Sitting of 16 March 1938

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

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND BURMA ACTS, 1935.
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Cross) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as followeth:
I have received your Addresses praying that the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1938; the Government of Burma (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1938; the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) Order, 1938; and the Government of Burma (India-Burma Financial Settlement) Order, 1938, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before your House.
I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Caledonian Power Bill,
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridgwater Extension) Bill.
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  CHINA (FOREIGN EXCHANGE).
  Mr. Moreingasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the announcement by the Chinese Government of the imposition of restrictions on the purchasing of foreign exchange; whether the purchasing of foreign exchange is being limited to transactions in Hankow and Hong Kong; and
  382
  what steps he is taking to prevent the resulting hindrance to British trade?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I understand that the arrangement referred to relates to the sale by the Central Bank of China of the foreign exchange at its disposal. Such sales to banks in China will be effected by the Central Bank at Hankow, and, as a matter of convenience, applications will be received at Hong Kong and will be forwarded to Hankow. I am not at present prepared to say whether the arrangements made will cause any avoidable difficulties to British trade, but the position will be closely watched from this point of view.
  Mr. Moreing: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether he will specially inquire as to the position of holders in this country of the silver debentures and shares in the public utility companies which are operating in China in order that they may be able to get their dividends out of China with no restrictions?
  Mr. Butler: I will look into the matter to which my hon. Friend refers.

  AUSTRIA.
  Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on Saturday last, about midday, when the German Government had taken over the airport in Vienna, a British subject, Mr. E. C. Robson, who was leaving Vienna for Prague, was stopped, insulted, searched, and stripped, even of his socks; what steps His Majesty's Government intend to take to prevent similar treatment to other British subjects; and whether he will make representations to the German authorities for an apology and compensation?
  Mr. Butler: I have caused inquiries to be made, but nothing is known of this case at either His Majesty's Legation or His Majesty's Consulate in Vienna. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would give me any information in his possession.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Will my hon. Friend see that British subjects are not bullied by any Nazis, either at Vienna or anywhere else, without a strong protest and opportunity for compensation?
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that many Austrian citizens will be unable to return to Austria as a result of its annexation by Germany, His Majesty's Government will take action to secure their protection under the auspices of the League of Nations?
  Mr. Butler: The question whether refugees from Austria should be placed under the protection of the League of Nations is one for the Council of the League to decide. His Majestys' Government are giving consideration to the matter.
  Mr. Henderson: Pending action by the League Council, will the Minister give an assurance to the House that there will be no repetition of what took place yesterday, when Austrian refugees were prevented from entering this country?
  Mr. Butler: That is a matter for the Home Office.
  Sir Percy Harris: When is the Council of the League likely to meet? Will it meet at an early date to consider these urgent questions?
  Mr. Butler: I said that His Majesty's Government are giving consideration to this matter.
  Sir P. Harris: Will the Council of the League be meeting soon? If so, when?
  Mr. Butler: We do not anticipate a special meeting of the Council. It will be meeting at the normal time, but meanwhile, we are giving consideration to the matter.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is it the case that Austrian refugees were refused admittance to this country yesterday? Can the hon. Gentleman give us any information?
  Mr. Butler: As I have said already, that is a matter for the Home Office.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office is an administrative Department, and that if any political reasons are involved, it is a matter for the Foreign Office?
  Mr. Speaker: The Minister has answered the specific question on the Paper.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will propose that a meeting of the
  384
  League Council be held to consider the annexation of Austria by Germany and the policy to be adopted in order to prevent further acts of aggression?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the Debate in this House on 14th March, to which I have at the moment nothing to add.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the increased German and Italian aggression in Spain and the danger of German aggression against Czechoslovakia, does not the Minister consider that the League Council should be called together at once in order to concert measures to preserve international peace?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member was asking a specific question about the Austrian case.
  Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister answer the second part of the question?
  Mr. Butler: With regard to the second part of the question, I do not wish to rule out any possibility in considering what action might be taken to prevent further acts of aggression.
  Mr. Mander: Is it not the first time in the history of the League that there has been an international crisis and no Council has been called together, and is that because the Government are no longer interested in the League?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir.
  Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister tell me who is responsible for convening the League?

  SPAIN.
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether he has now seen the official communiqué issued by the Spanish Government stating that General Zander, commander of the sixth sector of the German air force, is fighting with the insurgents in Spain; that the following German ships are co-operating in General Franco's fleet: submarines U29, U30, U33, U34, U36, U54, accompanied by the base ships "Wollin," "Lieselotte," "Essberger," "Neptun," "August Shultze"; and whether he will make inquiries about these allegations, either direct or through the Non-intervention Committee?
  Mr. Rileyasked the Prime Minister whether the Foreign Office has received information from its representatives in Spain as to the arrival in Spain of munitions, aeroplanes or men from either Germany or Italy for the aid of the insurgents in the civil war since 1st February, 1938; and whether he can state the approximate quantities, respectively?
  Mr. W. Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of Italian destroyers have recently been transferred to the Spanish insurgents; and will he bring the matter before the Non-intervention Committee?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's representatives naturally report on matters of this nature if they are brought to their notice, but it is rather the duty of specially qualified officers of the Nonintervention Board to collect such information. As regards the detailed reports mentioned in these questions, the Spanish Government communiqué has naturally been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government, but they have no information which in any way confirms the allegations contained therein. Nor have they any information of any recent transfer of Italian destroyers to General Franco's forces.
  Mr. G. Strauss: Can we be told why it is that the Government consistently deny all information about the material Fascist intervention in Spain, and are the Government prepared to drift along blindly until Spain goes the same way as Austria, this time with Government connivance?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member's question referred to a specific case, and our information goes to show that these allegations have no confirmation.
  Mr. T. Williams: Are we to understand from the reply to Question No. 6 that the Government have information that satisfies them that neither Germany nor Italy has broken the spirit or words of the Non-intervention Agreement?
  Mr. Butler: That raises a rather broader question than the one on the Paper.
  Mr. Williams: May I remind the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Speaker: A specific question has been put on the Paper, and an answer has been given to it.
  Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. On this specific question, may we have an answer from the Foreign Office as to whether there is either an understanding or an instruction that the Foreign Office desires to have no information from its agents with regard to intervention in Spain?
  Mr. Mander: Can we have the Prime Minister here to answer questions?
  Mr. Bellenger: In view of the serious statement made in question No. 5, will the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether that information is correct or not, and, if so, would it not be regarded as an unfriendly act by His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Butler: I have said, in answer to the specific question in No. 5, that this particular information does not appear to us to be correct from all the information we are able to obtain.
  Mr. Riley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.
  Mr. Mander: On a point of Order. We were informed the other day by the Prime Minister that it was his intention to be here on the occasion of Foreign Office questions to deal with any important questions that would arise. May I ask what steps the House can take to see that the Prime Minister is persuaded to carry out the promise that he gave?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that is not a question I can answer.
  Mr. Benn: Would it not be in order for hon. Gentlemen who have addressed questions to the Prime Minister to decline, in his absence, to put the questions?
  Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister, according to his own statement, is the judge of what are important questions which he will answer himself.
  Mr. Kirkwood: For the information of hon. Members, may I ask whether, as the Opposition are not satisfied with the replies which we are getting to these specific questions, it would be in order for me to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to the fact that

  387
  the Prime Minister, who promised the House that he would reply to these questions, is not here to do so?
  Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members were to move the Adjournment of the House every time they did not get the answers which they desired to their questions, I am afraid there would be many such Motions.
  Mr. W. Roberts: May I ask question No. 7?
  Mr. Speaker: It has been answered with questions 5 and 6.
  Mr. Roberts: I was not aware that it had been included in that answer. May I put a supplementary question? May I ask the hon. Gentleman—
  Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member who was unaware that his own question had been answered, to seek to ask a supplementary question?
  Mr. Speaker: It is usual to allow a supplementary question to be put by the hon. Member in whose name the question stands on the Paper.
  Mr. W. Roberts: Does the Under-Secretary state definitely that he has received no information with regard to these Italian destroyers from any officer acting uder the Non-intervention Agreement?
  Mr. Butler: As I said in my original answer, we have received no information of any recent transfer of Italian destroyers to General Franco's forces. I understand that there was a report towards the end of last year that certain destroyers had been transferred. This question referred to recent transfers, and the answer is as I have given it.
  Mr. W. Robertsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that Article 13 of the Tenth Convention of the Second Hague Convention provides that if wounded, sick, or shipwrecked persons are taken on board a neutral warship precaution must be taken, so far as possible, that they do not again take part in the operations of war, any pledge was obtained from the insurgent sailors rescued from the "Baleares" that they would not serve again in the insurgent forces?
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on 7th March, in which he stated that His Majesty's Government do not take the view that we are bound by the obligations of neutrality in the circumstances of the Spanish war.
  Mr. Benn(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to the bombing of the British steamer "Stanwell" in Tarragona harbour yesterday?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): No report has yet been received in regard to this incident. I am, however, making urgent inquiries.
  Mr. Benn: Would the Prime Minister get from all available sources what information he can as to the nationality of the machines and of their occupants?
  The Prime Minister: I shall get all the information I can.
  Mr. Attlee(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any representations from the French Government regarding the latest situation in Spain; and whether he has any statement to make?
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris received yesterday evening from the French Government an indication of the anxiety with which they view the present military situation in Spain. His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of recent developments and are keeping in close touch with the French Government.
  Mr. Attlee: In view of the obvious fact that the Non-intervention Agreement is being violated—[HON. MEMBERS: "By whom? "]—and that British interests are gravely imperilled by this attack upon the Spanish Peninsula by Powers that have shown aggression in other parts of the world, will His Majesty's Government now confer with the French Government with a view to restoring to the Spanish Government their right to receive arms and assistance?
  The Prime Minister: What I said was that we are keeping in close touch with the French Government.
  Mr. Attlee: Has the Prime Minister considered any question of action in view of this continued breach, and may I recall to his mind the statement which he made when he talked in this House of his conversations with Italy that any further activities changing the military situation in Spain would necessarily affect the continuance of those conversations?
  Hon. Members: What about Russia?
  The Prime Minister: The recent developments appear to have taken place with men, arms and equipment already in Spain.
  Mr. Attlee: In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister and of the present situation, I beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HOME FLEET.
    Captain Pluggeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in connection with the inspection by His Majesty the King of the Home Fleet on 21st and 22nd June, it is proposed that the vessels shall, before or after the review, visit the Thames; and, if so, whether he can state the arrangements?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: I regret that it will not be possible to arrange for ships of the Home Fleet to visit the Thames this summer.

    INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYÉS (HOSPITAL FUND CONTRIBUTIONS.)
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many workers in the torpedo factory at Greenock are affected by the decision of the Admiralty, under which industrial employés not covered by existing contributory schemes may arrange for contributions to local hospital funds by means of deductions from their pay; whether this decision will apply to new entrants; and whether he can give the total number of workers throughout the country affected by this decision?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: According to the latest returns available, the total
    390
    number of industrial employés in Admiralty establishments at home is approximately 64,000. It is not possible, without extensive and detailed inquiry, to say how many of these workpeople will be affected by the opportunity to make their contributions through the medium of the centralised machinery mentioned in my reply of 9th March. The number of industrial employés at Greenock affected is approximately 3,200, of whom 1,587 already make contributions by means of deductions from pay. The remainder will be in a position to avail themselves of the new facilities, which will apply also to new entrants.
    Mr. Gibson: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether these new facilities will be available both to industrial and non-industrial workers?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: Not at the moment.

    UNEXPLODED MINES.
    Mr. Dayasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many unexploded filled mines have been trawled or washed ashore in the British Isles during the three years ended to the last convenient date; and what special measures are at present being taken to clear unexploded mines from the bottom of the ocean in localities where the risk still remains?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: No special measures are being taken to clear unexploded mines from the bottom of the ocean. In this connection I may point out that a filled mine is not in itself a danger unless fitted with primer and firing mechanism in an efficient state. For the three years ending June, 1936, Admiralty records show that the number of explosive filled mines washed ashore or reported as being trawled up was 14. None of these could have been made to explode through its own mechanism. In these circumstances it was thought unnecessary that reports of mines collected should be made to the Admiralty, and I have, therefore, no figures later than June, 1936.
    Mr. Day: Were any lives lost in trawling for these mines?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. The 14 mines drawn up in the three years before June, 1936, would not explode of their own accord, and in order to destroy them, new primers had to be fitted.

    PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (THEFT CHARGE).
    Mr. Thorneasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give any information in connection with the stolen metal from Portsmouth dockyard and what kind of metal was stolen?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: On Monday, 7th March, 1938, on the coppersmith's shop at Portsmouth Dockyard being opened for the commencement of work, it was discovered that during the weekend several gunmetal bearings and a number of brazing sticks had been removed from the shop. The matter was immediately placed in the hands of the Dockyard Police and investigations were made in close co-operation with the Portsmouth city police, and, on 10th March, the whole of the lost metal was discovered buried in the Farlington Marshes just outside Portsmouth. Since then two men have been arrested in connection with the theft, and were brought before the Justices at the Guildhall, Portsmouth, on Saturday, 12th March. They have been remanded in custody.

    PROMOTIONS FROM RANKS.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now give information respecting the number of serving commissioned officers who have risen from the ranks; the number of commissioned officers who have been promoted from the ranks during the past 10 years; and what percentage this represents?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: The number of serving commissioned officers who have risen from the ranks is 986. This figure is 16 per cent. of the number of serving commissioned officers. The number of commissioned officers who have been promoted from the ranks in the last 10 years is 919. The term "commissioned officer" has been used throughout as including commissioned officers from warrant rank.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with this percentage?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. The scheme of promotion from the ranks has been made use of last year. I intend to make a statement on the subject during the Estimates Debate to-morrow.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman really satisfied with the fact
    392
    that 84 per cent. of the officers are not drawn from the rank and file but recruited only through what are, after all, financial channels?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: I think this matter had better be discussed during the Debate to-morrow.

    RATING PILOTS (FLYING PAY).
    Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why petty officers who qualify for rating pilot, under the recently issued regulations, are only to be paid flying pay of 5s. per day, whereas officers of or below the rank of lieutenant-commander are paid 6s. per day, observing that the ratings will be performing the same duties as officers, and that officers' substantive pay is much larger than that of ratings?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: I am unable to accept the hon. Member's suggestion that officers and rating pilots will perform identical duties. Those of the rating pilots will not call for the same degree of responsibility, training and knowledge, as those of officers, and this difference is reflected both in the substantive and in the non-substantive rates of pay.

    BOYS (RAILWAY WARRANTS).
    Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the issue of free railway warrants to naval boys when proceeding on long leave, as has recently been decided for the Army, in view of the distance of many of their homes from the training establishments and ships and the comparatively large expense of railway fares from the pay of boys?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: I intend to make an announcement on the subject during the discussion on the Naval Estimates to-morrow.

    SPECIALIST STAFF COURSES.
    Mr. Parkerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of executive officers at present undergoing each of the various specialist staff courses, and the total; and the number of officers commissioned from the lower deck in each course, and the total?
    Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin: As the information requested can be best given in the form of a table, I will, with the

    Course.

    Total Number of Executive Officers at present attending.

    Number of Officers from lower deck included in total.

    Staff Course

    31

    Nil.

    Officers qualifying as specialists in Gunnery

    22

    2

    Officers qualifying as specialists in Torpedo

    12

    Nil.

    Officers qualifying as specialists in Navigation

    No course at pre sent being held.

    Officers qualifying as specialists in Signals

    8

    Nil.

    Officers qualifying as specialists in Anti-Submarine

    13

    1

    Officers qualifying as specialists in Physical and Recreational Training.

    No course at pre sent being held.

    Officers qualifying as specialists as Observers (Fleet Air Arm).

    6

    1

    Officers qualifying as specialists as Pilots (Fleet Air Arm).

    29

    Nil.

    Total

    121

    4

    NOTE.—Officers specialising in Hydrographic Surveying or in Submarines are not shown as no specific preliminary courses are prescribed for these branches.

  PALESTINE.

    EFFENDI KHALIDI.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Effendi Khalidi, the inspector of co-operative societies in Palestine, who has been sentenced to three months' imprisonment for supplying money and arms to the Arab bands, has been dismissed from his post; and will that post now be filled by a British official?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): This officer was detained on 21st January under the Defence Regulations. He has since been dismissed from the Service with effect from 22nd February. I understand that it is not proposed to fill the resulting vacancy by the appointment of a British officer.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Is he under a sentence of three months' imprisonment?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, he is under preventive arrest.

    MUNICIPAL LOAN, TEL AVIV.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received information from Palestine indicating that arrangements are now completed for the municipal loan required by Tel Aviv in order to enable certain urgent work in connection with hospitals and other matters to be carried out?
    hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The information is as follows:
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The most urgent works for which the municipal corporation of Tel Aviv desire to raise a loan are a new water supply and drainage system estimated to cost more than £1,000,000. With the assistance of the Palestine Government, negotiations were undertaken for a loan of this amount, but, owing to the disturbed state of the country and the uncertainty of the future, these negotiations have, I regret to say, not been successful, and it has been ascertained that there is now no possibility of Tel Aviv raising a loan in London at the present time. I understand that inquiries are proceeding with regard to the possibility of raising a loan of smaller amount in Palestine for the purpose of meeting the most immediate and pressing needs of the town.
    Mr. Williams: In view of the grave possibilities of an outbreak, since there are approximately 135,000 persons there with no drainage system at all, are the Government doing their part in helping the authorities to obtain the requisite loans for health and other purposes?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly, we do all we can. There is a fairly good water supply, but, as the hon. Member knows, particularly in the summer, water-borne sewerage is not essential. The great thing is to remedy as soon as possible the urgent matters and to improve the existing state of affairs.
    Mr. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman not regard the drainage system, of which there appears to be none, in Tel Aviv as of the most vital importance, in view of the climate?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Oh yes, it is obviously desirable to have water and drainage schemes covering the whole of this municipality, but obviously it is a very big undertaking, as the town has grown so rapidly. There is a series of subordinate local schemes. But I quite agree with the idea.
    Mr. McGovern: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Government to give the money for this purpose?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir.

    MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, JAFFA.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a report from Palestine with regard to the position of those Jewish residents in the suburbs of Tel Aviv which come under the municipal administration of Jaffa; and whether any remedial action is being taken with regard to their position?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: On the general question I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 23rd February, and as regards certain individual cases, I am still awaiting the report for which I have asked the High Commissioner.
    Mr. Williams: Do we understand that the High Commissioner is examining these complaints that have been made by the people resident there?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes. I asked him to do that.
    Mr. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the social conditions in the Karton quarter of Jaffa; and what action has been taken to improve the housing, draining, and lighting services?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have no information about the conditions to which the hon. Member refers, but I am asking the High Commissioner for a report.

    TERRORISM.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he
    396
    is now in a postion to make a further statement as to the situation in Palestine and the suppression of terrorist activities?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There has been no material change in the situation since my last statement. I have received a report of a major encounter with an armed gang west of Jenin on 4th March, in which 60 or 70 Arabs are believed to have been killed and 16 prisoners were taken, with 17 rifles, 11 bombs, and a quantity of ammunition.
    Mr. Adams: Can the Minister say whether the position is improving or otherwise?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Since that encounter there has been a further encounter, of which I can probably give particulars next week, near Safed. A good many outbreaks are going on in the country.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the party of mounted Arab constables who were attacked at Taffuha, near Hebron, and suffered casualties, lost any rifles or prisoners; and were any British officers or constables present with this party?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No loss of rifles or prisoners has been reported. I have not the information that would enable me to answer the last that of the question.

    MUFTI.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position with regard to the case of the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, near Beyrout; whether he is aware that the ex-Mufti is receiving a substantial monthly subsidy from foreign sources and is now directing terrorist operations from French Syria; and what representations have been made to the French Government on the subject?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understand that Haj Amin is kept under surveillance by the French authorities in Syria. The High Commissioner for Palestine has received information from time to time regarding alleged political activities on the part of the Mufti, and this matter is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government in close consultation with the French authorities, both in Paris and Damascus.
    Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that no money is reaching the ex-Mufti from foreign sources?
    Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I cannot be that, as he is not living in territory under British control. He is under the surveillance of the French authorities, and all that we can do is to make representations to the Government in Paris and through our Consul in Damascus.
    Mr. Mander: Is this one of the matters which is being discussed with the Italian Government at the present time?
    Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask Sir Ronald Storrs whether the ex-Mufti is getting supplies from foreign sources?

  SIERRA LEONE (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a law for workmen's compensation exists in Sierra Leone; whether he has any information regarding a recent case in which only £7 10s. was paid as compensation in respect to the death of a deck labourer from accident on board a ship plying on the West African coast; and can he give the name of the shipping company concerned?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There is at present no general workmen's compensation legislation in Sierra Leone. The draft of the comprehensive Workmen's Compensation Ordinance for the Colonial Dependencies in East and West Africa to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member of 11th February, 1937, has been sent to the Government of Sierra Leone with a view to legislation being enacted as speedily as possible. I have no information regarding the case referred to in the second part of the question, but I will make inquiries.
  Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the industrial development in Sierra Leone, will the right hon. Gentleman make special representations that there should be a satisfactory and adequate workmen's compensation law there?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes. I have given instructions that, in view of the rapid expansion of the iron mining industry in Sierra Leone, there should be a comprehensive review, not only on this matter, of the labour interests that are likely to arise.
  Mr. George Griffiths: What was this £7 10s. compensation paid for?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not know.
  Mr. Griffiths: It was paid to the widow, I suppose, for 12 months.

  WEST AFRICA (MISSIONARY SCHOOLS).
  Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of schools in West Africa that are managed by missionary societies emanating from other countries; and whether the Government exercise any control over the source of the supplies used in these schools for educational purposes?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There are many missionary schools in West Africa provided by missionary societies whose membership includes foreign as well as British adherents, and I do not think it would be possible to obtain the information asked for by the hon. Member Legislation exists in the West African Colonies providing for the inspection and supervision by Government officers of all educational activities in the dependencies.
  Mr. Day: In view of the loss of prestige of British trade in West Africa by the use of foreign books and materials in these schools, cannot the right hon. Gentleman, see that British books and materials are used?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is extremely difficult. There are international conventions regarding the freedom of missionary societies. Take a body like the Seventh Day Adventists, which is partly American and partly British. I think it would be impossible for me to say that all their books should be printed in England rather than in America.
  Commander Locker-Lampson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether British missionaries are not allowed in Abyssinia? I do not see why foreign missionaries should be allowed in West Africa.

  CEYLON (NUTRITION).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the recent report on nutrition in Ceylon; and what action is being taken to improve nutrition and diminish mortality and ill-health?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir; two reports on this important subject have been published in the last year. As regards the second part of the question, it would be impossible to compress within the limits of a Parliamentary answer the measures which are being taken by Ceylon Ministers to improve nutrition. But as an instance of the great importance which I know Ministers in Ceylon attach to the subject (it is one which under the constitution falls wholly within their competence) I may add that a sum of Rs.1, 000,000 has been voted this year for providing meals for school children.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that 1,000,000 rupees goes very far towards meeting this very serious condition?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It would be improper for me to express an opinion on a matter which is not within my province.
  Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was generally the opinion of medical officers in Ceylon that the absence of resistance when the malaria epidemic overtook them trebled the deathrate?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That certainly was the opinion expressed by a great many medical officers. No doubt this is a matter which the responsible Ministers in Ceylon take into account.

  BARBADOS (SENTENCE ON NATIVE).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a coloured man named Grant who had previously committed no offence in Barbados was, in November, charged with sedition for advising the natives to organise, and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment because it was declared dangerous that he should be let loose; and, seeing that it is not a crime in a British Colony to agitate for a form of organisation to overthrow the capitalist system, will he make a statement regarding this matter?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am informed that Grant was found guilty of sedition in November, 1937, on four counts, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude on each count, two sentences to run concurrently with the other two, making a
  400
  total term of imprisonment of 10 years. Although he had no previous convictions in Barbados, he had been deported from the United States of America after a number of convictions there. The case was tried by a special jury, who were directed by the Judge that lawful organisation could be encouraged and promoted, and were asked to decide whether, on the occasions which gave rise to the charges, Grant was fostering lawful organisation. The jury unanimously decided otherwise.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Grant was undefended, that the offences were of a very petty character, that this man did not incite to violence, and that the Judge merely said that he was guilty of organising; and will the right hon. Gentleman therefore express himself to the Governor that this was an outrageous and savage sentence?
  Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It would be improper for me to comment on a sentence passed by a Judge on a decision by a jury, and as the exercise of the prerogative of mercy does not lie with me, but under the Constitution rests solely with the Governor, it would be highly improper for me to intervene.
  Mr. Paling: In view of the fact that this man has been sentenced because he was asking the people to organise, is it too late to intervene, particularly in view of what has just happened in Trinidad and in view of the answer which he gave to a previous question that no compensation laws exist in these Colonies?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    No. 4 SQUADRON (COMMANDING OFFICER).
    Sir Cooper Rawsonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with reference to the appointment of an Army officer to command No. 4 Squadron, Royal Air Force, whether reports as to his suitability for such command were obtained from the officers commanding the squadron, station and group in which he served while attached to the Royal Air Force; and what was the nature of these reports?
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): No special reports were obtained but full consideration was given to all relevant information

    401
    concerning the officer's suitability for command, including the reports made upon him during his previous service with the Royal Air Force. As regards the second part of the question, reports rendered on officers relating to their official duties are confidential and cannot be divulged.
    Sir C. Rawson: May I ask, without casting any reflection on this officer, whether it is not a fact that there are other officers in the Air Force who are capable of doing this particular work?
    Earl Winterton: I do not think that that arises out of the question. My hon. Friend asked me a question about a particular officer which I answered.
    Mr. Perkins: Can my Noble Friend say whether it is a fact that an assurance was given in the House about three months ago that reports of incidents of this kind could always be obtained, and whether in this case no report has been obtained?
    Earl Winterton: I have said that consideration was given to all relevant information. I can, however, inform my hon. Friend that consideration is being given to a different system of obtaining reports in future. I can say that without reflecting on the suitability of this particular officer.

    SABOTAGE.
    Mr. Hulbertasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is now in a position to make any further statement in regard to the alleged sabotage of aircraft at Ringway aerodrome?
    Earl Winterton: No, Sir.

    AIRCRAFT SUPPLY (CANADA).
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps have been taken to utilise the manufacturing resources of Canada for the supply of aircraft?
    Earl Winterton: It has been considered necessary to rely upon the resources of aircraft production in this country for the purposes of quantity production of new types required to carry out the present expansion programme. Attention is, however, being given to the possibilities of utilising Canadian resources of aircraft production in emergency. The fact that the programme of construction now being
    402
    carried out in Canada to meet the requirements of the Canadian Government includes several types of British service aircraft, is providing valuable experience and promotes liaison in technical matters.

    BALLOON BARRAGE.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether appropriate schemes of balloon barrages are in existence for the protection of industrial centres and populations on the North-East Coast?
    Earl Winterton: No, Sir. It has already been stated that the provision of balloon units for the protection of areas outside London will be considered in the light of the experience gained in the development of the London barrage. Until this stage is reached it would be premature to draw up detailed schemes for the protection of other areas, but the subject is under active consideration.
    Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that several months ago I made an offer to the Air Ministry on behalf of a number of industrialists connected with the Tyne-side Industrial Board that they were prepared to erect factories on the Tyneside at their own charge for the purpose of producing balloon barrage plants, and that this offer was turned down on the ground that it would be redundant?
    Earl Winterton: However that may be, it does not alter the validity of the answer which I have given that this matter will be considered in the light of the experience gained in the development of the London barrage.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Are we to understand that there must be a war first before the barrage is considered for other areas?
    Earl Winterton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to do me an injustice, but that would be an unfair comment on my answer. This is a novel form of defence, and it is desired to try the effect of it when it is in full operation.
    Mr. Ede: In view of the importance of the industrial population on the Tyneside in the event of an emergency, when does the Noble Lord expect to be able to say what steps will be taken?
    Earl Winterton: I cannot give a definite date, but perhaps it will interest the House to know that recruitment of the

    403
    auxiliary personnel for the barrage is expected to start in May this year, and I hope the response will be very considerable.
    Mr. Ede: That is for the barrage around London.

  CIVIL AVIATION.

    STORNOWAY.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made with the preparation of the proposed landing ground at Steinish, near Stornoway; and when the Stornoway air service is likely to begin?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): No further progress has been made with the site in question on account of the cost involved, but I am informed that negotiations have recently been opened between Scottish Airways and the Stornoway Trust with a view to determining the possibilities of developing at less cost an alternative site a little further inland than Steinish.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that there is an efficient air service operating to almost every rock off the west of Scotland and that to this island, which is the most important island, there is no service at all?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Air Ministry has been giving its technical advice and assistance, and development is a matter for the local authorities.
    Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that the Minister says that the cost is prohibitive, will he get some financial assistance as well as technical advice?
    Lieut.-Colonel. Muirhead: In accordance with the recommendation of the Maybury Committee, the policy of the Government is not to give financial assistance for the establishment of aerodromes.

    ALL-METAL AIR-LINERS.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps have now been taken by his Department to secure the construction of British all-metal medium-sized air-liners?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: A satisfactory design has been produced for a 12 to 17 seater machine of 16,000 to 18,000
    404
    lbs. all-up weight, and it is hoped that the first prototype of this design will be completed this year, and that the machine will be put into production next year provided sufficient orders are received. A draft specification for a 24-seater machine of 24,000 to 26,000 lbs. all-up weight has been prepared and referred for criticism to the operating companies likely to require an aircraft of this size. As soon as their views have been received, steps will be taken to settle the final form of the specification, and to secure designs to meet it.
    Mr. Simmonds: With regard to the former of the two machines, the smaller one, can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether a contract has been placed for any of these machines by the Air Ministry?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Air Ministry have placed no orders so far.
    Mr. Simmonds: Do they intend to do so, or are they leaving it, against the advice of the Cadman Committee, to private enterprise?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: At the moment it is being undertaken by the firm.

    IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
    Mr. Perkinsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total amount of money that was paid to Imperial Airways, Limited, out of Air Ministry funds during the Government financial years 1935, 1936 and 1937, and the present estimated amount for 1938?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The total amounts paid during the financial years 1935 and 1936 were £431,500 and £417,300. It is estimated that £740,600 and £1,297,000 will be paid during the financial years 1937 and 1938, respectively.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD HAULIERS (APPEAL TRIBUNAL'S DECISION).
    Mr. Holdsworthasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a recent decision by the Appeal Tribunal under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, whereby traffic which has been carried on for 10 years has been: withdrawn from two firms of road hauliers

    405
    without compensation; and whether he will consider the introduction of amending legislation to deal with this and similar cases?
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): I have seen in the Press a report of the decision to which I presume the hon. Member refers, and I have the whole matter under consideration. No proposals for amendment of the law relating to the powers and duties of the Appeal Tribunal have been made to me by any national association as a result of this decision.
    Mr. Holdsworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these two firms had a capital of £10,000 and employed 40 men, and that by a Nazi and arbitrary decision of this tribunal the whole thing has closed down?
    Mr. Magnay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern of haulage contractors in the north with regard to this decision, and will he give it his personal attention?
    Mr. Burgin: I have already assured the House that the whole matter is under my consideration. The difficulty is that when the Road and Rail Traffic Act was passed it was the wish of Parliament that this tribunal should be completely independent. Accordingly, the tribunal is independent and has given a decision. I am aware of the consequences of that decision and am considering the matter.
    Mr. Holdsworth: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the report of the Transport Advisory Council that each trader should have a free choice of the transport that he desires, and what becomes of that suggestion if there is simply going to be one form of transport left? What is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to do in the matter?
    Sir Ronald Ross: Was it not owing to the dissatisfaction of the road industry with the appeal to the Minister direct under the 1930 Road Traffic Act that the independent tribunal was set up?
    Mr. Burgin: It is sufficient for the moment to say that the tribunal by the Act is completely independent and its decisions are final. I, am aware' of the consequences of this decision, and, as I have told the House, I am giving the matter personal consideration.
    Mr. Holdsworth: May I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first available opportunity?

    RUBBER PAVING.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Transport whether the reports received from his technical officers indicate that experimental sections of rubber paving that have been laid down have shown satisfactory results; and will he consider recommending to the various highway authorities that further experiments be undertaken with this commodity?
    Mr. Burgin: Tests of rubber paving have indicated that it has a low resistance to skidding, but further trials are in progress with which my technical officers are keeping in touch.
    Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether it compares favourably with other materials in other respects?

    CYCLISTS.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to take further action regulating or restricting cyclists on the high road?
    Mr. Burgin: I am expecting at an early date a report from the Transport Advisory Council on the possibility of further measures for securing road safety in connection with cyclists?
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that that report will lead to the exclusion of cyclists from the roads?
    Mr. Burgin: I do not propose to anticipate the report. I hope the report will be in my hands in about a month's time, and I should imagine that a few days after that the hon. Member would know something about it.

    GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD (SPEED LIMIT).
    Mr. Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Transport whether a decision has yet been arrived at following the representations of the local inhabitants that the 30 miles per hour speed limit should be re-imposed on the new Glasgow-Edinburgh Road passing through Carntyne?
    Mr. Burgin: No, Sir. I have felt it necessary to arrange for a local inquiry

    407
    to be held into this matter, and arrangements have been made for it to be held on the 29th March.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY (TRANSPORT BOARD'S EMPLOYÉS).
  Mr. Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Transport whether he is at present in negotiation with the London Passenger Transport Board regarding facilities for employés who desire to attend Territorial camps; and whether he is in a position to make a statement?
  Captain Arthur Evansasked the Minister of Transport whether the London Passenger Transport Board have yet satisfied His Majesty's Government on the question of the Board's attitude towards the encouragement of Territorial Army recruiting; and whether he can make a statement?
  Mr. Burgin: Discussions are proceeding with the Board; but I am not yet prepared to make a statement on the subject.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Are representatives of the War Office taking part in those discussions?
  Mr. Burgin: For the moment the discussions are between my Department and the board.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Arising from this question about employés who desire to attend Territorial camps getting special facilities from the London Passenger Transport Board, will the munition workers who are producing the absolutely necessary munitions get special facilities for going to and from their work?
  Mr. Speaker: This question does not deal with the transport of employés.
  Sir P. Harris: Has the appropriate union been brought into the negotiations, so that the men may be consulted?
  Mr. Burgin: For the moment the discussions are between the London Passenger Transport Board and myself.

  PROPOSED CALCIUM CARBIDE FACTORY, SCOTLAND.
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Transport whether he can give any information regarding the effect of the proposed scheme for the establishment of a
  408
  calcium carbide factory at Corpach upon the Caledonian Canal and upon the flow of the River Ness?
  Mr. Burgin: I cannot anticipate my report to Parliament upon the Caledonian Power Bill. I may say, however, that the Bill contains Clauses for safeguarding the traffic interests of, and the water supply to, the canal, and also the flow of water of the River Ness.
  Mr. Boothby: Will the right hon. Gentleman's report be issued prior to the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill?
  Mr. Burgin: I am not in a position to say that.
  Mr. Boothby: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable that the House should have all the information possible before Second Reading?
  Mr. Maxton: Can we not have an answer to that supplementary question? Do I understand that we are to be asked to vote on this matter next week without having any knowledge of the report other than that which we shall get in the course of the Debate?
  Mr. Burgin: I was asked the date on which the report would be available, and I am not in a position to reply to that question this afternoon.
  Mr. Maxton: Will it be available before we have the Debate?
  Mr. Burgin: Perhaps that question could be put down. I should like to have the information at my disposal.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (CHARGES).
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of his decision to postpone the proposed Electricity Bill, he will introduce a short measure which will either bring under some form of statutory control the prices charged to consumers by the Fixed Price Electricity Company, or provide for this company to be taken over by a statutory undertaker?
  Mr. Burgin: No, Sir; but I am considering what provisions should be inserted in the Bill to deal with non-statutory undertakings.
  Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the charges and the methods of treatment adopted by this company are still causing very serious discontent in many parts of London?
  Mr. Burgin: I have had an inquiry made by the Electricity Commissioners and have been in communication with authorised undertakers, and I am in possession of a good deal of information.
  Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that certain electricity companies refuse to tell their consumers the basis on which they fix their flat-rate charges; and whether he will include in his forthcoming electricity legislation provision to compel statutory undertakings to inform the public of the basis on which their charges are calculated?
  Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. It is intended to require statutory undertakers to make their scales of charges available to the public.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE.
  Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the continued upward trend of municipal expenditure; and whether he can arrange for an official statement to be published each year on the increase in rates of the different rating authorities of the country?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend is aware of the position to which my hon. Friend refers in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer him to the statement entitled "Rates and Rateable Values in England and Wales" published annually in April by my Department, a copy of which I will send to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Member not aware that one of the causes is to be found in the many obligations which Parliament places upon local authorities?

  COAL PRICES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state
  410
  whether it is his intention to set up a committee to inquire into the differences between the ascertained pit-head prices and the prices charged to the domestic consumer?
  The Prime Minister: It has been decided to set Up a Departmental Committee, composed of persons independent of the interests affected, with the following terms of reference:
  "To inquire into the organisation and methods of distribution of coal, coke and manufactured fuel; to investigate the various items which make up the differences between the prices received by the producers and those paid by the consumers, and to make recommendations."
  I would like to make it plain that, for the reasons given during the Debates on the Coal Bill, these terms of reference do not include any inquiry into the operation of the coal-selling schemes themselves, but the operation of distributing companies, whether or not they are subsidiary companies of collieries, would fall within their scope.
  Miss Ward: May I thank the Prime Minister for his answer, and say that I am sure that it will give great satisfaction?
  Mr. Bellenger: Will the evidence be taken on oath?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it proposed that the report of this Committee shall be available to this House before we proceed to consider the further stages of the Coal Bill?
  The Prime Minister: The inquiry itself will be held in public except when the Committee decides that it may be advisable to hear evidence from either firms or individuals in private.
  Mr. Griffiths: But in the meantime is it proposed to hold up further consideration of the Coal Bill?
  Sir Joseph Lamb: Will there be any inquiry into the sale of coal for domestic purposes as well as for manufacturing purposes?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

  COLONIES.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the forthcoming Anglo-Italian negotiations, it is

  411
  still the view of His Majesty s Government that the colonial question is not one that can be considered in isolation, as a number of other countries would be involved?
  The Prime Minister: I do not anticipate that the Anglo-Italian conversations will be concerned with this subject. His Majesty's Government have not altered the view expressed in the Anglo-French communiqué which I read to the House on 30th November last—to the effect that the colonial question was not one which could be considered in isolation, and moreover would involve a number of other countries.
  Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the German annexation of Austria will prejudice immediate discussions on the colonial question?
  The Prime Minister: Obviously in present circumstances nothing further can be done in that direction.

  NATIONAL MILITARY TRAINING.
  Captain Macnamaraasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the indications in several quarters of the House that there is a growing feeling that some such measures may be desirable, he will consider consulting representatives of all parties with a view to agreeing upon a non-party measure to introduce some form of national military training for the better defence of this country and its better organisation in case of attack;
  (2) whether he will consider introducing some form of national military training, as opposed to conscription, which might take people away for long from their jobs, on some such lines as the Swiss model, so as to include all who must nowadays be included for the elementary functions of defence, leaving the Regular and Territorial Armies for those to enter who wish to take a more active part, either overseas or at home; and whether, in view of our common interests, he will appeal to Eire and the other Dominions to do the same?
  The Prime Minister: I have already given an assurance that conscription will not be introduced in peace-time so far as the present Government is concerned.
  412
  Although my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind some form of national military training as opposed to conscription, it is, I think, evident that his proposal could only effectively be carried out by compulsion.
  Captain Macnamara: Is it not a fact that the majority of this House and the whole of the country are behind the Government's rearmament programme, but is it enough to pay only for armaments and to rely on the efforts of a few, and would not a really united and national effort on the part of all of us do more for the nation?
  Mr. Mander: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that under the present Government and with its present policy no form of compulsory service will ever be tolerated by the country?
  Mr. De la Bère: What contribution has the hon. Member ever made to national unity?

  FOREIGN POLICY AND DEFENCE.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of conferring with the Leaders of the Opposition parties in this House with a view to exploring the possibilities of securing national unity in foreign policy and defence?
  The Prime Minister: While circumstances might arise which would make it right to consider the hon. Member's suggestion, I am not prepared at present to add anything to the reply which I gave him on 18th November last. That reply applies equally to Defence matters.
  Mr. Mander: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that he has the choice at the present time between national unity and attempting to govern against the wishes of at least half the nation?
  The Prime Minister: I hope the hon. Member will make his contribution to national unity.
  Mr. Mander: In response to that direct request I shall certainly be prepared to do so.

  FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies was expressing the policy of

  413
  the Government when he stated in London, on 10th March, that nothing was more important than the fearless expression of public opinion, and that the idea of Government control of the Press was repulsive to British tradition?
  The Prime Minister: I have seen a newspaper report of the speech to which the hon. Member refers, and I cannot see anything in it inconsistent with the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Mander: Was not that speech one of the most sensible that any Member of the Government has made for a long time?

  CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  Miss Wilkinsonasked the Prime Minister whether he can yet state whether His Majesty's Government have given or intend to give any guarantee to Czechoslovakia that her independence will be respected in case of any similar action against her as has been taken against Austria?
  The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the hon. Lady on 21st February last, the obligations of His Majesty's Government towards Czechoslovakia are those which every member of the League of Nations assumes towards all its fellow members. I have nothing to add to that statement of the present position, which will continue to have the most careful consideration.
  Miss Wilkinson: In view of the fact that precisely the same statement was made about Austria, are we to understand, if the present German Government take the same steps against Czechoslovakia that they have taken against Austria, that nothing further than that reply of 29th February is contemplated by His Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: I did not say that. I said that the present situation was under consideration.
  Miss Wilkinson: May I—
  Mr. Speaker rose—
  Miss Wilkinson: Surely on a matter of this kind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—On a point of Order. In view of the fact that this is one of the most important international matters of the
  414
  moment, surely a second supplementary question may be tolerated, since the Prime Minister has made no answer to my original question.
  Mr. Boothby: Further to that point of Order, may I point out—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am entitled to point out anything I like, and I want to ask why, if a second supplementary question is to be put, it should not be put from this side of the House?
  Mr. De la Bère: Are there not places where angels fear to tread?
  Miss Wilkinson: May I have an answer to my original question, whether His Majesty's Government are giving any definite guarantee, or not, to Czechoslovakia, because what the Prime Minister has said is no guarantee at all, and is completely worthless in the present circumstances?
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing now to add to the statement which I have made.
  Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement on his policy in foreign affairs, seeing that he has practically admitted that his late policy is now finished?
  The Prime Minister: I entirely dissent from that statement by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Attlee: The Prime Minister told me, when I asked this question before, that I must wait because he could not give me a brand new policy, which indicates that we were to have a statement of a new policy.
  Mr. Henderson: Will the Government consider, at any rate, the relationship of this country to Czechoslovakia, in the light of the recent annexation of Austria by Germany?
  Mr. Mander: And with Germans on the frontier.
  The Prime Minister: I must decline to be rushed—
  Mr. Neil Maclean: Was not Austria a member of the League of Nations?
  The Prime Minister:—into making announcements prematurely on this very serious subject, and in view of the fact that the Government have to bear a great

  415
  responsibility it is unreasonable of the Leader of the Opposition to press us to make a statement.
  Mr. Attlee: I was not pressing the right hon. Gentleman, but I was asking him when he would be able to make a statement. May I ask him to recall that in this position there is great anxiety in the country lest we have a Government with no policy?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot suppose that I am ignorant of that, but that is no reason why he should deliver ultimatums to me.
  Mr. Maxton: Is it not rather better that the right hon. Gentleman should have ultimatums from the Leader of the Opposition than from some foreign Power?

  SPAIN.
  Mr. Attlee: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the
  purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
  "the lack of any Ministerial policy to counter the grave menace to British interests arising out of armed intervention in Spain by certain Foreign Powers."
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, not fewer than 40 Members having accordingly risen—
  The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 8, until Half-past Seven o'Clock this Evening.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Report of Supply of 9th March 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, 261; Noes, 132.

Division No. 138.]

AYES.

[3.52 p.m.

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

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Gledhill, G.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Gluckstein, L. H.

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

Colfox, Major W. P.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

Aske, Sir R. W.

Conant, Captain R. J. E

Grant-Ferris, R.

Assheton, R.

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

Granville, E. L.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

Critchley, A

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

Atholl, Duchess of

Croft, Brig.-Con. Sir H. Page

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

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

Crooke, Sir J. S.

Grimston, R. V.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Craokshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Baxter, A. Beverley

Cross, R. H.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

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

Cruddas, Col. B.

Harbord, A.

Beechman, N. A

Culverwell, C. T.

Hartington, Marquess of

Beil, Sir A. L.

Davidson, Viscountess

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

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)

Barneys, R. H.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Birchall, Sir J. D.

De la Bére, R.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

Blair, Sir R.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

Boothby, R. J. G.

Despenser-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Hepwarth, J.

Boulton, W. W.

Dodd, J. S.

Higgs, W. F.

Brass, Sir W.

Doland, G. F.

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

Briscos, Capt. R. S.

Donner, P. W.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Dower, Major A. V. G.

Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.

Brawn, Cot. D. C. (Hexham)

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Hopkinson, A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

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

Duggan, H. J.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Bull, B. B.

Duncan, J. A. L.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Dunglass, Lord

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

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Eastwood, J. R

Hulbert, N. J.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Eckersley, P. T.

Hunter, T.

Butcher, H. W.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Hunt, Sir P. A.

Butler, R. A.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E

Hutchinson, G. C.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Ellis, Sir G.

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

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Elmley, Viscount

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Cary, R. A.

Emory, J. F.

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Keeling, E. H.

Channon, H.

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Everard, W. L.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Fildes, Sir H.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Fox. Sir G. W. G.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Kimball, L.

Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)

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

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Clarry, Sir Reginald

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

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Lees-Jones, J,

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Patrick, C. M.

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Levy, T.

Peake, O.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Lewis, O.

Peat, C. U.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Liddall, W. S.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Lindsay, K. M.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Stanley, Rt. Han. Lord (Fylde)

Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

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

Lloyd, G. W.

Porritt, R. W.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

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

Loftus, P. C.

Procter, Major H. A.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Radford, E. A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

Sutcliffe, H.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Tasker, Sir R. I

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Ramsbotham, H.

Tate, Mavis C.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

McKie, J. H.

Rankin, Sir R.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Train, Sir J.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Magnay, T.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Maitland, A.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Wakefield, W. W.

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

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Markham, S. F

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

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

Marsden, Commander A.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Warrender, Sir V.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

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

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

Rosa Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

Mills, Sir F. (Lsyton, E.)

Rowlands, G.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Windser-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Russell, Sir Alexander

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Salt, E. W.

Wise, A. R.

Moreing, A. C.

Sandys, E. D.

Withers, Sir J. J.

Morgan, R. H.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Womersley, Sir W. J.

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

Savory, Sir Sorvington

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

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

Scott, Lord William

Wragg, H.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Selley, H. R.

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Nicholson, Han. H. G.

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Simmonds, O. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.

NOES.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Mander, G. le M.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Marshall, F.

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

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Mathers, G.

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

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Maxton, J.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Hardle, Agnes

Messer, F.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Harris. Sir P. A.

Milner, Major J.

Banfield, J. W.

Hayday, A.

Montague, F.

Barnes, A. J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

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

Barr, J.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

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

Bellenger, F. J.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Muff, G.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Hicks, E. G.

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Bevan, A.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Oilver, G. H.

Broad, F. A.

Holdsworth, H.

Owen, Major G.

Bromfield, W.

Hollins, A.

Paling, W.

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

Hopkin, D.

Parker, J.

Burke, W. A.

Jagger, J.

Parkinson, J. A.

Cape, T.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Pearson, A.

Chater, D.

John, W.

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

Cluse, W. S,

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Price, M. P.

Cocks, F. S.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Cove, W. G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Kelly, W. T.

Ridley, G.

Daggar, G.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Riley, B.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Kirkwood, D.

Ritson, J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Day, H.

Lathan, G.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Dobbie, W.

Leach, W.

Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)

Ede, J. C.

Lee, F.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)

Leonard, W.

Sexton. T. M.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Leslie, J. R.

Silkin, L.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Lunn, W.

Simpson, F. B.

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

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

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

Callacher, W.

McEntee, V. La T.

Smith. E. (Stoke)

Gardner, B. W.

McGhee, H. G.

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

Garro Jones, G. M.

McGovern, J.

Sorensen, R. W.

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

MacLaren, A.

Stephen, C.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Maclean, N.

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

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

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

418

419

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Walton, W. McL.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Thorne, W.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Thurtle, E.

Westwood, J.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Tinker, J. J.

White, H. Graham

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Tomlinson, G.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Viant, S. P.

Wilkinson, Ellen

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Watkins, F. C.

William, T. (Don Valley)

Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

Question put, and agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING.
Major Procter: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the powers of boards established under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 to 1933, to impose and recover monetary penalties from registered producers, to amend the said Acts, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
This Bill seeks to amend the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 and 1933. The object is to remove the increasing grievances which arise from the operation of the milk marketing scheme. I refer to the power which the Milk Marketing Board possesses, under Section 6 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, to impose penalties upon registered producers for infringement of the scheme. The Acts deal with various boards, but I shall refer to the operation of the Milk Marketing Board in particular. This is an important matter, not only because of the fundamental issues which are involved, but because of the widespread application of these schemes. The operations of the board have resulted in the trial of 1,160 cases, and the Milk Marketing Board have imposed upon various offenders penalties amounting to £20,000. At the present time anyone who violates the milk marketing schemes is summoned to London from, say, Devon or the North of England, is tried by very estimable gentlemen and is penalised in a way that I shall describe hereafter.
I maintain that the procedure of the Milk Marketing Board in its judicial capacity is very inconvenient indeed, especially to poor people who have to come long distances, pay their fares, and even if they are found not guilty have no expenses whatever allowed them. Furthermore, it is a waste of energy on the part of the board itself. One day every fortnight is devoted to judicial duties, and penalties are imposed on poor men from all over the country. It is a waste of energy for the Milk Marketing Board to stop discussing the problems arising out of the milk supply and become judges in their own cause. In the second place, there is a violation of what is regarded as a very priceless treasure of our
420
Constitution: that is the Rule of law. By that I mean a certain supremacy and uniformity of law as contrasted with mere arbitrariness or some alternative mode of determining the rights of persons. In France there is an administrative law which has its own courts and its own jurisprudence. We seem to have adopted in this country all the worst features of this French administrative system. In the Milk Marketing Board we have a judicial body which is not a Court, administering the law without rule or any uniformity, by means of a set of gentlemen who are imitation magistrates.
Let me show exactly what happens all over England to-day. An agent of the board knocks at the door and asks the householder if she has bought any milk. She replies, "Yes." He asks what price she paid for it. The agent sometimes gives the impression that the board is compiling statistics or is out to reduce the price of milk. Mrs. Jones signs a slip that she bought milk at 6d. when it should be 7d., and then the poor retailer is brought to London before this Sanhedrin which weighs the evidence and finds the poor fellow anything up to £100, and in certain other offences up to £300. There is no sworn testimony; the evidence is hearsay evidence and every principle of injustice is perpetrated. I maintain that the Court acts in a very arbitrary manner. In the Accrington Division retailers were summoned to London and fined various amounts for selling milk at 6d. when it should have been 7d. a quart. The board adjourned the cases of the little fellows and permitted the big men to sell at 4d. a quart without the imposition of any penalty whatever. There is no rule or uniformity of law in that kind of justice. Furthermore the Milk Marketing Board is open to bargaining. It inflicts a fine, say of £300, and the solicitor writes "We offer you £100." The board says "Very well, we will accept your £100." That is not justice or even common sense. Fancy bargaining with a judge in an ordinary court! I am not pleading that offenders should not be fined but I do ask that any offender under the various schemes

421
of the Marketing Acts shall be brought before a local court where witnesses can be examined, where the testimony can be sworn to, and where the principles of British justice will be carried out by efficient people.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Major Procter, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Lyons, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Mr. De la Bère, Mr. Beechman, Mr. Petherick, Sir Arnold Wilson, Mr. Foot, and Mr. H. G. Williams.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING.
  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL,
  "to abolish the powers of boards established under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 to 1933, to impose and recover monetary penalties from registered producers, to amend the said Acts, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Poor Law (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill.

CIVIL AVIATION.
4.10 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
"That this House approves the Observations of His Majesty's Government on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Civil Aviation."
Whatever may be thought about the report which is to be discussed this afternoon, it must be agreed by all that the members of the Cadman Committee have performed their task without fear or favour. I must emphasise that because I cannot help recollecting that at the time when the committee was appointed some derogatory, and I think unworthy, reflections were made from the Front Bench opposite upon the impartiality of the committee, and especially of the Chairman. But the character of the report before us has demonstrated the falsity of those reflections. It demonstrates also the great zeal and energy displayed by this committee, who in the short space of a little over two months saw nearly 70 witnesses, including nine hon. Members of this House, in addition to written documents which were submitted to them.
I think that hon. Members, particularly those whose observations in this House really were the origination of the committee's existence at all, will feel that they have had good value for the £5 19s. 9d., which we are informed is the amount of the expenditure connected with the report. I know that hon. Members will also give credit to the Government for having lost no time in coming to a conclusion as to the course of action to take in view of the committee's recommendations. We have endeavoured to suit the convenience of the House by publishing, along with the report, our own observations and the decisions at which we have arrived. The Blue Book is not a long document, and hon. Members who have studied it will have seen that the recommendations of the committee have to a very large extent been accepted by the Government. I am glad also to be able to say that the two companies concerned with civil aviation. Imperial Airways and British Airways, have also signified that they agree very largely with those parts of the report which concern their own organisation and administration. I therefore have no hesitation in moving this Motion.
434
Before I go into detail I would like to begin by alluding to the recommendations of the committee on which I can make one or two more general observations. It will be recollected that the committee were not given any formal terms of reference but were referred to the Debate which took place in this House on 17th November last. I do not think that the committee will have found any great difficulty in accommodating themselves to that perhaps rather unusual form of reference, but I am glad to think that they have gone rather further than a committee required to examine certain allegations and accusations, because I think that anyone who studies the report will see that what the committee have endeavoured to do was to put forward a constructive programme for the development of British civil aviation—a programme which, we hope, will add to the prestige of the country in this matter, will lead to the improvement of its communications, and will culminate in the creation of what practically may be considered a new industry in the output of civil machines which will, perhaps, occupy our aircraft factories when the present pressure of military work is to some extent relaxed.
I think the committee were impressed with the desirability that British-owned civil aeroplanes, whether they are flying on Imperial routes or to any other country, should be such as to convince everybody who travels in them, everybody who sees them pass or who inspects them, that they take a leading place among the planes of the world for speed, for safety, for comfort, and in the completeness and modern character of their equipment. There are evidently great advantages to be gained if that object can be achieved, not merely in the improvement of the service itself and the direct advantages which are to be expected from that, but, in other ways, indirect advantages, in the general advancement of British prestige throughout the world, and ultimately, perhaps, in the development of the export of British-made civil aeroplanes. The Government, too, are impressed by these considerations. Broadly speaking, we accept the conception which, as I see it, lay behind the recommendations of the committee, and we believe that the decisions which we have taken and the recommendations of the committee which have been accepted by us

435
will, m fact, go a long way to achieve that purpose in course of time.
I said that the report is not a long one, but, perhaps, it will be convenient if I attempt to classify the decisions of His Majesty's Government under four heads, or categories. First of all, there are the measures which are required for the purpose of strengthening the organisation in the Ministry for dealing with civil aviation. Secondly, there are the steps proposed for increasing national expenditure upon this object, which, as the House will be aware, includes the doubling of the maximum which is at present the statutory limit of the amount of subsidy which can be given. Thirdly, there is the allocation of the external routes between Imperial Airways and British Airways. Lastly, there is the administrative reorganisation of those two companies. I will say something about each of those categories.
I think, first, I must just say one more word upon the suggestion which has been made, reflecting upon my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air. I said something about this yesterday, when these reflections were made in the Debate, and I need not, therefore, spend much time upon it to-day, but I wish to repeat that, whilst the Government are not anxious to deny that there have been shortcomings in the development of civil aviation, we cannot leave out of account the urgent necessity and the prime duty of the Secretary of State, while he has been in office these last three years, to push along, with the utmost diligence and speed and determination, the military programme. Had he in any way neglected his duty in that respect he would not readily have been forgiven by the country. I am bound to say that I have not, in my experience, known any Minister who has devoted himself more completely and with a more single mind to the duties placed upon him in a great office than has my Noble Friend. Far from censuring him, I feel that we ought to pay him a tribute for the very remarkable results that have been achieved during his administration. I think my Noble Friend has, perhaps, suffered from the fact that he is not here to defend himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I quite understand, and to some extent sympathise with, the view
436
of hon. Members, that they would like to have every Minister in this House to defend himself and to answer questions. That is impossible in present circumstances, but I have, at any rate, done my best to mitigate the disadvantages, and to try and meet the difficulties of hon. Members who have desired to have in this House somebody who could represent the Air Ministry with authority and who could, being himself a member of the Cabinet, speak on questions of policy as well as on questions of administrative detail.
In my Noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the House will now have a member of the Cabinet a member of the Air Council, the Deputy of the Secretary of State upon that Council, who not only will be able to attend to the business of the Air Ministry in this House and reply to hon. Members, but who will also make a very valuable contribution to the organisation and administration of the Air Ministry itself. I know that some hon. Members will always say, In putting two equal Ministers into one office, is it not a division of responsibility, and does it not involve a duality of policy? There have been cases in past times when difficulties have been created because two Cabinet Ministers have been concerned with the same office; but I venture to say that it all depends on the personalities concerned. Between my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air and my Noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster there will be no conflict; there will be no duality; there will be complete harmony of working and of goal. The effect of having this additional representative of the Air Ministry in this House will be that my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary will have now an opportunity of devoting particularly to the development of civil aviation those qualities which he has already brought to the general work of the Air Ministry, which, I think, everybody has recognised, and particularly yesterday in his admirable statement to the House. In addition, we have appointed a permanent Under-Secretary of State who will not only be the Secretary to the Air Ministry, but who will have the general administrative direction of civil aviation, and whose duty it will be to ensure that there shall be full and considered correlation between the policies of civil and military aviation.

437
There are to be found, in Part II of the Government's Observations, a number of other improvements in the organisation of the Ministry, designed to enable us to carry out to the full the development of civil aviation as and when opportunity offers. They are not all exactly the same as the proposals of the Cadman Committee, but we believe that they will be at least equally effective. One particular recommendation which we have not accepted is the one which is concerned with the duties of the Service members of the Air Council. If hon. Members will be good enough to look at paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Observations, they will see the reasons which have weighed with us in not accepting this particular recommendation; but I would like to draw special attention to the fact that it is the opinion in the Air Ministry that interference with that arrangement at the present time would have an unfortunate effect on the carrying-out of our programme. That is the last thing that we want at present, and we believe that the other measures that we have taken will do all that is required.
I come now to the question of increased expenditure. I am sure that the House will not quarrel with me when I say that what you can do to help civil aviation must largely depend on the amount of money you are prepared to spend on it. It is because we recognise that that we feel that if we are now to start a new life and infuse fresh vigour into this whole subject of civil aviation, it is absolutely necessary that we should be prepared to spend a larger sum than we have in the past. Although my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has many objects on which to lavish his spare resources, he has agreed to go as far as to increase this statutory limit which is imposed on the amount of subsidy which can be given, by £1,500,000, bringing it up to £3,000,000. In connection with that, I would like to draw attention to the three general principles which have been laid down by the Government in connection with the expenditure of public money on these services. They will be found in paragraph 12 of the Government's observations. It will be seen, first of all, that the limits within which expenditure can be incurred are very clearly envisaged; secondly, that when we come to decide between competing projects we must have in mind two main considerations: first,
438
the importance of maintaining and developing air communications within the Empire, and, secondly, the importance of selecting at the appropriate time routes which afford the opportunity of substantial traffic and revenue where important British commercial interests are involved. The third principle is that in deciding upon the ways in which the Government can best encourage the development and production of civil aircraft, we shall seek the co-operation of the air operating companies and also act in close consultation with Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner, who is the independent chairman of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors.
I now come to the third category, on which I need not say very much, because we have agreed to accept the recommendations of the committee both as to the number of companies who should operate and also as to the allotment of routes. As will be seen from the report, both Imperial Airways and British Airways arc-ready to fall in with the suggestions made by the committee, and so I think that we may take that particular matter as settled. I think that the policy which has now been followed for some considerable time of concentrating upon Empire routes and thereby attracting to those routes the greater part of the money which is available has proved right, and the maintenance of these Empire routes should and must be made the first charge upon any money which may be available in future from the Exchequer.
I come to the last category, which has reference to the administrative organisation of these two companies. It is fair to recall that while the committee are strongly critical of the management of Imperial Airways, they also find, as will be seen in paragraph 46 of the report, that they have carried air passengers in safety and in comfort and have conveyed mails and freight with considerable efficiency. It may also be noted that their findings on the allegations of defects in equipment are all favourable to the company. Furthermore, we should remember that whatever may have been the faults of this company, we have, through its agency, established now a network of air communications which connect up the Empire and which have reduced the time of postal and personal communication by air from weeks to days. There is a twice-weekly service to South

439
Africa, a twice-weekly service to Singapore, and a four-times-weekly service to India, and all these are carrying mails without extra charge and with a gain in speed, which, I think, will be very valuable for social and commercial intercourse. There are plans, as the House knows, for bringing these services during the present year to Australia, Hong Kong, and New Zealand, and at the same time preparations are being made to bridge the Atlantic through Canada and the United States, for which purpose, as my hon. and gallant Friend said yesterday, there have been some extremely successful experimental flights already made. Finally, steps are being taken to connect up the West African Colonies by a new air route down the West coast of Africa, which may subsequently be expected to cross the Atlantic to South America.
These are plans and achievements of very considerable scope, and they have hardly yet received as much attention as they deserve. We in this country have a habit of concentrating upon our shortcomings and overlooking our achievements, and there might be a good deal to be said for that point of view, but when you come to make a general stocktaking, it is only fair to bring in what there is to bring in on the credit side. It is only fair to do justice to those who, in this great development of joining up the various parts of the Empire have given a great deal of their time and labour, and, indeed, in many cases, have risked their lives. There is no doubt that Imperial Airways have set up a fine record for safety, and they have shown a quiet efficiency in taking over these mail services and in carrying them on with a punctuality which is even comparable to the old shipping companies in days gone by. I think that I ought also to call attention to the fact that the Post Office has played no mean part in this development. Under my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and under the present Postmaster-General, there has been a very striking development of policy. They have given the lead to the whole world in the policy of what we call an "all up" air mail. That great, and I was going to say sudden, advance has been comparable in postal history to the achievements of Roland Hill in establishing penny postage and certainly in any tribute to the recent progress in
440
civil aviation, the part played by the Post Office ought not to be left out of account.
Having said so much in fairness to those concerned, there still remains the fact that the Committee have shown themselves extremely critical of the internal management and administration of Imperial Airways. They have made a number of recommendations for alterations which apply to Imperial Airways or to British Airways or to both. The Government in general agree with these recommendations. We think they are right in principle. We have been in communication with the two companies, and it is very satisfactory to know that, so far from resisting or setting themselves in opposition to these proposals, they have readily accepted them, and they will very shortly be carried out.
There is one matter to which, I think, I ought to make some reference, and that is the opinion in paragraph 108 of the report that there should be a limitation of dividends of these companies on the lines of public utility companies. The Government are in sympathy with what they understand to be the general principle underlying that recommendation, and that is, that public money ought not to be used for the purpose of raising dividends to undue levels. That is the principle by which we have been guided in our negotiations with these companies, but of course, one has to take into account that they have been under the necessity of raising considerable sums of money from the public, and that in any enterprise of this scope and of this novelty, there is an exceptional element of risk which must not be lost sight of. Perhaps those considerations may justify the raising of dividends somewhat higher than is customary in the case of ordinary public utility companies. At the same time the Government, as I say, are in sympathy with this principle and we have stated in the observations that we will consider, in the light of these recommendations, whether, in connection with further assistance which we give by way of subsidy, we cannot give effect to them without the violation of existing contracts.
There are in Part III a number of minor recommendations which hon. Members will, no doubt, have read carefully, and for the most part there, also, we are in agreement with the recommendations of the committee. We have, in fact,

441
accepted practically everything of importance in the report. I do not think that there could ever have been a case in the recollection of any hon. Member where a report so outspoken in its terms and so far-reaching in its recommendations has been presented in so short a time and has met with so large a measure of acceptance by the Government of the day. I feel that hon. Members will recognise that the Government in this matter have been actuated entirely by the desire which they share with the whole House to try to remedy defects which have been shown to have occurred in the past. We sincerely wish to see British prestige in civil aviation raised to the highest point that is conceivable, and we believe that by the co-operation of the Government, the operating companies, and the Society of Aircraft Constructors through their independent chairman, Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner, we shall succeed in due course in enabling British civil aviation to establish for itself as high a reputation as has already been earned by the British Mercantile Marine.
4.43 p.m.
Mr. Attlee: I beg to move, in line I, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"in view of the disclosures of long-standing Ministerial neglect and of gross inefficiency in the management of a heavily subsidised company, the explanations and proposals of His Majesty's Government cannot be regarded as adequate to allay public concern."
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister. He stated that it was our habit to concentrate upon our shortcomings and to ignore our achievements. He said that that was a British habit. Well, he made a most unBritish speech. You would not have thought from hearing the speech of the Prime Minister that we had had a report of the most scathing nature showing up gross inefficiency in the conduct of a Department by a Member of the Government. You might have thought that you were getting a testimonial for efficiency. I have never known such complacency. I think, first of all, that our congratulations are due to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) for his persistency in this matter and for his luck in the ballot. This is a vindication of private Members' Motions. We are also
442
indebted to the committee for their very able and impartial report. I would like to recall the circumstances of their appointment. The Prime Minister suggested that we had attacked the members of the committee. What happened really was that the Prime Minister appointed a committee consisting largely of persons who were civil servants or were in the control of the Government, and we objected, and then, and then only, did we get an independent committee.
The Prime Minister: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I was not alluding to that, but to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) who asked that we might have a chairman who was less politically compromised.
Mr. Attlee: I was referring to the fact that the Prime Minister overlooked the point that when he originally set up the committee, it did not satisfy hon. Members on this side.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, remember that the hon. Member for West Islington, when the composition of the committee was changed, said that the objection to the original committee largely centred round the chairman.
Mr. Attlee: I am not associating myself with that remark. In fact I do not. The Prime Minister has concentrated on that, but he has forgotten that he set up a committee which consisted, in the view of the rest of the House, of what you might call "Yes men." I think it is perfectly clear, in view of the emphatic terms of the report that we could not have expected to get a full and impartial report from persons in Government service. The report is a vindication of the rights of this House to operate through inquiry. That has been done on many occasions. The Prime Minister is wrong if he thinks that these inquiries do not occur when grave events are proceeding. There was a famous committee of inquiry into the Crimean War, and an interesting speech was made by Lord John Russell, who resigned when the Motion was put down. He said:
"With respect to the power of inquiry, it is a most valuable privilege of this House. By the power of inquiry it corrects abuses, it reforms maladministration, and strengthens those establishments which it may seem for

443
the time to shake. A Motion for inquiry, however, may be resisted on two grounds—the one, that there are no evils existing of sufficient magnitude to call for inquiry; the other, that sufficient means have been taken to remedy those evils, and that they will be best cured by other means than by a report to the inquisitorial powers of this House."
From the Prime Minister's speech one would have thought that the Government had come forward and volunteered this inquiry. As a matter of fact, longstanding abuses had been raised over and over again in this House and speeches had been made by Ministers, saying that everything was all right. Eventually, the insistence of this House brought about the inquiry and the revelation of incompetence. The effect of a report of this kind is not only to expose abuses but to lay responsibility in the right quarter, and the right quarter is the Minister concerned. The Minister responsible is the responsible Member of the Government in charge of the Department. It is untrue to say that where things go wrong this House must not use its power. It was used in the Great War. There was an inquiry into the Dardanelles and an inquiry into the Mesopotamia campaign. I remember the latter very well, and I recall that the late Sir Austen Chamberlain, who was a great public servant and had the nicest sense of honour, resigned, although nobody believed that he was directly connected with what took place. As a matter of fact it took place very far away from where he was; but he resigned. He did not plead that the pressure of other business, amidst the life and death struggle of the Great War, in any way absolved him or lessened his responsibility for what was done or left undone by his Department. In resigning, he acted like a true democrat, a Member of this House, conscious of the great traditions of government.
The Prime Minister and Lord Swinton have taken a very different line. Lord Swinton remains and the Prime Minister has said that the censure upon the Secretary of State referred to civil aviation, and that the answer to that censure was that it was true this matter was neglected but the reason was clear to everybody, namely, that the Secretary of State was obliged to give his whole attention to the question of military aviation. The Prime Minister then talked about the suggested inquiry being a court
444
martial. If so, and if this report amounts to a court martial, the prisoner has been found guilty. If the prisoner is to remain, all that will happen will be that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), whose accession to Cabinet rank we all welcome very much, is to be joined with him in responsibility for this Department. I do not believe that that is the way to satisfy this House or the country. The duty of the Government is to place the responsibility where it belongs, on the Minister. It is no good saying that officials, systems or officers can be made responsible. The responsibility is on the Government and on the Minister.
I have been looking through various Debates, and I find that a Member on the other side of the House in excusing the late Under-Secretary of State for Air said that it was true he could not answer any question in this House because he did not seem to know much about anything, but that was because he was giving all his time to civil aviation. Apparently, there is something very wrong where you have the two Ministers, one devoting himself to one side and one to the other side and neither of them seems to be able to deal with business. The Cadman Report is a condemnation of the Ministers who have been in charge of this Department, and it is unfair to put the whole blame on Lord Swinton. These evils are of long standing. They have not welled up in a moment, and a Minister who has been as long at the Air Ministry as Lord Swinton has been, ought to have found them out and corrected them. The fact is that there has been continuing neglect on the part of the Members of the National Government who have been in charge of this very important Department of the Air Ministry.
Paragraph 3 of the observations of the Government on the report is, I think, disingenuous. They try to pretend that all these evils are due to the fact that Lord Swinton has been very busy with rearmament, but the report reveals the fact that the evils are long standing and that long before rearmament started they were there and have been increasing ever since. There was time for a competent Minister to deal with them. Complaints have been made from time to time but they have been simply disregarded. The Air Ministry has been extraordinarily good at stone-walling any criticism. Let us note

445
some of the language used in the report. They say:
"We view with extreme disquiet the position disclosed by our inquiry."
They point to the fact that although Imperial Airways was formed 14 years ago, they are flying less mileage to-day than they were then, and that they are operating with obsolete aircraft. In page after page of the report there is condemnation. The Air Ministry have neither supported nor encouraged development of new routes. A state of inertia has existed. There has been no planning by the Air Ministry. We find that although the contract with Imperial Airways is due to expire in little more than a year's time, there has been no decision by the Air Ministry with regard to future policy. There has been no persistent, progressive policy directed to encouraging manufacturers to produce civil aircraft of types likely to build up a big British industry. There is page after page in the report pointing out flagrant neglect. While the defects of the Air Ministry are shown up, it is pointed out that the defects affect not only the civil aviation side but other Departments. That is a very important matter.
The suggestion that, somehow or other, you can have an extraordinarily able Minister running a great Department with wonderful energy, so that you can admire him, yet he has somehow little blind spots for one neglected place, and otherwise he is all right, is an untrue assumption. It is obvious that a faulty organisation exists, and we find that this extends to the research department and the organisation of production. In paragraph 69 the Committee say:
"We have been informed in evidence that this country is not keeping pace with the United States of America in developments of importance to civil aviation, such as pressure cabins, automatic blind-landing equipment, anti-static electricity devices, aircraft instruments and research into problems concerning the application of wireless to aviation purposes."
We find that aerodromes have been scattered about the country in a completely haphazard manner and under the most extraordinary conditions. The local authority is supposed to provide an aerodrome for air liners while the air lines get the profits. You might just as well say that a town, city or village ought to provide the railway station for the railway company. It is serious, not only
446
from the point of view of civil aviation but also of military aviation, that there is no proper planning of aerodromes. Finally, we come to the question of flying boats, and the Committee say:
"We are astonished at the lack of progress made in this matter. We regard the present position as highly unsatisfactory. The position is such that it ought to be tackled without further delay."
I have been looking at the debate on the Air Estimates for 1937 and there we find the Minister telling us that everything was splendid and going on well, and that there was any amount of ideas. But nothing has been done. The fact is there is evidence that there has been no mind at work on this question of civil aviation. Let me deal with the serious point of the production of civil aircraft. We have heard over and over again from Ministers how important it is that we should keep up the export trade of this country in aircraft. For some reason or other that has always meant military aircraft. With regard to civil aircraft there is very little export. There has been no real encouragement to the manufacturers to produce civil aircraft, for the very obvious reason that the subsidised lines who ought to have been the great home market for civil aircraft are run on the basis of private profit, first. Therefore, they are not really concerned to build up what we ought to have in this country, namely, a great civil aircraft industry. They are mainly concerned with profit. This brings me to the question of the false basis on which the civil aircraft service has been run.
Mr. Churchill: And worked.
Mr. Attlee: I am not satisfied in the least that the acceptance of these proposals in the report, good as they are in many respects, is going to effect a real change. If you are going to make all these changes, I suggest in the first place that the Secretary of State ought to be changed. I suggest also that in view of the extreme condemnation of the people who are running Imperial Airways there should be a change in the management. They have been subject to pretty severe condemnation. The report says:
"Although the carriage of air passengers in safety and comfort, and the conveyance of mails and freight, have been achieved by Imperial Airways with considerable efficiency, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the management of Imperial Airways has been defective in other respects. In particular, not

447
only has it failed to co-operate fully with the Air Ministry, but it has been intolerant of suggestion and unyielding in negotiation. Internally its attitude in staff matters has left much to be desired."
That is putting it mildly. The company has not dealt fairly with its pilots. Even at the present time there is one pilot, who was responsible for seeing that these grievances were brought forward, who after 17 years has been forced to leave his employment because he stood up for the rights of collective bargaining. I am not in the least satisfied with leaving these matters with Imperial Airways or with British Airways, and I am not in the least satisfied with Government policy.
As far as I can make out the sum of the Government's policy consists in giving a certain amount of finance, laying down certain lines with regard to competitive projects and the appointment of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner as independent chairman. Why is he always called the independent chairman of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors? From whom is he independent? On whom does he depend? It is a very curious society. It is a very close corporation. Many associates belong to it, but only the big 11 have a vote and only the big 11 were consulted in regard to the appointment of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner as the independent chairman. I am at a loss to understand what Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner is going to do and why he is independent. Here again we get this ring of aircraft producers which has been built up and fostered by the Government, I think, gravely to the detriment of civil and military aviation. Another suggestion which the Government are not going to accept is the change with regard to the direction of departments in the Air Ministry. They say that it is quite essential to retain distinguished officers at the head. It is said:
"In a service where morale counts for much, the Service has confidence in its decisions because they are taken by serving officers in whom they have confidence."
I wonder if that is true. Lord Trenchard laid it down that the basis of the air service in this country should be engineering and flying. The constituent point about most of the high officers in the Air Ministry is that they have done very little flying and hardly any of them has any technical skill. Any comparison with the Admiralty and
448
the Navy is quite valueless. The Air Ministry is not starting right in the matter of research. I do not believe you can make is responsible for research if they do not understand the technicalities, and the report shows that the organisation of the Air Ministry is wrong both with regard to civil aviation and with regard to production. The right way out of this muddle and mess is to deal with civil aviation as a civil service and not as a military service at all. That was recommended in a very able minority report by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) and Mr. Gordon England, and they gave cogent reasons why we should treat civil aviation as a civil matter and not as an annexe to the Air Ministry. The argument put forward is that because they both work in the same element, use the same machines, and have the same apparatus, therefore they must be under one Ministry. You might just as well say that the Mercantile Marine should be run by the Admiralty.
There is, I think, a very strong case for saying that our aircraft production should be under a Ministry of Munitions and not under the Air Ministry, and I am fortified in saying that because the obvious fact from the report is that the Air Ministry has too much to do. If the Air Ministry cannot run its business, if successive Air Ministers have neglected civil aviation, then we should take civil aviation away and put it where it can be looked after and developed. In our view the Air Ministry is not the right Ministry to control civil aviation. The right way to run civil aviation is not by subsidising a number of companies. In our view civil aviation should remain a great national service, but when you have competition between services in regard to transport you will get all the old evils. I am not satisfied with regard to railway competition. The railways play the same game all through the years. They are industrial Bourbons, who learn nothing. When they took over the canals they killed the canals. When they took over road transport they did so in the interest of the railways, and when they took over flying they did so because they wanted to suppress flying and concentrate transport on the railways. That is the position you get when you allow enormously important services both in peace and in

449
war time to be controlled by the motive of private profit.
It is much more important that we should have a great civil aircraft industry in this country than that we should have a profit-making concern running for private profit. Our civil aviation both internally and externally should be built up as part of our manufacturing service, not directly under the same department but in connection with it, so that we can develop our internal air service and build up a great and strong aircraft industry in this country. The system that has been running for so many years, a small ring of firms sitting down comfortably in a ring, subsidised and protected by the Government, has been inimical to the development of British aviation, and the effect is that this country, as is shown in this report, is behind other countries in the matter of aviation. The report here is extremely able. Within the limits of the terms of their reference they have gone as far as they could. But the matter is larger than that. It is one for decision by the Government which will put national interests first and private profit after, which will see to it that the development of civil aviation shall be built up as a civilian industry, and eventually serve the cause of peace rather than add to the causes of war.
5.9 p.m.
Major Hills: The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech most unhelpful to civil aviation. He has used the Cadman Report to attack the Government, but when he came to his own suggestions for the reform of this great service he had only two proposals to make. I speak as one who is deeply interested in the future of civil aviation. I accept the report, and I accept what the Prime Minister has said that it is a great constructive effort to put civil aviation on a proper basis. All that the right hon. Gentleman can suggest is, first, that civil and military aviation should be separated. That may be all right, but it was not invented by the right hon. Gentleman. It was said years ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). His second proposal was that the service should be nationalised, and there again that is a suggestion which comes from a party which desires to see everything in this world nationalised. But whether the service is nationalised or
450
run by a company or a combination of companies, there are immense questions involved in civil aviation which far transcend these remedies, and I should deeply regret if a service in which so many hon. Members are interested and on which there is a large consensus of opinion that reforms are necessary, should become a party question to be flung across the Floor of the House. However, I will leave the right hon. Gentleman to my Noble Friend, whom we are glad to see on the Front Bench and to whose help in this problem we are looking forward.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he is attacking the Government, that a Socialist Government was in office more than once during the period, and I have yet to learn that they made any of the great reforms about which he has been speaking so loudly The report of the Cadman Committee, which was the outcome of the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), calls for reforms in the Air Ministry, a reform of Imperial Airways, the separation of the European and Empire services, and for higher subsidies. In the first place, we are to have a whole-time chairman and two whole-time directors on the operating company. I entirely agree with that. The committee are right in saying that the matter is too big to be left in the control of a general manager. The second point is that there should be a limitation of dividend. There again I entirely agree. I think also that the separation of the European and Empire services is entirely right. It exists already, but it is to be extended, except that the Paris service is to be operated by a joint company.
I wish now to refer to some of the criticisms that have been made of Imperial Airways, Limited, but before doing so I wish to make my position clear to the House. I do not dispute those criticisms. A strong and impartial committee has sat and has received a mass of evidence, and I accept the recommendations and conclusions of that committee. Nevertheless, I would like to say how those criticisms arose in some cases, and I will deal with them seriatim. In the first place, the committee state in their report that the relations of Imperial Airways with the Air Ministry were wrong, that they were difficult to deal with, that

451
they dealt with their staff in an improper manner, that their internal management was bad, that they operated obsolete machines, and, last and most important, that they took a commercial view of their duties. I think the last charge really lies at the basis of the difference which, I regret to say, has separated my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and myself. One of the causes why the hon. Lady and I most unfortunately differ is that she wants the company to operate independently of commercial possibilities—
Mrs. Tate: I think it would be wise if my right hon. and gallant Friend left it to me to describe my opinion.
Major Hills: At any rate, the committee accuse Imperial Airways of taking a too commercial view. I would remind the House that Imperial Airways were told to take that view by the Hambling Committee, which called for a commercial organisation run entirely on business lines. Moreover, if hon. Members will turn to paragraph 6 of the Preface to the Cadman Committee's Report, they will see that it is stated that:
"The aim was to help civil aviation to become self-supporting, so that in the course of time it might 'fly by itself.'"
Imperial Airways were directed so to organise their business and so to forecast their operations that at some future date the service might "fly by itself." That entailed certain grave disadvantages. It entailed a descending scale of subsidies, it entailed strict economy of management, and, above all, it necessitated a different view from that held by some hon. Members, who want a service that is run independently of commercial possibilities. These facts cut through a good deal of the criticism in the report, and I think it is wrong to blame the company in this respect. They were told to do certain things, and now that the Government have changed their mind, it is rather hard if it is said to the company, "Why did you not act in the way we now want you to act 14 years ago?"
Mr. Holdsworth: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make the proposition that the Hambling Committee recommended that there should be no liaison between the company and the Air Ministry, and that the company should
452
take an absolutely narrow conception of its operations?
Major Hills: Certainly the charge is that the company took too narrow a view of their duties, and the committee say that they are profoundly dissatisfied with Imperial Airways and view the future with extreme disquiet. What I am trying to explain to the House is that some of the criticism of that company arose from different views which prevailed when Imperial Airways were started. Again, in paragraph 14 of the report, the committee say that the Air Ministry
"neither supported nor encouraged the development of new routes."
I do not want to defend anybody who has made a mistake or who has gone wrong, but I wish to be fair, and I ask the House to be fair and to see where the blame lies. With regard to the charge that Imperial Airways' machines are obsolete, four years ago an order was placed for new machines, the first delivery to be in September, 1936, but not one machine has been received up to date. That is true, but although many of the machines are obsolete, the company run a service which is a very safe one and a popular one, and the committee say that they are not dissatisfied with the proportion of cross-Channel traffic carried by Imperial Airways.
The next point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the amount of the subsidy paid. I think all hon. Members agree that civil aviation depends very largely on the subsidies, and that it would not be possible to run an air service, except to a very small extent, without a subsidy, and that if it is wanted to develop new routes and start new services, it is necessary to increase the subsidy. The committee state that the subsidy paid to Imperial Airways is lower per mile than that paid in any foreign country. I have worked out the total of the subsidy paid during the period from 1925 to 1937, and it amounts to just over £4,500,000, that is to say, less than £348,000 a year on the average. It is now proposed that £3,000,000 a year should be given, or that the amount should be multiplied nearly 10 times. One cannot expect bricks without straw, one cannot expect a progressive service to run on new and untried routes unless it is heavily subsidised. The committee

453
state in very strong terms that the subsidies have been too small.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised the question originally, he made certain charges. He attacked the safety records of Imperial Airways, he said that their equipment was inadequate, he called attention to the wrong type of deicers, and he spoke strongly about the dissatisfaction of the staff. I think I have fairly summarised his charges. I quite agree that there was dissatisfaction of the staff and that his criticisms were justified; but I understand that that matter has now been put right—
Mr. Perkins indicated dissent.
Major Hills: I am sorry if that is not so. The committee state:
"The carriage of air passengers in safety and comfort and the conveyance of mails and freight have been achieved by Imperial Airways with considerable efficiency."
The committee go on to reinforce that statement, and they say that there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the services of Imperial Airways are less safe than those of any foreign country. Moreover, the committee say that Imperial Airways do not put traffic considerations before prudence. With regard to the charge that Imperial Airways use the wrong type of deicer, the committee say that the aspersions made on the company are unwarranted. I hope the House will forgive me for having made these observations. I was with this company at its birth, and on coming into the House I thought it right, since the company was a subsidised one, to resign from the board. If anybody has made a profit out of Imperial Airways, I can only say that I sold my shares at a heavy loss. I have been in touch with the people who have run the company, and I knew the late Sir Eric Geddes.
The only personal remarks that I wish to make are about the general manager, who does not escape severe charges. I know the general manager well, and I have worked with him. When Imperial Airways were first started, and all the other companies were grouped together, the pilots came to us and said that they did not like this gentleman; but they started to work with him, and I believe I am right in saying that after the start the majority of them were satisfied with him. He is a man who has given his whole life and energy to flying, on which
454
he is an undoubted authority. I am told that he is now in America, and at any rate he cannot speak in this House; but I do not want the occasion to pass without paying a tribute to one who, whatever his faults may be, did his best for civil aviation and did not spare himself in the effort.
Of the traffic of Imperial Airways, 90 per cent. is on Empire routes, and if hon. Members examine the report, I think they will agree that nearly all the criticisms are directed to other parts of that service. I think it will be agreed that the flying boats used on the Empire service are good and that the service itself is an admirable one. Looking back over the past 14 years, one is bound to admit that mistakes have been made; and who does not make mistakes? But do not let the House forget the great new service which has been built up by this company. It is very easy to say that certain matters were neglected, but does not that happen in all new enterprises? I do not think the House has fully realised the nature of the untried country with which the board were faced when they started. The whole service had to be reorganised and reconstituted when the board took over from the constituent companies. They had to work it out as they went along, and as a result they have created this great service, which, with all the mistakes that have been made in the past, still carries on a good work over a large part of its operations and carries it on well.
I am intensely anxious to see British civil aviation the best in the world. I rejoice that the improved organisation, and it is an improved organisation, will make for better operation, and I rejoice above all that, now, all who are interested in civil aviation have only one end in view. We shall not look to the commercial possibilities—at least, if we do try to look so far ahead, we shall strain our eyes. But we shall look to the establishment of a great service which will carry the flag all over the world, a great service manned by British pilots and flying British machines, a service which will show that we are the first country in the world in civil aviation.
5.33 p.m.
Mr. Holdsworth: The House must have listened with great interest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member

455
for Ripon (Major Hills). I could not help recalling the Debates on the Air Navigation Act two years ago and thinking of the difference in tone between the speech which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made on that occasion and the speech which he has made to-day. We were told then by him that not a word of criticism which might be said about Imperial Airways could possibly be justified, that he had been a director and had left, but that it was carrying on all right, and that the House need not be nervous about it. A few months ago we had another Debate, and a great speech was made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). I remember, on that occasion, the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) almost repudiating the idea that there was any necessity for an inquiry. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) spoke on the same theme. Then to-day we heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon say, "Do not let us be polemical or argumentative. Here is a report which condemns everything, root and branch. Let us sit down calmly and make things right." That is very different from the attitude which he took on the previous occasion.
Yesterday we had a Debate on the military side of aviation, and whatever the Prime Minister may say, all of us went away from it feeling gravely dissatisfied about the situation. Having listened to hon. Members who have technical knowledge of these questions, I was profoundly disturbed by some of the things which were brought out in yesterday's Debate, and there was a feeling of depression at the end of it. To-day we are discussing civil aviation. Here there has been grave dissatisfaction for years, voiced on all sides of the House, and the result was the setting-up of the Cadman Committee. I am bound to remind those who represent the Government of the strenuous opposition which was offered by them to the setting-up of that committee. No one can easily forget that Debate, when, until the last moment, there was tremendous opposition to having any inquiry at all. I believe the Under-Secretary suggested an inquiry by the Civil Service. But if an inquiry has ever been justified, surely it is this inquiry. Never was criticism more justified, and never has there been issued a
456
more damning indictment than is contained in the pages of the Cadman Report.
Where does the responsibility rest for this tragic position? There is no doubt in the minds of the committee about where the responsibility ought to be put. Paragraph 23 points to the Secretary of State as responsible. It says that he has a responsibility which has been neglected. It regards defects in the Air Ministry organisation as the prime cause of the trouble. As regards what the Prime Minister said in defence of the Air Minister, let me say at once that I am not making any personal attack. I think every Member of the House recognises the tremendous responsibility which is borne by the Air Minister. It would be mean not to acknowledge the tremendous burden which rests at present, not only on the Air Minister, but on all those who sit on that Front Bench. Their responsibility at this time is terrific, and I am the last in the world to forget it. They have my sincere sympathy in that really terrible responsibility. Therefore, I want to take this matter away from the personal point of view.
I admire the loyalty of the Prime Minister to his colleagues. It is a great virtue, but there is a greater loyalty than loyalty to one's colleagues. Loyalty to the people of the country is far more important than loyalty to a particular person. I am concerned with the prestige of the country and with the proper development of civil aviation, and it is no excuse for the Prime Minister to say that the Air Minister during the past few years has borne such a burden that he cannot be charged with neglect of his duty because of what is said in the Cadman Report as to the state of civil aviation. If a Minister holds an office and is charged with certain functions which he finds himself unable to fulfil because of excessive duties in another direction, surely it is his responsibility to report, either to the Prime Minister or to this House, that it is essential to appoint someone who can devote his time and energy to those functions. My complaint is not that the Minister has not attended to the civil aviation side, but that he has allowed to continue the organisation which is denounced in this report. If he could not do the job, something ought to have been done to make provision for

457
the proper carrying-on of this vital service.
I congratulate the Government on the alterations which are now being made. I think many of them are very good and that they are, undoubtedly, improvements of the organisation. But do they go far enough? There was in the report a suggestion that a second Under-Secretary should be appointed to deal with civil aviation. The report says that no final decision has been reached on this point. I am not one of those who press for new appointments. I believe there are now nearly 100 people in this House who serve the Government in one form or another. That is a dangerous bloc to have behind any Government. It is a large number of people to be dependent upon Government for patronage. I think it is dangerous, and I fight shy of suggesting that there should be another. But I have particular reasons for pressing for this appointment. They are different from those stated in the report.
The right hon. Gentleman has traced the history of civil aviation in this country. I think it is necessary for the House to look again at that history. This House gives to certain companies very special privileges. Those companies enjoy a complete monopoly as far as internal competition is concerned, and the House has no direct control over their actions, except by the appointment of certain Government directors to the boards. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon told us that since 1925 a sum of £4,500,000 has been paid out to those companies. They have looked upon their responsibility purely as a business proposition, failing to recognise the responsibility to the State created by the granting of the subsidy. I cannot tell on how many grounds they are condemned in the report, but I mention a few. They are condemned on the ground that they have not encouraged the development of types of machines other than those designed for their own special needs. Their relations with the Air Ministry are condemned, and their relations with their employés are condemned. I think perhaps the worst condemnation of all is that the management has not given adequate time to the job. No man has a right to be chairman of a company unless he is prepared to give adequate
458
time to the duties of the job, particularly if the company is subsidised by the State. If we pay public money to private companies, why should we not be able to put questions to a Minister regarding the activities of those companies?
That is why I suggest the appointment of another Under-Secretary. We ought to be able to put questions to a Minister here as to how a particular company is being run and what encouragement it is giving to all forms of civil aviation. I have objected times without number, as I am sure the Minister of Transport will agree, to the subsidising of private enterprise. I believe that the principle is fundamentally wrong. I cannot see that we are entitled to give money away to individuals to run businesses for profit, but I am not going to labour that point now. In the Air Navigation Act we agreed to a subsidy which was to last for, I think, 17 years, and the least the House must demand is that, being called upon to foot the bill, it should be in a position to know how the subsidised company is carrying out its duties. Surely that is the least we can ask. The present state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.
On the question of the limitation of profits, there is very little of a definite nature in the report, and the Prime Minister was not clear on that subject in his speech yesterday. I understood from him that some action would be taken later. But dividends of 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. are far too much for a subsidised company to pay. I believe that if a free vote of the House were taken, it would express very definitely the opinion that no company has a right to pay that amount of profit while it is drawing a subsidy from the State. I read the figures in this report with great interest, but do we really know the full amount of subsidies paid? Are there not a good many hidden subsidies which are not stated in terms of figures? I do not mean anything in a dishonest way, but what about the payments made by the Post Office, what about petrol supplied free of duty? Do Imperial Airways pay any rent for the use of Croydon? Is it or is it not a fact that 80 motor boats are loaned to them from the Air Ministry? Who pays for the upkeep of those boats? Can we assess correctly in terms of money what these companies are actually receiving? I believe that if it could be worked

459
out in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, the figures stated here would be a mere fleabite as compared with the real assistance given to them.
I want now to make a point about the clearing house and the ban on booking facilities regarding internal lines. Two particular companies—and I have no interest in either and have never met, to my knowledge, a single person from either of them—have been mentioned to me by name, and I want to ask whether the ban on bookings by the railway companies still exists, either with Allied Airways or with Olleys. I believe it is true to say that it does. There is a reference in the report, in paragraph 75, to the effect that this matter is being satisfactorily solved, but my information is that that is entirely wrong. The report says that there is one case outstanding which involves certain political aspects. Will the Under-Secretary tell us what those political aspects are and whether they are being overcome? Are we going to be in the same position regarding air services with respect to the railway companies as road transport is finding itself in to-day? I asked a ques-at Question Time in regard to a company serving the public in a way that the public desired, providing a particular service at a particular time in a particular manner, and it appears that people can go to a tribunal which can wipe out the whole of that company and take away from the people the services that they want. Surely, we do not want to see that kind of thing happening with regard to air services in this country, and I hope that hon. Members will take a very strong line and see there is freedom of choice for people to use what particular lines they desire and not what particular lines the railway companies wish to impose upon them.
We are told in the roport that mails are being carried to Switzerland in foreign machines. Is anything being done about that? I should like to know whether some assistance is not being given to a British company to carry out that particular service. In regard to Whitley Councils, the report is very vague as to what is being done. A company that receives subsidies should surely treat its employés decently, and there should be good feeling between the pilots engaged and Imperial Airways. I think we are entitled to ask for a definite answer to that question. I have not
460
been able to find out whether the charge of victimisation which was made in this House last December was or was not true. May we have some information on that point? Are the pilots going to be reinstated? Are Imperial Airways going to recognise the British Airline Pilots Association, which I understand represents 80 per cent. of the pilots? I think we are entitled, before we pass this report as satisfactory, to have specific answers to these questions.
With regard to aerodromes, I cannot understand the Government's attitude. I understand that very little of the extra subsidy is to be given for aerodromes. We can give subsidies for machines flying to foreign countries, but we refuse to give them to our municipalities to provide aerodromes for internal communication in this country. We can give subsidies to private companies to make profits, but municipalities, whose profits would be handed back to the people themselves, are not to have, so far as I can see, a halfpenny, except in regard to a provision for night flying. I was going to give some figures with regard to Bradford and Leeds, which have an aerodrome at Yeadon, and the money that has been spent or is passed as to be spent amounts to £100,000. All municipalities with a certain population were asked in a circular, in 1928, to provide facilities for flying and to provide aerodromes. They have looked upon it as a national and a local duty, but I do not mind telling the Under-Secretary quite frankly, as one of the representatives of Bradford, that while I am certain that my constituents do not object to paying their dues and legitimate demands towards national defence, I see no reason why they should be called upon to bear this purely national expenditure; and I think the Government would be well advised to go again into the question of grants for municipal aerodromes. There is a net annual loss on revenue account of thousands of pounds per year, and I speak particularly with regard to Yeadon.
Why do you take such a mean and miserable outlook on these matters? In the world of to-day, when we need to be looking at these questions in a big way, here we are asking year after year for a miserable few hundred thousand pounds to put internal aviation into the position which it ought to occupy. It seems to me that Ministers are taking a

461
miserable, narrow, parochial view of these questions. To use an old phrase, they are fiddling while Rome is burning, and I believe this country is miles behind so far as internal air lines are concerned. Do you want to develop air lines? It seems to me to be doubtful, from your actions. Do you want to provide for a national emergency? If so, stop your niggling, enlarge your views, and act as if you believed that this great country is the centre of a great Empire and cannot afford to be second to any country in the world in the development of civil aviation.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Hulbert: I wish to congratulate the Committee which inquired into the allegations made against Imperial Airways on the speed and thoroughness with which they carried out their task. The results, as embodied in the blue book which we have in our hands, do not, I am sure, justify the strictures passed when the Noble Chairman was appointed. I think this House might reflect on the findings of a Committee such as this, because it would appear that, in regard to certain officials of Imperial Airways, they have been severely censured without possibly that opportunity of defence which they ought to be given. For some years Imperial Airways have been regarded as naughty boys. They could never do anything right, and every action they took was deprecated and looked upon with severity. I am reminded of a question asked in this House a few weeks ago as to the relative numbers of accidents in the cases of Imperial Airways and other companies, and when a supplementary question was asked whether Imperial Airways have not in fact the greatest reputation for safety, the hon. Member who asked that question was himself asked whether he was a shareholder in Imperial Airways, it being held in some hon. Members' minds, evidently, that nobody could possibly attempt to justify anything that Imperial Airways did unless he had some personal interest therein.
The report makes strictures on Imperial Airways on the questions of speed and the obsolescence of certain types of machines, but it pays tribute to its safety and efficiency. We know that Imperial Airways operating between here and the Continent have to meet the competition of other lines, and in regard to the foreign lines it
462
is interesting to note to what extent their subsidies compare with that paid to Imperial Airways. The subsidy paid to Imperial Airways is only 23.8 per cent. of their total receipts, while, at the other end of the scale, Air France receives 2½ times that percentage as subsidy. That is one of the problems which Imperial Airways have had to face since their inception. There is also the question of their inability to procure modern machines during the last three or four years, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pointed out that that is due entirely to the speed with which we have been proceeding with the military side of aviation and is, in fact, the price that we have had to pay for procuring adequate rearmament. If that price is only the slowing-up of the London-Continental air service of Imperial Airways, I venture to say that the price is a small one.
The report of the Cadman Committee deals mainly with the Continental services of Imperial Airways, and that is possibly unfortunate, because, as has been stated in this House to-day, probably 90 per cent. of Imperial Airways' flying time is done on the Empire services, and those hon. Members who have had the opportunity of flying in these Empire flying boats will, I know, pay a tribute to their safety, efficiency, and speed. The Cadman Report exonerates Imperial Airways in regard to certain detailed allegations about speed boats and de-icing. The report criticises the fact that the pilots' representation has not possibly been as good as was hoped. We have had in the House detailed allegations in regard to the dismissal of certain pilots, but I think it has been confirmed that the criticism was more as to the method that was adopted rather than the cause of it. I understand that Imperial Airways are now carrying out a scheme for staff representation on the lines of the Whitley Council, and when that is done we hope it will bring to an end the criticisms and unfortunate allegations in this respect. The allegations and criticisms about Imperial Airways which have been made with almost monotonous regularity during recent years must inevitably have had some effect, great or small—it depends on the individual—upon moral, not only of the senior officers of the company, but right down to the lower ranks. It is to be hoped that the acceptance of the Cadman Report will put an end to these

463
grievances and that every employé in the company will feel that he is part of a team out to work for the future of a great organisation.
What of the future? After this Debate we will agree, I think, that the idea of civil aviation being nobody's baby must be a thing of the past. We want a strong policy for air transport. We welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary will now be able to devote the major part of his time to civil aviation, and as a result we shall, I think, see a great deal more help and co-operation between the Air Ministry and Imperial Airways and all the other companies concerned in promoting and encouraging air transport in this country. I hope that the Government will see their way to give more encouragement to, and to develop more fully, the internal air services. We are in the rather ludicrous position to-day of having excellent municipally-owned airports concentrated about the country, which at long last are being provided with technical apparatus, but, on the other side, we see internal airlines operating at a loss which cannot be maintained for ever. When these internal air line companies have eventually exhausted their available capital, we shall have these airports, on which many hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent, lying more or less derelict round the country.
The subsidising or the encouragement of internal airlines would do a great deal to make this country more air-minded. It is all right for the people living in the vicinity of London and certain big cities, for they have the opportunity of seeing modern air liners operating with almost clockwork regularity, but the people in the smaller towns have no such opportunity. I hope this Debate will be the end of what I may call the quarrel in civil aviation and that Imperial Airways and other companies will now march ahead flying the flag of British civil aviation throughout the world; that they will be helped to do that by a real enthusiasm of a helpful Civil Aviation Department behind them; and that Imperial Airways or any other company will be encouraged to develop new air liners. We want more pioneer work on those lines. With that, and with coordination between the companies concerned
464
and the Government, we shall see British air transport occupying the same high position as the mercantile marine does throughout the world.
6.7 p.m.
Mrs. Tate: We are asked to take a very serious vote this evening when we are asked to approve the Government's observations on the report of the Cadman Committee unless we have rather fuller observations than we have had. I also would like to pay my tribute to the magnificent achievement of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) in being instrumental in setting up this committee. I would, too, like to endorse what the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) said when he asked that we might have an answer this evening to points which have been raised in the Debate. This is a matter of great seriousness, and none of us wish to make it a party question; none of us wish to say, "I told you so," or to triumph in any way. When we find that there is something wrong in civil aviation, it is not a matter about which any of us can feel jubilant, even if we have been saying so for very many years without being listened to until to-day. When we are criticising, we must try to be just and to find the cause of what is wrong.
We should not ignore paragraph 6 on page 2 of the report, because that is very largely responsible for what is wrong and for the setting-up of the Cadman Committee. It says that the aim of our civil aviation was that it might be made to fly by itself. That is what is responsible for our being so far behind the rest of the world. Let us remember that that policy had the consent of the House year after year, and there is no one who gave his consent to it and who was satisfied with the increasingly unsatisfactory speeches of the Under-Secretary year after year, who has any right to feel that he was not partly to blame for the state of affairs that has arisen. The whole of this report shows that what we need is a new spirit and a new outlook towards civil aviation. A mere appointment or two will not achieve that. What we want to know is whether, in the policy of the Government in future, there is to be a new spirit with regard to civil aviation.
I was very much disquieted when the Prime Minister said that the neglect of

465
civil aviation had been due to the development of military aviation, because no one can deny, what has been said from the Front Bench, that there is greater need for the expansion of military aviation today than there has ever been before. When we are discussing the Cadman Committee Report we cannot, because of an appointment or two, think that all is well when we know that the reason which has been given for the neglect of civil aviation is a reason which could better be argued to-day than at any time during the last few years. Is there to be a development of civil aviation with military aviation, or are we going to be told that the Government intended to implement the Cadman Report, but unfortunately, owing to the increase in military aviation, they are not able to do so?
The report says that there is criticism except in regard to Empire routes. The hon. Member for Stroud did magnificently in his speech which led to the setting up of the committee, but no Member can fail to admit that when he moves a Motion he cannot touch on all the points that he would like to raise. Had some of us who were not able to get into that Debate on 17th November been able to speak, there might have been further subjects into which the Cadman Committee would have found it necessary to inquire. Before I leave the question of Empire routes, which the Prime Minister told us must be our main consideration, may I ask whether we can be assured that they are really satisfactory and that, if the Cadman Committee had investigated them, they would have found no shortage? If there is to be this concentration on Empire communications, let them be in the vanguard of civil aviation, where they are by no means to-day. For instance, it now takes Imperial Airways nine days to get to Capetown. When we have the speeded-up service which has been very much advertised and talked about, but which is a very long time in coming, we are to have a service which will take us to Calcutta in six days, Singapore in eight days, Brisbane in 12 days, and Sydney in 13 days. But that service is a long way off in the mists of the future.
Starting on 29th March, however, a Dutch air service is going to reach Calcutta in 3½ days and Singapore in five days. May I have an answer from the
466
Minister whether that is what is to be considered satisfactory for our Empire routes? Is it to receive any further attention and any speeding up? When are we to have even the much too slow service which is promised us? May we also have a definite assurance, not that there are to be a few alterations, but that we are to have what the Cadman Committee report on page 7 says is necessary, not only for our prestige but for our trade interests, that is, a service to South America and the West Indies across the Pacific? The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) has been asking for a service to the West Indies for some time, but he now takes the extraordinary line that everything is all right. May I ask when we are likely to get this service to South America which the Cadman Committee report says is essential if our prestige and trade interests are to be safeguarded?
May I also have an answer to this question: Is it to be the policy of the Government, as it appears to be to-day, to fly over the largest expanse of water in the world with land planes and to use our flying boats to fly over miles and miles of what might be enemy territory in the event of war? It is more unsatisfactory than ever before that our Empire services should pass over foreign countries when they could perfectly well be flown along an all-British route. What is the object of having flying boats if we are not going to use them to fly over water? We have said, and I think it is still the policy of the Government, that we intend to keep open the Mediterranean. If so, why do we not fly by Gibraltar and up the Mediterranean instead of over France, Italy and Greece?
In the case of the South American service, are we to fly over France and Spain? Why cannot we stop at Lisbon and Gibraltar and go down the West Coast of Africa? Are we quite happy to know that Germany is using Bathurst as a port for the whole of her South Atlantic traffic; and are we quite happy about the very large German sheds and the tremendous influence of Germany in Bathurst? Are we quite happy that to-day we pay to her and France £100,000 to carry our mails across the South Atlantic? Is that position to be continued, or will it be rectified?
The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) said that all that

467
had been needed was more money, and that now that more money was to be forthcoming everything would be all right. Many of us feel that the money has been grossly misused. As the hon. Member for South Bradford very ably said, the subsidy which Imperial Airways received according to the Cadman Report is but a fleabite compared with what they have really received, and I complain not only of their having paid dividends with Government subsidies, but of their having paid dividends at all, when they never took the trouble to replace their obsolete machines. What is the use of hon. Members saying they could not get the new machines because our factories were full of military orders? It is only in recent years that those military orders have been placed. Imperial Airways were flying obsolete machines long before the Government set about rearmament. What is the use of making that wholly false excuse? If the Government can do no more than put up to defend them people who use arguments which are not correct, how can they ask for our support?
I shall not say more, because other hon. Members want to speak and I very much hope that we are going to hear the hon. Member for Stroud and learn what are his opinions upon the Government's promises. But hon. Members will bear me out when I say that for more than four years I have been saying almost everything of what is now in the Cadman Report to a House which was not always sympathetic, and therefore I think I have a right to be listened to, and I am not really confident that the Government are going to put civil aviation where it ought to be. I do not think the expansion of civil aviation is merely a matter of prestige. I believe that to-day we should not have a quarter of the anxiety that we feel about our military aviation if we had developed civil aviation properly in the past. Germany has built up the whole of her military aviation from her civil aviation. America has built up her export trade with the world in civil machines through civil aviation, and not military. The improvements in military aviation—the variable pitch propeller, the streamlined body, the all-metal construction, the wing flaps and the wing slots—are all developments, not of military aviation but of civil aviation. They were developed in civil aviation and adopted for
468
military machines. Therefore, I say that we shall not be able to defend ourselves from the military standpoint if we continue to neglect civil aviation as it has been neglected in this country in the past.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. Sexton: I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment which was moved by the Leader of the Labour party. It talks about "disclosures of long-standing Ministerial neglect" and "of gross inefficiency in the management of a heavily subsidised company," and both those criticisms are proved up to the hilt by the Cadman Report. I remember the Debate of 17th November and the look of injured innocence on the face of some Members of the Government when anyone dared to criticise their administration of civil aviation. In fact, any hon. Member who had the nerve to criticise was considered more of a cad than a man, but the report of the Committee has justified that Debate because in that report we have a damning indictment of maladministration in civil aviation. One has only to read some of the strong language in paragraph 7:
"We consider that there is reason for more than apprehension, indeed we view with extreme disquiet, the position disclosed by our inquiry."
Paragraph 8 states:
"The Maybury Committee on internal air transport reported just over a year ago. Although some progress has been made towards the reorganisation which they envisaged, the picture as disclosed to us remains virtually as black as they then painted it."
As regards the subsidised companies, paragraph 9 accuses one of them of using obsolete aircraft, and every one is accused of using foreign aircraft, a course which, it has been said, is damaging to our great manufacturing prestige. We, the great manufacturing nation of the world, which led the world on land and sea, are behind in the race in the air. After those general accusations we come to something more specific. Paragraph 23 states that the committee found that the defects in the Air Ministry organisation were not due to shortage of funds. After such indictments as these, one begins to wonder, especially after yesterday's Debate on the Air Service, whether the National Government really ought to enjoy a majority in this House. We are told that these companies were subsidised only to enable them afterwards to fly by themselves. The nestlings

469
are a long time in flying. Some of them have been in the nest nearly 20 years, and it is time they were fully fledged and flying on their own, and not depending upon public money.
We have heard a good deal from previous speakers about the machines. I am concerned with the men, and the relations between employers and employed as disclosed in this report fill me with alarm. In paragraph 103 it is stated:
"It is clear that the considerable increase during the last two or three years in the number of pilots and other operative personnel, coupled with amalgamations of air transport undertakings, is rendering personal contact between employer and employed ineffective for the adjustment of grievances or for representations on other matters."
We on this side of the House, with our trade union experience, know that the individual standing alone has no chance when he claims his rights against organised employers, and that the only answer to that is organised employés. The report goes on to recommend that conversations and negotiations should take place between, on the one side, an amalgamation of undertakings and, on the other side, employés' organisations, and I would repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth), "Is the Air Pilots' Association now to be recognised by Imperial Airways? "
I would like to say a word on the profits of Imperial Airways. In the Debate on 17th November several charges were made; first, that the salaries of the pilots had been cut; second, that the dividend of the company had increased from 8 to 9 per cent.; and third, that the directors' fees had been more or less doubled. As far as I can remember, those charges have not been refuted and are not refuted in the report. Excuses are made, but there is no refutation. The excuse is made that in the early years of the company no dividend was forthcoming, that between 1924 and 1937 an average of only 4½ per cent. was paid, and that the increase in the fees paid to the directors was a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the shareholders. If increased dividends and directors' fees could be paid, surely there was no justification for a cut in the salaries of the pilots. They should at least have been allowed to retain what they had. The prosperity of the company ought to have been reflected in an improvement in the position of the pilots.
470
There is a further question that I should like to ask. Imperial Airways was set up as a combination of certain companies. Why cannot that be done to British Airways? There are other companies also. I believe that something should be done for all these companies to enable them to combine. I have never seen a more damning indictment of mismanagement than the Cadman Report, and everything that was said in it has been proved up to the hilt. The Government mismanage everything. We have had an abundance of evidence of that fact lately in the realm of foreign affairs, just as we have had it at home in civil and military aviation. The Government's record is one of gross mismanagement and neglect.
6.31 p.m.
Sir Robert Birds: One previous speaker has touched upon the subject of municipal aerodromes. The Government cannot be absolved from blame upon that question. In paragraph 79 of their report, the Cadman Committee say:
"The whole subject of the provision of aerodromes in this country was fully examined by the Maybury Committee. Our consideration of the question is limited to the Air Ministry share of the responsibility for the present position of aerodrome owners."
Then they go to say, in the next paragraph:
"We find, however, that sites have been approved by the Air Ministry, and aerodromes have been fully developed by municipalities, in a completely haphazard manner.… The licensing of aerodromes has, in fact, been regarded as an administrative act unrelated to the probable requirements of air services."
The question of municipal aerodromes to-day certainly demands the attention of the Air Minister. By means of circulars and other propaganda, municipalities were appealed to a few years ago, chiefly on grounds of public spirit, to construct municipal aerodromes. It was pointed out that it could not be expected that an effective system of civil aviation would grow up unless there were air ports. The municipalities responded very loyally with true public spirit and spent large sums of money in securing sites, very often outside their own areas. They constructed aerodromes and fitted them with the necessary appliances for air traffic. What has been the result? Take the aerodrome which I know particularly well in my own constituency of

471
Wolverhampton. Up to the present, the air traffic is practically non-existent, beyond a casual commercial or private machine, plus the machines of a flying club which rents the aerodrome. I am informed that the cost of construction of this air port amounted to some £80,000, that the deficiency upon it in the current year is over £4,000, and that the estimated deficiency for next year is £5,000.
The future of that airport 1s naturally a source of very real anxiety to the municipality of Woverhampton. The public spirit which inspired the construction of this aerodrome, as of the others, is unabated, but we feel—I speak for other municipalities as well—that the matter should receive the urgent attention of the Under-Secretary of State, who, we understand, will now have time to devote to these matters. Airports have a double purpose, firstly to provide what is necessary for an internal system of civil aviation, and secondly to create the air mind in the people of this country. Until that air mind is created there can be no successful internal civil aviation, nor indeed can Empire routes be fully developed. I beg the Under-Secretary of State to say a few words in his reply which will relieve the anxiety of the municipal aerodrome owners.
6.36 p.m.
Mr. Eckersley: I have been interested for many years in a subject which might very rightly have formed a part of the Cadman Report, but which, unfortunately, does not do so to any extent. I refer to light aeroplane clubs. In the early days of civil aviation these clubs performed a very useful service. I think that is recognised by all civil pilots. The clubs are now falling upon evil days, through no fault of their own. This has been caused almost entirely by the new rearmament scheme and by the new schemes for the training of military pilots. The clubs touch a circle of young men who are interested in civil aviation, and who can be touched by no other means of training pilots. It is not every young man who wants to go into the Royal Air Force, or who is able to give up enough of his time for joining the Auxiliary Air Force or going to one of the Air Ministry training schools. In any case, many young men who can learn
472
to fly by any of these means would still like to keep up their flying in a civil capacity.
The clubs are to a very large extent subsidised, but the subsidy is gradually becoming insufficient. The reason is twofold. First of all, they have already touched to saturation point a great many people who can afford to pay a considerable proportion of their own flying expenses and the expenses of young pilots, and, secondly, the expenses of the clubs themselves must have become greater if only because of the expenses incurred in the engagement of instructors under the new arrangements with the Air Ministry in connection with their new scheme. It must be obvious that there will be a shortage of good instructors and that the wages of instructors have consequently gone to a higher level. This has pushed a great many of the clubs, as I myself know very intimately, very near to the point of extinction.
It would be a very great tragedy if this large circle of young men who are interested in flying, and who are prepared to pay a great proportion of their own flying instruction, were deprived of the possibility of learning to fly and of keeping to their own private flying afterwards. Much has been heard in the last 24 hours about the Royal Air Force having to fall back upon reserves of pilots in case of need in the very near future. The "A" licence pilots who have been taught by these clubs may form a very fine background for the Air Ministry, in case of dire necessity, and it seems very shortsighted for the Ministry to allow any of the clubs to become extinct. It might be asked by what means the subsidy can be increased. Many reasons are given against the possibility of increasing the direct subsidy, but there is always the possibility of some small rebate of tax on the petrol which is supplied to these clubs and of increasing—although this would not be popular—the direct subsidy on ordinary flying hours and on cross-country flying hours, which are obviously the most important form of flying provided for these clubs. The subsidy could be increased also on renewals of licences and on the granting of new licences. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State whether he will look upon these rather small requests in a generous way and find it possible by acceding to them to

473
bring a great deal of happiness into the lives of young men who do useful work for the country.
6.42 p.m.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I would add my congratulations to those which have been extended to-day to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). He is surveying the fruits of his handiwork today. He must be feeling a very proud and happy man. I wish to make a few remarks about the new appointments at the Air Ministry, which have been made as a result of the Cadman Report. I notice that they include a Deputy Director-General of Civil Aviation. Was the existing Director-General of the Department consulted before that appointment was made? We all regret that the Director-General is away on sick leave and we all hope for his early and complete restoration to health, but his absence makes it all the more interesting to know whether he was consulted in any way before the appointments were made. I go further and would ask if any of the Directors of Departments at the Air Ministry were consulted in regard to the new appointments.
I regret the haste with which the appointments have been made. I have not been able to understand the need for such very remarkable haste in adopting the recommendations of the Cadman Report, unless it was desired to disarm criticism inside and outside this House. It is most unusual to make appointments with such haste when a report is to be debated in this House within a week. It has been said by the Prime Minister that it was essential to save the delay of one week, but I cannot think that such an argument holds water. I regret this matter all the more because the Rae Committee is making inquiries at the present moment into the working of one of the most important sections of the Department of Civil Aviation, and the committee's findings may very well lead to a wider field of inquiry; so why rush these appointments before the Rae Committee has reported? Has that committee yet begun its work and will those witnesses who are examined by it enjoy the same security and privileges as those who were examined by the Cadman Committee?
As regards the new organisation which has been set up, I am not quite clear as
474
to the essential difference between a permanent Under-Secretary of State and a permanent Secretary of State. Each of them is the Chief Finance Officer of his Department. The War Office has one and the Admiralty has the other. Until 1934, there was a permanent Secretary at the Air Ministry, and the Department of Civil Aviation came under his direction, although it is true that the head of the Department of Civil Aviation had direct access to Ministers. In 1934 a deputation went to the Prime Minister, with, I believe, the approval of the then Secretary of State for Air, Lord Londonderry, and, as a result of that deputation, the Director of Civil Aviation was made Director-General, and was in effect given freedom from the authority of the Permanent Secretary. The change is said to have been due to the then Secretary of State for Air, Lord Londonderry, who felt that the then Permanent Secretary had far too much control of policy. The present decision seems to me to reverse the action taken in 1934, and the Director-General of Civil Aviation now goes back under the virtual control of the Permanent Under-Secretary of State. Is that what the Cadman Committee intended? In paragraph 29, on page 11 of their report, they say:
"The Permanent Under-Secretary of State. … would further be charged to see that the policies of civil and military aviation were constantly correlated, in which duty he would on the civil side have the assistance of the Director-General of Civil Aviation."
In paragraph 14 of the Government's observations they say:
"The Permanent Under-Secretary of State will, in addition to his other duties, exercise general administrative direction in civil aviation matters."
The wording of that passage shows clearly that the Director-General of Civil Aviation is to defer to the Permanent Under-Secretary of State in the planning and initiation of policy. He has obviously to submit and discuss matters of policy with the Permanent Under-Secretary of State before he takes them to Ministers. I think, and I believe that many think with me, that it would be far better if the Director-General of Civil Aviation were to work directly under a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Civil Aviation, and control his own policy and be responsible for his own finance. It may be true that the Department of Civil Aviation requires drastic

475
reorganisation, but I do not think that that will come merely by the interpolation of a new deputy into that Department. This decision has reversed what was done in 1934. The Cadman Report wants freedom and elasticity, but this new organisation will give the directors less initiative and elasticity than they now possess. In a word, I think that the decisions as taken are retrograde and will enable the Air Ministry to put the fetters on the Department of Civil Aviation once again. That Department should be free under its own Parliamentary Under-Secretary—free to develop its own policy and able to initiate sound policy and to construct an efficient organisation.
The Cadman Report, in regard to internal civil aviation, seems to do very little indeed to assist. It admits that civil aviation is wrong, but it is no use putting civil aviation right abroad and in the Empire unless it is put right at home. The aerodrome owners and the internal air company operators seem to me to be left very much as they were under the Maybury Report. After that report was issued, the interests which I have mentioned saw the Under-Secretary of State and begged for financial assistance and exemption from the petrol tax. They pointed out that the Air Ministry had urged local authorities to establish aerodromes. Those authorities who responded find themselves faced with very heavy losses, and have to face their ratepayers and explain those losses away. I do not believe that there is one single aerodrome at present which is making any profit at all—
Mr. Perkins: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon. That at Perth is.
Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I am very glad indeed to hear that, but it is interesting to note that in this House only one aerodrome can be pointed to as making a profit. The aerodrome owners and aircraft operators got no satisfaction at that time from the Under-Secretary of State. The Cadman Report gets internal civil aviation no further. If no assistance is given, I believe that some lines will have to close down, and in closing down they will bring aerodromes down with them in turn. Aviation will not fly by itself for some time. Public authorities cannot continually face ratepayers with losses on aerodromes. The Cadman Report, in Part 1, paragraph 8, says:
476
"The Maybury Committee on Internal Air Transport reported just over a year ago.… the picture as disclosed to us remains virtually as black as they then painted it."
Two years ago the picture was black; in two years more there will be no picture at all. Again, in paragraph 33 the Cadman Committee, after mentioning that the Maybury Committee had reported in 1936, says that they, that is, the Cadman Committee:
"have not, therefore, inquired into this important aspect of civil aviation."
They found the picture black, but they have not made any inquiry into it. There is a further inconsistency still. In Part 2. paragraph 72, of their report, the Cadman Committee recommend that the Air Ministry should speed up on the lines of the Maybury Report, but in paragraph 76 they say:
"We cannot support proposals put before us that internal air lines should be subsidised."
In fact, however, the Maybury Committee, while they advised against aerodrome subsidies, did not advise against subsidies to internal civil aviation lines. They described what they called "an appreciable measure of Government assistance" for internal air line operators as
"essential at this stage to secure a satisfactory degree of development."
and they recommended that such assistance should be given. In this respect, therefore, the Cadman Report advises the Government to proceed on the lines of the Maybury Report, but also advises the Government not to adopt the recommendations of the Maybury Report. That is very paradoxical. The Maybury Report gave the Government an opening to subsidise internal civil aviation. The Cadman Report calls attention to that opening only to advise the Government to close it. The Cadman Committee say:
"We have not inquired,"
but all the same they advise the Government against a subsidy. How do they know that there is no case for a subsidy if they have not inquired into the condition of internal civil aviation? The Cadman Report does, however, recommend national assistance for aerodromes selected by the Air Ministry. It says such help is necessary

477
"until internal air transport has assumed larger proportions."
Why State help for aerodromes but no help to enable the internal air services to grow? Because those services are so weak and poor, the aerodromes have to raise their prices to aircraft. It is simply a vicious circle. The fewer the services, the higher are the aerodrome charges, and the higher the aerodrome charges the more difficult it is for the internal lines to operate. What is the good of aerodromes if you have no services? No new internal air lines will develop as things are, and I believe that some of the old ones will close down. Then you will be left with aerodromes but no aircraft to use them, and the aerodromes will be nothing else but white elephants.
In conclusion, I want to put one direct question, as I think a very important question, to the Minister who is to reply. The Department of Civil Aviation exists to help and encourage civil aviation, and I am sure the Minister will agree that all the officers employed in that Department should bend all their efforts to the end of assisting civil aviation. I have had information given to me. I will not mention the name of the official concerned, because I think that this should be a matter of inquiry—I cannot express an opinion unless I hear the other side—and so I do not wish to mention the official's name until the inquiry has been made. I am told that this official from the Department of Civil Aviation, while on holiday recently in Switzerland, discussed quite casually with some quite casual acquaintances the affairs of a certain internal civil aviation company, the name of which I will not give, for obvious reasons. In this casual conversation with casual acquaintances, he said that this particular company was in a bad way, that it had lost £27,000 in the first year of its operation and £17,000 in the second; and, furthermore, that it would not last much longer as an independent company, as it was to be absorbed by the railway companies, the chairman not being keen on putting up any more money to be thrown away.
I have made some inquiries, and I believe that all those statements about this company were absolutely untrue. Even had they been true, they ought not to have been made, if they were so made, by an official of the Department of Civil
478
Aviation. Supposing that they were true—although they are not—supposing that these facts had come to the knowledge of this official, surely it was his duty to try to help a company struggling with bad times to get out of its difficulties, and not to make these reckless statements to casual acquaintances. If what I have been told is true, what has happened is a scandal. I think the allegations call for most serious inquiry by the Minister himself, and I feel confident that he will inquire into the matter. I will, of course, put the particulars that I have freely at his disposal. I hope that he will inquire into it, and that the results of his inquiry will be communicated to this House.
6.59 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), when he moved his Motion some months ago, was, to put it mildly, vehement. In my own home I always find that the wind blows very strongly when it blows from the direction of Gloucester, but I do not think I can recollect such a hurricane as was poured upon me on a certain Wednesday afternoon in November. I am perfectly certain, however, that the object which my hon. Friend had in mind on that occasion was quite genuinely the betterment of civil aviation. I want to stress that, because, despite the vigour of my hon. Friend's attack, it was obvious, having regard to the party to which he belongs, that he had no desire to embarrass the Government as such. His intention was to help the improvement of civil aviation, and particularly to direct attention to matters which required to be put right.
I think the Cadman Committee approached the inquiry from what one might call a business point of view. They had their attention directed to certain matters within a certain defined range and reported accordingly. It is exactly in that spirit that the report has been received by the Government. That was emphasised by the Prime Minister in his opening speech. They took this as a genuine effort to improve civil aviation and devoted their attention to the report from that standpoint and on those lines-It is clear, when one looks at the severe language of the Amendments that have been put down, that if the Government had chosen to make their reply to the

479
Cadman Report a mere matter of party strife their remarks attached to the report might have been couched in very different language, but that in the Government's opinion would not have got the matter where they wanted to get if, namely in the direction of bringing about an improvement in civil aviation policy and civil aviation generally. On the whole the recommendations of the Committee have in a very large measure been accepted. It is true that the Committee made one recommendation which the Government after due consideration decided, certainly in the present state of affairs, not acceptable. Anyone who heard the Debate on the military aspect of aviation yesterday must have realised that no case was made out for that recommendation.
The Leader of the Opposition made certain remarks about the management of Imperial Airways, and anyone reading the report sees that it came in for some fairly hard words. It seems to me that in the relationship between the Government and Imperial Airways, and indeed those relationships that are continuously growing up between Government Departments and outside bodies of one description or another, it is not always easy to define spheres of responsibility and, even if they are defined in words, it is not always easy to define their actual working in practice. But it seems to me that the words of paragraph 45 of the report are those on which we ought to concentrate, that is, the desirability of having the closest liaison between the Air Ministry and Imperial Airways. I am certain that in a relationship like this you cannot rely on any meticulous definition of words. One only hopes that the spirit of co-operation will go on on the best lines.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a point about Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner and said he was called an independent chairman. He asked what that meant; independent of what? It simply means that he is independent of any particular firm in the industry. He belongs to none of the firms which form the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. That is the meaning of his independent position. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) raised the question of railway bookings. The Cadman Report said the situation was satisfactory
480
except with regard to one question where political considerations were involved. It is true that there is a question regarding the services to Ireland, and I think any one will agree that, in the case of what is not purely an internal service within this country but one between this country and Ireland, it is perhaps reasonable that there should be considerations which would not operate in the case of a line merely operating within this country. [Interruption.] No, it does not mean that; because where you are dealing with a company that is operating a very vital service, such as the one to Ireland, I do not think we can necessarily expect that to be entirely dissociated from the operation of the company in general. I do not wish to gloss over that instance. Undoubtedly it is an outstanding instance, but there are rather particular factors in its consideration.
Mr. Everard: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the same thing happens in Scotland? Allied Airways from Aberdeen to the Orkney and Shetland Islands are exactly in the same position.
Mr. Holdsworth: I did not say the thing had been satisfactorily settled. I said the report said that, but my information was that it was incorrect. What I want is an answer on the general situation, whether the railways are going to give facilities for all concerned.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Hon. Members have been very ready to accept the report when it says anything unsatisfactory, but not so ready to agree when it gives the other view. In regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend behind me, it is true that in the case of Allied Airways booking facilities have been given in respect of their Scandinavian service.
Mr. Perkins: What about the service to the Isle of Wight and the service across the Bristol Channel?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think hon. Members may take it that the situation is generally more satisfactory than it was. There is the matter of the North Eastern Airways. That has been cleared up and it must be regarded as a definite step in advance towards the position which so many hon. Members are anxious should be achieved in its entirety. Another point

481
mentioned by the hon. Member for South Bradford was the treatment of pilots, and particularly the arrangements made by Imperial Airways with regard to any joint machinery, and the question whether the Air Line Pilots' Association had been given recognition. Paragraph 53 of the Government's statement says:
"Imperial Airways have been informed of the opinion of the Government that the reforms recommended by the committee concerning the staff organisation and the relations between the company and the employés should be taken in hand and have notified the Government that they are in full accord with the reforms in question. Imperial Airways have informed the Government that it is their express intention to review the rates of flying pay in consultation with their pilots or their representatives and that they have already so informed their pilots."
After all, Imperial Airways is a commercial company, and it seems that the question of the relations between them and the pilots in their employment must be primarily a matter between them and the pilots. It is only right that that should be stated. The recommendation indicated that, and the Government indicated it, too. But this is exactly one of those points where I realise that it is no good trying to stand on a perfectly rigid line of demarcation between the Government and its chosen instrument, Imperial Airways. As long ago as last October, in reply to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), on this point I spoke in very similar language. There are obviously certain things such as this from which the Government cannot dissociate itself, and that is the best position in which it can be left for the moment.
Mr. Montague: Surely, in view of the fact that Imperial Airways is heavily subsidised and has Government representatives on its board, whatever view the Government or anyone else may take as to the relationships between the company and its employés and Government responsibility, the House is entitled to be told definitely whether the Air Pilots' Association is to be recognised or not. Surely the Minister appreciates that there is a very vital difference between a Whitley Council and a definite trade union organisation. Are they to be recognised or not?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That is true but, after all, the particular recommendation of the committee and its acceptance by the Government and Imperial Airways
482
is comparatively recent. I certainly think it would be better to allow some time, at all events, to elapse for Imperial Airways and the Government to formulate some kind of machinery.
Mr. Montague: It is a simple question I am asking. Is that recognised trade union organisation of 80 per cent. of the pilots to be recognised by Imperial Airways, or not?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: If the hon. Member asks for a categorical answer at this moment, all I can say is that I cannot give it.
Mr. Perkins: Before the hon. Member leave this point, is it not possible for him to instruct the two Government directors on the board to use their influence on the board, in order to fulfil the recommendations in the report for the setting up of a Whitley Council?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Certainly the Government does give its directors instructions to press certain points of view. It is certain that the Government will give their directors instructions to implement these recommendations in the best way possible.
Mr. Montague: That means nothing.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think that if the hon. Member waits, he will find that it means a great deal, though it may not mean something being done in the particular direction he wants. The question of aerodromes was raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir R. Bird). The Government have restated their policy, which was recommended by the Maybury Committee. The Maybury Committee, in fact, endorsed the policy that the Government was already adopting, that subsidies should not be given for the construction of aerodromes, but that it should be left as the responsibility of the local authorities. But, as hon. Members know, the policy of the Government, endorsed by the Maybury Committee, was that substantial assistance on essential requirements should be given to aerodrome authorities in regard to equipment. That, in accordance with the recommendation of the Cadman Committee, is to be extended now to the provision of night-flying facilities to selected aerodromes which are large enough and otherwise suitable for night-flying purposes. The

483
hon. Member for South Bradford was interested in details of Yeadon Aerodrome. It is true that that aerodrome does not get a subsidy or monetary assistance as such, any more than any other aerodrome, but it does get considerable advantage in view of the presence of a squadron there, for whose accommodation a rental is paid.
Mr. Holdsworth: Is the hon. Member aware of the fight I had in order to get any sort of a decent rent?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Everybody knows that the hon. Member is a fighter. I am not at all surprised that, having put his hand on the sword, so to speak, on this occasion, he wielded it with effect. The hon. Member raised the question of subsidies. He was very fair in pointing out that he did not use the word "hidden" with any ulterior motive. I wish to be quite frank with him on the facilities provided as part of the bargain with Imperial Airways. He asked whether Imperial Airways paid rent at Croydon; they do.
Mr. Perkins: And landing fees?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I will certainly look into that. The provision of motor boats is, of course, a part of the contract, but it is quite true to say, in the sense the hon. Member put it forward, that it is in the nature of a hidden subsidy. That amounts to £65,000. Then there is the question of getting petrol free of duty. That is so, but it is only on a par with the oil which is in the bunkers of ships. There is no particular preferential treatment to Imperial Airways.
Mr. Holdsworth: The Government take the stand that they cannot do this for internal air lines. There is no consistency in this at all.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The consistency of the principle, of course, is another matter which might be argued. Then there is the question of the Post Office. A considerable amount of money passes from the Post Office to Imperial Airways, but I think it is hardly fair to call that a hidden subsidy. It is, after all, a definite business undertaking, a definite payment for specific services undertaken. In that respect, it is on a rather different footing from a subsidy. I was glad that the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate)
484
got an opportunity in this Debate, because I know that she wanted to speak in the previous Debate on this subject, and that there was no time. I think that probably one of the secret sorrows of her life is that she represents a constituency immediately adjacent to mine.
Mrs. Tate: Not at all. I am still hoping to exert a beneficial influence.
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. I never, perhaps, have been very good at guessing accurately at secret sorrows. But I do say that we are most excellent friends, except on these particular occasions. She, too, raised the question of the hidden subsidy with which I have dealt. She said there were many other points which hon. Members, including herself, would have liked to put during that Debate, but that there was not time. I think that she overlooked the fact that my Noble Friend the Secretary of State specifically realised that, and made provision for it. It was stated, in a Parliamentary answer in connection with this matter, that a lot of hon. Members who could not get in on that particular Debate could put their points to the Cadman Committee, and have them inquired into. On the question of the timetable of Imperial Airways compared with the Dutch line, I can say that the Dutch line takes three and a-half days to carry the air mail to Calcutta and five days to Singapore. Imperial Airways next month will take three and a-half days to Calcutta and five and a-half days to Singapore.
The hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Eckersley) raised a lot of interesting points in connection with the light aeroplane clubs. I will certainly look into them. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) made a good many points, by what I may call indirect methods, about the head of the Department of Civil Aviation. There were numerous points connected with officials. I think he will realise that points in this relating to officials—whether particular officials have been consulted, whether they have given assent or not—are really not questions, apart from what he might think to be the merits of the case, which can be discussed on the Floor of the House. The Leader of the Opposition put in a plea for the divorce of civil aviation from the Air Ministry.

485
He has overlooked the fact that the Cad-man Report itself, in paragraph 27, says that, at all events in the present stage of development, the committee think that civil aviation should remain a charge of the Air Ministry. One of the paragraphs in the report—
Mrs. Tate: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, as he has answered one of my questions, but could I have' an answer to the question I put, as to when we were to have a service across the South Atlantic, which is specifically recommended in the Cadman Report; and whether it is the Government's policy to continue to fly that vast stretch of water with land planes and to use our flying boats on a land route over France and Italy?
Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The question of the South Atlantic is one we wish to push on with as quickly as we can, and a considerable amount of exploratory work has recently been done by members of the staff who went out; but I would not like to be tied to a specific date. The Cadman Report suggested, in paragraph 7, that
"except on the Empire routes, this country is backward in civil aviation."
It is quite true that the Cadman Committee was directing its attention to matters which it was suggested required to be put right; and, therefore, it was not concerned with matters which are all right. With regard to Imperial Airways, no less than 90 per cent. of its organisation is put into the Empire route, and, when we are considering civil aviation, the Air Ministry and Imperial Airways as a whole, I think we must take that into consideration. How many of us would submit willingly to a criticism which said that except for 90 per cent. what we had done was bad? I think we should feel that, on the whole, not a bad case on our behalf had been made out. Trans-Atlantic services for example occupy the smallest paragraph in the report. It is quite easy in these days of publicity to get a headline but to get the Trans-Atlantic services reduced to the status of one small paragraph in this report is to my mind a triumph. I feel that after the Debate to-day, after the Prime Minister's speech, and, I hope, after my own explanation, the House will indicate its approval of the Prime Minister's Motion.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. Garro Jones: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has dealt with a great many aspects of the report, but he has not dealt very adequately with the financial aspect. If a complaint is in order in regard to the report at all, it would be in regard to the inadequate way it deals with the financial aspect of Imperial Airways and civil aviation. I want to refer, in particular, to the reply made by the Minister that the relation between the pilots and the company was a matter for the company.
It being after Half-Past Seven of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

SPAIN.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. Attlee: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I have moved the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the lack of any ministerial policy to counter a grave menace to British interests arising out of the armed intervention in Spain by certain foreign Powers. I am sorry to have to address the House twice on the same day, but the events that are unfolding before us in Europe make it absolutely necessary that this matter, should, if possible, be raised on the Floor of the House this evening. We are face to face with a situation which, in my view, is a very grave menace to British interests and to the safety and security of this country.
Let me consider for a moment what these British interests are. The first British interest which is menaced is peace. I mean peace, not the uneasy interval between wars, but a permanent and settled peace; not the kind of peace indicated by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in winding up the Debate the other night, which represents a very brief period before war comes upon us. The second is the cause of freedom. These causes stand together, and I for my part would not buy peace at the expense of freedom. In this country we stand for the peace of a free people. The third interest—they are all bound together—is the safety of this country. I hold that

487
these interests are menaced by the armed intervention in Spain which is being intensified at the present time. The conquest of Spain by the Fascist Powers will endanger the peace, freedom and security of this country.
The Prime Minister stands, as he told us, for the protection of British interests. He has adopted a policy which, I have no doubt, he thought would effect those objects. He believed it possible to secure British interests by entering into conversations and agreements with Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini on the basis that they would be true to their pledged word. He has had a rude awakening. Even while he was advocating peace with Herr Ribbentrop German forces were invading Austria. Conversations are in progress, or were in progess between Count Ciano and Lord Perth, and while these peace talks are proceeding, Signor Mussolini and his ally are trying to consummate the conquest of the Spanish Republic by the Fascist Powers. The right hon. Gentleman made the settlement of the Spanish question one of the conditions of arriving at that agreement. He pointed out that any serious intervention during that time would destroy the basis of conversations.
While these conversations have been going on there have been pouring into Spain munitions and forces on the side of the Fascists. Does anybody doubt that Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini are acting in concert? Does anybody doubt that the assistance of Herr Hitler in the conquest of Spain is part of the price for Signor Mussolini's betrayal of the Austrian Government? Read what was written in General Goering's paper, the "National Zeitung" only in November:
"The time will soon come when we shall put into execution the agreement made in Berlin between Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler. To the former Spain, to the latter Central Europe."
Make no mistake, the Rome-Berlin axis is in operation. We have warned the Government of the danger of this situation again and again. I characterised a policy of handing over Spain to the Fascist Powers as strategic madness when speaking in this House. I want hon. Members to look at the position of France to-day. The Prime Minister said that we are linked to France by common ideals of democracy, of liberty and parliamentary government. That is well said and it is
488
abundantly true, but we are also linked together by strategic necessity. We cannot be indifferent to the fortunes of the countries that occupy the other side of the narrow seas. To-day what does France see? She sees a greater Germany stretching from the Baltic to the Alps, linked to an Italy stretching from the Alps to North Africa. She is cut off from her friends of the Little Entente and from Russia. Can she possibly view without grave apprehension the establishment on her southern frontier of a vassal State of the Fascist Powers? No one supposes that General Franco is winning, if he is winning the war in Spain, through his own power. He is winning through the interposition of two powerful States, and it is not easy, when you have accepted that kind of help, to get rid of it.
History of wars in the past shows abundant instances of how difficult it was, when you introduced an invader into your country, to get rid of him again, particularly when he was so powerful. Look at what the position will be in the event of this conquest. You will have the Pyrenees a hostile frontier that has to be guarded, and the coasts of Spain available for the use of hostile navies and aircraft. Already German guns are being mounted on the coast of Spain at Bilbao and other places. French North Africa will be bordered by a hostile colony. The Balearics will be occupied, cutting right across her sea communications with her North African colonies That is what the men who are responsible for France see, and the question is, can we be indifferent to these things?
Let us see how this affects our own strategic position. I have been amazed that until quite recently—I think that things are changing—so many hon. Members have failed to realise the implications of a hostile Spain or a Spain in the possession of a Power which has acted as Germany has acted in the case of Austria, and as Signor Mussolini has acted in the case of Abyssinia, and as both have acted in the case of Spain. It is surprising that anyone acquainted with our history and the history of the Spanish Peninsular over the last 200 years can think that we can be indifferent to what goes on there. The writer in a military paper that I was reading called the Mediterranean the life-line of the British Empire. That life-line will be

489
cut. The ports of Spain will be available for ships operating against our trade routes just as they were in the days when Napoleon was master of Spain.
What about our old ally, Portugal? Do you think that Portugal can stand up long surrounded by the power and guardian influence of these great Fascist States? What of Gibraltar? What will be the worth of Gibraltar if the shores of North Africa and of Spain are occupied by a Power particularly hostile to us? I have put these considerations before the House very often and they have always been ignored. They are being repeated now in various quarters which are not at all friendly to us on this side of the House. I read in the "Evening Standard" that many even of those who are opposed to British intervention in Spanish affairs are recognising in the present crisis a situation unfavourable to Britain and detrimental to her national interests. So says Lord Beaverbrook, I think that the "Daily Mirror" belongs to Lord Rothermere, does it not? [Interruption.] Well, one of the Press Lords. There is a remarkable leading article in that paper to-day, headed:
"Now for a Real Foreign Policy."
It is worth reading to the House.
"While Herr von Ribbentrop, the German Foreign Minister, was cajoling his friends in English 'upper class' society, while Frau von Ribbentrop was giving the last of her pretty parties, Hitler was advancing upon Austria. 'Keep the English chattering while I act. Then laugh at them!'"
An Hon. Member: Speak up.
Sir Cooper Rawson: It does not matter, it is not worth hearing.
Mr. Attlee: The quotation goes on:
"Hitler believes in action; we in words. Hitler has a foreign policy. We apparently have none. What is Hitler's foreign policy? It is in his book, which should be made compulsory reading for all British Ministers. He has announced his aims. After he has gained the rest of Eastern Europe and terrorised the already panic-stricken nations of the Little Entente—what next?
Next, the destruction of France."
They go on to point out that they
"will give France another frontier to defend. That will cut off France from her African possessions. And England from the Mediterranean. Use the red rag for the British bull. It always pays. Smash 'red' France. Then—or before then—the colonies."
490
That indicates a remarkable change of opinion, and there is increasing nervousness to-day in this country over the Government's lack of policy. I say it deliberately—lack of policy. It is not a time when the country can wait. The Government have no policy whatever to put before it. It is no good suggesting that the Government must not be rushed. It is not we who are doing the rushing; events are doing the rushing. There is grave uneasiness and there has been a heavy fall in Government securities today—all indications of what the feeling is. What is the position in Spain at this moment? While the Prime Minister was beguiled in talks, as that leading article says to-day, masses of material were pouring into Spain. There are well authenticated reports of a mass of aeroplanes entering Spain, and of 12 ships in Bilbao. There is a report of German troopships.
Eyewitnesses of the present fighting going on in Spain say that there has been a terrific increase in the arrival of new material, aeroplanes, tanks and guns for this attempt to smash the Spanish Republic. At any time a frightful air raid may fall on Valencia or Barcelona. What are the Government going to do? For how many months have we had sham non-intervention? The Government cannot pretend to have any trust in nonintervention agreements now. They know very well how one-sided the non-intervention policy has acted all the way through. They know that these arms are piling up in Spain, and they still keep up the farce of believing that they are carrying on non-intervention, with the rulers of Berlin and Rome doing the same.
I understand that the French Government have addressed a communication to the British Government. I do not know what that is. I should like to know whether any reply has been sent. I should like to know what is the opinion that has been expressed by France to the British Government, because the Government of France are bound to be very deeply concerned at these events. Supposing France feels that the non-intervention agreement is a farce and must be given up, and that the Spanish Government should have restored to them the right to get arms in, what will be the attitude of the British Government? Will our Government see now that there can be no trust in the word

491
of dictators? That policy has gone. Will they not now allow the Spanish Government to receive arms? Will they not help the Spanish Government to receive arms?
We are deeply moved on these benches by the fate of the Spanish Republic and of the people of Spain. I do not deny that in this matter I am a partisan. I am on the side of the Spanish Republic, and I am not the least ashamed of it. Many men who have led parties in this House and many men who have led Governments in this House have stood firm on the side of freedom and against despotism. Quite apart from what our particular views may be, this is no contest of idealogies. You have here deliberate aggression. You have here a breach of international law. You have here an attack on British interests, whatever view you take of British interests. The cause of the Spanish Republic is the cause of this country. To betray the Spanish Republic is to betray France, and to betray France is to betray Britain.
The Government are seeking now the help of the workers of this country. They are constantly appealing for assistance to stand by and help them in rearmament. Will they have the face to come before the workers if they betray the workers? If the Government want to unite the country in a time of danger they must have a policy worthy of this country; a policy standing by ideals. They will not get the people of this country to stand by a craven Government which allows all its friends to go down and which allows the cause of freedom to go down. I give the Government this warning. They have had many chances lately of taking a stand on the side of freedom, a stand for collective security and a stand on the side of international law, and of preventing things from going down the abyss. Those chances have been neglected. They have another chance now by joining with France and concerting with them measures to help the people of Spain, and if they reject it it may be a case of now or never.
7.50 p.m.
The Prime Minister: In the speech to which we have just listened the right hon. Gentleman has used some hard and provocative words. It is tempting to reply in kind, but for my part I feel that the international situation to-day is so grave
492
that I have no heart for interchanges across this Table of reproaches and accusations of betrayal. I want, therefore, to address myself to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, and in a spirit of greater gravity than might be perhaps employed on a less grave occasion. The right hon. Gentleman has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House
"to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the lack of Ministerial policy to counter the grave menace to British interests arising out of the armed intervention in Spain by certain foreign Powers."
I wish to point out that leave was asked and obtained on a definite matter—the situation in Spain. In the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman in which he called for a declaration of Government policy on matters going far beyond Spain, it seemed to me that he was attempting to take this matter rather out of the narrow limits within the terms of the Motion. What we have to deal with in connection with this Motion is the grave menace—to use the words of the Motion—to British interests arising out of the armed intervention in Spain by certain foreign Powers. From what does this menace arise? Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is something which has grown up suddenly, in the night. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He must think so, or he would not have moved this Motion. I assume that what he means is that a victory by General Franco is the menace in question.
Mr. Neil Maclean: Intervention by foreign Powers.
The Prime Minister: Why, then, is the matter urgent? I can only assume it is because the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this victory is imminent. He went on to make what seemed to me to be a number of assumptions which were hardly justified by the evidence before us. Why does he think a victory is imminent; it may be, I am not saying it is not; but we have heard on a good many occasions that victory was imminent on one side or the other. I remember the right hon. Gentleman coming back from Spain and saying that the other side were on the point of victory. There have been successive disappointments, first on one side and then on the other for quite a long time. I ask myself, supposing it be true that that which suddenly seems to have altered the

493
situation in favour of General Franco's forces, does presage what I may call a complete victory, can it be said that that is due to the accession of fresh forces and munitions to his side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Of course, it can be said, but can it be supported? After all, there are foreign forces on both sides. There are rumours of additions to the foreign forces on both sides, but as far as I am concerned I am bound to say that I have not yet seen evidence which I can feel was convincing and reliable as to the numbers or quantities of the forces or munitions on either side.
Hon. Members opposite admit that they are partisans in this matter. They believe every story against the other side and disbelieve all the stories which they think are not favourable to their own side. I cannot take up that line. I have to weigh the evidence before I found upon it action which may involve His Majesty's Government first, and then the people of this country, in serious consequences. I say that so far the rumours, although they may be considered to be more or less probable, are still only rumours, and I have no definite evidence of these fresh accessions of forces which hon. Members opposite appear to take for granted. As far as I can see, there is no reliable evidence that, whatever may be the effect of this recent advance by General Franco, he has not been able to carry it through with the forces which were at his disposal and have been at his disposal for some time.
I ask myself, in the second place, what is this Ministerial policy for which the right hon. Gentleman has called, and which he says would counter the menace to British interests? Perhaps I may say once again what our policy has been. Our policy has been the policy of nonintervention. Some countries have intervened, but certainly this country has not. The civil war in Spain started in July, 1936. It was in August of the same year that the Non-intervention Committee was set up. It has been the custom of hon. Members opposite to jeer at the non-success, as they say, of the Non-intervention Committee. Of course, no one can pretend for one moment that the setting up of the Non-intervention Committee and the working of it, have been successful in stopping intervention. We do not pretend—it would be ridiculous to
494
do so—that there has been no intervention since then. I say that it has restricted intervention; that if there had been no Non-intervention Committee, intervention would have undoubtedly taken place on a far larger scale.
In the second place, it has averted international war being carried on first on Spanish soil and probably spreading to all Europe. The fact that the war has been confined to Spanish territory and for the most part to the Spanish people, is a remarkable tribute to the success of the British policy of non-intervention. We have ourselves scrupulously observed our obligation of impartiality under the Non-intervention Agreement, and we have made every endeavour to persuade other parties to that agreement to follow our example. Perhaps one might cite again as a testimony to the impartiality we have shown the fact that we have been so freely criticised by both sides. The right hon. Gentleman has assumed that the success of General Franco will mean handing over Spain to what he calls the Fascist Powers. He has assumed that victory for that side will mean that Spain will pass under the complete control of Germany and Italy. He has assumed that this has long been the intention of those two Powers and, apparently, he thinks that their objective is now in sight. The Government have never taken that view. The House will remember some words spoken by the late Foreign Secretary on the 1st November:
"There are those who are convinced that, supposing the insurgent forces are victorious, the result will be a Spain in active alliance with a foreign policy directed against this country. I do not accept that. We are just as alive to the dangers as hon. Members opposite, but there are strong forces working in another direction, forces of trade and commerce, forces of geography. This country is still' and will continue to be, I trust, the greatest naval power in Europe. That is not without its effect when it is known that we have no intention, no kind of afterthought, either direct or indirect, about the territorial integrity and the political independence of Spain. Spaniards know that very well. They know very well too that no British war material has killed any Spaniards on either side. These factors will I believe be important in the future. …We have every desire to live on friendly terms with Spain, and I believe that Spain. …whatever the outcome will share that sentiment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1937; col. 591, Vol. 328.]
Then again on the 21st December my right hon. Friend said:

495
"I have been convinced from the first that no one who intervened in this strife in Spain was going to benefit by that intervention. I see no reason to alter that opinion in any way, and if other nations insist upon burning their fingers in the Spanish furnace that is no reason why we should do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1937; col. 1885, Vol. 330.]
We intend to continue in the future, as we have in the past, to be in close touch with the French Government. I believe to-day, as I have believed hitherto, that we shall best serve British interests, we shall best serve peace, and best serve the cause of freedom, if we keep out of Spain and make our policy one of non-intervention, and do not, as the late Foreign Secretary said, attempt to burn our fingers as other nations may still do.
8.7 p.m.
Sir Archibald Sinclair: The Prime Minister has asked why this Debate was raised, why the issue was regarded as urgent. Was it, he asked, that some of us feared a victory for General Franco? It was made abundantly clear in the speech of the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition that what those who stood up in their places this afternoon had in mind was that a victory might be obtained by German and Italian troops. It is the threat of that event which constitutes in our minds the urgency of the present situation. When I listened to the Prime Minister's speech I could not help thinking that his opening was quite inconsistent with the latter part of his speech. He upbraided the Leader of the Opposition for connecting the situation in Central Europe with the situation in Spain. He declared that the situation in Spain was developing quite normally, and he saw no reason for any change in the policy of the Government. Then why is the gravity of the situation so great that the Prime Minister has no heart for hard and provocative words? I have a great feeling of the gravity of the situation. I shall try to avoid hard and provocative words, but I do not mean that I am going to be mealy-mouthed. I shall say what I mean objectively, but I shall try to avoid hard and provocative words.
We have to consider how far the present policy of the Government is responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves, and, indeed, we have to consider how far the recent departure in policy is
496
responsible for the increasing gravity of the situation. The Prime Minister has said that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House have all along been partisans about Spain. I have not been a partisan of either side in Spain, and if anybody challenges that statement, I must condemn him as a penalty to read the first speech I made on this subject in November, 1936, in this House, in which I made it abundantly clear that things had happened on both sides which I could not but blame and that there had been on both sides a certain amount of intervention. I have never disguised for a moment that I wish to have complete nonintervention and to leave the Spanish people to settle their difficulties in their own way. That has always been the policy which I have upheld, and in successive Debates I have described myself as a patient supporter of the policy of nonintervention.
At the same time, I have never disguised the fact that I sympathise with the Spanish Government. I know that other hon. Members who are just as patriotic citizens as I am sympathise with General Franco. My sympathies with the Spanish Government are due mainly to three reasons: first, that they are fighting for the cause of freedom against a Fascist form of Government; secondly, as it seems to me, that the intervention by Italy and Germany in the affairs of Spain is contrary to the efforts which the democratic nations of the world are making to place the relationships between nations on the basis of the rule of law instead of force; and, thirdly, that I believe the occupation of Spain by Italian and German forces would be the gravest threat to the national and Imperial interests of this country. Those are also the reasons why I have supported the policy of non-intervention, but I deeply resent the weakness of the Government in making that policy effective. I know that some hon. Members say that there has been intervention on both sides. I have studied the estimates of the numbers of foreign combatants on both sides, and I have not seen a single estimate in papers like the "Times" and the "Telegraph"—I am not thinking about papers which sympathise with the Left—which puts the foreign forces on the side of the Government higher than 20,000 men, and not one which puts the numbers of foreign combatants on the side of General Franco lower than 80,000.

497
Nor can there be the slightest doubt, on the part of anyone who has read the evidence of people who have been in this theatre of war, that the material—the aeroplanes, the guns—on the side of General Franco is far larger than that on the side of the Republican Government.
Mr. George Balfour: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of the arrival to-night of large masses of heavy aeroplanes of the latest type, and heavy artillery, for the Red forces?
Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Member says to-night—I should say it is about time if we are to redress the balance which has been weighted so heavily against the Republican forces. In this situation a great many friends of mine have said, "Why not open the frontiers and let the democratic countries pour in munitions?" For that reason they opposed the Government's plan for the withdrawal of foreign combatants. I supported the plan, because it seemed to me that it was far better from the point of view of allowing the Spanish people to settle their own affairs if you could withdraw foreign combatants rather than enter into a competition with the dictator Powers in pouring munitions into that unfortunate country. I supported the plan, but I said, "Let there be a time limit, do not let it be another curtain drawn over the interminable proceedings of the Non-intervention Committee behind which the dictatorship Powers will go on arguing and talking and never really intending to withdraw their troops, but, on the contrary, reinforcing them with munitions, until finally they can batter their way towards those objectives, not which General Franco wants, but which his Italian and German masters want to obtain in Spain." Therefore, in July last I urged that there should be a time-limit and that if it became clear mat the Italians and Germans were not going to accept the plan honestly, genuinely, and sincerely, other measures should be considered and the Government should regain their freedom of action.
Time went on. Good reasons were produced for patience, but in the succession of Debates which we have had on this question, I have been feeling more and more that time was being deliberately-wasted by the Italians and Germans on the Non-intervention Committee, and I have urged more and more strongly that
498
there should be a time-limit. The Prime Minister quoted this evening from certain speeches which the ex-Foreign Secretary made on this subject in November and December of last year, but the situation is very different now from what it was then. Although I criticised the delays and wanted a little greater evidence of firmness and still pleaded for a time-limit, nevertheless I supported broadly the position which the ex-Foreign Secretary took up at that time; but by February I had certainly begun to lose patience, and my submission to the House now is that the ex-Foreign Secretary had begun to lose patience also. As the House has listened to some quotations by the Prime Minister from his speeches in November and December last, perhaps it will allow me to make a short quotation from the speech which he made on 21st February. After referring to the experience which the Government had had of the Gentlemen's Agreement in January of last year and the glorification by the Italian dictator of the victories of the Italian forces in Spain, he said:
"My submission is that we cannot risk a further repetition of these experiences—
I hope the Prime Minister remembers that passage—
"Therefore, it is my contention that before His Majesty's Government open official conversations in Rome with the Italian Government, conversations which have, and rightly have, as an objective not only an improvement of Anglo-Italian relations, but appeasement in the Mediterranean as a whole—before that can be done we must make further progress with the Spanish problem; we must agree not only on the need for withdrawal and on the conditions of withdrawal—we have had assurances enough of that in the past—but we must go further and show the world not only promise but achievement. The withdrawal must have begun in earnest before those conversations in Rome can be held on a really solid basis of good will, which is essential to success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1938; col. 47, Vol. 332.]
Of course, the Prime Minister did not agree with that point of view, and in winding up the Debate he said:
"I expressed my personal opinion that I believed the assurances given by the Italian Government would be fulfilled and carried out, but I made it perfectly plain that if they were not, then the chances of agreement were nil.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1938; cols. 152–153. Vol. 332.]
But the Italian troops in Spain are making it clear that Mussolini means to get his results in Spain before these conversations are even opened. On the

499
following day, in reply to an interruption in which I explained that I thought there should be an undertaking about the withdrawal of troops from Spain before the negotiations were started, the Prime Minister challenged me to say on what basis they should be begun. I said that one of the things to do was to get the withdrawal of foreign combatants started, and the Prime Minister said:
"That exactly demonstrates the point that I am endeavouring to make, that really this suggestion that we would enter into conversations providing these things were done first, is humbug."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1938; col. 222, Vol. 332.]
The House can judge for itself who has been humbugged now. Later on in his speech the Prime Minister gave me a little lecture which I did not in the least resent; indeed, he rather flattered me by the comparison which he made between me and certain Liberal leaders of the past, although the comparison he made was to my disadvantage. He gave me a little lecture on the Liberal virtue of magnanimity; but he was ignoring the lessons of our past negotiations with Italy, he was ignoring the lessons of Italy's actual conduct in recent years. He said he trusted the Italian dictator and was prepared to deal with him as he would deal with the Government of France, or the Government of the United States of America, or the Government of one of our own Dominions.
But suppose that the situation were different. I wondered whether one word which the Leader of the Opposition used in the, speech with which he opened the Debate was the right word. The right hon. Gentleman said that Mussolini had betrayed Austria. Suppose that it was not a betrayal, suppose that Mussolini had exhausted his resources in sending expeditions to Abyssinia, to Libya and to Spain, suppose that the real position was that he knew he could not stop Hitler and that the game for Italy in Central and Near Eastern Europe was up, but that by making friends with Hitler, by strengthening the Rome-Berlin Axis, he could get ample compensation elsewhere at our expense. Suppose that Mussolini had made that choice. I ask the House merely to make that supposition and to see how the situation fits in with it. Suppose that every hon. Member here had made that choice, and that he was able to dispose of the forces of
500
Germany and Italy. Would it be a very bad plan to move into Austria and cut—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) pointed out the other day so forcibly—the communications of Czechoslovakia, and be in a position to control the whole of Central Europe? Suppose he then moved into Spain and established positions on the lifeline of the British Empire, right through the Mediterranean and down the West coast of Africa and on the communications between France and North Africa? Would not those two moves be rather good preparations if those were the plans which you had in mind?
The Prime Minister reproached the Leader of the Opposition for assuming that Spain would pass permanently or for any prolonged period under German or Italian domination. Why not? What is the lesson of these modern dictatorships as we see them in operation? Look back to Germany a few months before Herr Hitler came into power. He had actually polled fewer votes at the immediately preceding general election than he had received at the previous general election. He was in a minority in the nation. He had a great many strong forces against him in the army and elsewhere. He had the trade unions against him, a powerful movement with their Iron Guard as it was called. But the whole thing collapsed like a house of cards when Herr Hitler got his hands on the levers of power. We know what those levers are now—control of the Press, control of broadcasting, control of the cinema, of the schools and universities, and of every means of expressing and moulding public opinion. Then, of course, came control of the police and the army and the establishment of one party with its little branches in every block, of every street of every town and city. That is not a grip which General Franco will find it easy to throw off at any rate in these next few dangerous years. This process of taking the armies and the navies and the economic resources of these little States—and they may be little but their resources are by no means negligible—and welding them into the war machines of the dictatorship Powers, is a much quicker process than British rearmament.
I would, therefore, draw two main morals from this situation. First, do not let us separate ourselves from France. Surely our friendship with France is the

501
one strong firm basis which we have in international relationships at the present time. France is more closely affected by this situation than we are. Let the Government give us this assurance, I beg them, before the conclusion of this Debate—that as far as France wants to go, we shall stand by her. My second conclusion is this. I agree very strongly with the Leader of the Opposition that in these dangers which, as the Prime Minister has said, are so grave we want unity in this House as a Council of State, and, as far as we can, in the country. I think, if I may say so with great respect to the Prime Minister, it is a grave error on his part to try to make out that there are two situations in Europe at the present time—one of great moment to the British people, namely, the situation in Central Europe, and the other the situation in Spain which does not matter nearly so much, though Spain is right on our line of Imperial communications. I do not think that is true on the merits and I am certain the mass of the people of the country do not take that view of the situation. I am afraid they will be very suspicious of a policy which takes such a keen interest in Vienna and Salzburg and Czechoslovakia and other places in Central Europe and takes so little interest in what the masses of the people regard as a struggle by the Spanish people for their freedom. I beg the Government to look at this situation as one. I am sure it is one. It presents grave dangers to this country. Let us by all means be united in face of it, but let us face the whole situation, and not different parts of it separately.
8.32 p.m.
Captain Harold Balfour: As an ordinary back-bench Member I would like to protest against the action taken by the Opposition in moving the Adjournment of the House at a time which, as the Prime Minister has said, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has just admitted, is one of great gravity. This is the second time within three days that the right hon. Gentleman has started a speech by saying that he was not going to use hard or provocative words and has ended by making a speech which was certainly not helpful in the present situation. I have a perfect right as has any other hon. Member to object to the course taken by the Opposition parties, and I challenge
502
any hon. or right hon. Gentleman to say that when this Debate closes to-night the situation will have been materially helped from the point of view of the peace of this country. Particularly does one take exception to this Debate as it is based on unconfirmed rumour. I listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and to that of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. Neither of them produced one jot or tittle of evidence, except hearsay evidence which can be seen in any paper to-day, coloured according to the politics of the particular paper. Not one single bit of evidence has been produced to show that the situation has altered, except in the military sense, by the use of the existing armaments in Spain.
Miss Rathbone: What kind of evidence would the hon. and gallant Member accept, if he refuses to accept the evidence of the Spanish Government and of responsible Press correspondents, when the British Government have no other observers in Spain to give evidence?
Captain Balfour: I would accept entirely the evidence of our diplomatic and consular representatives who owe allegiance to no party and no policy but are there to serve the Government of the day. But let us suppose for a moment that those rumours are true. We are obliged at the present time to support the policy of non-intervention and therefore any action taken by His Majesty's Government—supposing these rumours to be true—can only be in the direction of repairing breaches in the non-intervention policy. It is the Opposition who wish us now to abandon all non-intervention and to allow the uncontrollable forces of war in Spain and probably outside Spain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland talked about what the people of this country are thinking at the present time. The people of this country, the ordinary voters, are thinking that, by hook or by crook, with all the faults and failings of non-intervention, at any rate it has succeeded in localising the war in Spain and not allowing it to spread throughout Europe.
Another reason I object to the Debate to-night is the smug attitude taken by the Opposition parties, as if they were really guarding British interests by supporting the Spanish Government. The hon. Lady just now wanted me to accept

503
the evidence of reasonable and authoritative newspapers. I have here a paper with which she must be familiar. It is the "Dia Grafico" of 26th February last. It is an official organ of the Barcelona Government and it makes an attack on British policy, and says that if the Government is successful in the war Gibraltar and all the sources of wealth to which foreigners, including Britons, have had access, will be taken over by them. Here is the exact wording:
"We are indeed ashamed that Gibraltar does not belong to the sovereign territory of the Spanish State, as well as of the fact that through Governments of the Monarchy, together with the incompetence and lack of patriotism of our capitalists, the exploitation of our sources of wealth should have passed into foreign hands. With our effort alone, not a single foreign invader will remain in Spain, and afterwards we shall obtain the return of all our national riches."
Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: What authority has the hon. and gallant Member for saying it is the official organ of the Government?
Captain Balfour: It is recognised as an official organ.
Mr. Roberts: Can the hon. and gallant Member produce any Spaniard supporting the Government who admits it is the official organ?
Captain Balfour: This is not a court of law. This paper is a recognised official daily paper in Government territory and I have just as much right to quote that attack on British interests by the Spanish Government, as any hon. Member has of bringing forward, as is done day after day at Question Time, articles in papers which they allege are Franco papers, saying that Franco will do this or that.
Mr. McGovern: There is no such paper.
Captain Balfour: Even supposing this paper is denied by the Spanish Government it is, I submit, rash and wrong for us to make our deductions from newspaper articles. [Interruption.] Hon. Members do not like to hear something which is against their case. A question I would like to ask is, supposing that the Government of Spain had achieved a great victory suddenly to-night, with the aid of French and Russian munitions which everybody admits do exist in Spain, would the Opposition have moved the Adjournment of the House in order
504
to ensure that the policy of non-intervention was succeeding? No, Sir. For the hon. Members above the Gangway would not have moved the Adjournment of the House and would not have protested at a victory for the Spanish Government. So, it is proved and admitted that they are using non-intervention just so long as it suits their political affinities, and they will throw it over directly it does not suit them. They will use it irrespective of whether it is helpful towards the cause of world peace. They are only thinking of the political ideology which they pursue and not of the interests of this country.
I protest strongly against the executive of this country being unable to function because, daily, the legislature throws sand into its wheels. We are a free democracy but that very freedom carries with it a responsibility of balance and judgment, particularly while foreign affairs are in this grave and delicate situation which the Prime Minister tells us is the case—and he is head of the Executive and knows—and which is also admitted by the two Leaders of the Opposition. I believe that when we have had eight foreign affairs Debates, as we have had during the last few weeks, while we have a daily barrage of questions intended for propaganda purposes, we are in danger of abusing the freedom of democracy by taking for political purposes all opportunities of impeding the even functioning of the executive, and endangering the peace of the country at the same time. I believe that the Opposition are doing a disservice to the country and to the cause of peace by their action, and that they will meet with their right deserts in the country for their action in the House to-night.
8.43 p.m.
Mr. Maxton: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down made a very heated contribution to the Debate. He called for calm and objected to the Opposition getting hot about this matter, but showed a greater amount of general nervous excitation than anyone else who has participated in the Debate. His star point was to read a quotation from some alleged newspaper which he describes as being an official organ of the Spanish Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) says he does not believe there is any such

505
paper. I would not go as far as that, but while I was in Barcelona that was not one of the papers brought before my notice. In any case, on a previous occasion when questions were asked in this House, this document was passed from hand to hand and I got rid of it as quickly as I could. I am sorry now I did not tear it up. I should have thought the hon. and gallant Member would have refused to handle it for hygienic reasons alone, because it had passed through so many hands before it got to this bench, one had very grave doubts about its authenticity. That was the high point of the hon. and gallant Member's speech—that somebody somewhere in Barcelona had said that Gibraltar should never have been left in the hands of Britain through all these centuries. That has nothing to do with the future. It is a criticism of Spanish Governments of the past who left Gibraltar in foreign hands, and that is all that there is in the document. The Prime Minister does not, I hope, require the protection which his hon. Friends are anxious to give him. The appeal of the hon. and gallant Member is that the House of Commons should suspend its rights to debate these matters.
Captain Balfour: No. I never said that the House of Commons should suspend its rights. I said our freedom of democracy carries with it a need for balance and judgment.
Mr. Maxton: Hear, hear, and I think that the Opposition are entitled to stand in the House to-night and say that from the start the facts have proved that they have a more balanced and sensible judgment on the trend of European affairs than has been disclosed by His Majesty's Government. The facts to-night are in support of the Opposition critics and not of the statements that have been made from the Government Front Bench. From there there have been daily professions of ignorance. I can scarcely believe, however, that they have been ignorant of the facts either of the Austrian situation or of the situation in Spain. I cannot believe that the Consular service, the Ambassadorial service and the Secret Service have kept from the Government essential facts about both the Spanish and the Austrian situations.
I do not believe that the sudden and spectacular advance of General Franco's forces in Spain and the march into
506
Austria of Hitler's forces are isolated incidents, that these two movements are detached happenings that have just by accident occurred at this time. I am amused at the Prime Minister and his supporting casting Britain's role in this situation as if we were the gods sitting up on high Olympus above the battle, looking down pityingly and benevolently on the lesser mortals beneath. That is not our situation. We are the marked down victims. These are only the manoeuvrings of troops to get them into position. That is all that is happening up till now. When I came into politics it was no part of my intention, and it has never been part of my effort, to maintain the British Empire. I have never at any time approached my electors with a promise that I was going to safeguard the British Empire. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Frankly, when I look at humble nations like Norway and Sweden with no empire, and I look at the lives of their people, I think, allowing for all the differences, that in the simple quiet nations that do not regard themselves as the saviours of the whole world, the common people live more happily and contentedly than the people in the great cities of Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, in spite of their great Empire. I came into politics to try and see if I could possibly remove some of the heavy sufferings of the poor people of this country. That was the limit of my ambition. I took sides with the Spanish people at the beginning of this trouble because I believed that that was their ambition.
To-night I am not assuming a victory of the Franco forces. I remember when I went to an international conference in Paris in 1936, I believed that before I reached Paris we would have word that Madrid had fallen. That was the general view in this country. Madrid has not yet fallen. Barcelona has not yet fallen, and Valencia has not yet fallen, in spite of what has been the most tremendous concentrations of armed forces with governmental power behind them—the governmental power of Italy and Germany. And hon. and gallant Members in this House excuse it, defend it and even applaud it while their own Prime Minister holds out the hand of friendship to Italy and Germany. While his hand is being held out he is kicked right in the solar plexus, below the belt, and hon.

507
Members who pretend to be the supporters in this House of the British Empire, and who have promised their electors to maintain its integrity, applaud -the actions of the men who are insulting and disgracing their Prime Minister in the eyes of the world. That is the role of Conservative gentlemen in the British House of Commons in 1938.
I am not anxious to drive the Prime Minister to make hasty utterances. He came very jauntily into the realm of foreign affairs near the end of a long political life. He came in very boldly, and he was scarcely in the ring when he had a knock-out blow. I am ready to give him the necessary time to get to his feet and to make a statement of where Britain stands with reference to honesty, because what has been defended on the Government side to-night is dishonesty. I am going to ask him where Britain stands on common human decency. I am going to ask him where it stands in the matter of ordinary courage. That has got to be said. It may not be said to-night; it has not been said to-night; but it has got to be said within the next few days, and said in plain language that ordinary people in this country and in other countries can understand.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. H. G. Strauss: Although the Adjournment has been moved on the question of Spain, it has been clear from the speeches of all hon. Members that greater events and the lamentable events of last week are at the back of all our minds. I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition when he said that we cannot entirely divorce one part of the Continent from another when we discuss foreign affairs. I thought that he was unfair to the Prime Minister in assuming that he had done so. As I understood the Prime Minister, he pointed out that this Debate was on a limited subject but admitted, as we must all admit, that there was a serious background which gives solemnity to any Debate on foreign affairs at this moment. I believe that one fact relating to the tragedy of Austria must be obvious to all thinking people, and that is the contrast between the appalling efficiency and calculation with which that crime was put through and that which was happening in other
508
great nations which deplored what was taking place.
While Germany acted with that appalling efficiency France was without a Government at all, Russia was indulging in the worst and most fantastic of its judicial lynchings, and in this country the chief Opposition was inaugurating a great campaign in the country in an endeavour to prove to the people of this and other countries that the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government had not the support of the nation. Were those circumstances of a kind to make any dictator pause? I am not saying for one moment that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite ought not to go about the country making that statement if they believe it to be fundamentally true and that it is their duty to do so, but I think it would be well if they examined how these things must strike potential aggressors abroad; and also, perhaps, it would be as well, if they are going to attack the policy of His Majesty's Government in foreign affairs on every occasion, that they should at least make some effort to see that their attack is consistent.
I understand that to-night they say that there has recently been a great increase of Fascist intervention in Spain. They rely on some information which they have seen. On the other side it is disputed whether that information is correct. I do not wish to discuss that point of dispute. They say that recently—this must be the basis of their case—there has been a great increase of intervention on one side in Spain, and from that they deduce that it is the duty of this country to change its policy of nonintervention. They go on to assume that it would help the Barcelona Government if we did, and they finally assume that what they are advocating to-night fits in with the general policy which they are advocating in the country. I believe that every one of those propositions is questionable or untrue. Why is it so obvious that if non-intervention is not stopping all intervention, we should therefore abolish the policy and stop none? One would think from some of the speeches to which we have listened from hon. and right hon. Members opposite that this policy of non-intervention was an invention of His Majesty's Government, and that they themselves had never approved of it. In truth it was first proposed by M. Blum, and the

509
Labour party Conference and the Trade Union Conference approved of it by great majorities in 1936. Why do they assume that it should be so very desirable that France, which originated this policy, should now abandon it? I am assuming in their favour that that is what the French Government is asking should be done, though I have no evidence of it. Are they convinced that they are being very good friends of France in hoping that France will tie herself up further in Spain at this juncture? I wonder really whether it is desirable that the British Government should change its policy as often as France changes her Governments.
The policy of non-intervention, with all its faults—and I, like most Members on this side, have never denied what faults that policy has—has done something, I believe, to save the peace of Europe and to prevent the conflagration spreading. I believe, also, that it is quite untrue that that policy has as a whole been adverse to the Barcelona Government. Why should it be assumed that if non-intervention were abandoned altogether, the Fascist Powers would not be able to help General Franco's cause more than other Powers would be able to help the Barcelona cause? Barcelona is at present receiving a good deal of aid from France and Russia, and it may be that some increase would be possible, but do not let anybody exaggerate the amount of arms that France is likely to spare for anybody at the present time. Is it supposed that even if we did abandon our policy of non-intervention we should be in a position to arm anybody but ourselves? The proposition has only to be stated for it to be seen to be ridiculous.
Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: May I interrupt the hon. Member? Is he not aware of the vast trains of munitions which have been going steadily over the border for the last six months? There were 5,400 tons within five weeks.
Mr. Strauss: I believe that what my hon. and gallant Friend says is correct, and that strengthens His Majesty's Government's position, but I was for the moment making an assumpion favourable to the Barcelona Government.
Mr. Maxton: How is it that the hon. Member and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemonth (Sir H. Croft) have such precise information about the
510
supplies that go to governmental Spain, and no information about the supplies that go to General Franco?
Mr. Strauss: I think the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has misunderstood me. I certainly am not claiming precise information about either side, but I am saying quite definitely that I believe there has been extensive intervention on both sides.
Mr. McGovern: Did you arrange that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) was to ask that question?
Mr. Strauss: I do not think that is a worthy interruption. My hon. Friends below the Gangway will, I think, credit me with the same honesty with which I credit them, and I assure them that nothing was prearranged. What strikes me strangely in this matter is that since my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) gave up his office as Foreign Secretary, hon. Gentlemen opposite have been so eager to quote him in their favour on all possible and impossible occasions, but nobody ever made it clearer than the late Foreign Secretary that in his view it was completely untrue to say that if nonintervention were abandoned, it would help the Barcelona Government. It is curious to see the differences which have arisen now in the attitude of hon. Members opposite on the subject of the late Foreign Secretary and Spain.
I see present the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is conducting a plebiscite designed to help the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite, which suggests that that policy has something in common with the policy of the late Foreign Secretary. I noticed that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin-well), speaking on 13th January in Barcelona, said:
"Perhaps we shall not be long in treating our Government, of whose attitude we are ashamed, and Mr. Eden as yon are now treating Franco, the Italians, and Germans."
I understand from speeches of hon. Members to-night and on previous occasions that they regard the presence of Italian troops in Spain as not only scandalous in itself but as a menace to British interests, which it is the obvious duty of this Government to get rid of, if they can. That case has been urged in this House

511
for more than a year. It is rather curious therefore to find, in their manifesto of 23rd February, in which they were attempting to rouse the country on the occasion of the resignation of the late Foreign Secretary, that, having said all those things previously, they said on that occasion:
"The presence of Italian troops in Spain and Libya is alleged to be a menace to vital British interests. In reality it is a great source of weakness to Mussolini."
In view of the contradictory statements which hon. Gentlemen have made in this House on the same subject, can one possibly say after examining their published statements that they are able to stick to one foreign policy for 10 days on end? It seems to be assumed by the party opposite that the request for the abandonment of the policy of non-intervention fits in somehow with their claim that we should support the League of Nations. I do not think that the League of Nations has been mentioned by them to-night, and for very obvious reasons, because a League policy would not fit in at all well with the demand which hon. Members are now making. Winding up the Debate earlier in the week, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) said that the Spanish question ought to have been referred to the League because it was a question with which the League ought to have dealt from the beginning, and that he had always said so and so had his party. The right hon. Gentleman quite overlooked the fact that the Spanish question had been before the League on various occasions, and that the only occasions upon which the League had reached unanimity upon the subject was when the League approved the policy of non-intervention and the action taken by the Non-intervention Committee in London.
When the Spanish Government themselves directly brought the question before the League last Summer, what happened? There was a resolution on which this country, France, and others were able to agree, but it never became a resolution of the League, because it was opposed by Albania and Portugal. The statement of this fact has been generally greeted with hilarity by hon. Members opposite. The last time I drew attention to this aspect of the matter an hon. Member shouted something about Fascist puppets.
Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear.
Mr. Strauss: I note that the hon. Member says, "Hear, hear."
Mr. Gallacher: Because the Fascist puppets are over there.
Mr. Strauss: If hon. Gentlemen will attempt to think what they mean when they ask for the rule of law, they will realise that they are asking inter alia for the rule of the law of the Covenant of the League. The so-called Fascist puppets have as much right to block a resolution as has any other Power, according to the law of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have constantly accused the Prime Minister of abandoning in his speech the League and collective security, but the right hon. Gentleman did nothing of the kind. He pointed out that collective security did not to-day exist and that no country was at the present moment protected thereby against the aggression of a great Power. That was true, yet for that reason the Government have been attacked again and again. They have only said what is common agreement.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in accordance with Standing Order 3, we are strictly limited in this Debate to questions relating to Spain.
Mr. Strauss: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was attempting to follow some of the points made by hon. Gentlemen opposite in their campaign in the country against the Government's foreign policy. The lamentable recent events in Europe call for a restatement of British foreign policy, well thought out and delivered after due thought. On that point alone perhaps I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton. The attack that has been made upon the Government's policy to-night is not based upon any logic. No good reason has been given for this country hastily to change its policy of nonintervention. Rather does the occasion demand that this country should stand firm. The Opposition have given no reason for supposing that the Government's policy, if changed, would favour the side which they support, and they have made no effort—because the task would be impossible—to connect what they advocate to-night with their pretended support of the League of Nations.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. Cocks: The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) has done me the honour to refer to some of my remarks upon foreign affairs, but I cannot think, after listening to his speeches, that he has derived much benefit from what he has heard. He asked a number of questions of a somewhat academic and theoretic kind, and he hardly seemed to touch the gravity of the immediate issue before the country. The Prime Minister asked in his speech why it was that this matter of Spain had become a sudden menace. He said that things now happening in Spain had been going on for a considerable time. Many hon. Members may have watched the launching of a ship. First, after the bottle of champagne has been broken, there is scarcely any motion at all, but gradually the ship slips away. It gathers momentum, and finally it rides majestically on the sea. There is exactly the same process in Spain. The menace was always there, but the gravity of it has been growing all the time. There has recently been increased momentum. That fact, coupled with events which are now occurring in Central Europe, results in a menace which is threatening the peace and liberty of the world and the security of the British Empire.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister described his policy in relation to non-intervention, but that policy has been a farce from the beginning. The German Government and the Italian Government seem to have joined the Nonintervention Committee for the sole purpose of burking the issue, prolonging discussion, and causing frequent breakdowns and deadlocks that have delayed decision. The atmosphere of that committee has been an atmosphere of such humbug and hyprocrisy that any decent man who was a member of it must, after one of its meetings, have wanted to go and take a bath. This is not the occasion, because time is limited, to go into the detailed operations of the Non-intervention Committee, but I want to make just this remark, that the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Cranborne), who was then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stated, as long ago as last April, that, if it were not found possible to make progress in the evacuation of volunteers in the near future, a new situation would be created. Similar statements were made
514
by Lord Plymouth on 21st June and on 16th October, in the latter of which he said that, unless agreement was reached within a very short space of time, the British Government would reserve to itself the right to resume complete liberty of action. Five months have elapsed since then, and agreement has not been reached in a very short space of time, but the British Government do not seem to have made use of that reservation of the right to resume complete liberty of action. Only a month ago, in circumstances which are in the minds of us all because it was at the time of the resignation of the late Foreign Secretary, the Italian Government was supposed to have accepted the British formula in theory, but the Under-Secretary in the House of Commons could not tell us when the next meeting of the committee was to be held. For a month there has been a state of deadlock, although there was agreement in principle, and it is quite clear that the deadlock has been deliberate, that the dictator Powers have been holding up the committee while they were conducting these special new operations in Spain.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition proved, by his quotation from Marshal Goering, that a bargain has been struck between the two dictators. Everyone who studies international affairs knows that such a bargain has been struck between Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler. Under that bargain, which will have to be carried out, Central Europe has been reserved for Herr Hitler, and Spain for Signor Mussolini. On the very day on which the late Foreign Secretary resigned, Herr Hitler made a speech in Berlin in which he said that there was complete identity between the two with regard to Spain and with regard to other matters throughout the world. It is clear that a deadlock has been deliberately created, while in the meantime Herr Hitler marched into Vienna with the consent of Signor Mussolini, and Signor Mussolini sent, according to a well-known French writer, 30,000 new troops to Spain in order to try to win a victory within the next few weeks. The Government do not seem even now to realise that to these two dictators agreements are nothing, their word is nothing, and the Non-intervention Committee is nothing. All that they believe in is sheer brute force and the settling of any dispute between them

515
and any other nation by superior power. They regard all these conversations that are now going on as a sign of weaknes. The visit of the present Foreign Secretary to Berlin was followed immediately by the purge of the moderate elements in the Reichswehr by Herr Hitler, and the late Foreign Secretary's resignation has been followed by the attack on Austria, and now by this attack in Spain. The Foreign Office pretend to have no knowledge of this new importation of material and men into Spain. They never seem to get into touch with our agents at Burgos or anywhere else. If they did, they would find that this information is actually true.
The Prime Minister said at Question Time that the munitions and men now being used by General Franco were there before, and have been there for a long time, but here are a few reports which I have extracted from recent publications, and which, I suggest to the representatives of the Foreign Office, are worth looking into. They can easily ascertain the information with the means at their disposal. The Spanish Embassy states that 30,000 German storm troops left Germany for Spain on 14th March, and that on the same date German air technicians were landed near San Sebastian. Another report states that last week 11 freighters, escorted by German destroyers, were lying at Algeciras. It is also stated that the hospital shop "Grandica" and four other vessels, escorted by Italian destroyers, landed 5,000 troops who had been withdrawn from Libya and taken to Spain. At Cadiz recently there were disembarked 100 armoured cars and 100 Maschetti bombers. The "News-Chronicle" stated on 16th March that, in the new push which is breaking through so rapidly in Aragon, there were eight squadrons of Heinkel heavy bombers, and four squadrons of Messerschmidt chasers, types of machines which have never been seen in Spain before, and which were able to outfly and destroy the aeroplanes possessed by the Spanish Government. As a result, there has been a break-through on a very wide front such as has never been possible before with the munitions hitherto available, and which has been made possible by these new weapons and new troops. These squadrons have been commanded by
516
General Veidt, an officer of the Reichswehr. Moreover, the "Daily Telegraph" stated that, in the fight which is now going on, an armoured motorised column was in action under the command of General Berginzoli, and was accompanied by 700 German and Italian planes, according to the statement of a man named Mario Minerva, who was fighting on the side of Franco and was captured. The Prime Minister apparently will not recognise that these weapons exist until General Franco is in Barcelona, just as he did not recognise Herr Hitler's intentions until his army marched into Vienna.
This controversy shows that not only does history not repeat itself, but family history does not repeat itself. I remember that when I was a very young man I was a great admirer of the right hon. Gentleman's father. I remember how, when his father was attacked by a foreign Power, he answered with defiant words. He said he was not answerable to any foreign Power for what he said, but only to his own countrymen. "What I have said, I have said." The Prime Minister apparently is of different mettle. When his Government is attacked he throws his Foreign Secretary to the wolves of the Roman Lupercal. At the time of the French Revolution Danton said, "The allies are attacking me: I throw at them the head of the King." Signor Mussolini can now say, "The League of Nations has hampered me, I throw at their heads the British Foreign Secretary, the supporter of sanctions." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) mentioned the other day the great Emperor who had to go to Canossa. This is the first time in English history that an English Prime Minister has had to go to Caporetto, or to send his Ambassador to Rome to lay a wreath on the tomb of the Unknown Pirate.
As many hon. Members have remarked, the position is very grave and serious. The Leader of the Opposition stated several reasons why it was serious, as the result of the victory of the Fascists in Spain would be to see the German Nazis, with all the wealth of Bilbao at their command, exercising control over Portugal, Italy, Cartagena, and Minorca, with Germans and Italians at Ceuta and their guns threatening Gibraltar, the Mediterranean sealed to our trade in time

517
of war, our communications cut, the Mediterranean an Italian lake. Somebody suggested that a Franco Spain would not necessarily be hostile to us, but let me quote from a report in the "Times" a speech made on 9th February by the Minister of the Interior of General Franco, who said:
"We will be faithful to the friends whose generous aid we have accepted."
And yet when the French Government suggest that action should be taken, I read an article by a diplomatic correspondent in a newspaper to-day saying that the British Ambassador yesterday advised caution and restraint. Caution and restraint! Why, we have been exercising that for the last two years, and look at the position to which we have been brought. Some people would use other words, which are not suitable to employ in a Debate on foreign affairs. What we want at this moment is not caution and restraint, but resolute action.
I said something about the family history of the Prime Minister just now. Let me say something more agreeable. I know he has a great admiration for his father. The Germany of his day deceived his father. He tried to get an alliance with Germany. Just as Germany deceived his father, so Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler are deceiving him. Let him go back to the great clays of his father when, in answer to threats, he responded with deeds and with resolute action. Let the Government, press on with its rearmament programme with zeal and fury, close down these conversations, which only appear as signs of weakness, and inaugurate a new policy towards Spain. It may be too late—I hope it is not—but surely we ought now to get rid of this ridiculous non-intervention policy and allow the Spanish Government to purchase freely the arms they need for their own defence. Secondly, should the French Government suggest the possibility of sending an army to Catalonia, let us give them the assurance that if they are attacked for doing so, we shall stand by them
Now I am going to speak for myself; I am not binding my party to these views. Remembering that many historians agree that the power of Napoleon was sapped most in the Spanish campaign, cannot the Government consider further action in order to prevent the friends of Herr
518
Hitler and Signor Mussolini winning in Spain? Remember that Waterloo would not have been won unless we had held in front of our lines the fortified farms of Hougomont and La Haye Sainte. It is very important that this country and its Allies should secure a strong tactical and strategical position. I suggest that, with the permission of the Spanish Government, which would be readily obtained, it might be found necessary for the British Government to occupy Minorca—Port Mahon is the finest harbour in the Western Mediterranean—and make it a French-British naval base. Further, in view of what the Germans and Italians are doing, there is no reason why they should not go on and occupy Ceuta and Algeciras, from which guns are threatening Gibraltar, and make the Straits safe for our fleet and our ships. Other measures could be taken to render Spain safe for the British Empire and prevent a victory for General Franco. If we did that, we should be strong enough to win a war if it came, and strong enough to save the liberties of Spain and prevent war occurring at all.
9.33 p.m.
Mr. Crossley: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and indeed most of the speakers on the other side of the House, have founded their arguments on two main assumptions, the first of which is that there has been a great increase recently in the quantity of arms recently sent to one side in Spain. The hon. Member made some allegations of that kind, even if he did not produce anything that could be called evidence. The second assumption on which most of the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite are based is that if Spain were conquered by General Franco, it would in fact be a German or Italian Spain. Rather surprisingly that has been said by hon. Members who have been to Spain recently, but if they had been in Franco's Spain, I do not think that they would find that the fighting powers of the Italian forces in Spain were rated very highly in that country.
I would ask for a more objective study of this problem. I think we are in a much simpler position. We are simply neutral. Nor do I believe that if the Government won, it would necessarily be wholly to our interests. I have thought of what would happen, for example, to

519
Morocco. Who would attempt to recapture Morocco; and what sort of position would we be in in the Mediterranean if there was not a Spanish Government, such as I think would be formed if General Franco won, but if, in fact, Morocco was adrift, to be taken in actual possession by one of the Fascist Powers? Anyone who remembers the action of the Spaniards in the Riff Wars will not, I think, presume that the Spanish Government would make the slightest attempt to recapture Morocco if they won in Spain?
Miss Rathbone: Why not?
Mr. Crossley: Because they hated the Riff Wars to such an extent. They were forced into them by that section which is, in fact, monarchist. The ordinary people in Spain hated them.
Miss Rathbone: Do they not realise the strategical value of Morocco as much as Franco does?
Mr. Crossley: I very much doubt it; but the hon. Lady must study history and form her own conclusions.
Mr. Messer: Why not let the Moors have Morocco?
Mr. Crossley: While I am recommending history to the hon. Lady, perhaps I should also recommend that she should read the history of Spain in the last century. There were, in fact, two foreign kings in Spain. One, Joseph, lasted precisely five years. The other was an Italian King, and he lasted from 1870 to 1873. Both abandoned the position because of the hopeless position of foreigners in Spain. I believe that there is a much simpler reason for this new advance in Spain. This is what I want to put objectively before the House. This is the strategy of the Spanish war as I believe it has been for the last year. Last summer was spent in conquering the north. It took the whole summer and was an immense military endeavour—and, indeed, an immense achievement. When they had conquered the north, it was autumn, with a cold winter about to begin. It was too late for further operations, and the troops of Nationalist Spain went into winter quarters. There was not the slightest intention of having any more fighting until about this time of the year.
520
Suddenly, from behind the hills, there was a Government attack on Teruel. The line, very thinly held, was driven in. Reinforcements were brought up after Teruel had been captured, and—all this is very Spanish—Teruel, a town of no military importance, of no account, an extreme outpost of a long salient, a place with no manufactures, became a point of honour. Vast forces were brought up on both sides, the pick of both sides. A battle lasting more than a month ended with the complete destruction of most of the Spanish Army. "Seek out your enemies' main forces and destroy them," was the main rule of the Spaniards. A new offensive was begun by three columns acting simultaneously on three points. They pierced the line and completely destroyed the forces opposite, and only then were Italian mechanised divisions put in to pursue. I will say a word about actual Italian intervention in Spain.
Miss Rathbone: And German.
Mr. Crossley: Yes, and German; and Russian and French. The actual use of Italians in Spain has been somewhat interesting. There were none used at Malaga except in the reserves; they never took part in the fighting. There were practically none used at Bilbao; there were a few mixed in with Spaniards in the infantry battalions. At Santander, they were used in the actual conquest of the town, but not in the main operations which occurred in the valleys before. At Guadalajara, the Italian mechanised columns were used. Before the line was broken, they were sent on ahead, and were met by the International Brigade. They got roundly defeated, and ran for miles. At Teruel, in the big battle no Italian troops were used; and in this advance they have only, in fact, been used after the main victory was won.
War materials have, of course, been imported in very large quantities. There have undoubtedly been large quantities of Italian tanks and aeroplanes, and German tanks and aeroplanes and guns. But on the Government side, only two days ago the Government's own communique said that there were 60 Government aeroplanes fighting 30 on Franco's side. Where did they get them? They did not make them in Barcelona. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] They cannot make them there. Hon. Members do not suggest that the

521
Government do not get vast numbers from Russia and France, and other sources too. Perhaps they will be interested in other figures that I have.
Mr. Ede: Give them to the Under-Secretary; he has never heard about them.
Mr. Crossley: It is a good thing that we should hear about them, and perhaps the Under-Secretary will take note of them, too. Since the beginning of the war, 510 aeroplanes have been brought down by General Franco's forces. Of those, 436 have been brought down behind his lines. This does not look as if he had had complete command of the air during the war. Of the 436 brought down behind his lines, 83 were of French design and 238 of Russian design, more than half of them being bombers. It is often forgotten that: the Spanish Government do a great deal of bombing, as well as General Franco's forces. Eighty-four of the machines were of American design, but were probably made in Russia.
Viscountess Astor: How many were Spanish?
Mr. Crossley: There were 13 which might have been made in Spain.
Mr. McGovern: Give us the number of Italian and German planes.
Mr. Crossley: I do not think that I can add very much, except that there have also been very large numbers of men going steadily over the French frontier. In fact, between July and September of last year some 11,600 men went over the French frontier. There are six recruiting offices at Toulouse at the present time, and until we actually stopped it—and we are the only country in the world that has actually stopped our people and made it illegal for them to go—certain hon. Members who sit in this House were actively encouraging Englishmen to go and fight. It might be a laudable thing to go and fight in Spain or it might not, but personally I hold the view that I have always put before my constituents. I hope that the time will never come when this country will wittingly allow an Englishman to risk losing his life in Spain, that it will not allow him to go 10 either side in Spain to kill a single Spaniard.
9.47 p.m.
Mr. Harold Nicolson: I do not wish to enter into the controversy regarding how
522
many arms have been, or have not been, supplied by one side or the either. I do not wish even to go back to what faults may have been committed m the past or upon whom the responsibility rests. I want to turn to the actual Motion before us and to the words of that Motion, namely:
"That the present situation in Spain is a grave menace to the interests and security of this country."
I wish to do that not at all in terms of politics. In fact, I should like to have seen this Debate move a little more away from politics. I do not think that it is possible for any hon. Members on any side of the House to approach this Spanish question in a mood of clarity or of judgment if they allow their minds to be affected by the very grave emotional and political issues involved. That does not mean that I am not without sympathies in this matter. I have very deep sympathy with the Spanish Government, and I have a very deep hatred, if the word means anything at all, for General Franco. But I do try, and on this occasion, I think, we ought all to try, to envisage the thing not in terms of politics, but in actual military strategic terms, because the situation is rapidly ceasing to be a political situation and is daily and hourly becoming more and more a military situation. I do not think that we need waste our time in this House, or, possibly, increase the differences between us, by arguing whether the recent advance of General Franco is due to munitions received from such or such a source, or is not due to such munitions.
I do not think we need waste the time of the House on that, but we should keep in mind what will be the effect of General Franco's victory upon British interests and the security of this country. I believe with hon. Members opposite that that effect will be very grave indeed, and I am afraid that I cannot fully agree with the remark of the Prime Minister that what is important is, that Germany and Italy do not wish to control that country. I quite agree that they have no such desire. They do not want to control it. Germany wants only to control the mineral deposits of the north; and Italy wishes to control both sides of the Straits of Gibraltar. That is where "control" lies. It is said on this side of the House, and by many

523
people who know Spain that "Spain will always be Spain. She will discharge this alien and horrible body from her midst. She will insist upon retaining her own rights, her own sovereignty within her own borders, and in her own lands." I know that that is said; but I do not think that it is true. Having lived in Spain for a considerable number of years, I am aware that they have a real national dislike for the Italians; but for some strange reason they have a liking for Germans. It is not a question—and I think that the House ought to think of it in this way—of German or Italian administrations or authorities being installed in Spain. It is not a question of the Gestapo being installed in Seville. It is not that. It is a question of a few technicians, a few gun-emplacements at such places as Tarifa Point or Apes Hill. These are places where they will not come in contact with the Spanish people but where they will come into military contact, and very disastrous contact, with the British Navy. It is being optimistic to rely upon that extreme nationalism of the Spanish character (which is one of their greatest forces) to assume the absolute impossibility of the establishment at vital strategic points of Italian and German batteries and submarine bases. It is sheer optimism to imagine that this will not occur.
I feel, therefore, that if we approach the matter not with political feelings, but from the strategic point of view, such differences as exist—and they are very wide differences in the political field—between both sides of the House on this Spanish question might be narrowed. We might find a bridge. We might find between the Imperial interests on this side of the House and the democratic interests on that side a bridge. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] Upon this question of security, this actual question of safeguarding real British interests, we might find a connecting link between the two sides of the House, which at this time is so necessary.
It is not merely the danger of the Spanish situation to which I would like to draw attention to-night. It is also the great opportunity of the Spanish situation. It is essential that this country at this moment in some manner should display to the world an affirmation of strength. I do not see how we can do
524
that by any more resolutions or even by such firm and wise statements as were made by the Noble Lord the Foreign Secretary in another place this afternoon. We must have another Nyon somehow. I do not want to seem belligerent, but I think that it is necessary that we should show that the strength of this country is quickly operative on the sea; and to make quite clear, if possible, to other countries that, when we are concerned with sea matters, this country is not only determined and forceful, but also rapid.
It is very difficult for me to understand the feeling among the Members on some of the benches on this side of the House that this Spain, this country for which we have fought so often and so triumphantly, which for 300 years has been a vital British interest, this country where we beat Napoleon, can now be regarded as something of no strategic importance and that, without any real pain or agony of soul, hon. Members on this side of the House should really see, seriously see (for that is what they will see) Gibraltar, the control of the Straits, the whole of the Mediterranean, the whole of what we have fought for generation after generation, slipping into Mussolini's hands. I find it very difficult to understand their point of view. I have tried my best to be sympathetic to it. I cannot understand how a purely political emotion can blind them to the traditions of 300 years of British policy and how they can see what the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) called "the very lifeline of our Empire," exposed to this disguised infiltration. The Spanish situation, I repeat, is a great danger; but it is also a great opportunity. If we can be united with France on this question, we can display an overwhelming and incontestable affirmation of strength. I trust, therefore that, without allowing the feelings which all of us must have on this subject to separate us unduly, we shall permit this problem of security to form a bond for united agreement, and for action.
9.56 p.m.
Mr. Greenwood: The Prime Minister complained that my right hon. Friend had used hard and provocative words. They were not hard and provocative words. They were temperate and careful words. The situation in which this Government has placed the country would

525
merit much stronger language. If my right hon. Friend's words were hard, at any rate hard words are better than soft and flabby words, and certainly better than evasive words, such as fell from the lips of the Prime Minister—evasive words which shirked the issue raised in this House to-night. The Prime Minister made no attempt whatever to answer the case which my right hon. Friend put. He did not appreciate the urgency of this Debate. The "Daily Express," a paper whose views I do not share, says to-day, and this is where the matter of urgency comes in:
"The real blow to genuine democracy will not be felt in Spain but in France."
My right hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister about French representations made to His Majesty's Government. The Prime Minister gave us no reply. This House to-night is entitled to know the contents of that note. That note was not a birthday message to the right hon. Gentleman. It was not a statement of salutations. That note must have been a serious request on the part of our closest Ally on a matter gravely perturbing its mind. Not only have we heard no word of that note, but we have not even heard from the Prime Minister whether he has yet had the courtesy to reply. Still less have we got the nature of the reply. All that he said was that we shall continue in future as in the past—God help this country—in close touch with the French Government. This House and the people of the country are entitled to know in this hour of serious danger what was the nature of the French Government's communication, what reply, if any has been sent, and what reply, if one has not been sent, is likely to be sent.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that keeping out of Spain was the best way to peace. My right hon. Friend never asked that we should go into Spain. The Prime Minister's reference to that point was sheer misrepresentation, and he knows it. We asked him to get rid of what is now a ghastly farce, the Non-intervention Agreement. We ask him to agree to allow the properly constituted Government of Spain to exercise its moral right, its legal right, to obtain the means necessary for its own defence against the invader. The right hon. Gentleman has no information. As far as I have been able to gather from speeches made from the other side of the House, he never has any information,
526
certainly not when the information is likely to be uncomfortable to his security of mind. Are all the newspapers wrong? Are all the eyewitnesses wrong? Are those who have been to Spain and witnessed these mass formations of foreign military strength, wrong?
It is no use the Prime Minister trying to hide behind a barrage of ignorance. He has no business to be ignorant. The best that he claims for his policy, indeed it was a boast, is that, at least, they had got restricted intervention—restricted primarily to the dictatorships. What a confession from a Government which has stood unservingly by complete adherence to the policy of non-intervention. There is more weight of metal in Spain now than ever before. If the right hon. Gentleman can understand me, I think it would be good if we had equality of non-intervention on both sides. The Prime Minister in winding up the Debate was a little uneasy about the question of intervention. I will quote at length what he said in his first speech on 21st February. He was speaking of his discussions with the Italian Ambasador in London, and he said:
"First of all I told him that the British Government regarded a settlement of the Spanish question as an essential feature of any agreement at which we might arrive. No agreement could be considered complete unless it contained a settlement of the Spanish question. … I said it was essential that it should not be possible, if we went to the League to recommend the approval of the agreement, for it to be said that the situation in Spain during the conversations had been materially altered by Italy, either by sending fresh reinforcements to Franco or by failing to implement the arrangements contemplated by the British formula. I added that I did not believe these intimations would occasion his Government a moment's anxiety, since I was confident that his Government would approach the negotiations in the same spirit as we should do, namely, in perfect good faith and with a sincere desire to reach agreement."
Not bad: nothing occasions the Italian Government any anxiety:
"Perhaps in that last sentence I have expressed that difference in outlook between my right hon. Friend and myself of which he has told us of his consciousness. I am not here to say that the actions of the Italian Government in the past have been satisfactory to me, but I am concerned with the future, not the past. I believe that if these negotiations are approached in a spirit of mutual confidence there is a good hope that they may be brought to a successful conclusion, but if you are going beforehand to enter upon them in a spirit

527
of suspicion, then none of those conditions that you can think of the initial withdrawal of troops or anything else that my right hon. Friends suggests, are going to save you. If there is going to be bad faith there will be bad faith, and no assurances beforehand are going to after it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1938; col. 62, Vol. 332.]
I apologise for the length of the quotation. What is the Prime Minister going to do now in the face of that statement? Bad faith within the last three weeks has been proved. If the Prime Minister has no information about it, I am sorry, but I am bound to say that in my view, and in the view of responsible people in all quarters of the House, there has been within the last three weeks an intensification of Fascist attacks in Spain. If the Prime Minister does not know anything about it, perhaps he will read to us the French Note—[An HON. MEMBER: "And his reply!"] He has made no reply, as far as I can gather. We ought to know what his reply is, if there has been any reply. But it is undeniable that in the last three weeks, since the resignation of the late Foreign Secretary, there has been an importation into Spain on a large scale of war material in direct and deliberate violation of the Non-intervention Agreement, to which these Powers are a party. In view of these circumstances, and in view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he believed they were going to be good boys for once, I am asking the Prime Minister, "Where does he stand now?" By his inaction, by his acquiescence in another dose of restricted intervention, while pleasing his new-found friend Signor Mussolini, he is by implication selling Spain to Mussolini as he sold Austria to Hitler.
Is the right hon. Gentleman still to pursue his talks with Italy and with Germany. This House has a right to know. This House has a right to know whether the Prime Minister still believes in the word of a dictator after the events of the last few weeks. Nobody in this House denies the gravity of the situation to-day. The hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) said that at the end of the Debate the situation would be no less serious than it was at the beginning. I am not so sure about that. I think the situation now, because of the Prime Minister's refusal to tell the truth to the House, is graver than it was. And that
528
situation is not of our making. It will have been flashed round the world, and the world will know that Britain has no policy and that the Prime Minister intends to pursue this policy of perpetual drift.
Miss Rathbone: Running away.
Mr. Greenwood: The Non-intervention Agreement now, and everybody understands it in this House, is a rotting corpse, and it stinks so badly that the Prime Minister dare not bury it. It is admitted openly on the other side of the House that the agreement has been violently violated even after the announcement that discussions were taking place. The right hon. Gentleman began three weeks ago by saying, "Let us forget and forgive." Well, once bitten, twice shy; and twice bitten—in my part of the country we should not trust the word of the man who had bitten us twice. The near-distant results of the National Government's policy are seen to-day. The long-distant results, unless there is a change of what the ex-Foreign Secretary called "outlook and method," will be even more disastrous. The question of Spain is no longer a matter merely for the Iberian Peninsula. It has become a much graver problem. For years Austria has been the subject of a tug-of-war between two dictators; sometimes Mussolini has been in the ascent, and at other times Hitler has been in the ascent. That struggle is now over, and that piece of india rubber in the Berlin-Rome axis has now become German steel. At what price? Signor Mussolini, as a reward for giving up his claims to Austria and for making a solid Berlin-Rome axis, has now been allowed, with the active help of Hitler, a free hand in Spain, and to-day the Berlin-Rome axis, which never turned before, is turning the wheels of destiny. The Juggernaut is crushing Austria with one wheel and Spain with the other.
Hon. Members may disagree as to the merits of the Spanish civil war, but now it is not merely a question of the civil war in Spain. The axis is turning. Spain has become part of the axis. It is not a question of the civil war, which, in my view, ought never to have been tolerated; it has now become a challenge to all democratic peoples; it has become a menace to our people and to our kinsmen across the seas. During the last few days we have witnessed the beginning of the realisation of a dream of the Kaiser—a

529
great Mitteleuropa, a great Germanic Power in Central Europe. We are witnessing now the slow transformation of the Mediterranean into an Italian lake. I ask hon. Members opposite to consider the prospect of what may happen if it should be that Franco, a mere tool of great and important Powers, were to succeed in subduing the people of Spain. Northern Spain to-day is gradually becoming a new naval and submarine base for Germany in the Bay of Biscay, and that is something which Germany never had before. German guns are mounted already opposite Gibraltar, and Gibraltar itself, that gaunt, dark mountain, is flanked on the North, in the event of a Franco victory, by Fascist guns. The Straits in times of difficulty will be barred to British ships and there will be a Fascist frontier on the Pyrenees much nearer to us than Italy or Germany. A vital artery will be cut—the way through the Mediterranean to the East.
When that has happened, what will follow? Do hon. Members like the prospect, in those circumstances, of a mighty German nation levelling a pistol at the head of this country and saying, "Stand, or deliver Colonies"? It will be too late then to act, and humiliation will be heaped on humiliation for our people. Of course, we are entitled to claim that there is a lack of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government. The Prime Minister has, within the last three weeks made, I think, five speeches and in each of them in my view any hon. Member can see a gradual deterioration. The right hon. Gentleman now seems to me to be clucking like a bewildered hen trying to cross a busy road. He has no policy. He had a policy once, and that policy was simple. It was "kiss and be friends." But one of the two people to whom that invitation is addressed says, "I will not be friends," and the other is not going to be friends either, and the right hon. Gentleman's policy is gradually dissolving, until now he is left in the drift from which he started.
No one in this country wants war. No reasonable person anywhere wants war, but an ever-accelerating retreat can only lead to disaster. In view of the admitted failure—admitted by the Prime Minister—of the Non-intervention Agreement, the simple thing for the Prime Minister to do now is boldly to declare that, in these circumstances, because this problem is
530
to-day our problem, the Spanish Government should be entitled freely to purchase all the arms and supplies she needs for her defence. It is time now, before it is too late, for the right hon. Gentleman to live up to his promises. About Czechoslovakia to-day he has said no word. He discreetly ignored the undertakings given by this country with regard to aggression. He will perhaps ignore this plea made from this side of the House to-night. It is a plea that the League might still assert moral authority, might reaffirm its faith in its obligations, and might, at this hour, stop this further murder of the Spanish people, not merely in the interests of the Spanish people—though I should wish it to be done on that account—but also in the interests of our own people and of the peace of the world.
10.25 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The opportunity of moving the Adjournment to-night was obtained on the allegation that there was a definite matter of urgent public importance to be discussed, and that matter was Spain. There have been, however, times during the Debate when references to foreign affairs have been much wider than that. I do not mind that, but when the Deputy-Speaker was in the Chair an hon. Friend of mine was told he must keep within the limits of the subject which had been laid down for this Debate, and I shall do so. Dealing with this definite matter, I would like to put before the House, before we vote, one or two very plain considerations. I shall not attempt to enlarge on what the Prime Minister has said, but the Debate itself brings out very clearly one or two strictly relevant matters with which I would like to deal. The complaint of hon. Members opposite has been of lack of Ministerial policy, which they say is to be censured, in regard to Spain.
The first point I should like to remind the House about is that, whether or not the policy we are following receives approval here or there, there is no lack of policy. Our policy in this matter of the Spanish civil war is not ourselves to intervene in that war and to do our utmost to persuade other Powers not to intervene. That is a perfectly definite policy. It may be that hon. Members in other parts of the House think they could do better. But our policy has been clearly defined and explained again and again in

531
this House both by the ex-Foreign Secretary and by the Prime Minister. If it be that we are trying to keep out of intervening in the Spanish conflict, then it is impossible that we should change our policy according to the changing circumstances and fortunes of this prolonged and terrible civil war. We cannot change that policy with every change of fortune, It is unreasonable, if that policy is really understood—whether you want to criticise it or not—to describe it as the Leader of the Opposition did, as the handing over of Spain to the Fascist Powers. There have been times in this civil war—and they may come again—when the fortunes of the conflict have favoured the Spanish Government side. That would be no reason why those who support or favour General Franco should accuse our policy of involving the handing over of Spain to the Spanish Government forces. It is of the very essence of the policy which we are supposed to be discussing, and which the House is invited to condemn, that it is a policy which is persisted in in changing fortunes, and the reasons are grave enough and powerful enough to justify persisting in it, however the fortunes of the fight from time to time may vary.
I next ask the question: What is the alternative policy? I am not going to adopt the device of challenging the other side. It is perfectly right that the executive Government of the country should be held to answer for the policy it has adopted. I agree that everybody is free to criticise it as much as they please, and they cannot be expected to give the same definition of their own alternative policy as they would have to do if they held the responsibility of government. At the same time, in order to see where we are, we must examine what this alternative policy is. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman just now when he finished his speech say that the Opposition had never asked that we should go into Spain. Is that really so? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That was a rather half-hearted answer, I think. I have certainly understood that there were sincere and devoted men whose firm opinion was that the right course for this Government to adopt was to intervene in this Spanish quarrel. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I merely ask the House, and I ask my hon. Friends to
532
note that now, on 16th March of this year, we have it from the Opposition that none of them has ever sought to suggest that we should intervene and go into Spain. It is a complete change from the position which again and again—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Attlee: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce any evidence of any Member from these benches suggesting that this country should go into Spain. It is a deliberate mis-statement, and he knows it.
Sir J. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman will not get me to alter what I am saying by using violent language. I am perfectly content to rely in this matter upon the judgment—
Miss Rathbone: Rely on the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Sir J. Simon:—to rely on the judgment of the country. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: The Adjournment Motion has been moved by one side in order that there should be a condemnation of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be allowed to reply.
Sir J. Simon rose—[Interruption,]
Mr. Speaker: Accusations were made from both sides of the House. There is nothing unusual in accusations being made.
Mr. Attlee: May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is unusual for a Minister of the Crown to make allegations against Members on the other side and, when challenged to offer any evidence, to refer merely to a general impression in the country?
Sir J. Simon: I said and I repeat, if hon. Gentlemen opposite who are so confident that they are right will be good enough to listen, that we have to consider what the alternative policy is.
Mr. Greenwood rose—
Mr. Speaker: It is impossible to conduct a Debate on these lines.
Mr. Greenwood: The right hon. Gentleman really must obey the rules of debate himself. The point that he is making now is that there must be an alternative policy, and he implies that therefore that policy

533
must be ours. I stated my party's position with accuracy to-night and in the presence of my hon. Friends.
Sir J. Simon: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the position of his party, but I repeat that I am perfectly prepared to leave to the judgment of the country what that policy is. [Interruption.] Those who oppose the views put forward by the Government in this matter must necessarily face what the alternatives really are. I am not saying, and I have never said—in fact, I said the opposite; I do not expect the Opposition to define with the same precision as the Government have to do what their alternative really involves, but I take the liberty of doing a little definition myself, and I say it is really quite obvious that anybody who is prepared to condemn the policy that we are offering must consider whether the alternative to a policy of non-intervention is not a policy of intervening. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I accept it, that that ought not to be taken as the definition of their policy. He said that from his point of view what is wanted is that we should send arms to Spain.
Mr. Greenwood indicated dissent.
Sir J. Simon: Then, in Heaven's name, what is the importance of getting rid of the Non-intervention Committee? The right hon. Gentleman told me he wanted to get rid of the farce of the Non-intervention Committee, I presume for some practical purpose. Then what is the practical purpose?
Mr. Greenwood: I have already answered once—to permit Spain to be restored the right she should have to purchase arms wherever she can.
Sir J. Simon: I think the right hon. Gentleman will not differ from me when I say that his view is, and he is perfectly entitled to put it, that this country should supply one side in Spain with arms. [Interruption.] I hope I may have the indulgence of the House to read one quotation. It is a quotation from a speech which was made not recently but comparatively early in the history of this business, on 29th May, 1937, at Oxford. It was made by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and this is what he said:
"I have done what I can to provide arms for the people of Spain."
534
He went on to say:
"I have never been neutral."
Then he enlarged his statement to cover his Friends as well as himself, and he said:
"We have done a great deal, more than we dare say in public."
I hope after that quotation that the House will be able to take a perfectly clear view of what the right hon. Gentleman's policy would be. I am not saying that the policy which we have adopted has been perfect and that it has proved in every respect and in every aspect a success. I do not know that hon. Gentlemen opposite always do full justice to the necessity of the Government's choosing between difficulties which exist either way, in order to select the wisest course. I do not desire to justify the policy that we have been following as one which would achieve every conceivable object that we desire. It is from quite a different point of view that I am defending it in this House. I defend that policy because, when all is said and done, it is the best policy to keep this country out of war in Spain. I do not believe for a moment that it is the desire of anybody to foment war, but the danger of becoming involved, and of all Europe becoming involved, would be enormously heightened if we abandoned the policy by which we have stood.
Miss Rathbone: What about the dangers of a Fascist Spain?
Sir J. Simon: One hon. Member said something about going to the League of Nations. This matter was taken to the League of Nations, and one of the main reasons why it was not carried to a more definite result there, was that members of the League were of different opinions on this very point. It is not true that all members of the League were equally desirous to help one side in the civil war. There was a difference of opinion. If we had adopted any other policy, we should, I think in the judgment of all fair-minded people, greatly have increased the danger not only of our being involved in war in Spain, but of enlarging the area of that conflict throughout Europe. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I will tell the hon. Member why. I think the view which is put forward in the Motion is a rather one-sided account of the matter. Certain Powers, Italy and Germany, are mentioned, and they are said to have supplied

535
troops in Spain. There are troops there also from other foreign nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Volunteers."] I am willing to call everybody in this matter a volunteer. I am speaking of the foreign origin of many of those who are fighting in Spain. If we departed from our policy of non-intervention, it is surely plain that this would add to the danger of enlarging a conflict in which we might be engaged.
There was one particular point which the right hon. Gentleman made much of. He spoke with great confidence, as though it were a matter of which he had inside knowledge, of a French Note which he alleged had just been despatched and which we had either replied to or had not replied to—I am not sure which. The general implication of what he said was that there had been addressed to us a Note from the French Government asking or proposing that we should take some action. That is what he meant. I would ask him this question. He is professing knowledge of this Note—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then it was a dream? Do I understand him to say that this has been found in the Press? I can only say that, having made inquiries, neither I nor the Prime Minister know of any such document. The right hon. Gentleman not only professed with great assurance to know about it, but he actually demanded that its terms should be read] out in this House, and that the House should be informed what were the terms of the answer. I would add that in the policy which we are steadily following we have throughout kept in the closest touch with France, and we shall continue to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) reminded the House earlier in the Debate, the non-intervention policy is a policy the origin of which is to be traced to the French Government and to M. Blum, the present Prime Minister of France.
It seems to me that there is no ground for the attack which has been made, and I hope the House and, I believe, the country, will recognise the solid reasons which have justified the course that we have taken.
Mr. Gallacher: Would you go to the country and try?
Sir J. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me rather denied the
536
implication that hard words have been used, and I agree that severity of language in these matters is not of much moment. I do not know what are regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as hard words, but, referring to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was "betraying the workers of this country."
Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear.
Sir J. Simon: As a piece of Parliamentary rhetoric that may be all very well, but I certainly should have thought that it might be classed in the category of hard words. The right hon. Gentleman says now, if I do not misunderstand him, that he does not advocate that we should send arms to one side, namely, the Spanish Government, from this country. But, as to supplying arms, I remember that only yesterday the former Under-Secretary of State for Air made a very great complaint that there was any export of arms from this country; he pointed out that we needed more and more of these weapons. If I am not mistaken—I shall be glad to be corrected if I am wrong, but I have not the quotation before me—I think I am right in having read in the "Daily Herald" this morning that Mr. Ward, of the Amalgamated Engineering Union—[Interruption]. I am sorry to have given the wrong name but I do not see that it much matters. This gentleman indicated that, as regards trade unionists at least, their co-operation in response to what the Prime Minister said the other day would necessarily depend upon this, that their production was a production which was devoted to the service of this country.
I ask the House to reject this condemnation by a large majority. When hon. Gentlemen opposite, exercising their perfectly legitimate rights of criticism, accuse the Prime Minister in these harsh terms, and impeach the policy which has been adopted with so little appreciation of the real difficulties of the situation, I feel, without wishing to provoke hon. Gentlemen opposite, that a departure from this policy would involve a definite running of risks which this country would not, I think, expect the Prime Minister to do in these circumstances. An hon. Member said just now that he was waiting to see whether or not the Government would show ordinary courage. But is that not courage in the head of the

537
Government who deliberates before he puts the country in a position which he thinks would expose it to unnecessary risks? Some of us remember a speech he made not long ago, the concluding passage of which, I think, did receive and deserve the sympathy of everybody in the House, when he said that there was no more terrible responsibility than the responsibility that might rest on a man who is the head of the Government of this country, and who might one day have to decide that this people should engage in war. The policy we have adopted is a policy we have deliberately chosen because we believe that it is the best policy in the long view in the interests of this country, and I believe that the mass of our fellow countrymen are of that opinion.
Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will state if there have been representations within the last two days made by the French Government to His Majesty's Government—whether by Note or not I am not concerned—[Interruption]—whether those representations are concerned with the crisis in the West of Europe and, if so, whether any kind of reassuring answer has been given to the French Government in answer to any requests they have made? I am in the dark. I do not profess to have the slightest knowledge, but this House is entitled to know.
The Prime Minister: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I really cannot help thinking that in the speech which he made a little time ago he went a great deal further than he is apparently prepared to go now. He certainly gave the House to understand in the most definite terms that the French Government had presented a Note to this Government which required a reply. The implication of that was that the Note required us to say whether we should take some action or not. My right hon. Friend has said that no such Note has been received. Now the right hon. Gentleman changes his ground and says, "Have representations been received?" If he means representations with a view to asking us to take some action in Spain, the answer
is, "No." If he means, Have they kept us informed of any circumstances which come to their knowledge in Spain? the answer is "Yes." We have done the same to them.
Mr. Attlee: Were His Majesty's Government asked to define their attitude?
The Prime Minister: I do not intend to be cross-examined or to answer fishing inquiries which keep on being changed. I have already answered a question in this House, and I may perhaps remind hon. Members of the terms. I said:
"His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris received yesterday evening from the French Government an indication of the anxiety with which they view the present military situation in Spain. His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of recent developments and are keeping in close touch with the French Government."
10.57 p.m.
Commander Sir Archibald Southby: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement that he understood that some Members on the other side of the House had advocated active interference in Spain by this country. As I understand, the Leader of the Opposition denied that that was so and challenged my right hon. Friend to cite an instance. I have listened to every word of the Debate, and I quite understand that the Leader of the Opposition could not be present during the whole of the Debate. I heard the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) make a categorical demand that this country should interfere in Spain actively.
Mr. Cocks: I expressly dissociated myself from my party. [Interruption.] I am sure hon. Members want to hear the truth. I said on that particular point that I was speaking for myself alone.
Sir A. Southby: It is perfectly true that the hon. Member did say so. He dissociated himself from his party. But it is equally true that my right hon. Friend said that an individual on the other side of the House had said so.
Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 317.

Division No. 139.]

AYES.

[10.58 p.m.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Adamson, W. M.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Adams, D. (Consett)

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

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

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

Ammon, C. G.

Banfield, J. W.

Barnes, A. J.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Paling, W.

Barr, J.

Hardie, Agnes

Parker, J.

Batey, J.

Harris, Sir P. A.

Pearson, A.

Bellenger, F. J.

Hayday, A.

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

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Price, M. P.

Benson, G.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Pritt, D. N.

Bevan, A.

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Broad, F. A.

Hicks, E. G.

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Bromfield, W.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

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

Hollins, A.

Riley, B.

Buchanan, G.

Hopkin, D.

Ritson, J.

Burke, W. A.

Jagger, J.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Cape, T.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Charleton, H. C.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Chater, D.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Sanders, W. S.

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Cooks, F. S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Sexton, T. M.

Cove, W. G.

Kelly, W. T.

Silverman, S. S.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Simpson, F. B.

Daggar, G.

Kirby, B. V.

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

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Kirkwood, D.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lathan, G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Day, H.

Lawson, J. J.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Dobbie, W.

Leach, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Ede, J. C.

Lee, F.

Stephen, C.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Leonard, W.

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

Evans, E. (Univ of Wales)

Leslie, J. R.

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

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

Lunn, W.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Foot, D. M.

McEntee, V. La T.

Thurtle, E.

Frankel, D.

McGovern, J.

Tinker, J. J.

Gallacher, W.

MacLaren, A.

Tomlinson, G.

Gardner, B. W.

Maclean, N.

Viant, S. P.

Garro Jones, G. M.

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Walkden, A. G.

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

Mander, G. le M.

Watkins, F. C.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Marshall, F.

Watson, W. McL.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Maxton, J.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Milner, Major J.

Westwood, J.

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Montague, F.

White, H. Graham

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

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

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

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

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

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Muff, G.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Groves, T. E.

Naylor, T. E.

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

Oliver, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Owen, Major G.

Mr. Mathers and Mr. Whiteley.

NOES.

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

Bull, B. B.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Cruddas Col. B.

Albery, Sir Irving

Burghley, Lord

Culverwell, C. T.

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

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Davidson, Viscountess

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

Burton, Col. H. W.

Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

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

Butcher, H. W.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Butler, R. A.

Dawson, Sir P.

Apsley, Lord

Campbell, Sir E. T.

De la Bére, R.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Cartland, J. R. H.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Assheton, R.

Cary, R. A.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Dodd, J. S.

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

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

Doland, G. F.

Baillie, Sir A. W. M.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Donner, P. W.

Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Dower, Major A. V. G.

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

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

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Balniel, Lord

Channon, H.

Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Duncan, J. A. L.

Baxter, A. Beverley

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

Dunglass, Lord

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Eastwood, J. F.

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

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Eckersley, P. T.

Beechman, N. A.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Edge, Sir W.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Colman, N. G. D.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Bernays, R. H.

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

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Birchall, Sir J. D.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Elmley, Viscount

Bird, Sir R. B.

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

Emery, J. F.

Blair, Sir R.

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

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Blaker, Sir R.

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Bossom, A. C.

Craven-Ellis, W.

Errington, E.

Boulton, W. W.

Critchley, A.

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

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

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

Crooke, Sir J. S.

Everard, W. L.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

Fildes, Sir H.

Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Findlay, Sir E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

Cross, R. H.

Fleming, E. L.

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

Crossley, A. C.

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

540

541

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Loftus, P. C.

Russell, Sir Alexander

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

Lyons, A. M.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

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

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Salmon, Sir I.

Gledhill, G.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Salt, E. W.

Gluckstein, L. H.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Grant-Ferris, R.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

Sandys, E. D.

Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

McKie, J. H.

Savery, Sir Servington

Grimston, R. V.

Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

Scott, Lord William

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Macquisten, F. A.

Selley, H. R.

Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)

Magnay, T.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Making, Brig.-Gen. E.

Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

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

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

Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Markham, S. F.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Marsden, Commander A.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

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

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Hambro, A. V.

Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

Hannah, I. C.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Harbord, A.

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

Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

Hartington, Marquess of

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton. E.)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Harvey, Sir G.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

Spens. W. P.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Strestham)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Mitcheson, Sir G. G.

Storey, S.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

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

Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

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

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

Hepworth, J.

Moreing, A. C.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Morgan, R. H.

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

Higgs, W. F.

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

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

Sutcliffe, H.

Holmes, J. S.

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Tasker, Sir R. I.

Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

Munro, P.

Tate, Mavis C.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Nail, Sir J.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

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

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

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

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

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Touche, G. C.

Hulbert, N. J.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Train, Sir J.

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W G. A.

Tree, A. R. L. F.

Hunter, T.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

Palmer, G. E. H.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Hutchinson, G. C.

Patrick, C. M.

Wakefield, W. W.

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

Peat, C. U.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Petherick, M.

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

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

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

Plugge, Capt. L. F.

Warrender, Sir V.

Keeling, E. H.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Waterhouse, Captain C.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Porritt, R. W.

Watt, Major G. S. Harvia

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Pawnall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Proctor, Major H. A.

Wedderburn, H. J. S.

Kimball, L.

Radford, E. A.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

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

Raikes, H. V. A. M.

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

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Ramsbotham, H.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Latham, Sir P.

Ramsden, Sir E.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)

Rankin, Sir R.

Wise, A. R.

Leech, Sir J. W.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Lees-Jones, J.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Womersley, Sir W. J.

Leigh, Sir J.

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

Wragg, H.

Levy, T.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.

Lewis, O.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Liddall, W. S.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Lindsay, K. M.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Little, Sir E. Graham-

Rowlands, G

Captain Hope and Lieut.-

Lloyd, G. W.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Colonel Kerr.

Remaining Resolution agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION.
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on consideration of Question:
"That this House approves the Observations of His Majesty's Government on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Civil Aviation."
Which Amendment was, in line I, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add:
"in view of the disclosures of long-standing Ministerial neglect and of gross inefficiency in the management of a heavily subsidised company, the explanations and proposals of His Majesty's Government cannot be regarded as adequate to allay public concern."
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Mr. Garro Jones rose—
It being after Eleven o'Clock the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
    REPORT [9TH MARCH].
    Resolutions reported,
    REPORT [9TH MARCH].
      CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1937.

        CLASS II.
        1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £85,664, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special Grants and Payments, including Grants in Aid; and Sundry Services arising out of the War."
        2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
        3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the League of Nations and for other expenses in connection therewith, including United Kingdom Representation before the Permanent Court of International Justice, and for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the Settlement of Assyrians of Iraq."

        CLASS IV.
        4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £360,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for a Grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation."

        CLASS V.
        5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Un-
        544
        employment Fund, Grants to Local Authorities, Associations and other bodies under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges and other Acts; Grants in Aid of the National Council of Social Service; Expenses of Transfer and Resettlement; Expenses of Training of unemployed persons and, on behalf of the Army Council and Air Council, of soldiers and airmen for employment; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of the Industrial Court; and sundry services."

        CLASS VI.
        6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £229,450, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants and grants-in-aid in respect of agricultural education and research, eradication of diseases of animals, and fishery research; and grants, grants-in-aid, and expenses in respect of improvement of breeding, &c, of live stock, land settlement, improvement of cultivation, drainage, &c, regulation of agricultural wages, agricultural credits, and marketing, control of diseases of fish, fishery development; and sundry other services."
        7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £87,810, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including Grants-in-Aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland."
        8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain Services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other Servicea connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Services under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, the Coastguard, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen and Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions."

        CIVIL ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1936.
        9. "That a sum, not exceeding £12,737 9s. 6d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Departments for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1937:—

        Class and Vote.

        Amount to be Voted.

        £

        s.

        d.

        Class VI.

        Vote 2. Mercantile Marine Services

        10

        0

        0

        Class VII.

        Vote 15. Works and Buildings in Ireland

        1,464

        14

        11

        Class VIII.

        Vote 4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances

        11,262

        14

        7."

        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        11.12 p.m.
        Mr. Ammon: I do not think it would be fair, as this Vote involves a question of life and death to some 30,000 people, that we should allow it to go through without some assurance from the Government as to the protection which is to be given to these people. They were our allies in the War, and a very definite assurance was given them that on the completion of the War this Government and other Governments would see that they were restored to their own country. I put a question to the late Foreign Secretary asking him whether it was the intention of the Government to settle these allies in their own or some other country, and the answer I received was that it was hardly correct to describe the Assyrians as allies of His Majesty's Government. I am somewhat concerned about the interpretation of the word "allies." In the report of Sir Percy Cox, who was then High Commissioner, he stated that the Assyrians, who numbered 35,000, were the more important element against the Turks and had been recognised as allies by Great Britain in the War. These unfortunate people were invited to become our allies and rendered valuable service in defeating the Turks, and I think that as a matter of honour we should honour the promise made.
        It is now proposed that these people should be settled near to Iraq; that is, it is proposed to settle them within a very short distance from the very people who were responsible for the great massacre of the Assyrians a few years ago, a massacre which rivalled in numbers and savagery those which sent the nation into great emotional feeling some years ago with regard to the Armenians. Then the whole world knew what was happening, but in this case everything was done to keep it from coming to the knowledge of the public. Surely, we are entitled to ask whether any steps are being taken to see that the Assyrians are being safeguarded. Let it be remembered that they are the remnants of the oldest Christian community in the world. As Lord Hugh Cecil said in a characteristic
        546
        letter to the "Times" a short time ago, their position makes no appeal to the Christian nations, who are mostly concerned with questions of materialism and of national defence. There is plenty of territory.
        This country gave specific pledges to see that these people were settled, but now we are leaving them in a position of great difficulty. Even the Vote now before us provides only for the settlement of 9,000 out of 35,000. A short time ago the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said of these people that they gave their services freely, not to the Arabs but to the British Government. He hoped that a meed of justice would some day be vouchsafed to them. What the Government are doing in the Vote now before us is to try to ease their conscience by making this small contribution towards the wellbeing of a people who are in a terrible and hard position.
        I suggest that there is plenty of room for these people within the British Empire; there is money to settle them; and nothing ought to be left undone to find some means of giving them a safe refuge for all time. One feels that an attempt is being made by the Government to avoid their responsibility by putting these people in that place in the hope that there will be another massacre so that they will be relieved of fulfilling their engagements. No other conclusion can be drawn from what is being done. It is proposed to settle the Assyrians within 50 kilometres of the people who massacred them before. Already there are violent attacks upon them in the Iraqi Press. They will be a minority amid a hostile majority. In those circumstances, we ought to have a more satisfactory statement on this matter. I refrain from inflicting upon the House the tremendous mass of evidence which I have from all sides, from our representatives abroad, and from the military officers responsible for bringing them to our aid and commanding them, and who give unstinted praise to the services which they rendered. All that they are getting as a reward for their services and sacrifices is this meagre settlement and it is being made under conditions which may within a short time mean that another move will have to be made and the world scandalised by the news of another outrage upon these people.
        11.23 p.m.
        The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): If the position in regard to the Assyrians, to whom this Vote relates, were as stated by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) I, too, would be very disturbed about the future of this community. But I must remain within the bounds of Order and confine my remarks to the 9,000 Assyrians whom it is proposed to settle on the Khabur River, not, as the hon. Member said, in Iraq, but in North-East Syria. We sincerely hope that, as a result of the granting of this money, a satisfactory future will be assured for these people in that settlement. The hon. Member referred to the past history of this question and expressed the hope that the whole British Empire would be searched for a suitable place in which to settle these Assyrians. He also referred to the unhappy incidents of 1933, and I sympathise with his feelings in that respect. We all regret those unfortunate occurrences, but I must point out that after that time, the Assyrian Committee of the League Council considered the question and a search was made, literally, all over the world, to find a home for the Assyrians. For instance, Brazil was considered as a possible home but was found to be unsatisfactory. Search was also made in the British Colonial Empire. I need mention only one place, namely, British Guiana, the possibilities of which were considered. But, unfortunately, that search did not prove successful. The hopes of those interested in the Assyrians then centred on the Ghab scheme of settlement in the French Mandated Territory of Syria. Through circumstances over which we in this country had no control, this scheme had to be abandoned as a result of sudden changes in the Syrian political situation due to the approaching termination of the French Mandate in Syria. It was impossible for the mandatory Power to look far enough ahead to enable the settlement to be guaranteed for any considerable future period.
        The Assyrian Committee of the League Council continued to give the subject special consideration, and a visit was paid by the French and British members early last summer to the Khabur district where there were already settled a number of Assyrians. Some of these had gone there in 1933 and others in 1936. These British
        548
        and French members of the Assyrian Committee went very carefully into the whole question of the future of the Assyrians. They came to the conclusion that there would be a good chance of economic prosperity for these people in the Khabur area, and it was decided to proceed with this settlement. The hon. Member seemed to think that this was a meagre sum to contribute towards the settlement, but, as he will see from the notes to the Supplementary Estimate, this is not a final instalment but is the sum required up to 31st March. The total amount required for the scheme will be in the neighbourhood of £18,000.
        Mr. Ammon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a communication from the French Government referring to this Khabur settlement scheme pointed out that it would increase the minority problem and indicated the danger that might arise?
        Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the economic part of my argument first, I will deal later with the difficulty he has just raised. He said this was a paltry sum.
        Mr. Ammon: I thought the hon. Gentleman was leaving that part of the subject.
        Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman knows I am not likely to leave unanswered any argument when it is put with the sincerity with which he has put his argument. This sum will be necessary before 31st March this year for the purpose of establishing water wheels and providing agricultural implements for the settling of the Assyrians. This sum cannot be regarded as paltry. It may seem little compared to the larger expenditure on the Ghab scheme, but in that case there were irrigation difficulties and other matters which made the, capital expenditure greater. Now we come to the other point made by the hon. Gentleman, namely, that these Assyrians will be in political danger and that this settlement will increase the number of minorities. It would be rash of anyone to give a definite undertaking that there will never be any trouble with this question again. It has a long and particularly difficult past. But, after all, this matter has been examined by the Assyrian Committee of the League and the site at the Khabur River has been

        549
        visited by the French and British members of that committee. I believe the very fact that these Assyrians on the Khabur River will be surrounded by other minorities may result in a more stable political future for them than they could expect if they were settled in a district where they could more easily be oppressed by a majority. That is a point of view to which we attach considerable importance. Therefore, in view of the manner in which this question has been studied by the committee, in view of our interest in the subject, and in view of the trouble that has been taken to deal with the question, I sincerely hope these Assyrians on the Khabur River will be given every chance to make a happy future for themselves, as this is the best scheme that the League and His Majesty's Government have been able to devise.
        11.29 p.m.
        Mr. J. J. Davidson: I am very glad indeed that we have the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs dealing with this matter to-night. Since his appointment, I have been wondering when he was going to undertake some of the duties in connection with his new position. I am glad that he should get his opportunity on this particular subject. But I regret to say that I am very dissatisfied with the explanation which he has given to my hon. Friend. In dealing with such a large sum as £18,000 we ought to have had a fuller and clearer explanation of the situation of the Assyrians. While I, as a Socialist, do not wish to take away from any section of the people of any country that to which they are entitled, I suggest that this very considerable sum of money might be better spent in other directions. It might, for example, be spent in Scotland among the poor people in Maryhill and other districts. I would also like some information with regard to the search for a sanctuary for these people.
        Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I am afraid that that does not arise on this Vote.
        Mr. Davidson: The Under-Secretary dealt with it in his statement and I thought I would be in order in referring to it. Could he say how much of this £4,000 was taken in searching the world for a place for these Assyrians? We have spent money searching for places for the
        550
        unemployed in Canada and Australia, and we have had Government schemes which have always been failures, but we have not had such expenditure as this on our own people at home. While it is true, as the Under-Secretary said, that the Assyrians gave us considerable service during the War, it is also true that there are thousands of ex-service men in this country on whom some of this £4,000 might have been spent more profitably. Was any of this money spent in searching Great Britain itself for a sanctuary for the Assyrians? In the Highlands of Scotland there are Indian rajahs, Americans and all kinds of nationalities settled, and they have created just the ideal conditions that would fit in with the Assyrians. The Under-Secretary showed every concern to see that no attack is made upon these defenceless people who protected our interests during the last War. Is there any chance of the policy of protecting this small minority extending until the Government accept their legal responsibility in the world with regard to other minorities?
        Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: May I express the hope that if the hon. Gentleman, in looking about for a place for these Assyrians, should decide upon some desert spot in the Highlands, we shall see another instance of the Assyrians coming gleaming with silver and gold so that, at any rate, they will not be a charge upon the local authorities?
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        11.37 p.m.
        Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I have one or two questions to ask about the next Subhead 6, which is concerned with the cost of unloading ships which were seized and searched under the powers conferred by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act, but in which no offending cargo was discovered. The curious thing is that the Government, acting on information which they will not disclose, appear always to have seized

        551
        ships which were carrying harmless cargoes and always destined for the Government of Spain. It is strange that at a time when the North Coast of Spain especially was so urgently in need of food that His Majesty's Government should have acted upon information which was so unreliable as to cause not only damage to the shipowners but always hardship to the people in Spain. The "Spring-wear," for example, was chased into Gibraltar by two armed trawlers of Franco's fleet. At Gibraltar the cargo was put overside into lighters.
        I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade would tell us who instructed the authorities at Gibraltar to impede this ship. Surely when a British ship flying from pirates—because that is what they were—and receiving, no doubt for excellent reasons, no adequate protection from the British Navy on the high seas, had reached Gibraltar, she deserved better treatment than to have her cargo turned out. There was considerable expense in doing so—I think £600—and demurrage losses were caused to the owners. Now Parliament is asked to vote the money. The owners have had to go without the money for demurrage up to this point. I understand they have made a claim—I think £625 for the "Springwear "—but it has not been settled. This item of £4,000 in the Estimate was unexpected. There was no Money Resolution for the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act. It is usual if a Bill will involve expenditure to have a Money Resolution and Clauses in italics, but I think I am right in saying there was no such Resolution. It is allowable, I know, to pay for something for which an Act of Parliament does not provide by means of an Estimate, on the ground that an Estimate under the Consolidated Fund is included in an Act of Parliament, but it is not a desirable practice. It is not desirable in the case of the "Springwear." Not only have we to find £4,000, but, in addition to that, we have to find something to meet this claim for demurrage.
        I do not propose to divide the House on this matter, but although it is so late we must ask questions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We must ask what he will do on this claim for £625 for demurrage, made by the owners of the "Spring-
        552
        wear." I understand that the case is before the courts. I should think that a very reasonable way to treat the claim would be to appoint arbitrators, one from the Treasury and one from the shipowners, with an impartial chairman, so that the sum could be assessed and the company that owns this ship reimbursed for the loss that has been caused to them by the action of the Government.
        I press the further point on the hon. and gallant Gentleman: On what information did he act? Was it merely that General Franco's trawlers chased the ship, and that that was considered enough by the Gibraltar authorities, or that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had some proper information on which he acted—with a cost to the Exchequer of about £1,000 in the case of the "Springwear"? The "Sarastone" was carrying potatoes and was in St. Jean de Luz on 13th April. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that she was seized and taken to Bordeaux, and there discharged at a cost of £1,200 to the Exchequer. I presume that in the case of the "Sarastone" a demurrage claim is also outstanding to the Government, and that the country may be put to the charge of about £2,000, or perhaps more, by this action of the Government.
        It is very curious that at the time when this ship was lying in St. Jean de Luz the Board of Trade should disseminate as news that the approaches to Bilbao were so heavily mined as to be unsafe for ships to go in. We all remember reading in the newspapers how a certain Captain Jones, called Potato Jones, and other very gallant skippers, ran the blockade into Bilbao. In point of fact, in a few days many ships went in and out of Bilbao in perfect safety; nevertheless the Board of Trade considered it wise to circulate that rather alarming statement to the skippers. More than that, the Admiralty issued a positive order to ships not to leave St. Jean de Luz. What was the state of food in Bilbao at that time? Let me quote from the "Times" of 14th April:
        "Nursing mothers are eating food worth twopence a day. Chickens cost £1 and the price of cats is soaring."
        That is to say, there were starvation conditions in Bilbao, while there was a cargo of potatoes in St. Jean du Luz. There were great ships like the "Hood" lying three miles off—
        Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hardly think that that is a matter which arises on this Supplementary Estimate.
        Mr. Benn: I do not desire to go beyond your Ruling, but this is a material point. It was at this moment that the Government desided to take this ship to Gibraltar and search her. They turned out the cargo of potatoes for I do not know how long; I have not been able to ascertain that, and we have to pay £1,200 for the discharge, and sundry amounts for demurrage.
        This Supplementary Estimate is a new service. This is the first time any charge has been put on the Estimates for this matter, and I think we are entitled to make the inference that in their conduct of affairs on this coast of Spain, when the Basques were being exceptionally hard pressed, His Majesty's Government, in the exercise of the great policy of impartial non-intervention about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke this afternoon, were in fact making themselves the willing and conniving ally of the blockade by General Franco. If the Parliamentary Secretary, at this late hour, can give me some brief answer, I shall be very grateful.
        11.45 p.m.
        The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this point again. It might perhaps have been expected, after the enjoyable hour and a-half that we had up to 1 a.m. last week, that this Supplementary Estimate might have got through "on the nod," but, knowing the right hon. Gentleman as I do, I was under no illusion. So, recognising the importance of the questions addressed to me the other night, I have informed myself somewhat further in regard to the proceedings under the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act, 1936. The reason why no Money Resolution was required for this additional service was that there was no Money Resolution attached to the Act in question—
        Mr. Benn: That is exactly my complaint. My complaint was that the strictest propriety would have demanded that a Bill involving expenditure should have a Money Resolution, but the Bill had no Money Resolution. The right hon.
        554
        and gallant Gentleman is using a procedure which has been used before; he is using a Supplementary Estimate as an Act of Parliament. I believe that that has been allowed to be done, but it is not a correct Parliamentary procedure.
        Captain Wallace: I will pass on, if I may, without referring to the general question of Parliamentary procedure, which would hardly be in order on a mere Supplementary Estimate, to tell the right hon. Gentleman what has happened under this Act; and I hope the House will agree that it is a different picture from that which he has given of His Majesty's Government starving the unfortunate people on one side in Spain. Since the Act came into force, approximately 1,000 British ships have called at Spanish ports, the number trading to Government ports being considerably greater than the number trading to Nationalist ports. That is, at any rate, some prima facie evidence that, if ships were to be searched, the chances were that more of them would be ships going to Government ports than to Nationalist ports. In view of the large number of our ships that have gone to Spain, I think the House will agree that the number searched under this Act, is extremely small, and that it is entirely erroneous to suggest that the action taken in the case of the four that were stopped—three of which were searched and one it was decided not to search—has interfered appreciably with the transport of supplies to the Spanish Government. The figures themselves make that clear. The total number of ships about which the Board of Trade have received reports alleging the carriage of goods in contravention of the Act is, up to date, 21, but in none of these cases except the four referred to was the evidence considered by the Board of Trade to be sufficient to justify a search.
        Mr. Benn: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the proportions as between Government and Nationalist ports?
        Captain Wallace: I could not do so with accuracy, but I think it would be fair to say that a very large proportion were ships going to Government ports. As regards these four cases, the information in three of them came from confidential sources. The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience as a member of previous Administrations, will recognise that I

        555
        am not able to give to the House particulars of these sources; but they were sources which His Majesty's Government would have found it difficult to ignore. In the case of the "Springwear," which was the first case under the Act, the Nationalist authorities, as I said in the House the other night, stated that they had definite information that the ship was carrying machine guns. In view of that information, we thought it was advisable to undertake the search. I think the House will realise that because we did undertake that search—which turned out to be fruitless—we were, therefore, in a much stronger position than we should have been if, having passed the Act and having been supplied with that information, we had decided to ignore it.
        Mr. Benn: Did the information come before the "Springwear" got to Gibraltar, or when she was still on the high seas?
        Captain Wallace: Speaking, so to speak, without the book, I believe it came before she got to Gibraltar.
        Mr. Benn: Exactly. Why was the information not then passed to the Admiralty so that they could send a destroyer to protect these ships which were being pursued by pirates?
        Captain Wallace: I am afraid that is a matter which should be addressed to the Admiralty. Over 1,000 ships were going to Spain, the greater proportion to Government ports, and the fact that we searched only three ships shows that the action of the Government did not in any way interfere with the transport of supplies to either of the belligerents. Although the House can only take my word for it since it is not possible to adduce any tangible proof, I assure hon. Members that this Act has been administered by the Board of Trade without any bias whatever and that the decision to search in the three cases was taken by the Board of Trade only after the most careful consultation with other Departments concerned and in pursuance of what we believed to be our duty in regard to a suspected contravention of the Act.
        11.53 p.m.
        Mr. Pritt: Surely this is very unsatisfactory. The Government have declared by one of their Ministers that they did
        556
        not recognise that they were bound by the laws of neutrality, and that these three ships were stopped and searched with great inconvenience to everybody concerned. When these Estimates were in Committee, the reason given for the action was simply nothing. They did not tell us. Now the Minister tells us as frankly as he can—I am sure that he wants to tell us—that the reasons were so confidential that they cannot be revealed. I used to be in the Government service, and I then learned to regard the source of information in these circumstances as so utterly unreliable that you dare not say what it is. I learned also that a confidential source is a reliable source. Now the Minister tells us that the information is so confidential that it cannot be revealed. Are the Government to take the word of an unrecognised collection of rebels who on land are rebels and on sea are pirates? It is suggested that what they tell the Government is good enough. The Government claim that they interfered only in the matter of four ships, and in every one of those cases they were absolutely wrong. In one of them they hide behind a collection of rebels.
        11.55 p.m.
        Mr. Davidson: It has been made clear by my right hon. Friend that there will be no Division. We have heard the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we want the greatest amount of information possible. I am seriously perturbed at the reply of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because it seems to me that the Government, and his Department particularly, are spending money on idle rumours and are giving expenses to certain people whose names he cannot divulge, who act with his Department in a confidential capacity, and then he comes to the House and says, "We have given them this money; we are spending so much on this information, which has been fruitless, but I cannot tell you who are the informers" I think that, at least from the right hon. Gentleman, and at least on one Parliamentary day, we can expect a frank and fearless statement on the Government's policy. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman stated blandly that the mere idea of three vessels being searched would not disturb other shipping; but does he not know that the spread of this idea among the owners of ships that there was a risk

        557
        of the British Navy bearing down upon them, taking their ships to outlandish places and searching them, creating expenses which, when claims have been sent in, might not be met, is a very direct interference with shipping, and that the very fact that the captains of those ships feel now, as we have seen from many statements in the Press, that they have to take as much trouble in dodging the British Navy as in dodging the Franco Navy creates much disturbance? What happens to those informers who give wrongful information to the Government?
        Captain Wallace: The sum asked for is only for unloading and reloading vessels. It has nothing to do with sums paid to informers.
        Mr. Davidson: I am very glad to hear the Minister's statement. I am glad that those who give this wrongful information are not paid for it, because, judging by the results, they do not deserve any payment from the Government. But this raises an important issue. Are the Government employing people—?
        Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That, obviously, cannot arise.
        Mr. Davidson: I accept your Ruling, Sir. As I have previously said, Supplementary Estimates are the best school for learning the rules of debate. It is true that in the school of experience we learn most, and it stands us in good stead in the future. I have no doubt that your excellent rulings and your guidance to me during the Debates on the Supplementary Estimates will stand me in very good stead indeed after the next General Election.
        The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has informed the House that none of those steps were taken without serious consultation with other Departments. I would like to know what Departments were involved? Do these Departments bear any share of the expenses or are they wholly borne by the Department of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? He has been very good tempered and cheerful throughout these long-drawn-out Debates on Supplementary Estimates, and I hate to think that other Departments are putting it across his own Department or taking advantage of his good humour and good temper. We ought to know exactly what other Departments are involved,
        558
        what responsibilities they have and what they contribute to this particular cost?
        12.1 a.m.
        Mr. Harold Mitchell: I disagree with the point of view which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. He criticised the Government on the ground that they had been impeding ships going into the ports. A great deal has been said in newspapers and so on about this sort of thing. It has been written up a great deal, and nobody denies that ships—
        Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was exactly the point upon which I stopped the right hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Mitchell: I want to keep in order and, of course, I accept your Ruling. I was simply trying to reply to the point which the right hon. Gentleman opposite raised in his speech. The point I wanted to make was, that any step that the Government had taken, by search or by other means, to limit the number of ships going towards any ports that were likely to be in the danger zone was desirable.
        Mr. Benn: Why?
        Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question does not arise on this Estimate.
        Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps I shall have an opportunity at some other period in the Estimates of replying to this point, upon which I feel very strongly.
        12.3 a.m.
        Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I am not going to attempt to discuss the blockade along the coast of Spain, especially that part of Spain which is in the control of the Spanish Government. I have no doubt that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends who detain these ships at sea add much more to the difficulties of feeding the Spanish people than does the Spanish blockade itself. I was rather alarmed by the point raised by my hon. Friend when he said that this was a new Vote. What alarms me is whether it is to become a permanent Vote. It will be a permanent Vote if the policy of the Government in regard to Spain goes on as it is at present. My hon. Friend mentioned that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the other night was given a lesson in foreign policy. I would ask

        559
        whether the informant, the mysterious friend and, no doubt, also the friend of Mussolini, is the same gentleman or lady who gives them all the information on Spanish questions when such information turns out to be so inaccurate?
        The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
        It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
        Adjourned at Six Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COLLEGE.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COLLEGE.
  HIGHWAY OBSTRUCTION (DOCTORS' MOTOR CARS).
  HIGHWAY OBSTRUCTION (DOCTORS' MOTOR CARS).
  STREET CROSSINGS (PROSECUTION OF PEDESTRIANS).
  STREET CROSSINGS (PROSECUTION OF PEDESTRIANS).
  PROVINCE OF GOJAM.
  PROVINCE OF GOJAM.
  POST OFFICE (CARRIAGE OF MAILS: PAYMENTS).
  POST OFFICE (CARRIAGE OF MAILS: PAYMENTS).
  WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT LICENCES).
  WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT LICENCES).
  DUTCH WEST INDIES (EXPORTS).
  DUTCH WEST INDIES (EXPORTS).
  STEAMSHIP "LLANSTEPHAN CASTLE" (MALARIA).
  STEAMSHIP "LLANSTEPHAN CASTLE" (MALARIA).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (GERMAN STATISTICS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (GERMAN STATISTICS).
  AIR MINISTRY (CIVILIAN STAFF).
  AIR MINISTRY (CIVILIAN STAFF).
  ROYAL NAVY (ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS).
  ROYAL NAVY (ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS).
  HOUSING (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).
  HOUSING (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
DEFENCE.
  DOMINIONS AND INDIA (ARMY RECRUITMENT).
  DOMINIONS AND INDIA (ARMY RECRUITMENT).
  COAL (OIL EXTRACTION).
  COAL (OIL EXTRACTION).
  REARMAMENT PROGRAMME (UNITED STATES SUPPLY).
  REARMAMENT PROGRAMME (UNITED STATES SUPPLY).
  HERRING INDUSTRY, WESTERN ISLANDS.
  HERRING INDUSTRY, WESTERN ISLANDS.
  MALTA (LORD STRICKLAND v. THE CROWN APPEAL).
  MALTA (LORD STRICKLAND v. THE CROWN APPEAL).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS).
  BRITISH ARMY (WARRANT OFFICERS).
  BRITISH ARMY (WARRANT OFFICERS).
  AUSTRIAN ARMY (STRENGTH).
  AUSTRIAN ARMY (STRENGTH).
  TRANSPORT (TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHTS).
  TRANSPORT (TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHTS).
  ADMIRALTY (INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYÉS).
  ADMIRALTY (INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYÉS).
  SPINSTERS' PENSIONS.
  SPINSTERS' PENSIONS.
  HYDE PARK (RUNNING TRACK).
  HYDE PARK (RUNNING TRACK).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Maugham) on the Woolsack.

MINISTERIAL CHANGES.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is a great privilege to me to be the first speaker in your Lordships' House who welcomes to the Woolsack our new Lord Chancellor. I only know the Lord Chancellor as a great lawyer and as a judge—not that I have appeared before him in his official capacity. I do not pretend to know the noble Lord's political opinions, but I assume they are those of an untainted orthodoxy, and if that is so I am happy in not being called upon to oppose them at this juncture. It is my privilege, however, to offer to him on behalf of my noble friends a very hearty welcome to the high and dignified position that he has assumed and to assure him, for whatever that may be worth, of whatever co-operation and help we can give him in his high office. I should like to take this opportunity, too, of offering on behalf of my noble friends our very hearty thanks to the late Lord Chancellor for all the courtesies that he has extended to us during his time of office. The noble Viscount is known as a person of robust controversial nature who always enjoyed, in an almost unseemly degree, the dust of the arena. That side of him is not known to your Lordships quite so well as it is known to me and to others who sit on this side of the House; but it was a great blow to us when we heard of his resignation.
I would like at this point to say that there appears to be almost an epidemic of resignations going on at the present time. It is a form of self-indulgence of which I do not always approve, and I want to say that I, personally, have not the slightest intention of resigning from anything whatever. It is always a great pleasure, and a matter of intellectual interest, to hear Lord Hailsham erect a tower of unassailable virtue on behalf of the cause that he espouses, while at the same time digging a pit into which his
122
opponents, if they have their merits, ought instantly to be passed. We shall miss the noble Viscount from the Woolsack, but we are glad that on occasions—and we hope they will be many—we shall see him in his place and hear him take part in our debates. Let me assure him on behalf of my noble friends, for whom alone I have the privilege to speak, that he takes with him our very deep respect and our most hearty thanks and good wishes.
I should also like, if I may, to extend a cordial welcome to the new Leader of your Lordships' House. I am sure that we can extend those good wishes in all sincerity. It is a dignified position that he has to fill, full of difficulties, and difficulties that may not be made easier for him by the fact that I, being relieved from other duties, may be in a position in which my nuisance capacity may be increased. But we are sure that the noble Earl has the good will of us all and we have some experience of his fluency, his cogency and, above all, his courtesy in debate. We all wish him success in his new office.
My last desire would be, again on behalf of my friends, to say how very sorry we are to lose the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, as Leader of your Lordships' House. We owe him very many thanks for many courtesies and much consideration. He has always been as reserved in his censure as the circumstances would allow him to be, and he has sometimes not been ungenerous in his praise. In one respect he has not been an easy person to work with, or rather against. When I have wished to say something particularly pungent the pain on the noble Viscount's face has been so keen as immediately to disarm me, with the result that I have not been able to say many of the things that he ought to have heard. But in his new capacity as Foreign Secretary we wish him all success and health and strength for his great position. It is an arduous, a most responsible, and most thankless task that he has assumed, and upon him at this time perhaps more than upon any other person falls the greatest responsibility. I wish him, as I say, health and strength, and I express our hope that his labours will be blessed by a greater promise of peace and good will among men.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, may I for a moment echo the last sentences with which the noble Lord who leads the Opposition has so much gratified the House. He alluded to the fact that he no longer holds the great place in the government of London which he formerly held, and we are the gainers by that, because we know that the noble Lord will be able to attend debates here oftener than has been possible in the past. We can none of us, I think, feel any surprise, although we feel a great deal of regret, that the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has found it impossible to continue as Leader here that place which he has filled with so much distinction and with such general acceptance. But we know that, though many offices are busy, there is none at which, like the Foreign Office, the Minister is liable to be disturbed by alarms and excursions at any hour of the day or night, which practically makes it impossible for him to attend rigidly to the duties of leadership here. I would wish also to extend a warm welcome to the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. He has had experience of a number of offices—the War Office, the Foreign Office, the Office of Works, and he now presides over the Board of Education. He bears a great historical name dating from his ancestor who was the trusted lieutenant of Marlborough and Prince Eugene, and whose activities, by a coincidence almost painful to-day, were largely exercised in the Peninsula of Spain.
I am sure we all wish the noble Earl the greatest success in his task, and he will have beside him the noble Viscount whose departure from the Woolsack we all so much regret. He has gone down only one or two steps in the official hierarchy, and now is Lord President of the Council, an office which is less laborious than some but is not always the complete sinecure which it is sometimes apt to be called. It has been my fortune since I came into the House to sit in the august presence of ten Lord Chancellors. From all of them I have received much personal kindness, and with several of them I have been on terms of close friendship. Some of them, before they came here, had been distinguished in political life, and some in other outside walks of life, but all of them without, I think, any exception, cer-
124
tainly in my time, were men of the first distinction in different branches of their great profession and, therefore, in welcoming the noble and learned Lord who is now on the Woolsack we are glad to know that he has achieved the greatest pre-eminence in his profession and added lustre in that respect to the list of Lord Chancellors.
If I might indulge in a few further personal reminiscences, my first recollections of anybody who sat on the Woolsack go back to the days of my boyhood when my father introduced a Motion in the House on the subject of a famous religious work, Essays and Reviews. That discussion led to a verbal duel between two very distinguished men, Lord Westbury, who at that time sat on the Woolsack, and Bishop Wilberforce of Oxford, and that discussion was enlivened by an amount of personal allusion and recrimination to which your Lordships' House has been little accustomed. I merely mention this in order to state my full conviction that the noble and learned Lord who now adorns the Woolsack is not at all likely to come into collision with the right reverend Bench in the manner in which his brilliant but singular predecessor did.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rise to say only a word on behalf of the Lords Spiritual, and to express our very great regret that the late Lord Chancellor has been obliged to give up the office which he so greatly adorned. The relations between the Lord Chancellor and the Bishops are varied, manifold, important, and, in the case of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have always been most cordial. Indeed, in some respects the Lord Chancellor is a partner of the Bishops, because it sometimes falls to him to read the Prayers, which perhaps are more valued by your Lordships than attended. earnestly hope that our relations with the new Lord Chancellor, whom I warmly welcome, may be equally cordial, but I cannot promise him those opportunities of controversial discussion with the Lords Spiritual to which the noble Marquess has alluded. I need scarcely say also that we most cordially welcome the noble Earl who has attained the high dignity of Leader of the House, and I trust that he will find us always ready to obey his injunctions.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I rise only first of all to thank the speakers who have referred to me in such friendly and flattering terms, and to thank the whole of your Lordships' House for the way in which they have received those expressions. It is ten years this month that I reached the dignity of being introduced into your Lordships' House, and I have spent those ten years practically continuausly in the service of your Lordships' House—first of all as Lord Chancellor, then as Deputy Leader and Leader of the Opposition, then as Leader of the House of Lords, and then as Lord Chancellor again. I desire to acknowledge the unfailing kindness and loyal co-operation of all the members of your Lordships' House, and also of the officials at the Table. I desire also to thank my noble friend, if he will permit me to call him so, the Leader of the Opposition, for his friendly words. He has been my political adversary for more years than he and I care to remember, but that makes no difference to his private friendliness, and I think it is a distinctive and distinguished characteristic of the political life of this country that political differences, however acute, make no difference to private esteem.
I also wish to thank the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Liberal Party, for his very gracious words. He had built up a distinguished reputation in public life before I thought of entering politics, and I therefore value his expressions the more. To the most reverend Primate I desire to tender my grateful thanks for his continued co-operation and help. I know him as a valued colleague and wise counsellor, whether I was on the Woolsack or in private life. I desire to congratulate the new Lord Chancellor, and I am glad that the office has passed into such safe and distinguished keeping. I wish him every success in the high and responsible office, and I know he will enjoy the same confidence, the same sympathy and the same ready support as your Lordships' House always extended to me in that place.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, although the main purpose of those who have made speeches this afternoon has been, as is right, to
126
extend a welcome to the highest officer in this House, a welcome in which I, if I may, would sincerely like to join, I would like, with your Lordships' permission, to say a few words in acknowledgment of and thanks for the kind expressions in my own regard that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, and from the noble Marquess opposite. I am still left in doubt as to what may be or might have been those things which the noble Lord opposite, under the influence of some telepathic influence, has left unsaid. We shall never know, but all I certainly know is that during the two years I have had the honour of leading this House I have owed much to the unfailing courtesy and consideration with which he has constantly treated me. The same is true of the noble Marquess opposite, of the most reverend Primate, and of those for whom he speaks, and of every member of your Lordships' House. With the late Lord Chancellor I have owed much to them, and much also to the assistance and the unfailing helpfulness and advice of those who sit at this Table.
The leadership of this House is a great position and brings great honour, and no one can surrender it without great regret. I think it was Lord Rosebery, and it may have been the noble Marquess who reminded us of it, who said there were only two happy days in the life of a Prime Minister—one when he succeeded to office, and the other when he left it. In my own case, if one may humbly compare the smaller things with the greater, I can say that the day on which I succeeded to the leadership of this House was not necessarily a happy one, because I was more conscious of the responsibilities than of the privileges, and the day on which I leave it is tinged with a greater element of regret. It is indeed one element in the mixed feelings with which I succeeded to the office which I at present have the honour to bear, that it did involve, for reasons which the noble Marquess gave, the surrender of that office of leadership in your Lordships' House which I had come greatly to value. I have said that I have constantly received at all hands universal consideration and kindness, and I am constantly tempted to remind myself of how often your Lordships' instinct of charity and generosity has overtaken your strict regard for justice in the judgment you have

127
formed of what I have here tried to do. I therefore thank all your Lordships from the bottom of my heart, and for myself and for those of us who sit on this Bench I can only console myself by the feeling that the exchange of leadership that is involved is one that is wholly to the advantage of your Lordships' House. My noble friend is assured of a warm welcome in a place where he has only friends and no enemies, and he will also be fortunate in re-enlisting to himself one who can now give full vent to his robust controversial nature.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I can say with great truth that I feel a little embarrassment in acknowledging what your Lordships have said on this occasion; none the less because I have spent the greater part of my life in a profession in which embarrassment is generally avoided and always disguised. There are two things in particular which cause my difficulty. The first is that I cannot hope to emulate the felicitous and, if I may say so, charming words of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in performing his duty this afternoon, and the second one is that I share very fully the regret that every member of your Lordships' House must feel that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has thought it necessary to retire from the post which I now shall fill, at any rate for a time. My Lords, even a lawyer may be sincere, and I ask your Lordships to believe that I regret exceedingly the circumstances that have rendered it necessary for me to occupy the Woolsack.
It has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Snell, that he entertains the belief that I shall prove myself to be a person of undoubted and unblemished orthodoxy. While I occupy the Woolsack nobody will be, at least in endeavour, more orthodox than I as compared with my predecessors in that post. When I stand, in accordance I think with Standings Orders, two paces to the left of the Woolsack to address your Lordships on other topics than those which fall strictly to the business of the Lord Chancellor, I shall be orthodox according to my lights, though there may be occasions on which Lord Snell will doubt whether my opinions are as orthodox as he could wish. But however that may he, I should like on this occasion, before I have
128
spoken upon any controversial matter, to express my firm conviction that in your Lordships' House the controversies which arise are predominantly those which everybody in this House will approach in the same spirit. There are comparative trifles, as I think, in which people take opposite views, but I do believe that on almost every occasion of real importance the members of your Lordships' House, whether they sit on the right hand side or on the left hand side of the House, will be animated by precisely the same feeling—namely, that they are desirous of doing their best for the common weal in the true interest of the country.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I find it difficult to express the gratitude which I feel for the very kind words which have fallen from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Marquess, and the most reverend Primate and others of your Lordships on my selection as Leader of your Lordships' House. I am conscious of the great responsibility and of the great honour of that office, but I am conscious also of the great qualities both of mind and of speech which distinguished many of my predecessors. It happens that there are an exceptional number of those who have either been Leaders of your Lordships' House or have been Deputy Leaders present here to-day. I am, therefore, all the more conscious of my own shortcomings. I can, however, say that I will endeavour to serve your Lordships' House to the very best of my ability. It is a House for which I have long had, not only a great respect, but also a great affection, and if in any way I can lighten the work either of your Lordships, or of the officers of the House, or of those who for the benefit of this House and the public make known our proceedings, then I shall feel that my steps are on the right road and that I am in part fulfilling the high duties which have been laid upon me. I can only say that I shall welcome suggestions from whatever quarter they may come. I do not necessarily say that I will adopt those suggestions, but I can at any rate say that my services will be available to any member of your Lordships' House that asks for them, and I will endeavour to serve the House as faithfully as my predecessors have done in the past.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HALIFAX) BILL.
Read 2a(according to Order), and committed
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NUNEATON EXTENSION) BILL.
Read 2a(according to Order), and committed.

POOR LAW (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, in rising to move the Third Reading of this Bill I should like to express on behalf of the promoters of the Bill the appreciation we have of the courtesy and support received from every part of your Lordships' House. I should like to add one word, and that is that I think this very small measure may do something t3 alleviate and improve the condition of some of those who through no fault of their own are placed in institutions in this country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

SITUATION IN EUROPE.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL rose to call attention to the situation created by the recent developments in Austria; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have seldom risen to address your Lordships' House with a greater sense of responsibility and uncertainty than on the present occasion when I move the Motion which stands in my name. It is not possible for Parliament to witness in silence the grim tragedy which is even now proceeding in Austria and elsewhere, or to ignore the imminent dangers which may be involved from those proceedings to our own civilisation. On the other hand, even the most careful speaker may well tremble lest any word of his should poison rather than heal the wounds of the world at the present time. The aged, especially, should not risk even a verbal
130
gamble with the lives of younger men. I shall, for my part, try to avoid that danger, while feeling it incumbent upon me to speak frankly on certain aspects of the matter before us.
Whatever our views may be, I think we shall have to approach this problem to-day with the feeling that, for good or for ill—and I believe for ill—the fate of Austria has been sealed. We have to accept this situation as it appears before us: we have to accept the inclusion of Austria into the Reich. This has long been contemplated; it was perhaps in the end inevitable, and it appears not to be resented by at least an unascertained proportion of the people of Austria itself. But, be that as it may, we are faced with a situation which we cannot to-day alter. Our affection for the Austrian people is of long standing. It is based upon long, intimate and very friendly experiences and relationships. Speaking for myself, I hate to think of that gay, cultured, kindly people being subdued by and merged into the savage tribalism of the Nazi régime. Whether we have any special responsibility for what has happened is something that I must not to-day pause to consider. My first duty on behalf of those for whom I speak is to assure the Austrian people of our very deep sympathy, and our shame that civilised Europe has remained passive in relation to their fate. My second duty is to express our deep anxiety for the fate of those of Austria's sons who, out of their love for their land and their pride in her traditions, sought to preserve her political independence and her cultural integrity. In most cases of this kind the chivalry of conquerors might be assumed. Austrians, however, have no such hope or assurance, and any words of appeal on their behalf might further endanger rather than help them.
Your Lordships may understand that we on these Benches are not particularly concerned to defend the Austrian Government. It was a dictatorship. It had persecuted the workers, destroyed their unions, executed, exiled or imprisoned their leaders. Therefore I have no special favour in my mind for the Austrian Government. We have nothing to thank them for. But whatever their Government was, it was a Government of their own countrymen, and it is no business of ours to say what form of government

131
another nation shall possess. Therefore I ask, very shortly indeed, one or two questions. First, a question of His Majesty's Government: What is the position now? The nation itself is under the greatest perplexity as to where the Government stand and what they intend to do in the present circumstances. I have studied with reasonable care the declaration made by His Majesty's Government both in another place and in this House, and only one clear thought seems to emerge from that declaration. That thought is arms, more arms, and very little else; aims, which are the weapons of despair rather than mere coincidents with helpful developments. There was another thought, and that was sacrifices. The nation would be asked to make sacrifices, and there were, in one form or another, sinister hints as to what those sacrifices might mean.
So far as I know, the nation is willing both to provide the arms that are required and to bear whatever sacrifices may be necessary. But the nation also wants to know to what end these sacrifices are to be made, and for what ultimate purpose these arms are to be used. On that point the nation is at present without any clear or adequate assurance. I gather that in these anxieties His Majesty's Government expect the support of the whole of the nation, including ourselves. The rôle in British politics which is more or less assigned to the Labour Party is to bear ourselves humbly before our betters on all occasions, to serve as the targets for the propagandist abuse of Government advocates when all is well, and then, when the policy of the Government brings trouble, immediately to rally to the side of the Government. We do not accept that interpretation of our duty. We shall give whatever support we ought, as Englishmen, to give in the circumstances that are before the nation. But we want to know, if we are to give that support, where the nation is being led.
That is not a new position. It has always been a part of our advocacy that we could not indulge in unilateral disarmament. If disarmament was to take place, it should be on an international scale. We have always expressed our wish to give what arms were required to the nation to enable her to take her proper place and fulfil her proper respon-
132
sibilities as a part of a great international undertaking for peace. But if the troubles have arisen because there have not been sufficient armaments, I should like to ask in passing who has the responsibility for that. Except for two short intervals, when the Labour Party was in power in a minority position, the power to provide these instruments of safety, if they are instruments of safety, was in the hands of the Government and their predecessors. On their own avowal they have a monopoly of the wisdom and experience and ability of the nation, and one wonders why, if arms are the only policy, those arms were not provided. I ask that merely in passing and do not intend to press upon His Majesty's Government such a very awkward question for them to answer.
But I do wish to say that whatever the answer may be, in our best judgment, with all the responsibility that attaches to us both in the position we have in this House and as English citizens, arms are not enough. If arms are to be provided they should rest upon a moral basis and be attached to a policy for some approved end. What is that policy? What is the goal which His Majesty's Government have in mind? By what methods do they propose to reach it? One wonders, for example, whether the end of the present drift towards anarchy has come. What, for instance, do the Government propose to do about Czechoslovakia? Austria, as I have said, is gone. Czechoslovakia may be a question for the future, but the position of Spain is imminent and some declaration by His Majesty's Government on that point should be made. Surely the possible conversion of Spain into a vassal State of Italy should both have significance in itself and should call for some definite lead on the part of His Majesty's Government at the present time. The German position as I understand it, in regard to Austria, is that "No nation has the right to interfere with us in Austria, but we have the right to interfere in Spain." And that position is not one which is easy to sort out in any terms of international justice.
I desire to be brief and I only suggest, in conclusion, a possible policy under present circumstances. It is that the League Assembly should be summoned to examine the whole situation immediately and thoroughly and that we should attempt to rebuild the League of Nations

133
on a basis which is the result of past experience and our present need. We should have a plain declaration of policy from His Majesty's Government. If we are to provide arms, I suppose we must and shall, those should be supplemented by certain other things. Get all the arms you wish for and desire, but the grievances, if they exist, will still be there. Therefore we ought to hear from His Majesty's Government whether they have any proposal for the early consideration, and the possible removal, of any grievances that may be found to exist from which Germany or any other nation may suffer. I feel that the time has come when that aspect of the case cannot be much further delayed. Therefore, although I was scolded by the noble Viscount the late Leader of the House recently, I still believe that if only the non-aggressive nations will join the League of Nations, then let the League be composed of them, and let us as far as we can encourage them to stand together and to build, for themselves and for us, if haply they may do so, a wall of mutual defence against attack and disaster. I beg to move for Papers.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am going to follow the admirable example, if I may so describe it, of the noble Lord who has moved this Motion and not try to discuss why we have got into the position in which we find ourselves to-day. If we began to bandy arguments as to the reasons, I think we should find ourselves plunged into controversies which at any rate are better postponed. We are confronted with two formidable facts, and the question for your Lordships' House is what attitude we should take in the situation so created. The first of those facts is the alteration in the balance of power in Central Europe which results from the incorporation of Austria in the German Reich, and the other is recent events—events which have only taken place in the last few days—in Spain.
I notice that in many quarters there is the usual demand that His Majesty's Government should rush into a fresh spate of pledges and promises to take strong and stalwart action in this place or that. I venture to think that we should seriously begin to consider, in making pledges, whether we can, and whether e really intend to, honour them. One
134
of the great troubles of the last few years is that we have made pledges, we have entered into what looked like obligations, without having really faced the consequences of having to live up to them, and that when the crisis came for one reason or another we found we had better retreat and leave those who had depended on our pledges in the lurch. I think that the ancient dictum about foreign policy which I have always heard attributed to the late Lord Salisbury, the former Prime Minister of this country, that your foreign policy must be related to your strength and to the strength of those allies on whom you can constantly rely, is the only policy which one can follow in considering what commitments we enter into.
I think it is true to say that after the sufferings of the last War all the democracies in the world, wanting peace, as indeed the mass of the populations of the world wants peace, have believed that they could get peace on the cheap, that they could get it in a world of sovereign States without being willing to face the fact that in a world of sovereign States there are situations which can only be dealt with if it is perfectly clear to other nations that there is a point at which a democracy is willing to fight. And we have buoyed ourselves up in the belief in that world, while retaining our sovereignty and while every nation retained its sovereignty, that by some other expedient we could avoid what all history shows to be the final responsibility in dealing with an international peril, and unfortunately it is proved to-day in a world of sovereign States that preparedness for war and the conviction of other nations that you have the resolution, if necessary, to accept that challenge does contribute to peace. Unpreparedness and the belief that you are unwilling to accept that challenge, or that you do not mean what you say, does contribute to war. That will remain to be a condition in the world until the nations are willing in some way to pool their sovereignty in a common federation. That has been the law of international affairs, and it will continue to be the law of international affairs, until we reach that goal which at the moment is far out of reach.
At this moment I think other nations are only certain of where we stand in that set of obligations which were defined in

135
the speech made by the late Foreign Secretary at Leamington rather more than a year ago. The world knows that at that point the British Empire would undertake the obligations of war, and is therefore not going to challenge the situation in those parts. But it is quite clear we should consider whether there are other fields in the world in which Great Britain and, I may add, the British Commonwealth are willing to say, if certain things are done in other parts of the world, they will accept the challenge of war. I hope pledges of that kind will not be lightly entered into. I am going to make a suggestion as to how that particular question can be considered. If you are going to make a pledge of that kind, if you are going to enter into obligations, if you are going to extend or give more precision to the Leamington speech, two conditions are vital. The first is that there should be a real national unity behind so that the Government of the day, whatever it is, can feel that in taking a decided line it will have, as far as may be, universal national support. One of the great dangers to-day is that a feeling of suspicion has crept abroad, justified or unjustified, which, if allowed to continue, may breed divisions of a fatal kind in this country and give encouragement to those who are convinced that in no circumstances will democracy face the issue of war.
There is another and more important question. If you are going to accept that challenge and say there is a point beyond which we will not agree to yield, have we the power to stand the strain? I am going to illustrate, if I may, one aspect of that question. Everybody knows that if we are going to enter the field of power politics, for whatever righteous end, the main question we have got to face, first of all, is whether a potential enemy is able to deliver a blow against this country and paralyse its capacity for resistance or for prolonged war. I am told —I do not say it is definite—that the German organisation for dealing with air raids contemplates a daily casualty list of not less than 25,000 people. They have got the organisation—hospitals, transport, and so on—or are in course of preparing it, to enable that kind of casualty list to be dealt with in the event of Germany being involved in war. Obviously London is a more serious tar-
136
get than any other that exists in Europe. Nobody can say what the casualty list would be. The problem in London is not merely a question of casualties. It is a question of whether you can keep alive the communications—road and rail—for feeding the country and dealing with casualties; the nervous electrical communications of life, telegrams, telephones, and so on under continuous bombardment.
If I am correctly informed, the essence of the problem of air warfare, if you think of it in terms of what is called the "knock-out blow," is the question of replacement of wastage in war. We may start with an equivalent, equal number of aeroplanes, of what are called first-line aeroplanes, but if in wastage in a 100 per cent. war one-third of the pilots and one-third of the machines are used up every week or every month, that nation which can replace that wastage continuously will establish a complete supremacy over the nation which is unable to make replacement at that pace in a few weeks' time. Therefore, the lay-out of air plans for the training of pilots and the building of aeroplanes, so that you can keep your stream of replacement up to the maximum level of possible wastage, goes to the very core of the problem. The other problem is the number of trips that the bombing aeroplane can make every day or every night to its objective and back again. In that respect obviously London is in a more serious position than anywhere else in the world. Are we quite certain that if we are going to accept the challenge, which I think in certain cases we certainly ought, we can deal with that kind of attack?—because if we are not quite certain, if we have not taken the measures necessary to deal with such an attack before the emergency arises, we shall waver, we shall hesitate, and the decision may go by default, and we may be once more humiliated by making declarations on which we have to default when the crisis comes.
If we are going to convince the rest of the world that there is a point at which we mean to stand, that there is a point beyond which power politics cannot go with success, we have got to adopt some form of national service. I do not think it is possible to deal with the air problem without having, at any rate, a national register. You cannot improvise after the emergency has come; you cannot take the

137
necessary measures, after the emergency, to get the whole of that enormous organisation necessary to enable a City like London to sustain the casualties and destruction involved in continuous bombardment, with the certainty that it can deal with it. Of course, any form of national service has got to be democratically determined. I venture to think that that is one of the final tests of whether democracy is going to survive. We have had a very long period—the classical period if you like—of increasing extension of individual liberty. In no country at any time in history has there been so much individual liberty as there is in this country to-day. But if democracy is going to survive, if individual liberty is going to survive, it must be paralleled by an equivalent willingness on the part of the community, rich and poor, Capital and Labour, to render national service, whatever purpose the nation itself may determine is right. In this case it would be a purpose which is not merely national self-preservation, for the building up in practical form of some limits beyond which the methods of power politics—some methods of which may have been justified in the past—cannot go except to the detriment and destruction of liberty in the world.
I would ask your Lordships why have the so-called dictatorships succeeded in getting such a response from, at any rate, the youth of their own country. Go and live in any of these countries and talk to some of the young people, and you will find it is because the dictatorships, whether rightly or wrongly, as you think, have gone to the youth of the nation and said: "We demand sacrifices from our citizens, we do not only promise them bread and circuses." I believe, to-day, there has never been a time when, if the right appeal is made, there was more willingness on the part of all classes in this country to rise to the level of sacrifice which is the real corrective for the demoralisation which, as I think, has overtaken nearly all the democracies of the world in the last ten or twenty years. I do not think that these questions can be settled by debate across the floor of the House. I see that suggestions have been made that the crisis is so acute that you should create a new National Government. I do not think that situation has yet arisen. I am not sure that National Governments are very good for
138
democracies. I think that Opposition, until overwhelming necessity arises, is a healthy element in every democratic State. But I do venture to ask the Government whether the time has not come for national consultation, whether the time has not come when those who represent the major elements in the country and those who have special experience in this problem, should not be brought into consultation, in the first place with a view of trying to see whether they cannot agree upon a national policy and so prevent that tendency which you see on all sides towards division and recrimination; and secondly of finding out whether we are in a position to honour our pledges or give effect to our policy, and so base our action on what we really can perform, and what those who are going to be associated with us can also perform, when it comes actually to the crisis.
I remember not so very long ago, when Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister, that he did inaugurate a consultation at that time on the subject of defence. He did call into consultation leaders of the Opposition Parties and others with a view, without causing much excitement, to a free exchange of information in order to see whether agreement could not be reached. I venture to suggest that, in the next week or two, you could have consultations, binding nobody as to results unless they were agreed, between the leaders of the Government, two or three of them, and the leaders of the two Oppositions and, I would suggest, leaders of one or two of the great trade unions. Then I think you ought to call into consultation two men who have had more experience of what the problem of war is in its higher direction than anybody else, Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Winston Churchill. Many members of the existing Cabinet have seen war service; but I do not think there are any of them who were closely associated with the higher direction of the late War. You have in those two men, whatever you may think of their political opinions, two men of unequalled experience in what it is practicable to do and what it is not practicable to do in war and in the organisation of national effort, with the whole experience of the late War behind them, and who are, above all, men of action. I venture to think that if the Government are going to formulate a policy which can rally national unity I

139
base it on a correct appreciation of what it is practicable for us to do, a consultation between the elements I have mentioned would lead to national unity, to a more effective effort and to an infinitely greater effect on public opinion abroad than anything else they can do.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, it is a matter of deep regret to me that I should have to venture to trespass again on your indulgence after the debate we had less than a week ago, but I know your Lordships will agree, by reason of the lurid light which has been cast over these matters by the events of last week, that it is very proper that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, should have raised this matter for discussion in your Lordships' House. Public opinion has been startled and shocked by the events of last week, and it is certainly not surprising that this should have been the case. We are witnessing, in an intense form, the rapidity of modern events. One feels that these matters, which we have been accustomed to see dealt with in an orderly manner, are going forward so rapidly, and events are taking place so quickly, that it is quite impossible for us to see any reasonable or rational occasion for them whatsoever. But I do feel that on these occasions it is very important that we should try to arrive at a true perspective of the situation.
At the present moment—I feel sure the Foreign Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—we know little of the events which have succeeded each other with such amazing rapidity in Austria, but one remembers that there was a meeting at Berchtesgaden in which Herr Schuschnigg had a conversation with Herr Hitler. One believed that his object in going to Berchtesgaden was to obtain from Herr Hitler some assurances for a better attitude of mind in Austria from the German-speaking population who were his supporters so as to enable him to carry on his administration with greater efficiency and satisfaction to all concerned. One has to assume that Herr Hitler countered this suggestion by a different one, and complained bitterly that those who supported his policy and opinions were not receiving that fair treatment in Austria which he considered they should receive. We then understood that Herr Schuschnigg went back to Austria with the intention, in a broadcast, of telling
140
the world that he had come to a satisfactory arrangement with Herr Hitler, and that the arrangements which the German Chancellor required would be put into effect. But an entirely different situation developed. We find that, instead of a mild broadcast being delivered to the world, a broadcast of a totally different description was given.
Before I come to that broadcast I should like to repeat what I have said previously, that this is a matter which we must look on as dispassionately as we possibly can. We must condemn and deplore the method by which the change has taken place in Austria, because we know that it is quite impossible that statecraft can be carried on and that diplomatic relations can be understood unless there is agreement between all the Powers of the world. We are flung back into a situation in which the uncertainty of the future will make every nation do what it can to provide, singly and single-handed, for its own security. One does feel that we are entitled—and I am sure this is the feeling of the people of this country—not only to complain bitterly but to condemn the methods which have been employed by the German Chancellor in carrying out what he has in his mind. But it is no good disguising from ourselves that what has happened in Germany has been a foregone conclusion. It has been in the minds of everyone who considered these matters, and it was only a question of time when this change in the situation would take place. We can see by the enthusiasm with which Herr Hitler is received in Austria that his advent is welcomed by the great majority of the population.
We recognise at the same time, of course, that this change has relieved that terrible tension which was in existence in Austria during all these years. But we must also realise another point which is in the German Chancellor's mind, and that is the question of the German-speaking people not only in Austria but in other parts of Europe. That is a matter on which we must very clearly come to an understanding. We can remember our own difficulties some years ago. After all, we fought the South African war for the maintenance of the rights of the British population in South Africa, and I am quite sure we should always rally to the succour and help of those of our nationals who exist in any part of the

141
world. The great majority of the population in Austria are certainly in favour of the change which has come about, but there are other portions of the world in which German-speaking populations exist which will undoubtedly present difficulties which we have got to solve, and which we must understand before we can hope to solve them. Herr Schuschnigg, as Lord Snell has said, deserves our sympathy. After all, he has endeavoured to carry on the tradition of his country as he has seen it and as he has understood it. We know that he has presided over a minority in his own country, but he has endeavoured to the best of his ability to carry out the duties belonging to the office which he filled.
On this occasion we should not forget the Anschluss. A great many people in this country and throughout the world were in favour of that policy, but unfortunately it came to nothing. Had it eventuated, I think your Lordships would agree with me when I say that the events which have occurred in the last few days would have come about long ago, and I am sure in more advantageous circumstances than at the present moment. I am the last person to desire to attach any blame to any one, but I do feel, some how, that we have been somewhat behind-hand in our contemplation of the Anschluss and what it meant and portended, and that we have not extended great sympathy to Austria in her trouble. We have not given her a vast measure of support. We have looked on while she has occupied this very difficult and dangerous position, and now that the last word has been spoken of the chapter, all that we can do is to complain bitterly of the methods which have been used.
To go back to what I said about the broadcast, Herr Schuschnigg in his broadcast, instead of making a peaceful declaration, which I think was anticipated and understood by the German Chancellor, immediately gave notice of a plebiscite, and a plebiscite of a. very dangerous and artificial character. It was a plebiscite which was not going to comprise a large proportion of the population of Austria. It did not include the young people, and one knows that all these young men and young women have been fired by the Nazi doctrine. The plebiscite could in no circumstances have given to the world a verdict which the Austrian nation should have been in a
142
position to give. I think the majority of your Lordships will agree with me when I say that had that plebiscite taken place it would have been followed by riots, by bloodshed, and by a revolution, and we might have seen in Austria the same circumstances as are happening in Spain at the present moment. One must feel that by the drastic action of the German Chancellor, although we are bound to condemn it in the form in which it was brought about, bloodshed has been prevented. A great country, for whom we still feel feelings of the deepest affection and respect, has entirely changed its status. Yet we feel that the circumstances in which it has passed from a country to a province could have been brought about in another way, which would have been of a most terrible character.
The turn that events have taken is very disappointing. It is discouraging and disheartening to all of us. At one time one could feel that there was a wide measure of sympathy for Germany in this country. We can claim to be a very just race, and we had come to realise that the Germans in their aspirations for equality were not receiving that justice to which they were entitled. The events of the past week have given a shock to the feelings of the people of this country, who are convinced that if this is the method on which the Germans, when they reach equality—if they have not done so already—are relying to carry on their future relations with other countries, then the future of the world is indeed black. We must feel that in these tremendous changes, of which this has been the first, the Peace Treaties have been responsible for so many of our difficulties, and yet nothing has been definitely clone as to considering from an international point of view all those differences which those Treaties brought about. One does feel that the time has come when some concrete and definite body of public opinion must consider all these matters, which are the substratum and foundation of the difficulties we are facing, and of the problems which we are called upon to solve.
I think we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the terms in which they have given us the information of these events. We knew quite well that we could expect from them the moderation in which they invariably make addresses to this House and another place. I think we can also

143
say that the Press has adopted a restrained attitude, which, I am sure, reflects the moderate attitude of mind of the great majority of the population of this country. That is all to the good. But it is quite impossible not to realise that when movements of this description have taken place the mind of all the people of this country is turning in other directions, and wondering what the attitude of the Government will be in relation to these other points of policy which the Germans may think fit to adopt. While I feel that bitter discouragement and disappointment which is in the mind of everyone here, I do not think that we ought to feel dismayed, and I sincerely hope that those conversations to which we were looking forward will be continued.
In my humble capacity I have always pressed for the obtaining of categorical statements from Germany as to her ambitions and as to her desires. I wanted those statements some years ago, when the Germans were not in the position in which they find themselves at the present moment. When the Germans were rising to the position they occupy now, one feels that they might have been more amenable and more in a position to discuss with us these important matters on which so much hangs at the present moment. If these replies are not forthcoming we must realise that we shall be flung back on our own resources. Instead of this policy which is in all our minds of bringing about an understanding and an amelioration of international affairs by understanding, we shall be flung back on that desperate position which, after all, we contemplate in various times of our lives. The noble Lord who raised this question told us, what is absolutely true, that there will be no shortage of arms and that there will be no lack of support for the Government in this country, but what the country will require, in his own words, is the moral basis on which we are standing. One feels that no effort should be relaxed and no steps should be left untaken to induce the Germans to realise that by Anglo-German understanding a platform can be set up as a real moral basis for the future appeasement of the world and the establishment of peace throughout the countries of the world.
There was one passage in the statement which the noble Viscount gave to us en Monday which dealt with the repudiation
144
by Baron von Neurath of our right—I think his words were—to interfere in a matter of this description which he termed a more or less domestic matter between the German and the Austrian peoples. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs properly countered that assertion, because it has no basis in fact. He drew attention to the fact that the independence of Austria was guaranteed by the League of Nations of which this country and Austria and Germany were Members. It was guaranteed by Germany. It is even more regrettable than ever that we cannot count on the League of Nations to assist us in this matter. But there is another point which I should like your Lordships to remember, and that is that we cannot say that Herr Hitler has gone back on his undertaking. I do not believe that there is one case of Herr Hitler going back on any one of his definite undertakings. This undertaking to safeguard the independence of Austria was given by a Government in which he had no part, which he bitterly opposed, and which represented a country which is entirely transformed from what it was at that time. I fully support the noble Viscount in his countering of that assertion by Baron von Neurath. I do not believe there is any question of a geographical or of an ethnological change in any part of the world in which it is not the duty of this country to take an interest.
I am not for the isolationist policy. I do not believe for one moment that it is possible for us to lock ourselves up in this country and in this Empire and to take no notice of those tremendous events which are going to face us in the next few years. We have to take an interest and to take a part. It is impossible for us to say that there is anything in any field which does not touch us in some way. I believe, as I have said on more occasions than one, that on the basis of Anglo-German friendship and understanding, brought about by those conversations which are at the present moment practically in being, we may be able to develop something on which we can base in the future a period of that peace for which we all so long and which we hope can be firmly established.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, on some occasions it is possible to observe in this House, Conservative members, Labour members and Liberal

145
members. This afternoon we are all British. It is, therefore, permissible for a member who does not belong to any political Party to crave your Lordships' indulgence for only a few minutes. If he can say anything which is helpful on this occasion, so much the better. If, on the other hand, his words are without any value, he compromises nobody except himself. First, therefore, may I address to your Lordships a few general observations, and then endeavour to make some concrete suggestions. Undoubtedly our nation is passing through a crisis. During the last two or three days every member of your Lordships' House must have read many different views and listened to many different opinions. But we are rather in the position of a man who has been near the scene of some great explosion. We are somewhat dazed. It is quite impossible to-day, or for several days, to come to any final opinion. It is even difficult to express one's thoughts this afternoon. But supposing any one of you had to address a great political meeting this evening, what would you be disposed to say? Probably that, although the situation is serious, there is no need to be rattled.
From time to time there have been great convulsions of nature which have spread ruin and destruction in the neighbourhood, but they have subsided gradually and passed away. That is so with human affairs. In places at present the crust of civilisation has worn thin and primeval forces have broken through which have upset old ideas and old conventions. There is no need to be alarmed. Such things have happened before and will happen again. They may be due to one of several causes. They may be due to greed; they may be due to a sense of injustice or oppression; they may even be due to the pursuit of an ideal. In very early days Rome had to reckon with the rise of Christianity. Later Islam swept over Europe. To-day we see Russia overwhelmed with Communism, although its tide seems no longer to be flowing. Their system is entirely different from ours. We believe in a God who became a man; they have elevated a man into a god. It makes it very difficult to deal with such people. In Italy and in Germany you can see a deification of the State that is undoubtedly opposed to our system. It is no use using provocative words, but
146
it makes it very difficult to see their point of view.
Now, how ought we to conduct ourselves in such a pass? There may have been mistakes in the past; there may have been, within the last few weeks, miscalculations. But, first and foremost, there must be no recriminations in Great Britain. For the moment bygones are bygones; it is the present and future which call us to our task. Someone will say, "These are mere words, in which we all agree. Tell us what you advise; make some concrete suggestions." My Lords, with your permission I will endeavour to put forward three. First, whatever else happens, we must be prepared to defend ourselves. This means that we must be ready to make sacrifices—sacrifices of our ease, sacrifices of our time, sacrifices, to some extent, of our personal liberty, and sacrifices which in my view are the least—sacrifices of our financial resources. No man at this juncture should be allowed to make a profit out of the difficulties of his country, either by excessive prices, excessive wages, or reckless speculation. A proud nation like ours, entrusted with the mission of Empire, cannot accept the security of slaves. That mission is not finished, and we owe a duty to ourselves, as well as to those under our protection and to those to whom we have made promises, not to refuse, if it is forced on us, the dangerous battle for the right.
There are moral issues involved here which far transcend all material considerations. But I would rather not promise than fail to perform. I do not think that we are likely to have war. We must pray for peace. But it gives me no satisfaction to think that, if Germans kill 20,000 young Englishmen to-morrow, the day after we should go and kill 40,00o young Germans. Nor is it satisfactory to think that if London bombs Berlin, Berlin should bomb London. I sometimes find myself wishing that the younger generation could make their voice heard. They, at any rate, see more clearly the ideals of justice and freedom, which are still in their minds unencumbered by the mists and clouds of politics.
But there is something far more important than preparing against war. Let us prepare for peace. The first step would be to join hands with those who share with ourselves the desire for peace. The

147
next step is a far more difficult one, especially at a time when tempers are aroused and when passions are inflamed. If you wish to endeavour to make peace with an opponent, it is always wise to try to put yourselves in his position. What is the cause of the present policy in Germany? It may be due to the pursuit of an ideal which we cannot appreciate, which we do not understand and for which it is impossible for us to have sympathy. But it may also be due to a sense of injustice and oppression extending over many years, for which apparently they have found no remedy. I should prefer to leave the details to those who know more about the facts than we do and who therefore are in a better position to enter into negotiations. Of this I would remind them, that no great nation can be expected to give way to arrogant demands, nor can any great nation for long submit to ignominious conditions.
Lastly, my Lords, I am still a believer in the ideals of the League of Nations. We have been told that the ideals which an age of reconstruction sets before itself are never realised and that they end in disillusion and disappointment. But those ideals remain. They have not perished, because they are imperishable. What has failed is the machinery by which the League of Nations sought to attain those ideals. Let us, therefore, work together in order to attain those ideals, in the hope and in the determination that, at any rate before we leave, they will have been accomplished.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, there is one feature in our discussion this afternoon which I am sure must have struck many of your Lordships. That has been the sense of deep responsibiity under which everyone who has addressed your Lordships has spoken. The position seems to me indeed a very grave one. My noble friend Lord Lothian drew a picture which I have often tried to draw in this House of the dangers which may surround us in case of war; I have made it the basis of an earnest plea to your Lordships to strengthen the machinery for the prevention of war. Undoubtedly the danger is very great at this moment. The event in Austria is not an isolated event, nor is it in my view just the effect of a sudden
148
decision brought about by exceptional circumstances suddenly realised. I do not think there is any ground for thinking that that is the true explanation of what has happened. It was a deliberately prepared proceeding. Every professional soldier who has spoken of it has said with great confidence that the kind of operation which was carried out could not be carried out without considerable previous preparation. And I have not any doubt that it is closely connected with the previous grave events which resulted in the dismissal of the chiefs, or some of the chiefs, of the German army.
But the most serious part of it is not its deliberate character, but the principle on which it was carried out. The principle was laid down very clearly indeed by Herr Hitler in the speech which preceded these events by a few weeks. The principle is the principle of the lost Germans, the conception that wherever there is a considerable body of Germans in a foreign country it is part of the German policy to incorporate them in the Reich. That is the principle on which this proceeding has undoubtedly taken place. The whole of the speeches and celebrations of which we read in the newspapers day after day are based on that conception—the reunion of those Germans who hitherto for many centuries have been outside the German Empire. The operation is excused entirely on that doctrine. It is perfectly clear that that doctrine is a very serious one for many countries besides Austria.
I listened with very great attention, as I always do, to my noble friend Lord Londonderry, who put forward some of the well known features of the Germans' defence of their proceedings. Will he allow me to say that I do think it a great pity that there should be any comparison between what has happened in Austria and the South African war? There as one essential difference which people continually forget, which is that we did not declare war, but that the South African Government did. That seems to me to make the whole difference, because I remember very well the circumstances of that outbreak, and I am perfectly clear that but for that declaration of war there was no ground for saying that it was at all certain that that war would have taken place. However, I only desire to put in

149
that caveat because I think it does harm to say that we are hypocrites in objecting to somebody else doing something which we did on a previous occasion.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I say that what I said was that we should be up in arms to defend our nationals wherever they were?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: But the question is, who were your nationals? These were Austrian nationals, not German nationals, whom they were defending. It is the doctrine that every German, to whichever nation he belongs, is a person on whose behalf the German Government has a right to interfere. That evidently applies equally to Denmark. It applies probably to Holland, because. certainly according to some German doctrines, wherever a Teutonic language is spoken the people are Germans. That was certainly the doctrine which prevailed in the beginning of last century. I suppose the same is true of Belgium, and unquestionably it is true of Czechoslovakia. There you have a minority who claim to be Germans, and are continually claiming to be Germans. No wonder that this event has caused the utmost consternation, and I am sure your Lordships cannot exaggerate the consternation which it has caused in various countries in Europe. They do not know what is corning next. They see this great force of German troops—some authorities put it as high as 200,000 men, far in excess of what should have been wanted for the Austrian operation—concentrated in Austria. What are they there for? What are they going to do next? That is the question which people on the Continent are asking, and asking with great anxiety. If there is an attack on Czechoslovakia we have no reason to doubt that the allies of Czechoslovakia, France and Russia, will carry out their obligations and go to the assistance of that country. I suppose that the Little Entente will do the same, or may do the same. You have all the elements of a great European convulsion, and that is a situation which I am quite certain the Government must regard with the utmost anxiety, and with the most earnest searchings of heart as to what would happen in that case in this country.
I have touched very briefly and inadequately on the actual circumstances which have been brought into existence
150
by this violent assault on Austria. But we have reluctantly to admit now that there are two great sections of thought. In many respects one must admit that these amount to two groups of nations. There are those on the one hand who believe in the old nationalist system of international policy, that every nation has a perfect right to do what it likes and that there ought to be no international control of anything that is done. That doctrine, subversive as it seems to me of any prospect of permanent settlement, is held by Germany and Italy. Then, on the other hand, there is the doctrine, held more or less explicitly—certainly explicitly, and more or less profoundly—by France, England, Russia and other countries, which is exactly the reverse—namely, that nations are all parts one of another, and all ought to submit to some degree of international control, extending as far as this, that they ought not to resort to war until every other possible method has been tried and failed. There is a frightfully serious position, and I do not wonder that my noble friend Lord Lothian said that in those circumstances it was of the most urgent necessity that the Government should take all the advice they could as to what would happen in certain circumstances, and how far we can carry out our obligations and can secure the peace of the world, which is, as always, the chief object of our foreign policy.
It is a matter of great regret to me that, owing, as I am bound to say—though I wish as far as possible to avoid recrimination to-day—owing, I am afraid it is inevitable to say, in part at any rate, to the past policy of the British Government, we have lost the enthusiastic support for our ideas of international policy of a considerable section of the smaller Powers in Europe. I do not say that they have definitely joined the other view. I expect they still dislike the other view, but they are no longer such enthusiastic supporters as they once were. That is a very serious situation, and I only want to say a few words as to what can be done in this situation, because that is really what the country wants to know. Any light which my noble friends opposite can throw on their future policy—that is what everybody is waiting for at this moment, not only in this country but all over the world. I put aside, because it has not been advocated in this debate,

151
the policy which is described as isolation. As we all know, there are two versions of it—the armed isolation of people like Lord Beaverbrook and the unarmed isolation of people like Lord Ponsonby. I put all that aside, because nobody has advocated it, and I cannot help feeling that even the advocates of that policy must have seen by recent events how quite impossible it is for this country to divest itself of interest and responsibility for events in Europe.
Then we come to the policy which has received—at least so I think; I hope I am wrong—rather weighty support recently. That policy is substantially to say: "We cannot rely on the League of Nations at all. It is no use. We must abandon it for all practical peace-keeping purposes. We may ask it"—though I cannot find, from questions I have addressed to the Government, any conceivable instance in which that course would be recommended by them—"to exert its moral force for peace; but apart from that we do not think the League of Nations is capable of being of any assistance." I hope I have misinterpreted the speech of the Prime Minister on February 21, but I have read it over and over again, and I cannot see how it can be otherwise construed than that. As part of that policy is the policy which is variously described as "concessions," "he removal of injustices," "appeasement," and so on. I do beg the Government to believe I am not trying to make a Party point when I submit to them that that policy has been tried over and over again during the past five or six years and has never succeeded. Every advance we have made, every gesture we have indulged in of a friendly character, has been the signal for fresh aggression, for a fresh act which makes it impossible for us to go on.
That does not mean I am in favour of insisting on injustices if injustices exist. On the contrary. I am sure remedy would be the only right or wise policy, but I do say, do not expect gratitude for any remedy of these injustices, and do not remedy them on the ground that you will diminish hostility. I am sure that is an illusion, and I am sure it is not a very respectable illusion. Remedy them if they are unjust, whatever the consequences. But to remedy them because you hope to get rid of some disagreeable
152
state of mind in some foreign country is a most reckless and almost always a most unsuccessful policy. We have tried it over and over again and it has failed. Do let us now go straight forward with what we think is the right thing to do, doing it as strongly as we can and as courteously as we can, with all the adoucissements, as the French say, you can put into your policy, but do not argue a policy which you conceive to be a method of softening hostility in other countries. I do not think it will succeed, and it leads almost always to a position in which you appear to be granting to force what you have refused to reason. That is what I am afraid has happened, at any rate in the view of other countries, over and over again in the last five or six years.
If these policies are put aside, and if in the end your only hope of achieving peace, having done everything you can to put international relations on a just footing, is to say: "Peace is the greatest of British interests, and if you insist on breaking the peace then you must find as your opponents the whole force of the British Empire," that seems to me the only sound view. That can be done in two ways no doubt. You can have a defensive alliance—that is the old way—against some country or group of countries. If you make that alliance such as anyone can enter, no doubt there is a great deal to be said for it, on paper, on the ground that it is really carrying out what you want—the enforcement of peace—and doing it in a way with which people are familiar. But I confess I do not think it is a good plan. An alliance policy of that kind is necessarily directed against some particular Power or group of Powers. It must be then of a provocative nature. It must therefore lead, as it has led in past times, to the creation of counter groups who will also say they are only there in order to maintain peace, but in fact are knit together by hostility to the first group of which I have spoken.
Therefore I still come back with undiminished belief to the theory on which the League of Nations is based. There you have just the opposite—not an alliance at all in the sense of an alliance against any particular nation; but a general agreement amongst as many nations as you can get to enter into it—the more the better—always open to every nation to come in if willing to do so, the

153
only positive obligation being that they will do their utmost to prevent or repress aggression if it takes place. No other obligation at all. Facilitate the settlement of grievances by all means, have every possible machinery for settlements, but the only positive obligation is that one—the obligation to preserve peace. My noble friend Lord Lothian, repeating what I have heard him say on other occasions, declared that in his judgment no such policy is practicable unless you first got rid of the doctrine of national sovereignty. I beg my noble friend to reconsider that position even now. I agree with him most fully that the doctrine of national sovereignty, carried to the extent it is carried in Germany and in other countries, does make it impossible to have any kind of international co-operation for these purposes. Obviously you must limit the complete rights of each nation if you are to have any kind of international control, but I cannot believe that the right way to get to that position is to say you cannot do anything at all until you have swept away the doctrine of national sovereignty, because that is asking us to take the most difficult course first, as the first step to a course which is far simpler and easier to take. Let us have in our minds by all means, as I think we ought to have, the ultimate possibility of a United States of Europe, but I am sure if you are not going to prevent war by international co-operation until you get a United States of Europe, you are putting in your policy an altogether unpractical condition.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I hope the noble Viscount will allow me to interrupt. I do not take his representation of what I said as being correct. I do not recognise my speech in what the noble Viscount has said.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It is not the first time I have been unable to follow fully my noble friend's arguments. The fault, no doubt, is due to me and not to him. I should be delighted to hear on the next occasion when he addresses the House if he will be good enough to explain exactly what he does mean when he says national sovereignty is inconsistent with the idea of anything like forcible prevention of war. It is, of course, true that you cannot forcibly prevent war without the infringement of national sovereignty.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: If the noble Viscount will forgive me, what I said was that until national sovereignty was ended it was impossible to avoid at times having to be willing and ready to go to war. National sovereignty implied that it was impossible to avoid in the last resort being ready to fight for national security or for principle.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am extremely sorry I was so stupid as not to understand my noble friend. There can be no objection to the statement that until you abolish national sovereignty you cannot infringe it without some difficulty. That is obvious. I want to conclude, if I may—I am anxious not to make debating points this afternoon—by making a suggestion, because people are apt to say: "Oh yes, the League, but what do you mean?" I want, if I may, to be allowed just to sketch very briefly the kind of procedure which seems to me possible and at any rate worth considering by His Majesty's Government. Suppose you took this view. Here is a great international event, the absorption of Austria by Germany. It is evident that it raises, as I have tried to indicate, very serious questions as to what may happen elsewhere. Here then is a new doctrine or a new practice more or less justified—forcible action in order to absorb people of another nationality. And we have to concede that, from a different point of view, you have had the same kind of doctrine with regard to the State—namely, that it is legitimate for nations who disapprove of the drift, or alleged drift, of another country towards Bolshevism, to intervene to prevent that drift taking place, just as, after the Napoleonic wars, it was thought legitimate for nations to intervene to prevent a drift towards Jacobinism. All these things are a very serious form of doctrine, and it seems to me they lead directly to very serious danger of a European war.
Why should not the Government ask for a meeting of the Council or Assembly of the League (I do not care which) and instruct their Foreign Secretary, or whoever attends it on their behalf, to go down rind describe to the world—and that, after all, is one of the great opportunities that the constitution of the League of Nations gives you, that you have a platform from which you are really formally addressing the whole civilised world—the dangers

155
which I have very imperfectly and ineffectively tried to describe, point out what this must lead to in the way of destruction if it is not stopped, urge that the nations should take the matter seriously into consideration, and, finally, suggest that they should perform the obligations that are contained in their Covenant in regard to this particular danger that threatens nations? They should say: "Here is our policy defined in this document to which you are all agreed; here is a great emergency in the world's history in which the application of this doctrine may"—must I should say, but may at any rate—"produce safety." Reaffirm your attachment to that doctrine; undertake your responsibility for carrying it through. Say: "We the British Government are prepared to say that to the limit of our power we will support that doctrine provided we have such assistance from other countries as will make that support effective." I cannot help thinking that if the Government went and said that kind of thing, I dare say not in those words, to the assembled nations and the representatives of the assembled nations, it would receive an amount of support which, I am quite sure, would astonish them.
It might be, I dare say, that some countries would say, "We are very sorry, we can do nothing"; but, broadly speaking, I believe they would have the support of all countries except those which have retired from the League. I believe that they would have an echo of immense sympathy from the United States. I do not say the United States would enter into obligations—I 6o not know; I have no means of knowing about that—but I do say that that kind of sentiment, that kind of decision, that kind of policy has a great chord of response open to you in the United States. I am sure that we have got to a point when some—if I may be allowed to use the adjective—very courageous declaration of policy is absolutely essential. Just before I came down to the House I received a telephone message from a friend of mine who happens to be in Paris. He said that he had seen many persons in Paris and that what they were saying was: "Unless the English can come out"—they always talk of us as the English—"and say definitely what they are going to do, for
156
instance, about Czechoslovakia, we shall have to go on, and it may well be a war will take place, but if they come out quite definitely and clearly the war will not take place, because nobody will face the immense danger of an attack from such a formidable body of people." Whether that be so or not. I am quite sure that the one thing that is essential now is that the world should know what is the British policy quite clearly and definitely.
I still deplore the speech of the Prime Minister in which he appeared, at any rate to me, to abandon the League of Nations, or the effective part of it, but even that is better than leaving the world in complete doubt as to what is going to take place. That is just the thing which has led to war in the past. Each nation, and particularly an aggressive nation, translates the doubt as it suits it in accordance with its wishes and proceeds with its policy until it gets to a point when it can no longer withdraw. Then you find yourselves at war. I do beg the Government—I hope I have not said anything unduly offensive to them—to consider carefully whether some such declaration cannot be made, if possible to-clay, or at any rate at the earliest possible moment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, it was my misfortune to be out of this country when your Lordships last had a debate on foreign affairs. I happened to be in the United States, and one of the observations of the noble Viscount who has just spoken I would like to take up. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, referred to the attitude of the United States of America and its possible misunderstanding of the attitude of this country. I was out there when the late Foreign Secretary resigned, and I was able to judge, as I was travelling about considerably from the West right through to the East, what the public felt in so far as and when it was able to understand the issues before it. I think I should be absolutely correct in saying that public opinion in the United States of America would understand and would approve of a policy of limited commitments possibly involving war as distinct from a policy of unlimited commitments possibly leading to war. I think also there was an increasing understanding of what it was that the Prime Minister was trying to do, that the Prime Minister

157
was in fact trying to remedy some of the mistakes and some of the grievances arising out of the Peace Treaties, with which it had been hoped at one time the machinery of the League might be able to deal but which, unfortunately, the machinery of the League had not been able to rectify. To that extent, so far as public opinion understood that, it was prepared to give a sympathetic support to what the Prime Minister was attempting to do.
The grave and temperate nature of the character of the speeches we have listened to in the debate to-day indicate the seriousness of the world situation. I have read the official record of the debate which took place two or three weeks ago. As I understood it there was then general approval of the principle of conferences with Germany and other countries, so as to try to get out of the way certain points which otherwise, unless dealt with, might precipitate a disturbance and war. There was a difference of opinion as to time and method. I hope that the recent events will not cause His Majesty's Government to break off entirely, though it may be necessary to postpone, the method of conference, in order to see whether in spite of what has happened, and in spite of the bad atmosphere which may have been created, we may yet by the method of conference avoid the tragedy of war, which does not merely affect the young male population but, as we know, the whole female and child population, and in fact the whole civilisation of this country.
Nothing that has been said indicates that any speaker condones the way in which recent events have taken place. It would have been easy to indulge in recrimination, but I think we are justified in saving that by our inaction on certain Occasions, and by our failure to settle certain questions in the past, we must bear a certain measure of responsibility for the way in which things have happened in the last two weeks. Your Lordships will remember how, by the Peace Treaties, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a great free trade unit of over 50,000,000 people, was broken tip and its population divided into five countries. As a result you had economic distress in Austria, as well as in Hungary and other countries. The Weimar Constitution of democratic Germany contemplated a possible union of the Germanic people in
158
Austria, Saxony, Bavaria and the Rhine. In 1931, your Lordships will remember, a proposal was brought forward by the then democratic Governments in Austria and Germany for a Customs union, the Anschluss. We then had a Labour Government, and Mr. Arthur Henderson was the Foreign Secretary. When we look back we see that the Anschluss proposals for a Customs union between Austria and Germany were the last hope of independence for Austria, and of democratic government in Austria and Germany. It was the attitude we took up in smothering that proposal or helping to have it smothered—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Viscount ought not to say that. Not that I am prepared to defend anything that any Government has done. As a matter of fact the proposal was submitted to the Hague Tribunal, and the Court said that it could not be done without a breach of the Peace Treaties. The presiding judge, who voted for that decision, was the Italian judge. The British Judge voted another way.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Perhaps I made a mistake in giving the conclusions first. Let me remind the noble Viscount of the sequence of events. On March 21 Austria informed the British Government of the proposal. At once there was opposition. directed in the main by the country which, ever since the Treaty of Versailles, has attempted to keep Germany in a position of subordination, and which has entered into alliances intended to keep Germany in that position. On March 30 there was a debate in the House of Commons, and Mr. Arthur Henderson, the Foreign Minister, dealt with the situation. I have recently read the whole of his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It was a very skilful effort at tight-rope walking. Mr. Henderson said that His Majesty's Government proposed to refer the matter to the Council of the League. That was done on May 18, and the Council of the League referred the matter to the Hague Tribunal. The Hague Tribunal reported on September 5, and by a majority of eight against seven decided that the proposal was illegal. It was not an attempt to have a political union, but to have a Customs union, and it was rejected by a majority of one. The British representative and the American representative were in the minority. In

159
their opinion this was not an illegal proposal.
I venture to suggest that if earlier in the day the representative of His Majesty's Government had taken a stronger line, against the line taken by certain other countries, it is possible that the decision of the Hague Tribunal would have been different. Indeed it is rather interesting to see the way in which different countries voted. I venture to say that at all events there might have been a possibility of that very narrow majority of one being changed. Had it been done, we should have had a very different sequence of events. I am as strong a supporter of the principles of the League as the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, although perhaps he would not accept that. We differ only about the way in which the principle of international co-operation can be worked out. I only regret that on that occasion the League, by its handling of this very moderate proposal, showed its inability to deal successfully with questions which, unless dealt with peacefully, lead up to such tragedies as we have witnessed in the last few days.
I have myself visited Austria and there I saw some of the representatives of different Parties. I came away from that visit with the conclusion that the crust over the volcano was extraordinarily thin. Your Lordships will remember that when the Social Democratic Government was overthrown on two occasions the Social Democrats were put down with bloodshed. The Schuschnigg Government had alienated the Social Democrats and the Nazis. It was felt to be a weak Government, which was not on a sound basis, and there was a tendency to drift into the ranks of the Nazis or to go over to the Communists. That Government depended largely upon the good will of Italy. As soon as Italy got involved in Abyssinia any hope of help being given by Italy to Austria vanished, and it was evident that the attempt to maintain the status quo in Austria was bound to end. I can only regret that we did not at some earlier date, seeing that some change was inevitable, try to get some measure of agreement that any change of loyalty from one flag to another, any change of frontier, should take place only as a result of what I may call for short a Saar plebiscite, and not be left to chance. I confess that as soon as I saw the pro-
160
posal of the late Austrian Chancellor for that hurried plebiscite my heart sank. It seemed to be a most unwise act, calculated to precipitate some sort of tragedy. Looking back, it seems that that is only one of lost opportunities.
Reference has been made in this debate to the question whether or not this country should join other countries in giving a guarantee—a guarantee to be backed by military force if necessary—to Czechoslovakia. On that point I think there are two alternatives before us. I hope I shall carry your Lordships with me in saying that it is impossible for any Government in this country, of whatever political colour, to embark upon war unless there is a substantial volume of public opinion behind it prepared to support war. I doubt whether there is a sufficient majority in this country to support the status quo in Czechoslovakia. As your Lordships know, there are racial differences in Czechoslovakia. There are 3,000,000 Germans in that country who think—and their opinion is supported by such impartial opinion as Mr. Arnold Toynbee and others; one could quote a good deal of impartial evidence—that the 7,000,000 Czechs who have a majority are not giving fair and equal treatment to the 3,000,000 Germans.
We are told that if we were to suggest to the powers that be in Czechoslovakia that they should give some measure of autonomy or provincial self-government to those provinces or those sections of their recently created country, that somehow or another we should be dealing a blow at democracy. Democracy in Canada does not suffer because the French of Quebec have provincial autonomy. If by any chance it were possible to get the Czech majority Government in Czechoslovakia to grant to this German minority some measure of devolution and self-government, you would then have a situation in Czechoslovakia for which I believe nearly 100 per cent. of the people in this country would be prepared to give a guarantee. I think it would be certainly worth trying that. I imagine it would be consistent on the whole with the speeches of the Fuhrer, Herr Hitler, and that he would be prepared to accept and give a guarantee to preserve some solution along those lines. I should think that a guarantee somewhat along those lines given by this country and the other Members

161
of the League of Nations would be one way of exploring that avenue to see whether we might not thus remove another possible casus belli.
At the present moment I do not believe any country, whether totalitarian or democratic, can possibly face with equanimity a world war. Certainly Germany cannot. In the days when Germany waged war in 1870 and 1914 she was able to contemplate a possibility of waging war on enemy territory. Now the long-range bomber means that the civilian population of Germany will suffer as much as the civilian population in any other country. It may well be that another war would be followed by internal revolution and the growth of Communism in the countries which waged war. Therefore I do not think any country, whether totalitarian or democratic, can possibly contemplate except with horror and a feeling of real uncertainty and repugnance the possibility of another world war. According to Herr Hitler the absorption of Austria has carried out one of the aims closest to his art. The growing daily evidence that all political Parties, all industrial sections in this country, mean to strengthen the weight and power and authority of this country I think is a factor which will be taken into consideration by other countries. I cannot help thinking that the way is still open for negotiation which may with good fortune lead to some all-round settlement, and by that I mean a settlement which will even include the possibility of a limitation, stabilisation and even reduction of armaments, because unless we get that I do not see how we can possibly remove the feeling of uncertainty which now exists in every country. At all events, it is worth exploring.
Your Lordships will remember how in 1914 the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand at the end of June was followed by the first declaration of war at the end of July, I think on July 28. This country entered into war on August 3. There was then only a period of days for conference and negotiation. Your Lordships will remember the strenuous efforts made by Sir Edward Grey by conference to try to postpone the movement towards war. Thank God we now have more than a matter of days. I hope the period which lies ahead will be seized upon by His Majesty's Government with the support of all Parties in
162
the country. There are only two alternatives that I see. One is conference and the other is the refusal to confer and a blind fatalistic drift to war. No one can be too optimistic about the result of conference, but let us leave no stone unturned. At all events, if we try conference and we fail our conscience will be clear. I hope His Majesty's Government will be able to announce either to-day or in the near future that they do not intend to allow recent events, dangerous though they have been, to stop the policy which they have undertaken, with, I believe, the general support of all ranks in this country.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, the events of last week in Austria, though I hope they will not terminate the conversations between our Government and the German Government so happily connected with the name of the noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary, have aroused great anxiety with regard to many questions. The chief of those questions, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has just pointed out, is the Czechoslovakian question, and therefore it is very appropriate that we should discuss it in this debate. The vital fact which gave rise to the events of last week applies to the case of Czechoslovakia—the hunger which is so strong in the German nation to-day for achieving its unity. It applies in a marked degree to the bloc of German population in Czechoslovakia. I have some personal knowledge of the facts and of the people on both sides on the spot, and so perhaps I may be excused for saying a word about it. The existence of the so-called Henlein Party—the Party sympathetic with Nazi views—proves the desire of an undoubted majority of the Germans in the Sudetenland for close affinity with the Reich. But the trouble is that, as in the case of Austria, there is no means of ascertaining accurately the wishes of those people, and therefore a danger must remain of violent action—which, after all, accords with pre-War standards, and we cannot suppose that post-War standards of international decency have penetrated as widely in Germany as they have here.
There is a real grievance, as we have just heard, suffered by the Germans in Czechoslovakia. It is true that minorities in other countries suffer more, but that

163
is no answer to the fact that a real grievance exists which may provoke the most serious trouble. I have ventured before in your Lordships' House to urge that the influence of our own country be used in all its force with the Czech Government at Prague in favour of the fullest practice of the Minority Treaty and the grant of complete rights of citizenship to the Germans in Czechoslovakia. Now, as a result of the events of last week, we have a demand arising in several quarters for the grant of a pledge that, if violence is used against Czechoslovakia, we shall fight, if called upon to do so by France. Mr. Eden said, not so many weeks ago, a very valuable thing on that score when he remarked that we could not assume an automatic obligation except for a vital interest. But it is urged by many that a vital interest enjoins upon us the obligation to fight unconditionally in the event of German aggression against Czechoslovakia. I want to urge that a blank cheque to France would be especially dangerous, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case.
Our business is certainly to promote legality by every possible means, and I agreed with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, when he stated in a recent letter that, now that the major difficulties in regard to Germany are finally removed by the end of the Austrian question, smaller questions, we may hope, can lend themselves to negotiation with greater hope of success than before. I want to suggest going rather further than the noble Viscount suggested just now in regard to the problem of producing a satisfactory situation in Czechoslovakia without disorder. I want to suggest a contribution to the cause of legality, the problem being to learn the wishes of the population. If no way is open, as no way was open to ascertain those wishes in the case of Austria, then it cannot be denied that a certain excuse for drastic action exists, at all events in the German mind.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said just now that we should pledge ourselves to join in punishing aggression, and that this would prevent war. I do not think it is quite enough to prevent war. You might have disorders in the Sudetenland which would furnish an irresistable temptation to Germany to come to the rescue of people who in German eyes are being oppressed. If we joined in such hostili-
164
ties we might be fighting to prevent self-determination, because the wishes of the people are not actually known. There would be none of the moral basis which, as Mr. Churchill said last Monday in another place, ought to be the basis of any policy that we have. And even if we succeeded in avenging such an invasion, we might only be restoring grievances which are real grievances, and we should at all events have ignored the principle of Article 19 of the Covenant, which provides for revision in necessary cases.
There is a general and vague impression that Czechoslovakia is a model of democracy. But it is a very composite State, and we ought to view fairly the position which is rightly seen from the point of view of the German minority. They are over one-fifth of the total population of the country. The Henlein Party, as it is called, is the largest Party in the Czechoslovak Parliament. An honourable member in another place said on Monday that if war occurred and the Czechoslovak Army were fighting the Germans, a quarter of the Army would run away, because it is German. It is quite true that certainly a quarter of the people, if you take other dissident elements in Czechoslovakia, would have no heart in the war.
Let me state briefly the point of view of the German population, as you see it in that beautiful foothill country in the semi-circle of the Northern Carpathians. The very name of Czechoslovak was never heard before 1916. The idea of the State grew gradually with the increasing hopes of the Czechs during the War, as a result of the leadership of President Masaryk. Masaryk was wiser than the Allies at Paris. Masaryk did not claim that the German districts could be included in the Czechoslovak State. How happy it would be if his advice had been followed! We have as his successor M. Beneš, who was the mouthpiece of the Czechoslovak nation, or composite nation, at Paris, and he there urged that, to use his own words, there should be a State following the principles applied to the Constitution of the Swiss Republic. The Allied delegates were in great doubt whether the German districts ought to be included, and they were greatly impressed, and finally turned, by the principles enunciated by President Beneš.

165
But, of course, no such principles have been enforced in the Czechoslovak State.
Even the minority rights which were to be given by the Minority Treaty are not in full force. For instance, the proportion of officials in public service, M. Beneš admitted a fortnight ago, is far below the percentage that it ought to follow according to population. There is a policy of colonisation, of Czechisation of one district after another—by which the Czech population is increased bit by bit. A strained situation naturally follows. I know of cases where employers have had secret orders from the police to report the names of any employee who was a member of the Henlein Party. That is an illustration of the relations of the two nationalities. At the last elections which were held the Henlein Party polled 70 per cent. of the German vote. In the town of Liberec, where I was last autumn, out of 25,000 German voters 17,000 voted for the National Party (the Henlein Party) and only 1,100 for the other German Parties.
If a policy can be devised for preventing aggression the problem is to make aggression clear, and that can only be done by facilitating a real plebiscite. I want very earnestly to ask the noble Viscount to think over the possibility of our own Government discharging a function of immense importance in this matter—the function of providing that there should be a real plebiscite on the lines of the plebiscite in the Saar and the other plebiscite which, under international supervision, were conducted at an earlier stage. That was not available in the case of Austria because of the great size of the country. If it had been, it might have averted the violences of last week. President Benes gave an interview last Sunday week to a London newspaper, in which he said that his country would not discuss the matter with Germany but Czechoslovakia would be ready, if England and France had a plan of general and peaceful settlement, to make its contribution. It sounded almost like an invitation to the great and powerful to come in and help towards a solution.
Perhaps the Saar plan is the only solution which will in fact avoid violence. If a plebiscite were conducted there might be, for instance, an option for the voter to vote either for autonomy in the Czechoslovak State or for the status quo, and I
166
think it ought to include an option for joining the Reich. No doubt many difficulties will occur to your Lordships. Who should conduct such a plebiscite? Who would be trusted? Undoubtedly of the great States this country is the only one that would be thoroughly trusted by both sides. But it is possible perhaps that the controlling force, on the lines of the Saar plebiscite, might include the forces of small States, several of which would be regarded as trustworthy both by Germany and Czechoslovakia. I do not know whether conceivably some token force of Americans might be brought in. If such a plan were feasible under our leadership it would certainly contribute to our prestige. But, more than that, it would contribute immensely to pacification.
Certain forces in Germany might not welcome it very much, but they would have to admit that it was difficult to resist it. The Czechs would consent if they thought it the way to safety. They would no doubt object on two or three grounds. They would say, Why give a plebiscite any more than to the minorities in Hungary? But it is a feasible thing in Bohemia because they are solid groups, they are contiguous to the German frontier, and it was a policy discussed at Paris whether they should not be annexed to the German State. The most common objection raised by the Czechs is that it would make their frontier very difficult to defend. But most frontiers exist on low ground, and the fact that there is a range of mountains forming a convenient frontier can hardly justify the dismemberment of the German nation. Italy did that when she went to the Brenner. Perhaps she may regret it very deeply in the course of time. The supervising body, as in the case of the Saar, would act on the votes given and decide upon the frontier, as in the case of Silesia. Citizenship of course would have to be made the subject of the right to opt.
I do not know what difficulty may be an objection. I hope there is not any final difficulty, and it seems to me that if any such effort is possible it is worth the utmost activity, because possibly the results might be of superb service to the world. The German excuse for violations would be removed. It would provide the possibility of legal action, such as might have avoided the recent trouble in

167
Austria. If it was refused by Germany and aggression followed, that aggression would be clear. It would indicate quite a different pledge from that of unconditional defence of the Czechoslovak State. I would venture to suggest that His Majesty's Government should point out to those States which may be desirous of giving pledges, that they deprecate any pledge which is without a condition such as a real plebiscite, justifying a pledge by defining aggression. I would ask the noble Viscount to consider whether the suggestion of President Benes cannot be followed up so that a possible crisis may be provided against before it is too late.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the debate has covered a wide ground, but I think on the actual subject of the Motion that, although there has been more than qualified approval in some quarters, or rather lack of disapproval, of the action taken by Germany in the annexation of Austria, yet there is a general disapproval of the method by which that annexation was brought about. How far the explanation of the German Government describing the causes and methods of their entry into Austria can be regarded as a sign of grace, I am not prepared to say, except that it does not appear to correspond with the facts as they have been ascertained and have already been stated in another place from other and reliable sources. At the same time I am quite prepared to admit that, in some form or other and at some time or other, a closer connection—Anschluss as it is called—between Austria and Germany was bound to occur. It might have been wiser if it had been allowed in the commercial aspect several years ago, though I do not suppose that would have prevented the action which has lately taken place.
To go back to what is now comparatively ancient history for a moment, I thought in the year 1919, and have often thought since, that when the Paris Conference was engaged in putting together the jig-saw puzzle of the new Europe, it might have been a wise solution—a solution which was indeed favoured in some quarters at the time—to insist on the creation of two distinct Germanys: South Germany, with its capital at Vienna, including Bavaria and what used in the
168
old days to be the Rhine Palatinate, with its boundary on some undefined line northwards. That would have been a mainly Catholic community on the one hand and a mainly Protestant community of very different racial origin on the other. It might at the time have been more favoured than it was had it been foreseen that, in the course of years, Northern Germany was to become a purely pagan country prepared to carry out in a modified form the methods of Nero and Diocletian. However, that remains a dream, and all we can do now, without going into recent history, is to consider the immediate future.
The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, who has just sat down, spoke with much knowledge of what he considered to be a definite German grievance in the fact that a considerable number of people of the German race are outside the boundaries of the Reich and some of them, at any rate, are not receiving the treatment which ought to be accorded to minorities. That is, if I may say so, a plausible argument in favour of German action, but we have to consider the terms in which that German action is described by the German Leader. We are told there are 80,000,000 Germans who are under the special care of the Leader of the German race. To digress for a moment, it will be the particular care of all old friends of Austria to consider how far that country can be saved from the sinister system of persecution and confiscation which has existed and still exists in most parts of the German Reich. To go back to the 80,000,000 Germans, where are they? The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, if he will forgive me for saying so, seemed to me to speak rather light-heartedly about Czechoslovakia and the Germans there. But these do not by any means make up the 80,000,000. How many are there in Poland? How many in Switzerland? And, as the noble Lord, with his knowledge of foreign politics, well knows, there has been considerable disquiet felt in Switzerland at the language used about the German Swiss. How many Germans are there in Northern Italy? Are these all to be so far the special care of the German Government that, in course of time, especially if they happen to be near the existing German frontier, they are to be absorbed into the German Reich?

169
Everybody would understand and approve the care taken by the German Government of German minorities in other countries, but that does not appear to be by any means the sole preoccupation of the German Government. If I may make a comparison which I have no doubt the Leader of the German people would resent, he seems to take about his fellows of German race the same view, as an extreme Zionist takes about the Jews, and that, it appears to me, might represent a real danger, for it is quite evident that Herr Hitler is Leader of the German race, holding them, as I see, in what one can only call a fanatical spirit, as a single people. That surely constitutes an element of danger in Europe. I do not add anything further about Czechoslovakia. I pass for a moment to what fell from the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and, I think it was more or less endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, but he will correct me if I am wrong—namely, that it would be advisable to have some immediate recourse either to the Council or the Assembly of the League of Nations.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: I did not recommend that.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. It was Lord Snell who made the suggestion. I fully see the attractiveness from one point of view of that suggestion, bat I am quite unable to support it for this reason, that it has so often happened—and this or that Government or this or that statesman may be blamed for it—that there has been talk on behalf of the League of Nations which has not been followed by any positive results, and that I am sure would be the ony consequence of calling in at this moment the League of Nations to express an opinion about what has happened at Vienna. It is quite true that if it were possible to initiate a conference which would cover a far wider ground, and which might tend towards a solution of events still obscure, that might be of advantage; but I fear that the view will have to be taken—and I shall be surprised if His Majesty's Government do not take it—that just at this moment it would not be possible to engage either in an attempt to rally the League of Nations or in a conference of a wider scope.
I think we must all feel that the position of the Foreign Secretary at this moment
170
is one nobody can envy and one in which, so far as possible, he ought to receive the support of all Parties. There is an old story of Prince Metternich, who was engaged in a conversation with some other diplomatic figures, and one of them quoted the old saying that the straight road is the shortest, via recta brevissima, and added that, in diplomacy, it was very often the best way to take. And the Prince said: "Yes, and it has the advantage that you never meet anyone on it." I am very much afraid that when the noble Viscount proceeds in his conversations along the direct road, not I hope without the support of some good companions, that there are various important people in Europe whom he will not meet.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not want to stand long between your Lordships and the Foreign Secretary, but there are certain things that have to be said in this debate because of its great importance, because of the importance of the occasion that brings us together this afternoon, and because, like my other noble friends on this side of the House, I am trying to voice the views of the Labour movement in the country and, I suppose, of some nine or ten million voters. I shall endeavour to do it as faithfully as I can. I have listened to practically every word of this most interesting debate, and the impression borne upon me more and more during the afternoon is what a curse the modern doctrine of racialism is. May I very respectfully support what has just fallen from the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, on that modern trouble in Europe. This exaggerated racialism and nationalism make me, for one, almost sigh for the days of the feudal system. I am sure that is a sentiment which will find one or two echoes in obscure corners of your Lordships' House. May I also thank the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party, if he will allow me to do so, for his plea for the minorities in Austria. The same plea was made by my noble friend Lord Snell. I would like in a sentence to repeat it.
We do feel deeply for the trade unionists and Socialists in Austria, whose only crime is that they were patriotic and loved their country, and we hope that His Majesty's Government will use—why should we be afraid to use?—such in-

171
fluence as they can to prevent excesses against minorities in Austria. We have heard most able speeches from noble Lords in to-day's debate putting the German point of view, and the grievances about the Germans in regard to German minorities in Czechoslovakia. Let the Germans give an example now that they are in control in Austria as a result of the events of these terrific days. Indeed under the Treaties of Peace, which still exist—they can be torn up but they remain—the minorities are under some protection in Austria. That is, at any rate, one piece of humanity that I am sure the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary, would wish in his heart to carry out. I am asked by my noble friends in the Party for which I have the honour to speak to press that point. May I also very respectfully congratulate the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, on his speech. Now that he is back again I hope that he is going to be a constructive critic of the Government. We need such criticism; every Government needs it; and I think this Government needs it. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said that the Foreign Secretary was worthy of every support. I think my noble friends will agree with me when I say that our attitude to the Foreign Secretary is that we do not wish to give colour to the complaint that he is immured in this House in order to be immune from any criticism. We think that where criticism is required we are doing a service in presenting it. For that reason, I am sure, we welcome the help we may hope to receive in the future from Lord Sankey.
The only other point on which I need say anything before I come to the one plea that I shall make with very great earnestness to-night, is this. We think that the time has come—I am speaking of the official Labour policy—when we must make it clear that there must be no more of these acts of aggression. I do not see the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, in his place. I have so often heard him say that the democracies have to reach a point when they say: "Here we fight." We say the time has come now, and we are not afraid of people saying: "You are advocating war. You are war-mongers." We are not. We are advocating peace. Our view is this, that the League of Nations is not the
172
means of simply preserving the status quo in Europe. On the contrary, we look upon the League as the means of removing grievances by peaceful means, and our policy is more determined on this point than ever before as a result of recent events. To do that it must be strengthened, as a means of preserving peace by binding together peaceful nations.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I inquire whether the Party of the noble Lord is willing to accept any form of national organisation which may prove to be necessary in order to make our armaments effective and to impress other nations with the conviction that this country was willing, if they decided to resist aggression, to fight and fight successfully?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, we will not be more backward in making sacrifices, if there are to be sacrifices, than any other class in the community, but there must also be conscription of wealth, and of land as well. Of course, I agree with w hat the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, has said about minority grievances, but we feel that an attack now upon Czechoslovakia would have the serious danger of causing French mobilisation. In fact the new French Government have reiterated that pledge, and it is also known that that will bring about a Russian mobilisation under the Franco-Russian Pact. That means a world war, or at least a great European war, and I think it is admitted that in those circumstances isolation would be impossible. We could not hope to keep out of it—we are too close—and surely the way to prevent that war is to make it clear that we do come into it, and, in other words, that there must be no further acts of aggression. I submit that the Government's policy now should be to reverse the Chamberlain policy, as I will call it for short—the Prime Minister is too big a man to be afraid of changing his policy—and that we should do all we can to strengthen resistance. I see no other policy that is possible. Nobody has advocated isolation, and the only other alternative is to try to buy off the aggressors. This country was nearly ruined by trying to buy off the Danes a thousand years ago, and we should have no better fortune to-day.
There is one other matter. I want to give the Foreign Minister an opportunity,

173
if he cares to take it, of dealing with an extraordinary report which appeared in one of the German newspapers, the National Zeitung of Essen, on March 14, which made reference to the noble Viscount's visit last year to Germany. I understand that this is Marshal Goering's organ. Lord Astor, whose speech I very much enjoyed, is a great newspaper proprietor, and perhaps he will confirm if that is the case. There, after the usual apologia for the German invasion of Austria, for which we have heard some excuse in this House to-day, it states:
"What Lord Halifax was told when he came to Berlin has now been laid down by law."
I am sure the Foreign Minister had good reasons for discretion when he returned from his famous visit to Berlin, but I respectfully suggest to him that if the Germans are going to misrepresent the conversations he might find it expedient to give his version. It is of course a matter for himself, but I would suggest that he might like to put right a statement which has attracted great attention.
Might I now very seriously address myself to a matter which I suggest concerns all of us? I have been in one House of Parliament or another for a great number of years, and I have tried, from time to time, on certain occasions, to bend policy—to turn policy. I do not think I have succeeded, but I have seen it clone. I have seen the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, do it. May I remind him that in 1920, when there were very serious troubles in Ireland, he rose from a back bench, as a private Member, and warned the Government of the day—a Government of his own colour—of the errors of their policy. That speech of the noble Viscount made history. I was there. Other noble Lords were in Parliament with me, including Lord Cecil, and I think they will bear me out. That speech was listened to, although the noble Viscount was only on the threshold of the great career on which he has since embarked, and which is by no means over. That speech did turn policy, to the great advantage of the nation, and I wonder if I could just say a few words which might possibly, to a small extent, deflect policy again.
We are faced with a new situation, following on the events of the last weekend. We are faced with the new tech-
174
nique of aggression. We are faced with a Germany which presently will be far stronger, materially and militarily. We are faced with a most dangerous situation in Europe generally, and we have the reactions immediately in the statements made by the noble Viscount in this House, and by the Prime Minister in another place—the reactions of the British Government to increase our already heavy rearmament programme, with, I dare say, the consent of the great majority in both Houses of Parliament. Lord Snell and other noble Lords have already pointed out that arms by themselves are not enough—that you must have moral justice and moral right on your side. There is something more. Arms are not enough if you are badly placed strategically. In the last War one of the facts which contributed to the victory of the Allies was that these islands lay across the ocean—that Germany was penned in by the British Isles, and had no outlet to the sea. That was worth to us many squadrons of battleships. To-day, in Spain, the Republican Government's cause is in danger. We know the reasons, and the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, knows the reasons. I took it upon myself to point out to your Lordships in a debate on foreign affairs initiated by my noble friend Lord Addison a few weeks ago, that munitions, artillery, aeroplanes, were pouring into Spain from foreign ports. I have reason to believe that they are also going in from German ports.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: And otherwise.
LORD STRABOLGI: I understand very little. I know what the noble Lord refers to. He is referring to Russian supplies. I believe there have been Russian supplies and probably some smuggling has gone on across the French frontier as well, but that is not the point. It does not really matter.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): Does it not really? Why not?
LORD STRABOLGI: It is not a question of the volume of munitions. Those that have been poured in to the Nationalist side have, I understand, been colossal. If Spain is overrun by the present rebel Generals, with their Italian and German auxiliaries, it then becomes

175
a fourth partner in what will then be a quadrilateral of four Fascist-Nazi nations. or four nations which pursue a militarist, intensely nationalistic, racial policy. I refer to Japan, Italy, Germany, and, if the worst happens, Spain. From the naval point of view, which means from the British point of view, that will create great danger for us strategically. I do not think that will be denied by anyone who has studied the facts. If your Lordships consider for a moment the map of Spain you will call to mind at once the magnificent harbour of Vigo in the north, which is capable of accommodating the largest fleet of men-of-war, and outflanking Plymouth. With Vigo in enemy hands the security of your trade routes has gone. Further south there is Cadiz and the other Spanish ports on the Atlantic, and further south still not only Spanish Morocco but Rio del Oro and the Canary Islands. I ask your Lordships to consider the position of this country having to fight for its national existence and life. Can you imagine the position if our Navy was threatened from the Canary Islands and from North Africa?
LORD STONEHAVEN: Why should they be?
LORD STRABOLGI: I am glad the noble Lord reminds me of that. The Italians and Germans are in Spain in very large numbers, having supported and sustained the rebellion. That is known. How soon will they go out again? Suppose there is a Franco victory. I understand that General Franco is not a very strong man. He could not have won without support. He is bound to work in with this system. I will give the noble Lord a very good reason. In the last War those who are now supporting the rebellion in Spain were our bitter enemies. They wanted to bring in Spain against us. I speak with knowledge, because I was there in a Staff position with access to information. Our only friends were the democrats: The Anarchists in Spain and the Republicans were on our side.
Then I come to the Mediterranean position. I venture to suggest to your Lordships another source of danger with a hostile Spain. You have the Balearic Islands right on the flank of French communications with North Africa, and, worst of all, another frontier threatening France, and one that is not fortified like
176
the frontier between France and Germany. It will no doubt be said by the Government in reply that we have promises from the Government of Italy that they have no territorial ambitions in Spain and that they intend to maintain the territorial integrity of Spain. Of course they can promise that. It does not make any difference. There they have their allies, and why should they compromise the territorial integrity of their allies? The Italians do not want sovereignty over the Balearic Islands. All they want is to be able to use them as bases against us in time of trouble. This is the most terrible danger facing us in the world to-day. It is more dangerous than anything that can happen in the Eastern Mediterranean. Imagine air and sea power, especially modern air power, exercised in Spanish territory in some future war against our communications. You can build immense fleets of warships and extend your Air Force, but it will be of no avail if that happens. I suggest that this is where we should make a stand, and we should do it now while there is time.
I speak with some heat and some emotion on this matter, and I am not ashamed of it. I feel most desperately for my country in this matter. I speak as one who used to have some knowledge of naval strategy, and I have tried to keep abreast of it. I say that a hostile Spain will make a great difference to us. We are risking that now, and it is absurd, it is grotesque to pretend that a democratic, republican Spain would hold the same danger. I would beg the Government to reconsider the situation and to look at it with different eyes. In the past they have viewed with equanimity the prospect of a rebel victory in Spain. I do not think they can regard it now with the same composure. I do not ask the noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary to make a declaration on this point now, but I know he has listened to my words and I beg him to consider them fairly.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, this debate has been conducted with a great sense of responsibility in all quarters, and I need hardly say that such words as have to fall from me will be also inspired by no less a spirit of responsibility than that which has inspired other speakers. I would also say, speaking not so much on behalf of His Majesty's Government,

177
as, if I may for a moment, on behalf of the whole House, that the House has done itself credit in this debate by the total absence of any spirit of Party controversy in its examination of grave issues by which men of all Parties in all parts of the House have been and are profoundly moved. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, was, I think, right in saying that it was perhaps as yet too soon for final judgment upon the sequence of events that has resulted in the disappearance of Austria during the last few days as an independent State, the sequence of events that has followed since the conclusion of the War. May I, therefore, for a moment or two, because I do not think history is ever quite irrelevant, remind your Lordships of what was the main feature of that postwar history?
The problem of Austria, of course, has been with us always ever since the War ended with the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, leaving a small German Austria stranded in the Danubian plains, with Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Yugoslavia around her as entirely independent countries. I do not dwell upon that problem here and now, but I assert that, faced with it, the attitude of successive British Governments has been quite consistent. They, with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, have never supposed that the status quo in Austria could necessarily be maintained for all time. They have been perfectly willing to recognise the special interest of the German Government in the relations between Germany and Austria. Therefore they have been perfectly willing to contemplate revision of the Peace Treaties. The noble Lord who spoke last drew my attention to a newspaper report which I have seen reproduced in other quarters. I gave a denial to the suggestion made in that report, in the statement I made to the House on Monday last, and I am grateful to him for giving me an opportunity of repeating that denial today. For, whatever may have passed between General Goering and myself, or other German leaders and myself, in Germany—which was and must remain confidential—I have never in any conversation that I have had with German leaders taken any other line but this: that, while I did not suppose that anyone in this country was concerned to maintain the status quo in Europe for all time, what they
178
were concerned to see was that no changes should be made in Europe by violence, or by something approaching violence, that might lead to incalculable consequences.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: It is that against which we have always protested, and that because, whatever may be the merits or the demerits of the issues involved from the point of view of the German Government on the one hand or other Governments on the other hand, or whatever may be said, as was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, earlier in this debate, this at least was certain and quite incontrovertible: that any such action involving violent solution was bound, as has been repeatedly said during these last days, to administer a most rude and a most grave shock to European confidence. It was, indeed, the desire to avoid such sharp disturbance, I suppose, that in part moved the framers of the Treaties to do what they did. They recognised the special position of Austria and the peculiar problem that it represented owing to its purely German character. They foresaw, I imagine, that Austria might at some time wish to join Germany. But they also realised that such a union, involving, as it would, the transfer of something like 32,000 square miles of territory and something like 7,000,000 human beings from one sovereignty to another would cause a serious and, in certain cases, a dangerous shifting of the balance of power in that part of Europe which had been the most unsettled by the War—namely, those territories which had previously constituted the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.
The framers of the Treaties accordingly stipulated, in effect, that the change, if desired, should only be brought about after the Council of the League had carefully considered the difficulties and the dangers that were involved, and had decided that those could be surmounted without endangering the paramount interest of European peace and European stability. Events have, of course, moved very differently, and if I were tempted to travel over the events of the recent past, I should have to differ in some respects from the version of them given by my noble friend Lord Londonderry, more particularly in regard to his account, as he described it to the House, of what passed in connection with Herr

179
Schuschnigg's efforts to hold a plebiscite during his last days. But I do not think it is necessary now to retravel that ground, and, as I think all your Lordships who have spoken have said, it is a fact that whatever in various quarters may be felt about the actual events themselves, whatever may be your view about what Lord Londonderry said as to whether those events should be judged to have been inevitable or not, it is the ruthless application of power politics that has so profoundly shocked the world and is responsible for the grave apprehension that exists in so many quarters to-day.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, reflected upon the unsatisfactory performance of British policy in the past. I am not going to enter into any controversy with him, but I do not fancy that even he would say that any British policy short of war could have checked the events of the last ten days. The world has been brought, therefore, face to face with the extremely ugly truth that neither treaty texts nor International Law have any influence when dealing with power politics, and that in that sphere, force, and force alone, decides. I say that quite objectively and, I hope, without passion, merely as a statement of a plain fact. It was suggested by Lord Snell that the matter might usefully be referred to the League of Nations. I have, of course, had to give some thought before this debate to that suggestion. The juridical position of Austria as she existed up to a few days ago was, of course, that of an independent State which was bound by treaty not to alienate that independence without the consent of the Council of the League. That independence, in complete disregard of treaty provisions, has disappeared overnight, and the world, therefore, has been presented with a fait accompli in a fashion and in a setting of accompanying circumstance for which I can recall no parallel in history. But none the less the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, I think carries my entire assent when he says that nothing that the League can do can undo what has been done, and, with him, if I followed him correctly, I confess that I can see no good to be gained at this juncture, for the League or for any of the great purposes the League represents, by bringing this matter before the League tribunal. Nothing short of war
180
can put back the clock, and States-Members of the League are not prepared to go to war on this issue.
Those facts, I suggest, must be perfectly squarely faced, and the conclusion that I reach is that the League, though it has a perfect legal right to interest itself in the question, cannot conceivably do anything at this moment which would compel Nazi Germany to turn back from the course on which she has now embarked. His Majesty's Government are therefore bound to recognise that the Austrian State has now been abolished as an international entity and is in process of being entirely absorbed into the German Reich. They do so indeed without waiting for the plebiscite, the result of which, in view of the circumstances in which it is going to be held, is a foregone conclusion.
The noble Lord who spoke last addressed some remarks to the consequences of what has passed upon the lot of many in Austria who are held to be out of sympathy with the new régime. I think there was some report in the public Press this morning of what my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said in another place last night, which perhaps I may in substance repeat again to your Lordships. The representations on the subject of the need for moderation in the treatment of Jews and Socialists and of the supporters of Dr. Schuschnigg in Austria, which were referred to by my honourable friend, were made on the personal initiative, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, of our Ambassador in Berlin. That was done, and I think that noble Lords will agree with me that that was on the whole the wisest manner in which such representations could be made, and in view of their nonofficial character there was no question of an official assurance in reply being either expected or given. At the same time instructions were also sent to our Minister in Vienna to take any opportunity that he could to impress on those there in authority the desirability of exercising restraint in dealing with the persons to whom I have referred.
It is not, however, only—or perhaps mainly—Austria on which to-day the minds of many rest. The noble Lord who spoke last concluded a very powerful and passionate speech by a reference to

181
the state of affairs in Spain and to what is happening there. He said that he did not expect that I should be prepared to make any statement containing new policy of His Majesty's Government in reply to what he had to say. He was right, but perhaps I may in a few sentences say something in regard to what fell from him. It has been largely because we foresaw, something like eighteen months or more ago, exactly what has disturbed the noble Lord to-night, that we from the beginning have thrown the full weight of our efforts and influence behind the policy of non-intervention, originally, as the noble Lord will remember, suggested to us by the then French Government under M. Blum. We have as a Government and my noble friend Lord Plymouth in person has worked without intermission, using very effort to bring all the Powers concerned along on that policy of non-intervention, and we have, as the noble Lord will remember, when embarking upon the effort by direct conversations with Italy, made it perfectly plain to the Italian Government that events in Spain are vitally connected in our judgment with the reaching of an agreement which we desire to see through those Anglo-Italian conversations.
But I was in some doubt as to what was the conclusion, on that side of it, of the noble Lord's argument. He would not suggest that we should give up nonintervention, and if he were to suggest that I am afraid I should be unable to suggest, as I think he would, any policy that would take its place that was not fraught with greater dangers than those that he at present foresees. I would ask him to believe me when I say that we in His Majesty's Government are not less fully alive to all the implications of danger that he has so prominently in his mind. I do not think that his political conclusions are necessarily right. I have always been disposed to take the view of my predecessor in this office, that the regard and affection of the victorious side in Spain would not necessarily go to those who had tried to exercise the greatest influence in the Spanish civil war; and I would ask him finally to believe that we are as fully seised of the implications of the strategic considerations that are involved as he is himself.
Passing from Spain, I would like to say something about Czechoslovakia. No one who looks at a map can be blind to the
182
new position that has been created for that country by what has passed, or to the significance that in certain circumstances these events might hold for that country and for Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, directed our attention to certain elements in the problem which are indeed vital elements, whether or not his interpretation of them or his solution for them was one that all parts of the House or all minds in the House could accept. It is true, as I stated in the House on Monday, that certain assurances have been given to the Czechoslovak Government by the German Government. When I learned of those assurances I at once took steps to convey to the German Government that his Majesty's Government took note of them and would be glad of the German Government's permission to communicate them to Parliament. That permission having been accorded, I placed your Lordships, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister placed another place, in possession of the actual term of the assurances so given. By these assurances, solemnly given and more than once repeated, we naturally expect the German Government to abide. And if indeed they desire to see European peace maintained, as I earnestly hope they do, there is no quarter of Europe in which it is more vital that undertakings should be scrupulously respected.
Your Lordships will perhaps have noticed in the public Press the grave words uttered on these anxieties by Mr. Churchill and others. You will have heard the grave words uttered in this place this afternoon by the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Cecil) on the same subject. These words deserve the careful attention of His Majesty's Government, as also do the definite suggestions that have been made as to the methods by which we should deal with the situation with which we are faced. The House will not expect me to-day to say more in regard to these and other suggestions than that His Majesty's Government are giving, and will give, to them their most careful consideration; nor, I fancy, is it necessary to assure the House that we are in close consultation with the French Government on all these questions.
To appraise contemporary events is always difficult, for judgment is affected by many factors which are in their nature more transitory than the events them-

183
selves. And, as I have said, it is the method employed to effect these changes that has so deeply stirred public opinion in all countries outside Germany. However difficult it may be for German thought to understand it, it is the fact that the conscience of a great part of the civilised human race has been made suddenly aware of a naked contradiction between those things which they value and those things of which the methods of these last days seem to be the outward sign and substance. One thing stands out above all else for those who will try to view these events objectively. That is the damage that has been wrought to the stock of international confidence, which even before them was none too great. Many of your Lordships have laboured, as have His Majesty's Government and many in other countries, in the cause of the removal of international misunderstanding and the establishment of conditions in which co-operation and trust might, for the general good of men, replace disunity and that suspicion which is the natural child of fear. Yet there is not one of us who can deny how seriously our hopes have been belied and prejudiced by what has passed.
It is natural that, in these circumstances, there should be expression of opinion from different quarters as to what it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to do. The responsibility for decision in the light of all the facts, known and unknown, so far as they can be brought to judgment, rests, as it must, upon His Majesty's Government. But though there be diversity of counsel, as is inevitable, or even perhaps criticism as to the action taken, I do not believe, and I believe less than ever after this debate, that there is any shadow of disagreement, or any question at all, as to what must be the objectives of British policy, and I do not believe that any one would differ from my statement of them. First, I would say that we must seek, in face of the present situation—and here I agree with what fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian—so to conduct our foreign policy that it may deserve and command the support in this country of a united people and, in the Dominions, of a united Empire. Secondly, while relaxing no
184
exertion in the pursuit of real peace wherever it may be found, it must be our purpose to reassert the claims of International Law as opposed to the exercise of force in the settlement of international disputes. Whether or not the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, is right in believing that great advantage would accrue from myself or some other making at this moment a great speech at Geneva I am not so sure, but I do agree with him that to this end that I have defined, and that he had in mind, it behoves us to do all that lies in our power to strengthen the forces on the side of settling international differences by negotiation rather than by any other method.
Next, we must do everything to bring it about that means should be devised, whether through the machinery of the League or on lines in harmony with League principles, to direct the mind of the nations as much to the removal of injustice as to the maintenance of peace. Lastly, this country must, if our policy fulfils these purposes, show itself prepared not only by way of material and equipment, but in the spirit, determination, and discipline of its people. The Government can, and will, review the programmes for our material preparedness and the pace of the march towards their fulfilment. It is for the people to do their part, and I am satisfied that this general outline of the spirit which will, I hope, inspire the action of His Majesty's Government will command not only the assent of your Lordships' House, but also the approval and active support of the overwhelming majority of those whom Parliament represents.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, when I placed this Motion upon the Order Paper it was not because either I or my noble friends wanted another debate on foreign policy; but it would have been inappropriate that the great events of recent days should not have been considered in your Lordships' House. It was therefore a part of my duty to initiate the discussion that has taken place, and I wish to thank the Foreign Secretary for the reply he has given—a reply that has justified the debate being held at all. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  VISCOUNT CECIL AND ARTICLE 16.
  VISCOUNT CECIL AND ARTICLE 16.
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL.
Petition of the County Council of the administrative County of Surrey under their Common Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to empower the Surrey County Council to purchase lands compulsorily; to confirm an agreement between the said County Council and the Carshalton Urban District Council; to empower the said Urban District Council to use lands for cemetery purposes; to empower the said County Council to borrow money; and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto: Read, and referred to the Examiners.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETERS URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section r of the Act to the Urban District of Broadstairs and St. Peters.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (FINCHLEY BOROUGH ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Finchley.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

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

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