Sitting of 18 May 1938

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Redcar Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister what is the position in connection with the responsibility of the Japanese Government for damage caused to British property in China owing to their military operations; whether the Japanese Government have accepted the principle of responsibility for compensation; and whether machinery is being set up to assess and liquidate claims so made?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The position is that the Japanese Government have not formally and specifically acknowledged responsibility for damage caused to British property in China owing to their military operations, and it has consequently not so far been possible to set up any machinery for the assessment and liquidation of claims.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Are arrangements being made to press these claims with sufficient force; and is there a British organisation to put these claims forward and press them upon the Japanese Government?
  Mr. Butler: I shall have to investigate the question of organisation. I know that claims are being pressed.
  Mr. Dayasked the Prime Minister particulars of any persons who were evacuated from Amoy or Kulangsu Islands, China, by British warships; and
  370
  the number of British subjects that are known to be residing in this district?
  Mr. Butler: No British subjects have been evacuated from Amoy or Kulangsu Islands by British warships. The number of British subjects residing in this district in July, 1937, was 232.
  Mr. Day: Do the reports show that the whole of Amoy is now in the hands of the Japanese?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, I understand that that is so.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister what reply has been received to the protests made on 31st December, 1937, 31st March, 5th April, 6th April, and nth April, 1938, to the Japanese authorities in connection with recent cases of assault by Japanese against British subjects in the International Settlement at Shanghai?
  Mr. Butler: I am investigating the details of these cases, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement concerning the wounding of Mr. H. E. Wilkinson by a Japanese soldier in the neighbourhood of Shanghai?
  Mr. Butler: I understand that Mr. Wilkinson was arrested by a Japanese military patrol in the Hungjao area outside the defence perimeter of Shanghai about 7 a.m. on 13th May, and that after he had informed the Japanese that he was a British subject he was struck by them and wounded in the back with a bayonet. He was not sent to military headquarters until 4 p.m., where he was interrogated before being released with apologies on behalf of the patrol. On hearing the news of Mr. Wilkinson's arrest, the matter was at once taken up by the British authorities at Shanghai, who have protested strongly to the Japanese against this illegal detention of a British subject and also against the whole circumstances of the case. His Majesty's Ambasador in Tokyo has also been instructed to take up this matter with the Japanese Government.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that Mr. Wilkinson's record in Japan shows that he is a man who is incapable

  371
  of having given any offence or of having been engaged in any activities in connection with the Japanese; and will His Majesty's Government do more than protest, and will demand a proper apology and compensation in this case?
  Mr. Butler: I entirely support all the observations made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take about the violation of the Hague Conventions involved in the wholesale shooting of Chinese prisoners and the machine-gunning of boats containing Chinese women and children during the course of the recent attack by the Japanese army on the island of Amoy?
  Mr. Butler: I have no official reports that boats containing Chinese women and children were machine-gunned, but a number of Chinese soldiers were taken prisoner and shot on Amoy bund by the Japanese. His Majesty's Government cannot too strongly deplore and condemn such a violation of the Hague Conventions.
  Sir Percy Harris: Is it not a fact that Japan claims that she is not at war with China, which makes these atrocities even worse.
  Mr. Butler: I cannot too strongly deplore and condemn such a violation.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: While thanking the Under-Secretary for his condemnation of these incidents, may I ask whether he will consider making a formal protest to Tokyo, which might have an effect on the conduct of Japanese soldiers?
  Mr. Butler: I trust that this question and the answer will have the desired effect in the proper quarters.

  EGYPT (BRITISH BARRISTERS).
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British subjects who are barristers-at-law and who have been practising in Egypt in the Consular Courts for many years are now unable to practise their profession owing to the change in consular jurisdiction as a result of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty; whether any efforts are
  372
  being made to assist those so affected to secure other employment; and, if so, what action has been taken?
  Mr. Butler: The answers to the first two parts of the hon. Member's question are that the British Consular Court is being retained for personal status questions, and that this work constitutes, from a practical point of view, rather more than one-half of its previous jurisdiction. I cannot admit, therefore, that even those barristers in Egypt who practised solely before the British Consular Court are no longer able to practise their profession in Egypt. Nevertheless, efforts have been made to find alternative employment for the four barristers who desire it, but so far unsuccessfully because they are not of the right age or qualifications.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is it the Government's view that these gentlemen must have known that there would be a change which would make it impossible for them to carry on their previous occupation? Is it not also true that, previous to last year, the idea was that if capitulations were to be abolished British jurisdiction would be substituted, in which case these gentlemen would have been able to continue practising. In these circumstances, would not the Government consider waiving the age limit and allowing them to practise?
  Mr. Butler: The Government are doing their best, though they are under no obligation to these barristers. The position was fully stated in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 13th July, to which I would refer my hon. Friend.

  ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not recognise the Italian Government's claim to Ethiopia until they have satisfied themselves by independent inquiry that the Italian authorities are in complete de facto military and civil control of the whole of the country?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are satisfied as to the accuracy of the information contained in the reply given

  373
  to the hon. Member on nth April, and they are not prepared to support any proposal for an independent inquiry of the nature suggested.
  Mr. Henderson: Surely His Majesty's Government are going to follow the usual international practice, and refuse to recognise any conquest unless the Italian Government are in complete occupation of the whole country?
  Mr. Butler: I have told the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to adopt his suggestion. In previous answers I have told him our information with regard to the present position in Abyssinia.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has the information given by the Emperor of Ethiopia at Geneva been brought to the notice of the Cabinet?
  Mr. Butler: I think the Cabinet are fully aware of these matters.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the hon. Gentleman taken notice of the information given by the Frenchman, M. Pecheral, who was personally in Abyssinia with the Abyssinian forces in the field a few weeks ago?
  Mr. Butler: I have not personally seen it.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If I send it to the Minister, will he take it into consideration?
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Prime Minister whether the Government, as a result of recent discussions and decisions at the League of Nations, have reconsidered their attitude to the question of the alleged conquest of Abyssinia; and has he any statement to make?
  Mr. Butler: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that the Abyssinian representative at the League of Nations gave definite evidence, which could not be refuted by the British representative, in connection with the alleged conquest of Abyssinia?
  Mr. Butler: We have already had one question on this subject, and I informed the House that the information in our possession had been given to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) earlier.
  Mr. Davidson: In view of the fact that since then evidence has been submitted which has not been refuted by the British representative at the League, has the Government reconsidered the position?
  Mr. Butler: The position is as stated in the answer I have given.

  SPAIN.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Signor Mussolini's declaration on Saturday last referring to the Spanish war and the French-Italian negotiations, he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will support the French Government in resisting Italian pressure to compel them to change the French policy in relation to the Spanish Government?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member may rest assured that the good offices of His Majesty's Government are always at the disposal of both the French and Italian Governments, should they desire them, with a view to expediting a settlement of the Spanish situation.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the fact that the policy of the French Government and of His Majesty's Government in relation to Spain is the same, do the Government intend to allow the Italian Government to drive a wedge between the two Governments on this question?
  Mr. Butler: I do not necessarily accept the interpretation the hon. Member places on Signor Mussolini's speech. Therefore, I cannot give the assurance he desires.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it the policy of the French Government to break in every way the policy of nonintervention?
  Mr. Butler: I can only be responsible for the Government I represent.
  Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to allay the anxiety of relatives of prisoners of British nationality held by either side in

  375
  Spain, he will ask the insurgent and Government authorities to supply a complete list for publication?
  Mr. Butler: The British Agent at Burgos has already asked for, and been promised, full particulars of all British prisoners captured by General Franco's forces. These particulars, which will, I hope, be received in London shortly, will be available for publication. I have no reason to think that any British subjects have been captured by the Spanish Government forces.
  Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Can nothing be done to speed up the exchange of prisoners and other humanitarian work?
  Mr. Butler: That is another question, with which I have dealt with in previous answers. We are at present proposing to submit a new proposal to the Spanish Government.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: Do I understand that the Foreign Office will publish the list when it is received?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Wise: Is it not the fact that the sole obstacle in the way of arranging an exchange has been the attitude of the Barcelona Government?
  Miss Rathboneasked the Prime Minister how many men serving on British ships engaged in legitimate trade with Spain have been injured or killed by the insurgents or their allies since the beginning of the war in Spain; and in how many of these cases has compensation been paid to these men or their dependants, and by whom?
  Mr. Butler: So far as I am aware, 27 have been killed and 37 injured. As regards compensation, I have nothing to add to the answer given on 2nd March to a question by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr.Shinwell).
  Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why less insistent claims are made in the case of these British seamen than the claim made in the case of the British Ambassador at Tokyo; and will he say how it is possible to assess damages at a later date, which may be years ahead?
  Mr. Butler: A claim was not made in the case of the British Ambassador.
  Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if, in his previous answers on this subject, he was able to say whether compensation of the dependants of seamen has been paid, and, if not, will be obtain information and satisfy himself on that head?
  Mr. Butler: In a previous reply to the hon. Gentleman reference was made to the arrangement made by the National Maritime Board for the payment of special compensation in these cases.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Maritime Board deal with rates and conditions for men employed aboard ship, and have nothing to do with the question of compensation arising out of the killing of men in Spain?
  Mr. Butler: It is some satisfaction to know that arrangements have been made by the National Maritime Board for the payment of special compensation in these cases.
  Lieut.-Commander Agnew: In view of the delay which necessarily arises before any compensation can be paid by a foreign administration, and of the very high profits which are believed to be made out of this class of freight, would it not be best for the Government to invite the owners of these ships to give compensation to the dependants of these men?
  Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand from the answer of the hon. Gentleman that the National Maritime Board are accepting an obligation that ought to be imposed on the Burgos Government?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I said that the National Maritime Board have made arrangements for special compensation, and the further question is under consideration.
  Mr. Noél-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he can now define the circumstances in which His Majesty's Government will consider that a settlement of the Spanish question has been arrived at?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot go further than the statement which the Prime Minister made in the House on 2nd May.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Do His Majesty's Government accept or repudiate the definition which Signor Mussolini has now given, that there must be a victory by

  377
  General Franco before a settlement can be arrived at?
  Mr. Butler: The policy of the Government is given by the Prime Minister, and not by anybody else.
  Mr. Attlee: Is not the the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister positively refused to give the House any explanation whatever as to what was meant by the settlement, and, as we have had it from Signor Mussolini, may we know whether the Prime Minister agrees with it?
  Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister's refusal to define what he means by these words stands as it did in the Debate on 2nd May. He said that it may be that later on we shall get nearer the time when we can give a definition, and he authorises me to say that that time is not yet.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that Signor Mussolini has said that he cannot make an agreement with the French Government until that Government accepts General Franco's victory, and does that mean, since we have an agreement, that the Prime Minister has accepted a General Franco victory?
  Mr. Leachasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the British Consul at Barcelona has removed some 40 miles away; and what arrangements have been made to obtain' accurate information from Barcelona for the protection of British interests there?
  Mr. Butler: Caldetas, to which the Consulate-General has been removed, is 25 miles away, but a branch office maintained in Barcelona is attended daily by members of the consular staff.
  Mr. Leach: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these three consuls explain the paucity of the Government's news and information about Spain?
  Mr. Bennasked the Prime Minister in what terms he explained the meaning of the words "a settlement in Spain" in the conversation he had in February with the Italian Ambassador?
  Mr. Butler: The conversation between the Italian Ambassador and the Prime Minister was private, and he is not prepared to answer questions as to its
  378
  nature. The right hon. Member must not, however, assume that my right hon. Friend gave an explanation of the words quoted in the question.
  Mr. Benn: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister insisted that a settlement was a condition of the Agreement, but did not give any explanation of what he meant by it?
  Mr. Butler: We have already discussed this matter by question and answer.
  Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Member aware that some of his questions are misleading?
  Mr. Davidsonasked the Prime Minister whether, as a result of recent discussions at the League of Nations, His Majesty's Government have altered their attitude to the Non-intervention Committee; and has he any statement to make?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend made it clear during the recent discussions of the League Council that His Majesty's Government had no intention of modifying their policy of non-intervention in Spain or their support of the Nonintervention Committee.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Member aware that the Spanish representative at the League of Nations submitted definite evidence, proving beyond dispute that non-intervention had been broken on a large scale by Italy and Germany? Has that statement been considered by the Cabinet since' it was made?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, it has been considered. It is admitted that there have been breaches on both sides, but His Majesty's Government are continuing the policy of non-intervention.
  Mr. Davidson rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The question has been answered.
  Mr. Davidson: The Under-Secretary did not answer the second part of my question.
  Miss Rathboneasked the Prime Minister how many British ships have been sunk or injured by the insurgents or their allies since the beginning of the war in Spain; and in how many of these cases have complaints and claims for damage been made against General Franco?
  Mr. Butler: Three British ships have been sunk, and, apart from those struck during bombardments when in harbour, three have been damaged. Protests have been made in respect of all these ships and His Majesty's Government have reserved their right to claim full compensation. Some 25 British ships have been hit, the majority of them very slightly, during air raids on Spanish Government ports. From the evidence available, His Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that four of these ships had been deliberately attacked, and a protest was accordingly made, the right to claim compensation being reserved. His Majesty's Government are considering further evidence regarding the most recent bombardments.
  Miss Rathbone: What is the machinery for assessing these claims?
  Mr. Butler: So far, we have just notified the claims, and the actual machinery for assessing claims must be considered later.
  Mr. Attlee: Why have our Government not pressed for immediate satisfaction against a government which is not recognised, while they demand immediate satisfaction from a de jure government like the Government of Japan?
  Mr. Butler: I explained the matter at some length in the Debate on 12th May.
  Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member has not given any reason at all, either in that Debate or anywhere else, why we did not press these claims against a government which is not recognised, and which may fall at any time.
  Mr. Butler: I gave the reasons, to the best of my ability, in the Debate on 12th May.
  Mr. David Grenfell: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the protest has been addressed to the direct authors of the crime, namely, the Italian aviators, flying under the Italian Government's orders?
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: Are we to understand that the British Government are incapable of defending their own nationals?
  Miss Rathbone: May I ask a further question?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already answered several questions.

  REFUGEES.
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the request from the United States Government that, owing to the serious nature of the problem of political refugees, an international committee should be formed; and what action it is proposed to take?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have informed the United States Government that they welcome the proposal to set up a special committee of representatives of a number of Governments to deal with the problem of emigration from Germany and Austria. The United States Government have now suggested that this committee shall meet at Evian on 6th July, and the question of the representation of His Majesty's Government is under consideration.
  Miss Wilkinson: Do the Government intend to take action at once to help these people who are hunting for a place to rest their feet?
  Mr. Butler: No. We shall go on considering this matter.
  Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Member not consider the advisability of first formulating a definite British policy in regard to refugees, and setting up a committee for the purpose; and does there not seem to be a complete lack of co-ordination between the different Departments concerned?
  Mr. Butler: I am quite aware of the great seriousness of the problem, and will certainly remember what the hon. Lady has said.

  EUROPEAN MINORITIES.
  Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have recently made any representations to the Italian Government concerning the treatment of German and other minorities in the South Tyrol and other parts of Italy?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir.
  Mr. Adams: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the treatment of these minorities is noticeably better than that of the Sudeten-Deutsche in Czechoslovakia?
  Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister give us any reason why the Germans are not

  381
  carrying on intensive propaganda in this particular place, as they are in others?
  Mr. V. Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have recently made any representations to the Polish Government concerning the treatment of German and other minorities in Poland?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir.
  Mr. Adams: Is not the principle involved the same as that of the Sudeten-Deutsche in Czechoslovakia?
  Mr. Butler: I do not think the problems are identical.
  Sir H. Croft: Have the Polish Government made any representations in regard to the Scottish and Welsh minorities in this country?

  GREAT BRITAIN AND MEXICO.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will lay a White Paper before the House giving the full text of the correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Mexico concerning the questions which have led to the present rupture of diplomatic relations?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. A White Paper containing the correspondence up to date will be issued as soon as possible.
  Mr. Benn: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in this Mexican correspondence, the Cabinet has kept in close touch with American opinion on the subject?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I understand that that is so.
  Mr. Benn: How is it that the hon. Gentleman is so well informed on Cabinet matters, when I addressed the question to the Leader of the House?
  Mr. Butler: There is liaison between us and, as far as possible, I am aware of the policy, and that is what I have given to the House.
  Mr. Maxton rose—
  Mr. Benn: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether, when the acting-Prime Minister and Deputy-Leader of the House is present, and the
  382
  question is addressed to him, I am entitled to have an answer from him on a Cabinet matter?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has already had three answers.
  Mr. Maxton: Do you realise, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman has asked three questions while I have been trying to ask one?
  Mr. Speaker: I quite realise that fact.
  Mr. Maxton: Will that one now be in Order? Do I understand from the Under-Secretary that it is his statement that the Cabinet is responsible for this preposterous action with reference to Mexico?
  Mr. Butler: The Cabinet is certainly responsible for any instructions that are given on such matters of foreign policy.
  Mr. Maxton: I thought it was just a stupid blunder.

  CZECHOSLOVAKIA.
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister how many petitions have been received by the Secretariat of the League of Nations during the last 10 years from German-speaking citizens of Czechoslovakia complaining of the refusal of political, social, or cultural rights to these citizens by the Czechoslovakian Government?
  Mr. Butler: As full particulars are not readily available in London, I am making inquiries at Geneva and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.
  Mr. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether, in the representations which His Majesty's Government are making to the Czechoslovakian Government to grant further cultural or political rights to its German-speaking minorities, he will make it clear that any such action should be conditional on reciprocal concessions being made by the German Government to the Czech minorities within German territory?
  Mr. Butler: As I said in the House on 16th May, His Majesty's Government have urged upon the Czechoslovak Government the desirability of doing everything in their power to further an agreed settlement of the problem, but they have not suggested any particular measures or

  383
  concessions. There is no substantial Czech minority in Germany, and the action suggested by the hon. Member would not, therefore, be appropriate.
  Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a minority consisting of several hundred thousand Czechs, and that neither to that minority nor to any other minority in Germany do the German Government extend political or cultural rights, or anything else?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the figures of the hon. Member, which seem to me to be very much exaggerated.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MALTA AND GIBRALTAR (MINISTERS' VISITS).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many times, and on what dates, the naval establishments at Malta and Gibraltar have been inspected by the First Lord, the Civil Lord, or the Parliamentary Secretary since August, 1931?

    —

    First Lord.

    Parliamentary Secretary.

    Civil Lord.

    Malta

    …

    April-May, 1933

    May, 1934

    February, 1933.

    August-September, 1936

    December, 1935.

    October, 1937

    Gibraltar

    …

    December, 1932

    February, 1933.

    March, 1934 (Board Visit)

    December, 1935.

    September, 1936

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, under the marriage allowance scheme, childless married officers in an appointment on shore where no official quarters are provided and who nominally receive 7s. 6d. and 6s. 6d. extra a day will be financially better off at the end of the year, and to what extent in the case of captains, commanders, and lieutenant-commanders, respectively?
    Mr. Cooper: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Captains will, however, benefit only to the extent of a few shillings. Commanders and lieutenant-commanders will gain £2 2S. 6d.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): since the date mentioned there have been six visits to Malta and five to Gibraltar by the Ministers in question. With the hon. and gallant Member's permission I will circulate the further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: What is the matter with the naval establishments at Malta and Gibraltar when they call for such frequent visits of inspection from representatives of the Admiralty—11 visits in seven years?
    Mr. Cooper: Eleven visits in seven years is not a very large number. The hon. and gallant Member must recollect that Ministers have changed during that period. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was about to carry out one of these visits when a change was made in the Government.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Do not these numerous visits to Malta and Gibraltar indicate that they are far more for the purpose of affording a joy ride than for naval inspection purposes?
    Following are the details:
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: The White Paper announced that the officers will receive 7s. 6d. and 6s. 6d. a day, but does the First Lord not consider, in view of the answers that he has given to me, that that is an exceedingly misleading statement? The officers only receive, in the case of a captain, 7s. 6d. & year, and in the case of the other officers £2 2s. 6d. a year.
    Mr. Cooper: I have explained on several occasions to my hon. and gallant Friend that this alteration was made in order to make sure that under the new scheme married officers without children should not be worse off than before. As a result of it, it was intended that they should be about the same, but they are in fact better off. As I have informed

    385
    my hon. and gallant Friend often before, no officer will be worse off as a result of the change, but nearly every officer will be better off.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I say that it is not a very great recommendation to the married officers to say that no officer will be worse off under the scheme than he was before?
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a captain in a shore appointment with an official residence, on the service furniture of which he has to pay 7 per cent. per annum of its capital value, will receive marriage allowance under the scheme?
    Mr. Cooper: Married officers, who are provided with an official residence in which their families can join them, draw children's allowances only.
    Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask whether in the matter of these allowances the First Lord has consulted the Minister of Labour, who has a wide experience of how low allowances can be?
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask a supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: There are 101 Questions on the Order Paper. If hon. Members persist in asking so many supplementary questions, the House will have to arrange some other method of dealing with Questions.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: I have not asked a supplementary question on this question. I ask your permission to put one.
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members may ask supplementaries on their questions, but it is not necessary on every occasion to ask a supplementary question.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: On a point of Order. If the answer the hon. Member receives does not clear up the point which he desires to clear up, is he not permitted to ask a supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: Whether the Minister clears up the point or not, very often hon. Members ask supplementary questions.

    OWER DECK PROMOTIONS.
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the average age when the man, promoted
    386
    from the lower deck, reaches the rank of lieutenant-commander?
    Mr. Cooper: The average age of those officers selected from the lower deck under the scheme introduced in 1933 will be 32 years 11 months when they reach the rank of lieutenant-commander. The age of the officers selected in 1937 was, however, lower, and it is anticipated that, with the modifications introduced in the scheme last year, the age at the time of selection will be reduced still further.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend consider that these men promoted from the lower deck will be able to marry on this extra allowance of £4?

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "ENCHANTRESS."
    Mr. George Griffithsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cost of construction of His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress"; the total number of the officers and ratings employed on this ship; and the total cost of the maintenance of the ship for each of the years 1935–36, 1936–37, and 1937–38?
    Mr. Cooper: The cost of construction of His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress" was approximately £170,000. The normal complement of the ship as an escort vessel is six officers and 111 ratings. The total maintenance costs during the years J935–36, 1936–37 and 1937–38 were approximately £24,700, £34,600 and £35,500, respectively.
    Mr. G. Griffithsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what ports were visited by His Majesty's ship "Enchantress" in 1937 during the course of the voyages in that year conveying the First Lord; and what was the cost of these voyages?
    Mr. Cooper: The following ports were visited by His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress" in 1937 when conveying the First Lord: Holyhead, Skiport, Oban, Mal-laig, Stornoway, Dunrobin, Invergordon, Rosyth, Venice, Sibenik, Skyros, Rhodes, Kyrenia, Famagusta, Port Said, Alexandria, Malta, Naples. The approximate cost of fuel consumed during these voyages was £400.
    Mr. Griffiths: I would like the First Lord to answer the latter part of the question—what was the cost of these voyages?
    Mr. Cooper: The approximate cost of the fuel consumed was £400.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am not asking the cost of the fuel. I am asking the total cost.
    Mr. Cooper: That is the only cost. The hon. Member will realise that ratings and officers receive their pay allowances in the ordinary way.
    Mr. Macquisten: Will the First Lord accept an invitation to visit Campbeltown next time?
    Mr. MacLaren: The whisky is bad there.

  WEST INDIES.

    SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the considered proposals of the local Government of Barbados on the recommendations of the Commission appointed to inquire into the disturbance of last summer; what steps are being taken to relieve the grave social and economic distress; what is being done in the matter of over-population in the island; and whether it is proposed to implement the recommendations in respect to the appointment of a commission to make a survey of settlement and economic development in the West Indies and on the American mainland?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    I have received a report from the Acting-Governor of Barbados which shows that the Colonial Government is proceeding as rapidly as possible in the matter, but many of the recommendations naturally require more detailed consideration and would involve legislation in the Colony. Bills are being introduced to provide for the appointment of a Labour Officer, and for the creation of minimum wage-fixing machinery; to enable the necessary information to be obtained from importers in order that a check may be kept on the margins of profit on foodstuffs, and to facilitate the removal of unsatisfactory housing accommodation in Bridgetown. Some of the relief works
    388
    mentioned in the report are already in hand, and others are under consideration.
    As regards over-population, a scheme for the settlement of about 475 Barbadian families in St. Lucia is on point of completion, and some 170 Barbadian artisans have accepted offers of employment in the oil industry in Curacao. In general, it is proposed to wait until it is known what response is received to the St. Lucia scheme before embarking on further emigration schemes. I am dealing with the last part of this question in my reply to Question No. 33.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the many reports on recent disturbances in the West Indies that labour unrest is due to economic causes and that distress exists in many of the islands, he will cause an inquiry into the whole problem of over-population, social distress, and economic dislocation in this part of the Colonial Empire, with a view to action being taken to remove these evils?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am doubtful as to the value of a general inquiry of the kind suggested. In so far as the particular problems of individual Colonies are concerned, it is improbable that a further inquiry would add anything to the reports which are already in my possession. The economic situation of the West Indies is largely due to world-wide causes. This is particularly true of the sugar industry, on which these Colonies are mainly dependent, and as I stated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) on nth May. the International Sugar Council is charged with the duty of seeking means of overcoming the difficulties of this industry. As regards over-population, I would invite attention to the reply which my predecessor gave to a question by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) on 23rd February.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the very grave social and economic unrest and the real difficulties under which this population is suffering, is it not possible for the Government to work out some policy which will bring some hope to these starving and undernourished people?
    Mr. MacDonald: A good many things are being done in various directions to improve the social and economic position in these Colonies.
    Mr. Lunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman, now that he has become Secretary of State for the Colonies again, give his serious consideration to the idea of sending out a commission to inquire into the social unrest and bad conditions which obtain?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have already answered that question.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what organisations are being financed for the study of diseases of tropical plants in the West Indies, and at what cost; and whether he will consider an increase of expenditure on this purpose with a view to improving the position of primary producers in the West Indies and so preventing, through the payment of better wages, outbreaks of native discontent?
    Mr. MacDonald: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, which receives a grant of £15,000 per annum from His Majesty's Government and contributions from the West Indian Governments (except Jamaica), has divisions of Mycology and Entomology devoted to the study of diseases and pests of tropical economic crops in the West Indies. Financial assistance has also been rendered from the Colonial Development Fund for investigational work in connection with the witchbroom disease of cacao in Trinidad, the sugarcane borer pest in the Leeward Islands, cotton pests and certain pests of limes. Four such schemes are in operation at the present time. Several West Indian Departments of Agriculture also employ scientific officers whose duties include the investigation of pests and diseases and the development and extension of control measures. In addition, the pests and diseases of crops in the West Indian area are constantly under review by the Colonial Advisory Council of Agriculture and Animal Health and special schemes, such as those indicated above, are evolved when necessity arises. The West Indian Governments also contribute to the expenditure of the Imperial Institute of Entomology and the Imperial Mycological Institute, from which institutions they
    390
    receive expert assistance in respect of entomological and plant pathological problems. I am advised that the present position in regard to the investigation of pests and diseases in the West Indies is not unsatisfactory; certain anxiety exists in regard to the damage caused by root disease of limes and the Panama and leaf diseases of bananas, but investigational work in regard to these diseases is in operation, and further expenditure does not seem to be warranted at the present time.
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether more assistance can be given to the British West Indian islands in view of their present problems?
    Mr. MacDonald: In so Jar as the West Indian islands have a common interest as producers of sugar, they are in receipt of substantial indirect assistance from the Exchequer. Apart from this, they are best dealt with individually; and various Colonies are in receipt of Treasury assistance towards administration, the amount of which is fixed annually after consideration of the local financial position. Assistance is also granted from the Colonial Development Fund for schemes which fall within the scope of the Act. In any case in which a Colonial Government may represent to me that further financial assistance is required, I shall be prepared to give the matter my consideration in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who are acquainted with these islands feel that over a period of years we have not taken that general interest which we ought to have taken in their welfare; and would he be prepared to give personal examination to the past history of the islands, realising that everybody would be delighted to see their patriotic inhabitants receive more consideration from His Majesty's Government?
    Captain Arthur Evans: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that several commissions composed of Members of Parliament of all parties have paid visits to these islands from time to time and have made recommendations to the Government of the day?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am certain that all parties in the House are anxious that as much as possible should be done for these islands. We have to admit, however, that the causes of the distress in the islands to-day are very largely international troubles, over which the Colonial Office and the local administration have no control.

    PRAEDIAL LARCENY, TRINIDAD (PUNISHMENT).
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the sentence of 12 lashes and six months hard labour in Port of Spain, Trinidad, on 4th May, for praedial larceny of 50 cabbages; and whether it is the policy of the Government in Trinidad that efforts should be made to cure the theft of food by flogging?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: A report on this case has been received from the Acting-Governor, from which it appears that a sentence of "flogging" was passed but was commuted to 12 strokes with the birch, this sentence being duly carried out. The offender was a well-known thief and bad character with 25 previous convictions, 17 of which were for larceny. At the time of his conviction he was on "ticket-of-leave" following a sentence of two years' imprisonment for attempted larceny from a tailoring establishment. The last offence was committed within two months of his release from prison. As regards the general policy of inflicting corporal punishment for praedial larceny, I would refer to the reply given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for Leyton West (Mr. Sorensen) on 6th April.
    Mr. Creech Jones: While I am fully aware of the character of this man, may I ask the Minister whether it is the policy of the Government to implement the recommendation in the report of the Committee on Trinidad in regard to flogging as a punishment for praedial larceny after the first offence?
    Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Member will read the answer to which I have referred, he will see what the policy of the Government is.
    Mr. Jagger: Is not flogging for praedial larceny an abominable sentence?

    JAMICA
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen the report on wages in the Westmoreland sugar estate, Jamaica, submitted by the local collector of taxes, which is attached to the Collector-General's report; and will he circulate these wage rates to this House?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I have seen the report, which is dated 20th May, 1937. The Collector of Taxes there stated that the wage rates in the parish of Westmoreland were 5s. per diem for artisans, 2s. 6d. per diem for praedial workers and 6s. per week for domestic workers. The House will remember that the Governor appointed last month a Commission to inquire into the rates of wages paid throughout the Colony. The Commission is still at work.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the latest figures I have been able to obtain, those for 1935, show that the wages for labourers as distinct from cane cutters average is. 6d. per day, and for women 9d. per day? Is it not time something was done to put an end to this terrible exploitation?
    Mr. MacDonald: I understand the figures of the hon. Member are for 1935. The figures which I have quoted for 1937 show that there has been a considerable increase in the last two years.
    Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms of reference to the Commission include an inquiry into the cost of living, such as clothing, rent and fuel?
    Mr. MacDonald: No doubt the Commission will take into consideration all questions which are relevant to the question of wages.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is there any truth in the statement generally made, that our race has gone out there and bled nearly the whole of the West Indies white?
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any agricultural labourers' union is operating either in the Westmoreland sugar estate or in Jamaica generally?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have no information as to whether any agricultural labourers' union is operating on the sugar estates in

    393
    Westmoreland. As to the general question of existing trade unions in Jamaica, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my predecessor to the hon. Member on 9th May.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the abominably low rate of wages paid to these labourers are the Government in favour of their having complete freedom to organise independent trade unions in order to better their conditions?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that they have freedom to do that at present.
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to clear this matter up. Do I understand that the Government lay it down that these agricultural labourers have the right to form independent trade unions?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that the law in regard to trade unions in Jamaica is approximately the same as the law in this country.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Is not the president of this union safer than the late M. Tomsky?
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent loans have been raised in recent years for Jamaican development purposes; and to what extent these loans have been spent upon objects of social development, such as health, housing, relief of unemployment, and upon other objects?
    Mr. MacDonald: As the detailed reply to this question involves a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Under Laws Nos. 22 and 23 of 1935 the Governor is empowered to raise sums totalling £2,000,000 for public and municipal works and other purposes. The amount so far raised is £1,100,000. Of the total of £2,000,000, £135,000 is to be allocated for medical services, £100,000 for housing schemes, £250,000 for water supplies, £646,700 for roads and bridges, £100,000 for irrigation schemes, £100,000 for land settlement schemes, £100,000 for harbour works and £105,300 for school buildings. The balance is for public buildings and other works of public utility. Detailed information is not available of the actual expenditure to date, but
    394
    it will be observed that in general the whole sum has been allocated for the objects referred to by the hon. Member.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that when Messrs. Tate and Lyle purchased estates in Jamaica recently considerable economies in native labour employment were effected; and, as this reduction of employment, without corresponding measures of relief, was calculated to disturb the native mind in a way which could not be immediately counteracted by the beneficial works which this firm has instituted; whether any Government action was taken in respect of the immediate suffering caused by the diminution in employment?
    Mr. MacDonald: since a Commission has been appointed to investigate and report on the causes of the disturbances at Frome and the steps taken by the police to deal with the disorders, and the general position regarding wages and conditions on this estate, I must await the Commission's report before expressing any opinion as to the causes contributory to the disturbances there. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that, according to recent correspondence in the Press, the company in question has not made any reduction in the number of labourers employed on its estates.
    Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that there is no unemployment insurance for the natives, are any steps being taken in cases of unemployment to remedy this?
    Mr. MacDonald: That is one of the matters which will have to await the report of the Commission of Inquiry.
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to deal with the bad housing conditions and social and industrial unrest in Kingston, Jamaica; and is he aware of the discontent expressed by demonstrations, meetings, and strikes now taking place in the island?
    Mr. MacDonald: Approval was recently given by my predecessor for expenditure totalling £48,400 upon two schemes for the improvement of housing conditions in the Kingston area. The first was for improvement of the slum area in Smith Village, and the second for the establishment of model tenements at Trench Pen. As regards the latter part of the question,

    395
    I am aware of the situation in the Colony, but I cannot add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 9th May.
    Mr. Riley: Have any steps been taken to implement proposals for expenditure of money on the improvement of housing?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have already said that steps are being taken and money is being spent on improving housing in two areas in Kingston.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked for a special report from the Governor concerning the discontent which is referred to in the question?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have said, in reply to two or three other questions, that there is a Commission of Inquiry going into the matter at the moment.

    SUGAR INDUSTRY.
    Major Procterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that since the International Sugar Agreement was concluded sugar prices have already fallen from £6 10s. per ton to approximately £5 per ton, and that cane prices in the West Indian sugar industry will therefore probably have be be further reduced during the coming crop season; and, in view of the unfortunate effect which this reduction must have upon wages and economic circumstances generally in the West Indies, what remedial steps it is proposed to take?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am aware of the regrettable fall in the price of sugar to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The fall is due to the disequilibrium between supply and demand, owing to a number of causes, of which the Sino-Japanese conflict is the most important. The International Sugar Council at its recent meeting took certain steps to remedy the position, and are meeting again early in July to discuss the possibility of taking further steps.
    Major Procter: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the possibility of establishing a Customs union, including the West Indies and the other Colonies, in order to get fair prices for native products?
    Mr. MacDonald: I think that before we consider anything else, we must await the result of the action which the International Sugar Council has taken, and is prepared possibly to take at its next meeting.
    Mr. De la Bère: Would it not be possible to have fair prices for all produce?

    GOLD COAST.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action it is proposed to take on those sections of the annual report of the principal registrar of births, deaths, and marriages, in the Gold Coast Colony, which call for slum clearance and rebuilding schemes in certain important centres, and for welfare work among women and children in backward rural areas?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am asking the Governor for a report, and will communicate with the hon. Member when it has been received.

    WEST AFRICA (COCOA EXPORTS).
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount, in weight and value, of the exports of cocoa from British West Africa during each of the last three years and for the current year to date; what steps he intends to take to meet the situation; and whether he has any further statement to make on the subject?
    Mr. MacDonald: As the answer to the first part of the question involves tables of figures, I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the remainder of the question, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my predecessor on 4th May in reply to questions by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander).
    Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the distress in this country due to the fact that there has been a falling off in exports from West Africa which is having repercussions on the trade between this country and West Africa?
    Mr. MacDonald: I understand that the position in regard to exports from West

    397
    Africa is satisfactory at the moment, and no doubt the hon. and learned Member knows that there is a commission of

    Exports of Cocoa from the British West African Colonies.

    Colony, etc.

    1935.

    1936.

    1937.

    1938.

    Quantity in tons.

    Value£

    Quantity in tons.

    Value£

    Quantity in tons.

    Value in £.

    Quantity in tons.

    Value in £.

    Gold Coast

    268,890

    5,203,959

    311,151

    7,659,743

    232,538

    9,893,997

    16,896

    Not known

    (Jan.-April)

    Nigeria

    88,142

    1,583,827

    80,513

    1,997,418

    103,126

    3,655,873

    44,190

    808,495

    (Jan.-March)

    Sierra Leone

    164

    2,043

    301

    5,542

    265

    8,830

    149

    2,236

    (Jan.-Feb.)

    Total

    357,196

    6,789,829

    391,965

    9,662,703

    335,929

    13,558,700

    —

    —

    COLONIES (FRANCHISE AND EDUCATION).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that all literate Colonial citizens should be enfranchised; and, if so, what steps are being taken to implement this principle?
    Mr. MacDonald: The matter is not one on which any general policy can be laid down. Conditions differ widely in different Colonies, and the character of the franchise must necessarily vary according to local circumstances.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that as we profess the principles of democracy it would be wise to demonstrate these principles to the world by applying them as soon as possible to these particular areas?
    Mr. MacDonald: I would not take exception to that principle in any way.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to apply that principle?
    Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Member said "as soon as possible."
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial policy of His Majesty's Government includes the provision of universal free education for the Colonial population; and what is the approximate proportion of the natives in our African Colonies and Mandated Territories who are now receiving such education?
    398
    inquiry going into the whole question at the present time.
    Following is the figures:
    Mr. MacDonald: The policy of Colonial Governments aims at the provision of universal free education as soon as circumstances permit, but the House will realise that, in a large number of Colonies, many years must elapse before this object can be achieved. With regard to the second part of the question, the proportion naturally varies from territory to territory, but I understand that the average figure for all the territories is 12 per cent.
    Mr. Sorensen: Considering that in some areas at least, not more than 5 per cent. of the population are receiving education, will not the Minister do something to expedite the development of education so as to demonstrate the sincerity of our democratic professions?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have already said that we aim at achieving that object as soon as circumstances permit.
    Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to when circumstances will permit it?

    PALESTINE (TEL-AVIV AND JAFFA).
    Major Procterasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the proposal that all income arising from harbour, wharfage, storage, and other charges in connection with the Tel-Aviv harbour undertaking are to be collected by the Government of Palestine, although the undertaking is owned by the Marine Trust and the cost of its construction and running have been defrayed out of public subscriptions not invited on a

    399
    commercial basis, no contributions whatsoever being made by the Government; and whether, in these circumstances, arrangements can be made to call the deferred conference in order to regularise the position?
    Mr. M. Mac Donald: The latest information on the subject in my possession is a report dated 25th March from the High Commissioner, stating that arrangements in regard to financial procedure to be followed as between the Marine Trust Limited and the Government Departments concerned were then under negotiation. I am asking the High Commissioner for information regarding any later developments.
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) who provided the funds with which to open the port of Tel-Aviv; and what assistance has been provided by the Palestine administration, in view of the situation existing at Jaffa following the rebellion;
    (2) on how many occasions since 1920 the port of Jaffa has been temporarily closed owing to terrorism or internal strife; and why the port of Tel-Aviv was opened in 1936, and the relationship between the temporary Marine Trust, Limited, and the Palestine administration?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am not in a position to say how often the port of Jaffa has been temporarily closed owing to political causes, but the port was virtually closed for several months during 1936 as a result of the general strike which began in April of that year. At that time certain Jewish trading interests promoted a scheme for the construction of an independent alternative port at Tel-Aviv, and the Marine Trust Limited was incorporated in 1936 to undertake these developments. It is an entirely private concern. The Government have provided no financial assistance, and approval for the construction of the port was only given on the understanding that no expenditure would fall upon the Government or upon municipal funds, and that the cost of any additional Government services would be refunded. The port has now been opened for the admission of all classes of goods and the landing of passengers and the
    400
    Government of Palestine have made arrangements for the provision of Customs and other necessary services.
    Mr. Williams: As the port of Jaffa was closed owing to a strike and private persons found the money to provide this temporary port, which the Government suggest will have to go out of existence later on, on what ground of equity or fair play can the Government now claim to collect all the dues from this port?
    Mr. MacDonald: I do not think they are making that claim. They are making the claim that they should be compensated, in effect, for losses which they have sustained, but the whole matter is under negotiation now. At least, I have not received information yet regarding the ending of the negotiations between the Government and the company. I have asked for a report, and perhaps my hon. Friend would await that information.
    Mr. Williams: In the meantime, would the right hon. Gentleman insist that those persons who put up this money, without any hope of securing any return or any profit from it, will have returned to them by the Palestine Administration at least such moneys as they have expended?
    Mr. MacDonald: I could not add anything to what I have said until I get further information.
    Captain Heilgers: Is the port of Tel Aviv any better than that of Jaffa, which, I am told, is listed at Lloyd's as the worst port in the world?

    FIJI (CONSTITUTION).
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information on the working of the new constitution in Fiji?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: The new constitution was introduced in June of last year, since when there have been three sessions of the Legislative Council. It is rather early to speak definitely of the results achieved; but so far as I can judge, the constitution is working satisfactorily. If the hon. Member desires, I shall be happy to send him copies of the minutes of the first two sessions. The minutes of the third session have not yet reached me.

    TANGANYIKA (GERMANS).
    Colonel Sandeman Allenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Germans resident in Tanganyika without known employment or visible means of support?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: According to my latest information, the number is five.
    Colonel Sandeman Allen: Does my right hon. Friend know whether any of these five are carrying on Nazi propaganda in Tanganyika?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have no reason to suppose that this propaganda is being carried on by these five, but I cannot answer the question without notice which would give me time to make inquiries.
    Miss Wilkinson: If they receive secret funds from the Nazi organisation, do those secret funds come under the heading of "visible means of support"?

  DEFENCE.

    STEEL AND TIN PLATE.
    Sir William Jenkinsasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is taking any steps to make use of the steel works and tin industry in West Wales, from Port Talbot to Llanelly, which have closed down owing to depression, for the purpose of producing material for Defence purposes?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am advised that no shortage of tin plate is being experienced in relation to the Defence programme and that the production of steel also is at present ample for the needs of the programme. In these circumstances it is unnecessary so far as Defence purposes are concerned to take any steps to increase present supplies.

    PIG IRON.
    Mr. Leachasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether his attention has been drawn to the imposition of a 33⅓ per cent. duty on pig iron by the Import Duties Advisory Committee; what effect this duty on a semiraw material so largely required for munitions is likely to have on prices and supplies for his Department; and how will existing contracts be affected?
    Sir T. Inskip: My attention has been drawn to this duty. I do not myself
    402
    place orders for munitions, but I am advised by the Departments directly concerned that the duty will have no effect on home prices, and that it is not expected to have any adverse effect on supplies or on existing contractual arrangements.
    Mr. Leach: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite certain that it is wise to restrict pig iron coming into this country, and thereby to make it more available to competing countries?
    Sir T. Inskip: That is hardly a question to be addressed to me. I am answering a question as to the effect of this duty upon supplies for Defence purposes, but there has been a considerable demand from many quarters for this duty, of which probably the hon. Member is aware.
    Mr. Peat: Can my right hon. Friend conceive of anything which is more liable to upset the ultimate success of the rearmament programme than the damping down of blast furnaces in this country because of imports of foreign materials?
    Sir T. Inskip: Obviously it is of importance that blast furnaces should not be damped down when the demand for pig iron is so large.

    WAR-TIME SERVICE (ENROLMENT).
    Captain A. Evansasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence what method of co-ordination is in force to ensure that in appealing for volunteer man-power the Defence Departments operate on a carefully considered and agreed policy; and whether, in view of the necessity of the Regular and Territorial Army and Air Forces being brought up to the required strength in the shortest possible time, he will state what steps are taken to prevent civil authorities in general, and police authorities in particular, encouraging the enlistment of men for war-time services who are of military age and medically fit, and who would otherwise be available and required for the active Fighting Forces of the Crown in the event of hostilities, and especially at rates of pay over three times in excess of Territorials employed in anti-aircraft Defence?
    Sir T. Inskip: The co-ordination of the needs of the Defence Departments is undertaken by a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence on which

    403
    the Defence Departments and the Home Office are represented. Firms are advised as to the enlistment of skilled and key men in any of the Defence Forces, or as to their enrolment in other services of national importance. Every effort is made to secure that men of the ages which would most urgently be required for the active Defence -Forces are not accepted for duties that could be performed by older men.
    Captain Evans: Can my right hon. Friend inform me whether the representatives of the Defence Departments agreed to the appeal that was made recently by the Commissioner of Police for comparatively young men of military age and medically fit to enlist in the Special Constabularly or Special War Reserve, and in view of the urgent necessity for bringing the Territorial Army up to the required strength in the least possible time, will he not encourage men of this type to give first preference to the Territorial Army?
    Sir T. Inskip: There is another question on the Order Paper about the appeal for men for the constabulary. With regard to special constables they are not, of course, exempted from other service merely by reason of their enrolment in that force.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not the whole position in a state of chaos?
    Captain Evans: I wish to give notice that I would like to raise this matter on the Adjournment for the Whitsuntide Recess.

    KENYA (CATTLE, COMPULSORY SALES).
    Mr. Lunnasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered a petition signed by members of the Wakamba tribe, in Kenya, protesting against the compulsory selling of their cattle at low prices to the canning factory near Athi River station, in Kenya; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that this petition was addressed to my predecessor through the Governor. It has not yet been received in the Colonial Office, and I am, therefore, not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. Lunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to this petition, which implies that the Government are compelling natives to sell their cattle to a privately-owned firm at very low prices instead of going to the ordinary market and getting the market prices for them?
    Mr. MacDonald: Naturally I shall give careful consideration to anything that is said in this petition.
    Mr. Macquisten: Is it not monstrous that such a thing should be done? It is as bad as the Marketing Boards in this country.

    NORTHERN RHODESIA.
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (I) whether he is taking any steps to improve the defective medical service for natives as reported by the commission appointed to enquire into the financial and economic position of Northern Rhodesia;
    (2) whether he has considered the report of the Commission to inquire into the financial and economic position of Northern Rhodesia relating to the backward condition of native education; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to questions by him on nth May. It will be appreciated that the examination by the Northern Rhodesia Government of the numerous recommendations made in the Commission's report must necessarily take time.
    Mr. Paling: As some of these proposals were indicated years ago, particularly those with regard to education—some of them as much as six or seven years ago —and nothing has been done, is it necessary that we should now wait for somebody else to make some further recommendations?
    Mr. MacDonald: All that we are awaiting are the comments of the Government responsible for the administration of this territory on the very important and serious recommendations which have been made.
    Mr. Paling: How long is that likely to take?
    Mr. MacDonald: I must say I think it will take some time. The report has only reached the authorities in Northern Rhodesia, and, naturally, they will require a considerable period in which to examine the whole position very carefully.
    Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the statement in the report of the Commission to inquire into the financial and economic position of Northern Rhodesia relating to native labour at the copper mines, to the effect that the system of compensation for accidents does not seem to be a satisfactory one as compared with that in force on the Rand; and whether he proposes to take any steps to improve the system?
    Mr. MacDonald: A draft Model Workmen's Compensation Ordinance for the Colonial Dependencies in East and West Africa is now under consideration by the Governments concerned, including the Government of Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the long period which has elapsed since this matter was raised, is it not about time that something was done?
    Mr. MacDonald: We shall receive the comments of the Governments concerned as soon as possible.
    Mr. Paling: In view of the fact that all these proposals of medical services, native education, compensation and the rest have been recommended years ago, what is the right hon. Gentleman going to do to compel some method being found of putting them into operation?
    Mr. MacDonald: That is a much wider question than the question on the Paper.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the proceedings at the recent meeting of the Council of the League of Nations?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I understand that if an opportunity presented itself to-morrow night, this question might be raised, when, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I shall have an opportunity of making a statement.

    OIL FROM COAL (FALMOUTH COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
    Mr. Assheton (by Private Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce the Government's decision on the recommendations of the Falmouth Committee?
    Sir J. Simon: His Majesty's Government have decided to accept the recommendations contained in the published report of the Falmouth Committee. Provision is accordingly being made in the Finance Bill to give effect to the recommendation for the extension for a period of 12 years of a guaranteed preference of 8d. per gallon on home-produced motor spirit and diesel oil for use in road vehicles, subject to the adjustments recommended by the Committee. The acceptance of the recommendation concerning an extension of the scope of the tests on low-temperature carbonisation plants carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is subject to consideration of the practicable limits to which such tests can be carried.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Before the Government make up their minds finally about the major issues raised in this report, will there be an opportunity for a discussion of the matter in this House; and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that there is a large measure of opinion in the country that the conclusions in the Falmouth Committee's report were based upon evidence which was far too narrow and was heard in private, and that others had not an opportunity of being heard?
    Sir J. Simon: As to the general question of a further discussion, I would prefer that to be put down and, no doubt, it could be considered. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that the announcement which I have made as to the provisions which will be included in the Finance Bill is one that ought to be very sympathetically received by those interested in British coal.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Government refrain from making up their minds finally to accept these conclusions on the larger issues until there has been a discussion?
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Will the Resolution cover motor fuels made in this country from materials other than coal?
    Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. That was not what the Falmouth Committee recommended.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Forfar Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill.
Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AIR NAVIGATION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.50 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill is to implement some of the recommendations of the recent Committee of Inquiry into Civil Aviation which was presided over by Lord Cadman. The Bill provides for an increase in the aggregate sum that is provided by the State for the development of civil air transport, and its general effect is to increase from £1,500,000 to £3,000,000 the maximum sums which may be paid in any financial year under agreements for subsidising air transport made by the Secretary of State for Air. I hope that in this way we may be able to begin a fresh chapter in the history of civil aviation. It is a sequel to many others written by our predecessors, many of them distinguished in this new field, from whose work undoubtedly we are obtaining many benefits to-day. I think most hon. Members who are acquainted with this subject will agree with me when I say that there have been undoubtedly many difficulties in the past and that the work of the pioneers had slow beginnings and many setbacks. I would suggest that, perhaps, the original idea of civil aviation was that it was to fly by itself, but the fact remains that everywhere and by all countries civil aviation is subsidised to-day, and I do not think there is any doubt, whatever method we may have in mind for dealing with it, that more money is needed if this country is to occupy its proper position in relation to this important matter.
  Undoubtedly the wishes expressed by this House are fulfilled. The additional financial assistance to be given on the routes outside Europe will be approximately £1,000,000, and the greater part of this sum will be concentrated on Empire routes. The emphasis that we are thus making on the linking up of the centre to a vast and scattered Empire needs no justification. We desire particularly to make a general improvement on the Empire services by speeding up the provision of additional services and,
  428
  I hope, improved aircraft, in conjunction with companies of the Dominions, by extra services to Canada, and by the development of the Australia—New Zealand services. I may say that we have been discussing this matter with the respective Governments, and we hope to take it further in discussion with the Australian Ministers and with the representatives of the New Zealand Government. There are also the trans-Pacific project and the West Indies and other connecting services with the Empire, and also the local services in the island itself. Another object to which this money is to be devoted—and again I hope this is one which will secure general agreement—is the necessity, in the interests of British civil aviation and our national prestige, that a first-class service should be established between London and the principal capitals of Europe, and we propose to devote some £400,000 to these services. Daily British services are already in operation to Paris, Brussels, Copenhagen, and Stockholm, with a daily summer service to Basle, and Rome is already served by the Empire route, but it is now planned to establish daily services additionally to Berlin, Amsterdam, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Oslo, and Lisbon, and to establish an all-the-year-round service to Switzerland. By these means few of the capitals of Europe will thus be outside the projected network, and I hope we shall be able to extend that even further still.
  I need hardly tell the House that, in order to accomplish these matters which I have mentioned, we shall have to enter into a number of commercial and international agreements, and this must obviously take time, but it is the desire of the Government that British aircraft shall be utilised 100 per cent. for this purpose, as indeed on every route flown by British operators. I may say in that connection that it is well that the House should know that British aircraft are not yet fully available for these purposes. I would like to tell the House of a promising type of medium-size, all-metal air liner which is now under construction and which we hope will be on the market in the early part of next year. The question of financial assistance in the development of this machine is now being considered in order to enable it to be brought forward and marketed at the very earliest oppor-

  429
  tunity and at a good competitive price. The Ministry have also, after consulting the two main subsidised companies, invited definite proposals from constructors for a heavy machine capable, for example, of carrying 10 passengers for 1,800 miles and suitable for direct flights to such places as Berlin, Copenhagen, and Lisbon. There is further under consideration a landplane to succeed in due course to the "Albatross" for longdistance flights such as the North and South Atlantic or to Alexandria.
  I would also like to say a word about the inland services, in which I was very much interested when I was at the Post Office. We propose to devote some £100,000 to the inland services, and we hope thus to help those companies which are suffering losses to establish themselves on a sound commercial footing and to enable all of them to press on with their services with even greater enterprise. The Government have therefore decided, in view of the special circumstances of the moment and with particular reference to the Defence situation, that a sum not exceeding £100,000 in the first year, and diminishing progressively in the subsequent four years, shall be earmarked out of the increased subsidy limit of £3,000,000 for the purpose of subsidising internal air lines. I want to make it clear that this assistance will be given on the clear understanding that the companies should endeavour to establish themselves on a paying basis before the end of the period, and that no further assistance of this kind can be looked for after that date. All companies actually operating the internal services at the present date will be eligible for consideration, subject to their entering into suitable agreements under the Air Navigation Act. They themselves, for instance, accept as a liability the appointment of Government directors and of a maximum subsidy for each individual company. The amounts of such subsidies will depend on such conditions as the number of approved British aircraft employed and the efficiency of services operated on routes licensed by the licensing authority and approved for subsidy by the Air Ministry, having regard to the commercial possibilities of such routes. It will also be provided that so far as practicable 75 per cent. of the pilots employed shall be enrolled in the Air Force Reserve under arrangements similar to
  430
  those made under other subsidy agreements.
  Mr. Stephen: Does that mean that there will be a direct service in future from London to Glasgow?
  Sir K. Wood: I will make inquiries as to that. Clause 2 gives power to the Secretary of State for Air to pay out of public funds the salaries and expenses of the licensing authority of air transport and commercial flying under the Air Navigation Act of 1936, and Sub-section (2) corrects an omission from Section 5 of that Act, and provides that the licence fees received by the licensing authority shall be paid into the Exchequer. That, briefly, is a statement of the objects and aims of the Bill. I need hardly say more than a word or two upon-the Amendment which has been placed on the Paper by hon. Members opposite. The Amendment calls for some measure of nationalisation:
  " In view of the national and international importance of civil aviation, the transport by air of passengers and goods should be made a State service."
  I am always interested in the projects of hon. Members opposite, but I always like to see what they do when they themselves have the responsibility. It is very interesting to note that in fact, so far from nationalisation being attempted in those far-off days, the first agreement with Imperial Airways was made by Lord Thomson, Secretary of State for Air in the Socialist administration of that time. It is also interesting to observe that so far did hon. Members opposite fall from grace when again they were in office that the old subsidy, paid annually, was fixed by legislation in 1930 under the second Socialist administration at a figure of £1,000,000. So I commend perhaps rather more what that have done in practice than what they are advocating in theory this afternoon. At any rate I express the hope that in ways I have indicated this afternoon we shall do what I think is so necessary in the interest of this country, and that is to improve the position of civil aviation so that it may be in all respects as worthy of this country as is our Mercantile Marine to-day.
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. Montague: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end

  431
  of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  " in view of the national and international importance of civil aviation, the transport by air of passengers and goods should be made a State service, and this House, therefore, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which increases the already heavy subsidy to inefficient private enterprise."
  The case for the policy laid down in the Amendment is divided into two parts: First, a consideration of the need of the industry that we are discussing; and, secondly, the principle itself of subsidising enterprises otherwise left to private ownership. Regarding the industry itself, in the very circumstances of the case that industry is a monopoly. It has been recognised as a monopoly from the beginning, because of the inevitable development of aviation and the nature of the industry; and the foundation of Imperial Airways, to which the Minister referred, was a result of that recognition. I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about Labour Governments. It is perfectly true that in 1924 we carried out what had already been begun as a result of the Handley Committee, and when in 1930 it was a question of carrying on civil aviation efficiently without any opportunity of nationalising that industry, we had other things to do and not much opportunity of doing what we wanted in the circumstances, and we did increase the subsidy. But that is not an argument for increasing the subsidy now to £3,000,000.
  The monopolistic character of the industry is borne out by the draft Order in Council which will be discussed in due course. Let me refer to it in order to emphasise the point that I am making. The case for nationalisation rests upon the inherent monopoly of civil aviation. The draft Order says:
  " In exercising their discretion to grant or to refuse a licence, and their discretion to attach conditions to any licence, the licensing authority shall have regard to the coordination and development of air services generally, with the object of ensuring the most effective service to the public while avoiding uneconomic overlapping, and generally to the interests of the public. In particular the licensing authority shall have regard to the following matters: The existence of other air services in the area, the possibilities of air transport in that area, the degree of efficiency and regularity of the air services, continuity, regularity of operation, frequency, punctuality, reasonableness of
  432
  charges and the type of aircraft proposed to be used."
  Then the licensing authority, in attaching conditions to its licences, has to make reference to the places between which passengers and goods are to be carried, intermediate landings, the observance of a schedule of services, the maximum fares, and so forth.
  So I think it can be agreed that the industry of civil transport is recognised by the Government as a virtual monopoly. But air monopoly or transport monopoly is rather different from any other kind of monopoly, even a monopoly of land. There can be no private property in the medium used; there are no fences in space. The medium is universal, without the definition that coastlines make of the seas. Therefore, it is necessarily subject to control, and, as the Minister said in his speech, that is a question involving international order, navigation laws and other considerations which belong to the respective States and to the aggregate of world States, and it is also bound up with military and defensive considerations. We subsidise shipping companies but there is no monopoly on the high seas: the high seas are open to all who desire to sail upon them. We talk about the "freedom of the seas" and boast about maintaining it. But there can be no freedom of the air in any comparable sense.
  Commercial aviation is by its very nature monopolistic, and it would be, however much subsidies might be divided up. I want to make that point clear, and incidentally to remark that the avalanche of criticism of Air Ministry subsidies and so forth that usually comes from hon. Members on the other side of the House is notably absent. I imagine that hon. Members are satisfied with the £100,000 that they are getting for distribution to internal air line companies. But there may be air routes and zones divided up; they may be marked off and the monopoly shared by separate concerns without altering the fact. I stress that point, because I want to make it plain that it is not our case that one or two companies get public money while others are left out. They all of them share the spoils. I do not know how many are going to do so; the number will still be objectionable, the monopoly will still exist and it will still be a private monopoly. The discrimination strengthens our case for public ownership and supports our claim that where

  433
  monopoly is the essence of the service itself it should not be subsidised while it is in private hands. Government aid to firms operating for profit is illogical and contrary to public interest.
  So far the argument has been independent of the general case for public ownership. One form of debating tactics is to anticipate objections. I shall employ that form because from the proceedings of this House, as well as from many other sources, it is possible not only to excavate arguments against public ownership brought out in discussions from time to time, and to deal with them in the sure and certain knowledge that they will be repeated, but also to recover and resurrect useful items of evidence, such for instance as the following quotation from a speech made in this House:
  " So long as railways are in private hands they might be used for immediate profit. In the hands of the State, however, it might be wise or expedient to run them at a loss if they develop industry or place the trader in close contact with his market and stimulate development. We cannot organise the great questions of land settlement, new industries and the extension of production unless the State has control of the means of transportation."
  The speaker was talking, not about war conditions, but of reconstruction after the War. It was the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who used those words. That quotation from a speech, certainly made a good number of years ago, is relevant and brings out one inconsistency of our opponents, in so far that when it is required to argue that public enterprise does not pay, the expediency mentioned, namely the development of industry irrespective of accountancy profit and loss, is entirely ignored, but when the issue is such as the present one under discussion, then industrial development becomes important and the State has not only to make up deficiencies by acknowledged and direct subsidy, but the principle is accepted without any question whatever.
  It is rather interesting to note that that kind of argument is used by our opponents. When it is done in the Socialist way—the question of making up losses—they talk about loss, and the experiment is accounted a failure, but if it is done in the Capitalist way it is the encouragement of imperial communications or new industries or what not. An example of that kind of argument was
  434
  the Canadian Merchant Air Service to the West Indies. In order to keep the West Indian Islands from falling into what was called "the economic orbit of the United States," the service was run by the Canadian Government unremuneratively, and deliberately so. It was an indirect subsidy designed explicitly in the interests of Canadian trade. Tories in Canada and in this country would not hesitate to ascribe the technical loss to the failure of Socialism while they supported subsidies at home. Another example is that of the subsidies to the McBrayne Steamship Company which was running so-called uneconomic services to the Western Isles of Scotland. Numerous examples of this method of controversy are available. In connection with Canadian shipping in general, the "Manchester Guardian" said that it saved exporters from the Dominions from the extortion of foreign ocean freight rates to an extent that outweighed the deficit by millions.
  In the case of Australian shipping, Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia. sold the Commonwealth Line to a private, company. He said that it seemed to him that it had more than justified itself and had been of inestimable benefit to the country. He gave an illustration. The State was carrying Australian wheat to London at £10 per ton, while British shipowners asked £13 and foreign owners up to £15. Producers had saved £2,000,000 a year by the operation of the line against the £500,000 deficit. The shipping companies got to work, however, mendacious propaganda proved effective, and Mr. Bruce was compelled to sell the Commonwealth Line to Lord Kylsant.
  Major Procter: Was it not a fact that the Australian ships were sold because the trade union workers simply bled the Government?
  Mr. Montague: The steamship workers were paid on the same terms as British steamship workers. The terms were settled by international agreement. Mr. Bruce himself admitted that the line had been used in the way of an indirect subsidy to the advantage of Australian business. It was the shipping combine that compelled Mr. Bruce to sell this line to Lord Kylsant. We know what happened afterwards. Tories come down to this House and talked about the failure of Socialism. The money that was supposed to be paid was not paid in full,

  435
  and the Australian Government had to realise upon their securities, while farmers, graziers and importers paid up and the conditions of the workers were left to the tender mercies of general world conditions.
  The Amendment that I am moving has been described by the Press as a Socialist Amendment. As a matter of fact, hon. Members on the other side, not to mention the Press, really know very little about Socialism. I am prepared to accept the term, although it is not quite correct. This form of collectivisation is not Socialism; it is a stage towards Socialism, and that is why I say hon. Members do not usually know much about the subject when they talk about the failure or otherwise of Socialism. Socialism now has nothing to do with the question of profit or loss. Socialism is the organisation of the means of providing services co-operatively. What the community needs it provides. There is profit with bad service and loss with good service under Capitalism, but under Socialism the words "profit and loss" mean nothing in reference to services and transactions both ends of which are joined up in co-operative production and consumption. Hon. Members might regard this is an abstract point in connection with this Bill, but I refer to it because that argument is accepted in the very Bill under discussion.
  What are these subsidies but another way of saying that it does not matter whether the industry pays or not if the industry is necessary? When an argument against Socialism is required loss is called the failure of Socialism, but here is an industry which does not pay and it calls upon the Government for subsidies. That is all right as long as the subsidies are paid to private concerns in the interest of private profit. According to this Measure it is considered just as economic to cover costs partly by taxation if the commodity supplied is one in general use, or the development is one of common advantage as to fix price rates at this and that level. If the capital value of social economies already established were estimated, the result would fall not far short of one-third of the total capital worth of this country. On the other hand, if there is no general advantage, by what right is the nation called
  436
  upon to subsidise any enterprise whatever? Let us admit that flying is a new industry that ought to be encouraged and developed to the common advantage. That must be the point, since I think it must be obvious that it cannot be a question of general use. We cannot all go flying, and, as a matter of fact, very few people do actually fly.
  I said once before in reference to the Maybury Committee's report that when that report said that a certain project supplied the needs of 14,000,000 of our population, it was talking unadulterated nonsense. It does not supply the needs of 1,400 of our population. I have never seen the public advantage of providing flying facilities at public expense to business men engaged in a competition among themselves and for purposes of that competition. The position is different with regard to foreign trade. We either get it or we do not, but all internal trade is within the country. We are going to spend out of the increased subsidy in one year £100,000 for the development of internal lines. I would like the Minister to tell us why. What particular advantage is there in developing internal lines —I mean to the public? There is plenty of advantage to shareholders and people with special interests in flying, but, from the public point of view, what advantage is there?
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Nonsense.
  Mr. Montague: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of showing why it is nonsense. I am asking what special advantage there is to the industry of flying in giving subsidies to private companies. If that argument is nonsense, I should be pleased to know why. I do not know how much in the long run the internal lines are to be subsidised, or what arrangements are to be made under the contract with Imperial Airways, but there is much less reason for subsidising internal lines than there is for subsidising Imperal or foreign lines. If it is a question of ultimate military importance, I suggest it should be put upon the proper Vote so that we may know where we stand upon that issue. In any event, we take our stand on the principle that what is good enough for subsidisation is good enough for ownership. The suggestion is sure to be made—and I can see the Under-Secretary getting ready to make it, because I remember his attitude towards

  437
  the Government upon the question of the Air Ministry muddle—that there is inconsistency in demanding the public ownership of civil aviation when we have been the foremost in criticism of Government administration and condemnatory of Air Ministry muddle, in which the hon. and gallant Member has joined us.
  Apart from the question whether there has been muddle as a result of outside interference controlled from a distance— muddle as a result of meddle—there is the consideration that there is nothing like the fierce light of criticism focussed in this House able to be directed to private enterprise. We do not propose a rigid departmentalism. As servants of the State occupying, with as much distinction and honour as generals, admirals and air marshals, positions of comparable authority, there is no reason why efficient leaders of productive industry and, as in this case, operative transport, should not have responsibility and opportunities of initiative expanded and not contracted. It is too widely assumed that public ownership is necessarily bound up with red tape and circumlocution. I am inclined to think that most business firms of any magnitude are as much locked up in routine as any Government Department. The Assistant Postmaster-General will agree with that. The argument that inefficiency in ordinary business—and there is plenty of it—concerns only shareholders who risk their money simply will not hold water. Inefficiency in industry leads to increased industry costs, injured trade, unemployment and sometimes commercial panic. If the Tite Barnacles encumber the administrative ground, still they must be swept away, as they have been in many Socialist corporations up and down the country. The idea that representative organisation is bound to be incompetent in the nature of things cannot be accepted. The late Lord Melchett said in this Chamber on one occasion:
  "I do contend that it is unreasonable to lay down the general principle that it is impossible for any great department, welt-equipped, well-staffed and well-managed, to do its work with as great intelligence as private contractors."
  When he was asked why he did not hand over his own business to a Government Department, he said that he would if he were put at the head of it. That reply is significant of the fact that it is not true Socialism of which intelligent people are
  438
  afraid, from that angle, at any rate; it is the false notion that business is to be taken out of the hands of people qualified to conduct it and turned over to elected incapables. We do not propose to do that, at any rate, with air transport. When comparisons are drawn to show whether public ownership, or public control, is a failure or not, they must not be fallacious ones. Like must be compared with like. Inconveniences are put up with normally in one country that would not be tolerated in another. Promptitude is not always regarded as a virtue. I have recently had some experiences of that abroad. Public services, like any other services, must naturally conform to the ordinary tenour of a people's way. On the other hand, we are not without impressive support for our contention that, on the whole, public service is at least as good as private service, and in many cases superior.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: On a point of Order. Is it in accordance with the traditions of this House that hon. Members should read every word of their speeches?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member is doing more than other hon. Members do.
  Mr. Montague: In any case, the allegation is not true. The interruption is an indication of the pressure of the argument. One thing which I desire to do is to keep to the point I am making. Messrs. Selfridge and Company said a year or two ago:
  " We have had experience both in America and upon the Continent of systems controlled both privately and by the State, and without the slightest hesitation do we award the palm for all round satisfactoriness to the telephones of London."
  A London newspaper said:
  "If we apply the great and abiding test of the functioning of its utility services New York will not stand comparison with London. Its telephones are the last word in antiquity and inconvenience."
  I have pointed out that collectivism has made extraordinary strides in this country. The principle is well established. May I be allowed to say, further, for it is of significant importance, that the collectivism of the type advocated in this Amendment is the constitutional approach to Socialism proper, which is as inevitable as anything in this world. I am no supporter of any other approach, but the

  439
  people who are the strength and core of the working class of this country are well aware of the fact that what economic progress has been made for them has been made through public services and inroads upon private exploitation. In this new industry of commercial aviation, which is not as yet encrusted with accumulated privileges and interests to the same extent as other industries—it is an amazing thing, for example, that one person can sell half of an important city like Cardiff—we have a useful opportunity, and I stress the word "useful," of adding to the collectivist structure. Subsidies are not in themselves unsocialistic, because they can be regarded as a co-operative charge, just as municipal undertakings of a so-called unremunerative type are, and just as this Measure I is subsidising private concerns of an un-remunerative character; but subsidies to private companies without effective control, without ownership, without tangible interests, even, have no relation to proper democracy and no reasonable relation to constitutional practice.
  4.35 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Seely: I should like, first, to congratulate the new Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary upon their appointments. From every point of view there could be no two persons better fitted for those posts. The Secretary of State is well equipped for dealing with industry in many ways, and the Under-Secretary I certainly congratulate upon his knowledge and upon the interest he has taken, especially, in civil aviation. They are, however, both new Ministers, and therefore it is rather difficult for us to put many questions to them or to expect them to say very much to-day. This Bill is the outcome of the Cadman report; its explanatory memorandum makes that clear; but we feel strongly that the Cadman Committee, whose report was one of the most expeditiously produced which we have ever had, cannot have gone fully into the whole subject, and we do expect that the new Ministers will really examine the whole question of civil aviation and not be content to be tied by the Cadman report. Many results have come from it and I should like to ask a question regarding Newcastle Allied Airways, an air line which has done a service in the past,
  440
  especially in the matter of its Scandinavian contract. I understand the difficulty which it now has in getting a subsidy arises from the fact that it is not specifically mentioned in the Cadman report.
  I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will tell us that the Government are not bound by the Cadman report and that they will go into the whole question of civil aviation in this country and see that we really do get what we need, which is more co-ordination and greater opportunities for new lines to expand. We ought not to leave civil aviation tied to the old lines which have received subsidies in the past. Hon. and right hon. Members above the Gangway on this side are keen on the subject of Socialism, and I have great sympathy with them in their view that when public money is given to private enterprise there ought to be some control over how that money is spent. It is a practice from which we are departing in too many instances, and this case is one of the most blatant. I admit that agriculture has received enormous subsidies, but agriculture is an enormous industry, and it cannot be said that it is in the hands of a few individual profit-making concerns; but this new industry is starting almost on subsidy lines and although I am not saying that it has not some rights in that respect it has very small right to continue as a private industry in a capitalist country unless it can justify itself up to the hilt as a private industry.
  There is a great danger of the vested interests in Imperial Airways and various other companies which happened to "get in on the ground floor," if you like to put it that way, being able to push out any new undertakings which come along. We cannot defend private enterprise unless new undertakings come into it and the public are given a proper service. I do not agree with the Amendment for two reasons. In the first place, I do not agree with subsidies, and, secondly, I do not agree with the idea of State control over a new industry which is to provide a public service. It may come to it later, when, perhaps, the industry has grown up; but we do not want it to become a vested interest owing to its subsidies and to run the risk of not securing that progress which we expect to get under private enterprise. We do not want Ministers to be bound entirely by the

  441
  Cadman report, but to regard the Cadman report as a warning of what the public feels regarding the way that private enterprise is running these air lines, depending in many cases upon subsidies and not making the progress for which we have a right to look.
  4.41 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I should very much like to associate myself with the congratulations which have been offered to my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Air. We have seen him grow up from an Under-Secretary and become a Cabinet Minister, and go on up the scale until now he is in the air. This is a great ascension, and I hope that he will not end in the heaven which is at the end of the passage, but long remain with us in this House to look after this most important side of our national work. I wish, also, to offer my very sincere congratulations to the Under-Secretary, because he has shown himself extremely knowledgeable on this subject, and has always leavened his criticism of the Government and their policy with good temper and great knowledge, and I am glad to see that the old tradition of English life is being maintained and that those who criticise have now got to do the job themselves.
  We are speaking, really, to an Amendment moved so very ably, I thought, by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). One can divide the extreme Socialists from the extreme reactionary Tory on this question of nationalisation. There is a big gulf between the nationalisation of children and the running of the Army by private enterprise. I got into considerable trouble with my own party by coming down on the side of the State over the question of electricity. I was very badly received when the grid was put up, but that was one of those lovely compromises such as we see in this country between private enterprise and nationalisation, which is of the essence of the English character, and I believe that something along those lines is going to happen here and be an example to other countries.
  On the particular point before us I have no special bias one way or the other, but I would only point out that we are still in a very early stage of the development of civil aviation." If it were a question of taking over something which was well
  442
  established, there would be much more justice in my hon. Friend's argument, but before civil aviation can come to depend upon itself it has a tremendous lot to learn, such as how to produce itself cheaply and how to run cheaply, and I believe that its development will best come about under the fire of the competition which is the feature of private enterprise, until at last will come the timely when it can be made to pay of itself. it is also to be noted that in its development it will not be building up something physical which the State will eventually have to buy out at vast outlay. There will be no great tracts of land to buy, because the aerodromes belong to the nation; certainly there will be the organisation; but what we are doing, really is creating a perishable article, because machines do not last very long. Although I am not in favour of the nationalisation of aerial transport at present, that industry is one of those borderline cases which in a dozen or so years the State might be justified in taking over.
  I should very much like to make a plea, which I have made before in this House and shall go on making, for the development of the technical side of civil aviation. We are in the difficulty that if you try to produce industrially something for civil aviation you have a very limited market, whereas if you produce something for the military side you have an enormous market. That is what is happening with regard to the compression-ignition engine. If you were to spend £200,000 or £300,000 developing an engine of that type there would be a very small market for it, because it would interest only the civil operators, but if you developed a new petrol engine you could sell it galore. We have to lag behind in the things which are important to a successful civil aviation. How are we to get over that difficulty? Can my hon. and gallant Friend assure me that what was recommended by the Cadman Report will be implemented and that some of the money that we are voting now for the general advancement for civil aviation will be used in experimenting and in developing engines of this kind?
  Nothing is more important to civil aviation than the question of freedom from fire. You have only to see, as I have done so many times, my friends struggling to get out through the flames of a crashed machine. It is no use saying that it is

  443
  only the burning of a corpse. This fluid which flashes into fire is too dangerous. It may be necessary for the military side, but it is not necessary for the civil side, and the position remains what it is, only because there has been no commercial incentive to produce this engine. If this country can show imagination—we are doing so by granting this big sum of money for civil aviation—and can develop a successful compression-ignition engine, English civil aviation, run by Diesel engines—if that is to be the future engine for civil aviation—will be supreme throughout the world. It will be ahead of everybody in the world and will be patronised by everybody because it will be safer than any other line. That is a development to which I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will give some attention in his speech to-day. Here we are, taxpayers, and we want to see the money we spend produce a civil aviation that shall be the best and safest in the modern world. These little bits of England that visit the far corners of the earth must be technically unrivalled. I hope that we shall have an answer from my hon. and gallant Friend on this point.
  4.48 p.m.
  Mr. Garro Jones: I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) about making the controversy of State control or private enterprise into an ideological issue transfused with political prejudice. It ought to be regarded as an issue of practical politics and common sense, and it is on that ground that we advocate the increasing nationalisation and State ownership of these industries. Both the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) were a little out of fine in what they said about State control over a new enterprise. Within the last few years there has been an outstanding example of successful development of a new sphere of Governmental activity about which even less was known at the time it came under State control than is known to-day about the aeroplane. I refer to broadcasting. I do not think any Member of this House would be prepared to allow broadcasting to revert to the competition of private enterprise. It is frequently stated that people will not give of their best if
  444
  they are working for the State, but that is a fallacy which even those who speak it do not believe. I have here a quotation from something I was reading the other day by Lord Baldwin:
  " The highest form of human altruism has been inspired by patriotism. Not only among soldiers and sailors, but scholars, engineers and business men, service of their country has been the deepest motive of their work."
  That sentiment does not fit in very well with the argument that has been used against the development of social ownership and control. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Wallasey that if hon. Members had paid close attention to what was said by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench they would have found much to remove misconceptions from their minds.
  I was really astonished at the introduction given by the Secretary of State for Air to the proposals of the Bill, new as he is to his office. He spoke for only a few minutes, he said practically nothing about the Cadman Report, he gave us merely a rough outline of the Clauses of the Bill and he concluded by making a debating point against this party, alleging that we had not carried out the policy advocated in our Amendment when we were in office. That is the kind of point which is always made when the Conservative Government are introducing proposals of this kind. In other words, in the short time in which the Labour party held office they did not reverse the whole direction of our industrial machine. I regard that rather as a compliment. If we had attempted in such a short space of time to nationalise every sphere of activity that came under our legislative attention, or to impose our programme upon it, we should soon have landed the country into that disaster which is so often foretold by hon. Members opposite. They base their prophecy on the kind of argument which the new Secretary of State for Air gave us in the House this afternoon.
  Although there has been a nominal departure from the principle under which Imperial Airways was made the chosen instrument by the Government for the development of civil aviation, it is only a nominal departure, because the monopoly has really been broken down in respect of only a few internal air lines where the development of civil aviation is immeasurably more difficult than upon

  445
  the longer trans-oceanic and oversea routes. It is true that one other company has been associated with Imperial Airways and has been in receipt of the same subsidy, and it can be taken for certain that before many years, if not many months, have passed, those two companies will be one. I would remind the House of the state of this so-called chosen instrument when the Government took it over. In 1924, Imperial Airways was first formed for a sum of £50,000 in cash and £100,000 in shares. Shortly afterwards, on the strength of a subsidy promised by the Government, the company made a public issue of £500,000. The prospectus at that time made an estimate of profits, not of £50,000 or £60,000, but with that precision which generally lends verisimilitude to prospectuses, made an estimate of profit of £53,000. As a matter of fact, in the first year the company suffered a loss of about £15,000.
  From that time the capital remained the same until a short time ago, when there was a large issue of capital. Today we find, looking back over the financial history of this concern, that it has been made the subject of considerable financial manipulation and speculation; that its shares have fluctuated in price between is. and 63s.; that the dividends have not been maintained on any continuous policy, having gone up one year, down the next and up the next, culminating last year in the payment by this subsidised company, which has never earned a profit without a subsidy, of a dividend of 7 per cent., and a bonus of 2 per cent. on what is practically a gilt-edged security. Notice that during the history of this company, the Government purchased the assets which went to form the company for £50,000 cash and £100,000 in shares, and that at various times since that date the Government's broker could have stepped into the market and purchased the whole concern, allowing for a small depreciation, for a sum of £20,000 or £30,000. For a prolonged period that sum would have purchased the whole of the assets of the chosen instrument of the development of civil aviation. Much has happened since those years 1924–27.
  Having trespassed on the patience of the House in going back upon that historical account, let me come to the actual purpose of the Bill. Up to date, the
  446
  company have had no less a sum than approximately £5,000,000 in direct financial subsidy from the State, but that is not the whole story Nothing is ever said about the indirect subsidy; it is always skated over. I am going to remind hon. Members of something which is very pertinent to our Amendment and to the Bill about the measure of assistance received in addition to the £5,000,000 subsidy. It has gone to the shareholders—anonymous shareholders for the most part. A large proportion of the shares is held in the names of nominees. The company get the free use of aerodromes and ground equipment. They get the benefit of an extremely expensive research into aerodynamics, apart from the contributions they receive towards the development of new types of aeroplanes. Survey flights are carried out for them at Government expense. They now receive petrol free of tax. How lightly this fact has been passed over. The other day I was looking at the total number of ton-miles, set out in one of the many vehicles of propaganda put out by this concern. I find that they did a total of over 5,000,000 ton-miles in 1937. I am not able to tell the House how much petrol is used per ton-mile, or whether all the petrol, or what proportion of it, was purchased in this country and otherwise would have paid tax, but it would be very interesting to know how much this relief from taxation has cost the Exchequer. I put down a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day to be answered by written answer, but, as is usual, I have not received the answer on time. No doubt I shall receive it to-morrow.
  A meteorological organisation is placed at the disposal of this concern. Diplomatic facilities are given to them in every part of the world in which they operate. They receive special grants for the modernising of their fleet and £900,000 from the Postmaster-General for the carriage of the mails. We are therefore really discussing not simply an increase of £1,500,000 to £3,000,000, which is the ostensible subject before us, but a principle under which this concern will receive, in direct cash subsidies for 15 years, no less than £46,000,000 between itself and British Airways, and £100,000, which is to be devoted to the small internal air lines. If to that figure you add the value, on any moderate basis of computation, of the indirect subsidy which

  447
  they receive, I think a very good case could be made out, and one which it would be very difficult to deny, that the total cost to the Exchequer of civil aviation, directed for the most part through the treasury of this private company—this privately owned public company—would be a sum of not less than £61,000,000. That is the estimate which I make, and I think it would be extremely difficult to make a lower one.
  Therefore, it is fair to say that the Government are grouting into this commercial organisation all this material to strengthen it and make it an extremely valuable concern, with no provision for return if ever the company should be placed on a prosperous basis. There was a time when the Government did have a provision that, if ever the company was able to earn a profit, some of that profit should be returned by way of returned subsidy. But the advantages which the Government used to have they made haste to throw away, as, for example, when they abolished the obligation on the part of the company to return the subsidy in return for the payment to them of £25,000 in deferred shares, which have never been fructified with dividends and, I think, never will.
  The Bill which the House is now asked to pass confirms and expands that policy of developing civil aviation in this way, and the Amendment for which we are contending expresses strong opposition to that policy. We recognise, of course, as much as hon. Members in any part of the House, the national importance of civil aviation, but we say even more emphatically, perhaps, than hon. Members opposite, that its development is a State responsibility. In fact, I think that we on this side of the House have been as active in spurring the Government to greater efforts, with the exception of one extremely valuable contribution, which clinched the matter, made by the hon. Member who sits below the Gangway. He has been associated with us for years, as well as the Under-Secretary, in pressing for more active development, and, therefore nothing that we say must be taken as indicating any under-estimate of the vital importance to the State of this concern. Our objections can be briefly stated, and I would like to add them to what has
  448
  been said so fully and so well by my hon. Friend. We think that for a vital Imperial service, whose importance to the State it is unnecessary to recite, to be left under the control of a body of men whose breadth of vision has been calibrated in the Cadman Report, is wrong. In the second place, we think that the policy of heaping financial and other benefits on private shareholders, disclosed or anonymous, as many of them are, and building up for them, with no provision for or prospect of repayment, a commercial structure which has already largely appreciated in capital value and which has been made a medium for financial exploitation, is wrong. In fact, I think that "wrong" would not be the right word. We think it a wicked policy, almost amounting to dishonesty.
  In the light of the facts, I should have supposed that the House would have been entitled to some more adequate explanation by the Secretary of State for Air as to why the Government intends to persist in this policy. Why is it necessary, while increasing the provision for civil aviation, to increase at the same time the benefits to the shareholders of this concern? We have had two or three masters of logical exposition holding the office of Under-Secretary of State for Air, but I am not aware that any one of them has ever given us a full justification for this policy. That provides the new Under-Secretary with a magnificent opportunity, with the opportunity, if I may say so, that he has been asking for for so long, the opportunity that he has been thinking about, dreaming about. Now he has it at his feet, and he will be able to give us a full explanation of why it is necessary, when the Government are developing civil aviation, that they should at the same time develop the private account of Imperial Airways and the private accounts of anonymous shareholders of that company. The first thing that the Under-Secretary will have to state is that Imperial Airways is a shining example of efficiency in the realm of private enterprise. I myself think that we shall have to sit here a very long time if we wait until the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made out a case for that. But I am going to promise him that, if he will get up and make that assertion, I will present him with a little prize. I will present him with a bound copy of the Cadman Report if he will only get up and say without

  449
  qualification that he considers that Imperial Airways is a shining example of the efficiency of private enterprise.
  Even if private enterprise itself is a beneficent thing, it would be difficult to prove that Imperial Airways is a good example of private enterprise. It is supposed to be the profit-making motive that confers all these advantages, and it would be very foolish to deny that the profit-making motive is a tremendous force in industry. Of course, the desire to make a large amount of money is a force which it would be foolish to under-estimate in any sphere of activity. But our contention, and it is a valid one, is that it is largely the desire to remove the very evil which it: causes, namely, the insecurity which attends modern commercial and private life, which in its turn is the spur to people to act in that way without regard to the public interest. As far as the management of Imperial Airways are concerned, I am not aware that any one of them has any financial interest in the concern beyond his own salary, and surely he is just as likely to work well for a salary coming direct from the national Exchequer as when it comes from the national Exchequer indirectly in the form of a subsidy. It might be said that, if the management have no direct profit-making motive, the shareholders would apply the pressure, and, if there were any inefficiency on the part of the management, the shareholders would visit upon them some condign sanctions for their inefficiency. I am not aware, however, that the shareholders have ever uttered any sort of criticism of the management of Imperial Airways. It has been left to the politicians, and to those whom the politicians have appointed to investigate the operations of the management, to make as devastating a criticism as was ever made upon a public or private concern in the history of this House in its relation with industry. The truth of the matter is that the shareholders are concerned, not, as is so often suggested, with the efficiency of the organisation, but with the profit that it pays them, and, so long as they get their dividends, it is nothing to them whether the public interest is being served or not. The profit-making motive may occasionally, as a by-product, result in public good, but the profit-making motive and the public good are by no means the same thing. Indeed, some of the most prominent among profit-
  450
  making organisations to-day are working in direct opposition to the well-being of the State, and have been characterised by all sides and all parties as anti-social— for example, the pools.
  There is a further danger involved in this system of profit obtained by way of subsidy. Where profits depend upon the payment of subsidies, the whole force which would otherwise be harnessed to make the concern into an efficient one is harnessed to the operations of whitewashing and wirepulling in order to ensure that the subsidy will be paid. It is impossible to deny that that is what is happening in the case of Imperial Airways. An enormous amount of their time has been spent in political propaganda, in national propaganda, in wirepulling, and in white-washing their concern in order to make sure that criticism will not prevent the subsidy from being paid. I have been watching the advertisements which they put out—most ridiculous advertisements if they are intended to bring trade to the concern; and may I say in passing that a considerable proportion of the advertisements of Imperial Airways have been, strangely enough, put on the financial pages of newspapers. That is difficult to understand; perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to explain it. Here is another advertisement—in the "Daily Mail":
  " Speed.
  The New Empire Flying Boats.
  Imperial Airways' new Empire Flying Boats are the fastest flying boats in the world. The top speed is 200 miles an hour. The standard of comfort is higher than that of any other air line in the world."
  There is nothing about the timetable, nothing about the service; just a sort of general propaganda to establish the general good name of Imperial Airways, and to intercept criticism of the subsidy which is being received by them. I also find that some of these advertisements are put into newspapers with a provincial circulation, and, if I know anything about their advertising agents, they must have been fully aware that these advertisements, which were put out at great expense, would not pull anything in the shape of an immediate return.
  A considerable proportion of the time of the management of this company has been spent in that kind of activity. I

  451
  must give the House one further indication, at any rate, of this type of propaganda. There is a journal called the "Aeroplane," from which I quote sometimes, and which, on 26th February, 1936, issued a most severe criticism of this subsidy system. I will not read it now to the House, but there it is. Immediately the Imperial Airways gentlemen got on its track, and used all the forces which they have on their side, such as aircraft manufacturers and so on, and a week or two later an article was published in the "Aeroplane," ostensibly an editorial, vehemently repudiating the whole of the previous article which was also an editorial. This was reprinted and circulated to the public all over the country by Imperial Airways, not only praising themselves, but praising the Government's policy. Referring to the advantages of private capital over Government capital, it says that:
  " Instead of putting up the money themselves, the Government are much cleverer, and get the public to lend the whole of the money that it pays for Empire air mail services, with no guarantee of interest or dividend, and the public takes the risk."
  I should be very happy to accept the amount of risk that there is in this concern, for which we are providing sums amounting to about £50,000,000 in the next 15 years. The strange fact is that not long after the publication of this article, which was obviously intended merely to placate this concern, the "Aeroplane" returned to their true views. Only last November they wrote:
  " The market price depends entirely on the fact that the shareholders are going to get your money and ours, and that is morally and ethically wrong, besides being anti-social and just silly. If the dividend were cut to 4 per cent. the shares would go down to something like their true value and there would be no gambling in them. And at the same time the big financiers who have put money into the concern would get a fair return for it."
  Then, this newspaper goes on:
  " The money of the public should not be spent in paying outrageous interest to professional financiers."
  In spite of what was said in the Cadman Report, we had the Secretary of State for Air coming to us with these proposals and saying nothing about restricting the amount of dividend to be paid to this company. The time spent by the managers of this concern in replying to that sort of criticism must be very great. Why they chose this paper to follow up
  452
  I do not know, because nearly every paper in the country has criticised them at one time or another. Here is a paper which has been the champion of all forms of private enterprise, the "Evening Standard," which said:
  " In these circumstances, can it be said that a speculative risk exists justifying a 9 per cent. dividend? That would be preposterous. And, if there is no such risk, on what grounds can such a dividend be paid? On no ground tolerable to the public conscience."
  To that charge, which is made universally through the country and from every political quarter, no answer has been made by the Government of the day. The companies know that what happened was that these shareholders who are supposed to apply the spur of efficiency to the managers of their concerns, at about the same time as the Cadman Committee was investigating the widespread extent of their maladministration, awarded themselves enormous increases of fees, amounting to about £12,000 per annum in, the aggregate; and, to balance this, they reduced the amount of pay hitherto given to the pilots, despite the fact that the pilots are responsible for every valid claim that Imperial Airways can make to efficiency on their lines. That is a point in regard to which the Under-Secretary has an opportunity to distinguish himself.
  Although this company is not a magnificent example of private enterprise as it was understood 40 years ago, I think it is, in fact, a shining example of private enterprise as it is understood to-day, because private enterprise as understood to-day has three main functions. The first is that it must obstruct and restrict the enterprise of the State. In that particular, Imperial Airways has been extremely successful. Its second function is, by successful and highly skilled manipulation, to obtain large direct and indirect subsidies. In that function, too, Imperial Airways has been highly successful. The third is a more positive function of private enterprise to-day. In fact, it might be described as the consummation of private enterprise, the seal and crown of all its efforts: that is, to accept profits and distribute them to the shareholders. That has been done to the satisfaction of all belonging to the company. So, from all three points of view, Imperial Airways can claim to be a shining example of private enterprise.
  That is why we on this side are convinced that this policy is an unsound one. Thinking persons know, and I believe in every part of the House will recognise, that this concern is being artificially fed, bolstered up and protected from the breath of all criticism only for one reason. It is part of the fight to maintain the credit of an obsolescent system in industry. It is part of the rearguard action that is being fought for the right to make profits irrespective of the welfare of the State. I would like to warn Conservative Ministers —though why I should do so I do not know—that they are using up the whole of their good will in the country, and any reputation for logic and common sense that they might have possessed. I, at any rate, would urge the Government to realise that if we are to obtain a place among the civil air lines of the world in accordance with our hopes and our position, we shall have to take this concern out of the hands of the small body of private individuals who manage it to-day and scale it up to be a truly Imperial enterprise, and free it from the stigma which exists, and which cannot be repudiated, that when the State applies benefits to this concern it is applying benefits to the private shareholders who own it. If we do that, I believe that the concern will develop on right lines and that, if the time ever comes when we are able to embark on a period of 10 or 20 years of assured peace, the British Commonwealth will then have air lines which will be worthy of the place they hold as a link in the Imperial system.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Roland Robinson: I listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). One fact emerged very clearly from it, and that was that my hon. and gallant Friend the new Under-Secretary of State for Air has in his hands at the present moment a very great opportunity. I join with all the other hon. Members who have spoken in extending congratulations and good wishes both to the Under-Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Air. I think we are fortunate in having as our Secretary of State for Air a member of the Cabinet who has had great administrative experience and has seen something of flying, and who will no doubt combine in an excellent manner with the Under-Secretary of State, who has had
  454
  experience of flying and who in the past has always been a critic of inefficiency whenever it is connected with the Air Force or civil aviation.
  I join in expressing the hope that they will not take the attitude of complacency which has often existed in connection with Air Ministry matters, and that they will not say, "In regard to civil aviation our hands are tied, we must accept the recommendations of the Cadman report and other reports." I hope they will not take the view that, because we have had reports in the past, everything is a closed book in the future. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary, when he replies, as I am sure he is bound to do, to the many congratulations that have been extended to him, will deal with the fact that the Cadman report did recommend the appointment of a Secretary of State for Air and two Under-Secretaries of State, one of them for civil aviation. We have now lost the Under-Secretary for Civil Aviation and we are back where we were. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will tell us whether it is intended to appoint an additional Under-Secretary, or whether he will have the special interests of civil aviation at heart.
  We are voting to-day an increased subsidy, which, as I understand, will be paid mainly to Imperial Airways and British Airways. I am quite certain that my hon. and gallant Friend will not say that Imperial Airways are a shining example of efficiency. He will not dare to say so, because he has been one of their critics. The point he may make is that, where things have been wrong in the past he will make it his own responsibility to see that they are put right and to bring Imperial Airways up to that standard which has been achieved by British Airways. I was flying in a British Airways plane a few days ago, and we passed in the air an Imperial Airways plane. The Imperial Airways plane was going so slowly that it appeared to be standing still. I hope the Under-Secretary will see that there is no standing-still in civil aviation while he is in his present post.
  We know that money is to be paid to Imperial Airways and British Airways. Can the Under-Secretary say something of those other companies which, have undoubtedly spent a great deal of money

  455
  and done a lot of pioneering work, without any reward at all? Are they to come into the picture at all? There is the Alp Air Line company, which goes to Switzerland. The Under-Secretary knows of the very good work which has been done by Allied Airways in inaugurating a service from here to Norway. There we have a British company chosen to run an exclusive service to Norway. Are they to go to the wall? Are we to say that they cannot have any subsidy, and that they are not in any way to come into the picture? It may be possible that the Government cannot subsidise them, but that in some way they may be amalgamated, or drawn into the picture, so that we may have a joint operating company.
  We are going to have an extra subsidy. One of the suggestions of the Cadman Committee was that Imperial Airways should appoint a new, full-time chairman. The report was signed on 8th February, over three months ago, and so far we have had no indication that Imperial Airways is going to have a new and full-time chairman. Has the present chairman of Imperial Airways definitely undertaken to resign his position as soon as a new chairman can be found; and, assuming that he resigns his position, is he going to stay on the board in order to render what help he can, or is he going to stay out of the picture altogether? Another proposal was that there should be a joint operating company formed on the London-Paris service between British Airways and Imperial Airways. We have heard nothing about that. Now we are voting extra money which is going into the coffers of those two companies. Will the Under-Secretary say that, before that money is paid, he will insist on the two companies adopting all the recommendations of the Cadman Committee?
  I was surprised that the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) said he saw no reason to increase the subsidy in order to develop our internal air lines. He invited the Under-Secretary to reply, and to say what justification there was for it. There is every justification for it. If it is necessary for national prestige to run air lines all over the world, it is equally necessary to run them at home. If we are to operate air lines successfully we must make the people of this country
  456
  air-minded, and it is hardly likely that our people will fly when they go abroad if they have not had the opportunity at first to fly at home. It is good to develop the internal air lines, because we are building up a very useful reserve of air pilots. The Secretary of State said that they were going to see that at least 75 per cent. of the air pilots of subsidised companies were members of the Air Force Reserve.
  That is one of the most obvious necessities in building up a powerful Air Force in this country. We built up the Royal Navy largely with the backing of the Mercantile Marine, because there was always a body of seafaring men to man our ships. So it ought to be with the Royal Air Force. There ought to be a large body of qualified air pilots always ready to be called upon in times of emergency. If we can develop these air lines it will help to create that for which the Cadman report asks. It will build up the necessary reserves of aircraft and provide vital links with our imperial and continental services. I also hope that it will provide for some use of air ports which have been provided by local authorities in this country at very great expense.
  I welcome this subsidy of £100,000. It is small, but it will be very helpful, and I should like the Under-Secretary in his reply to say how the subsidy is to be treated. Is it to be given to one operating company which will be licensed and given a monopoly under the licensing system which we are to discuss a little later this evening, or is it to be divided among all the people who are running air lines in this country which conform to the requirements laid down in accordance with the speech of the Under-Secretary of State? I feel sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give a satisfactory answer to these questions, and I believe that for the first time we are getting some real help for the internal air lines of this country which may give us the system of civil aviation in this country for which some of us have asked and which we have dreamed about for a long time.
  5.33 p.m.
  Colonel Ropner: I rise only for the purpose of asking the Under-Secretary of State whether, when he replies, he will make a clear and definite statement with

  457
  regard to Government policy in connection with the subsidy for external air lines. The matter arises out of paragraph 36 of the Cadman report, and I will take the opportunity of reminding the House of what that committee said:
  " If our national prestige is to be maintained, our external air services must be concentrated in a small number of well-founded and substantial organisations, rather than dissipated among a large number of competing companies of indifferent stability."
  Whatever our views may be with regard to the larger question of private enterprise and Socialism as raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, those of us who support subsidies at all must agree with that paragraph of the Cadman report. I have been told within the last few days that there are at least some indications that it is the policy of the Air Ministry to limit subsidies for the maintenance of our external air services to one company. No one who knows anything about British Airways could say anything against that company. I believe it to be an excellent organisation in every way and extremely efficient, but I hope very much that this company will not in effect be given a monopoly in the maintenance of our external air services. We all agree that there should not be a large number of competing companies, but, surely, there ought to be more than one company. There are one or two other air companies which have for some years now maintained regular services to the Continent. They are sound financially, and efficient, their pilots are highly qualified, and their equipment is modern. In at least one case a regular service has been operated for four or five years. I would like the Under-Secretary when he replies to let me know whether it is not the fact that a very good case could be made out for subsidising such a company. I am of course referring to West Coast Airways. [Interruption.] I have found myself on more than one occasion speaking on behalf of air companies and perhaps I should say now that I have no sort of interest in any of these organisations. West Coast Airways have undoubtedly maintained a very efficient service to the Continent, and it is well entitled to be considered when subsidies are being given. Allied Airways is another similar company. Paragraph 37 of the Cadman report accentuated the necessity of limiting the number of competing companies.
  458
  " We consider that the same external route should not be operated by more than one British company, and that, as recommended by the Maybury Committee in the case of internal air services, some measure of restriction should be applied to avoid indiscriminate competition."
  I am not suggesting for a moment that the Air Ministry should keep two British companies running on the same route. British Airways maintain services, I understand, to Berlin and Hanover, to Paris, Amsterdam, Stockholm and Copenhagen, and I hope that they will be subsidised in respect of these services. There is no British service to Zurich, although a Swiss air line maintains a regular service between there and Croydon. There is no regular service at all run by any nation between this country and Luxemburg, and I understand that West Coast Air Services are prepared to operate along that route.
  If no subsidy is to be given to these companies I hope at least that the Air Ministry will do nothing to handicap them in operating the services which they can maintain without a subsidy. It is necessary for any company desiring to maintain a service to a foreign airport to ask for the help of the Air Ministry. Applications for landing facilities have to be made to the foreign Government. The whole procedure under the International Convention has to be followed, and it is possible for the Air Ministry to prevent a British service being run to any foreign airport by any specified company. They have the power not only of denying the subsidy, which I think, should be given, but of making operations so difficult that, in fact, the company would probably have to close down. I shall be very sorry indeed if those companies which are to-day maintaining services have such handicaps put in their way by the Air Ministry. That is the only point I wish to raise. I very much hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell the House that it is not the policy of the Government to give a monopoly to one company, British Airways, when there are other financially sound and efficient companies. If a subsidy is to be given, they ought to receive a share of it.
  5.40 p.m.
  Major Procter: It was quite in keeping with the political ideology of the party opposite when the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) swung this Debate round, by

  459
  introducing a long dissertation on Socialism as applied to the Air Services. He cited many instances not only of State control, but of State ownership, one of which was Australian shipping, stating that Mr. Bruce had spoken of the advantages of the State owning those ships. If that were so, why did the Australian Government sell all her State-owned ships? State ownership of transport in other lands, after being tried has been given up on account of political jobbery and loss. America abandoned State ownership in shipping. If you take certain forms of socialised transport on the Continent, train services, for instance, there is no comparison with the English privately-owned system. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party which is based upon a fundamental error. He believes in the public ownership of the present utility under discussion. Of course he does. His party started from the basis of public ownership of all means of production, distribution and exchange. It is the only reason for their existence as a separate party. This idea is put forward as a theory in almost every Debate, but when the Socialist party were in office they did not put forward one socialistic proposal.
  The party to which I belong has never hesitated to use the State if it has been considered to be to the advantage of the country. We are not wedded, like the Socialist party to the principle that the State must own all means of production, distribution and exchange, with us it is a question of wisdom and expediency. [Interruption.] I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), but I do not like him to punctuate my sentences. We on this side of the House believe that certain undertakings should be controlled by the State. But they are few in number and must possess certain characteristics. They have to be of the nature of a monopoly, such as the Post Office, or where it is essential to have unified control, as is the case in the Army and the Navy. But on the other hand there are many industries which, if the State were to control them, would end in disaster. To take civil aviation at this stage of its development out of the hands of those who by training and knowledge know how to run it, and put it into the paralysing
  460
  hands of politicians would be a retrograde step.
  The proper function of the Government is not to own or manage the air services but to make regulations in the interest of the safety of those who use those services. The National Government has made Transport regulations which act like traffic signals. They say, "Stop" and "Go," in the interests of the public, but they do not state the kind of car that one must drive or how much one is to pay for it. That is the difference between the two sides of the House on these questions. When hon. Members opposite bring forward Socialistic arguments, I reply that we shall resist Socialism wherever we find it, whether it is sought to be applied to civil aviation or in any other way Hon. Members always raise "the bogy of profits, but we say that the profit motive is a tremendous motive in industry, both to the employer and the employee. One of the reasons for the rise of the Co-operative movement is the fact that they make profit and offer a dividend. The reason why we try to kill Socialism wherever we see it is because we believe that Socialists, unknown to themselves, are working for tyranny. They may ultimately land us into a super-kind of Socialism, known as National Socialism, such as exists in Germany. That Socialism leads on to dictatorship. We say that you cannot practice your Socialism without tyranny.
  The reason why Socialism either in air transport or any other industry cannot be carried out without tyranny is, that the Socialist policy makes the State the one master of everybody in the land. If you have one boss, you have a dictator, and if you have a dictator you have tyranny. Wherever we find dictatorship in the world to-day we find that it has been preceded either by the dread of Socialism, the practice of Socialism or the threat of Communism.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. and gallant Member is travelling away from the subject before the House.
  Major Procter: In the early part of the Debate the hon. Member for Islington, West (Mr. Montague) went over a very wide field in dealing with the question of Socialism as applied to the air service. His Amendment specifically states "the

  461
  State ownership of this service." However, I will leave that point. I hope that the Amendment will be resisted, because private enterprise has played a great part in the air services. Much of the development that has been done has been due to private enterprise. The risks have been borne by private enterprise, and to kill private enterprise in air services would stop the flow of invention and arrest progress in this industry.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I suppose that is why the Navy is under private enterprise?
  Major Procter: As an engineer the hon. Member must know that the developments in the engine-rooms have not been brought about by Government Departments but by private enterprise; by the skill and invention of private individuals in private firms. I should like to make a constructive proposal regarding internal air communications. I would ask the Under-Secretary —we are glad to see him here for the first time occupying a very honourable place on the Front Bench—whether he is quite satisfied that there is no interference with the air services by the railway companies. Will he say whether the Manchester airways service is interfered with by the railways? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] I do not want to take up further time by being led astray by interruptions. I should like to know why there is no direct British air communication between this country and Hungary and other countries in Middle Europe, which, since the Anschluss, are anxious about their parliamentary institutions and trade. If it were possible to make direct communications between this country and free people of Hungary, so that tourists and commercial representatives could be transported the intervening thousand milles, it would be a great gesture as showing our sympathy with that kindly and hospitable and liberty-loving people who have been denied an air force of their own under the Treaty of Trianon. It would be appreciated by and would show our great friendship and interest in their economic future. It would also help to prevent the spread of dictatorship ideas in Middle Europe.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I can hardly wish to continue the Debate, which really ceased about an hour and a quarter ago.
  Mr. Gallacher: That is an insult. Withdraw it.
  Mr. Pickthorn: The insult, if any, is from the benches opposite. I used the word "Debate" advisedly, because we really have had no contribution from the other side for a long time. We did have an argument about the socialisation of this service, but that was dropped some considerable time ago, and we have since been down to more or less brass tacks.
  I wish to mention, briefly, three matters in connection with the use of the proposed subsidy. If subsidy there is to be, I should like to suggest that the Ministry should give attention to the three points which I have in mind. I suppose I am one of the comparatively few Members of this House who has had his breeches, if not his wings singed by what the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) described as unnecessarily dangerous fuels, and I should like to emphasise his request that the use of part of this subsidy for the development of safer fuels for use in civil machines should be considered.
  There are two other questions for which I would ask consideration. The Minister in introducing the Bill referred to aviation in the British West Indies. I would suggest for very careful consideration whether that is not the most urgent of all possible lines where imperial aviation ought to be developed. There was an attempt made very soon after the War—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members opposite who did not speak publicly should now do so much private speaking.
  Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I should like to draw attention to the fact that it is not hon. Members on these benches who are disturbing the House; it is the Air Ministry.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Members should leave that to the Chair.
  Mr. Pickthorn: An attempt was made very soon after the War to establish air lines in the West Indies, but it was dropped, because the Home Government considered that it was impossible to start any form of subsidisation at that time. If it had been possible to make aerial communications between the different islands practicable then, the whole history

  463
  of the West Indies for the last 15 years might have been very different. One of the main difficulties in these Colonies is that each unit is too small to be an effective political and social unit, and that will continue to be so as long as communications are as bad as they are at the present time.
  It may be, in the long run, that the most important of all transport lines will be the aerial transport lines from this country across the North Atlantic, and then across the South Pacific. In the development of American air communications it is perfectly clear that Pan-American Airways have immense advantages and have an immense start over us. It is almost equally clear that any attempt at anything in, the nature of direct competition would be probably ill-judged and almost certainly unsuccessful. There must be feeding branch-lines for the great trunk lines, and if we are to have our proper share in the traffic of the great main trunk lines, our business is to start now the provision of the feeding branch lines that will be necessary. In the West Indies and the Caribbean, that calls to be done most obviously, and is most obviously the urgent task of this country. Therefore, I would ask that particular attention should be given to West Indian possibilities in this connection.
  The third matter with which I am concerned is that of internal communications. I disagree humbly from most hon. Members who have spoken to-day and in similar Debates in the past in not attaching as much importance as they do to internal air communications. I believe that the size of these islands and the climatic conditions make it impossible for internal communications ever to have the significance that is sometimes attributed to them. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with what the Minister and the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) said, that in the long run the Air Force can be of no use to us at all unless it stands in something like the same sort of proportion to the people not in it who know about the air, as the Naval Force has to the people not in it who know about ships. I do not know the proportion that that may be, but it is probably very much larger than the iceberg proportion of 10 tons of ice under the water to every ton of ice above the
  464
  water. I do not know whether we shall ever get to the point of having 10 people flying for non-service as against one flying for service purposes, but unless we can get something like the proportion of four to one, no amount of sudden or even continued production of machines, or anything else, is in the long run going to give us the moral or the military position in the air which we ought to have, and without which we shall cease to be in any sense at all a first-rate Power.
  I suppose it would not be in order to suggest that any portion of this money should be spent in subsidising what I might call flying for amusement rather than internal airways, but I hope that it is not out of order to suggest that the Ministry might consider very carefully whether, although it may seem uneconomic to fly for amusement, as against the transport of goods and of passengers, it would not be much more economical in this country to spend money in persuading this right sort of young men, indeed, any young men, but preferably the right sort of young men, to fly. I believe that money spent in that way would be infinitely more economical than most of the money likely to be spent on internal airways. It is for consideration of these three points that I respectfully ask the attention of the Ministry.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. Lyons: In discussing the question of the subsidy in relation to Imperial Airways I would remind hon. Members that it was following the report of the Hambling Committee in 1923 that the Government of the day decided to promote the amalgamation of the small existing companies into one central unit and to give to that unit the task of developing British air transport overseas. It was necessary to give some substantial financial help because neither then nor now could civil aviation "fly by itself." The nature of the organisation is well-known. In paragraph 44 of their report the Cadman Committee repeat:
  " In the first place, we desire to make it clear that we do not recommend the creation of a Corporation or Company administered under Government control, but of a commercial organisation run entirely on business lines with a privileged position with regard to air transport subsidies, on terms and conditions to be defined later."
  This is taken from the Hambling Committee. Whatever criticism may be

  465
  directed towards the European services of Imperial Airways let us remember that experience has shown, and the report of the Cadman Committee has emphasised, that the work of Imperial Airways in regard to Empire services, particularly in regard to flying boats which are without doubt in the van of modern aircraft, has been an achievement of which we may well be proud and which well justifies the subsidy and help given by the Government. The Cadman Committee referred to the exploitation of Empire air routes leading to the conception of an Empire air mail scheme and described this development as unique in the air services of the world. When criticism is levelled at this company for the slow flying of its Continental services, or when older types of aircraft put into operation on its Continental air routes are discussed, we should also remember the great performance which Imperial Airways has achieved under extreme difficulties in the Empire air routes, and I hope that the Under-Secretary—I want to join in the congratulations which have been showered upon him—when he replies will be able to say that the last acceleration made by Imperial Airways in the African and Indian services has been a complete success. They have to fly over different countries, over different frontiers, through different climates, towards and over the Equator, and the services of Imperial Airways throughout the Empire do, I think, show a record which we can discuss with pleasure, and upon which we can look back with great satisfaction. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) spoke of the slowness of the machines of Imperial Airways as compared with those of competing companies.
  Mr. R. Robinson: It was in relation to the speed of British Airways machines. I was not comparing it with any foreign country.
  Mr. Lyons: I am obliged. The hon. Member was comparing the speed of the machines of Imperial Airways with the speed of the machines of British Airways. It was said in the House only a week ago that not one single aircraft utilised by British Airways is of British manufacture. They may be faster machines, but they are foreign made. Imperial Airways have British-made machines, but they have been delayed year after year in the delivery which was promised of newer
  466
  and more modem aircraft. They have concentrated, rightly, I think, on the success and efficiency and development of their Empire schemes rather than on their services to the Continent. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to tell us how it is proposed to apportion this subsidy. That Imperial Airways and civil aviation will get a much larger subsidy is all to the good. I have urged for an increase and I welcome it. The subsidy has been far too small, trivial in comparison with the much large subsidies given in other countries in relation to respective flying traffics and who have none of the difficulties with which we have to contend in this Empire service.
  I would like more details as to how the subsidy is to be appropriated. Can the Under-Secretary say what is to be set aside to start immediately a regular service between Australia and New Zealand? Can he say—perhaps he cannot at this short notice, and in that case I shall readily understand his position— that when a subsidy is being expended in the joint-extension of our Empire services we make it a condition that there shall be some reciprocal arrangement with Pan-American Airways or other companies with whom we may cooperate? In a magazine called "American Aviation" of 15th October, 1935, reporting, I believe, the Western Aviation Planning Conference, it was stated that the Assistant Secretary of Commerce in Washington had said that British undertakings would never be granted permission to use the Hawaiian Islands as a stopping point for a Trans-Pacific route. If that is so, it would be a great obstacle in the way of any extension of these services there, and it might be useless to set aside a large subsidy for something which might not mature. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will tell us what the position is. It has been said that British air services have been artificially fed. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), in the course of his criticisms, said that Imperial Airways had throughout all its life been protected from criticism. They have not been protected from criticism in this House, because they have been under the most acute examination on many occasions.
  Mr. Garro Jones: I said that they have been protected from criticism by the

  467
  Government, who have spoken on their behalf. Of course, there is nothing to prevent hon. Members criticising.
  Mr. Lyons: The very fact of the subsidy coming from public funds to Imperial Airways or to British Airways makes them always liable to criticism from hon. Members in all parts of the House. There is no shelter from that type of criticism, and there never has been. We heard from the Minister, to whom I should like to offer the warmest wishes for the success which we all hope will be his, that a sum of £100,000 is to be set aside to help and advance internal air lines in this country. I welcome that step, it is one which I have often suggested. It will do profound good to the home-flying of this country. I join issue with the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who did not support our views in regard to internal air lines because of the small-ness of the country. I think it is a tragedy that the internal air lines which came into being in this country received no assistance from the State. One by one they have ceased to operate.
  I hope we shall hear how this £100,000 is to be distributed. There is operating now an internal air line known as the Olley Air Service, who have had no State assistance and who are opposed on their routes by the railway air services which have State assistance. Various internal air lines have done much good work in cross country areas, but recently many have had to close down, and I hope the Minister will give us an indication that this £100,000 will be expended in developing routes over cross country areas where regular flying services can be developed with great advantage. The city of Leicester established a good airport. There was a regular service from Leicester to Norwich—two towns which are allied by trade and industry. It is notorious that the railway service between the two is archaic and thoroughly obsolete, and that the railway companies are offering no improvement. The air service between these two towns did good service, but after a time it ceased operating altogether. It was in existence when the former Secretary of State for Air came down to open the Leicester airport, but for a long time now there has been no regular service at all.
  May I ask what help is to be given to municipal airports? Vast sums of money
  468
  have been expended by ratepayers to establish municipal airports worthy of the respective cities. They were encouraged to do this by the Government. They obtained the ground organisation, or the skeleton of the ground organisation, but found that they were getting no support of any kind from the State. No air services are coming to these airports; they are lying there without animation at all, and a grievous position will arise in many towns, Leicester is one. The danger is that they will be abandoned by the corporations and that building areas will take the place of these airports to the national disadvantage. No airport or airfield should be left idle. I hope the help for which we are asking will be forthcoming.
  There are several other questions I want to put. Can the Under-Secretary say whether any particular appropriation is going to be made to help the "pick-aback aircraft"—which is the composite "Short-Mayo" flying-boat? Were the tests recently made by this type of aircraft for Imperial Airways a success? Are the tests to be continued, and, if so, to what extent? Are we to have this type of aircraft available for long distance routes, and is there to be a direct and specialised appropriation of this subsidy for this kind of machine? It may be one of the biggest inventions of the day, and I hope we shall be told what steps are being taken to see that it has a proper share in the subsidy.
  It is of great consequence that the air services of this country should expand. They have fought their way to success through great difficulties. The pioneering work which has been done by Imperial Airways will stand for all time as an overwhelming success. But I hope there will be no complacency. The schedules have been accelerated. Can they be accelerated more by some kind of night flying? What is to prevent night flying taking its proper place in these services? Are the rest-houses of Imperial Airways satisfactory and in keeping with the comfort and excellence of the journeys as a whole? Can we improve the flying-boat bases? Is there anything that can be done to make the journeys more inviting than they are now? I believe that the object of Imperial Airways is to cover the long distances safely and efficiently and in the shortest time, and that nothing will be spared by the

  469
  company in seeking to achieve that end. I hope that there will be continued progress, so that the next few years will give results well comparable with the progress given by the last few years in the development and promotion of our great Empire air services.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. David Adams: I wish to tender cordial congratulations to the Secretary of State for Air and the Under-Secretary on their appointments. There is little doubt that in the course of time the Air Ministry will be the most important of all Ministries. In a war, it will control the master weapon which has changed the venue of battlefields, and outspanned continents and seas, and yet its development is still in its infancy. In peace time, civil aviation is a new factor in international relationships, and it is imperative that its development should be on proper lines that we may be linked effectively with all parts of the Empire. As has been stated in support of our Amendment, private enterprise in aviation has failed, except where national financial support has been afforded to it, and that in itself ought to be a justification for the assertion that it should be a socialised industry. Those who are opposed to socialised industry seem to be entirely oblivious of the socialised industries which exist both under Government control and under the municipalities. There is an increasing capital investment in municipal undertakings of a purely socialised character, and their number is increasing with considerable rapidity. Therefore, I feel that it is not necessary to argue in any great detail the Amendment which has been so effectively submitted to the House, and I shall await with great interest the arguments which the Minister has to advance against it.
  In the absence of agreement in the House on the lines of the Amendment, of which one sees no hope to-day, I am gratified that a sum of £100,000 is to be set aside for internal air lines out of this new grant. The Government wisely stipulate that 75 per cent. of the pilots concerned should be available to the Royal Air Force. One of the objects of the Air Ministry ought to be to create a population air-minded. It should not be forgotten that only about 10 per cent. of the population have the opportunity of
  470
  travelling by air, and that about 90 per cent. of our people remain to be made air-minded. Little use is being made of private aerodromes, municipal aerodromes and light aeroplane clubs. If it be desirable that the population should be air-minded and that there should be a continuous output of persons licensed to handle aeroplanes, the present system ought to be changed without further delay. We are neglecting a great source from which pilots might be drawn. The Royal Air Force training centres turn out a certain number of pilots, but that number would be infinitesimal in the event of war, in view of the demands that would be made on the Royal Air Force.
  Consequently, the Government have encouraged, to a limited extent, light aeroplane clubs and municipal aerodromes to train pilots, and there is a grant of £25 for every licence which is obtained. That sum is considered to be sufficient to enable the clubs to train pilots. It is estimated that at the Royal Air Force training centres the cost is about £150 for every licence obtained. On the authority of the light aeroplane club in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I suggest that the Government should spend a proportion of the £100,000 in increasing that subsidy to £40. There are 48 subsidised clubs in this country and about 24 un-subsidised ones. If the subsidy were increased to £40, these clubs would be prepared to train free of charge all and sundry who were capable of being trained as pilots, in their leisure time, in the evenings, on Saturday afternoons and Sundays, and thus a substantial proportion of the population could be trained by these clubs. At the present time, the Government restrict the amount paid to a club to £2,000 per annum; that restriction would have to be swept away if substantial numbers were to be trained on the lines I have suggested.
  I have examined this matter with the heads of light aeroplane clubs; we see no defect in such a system and the Government would save a sum of about £100 per licence. Moreover, such results could be obtained without disturbing the ordinary occupations of the prospective pilots. If municipal aerodromes and light aeroplane clubs had that opportunity placed at their disposal —they have not got it now, because a light aeroplane club is compelled

  471
  to make a charge of about 30s. per flying hour for the training of pilots—there would be a great increase in the number of pilots who would be available to the Royal Air Force in due course. I do not suggest that once a person had been trained as a pilot at a civil aerodrome and had obtained his A licence, he would necessarily be ready for the Royal Air Force. He would require only a small amount of additional training, or Royal Air Force instructors could be placed at the disposal of these clubs. If the Minister has not already considered this matter, I hope he will do so, and will give to the aeroplane clubs an opportunity of performing a real national service. At the present time the municipal aerodromes are not being utilised, for the services which used to come to them are no longer. At the Newcastle airport, internal air lines have been tried again and again, but have had to close down.
  Mr. Lyons: Is there any regular service operating from the Newcastle airport to-day?
  Mr. Adams: There is a service to Scotland and to London, and Allied Airways (Gandar Dower), Limited, have a service to Norway, but I gather that unless they can have some support from the Government, they will be bound to close down. They have put many thousands of pounds into the enterprise in the belief that there would be a profitable service both in goods and passengers between this country and Norway. The new proposals made by the Government will be of great value to the country if full advantage is taken of them. I would impress upon the Minister that there is a multitude of persons on the North-East Coast anxious to obtain pilots' certificates. One can see them in crowds around the aerodrome when there is flying. I hope the Minister will give this matter full consideration. As I have said, it would be possible to save nearly £100 per licence, by carrying out the proposal which I have indicated, and I believe that what I have suggested would be one of the simplest and most economical methods of creating an air-minded population in this country.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: I wish to put four questions to the Under-Secretary, but before
  472
  doing so, may I congratulate the Minister on the very bold, courageous step which he has taken? Within his first 24 hours at the Air Ministry, he has torn up a page of the Cadman report and the whole of the Maybury report. The Maybury report came down definitely against subsidising internal air lines, and in that view it was reinforced by the Cadman Committee. I am thankful that the Minister has had the courage to tear up both recommendations and is now giving a word of encouragement to internal aviation. I believe it will be welcomed by all air operators in this country and by those concerned with municipal aerodromes, because the one benefits the other. The first question which I wish to put to the Under-Secretary is with regard to the pilots. I understand that two Government directors of Imperial Airways interviewed certain disgruntled pilots a few weeks ago and reported to the Government that, in their view, certain of these pilots should be reinstated. Have any of those pilots yet been offered employment by any of the companies concerned?
  My second question has reference to the suggested Whitley council. The Cadman report suggested, and the Government adopted the suggestion, that a Whitley council should be set up for all commercial pilots, and in particular for those of Imperial Airways. Have any steps been taken by Imperial Airways to set up such a council? My third question is about the pooling arrangements recommended by the Cadman Committee in respect of the London-Paris run. The Cadman report suggested that a new company should be formed of British Airways and Imperial Airways to pool the passenger traffic on the London-Paris run. Has any progress been made in that respect and are we likely to see the new company formed this summer? Finally, I should like to ask who exactly is to be eligible for this increase in subsidy? Is it to be limited, as in the past, to Imperial Airways and British Airways? Is it definitely restricted to those two companies, or are certain other companies which are already in being, or which may come into being in future, to be eligible for the subsidy if they fulfil certain conditions?
  6.33 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: I wish to join with other hon. Members in con-

  473
  gratulating the Minister. I hope he will achieve as great a success at the Air Ministry as he did at the Post Office. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary on having taken his place at that Box, and before he replies to-night I wish to ask him one or two questions. First, can he tell me when the Short-Mayo flying boat is likely to cross the Atlantic? I understand that that is the purpose for which she was designed. We ought to know whether that experiment will soon be undertaken. I would also ask how the North Atlantic services are getting on generally. The year is advancing, and so far nothing much seems to have been done. I would ask the Air Minister also to speed up, if he can, the provision of ^ the Southern Atlantic services. It is bad for our prestige in South America that we have no services running to the Argentine. We are paying more than £100,000 a year to get our air mails transported across the Southern Atlantic by German air lines. They carry millions of letters to the Argentine, and when the people there see the mails coming in regularly by those lines and no British aircraft at all coming in, the effect is to damage our prestige, as I know from letters which I have received.
  I would also ask the Air Minister to look into the whole question of the West Indies air services, and to see whether we cannot put up something there against Pan-American Airways. It is nearly three years ago since I asked that this question should be looked into, but Pan-American Airways have got a footing there and that injures our prestige in the West Indies. There is also the question of the Pacific air line. I hope that we are working parallel with American Airways in developing the Pacific service. They had a disaster, I know, in the burning out of the Samoa clipper, and in that connection I hope that consideration will be given to the suggestion in the Cadman report that we should develop the Diesel engine for these long-distance air routes so as to make them as safe as possible for those who have to operate the services. The Air Minister said that we had been giving £100,000 for internal air lines. Does that include the Newcastle-Norway air line? The Minister referred to European air services, but I understand that the claim of the Newcastle-Norway air line has been turned down lately, and that no subsidy is to
  474
  be given to it. I submit that that matter ought to be reconsidered. I hope the Minister will send for the correspondence with the Newcastle-Norway air lines company and see whether something cannot be done to help them. It would put them on a much better footing with the Norwegian people if they were a properly recognised company. They have been working this service for a great many years, and have, I understand, done more oversea flying than any other company except Imperial Airways.
  I hope that attention will also be given to the question of Langstone Harbour. This matter has been under consideration for two or three years and there has been nothing but wrangling about it between the Air Ministry and the Portsmouth Corporation. I was told the other day that one of our big flying boats had to land at a port in France on arrival from India, because it was impossible to get into Southampton. It is unfair to ask the pilot to bring one of these big flying boats into Hythe, near Southampton. The space is very restricted and there are yachts anchored all around and the pilot has scarcely room to get off the water. When flying in one of these boats there a short time ago I was amazed that it was possible to get pilots to operate such boats in such conditions. It is not right that one of our big flying boats should be compelled to land in a French port because there is no suitable port in the south of England. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look into the Langstone Harbour question again. Whether he adopts the high level scheme or the low level scheme, it is time that something was done to provide these pilots with a safe harbour on their arrival from distant parts of the world.
  6.39 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I claim the indulgence of the House on two grounds, first because of the ordeal which one has to go through in speaking from this Box for the first time, and, secondly, because of the number of comprehensive and technical questions which have been put to me in the course of this Debate. At the outset, I would like to thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen for the kindness of the welcome which they have extended to me on taking over the duties of this office. I assure them that no one feels the re-

  475
  sponsibility of the task which I have undertaken, or the humble character of the abilities which I bring to that task, more than I do myself. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), who opened the Debate, dealt largely with the question of Socialism against private enterprise. It is not for me to embark upon that argument, and I do not propose to do so this evening. In the first place, the Government have decided that private enterprise, controlled and limited by Statute, shall be the principle of the development of civil aviation during the period in which the present agreements are to run. Secondly, the proposals of this Bill are intended to implement the recommendations of the Cad-man Committee. That committee was asked for by Members in all parts of the House, and its recommendations have gained the support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, just as of Members in other parties.
  Mr. Montague: Does that mean that the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to ignore completely the Amendment on the Paper? It is a Socialist Amendment.
  Captain Balfour: I am far from ignoring it, but I am trying to deal with it broadly and in a few sentences. Private enterprise controlled and limited by Statute represents the decided policy of the Government and it is not for me, a junior Minister, to controvert that policy. Further, this Bill, as I say, implements the Cadman report which has been welcomed in all parts of the House.
  Mr. Garro Jones: I am sure the House wishes to give every indulgence to the hon. and gallant Member, but this is not a Bill dealing with the Cadman report. It is a Bill containing certain proposals which are set out in Clauses 1 and 2. The policy expressed in those Clauses has been impugned by our Amendment, and it is the duty of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to answer the arguments which we have put forward.
  Captain Balfour: I could easily embark upon an argument about nationalisation as compared with private enterprise, but there are many points with which I wish to deal. Obviously, Government policy on the question of nationalisation or private enterprise is not going to be de-
  476
  cided by what I say to-night. Actually, the policy of the Government has been to temper the strength of monopoly with a reasonable measure of competition, wherever there appears to be a sufficiency of traffic, and in the last two years that policy has been implemented by the selection of a second chosen instrument, namely, British Airways to work alongside, and to some extent in competition with. Imperial Airways.
  I think the case for nationalisation depends on the view taken of the functions of Government. It may be said that Imperial Airways, which is, in essence, a public utility company, controlled by contracts with the Government, in consideration of the subsidies granted to it, is in a better position to function successfully in the commercial world than a Government Department under the present form of Constitutional control, by Treasury and Parliament. That was the view taken by the Hambling Committee in 1923, when it recommended, not the creation of a corporation or company administered under Government control, but a commercial organisation run on business lines with a privileged position in regard to air transport facilities. It is perhaps fair to suggest that the case for nationalising air services is no different, in nature or in strength, from the case for nationalising other transport services and the greater industries of the country, which is the policy of the party opposite. It is a policy which has not been accepted by the electorate and is opposed to that policy which His Majesty's Government, acting on the will of the people, have pursued. since we are talking on this question of nationalisation against private enterprise, there is just one other remark that I would make. Under the form of private enterprise, Imperial Airways and British Airways profits are controlled—I will come to the point of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) later. But any losses fall upon those who have been bold enough to venture into this new and developing field of transport, in the hope of some return in the future, which return, if it does come, will be limited by Statutes passed by this House. Did we have a policy of nationalisation, those losses would be borne by the general taxpayers, direct and indirect, rather than by the company's shareholders.

  477
  The hon. Member for West Islington objected to the proposal in this Bill to raise the subsidy from £1,500,000 to £3,000,000, but I would point out that that was in accordance with the recommendation of the Cadman Committee. The hon. Member objected to this Bill because of what he called discrimination in subsidies but you are bound to have discrimination in the granting of a subsidy because of the differing conditions under which air transport concerns are operating. You can, for instance, take a route where traffic is easy to obtain and where competition is comparatively limited, and certainly more favourable to aviation because of the discomforts of an unpleasant sea journey such as the service to the Channel Islands. Equally there may be a need for service between other points where the traffic to be carried is light, but the service may be imperative and, therefore, may have to command a subsidy to keep it going, and that is the reason for the discrimination which has to be exercised in the granting of a subsidy.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said he was not really quite sure whether he would come down on the side of private enterprise or on the side of nationalisation, but on balance I think he came down on the side of private enterprise.
  Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Very decidedly.
  Captain Balfour: But he did say that he did not know what would be his position in 20 years from now, and I think that is the case with all of us in this great adventure of aviation. None of us can tell what is going to be the situation in 20, 30, or 50 years' time. But we have to decide on a policy now, and the policy of the control of private enterprise, with profits limited by Statute, is, I am sure, the soundest course for us to follow at the present time. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely), whom I would like to thank for his kind words about myself—
  Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Will my hon. and gallant Friend just say a word in regard to Diesel engines?
  Captain Balfour: I am coming to that. The hon. Member for Berwick asked
  478
  whether we would give an undertaking that we would not be tied by the recommendations of the Cadman Committee, and said that he expected an examination by my right hon. Friend and myself of the problems of civil aviation. I think I can give the hon. Member that assurance right away. Already my right hon. Friend has started—and I am endeavouring so to do—to examine various problems, and in the course of my remarks I shall have to make reference to one or two steps which have already been taken in the comparatively short time during which we have been in the Department. The hon. Member asked a specific question in regard to Newcastle Airways. So far as I know, there is no such company as Newcastle Airways. There are North Eastern Airways and Allied Airways, and I am presuming that he meant Allied Airways. They will be eligible to apply for the subsidy in respect of their internal services in the same way as any other company now operating will be eligible to apply. My right hon. Friend gave the House the particular terms which govern the granting of this subsidy, and I will give those few sentences again. He said:
  " All companies actually operating internal services at the present date will be eligible for consideration, subject to their entering into suitable agreements under the Air Navigation Act."
  The hon. Member then made the point that when we are spending public money, there should be some form of public control. It is just because of that fact that in this new proposal of subsidies for internal air lines, any company that is successful in its application has to accept the obligation of having a Government director on its board to meet the needs which the hon. Member thinks, and which we ourselves feel, to be necessary. I would like to turn now to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey and deal with the question of Diesel engines, which was also dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).
  Mr. Pickthorn: Not learned.
  Captain Balfour: Any representative of Cambridge University is, I am sure, learned. He asked if some of the money voted to-day will be available for technical research in respect of compression ignition

  479
  engines. The particular sum which is being granted by Parliament under this Bill will not be available for compression ignition engine research, but there is a sum of money available under the Vote for civil aviation for this particular purpose. I thoroughly agree with him as to the need for pushing forward technical development and research to the uttermost, on the ground of safety. Nevertheless, we must not forget that the balancing factor at the present stage of technical development, as regards efficiency and power weight ratio is heavily in favour of the petrol engine. It is not much good having a compression ignition engined aeroplane if it is completely inefficient for its purpose as compared with one fitted with petrol engines. I do not say that that is so at the present time, but I am trying to make the point that there is the balancing factor, and only research and development will enable that factor to be redressed so that we can use non-inflammable compression ignition air engines in aircraft instead of the present petrol engines, which have to have so many safeguards against fire incorporated in their design.
  Sir M. Sueter: Have not the Germans had considerable success with their compression Diesel engine?
  Captain Balfour: I believe the Germans have had a certain amount of success, but there is no regular use on the German lines at present of compression ignition engines other than semi-experimental and development flights. There is no air line running constantly, day in and day out, with such engines. We must also remember that other countries, with other forms of national economy, can devote much larger sums of money, without any commercial considerations, to these problems, with which unfortunately we have to reckon partly in terms of money.
  I want now to turn to the speech of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. He gave a historical survey of the development of Imperial Airways, with varying accuracy as to some of his facts. He said that Imperial Airways was practically a gilt-edged security. On the other hand, we have had Members on all sides of the House saying that flying is very dangerous, and I do not think anybody investing their money in aircraft
  480
  flying with danger would say that they were investing in a gilt-edged concern. I do not want to go over the history of the finance of Imperial Airways. Suffice it to say, in regard to dividend, that if you took one year, you could make it microscopic, but if you took the last year, you could make it comparatively high; but it has averaged 4½ per cent. over 13 years.
  As regards indirect subsidies, about which the hon. Member asked me, I cannot give him figures as to what they are, but they have been taken into consideration when the financial arrangements have been made with the company which have resulted in that average dividend of 4½ per cent. The hon. Gentleman said that, of course, they were getting an indirect subsidy by not paying their fuel tax, but I would point out that ships fuelling on sea voyages and plying across the ocean get their fuel tax-free in the same way, and, I think, quite rightly, any aircraft leaving these shores should be able to buy their fuel at seaborne prices. Meteorological services are available not only for Imperial Airways, but for all commercial aviation, and mail payments, which he mentioned, by the Postmaster-General are for services rendered and are upon a scale that is not necessarily confined to Imperial Airways, but is given to all other air mail carriers. His total figure of subsidy, even if true, though I cannot accept it, would be still as bad, I think, under any form of Socialism, except that we should not have the position revealed so clearly that we should be able to criticise it in this House as is the case at present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] Because the losses under a Socialist administration might be difficult to determine, and certainly they would not be exposed to the searchlight of frank criticism in this House. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen asked why the benefits of the shareholders in Imperial Airways should be increased for the development of civil aviation, but there is a dividend limitation in respect of Imperial Airways' shareholders, and, in fact, after 10 per cent. the Government participate as to 50 per cent. in the profits, so that I think the statement that there is no limit to the benefits to be enjoyed by the shareholders is scarcely commensurate with the facts of the situation.

  481
  The hon. Gentleman then went on to the question of pilots' pay, and here I would like to say that I am in entire sympathy with him and with other hon. Members of this House. Here we are building up a great new science, a great new commercial enterprise. We are building up a new career for a new body of men earning their living in this new profession of commercial aviation. One of my wishes is to see that commercial aviation shall become a career which will not only be confined to the active flying lives of these men, but which will be directed in such a way that when their active flying days are over, they will still be able to earn their living as useful members of the flying community, with an added wealth of knowledge and experience which they have obtained during their years of flying. I want to say that I shall use all my efforts to this end. There was a system a few years ago, broadly speaking, under which for every £100 that the pilot earned, perhaps £20 to £30 was paid in salary and the rest as payment for flying hours. The position is improved to such a degree that not 20 per cent. but probably 50 to 60 per cent. is basic pay and only the remainder represented in the payment for flying hours.
  I cannot see any reason why in the future we should not get to the position where the pilot's pay should be broadly represented by something like 85 per cent. basic pay and some 15 per cent. payment on results. I think you must keep that principle of payment by results, because it is only natural that if two pilots are employed by a company, and one of them is flying and the other is not, the one who is flying might feel a sort of resentment if he was drawing the same pay as the one who was sitting on the ground, as it were. Therefore, I think you have to keep in some degree to the principle of payment by results, but I think the House will agree that we want to improve the lot of the pilots, so that theirs will be an honourable profession in which they can look forward to a lifetime of service.
  Mr. Garro Jones: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said my speech was of varying accuracy with regard to facts. I cannot allow that to pass. In what respect did I depart from accuracy?
  Captain Balfour: The hon. Member gave some figures with regard to direct
  482
  and indirect subsidies which were not in accordance with the facts.
  Mr. Garro Jones: They were an estimate.
  Captain Balfour: You cannot base an argument upon an estimate. That is scarcely a fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) asked whether the Cadman report's recommendation for two Under-Secretaries was to be implemented or not. I regret that I can give no information upon that point. He also asked whether other air lines as well as British Airways and Imperial Airways were eligible for subsidy. I have already stated that all internal services can apply for a subsidy. My hon. Friend asked as regards a full-time chairman of Imperial Airways and said that though the Cadman Committee had made the recommendation three months ago, nothing had been done. He also asked, if the present chairman resigned, whether he would fade out altogether. As regards that, I cannot give any information. It is a matter for the company itself. As regards the first point, I can only tell him that when the company has found a man suitable for this highly responsible position no one is more anxious than the present chairman that he should be appointed whole-time chairman. My hon. Friend asked how the £100,000 was to be divided up. I can give him no information upon that point, as the matter is still under discussion, except that it will be divided up as fairly as possible, and in accordance with the broad principles that my right hon. Friend gave the House.
  Mr. R. Robinson: What steps are being taken to form a joint operating company?
  Captain Balfour: That is a very complicated and difficult matter, and it is now under consideration in the Department. I cannot give any information upon it at present. I think it will be some considerable time before the complicated arrangements can be completed and information can be given to the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) asked for an assurance that no handicap will be put in the way of other companies by the Air Ministry, even if they cannot be given a subsidy, because they cannot comply with the terms that I have given to the House. No obstruction in any form will be placed by the

  483
  Air Ministry in the way of efforts by anyone who tries to develop civil aviation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) asked about the West Indies. My right hon. Friend is looking into the matter personally, and I shall give him such assistance as I can. We realise the very great strategic and commercial importance of obtaining a foothold for British civil aviation in that territory. I have been asked with regard to flying clubs, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University said that flying for amusement was a good thing if we could persuade young men to go into the air. Already the Air Ministry is doing a very considerable amount, both in the way of subsidies to flying clubs and also through the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve training, to give young men an opportunity of flying. I am authorised by my right hon. Friend to say that the position of flying clubs is going to be looked into in the light of their training value for defence purposes.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) asked about the African extension of Imperial Airways. I think undoubtedly, considering the great difficulties that exist in developing new routes and changing over from land to marine aircraft, there is no reason for the company to be in any way ashamed of the regularity and safety of their service. The limiting factor in developing civil aviation is often not the expenditure of money but the ability to build up your ground organisation, your radio and your meteorology, and training your crews to the high degree of scientific knowledge and practical experience which is essential if you are to have safe aviation. You can easily send a commercial aeroplane from one place to another, but you cannot say that you have developed an air route by so doing. It is only after a long period of hard work with the acquisition of scientific knowledge and practical experience with your experimental fleets, that you can say you have a commercial route. My hon. and learned Friend asked about the service from Australia to New Zealand. That matter is under review, and my right hon. Friend is shortly meeting the Ministers
  484
  of the Dominions concerned in order to discuss the whole matter.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the question of help to civil airports. While the Government decision, in accordance with the report of the Maybury Committee and endorsed in the Cadman report, must stand, that there is to be no direct financial assistance to civil airports as such, my right hon. Friend is looking into the question of the position of these aerodromes with a view to investigating their importance in relation to Defence and their use to the Royal Air Force with a view to seeing if, by the justification of their use for defence purposes, some form of assistance can be given. He asked about the Mayo composite aircraft. I can only say that the trials have been satisfactory so far, and it is hoped that they will cross the Atlantic in the present summer. Financial assistance was given at the outset and the experiment is being developed by those commercially interested and responsible for it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) asked some questions regarding the pilots who were dismissed by Imperial Airways and referred to the question of a Whitley Council. A ballot is about to take place, under proper conditions of fairness, to see whether the pilots would prefer to be represented by a domestic committee or whether they would like to be represented by the Pilots' Association.
  Mr. Montague: since there is a union in existence and 80 per cent. of all the pilots of the country are members of it, why should it be ignored and treated with contempt? Why should Imperial Airways want a ballot?
  Captain Balfour: I do not think it has been treated with contempt. If 80 per cent. of the pilots are members of the association they will undoubtedly vote for their union and the result of the ballot is almost a foregone conclusion. I have been going into the question of the pilots who were dismissed, and I find that five were interviewed by the Government directors, who submitted a report to my right hon. Friend stating that the dismissals were justified, that the dismissals had no connection at all with membership of the Air Lines Pilots' Association, and that proper notice was given to the pilots. In two cases recommendations were made

  485
  favourable to the pilots, in one case that the pilot should be reinstated, and in the other that he should get further employment—that, for instance, if a new joint service of British Airways and Imperial Airways were formed from London to Paris, he should be considered eligible for an appointment. [Interruption.] It would not be fair to give the names. As regards the recommendation for reinstatement, the matter was considered by the company, who do not feel able to carry it out on technical grounds. Their technical advisers, those responsible for seeing that the operations of the company are conducted with proper regard to safety, take the view that, with new types of aircraft coming along requiring a new technique, they want people with greater knowledge and experience. I have been talking to the chairman, who informs me that the board feel that they must adhere to the advice given them by their technical advisers, but they would be very willing in the first-mentioned case to assist the pilot in getting employment in any other capacity in any other company by giving him a good recommendation up to the limits of what they feel technically that they are able to do.
  Mr. Montague: Why is it that the pilots concerned have not had their request for a fair inquiry into any allegations that can be made against them granted? Why should they be condemned in the dark and not be told what the trouble is?
  Captain Balfour: I do not think it is fair to say they were condemned in the dark without any allegations being made against them. It has developed in the one case into a question of technical ability in relation to the technical needs of the company, and I submit that any hon. Member, if he were a director responsible for the running of the company and the safety of the passengers, he would be bound not to ignore the considered advice of the technical advisers, who have no considerations in mind except the safety for which they are responsible. As regards the case of the other pilot, the chairman of the company has given me the assurance that if and when a company is formed for the running of the London to Paris service, this pilot wishes to have some employment as a pilot in that concern, the fact that Imperial Airways are the
  486
  major shareholders will not prejudice his application for employment.
  Mr. Montague; The Under-Secretary's statement has condemned them all.
  Captain Balfour: I have done my best to answer the many points which hon. Members have raised. I shall read the Debate to-morrow, and if there are any outstanding questions needing a reply which I have not been able to cover in the compass of my remarks, I will get into direct touch with the hon. Members concerned. I would only conclude by saying that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen twitted me for being on this bench and saying that I was where I wanted to be. If I can continue an association with aviation after some 23 years active flying, and if by having been allowed to accept this office I can in any way contribute to the increased knowledge, safety and development of that service which has been closest to me both during and after the War, I am not the slightest bit ashamed of being twitted by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Perkins: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the external subsidy for running services from this country to foreign countries is definitely limited to British Airways and Imperial Airways?
  Captain Balfour: Yes; I read the specific words of the announcement of my right hon. Friend. It has that effect.
  Sir M. Sueter: Will the Under-Secretary say something about Langstone Harbour?
  Captain Balfour: I agree that we have to get on with the job. My predecessor had arranged to go down to-morrow to Southampton, and while I am not able to go to-morrow because of other pressing considerations, I hope to go next week and go into this matter.
  7.19 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: The House will not be content to leave the question of these pilots in the position to which the hon. and gallnat Member has brought us, because it has been an almost complete restatement of the case with regard to them. During the past fortnight or so one had gathered that steps were now being taken by the Government directors, as a result of statements made in the House and of pressure exerted on the Government, to

  487
  secure that these men would be reinstated in the company. Up to the present there had never been any suggestion that any of these men were not technically qualified to carry on their job. One understood that there had been internal differences in the company, between the company and its staff, on matters that appeared at one time to be not unassociated with their desire for collective representation in their negotiations with the company. The statement now made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that after the Government directors had interviewed five of these gentlemen they came to the conclusion that two might without disadvantage to the service be re-engaged, as far as they could see from their nontechnical position.
  Captain Balfour: Only one.
  Mr. Ede: I understood from a statement made a few days ago by the late Under-Secretary that the number they proposed for reinstatement was two.
  Captain Balfour: The position was that the Government directors reported that the dismissals of the five pilots were justified, that they had nothing to do with the Air Line Pilots' Association, and that proper notice was given. In two cases they made recommendations favourable to the pilots. In the case of one, it was that he should be considered favourably for employment should a joint enterprise be formed on the London to Paris route; and I received an assurance from the chairman this morning that should such a vacancy occur and should that pilot apply, the fact that Imperial Airways were large participants in such a company would not prejudice his application. As regards the second pilot, the directors' recommendation was that he should be reinstated in the company. That matter has been gone into by the company, and on the advice of their technical operation members, who have a weighty responsibility for the safety of the passengers, the board felt they could not reinstate this pilot.
  Mr. Ede: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for putting the position so clearly. It seems to me now that the two men who were most favourably regarded by the Government directors are actually, after the hon. and
  488
  gallant Gentleman's statement, in a worse position with regard to future employment than the other three. If I were going to fly on the London to Paris service when it is inaugurated I should have some qualms if I thought the company might employ a pilot who is not regarded as technically quite sound enough to fly on some other service.
  Captain Balfour: In fairness to the pilots concerned let me explain that their technical ability is not qualitative. It is ability applicable to particular forms of knowledge. You can have the most experienced land-trained pilot and you could not fly behind that pilot on a flying boat with any feeling of safety. On the other hand, you could not fly behind the most experienced marine pilot on a land route with any feeling of safety. Technical ability is not necessarily a matter of degree, but of particular application.
  Mr. Montague; Is it not a fact that one of these two men is one of the few men in the world possessing marine and land certificates?
  Captain Balfour: It would not be fair to hon. Members or to the pilots or to the company to reveal names. The hon. Member should not assume that the particular pilot he has in mind is one of the two of whom we are speaking.
  Mr. Ede: In view of the interests that are involved I hope we shall be able to discuss this matter with some measure of calm. Nothing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said alters the view I had formed with regard to the position of these men. We ought to treat this matter as one that is outside party and the House ought to press for an inquiry into the circumstances that surrounded the original dismissals. The ground has now been entirely shifted from anything we have previously heard and the House ought to know exactly what was the cause of the dismissals and what the charges against these men were. They should be allowed to appear in front of such an inquiry and be represented by counsel so that this matter can be cleared up. We are now in the position that, after the House had been to a certain extent satisfied by the statement made by the late Under-Secretary, the recommendations of the Government directors have, whether for good reasons or bad,

  489
  now been turned down by the board; and this company, which is very heavily subsidised by the State, has asserted—it may be rightly, but I very much question whether it is so—that it cannot carry out its policy with these men on the basis of the recommendations made by the people on the board who supposedly represent the Government.
  Captain Balfour: If one accepts the hon. Member's thesis, it means that because this company is subsidised by the Government there is to be no control of the personnel by the board of directors. What he says is that the board cannot dismiss men without being liable to an inquiry or if there were some objections on the part of this House. You have to leave to the company a certain freedom such as is enjoyed by any normal enterprise as regards engagement and dismissal, provided it is not improperly done. In this case the Government directors say the dismissals were justified.
  Mr. Ede: I feel I ought to apologise for so frequently interrupting the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I really do not think that that last remark of his was anything other than an attempt to get another speech in. What he has said does not alter my opinion. My belief is that where we make these heavy subsidies to private enterprise we ought to be assured that the conduct of the busi-
  ness in relation to its employés is above suspicion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) and others will continue to press, in view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, for a full inquiry into the facts and give these men an opportunity of hearing exactly what they are supposed to have done. All that we now know is that something has been done which, in the minds of the Government directors, justified their dismissal. What it was we do not know. It was not joining the Association. It may be something qualitative with regard to their technical efficiency, but not such as entirely to debar them from employment in this company or in some allied company. To expect the House to rest content with that statement after the months we have given to this subject is to expect far too much.
  Mr. Leslie: What is the purpose of the ballot? Are the men not free to join the trade union? If they are free to join it, why is a ballot to be taken?
  Captain Balfour Captain Balfour rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I must remind the House that we are not now in Committee.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 108.

  Division No. 212.]

  AYES.

  7.31 p.m.

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Cuinness, T. L. E. B.

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

  Cross, R. H.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Albary, Sir Irving

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

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

  Davies, C. (Montgomery)

  Harbord, A.

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

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Denville, Alfred

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

  Dunglass, Lord

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

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

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

  Bower, Comdr. R. T.

  Elliston, Capt. G. S.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Bracken, B.

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Hope, Captain Hon, A. O. J.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Hopkinson, A.

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

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Hunter, T.

  Burghley, Lord

  Fleming, E. L.

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Butler, R. A.

  Foot, D. M.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

  Clarke, Frank (Dartford)

  Furness, S. N.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

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

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

  Clarry Sir Reginald

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

  Leech, Sir J. W.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Gluckstein, L. H.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Colfox, Major W. P.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Levy, T.

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

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Lipson, D. L.

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

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

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

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Lloyd, G. W.

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

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

  Loftus, P. C.

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

  Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Lyons, A. M.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

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

  Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

  MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

  Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Procter. Major H. A.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  McKie, J. H.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Maclay, Hon. J. P.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W,

  Magnay, T.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

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

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Turton, R. H.

  Maxwell, Hon. S. A.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Rowlands, G.

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

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

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Wedderburn, H. J. S.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

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

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

  Salt, E. W.

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

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Seely, Sir H. M.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Munro, P.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Withers, Sir J. J.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

  Wamersley, Sir W. J.

  Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Smith, L. W. (Hallam)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Owen, Major G.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Peake, O.

  Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Peat, C. U.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Captain Dugdale and Major Herbert.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

  Petherick, M.

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

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Poole, C. C.

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

  Groves, T. E.

  Quibell. D. J. K.

  Adamson, W. M.

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

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

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

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Riley, B.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Hall, J. H. (Whitechapal)

  Ritson, J.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Sexton. T. M.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Shinwell, E.

  Barr, J

  Hills, A. (Pontefract)

  Simpson, F. B.

  Bellenger, F. J.

  Hollins, A.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Hopkin, D.

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

  Benson, G.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Bevan, A.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Stephen, C.

  Broad, F. A.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

  Bromfield, W.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Brown, C. (Mansfield)

  Kirkwood, D.

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

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

  Lawson, J. J.

  Summerskill, Edith

  Buchanan, G.

  Leach, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Cape, T.

  Lee, F.

  Thorne, W.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Leonard, W.

  Thurtle, E.

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Leslie, J. R.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Daggar, G.

  Logan, D. G.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lunn, W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

  Walkden, A. G.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Day, H.

  MacLaren, A.

  Watson, W. ML.

  Dobbie, W.

  Maclean, N.

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Marshall, F.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Ede, J. C.

  Milner, Major J.

  Westwood, J.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Montague, F.

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

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

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

  Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Muff, G.

  Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Gibson, R. (Greenock)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

  Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

  Paling, W.

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Parker, J.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Pearson, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Griffiths, G A. (Hemsworth)

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

  Mr. Charleton and Mr. John.

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

  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

  AIR NAVIGATION (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  " That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the maximum amount which may be paid annually by way of subsidies under Section one of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, and to make provision with respect to the remuneration and expenses of, and the fees received by, any licensing authority which may be constituted under Section five of that Act, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of the amounts necessary to defray such expenses of the Secretary of State as are attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing to three million pounds the sum which the aggregate amount of the subsidies payable under all agreements made in pursuance of Section one of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, and in pursuance of the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Act, 1930, must not exceed in any financial year;

  (b) of such remuneration to the members of any licensing authority constituted by an Order in Council under Section five of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, as may be approved by the Treasury; and

  (c) of the amounts necessary to defray such expenses of any licensing authority constituted by an Order in Council under the said Section five as may be approved by the Treasury; and

  (2) the payment into the Exchequer of any amount received by way of fees by such a licensing authority as aforesaid and paid by that authority to the Secretary of State."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Sir K. Wood.]

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  AIR NAVIGATION ACT, 1936.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section five of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, praying that the Air Navigation (Licensing of Public Transport) Order, 1938, be made in the terms of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Sir K. Wood.]
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: We are not opposing this Motion, but we should like to take the opportunity of getting some information from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, whom
  494
  I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating upon his promotion. Under Section 3 of this Order the licensing authority is to consist of members who are to be paid and we should like to know what salaries are to be paid. Under Section 33 a licence fee is to be charged, and we should like to know whether any estimate has been formed of what the yield from these licence fees will be. Finally there is the question of the relations between those to whom these licences are granted and their employés. After this no one will be able to carry on this trade without a licence and, therefore, this will become a quasi monopoly, consisting of a number of firms or persons who cannot fear competition except in so far as the licensing authority is willing to grant new licences.
  Therefore, it is extremely important, in view of the Debate which has just taken place, that we should know exactly what the relations between these firms or persons and their employés is likely to be and I desire that the Minister should give us some specific assurances. Under Section 7, when some firm comes forward to apply for a licence certain persons and bodies have a locus to object, including the council of any county or county borough or district, any person providing transport by air for passengers or goods— that is to say a rival company—the owner of an aerodrome or a public Department. Will the Minister explain why the representatives of the employés are not to have a similar locus? Suppose that a firm proposed to start a new air line. Why should not the Airline Pilots' Union, which appears to be the union to which all the pilots have adhered, be allowed to come before an inquiry and to say, "We do not think this firm is fit to receive a licence"? I cannot understand why a right of objection should be given to various bodies and persons and yet be denied to the representatives of that most important section of people, those who fly the machines.
  Further on that same point, Clause 18 purports to apply to these new licensed air lines the ordinary provisions of the famous resolution of this House called the Fair Wages Clause, but there is a difference. When a contract is given out by this House, one of the conditions is that there must be a Fair Wages Clause in it; that is to say, a builder employed under some contract for which this House

  495
  is responsible must be paid the wage which is current among good employers in the building trade. You thus have a yardstick by which you can measure wages and conditions of employment. In the case of these pilots I do not see what yardstick you can have, because everybody employed in the carriage of goods by air will be in and will be subject to the licensing authority. Everybody in the business will now be licensed. What possible outside standard is there by which you can measure the conditions of employment, wages, and so forth, which should apply to the pilot?
  When I turn to Clause 30, I think there must be some good reason for it and that my reading of it is not correct. It imposes a penalty upon any air line which transgresses the conditions laid down in the licence. Those conditions are many. They sometimes refer to safety, but they refer to many other things as well. The one condition to which the penalty does not apply, should it be transgressed by an air line, is the fair wages condition. There must be some explanation of that, because I cannot see why we should go out of our way to say:
  " Any person who uses an aircraft in contravention of this Order, and any person being the holder of a licence who fails to comply with any condition attached to the licence other than the condition as to fair wages and conditions of employment shall be liable…to a fine."
  I cannot understand why it should be necessary to put in a penalty for a number of comparatively unimportant infringements and why there should appear to be no remedy in the case of the important one. I imagine there must be something; appeal to the Industrial Court, or something to cover the point.
  In the Debate which took place this afternoon statements were made which will have shown to anyone who approached the matter independently that the English air-line companies have an objection to what we understand by trade unionism. The Under-Secretary of State for Air, who is to be congratulated upon his new post, told us about the dismissal of the men. He defended the dismissal in terms with which he was of course supplied by those who have the information, but which those of us who know about industrial disputes recognise as the sort of explanation and excuse frequently given by employers who want to dismiss
  496
  people whom they find awkward or too independent. What surprised me about the information was that the men were dismissed because they were technically inefficient.
  Captain Balfour: One was not re-engaged, because he was not technically suitable. The others were dismissed. did not give the reasons.
  Mr. Benn: One was dismissed—
  Captain Balfour: Not re-employed There is a difference.
  Mr. Benn: Anyway, he has not got the job. He is regarded as technically unsuitable. I quite understand the difference that is made. I am putting forward a plea for the introduction of the trade union. When was it found out that it was not safe to employ this man upon a certain type of machine? They did not find it out until they had a dispute with him on some other ground. What sort of technical experts are they who are supposed to be responsible for the efficiency of the pilots and who employed this man for so long without discovering that he was not suitable for this type of machine? That is the point. The Minister, when it is necessary to defend the non-re-employment—which I should call dismissal—of this man on account of his activities in other matters, produces this explanation about technical unsuitability.
  All these things point to the necessity for recognition by the licensing authority of the constituted trade union of the pilots. There is no question about its being representative, and I do not thing the Minister challenges the statement the it is a thoroughly representative body I have asked for some money figure; particularly on the question of the conditions under the Fair Wages Clause, what locus the pilot may have when new company comes forward and asks for a licence, and for recognition of the trade union by the new licensing authority.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. R. Robinson: I rise to ask two questions concerning this Order. The first is upon Section 16 which, I take it is intended to put a stop to the ban which has existed in the past on air-line bookings. Railway air services will have to be licensed by this authority, if the are to ply, and therefore Section 16

  497
  would prevent railway air services, and the railway companies who are financially interested in them, from placing any ban on air-line bookings. I congratulate the Government upon the intention of that Section and I would like the Under-Secretary to say how far it goes. Can we say that the Railway Clearing House as such, the body which makes the ban, has a financial interest in railway air services? Each of the individual railway companies is interested because it holds shares, and the Clearing House as such is not interested because it holds no shares. Is it possible for the railway companies to keep up the ban and to throw the blame upon the Clearing House, which is an outside body? The Section, as far as it goes, meets the point, and I congratulate the Government sincerely upon the courageous way in which they have tackled the matter.
  The other point is one which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State will answer very quickly. What is the position under this licensing order of an air-taxi company. I understand that there will be a monopoly on each route between one town and another for a certain company, but I do not see how that monopoly can cover the position of the air-taxi, which is entirely a different business. The owner of the air-taxi line may have to go at any time from one town to any other town.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. Perkins: I also have questions to put to the Under-Secretary of State, the first of which relates to the question of appeal. I understand that the licensing authority will have dictatorial powers. Whatever verdict they give must stand, and an aggrieved person will have no right of appeal. Under the Road Traffic Acts of 1930 and 1933, provision was definitely made by this House for a right of appeal, but for some mysterious reason that right has been left out in this case. I should like to ask why it has been left out. Next is the question of costs. As I understand this Order in Council, practically anyone who owns an aerodrome may lodge a frivolous or a vindictive opposition against the granting of a licence. I can conceive of someone bringing forward opposition on account of spite and putting a company to a great deal of legal expense. The company may have to brief counsel to argue their case before the licensing authority. In previous
  498
  Orders in Council, licensing authorities have had the power to award costs, but in this case the licensing authority has not that power. Why has it been left out?
  On the question of the railway booking ban I am very thankful that that business has now been finished and that it will not longer be necessary for Members of this House to block all railway Bills and generally to make ourselves a nuisance. I would ask the Under-Secretary when the ban is likely to be lifted. I do not quite understand when the Order in Council will become operative, when the licensing authority will get to work and when the ban now in force on certain air lines will be lifted. I should very much welcome any information he can give me on those points.
  7.56 p.m.
  Captain Balfour: The first question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman had reference to the fees or salaries to be paid. Those have not yet been decided. The matter is now being considered by the Treasury. It may be that the payment will be upon an attendance basis. As regards the yield, if it is estimated to be £10 per application approximately £300 will be directly accruing from the applications. As to their being no locus for representatives of the employés, the reason is that employés are adequately safeguarded by the fact that anyone granted a licence from the licensing authority has to apply the Fair Wages Clause. The authority, in their turn, have the power to take away the licence should any of the provisions upon which it has been granted be transgressed.
  In regard to the yardstick to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, he made the point that there is no yardstick for pilots employed on air lines, in regard to fair wages, because every line will now be licensed and there is, as it were, a closed ring. The answer is that there will be people outside the ring of licensed transport undertakings, in the form of chartered companies, pilots engaged on tuition work and pilots engaged on similar commercial work with other lines in other parts of the Dominions. I think there is a recognised standard, which I hope will become an increasingly higher one as aviation is carried further, for the minimum level which should be applied to the valuable services rendered to-day by commercial

  499
  pilots. Section 30 of the Order will be dealt with in one moment by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
  The right hon. Gentleman said he thought that among these air companies there was an objection to trade unions at the present time, but I do not think that is so at all. To base such a statement on the incident which was discussed in the previous Debate, in regard to Imperial Airways pilots, is to draw a general conclusion from a specific instance. In this case it is an erroneous conclusion. I must refer once more to the question of the pilots—
  Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order to continue the debate on pilots which took place on the previous Order. To answer questions raised in another debate would not be in order in this debate.
  Mr. Benn: That is so, but may I submit respectfully that Section 18 refers to the question of recognition of a trade union, and seeking the advice of the Industrial Court? Would not that be in order?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, but reference to the dismissal of pilots would be out of order in this debate.
  Captain Balfour: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) asked me about Section 16, which refers to the removal of the ban on booking facilities. I can give to the House and my hon. Friend a full assurance that there is now no question of that ban being continued, and, when the Order comes into operation, the ban will be entirely lifted. I should like to say here that, before this provision was put into the Order, the railway companies had intimated to my predecessor that they were agreeable to the removal of the ban, and that they were removing it, so I think the position is satisfactory.
  Mr. Robinson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when the ban will be lifted?
  Captain Balfour: They are removing the ban, and the. position is formally corrected in the Draft Order.
  Mr. Perkins: Is not the ban still operating?
  Captain Balfour: We have not yet passed the legislation, but it is part of
  500
  the general scheme, and I think that, in a month or two at the outside, the necessary machinery will be set up and the ban will then disappear.
  As regards air taxis, Section 2 of the Order includes all journeys performed by aircraft on which passengers are carried for hire or reward at separate fares, and all journeys on which goods are carried, other than a journey on which a single consignor has the exclusive right to have his goods carried in the aircraft. It excludes, however, ordinary joy-riding which is not incidental to the journey as a whole.
  As regards the question of appeal, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), that question was very carefully considered, and it was decided that it would not be practicable to appoint an appeal tribunal. The licensing authority itself is an impartial body, and an appeal would simply mean appealing from one impartial tribunal to another impartial tribunal. Even if the Secretary of State were made the appeal tribunal, the criticism might be made that he would not be impartial from the Departmental point of view and from the point of view of Service responsibility. There is, however, a safeguard, in that, should it appear that the licensing authority have acted outside their jurisdiction, legal redress is available to any aggrieved party. I would also refer to Section 3, which gives the Secretary of State power to appoint further members of the licensing authority. In the very unlikely event of the licensing authority behaving in some incomprehensible or extraordinary way, it would be within the power of the Secretary of State to swamp them by appointing a predominance of other members. The only other point is that with reference to Section 13, with which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will deal.
  8.6 p.m.
  The Attorney-General(Sir Donald Somervell): My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) asked whether it would be possible for the licensing authority to award costs. It would be contrary to precedent to give to a body other than a recognised court the power to award costs, and, if such power were given, there would be no machinery for the taxation of costs and so on. The

  501
  somewhat similar tribunals—commissioners and so on—set up under the Road Traffic Act have no such power to award costs. Under Section 7 of the Order, the number of people who can object is limited, and one hopes, at any rate, that none of the persons or bodies indicated in Section 7 would bring frivolous objections, or that, if they did, the licensing authority would see to it that very little time, and, therefore, money, was spent in considering such objections.
  With regard to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) with reference to Section 30, I am not surprised that the exception caught his eye, and that he asked about it, but I think that, if he will look at Section 18, with which he will be familiar, he will see that a provision covering a penalty on summary conviction would be quite inappropriate in the case of a breach or suggested breach of the provisions of Section 18. The machinery there set out is that, if a complaint is made, unless it is otherwise disposed of or shown to have no foundation, or is completely clear and admitted, the Industrial Court is to be asked for its advice, and the licensing authority are to be guided by that advice; and if, having received that advice, they are satisfied that the conditions have been broken, they can revoke the licence. I think that that is the right procedure for this part of the Order.
  Mr. Benn: Do I understand that, if the complaint is otherwise disposed of, the person who under the Order has the right to make an objection loses his status as an objector?
  The Attorney-General: Anybody can raise an objection before the licensing authority that the conditions are not being complied with. The words "otherwise disposed of" are put in to meet the case where, for one reason or another, there is no doubt. For instance, the licensing authority may come to the conclusion that the complaint is purely frivolous, and that there has been no breach of the Order, and in such a case it would be quite inappropriate to compel them to take advice on a matter in regard to which there was nothing to ask advice about. Equally, if, on investigating a complaint, the breach was found to be so plain that the licensee admitted it, there again there would be nothing to ask advice about.
  Mr. Benn: Then there is no penalty?
  The Attorney-General: They can revoke the licence, and, surely, that is a most effective penalty.
  Resolved,
  " That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, praying that the Air Navigation (Licensing of Public Transport) Order, 1938, be made in the terms of the draft laid before Parliament."

  EVIDENCE BILL [Lords].
  Order [16th May] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday.—[Mr. H. G. Strauss.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ABYSSINIA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Henderson: I desire to raise the present position in Abyssinia. At Geneva last week, His Majesty's Government obtained freedom of action in respect of the recognition of the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. They did so in circumstances which, I think it will be generally agreed, inflicted the greatest humiliation on the League since its inception. Only two countries, Russia and New Zealand, had the moral courage to remain steadfast in their adherence to the principles of the Covenant. Never was there a greater betrayal of moral and legal responsibility. But the position is made worse because of the actual situation that exists in that unhappy country. I can find no precedent for the recognition of a Government de jure except with the fulfilment of certain requirements. I have very carefully examined the legal authorities which govern this matter, and I find it has always been accepted that conquest or complete subjugation implies the permanent subjection of the occupied

  503
  country to the sovereignty of the occupying force. At the Hague Conference of 1907, it was agreed that territory should only be considered occupied which is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. Occupation, therefore, applies only to territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. I submit that these requirements have not been fulfilled in the case of the Italian occupation of Abyssinia.
  What are facts? I think that, in order to present a clear picture summarising the state of affairs in Abyssinia, it will be convenient to deal with the country according to its various provinces. I have here information which has been supplied to His Majesty's Government, first, in a document published under the authority of the Emperor of Ethiopia, and, secondly, in documents supplied by the League representative of the Ethiopian Government at the recent Council meeting of the League. According to these documents, the position would appear to be as follows: First of all, in the north and north-west provinces of Abyssinia, during last autumn and throughout recent months there appears to have been energetic opposition to the Italian operations, which opposition has sometimes developed into fighting on a considerable scale. There have been revolts in the provinces of Tembien and Sokota under Dejaz Hailu Kabbade, one of the leaders, and further to the north-east, in Tigre, under the chieftain, Dejazmatch Gabe Hewot. In other provinces, Begumeder and Lasta, there has been almost continuous fighting, resulting in the destruction of Italian posts and the capture of supply columns. The Ethiopian Legation in London published on 25th January this year a statement based on despatches received from the various chieftains in Abyssinia. I will quote:
  " Flying and mechanised columns of the Italian Army have tried to recapture posts evacuated or lost some months ago. Despite the ceaseless activity of the Italian Air Force, which continues to make use of bombs and gas, these attempts have never had more than ephemeral success. The desertion of three battalions of Eritrean troops has reinforced the resisting troops in the Northern regions with arms and ammunition, and has completed the disorder of the Italian staff officers who ' manifest evident signs of despair.' "
  Then follows a list of the losses sustained by the invading Italian Forces.
  504
  It shows that in the northern and northwestern regions those killed included 11 senior officers, five junior officers—of whom one was a lieutenant and the remaining four junior officers of the transport and radio department, together with 5,993 Italian and Askari soldiers. It says that the number of Ethiopian warriors killed during these engagements was equally large. A considerable number of rifles, field artillery, machine guns, and ammunition were captured from the enemy. I pass to the western provinces, where severe fighting apparently has been taking place.
  Here I quote from the document submitted to the League Council last week by M. Taezaz, the permanent delegate of Ethiopia at Geneva, He exhibited in the documents he presented to the League Council a report from one of the Abyssinian chieftains to the Emperor. This sets out full particulars, gives the dates and places of the battles, the number of Italian casualties, and the amount of material captured from the Italians. Here are the particulars: August, 1937, at Sécoula, three Italian officers, 300 Italian soldiers and 400 native soldiers were killed, and the material captured consisted of two cannon, 218 rifles, three machine guns. September, 1937, at Danguela, two Italian officers, 228 Italian soldiers and 300 native soldiers killed. October, 1937, at Adiet, two officers, 140 Italian soldiers and 1,200 native soldiers killed; material captured: three cannon, 1,136 rifles, seven machine guns. Later in November, 1937, at Goumaré, three Italian officers, 17 Italian soldiers and 117 native soldiers killed, five cannon, 717 rifles and eight machine guns captured. The latest engagement apparently took place at Wombers, in November, 1937, where two Italian officers, 58 Italian soldiers, and 428 native soldiers were killed, while the material captured consisted of one cannon, 146 rifles, and three machine guns. That is a report received from this Abyssinian general and sent to the Emperor of Abyssinia on 12th February this year.
  In the centre of Abyssinia, it is alleged that there have been revolts, under Dejaz Fikre Mariam, in which the railway to Jibuti itself has been frequently attacked. Ethiopian armed troops are frequently raiding the main roads leading from Addis

  505
  Ababa to the north and west. Early in March, Italian troops were sent to guard the road from Dessie to Addis Ababa, which has been frequently harassed by Abyssinians. In the south and southwest there are Italian garrisons only at five towns: namely, Djirem, Yirga-Alem, Mega, Goba and Ginir. All other parts of the territory have had to be evacuated owing to the pressure of numerous guerilla bands. In the provinces of Gura-farda, Gimirra and Kaffa many Italian garrisons have been forced to withdraw, and the roads have been made unsafe. In the south-east, it is reported that in recent months there have been numerous attacks on Italian convoys on the roads by armed Abyssinians. Between Harar and Jigjiga more than 9,000 native troops have deserted from the Italian army with arms. It is alleged that the Italians exercise no control whatever over the provinces of Danakil and Aussa.
  The general position in Abyssinia will be appreciated better, I think, if it is realised that over at least three-quarters of the country the Italian authorities have no military control beyond an area varying from 10 to 30 miles radius around the larger towns. In fact, over at least half of the country there is no military control, the military posts only maintaining their distance through military fortifications and the troops unable to penetrate the hilly and mountainous regions. Throughout the north, south, and southwest the greater part of the country is still under the authority of Ethiopian chieftains.
  Therefore, it follows; first, that the country is in a continuous state of opposition to the invader over large areas; secondly, that the Italian troops have not occupied the country completely; thirdly, that their military posts which have not been destroyed or withdrawn are in many cases on the defensive; fourthly, that the growing ascendancy of the Ethiopian troops over a large part of the country is due to the fact that there has taken place co-ordination of plans between widely separated commands. These facts are contained in statements submitted to the League by the Emperor and his advisers, but we can find corroboration to some extent in publications which, I think, would merit the confidence even of hon. Members opposite. Leading newspapers of this country like the "Times," the
  506
  "Sunday Times" and the "Daily Telegraph" have repeatedly reported facts which seem to corroborate the claims of the Emperor of Ethiopia. I find that in the "Times" of 26th November, 1937, it states:
  "The improvement in the internal situation that was expected after the rains is Still far from apparent."
  It is expected that the usual rainy season will commence in the next week or so, and that may to some extent explain why the Italian Government are so anxious to hasten the recognition of their so-called conquest of Ethiopia before it becomes only too obvious that it is not justified. The "Times" goes on to say:
  " The roads leading from Addis Ababa to Jimma and Gore have both been cut recently within 50 miles of the capital, with the result that transport has to proceed under convoy ….
  So far as can be judged, the economic position is moving from bad to worse …. The resistance of the native inhabitants in passive forms seems to be working as a factor of attrition."
  The "Sunday Times," 30th January, 1938, refers to the fact that:
  "There have been serious economic difficulties facing the Italians in Abyssinia showing that trade is virtually at a standstill."
  The "Daily Telegraph" of 2nd February, 1938, says that:
  "the Italian occupation is firmly established in Addis Ababa and within some 50 miles radius round that city, and in cities such as Harar and Diredawa, but in the greater part of these regions, where the lack of roads makes the quick movement of troops impossible, the native chieftains still hold sway. It is estimated that only about one-third of the arms they possessed at the close of the war against the Italians have been surrendered to their conquerors."
  The "Evening News" of 14th February, 1938, states:
  "According to a report from a very reliable source large numbers of troops, mostly native forces, left Addis Ababa recently to suppress a serious revolt."
  Six weeks ago the Abyssinian Legation stated that it had received reports of apparent opposition to Italian rule in Abyssinia. In the past two months, according to these reports, the Italians have lost 6,000 officers and men killed, including natives. This claim was immediately denied in Rome, where it was officially stated:
  " Italy is in complete control of every part of Abyssinia."

  507
  The following day the official Italian newspaper admitted that severe fighting had occurred in Abyssinia last September. I could continue to quote from other leading newspapers evidence supporting the claims of the Emperor of Ethiopia that, at the present time, the Italian Government are not in complete possession and control of the territory of Abyssinia, and that, on the contrary, their effective control is restricted to certain of the large cities and a certain radius from those cities, that large parts of the country are under the control of Abyssinian chieftains, and that large armed forces under their command are engaged in carrying on intensive warfare against the Italian military and armed forces. If that be so, how can it be argued that, under all prevailing concepts of international law, the Italian Government are entitled to be recognised as the de jure Government of that country?
  If the Government say that they are not prepared to accept the allegations that have been put forward by the Abyssinian Government, is it not all the more reason why some sort of inquiry should be held in order to ascertain the true facts of the case? The Government, for reasons of their own, refuse to support the suggestion that an inquiry should be held. They have not, at any rate up to date, refuted the case put forward by the Ethiopian Emperor. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Minister to-day to prove to the satisfaction of all sections of opinion that there is no truth and no substance in the allegations and the claims put forward by the Emperor of Ethiopia, and that, in fact, there is conclusive proof that the Italian Government are in complete control of the whole of Abyssinia. Unless he can do that, we on this side of the House are entitled to resist with all the means at our disposal, what is nothing short of the gross betrayal of another country belonging to the League of Nations.
  8.31 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I noticed that the hon. Gentleman opened his speech with a general remark about the recent activities of my Noble Friend at Geneva. He will excuse me, I am sure, if I do not enlarge my remarks to-night and enter into the broader considerations
  508
  with which he opened his speech, but confine myself to saying that I cannot accept the interpretation which he ascribed to the action of His Majesty's Government and to the activities of my Noble Friend. The reason why I will not go further into that subject to-night is that the Opposition are again raising a subject equivalent to this to-morrow night, namely, the recent session of the Council at Geneva and the steps taken there by His Majesty's Government. I quite appreciate the point that has been put to-night, and I will confine myself to the question of Italian control of Ethiopia. I think that that will be accepted by the hon. Member.
  There are two aspects of the information which the hon. Gentleman has given to the House, which I would like to bring to the attention of hon. Members. The information given—and he has read part of that information from certain documents —has been drawn from documents which must be acknowledged to come from a prejudiced source. I do not want to impart any bitterness into what I am going to say, but it is important to be quite clear that a large amount of the information given by the hon. Gentleman has simply been passed on by him to the House from the Ethiopian Legation, and, therefore, we must look at it as being information of an interested kind, and attach all the more importance to the source from which it comes. The second aspect of his information to which I want to draw the attention of hon. Members is the fact that our reports go to show that his information is not up to date.
  The hon. Gentleman devoted considerable time to extracts from a document issued by the Ethiopian Legation on the subject of hostilities which took place in Ethiopia, and he made the contention that there was fighting of a severe character in Ethiopia last September. I do not deny that there has been fighting, but I would point out that we are now considering the position in Ethiopia in this month of this year, and that much of the information which he has given to the House comes from a date last year, when we do not deny that fighting took place. I do not mean by saying this that I accept the details which the hon. Gentleman has given to the House as being correct. I do not. I want, therefore, to draw the attention of the House to the

  509
  important fact that this information, incorrect as we believe it to be, is derived from a somewhat distant date, whereas the information which I have put before hon. Members is, we consider, up to date.
  Mr. A. Henderson: The Under-Secretary will remember that I quoted the date on the document which related to the fighting in Abyssinia, which was submitted, and it is dated February, 1938.
  Mr. Butler: The document is dated February, 1938, but our information goes to show that the information in that document is not up to date. That further emphasises the point that I was making.
  I will now try to deal with the situation in general, and afterwards with some of the points which have been raised by the hon. Member. Our information generally as regards the military situation shows that, although in one or two limited areas there is resistance to Italian authority on the part of some of the inhabitants, the Italian Government are in control of virtually the whole country, and that in present circumstances, as has already been said by spokesmen of His Majesty's Government, that control could only be upset by a successful war, which it would be beyond the power of the natives of Ethiopia to achieve, and which I do not think any foreign Power would be ready to undertake.
  Early in the year and at the end of last year the Italians, so we are informed, experienced considerable difficulties in areas to the North, West and South-West of Addis Ababa but, since the arrival of 20 battalions of Blackshirt militia, pacification has proceeded and no serious trouble is now being experienced except in the mountains of the Gojjam province, which is an area to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention and which, I ought to say, was always a sector of disaffection. He will perhaps remember that the Emperor himself was obliged to detach troops from the main theatre of the war to deal with disloyal tribes in this area. Two other tribes to which the hon. Member has drawn attention which have caused the Italians trouble—the Azebu Gallas and the Danakils—were frequently troublesome to the Emperor, but as a result of the introduction of the 20 battalions of Blackshirt militia, and of certain Italian
  510
  air action, such tribal bands are becoming unwelcome in those districts, because their presence draws undesirable attention to the neighbourhood. If such bands go to a neighbourhood, their presence is not welcomed by the local inhabitants. With these exceptions in the mountainous area of the Gojjam province, which has always given trouble, and which is an extremely difficult and untraceable region, and the particular tribal areas that I have mentioned, owing to the Italian reinforcements and the Italian air action, I maintain that our claims that Italy is in control of virtually the whole of Abyssinia is correct.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Under-Secretary say where the information comes from that the rebel bands are unwelcome?
  Mr. Butler: We get our information from a variety of sources in Abyssinia, but mostly from our Consuls. I have been asked by the hon. Member to make a statement and I am giving a statement of fact, based on the information in the possession of His Majesty's Government, as clearly as I can. I have given all the details as well as the only exception, so far as we can ascertain, to a complete Italian occupation.
  Sir Stafford Cripps: Will the Minister be good enough to tell us whether the Consuls get their information from Italian sources?
  Mr. Butler: The Consuls get their information from a variety of sources, and they get it also through their own investigations. Consuls have made journeys in various districts of Abyssinia and have gleaned information from their own observations. It has been said in public propaganda on this subject that the Italians are only present in garrisons occupying fortified posts. That is true in the main, but there is no reason to deduce from the fact that, because the Italians are garrisoning the country in fortified posts, they are not in complete control of the country. There is really no practicable alternative method of occupying a backward and potentially hostile country. Over great areas climatic conditions render complete occupation difficult from a military point of view, and the most economical method of disposing troops is to establish garrisons of some size in strongly fortified posts whence, if

  511
  necessary, troops may be moved to deal with any outbreaks of disaffection.
  The hon. Member referred to the fact that the railway had been attacked. There is a phrase in the memorandum which we have seen that the railway and the Massawa-Addis Ababa road had been frequently attacked. We have no corroboration of the statement that this railway has been attacked to the extent of dislocating traffic since a date in 1936. The main road between Massawa and Addis Ababa has in recent months only suffered one serious interruption, when 25 lorries, laden with petrol, were destroyed in March. Therefore, I think the claim of the hon. Member in respect of these particular communications is, like the rest of his material, exaggerated. That, I think, answers in general the points raised by the hon. Member.
  I could deal with other points in the memoranda to which the hon. Member has referred. I could develop some of the economic points, the point of criticism, for instance, which has been made in the memorandum published by the League of Nations Union about the economic situation. I would say that there are many points in this regard that are exaggerated, just in the same way as the military information in the hon. Member's possession is, to our way of thinking, much exaggerated. It has been said that the Abyssinians would not do road work, but our information, which has been obtained from our Consul, is that the payment to the natives is now regarded as satisfactory, having been fixed by the Fascist organisation at a reasonable level.
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: How much?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot at the moment give the exact details, but that is the information that has been given to us. Roadmaking, hon. Members will recollect, did much to develop Morocco and made such a difference in the ability of the Foreign Legion to help France to pacify Morocco, and a roadmaking policy is being carried out in Abyssinia The making of roads is going ahead much more than has been the case in the past, and on a much more satisfactory basis. That is one further example of the information in our possession, which justifies the statements that we have made in this House.
  512
  The hon. Member, in summing up his information, read from the Ethiopian document a statement that three-fourths of the country were outside the control of the Italians. I would ask hon. Members whether after listening to the facts that I have put before them they can honestly say that that statement is true, or whether it is not truer to say that the Italian Government are in control of virtually the whole country. That is the conclusion we have come to after studying up-to-date information, not from prejudiced sources but from observations on the spot. That is the information which I give to the House in the confident assertion that hon. Members will prefer facts from such sources to information which must have come from the sources which I earlier described. In conclusion I should not do justice to the hon. Member if I did not repeat that, in view of the information in our possession, we are not willing to concede the granting of an inquiry of an international character, and thereby confirm the answer I gave him on that subject at Question Time.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am sure the House is grateful to the Under-Secretary for the statement he has made. He will forgive me if I say that the spirit of his speech was indicated by his use of the word "pacification." The value of his information depends upon his credulity, and his credulity can be measured by the fact that he tells us that the Fascist Government have established a reasonable rate of wages for the Abyssinians, but he does not know what that rate of wages is.
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member knows that for various reasons I have had rather short notice. I have given the House up-to-date information on the subject, and needless to say I could have obtained more detailed information if I had had more time. I think the hon. Member would be wiser to restrict himself to the general subject and not make points such as that I am not informed on any particular point.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. Member, and I agree that he has been given rather short notice. We shall put down a question on the rate of wages paid by the Fascist Government, and we shall then discover whether they are reasonable or not. His Majesty's

  513
  Government have assumed in their policy, beginning some months ago, that the war in Abyssinia was over when sanctions were raised; and the picture which the Under-Secretary of State has painted to-night is, broadly speaking, that of a Government which has undisputed sovereignty of the country with a smoothly working administration. In spite of what he has told us, I assert that nothing of the kind is true. The true situation is that Signor Mussolini, in his third year of his Covenant-breaking war, has had a more costly campaign than ever before, and that he is no nearer conquest than when sanctions were taken off.
  The Under-Secretary of State has said that the information given by my hon. Friend was from Ethiopian sources, that Ethiopian sources were interested sources and that, therefore, presumably the information was unreliable. He said further that it was out of date. I submit that the Ethiopians are extremely likely to know the true facts about their own country, more likely than other people; and that they have no real interest to disguise the facts. If the country is really conquered, if the people want to accept the Italians as their rulers, why does not the Emperor accept the large sum of money which the Italian Government have offered him and allow the whole question to be ended? He does not, because he knows that the country is not conquered. I want to submit, in addition to the evidence given by my hon. Friend, certain supplementary information which comes not from Ethiopian sources but from British sources and newspapers, and, moreover, information which is up to date. I admit that it is not in agreement with the information which His Majesty's Government have received. But I am not greatly impressed that it is not in agreement with what the Under-Secretary of State has told us.
  In 1937 the Government used to say, day after day that all that we learned about Spain was untrue. We relied on British journalists, who reported what was happening in the Press. We were told that their information was not true. But on the 21st February, 1938, the late Foreign Secretary told us that it was true, that the journalists had been right and the Government wrong. I suggest
  514
  that the journalists are right now. The Italian Government have made it much more difficult to obtain information about Abyssinia than it was about Spain. His Majesty's Government had some 56 diplomatic and consular agents in Spain; they have only two consular posts in Abyssinia, and the Consuls cannot find it very easy to travel. I suggest that the information which comes from the sources I shall cite is true, in this case, as it was in the case of Spain. I begin with an article in the "Times," which I admit is a little out of date, for it was published on 8th October, 1937. There was a sentence in that article which my hon. Friend did not quote:
  " With the exception of the bigger towns and the provinces where the means of communication are such that military aid can be secured quickly in case of emergency, Abyssinia is governed by Abyssinian chieftains who carry on a guerilla warfare against the Italians, harrassing them at every opportunity."
  The correspondent gives details of particular actions and says that the Abyssinian population have almost entirely abandoned their lands and that agriculture is a thing of the past. They are engaged in war. That article was printed on the very day on which there appeared a letter in the "Times" from one of Signor Mussolini's agents saying that order was perfect in the country, and I believe that the "Times" article was a direct reply to that letter. But I come now to evidence which is a little more up to date. On the 16th February this year, five days before the Prime Minister began his negotiations with Signor Mussolini, and when he was already in constant personal contact with Signor Grandi, the "Daily Telegraph" printed a report from their Aden correspondent in which he said:
  "It is learned here that a detachment of 500 Italians was annihilated recently as a result of a ruse by Abyssinian tribesmen in the Minjar country. Serious revolts have broken out in Gojjam, north-west of Addis-Ababa, and in the extreme south. It is now learned that the Wallega district in Western Abyssinia is also affected."
  A little later an article in the "Daily Express" said very much the same thing. In February the "Evening Standard" reported:
  "Refugees arriving here"—
  that is Port Said—
  "in French steamers told further stories of the daily massacre of hundreds of Italian

  515
  troops in Abyssinia. The refugees declared that Italian forces are in great distress because of the shortness of provisions. There is a famine in Addis-Ababa. The people are eating cats, dogs and monkeys. Bands of Abyssinian soldiers attack Italian outposts almost every night."
  I come still more up to date in the sense that I now desire to give the Under-Secretary information which was printed in the month of May. I referred to it at Question Time to-day. It is the information of a Frenchman who went to Abyssinia and was with the Abyssinian army. He went in from Kenya and travelled by Lake Rudolph into the South of the country. This is what he says:
  " While the diplomatists are trying to work out the most suitable way to recognise the Italian conquest, I have been watching the Abyssinians carry on the war against the invaders. Although Europe may have lost sight of it, that war is as real as the existence of an independent Abyssinia with its own capital. Gore, its own Government, and its own army. I have just returned to Europe after sharing the life of the army for several weeks."
  He described a number of actions he saw; how the Abyssinians are able to destroy Italian crops; and he gives a picture which, I think, would convince even the Under-Secretary that the administration of the Italians is not working so smoothly as they might desire. He also gives a map, showing one great area which is independent, and another great area in which there is continual guerilla fighting. To that there must be added the area of the Gojjam Provinces which the Minister himself has admitted are in revolt.
  To this evidence we can add that of two great British authorities. I venture to say that there is no higher authority in the world on Africa than Lord Lugard. A few days ago Lord Lugard wrote to the "Times" as follows:
  " Replies to questions in the House have withheld from the public the real situation in Abyssinia, because His Majesty's Government were unable to confirm reports of which they had no definite proof, but there is undeniable evidence that it is very critical—and the rains are shortly due when it may become more so."
  That is supplemented by the evidence of another very high authority on Africa, Miss Margery Perham of Oxford. As everybody knows, Miss Margery Perham is a great African traveller. She wrote a letter to the "Times," dated 29th April, saying that she had just returned from
  516
  the Abyssinian frontier, where, if anywhere, one is likely to hear the truth. She said:
  " There is evidence to show that the conquest is by no means a historical fact, and that the increasing vigour of the Abyssinian struggle for freedom, with Italy's growing financial difficulties, might, during the coming rains, induce Rome to compromise with the huge task she has undertaken."
  She goes on:
  " Even were the conquest complete it would still be only the beginning of the Abyssinian problem. Few if any subject people has ever had such strong and abiding stimulus to nationalism as the Abyssinians, whether in their character, their long and independent history, or in a struggle to defend their freedom in which the world openly justified them against their aggressors."
  I venture to say that that evidence, which is confirmed by many other travellers with whom I have spoken, who have come back from those parts of the world, tends to show that His Majesty's Government, perhaps, have not got the whole of the facts and that here is, at least very real doubt—1 do not wish to overstate it—about the military and administrative situation in Abyssinia to-day. I would add that I have this morning received information, from sources which have always proved reliable in the past, that there has been heavy fighting near Addis Ababa during the last fortnight, that a very important personality in the Italian administration was wounded outside Addis Ababa not long ago, and that two attacks have been made on Addis Ababa itself. In these circumstances, what do the Government propose? They have gone to Geneva and they have suggested that members of the League should set aside—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Captain Bourne): I understood that notice had been given that the question of what the Government did at Geneva was to be raised tomorrow. I warn the hon. Member that if he raises it to-night, he may be anticipating to-morrow's Debate.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not desire to go outside your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was simply suggesting that the action of the Government at Geneva ought to depend upon the real facts of the situation. If you desire that I should not proceed with that part of what I intended to say, I will leave it out. But in conclusion, I must recall that the law of the Covenant in this matter is perfectly

  517
  clear, that Article 10, which, as President Wilson said, is the heart of the Covenant, has twice been interpreted, by a unanimous resolution of the Committee of Twelve of the Council of the League, and by the unanimous resolution of the Assembly of the League; and that the Assembly said:
  "It is incumbent upon the Members of the League of Nations not to recognise any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or to the Pact of Paris."
  I suggest that even if, as Miss Perham says, the conquest of Abyssinia were complete—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Notice has been given that this question will be raised on the Adjournment to-morrow, and the hon. Member must not go into the question of Geneva. The hon. Member for Kingswin-ford (Mr. Henderson) raised, quite properly, the question of the accuracy of the Government's information about Abyssinia, but if hon. Members go into the question of the Government's action at Geneva, it may affect the Debate tomorrow.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Henderson) raised the question of the situation in Abyssinia, with reference to the despatch of a commission of inquiry. It is to that point that I desire to address myself. I venture to suggest that the action taken by the Government ought not to have been taken without asking for a commission of inquiry. In every previous case when action has been required by the League, and there has been doubt about the facts, such commissions of inquiry have been sent, and in no instance has that procedure, when adopted, failed to give satisfaction and to bring results that did justice to all the parties concerned. That was done over the Aaland Islands, in the first year of the League's existence; it was done later over Demir Kapou, over Mosul, and over Manchuria in 1931; and I venture to say that the facts which have been recited by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford, and the information with which I have supplemented what he said, show that the conquest of Abyssinia is not complete, that there is at least grave doubt as to what is the real situation in Abyssinia, and that unless the Government accept a commission of
  518
  inquiry, but proceed to recognise without it, they will take action which will not, indeed, ensure the conquest of the Abyssinian people—in that I do not believe— but which will leave upon British honour a stain which will not easily be wiped out.

  COAL INDUSTRY (ELECTRIC MACHINE-MINING).
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Batey: I wish to raise the very important question of the use of electricity in coal mines. I am sorry that the Secretary for Mines cannot be present, but in trying to arrange this matter with him, I found that he had an important engagement into which he had entered before he knew of my intention to raise the question, and therefore, I make no complaint about his absence. I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson), who is a very able representative both of the Secretary for Mines and of the Government, for having consented to listen to the Debate, and to say a few words at the end. Yesterday, I put a question to the Secretary for Mines asking whether he would take steps to make it illegal to use electricity to drive machines in coal mines. His answer was a short one: it was "No, Sir." In a supplementary question, the Minister expressed the opinion that before anything was done in a matter such as this, he ought to have the report of the Royal Commission which is considering the question of the safety regulations. In my opinion, it is not wise for the Government to await the Royal Commission's report before dealing with this important matter.
  When we have explosions in mines, with the loss of many lives, they stagger the whole country, and I venture to say that if, immediately after one of those explosions, we discussed the matter in the House, every hon. Member, no matter to what party he belonged, would be in favour of trying to see whether some way could not be found for preventing those explosions. There was the Gresford explosion, where so many lives were lost, and following that, the Government came to the conclusion that there must be a Royal Commission to inquire into the question of safety in mines. The Gresford explosion occurred in 1934, and at the Election, the Government had that policy. In December of that year, they set up

  519
  the Royal Commission to inquire into safety in mines. So far, the Royal Commission has not reported. Last year, in January, there was an explosion at Markham colliery, with the loss of nine lives, and last week the country was again staggered by an explosion that took place at Markham, with the loss of 89 lives. The occurrence of these explosions makes it essential that the Government should take this question into consideration at once to see whether anything can be done to prevent them. Some of us believe that one of the great dangers in connection with coal mining to-day arises from the use of electricity in mines. The use of electricity is something new in coal mining. It is new in the sense that it is how being used at the coal face where there is always so much gas. The introduction of electricity in that way is, I believe, an added cause of danger and involves one of the gravest risks experienced by those engaged in mining.
  One strong argument why the Government should not wait until the Royal Commission report is this: As hon. Members may know, there is a remarkable difference between the accident rate in coal mines in France, and that in Great Britain. The Department of Mines recently did a very wise thing in sending the Deputy Chief Inspector to make an investigation in France. His report was issued last October—Command Paper No. 5566. I confine myself at present to that part of the report which deals with explosions in coal mines arising from electricity. In his comparison between Great Britain and France in this respect, the Deputy Chief Inspector, on page 16 of the report, says:
  " ELECTRICITY. Herein lies, in part, an obvious explanation for the higher accident rate from explosions in this country. Whereas, during the period under review electricity was the cause of 17 explosions and 86 deaths in Great Britain, only one accident, resulting in one death, which occurred at an electrically driven pump, was so caused in France.…The explanation of the almost negligible accident rate from this cause in France is to be found in the fact that electricity is little used underground, other than for pumping and chiefly near downcast shafts."
  I wish to draw special attention to those words. It makes an enormous difference whether the electricity is used near the downcast shaft, or whether it is used at
  520
  the coal face, perhaps a mile or two "in by." The report adds:
  " The use of electrically-driven coal-face machinery is practically unknown, though some gate conveyors are electrically driven."
  Then on page 8 of the report we find this:
  " Though the natural conditions in France are not suitable for the extensive application of coal-face machinery, as widely practised in Great Britain, the ventilation standard limits the use of electricity in this connection, and, as is shown elsewhere in this report, the almost complete absence of the use of eltectric power at the coal face is an important contributory factor to the lower explosion death rate."
  Dealing with explosions generally, the report states:
  It will be observed that for the ten years 1925–34 the French death rate from explosions was less than one-third that of Great Britain."
  Figures are also given which show that the number of explosions in France for that period was n, resulting in 58 deaths, while in Great Britain in the same period, there were 117 explosions resulting in 753 deaths. The report of the Secretary for Mines for 1936—the last available—shows that in that year there were 64 deaths in coal mines as a result of explosions arising from electricity. There is abundant evidence to convince the Government that the time has come to do something to prevent a continuance of this appalling loss of life. We ought not to be asked to wait month after month. We recognise that the Royal Commission has undertaken a big task and that it cannot do its work in a hurry, but that is no reason why the Government should delay to deal with some of these important and urgent questions. As I have already said, last week's explosion staggered the country and made Members of all parties in this House feel that something ought to be done at once. Apparently it has been found possible to get over this trouble in France. Why should it not be possible to deal with it here also? I have raised this question to-night because it is not possible to deal with a subject of this kind by way of supplementary questions and because I am anxious that the Government should take some action to put an end to these recurrent disasters.
  9 14 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: We are obliged tonight to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), as we so often are in

  521
  this House, for the use which he as a skilled Parliamentarian has made of this opportunity to raise this very important question. We regret the fact that the Secretary for Mines is not here, but we understand the reason for his absence and we do not blame him. We also thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury for being in attendance to note what we have to say. We are not raising this matter because we have no confidence in the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines. On that Commission are representatives of both sides in the industry who have a long and intimate knowledge of the industry. But we feel that we have some right to complain about what appears to be a growing tendency in the Mines Department and on the part of the Secretary for Mines to say: "Wait until the Commission has reported." It is a very dangerous procedure to leave urgent matters, which call for immediate attention, on one side until a commission reports.
  We must remember that this Commission has before it an immense task. The last Commission which dealt with this question, prior to the introduction of the 1911 Act, lasted for four years. Anyone who looks at that 1911 Act knows that the Commission has before it a tremendous task, and none of us wants to hurry them to accomplish it quickly. At the same time we do think that these questions which are coming up at the present time call for serious consideration and that whatever administrative action can be taken now, before the Commission completes its herculean task, should be taken. We are becoming accustomed in these days to sudden and catastrophic deaths. I heard a fine phrase the other day, that we stand in this age in danger of seeing all the gains of civilisation overwhelmed in this wave of violence that has come over the world. It is because we have become so accustomed to violence of all forms that perhaps our sensibilities are becoming rather dulled. An old collier, with whom I worked as a boy once said to me, "My boy, if ever I am fated to be killed in the pit, as I may be"—and tragically enough in the end he was—"I hope I shall be killed one of a hundred and not on my own, because much more fuss will be made of me, and my wife will be much better off afterwards."
  522
  It is only when something happens in a catastrophic way that the country is roused, and I am sure that we are but doing our duty to our men, when it does happen in this catastrophic way, in taking advantage of this stirring of public opinion to call attention to it while the public and the House are in the mood to listen to us. since 1920, since the end of the War, nearly 18,000 men have been killed in the mines of this country, and 2,500,000 have been injured. We read with horror in the papers every day of deaths all over the world, and perhaps we give too little attention to the deaths that take place at our very doors day in and day out. Now comes this last explosion, a kind of explosion that is happening very frequently nowadays. In reply to a question which I put to the Secretary for Mines yesterday, he said that between the beginning of 1930 and the end of 1937 there had been 91 colliery explosions in this country. That means an explosion every month in those eight years, and on the experience of this year, it will be, if anything, above rather than below the average for the last eight years. We have prided ourselves in this country that in the matter of the protection of the working man we have led the world, but on this question of avoiding explosions in mines we are not leading the world in these days, but are lagging behind.
  I have no technical qualifications as such, but I had experience in the pit for 17 years as a coal miner myself, as boy and man, and ever since I left the pit some years ago I have had an intimate daily association with the mining industry. I think that very often the nontechnical experience, the experience of the practical man, ought to be brought to bear on this problem. In many ways I think the pits were safer to work in the old days when the officials were appointed for their practical knowledge and common sense, rather than for their certificates. Here we are, faced with this problem of electricity in the pits, and I am sure that it is the element of electricity and the things which machine-mining brings in its train which are the important new factors which have to be borne in mind and which, I am sure, the Royal Commission will find in the end to be one of the gravest problems that we have to face in the mining industry.

  523
  I shall never forget an opportunity which I had of visiting that first-class research station at Buxton, on an arranged tour in connection with the South Wales Miners' Federation. There, on the quiet of a summer's Sunday morning, at half-past eight, we saw an explosion staged. This summer Members of the House are going to see a demonstration of television, one of the wonders of the age. Might I suggest to the Patronage Secretary and to the Secretary for Mines that Members might also be taken to see one of the tragedies of the age, that they might be taken to Buxton to see a coal-mine explosion from coal dust staged? Let them stand on the hillside, with no fire-damp, no gas, with conditions almost as perfect as coal-mining conditions can be, and see an explosion from coal dust. You see it coming out, first a huge flame, which stretches for 100 yards, and then a thick smoke and the fire-damp. This is what kills our own kith and kin who produce the coal which we need. Who does not feel the better for it when he goes into the Library of this House and stands by the fire? Well, let him remember the man who pays the penalty for that.
  We saw an experiment at Buxton, where, in a laboratory or workshop, they had a container in which they reproduced the atmosphere of a pit, an air containing 2½ per cent. of firedamp. We were told, "We will show you what kind of flame is required to explode that firedamp." First of all, they had a piece of paper which they lit and put in this explosive atmosphere, and we waited until the flame on the paper got larger and larger, and there was a distinct interval before it exploded the firedamp. Then we were shown how long it would take for sparks in a pit to explode firedamp, and there was again an appreciable interval before the explosion. Next they brought a tiny electric battery, and one tiny spark, which we could not detect with the naked eye, caused an explosion. That brought home to us the fact that when you bring electricity into the pit, the tiniest spark that no one can see, you are bringing in something which can produce one of these terrible explosions.
  What occurred at Gresford we may never know, because the district in which the explosion occurred is sealed, but here this tiny spark comes in. The number of men killed in an explosion is a matter of
  524
  luck—it depends on how many men there are in the pit at the time—but we know that modern colliery explosions have become so violent that the number of people rescued is getting less. We notice that the number of people who come out alive gets smaller and smaller at each explosion. The number killed depends on the number who are there. No engineer will ever convince me that a coal mine can be made safe enough to bring an electric spark into it. We have found that of the 91 explosions that have taken place in the eight years from 1931 to 1937 45 were in collieries where all the coal cutting and conveying machinery is driven by electricity and, of the others, 12 occurred where the machinery is driven by electricity and by compressed air, so that in 57 out of the 91 mines electricity was used. Those facts have to be explained.
  We are all familiar in a small way with electrical apparatus in our homes. We know how easy it is to break it up and at how many points there may be leakages, and every tiny leak contains the germ of a horrible, devastating explosion. There is not only electrically-driven machinery but there is the enormous growth of shot-firing, which has now become easier because of electricity. That is part of the trouble with electricity, that it makes everything so much easier but at the same time so much more dangerous. Millions of shots a year are fired with cables 30, 40 or 50 yards long, by means of which current is taken right to the coal face, with all the possibilities of leakage and the danger of ignition. Then the advent of machinery is changing the method of mining.
  The miner is the true pioneer in this world. Every day, as he cuts away yard by yard of coal, he goes where no man has been before. He does not know what the next yard holds in store. He is really the prospector, the pioneer who adventures into the dark each day. In the old mining days, when each man worked in his own stall and cut his roadway, ventilation was better. Now we have these new-fangled notions. The Secretary for Mines has told us that in 45 of the 91 collieries where explosions have taken place strip packing was adopted or there was no packing at all. Every miner knows what that means. You have long distances behind in which there is no

  525
  packing and where there are accumulations of firedamp, and there is pressure driving it forward to the coal face. These are the conditions under which the new marvel of the age, the terrible danger to the miner, electricity, is brought in.
  We may have to wait, perhaps we ought to wait, a few more months for the report of the Royal Commission. Perhaps we ought to give them time. At the same time steps ought to be taken now. There is reason to suspect that electricity may be at the root of these explosions. Are we asking too much in asking that until the Commission completes its task the use of electricity shall be stopped? There is another factor which impresses me very much. Prior to the advent of modern machine-mining, perhaps because of the kind of coal that was worked, South Wales was one of the worst districts. I vividly remember an explosion in which there was a death roll of 400 sent to eternity on one shift. In recent years South Wales has been comparatively better off because relatively little electricity is used to drive the machinery. Compressed air can drive machinery and it does in South Wales. I am told that the cost is a little higher, but if you put the loss of life into the balance there is a case for the suspension of the use of electricity until the Commission has reported. The tragic story goes on month by month.
  I think we have been fully justified in raising the matter and in expressing the hope that the Secretary of Mines will consult with his inspectors immediately and take such interim action as is possible by administration to stop some of the worst practices, and then we shall live in the hope that when the Commission has reported something of a fundamental character will be done to make the pits as safe as they can be made.
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. Tinker: I make no apology for rising in this Debate, for I believe that we should take every opportunity of bringing this matter before the House. I remember coming down Kingsway on Tuesday last week and seeing a newspaper vendor put out a new placard. It said: "Colliery explosion, feared loss of life." When a miner sees a thing like that he wonders at once what has happened, and a vivid picture comes to his
  526
  mind of the long airways and underground tunnels where he knows that if an explosion has taken place it is a death trap and nobody can expect to come out alive. Then he wonders in what part of the coalfield it has happened and whether it is in his district, but he knows that wherever it is there has been loss of human life. Then he wonders what the cause of it is. To every miner two things come uppermost in his mind— shot firing and electricity. Then he naturally goes on to ask himself, "What can be done to avoid these explosions?"
  We have taken this opportunity to describe to the House as vividly as we can what such explosions mean and what we think can prevent them. My two hon. Friends have spoken for other parts of the coalfield—one for Durham and one for South Wales. I come from Lancashire, which is as highly mechanised as any other part of the coalfield. Electricity obtains in every mine and we get constant reports of what takes place. In cutting, coal miners use a long wheel or disc that undercuts the coal. Sometimes in the coal there is a hard substance called iron pyrites which is harder than the coal. When the disc strikes this substance a flame comes out. Men have described to me many times how they have seen this flame. There is no checking the machine, for there is a certain amount of work to do and it goes on, regardless of what it means, tearing its way through the coal. If the flame comes when there happens to be any gas about there is an explosion. If there is no gas, fire is often set up and the whole coal face becomes alight. One can imagine that if there is any sign of gas there is bound to be an explosion owing to the consequent picking up of the coal dust. All this is made worse by the use of electricity.
  We are trying to-night to stir up not only the House of Commons but the nation to do something in regard to this matter. I want the appeal to become so intense that the coalowners will be driven to do something. When I heard the Secretary for Mines the other day voicing sympathy with those who suffered loss in the recent explosion, I felt the surge of sympathy going through every Member in the House. I thought, "That is very good, but cannot they do something in this matter?" It is not sufficient that

  527
  we should have a wave of sympathy when an explosion takes place and to leave it at that. It is not sufficient to get up a public subscription to relieve the people who are suffering. That does not meet the situation. What we want, and what we are trying to get, is something effective to prevent the deplorable loss of fife which takes place so often in our coalfields. We are satisfied that it can be done. It might not be on the particular lines suggested by my hon. Friends, but we ought not to rest until some strong and urgent steps are taken.
  I would like hon. Members opposite to go to Buxton some Sunday morning, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and if you could spare the time, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to go also, because I feel you could help us in this matter. What I have seen there is one of the most terrible things I have witnessed in my life with all my knowledge of pit work. It is well worth anyone's time to go and see what can happen when an explosion takes place. I remember going last summer with a party of boys from St. Helens Mining School, where we teach them the dangers of mining. We took them to Buxton to show them what can happen when an explosion takes place so that they would get pit sense and learn not to tamper with the various things that can cause an explosion. There was a blast which almost scorched us, and one boy said, "I will never go down a pit again after what I have seen." What he saw at Buxton left such a vivid impression on his mind that he was determined not to go down again. I feel satisfied that if hon. Members on the other side went to Buxton they would be as eager as we are to-night in trying to do everything possible to prevent this kind of thing happening. We believe that if electricity is taken from the mines it may not prevent explosions in all instances, but it will go a long way to make the mines safer than they are at present. We hope that the Royal Commission will find that the time has come when electricity must be taken from the mine until it can be used in a way that it cannot cause trouble. I recognise that electricity is a great potential force, but at the moment it has not been found to be safe for the mines. Until means can be provided to prevent the dangers it causes it ought not
  528
  to be taken into the deadly atmosphere of fire damp.
  9.44 p.m.
  Mr. Cape: I do not apologise to the House for joining in this Debate. I suppose that I have had the most unique experience of any man in regard to explosions. It has been my unfortunate lot to have to go into pits on seven occasions after explosions, and I have had to do a good deal of rescue work and in searching for bodies that have probably been left in a pit for weeks. Even after all those experiences I could not describe to the House all the horrors of a colliery explosion. It is beyond the power of any man who has never seen them to imagine what they are like. I have taken part in a good many inquiries into the case of explosions both in my own county and in South Wales, and while I am not prepared to say that all those explosions were caused by electricity, I am satisfied in my own mind that shot-firing and the use of electricity are two of the gravest dangers in the mines to-day.
  That can be proved by what has happened in recent years—proved not by the explosions but by what has been done by the Mines Department and the Mining Research Board. I had the privilege of being a member of that board for some years, and I want to pay a tribute to the many eminent scientists who were on the board during my time. They used their skill and knowledge to try to find ways and means of preventing explosions caused by shot-firing and the use of electricity. From time to time the Mines Department have issued a large number of orders regarding the use of electricity in mines, with the object of introducing safeguards. That in itself is proof sufficient that everyone concerned with mining, either from a practical or from a scientific point of view, is satisfied that there is danger in the use of electricity. If there is not then why have so many regulations issued saying that this or that has to be done where electricity is in use?
  In mining, Nature has provided more dangers than man can cope with, but some of the devices introduced by man have, unfortunately, tended to add to those dangers. The call for larger output and for progress in mining methods

  529
  has caused men to devise ways and means of employing mechanical power to secure larger production, and electrical power has been introduced into the mines, and its use is extending every year. In the modern mine practically everything is electrified. In a good many pits the men descend and ascend by electricity, the haulage is electrified, there is electrical signalling apparatus. I would point out that only approved electrical signalling apparatus can be used, showing that even there precautions have to be taken to prevent the dangers arising from electricity. Shot-firing is largely done by electricity, and orders have been issued in recent years that only such batteries may be used for shot-firing as are approved by the Mines Department. Coal-cutting machines and conveyers are driven by electricity. In short, nearly everything in the modem pit is electrified. There is no scientist who is prepared to say that explosions cannot be caused by an electric spark. That has been proved time and again. An explosion in a coal mine is not like a fire in a house, where the spreading of the flames can be checked, because once the fatal spark has gone into an inflammable atmosphere in a mine, then, in the twinkling of an eye, as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, hundreds of men may be hurled into eternity.
  Answering a question in the House the other day, the Secretary for Mines said that he could not take any action towards suppressing the use of electricity in mines until the Commission investigating the subject had presented its report. Under ordinary circumstances that would be a reasonable answer to give. If it were a question concerning unemployment benefit, for example, it would be quite proper for a Minister to say that he was awaiting the report of some Commission which was inquiring into it. This is a question of life and death, and cannot wait. If we are satisfied that electricity is a dangerous factor in mines it will be dangerous to-morrow, and might mean that 200 men will be hurled into eternity. If we are satisfied that shot-firing is a dangerous factor in mines we cannot wait for the report of the Royal Commission. These things are too serious, and affect human life in such a way that it is impossible to allow them to continue.
  Very wide powers are possessed by the Secretary for Mines, or at least by his
  530
  chief the President of the Board of Trade. Under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, they have power to issue orders for safety in mines. Nobody complains about that power, but as the Minister has power to issue regulations as to how electricity should be used and how shots should be fired, surely he has power to prevent those two dangers in the mines. It is very desirable to eliminate them altogether. Unless you do so, the dangers are still there. The number of persons killed by electricity in mines in this country is very alarming. I cannot give the actual figures now, but I can tell the House that in one small colliery in my division and which employs only 120 men, two men were killed this year by an electric cable. I lent a hand in conveying the bodies of the men from the pit to their homes. Another two men had a narrow escape. Everybody in the mines thought that all the necessary safety devices for the protection of the men had been provided. Again, four men were, not killed this time, but nearly killed, by a similar accident. Technical experts have tried to find out what caused the death of those men.
  In these matters we have to consider the danger to the individual. Every man and boy working in a pit which is electrified faces the possibility of an explosion and is always in potential danger, even though he is not actually within the danger zone. I wish to add my plea to those which have been made by my hon. Friends that the Secretary for Mines and his experts should not wait for the report of the Royal Commission but should concentrate upon deciding whether electricity should or should not be eliminated altogether from the mines of this country.
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. George Griffiths: We do not need to apologise for raising this question on the Adjournment. The only thing I feel sorry about is that there are not more Members present in the House.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Even on our benches.
  Mr. Griffiths: I have never been more moved by a speech than I was by that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). It was a marvellous oration. It was something that came from his soul and not something that he read in a book. It was

  531
  something that he had experienced. I know that it says somewhere in the Bible:
  " One thing I know."
  He did not read it. He knew it. We men in the industry have some knowledge of these things. I thank the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) for giving us the opportunity of putting this across. I express my thanks also to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly. I am very pleased that he brought forward the experiments at Buxton. I have had experience of Buxton. I am pleased that I was one of the first members of the Miners' Welfare Committee to inaugurate the safety classes for mining boys from 14 years of age so that they should know something about the dangers of the mines.
  I remember one little lad in Yorkshire at the pit where I worked. Somebody said to him down the pit: "Jack, what are you doing that for? Has nobody told thee about that danger?" The little lad's answer was: "Nobody has said anything to me about danger except my mother." That was something that wanted a remedy, and the classes for boys are an attempt to provide that remedy by giving the boys an insight into the dangers, both on the surface and below-ground. I remember going with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) to Buxton. We took 30 or 40 of the lads from our pit and the pits round about, and they saw an explosion. It was an instruction, a terrifying instruction, to the boys and to us as well. Not many men who have actually been working when an explosion has taken place are living to-day, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly said, fewer men come out of a pit alive to-day after an explosion than ever before. The percentage is smaller to-day than it has ever been.
  Since I have been in this House four explosions have taken place in my division. Three were directly caused, I believe, by electricity and one was from another cause. I went to bed at half-past 10 at night about 12 months ago last August. When I got up in the morning my wife was downstairs before me, and she said: "George, one of the pits has gone up."—That is how our wives speak of explosions. They know what explosions mean.—" There are over 60 men down." I made my way to the pit as
  532
  early as I could, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, who is sitting here now, was there almost as quickly as myself, and he went down the pit. I wanted to go down at once, but they said to me, "George, in your state you had better stay here." If there is anything that I admire, it is the way in which, when anything like this happens, men race to get down the pit to their comrades. When I was in the office with one of the inspectors, we got the plan of the pit showing where the explosion had happened. One of my friends walked in, and said to me, "George, my lad is down there," and he asked one of the officials whether he might go down. The official said, "No, you had better not go down; you must stay here." Then, when they showed us the point in the plan, I said to my friend, "Charlie, where was your lad working last night?" He said that he was working at such-and-such a junction, and I said, "If he is working there, he is safe." It turned out later that the lad had been sent inbye about 600 yards, and when he came out of the pit he was unrecognisable. I shall never forget going into the school that day. There were 54 men lying in straw, covered with brown blankets. I said to the people in charge, "Can I see so-and-so?" I had known him all my life, but, when the blanket was turned down, I did not recognise him at all. It reminds me of another passage from the Bible, which I am not afraid to quote:
  "I walk through the valley of the shadow of death."
  I turned round to someone and said, "This is the price of coal." I am sorry that there are so few Members present in the House to-night, because we do not often get the opportunity of putting across our case. The total number killed in 1936 —the figure for 1937, which I cannot quote at the moment is even higher—was 890 men and boys. As I have said, the total for 1937 was higher still, and God alone knows what the figure for 1938 is going to be. We have just had 79 killed at one pit. They said that that pit was one of the safest, and that the management had done all they could to prevent things like this from happening. If that is the case, what are we to look forward to later? The total number killed in 1936 was 890, but, in addition, we have to remember, as my hon. Friend the Member

  533
  for Workington (Mr. Cape) has said, the number that are maimed.
  The figures given in the report on compensation are most startling. Very few people take any notice of them, but we are compelled to take notice of them when we see the number of men who are on half wages for almost 12 months, and very often have to go to the Poor Law in order to get assistance to enable them to live. These are not cold-blooded figures to us, but actual facts. During the past five years, 968,682 persons were injured in the mines. In 1936, the total number of accidents was 180,893, affecting 34 per cent. of the men working. That means that one man in every four working in the pits gets hurt every year, or that the entire population of the mining industry meet with accidents in the course of four years. Electricity is an additional danger. I am not going to attempt to describe it. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly has done so, and I need not go over the ground again. But I felt, knowing something about this matter, and having worked in the pits for a good number of years, that it was not out of place that I should say a few words upon it.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Dunn: I should not like an occasion such as this to go by without adding my word to the appeal which has been under by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). Like other Members on this side of the House, I very much regret the absence from the Benches opposite of Members who constitute the Government, but at the same time I am glad that the Patronage Secretary is here. Undoubtedly he will take a note of this discussion and convey it to the proper quarter. I am glad also, as we all are, that our own Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, is on the Bench to hear the discussion. I do not profess to be able to put this case with nearly the same eloquence with which it was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I am sure that we as miners, and the country generally, are indebted to them both. I myself, unfortunately, have had the experience of passing through several of these explosions in coal mines, and, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), I happened to have had the experience of being
  534
  in a coal mine at the time when the explosion occurred. It was due to good luck that I happen to be here to-night to make my contribution to this Debate. Of the six explosions of which I have had experience, I am confident in my own mind that five could either be traced to the use—or misuse—of electricity in the mine, or were caused by shot-firing. It is because I am so painfully conscious of the hazards that the miners are running in the coal mines of this country that I would like to say a word or two in support of my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Hemsworth called attention to an explosion in which 58 men were killed. I happen to have seen the same machine, the electric machine which was the direct cause of that explosion. When 75 per cent. of explosions in the coal mines of this country are directly attributable either to the use of electricity or of shot-firing, every Member who is in the House at the moment, and those who are not, will, I am sure, feel indebted to us for raising this matter. In one of the explosions of which I happen "to have had experience—the Maltby Colliery explosion—I found that my youngest brother had lost his life, and his body has not been recovered. He went through the War, from 1914 to 1918, and came through safely; and then lost his life in an attempt to save a colliery from wreckage. In 1917, coal cutting was introduced into this mine—the Maltby Colliery in Yorkshire. It is true that the coal cutters were not electricalily driven. They were driven by compressed air. But I take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Whether coal cutters are driven by electricity or by compressed air, my experience proves that if the seam is a gassy one, and if there is stone or rock within the seam, and if the teeth of the coal cutter come into contact with the "brass," or stone, and there is gas being emitted from that particular section of the seam, explosions will undoubtedly occur, whether electricity or compressed air is being used.
  After 10 years' experience with coal cutters, we were successful, by trade union activity, in bringing every coal cutter out of the pit. From 1927 to the present time not a single ton of coal has been touched by machinery, and not a single shot has been fired in that pit. I am sure that my friends on this side will

  535
  appreciate that side of it. But the main point I want to relate is this. The hon. Member for Spennymoor called attention of the report of the inspector who visited France. Ours is a deep and gassy mine. Every machine was brought out of the pit in 1927, and I am glad to say that the last fatal accident which took place at Maltby Colliery, which has an output of 1,000,000 tons a year, was nearly five years ago. Thus, one man has been killed while just under 5,000,000 tons of coal have been produced at that particular colliery. There has not been a single shot fired or a single ton of coal cut by machinery in that pit, and if one relates that to the national output of coal for 1937—and many of us thing that this is the explanation—800 men have been killed in the coal mines of this country who would not have been killed but for the introduction of machinery. Another important point is that, if that experience could be made applicable to the coal mines of the country generally, the fatality rate would have been less than the fatality rate in France at the present time. It is amazing that one is able to give an example of that kind.
  I want to add a few words to the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friends for better control. I take the view particularly of my old friend the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape), who has had a very wide experience, that the mines could be carried on equally as well without coal-cutting by machinery and shot-firing. In the group of pits in the combine to which I have referred—they comprise five of the largest pits in South Yorkshire—I understand that the production per man employed where no machines are used is higher than that in the pits where machines are used. The wages earned by the men are higher than in the pits where machines are used whether these machines are driven by electricity or by compressed air, and the operating costs of the company are less per ton where machines are not used. Therefore, the production per man is higher, wages are higher per ton per man employed, and the production and operative costs are less where machines are not used than is the case in the pits where they are used, apart from the fact that the fatality rate for the last five years has been one man killed to just under 5,000,000 tons of coal produced. These
  536
  are astounding facts which should be put before this House. I went to Buxton. It was an appalling experience. Hon. Members of this House are invited to see aeroplane displays and all sorts of things, but I would like every Member of his House to see Buxton in operation. Then I think the feelings of the people, not only in this House but in the country, may be stirred.
  There are two other things that I should like to say, and one of them may be considered rather strong. I take the view that if the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act were carried out now in the coal mines, accidents would be diminished considerably. I assert that the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act is not being carried out and that the regulations applied to the uses of electricity in mines are not being applied in the way they ought to be. The strong thing that I want to say is this, and the miners take the same view. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Lee) I attended the funeral of the 79 men killed last Saturday at the Markham Main Colliery. It is a tragic experience for any one to see coffin after coffin carried through the streets. The point I want to make is that after my experience, and following the appeal that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor, I say with no disrespect whatever to the Chief Inspector of Mines or to the inspectorate staff as a whole, that when the inquiry takes place into the disaster that has occurred at Markham Main Colliery the person who should conduct the inquiry should have judicial and technical qualifications, and should be separate and apart from the inspectorate staff attached to the Board of Trade and the Mines Department. Until we can do that, we shall not get to the root of the whole problem.
  I also take the view, resulting from my experience, that until this country is prepared to deal harshly with the people who are not carrying out the provisions of the Coal Mines (Regulation) Act, and until this country is prepared to handle severely and charge with manslaughter some of the people responsible for running the pits, there will be nothing done of an effective character. I make my appeal, and I would ask that what has been said from these benches to-night will be conveyed to the appropriate authority.

  537
  although the language used may have been strong in certain respects.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. Lee: It has been suggested that hon. Members on the other side should go to Buxton to get an idea of what a colliery explosion is. May I suggest that they will get no real idea of a colliery explosion from what happens at Buxton. I do not decry what we are doing there, because I am a member of the Mines Research Board which has to do with Buxton; but when you get there you find a tunnel cut out of the rock, with two open ends, and a prepared explosion, but when you get into the confines of a pit, with no open ends, you get the full force of an explosion, which is an entirely different thing from something that is an arranged explosion at Buxton.
  The memory of the explosion at Mark-ham Main is with me still. This is the fourth explosion of which I have had experience in recent years. With respect to the other three—the Markham Main explosion is sub judice—the cause of the explosion was electricity. I remember, 40 years ago, having a very strong argument with Mr. Stokes, an inspector of mines at that time, when he said that a coal-cutting machine could not produce a spark sufficient to light gas. I took him down a colliery and showed him that not only was it strong enough to light gas but that it was strong enough to set wood on fire. Then he believed that I was right. There has, of course, been a good deal of improvement in coal-cutting machinery since those days. At Buxton we have had tests in order to be sure that the machinery is flame-proof. I know it is difficult when you have the machine on the top to produce a flame, but when you get the machine down in the confines of a pit and it goes wrong, it is very difficult to repair it. Last January there was an explosion at the same colliery where the recent one took place. It was admitted that they had had some repairs done to the switchboard. When they put the machines back again it was found that in one part of the switchbox a gap had been left sufficient to let flames get through. No one in the pit could see that it was not in proper condition, but when it was at the top it was found that there was just space sufficient to let flames get through.
  538
  Electricity is a good servant but sometimes may be a bad master. We do all we can by means of the Safety in Mines Research Board. I have given credit to the colliery for what they have done, but I am sure that when your coal-cutting machines are driven by electricity there is such a potential danger that do what you may and be as careful as you may, where the human element has to come in, you will find that the human element fails and the machinery fails, and I do not think that in the confines of a pit you should put into human hands an element so potential of danger. I agree with my hon. Friends who suggest that the machines could be driven by compressed air, and I understand there is very little difference in cost between the two. I also agree that where you have the same kind of material in the coal, as you do sometimes, you may get a spark from the coal, and if you have gas you will still get an explosion. There is one thing in my mind about the recent explosion, and that is the wide area over which the explosion occurred. We came to the conclusion that explosions in the future would probably be confined to a small area, and that the consequent loss of life would be small, but this time the explosion is spread over a larger area. We have rules and regulations with regard to stone-dusting, and we have been told that if this is properly done it will stop the spread of an explosion; you may limit the area covered. I am not saying whether stone-dusting was done in this instance or not. There is evidence that it was done, but it did not confine the explosion to a small area which we thought would be the case. I say that electricity in any shape or form away from the pit bottom is a very great potential danger.
  Some time ago there was an agitation in the country about the price of coal. It was said that the colliery owners were getting too much out of coal, and that miners' wages were so high that they were being extravagant. Then, when there is an explosion, as last week, for four or five days everybody sympathises with the miners. I heard one of my friends say that he would not go down a pit for £1,000. Expressions of sympathy have come from all sorts of people, from Herr Hitler down to the poorest of the poor. I heard that one little boy went into a

  539
  shop the other day with twopence for sweets, but said to the shopkeeper, '' Give me a pennyworth to-day and send the other penny to the boys and girls who have lost their fathers at Markham." How long will this sympathy last? If you want to avoid these things—and I take it you do—then any potential danger must be removed from the mines. Coalmining will not be made the safe occupation that it ought to be until there is taken from the mines the potential danger which surrounds work of that description.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Whiteley: I think that every hon. Member who heard the Secretary for Mines answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Spenny-moor (Mr. Batey) last week was very deeply moved. I do not remember an occasion in the House when I had felt so strongly. Therefore, this Debate must necessarily bring 'the attention of the Government to matters relating to underground work in the mines at the present time. We have heard a good deal tonight about the experiments at Buxton with regard to the prevention of explosions caused by shot-firing. I remember that in 1917, Mr. Smillie, who was at one time a Member of the House, Mr. Herbert Smith, and I paid a visit to Eskmeals, when Dr. Wheeler was making experiments for the purpose of proving that stone-dusting would, if not absolutely, to a very large extent, eliminate explosions caused by shot-firing by the prevention of expansion.
  A good deal of time has elapsed since 1917, and I think that the House, the country, and particularly the mining community, ought to have a report from the Secretary for Mines as to whether stone-dusting is being done on a general scale, and what is the experience with regard to it as compared with the time when stone-dusting was not in use. One of my hon. Friends has pointed out that the experiments at Buxton cannot compare with the situation in a mine, and I quite agree. The experiments at Eskmeals were similar. They were on above-ground work, but galleries were made so as to make them, as far as possible, similar to underground work. Nevertheless, they could not have the same experience above-ground as in underground workings. We also visited the Merthyr
  540
  Vale collieries in Wales, the Normanton collieries, and the Washington colliery in Durham, in order to see the operation of stone-dusting in those collieries. It was felt in those days that stone-dusting would have a great effect in limiting the extent of accidents in mines due to shot-firing. We should have some information from the Secretary of Mines as to what progress has been made in that direction.
  There is, of course, the added danger which has developed in recent years as a result of the introduction of electricity. The modern mine is not comparable with the mine of former days. There are all kinds of machinery in mines to-day— scrapers, cutters, fillers, and the like— and there is a tremendous noise which prevents men from hearing, as they could hear in the old days, the sound of timber cracking and other warnings of danger. Then, in these days, the electric spark is a centre of danger. The Mines Department and the Board of Trade ought to concentrate upon finding out whether there is not some alternative method which would obviate the tremendous dangers run by our people in the mines day after day. This Debate must call the attention of the Government to the kind of inquiry which has been rendered necessary to the latest disaster. That accident has created tremendous feeling in the country. We hope the inquiry which is to be carried out will be made by independent people and people of experience, able to dissect evidence and to find out the real cause of the accident and how it is possible to prevent such occurrences in future.
  A great wave of feeling goes through the country when an explosion of this kind occurs. We, as miners, are very thankful for the generosity of the public in these cases, but we have reached the point of feeling that this kind of thing ought not to depend upon the public. There ought to be compensation reforms passed by Parliament which would guarantee to the widows and children of these men absolute security for the rest of their lives. That is one of the points to which we hope to direct attention on a future occasion. Our immediate purpose is to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to convey to the Secretary for Mines and the Board of Trade our strong feeling that this inquiry should

  541
  be conducted by people with some knowledge of the mining industry, who will command the confidence of the general public and who will be able to arrive at a just decision.
  10.44.p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: It seems that we may be on the eve of the introduction of legislation to deal with this problem of serious accidents in mines, and it is scarcely necessary to remind the House or the country that we are dealing, in this connection, not only with the lives of the men themselves but with the lives of widows and dependants. I do not think it is ever fully realised, except when a serious disaster occurs, how cheaply our coal is obtained, and the comfort which the miners bestow upon the people of the country at such risk to themselves. But it is not only the great disasters—it is the smaller disasters, causing some 800 people to be killed every year, which represent the price paid by the miners in supplying the coal of the country. Reference has been made to-night by one hon. Member who has had a vivid experience of explosions. I have only been in one explosion in a mine, and it was a terrible experience. It was not a large explosion. Fortunately, there was no death, and only one man was injured, severely burned, but the feeling of helplessness, that you are overpowered, first as though water was rushing upon you and next as though you were undoubtedly going to be buried, was terrible.
  I have been reading with great interest the report that the Secretary for Mines has enabled us to have by sending an inspector over to Paris. The number of accidents from explosions is remarkably lower in France than here. Why is that? A very important thing to me, in reading that report, was to find that the output per man-shift is as high there as it is here. I found that on account of the nature of the seams and the inclination, they were getting their coal largely with mechanical picks driven by compressed air, and I then said to myself, "I wonder why this has come to pass in France." I remembered some years ago a terrible disaster, the worst there has ever been in the mining industry, when just over 1,000 men and boys lost their lives in an explosion in a mine in France, and I asked myself—I have not the answer—" Is this the reason that
  542
  they have taken such grave and strong precautions in the winning of their coal in France? Is the work done by compressed air so that the danger of an explosion from electricity, either in the cutting machine or the fusing of a cable, can be eliminated, because in the memory of the French people there is that great disaster which determined them never again to risk such a disaster? "
  The plea that we are making to-night is that the miner is of such importance in our opinion, and ought to be in the opinion of the rest of the people of this country, that if we cannot control electricity to prevent these disasters, then electricity ought to be out of the mine. Let me give another analogy, because the question of cost is always a formidable-obstacle to get over. The Government will realise that without my stressing the point. We had a great disaster in Northumberland some 70 years ago, when about 200 men and boys were suffocated in a mine because there was only one shaft. Up to that time the coalowners of this country could not afford to have a second shaft, a second way out, because it would add so much to the cost of the working of the mine. There had been many agitations from miners and progressive minded people for a second way out, but when that beam of that pumping machine broke and fell into the shaft, and those men were suffocated, the indignation of this country was aroused to such an extent that this House had to make compulsory a second way out.
  We are going through a new stage in mining. Thank God we have had none of these serious explosions in Northumberland, but that does not prevent us having a fellow-feeling for those who are working in other coalfields who have these dangers to endure. How many more-disasters are we to have before we deal effectually with electricity in the mines?' I have here the report of an inquiry into' an explosion.
  "It is to be hoped that in the course of time such a fundamental investigation may lead to improvements in cutting practice which will, as a first line of defence, minimise the risk of ignition. Where the conditions at the face permit, there is no reason why some means of dealing with incipient fires should not be carried actually by coal cutting machines in the form either of the supply of stone dust or a fire extinguisher."
  If conditions at the face do not permit, there should not be a machine there. I

  543
  will not say anything detrimental about inspectors. I have the greatest respect for them, but I think that by taking the attitude that a pit should be according to the way they think it should be, not according to the way it is being worked or has been worked for some time past, they would bring the pit into a better state. That might go a long way to prevent such disasters as these. No one but miners can have any idea of the speed at which our men are working and the terrific strain that is thrown upon them to get an output. In the old days a man could practically finish his days in the mine after he had served his company for some 40 or 50 years and he might be given an easy job. There are some colliery companies which used even to give their own ponies a rest until they died. Now the older men are paid off and we have at the face men at the prime of life, full of energy.
  We are increasing the pressure also with the coal-cutter. We are doing something else. We are making the length of the face such a distance that everything has to go like clockwork so that men shall get the work done in a prescribed time. If anything goes wrong there is chaos and the whole cycle of operations is thrown out. I was talking to a man who knows something about coal-cutting machines in regard to the number of cables that are burnt. He said, "Do you know how these cables are burnt? It is because a man has a greater amount of face to do in a limited time, and on goes the juice with a bang." That is the cause of an explosion, and it could be obviated if there were not so much speed and if the faces were shortened. We are pleading to-night for the lives of men. Here is the compensation report for 1936, and it is an abominable shame that the percentage of men being injured in the mines to-day is higher than ever and that after a few weeks of compensation, unless they have been members of co-operative societies and have a little bit saved up, they have to go on public assistance. The insurance companies are doing well out of it. Of the £12,500,000, £8,000,000 goec in compensation and other charges, and the other £4,500,000 goes to the people who are raking in the shekels for merely keeping the books and gathering the premiums. If something is not done, we, as mining Members, are going to shake
  544
  things up. It is no use our talking. There must be some action, and we hold the Government responsible for bringing in legislation to save the lives of our men and to give them adequate compensation when the unavoidable accident takes place.
  10.58 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): We have listened this evening to some very moving and heart-rending speeches, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Government make no complaint whatever that the opportunity which presented itself this evening was taken to raise this most important subject. Reference has been made to the fact that the benches in all quarters of the House have been sparsely attended. I think the answer to that must be that hon. Gentlemen did not know that this important subject was going to be raised on the Adjournment. A number of Members went home when the Debate on the foreign subject was raised, and I would not like it to go out that the House was sparsely attended when a subject of this importance was being debated. I wish I were competent to take my share in the Debate on behalf of the Government, but hon. Gentlemen will recognise that that is obviously impossible. They will recognise with me that only fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.
  Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Captain Margesson: I will content myself with saying this, that in all quarters of the House we have been deeply impressed by the speeches to which we have listened to-night, speeches of great sincerity, speeches born of wide knowledge, speeches which come from deep and tragic experiences in connection with this subject of accidents in mines and the methods which could be adopted to prevent them. Quite naturally it is a subject which rivets the attention of all Members in all quarters of the House, whether they sit for mining constituencies or whether they do not. It is our unhappy lot in this House to listen to answers to questions which have to announce some

  545
  tragic disaster in coalmining, and the answers always end with an expression of sympathy with those who have been bereaved. I am sure there is not a Member who, when he hears that phrase at the conclusion of the answer, does not say to himself sincerely, "Cannot something be done to prevent this suffering?" I know that that is the feeling in all quarters of the House, and hon. Members opposite may rest perfectly assured that I shall not only convey the remarks which have been made this evening to the Secretary for Mines and, indeed, to other quarters also, but that I shall see to it that the spirit in which those remarks were made is also conveyed to those quarters.
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. Sexton: I do not want to detain the House for long and I have not many qualifications for speaking in this Debate, except that I represent a mining area and that my early life was spent in a mining village, and that I have vivid recollections of seeing men and boys brought out of the coal mine dead and maimed, some of them boys with whom I had played and worked, and the effect upon me in those days was such that I welcome the fact that I now have the opportunity, in this august assembly, of saying a word or two on behalf of miners and their wives and families. I have in my hand a copy of the report which has been referred to so often to-night, and I wish to congratulate the author of it. Going carefully through it, I have been somewhat ashamed to find that we are behind France in many respects in the matter of safety in mines. Whether that difference is entirely due to the use of electricity I do not know. I sometimes wonder whether those little children who while playing on the seashore picked up amber, or electron as it has been called, and discovered its electrical properties while playing with it, ever realised that in other
  546
  days far ahead little children would lose their fathers through the use of electricity in mines.
  On page 12 of the report there is a table setting out explosions by causes. I do not want to refer to all the causes, but only to explosions attributed to electricity. Explosions caused in France by electricity numbered one, in the 10 years from 1924 to 1935, inclusive; in Great Britain, in the same period, the number was 17. Deaths in France caused by such explosions were one, and in this country 86. The death-rate per 1,000 persons below ground in France was .0005, through the same cause, electricity; in this country it was .0115, which is 23 times the French rate. The average number of explosions in France, apart from electricity, was 1.1 and the average number of deaths 5.8. In Great Britain the average number of explosions during that 10-year period was 11.7and the average annual deaths 75.3.
  Something has been said about visits to Buxton and the terror that was seen there. If it is so terrible and appalling to see explosions where there is no loss of life, what must the terror be in actual experience when it results in loss of life? If we cannot go to Buxton perhaps we can go to the funeral of some of the victims of explosions and see the grief of the widows, the relatives and the little children. That is an experience that I and many of my hon. Friends have had. Can nothing be done to exclude electricity from the mines for the time being, until the report on safety is issued? What if another disaster occurred, caused by electricity, after this appeal? What would the miners say? What would the country say?
  Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  GERMANY (CZECH MINORITY).
  GERMANY (CZECH MINORITY).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (LIFEBOATS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (LIFEBOATS).
  SUB-POST OFFICES (STAFF SALARIES).
  SUB-POST OFFICES (STAFF SALARIES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  RAILWAY FINANCE CORPORATION.
  RAILWAY FINANCE CORPORATION.
  SLIPPER CLOTH.
  SLIPPER CLOTH.
  SAUSAGE CASINGS.
  SAUSAGE CASINGS.
  RUGS AND BLANKETS.
  RUGS AND BLANKETS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (KING'S ROLL).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (KING'S ROLL).
  BUXTON CORPORATION (AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS).
  BUXTON CORPORATION (AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (SICKNESS DISABLEMENT).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (SICKNESS DISABLEMENT).
  SOLICITORS (PROSECUTIONS FOR FRAUD).
  SOLICITORS (PROSECUTIONS FOR FRAUD).
BRITISH ARMY.
  GOOD-CONDUCT MEDAL.
  GOOD-CONDUCT MEDAL.
  RATION ALLOWANCE.
  RATION ALLOWANCE.
TRANSPORT.
  ADVISORY COUNCIL (REPORT).
  ADVISORY COUNCIL (REPORT).
  LORRY DRIVERS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).
  LORRY DRIVERS (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).
  BY-PASS, BOROUGHBRIDGE, YORKSHIRE.
  BY-PASS, BOROUGHBRIDGE, YORKSHIRE.
  TRAVELLING FACILITIES, HOLIDAY TRAFFIC.
  TRAVELLING FACILITIES, HOLIDAY TRAFFIC.
  GREAT NORTH ROAD (BY-PASSES).
  GREAT NORTH ROAD (BY-PASSES).
  PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS (DISABLED MOTOR CARS).
  PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS (DISABLED MOTOR CARS).
  MOTOR VEHICLES DESIGN.
  MOTOR VEHICLES DESIGN.
  MARYHILL ROAD AQUEDUCT, GLASGOW.
  MARYHILL ROAD AQUEDUCT, GLASGOW.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS.
ROYAL NAVY
  STAFF TRAINING.
  STAFF TRAINING.
  FLEET AIR ARM.
  FLEET AIR ARM.
  BRITISH COLONIES (GERMAN REFUGEES).
  BRITISH COLONIES (GERMAN REFUGEES).
  INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT.
  INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT.
  BRITISH GUIANA.
  BRITISH GUIANA.
CIVIL AVIATION.
  RENFREW AERODRCSME.
  RENFREW AERODRCSME.
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
  IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.
  RAE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  RAE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  MAYO COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT.
  MAYO COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT.
  WEST INDIES.
  WEST INDIES.
  EMPIRE FLYING-BOAT BASE.
  EMPIRE FLYING-BOAT BASE.
  CHINA SEA.
  CHINA SEA.
  PACIFIC OCEAN AND TASMAN SEA.
  PACIFIC OCEAN AND TASMAN SEA.
  MUNICIPAL AERODROMES.
  MUNICIPAL AERODROMES.
  GREAT BRITAIN-SWITZERLAND.
  GREAT BRITAIN-SWITZERLAND.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  AIR MINISTRY WARDERS.
  AIR MINISTRY WARDERS.
  AIRCRAFT FACTORY, SPEKE.
  AIRCRAFT FACTORY, SPEKE.
  RUSSIA (AIR TRANSPORT EXPERIMENT).
  RUSSIA (AIR TRANSPORT EXPERIMENT).
  HEAVY-OIL ENGINES.
  HEAVY-OIL ENGINES.
  RECRUIT'S DISCHARGE (E. T. PHIPPS).
  RECRUIT'S DISCHARGE (E. T. PHIPPS).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

VISCOUNT NUFFIELD.
William Richard, Baron Nuffield, O.B.E., having been created Viscount Nuffield, of Nuffield in the County of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Duke of Devonshire—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Harlech—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

AYLESBURY BOROUGH ORDER.
  BRENTFORD AND CHISWICK BOROUGH ORDER.

    WATFORD BOROUGH ORDER.
    THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands upon the Order Paper in my name.
    Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 4th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

FORFAR CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I hope not to detain the House more than a few minutes because I know there is a very important debate to follow. This Bill is a Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, and it is designed to bring within the scope of that Act the taxicab drivers of London and also the bargemen who ply on the River Thames. The taxicab drivers are in a peculiar position, because they are not paid a wage; they work on what is called a contract of bailment—that is to say, they take out the taxicabs and they are paid a portion of the earnings that they make. This, of course, does not apply to those taxicab drivers who own their own cabs.
When the 1925 Bill was drawn, arrangements were made in one of the clauses to protect these bailees and bring them within the scope of the Bill—that is to say, the taxicab driver who took his cab from the owner and was working on this bailment system was brought within the scope of the Bill, and if he was injured in an accident he received compensation. But in the last twelve years the process of letting out these taxicabs has very much altered, and a large proportion now of the 11,000 taxicab drivers in London do not get their taxicabs directly from the owners, but only from a middleman, who himself has got them from another. Generally, the original owner is either a finance company or the manufacturers. They let the cabs out on the hire-purchase system to garage proprietors and others, and the garage proprietors then make these contracts with the taxicab drivers, so that the driver is not in fact hiring out his taxicab from the owner, but from somebody else who is acquiring it by hire-purchase. The whole genesis and meaning of this Bill is to bring in the four or five thousand taxicab drivers who are at present in the anomalous and, indeed, unjust position of not being protected in any way, and of being unable to receive any compensation should they incur an accident. The Bill is a one-clause measure, and the two subsections merely give a further implication to the
108
governing words in the original Act. The Bill went through as an agreed Bill in another place without any opposition or amendment, and I understand that the Home Office are willing to give it their support in this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Mersey.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I rise only to say that His Majesty's Government support this Bill and hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading this afternoon.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I understand from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that he did not hear me mention the fact, and therefore I repeat that the Bill also applies to bargees, who are hirers or plyers for hire of vessels on similar contracts.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FOREIGN POLICY.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government, which includes the acceptance of the sacrifice of Abyssinian independence, and is detrimental to the democratic Government of Spain, offers no certainty of any corresponding gain to the principles of peace and democracy.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that my duty here requires that I should once more initiate in your Lordships' House a debate upon foreign policy. I should certainly not have done so had I not been advised that such a discussion in your Lordships' House would, in view of recent events, be expected and, also, that it would not be a serious embarrassment to His Majesty's Government. The Labour view of foreign policy is tolerably well known and needs no elaborate restatement; but foreign policy has recently taken a form in which the conscience of the nation has become involved, and it is a policy which is viewed with the deepest misgiving and a good deal of distress. I should hope that nothing I may say in this discussion will appear to be an attack upon the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary, for whom, if he will permit me to say so,

109
I have a long-established and great personal regard. There were two extremely unhappy men at the Geneva Council, His Majesty's Foreign Secretary and the Emperor of Abyssinia, but Haile Selassie had at least the consolation of believing that his cause was a righteous one. Let me say, in passing, that that unhappy man appeared to have borne himself with pathetic dignity.
I should hate, even more as one who has not to face the diplomatic and administrative difficulties of this time, to assume pharisaical attitudes as though I were superior in any way to my fellow men. Self-righteousness is one of the worst of sins. But I repeat again that the foreign policy of our nation has assumed a character which has stirred the moral qualities of our people into activity, and each of us is bound to speak as it is given to him to see and understand. I believe that there are millions of our fellow-countrymen at the present time who are perplexed and humiliated by the unrighteous compacts and by the un-English devices by which we are attempting to secure temporary respite from threats and from acts of aggression. Therefore, although it behoves all of us at a time like this to speak with restraint, His Majesty's Government should not assume that behind the words that may be used there is not a great deal of feeling.
Let me for a moment try to summarise the actual position. We have been faced with systematic defamation of our position in the Near East; we have had to submit to a subsidised totalitarian propaganda which has endeavoured to arouse the contempt of other nations for our administration; the nation has been taunted and goaded by assertions that we represent decadent democracy. The Empire, as I believe, has been placed in a position of greater danger than at any time since the time of Napoleon, and almost before the echoes of recent arrangements have died away there have been renewed truculent attacks upon our position. We appear to have lost some of our control over the Mediterranean. Our position at the western gates of the Mediterranean is in danger. That seems to me the position at the moment. How is that position being met? The noble Lord who is to move the Amendment which is on the Order Paper knows
110
all these happenings, and yet he will use the language of a recent distinguished gentleman who also had contacts with Rome—"It has been too beautiful." I do not believe that the nation thinks anything of the kind, and outside our nation there are millions of people who are deeply distressed.
Take the situation in America for example. My own corespondence and what I have seen in American newspapers suggests to me that our reputation in America has deteriorated to an unexampled degree during recent months. If there is one thing that is characteristic of the American nation it is its belief in constitutional principles, and yet they see the nation from whom they derive their common law defending by every art of shallow casuistry the denial of legal and constitutional rights to other nations. They see her conniving at a spurious non-intervention policy in Spain; accepting, apparently with joy, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. They are not really impressed by the unfortunate attempts that have been made to harness to the chariot of His Majesty's Government the name of their President. Then, in regard to the small nations: they have looked to our country for example and for inspiration, and they are passing through a period of bitter disillusionment. Their rush to leave the League of Nations at the present time is because they feel deserted and are anxious to make terms while there is yet time.
Now let me deal very quickly with the question of negotiation. Let us try and get this thing straight in our minds. I am not, and the Labour Party is not, and never has been, opposed to negotiations with nations whose political theories we dislike. Over and over again I have pleaded that negotiations with such nations should take place. We have to live in the same world with them. The running of international questions is a business affair which requires constant negotiation. All that we accept, and indeed we welcome. It is the use that is made of negotiation that is in question here to-day. Take Spain as a mere illustration. We are apparently making a covenant with a Power for whose aggressive materialism a brave people is being sacrificed. I wonder. We are told that we must do this because of realism; we have got to recognise the

111
facts, and to conform to them. Is every crime to be tested by its success? Is the burglar to be recognised because he has successfully got away with the swag? Is the murderer to be forgiven because his horrible technique of settling differences has been effective?
I should like to be informed, in language which a wayfaring man might understand, precisely why a war should have resulted from giving Spain her legal rights to purchase arms for her defence. And let me test that with another thought. We at the present time are trying to buy armaments from America. Well, if it is right for us to purchase arms from America when we are not attacked, why is it wrong for Spain to purchase arms wherever she can find them when she is engaged in fighting for her life and liberty against an aggressor? Senor del Vayo, the Spanish Foreign Minister, has put this in plain language:
"If, irrespective of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, Italy and Germany continue to intervene in Spain, and neither France nor the United Kingdom undertakes to prevent this continued intervention, in the name of what morality and justice can you go on depriving the legal Spanish Government of its rights under International Law?"
That question was not answered at Geneva. It has not been answered since. It cannot be answered, because no answer is possible.
Take the case of Abyssinia. There, again, I understand that action has to be taken because of alleged facts. What are the facts in relation to Abyssinia? The facts are that the people are not subdued, and that the hold of the invader over that country is at least precarious. We are conniving at their subjection to a new form of slavery. I ask in regard to Abyssinia whether, in any settlement that may have been arrived at, the question has been faced as to whether some tiny corner of Abyssinia could not remain under the rule, even if under Italian suzerainty, of the Emperor Haile Selassie? I believe our own conduct in this Abyssinian tragedy has throughout been deplorable. If we did not intend that Abyssinia should have a square deal when she entered the League of Nations, why did we not encourage her to purchase arms for her own defence? Why did we allow her to believe that membership of the League
112
would give to her security? As things are to-day, whatever has happened in the past, by this compact, or whatever it is, we become accomplices in her subjugation. And all this is to be done, I understand, in the name of realism.
If that is to be the case, let us examine it. Let us test this alleged realism by reality. What precisely have been the gains of the understanding reached? What, in terms of increased security for the British Empire, has been achieved? Can it be said of the noble Viscount, as was said of Cæsar, "He hath brought many captives home from Rome and Geneva whose ransom will the general coffers fill"? What precisely will be the gain in security and prosperity of the British Empire? I am speaking in terms of reality. Will the British Empire be strengthened if, as His Majesty's Government apparently desire, Franco should win in the Spanish war? Then in regard to Palestine, what is the position there? It was mentioned in no document. We only have the word of the chief figure in Italy, and we are asked to accept that word as being satisfactory. Well, I am no business man, but I believe in the City the rule is that if a man offers you his word or his bond it is not a bad thing to take his bond rather than his word. I should like to know precisely what the position is in regard to Palestine as we pass.
I must hurry on. I merely want to say before I close that there would appear to me to be one way out of this situation, and that is to try at once to rebuild he League on lines which experience has taught us will be most fruitful, most helpful for the end desired. There was a time when that was the policy of His Majesty's Government. They won the Election on that issue. They issued a brave manifesto in which they pledged themselves to uphold the Covenant and to maintain and increase the efficiency of the League; and they said this was dictated by the firm conviction that collective security by collective action alone can save us from a return to the old system which resulted in the Great War. Millions of our fellow-countrymen voted for the National Government because of those words and in belief of that policy. Did the National Government believe those words at the time they issued them? If they did not, then they deceived the people. If they did believe in them, then

113
how can we account for the long stray of their betrayal of the League and their tacit encouragement of aggression? I plead, therefore, that we should try to get back to the League and renew our efforts to build up a system of public security before things drift too far.
Let me try to summarise. This inconvenient reminder of differences between most excellent precept and deplorable practice is not pleasant for His Majesty's Government to hear. But it is not my business to provide them with pleasant feelings on an occasion of this kind. I have no doubt that what I have said will be met with obedient and half-frightened sneers by Government supporters. That is their business. We are only a handful in your Lordships' House, but we represent a great Party outside, and there are millions of people in the country by whom the main protest of my speech will be accepted. I believe, while again not wishing to pose as a self-righteous person, that the nation distrusts and resents these tainted bargains that are being made in its name, not because it is wrong to confer with nations whose theories we may all reject, but because they offend its sense of what is right, and represent a return to a system which statesmen of greater stature than those with whom we are blessed at the present time tried to supersede by the creation of the League of Nations—a system which produced the last War and will produce the next.
At no time in our recent history has there been such a conflict between the State and the national conscience as at the present time. Our ordinary political differences are always met and settled with an ordered decency and good feeling which is the envy of the world; but today we are faced with something deep: a mostly inarticulate but very potent resentment and difference between the people and the State. This betrayal of Abyssinia finds no support in the soul of our people. The heart of our people, so far as I know them, is with the brave loyalists of Spain and with the outraged people of Abyssinia. Finally, this is not the first time that a bargain of realism has been made. Faust made such a bargain with Mephistopheles. He, too, violated eternal principles for temporary advantages, and the sequel was not comforting. I venture, with humble
114
sincerity, to remind His Majesty's Government of the retribution which overtook him. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government, which includes the acceptance of the sacrifice of Abyssinian independence, and is detrimental to the democratic Government of Spain, offers no certainty of any corresponding gain to the principles of peace and democracy.—(Lord Snell.)
LORD BROCKET LORD BROCKET had an Amendment on the Paper, to leave out all the words after "That" for the purpose of inserting the following words: "this House approves the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government, including the proposed Anglo-Italian Agreement and the maintenance of the policy of non-intervention in Spain, both of which the House recognises as making substantial contributions to the peace of the world without any sacrifice of democratic principles."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel very diffident on such an important occasion at being in the position of moving an Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Snell. But, feeling as I do that it is most necessary at this time that not only our country but also the rest of the world should know that His Majesty's Government have the support of our country, I regarded it as my duty to put down this Amendment. During the first part of the noble Lord's speech I was wondering what he would do if he found himself in the position of the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary; and towards the latter part of the speech he told us what he would do, which was to rebuild the League. I have always agreed with the theory of the League, but I have always thought that the League must be based on having all the nations of the world, at any rate the most powerful majority of those nations, within it. In Europe at the present time the League of Nations is bereft of Italy and Germany, and America has never been a Member of the League. Therefore, if you are going to split up Europe into two camps and to make no agreement with Italy or Germany, you will always have half a League and not a whole League. If we can agree that in order to get all the nations of Europe into the League we have to start afresh, then we

115
must start with the most important nations of Europe in the League, and the small ones will follow. It is no good splitting up Europe into two armed camps and just saying that we must rebuild the League.
To take the noble Lord's Motion; he says that
"in the opinion of this House the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government, which includes the acceptance of the sacrifice of Abyssinian independence, and is detrimental"
and so on. I do not suppose anyone representing a country which imposed sanctions on Italy would feel very pleased to have to state the position as it is today regarding Abyssinia. I think, however, that the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary, spoke the absolute truth at Geneva when he said that virtually the whole of the former territory of Ethiopia is in Italian hands; and he then went on to ask what method we could use to give that territory back to the Ethiopians. The only way, he said, is by going to war.
"Such action is unthinkable, and would be proposed by no responsible person in any country."
I am sure your Lordships entirely agree with that statement, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Snell, would not propose that we should go to war to try to return Abyssinia to the Emperor Haile Selassie.
The noble Viscount also said at Geneva:
"Nothing is gained and much may be lost by refusal to face facts. Great as is the League of Nations, the ends that it exists to serve are greater than itself, and the greatest of those ends is peace."
That, I am sure, is the view of all of us. The greatest end which we have to serve is peace, and I am quite certain that representatives of a democracy owe the duty to the people of their country to preserve peace. They must take every opportunity they can to preserve peace, and at the same time, as His Majesty's Government are doing, they must build up armaments in order to stave off war or, if by some evil chance that war may come, to be victorious in that war. In my opinion the only policy which His Majesty's Government can possibly adopt at the present time is the policy which they are pursuing, and I am quite certain that the peace of Europe is far more
116
important than any question about who should be on the throne of Abyssinia. I do not say that in any facetious way, but the position being what it is I am quite certain that you cannot put the clock back.
Now, in his Motion the noble Lord, Lord Snell, says that the Government's foreign policy is "detrimental to the democratic Government of Spain." I do not wish to argue with the noble Lord, but I think it is very questionable whether the present Government of Spain is a democratic Government at all, and I think that at the present it is most questionable whether it would not be more accurate to call the Government of General Franco the Government of the greater part of Spain. I am not a member of any of the societies which are comprised of friends of what is called National Spain nor am I a member of any organisation which supports what my noble friend calls the Government of Spain, but I feel that I must take your Lordships back to the last Elections there in 1936. Although I have read a great many books written by partisans, I have here a book written by Dr. van Vollenhoven, formerly Dutch Ambassador to Madrid, and he goes through the various practices which the then Government, before the Elections of 1936, took to see that the voting should be in the right way. Amongst those practices he says:
"In order to prepare for the Elections, the Government had replaced all high officials by its own creatures, and on February 1 it had dismissed in addition one thousand urban councils and replaced them by others, which were to 'assist' the Government, and this although the Minister Portela Valladores had distinctly forbidden all provincial governors to change the urban councils, since such a change was against the law."
That does not appear to me really to be democracy.
The result of the Election was even as Dr. van Vollenhoven says:
"In spite of all the fraudulent practices of the Left, the Right secured a majority of votes! The Right and Central parties received 4,910,000 votes, the Frente Popular or 'People's Front' only 4,356,000."
Then, again, voting urns were destroyed because they contained too many votes for the Right and Centre, and the book says:
"It was calculated that in this way about 600,000 votes for the Right were made of no avail."

117
That was the Government in Spain before General Franco started his war. And I have a quotation here which says that at present there are in the Spanish Parliament only fifty members of the Government, and that of the other members over 470 have been either murdered or executed, or have fled for their lives to other countries. I only bring that in because, when we talk of the democratic Government of Spain and the legally constituted Government in Spain, I think it is quite true to say that the present Government, which I believe is at Barcelona, is not the legally constituted Government of Spain.
The book continues:
"In these and other fraudulent ways a clear and substantial majority for the moderate parties of the Right and Centre was reduced to a minority; 256 candidates were declared elected for the Left and only 217 for the Right. No re-elections took place anywhere owing to the terrorism of the Reds. Even so, the Right was still considered by the Popular Front to have too many seats."
The end of it all was that the Popular Front had 295 members and the other parties only 177. I only want to make one more quotation from this book because I think it shows us the position. Mr. van Vollenhoven says:
"Thirty-six thousand two hundred persons were murdered in Madrid between July 18, 1936, and May 1, 1937. The documentation of all these cases is to be found in the Edificio de la Maternidad."
He then goes on to say that various other people were murdered and he puts the figure of these at 1oo,ooo. I only tell your Lordships these; things because when we find that there are air raids against Barcelona—and I am as much against air raids as anyone can be—we have a great deal of publicity given to the enormous numbers killed. Bur those numbers killed—and this is the place, after all, where munitions are made, and which is a real objective of war—they are of very small moment as compared with the numbers killed by this very democratic Government.
Now, in the Motion which stands in my name I move that this House is in favour of the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government, including the proposed Anglo-Italian Agreement and the maintenance of non-intervention in Spain. If I may take the second first, I am quite sure, as many of your Lordships will be, that this policy is the only policy that
118
we could have pursued. The only regret which I have is that all the other members of the Non-intervention Committee have not non-intervened as well as we have. It is very easy to say that Italy and Germany have intervened in Spain, but I think we have to go back further and to find that Russia has been intervening in one way or another in Spain at any rate since 1924. In 1920 the beginning of the Russian intervention in Spain took place, and at different times since then Russia has intervened in Spain. Latterly she has intervened to an enormous extent.
I am afraid I have to quote from another book because, if I did not quote, your Lordships would not consider any opinion of mine worth very much:
"In October, 1934, twenty-one months before any German or Italian airmen had landed in the Peninsula, the Comintern and its Government had organised, armed, let loose, the revolutionary army of the Asturias, landed 70 consignments of arms, supplied tanks and machine guns.… In August and September, 1932, the twelfth plenary meeting of the Komintern; in July and August, 1935, the seventh Congress of the Russian international—sent plans and orders from Moscow. If the Spanish Republic is dead, it has not been killed by Hitler and even less by Mussolini, but by Stalin. He is the grave-digger of the West."
It is the book of an eminent Frenchman called Jacques Bondoux. He goes on to say that Spain should be an example to France of what would surely happen in France if what was planned by Russia in Spain had succeeded. I think therefore it is proved, at any rate to my satisfaction if not to that of any other noble Lords, that Russia is the cause of the Spanish war.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Lord one question? He has quoted these persons as authorities. What guarantee has he of their accuracy?
LORD BROCKET: The authorities whom I have quoted are people who have gone to Spain. One authority is the Ambassador of Holland in Spain and that should be sufficient guarantee of the accuracy of what he says. I would like to read one other extract which bears the stamp of accuracy from this book by Dr. van Vollenhoven, in which he talks about murders. He says:
"A conservative estimate of the number of persons murdered in Red territory is six hundred thousand. Does the reader wish for a few cases in my own intimate circle, about

119
which there can be no doubt? With regard to the family of my wife, who is Spanish by birth, I have been able to obtain definite information concerning the murder of ten persons at least. Amongst them were my nephew, whose ears and nose were cut off before the murder, and a niece, whose body was ripped open. Of the members of a club to which I belonged twenty-eight were murdered."
Therefore Dr. van Vollenhoven has had what you might call domestic experience of Spain.
Regarding intervention, it may interest your Lordships if I give a few more figures. Many of the aeroplanes which are being used by the Barcelona Government have been brought down behind General Franco's lines. Thirteen out of a total of 436 aeroplanes were manufactured in Spain before or after the outbreak of the war; 83 aeroplanes were of French design and 84 of American design—the Boeing aeroplanes; 9 aeroplanes only were of British design— Vickers—which I think is very creditable to this country; and 243 aeroplanes were of Russian design or manufactured in Russia. I only give those figures because it is usually supposed that Germany and Italy are the chief countries which are intervening in Spain. At present a large quantity of munitions is going into Red Spain, as we may call it, by the French frontier and other ways from Russia. I will not bother your Lordships with this list, but I have a list of the summary of armaments which have passed over the Franco-Catalan frontier in the week from March 16 to March 22, 1938. Putting it quite shortly, a total of 466 trucks containing 850 tons of war material went in during that week, and this tonnage does not include 402 trucks the contents of which were not ascertainable. The tonnage which is given is that taken from the trucks themselves. There are many other instances, with which I will not trouble your Lordships, and I only give these in order to express the opinion that I hope that non-intervention can really be made non-intervention, and that this country's lead in that respect will be followed by other countries of Europe.
If I may come to the Anglo-Italian Agreement, I personally regard it as the greatest step forward which has been taken towards the pacification of Europe during the last few years. There is only
120
one alternative to agreement by negotiation, and that is war. It is a very serious thing to say, but if we cannot agree with the other countries in Europe, and if there is not enough room for all of us to exist and follow our own devices in Europe, then there will be war. And any war which may occur, and which occurs in the West of Europe, is bound to be a conflagration of all the great countries of the West of Europe, and the four greatest countries in the West of Europe are ourselves, France, Germany and Italy. It is often suggested by people in responsible positions in this country that Europe should be divided into two camps, that a new League of Nations should be formed around France and ourselves, and that Germany and Italy should not be brought into any combination of European nations because their form of government does not happen to coincide with our own.
Your Lordships may notice that at the end of my Amendment I say that these two policies make "substantial contributions to the peace of the world without any sacrifice of democratic principles." I put that in because I regard it as the duty of a democracy to look after the interests of the people. The interests of the people are to preserve peace, and I am quite certain that the Government of a democracy would not be doing its duty if it regarded its own political ideas as being of the first importance and declined to have agreements with countries whose ideas differed from its own. When you have a country such as Russia, which has tried to look after everyone else's business as well as its own, I think it is impossible to have an agreement with it because you are never sure when it will start trying to put the ideas of its Government into other countries and even into our own country. But so long as a Government such as that of Italy or of Germany looks after its own country and its own people, such as those people of German descent or German blood whom the Fuehrer wishes to look after, and so long as that country does not interfere with our country, there is room for both, and we should have peace with that country.
As regards the Anglo-Italian Agreement, the Mediterranean is of vital importance to Italy and to ourselves. If a war broke out owing to the policy of

121
some eminent politicians in this country—not in the Government—and we then found ourselves on the opposite side to Italy and Germany, the Mediterranean would be a very difficult place—even with our Fleet—for our ships to go through to our Empire. I therefore think that the Agreement with Italy is of very far-reaching consequence, and I notice that Signor Mussolini intends it to be scrupulously observed. If there was bad will between this country and Italy an Agreement might be of no use, but ever since the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, became Foreign Secretary and started the negotiations with Italy, I think it is true to say that not only the atmosphere but the acts and the words of Italy have been entirety different from what they were before. It is quite impossible, as some would have done, to lay down conditions for an agreement before you start trying to agree. I am very gild indeed that conditions were not laid down, and that the Agreement was negotiated with good will on both sides, and I hope that it may last for many, many years.
Since then the Government have made an Agreement with Ireland. I am not bringing the Agreement with Ireland into a speech on foreign policy, but the conclusion of that Agreement shows that the Government has the will to agreement. After Italy I hope that in due course there will be agreements with other countries. One's mind of course goes to the occupation of Austria. I am not going to talk about that this afternoon, save to say that a great many citizens of Austria appear to welcome that occupation; and at any rate Germany's action in Austria is now a thing of the past and has not to be considered in the future. We then think of Czechoslovakia, and I feel sure that the solution of the difficulties of the Sudeten Germans in that country will be overcome by peaceful means. A country of 14,000,000 inhabitants, where Czechs number 6,000,000, Germans 3,500,000, Slovaks 2,500,000, and various other nationalities make up the remainder, is a country where the minorities compose the majority; and I think it is true to say that the Germans in Czechoslovakia have not always been treated equally or at all well. I heard it stated the other day by an eminent man who has been in Czechoslovakia for some years that if a Czech was unemployed he got the equivalent of 30s. a week, whereas if a
122
German was unemployed he got the equivalent of 8s. a month. It is obviously quite impossible for that to go on.
I hope in due course we shall have an agreement with Germany. Whether it is a Four-Power Pact, or whatever number of Pact it is, I do not mind; but in order to preserve the peace of Western Europe it is absolutely essential to have an agreement with Germany. Whether it is possible to have an agreement with Germany, and also at the same time to have Russia in that agreement, I do not know, but I am very doubtful about it. In my opinion, it is far more important that the West of Europe should look after itself than to try to bring in a country which is largely Eastern European and largely Asiatic. The burden of building up armaments, which all of us deplore, is a mad race towards war, and will take from the people of this country those liberties which, during the centuries, they have won. These liberties and that position will go, not only through war, but through the crushing taxation which is necessary to build up these armaments; and I consider it is absolutely necessary for the Government to work for peace as the second half of their foreign policy at the same time as making ourselves strong. This country wants peace, and I am sure it stands four-square behind the Government in their policy for peace by negotiation. The only alternative is war, and, speaking on behalf of ordinary people in this country, I can say that we are behind the Government in any endeavour which they may make to bring peace to Europe by negotiation and that war should only be a possibility in the very last resort.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House approves the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government, including the proposed Anglo-Italian Agreement and the maintenance of the policy of non-intervention in Spain, both of which the House recognises as making substantial contributions to the peace of the world without any sacrifice of democratic principles.").—(Lord Brocket.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the Motion of the noble Lord who leads the Opposition presents a very clear issue of foreign policy, and that has been made even more clear by the speech of the noble Lord opposite, to which I am sure we all listened with close attention and in which he stated his unqualified approval of the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. I cannot help

123
thinking that, apart from those who sit on this side of the House, there must be some of your Lordships who are not prepared to express an approval quite so unqualified of the entire foreign policy of His Majesty's Government. At the same time none of us, I am sure, would desire to underrate the extreme difficulty of the task which the noble Viscount opposite has to undertake. We all appreciate the observations of Lord Snell when he said that he by no means desired to take up a self-righteous attitude in this matter or, I might add, to adopt the very complacent attitude which we have seen taken in some quarters by speakers who have implied that if only some of their friends had been in Downing Street instead of its present occupants, the whole affair of the League of Nations would have gone with the utmost smoothness and the different dictator rulers of Europe would, so to speak, have been prepared to eat out of the hand of our Foreign Secretary.
The position of Europe is, no doubt, a very strange and new one. This generation has had to realise that it is not only old-fashioned Emperors and Kings who
"… wade through slaughter to a throne, And shut the gates of mercy on mankind."
Taking the population of Europe at something like 500,000,000, and leaving the population of Spain for a moment, you would find that there are about 150,000,000 of Europeans who enjoy some form of popular government as against some 350,000,000 who exist under the rule of tyrants, using the word in its proper old Greek sense. On the other hand, looking at the position from the point of view of the League of Nations, the aspect of Europe is somewhat more favourable. I make out that some 350,000,000 of people look with favour on the principle of the League of Nations, and that there are not more than 100,000,000 who can be said to be positively opposed. When I say the principle of the League of Nations I mean, speaking generally, the principle of non-aggression. The difference in figures is, of course, accounted for largely by placing Russia on one side in the first calculation and on the other in the second. Whatever may be said of the Russian Government, whatever anybody may think of it, we should probably hear from the noble Viscount opposite that
124
he would be disposed to include Russia among the non-aggressive Powers of the world.
When we are asked to approve the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government we are obliged to state that good intentions are not enough in this direction: they must be followed by some positive signs of success. Well, the sign of success which His Majesty's Government could no doubt claim, and which was so strongly put forward by the noble Lord who has just spoken, is that they have assisted so far as lay in their power to keep the peace of Europe. And that brings us to the subject which was treated on in both previous speeches, that of what occurred at Geneva with relation to Abyssinia. I think it is not unjust to say that the position of His Majesty's Government as between Italy and Abyssinia can be epitomised in the statement that they feel that a serious wrong was inflicted on Abyssinia, of which they do not desire to offer any condonation or excuse, but that, things being in the position they are, it would be impossible to attempt to right those wrongs without endangering the greater and more important cause of peace. That seems to come perilously near the phrase of which we have always been taught to think ill—that of peace at any price.
In one of the Psalms there is a poetic metaphor that righteousness and peace have kissed each other. In this particular connection it cannot be said that righteousness and peace are embracing; it would seem rather that they are barely on speaking terms; peace occupies the whole foreground of the picture and righteousness sinks almost invisibly into the background. I do not think anybody supposes that the League of Nations, or any Powers acting on behalf of the League of Nations, should attempt to compel Italy to leave Abyssinia. That means that something like the existing situation has to be accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, alluded to a proposition in this matter which was made by my noble friend Lord Lugard, who speaks on any subject affecting the African races with greater authority than anybody in your Lordships' House, or indeed, I think, out of your Lordships' House. And I confess that, things having reached this pass, I for one should be very glad if some solution could be arrived at on the lines

125
which Lord Lugard developed some time ago. But even if that could be brought about, that does not involve approval of the policy of His Majesty's Government about Abyssinia.
I am sure there is no public man here or in any country to whom the ideals of justice and humanity mean more than they do to the noble Viscount opposite, and I share the opinion which was expressed by Lord Snell that it must have been a painful moment for the noble Viscount at Geneva to see there the forlorn and dignified figure of the former Ruler of Abyssinia making his protest to united Europe; and we cannot but feel, without going back into the whole history of this business, that there certainly was one occasion, and perhaps more than one occasion, when the chance was missed, definitely missed, by His Majesty's Government, as it then was, of arriving at a happier solution of this question. It is undoubtedly true that if Abyssinia is occupied by Italy, sooner or later the fact will have to be recognised. I have no special knowledge of International Law, but I believe that the distinction between recognition of a de facto occupation and one which is de jure does not mean that the latter implies approval of the means by which that occupation was brought about. It is a purely juridical term and whenever a de jure recognition is made it is no more than recognition of a legal fact. It has no reference to the circumstances in which that fact has come into existence.
I trust there will be no attempt to offer any kind of recognition of this occupation until it has been proved more clearly than from all accounts can be proved at present that it is a real conquest and occupation of the country. One sees it stated that, except within a radius of twenty or thirty miles from certain towns, the country cannot for hundreds of square miles be said even to be under military occupation. I hope, therefore, that we may hear from His Majesty's Government some detailed confirmation of the general statement which I think was made in another place, that His Majesty's Government had no reason to suppose that the Italian Government are not in full possession of the country. It is stated that both in the north and north-west and also in the south-west of Abyssinia there are large tracts of country which cannot be said
126
to be under Italian control at all. On that I have no doubt His Majesty's Government will be able to give us some assurances.
I pass to only one other point which is mentioned both in the Motion and the Amendment, that of Spain, and I will deal with it very briefly. It has remained extremely difficult to get at the real facts of the case as between the two opposing sides of Spain. On the one hand the Spanish Republican Government claim to be a duly and fairly elected Government, and according to a statement issued by the Prime Minister to have in view a Republican régime of the most orderly and liberal character, with respect for the ordinary rights of property, with a land policy involving the creation of a peasant proprietary, and with freedom for everybody to exercise any form of worship or apparently to express any form of political opinion. That Government, it is claimed, is confronted by a purely military revolt, arousing no enthusiasm or agreement among any part of the real Spanish population, supported only by large forces of Moorish troops and by still larger forces manned and commanded by Italians and Germans. That is the one picture. The claim on the other side is that of an organised rising, inspired by the genius of the people of a very large part of Spain, and opposed to revolutionaries of the most bloodthirsty and savage character, whose favourite occupation is the destruction of churches and the murder of priests and nuns, being likely to eventuate in a form of Government whose atrocities would exceed anything we have heard of as being perpetrated in Russia.
Well, my Lords, it is quite clear that both these stories cannot be true, and I greatly doubt if either of them is at all true. I have never—as those of your Lordships who listened to me in a former debate may remember I said—taken a strong line of agreement with either of the parties to what I think, although it is unquestionably a revolt, can properly be described as a civil war. There again, when we are invited to express complete approval of the policy of His Majesty's Government, I quite understand and appreciate the object with which they started and continued to press as long as they could the policy of non-intervention. But it has to be admitted that

127
that policy has broken down. I think it was stated in a tone of great moderation by one of the supporters of the insurgents that, after all, only something like two divisions of Italians were actually fighting on the front, and that no doubt in time those two divisions would disappear. It is undoubtedly true that the intervention has not been all on one side. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, gave a number of figures showing how formidable the Russian intervention on the side of the Spanish Government has been. Whatever the facts may be—and we have heard almost grotesquely different figures for the assistance given to both sides—it has to be admitted that the policy of non-intervention has broken down.
It can, of course, be argued that if it had never been introduced at all there would have been a general system of intervention in favour of both sides, and that therefore, even though it has not entirely succeeded, it has produced a somewhat better state of things than if it had never been tried at all. I do not attempt to argue that point, but I cannot help asking whether, in the course of the Italian conversations, some stronger pressure might not have been put upon the representatives of the Italian Government for an earlier cessation of that intervention which they do not now pretend to conceal, even though they have remained for so long members of the Non-intervention Committee. It would have been a valuable prize to bring back if public opinion in this country could have been somewhat more reassured as to the reality of the withdrawal of Italian troops. At the same time, I frankly admit that the withdrawal would have to be accompanied by a reciprocal reduction of foreign assistance to the Government forces. Still, it does not appear why some such transaction should not have been carried out.
My Lords, I do not propose to touch on any other subjects connected with foreign affairs beyond these two which are specifically mentioned in the Motion. What I have said on those two matters makes it clear that it would be altogether impossible for me, and also, I think, for my friends on these Benches, to give unqualified approval to the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government which is expressed in the terms of the Amendment.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, my constant interest in the welfare of the people of Abyssinia and my personal relations with the Emperor Haile Selassie make it impossible for me to be silent during this debate on the Anglo-Italian Agreement. I am sorry that an unavoidable public engagement will prevent me from remaining during the course of the debate, and hope your Lordships will allow me to speak thus early. There is one preliminary point to which I feel bound to allude with regard to that Agreement, because it has given rise to much natural misgiving. It is contained in Annex 7 of the Agreement, which concerns missionary activities in Abyssinia.
In British territory such as Kenya, in our mandated territories, and in the Sudan, no restriction is placed upon missionary activities of any kind. Here, however, in this Agreement it appears to be conceded that the Italian Government will be justified in allowing such activities only if they can be described as of a "humanitarian and benevolent" character. I presume that means that directly religious purposes, which are the main concern of missionary policy, shall be excluded. Certainly there are British missionaries who, with the very full assent and approval of the Emperor Haile Selassie, have been long engaged in endeavouring to revitalise the ancient Coptic Church of Abyssinia by teaching, by the circulation of the Scriptures in the Amharic languages, and in other ways. It is a very unfortunate and unfair distinction which has been drawn between British and Italian East Africa. I much regret that it has been drawn in this form, and I hope that His Majesty's Government may give some assurance that, if British missionaries make application to the Italian Government and are creditable people, His Majesty's Government will be ready to use their influence in securing for them a fair and impartial consideration.
Now I pass to the main question, this most vexed question of the recognition of Italian sovereignty in Abyssinia. It was right that the matter should be referred to the League of Nations. The Council of the League of Nations, as we know, has left it free to its Members to act upon their discretion. It is therefore a very anxious question how far those who are greatly concerned about Abyssinia and

129
the Emperor Haile Selassie, and about the credit of the League of Nations, ought in any sort of way to countenance any such recognition. I know of few public questions that have ever given me greater anxiety. For myself, if I may be permitted to say so, no one viewed with greater repugnance the invasion of Abyssinia by Italy; no one agreed more heartily with the condemnation passed upon it by the League of Nations. No one felt more bitterly the humiliation when the League of Nations, of which we were Members, failed to protect an ancient Christian State which had enjoyed more than 1,400 years of independence. I suppose there is no humiliation more bitter than the humiliation of proved impotence.
But I doubt whether any good purpose is served now by recriminations and lamentations over that lamentable failure. Facts are facts, and their consequences will be what they will be. There are two very clear facts. One is that in July, 1936, the League of Nations admitted its failure, and abandoned its collective action. The other is that at least a very great part of Abyssinia is now in the possession of Italy. How far it is an effective possession I would not undertake to say. I think it is quite clear that there are still large parts of that country that can hardly be described as in the possession of Italy at all. But while that may be uncertain, what is quite certain is that Italy cannot be dislodged from Abyssinia without either its own withdrawal, which is most improbable, or by war, which is quite unthinkable. In view of those quite patent facts is it the duty of the friends of Abyssinia, or even of the League of Nations, to continue to protest against any sort of acquiescence in the recognition of Italian sovereignty? If this were merely a question of the recognition of Italian sovereignty I should be prepared to continue to protest against it most strongly, in loyalty to one's conscientious convictions. But it is not the only question. There is another consideration which has since emerged, and which seems to me to dominate the problem. It is, of course, that some recognition of Italian sovereignty is an essential part, to be made when other conditions have been fulfilled, of this Agreement with Italy.
There is a great deal in that Agreement which many of us dislike, but must
130
we not admit that it is at least a step towards lessening fear and increasing confidence in Europe? I have always thought that it would have been disastrous to allow Germany and Italy to draw further and further apart from Great Britain and France. It seemed to me right that an attempt should be made to build a bridge across the gulf, before it became too wide. It seemed to me right that every effort should be made to remove obstacles to good understanding which, if they had remained, would have increased the friction and thereby intensified the existing tension in Europe. It seemed to me at least possible that any such attempt might lead to other useful and fruitful attempts. For instance, I, and I have no doubt others of your Lordships, have noticed some words recently spoken by Signor Mussolini, and I do not know why we should doubt their sincerity. He said that Germany and Italy
"would seek between them and with others a régime of international comity, which may restore equally for all more effective guarantees of security and peace."
I ask, and I want to ask noble Lords opposite, what is really the alternative to taking any such step? The continuance of tension and fear means the indefinite continuance of this appalling race of armaments. This country has been compelled to join in it; but the Prime Minister has never ceased to describe it as in itself insensate and deplorable. What may be the end of it if it is not restrained? My Lords, nothing can stop it except an increase of appeasement in Europe.
Nothing else can bring about a situation in which the peoples of Europe will be set free from this intolerable burden, and enabled to live their lives in peace. Nothing else can bring about a situation in which it may be possible to fulfil that ideal, which I cordially share with the noble Lord, Lord Snell, the rebuilding of the League of Nations. If that is so are we to scrap, are we to advocate the scrapping, of these immense advantages, even although they may involve some recognition of Italian sovereignty in Abyssinia? I must confess that I find it very difficult to bring myself to any such position. I cannot doubt but that it is of enormous advantage that this Agreement should go through, and, if so, is it any use our continuing a rather futile protest against it? I cannot but remind your Lordships

131
of the words which were used by my noble friend Lord Halifax at Geneva:
"Great as is the League of Nations the ends that it exists to serve are greater than itself, and the greatest of these ends is peace."
Surely, then, it is better to secure some relief of this existing tension in Europe than to secure some relief of one's own feelings, however natural and strong they may be.
It is with the utmost reluctance I have felt driven to this position; reluctance amounting almost to pain. I do not think I ever made a speech in this House with more distaste than that which I am now making, but I cannot believe it is a sacrifice of principle for expediency. I can assure Lord Snell that I am not conscious of having made any bargain in my conscience with Mephistopheles, because it seems to me that the cause of general peace is something greater than mere expediency. It seems to me in existing conditions to be in itself a high and commanding principle.
But, my Lords, so great is my sympathy with the Abyssinian people, and particularly with the Emperor Haile Selassie—a sympathy which I know is shared by multitudes of people in this country, and I may add a sympathy greatly enhanced by his dignity of bearing during this time of trial—that I cannot possibly leave the matter there. I have often wondered whether some way could not be found by which his present painful position might be mitigated, by which he might be set free from the prospect of perpetual exile, and by which we might get some small scrap of compensation out of what the noble Lord has rightly called the tragedy of Abyssinia. It was therefore with very great interest that I read the letter to The Times by the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, at the end of April, to which both the noble Lord and the noble Marquess have referred. I am very sorry that indisposition has prevented Lord Lugard from being present at this debate, which he had wished to be, and I know that your Lordships will agree with what the noble Marquess said, that there is no living man who speaks with greater weight and authority on any matters pertaining to Africa than Lord Lugard.
I feel therefore bound to give some greater emphasis to his proposals than
132
has been given by the allusions already made by noble Lords. Your Lordships will remember the general effect of that proposal. It was that Signor Mussolini might conceivably be induced to offer Haile Selassie some limited area in Abyssinia in which he might be granted internal autonomy under the suzerainty of Italy. The suggestion was the province of Go jam, which has this advantage that, being entirely encircled by the Blue Nile, it has a very natural boundary; and, lest there should be any apprehensions in the matter, I may say that the suggestion is made without any thought of British interests with regard to Lake Tsana or the like. At first it seemed to me, as I dare say it seemed to many of your Lordships, almost certainly impracticable; but further inquiry and further information have made me think that it is well worthy of consideration. Is it inconceivable that it might not be unwelcome to Signor Mussolini himself? It would be a condition of any such offer that the Emperor would be prepared to forgo his title and undertake to do his utmost to prevent, or at any rate restrain, organised fighting under recognised chiefs. That fighting is going on. It is going on continually and with ever-recurrent intensity. It must impose a very severe strain upon the nerves of the Italian troops. The maintenance of the large forces needed to deal with it must be an increasing burden upon the resources of the Italian Government. If it could be made to cease, or even be greatly reduced, then the Italian Government would be set free to consolidate that large part of Abyssinia which would then be in its effective possession.
But is it conceivable that Haile Selassie himself would entertain such a proposal, with all the sacrifice that it would involve? I have not thought it right to consult him directly, because I thought it would not be fair to ask him to commit himself at this stage to a purely tentative suggestion. But I may say that I am not without hope that he might be willing to consent. A strong motive would be to prevent the continuance of that appalling loss of life which is now being inflicted upon his people. It was the same motive which led him to leave his country after the conquest of his capital by Italian arms. He would have a place, even if restricted, of service still for the good of the people for whom he cares. It

133
is obvious that any such offer must come from Italy. It might be, as I have suggested, in the interests of the Italian Government; certainly it would be an act of very striking magnanimity which, as I think Lord Lugard said, would go far to cement friendship with this country and to obliterate bitter and continuing hostility in Abyssinia.
At any rate I feel that it is only right to ventilate the proposal in your Lordships' House, and at least to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would be willing to intimate, at such times and in such ways as they might think advisable, that they looked with favour upon the proposal, and that they would be ready, if the opportunity arose, to use their good offices to facilitate it. It may prove to be quite impracticable, but if we are compelled by the stress of facts and by the claim of the cause of general peace to give any sort of recognition of Italian sovereignty in Abyssinia, then I submit we are the more bound in honour to do what we can on behalf of a Ruler who put his trust in the League of Nations, and whom we as Members of that League failed to protect.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, it will not of course have escaped your Lordships' notice that when the Leader of the Opposition moves a Vote of Censure on His Majesty's Government he must, by implication at least, be taken to be submitting an alternative foreign policy. Now I have listened—I always listen—with the closest attention to the admonitions, the varied admonitions, which my noble friend Lord Snell addresses to His Majesty's Government; and I listened, if possible, this afternoon with even closer attention in the hope that behind the altogether negative phraseology of the noble Lord's Motion there might appear from his speech some shadow of a constructive alternative foreign policy which the noble Lord was representing. I am bound to say that I was not able to extract very much in the way of an alternative. One function of an Opposition is admittedly to oppose, and that function, I think most of your Lordships will agree, the noble Lord and his friends very admirably discharge. But another function, and I think in such critical days as those we live in an even more important function, is to represent a constructive alternative policy to that of the
134
Government; and there, with all due respect for the talents of the noble Lord for which I have the greatest admiration, I do not think that he and his friends so conspicuously succeed.
We know the foreign policies of several noble Lords who sit in proximity to the noble Lord, Lord Snell. We know the foreign policy of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby: the noble Lord is a pacifist and he has dissociated himself from his Party. We know the foreign policy of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold: the noble Lord is an isolationist, I think, and has dissociated himself from the foreign policy of his Party. We know the policy of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, who has not only dissociated himself from his Party but has gone so far as to say that he would regard its advent to power as a menace to the peace of the world. But I am not so clear that we know the foreign policy of the noble Lord, Lord Snell. The noble Lord did something—a rather transient something—to dissociate himself from the more bellicose utterances of his colleagues in the country and in another place, utterances from which for my part, I think I may claim, with the best will in the world, I have been able to derive nothing more than that they stand for perpetual enmity with every totalitarian State except Russia and some form of half-disguised intervention in Spain.
The noble Lord asks us to condemn the understanding with Italy, and I do hope that your Lordships will remember that behind the suave phrases of the noble Lord himself there have been such incidents as that which occurred in another place the other day. The Prime Minister was concluding his speech on the introduction of the Italian Treaty when there leapt from the front Opposition Bench a leader of the Opposition Party who exclaimed "Never!" He made that exclamation in comment on the expression by the Prime Minister of the hope that this Treaty would lead to a long period of peace between Italy and England. It was in comment on that phrase that a leader of the Opposition Party ejaculated "Never!" "Never"—that is surely a significant and a memorable comment upon an expression of a desire to see permanent peace between two great countries. I cannot fail to remember, if I may venture to give a personal reminiscence, how not long ago I found myself on the

135
platform, as a speaker, at a meeting organised by the League of Nations Union in company with a distinguished ornament of another wing of the Opposition. To my astonishment he used the phrase, in so many words—"We must never come to any agreement with Herr Hitler."
When I think of these, to me at any rate, extraordinary utterances in favour of perpetual enmity in the heart of Europe, I cannot help recollecting, if your Lordships will forgive one further personal reminiscence, the General Election of 1924, when I had the honour of cooperating with noble Lords opposite and of being a Labour candidate. The chief issue at that Election, I think I am right in saying, was the Trade Agreement with Russia which the then outgoing Labour Government had been in process of negotiating and which was described by its opponents as "shaking hands with murder." From every platform which the Labour Party could then command, it replied with one voice that the internal politics of a country were irrelevant; that the Labour Party itself perhaps did not look with too favourable an eye on the internal politics of Russia, but that that was irrelevant, and what did matter was that it was not only immoral but dangerous to exclude any one great Power from the international comity of nations, to which some of the speakers added that "all men are brothers" or, in a rather less attractive variant, "all working men are brothers." To-day, so far from maintaining that all men are brothers, so far from maintaining that it would be dangerous to exclude one great nation from the international comity of nations, as far as I can follow the arguments of the Party opposite they argue, and argue with passion, that it is necessary permanently to exclude two great nations from the comity of nations. I do not think it is too much to say that behind the characteristically moderate and persuasive phrases of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, lies this hopeless doctrine of perpetual enmity festering at the heart of Europe.
Sometimes that extraordinary contradiction in the Party which the noble Lord so ably represents here receives curious pictorial emphasis. I remember on May 1 I was driving through my home town, and was surprised to see approaching a
136
straggling procession of persons in mackintoshes, preceded by a large banner emblazoned with the admirable slogan, "Labour's Great Peace March." Behind that admirable device on a succession of horse-drawn lorries, there followed a series of hostile and provocative tableaux vivants insulting and deriding the methods, morals and constitutions of two great Powers with whom we are at complete peace, and with whom His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to come to terms. After these there followed a straggle of men and women carrying various more or less bellicose slogans, while up and down the ranks ran a stout gentleman in a mackintosh who, obviously susceptible to the military atmosphere in which he found himself, was despairingly crying, "Keep the step please—left, right—pick it up." But "Labour's Great Peace March" was unfortunately unable to keep step. It did come home to me how very remarkably strange it is that the Party of Peace, the Party of International Brotherhood, as it undoubtedly once was, should now lend itself to these extraordinary internal contradictions.
The policy which the noble Lord asks your Lordships to condemn appears to me to be an eminently realistic, if piecemeal, process of building bridges across the hostile chasms which the noble Lord's policy, as far as I can understand it, would perpetuate and indeed probably widen. The one vestige in the noble Lord's speech which he devoted, not to his very telling, very searching criticism of His Majesty's Government, but to a constructive suggestion of his own, did refer naturally to the League of Nations, but it was so short, there was so little substance to it, that I could not help wondering whether the noble Lord may not fall into the well-marked category of those who believe that by merely uttering the phrase, "Refer it to the League," they offer a solution, and a specially moral solution, for all the ills from which the world at any moment may suffer. As I understand the utterances of the Prime Minister, he has made it quite clear that what we may call the long-term policy of His Majesty's Government is the League; but does the noble Lord opposite seriously suggest that the League can possibly be a short-term policy?
I cannot help feeling that when the long-term policy of reconstruction of the

137
League begins, we shall have to look back and learn a good deal of how it should be reconstructed from the situation in which we now find ourselves. Your Lordships will, for example, remember how the Sudeten German problem has been a problem almost exactly as it stands to-day, I suppose, for the last twenty years—ever since, indeed, the League came into existence, and yet it had not become headline news, indeed possibly it would not be too much to say it had never impressed itself on the awareness of the ordinary man in the street, until a threat of violence was occasioned by that problem. That seems to me an ironic commentary on the League régime during the last twenty years. I cannot help remembering also that, in listening to the devoted protagonists of the League in your Lordships' House and other places, for every reference to the peaceful adjustment of difficulties we have heard possibly twenty references to military sanctions, to repression of the aggressor; and one cannot help remembering that in the very first League Assembly an Italian delegate moved that consideration should be given to access to raw materials. It was, alas! a Canadian delegate who moved that that plea should be ruled out of order. That motion of the Canadian delegate was accepted, and ruled out of order it was.
It is difficult to resist the conclusion that a good deal of the difficulties in which we find ourselves to-day may be traced back to that first ominous example in that first League Assembly and to a number of similar incidents which have followed it. Indeed, when one remembers how soon after the conclusion of the South African War an Act of wise generosity by this country conciliated our very bitter and very recent enemies, one sometimes cannot help feeling that if we had had an opportunity of dealing with Germany on our own lines, without some of the advice which we have received from our colleagues at Geneva, we might possibly have made a better business of it. I yield to no man in my belief in the League as a long-term policy, but I deny that as a short-term policy there is anything to be gained by ingeminating as a sort of incantation the phrase, "Refer it to the League."
Finally, I should like very humbly to congratulate His Majesty's Government
138
on the success of this piece-meal policy of bridge-building. Really the only words in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, with which I can find myself in agreement are those in which he says that His Majesty's Government's policy offers no certainty of doing so-and-so. Clearly in human affairs there can be no certainty, least of all to-day, and the only certainty in foreign policy—and it is only with that that I concern myself at the moment—is that the policy for which the noble Lord himself stands in this House, though he does not voice it unequivocally, would be a quite invaluable recipe for bringing about an immediate European war. But although unfortunately in human affairs there is no certainty, I think we may at least claim that the policy of His Majesty's Government is conciliatory, realistic, and far more likely, to put it at it lowest, to preserve the peace of Europe than any other policy that has as yet been submitted to your Lordships.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, there could have been no Englishman, whatever his denomination or political description, who did not read with a sense of dismay and humiliation the report of the recent proceedings at Geneva. Indeed, I think that has been conceded by almost every speaker who has addressed your Lordships' House. Every circumstance emphasizes the gravity and the humiliation of the episode. The representative of Great Britain was the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary, a man whose character stands so high and whose well earned reputation as a sagacious statesman is admitted in all quarters, and from his lips one heard the language—he must forgive me—the cold sophistry of a cynical opportunism. I cannot for my own part regard the noble Viscount's speech as other than the funeral oration of the League of Nations.
Now the League of Nations was in the opinion of masses of thoughtful people in every civilised community, and especially in our own, the one good and hopeful outcome of that fearful mass of suffering and consequent blundering which matured in the Treaty of Versailles. I hope I do your Lordships no injustice if I say that observations unfriendly or even contemptuous about the League were received with something more than your Lordships' ordinary indication of approval

139
The League is referred to in terms of contempt and it is suggested that the sooner it is hustled into a dishonoured grave the better. Well, I cannot assume that view, and I am one of that great multitude who are cut to the heart with a lasting sorrow by seeing the collapse of this great combined effort to escape from the recurrent tragedy of war by the only conceivable means by which an alternative for war can be provided—namely, by organising the cooperation of people in common law and agreement. I say I cannot but view with absolute heartbreak the collapse and disappearance of that great effort.
It is not, however, without a precedent. My learned friend Professor George Trevelyan, in his great history of Queen Anne, has to record the proceedings that matured in the Treaty of Utrecht in the year 1713, and therein he has to include some reference to the base desertion of the Catalans who had fought bravely and nobly on our side during the long war. The name of the British Minister is different now but the sentiments he expressed are quite apposite to those of the present moment. This is what he said:
"Bolingbroke had a keener sense for his country's interests than for her faith and honour.… France had no wish and England no further power to plead their cause. If they had been wise they would have submitted; much to Bolingbroke's indignation; they preferred to be heroic and to die sword in hand.… And the whole world cried shame upon England when her over-zealous Secretary ordered the squadrons under Sir James Wishart to harass and threaten the defenders of the town (Barcelona). That was a gratuitous insult to the brave population who had fought so many years on our side, who were merely continuing to defend rights we had ourselves granted."
A voice from the past, but a voice that tells with withering emphasis upon the latest efforts in British diplomacy.
Well, my Lords, on the 21st February, 1938, the present Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons, used these words:
"I have always taken the view that the question of the formal recognition of the Italian position in Abyssinia was one that could only be justified if it was found to be a factor, and an essential factor, in a general appeasement."
I may in passing allow myself the observation that it is perhaps not altogether
140
as clear as the Prime Minister seems to think that the general appeasement will be lasting if it is confessedly conditioned by acquiescence in a gross and acknowledged wrong. Now what is the broad consideration which appears to justify the strange, sudden and, I must beg leave to think, shameful volte face on the part of Great Britain? It is not three years since our then Foreign Secretary went to Geneva and delivered himself of a great oration which thrilled the world, and which was universally understood to mean that the honour and purpose of Great Britain were bound up inextricably with those ideas and ideals for which the League of Nations was organised. And now we send his successor in that office, my noble friend Viscount Halifax, to unsay what Sir Samuel Hoare said and to justify it by telling us to face the facts.
What facts? There are many facts. Some of the facts which are not being faced, some of the facts which I venture to suggest a self-respecting nation ought to face, such facts, for instance, as moral principles affirmed and national honour pledged and public commitments entered into. I shall dwell for a minute on this. This is the ultimate outcome of the policy of subordinating principles to what we are pleased to call interests. It is the great object of this Agreement with Italy to secure a general appeasement. That indeed is what is stated in the preamble of the Agreement. It is to be the prelude and first part of a general appeasement. It is to ensure a general peace by removing what it has been the fashion to call a war of idiosynocrasies.
Let us examine the phrase. The phrase is borrowed from the vocabulary of the Emperor Napoleon and he meant by it to pass a censure upon those windy theories of universal human rights which play a part, and are always likely to play a part, in revolutionary movements. Those he swept away with contempt and for his part declared himself content to fight for, or lay emphasis upon, not those idiosyncracies, but the more tangible considerations of material interest. But the phrase may mean two things, and I am quite sure that some noble Lords—certainly the noble Lord who asked the question—have not realised that. You may have no desire to press your distinctive constitution or distinctive conceptions upon others and therein assuredly we are

141
all at one. But we must not forget the broad conditions under which we can tolerate a variety of system, of ideas, of educational methods, of religion, the broad factors which provide the structure upon which civilisation itself is built. If you have an idiosyncrasy which breaks up those fundamental conditions, which dissolves faith in treaties, which denies written signatures, which destroys personal liberty, which does not allow equality of treatment to Jews and non-Aryans and so on—if you get a power of that kind which embodies in its policy ideas, convictions end objects which are radically contrary to the very substructure of civilisation, then, my Lords, you may wish to avoid a war of idiosyncrasies, but I take leave to tell you that you are committing yourselves to something which it is not ultimately in your power to secure.
Let me just read a sentence or two spoken by a very great man whom we all hold in reverence, Abraham Lincoln. In the years preceding; the Civil War when the great tragedy was darkening the horizon, there were many excellent Americans who thought they could avoid a war of idiosyncrasies and effect some compromise whereby slavery could be limited to so many States, that its worst expression should be restrained, and so forth. Then, in 1858, Abraham Lincoln used words which I submit to your Lordships are words which may be applied without alteration, not to the Republic of America, but to civilised society itself within which these totalitarian States claim to be included. He said:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot endure half-slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."
I am convinced, my Lords, that unless this conflict of fundamental idiosyncrasies, this dissidence in the elementary rights of our civilised world can be exorcised—and I doubt whether it can—unless it can be done, our civilisation will have to become totalitarian or remain free.
An enterprising publisher sent me last week a book which is about to appear and which I respectfully venture to commend to your Lordships' reading. It is called The War against the West. It is written by a Viennese Jew who by
142
religion is a Roman Catholic. He has been at the pains ever since Hitler's Government came into existence to make himself master of the great mass of literature which has been pouring out from the Press of Germany, teaching the doctrines and ideas upon which the totalitarian State is rested. It is an exact analogy to the position created by the Encyclopaedists before the French Revolution, and the object of publishing it is that thoughtful English people may understand that we are not merely up against a system of government, not merely quarrelling with totalitarian States as such, but that we are up against a system under which there can be no assurances for freedom or religion, nor any justice. Therefore it is, speaking with the full responsibility of spiritual membership of your Lordships' House and speaking from this Bench, that I say—and I think it will carry immediate assent, because we are all filled with horror at the idea of a renewal of war—that you may attempt to avoid a war of idiosyncrasies, but you cannot do it. What you can do, by conceding now this point and now that point, is to put off the immediate conflict, but you are only making sure that when the inevitable strife does at last occur you have conceded the strategic points to your adversaries and made it as certain as you can that you and your civilisation will be destroyed. Your Lordships may think that I have spoken more vehemently than was fitting, but I do feel deeply about this. My profession puts me outside politics, but that does not mean that I am not intensely interested. I am a student as well as a Bishop and I say these things because, seeing them in the long light of history, I am convinced that we are merely playing with the question if we do not go to root principles and ask whereto these proposals are tending.
I turn to the Agreement itself. The most reverend Primate has already called attention to one or two serious matters. I want to emphasize a point which I do not think he mentioned. I am quite sure if the noble Lord, Lord Lugard, had been here he would have mentioned it. Do you realise that our credit in that great Continent of Africa to which we are bound so closely, not only by the memory of almost intolerable wrongs inflicted by our nation in the past but also by the fact that in the course of time so great a part of that Continent has come under the control

143
of our country, is concerned? Do you realise what the effect of our betrayal of Abyssinia is going to be on that volume of educated African opinion which, largely as the result of our own generous policy, is growing up in all parts of the Continent? Only this morning I had a letter from which, with your Lordships' indulgence, I will read some passages. It comes to me from a young clergyman engaged in educational work in Nigeria. He was writing to me about another matter, but it struck me that part of his letter was relevant to our discussion to-day and I venture to read it. I know this young man. I know him as a very intelligent fellow who for years has been carrying on educational work in Nigeria. This is what he says:
"The latest developments concerning Abyssinia provide food for anxious thought. I cannot think that our prestige amongst the African people will be enhanced by the latest surrender of principle to expediency. Whilst we withheld recognition of the fruits of Italy's aggression, it was at least possible to maintain that we had done all that was actually practicable to prevent the victor from enjoying the fruits of his crime, but with the impending recognition of the conquest it seems difficult to attach much real meaning to the qualification that recognition does not necessarily imply approval. At any rate, it will be extremely difficult to persuade the average intelligent educated African that there is any difference. I wonder whether ultimately the repercussions on our African Empire may not be greater than any advantages which may be derived from the renewal of friendship with an unscrupulous dictator."
When I look at this Agreement, the first thing that strikes me about it is this. Before the Agreement is to take effect, two great conditions have to be satisfied. First, the war is to be ended in Spain. Signor Mussolini has told us at Genoa that he will not tolerate any other solution than the victory of General Franco; that is to say, before anything else comes out of this Agreement, Spain is to be added to the Fascist Powers and the gateway of the Mediterranean is to be put in the hands of those who cannot by any stretch of imagination be called our friends. The next thing is this, which we have been talking about so much: we are to surrender our principles—I think the noble Viscount used the word "principles" himself—we have to sacrifice our principles in order to secure the peace which the Agreement sets out. But all the excellent provisions—at least
144
many of them are excellent, not all—have one solitary security: the word of Signor Mussolini. He was at pains at Genoa the other day to assure the world that this time he did mean business, that he really sincerely meant this pact to be kept. I value neither the original promise nor the confirmation; they both come to the same effect.
My Lords, really, as practical people looking coldly at the world and weighing facts calmly in the scales of reason, is it reasonable to trust the words of these dictators? There is an excellent book which I was reading as I came up from my diocese this morning. Your Lordships also know it, or will know it very soon: it is by Professor Seton Watson, and in it he reviews with great justice and with extraordinary insight and wisdom the whole of British policy since the War. He says very much what I have been trying to say in my own way, that underneath all the agreements and discussions there are these cynical facts: that neither Herr Hitler nor Signor Mussolini—habemus confitentem reum—neither the one nor the other accepts the broad conditions of self-respecting and reasonable negotiation. They regard treaties as something which they can break at will. Their signatures they can disown when it suits them. You may say that this is severe, but it is only what they themselves have said. I ask you to read this book and to follow the course of this carefully-traced narrative, and you will, I am sure, come to this conclusion: that the mere word of Signor Mussolini or Herr Hitler, after they have succeeded in establishing their will in Spain and in abolishing Abyssinia, is worthless. The Rhineland was occupied against treaty, Austria has gone, Spain is going, we are asked to register the passing of Abyssinia, Czechoslovakia is now being talked about. Where are we going to stop? The whole programme of Mein Kampf, which Herr Hitler laid out with such cynical candour, is being followed with mathematical precision, and, except for the genius of the speaker, I feel very much like Demosthenes warning against Philip. It seems grotesque that our country, the guardian of these great human interests of liberty and justice, should really be led in this free and easy fashion.
One thing more I want to do is to associate myself very earnestly with what

145
the most reverend Primate said. We cannot surely leave the Emperor Haile Selassie in the lurch. We cannot really be a society of gentlemen—I ought not to use the word, because "gentlemen's agreements" are now in ill fame; in any case you know what I mean. We are men of honour; we cannot let Mussolini's and Hitler's complacence be gained by merely dropping the victim of our own impotence and timidity. Something must be done. Look at this Treaty: nothing is provided in the Treaty for the ancient Church of Ethiopia. We do not think it necessary to stipulate that liberty should be preserved to it. As the most reverend Primate reminded us, this is a Church which stretches back over the centuries to the time of St. Athanasius himself, and this long ecclesiastical pedigree is jealously and very rightly valued by the Coptic Church itself. In Westminster Abbey, as you may see at any time in a function there, there is a quaint silver embossed cross which was presented to the Abbey—by whom? By Abyssinia. Now we are going to drop Abyssinia and let this immemorially free national Church of Ethiopia be coerced and forced under an iron dominion so odious to itself, the Church of Rome. Is that fair? The most reverend Primate called attention to the Annex to the Agreement in which religion is omitted and philantropy and so forth are mentioned. But we give freedom to religion in our Empire, and if we are guardians of religious liberty we must not put our signature to any Agreement which does not guarantee that ultimate freedom of religion. My Lords, I have kept you too long and I have spoken too long, but I have finished.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I had no intention of intervening in to-day's debate, but I do so for a few moments now because there may not be another convenient and immediate opportunity to express my strong sympathy with and support of His Majesty's Government's present foreign policy. Before I deal with the main points at issue I must say that I feel unusually handicapped at speaking after the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down. He spoke with his usual eloquence but with almost unusual indignation about the abandonment of principles, as he termed them, of national honour and moral duty. Must we not go back a little further if we are
146
to try to assess these very difficult matters? I have never defended the Italian occupation of Abyssinia, but I have tried to be perhaps a little more realist, if the right reverend Prelate will allow me to say so without discourtesy, than he has been in this matter.
Perhaps the right reverend Prelate would take his mind back for a moment to the period in which we pledged ourselves to the great moral principles to which he has just referred, when we pledged ourselves to the support of Abyssinia, when we gave the Emperor Haile Selassie every right to believe that we would see him through. Was not that the time to think of national honour and was it really honourable or wise of us to make such bold promises and to hold out great expectations while we were disarming and doing nothing to equip ourselves with the power to fulfil such obligations? I would have liked to have heard the same burning words spoken by some of the noble Lords at that end of the House on the dangers of disarmament in a troubled world, leaving the peacebreakers with the power and the peacemakers without power. That was the time to think of principles and honour. Was it not really a question of national honour that in the last ten years we should have concerned ourselves with the fact the Amhara rule subjected its people to the most terrible forms of slavery? That surely was the time to speak of principles and honour, when we had the power to force Abyssinia to abandon slavery. But I did not hear then the burning and eloquent words of the right reverend Prelate on these matters. It is easy to come back to the House to-day—it is not a laughing matter—
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: I was not laughing; but I was not a member of the House at that time.
LORD LLOYD: Nor was I, but there were others who might have spoken from that Bench and urged with greater force than they did the terrible evils of slavery. I turn for a moment to what the most reverend Primate said about the possibilities of doing something for the Emperor Haile Selassie. I think everyone must have the deepest sympathy with His Majesty the late Emperor, but at least

147
it is wise to see what is practicable and what is not, and I have had opportunity even in the last few weeks of hearing a great deal at first hand about the internal situation in Abyssinia. However desirable it might be to try to do something for the Emperor in the manner suggested by the most reverend Primate, I can assure the House that it is utterly impracticable. I do not believe there is any section of the Amhara people who would welcome back the Emperor to-day. I do not say it with any discourtesy to him, but the cirstances are against him, and I do not think it is of any use to endeavour to salve our consciences by trying to put the Emperor in any part of Abyssinia, where he would lead a life far more miserable and more dangerous than he lives here. When we talk of this matter in terms of principle and honour, let us consider our own position. There was once a people called the Assyrians who fought most gallantly and suffered most terribly on our behalf. No Government has ever succeeded in finding them a single yard of territory, where they can rest in peace, yet, forsooth, we are going to ask the Italians, against whom the Emperor fought, to find him a home in some part of Abyssinia.
I have just finished a tour round the Mediterranean where I visited practically all the Middle Eastern countries and saw most of their statesmen and politicians, and had thus an opportunity of getting a very effective purview of the general situation. The result of that I should like to tell your Lordships in a very few words. The change that has come over the Middle East and the Mediterranean as a result of this Agreement is something miraculous. Right through the countries that care for peace the democracies who have hitherto been frightened and huddled in their corner lest the peace-loving should be broken by the others, are at last holding their heads up again, and they rejoice to see the initiative in foreign policy restored to His Majesty's Government, who are certainly known to be in favour of peace. That is surely something. I have not always agreed with the Foreign Secretary. That is no secret to this House, but I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating him on his speech which was not only brave but sensible. I will not quote his words which have already been quoted by the most reverend Primate.
148
But when I come here and hear noble Lords on the Socialist Benches talk about dictators, I would ask them to reflect that scarcely a month passes without one or other of the most vocal of their number telling us that the first thing they would do would be to rule by Order in Council. What is that but dictatorship? In those circumstances, all the talk about Fascism becomes fantastic and if it were not for the presence of noble Lords I would almost say foolish. They know, as we know, that a dictatorship has always been a proof of democracy's courage. At all moments of crisis great democracies have always had the courage to turn to dictatorships. Rome was the greatest democracy in the world as well as the greatest dictatorship. The noble Viscount makes a motion of indignation, but it is perfectly true.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I was only protesting in the name of history at his assertion that the Romans were the greatest democracy in the world.
LORD LLOYD: I think that at least we can say that for several centuries they were the greatest Republic. I correct myself. I only wish to say this, I am not a defender of Fascism. I believe as strongly as anyone opposite in the freedom of our institutions, but I would like to see ourselves made strong enough to conserve them. We care for peace more than for prejudice, and I believe that the steps which the Government have taken in the last few weeks have made a strong and powerful platform, on which they can reasonably hope to build still greater steps for peace.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I was afraid for a moment that I should not be able to disagree with the noble Lord who has just spoken, with that whole-hearted conviction which I usually find myself able to do, but I am glad to say that that fear was unnecessary. As to his last semi-apology for dictatorships, nobody but a lunatic would say that dictatorships are always and in all circumstances wrong. I certainly should not say so, but I say that the present dictatorships in Germany and Italy are gross tyrannies, and it is for that reason that I protest against them, and not because they are different forms of government from that which prevails here. Very respectfully I would say this to my noble

149
friend, that I doubt very much whether this kind of tentative approval of the Governments of Italy and Germany is really wise.
LORD LLOYD: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend, but I do hope he will not fall into the same error as Mr. Herbert Morrison in another place fell into, of accusing me, as he was just about to do, of holding the view that because we defend this policy therefore we approve of the system in those countries. Nothing of the kind I must make that plain.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No, I should never have thought of saying that. But there was certainly a passage at the end of the noble Lord's speech which appeared to be an apology for dictatorships that exist. There was also a similar passage in a speech of the Prime Minister the other day. I venture very respectfully to say to them both, if I may do so without impertinence, that I think it an extraordinarily unwise attitude for them to take if they desire to have the whole-hearted support of the people of this country for the policy of rearmament. It is just the kind of thing which terrifies—honestly terrifies—a very large number of our fellow countrymen.
I pass from that. It is not part of the speech that I desired to make, but I had to make that protest. I must be as brief as I can. We are debating this enormous subject under conditions which are inevitably difficult. We are, I understand, more or less bound to conclude the debate to-day, and therefore the time is short, and we have not had the advantage—that is also, I think, unfortunate—at an early stage in our discussion of knowing from the Government exactly what their policy is and what they propose to do in the future. We have had to collect it from other sources. I think that an unfortunate condition under which we have to discuss it. I want to call the attention of the House to the broad aspects of this question. It is impossible to deal in detail with all the aspects of the foreign policy of the Government. Nobody would expect or desire that I should attempt it. But I want just to call the attention of the House once again to this broad fact. We have now had the privilege of a National Government for six and a half years. If you go back to the condition of the world seven years
150
ago no one can doubt that the deterioration has been prodigious. I am not going to go through country by country, though it is possible to do that and show how very much it has deteriorated. But take a broad test, which is a wonderful test, the amount the countries are spending on armaments to-day. That is a kind of barometer. People do not spend money on armaments unless they are afraid of war. The reason they are spending these vast sums of money on armaments is that they are infinitely more afraid of war than they were seven years ago.
I submit to the Government with all respect that, though of course it would be absurd and ridiculous to say that they are responsible for the whole of that deterioration—I would not dream of saying such a thing—their policy has contributed. There are two policies, and two only, that you can pursue, apart from that of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. It is not from want of respect to him that I do not deal with him, but it does not come into the structure of my speech. The two policies are the old policy and the League of Nations policy. There is no other. I remember hearing my noble friend the Foreign Secretary make an admirable speech in this House not many months ago, in which he repelled the suggestion made to him from behind him that we should abandon the League of Nations, and he did so on these grounds. He said that if you abandon the League of Nations the only thing you can do is to go back to the old policy of alliances and armaments. I have no doubt my noble friend will remember the speech. He said with great truth that that would be a very disastrous return. That is still true. You have got the two policies—the policy of the League of Nations and the policy of alliances and armaments. What I complain of is that the Government has never adopted either one policy or the other. They do not adopt a full League of Nations policy with a view of making it a success—and undoubtedly that would have required a great effort, because everyone knows that it was a very difficult and novel proposal. Or they could have adopted the other policy and have set about a great policy of rearmament. I should have bitterly regretted that, but it would have been an intelligible policy. They adopted neither.
I am not going to attempt to examine every detail of their policy since 1931.

151
Broadly speaking, if their policy had been a policy of undermining the League without abandoning it they could scarcely have done differently or more effectively than they did. Let me give just one instance, one which I happen to know all about because at that time I was employed by the Government—the question of Manchuria. There undoubtedly they adopted this policy: protest, carried through up to the point of giving a definite time within which Japan must assent to a policy of abandoning the Man-churian adventure; then, when Japan did not do so, they took no further step at all. They made no further effort. They then sent out the Lytton Commission. The Lytton Commission, admirably conducted if I may say so, achieved the almost incredible result of getting an absolutely unanimous decision from representatives of Italy, Germany, France, America and this country. That was brought up at Geneva. The Japanese rejected it altogether. The Assembly unanimously accepted the view that the suggestions made by the Commission were right, and our Foreign Secretary went down and made a speech which was universally interpreted—whatever he may have intended—as an apology for Japanese action.
That kind of policy went on over and over again: protest against some breach of International Law, some breach of the Covenant of the League of Nations; ignored by the Covenant-breaker or rejected by him; protest—again no action, and statements that no action was possible. The result in the Far East—and that is the reason why I mention it—is the present disastrous war that is going on there. Undoubtedly if Japan could have been checked over Manchuria—I admit the difficulties; they were very great—but if she could have been checked there there would have been no war now. Just conceive what an addition to human happiness if that had been so. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people are being killed under most awful conditions. Every kind of outrage apparently goes on, I dare say on both sides, though we hear most of the outrages by the Japanese. It is incredible, the amount of human suffering which is being caused in the Far East at this moment, and it is because there is no means of stopping it. Japan absolutely ignores all
152
remonstrance, and it is thought that we can do no more to help China to defeat what seems to me a very grave international crime.
Now what is the reason why the Government do these things? I have the highest respect and admiration for the individual members of the Government. I am sure it is not incapacity; it is, even more certainly, not because they are worse than other men—on the contrary. Why is it? Of course the reason is perfectly clear: it is the normal working of a Coalition Government. I do not say that the Coalition in this case is divided by the ordinary Party lines—of that I know nothing—but it is perfectly plain that right through these years you have had two Parties in the Cabinet, one Party that desired a real, genuine, forward League of Nations policy, and the other that was afraid of that policy and was apparently drawing back and preventing effective action. The result has been, as has been shown over and over again in our Parliamentary history, though never perhaps with such disastrous results as on the present occasion, that you get this perpetual zig-zag of policy; when the moment comes for really decisive action that is abandoned, and you have a zig-zag back, with the ordinary accompaniments. We have already suffered the consequences of this policy in the loss of three Foreign Ministers. I do not pretend to have an unappeasable regret about some of them, but there they are. I do not know whether anyone at Lloyd's insures the continuance in office of a Foreign Minister, but I think my noble friend would find it difficult to get any insurance carried out under those terms.
If you look at each question the same thing has happened. Exactly the same policy was pursued in the Disarmament Conference—two currents perpetually contending with one another in the Government policy, and in the result nothing being done. I am not going to elaborate what the right reverend Prelate has said with such eloquence about Abyssinia, but it is the same thing in that case. He referred to the great speech of Sir Samuel Hoare on September 11, 1935, and your Lordships will remember that within two or three months—I think two months—there was the Hoare-Laval Agreement which was

153
an absolute contradiction of the speech which had been delivered with such energy and vigour. So it was with the Rhine Provinces. There were the same conditions. I agree that the question was very difficult—all these questions are difficult—but we had the same conditions—a gross breach of the Treaty by Germany, protests, many meetings, many discussions as to exactly what protest should be made, in effect nothing done, and the present rulers of Germany being able to go back to their people and say: "You see how this policy succeeds. We have merely got to do what we want, and no one will stop us."
The same thing has happened over and over again in Spain. I cannot tell how surprised I am that the Government still believe in the good faith of the present Ruler of Italy. Just look at this speech at Genoa which he has just delivered and which has come out to-day. What does it amount to? I understand that the speech as reported on the wireless was different from the speech as reported in the newspapers, but it was far worse as reported on the wireless. I am told that the speech as reported on the wireless was not correct. I shall have to accept that, but I think it very unlikely. What did he say? I will not go into what he said about England, but, referring to France he said, "We are on two opposite sides of the barricade. France is trying to help the Government, I am trying to help Franco." And according to the wireless account, I believe—I did not hear it myself—he went on to say, "And I am going to take the necessary steps to secure Franco's victory and to send whatever munitions are necessary for that purpose." Not only that, but when he made his speech I understand he spoke from a kind of pulpit, and round it were a number of little statuettes or something of that kind recording the victories of Italian arms, and six out of the seven of them referred to victories obtained by Italian arms in the Spanish war.
All that is in absolute defiance of what he has undertaken to do, as I understand it, in the Agreement. If I am wrong, I shall be corrected. I understand he has said he would not increase his armaments in Spain and would withdraw them as soon as he could. I understand that is so. It is perfectly true to say, as my
154
noble friend who initiated this debate said, that no doubt other countries have sent in arms and munitions, but there is no other country that I know which has openly avowed, by the chief Minister of that country, that the country is intervening, not as individuals who come from that country, but as a country. My noble friend gave some figures as to the number of aeroplanes belonging to each country which had been shot down by General Franco. I thought they were quite conclusive that there had been no such great effort to assist the Government Party by any foreign Government, because what did he show? He showed that no fewer than 50 of these aeroplanes came from America, and nothing can be more certain than that the American Government has had no kind of intention of doing anything to assist either party. There was some very small number from this country, and some from several other countries; but it was quite plain that that was the kind of assistance which, granted the violent passions that this miserable, wretched struggle has aroused, you will inevitably find dribbling in from both sides. That is inevitable, but the assistance of a Government as a Government is quite a different thing both internationally and morally, as I venture to think.
The only addition that the Government have made to this policy is that wretched slogan for which I do not think any noble Lords are personally responsible, "We have kept you out of war." Of all the miserable slogans that the necessities of Party politics have ever invented, that is probably the worst—at any rate one of the worst. That is all you can say—"We have kept you out of war." Without any regard to righteousness or justice, or what will ultimately occur, or the larger interests of humanity and of this country, merely, "We have kept you out of war." That has produced most unfortunate results, in my judgment, on different sections of the population who think that the only thing that matters is to keep out of war, and therefore that all this talk of rearmament is nonsense and should not be encouraged. It seems to me the fundamental cause of the difficulties in which we stand.
I am not going to say much as to this Anglo-Italian Agreement. It seems to me to be excellent in parts, like the

155
curate's egg, but the parts which an excellent are unimportant and relatively small matters confirming Agreements already made. The two big things are the abandonment of Spain and the abandonment of Abyssinia. I will not say very much about the abandonment of Abyssinia, because the right reverend Prelate has said it much better than I can, but I do very respectfully protest against my noble friend's defence of it at Geneva. He said:
"Those who seek to establish a better world upon the basis of universal acknowledgment of League principles are clearly right to feel reluctance to countenance action, however desirable on other grounds, by which they may appear to be infringed. But when, as here, two ideals are in conflict—on the one hand the ideal of devotion, unflinching but unpractical, to some high purpose; on the other, the ideal of a practical victory for peace—I cannot doubt that the stronger claim is that of peace."
And then my noble friend went on to certain considerations of a more general character.
I do not suppose that anyone will deny that occasions may arise when you have these conflicts—I would not say a conflict between principle and practical expediency, but between two principles; but as it is put by my noble friend it seems to me an exceedingly dangerous doctrine. It is the old doctrine of every tyrannical Government. I am sure no one would dislike a tyrannical Government more than my noble friend. Necessity—the tyrant's plea—raison d'être—always the same thing; but in order to obtain a great practical advantage we are going to do a minor injustice. It is a very dangerous doctrine. I will not say it has never been adopted, but I will say that it is a most dangerous doctrine on which to base your policy, and in this case, if my noble friend will forgive me, I think he has wholly misunderstood the real thing which makes some of us feel so bitterly on this question. It is not a doctrinaire adherance to League principles, though I entirely agree with all the right reverend Prelate said about that. That is not the point. The point is that we have made certain promises to the Abyssinians and the Abyssinian Government—the fact that some of them were given under the Covenant does not make them less promises—perfectly clear promises that we will respect and preserve the territorial
156
integrity and political independence of their country.
We broke those promises against my earnest protests. We broke those promises when we abandoned the attempt to coerce the Italians into abandoning the invasion; but that is no reason for breaking them again. It comes back to a question of fact. As I understand the Government's case, they say the conquest is complete. They say: "We are not failing to respect an integrity or an independence because it does not exist." Surely if that is the case one ought to be extremely clear and certain about the facts. Here is the Emperor, with a great mass of apparent facts at his back. He says that in large parts of this country there is no such conquest, that no such conquest has taken place. He declares that in enormous sections of this enormous territory no Italians exist at all, that they exist only in relatively few towns, and that from those towns they have a power of controlling only a very restricted area. What has been said to me by others certainly bears out that on the face of it, and they are in a position to confirm those views.
I think my right reverend friend alluded, or somebody did, to the principles of International Law whereby, when you come to recognise a new Government over a territory which it did not have before, two things have usually been thought essential. In the first place, that the conquest of that territory has been complete, and, secondly, that it has lasted a sufficient time to make it tolerably certain that its conquest is going to be permanent. I see no evidence that either one or other of those conditions has been fulfilled in this case. That would not matter so very much if it was only a question of the ordinary practice of International Law, but it does surely emphasize tremendously the kind of duty that we owe to these unhappy people who were encouraged to fight the Italians by our assistance, and I am assured—my noble friend will tell me if I am wrong—that on more than one occasion the Government of the Emperor asked whether it should do this, that, or the other, and was told to rely upon the defence of the League of Nations. It is this kind of facts that make it so bitter to us to have to see that these solemn undertakings given by our Government

157
are going to be ignored because that is in the interest of peace and in the interest of the safety of this country.
We are going to mike conditions about the withdrawal of troops from Libya, and about the re-affirmation of Agreements with regard to Lake Tsana, and we are to receive various advantages for our safety. In return for these, and on this doctrine of appeasement, about which I will say a word in a moment, we are going to abandon those who have trusted to our word. That is the thing. It is not, I beg your Lordships to believe, a mere doctrinaire adherence to the principles of the League. It is much more than that in this particular case. I quite agree that if and when the conquest of this country is really complete, when it has really been established, when a new Government has really been set up, and when there is no substantial effort to fight still for their independence, then it might be legitimate to change our attitude; but until that happens I feel very strongly that we ought to have stuck to our friends, even at some risk to ourselves.
I have already said what I have to say about Spain, and I need not repeat it. I can only say that in that case, too, I think it unfortunate that we have apparently abandoned those whom we have continually begged to confine their efforts to their own exertions and not to rely on foreign assistance. Now in regard to this Agreement with Italy, apparently we are not going to insist any longer on the old doctrines of nonintervention; all we are going to say is that at the conclusion of the war the Italians and other troops must be withdrawn. I feel that policy to be objectionable not only on the grounds I have put forward, but on one other ground. The conditions it seems to me are exceedingly unlikely to be fulfilled. Just look at what the situation is. Look at the situation in Italy. Everyone to whom I have spoken assures me that the Spanish expedition is profoundly unpopular in Italy, and bitterly resented by a very large number of the people of Italy. All you are going to ask the Ruler of Italy to say at the end is: "I am going to withdraw all my troops; I am going to take no advantage at all from this operation; I shall have the satisfaction of having prevented the establishment of a Left Government in Spain, but
158
beyond that I want nothing. I am not going to occupy any territory, I am not going to ask for any special economic advantages, I am just going to make this wonderful gesture of self-renunciation." It may happen, because all sorts of extraordinary things are happening in the world, but I think if that does happen it will be among the most extraordinary of the incidents that have taken place.
That is the case which, it seems to me, may fairly be made against the Government's foreign policy. They have arrived at a conclusion. They are actively pursuing a policy of rearmament. I do not doubt that it is right, but it is a policy which they themselves are continually, I am sure, discovering to be a disastrous policy, a waste of money, a policy which they hate, and they have taken steps which, whatever they may have desired, have in fact resulted in the serious, I hope not fatal, injury to the League of Nations, which they are never tired of saying they believe in. They say they regard it as the ideal arrangement of international affairs, but unfortunately incapable of being operated at the present time. It is a melancholy conclusion of seven years of the National Government.
May I just in conclusion, in a very few words, so as not to leave myself open to the reproach that I have put forward no alternative, suggest the kind of policy which I think might possibly be carried out? Of course I am not in office, and if I were I should probably be incapable of doing anything. In Czechoslovakia we are not yet too late. I hope that Mr. Winston Churchill was right in what he said in the very remarkable speech he made on Monday at Bristol, and that there is a good prospect of the situation there being settled by agreement. I am quite sure that that settlement will simply be due to the fact that those who are threatening Czechoslovakia are afraid that they may have gone too far and will not carry that threat to the utmost. I beg the Government, as I have done on more than one occasion, to make their attitude to Czechoslovakia abundantly clear. There are many diplomatic phrases which could be used. They could say that they would regard an attack on Czechoslovakia as an unfriendly act, or something of that kind.

159
Then there is China. I have always said that the position there, particularly after our failure in Manchuria, was extremely difficult. Still it does seem to me that something might be done, and I recognise that the resolution accepted at Geneva is an advance on the previous resolution—but not much of an advance. I very respectfully urge that there too we should give what we are perfectly entitled to give, active support to China in her effort to defeat this attack upon her independence.
As for Spain, I assent to the view that the best thing to do now is to allow all arms to be imported, as we are evidently unable to prevent arms going to that country from certain countries. I do not pretend that I think that a satisfactory policy, but I must say—and I want to say it because I am afraid I have been very critical of the Government—how warmly I welcome the phrase my noble friend used about the possibility of mediation between the parties in Spain, and his suggestion that possibly the League might be brought in to help in that mediation. I do very earnestly hope that that will not be dropped and that the Government will make that an integral part of their policy and press it whenever they get the chance. I am quite sure there can be no real solution of the Spanish difficulty except peace in that unhappy peninsula.
As to Abyssinia, I should like, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd said, to see whether something cannot be done to make it possible for the Emperor honourably to go back to Abyssinia as Ruler over some parts of his own tribal section of that country. As to that I do not know. In the meantime I should certainly not do anything which would encourage and assist the completion of the Italian conquest in that country.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, in reference to the concluding part of the noble Viscount's speech I should like, from the opposite point of view, to express the strong hope that the Government will not go one inch further in support of Czechoslovakia than they have already gone. The noble Viscount lives in a world of his own, as I have said before and say again. It is, in my view, remote from reality. The noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said in this House that it was quite clear that
160
no British Government could take this country into war again unless there was an overwhelming majority of the British people in favour of that war and unless the Empire as well was in favour of that war. I think it is as certain as anything can be that you would never get those two conditions satisfied for a war on behalf of Czechoslovakia. The Prime Minister said in his careful speech when dealing with this matter that any further step really removes control of foreign policy from this country and puts it into other hands. That is an extremely dangerous thing to do.
The speeches of the noble Viscount and of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Durham both require certain comments in the course of this debate. I am sorry that owing to shortage of time I can only say a few words about them, but I feel it my duty to say this. Whereas I hold no brief for the Government I think both those speeches were very unfair to the Government and very unfair to the Foreign Secretary. With the exception of one half-hearted qualification of a few words at one point in the noble Viscount's speech, both speeches would give anybody who does not know the facts to understand that it was the British Government who were responsible for the present position of the League, of Abyssinia, and so forth. That is quite opposite to the facts. In my humble view the Government went very much further than they should have done in the League to try to help Abyssinia. Sir Samuel Hoare pointed out in his resignation speech—I heard it myself—that we were the only country who had done anything active, the only country who had moved a gun or a ship, to fulfil our obligations under the Covenant. And when it came to sanctions it is well known that it was France who would not go further.
The British Government is only one Government in the League. We are told again and again—I come to that now because it was really the main purport of the speeches of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Viscount and also of the noble Lord who moved this Motion—that we must go back to the League. It is always back to the League. I am sick and tired of pointing out that there is no League to go back to in the ordinary sense. It does not exist any longer. If the noble Viscount would only face the

161
facts he would know that for practical purposes the League only consists of Great Britain and France at the present time.
The right reverend Prelate in a speech which horrified me not only envisaged, but I think almost seemed to regard as inevitable, another war in Europe—a League war, between, I suppose, Britain and France and Russia, if Russia is to be counted a democratic Power, and Germany and Italy and possibly Japan, if Japan has any fighting power left. That is what is envisaged and that is what we have been brought to by the League. We are warned that we are following the policy which led to 1914, but you are there now and the League has brought it about. It is a tragedy that the League has brought into being that very balance of power which it was designed to prevent. But suppose the right reverend Prelate is right, and suppose that war came, is it conceivable that out of that war there could possibly come any settlement, that it could possibly result in peace and good will and the establishment of the rule of law? If there were sufficient civilisation left at the end of that war to make another treaty it would only be another Treaty of Versailles, or probably worse. You would not get anything approaching a fair treaty. But as a matter of fact, as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has told us, a war like that would be the end of civilisation. He said it would mean in all probability complete barbarous anarchy from one end of Europe to another. As against that prospect I prefer the policy of the Government. The Government see that they have responsibilities. The noble Viscount said rather scornfully that the Government's only claim was that they had kept us out of war. It is the duty of any Government to keep out of war, and so long as it does that it will deserve well of the people.
Much of the debate has centred round the Italian Agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, who opened the debate, was eloquent about the sacrifice of Abyssinian independence, and many of the critics of the Government, both in his Party and the Liberal Party, condemn any condonation, apparently, of the sacrifice of Abyssinian independence. Like everybody else, I am not defending the conquest of Abyssinia; but neither am I defending the means by which our country and France obtained many parts
162
of their Empires. When the noble Lord, Lord Snell, and his friends—whatever he may say, they do this—put themselves on what I may call a peak of righteousness in this matter, I must remind them of the words, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone." Let us look at the facts, let us face the facts. Do not let the dictates of the heart blur our historical sense. Let me remind your Lordships first of all of the letter by Professor Trevelyan in The Times last month dealing with this very matter. Speaking of Great Britain, our own country, he says this:
"If we have no single thing as bad as Abyssinia to our book, we have over a long period of time effected the violent seizure of an enormous portion of the globe, and we participated in the most unwise forfeiture of all Germany's Colonies in 1919, an act without parallel in any previous terms with a beaten enemy."
My Lords, those are the words of a man who speaks with unrivalled authority on these matters, and they ought to be pondered by those who say, as some say, that this Italian conquest must not, apparently, in any circumstances be condoned.
If that is to be so, why are all our conquests to be condoned? Have we got to go into the past? Have we, for instance, even to envisage the handing back of the Transvaal to the Boers? The Boer War was condemned by the united opinion of Europe, and if there had been a League of Nations then, I have no doubt that it would have been condemned by the League at that time. You may say that that was a long time ago. True, but where does that kind of defence bring you? Is there to be a time limit in these matters, and if so, what is it? In what year, on that principle, for instance, would the conquest of Abyssinia become moral? Let me put it in another way: at what stage does the conquest of a native territory become the white man's burden? These are the questions which have to be faced, and it is really no good to say that everything ought to be different now because we have a League of Nations. As Professor Trevelyan said in his letter:
"It was hoping too much to expect that all nations would suddenly begin behaving well."
Of course Italy's breach of the Covenant was wrong and censurable. I will not vie with the noble Lord and other noble

163
Lords in the use of adjectives in condemning Italy, though I should be quite willing to do so if time allowed. Nevertheless, it is only right to point out that Italy is not the only Power who has broken the Covenant or other engagements. Certainly not.
I will give one or two instances. Article 8 of the Covenant has never been kept. It was never kept by the Allies in the sense in which it was intended. Germany was disarmed on the understanding that there should be a very large measure of disarmament, and the Council was to formulate plans for such reduction. That has never been done; never. Again, when we come to the Locarno Treaty, under the Protocol of that Treaty there was a solemn undertaking. The Powers concerned said that they would give their sincere co-operation to this work of disarmament. That was not done. France did not take the smallest notice of it, not the slightest notice. She went on rearming as fast as she could and to a greater extent than she could afford. If we are to go into these matters, I must remind your Lordships that the invasion of the Ruhr by France was not only a breach of the Covenant but also a breach of the Treaty of Versailles. It was a shocking thing. Is France therefore to be ostracised? Are we to say that we are never to have anything more to do with France, and that she is a country which is not fit to talk to? Lastly, as Professor Trevelyan points out in his letter to The Times, we participated in this forfeiture of all the German Colonies although the Armistice was concluded on the basis of President Wilson's points, No. 5 of which said that there was to be a free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all Colonial claims. Whatever else those words might mean, they could not possibly mean that all her Colonies were to be taken away from Germany. If we were in Germany's position now we should feel, as she does, that we had been very wrongly treated.
If it is said that these instances are not altogether on all fours with what Italy has done, with her breach of the Covenant, I say that there is not sufficient difference between them and what Italy did to entitle us to take up a position of great moral superiority in regard to Italy. If these happenings of which I have been speaking have not the same degree of
164
moral obliquity as Italy's deeds, or misdeeds, the difference is not sufficient to justify us in putting on a cloak of very superior virtue. The difference is certainly not sufficient to entitle us to lecture Italy and lecture Germany about what they should do and what they should not do. We have had that attitude exemplified, I am sorry to say, this afternoon in some speeches which have caused me the greatest pain. One of the most serious obstacles to a European settlement is the offensive and provocative language used by many people in this country, and by some noble Lords in this House, of foreign nations of whose government they do not approve.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: An offence which you would never commit.
LORD ARNOLD: I should like in this connection to read to the House one of the principles of foreign policy laid down by Mr. Gladstone. He said this:
"You may sympathise with one nation more than another. You must sympathise in certain circumstances with one nation more than another. You sympathise most with those nations, as a rule, with which you have the nearest connection in language, in blood, in religion or other circumstances which at the time seem to give the strongest claims to sympathy. But in point of right all are equal, and you have no right to set up a system under which one is to be placed under moral suspicion or espionage, or made the constant subject of invective. If you do that, and especially if you claim for yourself a pharisaical superiority, then I say you may talk about your patriotism as you please, but you are a most misjudging friend of your country. You are, in reality, inflicting serious injury upon it."
Those are Mr. Gladstone's words. It is quite true, I agree, that later on, actuated by religious passion, he did not altogether live up to the principles he had laid down. But there they are, and I commend them to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who opened the debate, and to other noble Lords.
Time presses. I want to pass on to say one word about the particular verbiage of the Motion of the noble Lord. I would point out that he himself, as regards Abyssinia, is prepared to recognise the conquest on terms. He does not regard it as immutably immoral; not at all. What he complains of is that the sacrifice of Abyssinian independence does not, in his view, bring corresponding gains to the

165
cause of peace and democracy. So, according to his Motion, there is no question of a refusal to recognise Abyssinian independence. It is merely a question of terms. It becomes a matter of debit and credit. That really is the position of the Government as I understand it. It is a question of terms with them. They do not like the conquest of Abyssinia. They have condemned it, and, I should have thought, in sufficiently strong language, and made their position quite clear. In fact, they incurred considerable risks in trying to stop it from taking place. But they are prepared, as the Prime Minister said, in certain circumstances to recognise the conquest as part of a general appeasement. That is the position. It must be recognised in this matter that there is no perfect policy—there is no hundred per cent, policy. There are objections to every course. I know that that is what Lord Snell would call shallow casuistry. I think it is facing facts in the only way statesmen can face them. Statesmanship is the art of what is possible, and I say that the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, has throughout had to work within the limits of that maxim, and he has in my view, in all the circumstances, done his work well.
Just a word about the matter of non-intervention in Spain. It is surely clear that if that policy had been abandoned there would have been grave risk of this country becoming involved in a general European war. Let me put one question to Lord Snell. He referred to the Germans in Spain, and to the Italians in Spain, but I did not hear him say a single word about the Russians in Spain.
LORD SNELL: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. To the best of my belief I mentioned neither Italians nor Germans, and certainly not Germans.
LORD ARNOLD: We shall see the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. Certainly the noble Lord did not mention the Russians, and when we are discussing serious affairs does he think it right to put the question in that way? There are several other European countries in which civil war might break out. Are we in each case, when that happens, to become active partisans—probably we should have to come to that later on—of the supposed democracies? Does the noble Lord mean that? Is it not perfectly clear that any such course would be fraught with the
166
utmost danger to European peace, and very perilous for this country. What we can do is this. We can keep this country out of war—if we do not follow the policy of Lord Snell. We can maintain democracy in this country, if we keep it out of war. If we keep out of war democracy is safe. I do not think there will be much dispute about that, and therefore again, in contradistinction to the noble Viscount, I hold that it is the primary and overwhelming duty of British statesmen to keep this country out of war.
The Prime Minister in a recent speech said that if the time should ever come when it is the duty of a British Government again to plunge this country into war, those responsible for that decision must feel that they had done everything possible to avoid war—or words to that effect. Could any Government say honestly that it had done everything possible to avoid war if it had abandoned the policy of non-intervention in Spain? Could any Government say that it had done everything possible to avoid war if it had rejected the overtures made by the Italian Government to enter into negotiations?—negotiations which have now happily ended in this Agreement. Whatever may be said, it has enormously relieved the tension in Europe, and improved the international situation. These are very great services both to peace and democracy, and I find it hard to believe that any Government charged with the appalling responsibility of these days would have rejected the Italian overtures, just as I find it very difficult to believe that the Labour Party, if in office, would carry out the policy which it advocates in opposition.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: My Lords, I am sure I shall have the sympathy of all your Lordships in having to rise and speak at this particular hour, when I am sure every member of this House must be longing for non-intervention in this debate, in order that your Lordships may depart elsewhere. None the less I do think it is, perhaps, of some value that one of those who have been associated with the peace movement of this country for nearly thirty years, should venture in this debate to offer support to the Government in the policy which they are at present pursuing. I feel it would be a profound mistake for

167
it to be supposed that the peace movement of this country is united in opposition to the Government at this moment, and I myself would like to pay my tribute to the courage of the Prime Minister in having initiated a policy of appeasement at this difficult time in the history of Europe. I feel that particularly because the Prime Minister is compelled, as indeed is the Foreign Secretary, to lay himself open to the accusations which have been made in this House to-day of having betrayed the principles of morality for the sake of political expediency.
I listened to the very remarkable speech of the Bishop of Durham—I only wish I had the capacity for making speeches so notable and brilliant—but so far as its sentiments were concerned, far from them moving me deeply they horrified me. I wonder how often in history we have had these appeals made to high standards of morality in international affairs, the only consequence of which was to plunge men into war, sometimes, as at present, at moments when they were ill-equipped for that war. If I may say so, it is these pleadings for righteousness which have sometimes been the prelude to the most terrible catastrophies.
If I may, in the few moments which I have at my disposal, I will just put the position as I see it at this time. The problem, to-day, which is concerning us in this House, and which is in fact concerning the Government, is a practical problem. I speak as a devoted adherent of the League of Nations. I see no reason to modify my faith in the League. I believe it is the only method by which the safety of this country can be sustained, and the peace of the world can be promoted. I profoundly regret the situation in which we find ourselves now. I do not believe that had opportunities been seized at the right moment and courage and faith displayed when they could have been fruitful, that the present disastrous situation need have occurred. But the present is the present, and I cannot see what value there is, in this difficult position—not even for those of us who believe in the League—in dwelling all the time on the mistakes of the past. We have now an immediate problem to face, and, as I conceive it, it would be disastrous for the cause of peace and disastrous
168
to the League, about which I care, if we attempted in the present circumstances to apply the League of Nations rigidly and inflexibly. It seems to me that the need of the moment is for a transitional policy, a transitional policy capable of achieving two objects. The first object is to meet the immediate danger. The second object is to reconstruct the League system itself. And that transitional policy is, so far as I understand it, the policy which the Government in the present period of danger is trying to pursue.
Now what are the practical problems that surely must be in the mind of the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary, and in the mind of the Government as it attempts to apply that policy now? May I just mention what those problems would seem to me to be? The first problem, of over-riding importance, is the problem of armed power. If you are going to sustain law you must be able to sustain it with victory. And we are confronted in this country, as we are confronted in all the countries still loyal to the League, with a question-mark so far as armaments are concerned. We are called upon to-day to clarify our commitments so as to avoid the mistake that we made in the year 1914. In the year 1914 there was no question-mark of aviation hanging over the policies of Europe. To-day you have a new invention, with incalculable new problems arising from that invention, and His Majesty's Government, as it looks out over the present position, trying to devise a transitional policy, cannot disregard the state of armaments, both of this country and of the Powers that are loyal to the League. I have no doubt whatever that if a test were to come the Powers that are loyal to the League and believe in peaceful procedure would win that war. Dictators may be those who start wars. Democracies are those who win wars. And I have no doubt, despite all the difficulties, that in an armed world, even as it is to-day, victory could be won. But what I do feel uncertain about is whether the state of armaments at the present moment is sufficient to enable us to deter the aggressor and prevent aggression, even if we can win the victory, as I believe we can. And it is that problem which seems to me the first problem which His Majesty's Government has to face.

169
The second problem is allied to it—the depleted membership of the League of Nations. That problem is intimately associated with the first I have mentioned, the question of armaments. The third problem arises from the position of Russia, and I do crave your Lordships' permission to say one word with regard to Russia in connection with this transitional policy. Is Russia politically reliable? And is she reliable so far as armed equipment is concerned? I for my part desire that this country should promote the closest and friendliest relationships with Russia. I detest her internal régime, as I deplore the internal régime of Germany and Italy, but I desire that there should be friendly co-operation with all those nations, irrespective of their internal régime. But the difficulty with regard to Russia is a unique difficulty when it comes to the problem of reliability. Russia not only co-operates round the League table as a, foreign Power working with other sovereign Powers, but simultaneously with that she is developing the technique across frontiers of revolutionary activity, which is disturbing to the peace of the nations with which she should be co-operating.
I can speak with first-hand knowledge of this subject, because it was my duty to go to Russia in 1920 as an emissary from the Labour movement, in order to discuss with Lenin personally the actual intentions of Russia, so far as the Comintern and the Third International were concerned. It may be argued that Russia has to-day ceased from a belief in the carrying on of external revolutionary activity. I hope that is the case. If it is, there is one easy way to prove it—Russia should now close down her Comintern, now that she has become a Member of the League of Nations. It may be true that there has been a most illegitimate intervention in Spain by the Fascist Powers, but no one can deny that in terms of chronology the technique of intervention across frontiers began with Russia, and with no other Power in Europe. And I do believe that it would add enormously to the value of international co-operation if Russia, with whom we desire to be friendly, would terminate this particular form of activity.
The last of the immediate problems, which seems to me a practical one, that
170
must be confronting His Majesty's Government as they devise this policy, is the fact that at the moment they are called upon to protect the law the moral foundations of that law are not what we would all desire. The moral unsatisfactoriness of the law which we are called upon to protect arises from the failure of the League to develop within its institutions efforts to promote economic co-operation and to bring about a greater degree of equality of fortune between the nations that are co-operating round the League table. If we were in those circumstances to be called upon now to use the League rigidly, with that problem of armaments in our mind, with the unreliability of Russia in our mind, with the depleted membership of the League-in our mind, and with this question of the moral unsatisfactoriness of the foundations of the law we are called upon to protect in our mind, to use the League rigidly would not prevent aggression; it might easily provoke catastrophe. I have put that position as frankly as I can.
What therefore does the Government say? The Government say: "We intend to pursue a policy which begins with strength, proceeds through prudence, and terminates with conciliation." Strength, prudence, conciliation: prudence because it may be that we are passing through a temporary phase in European history, when evil tempers have been aroused, when legitimate grievances have become illegitimate ambitions, and when, if we can keep the peace through strength and conciliation for a period of time, those tempers may lower and that danger may pass.
It is for these reasons that I support the Italian Agreement. I remain unmoved by appeals principally founded upon an appeal to morality. If we are to make peace with the nations who either have grievances or have committed misdeeds we must make a new start, and you cannot begin to promote a new peace arrangement if your starting point is going to be the last angry debating squabble you had in the previous week. The time may come when you must cut right across all that dialectical wrangling and arguing, and see if you cannot make a new start. If you first say that every misdeed in Europe must be put right before you can start on a new road to appeasement, you will

171
never begin. It would mean calling upon Germany to evacuate Austria. I would say that the facts have become deplorable, that we have failed in our honourable obligations to Abyssinia, but to-day I do not count it to be a craven slogan to win peace, to start a new process of conciliation, and to keep out of war. It may well be that to keep out of a war at a moment when evil tempers have been aroused which can be assuaged, even if you have to pay a bitter price for it, will in the end be something which history will record as a notable event in the progress of the world.
There is only one other thing I would like to say. It is true that in the course of appeasement by the means I have outlined we are lowering the flag of morality between nations. I cannot see how we can deny it. It may be that all our efforts will fail, and then, having lowered the flag of morality, we shall find the capacity of this country to act diminished because its prestige will have been tarnished. It will then be said that we bought the peace of Europe, not by something which was our property, but by paying the price in somebody else's land—the black races of Abyssinia. I believe we could diminish the dangers of that possible evil if we would at this moment take the initiative as a British Commonwealth with regard to the administration of non-self-governing areas of tropical Africa where we ourselves are responsible. I do plead with the noble Viscount, whose difficulties I have tried to understand and for whose efforts at Geneva I have had the deepest admiration. Is there not possibly something which this nation could do before the eyes of the world with regard to the native races of Africa which would prove our bona fides even at a moment when we are having to accept a fact which we deplore? I think there is.
If we could offer with other Colonial Powers to extend international trusteeship in certain of the African tropical areas, in non-self-governing territories, we could prove that we were doing something in a sphere where our own property and our own interests were concerned, and by doing it there we might perhaps prove our bona fides at a time when these bona fides are doubted. That is a highly difficult subject and a highly complicated one. The last debate that took place in
172
your Lordships' House on the development of Colonies produced, as I think, from the Government Bench a far from satisfactory reply. If now, faced by this difficult transitional problem, including, as it must include, a deep concern for backward races, we could alter British policy with regard to international trusteeship in connection with our own Commonwealth, I believe it would be to the benefit of the whole world and of our own power for peace in the future. This policy which the Government is pursuing may fail. I, personally, believe it will succeed; but if it should fail, by having proved our longing to heal the wounds of the past, and to make peace even at a moment of danger so grave as this, we shall have mobilised the good will of public opinion in America, public opinion even inside the dictator States, and, above all, public opinion in our own country. For these reasons I, for one, despite my sorrow at the situation which I see, beg to offer my support to His Majesty's Government at the present moment.
LORD STONEHAVEN: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us the luxury of the usual thoughtful speech we are accustomed to hear from him. There was only one point towards the end of his speech with regard to which I hoped he would have given some more explanation. Without doubt, if the co-operation of America could be secured, it would be the greatest thing for the promotion of peace, and that undoubtedly was the intention of the framers of the original League of Nations. It is the lack of the co-operation of America that has prevented the machine from working, so far as I can see. When the noble Lord refers to the possibility of securing the moral support of America, I am afraid we want a good deal more than that. What we want is to be sure, for example, in a case such as occurred in Manchuria, not only that we should collaborate with America in making speeches and passing resolutions, but, if it became necessary, should use our Fleet with the American Fleet. Until America faces up to that reality, I am afraid that we are liable to have great disappointments as we have had over the League.
I frankly have never believed in the League, and as an ex-diplomatist I do not believe in the League because it is based on wrong principles. The present

173
Minister of Agriculture used a very wise phrase in another place a short time ago when he said that he had always thought foreign affairs would be a simple matter if it were not for the foreigner. It seems to me that the whole of this League idea is based on an Anglo-Saxon outlook on life in general. My noble friend Lord Cecil is no longer here, and perhaps it is just as well, because I am afraid that what I am going to say would have pained him considerably; but if you come to think of it the authors of the League were distinguished English and American politicians, lawyers, and professors, and foreigners had little or nothing to do with it. If America had joined in, and the League had functioned as intended, you might possibly have had for a short time—I do not think the world would have tolerated it for long—a predominant Anglo-Saxon combination keeping the peace in general.
Although the present League contains fifty-eight nations, and comprises rather over 75 per cent, of the population of the world, the failure that has to be recorded in every Continent in the world does seem to indicate that the principle is wrong, that the plan is wrong, and what I have failed to understand is what reason those who advocate the rebuilding of the League can advance to justify the idea that a rebuilt League will be any less a failure than the League we have been suffering from for so many years. It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Cecil made a determined attempt to secure the best of both worlds. He said that we were at present living in a world controlled by the League and at the same time that the world had never been so uncomfortable or so unsafe. That does not seem to me to be much of a tribute to the system which he advocates. Then as to the accusation that we in Great Britain have not supported the League, we must remember that we have exactly one-fifty-eighth responsibility for the successes and failures of the League. I must say that I felt as much indignation as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham did, but from the exactly opposite direction, when he kept on saying how we have let down Abyssinia, how we have done this and we have done that. That to my mind is one of the great defects of the League, when it comes to the question of upholding the moral standard—
174
and it would be a bad day if we ceased to do that.
Under the League system we are not master in our own house. We only have a joint responsibility for the moral standard of the world, and I agree with the noble Lord profoundly that in regard to black nations in particular it is a deplorable thing that we should have had to go through the experience my noble friend went through at Geneva the other day. But so far from finding it a heart-rending affair, as the right reverend Prelate did, that the League has failed to work, I am disposed to put up a prayer of thankfulness that the fallacies of the League have at last become apparent, and that we shall no longer have to face the world with that millstone round our neck. What is the League? It is talked about as a great idea. Well it is a dangerous matter when an idea is suddenly converted into an ideal. After all, it was an idea that occurred to a certain number of perfectly ordinary individuals who were collected at Versailles with the object of making peace, and a very bad job they made of that. What justification is there for attaching or attributing almost divine inspiration and origin to a particular part of a Treaty which is singularly rich in foolish provisions?
And I think personally that the League of Nations organisation is perhaps the most foolish part of many of those foolish provisions, for the reason that the League of Nations refuses to accept realities. It starts off with a rather ambitious idea of laying down a new world order. What justification is there for saying you can impose a new world order unless you have the force to prevent people kicking over the traces who do not like that world order? We have not that force. We are being driven away from the old principle of living well with our neighbour. Why should that be so? Why, the world has been carried on with very few wars all through history, certainly during the last century, by means other than those of utilising the machinery of the League. And what is the machinery of the League? The machinery of the League, I suggest, is a cosmopolitan committee of politicians and lawyers who go to Geneva and wrangle instead of leaving the affairs of the world to be dealt with by trained diplomatists whose business it is not to wrangle but to keep their countries out of

175
wrangling. You may go on with a system such as the League, but you cannot get away from the fact that politicians and lawyers are the last people who ought to put their fingers into foreign affairs. They are not trained for the purpose. They do not know each other's language. They have to speak to each other through interpreters. The whole thing is a system which no sane man would attempt to employ in his business. If he did he would be "broke" in no time.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, feels very strongly in favour of the League. If he were here I would assure him that I feel just as strongly that the League is a great disaster, and that until we can face up to that fact we are not going to get out of the difficulties of the country. Foreigners do not admire us for having created what we call a great ideal, and foreigners have some justification. They take the view that, having acquired the greatest Empire in the world, the greatest collection of territory and people that has ever been seen in the world, entirely by war—there is not one part of the Empire that we have not got by war—we then say: "War must be abolished," and we expect the rest of the world to acquiesce in that view and with the League of Nations, which could only work if all were disarmed. We have the further advantage that we have achieved security and a large Empire without having to take out a reasonable insurance policy. This is a place where everybody speaks his mind very freely. It is probably the only place in the world where that is done, and I am glad of the opportunity of putting the opposite point of view to the one put by my noble friend Lord Cecil.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, early in his speech complained that no representative of the Government had spoken at an earlier period in order that your Lordships might know what the policy of the Government was. Well, for my part I believe the foreign policy of the Government is based upon one ideal only, and that is the achievement of a universal, satisfactory and lasting peace. I believe that the great majority of the people of this country firmly support the Government's foreign policy as it is to-day. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, seemed to
176
me positively annoyed that our foreign policy had not run us into war. There is no one so dangerous as the professional pacifist, nor indeed so bloodthirsty.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who I regret is not in his place, seems to have such a hatred for the totalitarian forms of government that he is convinced that not only must we have war with those Governments sooner or later but that the sooner the better. The right reverend Prelate's attitude is, I think, well summed up by lines written by one of our greatest satirists several centuries ago:
"Such as do build their faith upon
The holy text of pike and gun;
Decide all controversies by
Infallible artillery;
And prove their doctrine orthodox,
By Apostolic blows and knocks."
This doctrine, I suggest, is a doctrine of despair. It seems to postulate that war is inevitable and that therefore we may as well have it over and done with as soon as possible. And indeed the gloomy attitude of the right reverend Prelate was only a reflection of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in moving his Motion. Having, I presume to his own satisfaction, castigated the Government for their iniquitous policy, he proceeded to produce as an alternative only a reaffirmation of and return to the principles of collective security and the League of Nations. No more idle phantasmagoria could be dangled before your Lordships at the present time. If there is one thing that is quite certain it is that whatever may or may not become of the League of Nations in the future, at the present time and for a considerable number of years it is not going to be in a position to put collective security into operation, even if it were ever again decided that it were desirable to do so.
Various speakers have blamed this country for not supporting the principles of the League of Nations. They should be reminded, as they have already been by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in one of those cold douches of common sense which he fortunately often pours over his former colleagues, that only this country took any steps to make sanctions effective, and that we abandoned sanctions only when it became too evident that we were not going to get any support at all from the fifty-one or fifty-two nations who had agreed with us to put sanctions

177
into operation. In those circumstances, I feel that to day's debate, so far as the attack on the Government is concerned, has an air of complete unreality. There is nothing whatever in the attack that is capable of refutation because the attack is not a genuine one. One feels that the Socialist Party has come to the conclusion that the Government's foreign policy must be attacked and therefore attacked if should be, no matter how inefficient the arguments they found at their disposal.
Now I will turn for a moment to the two main points upon which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, based his Motion. The first is the Agreement which we have now happily come to with Italy, and here, although much has been said against that Agreement and a great deal for it, there is one point which has not been mentioned which I think is well worth consideration. That point is that had we found it impossible to come to an arrangement of some sort with Italy we should have been again in the position in which we were at the time when the sanctions crisis was at its worst. We should have been faced with the possibility of a coalition, express or implied, of the three totalitarian Powers which would have meant that, for the first time I think in our history, we should have been faced with the possibility of having to undertake naval action on three widely separated fronts, the North Sea, the Mediterranean and Eastern waters. It is quite obvious that our position in that case would have been utterly desperate.
That is not the worst of it. We come now to a point which possibly is like King Charles's head in politics, and that is the feeding of the people in this country. As your Lordships know, it is certain that for all time we have got to import the majority of the foodstuffs we consume. We can only do so by keeping our trade routes open and in the event of a simultaneous quarrel with all three totalitarian Powers it would be possible for them to detach, without weakening themselves to any noticeable extent, sufficient submarines to interfere with our food supply to an extent that would make the position of the civilian population and of the troops at home practically impossible. Even if it were possible to double the Naval Estimates and keep them doubled for some years we should never be in a position in which we could cope with submarine attacks upon our
178
food ships and at the same time engage enemy fleets in three different parts of the world. Realism must be faced at this moment, and it is only a realistic view which can save us, because if we are led away by sentimentality and high morality at such a time we shall be faced with a situation not merely desperate but one which might well be described as hopeless.
On the question of Spain a great deal has been said about the intervention of Italian troops. Some people have tried to make out that Italian troops constitute a very large portion of the insurgent armies. As the highest estimate even in quarters bitterly hostile to General Franco has put the number of foreign troops at no more than 150,000, and as the total of the forces under General Franco is put at some 750,000, it is obvious that even if that estimate is correct only twenty per cent, of the insurgent forces would be foreigners. As a matter of fact, more reliable information puts the proportion at nearer five per cent. At the same time it must be borne in mind that intervention, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, came in the first place not from Italy or Germany but from Russia. It was Russia that fomented the revolution in Spain in 1931. The Russian Ambassador in Spain was a member of the war council in the Spanish Government in the early stages of the war. The international brigades tens of thousands strong were defending Madrid long before the first Italian soldier set foot in Spain. In these circumstances to speak, as some noble Lords have done, as if the blame was entirely on Italy, seems to me hardly correct.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, I have never taken any open part in this dispute, but I confess straight away that I am not very anxious to see the Spanish Government win, because I regard that Government, as has been said already, not as a democratic Government but merely as an offshoot of Moscow. Moscow arranged the revolution and Moscow arranged the terror that has taken place in Spain. It would have suited Moscow very well indeed had intervention continued, because then war of a much more general character would have become a strong probability instead of a mere possibility. What the Comintern is endeavouring to achieve is war throughout Europe. There can be no doubt of that. They regard this country as the final

179
objective because they know that as long as we remain sound universal war is not likely. That is why, according to information from what I believe is a very reliable source, they are at the present time pouring money into this country with the sole object of discrediting the present Government. The sums now lodged in one of the great banks amount, according to my information, to over £1,000,000. This is a very serious matter, and if we are going to achieve that peace of Europe which we would like it will be necessary for Russia, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, to free itself from the tentacles of the Comintern. Until that is done we are not going to get peace, because until that is done the totalitarian States will remain not merely suspicious but actively hostile towards Russia, and no one can blame them.
There seems an unfortunate tendency among some noble Lords and among many people outside this House to regard the totalitarian States as something which can be wiped aside if we feel inclined. But after all they have a population of something like 120,000,000 with whom we have to live in Europe for all time to come. Can it be seriously suggested that we are going to contribute to the appeasement of Europe by giving a thorough thrashing to the totalitarian Powers? I do not think it can, and I do not believe that any sane person thinks so. Certainly the people of this country will not be prepared to go to war for the simple purpose of giving a good hiding to the totalitarians and teaching them a lesson. In a speech which I think he made last year the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said a very trenchant thing. He said that under modern conditions it was useless to go to war unless you had the support of 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of the population. That is certainly true. No war undertaken for the purpose of teaching totalitarianism a lesson, or even for the purpose of protecting Czechoslovakia, would have the approval of 50 per cent, of this country, let alone the 90 per cent, necessary to make the war a success.
The Government's policy has been one of universal appeasement. They have got an Agreement with Italy, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, asks whether you can trust the word of Signor Mussolini and says it ought to be put in writing. If you cannot trust the word of Signor Mussolini
180
you equally cannot trust his signature upon paper. As regards the Spanish situation, I think the Government have handled the matter admirably, and if the Government's policy had been followed in other countries you could have a better atmosphere in Europe to-day. Unfortunately relations between France and Italy are not improving so rapidly as we could desire, largely because of the fact that even since the present French Government came into power a very large quantity of munitions has continued to pour into "Red" Spain from France. There was a possibility, I believe, that if that had not happened we should have had a considerable number of Italian troops repatriated, but that is not going to happen until this steady persistent supply of munitions to the "Red" troops on the part of France is brought to an end.
In all this policy of the Government they have nothing to be ashamed of. Not only this country but the whole of Europe owes them a very deep debt for the efforts they have made. To say that they will be successful is of course much too rash a statement to make at the present time, but there is no reason why they should not be successful. They have far more chance of achieving something permanent and worth while than the extraordinary manœuvres and attacks upon other nations which seem to be the sole stock in trade of the Socialist Party. If the Socialist Party were at this moment entrusted with the control of the destinies of this country, we should be at war, and we should have been at war for a very long time. If they are ever entrusted with the control of our country again and they do not change their minds and their policy, we shall certainly find ourselves at war very soon after they come into office. But as long as the present Government remain and carry out their present policy, so long will conditions in Europe continue to improve, and so long will the Government deserve and enjoy the confidence of the country. Those who now spend a good deal of time sniping the Government are doing a disservice not only to this country but also to the cause of universal peace. I hope that, should a Division be taken tonight, your Lordships will show by an overwhelming majority that you prefer the possibly unspectacular but nevertheless successful policy of the Government

181
to the wild scheme of the Socialist Party, which would inevitably land us in a war, and in a universal war which would probably mean the destruction of civilisation.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, the policy of His Majesty's Government which we are discussing is, I believe, based on appeasement. I should therefore be grateful if the noble Viscount, when he replies, could give us some assurance that we can really look for appeasement in the unhappy country of Abyssinia itself. Can we hope for magnanimity from the great and Christian nation of Italy, both towards the beliefs, very highly prized, of an ancient Church from which they may differ, and towards those who took a leading part in the organisation of national resistance, including political prisoners now in captivity? Regarding the missionary annex to which reference has been made, can we not hope to receive from our Italian friends some measures of reciprocity and facilities similar to those which they receive from the countries under our control?
Again, can we take any steps that may be in our power to see that, through the tragedies of these last months, there may emerge through wisdom and generosity a peace of unity and advancement? I fully recognize that we ourselves have acquired territory by conquest, and I am prepared to admit the need for repentance, both personally and as a nation. We have made many mistakes in the past few years, and it is too late to undo these things, but can we not draw from them fresh determination to lay the foundations of peace and a surer basis of true friendship between nations? I believe that peace can only be founded on some real sacrifice, a sacrifice of ourselves, our own narrow interest and material advantage. I heard a phrase a short time ago, which I will repeat to your Lordships: that in these days of world crisis our policy should be based on "sacrificial giving that will meet the true needs of other nations." No doubt there are nations in the world which are feeling that they hive no opportunity either for expansion or for obtaining the raw materials or the markets that they require, nor have they any opportunity to take their share in the development of the more backward nations of the world.
182
I would urge that we should face these things with full knowledge of the facts and full determination to meet them as far as in us lies.
I would venture to support the suggestion just made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, about meeting these Colonial claims. I believe that by so doing we shall really make a substantial contribution to the peace of the world by removing the causes of war and making it unnecessary as an instrument of policy. Let me again record my appreciation and gratitude of the action which His Majesty's Government have been taking with regard to the minorities in Czechoslovakia. I hope that by that means difficulties which might lead to war may be removed. I believe further that peace is based upon spiritual values. Love and service to God and our fellow-men, and the principle of trusteeship and stewardship to the younger nations of the world: I believe that it is on these principles that we have built up our British Empire in the past. Our task is in the future to give, in the ways I have ventured to suggest, what the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, called for last year and what the nations of the world are looking to us for: that is, spiritual leadership.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I suggest that this might be a convenient moment for the House to adjourn, and that we should meet again at nine o'clock. I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I cannot help expressing my regret that at a moment when unity of support of the National Government would have been so valuable in the impression it would make on the Continent, there should have been so much diversity of opinion expressed in this House. I always have a certain misgiving about debates on foreign affairs in Parliament, because a long residence abroad has shown me how irresponsible utterances get put forward as representing the opinion prevailing in this

183
country, and although this is less likely to happen here, where reserve and moderation prevail, certain things have been said to-day which I am afraid may be very considerably misunderstood on the Continent. I had it in mind to have explained at rather greater length why I whole-heartedly support the Amendment to the Resolution, to-day, but I know there are other noble Lords who are to speak, and I think I must cut my observations very short indeed.
I should have traced past history after the Treaty of Versailles, with which the Covenant was associated, and some of the results to us. I should have referred to what I think were the rather unfortunate results of a series of rebuffs administered to the advances made by Herr Hitler, and finally the time when he proposed a Round-Table Conference and we became, or allowed ourselves to become, the mouthpiece of a somewhat ungracious reply. I think that those who show such great animosity to our former enemy, in various places and in various speeches which I have read, should consider a little more the antecedents and how to some extent there is an explanation for the line which he has taken. It is true that when once a national momentum has received a certain impulse we cannot possibly ignore the consequences. Still, I should like to think that we should not allow preconceptions to prejudice our judgment in particular cases that may arise, and perhaps the one that has most preoccupied general opinion at the present moment is the imminent Czechoslovak question. Well, there I wish to express whole-heartedly my support of the attitude taken by the Prime Minister, and I feel that we are in no way committed towards Czechoslovakia beyond the fact that, as being jointly responsible for the creation of that State, we are bound to use all our influence to secure the postulated equal and equitable treatment of minorities.
The Abyssinian question, which has formed the principal subject of discussion to-day, I have been familiar with since a great many years ago. I do feel that in criticising others in what they have done we must not forget our own responsibilities regarding Abyssinia. When, more than forty years ago, Italy first invaded Ethiopia, not only did we raise no opposition, but after her defeat
184
at Adowa, feeling the obligation to relieve the situation in that part of Africa, and especially at Kassala, which had been occupied by the Italians, we pushed on the Sudan campaign quite a long time—I should say two years—before we were really ready for it. When I was sent to Ethiopia on the first official mission since our war in 1838 I found there two exceptional men, the Emperor Menelik, for whom I conceived a very great regard, and with whom I was happily successful in negotiating what I believe to be a useful settlement, and his nephew Ras Makonnen, the father of Haile Selassie; but with the exception of those two men the country was very primitive, unprogressive, and recalcitrant to contact with foreigners. It was really only after the entry of Ethiopia into the League, which we had opposed, that we began to take any interest in her fate.
I have little doubt that a too exclusive preoccupation with preventing the rearmament of Germany was to some extent responsible for the failure of the League in regard to Abyssinia, inasmuch as the attitude of France appears to have constituted an obstacle to timely action, on which we did not insist. The intention to invade Abyssinia was clear from unmistakeable evidence quite a year before the act of aggression took place. Ethiopia was induced not to press her protest against that menace to the League, while a Conciliation Commission investigated the Wal-Wal incident, whereby four months were lost without any result whatever. When aggression did take place and was condemned by the League we were of course credited, and almost alone credited, with taking the leading part in imposing sanctions which, being only partial, had little effect beyond embittering feelings and weakening any confidence in collective security. After the actual invasion there might, I believe, still have been the possibility to preserve autonomy in some portion of the former territory of a Member of the League, but a wave of sentimental protest made us responsible for the rejection of the Hoare-Laval proposal. We who have remained in the League have allowed no doubt to exist, as we were bound to do, regarding our condemnation of aggression. But in any concrete results that condemnation was purely platonic. The only alternative would have lain in measures which we never contemplated.

185
Looking at the series of events—Japan's first and second aggression, largely due to dissensions among the Western Powers which gave her a favourable opportunity—is it not time that we ceased to delude ourselves with what are really becoming little more than clichés, repetitions of the phrases, "Collective security" and "The framework of the League"? We have got to face the logic of consequences. It is useless to maintain in perpetuity an attitude of censorious reprobation of action which we have been either unable or unwilling to prevent, and which, moreover, is likely to thwart our interests in other directions as well as those of general appeasement and good will. The Italian people have throughout their history, as I have read it, always been rather disposed to follow leaders than to act on principles. The remarkable leadership in recent years can undoubtedly claim conspicuous success in internal administration and reforms, but it has at the same time displayed ambitions and actions which have tended to isolate his country and throw it into the arms of another country that was also conscious of isolation. In the process which went on of mutual seduction, we have always been represented as jealous enemies of Italian expansion. Happily the traditional sympathy between the British and the Italian peoples has deeper roots, and the artificial character of that political antagonism is revealed by the sense of relief and satisfaction in Italy which has welcomed the negotiations initiated by the Prime Minister and the conclusion of the Mediterranean pact at Rome.
I have almost finished without saying many more things I should like to have said. In conclusion, however, let me only add that I hold firmly that all countries must decide for themselves on their own form of government. Our business is only to adjust our relations with whatever government they adopt to our own and, in so far as is possible, to reciprocal advantage. Non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries is the only sound line for us to adopt and advocate, even if we have failed altogether to prevent or to control the intervention of others. For these reasons and many more which I have no time to rehearse to-night, I cordially support the Amendment to the Resolution before your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, in November last I was present at a debate on international affairs in your Lordships' House. At that time the outlook in Europe was not good, but since then the realistic policy of the Prime Minister has raised the cloud of apprehension from the people of this country and, as Lord Lloyd said, has eased the tension which was apparent at that time in many countries in Europe. Some people assert that before coming to any agreement with Italy in regard to this pact we should have insisted on the withdrawal of Italian troops from Spain. Why should we, when they have not yet carried out the work they were sent there to do?
NOBLE LORDS: Oh, oh, and Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: It is often forgotten that directly after General Franco rose against the Spanish Government it was Russia, not Germany and Italy, which started to intervene. There is no question whatever about that. She did so by sending hundreds of aeroplanes, guns and men, with officers of high rank, to Barcelona, and I am sure that if Russia had refrained from doing that there would have been no Italian or German troops in Spain to-day. There is one point I particularly want to make. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, in his very interesting and able speech (from his point of view) brought up the question of support for rebel Spain. There have been meetings all over the country, and the same kind of thing has been advocated at those meetings—guns for Spain, help and support for Spain. What would it mean? Let us get down to bedrock about it. If you were to allow guns and men to go into Barcelona you would only induce the other side to send more guns and troops to Franco Spain. And what would be the result of that? It would mean a small war in Spain of the democratic countries against the dictator countries, and can any one say that a war of that kind would not result in a conflagration that would probably spread over the whole of Europe? It is obvious. I think, that the Government's policy of non-intervention is the right one.
Another point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Snell. If I remember aright he quoted from Faust, and he said that the terrible tragedy which happened to

187
Faust was going to happen to His Majesty's Government. If your Lordships will allow me I will quote from a book which I borrowed from your Lordships' Library. The book is called The Oxford Companion to English Literature. I am going to quote what it says about the drama of Faust. It says:
"But Care attacks and blinds him. Finally, satisfied in the consciousness of a good work done, he cries to the fleeing moment, 'Ah, stay, thou art so fair,' and falls dead. Hell tries to seize his soul, but it is borne away by angels."
That is probably what is going to happen to the Government.
To return to what I was saying, those two countries, Germany and Italy, are the bulwarks as we know against Bolshevism in Europe. Their Rulers have said over and over again that they would do all in their power to prevent the spread of Russian influence and Russian doctrines. Therefore, how could they set up at the gates of the Mediterranean a Red Spain dominated by their greatest enemies? I am quite sure your Lordships will agree that the action taken by Germany and Italy in sending troops to Spain to counteract the Russian menace there was justified and understandable. I believe myself—and I have spoken to many people in Spain in high office—that they have no ulterior object. You will find that they will keep their troops there only until all danger of Red domination of Spain is over. Now that the Italian conquest of Abyssinia is to be recognised I wish that the Government could see their way to recognise the Government of General Franco which now rules over three-quarters of Spain. I realise, of course, that it would be very difficult, because this is a political question, but from the point of view of our material interests and our security it seems to me that we ought soon to come to some understanding.
Two months ago I visited all the chief cities of Nationalist Spain—Burgos and all the other cities. I went there for the purpose of seeing what was going on from the social point of view behind the lines. I saw housing schemes, children's créches, orphan children's homes and children's dining halls, and I may say that all the children in the cities and towns have two meals a day provided by the Government. This is, of course,
188
only a small beginning, but it is an earnest of what is to come. I saw no signs of what the enemies of General Franco call the false facade of charity. It was very real and functioning extremely well. How long is the man who is beginning to govern on these lines to be treated as a pariah? I hope that the Prime Minister's realistic policy with regard to Italy will be extended to Nationalist Spain, for it certainly would be foolish to estrange a man who rules a country an infinitesimal part of which is British territory. As long as we continue to recognise the Barcelona Government one of the chief complaints of General Franco will remain unredressed. As your Lordships know, many ships registered in Bilbao and other ports of Nationalist Spain have been seized by the British Government and are interned in various ports of this country. Those ships belong to Spaniards resident in Nationalist Spain. Of course it may be perfectly correct and good procedure according to International Law, but from the point of view of equity and of right and wrong it is extremely unfair and very unjust. With all respect to noble and learned Lords in this House I think it is one of the clearest cases on record of the law being "a ass."
These things are jeopardising the chances of friendship with the future ruler of Spain. I think the time has come for a realistic policy more in accord with the interest and security of the British Empire. I tried to get in on both sides of Spain, but in spite of many promises I was not allowed to go in on the Red side, so anything I say in your Lordships' House probably will not carry much weight, because I shall be looked on as a partisan, which I am not. One realises terribly strongly the tragedy of it all. Both sides are fighting for ideals; both sides are fighting bravely and gallantly for what they think is right. The horrors and the sufferings are appalling, and, of course, are not more appalling on one side than the other. Although His Majesty's Government cannot recognise Franco's Government for practical reasons, I hope that they are contemplating steps in the direction of mediation which might possibly offer some sort of plan for saving a courageous people from going on fighting each other to the bitter end.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry to disturb the harmony of this mutual admiration society into which the House has resolved itself in the last few speeches! I particularly hope that the President of the Board of Education heard the remarks of the gallant and noble Earl who has just addressed you with regard to the treatment of school children in Franco Spain. I hope he particularly noticed the remarks about the two substantial meals a day. I should like to see him very soon introduce a measure for the extension of the feeding of school children in the same way in this country. The noble Earl who has just sat down has, as your Lordships know, had a very distinguished naval career and I am very surprised that he is so alarmed at the prospect of the Russian fleet being able to use the harbours of Spain and what he calls the gateways of the Mediterranean. I should have thought that there was a far greater danger, not from the Reds, as he calls them, being at the gates of the Mediterranean, but of the Blacks, the Blackshirts, the Fascists of Spain, in potential alliance with the Fascist Powers of Europe, being in that strategic position. I have tried to argue that matter in your Lordships' House before, and I will not repeat it.
I will, however, respectfully suggest to the noble Earl, who knows Spain as I know Spain, that the Spaniards are about the last people in Europe—perhaps the Irish would be last of all, but after them the Spaniards would be the last—to become Communists. Communism is totally alien to the whole Spanish mental character. The regimentation, the orderliness, the iron discipline of Communism is anathema in Spain. I am sorry that the noble Earl was not able to get into Red Spain. If he would join the Labour Party—and we certainly need reinforcements in your Lordships' House!—I dare say we could arrange it, because I am about the only member of my Party, apparently, who has not visited Spain since the trouble began. I do not think I could have resisted the temptation of doing what was correct in regard to the Spanish Navy if I had gone.
My noble friend Lord Snell has asked me to apologise for his unavoidable absence from the concluding part of the debate. He had a very long-standing engagement to fulfil, and he is, after all,
190
not the only one of your Lordships who has addressed us to-day to be unable to return since the adjournment. I shall endeavour in a very few minutes, if I may, to re-state our case and to answer—very inadequately, partly because of lack of time—the criticisms that have been made of the Labour Party's case. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, regretted the hostility, as he described it, that we are supposed to have for our former enemies—meaning, I presume, Germany. May I be allowed to remind the noble Lords of my personal record in that respect? He was engaged in his country's service abroad—much more usefully, no doubt—when I first entered Parliament. I was adopted for what was considered an absolutely safe Liberal seat in the 1918 Election, and, as some of my outraged supporters complained, I threw it away by pleading for justice and moderation in our treatment of Germany. I was howled down by the mobs, and overwhelmingly defeated in what should have been a cast-iron Liberal stronghold.
I had another chance three months later, and was returned. In another place, I am very proud to say, I moved the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles, of the Treaty of Neuilly, and of the Treaty of Sévres, and of the other Treaties one after another. I moved the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and I had five supporters. I moved the rejection of the Treaty of Sévres and by that time Mr. Asquith, as he then was, had been returned at a by-election and came to reinforce the Opposition, and we mustered sixty-three in the Lobby.
EARL STANHOPE: And now you have no one.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am talking of another place, and not of this House. After all, it is those we represent who count. Lord Elibank was himself in another place at the time. He will know that passions were running very high, and that I did plead for fair treatment for our former enemies. The Labour Party as a whole did so from the beginning. We were labelled pro-Germans in the General Election, and it is not fair to base attacks on our policy on the suggestion that we hate our old enemies of the War.
LORD RENNELL: I never suggested anything of the kind.
LORD STRABOLGI: I took down what the noble Lord said. He said that we showed hostility to our former enemies. It is not that which actuates our policy, but regard for the interest of our own country. The noble Lord mentioned the people of Czechoslovakia. That is a very serious matter indeed, and I should like to support what Lord Rennell said there. I am sure the Foreign Minister hears all sorts of reports from the Continent, as I do, but he has much better means of checking the importance of those reports. I hope that rumours of forthcoming trouble in Czechoslovakia are not true. I do not know what the Government propose to do, and I do not like to ask, because I should be treading on delicate ground, but do not let us be under any misapprehension in regard to the matter.
There are certain facts which are indisputable. If there is aggression against Czechoslovakia the Czechs will fight. There is no doubt as to that, and they have two of the strongest reasons for doing so. They are the strongest reasons in the world to-day. There is the strong Nationalist feeling. For centuries the Czechs have dreamed of having their nationality restored. We do not understand it, but Lord Stanhope, and others of Irish descent, know it very well. Combined with that feeling you have in Czechoslovakia a class feeling. For generations the Czechs were under the domination of their German overlords, and I do not expect that the Germans treated them any too well. When they had their revolution it created a new State. It meant an industrial revolution and gave them economic as well as political freedom. The Czechs have those two things to fight for and they say they would rather fight and die than go back under German domination. If they fight, I believe I am right in saying that France will mobilise, and if she does my information is that the Russians will mobilise and your Lordships know that that means war. As to whether we can keep out of that, however much this present Government may wish to or the country may wish to, I believe it will be extremely difficult to do so; and I do not see how in the long run we can avoid being drawn in. That is the awful situation which faces any Government that might hold office at the present time.
192
In this debate we have had certain assistance and we had very welcome support from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I hope he will not misunderstand me when I say that he upheld the traditions of the Prince-Bishops of Durham, who used to fight with maces so that they need not have to shed the blood of their enemies. It was very welcome support from our point of view, but it is necessary for me very respectfully to make a comment on the right reverend Prelate's remarks. What he said about the necessity of standing for moral right and ethical justice found the only echo in the House on this side of it, but when he supposes that this conflict between what he calls idiosyncrasies and ideologies—an expression I believe coined by Mr. Eden—will inevitably lead to war, speaking for my Party, we do not accept that thesis. We do not think a war is inevitable between the Fascist States because they are Fascist States and the democratic States because they are democratic States, and we believe that the Government's policy is more likely to lead to war than the policy we advocate. We believe that our policy is the policy of peace, and that their policy is hazarding the peace of the world. But, even so, we do not accept this inevitability of war, and we think that with a different policy on the part of His Majesty's Government—as far as we can understand it—war can be avoided.
As I am winding up for the Opposition it is only courteous for me to refer to the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment to our Motion. The noble Lord made a very powerful case, which your Lordships recognised, for the same cause which the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, espouses, that is, what is known as Franco Spain, and he harrowed your Lordships with tales of atrocities, cutting off of people's noses and all that sort of thing. I have not been very long in active politics, but I have heard exactly the same thing about Russia in the past, and I heard the same thing about the Germans during the Great War, and I dare say our ancestors heard the same things about the Russians in the Crimean War. And so it goes back. You get nowhere by regaling us with atrocity stories.
LORD BROCKET: Does that make them any better?
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Lord if he wished to be quite fair would have mentioned the atrocious shooting of prisoners by the people he supports in Spain. The murder of the Basque patriots and priests was a blot on the rebel cause in Spain that will not be wiped out for generations. They have behaved abominably. That is indisputable, and it has been regretted by His Majesty's representatives in Spain. The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, with his great naval career behind him, might have made some protest against the abominable attacks on British merchant ships in the Spanish harbours, which are there on their lawful occasions. Since the signing of this Pact for which His Majesty's Government takes so much credit some of the most deliberate attacks have been made on our merchant shipping.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Those attacks on merchant shipping were probably shots that were not aimed at them at all. We all know that aims directed at certain places with bombs nearly all miss.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Earl of Glasgow, like myself, is familiar with the character of the masters of British merchant vessels, the men who command the Mercantile Marine of this country. He knows them very well, and he knows we do not get eight masters of British ships sending, without justification, a protest to the Foreign Secretary against what they describe as deliberate bombing of their vessels. His Majesty's Government have protested, and to that extent admit there is something in it. The most charitable thing we can suppose is that these aeroplanes were manned by Italian pilots sent by the Government's new friend.
VISCOUNT HEREFORD: What was the nationality of these masters?
LORD STRABOLGI: British.
VISCOUNT HEREFORD: How did they become British? Were they English, or had they taken refuge in British nationality?
LORD STRABOLGI: I saw their names. Some of their names were Welsh and some Scottish, but they were certainly British, and they were there perfectly legally. His Majesty's Government
194
are encouraging trade with both sides in Spain. It is perfectly legal for British merchant ships to be there, and they at any rate have to pass through the net of the non-intervention organisation. One other comment, if I may. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, also gave us a little support. He said that the Government's slogan, "We have kept you out of war," was a dangerous one. We of the Labour Party do not complain of that slogan. It does not offend us—if it is true. We hope the Government can keep us out of war. We will give them all the praise they deserve if they can preserve the peace of Europe. There are higher questions at stake in that respect than any Party advantage or anything of that sort, but we do not believe their policy will keep us out of war. The reason is a very simple one. We do not think any good will come out of compromising with evil.
There are certain things in the world that are right and certain things that are wrong. May I respectfully support what fell with very much greater weight and force from the Bishop of Durham on that question? The attack on Abyssinia was a cowardly, murderous onslaught on a defenceless people, and it was carried through with atrocity, and it has not yet been successful, for great areas of Abyssinia are still under independent native rule. We do not approve, and we will not approve, the sacrifice of the principles involved for the sake of any present-day advantage. That is our quarrel with the Government. The former President of the United States, President Coolidge, had the reputation of being a man of very few words, though when I had the honour of meeting him I found him extremely talkative and interesting. A story is told of him that one day he went to church, and his wife, who had been unable to go, asked him what the sermon was about. His reply was, "Sin." His wife asked, "What was the attitude of the preacher?" His answer was, "Against." That is our attitude—we are against sin, and we are against compromising with sin. We consider the Government's policy of seeking temporary advantage, as they think, by overlooking these crimes against International Law will not in the long run bring peace or preserve democracy and freedom in the world.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord say what the Labour Party's policy would be in regard to Abyssinia if they were in power?
LORD STRABOLGI: I will, as briefly as possible. The Lord Archbishop also asked the same question—what was the alternative? In the first place we would not have let it happen. We believe it could have been stopped, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, described, a year before the aggression. These events did not happen when Mr. Henderson was Foreign Minister and the Labour Government were in office. Our prestige in the world was then very high, and the situation had not deteriorated as it has now. But we would certainly not recognise the Italian conquest of Abyssinia, because, amongst other good reasons, it has not yet been completed. I was reading recently a most remarkable speech by the then Earl of Derby in your Lordships' House on July 17, 1878. I very respectfully suggest to the Foreign Secretary and other noble Lords interested that they should read that speech. If you substitute for the word "Russia" in it—Russia was then the bogey—the word "Germany" it could be made in your Lordships' House now, not only without comment but with admiration. I only wish to refer to one passage; he is describing the reasons why, three months before, he had left the Government owing to a disagreement with Lord Beaconsfield on the policy which led to the Treaty of Berlin. He is referring to the situation in the Balkans, and although he only refers to one country in this particular passage, I suggest to your Lordships there is a lesson in it, and a very useful lesson, for us.
As I have said in your Lordships' House before in these debates, I am not so sure that our ancestors were so wrong in the policy that they advocated at that time. It was, after all, very successful up to a point. But speaking about what he calls the new Bulgaria, which had not been treated fairly in the turmoil following revolts against the Turkish rule, he says:
"A great point has been made of the fact that this new Bulgaria is excluded from the sea."
He then goes on to say:
"For my own part, I say distinctly that I think, on the whole, the balance of advantages undoubtedly preponderates in favour of the arrangement sanctioned in the Congress
196
over that of the Russian Treaty. But the advantage is not all on one side. A large Bulgaria, reaching to the sea, would be necessarily much more independent of Russian influence."
If we substitute Russia for Germany, to-day this speech could be made, probably with support, in your Lordships' House. He continues:
"It would contain a mixed population—a population not exclusively Slavs; and by the mere fact of its contact with the sea, it would be more open to English influence, for wherever a ship floats, there confessedly ours is the strongest power. Although, as I have said, I do not deny that, on the whole, the advantages of the limited Bulgaria preponderate; yet it is open to this disadvantage—that that small State north of the Balkans is absolutely inaccessible to you, and that the influence exercised over it will be exclusively Russian. There will be no port open through which you might put pressure on the people, and no commerce which, with a similar object, you can intercept in case of need."
I have here a cutting from The Times newspaper of May 10, in which their correspondent in Sofia, referring to the Bulgarian fair of April 28, says this:
"Thanks to the preponderating German participation, the exhibition might well be said to have conveyed to the stranger the impression that Bulgaria had come entirely under the influence of Germany. This condition is indeed rather borne out infact."
Then he goes on to speak of Bulgarian imports of which 82 per cent, originated in Germany, while Great Britain's share was 4.8 per cent. The exports are in very similar proportions. He adds:
"So long as these conditions prevail Bulgaria, by common consent, will continue in economic dependence on Germany. Baron Brandenstein, the Bulgarian Honorary Consul in Berlin, declared the other day that Germany was in a position to absorb up to three-quarters of Bulgaria's products."
I particularly mention Bulgaria, because it is a country that is democratic. It has an elected Parliament and yet it is exposed to this economic pressure. Owing to the German domination of the Danube its trade is practically bound to pass through German territory. This is one of the countries which has been a loyal Member of the League.
It was an enemy of ours in the War and it should naturally be a friend of our's to-day if there should be further trouble because it is a democracy and there has never been a real quarrel between us and Bulgaria. In fact there is a history of friendship. Under the treaty of Neuilly, Article 48, Bulgaria was

197
promised an outlet to the Aegean Sea. I am going to suggest that when the present difficulties are got over the Government should look into this question again. It is not necessary to antagonise Greece. Greece is a natural friend of ours in the Mediterranean and played a very satisfactory part during the sanction trouble of two years ago. Without antagonising Greece it is possible, I believe, to arrange a better outlet for Bulgarian trade through the Aegean Sea to our advantage. I have not time to develop this, but I cite it as an example of what we should be doing at the present time. We should be doing all we can to widen and strengthen our tics with the remaining independent countries of Europe before it is too late.
We all know the racial doctrines of Nazi Germany, but I do not think we always appreciate in this country the economic doctrines of Nazi Germany—the Drang nach Osten, the drive to the East, which aims at bringing the whole of the Balkans under the control of the Germanic power. In the past our ancestors in your Lordships' House who controlled foreign policy were faced with difficulties such as face us to-day and tried to find friends and allies. Collectively these small States have a great military value. How did they do it? They did it through diplomacy; they did it by subsidies; they did it in various ways, and usually very expensive ways. To-day you have all that machinery ready in the League of Nations. Many of these States are still loyal Members of the League. I do not know what effect the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had on the League on this last occasion. I hear very disturbing accounts of the results of his visit to Geneva. All his personal charm and his great adroitness in debate could not cover the fact that he was the, no doubt unwilling, instrument of a policy thoroughly hateful to these small nations.
But it is not too late, and just as in the past when we were threatened by the hegemony of a Power of overwhelming military strength, whether France or Spain or afterwards Germany, we tried to balance that power by our friendships and alliances, so to-day we should be using the machinery of the League, not for encircling one nation or dividing Europe into two camps of differing ideologies,
198
but in trying to find a League of friendly States who believe in the same things that we do, things which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham described to us this afternoon. Then, if the peace is broken, in addition to our squadrons of aeroplanes and our vessels of war and the armaments we are piling up at such great expense, we can rely on the active support of a number of like-minded States. That is the policy which I suggest should be again examined by His Majesty's Government in this time of admitted danger to the peace of Europe.
We have no intention of allowing the Government to steam-roller us in this House by a Division.
A NOBLE LORD: Why put down a Vote of Censure?
LORD STRABOLGI: My instructions from my noble friend are that we will not oppose the Amendment, or anything else that any noble Lord cares to propose. As your Lordships know, I have the honour of being the Whip of my Party, and I have not even sent out a Whip for this Division! What could we do? We could muster perhaps eight or nine of my noble friends who would vote with us, and, I suppose, a few other noble Lords with the courage of their convictions. Against that we have the serried ranks of Tuscany, and the whole Division would be misunderstood, not in the country but certainly abroad. However inadequately, I have tried to explain Labour policy. It is the policy of the Labour Party, and it is the policy supported by a very large number of voters in the country, who, according to recent by-elections, are probably the majority of voters of this country. I repeat, according to recent by-elections the}' are probably the majority of voters of this country, and the next Election will show who is right. The fact that we are represented very inadequately in your Lordships' House, not at all in proportion to our voting strength in the country, is not generally understood, and therefore, if we do not resist the Amendment, it is not because we in any way agree with it or because we weaken in any way in our opposition to His Majesty's Government's policy explained in his opening speech by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, the purpose of these

199
discussions on foreign policy is, I suppose, to clarify the issues before us and to endeavour to give some guidance to public opinion in the country. I am unable to discuss all the points that various noble Lords have raised in the course of this debate, and among those subjects that I may not discuss to-night, because it is not strictly, or at all events closely, within the terms of the Motion that is on your Lordships' Paper or covered by the Amendment of my noble friend, I would perhaps include the subject that the noble Lord raised last: that of Bulgaria. It is not because that subject, and many others to which reference has been made, are not very present indeed to my mind and the mind of His Majesty's Government, but rather because at this moment—and I think the noble Lord opposite would not disagree—I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by endeavouring to have a discussion when it is not possible, perhaps, to deal with those matters as fully as we should.
I doubt whether any of your Lordships who have sat in this House for a long time has often assisted at a debate that has been maintained at a higher level than that which the debate sustained to-day. It has been notable for the variety of approach made by all speakers to the great subjects that they have touched; by the force of argument with which the respective cases have been developed; and by the high quality of the contributions made from all parts of the House. Those of us who have heard the whole debate have, I think, derived profit and benefit from every speech that has been made: enjoyment as different, indeed, as the enjoyment we derived from the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and from the speech, also not without its literary flavour, of my noble friend the Earl of Glasgow behind me.
The noble Lord who leads the Opposition, and who made the first speech in our proceedings, was good enough to make a kind reference to myself, and to assure us that he had no desire to embarrass the Government in their responsibility. The noble Lord who spoke last also said, and his speech confirmed his intention, that he had no intention of in any way aggravating the difficulty of the
200
task that must, to-day, rest upon the shoulders of any Government and any Foreign Secretary in this country. Also they both said, what every one of us here would do well to remember, that although their numbers are small in this House they do speak for a great volume of opinion, whether we think it well or ill informed, outside this House, which is deserving of your Lordships' respect. If it were without any great sense of relief that those of your Lordships who sit on this side of the House heard the announcement of the noble Lord opposite that he was going to spare us the dangers of a Division, I am able fully to agree with him that the force of electoral opinion, as it may at any time exist in this country, is not of necessity represented by the mathematical distribution of Parties in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Snell, and the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party, both said that in the references they made to what appears on the Order Paper as "the sacrifice of Abyssinian independence," they had no desire to be self righteous, and it is indeed to the consideration of what we must all recognise to be a real problem, that we have to address ourselves. The mere fact that the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate took fundamentally different views about the morality of this question serves to show a humble layman like myself what are the great difficulties of a sure discovery of objective truth, and I am not, therefore, greatly concerned with the fact that on a matter of that kind men of sincerity and more than ordinary intelligence (as I am bound to assume those two occupants of the Episcopal Bench are) take different views.
It may not be out of place if I remind your Lordships in a sentence or two what the history of this Abyssinian question has been, from an angle which I think has not been mentioned in the course of this debate. It is worth remembering that for this country the question has never been an individual question between ourselves and Italy. It has constantly been spoken of almost as if it were an Anglo-Italian dispute. It was never that. It was a dispute between the League of Nations, the collective assembly of nations, and Italy; and we on our side have always said—and we have never said more than this—that we

201
were prepared to take our full part in collective action by all the nations who were willing to join with us in it. The League had taken that collective action which, as we all know, it brought to an end in July, 1936, and after that collective action had been brought to an end something like twenty States reached the conclusion that their collective obligation was at an end—as indeed it was—and those States in one way or another expressed their recognition of the Italian conquest over Ethiopia at a time when it suited them to do so. There were other States which considered that the question of recognition was a matter of concern to the League as a whole.
I am not for the moment arguing which were right and which were wrong. All that I am concerned at this point to stress is that the result of that was a situation which was thoroughly discreditable to the League, with nothing collective left, which was thoroughly anomalous, and which had in one way or the other to be cleared up. His Majesty's Government was one of the Governments who considered that, while no express obligation could perhaps be held to rest, yet the matter was one which concerned the League; and therefore we decided that at the appropriate time in our judgment we ought and we would take the matter to Geneva. And at Geneva, as here—the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, directed our attention to it—considerable thought was given to the actual question of the facts.
What are the facts at this moment—it has been asked again in this debate—with regard to the Italian occupation of Ethiopia to-day? No one as far as I know would deny that there is a degree of opposition which I am not precisely able to estimate—I see varying reports—in different parts of Abyssinia to the Italian conquest. I have no doubt that it is like a fire that flickers here and flames up there, and is making itself variously felt at different times. But while that is true, it is also true that as far as all our information goes there is no organised native authority at the present time, and there is no central administration with the slightest possible chance of reconquering the country and of disturbing the Italian occupation in its essentials. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil—and I am not sure whether this would have been the position of the noble Lord
202
who spoke first or not—said that he would recognise if he was satisfied of the conquest, and he said that the ordinary tests of satisfaction of a conquest were the test of size and the test of duration of time. I think that the more true test is, What are in fact the effective chances of restoration of the sovereignty that has been dethroned? I say that for this reason, that I am quite convinced, at whatever level you put the weight of the opposition the Italian Government is there encountering, this at least is quite certain, that the only way in which the Italian position can be challenged to-day in Abyssinia would be by concerted military action, that is, by war. That action was deliberately excluded by implication by the Assembly Resolution of 1936 taking off sanctions and, as I said at Geneva, there would be no suggestion by any responsible person in any part of the world to revert to it.
All that, I think, rests upon a basis quite inexpugnable, and really I do not suppose greatly divides us. What does divide us, of course, is the question of principle on which I must say a word, and on which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham spoke with such convincing eloquence this afternoon. I quite understand, of course, the feeling that a great many people have in regard to anything that may be called recognition of the action of the Italian Government in regard to Ethiopia. I am bound to say, although one is constantly apt to deceive oneself, I did not recognise the argument I had endeavoured to address to the Council of the League of Nations the other day under the definition applied to it by the right reverend Prelate as being the "cold sophistry of a cynical opportunism." But, as I say, we are all apt to deceive ourselves. I respect the view of the Bishop of Durham, but I cannot share it, and that for this reason. As I tried to say the other day, I do think that all life is continually presenting every one of us with the perpetual difficulty of trying to reconcile what is ideally right with what is practically possible. Every one of us knows that, and I also think that the full contribution to the establishment of practical conditions on which alone progress depends will often be out of the question if we allow ourselves to be so blinded by the ideals we are right to cherish and

203
keep as to lose sight of what at any particular moment may be within our power and possible.
I do think that in this matter, as the most reverend Primate said to-day, it is true that two ideals—righteousness and peace—are in conflict, and you have to choose between the unpractical devotion to the high purpose that you know you cannot achieve except by a war you do not mean to have, and the practical victory for peace that you can achieve. I cannot hesitate between these two when both my conscience and my duty to my fellow men impel me directly in the direction of peace. It is for that reason I say that, faced by that sort of situation, the elements of which I do not think anybody denies, the difference between those who would recognise sooner, like His Majesty's Government, and those who would recognise a little later, is really a question of political judgment, and is not a question of the eternal and immutable moralities. I do not think it is; it is a question of political judgment, and the task, as I conceive it, of the Foreign Secretary is so to endeavour to frame his policy that the fundamental ideals which are cherished by this country are not pushed to the extent that they outstrip and transcend the bounds of what it is practicable immediately to achieve.
Let me sum up this part of my argument as clearly and concisely as I can. I can understand perfectly well the position of people who say, as I heard Lord Lothian say in a debate some time ago, that we and others, or we alone, ought to have taken the strongest possible action at the beginning of all this business, and told the Italian Government it just was not going to happen, and we were going to block the Suez Canal, or do what you will, in order to prevent it. I can understand that. I can understand the position of people who would say that even when the first efforts of the League had failed the cause at stake was so great that no country, least of all our own country, ought to shrink even from the invocation of force to redress the wrong. I can understand either of those positions. I never heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham propose either of them at the time. He may have thought them, but, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd
204
said, that would have been the time to propose them. But to admit, as we must, that the matter has in fact passed to a stage where only force could effect a change, to admit, as I think that we all do, that such use of force is unthinkable, and yet to say that you must go on for ever shutting your eyes to facts that you cannot alter, and thereby miss for no result whatever the chance of doing something practical for peace—I am bound to say all that seems to me simply not to make sense on any rules of this world or the next. Therefore, my Lords, my conclusion about that is a plea that we should not elevate matters on which, as I think, political judgment may legitimately vary, into high and venerable principles to which all men's allegiance must always stand pledged.
Having said that, may I make a few points clear regarding the action of His Majesty's Government? I could not but think it was somewhat of a caricature of their attitude when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Snell, saying that His Majesty's Government accepted with joy the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. He docs not really think that. He knows as well as the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, knows, who said it, that His Majesty's Government do not and never have and never will condone the Italian action, nor do they ask the League to condone methods by which the Italian sovereignty was established. We have not asked and we do not ask the League to modify any decisions or resolutions previously taken in the matter. The League's judgment has been plainly expressed, and there is no question whatever of going back on it. We did not ask any State to violate its own principles. We did not abandon any principles of the Covenant, nor our determination to do our utmost to strive for the settlement of all disputes by peaceable means. Accordingly we thought it right to lay the whole matter in complete frankness before the Council of the League last week at Geneva. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that we went to Geneva with this policy which he says was a thoroughly hateful policy to the nations of Europe assembled at Geneva.
LORD STRABOLGI: Some of them.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The right reverend Prelate said in one of his delightful analogies that he gave us to-day

205
with reference to the Treaty of Utrecht, that it was of application to-day to say that over this matter the whole world cried shame on England. And yet, my Lords, it was the case that without any pressure but merely by argument the large majority of the Council of the League of Nations expressed the definite and decided view that the question of the recognition of Italy's position in Ethiopia was one for each nation to decide for itself in the light of its own situation—exactly what we thought—and therefore to say that the attitude that we took was opposed to the majority of European nations is to assert what is flatly and demonstrably opposite to the facts. This does not mean that His Majesty's Government intend immediately to proceed to recognise the Italian conquest, for that step, as your Lordships know, depends upon other circumstances on which I want to say a word in a moment.
But before I leave Abyssinia I ought perhaps to say a word or two about the suggestion that was made by the noble Marquess, by the most reverend Primate and by the right reverend Prelate with regard to the possibility of the establishment of the Emperor of Ethiopia in an independent portion or a quasi-independent portion, of his former territory under Italian suzerainty. That suggestion, of course, has been at varying times and by different persons brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government. I need hardly say that so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned there would be no objection of any kind to such an arrangement being made. But your Lordships will recognise I think, as I must recognise, that this is not a matter in which decision rests with His Majesty's Government. It is clear to all of us that it is one which only the Italian Government and the Negus himself could decide in the light of their own interests and their own responsibilities.
I turn from Abyssinia to a rather wider field that is inevitably ploughed by this discussion. Reference has been made to the League of Nations and to the failure of the Powers, States Members of the League, to ensure respect for League principles. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, reminded us, as did the noble Lord who spoke last, of the prodigious deterioration in the last five years in the international position, and they were both good enough to attribute the major share
206
of the credit for that result to the National Government, which of course did not surprise me at all. I am not sure myself that the major part of it does not perhaps attach to the fact that in this country at least for many of those years we were placing what turned out to be an excessive trust in the issue of the Disarmament Conference in which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, played so distinguished a part, and I am quite sure the fact that this country was disarmed and weak has been an unsteadying factor in European politics. However that may be, it is said, of course, that the passage of these events has involved humiliation to all concerned, not least for this country, and that such a state of affairs can be to-day redressed by a bold appeal to all League Members, or at least to all European Members of the League, to rally themselves once more beneath the banner of the Covenant.
The noble Lord who moved the Motion spoke warmly of the betrayal of the League, and said that his policy still was to do by the methods he described what he called rebuilding general security. It is not necessary for me, as it was not necessary for the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, to travel over the ground, which is all too familiar, of the weaknesses, as we all know, imposed upon the League by abstentions from it of powerful States. His Majesty's Government are not less concerned to-day than they have ever been to make the fullest use they can of the League. They are anxious and will be ready at the appropriate time to lend all their influence to do whatever can be done to strengthen the foundations and restore the authority of the League. But, my Lords, no good in this respect, or any other, is done by refusal to face the hard fact—as, I think, my noble friend said who moved the Amendment—that if some of the greatest Powers are in fact outside the League, and refuse to be bound by League rules, then the only way by which respect for League rules can be enforced is the way of war.
The noble Viscount mentioned the Rhineland, Spain, and Austria. I would challenge him, or any other noble Lord who put forth a similar argument: Would he say that any one of these things could have been prevented without either the actuality or at least the grave risk of war? In spite of the noble Viscount's attack on the "We have kept you out

207
of war" slogan, I think nothing would more effectively destroy the devotion of our people to the League as an instrument of peace than that they should once get the idea into their heads that it might be an instrument for involving them in war. I am quite certain of that. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, spoke of the weakness of the League, which he attributed in part, if I heard him aright, to the Treaty of Versailles and to the failure of the League to deal with economic and kindred problems during these recent years. I have no doubt that is largely true. But another reason, I think, is that the League has never yet been able to find adequate machinery for the solution of the problems of revision. It has never, I think I am right in saying, invoked Article 19, and if it invoked Article 19 I do not believe that Article 19 would be found to function satisfactorily for hypothetical problems which might from time to time claim the attention of the Members of the League.
Therefore, my Lords, my conclusion is—and I think it is one that many of your Lordships will share—that refusal to recognise a situation brought about in spite of the League may, of course, keep our principles intact on paper. If that were all that mattered, we might be well content with that satisfaction. But when we find that refusal to face facts does in fact keep resentments and antagonisms alive and threaten understanding, then we have to consider whether it is right to abandon the substance for the shadow. I well recognise that that may be held to be a cynical confession of failure. I think confession of failure is often the first step and the best step to better things. After all, most things produced by men throughout history have been evolved from a succession of failures—failures that have broken the hearts of men who have laboured in advance of their generation. But if the doctrine of non-recognition of failure had been adopted by our thinkers, or our inventors, or our reformers, or, I would add, by our statesmen and politicians, the advance of civilisation would not have been made so smooth, and indeed I doubt whether it would in fact have been secured at all.
Let me say a word or two upon some specific questions arising out of the Anglo-Italian Agreement. The noble Lord,
208
Lord Snell, asked me why the terms of the assurances in regard to Palestine had been oral and not written. The reason is, I think, a simple one: that the declarations concerning Palestine differed from the other matters that we dealt with in the Agreement in that they were general affirmations of what was now the policy of the Governments concerned, and did not relate specifically to any matters on which common agreement was necessary in the future, under changed conditions; these assurances which were formally and solemnly exchanged according to a pre-arranged formula, and have since been proclaimed publicly, are in no way less binding than the written part of the Agreement.
The most reverend Primate, or it may have been the right reverend Prelate, asked me a question with regard to the position of the Coptic Church in Ethiopia. Our Ambassador in Rome, Lord Perth, was directed some time ago to mention this matter, and the anxiety it caused in certain quarters, to the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs. He did so, and Count Ciano replied that the Italian Government had not the slightest intention of doing anything to interfere with the freedom of the Coptic Church. He added that it had now been established as the National Church, but with the relationship with Egypt severed, and apart from that the existing liberties of the Church would certainly continue.
I pass from that to deal if I may on broad lines—and I apologise for keeping your Lordships—with some of the more general criticisms that have been made upon the Anglo-Italian Agreement. The broad line of attack is, of course, that the Agreement is, for the reasons which we have been discussing—the question of principle—(a) wicked, immoral; and (b) stupid. I perhaps may have been held to have dealt sufficiently with the question of principle, and I will deal with the stupidity, of which the ground has been forcibly stated by the right reverend Prelate—namely, that the Agreement will not itself be observed, and is only a cover for the sinister designs of the Italian Government. I must frankly, of course, admit that here the difference is one of outlook and one of judgment. Lord Snell, no more than the right reverend Prelate, is disposed to believe the Italian assurances, and therefore quite

209
naturally sees no merit whatever in the Agreement. We, however, strange as it may seem to the noble Lord, do accept these assurances and believe that they will be honourably carried out. Therefore, accepting those assurances, we think it is worth while to re-establish good relations between two great Powers, with all that follows in the direction of relief of world anxiety and in the diminishing of real dangers to world peace.
In saying that, it is not to say that I or we approve of Italian intervention in Spain, any more than we approve of Italian action in Ethiopia. We have always made it our purpose to get rid of all foreigners from Spain, and that without the qualification attached to that desire by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, just now; but I must make it plain that we have never asked or expected that the Italians should withdraw unilaterally, on their own, and provided that we are satisfied, as we are, that the Italian Government do not mean to use Spain for the alteration of the Mediterranean status quo when the Spanish trouble is over, we do not see why the fact that the Italian Government take a strong view on one side, as against a strong view taken by large sections of opinion in this country on the other side, should preclude us from an attempt to improve our relations with them over the wider international field. Everybody, I suppose, must want to see conditions existing in the world that might with reasonable security promise peace. I am bound to say that I do not think that the kind of statement that the right reverend Prelate made with great conviction this afternoon, that neither the word of Signor Mussolini nor that of Herr Hitler was ever to be believed, is the kind of statement, coming from one in his position, that does assist the cause of European peace.
But we believe that by our Italian Agreement we have made a beginning, and we are resolved to seek every possibility of continuing and developing that action. And, highly as we value our existing friendships, and intimate as we happily are with France, we do not regard these friendships as by any means exclusive; and, whilst strengthening them, we seek always to increase their number and to extend their scope. We should, for example, like to see removed all causes
210
of mistrust and suspicion that may be held to stand in the way of complete understanding between ourselves and Germany. That desire is shared, I believe, by the mass of the peoples in both countries, who have such close affinities of language and origin. The right reverend Prelate spoke this afternoon of the clash of idiosyncracies, and anyone who thinks at all about international problems to-day must of course be constantly conscious of the difficulty that is created by the absence of a common background of thought that used to exist when Christianity supplied it under the traditional forms in which it was accepted by all countries, and which no longer prevails to-day. We are all conscious of that. But when he invited us to follow him in the argument that all that we could do, faced by that clash of philosophy, was to put it off from year to year, and put it off only by conceding one strategic position after another until the inevitable war descended upon us after our position had been undermined, I am bound to say I think that that philosophy of his is one that I should be very sorry to see your Lordships generally accept, and that I for my part could never accept.
Many people think and speak to-day, as the noble Lord who spoke last reminded us, of the inevitability of war. I believe such talk to be both dangerous and essentially untrue, and that for this reason: I would far rather think and speak in terms of belief that there are enough sensible people in all countries who realise that war is conceivably the only alternative to an understanding, and that, as war cannot be regarded as other than the supreme disaster for civilisation, the more true conclusion is that it is peace through understanding, rather than war, which is inevitable. And those are the terms in which, I should hope, we should think and speak and act. But if we want that sort of end it will not come of itself, and we have to take positive steps to try to secure it.
The Labour Party, through the mouth of the noble Lord, really condemn the policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter on the ground of possible damage to the principles of democracy. Many of your Lordships will have heard of the strange freaks of nature by which some particular flavour or bouquet of wine is

211
only associated with a tiny acreage of soil. In somewhat the same way the Labour Party constantly appear to me to believe that the pure vintage of democracy only matures in their cellars. Having that reflection in my thought, it has been significant to me to note the degree of support that has, in fact, been given to this Anglo-Italian Agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, talked pathetically about the small countries of Europe looking to this great country for inspiration and finding themselves bewildered by our action in regard to this Agreement. My noble friend Lord Lloyd supplied the answer when he said that in his travels through the smaller countries of Eastern Europe he had found a sense of almost magical relief. I found the other day, at the Council of the League of Nations, representatives speaking in the name of the French Government, the Powers of the Little Entente, the Balkan Entente, the Belgian Government, and the Polish Government, all testifying in warm terms to the significance of what we have done.
When I outlined what I conceived to be the advantages to be drawn from it, no voice at all was raised in criticism or in the sense that the Agreement was not a gain to the principles of peace and democracy that the Resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, desired to serve. The only breath of doubt came—and perhaps we might have expected it—from the representative of the Soviet Union, who welcomed the Agreement, however, as he said his Government would welcome any agreement reached between various Governments removing misunderstandings and disputes, and it is worth while to quote his words:
"My Government, which takes particularly to heart everything which relates to international peace, quite naturally welcomes any agreement reached between various countries removing the misunderstandings and disputes existing between them. From this point of view, one cannot but welcome the British-Italian Agreement.
"But in dealing with bilateral pacts, we have to take into consideration not only their effect upon the relationship between the two parties concerned but also upon the relations between those parties and the rest of the world. We have also to take into consideration the effect which such agreements may have on those problems which are still before the League of Nations and which still remain to be dealt with. We, therefore, reserve our
212
final judgment upon the importance of this Agreement from this point of view. We may still express the hope that these problems will certainly not suffer from that Agreement."
I do not think that is too bad a judgment from the representative of the Soviet Union and it is, as I say, noteworthy that His Majesty's Opposition are in the whole of Europe almost alone in condemnation and dislike of what we have tried to do.
May I make one very pedestrian observation? I think we do well perhaps to remember that friendship is really very like health. As long as you have got it you take it for granted, and you do not really realise how much it means to live with it until you have to live without it. That is as true of friendship as it is of health, and therefore we have thought it worth while to do everything in our power to restore those feelings of mutual trust which are the foundation of international friendship. As I said just now, I think the estimate of Europe is on the whole worth more to me than the estimate of His Majesty's Opposition.
May I turn for a few moments to what is the other great subject that is in the minds of noble Lords, and that is the threat, as they see it, in all these doings to the democratic Government of Spain. Let me say quite clearly that I understand perfectly well the deep feeling of all who feel quite sincerely that the cause of democracy in Spain, and perhaps the cause of democracy generally, is threatened and endangered by foreign action. I understand that perfectly well. It rests upon the feeling that non-intervention is a sham and that non-intervention works to the detriment of the Spanish Government. The real point at issue, of course, is the feeling that in refusing to supply arms to what they hold to be the legitimate Government of Spain we are denying that Government its legitimate rights. All that depends upon what view you take about the unhappy war that is going on in Spain.
We have taken the view that from fairly early on it assumed in fact the character of a civil war, and I do not think that you can deny that. That being so two alternative courses presented themselves as possible. One was to recognise a state of belligerency in fact if not

213
in name, and then the normal procedure would have been for States to be neutral and for them to recognise that the two parties to the civil war had the rights of belligerents. If that had been done each State would have been able to decide either to allow munitions to go to both belligerents, subject 1o the right of either belligerent to prevent or to forbid, if possible, such supply to the other. The other policy, which we have seen adopted, was the non-intervention plan on which general agreement was early secured, in which of course the participating Governments agreed to place themselves under a self-denying ordinance.
That was the position as regards the thing viewed from Spain. As regards the thing viewed from the wider angle of Europe, it was—and here I will answer a question the noble Lord asked me—held to be a source of great potential danger. I will answer his first question by asking him another. Supposing you had never had non-intervention, or supposing that you now denounced it so that we supplied arms freely to the Spanish Government, would not the inevitable result have been—and be to-day, as my noble friend Lord Glasgow indeed said just now—that others would have sent still more arms and would send more today to either side, whatever might be the side of their choice? And other people probably would have had more arms to send than we had. Supposing that to have been the consequence, as I think it certainly would have been, would it not then have been proposed that we alone or with others should stop by force the supply of arms to Franco? That indeed was the proposal that was made to the Council of the League last week by Senor del Vayo.
LORD STRABOLGI: That was the legal position.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am not concerned with the legal position in this argument. I am concerned with what would have been the immediate practical result if we had at this moment denounced non-intervention and started supplying arms to the Spanish Government. I think the practical result would have been as I have tried to outline it, and in the end either of these things would clearly, I think, have meant war. Therefore
214
either of those courses that might be proposed would have meant a much larger degree of foreign intervention all round, or a European war between supporters of the respective sides. I am told that in the great demonstration in Hyde Park on May 1 one of the most distinctive of the banners had this strange device: "Arms for Spain are arms for peace." I am bound to say, making all allowance for the broad character of truth as portrayed on banners, that that demonstrably failed to fulfil the test.
Therefore His Majesty's Government were driven to support non-intervention, not because they thought it perfect, not because they did not think it open to objection, but because of all courses it seemed to them much the least dangerous, and they do not believe, as the noble Marquess said, that it has broken down. They will do their best to continue to work it and will continue to press all the Powers to try to work together to make it work better. They are not without hope of effecting progress in that direction. I agree, however, with those who have said that the only right solution of the Spanish trouble is to stop it, and if any opportunity of action in that direction by way of mediation were ever to be offered by the willingness of both sides in Spain to try it, I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government would not be slow to render any help they could in that direction.
May I in a few words in conclusion say one or two things of rather wider import? I am anxious that in all these matters on which we obviously feel deeply, and must feel deeply, we should not if we can avoid it exaggerate our divisions. The Opposition, if I may with respect say so, is perfectly right of course to attack the Government for what they do if they think we are doing things in the wrong way or at the wrong time. Criticism is good for us all and I have no doubt is best for our characters when we deserve it least. I of course recognise that many people feel that over Abyssinia we were wrong to make a move now, but I also think, as I said just now, that no one who is not prepared to restore the Emperor by force can possibly say that he would not at some date have been prepared to recognise facts as we have now placed ourselves in a position to do. I recognise, of course, that you may not think British

215
policy in Spain or in regard to the Italian Agreement is well judged to secure the ends that we seek. We disagree; and on us rests the responsibility for decision, which we are perfectly prepared to assume, though we may feel reasonably sure that were noble Lords opposite in our place they would be following a policy that would not, I think, greatly differ from our own.
But whatever may be our disagreement upon the actual policy of day to day, I do not believe that there is any deep difference in the foundations of our common thought. There are two things on which the great mass of English public opinion is solidly united. One is democracy, with all that it means to us, and the other, which is consequential I think, is the protection of those things on which democracy depends against external interference. The Socialist Party are most rightly resentful of any suggestion that they are, or would be if in office, less careful of national and Imperial interests than my noble friends behind me on this side of the House. It fell to me to serve as Viceroy in India under a Socialist Government when India passed through very disturbed times, and no Government could have given any Viceroy more loyal and whole-hearted support than I received from the Labour Government. Therefore it is both from that personal experience as from my general observation that I have never been tempted to think that the Socialist Party with responsibility of office would fail in their duty as custodians of the wider interests of the British Commonwealth.
Indeed, part of their concern over Spain I know is based on their anxiety about the effect that may be exerted by what is going on in Spain upon the vital interests of this country in the Mediterranean. All that I feel. If therefore it is wrong for my friends, as I think it would be, to impute carelessness to our Socialist opponents in this matter, I would ask our opponents to believe that it would be no less wrong for them to impute to us any lesser loyalty than their own to the cause of democracy and to all that that cause means. We, not less than they, recognise
216
that democracy is the foundation on which nearly everything else in this country is built; so that, if anyone here ever sought to be disloyal to democracy, he would, I think, himself be surprised to find how much of the structure of English life would go down with it. By it, indeed, we live, for the spirit of democracy is far too deeply set in British nature to be overthrown either by pressure from without or by indifference from within. It is—is it not—part of that strange blend of thought, of instinct and of tradition which we call British character, and which none of us can any more shed than we can shed our own skin. Therefore, I would repeat that when we agree upon so much and upon what is so vital, do not, please, let us exaggerate our differences. This country needs all the unity that it can find and with respect I would say that in all our judgments the recognition of that necessity must constantly find place. That unity is essential to our influence abroad; it is not less essential to the accomplishment of those tasks that we have to accomplish at home. Therefore I would hope that, while we must expect to differ, perhaps, upon times and methods, with regard to which the responsibility for final decision must, of course, rest upon the executive Government, we might all be able to feel such confidence in one another about the broad basis of national policy as may enable this country to play the part, which only a united country can, in whatever circumstances the uncharted future may hold in store.
On Question, Amendment agreed to, and original Motion, as amended, agreed to.

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

SHEFFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.