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
EARL STANHOPE: I admit I am surprised that we do not hear on more occasions that those who are felt worthy of the honour do not ask leave to decline it, realising what they should do if they accept.
I do not think there is anything I can very well say beyond what I have said. We have to recognise that the business of this House has really become a full-time job, at any rate as regards the afternoons. And as regards the mornings, I can assure your Lordships that those who sit on this Bench have very full mornings, and their day's work has by no means come to an end when your Lordships rise. I doubt very much whether anything further would be elicited by the appointment of a Select Committee, but I am entirely in your Lordships' hands about it if your Lordships should desire that that should be done. But I can only
450
think that the facts I have ventured to state to your Lordships would simply appear as a result of their Report, and, that they would say, with Bills coming up from another place and with the freedom which is allowed to all noble Lords in the conduct of the business, it is really impossible to lay down a programme a long way ahead with any likelihood of its being possible to adhere to it strictly. Therefore I should think that it would be a waste of time to those noble Lords who would be asked to servo on that Committee, because, frankly, I think we have the facts before us. As far as I am concerned I will do my best to forecast all the business as soon as I can, and, still more, not to change it once the business has appeared upon the Paper. But I feel that it is my duty to your Lordships to try to get the business settled for the convenience of the majority, and therefore, if some noble Lords suffer from that, I hope I shall be forgiven in trying to do my best to meet the wishes of the House as a whole.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am sorry to inflict myself upon you after the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, but he let fall two remarks to which I think I might reply. I listened with great interest to his remarks about Peers being introduced into this House, taking their seats and then never appearing again. It is some years since I first had the honour of having a seat in this distinguished assembly, and I well remember before I took my seat that I had a letter from the Leader of the House asking me to attend here. Take for example what is done in the case of every magistrate appointed for London. You get a letter from the Lord-Lieutenant asking you to subscribe to a declaration that you will do your duty and attend. I think if something of that sort was sent round to new Peers they would feel an obligation to come here. In the eyes of other legislators and the public it is often thought, when decisions are arrived at in this House with an attendance of under one hundred, that really the House of Lords is not doing its duty.
I am not going to enter into the discussion that has already taken place as to the difficulties of getting here, nor to the fact that so many Peers have business in the country and are doing very good work for their country by taking part in

451
local government. There is, however, another point and it is this. The noble Earl the Leader of the House said there were ten more public Bills coming up from the House of Commons. That is a very old complaint. Year after year the rush of business towards the end of a Session has been spoken about. On one occasion at the adjournment, when the Socialist Government was in power, I congratulated that Government upon having introduced so many Bills in the first instance in this House. Afterwards I was told by the Leader of my Party that I had no right to praise the Socialist Government; but I did. I am not going to mention names, but it is the fact that very important Bills were initiated in this House and were very skilfully conducted through it. Might I ask the Government when they are consulting, as I am sure they do, the authorities of the other House, to arrange that if there are some Bills (and I am sure there are many) that could be introduced into this House first of all, that should be done. It would save a lot of time and we should get them at a period when people are not so busy as we all are at this time of the year. I should not have risen at all but for the few remarks of the noble Earl.
EARL STANHOPE: May I mention one point to the noble Lord and that is to recall the extremely solemn words read out when a noble Lord first takes the Oath in this House. They are:
"(waiving all excuses) you be personally present to treat and give your counsel."
LORD JESSEL: But he is so frightened when he first hears those words read out that he does not pay much attention to what is being read. I think if a personal letter came from the Leaders of the respective Parties, who are responsible for their followers, it would have a much greater effect than those words, which are common form and have not that personal touch which a Leader of any one of the three Parties would give.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, really if you want to improve the attendance in this House you should increase the number of the Opposition. Give me fifty resolute Peers and I can assure you of a very good attendance and very careful examination of all business.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Earl has said that business is arranged to suit the majority of the House, but as
452
far as I can make out that means the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, who seems to be the only Peer to express unqualified approval of the arrangements made. It cannot be seriously maintained that the handful of Peers who do attend are representative of the majority. The majority are out in the country unable to attend because the present arrangement of business prevents their attendance. The noble Earl said it is difficult to get Peers to attend after dinner. Of course it is, because they never know they are expected to attend after dinner until the same day or the day before. If they had a fortnight's or a month's notice that there might be an after-dinner sitting I have no doubt that a large number would be present. I quite appreciate the difficulty in July, when a large number of Bills are coming from another place, but that is no excuse in my view for the manner in which business is conducted during the rest of the year. I shall not press my Motion, but I do hope that the noble Earl will do as he says and try to give us more notice than hitherto of the business of the House.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
VISCOUNT ESHER VISCOUNT ESHER had given Notice that he would call attention to the necessity for amending the Covenant of the League of Nations, so that the redress of grievances shall precede the punishment for aggression; and move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name I am, of course, declaring myself to be one of the small and I think rapidly declining section of the population who still believe in the League of Nations. When I say the League of Nations I should like to be understood to mean the League of Nations as it was intended to be and not the pitiable wreck of an institution which it now is. The Prime Minister has drawn this distinction in his policy and it is also drawn privately by hundreds of people, myself included, who have resigned from the League of Nations Union because of its continual concentration upon Article 16 of the Covenant. I think it is the same sense of the loss of an ideal which has prompted the noble

453
Lords, Lord Sanderson and Lord Arnold, to leave the Labour Party and has prompted the noble Lord, Lord Allen, to express his disbelief in the doctrine of collective security.
The Labour Party, who have other ideals in addition to the League of Nations, have a perfect right to hate Fascism more than they hate war, and it is perhaps natural that they should do so, but surely it is tragic when the same political poison enters a body like the League of Nations Union which should be devoted solely to the service of the League. Since, however, such is unfortunately the case, the Union finds a natural recruit in Mr. Winston Churchill, who has been unwise enough to inform the world of the truth of the slogan which will be proclaimed from a thousand platforms at the next Election, that collective security means war. Speaking at Manchester, Mr. Churchill proposed the encirclement of Germany by the collective League States, not only before the grievances of Germany have been examined, but also before any actual aggression has been made. A great and powerful nation like Germany faced with such unprovoked encirclement must take the direction towards war. Your Lordships will not be surprised, I think, that Mr. Winston Churchill, who was almost the last to oppose reconciliation with Ireland, should make such a proposal, but what is surprising is that he should do so as the spokesman of the League of Nations Union. If a body such as the Union, a body created to promote peace, can sponsor such a policy, it has clearly become an instrument of punishment rather than an organ of conciliation. It is using the League as a weapon against Fascism.
Surely, then, it is time that we who believe in the League as it was intended to be should endeavour to discover whether there is any defect in the Covenant which has made or is making it the institution that it has become in the hands of its present supporters. In my opinion it is the failure to develop Article 19 of the Covenant, combined with the threat to use Article 16, which has been the ruin of the League. If under a reformed Article 19 the virile and dissatisfied nations had been able to feel that they could get their grievances redressed, I think their attitude to Article 16 would have been so far different that
454
it would have prevented them from leaving the League. I should like to quote an extract from one of Herr Hitler's speeches. He said:
"I quite understand that those interested in this system of justice look upon the League of Nations as a pleasant moral forum for the maintenance, and if possible the defence of their possessions, obtained formerly by force. But I have no understanding for the fact that he who has just been burgled by force should now join this illustrious company. We do not belong to the League of Nations because we are of the opinion that it is not an institution of justice, but rather an organisation for the defence of the injustices of Versailles."
It is clear that in Herr Hitler's view the League as it is will not provide any redress of grievances and that it exists solely to preserve for the satisfied Powers the status quo.
What is it that has driven Herr Hitler to this conclusion, and on what is it based? It is a common opinion among those who believe in the League as it is that all the humiliations of the League are derived from the fact that it did not impose Article i6 of the Covenant upon Japan after the seizure of Manchukuo. Those who believe in the League as it was intended to be do not share that opinion. We go back to the policy of the League at an earlier date when it failed to redress the grievances of Austria. It then became clear to all the unsatisfied nations that it was useless to seek justice at Geneva and that only by the use of their own power would they get their grievances remedied. I hope I shall not weary your Lordships by reminding you of Austria's experiences seventeen years ago. I will quote from a letter from Mr. Conwell-Evans which was published in The Times on March 28.
In that letter the writer said:
"On March 18, 1921, the Government of the Province of Tirol decided in execution of a resolution passed by the Tirol Diet to hold a plebiscite on April 24 on the following question: 'Do you demand union with the German Reich?' The result of this plebiscite was: 144,324 for union, 1,794 against union. On April 27, 1921, the Diet of the Province of Salzburg decided to hold a plebiscite on May 29 on the following question: 'Do you demand the Anschluss to Germany? 'The result of the plebiscite was: 103,000 for the Anschluss; 800 against the Anschluss…. The people of Salzburg then decided by more than 99 per cent. for the Anschluss. The participation in voting exceeded 90 per cent. of the voters. The Province of Styria decided to hold a plebiscite for the Anschluss to Germany on May 29, 1921. Owing to pressure from the Entente Powers this plebiscite did

455
not take place, and further plebiscites for the other Austrian provinces were postponed. The French, British and Italian Ministers in Vienna took strong steps in 1921 to put an end to these efforts at self-determination. An Act unanimously passed in 1921 by the Austrian Parliament which provided for a plebiscite in the whole of Austria on the Anschluss to the German Reich accordingly had to be dropped ….
"The Austrian Chancellor, acting in agreement with the German Chancellor, Bruning, decided in 1931 to bring about a Customs Union of the two countries. They were asked by the Council of the League of Nations not to make the agreement until The Hague Court of International Justice had pronounced whether such an agreement was compatible with the Versailles Treaty. The Court decided, as is known, by a majority of one, that the Customs Union could not be arranged, as it would constitute a violation of the Treaty."
It is clear, therefore, that all attempts of Austria and Germany to obtain the Anschluss were thwarted, with the results that we have recently seen.
It is obvious that a League which was anxious to do justice according to Article 19 of the Covenant should have boldly burst through the legal bonds of the Treaty of Versailles and insisted on one of two alterations in the status quo, either of which would have prevented our recent unhappy experiences. The League should either have granted self-determination to Austria and allowed her to join the Germany of Brüning, or should have re-united Austria with Hungary and placed the Hapsburgs back upon the throne. But what in fact did the League do in face of the legitimate demand of Austria for justice? It did nothing whatever, except to dole out some money to the uneconomic State that had been created at Versailles. This failure to remedy the grievances of Austria was not lost upon the unsatisfied Powers. They did not come any more with their grievances to Geneva, and as they did not come the League ignored their grievances, but did not ignore their subsequent taking of the law into their own hands.
I turn to the justifiable aggression of Japan in China. When I use the word "justifiable," I do not mean according to the relatively high standards of English morality but according to the standard of international morality reached by the nation in question. Even if it is difficult for Great Britain to understand this point, surely it is the business
456
of the League of Nations to recognise that its Members are in different stages of moral and cultural development. Japan has reached the stage of international morality roughly corresponding with that of England in the latter half of the eighteenth century—the morality of those great Englishmen, Clive and Warren Hastings. The situation in England then and in Japan now is curiously similar. Both are islands of restricted area in the process of changing from an agricultural into an industrial community, though the population question is far more serious in Japan now than it was in England of 1770.
I should like to read to your Lordships a quotation from China and Japan: Information Department Paper No. 21:
"Japan has a population density of 2,774 to the square mile of arable land, compared with 2,170 in the United Kingdom and 467 in France. The population is increasing at the rate of a million a year. The country lacks raw materials, and North China offers a potential source of supply. The first motive of Japanese encroachment in East Asia is economic—the normal expansionist tendencies on the part of a virile and ambitious people, with a rapidly increasing population living in circumscribed conditions."
Japan obviously needed a large trading area to support her industrial population. She needed in fact an India, and she naturally turned her eyes towards the vast undeveloped spaces of China, which was divided very much as India had once been into many warring provinces. The problem was perfectly well known and has been discussed ever since I can remember.
What did the League do in the face of this menace to the peace of the world? Nothing whatever. Yet it was obvious that if it was desirable to prevent the absorption of China by Japan the League must provide for Japan some other economic outlet. We come at once up against the unredressed grievances of Japan. All other exits from her crowded islands were stopped. Australia would not allow the Japanese to emigrate into her vacant spaces. The United States in 1924 passed the Exclusion Act replacing the previous "Gentleman's Agreement," under which a trickle of immigration was allowed. But more serious still were the high tariffs of the United States and the Ottawa Agreements of Canada and Australia which excluded Japan, and made her feel that if she needed a trading area it must be a possession of her own. It

457
is a lamentable fact that the League made no attempt whatever to approach the various Powers about the grievances of Japan. The long years were wasted and, much too late to do any good, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was sent out on a hopeless quest. Article 19 of the Covenant was never used, but with alacrity Japan was declared to be an aggressor and great pressure was brought to bear upon the Pacific Powers to bring Article 16 into operation.
I turn to the justifiable aggression of Italy in Abyssinia. Once more, when I say "justifiable" I do not mean according to the standards of English morality, but according to the standards of international morality reached by the nation in question. Italy is of course far more advanced in such ideas than Japan. She has in fact reached a standard of morality that I myself remember, and many of your Lordships will remember, as existing in this country at the time of the South African War, the morality of that great Englishman Lord Milner. There was for the English in South Africa an Adowa, a defeat to avenge. I refer of course to Majuba, and the leader of the Liberal Party, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, asserted that the war had been conducted by methods of barbarism. There was indeed a strange similarity between the South African War and the Abyssinian War, but there was one difference between them, and that is that in the latter war there was in existence a League of Nations. Did the League, under Article 19, take any steps to prevent this war by redressing the grievances of Italy? None whatever. These grievances were perfectly well known ever since 1920, and I will venture to remind your Lordships of them. During the Peace Conference the Italian Delegation, in a moment of anger, left Versailles. The rest of the victorious Powers selected what was obviously an excellent opportunity of distributing among themselves the German Colonies and giving Italy none. It was a smart piece of work. But the League had many years in which to remedy that grievance by insisting upon a redistribution of the German Colonies under Article 19 of the Covenant. In fact it did nothing at all, except that, when Italy redressed her own grievance, the League at once named her an aggressor and imposed upon her penalties and punishments under Article 16 of the Covenant. I have no doubt
458
in my own mind that if Italy had been given a Colony under a reformed Article 19, to soothe her inferiority complex and occupy her attention, she would never have invaded Abyssinia.
I turn to the recent crisis in Czechoslovakia. The ill-treatment of the Sudeten Deutsch has been known in Geneva for many years. No attempt whatever was made to redress the grievances of this minority. No pressure, such as was brought at the dangerous last minute by Great Britain and France on the Czechoslovak Government, was ever brought by the League to secure decent treatment for the German population. I should like to quote to your Lordships an extract from a speech made by Herr Henlein, at Carlsbad on April 24. He said:
"The Sudeten Deutsch have brought before the League of Nations no less than twenty-two complaints. None were placed before the Council, none have been settled. Severely disappointed, we have recognised that this way is hopeless. We shall bring no more complaints before the League; we shall go other ways in order to obtain our rights."
In fact the League once more waited in apathy until events brought about a crisis, and no doubt if Germany had marched to the assistance of the ill-treated Sudeten Deutsch the League would once again not have hesitated to call her an aggressor.
The lamentable story of missed opportunities which I have endeavoured to unfold to your Lordships is perhaps open to the criticism that it is easy to be wise after the event. But surely it is better to be wise after the event than never to be wise at all. For these problems, and these opportunities of dealing with them, will recur again and again. What is the League doing, for instance, about the Colonial grievance of Germany against Great Britain? Herr Hitler has shown great forbearance in his approach to this grievance, saying only that his demand for justice will become more and more insistent as the years go by. His attitude is, of course, a natural but flattering tribute to the status and power of Great Britain, and it is an attitude that he would not adopt if he had a grievance against Lithuania. It is the same natural instinct, for instance, which dictates the conspicuous difference in tone in which Great Britain asks Mexico to pay its debts, compared with that in

459
which she asks Russia to repay her much larger debts. But to what uses is the League putting this respite of time before the problem boils up into a serious crisis? As far as I know the League is doing nothing about it at all, and yet it is clear to everybody that it would be far less difficult for the uneasy conscience of Great Britain to be magnanimous at the request of the League than on the demand of Nazi Germany.
Surely the necessity for the development and use of Article 19 is an urgent matter. It was a new order that the League set out to create, but, except in this country, I am afraid we must admit that no nation ever believed that a new order had been created. I leave out of account in this connection all the nations who may in any way be considered to have a low standard of international morality, and I would take only two great democracies, the United States and France, both of whom must be assumed to have as good international morality as our own. The United States displayed its disbelief in a new order by refusing to join the League. France displayed a similar disbelief by erecting outside the League a vast system of defensive alliances.
In my opinion the development and determined use of Article 19, combined with the retention of Article 16, would create a genuine new order in which a sceptical world could believe. I will venture to quote to your Lordships an extract from a speech of Professor Lawrence Preuss, reported in the Michigan Daily of March 3. He said:
"War is the substitute for legal change in the international sphere. If International Law is to be an effective force in the maintenance of peace, there must be a peaceful means for altering the status quo."
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, who directs the policy of the League of Nations Union, has the power, with the assistance of the Government, to erect this machinery at Geneva.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I would remind the noble Viscount that he has told us many things about the League of Nations Union which are entirely new to me, and I would point out that the Union for many years past has advocated an increasing use of Article 19.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My own experience and that of many other members of
460
the Union, and the reason why I resigned from it, was that the Union directed its entire energies to the punishment of the aggressor rather than to the redress of grievances.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Quite untrue.
VISCOUNT ESHER: Although the noble Viscount does not agree with me, he has power to erect this machinery at Geneva. The great work that he has done in the past for peace has given him this fortunate power. We who believe in the League of Nations have during the last twenty years watched the noble Viscount traverse the whole gamut of the Middle Ages from Sir Galahad to Don Quixote, and students of literature know that there is no decrease in integrity or nobility between one knight and the other. For many years it seemed to us that the noble Viscount held in his hand a torch which lighted up for us the hope of the world. Only lately have we become aware, and I think all your Lordships have become aware, except perhaps the noble Viscount himself, that the torch has become a sword. Yet surely, my Lords, the League of Nations should be like the symbolical figure of Justice, and if it has the sword in one hand it must have the scales in the other. I would appeal to the noble Viscount to leave those sinister Benches on which he has learnt to hate Fascism more than he hates war, and to help to rebuild the League of Nations as it was intended to be.
It is the fashion in these days to consider that humanity is hopeless, and that in the modern world there is no place for any noble institution, whether it be the League of Nations or the Liberal Party. I do not share that pessimism. I think that on the whole humanity is more foolish than wicked, and that it has been the folly of the victorious Powers in the years between 1920 and 1930 that has led directly to the wickedness we have had to experience since 1930. The speeches of Herr Hitler, that strange mystic, are always worthy of close study. He has drawn a picture of himself, slowly tearing up page by page the Treaty of Versailles. It is not the business of Herr Hitler to tear up the Treaty of Versailles, and it should never have been left for him to do so. It was the business of the League of Nations; and surely the Covenant should be so amended that under Article

461
19 it would have the machinery and the power to do so. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Snell is fulfilling a public engagement in the North of England and he asked me to do my best to express the views, of the Labour Party on the very important Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. The noble Viscount has dealt with it in a very weighty speech—in a very important speech, if he will allow me to say so. For many years I, to my own profit and advantage, studied the great writings of his illustrious father. I detect some of his literary style in the speech to which we have just listened, but none of the vision and the practical common sense which so distinguished the noble Viscount's great ancestor. The speech to which we have just listened contained very many grave inaccuracies, which are not so important, but it contained statements which, going out from a member of your Lordships' House, are bound to do great harm.
Before I come to the few remarks which I have prepared in honour of this occasion may I particularly draw attention to the fact that a member of your Lordships' House could be found at long last—it is the first time it has happened in your Lordships' House—to defend the action of Japan in China? The noble Viscount excuses the Japanese by declaring that they are of an inferior morality and civilisation. It is perhaps as well for him that he made those remarks within the precincts of this House and not in Japanese company, because he would have been immediately taken to task and, I expect, very grossly insulted. But to defend in your Lordships' House what is now happening in China and to declare that it is justifiable aggression is, I am sure all your Lordships will agree with me, most unfortunate, and will do a great deal of harm. I propose to pass over what the noble Viscount has said about the murderous attack of Italy, against all her solemn engagements, on the weak State of Abyssinia.
The subject of the noble Viscount's Motion has been the object of a great deal of close study by the Party for whom I
462
have the honour to speak this afternoon. We have for a very long time been engaged, through the services of the strongest Committee we could gather together, in looking into this very question of the redress of grievances, and the one part of the noble Viscount's speech with which I found myself in some measure of agreement was when he declared that the redress of grievances was desirable, and I am going, if I may, to give the Government and your Lordships the conclusions we have now reached. I may say that we approach this great subject in a constructive frame of mind. We realise that one day—I hope soon—we may find ourselves faced with the responsibilities of Government and having to deal with a very tangled international situation, and we have attempted to shape and hammer out a policy to deal with that situation as we may find it. To begin with, I must refute as strongly as I am capable of doing this curious doctrine of Lord Esher that those who sit on these Benches—I speak for those who expound the official Labour policy—hate Fascism more than they hate war. That is completely wrong. What we would do would be to fight to prevent Fascism being imposed upon us in this country and, curiously enough, I have heard the present Prime Minister say the same thing. That we would do; but we would not fight in an attempt to destroy or injure Fascism in other countries. That has never been our doctrine. We would fight to prevent Fascism being imposed upon ourselves or upon those for whom we have accepted responsibility.
The tendency we find is that the grievances which good people like the noble Viscount think must be redressed are always the grievances of the strong and powerful nations. The noble Viscount himself only mentioned the more powerful military nations, Japan and Germany, and also Italy. There are other grievances, and I am going to run through them in a moment or two if only, as I hope, to carry your Lordships with me in the view that the whole subject bristles with difficulties and complexities. If you are to carry out the conception of justice for which the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, pleaded in the League of Nations —the sword in one hand and the scales in the other—you must not only seek to redress the grievances of a powerful and loud-voiced demagogue—
VISCOUNT ESHER: I mentioned Czechoslovakia as one of the nations. That is hardly a great and powerful nation.
LORD STRABOLGI: But the grievance in Czechoslovakia, which I thought was very mischievously dealt with by the noble Viscount, was the grievance of the German-speaking minority in Czechoslovakia, which we should have heard little about if the curious racial doctrine of Herr Hitler had not made it necessary to exploit and exaggerate it.
The conclusions we reached were that there are a great many grievances of great and small States at the present time which arise from a variety of causes. Some of them are economic grievances, the lack of outlets to the sea and troubles of that kind; others are false boundary arrangements made in the past for strategic reasons; others arise through the natural growth of population and what I may call nationalistic ideologies. But we believe that these grievances will to a very great extent disappear—they will almost all automatically disappear—if we can restore confidence, if we can remove the fears which so beset the peoples of Europe to-day. The noble Viscount mentioned the ex-German Colonies. I think those for whom I have the honour to speak would be very agreeable to satisfying Germany with regard to the Colonial question. I believe His Majesty's Government would like to find a solution of that, and I believe that applies to the French, Belgium and Japanese Governments as well. But the trouble is that the moment we consider this question of the ex-German Colonies we cannot help thinking—it is unconscious perhaps—of the possible use of those Colonies as submarine or aeroplane bases or as recruiting grounds for black armies. If you can only get some sense of security in Europe half these grievances could be settled, or would automatically disappear.
Where you have a state of civilisation frontiers really do not matter, and most of the grievances to-day in Europe are concerned with frontiers. Those of your Lordships who will presently go north to your own country will see the ruined castles once guarding the frontier of England and Scotland. That is a frontier that has practically disappeared. The ideal frontier between sovereign States is the boundary between the United States
464
and Canada. There you have a civilised frontier. I wonder if Lord Esher has ever heard the story of the Canadian who was delayed on his journey and wanted to get late at night across the frontier at a station in the United States. There were no police about, and the Customs official had gone to bed, so he knocked him up. The man put his head out of his bedroom window and the Canadian said, "I want to get across into Canada." "Do you?" replied the Customs official: "I am not stopping you." It is an open door. That is the ideal state of affairs and we were approaching that state of affairs in Europe before 1914. The frontiers were really beginning to obliterate themselves. Most intellectual Frenchmen refused any longer to regard Alsace Lorraine as a real grievance. If we could get back to that state of affairs now, and get rid of the terrible fear that is obsessing the mind of Europe, I believe these matters could be settled.
In this connection, and again reverting to the policy of the Party for whom I am speaking, we believe that a great deal is being accomplished by the work that is being done at the present time, not through any Government agencies, but through the various international movements, of which the League of Nations Union movement, which was so heavily assailed by the noble Viscount, is one. In addition to that you have the international Socialist movement which creates a feeling of solidarity among the workers of all States and which is being pursued and strengthened very much. We have also at the present time the International Federation of Trade Unions. I am sorry to say that the so-called Dictator States cannot be represented at our meetings, but these are very regularly attended. Some of the most eminent members of the trade union movement in this country attend, and they meet men of equal eminence and importance from other countries, and gradually they are wearing down fears and suspicions. One of the tragedies of 1914 was the breakdown of the Second International, but we have the Socialist International gradually being built up again and strengthened. Apart from what Governments may be doing, and particularly our own Government, we in the Labour movement believe we are doing good work in these directions. We

465
exchange ideas and try to get an understanding between important public men whom we have opportunities of reaching through these channels.
Now let me briefly run through some of the desirable changes which we all know ought to be made or one day should be made in Europe. The noble Viscount dealt with past history, I propose to venture on future history. I have here a list of the changes which require to be made, not necessarily in order of importance, which I shall venture to mention to your Lordships. There is first of all the question of the boundary between Poland and Lithuania. The present frontier is a strategical frontier in order to give a complete Vilna-Latvia railway line to Poland, and ethnographical questions have been ignored. Would the noble Viscount agree that that is a proper question to study under Article 19? Then there is the question of Danzig. The noble Viscount would immediately agree that Danzig should be returned to Germany. We think so too, subject to Polish trading rights being safeguarded. We recognise that the attempted government of the Danzig Free State is a failure. Then there is the question of Hungary. There are solid Magyar districts in Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and Yugoslavia which might be rectified after a plebiscite. Then there is the South Tyrol, with solid German districts, which for purely strategical reasons were handed over to Italy, and we would like to remove the grievance of the South Tyroleans. Then there are the districts of Eupen and Mahnedy. There are also certain difficulties regarding the Italian-Yugoslav frontier, where whole regions inhabited by Yugoslays are under Italian sovereignty. There is, too, the rectification of the Greek-Albanian frontier. The same thing applies to the Bulgarian-Rumanian frontier.
I do not go into details, because I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, but I only mention these as problems that may become urgent at any time. There is the need for an outlet to the Aegean Sea for Bulgaria, by arrangement, of course, with the Greeks. These are just a few of the European problems which will have to be dealt with if Article 19 is to be put into force with greater vigour and activity, as advocated by the noble Viscount. I have left out the troubles
466
in Asia, I have left out the very difficult matters which have led to a great deal of fighting and bloodshed already in South America, and I have not dealt with admitted grievances in other parts of the world. I have only mentioned some of the European troubles which will have to be settled, and I think your Lordships will agree that they indicate the tremendous complexity of this task. I should be very sorry for the statesman who attempted to move too rapidly in the solution of these troubles.
The conclusion we reach therefore is that if only we can strengthen—and I make no apology for again stressing this —the feeling of security in Europe, which means building up the system of collective security, which does not mean punishing aggressors but showing that aggression is dangerous and victory improbable—if only we can do that and get people to settle down again and become more sensible, and get over their foolish fears and their old hatreds, most of these troubles will solve themselves. Indeed my own view—and here I am speaking for myself—is that the Continent of Europe to-day is, thanks to modern means of communication, ripe for federalism. It is too small to be divided up into this chequer-board of little States, and one of the reforms of the League of Nations which I personally would advocate would be to strengthen the federal side, beginning by linking up all civil aviation under the control of an international body sitting at Geneva. Most of the States of Europe to-day were created in the days when the means of transport was by horses and coaches and when you could conveniently administer a State the size of France or the old Austria from its capital. Much larger areas can be administered with modern means of communication. To-day with rapid means of communication these little frontiers get in the way the whole time. They get in the way of trade and ordinary movement, and when they become a source of strategical anxiety they are nothing but a nuisance.
In this matter of the federalisation of Europe I admit I may be speaking here for myself, but, generally speaking, the policy of the Labour Party on this great question raised by the noble Viscount is that the first thing to do is to increase the feeling of general security and, as things are in Europe, this can only be

467
done by strengthening the system of collective security. When we have security and respect for law, and the threats and blackmail and other alarms are removed, then probably we can set about dealing with the more urgent and the more bitterly felt of these grievances. I go with the noble Viscount to this extent, that I think the sooner some of the real grievances, including the economic grievances, that exist in Europe are dealt with the better, and that is our view.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, the speech of the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion in a most interesting manner would have been very valuable if it had done no more than produce the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken, because the noble Lord was speaking officially for his Party and presumably was giving us the advantage and the results of the examination of various foreign questions to which his Party have been devoting their attention. The noble Lord spoke of aviation. I cannot help feeling that these investigations must have taken place in the stratosphere, because they seem to me to be completely out of touch with any practical considerations whatever. Apparently it is desirable that somebody or other should go round and modify all the different frontiers in Europe where there are disagreements. Who is to do that? Is it our business, and is it suggested that the League of Nations can ever do that?
The only criticism I would venture to make of the noble Viscount's speech is that I think he might have gone even more deeply into the past history of the League. I think he dealt most fairly with its failures so far as he touched upon them, and I would suggest to the noble Lord opposite that so far from justifying the action of Japan in China or the situation in China to-day, so far as I understood my noble friend, he pointed out, what I think is absolutely true, that that situation is entirely due to the bungling of the League in the early days. The League allowed the situation to drift. The League was quite incapable of taking a decision and eventually it took, as I think, the very unfortunate one of sending the mission of Lord Lytton out there. I wish we had allowed some other nation to undertake the Leadership of that mission instead of
468
putting ourselves forward as the enemies of Japan, for which we have suffered a great deal. But as to the suggestion that there is a question of defending the Chinese or the Japanese, so far as I understood the noble Viscount he pointed out merely that there are two sides to the question and that the League had mismanaged the question as it has mismanaged many questions from the start.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for going in some little detail into the Covenant, which seems to me to be fundamental. Of the 26 Articles of the Covenant twelve are devoted to matters of machinery or procedure; there are the three Articles connected with humanitarian subjects; and of the remainder the six operative Articles have all proved to be unworkable. Where I would join issue with the noble Viscount is that, even supposing that it is desirable to make the League work—and I regret that he coupled the Liberal Party with the League of Nations, because I desire to see the revival of the Liberal Party, but I have quite different views with regard to the League—I would suggest that any modification of Article 19 alone is quite inadequate to bring about the change which he wishes to see. It is true Article 19 has failed, but it is not the only Article that has failed. The greatest failure was Article 8, the Article which was designed to bring about disarmament. After nine years of acrimonious discussion nothing resulted except a more colossal degree of armament than we have ever seen in the history of the world.
Article 10 and Article 11 provided for the intervention in disputes by Members of the League. No intervention of the slightest use has ever taken place. There was first of all the incursion of the Poles into Vilna. That could only be dealt with by Article ro. There was the incursion of Russia into Poland. Russia was not then a Member of the League, therefore that fell within the scope of Article Ir. I am speaking subject to correction, but it really does not matter. Then there was the question of Abyssinia and Italy, where Article 16 was attempted to be used with such disastrous and fatal results. The case of the invasion of Austria was dealt with very fully by the noble Viscount, and I think very fairly, but there again, even supposing that case had been dealt with as it ought to have been under Article 19, it should have been dealt with

469
directly the situation arose under Article it—the attack on a State by a non-member. The noble Viscount shakes his head, but Article II says this:
"Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations."
Surely that was not merely a threat of war, but a war. The League sat quiet at Geneva because it is incapable of doing anything else. That is the condition to which we are reduced. There were, to complete the list, the bombardment of Corfu by Italy, the Manchurian affair, the dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay and then finally the invasion of Austria by the German Reich.
It may be said that it is unfair to point only to the failures of the League and that reference should be made to the successful intervention to prevent war between Greece and Bulgaria, and again between Hungary and Yugoslavia; but it must be remembered that these interventions occurred in the early days of the League when it was still the agent of the victorious Powers and had behind it the prestige and the authority of those Powers. It is only since the world has begun to recover from the effects of the War that the complete futility of the League has become apparent. If that is so, surely it is a mistake on the part of the supporters of the League to boast about what the League has clone. When you think you have bred a Derby winner and boasted about it a good deal, there is not much point in keeping up your enthusiasm when you find that your paragon is only capable of winning a selling plate in very moderate company. And that is the position, I am afraid, of the League to-day.
Is it not worth white to inquire why an institution which was set up with so much hope by the world in general has failed? I think there are among many reasons a few which perhaps your Lordships will allow me to submit to your attention. First of all, the refusal of the United States to join and, secondly, the fact that the Covenant means something to us quite different from what it means to the rest of the world. The word "Covenant" conveys quite a different meaning, a sort of semi-religious meaning, to us which is not conveyed by the word if it is translated into other languages. The word
470
"Covenant" conveys a totally different meaning to people of our race from the word "pacte" by which it is translated in the French text. To a lesser extent the same thing is true when you compare the "League of Nations" with the "Société des Nations" (the French Official translation). Few people realise that, French being the diplomatic language of the world, the French text carries far more weight throughout the world than the British text. It is not unnatural or surprising to find in ordinary intercourse with foreigners that nobody attaches the same degree of seriousness to the League of Nations as is commonly attached to it by its supporters in this country.
Then there are other reasons. The Covenant presupposes the existence and therefore the authority of what may be called world public opinion. It is unnecessary to refer to the painful proof that recent years have afforded that there is no such thing as world public opinion. It presupposes readiness on the part of sovereign States to subordinate part of their sovereignty in the general interests of peace. Is there any sign that this can accurately be described as anything but a pious hope which has completely failed to materialise? Is it not clear, on the contrary, that the supposed special interests of races and nations never held a more dominating position in world affairs than they do to-day?
Within the Empire itself we have had a striking example of the growth of the spirit of nationality in the Resolution of the Imperial Conference which resulted in the passage of the Statute of Westminster. No one would suggest that the Empire was weakened thereby, but that Statute was called into being by the legitimate and natural growth of the national spirit in each of the great Dominions overseas. It was a wise recognition of a natural development within the Empire and it seems to stand in direct contrast to the position assigned to the League of Nations by one of its chief sponsors, General Smuts, as "a steadying, controlling and regulating influence in the world." I do not think we claim as the metropolis of the Empire that degree of authority nowadays over the Empire. That a heterogeneous body of people at Geneva can exercise that authority over the world at large seems to indicate complete failure

471
to recognise the situation as it is and to envisage an imaginary world. A fifth reason is surely the proved lack of power, the absence of any adequate force to impose the League's decisions, and, it is fair to add, the refusal of individual nations—and I think a very proper refusal—to consent to the sacrifice of a single life of their own nationals in support of a League, as distinct from a national, dispute.
My noble friend below me, Lord Halifax, in the admirable speech he made the other day at Chatham House, dealt with some pertinent matters in a very interesting way connected with this particular subject we are discussing. He enumerated some of our national characteristics, of which we are justly proud, respect for law as the only possible basis for social life, the need for the assent to the terms of the laws by those affected by them, and the practice and atmosphere of toleration. But I wonder whether my noble friend did not omit one further point, and that is the police. Even the most highly civilised and law-abiding community in the world is forced to recognise the fact that there must be backsliders among them and that, if the community as a whole is to enjoy the full benefit of laws which commend themselves to the majority, human nature being what it is, elementary physical force must be available in order to deal with law-breakers. It seems to me that that is a fundamental and irreparable weakness in the whole organisation of Geneva. I see that my noble friend Lord Davies can hardly remain seated because of his interest in this matter. I do not believe his cure will work. There is not time to go into it now, but I am quite prepared to argue it on some other occasion. I do not think his cure of an International Police would work.
It would not be difficult to prolong this list, but I will only deal with what is the best course to pursue now. It has been constantly suggested that we ought to rebuild the League. There does not appear to be any general desire to rebuild. The whole tendency is in the opposite direction. Germany and Japan have already left the League. Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Nicaragua and Salvador have all given notice of their intention to withdraw. Denmark, Iceland, Finland,
472
Norway and Sweden have pledged themselves to adopt common views of neutrality in the event of a war between other Powers. Switzerland has done the same, and I rather think Holland and Belgium, but I am not sure. Neutrality is incompatible with League principles. When you have an institution that is being abandoned or ignored to this extent, how can you expect to effect anything important or practical in Europe, with the defection of the nations I have mentioned, Italy, Germany and all the smaller nations; or in Asia, when Japan is not a member of it; or in America without the co-operation of the United States and when the Monroe doctrine has been admitted in the League Covenant itself as overriding everything else in America? And, of course, the recollection of Africa is sufficiently sad to make it unnecessary to recall it.
Therefore, looking all round, the League is in a thoroughly bad condition to-day. And we are asked to rebuild it! I think that noble Lords and others who suggest that ought to define what they mean, because I think it is very dangerous. While there seems no prospect that I can see of persuading nations to come back to the League, there is a danger of bribing them back into it, and I think that we may be led into paying too high a price to reconstitute something which is artificial and, in my judgment, not a practical consideration and really nothing but the lineal descendant of the Holy Alliance.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Does the noble Viscount think it should be abolished?
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Certainly. What has the League done? It has produced a condition of affairs more uncomfortable than the world has ever known before. The League cannot claim to be the instrument of the new world without taking responsibility for the mess in which the new world finds itself. If you ask me, "Do you want to abolish the League?" I say, "By all means abolish it." Why should not the League suffer the same fate as befell its lineal predecessor, the Holy Alliance? The Holy Alliance started with just as high ideals. The Holy Alliance started with the idea that the sovereigns were to behave as brothers to one another, that their people were their children, and that their behaviour

473
was to be governed by the rules of the Gospel. That is just as high an ideal as the ideal which has been connected with the League of Nations. It failed dismally, but its failure was no more dismal than that of the League of Nations, and I cannot for the life of me see what justification there is for claiming the retention of this instrument of discord which creates more friction than appeasement. What justification can anybody possibly claim for it merely because it is part of one of the worst Treaties ever negotiated, and I think the worst part of that Treaty?
Your Lordships will be entitled to ask what alternative I propose. Why not revert to the proved practice of diplomacy? And in that connection I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me if I suggest that, invaluable as his journeys abroad may be, because they give people the opportunity of contact with his delightful personality, it would be far better if he stayed at home and suggested that they should come and see him. There is this further point, if you are going to make proper use of the Foreign Office you must not have a Foreign Secretary dodging about, liable to be sent off at a moment's notice. It reduces our prestige in foreign countries.
More than that, I would suggest quite seriously to my noble friend this. I think it was a disastrous change in the rules of the Diplomatic Service that an Ambassador should have to leave his post when he reaches a certain age. Many of our best Generals in the War were "dugouts." Nobody suggested that when a General was doing well on active service he must be recalled. An Ambassador is always on active service, and when you find a high official and representative of the Crown carrying out his work well, and when you know how long it takes to establish the prestige which is inseparable from the proper discharge of the difficult functions of an Ambassador, it seems to me to be madness to shift a man simply because he happens to have reached a certain limit of age. Ambassadors are not supposed to engage in any very strenuous physical activities, and so long as a man is doing his work well I should revert to the old system and keep him there at his post. I apologise for having detained your Lordships so long, but I feel just as strongly about this subject as the noble Viscount opposite feels from his point of view. I think the League of
474
Nations is a calamity, and nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to see its disappearance.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, the League of Nations Union —I do not apologise for mentioning it, because my noble friend, in his very interesting speech, made a great deal of it—is sometimes accused of allowing too much influence to the Liberal and Labour Parties and too little influence to the Conservative Party; of, in a word, not holding its hand quite impartially between the Parties. I can only say that we do our very utmost, but perhaps my noble friends on the Treasury Bench who have listened to the speech which has just been made will see some of our difficulties. The noble Viscount who has just addressed the House was, I understand, in charge of the Conservative organisation for many years. During those years the League of Nations was progressing. It was very surprising that we got so little assistance from official Conservatives during that period. I remember very well, when I was Conservative Member for Hitchin, being told by an emissary from the Conservative office that I must not talk about the League of Nations, "or any nonsense of that kind"—or words to that effect. That is the difficulty we are in as far as we are anxious to be—and we are very anxious to be—impartial between the Parties. We take every possible precaution we can in that direction, and the difficulty simply is that the Conservative Party—not the mass of it; the mass of it no more agree with Lord Stonehaven than I do, but a very large proportion of the officials of it do agree with him.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I believe it is perfectly correct, and I am very sorry for it: the mass of the Party do not agree with me.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: They do not agree with you, but a very large part of the organisation does.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): I am bound to interject a word and say that, as far as I can form an opinion, that is incorrect.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: We judge by what we find in the constituencies. We do sometimes get

475
admirable help from leading Conservatives, and we are extremely grateful to them, but we also often find a very cold wind blowing from the Conservative organisation. If it were necessary—but I do not think it would be quite appropriate in this debate—I could give instances of what I mean. However, I am not going to deal with the speech of the noble Viscount—may I congratulate him on his recent honour?—because, if I may be allowed to say so, I do not think that is the question that is raised by this Motion. The question here is not whether we are going to have a League of Nations at all, but whether we are going to amend it in certain particulars. I am not suggesting that he was not perfectly in order in saying, "Do not amend it, because the right thing is to abolish it," but it is clear that I could not deal with that point and then, within any reasonable limits of time, deal with what seems to me the more reasonable argument.
I will only just mention to him that I wish he would study the history of the League a little more before he makes speeches in this House. He stated, for instance, that Articles 10 and II had never been used. A more fantastic account of the facts it would be impossible to imagine. Article it has constantly been used, over and over again, and Article to, although not so constantly, because it has not arisen so constantly, yet has been used. Article 11 has been more often used than any other Article of the peace-keeping clauses.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I said, used with any effect.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: And very effectively used, too. It was used in almost all the disputes which the League settled in its earlier years, and it has been used during these latter years also. Article 16, it is true, was used only once in the earlier years, but it has also been used on more than one occasion since to prevent a dispute from degenerating into war. My noble friend was good enough to make an appeal to me at the end of his speech and to urge that I should advocate—he greatly exaggerated my power in the matter—the use of Article 19. May I very respectfully remind him of an autobiographical detail? At the Paris Conference,
476
where I sat as representative of this country on the League of Nations Commission, I urged that not only Article 19 but all treaties should be brought up for reconsideration every five or ten years. It was only because I was convinced that this proposal would create such an atmosphere of uncertainty about what were treaties and what were not, and that it would do more harm than good, that I assented—I could not indeed have done otherwise—to the very much more important moderate provision of Article 19 which took the place of what I originally suggested.
To say that I or the Union have been indifferent to Article 19 is quite untrue. I do not mean to say anything uncivil to my noble friend, but that really has no basis of foundation in fact at all. They constantly urge, and one of their favourite topics is to urge, that Article 19 should be made more effective, that its machinery ought to be more clearly defined, and many other suggestions with which I will not trouble my noble friend now, but about which I will tell him privately if he wishes to know. In point of fact, as I shall have occasion to say later on, Article 19 ought to be used constantly. May I again say that it really is not true that advocates of the League of Nations Union have concentrated on Article 16? That really is not the fact. For ten or eleven years they scarcely mentioned it. I think I know what I am talking about, because I made a great number of speeches during those years advocating the League of Nations. We did not deal with it, and I remember—it does not arise at this moment—very well somebody urging that we should talk more about Article 16, so that when it did arise we should be able to urge its application. I personally think it would have been better to explain more clearly in the earlier stages what Article 16 really amounted to, because when it became the subject of acute interest there was a great deal of doubt as to what it did mean and what it did not mean which might have been dispelled earlier.
That is one general observation I wanted to make. The other general observation is that I a little regret that my noble friend, in his opening speech, should have said so often that the League ought to have done this, and the League did not do that. It is not possible for the League to take independent action of

477
that kind. It does not exist as an independent entity at all; it is merely a means of meeting the States that belong to it, and it can only move when one of the States chooses to ask for its action —when one of the States makes a proposal asking for its action. I venture to say, and I think I can prove it to demonstration, that where such a motion has been made, and the League's influence has been asked for, it has always been given, although it does not always mean that they have accepted the view put before them by one or other of the parties.
Here the issue is not, as I have said, League or no League, but whether we should accept the views of the noble Viscount as to the amendments which ought to be made. Lord Strabolgi very properly said that "punishment" is not the proper word to use in this connection. The League does not exist to punish any body for anything. It has never tried to punish anybody for anything. Its business is, if possible, to prevent the outbreak of war or to put an end to it as soon as possible after the outbreak, and that is its sole business so far as coercion is concerned. No other coercive power is provided in the Covenant of the League. My noble friend says then that there should be no attempt at coercion until the grievances have been remedied. At least that is what I understood him to mean. I will not go into his rather strange doctrine about relative moralities, because that would make the suggested task of the League, or of the Members of the League, still more difficult. If they had to consider who was right as between two respective moralities it would be adding a complexity to the task which would render it quite impossible to fulfil.
If I understand my noble friend rightly he is really harping on the old doctrine that it is wrong to enforce the status quo, if that is unjust. I think the quotation from Herr Hitler was in the same sense. I want to know who is going to say whether the status quo is just or unjust. Is it to be an international authority, either such a body as Lord Davies has suggested, a Tribunal of Equity, or The Hague Court, or the Council of the League of Nations. I should be delighted to believe in the Tribunal of Equity if I could, but I have never been able to see how you could constitute such a tribunal
478
with sufficient moral force, irrespective of any backing from any individual country, to get its views imposed upon the disputants. I am not sure that Lord Davies really advocates that. I understand him to suggest merely that they should report to the Council of the League, and that the Council of the League should take action, if they choose, upon it. That is one way of dealing with the matter. You might say that no action could be taken without a decision as to who is in the wrong. That is practically what has happened in every one of those cases to which my noble friend referred. There has been a decision, usually by the Council or the Assembly itself. In one particular case it was only after such a decision that any attempt was made to intervene in the dispute at all, much less to impose sanctions.
That is the practical way in which the system works. You go to the authority of the League and you say: "Here is a dispute which is going to lead to war. If the parties will not agree then we ask you to express an opinion as to who is right and who is wrong, so that we can intervene in the matter and take action to stop the party who is in the wrong." If that is not what my noble friend means I think he must mean that each country is to determine beforehand whether they think that the status quo is right or wrong, and whether there is any justification for any forcible intervention. I confess that I think it would be a bad plan in that form. Nobody would know what was going to happen. There would be complete doubt, and in my judgment the most essential thing is that everybody should know what is going to happen. That is the best preventative of war. It has been said, and I think truly said, that it was the German doubt as to what was going to happen in 1914 which made war certain, and that if Germany had known what countries were going to come into the war there would have been no war at all. I cannot help feeling, whatever my noble friend may intend himself, that what he really means is that we ought to abolish the coercive part of the Covenant of the League.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My noble friend will excuse my intervening. I did not say that at all. I said that you should not put Article 16 into operation unless you have already tried Article 19. I was

479
certainly in favour of retaining Article 16, but not using it until you had got an effective Article 19.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. If he had had the patience to wait until I had concluded my argument I think he would have seen that there was not much difference between us. I think it is important to ascertain quite clearly what it is that has caused the difficulties of the League. I do not think that it has been injustice in the position which has caused the difficulties in the disputes which have led to wars. Take Manchuria. I cannot conceive on what ground you should say it was wrong that Manchuria should be left under Chinese control, and that it would have been much better had it been under Japanese control. Indeed the Japanese were so fully aware that it was a difficult proposition to sustain that they pretended that an outrage had occurred on the railway for which the Chinese were responsible, and they were only going in to remedy that. The Lytton Commission disposed of that pretension, and I do not think you can say that the attack upon Manchuria was in connection with an injustice caused by the unfair provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, or any other treaty. Japan had just the same position as she had before, and I should have thought that the only reason was that she wanted to have Manchuria. She thought it would be of advantage to her. There was no question of injustice to her unless you say it is always injustice if you do not have all you want.
It is the same with Abyssinia. My noble friend said that it was justifiable aggression by Italy and that the League ought not to have interfered. Surely he has forgotten the history of the preceding month. There was a grievance about a clash at a place called Wal-Wal. It was investigated. The League offered every facility for its investigation, and it was found that there was no substance whatever in the Italian case on that point, nor was there in any other respect. My noble friend says that the Italians had long shown their interest in and desire to have Abyssinia. What they had done was to be one of the foremost advocates of the entry of Abyssinia into the League, and therefore one of the foremost advocates of the provision of the League being applied to Abyssinia which says that
480
every Member of the League has to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and political independence of every other Member of the League. That was deliberately what the Italians asked for. And then after that they chose, purely for national ambition and no other reason, to invade Abyssinia. Certainly it was not due to any kind of injustice; it was due to the ambition of the Italian Government.
My noble friend did not mention the Rhine Provinces, where he really had a stronger case. There is no doubt that the provision which demilitarised the Rhine Provinces without making any parallel demilitarisation on the French side of the Rhine was a difficult thing to defend. All I have ever said about that was that I thought that before taking the law into their own hands Germany ought at least to have utilised the international machinery that existed, and seen whether she could get relief by that machinery. No such attempt was made by the German Government. In the same way, Austria. My noble friend read an extract from a letter from a gentleman, who I dare say is very well informed, about the plebiscites which had been made in two or three districts in Austria which had shown a strong desire for the Anschluss. Until the advent of Herr Hitler and the very strange policy he pursued towards Austria, I should have thought it was common ground that a large majority of the people of Austria desired the Anschluss. And the Treaty of Versailles, which has many defects I admit, did foresee that that might be the case, and provided express machinery by which, if that should be the case, an application might be made to the Council of the League, and if the Council of the League permitted it the Anschluss might take place. No attempts of that kind were made; no application was ever made to the Council of the League.
The noble Viscount trotted out, if I may use such a colloquial expression, the old case of the refusal of a Customs union by the decision of the Court. I think that was a very doubtful decision, but I do not think my noble friend would say it was a decision for which there was no justification. In any case, the vote which finally determined that it was not in accordance with Treaty rights was the

481
vote of the Italian delegate. There again, I cannot see that because the Court decided this thing in accordance with the Treaty, that was any justification for the subsequent action of Germany. If the Germans had gone to the League and had pleaded for the permission of the League to establish the Anschluss, which was the thing they had agreed to do in the Treaty, and they had been refused, they would have had a more plausible case.
I will not go into the other cases, they would take me too long. To my mind the present invasion of China by Japan is even more indefensible from every point of view than the invasion of Manchuria. I am afraid I can only call the invasion of Spain by Italy equally indefensible; and, as for Czechoslovakia, the suggestion that applications to the League for relief in minority questions had been made twenty-three times is really a very misleading account of what happened, though I am sure my noble friend did not so intend it. I believe there were twenty-three applications. The great majority of them were to deal with individual applications of people who said that they had a grievance against the Government of Czechoslovakia and that they had been ill-treated. In every case the application was most carefully examined by a special Committee of Three, chosen for their impartiality and freedom from any connection with the dispute. They examined it, and in each case arrived at the conclusion that there was no substantial ca se against the Czechoslovakian Government. It was for that reason that it was not referred to the Council. There was one case. I believe, in which the main issue of the annexation of Sudeten-Deutschland to Germany was raised. That was also examined and, as might perhaps be expected in the circumstances, was decided not to have any legal justification.
So that I venture to say that all of these cases of special injustice, which are used to explain the difficulties that the League has been in lately, when they come to be examined will be found to be far less substantial than is sometimes thought. But I am quite aware that that is not the only way in which it is put. It is said, "Well, but the attitude of the League was such that Germany "because it does not apply really to either Italy or Japan—" had to take the law into her own hands because she had no
482
hope of obtaining justice from the League." I do think that is a most extravagantly exaggerated proposition. The League has had to deal with a great number of questions. I will not dwell too much on the social and humanitarian questions, though after all that work, which has been very laborious and, by almost universal consent, admirably carried out, has been of great value to the peace of the world. It has not been very sensational, but it has improved the possibility of the nations living together peacefully.
Let me remind my noble friend of such questions as Corfu. I do not know why the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, whose business has called him elsewhere, said that that was an instance in which the League completely failed. What happened was that there was an attack on Corfu, in consequence of a very legitimate grievance I admit, and it was referred to the League. The League adopted a very strong attitude, and Corfu, very properly and rightly, was evacuated, and an arrangement as to compensation was made. There was also the dispute between Paraguay and Bolivia. Certainly it lasted much too long and I think, with a very vigorous application of the powers of the League, it might have been shortened, but ultimately it was in part due to the intervention of the League that the dispute was settled.
There were many other disputes in the earlier parts of the League's history and there were such things as the Greek repatriation, in order to pacify the anger of the Turkish Government. That terrific difficulty between Greece and Turkey was settled by a very elaborate scheme of repatriation, which has been a complete success. Then there was the Saar. Why should we not say that the Saar was a remarkable example of international justice carried out by the League with general applause? There was also the Silesian question, on which a great deal has been said. Undoubtedly that settlement—whether it was the best or not I do not know—has lasted, and has left no difficulties or disputes behind it. All these things have been done by the League, and many others. And yet your Lordships are told that the League has never used its power to remedy grievances. It is not true. It is the reverse of the truth. The League has done a great deal to remedy

483
grievances, though I entirely agree that it also ought to do more.
I shall not deal with the question of Colonies, because that has not yet been raised; we shall see what ought to be done with it when it is formally raised. But there is one exception which, oddly, my noble friend did not mention. There is not the least doubt that the League, and the Powers in the League, were gravely to blame in their attitude to disarmament. There is no doubt that Germany had a very strong case for saying, "You promised expressly that when we disarmed you would disarm. We have disarmed, your own Commission has reported that we have disarmed, now we call upon you to disarm." For year after year that issue, most unfortunately, was postponed and avoided, partly by the French Government, partly by the British Government—they are not blameless in this matter; they made no effort really to get that issue settled; over and over again they threw difficulties in the way of the settlement of it. When at long last the International Conference was summoned in 1932, it cannot be questioned that the attitude taken up by France and Great Britain was not helpful to the success of that Conference, and I can only say—I may of course easily be wrong—that;f a different attitude had been taken up we should have reached a measure of disarmament, at any rate, as the consequence of that Conference. That I do think is true.
Germany had a great grievance. It was a grievance for which the League was in part responsible, because it was part of the duty of the League to deal with that question, and I have always thought that all the vast expenditure we are making and a great part of the unrest that exists in Europe are directly traceable to that very unfortunate error which was made, we say by the League, but really by the leading Powers, during the years up to 1932 and 1933. I am bound to add, because one must be fair, that though these errors were very grave and deplorable, Germany was also very much to blame herself. It was just at the moment when, looking at Germany as Germany, there really did appear to be a serious effort being made to meet the German case, that the German Government decided to abandon first the
484
Conference, then the League, then the International Labour Office and the whole international machinery—in fact, to follow the advice of my noble friend Lord Stonehaven.
We must face the facts in this matter. It is not injustice in this or that case that is the real difficulty with which we are faced at this moment, nor is it objection to this or that provision of the Covenant. I shall say before I sit down, if your Lordships have the patience to listen to me, what might be done in the direction of amendment, but that is not the grievance. The question is, are you going to have an effort to have international control of nationalist power in Europe and in the world as far as one can, or are you going on with the Stonehaven policy of every country for itself and the devil take the hindmost? That is the real issue, and do not let us confuse our minds about it. It is a pure delusion to talk about getting back Germany to the League unless you abandon all hope of using the League as an international peace body. That is what she objects to. She wants to be able to use her power, the very great strength which she undoubtedly has, and her great powers of organisation and courage for national purposes irrespective of international advantage. That is the real issue which, in my judgment, do what we may, hope what we may hope, will have to be settled sooner or later before you can get anything like an advance in international affairs.
I must not go on longer with that, but I should like before I sit down to touch very briefly and rapidly on some changes which might be made with advantage though, as I say, I do not think even they touch the main point. There is of course the provision which deals with what may be called, without anything like a sneer, the sentimental difficulty. I think it would be very desirable to cut the Covenant completely free from the Treaty of Versailles. That could be done without any injury to the Covenant, and it would be rather a gratification to the Powers who were beaten in the Great War to have the Covenant entirely separated from the Treaty that closed that War. In the same way, and as part of that change, though it is not a part of the Covenant, undoubtedly the celebrated "war guilt" clause ought to be

485
abolished. I shall not argue that, because the argument is so very well known.
I turn to the point at which I come closest to the noble Viscount who introduced this subject—what can you do to improve Article 19? I agree that that is a very desirable thing to do. It ought to be made effective. It is quite true it has never been used. There is only one serious case in which it was proposed. China proposed to use it for dealing with what were then called the unequal treaties in China. That has always seemed to me a perfectly admirable example of the kind of dispute which might well have been referred to the League without any disadvantage. But opposition was raised to that proposal by one of the Governments, and I am afraid our own Government was not very favourable to it, and the Chinese did not persist. I wish they had. If they had persisted I think they would have got their way, but they withdrew their application.
We ought to make it part of our national policy to make Article 19 a really effective Article. Its provisions are probably all that you can ask for. I do not think you can ask, in the present state of international feeling, for changes of territory to be made by the decision of a majority of any Committee however eminent; but it could be made clear that when any proposal of the kind was brought before the Assembly it should be referred to some special kind of Committee which should be as impartial and authoritative as possible. It should be considered by that Committee, and that Committee could come to a conclusion—and that might well be by a majority—recommending what ought to be done in the matter. That decision should be reported to the appropriate Committee of the Assembly, or perhaps even to the Assembly direct. It would then have done all it could do in exerting public opinion in favour of the change which this Committee decided was reasonable in the circumstances.
I do not think you need be afraid that such a Committee would go too far, though I do recognise, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi evidently desired the House to realise, that if you were to set about trying to remedy all the possible injustices in the world you would create such a state of uncertainty that you would do much more harm than good. I
486
do not think that is likely to happen from such a procedure as I have indicated. It would be a conservative procedure, and it would result in definite advice being given. You might possibly go further. I think this would have to be very carefully examined. You might say that any Power that voted for a change of that kind after proper examination would not be bound to use its strength to maintain the status quo if that change did not result from the vote which it gave.
I certainly think the procedure under Article 16—that is the Sanctions Article—ought to be made clearer than it is. I think that could be done without any alteration to the Govenant, and it should be done by Resolution of the Assembly as a recommendation. Subject to one single word which I will not bother the House with, I do not think there would be any difficulty in bringing it within the four corners of the Article. The first thing to remember when you are dealing with sanctions is what I ventured to say at the beginning of my observations, that the purpose of the League is to stop war, not to punish the aggressor; therefore no action by the League should be undertaken unless it is going to stop war—unless, that is, there is so much strength behind the movement to stop war that the great probability is (you cannot have certainty in this world) that the aggressor country will not resist the action of the League. Therefore I would like to see as soon as the aggression is threatened, if possible before it takes place, an examination by the Council, an examination carried on with as many guarantees for its judicial character as possible, as to who was right and who was wrong, broadly, not considering the technicalities so much.
Then, assuming one Power was the aggressor—and in most cases I do not think there would be any doubt at all which Power was the aggressor—we should ask: "Are we going to take action against it?" Any Power—I hope it would be this country—should say: "In our view action should be taken; we recognise that it is our duty under the Covenant to take action. If it will succeed, we think action should be taken to stop the aggressor. We believe the action should take this kind of form." You would sketch what the action should

487
be, and say that you think it would succeed. Then you would ask how many of your colleagues were prepared to join in taking the action, saying that you did not propose to proceed unless a sufficient number of your colleagues joined with you to make it clear that intervention was going to be successful. It must be a joint international action, and it must be a joint international action with a good prospect of success. In my view, if that course were taken—I have sketched it very roughly and very hastily, because I am aware I have already occupied too much time—I believe it would be a real improvement in the procedure of the League and would remove a great deal of the difficulty which is at present felt.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Viscount, does he think that Germany and Italy and those other nations would join the League again?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Not at first; but I am convinced, if you could get that procedure in operation, and effective operation, you would have far more chance of getting Germany and Italy back to the League than by any other procedure you can imagine. I believe that if you could get that machinery established and could explain it to the United States—I would not say it would bring the United States into the League, I do no think that, but you would get an immense amount of sympathy in the United States. That is my view. I am afraid I should be sanguine to expect my noble friend to agree with that, but I put it before him for his consideration.
I have practically finished, but there are two or three other words I must say before I sit down. I am convinced that the doctrine that the League machinery has failed is entirely wrong. I do not say it is perfect, heaven knows, but it is quite adequate if it is properly used. Any failure there has been, has been undoubtedly owing to a number of causes which I cannot possibly examine now. It has been due to the reluctance of Members to utilise the machinery, and the only way of bringing about a change in that attitude is by education, by propaganda, by continually saying all the things which my noble friend did not say and the exact
488
opposite of what he did say. To advocate the League; to say that we believe in it, that we regard a return to the old system as reactionary nonsense and not to be brought about under any circumstances, that we believe we have now got a chance for the first time in the history of the world to put a stop to war, that that is the greatest object any statesman can put before him at the present day, and that we do not see any other method by which it can be done—I do wish the Government, because the Government more than anybody must do this if anybody is to do it, would preach in season and out of season that that is their view, that that is what they stand for, that that is what they care for.
My noble friend has said admirable things in this House about the importance of the supremacy of law. That is really at the root of the whole conception. Let them preach that vigorously, not only by words but by action, by demonstrating to the world that they are ready to use the machinery for that purpose, that they are prepared to run risks and take action, even if it may result in considerable dangers and difficulties, because this is the greatest object we can have. If we are to prepare to fight if necessary, though I think it would be rarely necessary, for any cause, surely we are right to fight for this, because it embraces the whole of our interests in the world. My noble friend Lord Stonehaven thinks himself, I believe, an Imperialist. He is really doing his best to destroy the Empire. That is my profound conviction.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, whatever differences of opinion there may be in regard to the Motion moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, I am sure it will be generally agreed that the speech in which he moved it was one of great value, whether that speech be consented to and agreed with or not. The noble Viscount did something which I think is done far too seldom, and that was in certain parts of his speech he endeavoured to put before your Lordships the point of view of other countries. British statesmen have many great qualities, but I do not think it can be contended that seeing things through the eyes of other nations justly and fairly is their most prominent characteristic, and the noble Viscount, whether he be agreed with or not, did something this afternoon to supply that deficiency. In that part of his speech I

489
think he was dealing with realities. In other parts of his speech, as I will proceed to try and show, he seemed to me, as is so often the case in these debates to do with the League of Nations, remote from reality.
But before I come to deal with his speech and Motion in a little detail I should like to say something about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who spoke second. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was perturbed because the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, said that the Labour Party hated Fascism more than it hated war, and this statement was strongly rebutted by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I am bound to say that my general impression is that the observation of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, is not so baseless as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, suggested. He went on to say that the policy of the Labour Party was that they would fight to prevent Fascism being imposed here. Unfortunately the policy of the Labour Party goes a great deal beyond that, just as the policy of the League goes a great deal beyond that. If the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will refresh his memory by reading the manifesto which the Labour Party issued last autumn, and if he will read their manifesto published at the end of February, I think he will be obliged to agree that it was made quite clear that their policy was that they would strongly support war, with Great Britain and France and Russia on the one side, against Germany, Italy and, I suppose, possibly Japan on the other side, whether Great Britain was attacked or not, and whether or not there was any attempt to impose Fascism here.
If Germany should take military action in regard to the Sudeten Germans, the Labour Party have made it quite clear that they—at least the leaders of the Labour Party; as a matter of fact many of the rank and file do not agree, just as the majority of the country I am sure do not agree—would not only support war, but would press for war, whether this country was attacked or not, and whether there was the remotest danger of Fascism being imposed here or not.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, may I say that we are really at cross purposes? We would fight to preserve Europe against
490
aggression if that was the only way, but that is not the same thing as fighting against Fascism. If aggression came from a Socialist State we would be prepared to fight. It is not only against Fascism.
LORD ARNOLD: We are at cross purposes. The noble Lord says they would fight against aggression. What is meant by aggression? In fact, in the case of Czechoslovakia, if Germany took military action in connection with the Sudeten Germans, we should be fighting against the principle of self-determination, fighting in support of boundaries which never ought to have been made, to keep in being a country which never ought to have been created and which cannot permanently continue in its present form. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, in his speech again to-day wants the Government to threaten Germany on account of Czechoslovakia. That is what it comes to. He wants to go further. He says that if Germany takes any military action in regard to the Sudeten Germans he wants the Government to say that the Government will go in and fight against Germany. He says i f the Government will do that war will not come. How does he know that? How does anybody know that? The whole thing is a gigantic speculation and the noble Viscount wants the Government to gamble the British Empire.
I would like to remind the noble Viscount of some words written by his illustrious father, the late Lord Salisbury. He was not in favour of entangling Britain with Continental commitments, and in a historic memorandum he said he did not consider that we should invite other nations to rely upon our aid in a struggle when we did not know what might be the humour of our people in circumstances which could not be foreseen.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I did not mean to interrupt, because there are so many things that provoke me to interrupt that I made a bargain with myself that I would not: interrupt. As, however, the noble Lord has quoted my father, I would like to point out to him that on November 9, 1897, at the Guildhall, he made a speech in which he recommended in broad lines exactly the arrangement of a League of Nations which we now have.
LORD ARNOLD: I would like the noble Viscount to read in a book by Mr. J. A. Spender the passage in which, dealing with this very matter—it is a full and historic record—he quotes the late Lord Salisbury. This memorandum was subsequent to 1897. I would beg the Government not to go one inch further in regard to the matter of Czechoslovakia than they have done. To do so would take the prime issue of peace and war for Great Britain out of our hands and make it dependent upon some irresponsible incident in a country about which I feel it is true to say the majority of British people do not know either where it is or what it is. I have already indicated that in my view the Motion of the noble Viscount is utterly remote from the realities of the existing situation. The simple truth is that there is no prospect —this is the point I want to put to the noble Viscount—of the League having the power either to redress grievances or to punish aggression, or stop aggression if you prefer the word "stop."
I am not going to weary your Lordships by covering again ground which has been traversed so often, but I must in a sentence or two indicate—this is really my quarrel, if I may say so, with the Motion of the noble Viscount—that this Motion ignores completely the salient facts of the situation. So far as the great nations of the world are concerned, and they are the only nations which really matter, the present League of Nations is not entitled to the name. It is not really half a League. As has been pointed out in the course of this debate, the United States are not and never have been in the League. Germany has been in and has left the League and has said definitely she will not go back. Italy has left the League, and Japan has left. These four great Powers do not accept the League. They will not accept its rulings or indeed its intervention. That is the basic fact of the situation. In these circumstances it is no good talking about the League redressing grievances or to ask what it ought to do to punish aggression.
The League is not in a position to do one or the other. Of the three great nations which are in the League, Russia is an incalculable factor, and it has again and again been pointed out that for practical purposes the League of Nations consists of Great Britain and France. It has been proved that France does not really
492
care a scrap about the League except as a means of keeping Great Britain tied to her. That is why some of us feel that, however good the intentions and ideals of the League may be and may have been, it is in practice a dangerous entanglement likely to drag us into an otherwise avoidable war. I say therefore that this Motion comes too late. If in the past the League had devoted a tenth-part of the energy to redressing grievances which it has given to talking about aggression and to safeguarding the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles the position of Europe would be vastly different from what it is to-day. If something had been done in regard to disarmament—this is very vital—if the League had implemented Article 8 of the Covenant, which was vital to the whole constitution of the League, then the history of Europe would have been very different from what it has been and the condition of Europe to-day would be very different from what it is. But it is too late now and we have to recognise that there are reasons why the League has become an object of distrust in the eyes of Germany. The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, gave a most telling quotation from a speech of Herr Hitler. It is not difficult to understand Germany's reasons for distrust of the League, and if we were in Germany's position I have not the slightest doubt that we should think about the League exactly what she thinks.
All of what I have been saying is quite apart from the question, very germane to the Motion of the noble Viscount, of whether it is possible to punish aggressors without at the same time punishing as much, or nearly as much, the nations who are seeking to administer this justice —if justice it be. It must be remembered that no small nation will be an aggressor, and any attempt to make war against a great nation would almost certainly precipitate a European war. This is where I think the League of Nations has been proved fundamentally wrong. Its guiding idea was that all the other nations would be banded together against an aggressor. That has proved to be a dangerous delusion. It has not happened; it will never happen. There will always be two sides to every quarrel, and it will never happen that all the other nations will be combined against one aggressor nation.
The attempt to punish an aggressor will divide Europe into two more or less equal

493
camps. We have to-day unfortunately—and the League as at present constituted is largely responsible—a balance of power in Europe again, only in a worse form than in 1914. Any attempt to punish an aggressor would precipitate a European war, and a war which, we have been told again and again, on the highest authority, would mean the end of civilisation as we know it. That is what another war would mean, and yet people go on talking as if war to-day were just the same as it was thirty, forty or fifty years ago. There is not, I submit to your Lordships, sufficient realisation of the fundamental change which has come about in warfare and the almost inconceivable increase which has been made in its dangers and in the devastation which will come through it. Forty or fifty years ago it may have been possible to punish an aggressor. though even then great loss was occasioned to those who were trying to do so. Now it is not possible to punish an aggressor without at the same time bringing ruin to those who attempt to do so. Surely we have learnt that there are no winners in modern war; all are more or less losers.
I would urge, and particularly after the closing words of the speech of the noble Viscount, that something much more fundamental than this Motion is needed in regard to the League. I cannot discuss that in any detail to-day. But—and this is not merely pacifist doctrine; a great many people who have no sympathy with pacifism are coming to the same view—the League of Nations will never become a real League of the nations of the world until Article 16 is taken out of the Covenant. If that is done and the League becomes a world conciliation court, it will in time be joined by all the nations and will come to have great moral authority and will be able to do far more effective work for peace than it ever can do with Article 16 in the Covenant. Certainly this Motion raises expectations which cannot be fulfilled. Not only is the League not in a position to redress grievances, but it cannot attempt—I say it again—to punish aggression or to stop aggression without bringing down the whole structure of European civilisation in ruins.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I do not propose to intervene for very long between your Lordships and the Foreign Secretary, whose comments on this very
494
interesting debate you will, I am sure, be anxious to hear. I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Viscount who moved this Motion for giving your Lordships an opportunity of discussing what is, after all, a very vital subject at this moment. I found myself in sympathy with part, at any rate, of the Motion moved by my noble friend. I think, if he will allow me to say so, that it is like the curate's egg—good in parts. On the other hand, he made a number of what I believe to be very inaccurate statements, which have been answered by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and I therefore do not propose to go into them again. I think, however, he said that Mr. Winston Churchill had in some speeches been endeavouring to encircle Germany. I have read many of the speeches which have been ascribed to Mr. Churchill, and in at least several of them he denied emphatically any intention of encircling Germany. He made it quite clear that what he wanted was to encircle the aggressor, whoever the aggressor might be, and to set up what he described as the rule of Jaw in Europe, of which he regarded the League as the foundation. I think it was rather unfair that my noble friend should not have quoted from other speeches which Mr. Churchill has made on this subject.
What I imagine my noble friend wants is what he has very briefly described as the inauguration of the rule of law. All the arguments which have been heard during this debate have demonstrated quite clearly two things. First of all, we cannot expect to inaugurate the rule of law until we have constituted the League as an international authority and not merely as a conciliating body and a debating society. In order to do that at least two things are essential. The first is, as my noble friend has pointed out, that there shall be some peaceful procedure for effecting changes from time to time in the public law; and the second is that the public law shall be upheld and supported by adequate sanctions which are organised in advance. That means, I suggest to your Lordships, that we must have at least two things which apparently we have not had during the last twenty years. The first is a strong determination to make the League work, a determination that the will to peace shall succeed and that the League shall become an instrument, not merely for

495
preventing war, which after all is negative, but also for the administration of justice. Once we have succeeded in doing that, we shall have gone a very long way to abolishing and preventing war. I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that, as the noble Viscount told us a few moments ago, the League, of itself, means nothing; it all depends upon what the Members of the League want the League to do and what they are prepared to do in support of the League. After all, the League is merely a federation, or confederation, of nations who have come together in order to do certain things.
The most important thing to do is to endeavour to administer justice, and in order to administer justice, as I understand it, there must be at least two institutions. There must be one institution capable of changing the law from time to time, or of revising treaties from time to time, when such change and revision have become necessary. The second, as I have said, is to uphold the decisions of an Equity Tribunal, whose decisions have been endorsed by the Assembly, and which has become the recognised means of ensuring peaceful change. I venture to point out that until some adequate machinery has been introduced to assist the League in carrying out its very important functions it would be very difficult for it to function and work, for the reason that until some permanent body has been set up, call it Commission, Tribunal, or Equity Tribunal, as part of that machinery, it is impossible to determine unmistakably who is the aggressor.
We know from our own experience in the administration of law in our own country that the aggressor is the person or party or group who take the law into their own hands and refuse to submit to third-party judgment. That is the definition of an aggressor in our law, and I suggest that the same definition applies in international affairs. So, until the gap has been closed up, after the Council has failed through methods of conciliation to secure a settlement, the next step is automatically to take the dispute before an impartial body, where all the facts are investigated, all the evidence taken, and where a decision can be arrived at in a purely impartial way. We had that experience and procedure really put into operation during the first dispute between
496
Japan and China, when there was a Commission, as the noble Viscount said, sent out to investigate on the spot the issues between China and Japan. Their report was unanimously accepted by the Assembly, and rejected, of course, by Japan, and that fact disclosed at once who was really the aggressor in that dispute. That is the first point I would like to make.
The second is the inter-dependence between these two ideas—the idea of securing justice by a peaceful procedure, and the necessity, of course, for sanctions: the necessity for upholding the decision, because law is not law unless it can be upheld and enforced. I think one example of that happened in 1914. There was a dispute between Austria and Serbia, and there were only two statesmen in Europe who were prepared to propose that that dispute should be taken to the only tribunal existing at that time—namely, The Hague Tribunal. They were the Czar and the then Serbian Prime Minister. They both suggested at that time that the dispute should be referred to The Hague Tribunal. What happened? It was ignored by every other Foreign Office in Europe, as to-day the League is being ignored and criticised, and proposals made that it should be abolished, as the noble Viscount opposite wants it to be abolished, and as I gathered from his remarks Lord Arnold would agree to its being abolished.
What is happening to-day is exactly what happened in 1914. I have already referred to the Lytton Commission. Then there is also the case of Abyssinia, which has been mentioned. There again the matter in dispute was referred to a Committee consisting of five persons, who investigated this dispute, but the trouble in that case was that three of the members of the Committee were interested parties. They were appointed by Governments who had very large interests in Africa. Therefore, however desirious they were of reaching some judicial decision and doing justice between the disputants, you could not really expect a body constituted in that particular way to arrive at a purely impartial verdict which would be accepted by everybody. Therefore I venture to suggest that the fact which emerges from this debate is the interdependence of the procedure which my noble friend wants to see carried out—

497
peaceful procedure for redressing grievances, and the necessity for a proper system of sanctions, in order that the decisions may become effective.
Before I sit down I would like, if I may, to quote from a very wise and very experienced statesman, the late Count Apponyi, who was the representative of Hungary at Geneva for a great many years. In his speech to the Fifth Assembly in September, 1924., he said:
"I have the deepest respect for the Council as a body and also for all the individual members of the Council, but no institution can be expected to do work for which it is not adapted. The Council is first and foremost a political body, consisting of statesmen delegated by their respective Governments and having definite instructions. … (And) it is only natural that members of the Council should be unwilling or seldom willing to assume responsibility of opening up a question that is likely to prove embarrassing to a State with which they are anxious to maintain good relations."
I venture to suggest that that statement is perfectly true, and it means that the Council is not the proper body to suggest what is a just and equitable arrangement as between two nations who are engaged in a dispute.
With regard to the other point which I mentioned, the inter-dependence of sanctions and a peaceful procedure, may venture once more to quote to the House from that great and distinguished historian, the late Sir John Seeley. This is what he wrote, and I think it is as true to-day as, or even truer than, it was when he actually wrote it:
"There has been found hitherto but one substitute for war. It has succeeded over and over again: it succeeds regularly in the long run wherever it can be introduced. This is to take the disputed question out of the hands of the disputants, to refer it td a third party whose intelligence, impartiality and diligence have been secured, and to impose his decision upon the parties with overwhelming force. The last step in this process, the power of enforcing the decisions by the federal union only, is just as essential as the earlier ones, and if you omit it you may just as well omit them too."
So I hope that the Government will not allow this question of the reform of the League to be postponed to some remote future, but that they will take courage and redeem the promises which they have made to the people of this country at the earliest possible moment.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, whatever may have been our judgment upon the speech with which this debate opened I entirely associate myself with what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in regard to the interest with which we have all listened to it, and I am sure that the noble Viscount who introduced the debate will have had no cause to complain about the quality or the interest of the discussion to which his Motion has given rise. Noble Lords will not think that it implies any lack of appreciation on my part of the speeches that have been made—in which I include the one that I am about to deliver—if I say that on the whole they have followed a course that is not unfamiliar to those who have attended the periodic debates on this matter in the House. The noble Lord who spoke last, and whom we are delighted to see back in the House after his illness, followed a line that we have come to associate more particularly with his name, and a line that he always prosecutes with great diligence and assiduity. There was also a certain familiarity in the sequence in debate of my noble friend Lord Arnold, immediately following the noble Viscount (Lord Cecil) who now sits as a regular inhabitant of the Benches opposite.
The speech of the noble Viscount who moved the Motion was, I suppose, one in advocacy of the amendment in some form of Article 19, so that it could be effectively used in the adjudication of international disputes before they reach the stage of crisis, and he explained to us that in his view Article 16 should not be invoked until an attempt had been made to do effective justice under the provisions of Article 19. I should suppose that we would all find ourselves in agreement with him, or rather with the principle underlying his argument, that no attempt should be made to employ coercion unless and until every effort had been made to consider grievances and remove grounds for disputes. But, as the noble Viscount opposite pointed out, provision was in fact made by those who drafted the Covenant for a very complete and careful consideration of all the elements in a potential dispute before any question of using coercive action in fact could arise.
At this stage of our debate I am not going to detain your Lordships by going

499
in detail into precisely what that machinery was. Every one of you can read it for yourselves in the successive Articles of the Covenant. More particularly I have in mind Articles 11, 12 and 13. It was only in the case of resort to war in disregard of the provisions of Articles 12, 13, and I think 15, that Article 16, which provides for coercion, could in fact be applied. And I think it might fairly be argued by those who were concerned to make the full paper case that that set of Articles did in fact provide adequate machinery and opportunity for the examination of all relevant matters in connection with any hypothetical dispute. Therefore, on paper, action under Article 19 is not the only means by which justice could be done. It is, of course, an admitted and plain fact that Article 19 is the only Article in the Covenant which speaks expressly of the revision of treaties, but it certainly is not the only Article which provides for the reconciliation of conflicting claims.
Before I leave that point I think it is perhaps worth mentioning—it has often been mentioned in this House before and I am not sure whether the noble Viscount, or it may have been the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition, mentioned it this afternoon, and in that field there would probably be general agreement—that there is one small improvement of procedure which would be held to be generally desirable, and that is in regard to the operation of the rule of unanimity arising under Article it, paragraph 2. It is the case that the operation of that rule may have the effect of preventing the early intervention of the Council in a dispute and, as your Lordships may be aware, His Majesty's Government have made proposals to the League for remedying that defect, to which I think the noble Viscount who introduced the Motion also made reference.
That brings me to what in part underlies the noble Viscount's Motion, and that is the question to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, addressed himself at the conclusion of his observations, the question of the revision of the Covenant. There is a great deal of experience to show the difficulty of an attempt to amend the text of the Covenant. I need not, I think, again explain the difficulty that has been experienced. Everyone of us
500
who has had to follow these things knows that it has been great. In fact, I think it is true to say that the only amendments of substance that have been made in the Covenant during its existence were amendments that were made in Articles 12, 13 and 15 as a result of the establishment of the Permanent Court of Justice at The Hague, and that those amendments might broadly be described as non-controversial. Therefore I think it is probably true to say that textual amendment of the Covenant is very likely to prove impossible. But it is not, as the noble Viscount pointed out, the sole method by which we can proceed. The Assembly in 1921 adopted certain Resolutions of an interpretative kind with regard to the application of Article i6, and these Resolutions had as their corollary certain consequential amendments of the Article. Although these amendments did not receive the requisite number of ratifications to bring them into force, the general effect of what was done has been to modify the practical application of Article 16. Therefore, if it is thought wise to modify the application of that or any other Article of the Covenant, there is no reason, as I see it, why the Assembly should not in its wisdom be moved to adopt a similar or somewhat similar procedure.
It is quite true, as has been said from more than one quarter—my noble friend Lord Stonehaven said it this afternoon, and it was one of the things he said with which even the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, would have found it possible to agree—that the full application of the Covenant has in fact been prevented, and that the League is to-day suffering from the abstentions and defections to which Lord Arnold referred with familiar vigour and force. It is of course true to say that unless the League commands the unqualified allegiance and loyalty of its Members, and unless its membership is fully representative, it cannot have the complete authority which the peace of the world demands. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, was disposed to protest against any suggestion that the League of Nations Union had been only concerned to stress Article 16, and that it might indeed have been better if they had done more stressing of Article i6 in earlier years. I have no doubt he is completely correct in what he says, but the moral I draw from that is that even

501
if to-day we have to admit that the full operation of Article 16 is impossible, there is no need on that account to despair of the future of the League or to underrate the value of the other work that the League in a great many fields is able and well-equipped to do.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but it is only because he was good enough to quote me. I do not quarrel with anything he has said, but he must remember that I did not mean to suggest that we never advocated any coercive action at all. Of course, to take the examples of Albania and Serbia, and Greece and Bulgaria, these questions were undoubtedly settled by the knowledge that there was this power in the background.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I do not think there is any substantial difference on this point between the noble Viscount and myself, and I am grateful to him for his intervention. If one brings it down to a point, there are, I suppose, two principal objections that may be made against the League, and they Eave both found expression in the course of our debate this afternoon. I want to say a word about each of them. The one is that the Covenant does in fact impose obligations and commitments which all countries are not at present able or willing at any given moment to accept, and the other is that the League does stand, or is alleged to stand, for the maintenance of an order of things with which all Governments are not content.
As regards the first, we can, I hope, recognise, however we apportion the responsibility, that the present circumstances of the day do render virtually impossible in all casts the full application of the Covenant, and it was indeed the recognition of that fact that led the Assembly of 1936 to establish its Committee to examine the application of the principles of the Covenant. As your Lordships know, that Committee has done a great deal of work, and it has reported to the Assembly the declarations that were made in the Committee on behalf of several nations, and has asked for further instructions. That is the position with which the Assembly will be faced when it meets in September. It will have then, I think, to decide as a matter of practical choice between the various alternatives and the various
502
methods that appear open of applying the Covenant. Let us have in our minds quite clearly what these alternative methods are. There is first of all the method of the full application of the existing Articles of the Covenant, with what I may colloquially call some tightening up of the coercive provisions of the Covenant. Under that plan the League would be fully coercive and would be organised not only for the promotion of international peace, but also in the most complete sense possible for its active enforcement by means of sanctions and the like. That is one way.
The second alternative would be the method that I fancy some of your Lordships, for example, Lord Arnold and Lord Stonehaven, would prefer—the method of completely excluding any conception of coercion. The provisions of the Covenant for peaceful settlement and all that kind of thing would remain, but there would be no obligation, and no capacity to accept an obligation on behalf of League members, to impose sanctions of any kind or in any circumstances. The only duty under that plan resting on any Member of the League in times of international crisis would be mutual consultation. Thirdly, there is an intermediate plan which I rather gather the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, who speaks with unrivalled authority on this kind of matter, might be disposed to favour. That plan, if I understand it aright, would be based on the view that the circumstances in which occasion for international, action will arise, and the nature of the action to be taken, cannot be securely determined in advance and that each case must be dealt with on its merits ad hoc. Under that plan the Members of the League would not be automatically obliged to do more than consult with one another, but there would be a faculty, though no obligation, to resort to coercion against a Covenant-breaking State should they so desire.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If my noble friend will allow me, there is a rather important nuance there. In my conception there would be an obligation to do whatever was necessary to bring the war to an end, but what was necessary would depend on what support there was for any particular action proposed. I think it rather important that we should keep alive the conception that the League is there to stop war.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I was just going on to say that the noble Viscount had laid great stress, in the observations that he made, upon the prospect of success. He emphasized, I think more than once, that it was not either wise or profitable in his view for the League to attempt something that had little prospect of success. He said you could not achieve certainty, but that you ought to have a very substantial prospect of success. As I understood what he said, and as I have understood what has been said in other places in regard to this idea of what I have called the intermediate method, it was that those Members of the League who might in a given case decide to employ coercion, would then do so in accordance with the existing provisions of the Covenant and with full knowledge of the degree of support that they might or might not be able to expect in whatever action they might take. It is, as I have said, probable that the Assembly will deal with these matters at their next Session, and when that time comes I can assure the noble Lord who spoke last that His Majesty's Government will be fully prepared to make their views known and give such advice to the Assembly as they may feel able to give. I do not in any way underestimate the difficulty of this question. There is a sharp difference among the Members as between these three different courses which I have ventured to sketch. Almost every shade of opinion indeed is found. Therefore the solution is going to be extremely difficult, but will not, I hope, prove impossible.
Now may I say a word or two—and this brings me back rather more closely to some of the things that have been said in the debate—with regard to the second main objection levelled against the League —namely, that it is an institution designed for the maintenance of the status quo? I do not want to travel over Europe in company with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, examining in all parts what may be the particular grievances under which different populations may suffer. I rather agree with his conclusion that any Foreign Secretary who approached the problem in such comprehensive fashion would have a time more uncomfortable than profitable. Of course the real thing that governs this side of the problem raised by the noble Viscount is that the League is a collection of independent sovereign States and is not a SuperState.
504
Those who drafted the League Covenant, I think the noble Viscount will know, had to make up their minds between those two conceptions, and they quite deliberately came down on the side of the collection of independent sovereign States, and that obviously is of extreme relevance in considering the power and force and the opportunity of Article 19.
That is why I find it difficult to follow the noble Viscount who introduced the debate when he says, rather over-simply as I think, that Article 19 as it stands, if only used, is a sure remedy for the evils that he thinks exist. It is quite true that the Article does expressly recognise the impracticability of the rigid maintenance of the status quo, but the Article is only permissive, the functions of the Assembly in regard to it are purely advisory, and, owing to this governing conception of sovereign States, there is no question of compulsion. A difficulty has been expressed in this debate by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) with regard, for example, to the establishment of such a tribunal as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has in mind and to which he has always pinned great faith. Those doubts I feel bound to share, even if they were not reinforced by the further doubts that I should feel about the practicability in present circumstances of that which must accompany them in his view—namely, the establishment of some effective sanction by way of international force. But when all that has been said, it is also true to say that Article 19 does provide an opportunity for discussing change and leading up to it by way of possible negotiation, and it is also I think true to say that if it were used the ventilation of grievances and the frank discussion of grievances at Geneva might help to remove certain misconceptions.
There has been, so far as I know, nothing to prevent the use of Article 19 for the consideration of possible causes of dispute except the reluctance of States to make use of it, and while it is impossible for the Assembly in this matter to dictate change, yet an expression of opinion even by a majority of the Assembly would—I agree here with the noble Viscount opposite—have a very valuable moral effect. The effect of it would be, I think, to show where the sympathies of the States taking part in

505
the discussion lay, and it would demonstrate to the States concerned, as the noble Viscount said, the amount of support that they might or might not expect if, owing to their own failure, perhaps, to be willing to undertake or to examine the question of revision, matters moved to a crisis. I was particularly interested to hear what the noble Viscount said in that sense. If T. understood him correctly, he intimated that, in his view, it ought not perhaps to be excluded that any State that had in such a discussion as that expressed its opinion in one sense should be held to be absolved from obligation to take any part in coercive methods in another sense.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think that would require an amendment. I do not think you could do that under the Covenant.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The noble Viscount knows much more about it than I do. I merely take note of his suggestion, which seems to me one of great interest. I would add that if the Article were employed in the way I suggested it would be, I think, quite wrong to underestimate its potential usefulness. May I before I sit down make a few observations of a rather more general kind in regard to what I conceive to be the purpose and value of the League as we examine it and watch it at this moment? I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say that the League throughout its life has always seemed to me to suffer, through no fault of its own, from hostile critics and from over-zealous friends, and that that has been in part due to a misconception of its purposes and its functions. It has been on the one hand, I think, quite unjust to expect results from the League that by the very nature of the case, as I should be disposed to argue, it was impossible for it to produce, and on the other hand it has been equally unjust—and I think my noble friend this afternoon fell into something of that injustice—to belittle the services that the League has rendered and is rendering in more directions than one to the cause of humanity. I want to tell my noble friend in what directions I think that is happening.
First of all, I do not think we ought to underrate the value of the League, whether we like this form of its machinery or not, as an expression of a great purpose
506
that has taken root in the minds and hearts of men and is, I think, going to remain there until they do find the right machinery to give it expression, if this be not the right machinery. Secondly, the accomplishment of the League, as I think one of your Lordships has said this afternoon, was the number of disputes that it has forestalled or prevented or settled. A dispute forestalled or prevented has very little news value. You do not read about it in the newspapers. But its reality is not less real on that account. Thirdly, the accomplishment of the League is to be judged by the whole range of its achievements in the humanitarian and social field. I will not weary your Lordships with examples because they may be familiar to you, but there is a great record of achievement to the League in terms of work done that has affected immediately and directly for good hundreds and hundreds of thousands of human lives for which human beings all over the world ought to be, if they knew the facts, grateful to the promoters and operators of the League machinery.
There are the refugees, thousands, and hundreds of thousands of them; there is improvement in the standards of public health; there is the fight against disease, and so on. If I may I would like to quote one example that came into my own work a little bit in India. It relates to the alleviation of a certain disease for which there was need for great supplies of quinine. It sounds a very small thing, but there were cases in which, owing to cost, the right amount of quinine required could not be made available. It was under League auspices that a substitute for quinine at a vastly cheaper price that enabled relief to be brought to innumerable human beings was found. If the League had done nothing else it would have justified itself over and over by such work as that. So one could go on. These examples, and others that one could give at random, taken cumulatively, I think, make a record that we ought not to have absent from our minds, for they are not small things. If there were those who failed to appreciate their value they would, I venture to think, be judging themselves, rather than the League, in so doing.
But if we rightly appreciate all that work, there is no reason at all why, under the influence of generous emotion, we should close the door to reason in the

507
matter of the examination of the practical strength in the political field to be exerted by the League to-day. It is, of course, undeniable in a world of great Powers that it is a source of great weakness to the League that four of the greatest Powers should stand outside, some of whom are not only out of sympathy but are actively opposed, as the noble Viscount said, to the whole idea and method of international discussion for international purposes for which the League stands. It is not the machinery which is at fault, but it is the willingness of people to take advantage of it to adapt it and to make it work. The possibilities are there, but there is not, we must admit, a sufficiently general desire to see its possibilities exploited. If the League is ever itself to fulfil, or if it is ever to show the way by some other translation of its purpose to fulfil the idea of a better order for the world, it is necessary—and here I agree with my noble friend behind me—that all great nations should be brought to co-operate in the attempt. I do not delude myself by supposing that it is possible for us to hope for any such early immediate issue, but that must remain, I think, the objective to which a great part of our endeavours must be directed.
508
The difficulties which confront the League are of course, great indeed. It is quite true that the League is in rough water, and that difficult and testing times no doubt lie in front of it. But, none the less, our intention is to foster and sustain the League to the utmost of our power, doing our best to adapt its practice to circumstances, as prudence and wisdom may suggest to be most necessary, because we believe the League itself in fact enshrines principles which we think are vital to world society. It is because we believe that, that we look forward to the time when the League will, as we hope, emerge stronger from these times of test and stress and will once again be able to claim the allegiance of all men everywhere as a guarantee of international order and world peace.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his reply to what I consider a most important debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Clacton-on-Sea).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lords following be proposed to the House as members of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, namely:—

L. Belhaven and Stenton

L. Gifford:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

CHORLEY GAS ORDER, 1938.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Chorley:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

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

HESSLE GAS ORDER, 1938.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Hessle Gas company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HULL GAS ORDER, 1938.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the British Gas Light
510
Company, Limited, with respect to the Hull undertaking of that company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

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

ROTHWELL (NORTHAMPTON) GAS ORDER, 1938.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Urban District Council of Rothwell (Northampton):
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ST. HELENS GAS ORDER, 1938.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of St. Helens:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
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.
Report from the India and Burma Orders Committee, That they have examined the draft Orders as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Orders do not raise important questions of policy and principle; that the Orders are founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Orders 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 Orders: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.