I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out:

"or an officer of the local eduction authority."

The object of the Amendment is to delete certain words that were inserted in Committee, which were moved on behalf of certain education authorities. It is thought, on reflection, that the words ought to be left out as they seem to be unnecessary and embarrassing. They are unnecessary because without them the words in the Clause, as originally drafted—

" under the supervision of a probation officer or of some other person appointed for the purpose by the court,"

are wide enough to enable the court, if it thinks fit, to appoint an officer of the local education committee. It is unlikely that the powers conferred by these Clauses will often be used, and it rests with the court in each case to decide under whose supervision the child or young person is to be placed. The original form of words, which I am asking the House to accept, is used in other Sections of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, Section 62 (I, d) and it would be embarrassing, from the point of view of interpretation, to have a fresh form of words. Whether an education officer should be readily available to act as a probation officer is a great question of principle not to be dealt with in this Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, at the end, to insert:

" and section sixty-six of the principal Act shall apply in relation to the substituted

order as if it were an order made under Part III of that Act."

This is purely a drafting Amendment. Section. 66 of the principal Act sets out the duties of the probation officer or other person under whose supervision a child-is placed by a supervision order made under the Part III of the principal Act. A supervision order made under this Clause will not be an order made under Part III of the Act, and the Amendment is, therefore, necessary in order to ensure that a supervision order made under this Clause shall have the same result as a supervision order made under Part III.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, to leave out, "to make an order," and to insert:

"or under section forty-five of the Education Act, 1911, as so amended."

The first part of the Amendment is purely drafting, but the second part has some substance, because its object is to give the court the same power to attach suitable provisions to a supervision order made under Section 45 of the Education Act, 1921—a power conferred on the court by Clause 3 (1)—as the court is being given by this Clause in respect of the other supervision orders made under Sections 62, 64 or 84 of the principal Act, as amended by this Bill. It is left to the discretion of the courts to determine the provisions, if any, to be attached to a supervision order in each case.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 9 to leave out from "court," to "as," in line 12, and to insert:

"may contain such provisions (including provisions determining the place at which the child or young person is to reside)."

This also is a drafting Amendment, It is thought that the word '' provisions '' for which there is legislative precedent in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, would be a better word than "conditions."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I have moved several drafting Amendments this morning which the House has been pleased to accept. The Bill seeks to fill a number of gaps which have been found to occur in the working of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and particularly it gives to the court, in making supervision orders, similar authority as the court has in making probation orders. Children and young persons appearing before the juvenile courts fall into two classes—those who have broken the law and those who have need of care and protection, and who are beyond control. The Bill further proposes to assimilate the law by empowering the court to attach the same conditions in cases whether it is a supervision order or a probation order. It also modifies the present law as to the constitution of juvenile courts in the Metropolitan area in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, and makes minor amendments in the law to make uniform the powers of the court in dealing with boys and girls who require protection, or who are in need of care, or are beyond control. It is hoped that it will fill the gaps which have been found to exist in the working of the original Statute, and I am glad to have had the opportunity of presenting the Bill and of thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House who have given it their support, and also of thanking the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the staff at the Home Office, for their great assistance to me at all times.

I beg to second the Motion.

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member on getting his Bill through. Some of us were rather alarmed this morning when we found so many Amendments on the Order Paper. We thought that we were to have an entirely new Bill, but perhaps that is due to the fact that the hon. and learned Member responsible for the Bill has found it necessary practically to redraft his Measure by the various Amendments he has proposed. However, we recognise that it makes good, defects in the previous Act and does much for those youngsters who have fallen into unfortunate ways. For that reason we welcome the Bill.

I, also, would like to congratulate the hon. and learned Member on getting his Bill through, and to say on behalf of the Home Office that it will be welcomed by juvenile courts throughout the country. With regard to the question of drafting, I would like to give the hon. Member this satisfaction, that it has been the substitution of the word "provisions" for the word "condition." I understand that the legal experts at the Board of Education and the Home Office, and also the hon. and learned Member, attach a great deal of importance to this. The Bill is a useful Measure, because it fills several gaps in the law. Although the hon. and learned Member cannot be called the champion of the truants, yet, nevertheless, he ought really to be very dear to every truant's heart, although as these erring boys roam over the countryside they will not know who their benefactor is. The hon. and learned Member in his Bill has enabled the courts to take what, I think the House will agree, is a milder and more reasonable view of the act of truancy, and instead of having the drastic alternative of sending a boy to an approved school or placing him with a "fit person", they have the milder alternative of a supervision order, which, I think the House will agree, is an improvement.

Those who are attached to juvenile courts in this country will be indebted to the hon. and learned Member for the improvements he has effected in the original Act. Those who have to deal with boys or girls who sometimes play truant—hon. Members will, no doubt, appreciate how they played truant in their school days—will feel grateful that this amending Bill wilty give them an opportunity of dealing with these cases which hitherto has not been available. I hope, however, that the hon. and learned Member's name will not be confused with that of a similar name, and that we shall not find these truants in tea-shops. In the olden days truants were generally found in apple orchards. But that is by the way. Those who are responsible for dealing with these cases in the juvenile courts will now feel that they have an alternative they had not before. This is an illustration of how, as the result of experience, we are able to improve our legislation. It is one of the advantages of Parliamentary and democratic institution. I hope that the Bill will find its way to the Statute Book without any further Amendment.

I wish to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). For some years, I have served on the juvenile court in Newcastle, and on some occasions I also played truant. This Bill will be cordially welcomed throughout the country as a further extension of the powers of magistrates to deal with these juvenile offenders in a much more tolerant and reasonable way than hitherto has been considered possible. They will be able to look upon these childish weaknesses, idiosyncrasies and trifling errors with greater tolerance and more reason. I also was somewhat appalled when I saw the Order Paper this morning, for when the lions have roared, who shall not tremble? The Amendments were therefore accepted without opposition. I wish again to congratulate the hon. and learned Member on introducing this Bill, which extends in a small way British liberties, and which will be accepted by the juvenile population with alacrity and by the magistrates with satisfaction.

I also, wish to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). As one who has had much to do with the training of young people, and with their idiosyncrasies, and who knows what a problem it is to deal in the right way with children at that delicate age, I welcome this Bill, which will give opportunities for dealing with these children's misdemeanours in the right way. The psychology of children at this age is one that needs special study, and I am glad that it is receiving that special study by those who are engaged in the teaching profession. Teachers generally and those who have charge of young people will welcome this Bill as providing an enlightened method for dealing with these delinquents. I am sure that the teaching profession, to which I have been attached for so long, will wish me to say that they cordially welcome the Bill.

I wish to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) for rendering a valuable public service to our social life. If I may use an Irish phrase, I think it is very wrong to send anybody to prison for the first time. Hon. Members will appreciate the significance of that remark. Nothing is more tragic than to build up what may be called the gaol habit, whether one is dealing with adult or juvenile offenders. I have often been horrified when I have read of what seemed to me to be quite savage sentences by the courts in regard to something which was very frequently nothing more than a thoughtless juvenile "lark." For that reason, I welcome this Bill, which will make it easier for juvenile courts to deal wisely instead of brutally with young people.

I suppose that I am one of the few hon. Members who has ever made an arrest and brought somebody before a juvenile court. When I was a special constable, I arrested, with the assistance of another special constable, somebody who was charged with the grave offence of sleeping out in the small hours of the morning. The child was brought before the court, and fortunately at that time the court had power to place the child under proper supervision, thereby saving her from what otherwise might have been a disaster. Therefore, I am glad that the original Act is being amended so that that sort of treatment will be possible and will in general be the rule in future. Hon. Members have related their experiences as truants from school. I never had the good fortune of being able to play truant because my father was a schoolmaster, and there was no chance of my staying at home when I ought to have been in school, because my home and the school were the same place. Therefore, I have not enjoyed that privilege which other hon. Members have enjoyed; I never got into that habit, and possibly that is one of the reasons my Division record here is better than that of some other hon. Members.

I join in welcoming this Bill, which makes a great change in the administration of the law in relation to young persons. The powers which are given to the courts in this Bill are a distinct advance in our prison system. I believe, with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who always gives expression to wise words in this House, that it is a great pity if any court lays the foundations for what may be described as the gaol habit. This Bill introduces a great change in the law by giving the court power to place children and young persons under the control and supervision of families, thus affording those children opportunities which it would not be possible to secure for them in the present state of the law. For those reasons I welcome the Bill, which affects a large number of children of the religious denomination to which I belong, and in whose fortunes I have been personally interested. For the sake of those children, I am grateful for this Bill. When I was a younger man, I had the privilege of being attached to the junior organisations movement in connection with the Home Office—I think before my hon. Friend the present Under-Secretary was born. since that time, many innovations have been introduced by the Home Office which have made for a better state of law in regard to those children. I hope that this Bill, in its administration, will achieve the objects which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind, and that the system of law in regard to children will thereby be definitely improved.

I wish to put one question to the Under-Secretary of State. Seeing that these powers are to be given to the juvenile courts, will, the Home Office take any special precautions to see that the magistrates in these courts—

The hon. Member has already exhausted his right to speak.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The purpose of the Clause is to stop a loophole in this excellent Bill. The measure of the success of the Bill is the measure of the need for this new Clause. On nth February last, the Bill was given a unanimous Second Reading, and as a result, considerable publicity was given to its terms. since that time, at any rate in the constituency which I represent, schedules of dilapidations have been sent in to almost every leaseholder who comes within the terms of the Bill. The result is that all the persons who have received these schedules of dilapidations before the Bill becomes an Act will not be protected by it. It is, therefore, impossible under the terms of the Bill for a counter-notice to be served. It is a matter of surprise to read that the demands under these dilapidation schedules are no less than they were prior to the Second Reading of the Bill. Should anybody be unwise enough to ask how many years purchase would be required in order to purchase a freehold, he will be told that it is somewhere between 40 and 60 years. In addition, "the costs for the schedules which are delivered amount to some nine or ten guineas, with the possibility of an increase.

It is,. however, a fortunate fact that one of the safeguards in Section 146 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, is that reasonable time is allowed to tenants in which to remedy the breach. In cases which have come before me, a period of three months has been allowed in which the repairs can be done. Therefore, it follows that if a schedule of dilapidations is delivered, say, on 20th April, the earliest date on which proceedings could be taken would be 20th or 21st July. It is on this basis that an opportunity is taken in this new Clause to extend the time for delivery of counter-notices under the Bill, until 21 days after the coming into force of the Measure. That, however, is subject to two conditions—first, that no proceedings for enforcement have been commenced, and secondly, that notice for dilapidations has been given since the Second Reading of the Bill. I would have liked to have made the Clause retrospective even where proceedings had been started, but that would raise the gravest difficulties, and I doubt whether such a proposal could be framed satisfactorily. This new Clause will not catch all the cases where schedules have been delivered since the Second Reading of the Bill, but I submit that a sufficient number will be caught and will come under the provisions of the Bill to make the passing of this new Clause worth while. It may be said in objection to this Clause that it is retrospective, but in that regard Craie's "Statute Law" uses this expression:

"If a statute is passed for the purpose of protecting the public against some evil or abuse "—

I submit that this is a definite evil and abuse—

" it will be allowed to operate retrospectively, although by such operation it will deprive some person or persons of a vested right."

My first submission is that this is a case of an evil and an abuse and, therefore, it is not so desirable as it might otherwise be, that there should be no retrospective action. My second answer to possible objections is that it not really retrospective in the ordinary sense because it only goes back to the Second Reading of the Bill and this flood of schedules of dilapidation has arisen only as a result of the Second Reading of the Bill. It has been extremely difficult to draft this Clause, but I submit that it is most desirable to have some such Clause in the Bill in order to protect those people who are suffering as a result of the advantage which has been taken by leaseholders of the position caused by the Bill.

I beg to second the Motion.

One of the few regrets which I expressed during the Second Reading Debate on this Bill was that it did not operate in a retrospective sense so as to catch some of those exploiters who have been damaging the interests of tenants for a very long time. The proposed new Clause is rather complicated, but I think it is essential to insert something of a retrospective nature in order to meet the point which has been explained by my hon. Friend the Mover. If the Attorney-General does not feel able to accept this new Clause, perhaps he will undertake to see what can be done to meet this situation when the Bill goes to another place.

I appreciate the motives of the Mover and Seconder of this new Clause. On the other hand, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Errington) has seen fit to move it. This problem received very serious consideration both before the Bill was introduced and since the Second Reading. The hon. Member for Bootle, I take it, speaks for his own division in particular. I have received letters from all over the country from people who are interested in this Bill, and the information which they give me points in an entirely different direction. During the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill the Trealaw Estate was frequently referred to. Yesterday I received a letter from the Trealaw Leaseholders Association from which I quote the following passage:

" I am sure you will be interested to learn that since the Bill received its Second Reading and such wide publicity was given to the matter, we have not been troubled at all in this locality."

I have received many similar letters from other localities pointing out that already the Bill is proving effective. My real reason for opposing the new Clause is that, generally, in connection with problems of this description, the Government do not favour retrospective legislation and I am rather afraid that this new Clause, if adopted, might jeopardise the chances of the Bill becoming law. I appreciate that this matter is very serious to a certain number of people, and that in certain cases the Bill has probably come 10 years too late. On the other hand, I think it advisable that it should be a clean-cut Measure and that we should, if possible, do without a Clause of this description. I hope, therefore, that the Mover will see his way to withdraw it in view of the fact that I can assure him that the effect of the Bill has already been felt in other districts, and that the conditions which he has found in his own division do not appear to exist all over the country.

May I reinforce the appeal of the promoter of the Bill? I sympathise with and appreciate the motives which underlie the new Clause. On the other hand, I am always afraid of giving sanction to retrospective legislation. The dangers of principle involved in it are so great, that, even in minor cases, where there is some superficial advantage in it, I think we ought to abstain from a course which, if followed logically, would involve us in the profoundest difficulties. Therefore, on the ground of general principle, I would ask my hon. Friend not to press the Clause.

I would like again to join with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), this time in asking my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Errington) not to press this Clause. The fact is that the Bill has already made a profound impression upon the mind of the community as to its utility, and I believe that in a large measure terror has been getting into the hearts and consciences of a great many people in cases where the evils and abuses which this Bill is designed to remedy have been in evidence. I am sure the Attorney-General does not favour retrospective legislation by this House as a general principle, but, apart from that fact altogether, I believe the Bill is going a long way towards remedying what has been a real blot in the administration of leasehold property in this country, and I trust my hon. Friend will not pres his Clause.

On the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed the hope that it would not be overloaded. Looking at this proposed new Clause, while I think it is a very good one and while I wish I could support it—and wish indeed that it could be carried back for 10 years, though I have not heard of this abuse having been operative 10 years ago—still, I think we ought to get the Bill through as it is, and I therefore strongly support the appeal which has been made that the Clause should be withdrawn. When the Bill goes to the other place, I cannot imagine them putting in a retrospective Clause. We have tried that in several Bills in this House, but we have generally failed, and I believe that we should fail in this case also. The best thing to do, so long as the Bill is necessary, as it is, and so long as people are being harassed, as they are, over these leaseholds is to get the Bill through as it is as soon as possible. In my view everybody who is friendly to that position, as I believe the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Errington) is, ought to support the Bill as it is, because I believe that that is the only hope of getting it through Parliament.

I, also, think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Errington), who moved this Clause, might be wise to respond to the appeal that has been made to him from more than one quarter of the House, and in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), who is in charge of the Bill. Everybody supports the motive behind the Clause, and many of us wish that it had been possible to stop this abuse some years ago, but the insertion of this Clause would, I believe, introduce into the Bill, which in its present form, I think, has general support everywhere, a point susceptible to attack on principle. Although one appreciates that my hon. Friend has in mind a number of hard cases which this Clause might assist, on the other hand we have had the assurance from the promoter of the Bill— who, as we know, has been very much in touch, naturally, all over the country with cases where this abuse has been going on—that in many parts of the country at any rate the fact that this House has endorsed the principle of the Bill has already led to a mitigation of the abuse which it is designed to meet. That is perhaps also a factor which my hon. Friend might bear in mind in considering whether he should not withdraw his proposed new Clause.

In view of the appeals which have been made to me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out "twenty-one," and to insert "twenty-eight."

This is a simple Amendment to increase the period given to a lessee in this Clause from 21 to 28 days.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, at the end, to insert:

" except that they do not include any reference to such a grant as is mentioned in the said section one hundred and forty-six, or to the person making, or to the grantee under such a grant, or to persons deriving title under such a person; and 'lease ' means a lease for a term of twenty-one years or more."

The Amendment was put down by me under advice received from the Law Society. In certain parts of England, and in Manchester in particular, there is an alternative form of purchase, which is neither freehold nor leasehold, but which is called fee farm rent. It is a perpetual rent, and the lease never falls in. The purchaser does covenant to repair, but the conditions of the covenant are very loosely drawn, and the right of re-entry is permitted only for a period, until the repairs are properly carried out. There are certain provisions in this Bill which obviously do not apply to such cases, for example, the five years in Clause 1. This is a perpetual lease, and it appears, from information which I have received from the Law Society, that it would be very undesirable not to have this Amendment in order to exclude fee farm rents. The Bill was originally drawn for restricting repairs in long leases in small houses, and this Amendment defines such long leases, which were not originally defined in the Bill, as leases for 21 years or more.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It will be obvious that a fee farm rent stands in an entirely different category from the lease contemplated within the ambit of the Bill as drawn, and I think my hon. Friend is acting wisely in accepting the suggestion of the Law Society that an Amendment of this nature should be embodied in the Bill. I am sure the House will understand that it will not in the smallest degree abrogate the character of the Bill itself which is to deal with an abuse which exists with regard to leasehold property in this country, but will make it clear that fee farm rents are excluded from the purview of the Bill.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

This is an amateur's first attempt at legislation, and I feel that I have been the instrument rather than the instigator. I had some little luck in the ballot, and I have tried to turn it to good use. It certainly has given me a very great insight into procedure in this House. At this stage I should like to acknowledge the very ready assistance which I have received from the Attorney-General and his staff, and I would not confine my acknowledgments to the Attorney-General only. I wish to thank wholeheartedly my hon. Friends on the Opposition benches, who have gone out of their way to give me information and to assist me on every possible, occasion, and I very much appreciate that attitude. I have also received considerable assistance from property owners' associations and the Law Society. There has been a number of Amendments, many of them of a minor character, but I consider that they have all been in the nature of intelligent criticism. The greatest difficulty I had during the passage of the Bill was to get a quorum in Committee. Again I had good friends who came forward to help me.

There has been no serious modification of the Bill as it was originally drafted, the main alteration being to increase the rateable value from £50 to £100, which seems to have met a lot of legitimate criticism. The question has been brought up this morning of making it retrospective, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Errington) saw his way clear to withdraw his proposed new Clause. What has struck me all through has been the enormous number of letters I have received from old people who are not capable of looking after themselves. It seems to be that class of individual which has been preyed upon by this ramp. I am sure that the Bill will do an enormous amount of service to a certain section of the community who are incapable of looking after themselves. I have received letters as long as ten to fifteen pages, handwritten, explaining to me the hopeless position of the writers owing to the action of certain landlords.

There are three things in particular which mankind requires—food, clothes and housing. Food and clothes are not difficult for the average individual, but housing is a question of capital expenditure of which the average individual is not capable, and it is a serious problem for those poor people who are being turned out without any resource or any possibility of redress. There has been during the proceedings on the Bill a temptation to increase its scope. I am glad the House has seen its way clear to assist me to keep to the one point, because I believe it is far better to achieve one definite object than to run the risk of loosing the whole Bill, which may have occurred if we had endeavoured to amend the law of property. Words do not fail me to express my opinion of those fellows who have been running this ramp of leasehold property. Your presence, Mr. Speaker, prevents me from expressing my opinion of them. since the Second Reading I have received much information and criticism, and many compliments. I will conclude by reading an extract from a letter I received yesterday:

" We must say you are better than two or three hundred M.Ps. at the House of Commons."

I hope my friends on the opposite benches will remember that when I have differences with them in future. That letter comes from an old fellow 80 years of age. It gives me great pleasure to move the Third Reading.

I beg to second the Motion.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the admirable work he has done during the passage of this Bill through the House, and I would like to compliment him on the practical way in which he handled the Bill in Committee. He was always ready to accept practical suggestions and to deal with sympathy and consideration with the several points raised. With the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General the Bill has been hammered out into a form that has received the approval of the House. The self-respecting property owner who realises his responsibilities to his people accepts this Bill willingly as a wholesome improvement of the law. There has never been any suggestion that the property owners who exercise their rights properly and within the legitimate limits of honourable dealing with their leasehold tenants have not been doing a great service to the community, and I know that this Bill will pass without the slightest aspersion being made against these people and the responsibilities that they carry with regard to their leasehold properties. The Bill will bring into the administration of the law a healthier situation from the point of view of the leaseholder whose lease becomes terminable within a comparatively short period. Those of us whose names are associated with this Bill have been constantly brought into contact with sad cases which will not recur under the Bill. I am very proud to have the privilege of seconding the Motion for the Third Reading.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this Bill forward. There is such a thing as stealing other people's thunder, and he has stolen mine, for I look upon this as my Bill. I was the first to start this business, and I took a deputation to the Attorney-General who received us kindly and was very sympathetic. As the result, this Bill was printed and was put in the hands of one who was lucky in the Ballot. My hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) took charge of the Bill, and I congratulate him. It shows how generous we are in the House and how delighted we are to support anybody who gets on with a piece of good work, whether we get the credit for it or not. I suppose that I shall get no credit for my work on this Bill. There are some lines in Gray which say:

" Full many a flower is born to blush unseen."

That is my position to-day. I am delighted that this Bill has gone through, for it is a very necessary Measure. There were working people who were being harassed and worried to death by the abuses which this Bill seeks to abolish. When the leases were bought the tenants had to buy from the new owners at an enhanced price or do repairs which were out of all reason. I sent to the Attorney-General a copy of a schedule of repairs which had been supplied to a woman in London. The schedule covered 20 foolscap pages. This worried the woman to death, for the owners threatened to get hold of the property unless she bought the lease at an enhanced price. This Bill will give security to such tenants and the new owners will not be able to do this sort of thing without going to a court of law. The very fact of bringing this Bill in has had preventive effect and I have not heard of this abuse happening during the last few months while the Bill has been before the House. I am glad the Bill is to be passed to-day and I congratulate my hon. Friend, although the Bill really belongs to me.

I do not rise to claim paternity of this child, but I should like to give it a christening present, because both as a Member of this House and professionally I have come into contact with an enormous number of cases in which these schedules of repairs have been used as a veritable instrument of torture against helpless people, and I wish that in many cases within my experience I could have been armed with this Bill as a weapon of defense. It was not in existence then, however, but now, thanks to the foresight and vision of either the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) or the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards)—I will not say which—this weapon will be available, and it is pleasant to think that our Friday afternoons can be so properly used and that private Members' Bills are not always doomed to futility.

On the Second Reading, while welcoming this Bill, I ventured to call attention to circumstances in which, quite involuntarily, the interests of the occupiers of houses who were sub-lessees might suffer from its provisions, and I would like to say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the promoter for the way in which he met the suggestions which I then put forward. I should like to thank also the hon. and learned Attorney-General for the way in which he went into the case which I ventured to put before the House in order to find words to deal with the problem which I had put forward, because I was not a Member of the Committee which dealt with the Bill, and, therefore, it would have been very difficult for me as a layman to draft the words necessary to accomplish what I wish to do. He took a great deal of trouble to find out exactly what I meant and to go into the cases I had in mind, and also took great pains to devise a form of words, which are to be found in Clause 1 (5, c) to meet the point. I should like to thank him very much, and also to congratulate my hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill.

I wish to join in the general congratulations which have been offered to my hon. Friend for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) upon this Bill. I was associated with him in the introduction of it, although I make no claim to its paternity. The Bill will, I believe, put an end to a long-standing ramp, and hundreds of people throughout the country will be very glad indeed that my hon. Friend used the chance he got in the ballot to such very good purpose. I am the more pleased because this Bill has been dealt with on the same morning on which the House has accepted a Bill which I had the honour of bringing forward, and I feel that this will go down in the records as a very useful legislative morning. I quite appreciate the point made by the hon. Member about the pressure that was brought upon him to add to this Bill, and if that had been done it would never have got to the stage where it is to-day. Whatever alteration may be necessary in the law of property as a whole, I think that is hardly a matter to be dealt with by a Private Member's Measure, but the hon. Member seized this opportunity to deal with one point and the public will reap the advantage. We do not often have the pleasure of listening to observations from the Chief Whip of the Opposition. By virtue of his position he seldom has the opportunity of addressing the House, and although he recalled the words of Gray about many a flower being born to blush unseen, I would add that, at any rate, his sweetness was not wasted on the desert air.

I should like to join in the congratulations offered to my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), and to thank him for having been good enough to ask me to put my name on the back of this Bill, because my constituency happens to be one of those affected, though, I am glad to say, only in a minor degree. I am glad that West Birmingham, if I may put it that way, is once again associated with legislation for social amelioration. For many years that constituency has been represented by those whose names stood out for social amelioration. As one who has made more speeches on Fridays than, I think, any other Member, I am a little perturbed at the existing state of affairs, and I fear that some old Members would feel that our Fridays were going to the dogs. This is the seventh Bill which we have passed with unanimity and self-admiration on the last two Fridays. We used to have first-class rows on Fridays; now we merely admire one another. If we could induce the League of Nations to hold its sittings here on Fridays its might do some good. It is fortunate that the hon. Member was able to get a place in the ballot this year, because I really think his Bill will get on to the Statute Book in time to stop an evil before it becomes one of great magnitude. The practice has been localised in a few places; as far as I can find out, it is not general all over the country.

If one can only get the law into operation sufficiently rapidly to stop an evil from growing, it is indeed a fortunate thing, and I think we ought to be grateful to the hon. Member not only for the skill which he has shown in the handling of the Bill but for using an opportunity for righting a matter at the right time. We must all admit that every now and then we do the right thing on the wrong occasion, but in this case we may congratulate him on having done the right thing at the right time. I should also like to congratulate the "usual channel," if I may so describe him, for his valuable part in connection with this Bill. We know that he is the essence of amiability. He has to do his duty by his own party, but there is no person in this House with whom it is more pleasant to negotiate, and in order that he may have full glory out of this Bill I will add this: that on two occasions within the last three or four years when I have introduced non-controversial Bills which I had to get through, without any facilities at all, after 11 o'clock, he was very kind to me. Therefore, I am only too glad to pay a tribute to him on this occasion.

I should like to add my tribute to the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), and to congratulate him on the Bill for which he is about to get a Third Reading. In view of the fact that I moved a Clause which he thought might be likely to do harm to the Bill in another place, I should like to say that my only object in moving that Clause was to assist him in strengthening the Bill, but I appreciated the points which were made by him in regard to it and that was the reason why It was withdrawn.

In offering my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) I can assure him and the House that this Bill will be regarded by a number of people, particularly in my constituency, as the most important Measure passed in their time. It is difficult to describe the intense feeling of resentment against the wicked exploitation which was going on. They will feel that Parliament has done some useful work in their time. I hope no time will be lost before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

I should like to thank the Mover of the Bill for the kind words which he said about me and my Department and Parliamentary counsel in expressing thanks for the assistance which he has received from them. I am not proposing to go into the question of who is the actual patriarchal father of this Measure—

I am.

I know that the hon. Gentleman claims it, but I am not sure that the hon. Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry) could not put in quite a good claim, even although he may not have been on the scene quite so early.

Take a blood test.

I think Members in all quarters of the House realised the evils of the practice which the Bill is designed to stop as soon as their attention was called to them, and desired that steps might be taken to deal with the matter. I think that the procedure adopted in the Bill will stop the evil. It is a sufficient and adequate safeguard, and I think that this abuse will disappear from our life. I would like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), who was the first to acknowledge the assistance he had from others, and when he had good fortune in the Ballot took the decision to introduce this Bill. To be responsible for a Bill of this kind is a very considerable burden, for it means dealing with much and various correspondence, apart from other things, and I am sure my hon. Friend must have devoted many hours to the Bill.

It would be very discourteous, after the kindness of the House in allowing this Bill to have its Second Reading without a Division, if one did not attempt to explain as shortly and concisely as possible the main changes of substantial importance which we are making in the law of evidence. All hon. and learned Members and most hon. Members who have had anything to do with the administration of justice, either on the Bench or otherwise, know how limited our law is at present as regards the admissibility of documents recording transactions which are made at the time and which, if they can be got into evidence, really assist the court to come to a quick and cheap determination of the matter in issue. As our law stands to-day certain documents are admissible if the maker of them has died, but in many cases where the maker of the document is alive it is impossible, apart from agreement, to get the document into evidence at all. The limitation comes down as part of the history of our law and the enormous importance given to the oath of a witness in the Middle Ages. We are at present the only country in Europe which refuses to admit in evidence documents made by a person who is still living, if that person cannot be called and cross-examined.

The object of Clause 1 of the Bill, which is the major Clause of the Bill, is to enable us to make the very substantial alteration in our law of evidence that documents which are made before there is any question of litigation, made at the time of the acts which subsequently become the subject of litigation, made by someone who knows all about them, shall be allowed to be put into evidence if the court thinks fit, even though the person who made them be still alive, and it may be extremely difficult or expensive to produce that person in court for examination and cross-examination. Of course, in a great majority of civil cases, and in commercial cases in particular, by agreement the great mass of these documents are admitted every day in our courts without objection by either party, and any counsel who objected to the admission of a document of that sort, which was obviously made at the time when the maker had no motive whatever except to record a particular fact truly and not to fabricate a document—anyone who refused to admit that document would be regarded with severe anger.

But, none the less, there is case after case in our experience in the courts, when the only real defence the person has in a claim is to prevent a material document finding its way into evidence; and if the person happens to be in South Africa or in Scotland or in the Services, or something of that sort, the wretched plaintiff has to go to all the expense of getting a commission to travel abroad and take the formal evidence of that person by commission, or else has to delay his case month after month, and sometimes indeed, year after year—I have known of such cases—until such time as that person comes back within the jurisdiction and can be brought formally before the court. Constantly, when you have him there and have him available to be cross-examined, the other side do not want to cross-examine him at all. The document will speak for itself. I cannot believe that in these modern times we ought to be the only country in Europe which for these historical reasons takes the strict view of evidence in a matter which causes enormous expense and very often great delay. The cases which this Bill will benefit are really the cases of people in more humble circumstances who cannot afford the additional expense of getting this necessary evidence as our law now stands.

If hon. Members will look at the Clause they will see that it is drafted in a truly legalistic manner. Not only does it set out and describe the type of document, but there is the second condition:

" If the maker of the statement is called as a witness in the proceedings."

If hon. Members stop at the bottom of the first page of the Bill they may think we are not altering the law at all. The substance of the change of the law is to be found in the proviso at the top of page 2, which states:

" Provided that the condition that the maker of the statement shall be called as a witness need not be satisfied if he is dead, or unfit by reason of his bodily or mental condition to attend as a witness, or if he is beyond the seas and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance, or if all reasonable efforts to find him have been made without success."

None the less, the document, provided it comes within the class of document mentioned in Sub-section (1), can be allowed to be put in as evidence and admitted for what it is worth. This main change in our law originates in a need for changes that have been desired for a very long time. It has been approved by a meeting of judges, by the Peel Commission, by the Law Society and by the Bar Council. The author of this Bill, who introduced it in another place, was my noble Friend the present Lord Chancellor, who introduced it before he became Lord Chancellor. I hope that the Committee will accept the Bill, supported by that authority of legal willingness for this important alteration to be made in our law. In a great number of cases it will, I believe, make decisions very much quicker, and in many cases much cheaper. While we have provided means for enabling people to come within the poor persons' rule and get their cases tried, the existing law imposes no tremendous obligation upon a very rich company or individual, and I am certain that in common practice the existing law has deprived people of moderate means times without number of justice in their cases. I, therefore, hope that, in this year 1938, the Committee will take the view that this is a proper change to be made in our law.

When I first heard of this Bill and was informed as to its contents with very great accuracy, I thought for one dreadful moment that their lordships, in a fit of madness, were proposing to alter the law in such a way as to admit as evidence what the soldier said. It does not appear, however, to go as far as that, but only as far as what the soldier wrote, which may, in certain circumstances, be evidence. That is a very welcome amendment of the law. Of the Bill in general I would say that it is a plain man's Bill. It makes admissable as evidence documents which any of us, if we were undertaking some inquiry to find out facts, would instinctively think ought to be admitted and to be given such weight as they seemed to deserve.

I must remind the hon. Member that we are not discussing the Bill as a whole, but only Clause 1.

I did not intend to go beyond Clause 1. This is a remarkably intelligible Bill. It is easy and obvious to anyone, merely by reading the words of the Bill, to find out what it means, even without the assistance of the Attorney-General. It makes formally admissible things which all reasonable counsel appearing on behalf of reasonable clients endeavour to make allowable by agreement, but there are always people who try to take advantage of the technicalities of the law to the detriment of their opponents. The Bill is a substantial contribution to the fairness, and in many respects to the cheapness of the administration of justice, and, therefore, I welcome the Clause, which is probably the most important of all the Clauses of the Bill, as embodying the spirit of the whole Measure.

I believe it was a Chancery Judge who remarked that truth will out even in an affidavit. It is appropriate that the Bill should have been entrusted, in its passage through this House, to my hon. and learned Friend, who is a most distinguished Chancery leader. I do not wish to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, but I am a little troubled about the wording of this Clause. Those of us who practise, particularly on circuits, spend a great part of our lives dealing with personal injury cases, and the difficulty now-a-days is as to how far confidential reports made in the case of an accident in which, say, a corporation is involved—made, for example, by drivers and conductors of vehicles—are evidence; and also not what the soldier said, but what was written by the policeman involved. One has great difficulty in getting hold of that evidence and, under the present law, still more difficulty in getting into evidence what are commonly known as police reports.

I trust I am not starting a hare, but I am not certain how far the proviso to this Clause covers the whole Clause. If it does, there is nothing in what I am going to say. Let us assume that you want to put in either a police report or the report of a corporation employé The Bill says:

" In any civil proceedings where direct oral evidence of a fact would be admissible, any statement made by a person in a document and tending to establish that fact shall, on production of the original document, be admissible as evidence of that fact if the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say—

(i) if the maker of the statement either—

(a) had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with by the statement."

Following the wording strictly, I see no reason why you should not be entitled, instead of calling either the police officer or the corporation driver or conductor, to put in their statements which were made to their superior officers as employers. Sub-section (3) states:

" Nothing in this section, shall render admissible as evidence any statement made at a time when any dispute was pending involving controversy as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish."

Sub-section (4) says:

" For the purposes of this section, a statement in a document shall not be deemed to have been made by a person unless the document or the material part thereof was written or produced by him with his own hand, or was signed or initialled by him or otherwise recognised by him in writing as one for the accuracy of which he is responsible."

That is exactly what happens in the case of every confidential report made as a police report or as a report by a corporation official. That difficulty is that you cannot say that the police constable or the driver or conductor of a tramcar has a personal interest in the proceedings. This matter requires consideration between now and the Report stage or the Third Read- ing. As a humble admirer of the Attorney-General I have, with great respect, drawn attention to a point which I think is worthy of some consideration.

Everybody who has spoken up to now is a lawyer. They know what it is all about, but the rest of us do not necessarily know yet, and I want to ask a few questions in order to clear my mind and possibly help to clear the minds of other hon. Members. I happen to be mixed up with the electrical supply industry, and I want to know whether the reading of an electricity supply meter or a gas meter can be brought under the Bill. As hon. Members may know, a man goes round and does what is called "read the meter." He enters the reading upon a card in your house and enters a record in a book which he takes back to the office of the corporation or company. Is that the kind of thing contemplated in the Bill? It is the duty of certain people, as it is in the telephone room in this building, to keep a record of telephone calls and the time at which those calls were made. Evidence of that kind might be of the utmost importance in some proceedings.

The remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) attracted me, because I had already made a note of the time that Bus No. 43A leaves its garage, and I imagine that that is automatically recorded by an employ6 of the London Passenger Transport Board; and I think, from observing the inspectors' entries on their bills, that the times at which buses pass certain important points on their routes are also noted. I am not quite clear as to the kind of evidence that we are dealing with. It speaks of a record purporting to be a continuous record—not taken every instant, perhaps only once a year, but nevertheless continuous. These are some questions which I would like answered.

Then, as the Bill has been drafted and supported by lawyers, I would like to express a little innocent surprise at the terms of the proviso to Sub-section (1). It speaks of the condition that the maker of the statement shall be called, and it goes on to say that this condition need not be satisfied if he is dead. Superficially, I should hardly have thought it was necessary to put that into an Act of Parliament. The proviso also states that he need not be called if he is already in a lunatic asylum, and that, too, seems rather obvious. The other two exceptions are reasonable. They would apply if the maker of the statement was a long way away, or if he was very busy, or perhaps was about to get married, and it would not be reasonably practical for him to attend.

The lawyers always tell me that unnecessary words ought never to be inserted in an Act of Parliament, because, when the Act comes before a court, the judges may say, "If we had written this Act, we should not have thought these words necessary, but, since Parliament put them in, Parliament must have had something in mind, and we have to find out what Parliament meant." They may then proceed to give a reading which was never intended by Parliament at all. Therefore, it is always as well to find out why apparently unnecessary words are put into a Bill.

Passing to a point of perhaps greater substance, it seems to me that paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), with the words which precede it, is very significant. Subsection (1) provides that in general the witness should be called, unless the difficulties set out in the proviso are established; but, according to paragraph (a), which follows, the court, if it thinks fit, can dispense with the presence of a witness. In these circumstances, I rather wonder whether a great deal of Subsection (1) is not unnecessary, unless Subsection (1) is intended to be a broad hint to the court somewhat to this effect: "This is what you should do in the ordinary way, but if, after all, you are satisfied that the document produced to you is a sound document, and you can take it on its own merits, it is not necessary to call the author of the document to prove that he wrote it." I am wondering how far paragraph (a) is intended to be the dominant paragraph—whether, for example, if counsel on one side says, "Here is the official meter reading," and hands it in, the court in those circumstances can say that there is no need to call anyone to prove it, because it is obvious on the face of it that it is all right. I am wondering whether that is really what my hon. and learned Friend has in mind in asking us to support this Bill, and whether paragraph (a) is not, perhaps, in the long run, much more important than a good deal of the rest of the Clause. I hope that these questions are not frivolous and unreasonable. They seem to be questions of some substance, and I think that answers to them would help to clarify the minds of hon. Members.

I feel inclined to move the rejection of this Clause, because, as a Member of Parliament, I like to know what I am voting upon, and I am specially reinforced in that opinion because even the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who knows everything, is not quite clear as to what it means. If that be so, surely Members on this side, who are not given credit for understanding much, are justified in opposing this Measure. Another point is that we have no love for the House of Lords, and this Measure has come from them. Now that it has been brought here to this enlightened place, it gives me pleasure to say that I take some objection to it.

I, also, was impressed by the fact that it is not necessary for a witness to be present if he is dead. I wondered why that provision was put in; perhaps the hon. and learned Member will be able to explain it. Surely, even the ordinary man, apart from a Member of Parliament, would know that a dead man is of no use for purposes of giving evidence. I feel that, unless some clear and satisfactory statement can be made by the representative of the Government, the Attorney-General, I must ask my colleagues to object to giving sanction to this Clause. I like to think, when I am explaining to other people outside my position in connection with the work of Parliament, I have a clear understanding of the Acts which have been passed. Sometimes I get out of it by saying I was not present, but, having been present this morning, and having heard the speeches, I feel that I must vote against the Clause.

There is one point which I should like to touch upon, and which, I think was perhaps not fully dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie). There is a well known rule that certain statements by agents are excluded. For instance, an agent has no right to make an admission. I do not quite know what the effect of this Clause will be, but it seems to me that it may well be to make all admissions by agents evidence. For example, if a motor driver, driving during a collision, makes a statement afterwards, either to a police officer or to somebody else, it does not follow that that statement is evidence; but, as I read the Clause, its effect will be that it would now become evidence against the owner of the car or the master of the chauffeur. If that be the case, I am not sure that it is generally realised.

I want to put a point which may affect my own profession. We chartered accountants are accustomed to act as auditors to companies, but, in addition, in many cases we act as accountants for the purpose of giving the directors, or the managing director, periodical reports of the progress of the business. Taking the case where such a report is made monthly, it cannot be guaranteed as accurate. Probably the stock 'is not taken every month, and estimates have to be made. But, nevertheless, it would appear that such a statement made by the auditor each month would be made by him as a person who

" had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with by the statement,"

and it would be

" part of a record purporting to be a continuous record "

; while he will also have made the statement

" in the performance of a duty to record information supplied to him by a person who had, or might reasonably be supposed to have, personal knowledge of those matters."

When we have to render these monthly statements, we find at the end of the year that they never exactly tally with the audited set of accounts at the end of the year. It appears to me that if monthly statements of this sort, made in good faith, could be used in evidence, evidence might be accepted by the court which would not be accurate.

May I answer some of the conundrums which have been put? As to the provision concerning documents where

" direct oral evidence of a fact would be admissible,"

this does not admit documents in circumstances where the persons who made them would not have been proper persons to give evidence. I would also call attention to the concluding words of Subsection (5) under which, even if counsel is able to persuade the court that all the conditions of the Clause have been observed, the court is entitled, none the less, to exclude the document,

" if for any reason it appears to it to be inexpedient in the interests of justice that the statement should be admitted."

In those circumstances, I do not think there is any possibility of a written statement signed by anybody ever finding its way in evidence, except in circumstances where that person could himself properly be called and give evidence as to the facts of which he has written. I think that is a complete answer to any suggestion that we are, so to speak, extending the range of evidence that can be obtained from documents. The Clause is only intended to enable documents to be used as evidence instead of the oral evidence of the person who made the statement contained in the document. Perhaps I did not explain the Clause at sufficient length. I am sorry, but I did not want to keep the Committee unduly.

Under Sub-section (1) in cases where my learned friend and myself are advising our clients as to how they are to prove their case we would look at Sub-section (1) and say, "You want evidence from A, B, C and D," and if the client should then say, "C and D cannot be got," we would then say "Did C and D make any statement which would come within Sub-section (1)?" Then comes Sub-section (2), under which where the witness is available, you, none the less, can go to the court at any stage of the proceedings and ask for an order to dispense with the witness. It may be worth while in some circumstances to go to the court and make such an application. I think that that really covers the points raised, except the actual form of drafting, on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams)—

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the question of the dead man?

The situation at present is this. Admissible evidence, under our rules of evidence to-day, includes state- ments of two kinds made by persons before their death: namely, statements made during their lifetime which are either against their own interests or have been made in the course of their duty. Sub-section (1) extends this substantially beyond statements made either against their own interests or statements made in the course of their duty, therefore, to make it quite clear that in that respect we are extending the law, it is specifically stated that, in spite of the fact that a man is dead, it may be possible to accept as evidence statements made by him before his death. I am not the father of the drafting, but I submit to the Committee, now that I have really given the substance of the Clause, that it will be a useful reform; and I hope the hon. Member who threatened to divide the Committee—or so I suppose—against it, will not do so.

I would like to say a word or two on this Clause, which has been so clearly explained by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). I would also like to try to allay the fears of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Anyone who has had cause, from time to time, to consider whether improvements could be introduced into our legal procedure, particularly in order to simplify it or to mitigate the burden of costs, has come up against the very strict rules of evidence which we have inherited from our forefathers. They go back to the Middle Ages, when a statement made on oath was put into a wholly different category from any other form of evidence, and, with one or two minor exceptions, unless you got the evidence on oath you could not prove it in court. That has created defects in our procedure of two quite different kinds, and the provisions of this Clause are directed to providing a remedy for each.

It has resulted, on the one hand, in witnesses having to be called quite unnecessarily. Let us assume that in some case it is necessary to prove what the rainfall was, for instance, a year ago to-day at Kew. Technically, under our rules, you cannot prove that unless you have in court the man who made the records. I agree that often the records will be admitted by consent, but, under our rules at present, you cannot prove them without calling the man. It is often quite useless, because all he can say is,

" I do not remember the day a year ago, and all I have is this bit of paper; but I have no doubt that the record I then made was accurate." I admit that that is a somewhat extreme example, but that class of document has been referred to. The Committee will see that there is a whole category of documents of memoranda of that kind made in the course of business, and there is no conceivable suggestion that the man would not have put down what he believed to be accurate; and in many cases he cannot tell the court anything about it, except that he put down what he believed to be accurate.

This Bill is directed to see that in that class of case the parties should not be put to the unnecessary expense of calling a person, and that the document, which is the real source of evidence, may be treated as such without calling the person who drew it up. That is one class of case. The Bill extends, with all due caution and safeguards and formalities, to cases in which documents of that sort can be admitted without the necessity of calling the witness. There is quite a different defect which arises under our present rules. Although there may be a document which is of value, you cannot look at it because either the man who wrote it is dead, or is beyond the seas, or has become of unsound mind. Therefore, you cannot call the man to give evidence of what he saw, you cannot get the document, which is only secondary evidence, and you cannot cross-examine.

Some comments have been made on the proviso referring to a dead man. The Committee will see that it is a defect to say that a court can in no circumstances look at statements of fact which have been drawn up by a man now dead except in the class of cases to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. There has been caution, naturally, in this matter. The Committee will notice that this applies only to civil proceedings. Any lawyer will tell you that, again and again, he comes across cases in which he is bound to say, "If I were investigating this matter myself and wanted to find out the truth, I should look at this document." It is not permissible in our present procedure.

Let me give one example to the Committee. Take the case of a bill of lading giving the amount of the cargo that has been shipped, say, at some port overseas. That document, doubtless, will have been scrutinised by two persons with opposite interests. I am assuming that the price to be paid is the amount shown by the bill of lading. The man who is sailing the ship is going to take very good care that that figure is not too low, and that it represents what has been put on the ship and what he is entitled to be paid for. The man who is buying is going to take extremely good care that the figure is not too high. If anybody wants to know how much of a particular commodity has been shipped in a particular case, the bill of lading is as good evidence as anybody can want. It is tested by both sides who have every interest to see that as accurate a figure as possible is given. That document cannot be produced in a court of law at present without calling the person who drew it up. That is quite an unnecessary application of the rule.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford, who knows more than I do about these matters, says that in practice the rigid rules have been relaxed, but that is not satisfactory, because an unreasonable person, by taking objection, can exclude from the court documents which ought to be looked at. I will make one comment on this remarkable statement which appears at the top of page 2 of the Bill. But is it so remarkable after what I have said? If Members of the Committee will look at page 1 of the Bill they will see that the sub-section begins by laying down the ordinary rule that applies to-day, namely, that a document itself is not evidence unless the maker of the statement is called as a witness. That is the ordinary present rule in which the proviso makes a change. Under the ordinary present rules if a man is dead, you cannot produce the document because you cannot call him as a witness. Therefore, I think it is essential, though it strikes one as a little odd, that the draftsmen should have made the position clear in the plainest possible way. I believe that the reason that the statement appears to be particularly extraordinary is because it starts a new page, but if hon. Members relate it to Subsection (2) they will see that all that the proviso says is that this will not prevent the court seeing the document if the man is dead or beyond the seas.

As my hon. and learned Friend says, this Bill was introduced in another place by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor before he came to his present office, and perhaps I may be allowed, on behalf of the Government, to express the gratitude, which, I believe, the whole of the legal profession and the Government owe to him for the immense trouble which he took, with others, to draft this Bill. There is no more touchy and sensitive subject among lawyers than the Rules of Evidence. Lord Maugham, with very great skill and patience, succeeded in introducing a Bill which commands general support, and which brings about a real improvement in the Rules of Evidence.

I do not object to the Bill because it has come from another place, as I imagine that it is possible for a good Bill to come from another place, but the Attorney-General does not seem to have met one of the arguments made by the hon. and learned Member for Spens. [Laughter.] That remark is no worse than the experience I have had. I was introduced at a meeting not long ago as "Mr. Spennymoor," and I received a letter this week addressing me as "Your Majesty."

I can understand the attitude of the Attorney-General regarding any statement made before a ship sails and that that statement not be accepted, but he rather unsettled me when he referred to a statement made by somebody just before death. Many accidents occur to-day as a result of motor cars. If a motor car driver was involved in an accident and was injured and died two days later, it would be possible for a smart solicitor to have got a written statement from that driver and that written statement could be put in as evidence. That is the kind of case that frightens me, and it seems to me that this Clause is so wide that it would admit of a case like that.

That very point has not escaped the attention of my noble Friend, and if the hon. Member will look at Subsection (3) he will find that that type of statement is expressly excluded. That subsection provides:

" Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made at a time when any dispute was pending involving controversy as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish."

I am satisfied on that point.

This is a protective Clause. The court simply takes the document and gives to it what weight it thinks it right to give to it as evidence, having regard to the accuracy or otherwise disclosed on the face of the document, and all the circumstances under which the statement was made. It takes into consideration particularly the question whether or not the statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence, or otherwise. It is left entirely to the court, whether magistrates or judges, to say exactly what weight should be given to the particular document. There is complete protection against the making of false documents. If the circumstances are not known or the statement is not contemporaneous with the occurrence or existence of the facts, the court would attach less weight to the document as against other evidence.

There is one suggestion that I should like to make in connection with this Clause where we are dealing with civil matters. I think it might be a good thing if we transferred Sub-section (2) to Clause 3. The only civil case that I can think of in which you need corroboration, is breach of promise, whereas there are one or two criminal offences such as perjury and where the evidence of a child who is too young to give evidence on oath in which corroboration is necessary. I suggest that Sub-section (2) should be transferred to Clause 3 and that would make the Sub-section relate to criminal as well as civil proceedings.

There are, by some older Acts of Parliament, certain-deeds which are valid only if they are executed in the presence of one or more attesting witnesses. By our present law of evidence it is laid down that in order to prove those documents you have to get an attesting witness and bring him to court. This Clause is to make deeds of that kind provable in exactly the same way as an ordinary deed that does not require attestation. The Clause seeks to simplify and cheapen litigation in these cases.

Under our present law a deed which is 30 years old speaks for itself, unless there is something on the face of it which makes one think that it is wrong; otherwise, it proves itself. This Clause reduces the period to 20 years, so that documents 20 years old shall prima facie speak for themselves, unless there is something on the face of them that makes one suspect them. The Clause does away with the necessity of having to call a person who signed the document or an attesting witness.

This Clause deals with a technical point. It refers to a rule of court where it may be doubtful whether the Rules Committee has the right to admit affidavit evidence if the court thinks fit. The object of the Clause is to provide that if the court thinks fit specified facts may be proved at the trial by affidavit without the necessity of bringing the deponent to court.

During the debate on the Coal Mines Bill the President of the Board of Trade gave an undertaking that the Department would agree to the workings being examined and to plant being examined in districts affected by subsidence. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether this Clause which defines documents as '' including books, maps, drawings and photographs," will affect that undertaking given by the President of the Board of Trade?

May I suggest that in civil proceedings documents shall not include any documents which would be privileged on discovery? If that were inserted it would do away with the objection I raised on Clause 2.

I do not think I can accept that suggestion. The object of the definition is to define various pieces of paper which come under the expression "document." I do not think the definition in any way effects the question of privilege. It only says that documents may be looked at as evidence in certain circumstances by leave of the court which at present cannot be looked at if objection be taken. In regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) the definition in this Bill has no effect of any kind whatever on the undertaking given by the Board of Trade to which he referred. I cannot at the moment remember whether that particular Bill contains any definition or not. I should rather doubt it, because I think it would be clear as to the actual nature of the documents which were to be shown.

Why is the Bill not to extend to Scotland?

Because Scotland has its own legal system which is different from ours. In many respects the procedure and rules of evidence are different and, therefore, a Bill drawn up to apply to our rules does not apply to Scotland. I cannot say what is the exact position of Scottish law in regard to these matters, but at present it suffers from the same defects as our law, and no doubt they will follow our enlightened example and make similar changes in their own system. I do not know what are the Scottish rules of evidence in regard to the admissibility of documentary evidence.

Does the same thing apply to Northern Ireland?

The Bill is not to apply to Northern Ireland, because these are matters within the competence of the Northern Ireland Parliament and, therefore, it should be left to them to say whether they will adopt this Bill or some modification of it.

I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

Before you put that Motion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I want to raise a point of Order. This is the last Friday reserved for Private Members, and it is a privilege greatly valued by Private Members. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel Baker) and myself have a Motion on the Paper:

" That, in the opinion of this House, a clear statement is needed of the undertaking arrived at between the Prime Minister and the Italian Ambassador as to the settlement in Spain."

We thought there might be time for a Debate on this subject to-day. May I ask whether there is any precedent for the Patronage Secretary coming down to the House of Commons on a Private Members' day and cutting out a proposed Debate by Private Members, thereby depriving them of their Parliamentary privilege?

I cannot answer as to whether there is any precedent, but it is clearly within the power of the Government at any time to move the Adjournment of the House.

Then, in point of fact, the privileges which are preserved by this House to Private Members may be, and in this case are being, wilfully infringed by the Government entirely within the Rules of Order?

The right hon. Gentleman must not put that point to me. I am merely stating what is in Order.

I desire, on the Motion for the Adjournment, to raise the question of non-intervention in Spain. I am sorry to bring a note of controversy into the sittings of the House, which, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) has said, has been one of great good will. But there is no doubt that this question has been very largely in the mind of the Government lately, and the House knows that we on this side have been trying by all the means at our disposal to find out what is the policy of the Government with regard to non-intervention and how they propose to secure real non-intervention in Spain at the present time. We have asked question after question. We had a debate last night for the purpose of learning what was the policy of the Government in regard to the issues raised at Geneva. The most important of the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) was that of the Spanish claim before the Council of the League that non-intervention should be brought to an end. He reminded the House that the Spanish Delegation called for the abandonment of non-intervention and moved a motion to that effect, and that the British Government Delegation opposed it, but only succeeded in obtaining four votes out of 15. That is 11 members of the Council, drawn from three Continents, were not prepared to vote for the view that a continuance of non-intervention can now be justified. I am raising this matter in the hope that we may succeed in getting light on what has become the greatest single factor of unrest in the world at the present time. No-one can deny the continuance of German and Italian aggression in Spain: it is admitted by the leaders of those countries. It constitutes the most important single factor of international unrest.

I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he cannot discuss matters arising out the Motion he has put on the Order Paper.

With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Motion on the Paper covers a very narrow point; it reads:

" That, in the opinion of this House, a clear statement is needed of the undertaking arrived at between the Prime Minister and the Italian ambassador as to the settlement in Spain."

That relates to the exact meaning of the conversation which took place between the Prime Minister and the Ambassador, as I understand it, on the morning of 21st February, the day on which the late Foreign Secretary resigned. What I am raising is the whole question of non-intervention, of the continued aggression of Italy, of the failure of our Government to support the Spanish claim that that aggression should be recognised and that the policy of non-intervention should now be brought to an end. I submit that that is a very much wider question, indeed a totally different question, and one upon which I am entitled, on the Motion for the Adjournment, to call the attention of the Government, the House and the country to the very important facts of the present situation.

The hon. Member has put his case very clearly, but I am bound to say that I think he is likely to have some difficulty. As I understand this Rule, anything would be out of Order now which would be in Order on the discussion of the Motion on the Order Paper. The Motion clearly says that

" a clear statement is needed of the undertaking arrived at between the Prime Minister and the Italian ambassador as to the settlement in Spain."

If the hon. Member thinks that the words of this Motion would allow any discussion at all except a clear statement of what the undertaking was or was not, there remains little he can discuss now about Spain on the Motion for the Adjournment.

With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I submit that the present situation in Spain is quite a different point from the content of the conversation which took place three months ago. I venture to think that if I make reference to the situation in Spain and to what happened at Geneva last week, I shall not be encroaching upon the grounds embraced by the Motion, and that, therefore, even under your Ruling,

I shall be in Order. What were the facts which were laid before the Council by the Spanish Delegation last week?

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman unnecessarily, but I think it would be as well if I put the matter clearly to him. I think I have correctly stated the Rule in the words which I used just now, namely, that anything which would be in Order as a subject for debate on the Motion which is on the Order Paper would be out of Order now on the Motion for the Adjournment. In these circumstances, I think the hon. Member will understand the effect of the Ruling which I have given, and will realise that he must observe that.

As I put down the Motion with my hon. Friend, perhaps I may ask your Ruling on this point. The Motion was put on the Paper because when at Question time this week, and again in the Debate last night, we put certain questions to the Chancellor, as acting Foreign Secretary, as to what had passed between the Prime Minister and Count Grandi, we did not get a satisfactory reply. What we wanted to know by this Motion was exactly what undertakings Count Grandi gave last February. Now, that is all the ground which would have been strictly relevant to the Motion, at any rate in the view of myself and my hon. Friend who put the Motion on the Paper. Therefore, I submit that questions outside that, especially questions that have occurred after which could not possibly affect the Motion, would be out of Order.

I think the right hon. Gentleman would be indignant— and rightly so— if this Motion were being discussed, and I ruled so narrowly as to what could be discussed. In view of the words of the Motion— that a clear statement is needed of the undertaking arrived at as to the settlement in Spain—I should find it a little bit difficult to say that it was out of Order to discuss a great many matters relating to the state of affairs in Spain which were connected with the possibility of a settlement. I am afraid that the Motion on the Order Paper is not as narrow as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

I observed on that point of Order that it is a question of the undertakings given by Count Grandi. To that extent the Motion is extremely narrow. What your Ruling would have been if the Motion had been reached—

The Motion does not say so. The Motion refers to the undertaking arrived at between—

The Prime Minister and the Italian Ambassador.

It does not say "by" Count Grandi: it says "between" representatives of the two countries.

With great respect, I think that a matter which involves, as we believe, a large-scale violation of the Covenant of the League of Nations within the heart of Europe, which is admitted now, long after 21st February, by the head of the Italian State to be going on, is really a matter which falls outside the Motion on the Paper; but I will endeavour, to the best of my ability, to observe your Ruling as you have put it, and I hope that if I infringe it in the slightest degree you will immediately call me to Order, and I will then turn at once to other matters connected with the Council of the League of Nations last week, to which I also wish to draw attention. Perhaps I can explain why I think the question of non-intervention is outside our Motion if I make some general remarks about the answer which the Chancellor gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton last night. May I start by quoting a speech which the Prime Minister made in the House on 24th March, when he said:

" The problem before Europe, to which in the opinion of His Majesty's Government it is their most urgent duty to direct their attention, is how best to restore this shaken confidence, how to maintain the rule of law in international affairs, how to seek peaceful solutions to questions that continue to cause anxiety." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1938; col. 1405, Vol. 333.]

It is not very fashionable now-a-days to talk about the League of Nations, or to regard it as an instrument of practical action, but we on these Benches continue to believe that if you want to restore confidence you must restore the rule of law, that if you want to restore the rule of law, you must seek peaceful solutions to questions that continue to cause anxiety, and that that can be done only through the permanent institutions, and upon the basis of the law, of the League of Nations. Last night, the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that the action of the Government at Geneva and throughout the last six months was inspired by precisely the purpose which the Prime Minister thus defined, and was the policy which was best adapted to that end. He said that at the end of last year there was in the world a situation of great tension, and that the Prime Minister's crime, as he called it, was that he had adopted the course which he believed would relax the tension that then existed.

How did he set about relaxing the tension? He got rid of the late Foreign Secretary. He made his speech of 21st February, which was recognised throughout the world to be a speech of first-rate importance. He opened the negotiations with Italy which were to bring us appeasement. We hoped that tension would in consequence be relaxed; but three weeks later, and, as the world now believes, in direct reply to the speech of 21st February, we saw the rape of Austria. The Government told us next day that it was a very grave event and that our armaments programmed must be increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his Budget speech that armaments were to be greatly increased and probably for a period of years. The Air Minister has been dismissed because he has not been getting on with the armaments job fast enough. On top of that, we have had Signor Mussolini's speech of 30th March and his speech made at Genoa on Saturday last. I do not think that these events can be said to have relieved tension very greatly. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very good case for thinking that the use of the Council meeting by the Government last week has promoted those objectives which the Prime Minister defined, namely, restoring confidence, maintaining the rule of international law and securing peaceful solutions of the present disputes.

There were three questions before the Council on each of which I should like to say something. There was, first, this question of Spain, and I take it first, because I think it is the most important question in the world to-day. If we could end the war in Spain and get a real peace there, I am sure everybody agrees we should be much nearer peace throughout the world. But peace on what terms? Peace by victory of the aggressor? Or how? We are extremely uneasy as to whether the Government intend that Signor Mussolini shall be allowed to carry out his threat to conquer Spain. Let no one doubt that that is his threat. My hon. Friend has referred to the speech which Signor Mussolini made at Genoa on Saturday and has mentioned that on the platform from which Signor Mussolini spoke were a number of decorative memorial columns commemorating Italian victories in Spain. One of these victories was at Guadalajara. Well, it was an Italian victory in a certain sense, because the Garibaldi battalion on that occasion was largely instrumental in beating the Blackshirts. Other victories claimed were Santander, Bilbao, Gijon and lastly Tortosa.

It would not be unreasonable to say that those are reasons why the hon. Member thinks that

" a clear statement is needed of the undertaking arrived at between the Prime Minister and the Italian Ambassador."

I am very unwilling to intervene in the hon. Member's speech but I must ask him to put this question to himself. If we were discussing the Motion on the Paper would he not complain, if I ruled out of Order what he is now saying?

My argument is this—and as far as the facts are concerned I will bring it to an immediate conclusion — that Signor Mussolini has now avowed by speech and in other ways, that he is committing large-scale international aggression against the people at the Government of Spain and in the Council— of the League last week—

I am afraid that the development of the hon. Member's argument only confirms the view which I held at first, namely, that anything connected with the present state of affairs in Spain, in regard to what is known as the Spanish settlement, would come under the Motion on the Order Paper and is therefore Out of Order now on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Then we have arrived at this situation. A day is reserved for Private Members; there are three hours available for discussion; certain Private Members have put a Motion on the Order Paper; the Government Chief Whip, moves the Adjournment and by this adjustment of the Rules of Order, defeats the very purpose which Private Members have been seeking to achieve in their own time. May I submit that the Motion on the Paper has obviously been framed in view of the refusal of the Government to give us information about certain conversations; and may I respectfully suggest that to say that the Motion on the Paper is so wide that it prevents any discussion whatever now, on any aspect of the Spanish question, is straining the terms of the Motion?

Possibly the words which I used may have been a little too wide. Some matters, in order on the Motion on the Paper, for, for passing reference only, might be in order now; but that does not include matters which could be fully discussed on the Motion on the Paper. So, I think, the position is quite clear. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) would be entitled, I think, to complain if we were discussing the Motion on the Order Paper and if I decided that the matters to which he is referring were out of order on that Motion. I do not think I am accusing myself of any lack of ingenuity when I say that I should have difficulty in finding matters connected with the state of affairs in Spain which I could discuss on the Motion to adjourn which is now before us.

May I ask whether, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury had not moved the Adjournment of the House, my hon. Friends would have been entitled to discuss those matters? If that is so, then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has shut us out.

The hon. Member is now asking me a hypothetical question because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved the Adjournment of the House.

If he had not done so, would my hon. Friends have been entitled to discuss the Motion on the Paper?

On a point of Order. Is there a Quorum present?

Is the hon. Member calling my attention to the fact that there is not a Quorum present?

For the information and assistance of the Chief Government Whip would you tell him, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when he is in a position to call a count— which will fail?

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a Private Member's day, and that I am not taking any part.

I do not wish to continue the controversy on procedure on which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have given your Ruling. I only add that it did not occur to me that the question of large-scale aggression in Spain which came before the Council of the League last week, could have been contained within the scope of a Motion such as we put on the Paper. But I end all I am going to say on the subject of Spain, by expressing my regret that His Majesty's Government did not use the opportunity afforded them last week of striking a blow for the maintenance of international law, by recognizing, as so many other members of the Council of the League were apparently ready to recognize, that Non-intervention ought no longer to be continued and that, therefore, there was now an overwhelming case for giving to the Government of Spain its rights under international law to purchase arms. That, we are convinced, is the only way to defeat the aggression which two great countries have committed against a free people, an aggression, which if it succeeded, would, we believe, involve a great menace to the peace of the world.

I pass to other questions which were dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, arising out of the meeting of the Council in Geneva last week, to draw attention to certain aspects of what he said which seem to us unsatisfactory in the extreme. While he was speaking about the approval that was given to our proposal concerning Abyssinia, I interrupted him on two occasions, and I suggested by my interruptions that the Council of the League had agreed to no Resolution, that no decision had been made.

That point applies not only to Abyssinia; it applies also to the Anglo-Italian Agreement as a whole.

This Anglo-Italian Agreement is a very important international event. It is the Prime Minister's great act of appease- ment, and if we had taken at their face value what was said by the Chancellor last night and by the Foreign Secretary the night before in another place, we might have thought that this act of appeasement had aroused enthusiasm throughout the world and had been given an enthusiastic reception by the Council of the League.

I have been present on a good many of what I might call congratulatory ceremonial occasions in Geneva, when some Treaty has been made, when some dispute has been settled, when some cause of international difference has been removed, and I have never heard the kind of discussion which the Council had on this occasion. I have never seen anything so half-hearted, so tepid, so frigid, as the reception given to the Anglo-Italian Treaty. I was not present, but I have had a chance to glance at the provisional Minutes which have been made, and if I made my notes correctly, only four members of the Council besides ourselves took part in the discussion. The whole record amounts only to three-and-a-half pages of typewriting in double spacing. One journalist said—-I think it was Mr. Vernon Bartlett—of one of the four speeches, that:

" it damned the Agreement very effectively with the faintness of its praise."

A representative of another country spoke exactly 10 lines, and used such phrases as these:

" The Government had noted the Agreement with great interest."

And:

" It was not called on to express an opinion on the provisions of the Agreement, but it expressed the hope that the Agreement would lead to the consolidation of peace which we all desire."

There were five speeches among the 14 members of the Council. There were nine members who said nothing, and I have never been present on one of these congratulatory ceremonial occasions when every member did not insist on putting in his oar. Five speeches out of 14, five out of the 57 members of the League. Is that approval of the Anglo-Italian Agreement? The Prime Minister gave a pledge to this House on 21st February, as follows:

" I repeated that we were loyal members of the League, and that if we came to an agreement, we should desire to obtain the

approval of the League for it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1938; col. 62; vol. 332.]

I say that there has been no approval of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, and, therefore, on this ground alone, the Government have no right to proceed to bring it into force, whatever they may think with regard to their other conditions about the settlement in Spain, which we may not now discuss.

I pass on to the second point on which approval is required. On the general question I am perfectly certain, from reading this procès verbal, that the Government have not only not obtained approval, but, as was said universally by people in Geneva who were at the meeting, and as I have myself been able to determine in a number of foreign countries, people abroad regard the Agreement as an experiment in power politics, and an experiment which has already failed.

And the worst part of this experiment in power politics is that which relates to Abyssinia, because there we are ceding the recognition of a conquest which is not complete in order to make this piece of paper, which has done nothing, as we think, to advance appeasement in any way. If the Government needed approval for the Anglo-Italian Treaty in general, they needed it a thousand times more for what they propose about Abyssinia. Why? Because they are proposing to recognise a condition of affairs brought about by Covenant-breaking force, because they are proposing to set aside the Covenant of the League, solemnly declared to forbid such recognition by the Council and the Assembly.

It is not for me now to cite the terms of the Resolutions which were adopted in February, 1932, by 12 members of the Council on the Manchurian question, and unanimously by the Assembly a few weeks later, on nth March, 1932. Those Resolutions are well known. They declare that it is incumbent upon members of the League, as a result of the provisions of Article 10, not to recognise changes of territorial status or sovereignty brought about by Covenant-breaking war. That is precisely what we are intending now to do, and since we are intending to do it, the Government said, "Oh, well, we must cover ourselves in some way. We are setting aside a most important, indeed a fundamental, principle of international law, what President Wilson called the heart of the Covenant, Article 10, and, therefore, we must have the approval of the League." They have not got the approval of the League. What happened in Geneva about Abyssinia? Before they went there the Government were extremely reluctant to tell us what procedure they proposed to adopt, what proposals they were going to put forward. But everybody knows that they wanted to have a Resolution of the Council. In my view, if they had got a Resolution of the Council, unanimously adopted, it would still not have been sufficient to set aside Article 10; it could not have wiped out the unanimous Resolution of the Assembly of 1932. But when they got to Geneva, having wanted a Resolution, they found that they could not get it, and so they fell back on the device of having a discussion, a series of isolated and detached declarations by the different members of the Council.

It is true that a majority of the members who spoke supported the attitude of the Government, with more or less enthusiasm— in most cases with less rather than with more— but it is also true that four members of the Council, apart from Abyssinia, which made five, a third of the whole body, were against what we proposed. Therefore, the Government were unable to obtain a Resolution, they were unable to obtain a recommendation, they did not even obtain an agreed declaration by either the whole or a majority of the members of the League. I venture to think that that is not approval by the League of what the Government propose to do. It is certainly not approval in a legal sense, and I submit that it is not approval in any moral sense, but that what has occurred has no moral or political value of any kind. If the Government proceed to actual recognition of the conquest of Abyssinia on the basis of this divided and inconclusive debate, they will quite evidently violate the pledge which the Prime Minister made to the House on 21st February, and, by so doing, they will strike a serious blow at the restoration of confidence and at the maintenance of the rule of law and all our hopes for a peaceful solution throughout the world.

In this Abyssinian matter, the Government are trying to set aside the funda- mental rule of Article 10. They are trying to do it at a time when the conquest of Abyssinia is not only incomplete, but when it might be said that it has hardly begun. On Wednesday my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) and I ventured to lay certain facts on this matter before the House, and I do not think that many Members who heard that discussion will deny that the answer made by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was unsatisfactory in the extreme. He said that the information given by my hon. Friend was Ethiopian in source and out-of-date. I gave him some up-to-date information; I gave British information. I gave him only a very small selection of what I could have produced because he desired to leave the House at a certain hour, and, as we had an agreement, I cut short my remarks.

I gave him the evidence of a Frenchman who had been in Abyssinia in the last few weeks on the side of the Abyssinian Army. I could have given him the evidence of an American journalist who had come out of Addis Ababa only a few weeks ago, and who gave a more alarmist account than that given by the Frenchman on the other side of the battle line. Yesterday morning I had a conversation with an American friend who, in the middle of April, was in Port Said. She had there seen and talked with British officers who had been aboard three Italian hospital ships which were carrying Italian soldiers horribly wounded, so wounded that they could not remain in the front line hospitals in Abyssinia. They were on their way from Abyssinia to Rhodes— not to Italy, because Signor Mussolini does not dare to allow them to go into Italy at the present time. I submit that if the conditions are such that on a single day you find three great hospital ships full of wounded on their way from Abyssinia to a base hospital at a great distance, then, indeed, the conquest is not complete.

It is in these conditions that the Government are proposing to accept the conquest of Abyssinia. They are proposing to do it without any decision of the League of Nations. If they had a decision of the Council it would have been of no value. What is the real character of what they propose? I venture to read some words from a delegate who spoke against what we want, a delegate who, as I think, spoke the will and the mind of the British people of this country and the British peoples of the Commonwealth. I refer to Mr. Jordan of New Zealand. He spoke in opposition to what Lord Halifax laid before the Council citing the resolution of 11th March, 1932, to which I have referred, and said that the New Zealand Government stood by that resolution as unanimously adopted by the Assembly and that they stood by the Covenant. He said:

" The proceedings in which we are engaged, however they may be disguised, will only be regarded as a stage further in the surrender to aggression."

He went on to say that, according to the suggestion which we put before the Council, any nation may remain in the League and at the same time disregard the terms of the Covenant. He closed by saying:

" The New Zealand Government cannot support any proposal which would involve either directly or by implication approval of a breach of the Covenant."

In plain language, that is what His Majesty's Government have proposed to do. Another member of the Council said that while resistance continued in Abyssinia recognition would be equivalent to abetting the aggressor directly and to stabbing the victim in the back by discouraging and demoralising him. What we have done in Geneva is a serious blow at the policy of restoring confidence and the rule of international law and of securing a peaceful solution, to which the Prime Minister said that we must devote our whole attention.

I do not desire to detain the House longer on the proceedings at Geneva except to say this. We have been told many times in recent years that the policy which His Majesty's Government are pursuing is based on reality. We have been told by the Prime Minister that Italy is now a Power with new efficiency, new vigour and, he even said, new vision. Even leaders of the Church in another place have said that we must balance what they call reality against morality. The most important single fact in human government is the moral sense of man, and unless our policy is based upon that moral sense and upon a desire for justice and for the upholding of the law in the Spanish question, in the Abyssinian question and in the China question, then the Government will not be able to have the support of this people in the policy they are pursuing and they will not be able to get the results which they hope that policy will achieve.

I said that the Prime Minister had spoken of Italy as a country with a new vision. It is sometimes urged that we on these Benches to not desire real peace with Italy and Germany. Of course we desire it. Can any man in his senses want the bloodshed and the useless slaughter of Italian and German peasants which is now going on in Spain indefinitely to be continued? We want friendship with Italy, the kind of friendship we used to have. But when we look at Mussolini's record, we remember that for 15 years he has destroyed law and justice in Italy, the very basis of civilisation. We remember that he has so militarized his, people, that children of eight are now marking about the streets in military formations learning military discipline and being taught the use of arms. We remember that on 30th March he made a speech in which he lauded the achievements of his armies in Spain. He said that they had learned how warfare in the air should be conducted and that they must help in the battle line, but that above all the bombing aircraft must demoralise the civil population. When he said that that doctrine of air warfare was based on the practice of the war in Spain, he was avowing responsibility for those ghastly bombardments in southern Spain at which the Prime Minister expressed his horror and disgust. Signor Mussolini ended by saying they were ready in Italy for the next campaign which was soon to come, a short and implacable campaign, which they would conduct to victory.

That is not the language of appeasement. That is not a country with a new vision. That is a Government of despotism without, as we believe, the support of the Italian people, a despotism in power which is devoted not to a new vision, but to the old hideous fallacies of imperialist and military power. It is because we do not believe in retreating before the aggressions of such governments; it is because we are dissatisfied with what the Government did in Geneva last week, and because we hope that in A measurable future there will be a radical change in the foreign policy which the Government pursue, that we have raised these matters to-day.

I had no idea of coming into this Debate until I happened to be called out from my ordinary correspondence by a "count," but I am rather glad to say a few words on a matter which, I think, the Opposition have done real service in bringing forward. I should agree with them most enthusiastically if this were a perfect world, or anything like it. I have spent nearly the whole of my life in teaching history, and I do not think anything is more striking in the long story of humanity on this earth than the fact that wisdom has very seldom prevailed, and that morality has had comparatively little influence in the councils of the nations of the world. I hate it, I detest it, I repudiate it, I loathe it, but there it is, and what are we to do? Nobody could possibly dislike more than I do the conquest of Abyssinia, that one ancient African Empire unconquered through the long centuries by the ancient Egyptians, by the Persians, by the Ptolemy's, by the Romans, by the great Arab Empire only just across the Red sea and then, in the 16th century, conquered by the Portuguese.

I have no apology for having been one of those who made a special protest against the Hoar-Laval terms, and while the Emperor was still in Abyssinia, with all the prestige of that ancient dynasty, theoretically, at any rate, descending from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba—it must have taken a man of great imagination and high purpose to evolve that magnificent ideal—while the Emperor was still there I believe there was some real hope. Unfortunately, the Emperor left his country and has been living for some time in a quiet English inland spa. I do not in the least doubt the substantial truth of what many Members of the Opposition have said about Abyssinia being still unconquered, but what I do doubt is this: Behind those who are fighting against the Italians at the present time is there any kind of settled Government, is there any real hope of a settled Government that could take over the affairs of Abyssinia supposing the Italians were withdrawn? The Italian conquest of Abyssinia is, to my mind, a blackguardly adventure. I have no hesitation in saying it, but so was the Norman Conquest of England in 1066, and if anybody would show me a way of refusing to recognise that infamous conquest of the Saxon Kingdom, I would be glad to range myself under his banner. Unfortunately, wrong must after a time be recognised. The government of this world must to a very great extent be a matter of expediency. I dislike that as much as anybody else, but there it stands.

It does seem to me that the case for the Opposition is based upon a fundamental fallacy. They want to divide the nations of the world into good nations and bad nations; as one of them put it last night, liberty-loving and peace-loving nations in opposition to those who have very different ideas. It is perfectly right and proper, perhaps, that that should be the way in which it strikes us, but what impartial arbiter of events since the War could possibly agree? What about the Conference of Versailles promising to disarm if Germany would disarm? Have we kept the promises that we made? Germany was disarmed; the Allies promised to disarm, but they did nothing of the kind. France took advantage of the absolutely unarmed condition of Germany to send her forces into the Ruhr. She made an attempt to detach the Rhineland, against all history, against all right. How can we expect the Germans to look upon those countries as being specially virtuous, while they have done nothing but wrong?

Did the Germans set up Hitler? Did the Italians put Mussolini in his place? Emphatically no. We put them there. We did it by repudiating our solemn promises at Versailles, and we have got to take the consequences. It is absolutely hypocritical, it is utter nonsense, to talk about some nations that want to keep their treaties, and always will, and of other nations that have very different ideas. It seems to me that the policy of the Opposition at the present time very closely resembles that in which I was myself brought up— ideas about the sacredness of property and all that kind of thing. Those nations which have got all they want and therefore have no particular object in breaking any Treaty that they have dictated are now crying aloud to the world against the dishonesty of breaking contracts. I do not for a moment justify anything that has been done from Berlin, from Rome, from Moscow or any other capital of the world, but I do feel that we need most emphatically to look at the world as it is at the present time, and in the truest possible sense to face realities.

The one great danger, as it seems to me, is that of bringing back into this 20th century the evil conditions of the 16th and the 17th centuries when the nations of the world, of Europe at any rate, were arrayed against each other on the score of religion. Beyond anything else we need to prevent the alignment of countries on any platform at all, but particularly to prevent the nations getting together in different groups which are championing different political principles. I have been connected with the League of Nations since before it began, and you cannot blame me for the failure of the League. I was a member of the Faculty of Oberlin College at a time when the President, Henry Churchill King, was particularly anxious to get the United States into the League of Nations and to induce that country to accept the Armenian Mandate in order to preserve the peace of the world. I addressed a good many meetings, in company with professors from Oberlin College, in different part of the United States to try to induce that country to enter the League and to accept the Armenian Mandate. As all know, in common with about a million others I completely failed. America refused to accept the Armenian Mandate, America refused to accept membership of the League, and that, to a very large extent indeed, is the reason why the world at the present time is in such a miserable state that we have largely thrown away the triumphs gained in the War.

I do not think anybody need blame those who feel that the condition of the League at the present time is greatly to be deplored. I do not think the responsibility for that can be laid at the door of one nation more than another; and at any rates it is exceedingly satisfactory from our own point of view that all the political parties who have held control in this House in the days since the Armistice are about equally guilty. After all, practically every single party has been guilty to a very large extent. Labour was in office when Signor Mussolini flouted the League about Corfu.

That is not so. I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to distort the facts.

I think I am right on that point, but I apologise if I am wrong. It certainly does seem to me, if we take the long story from the time of the Armistice to the present day, that no party in this country can claim to have upheld the League consistently, according to the ideals that it was intended to set forth.

On the contrary we claim just that for the Labour party. If it had not been for the Baldwin Government coming in 1924 and throwing out the Geneva Protocol, the whole of the events would have been changed.

I am very glad that that point has been raised. I do not think there is any doubt whatever that the Protocol went far beyond what this nation would have accepted, making this country responsible for getting into a European war that might have come about in circumstances over which we had no control. That was far beyond anything that this nation could have been made to accept. I am very glad that that point has been brought forward because I feel very strongly indeed about it. That was an election when I myself stood as a Liberal candidate and was soundly defeated. It has to be remembered that we on this side are just as enthusiastic about the League as anyone else. No one has a right to say that because we feel that the League has to be radically modified, we are less enthusiastic about its principles, less keen about its being a real power for peace in the world, than anyone else. I would draw attention to the fact that only a few days ago one of the principal South American Republics, Chile, wanting to get the Covenant of the League revised in accordance with conditions as they are to-day, unfortunately decided to withdraw from the League— most unfortunately and too hastily I think, because we realise that the policy of the Government in trying to recognise, not that we are good and totalitarian States are bad necessarily, but that we have all sinned, and in that way trying to bring the different nations of the world together on a general platform of mutual sacrifices and mutual agreements, may enable us after all, and in spite of the difficulties, to build a new League, to restore all that is right and good and satisfactory, and in that way bring about a better world than anything that has been known In the past.

I shall not follow the last speaker, except to say that it seems to me a dangerous doctrine that a nation may not range itself in opposition to an acknowledged wrong because at a previous stage of its development, under other rulers, when different standards prevailed, that nation itself did an equally great wrong. If we were to adopt that principle it would be impossible either to correct any wrong or to make any progress in the world. It must be admitted that we are right in suggesting that those in control of our foreign policy have some special responsibility, for the present Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary were among those who helped to make the Treaty of Versailles what it was; they were among those who signed the fatal telegram sent by 300 Members of Parliament to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) urging him to squeeze the last penny out of Germany.

I strongly repudiated that action at the time.

I rose to say something on a different subject. I want to call attention to a subject that concerns the lives and interests not of Spaniards or Abyssinians nor of any other race, but of Englishmen. I refer to the recent attacks upon British seamen and British ships in Spanish ports. I am not raising the question of the Spanish settlement because that would be out of Order, but purely the question of British interests and British lives. Two days ago a question was put to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I regret raising the subject when he is not here, but I thought that the Order Paper would have ensured his presence here this afternoon.

Since the beginning of the Spanish war, no fewer than 27 men have been killed and 37 injured by the insurgents or their allies while serving on British ships doing legitimate trade, with observers on board, and three British ships have been sunk, 25 have been damaged during air raids on Spanish Government ports and three otherwise damaged; and in only four of these cases have even verbal protests been addressed to the Franco authorities, those being in cases where the Government felt there was conclusive evidence that the attacks had been quite deliberate. The Under-Secretary further informed the House that the right to obtain compensation in these cases was reserved. But no attempt has been made to set up machinery to assess the damage. That really does indicate a very grave neglect of British interests and British lives.

Look at the position. Within the last week 13 Masters of British ships have sent a telegram protesting against these continuous outrages and asking for immediate action. These men believe that they have conclusive evidence that the bombing was ruthless and deliberate. Yet the Government have done nothing but send verbal protests. They do not take any kind of reprisals; they do not even ask for any kind of damage. What is the result? —At the end of the war the right which the Government say they have reserved may be exercised, but how will they then assess the damage? Where are the witnesses to come from? If the Government meant business is it not clear that they would not defer to a distant date finding out what happened to these ships, who was responsible for the deaths of these men, and, so far as material damage is concerned, assessing the value of it?

Contrast this astonishing indifference to British lives and British property with the firm action taken against the Japanese in similar cases, and the compensation which was then paid. Such compensation as was paid last Wednesday, was paid, not by the British Government or by those responsible, but by the National Maritime Board.

What is the explanation of this situation? Rightly or wrongly, I do not think that the British public and the seamen's organisations can draw any other conclusion than that the Government are indifferent to attacks upon British seamen because they want the war to end quickly with a Franco win. Franco is to be allowed to starve out the Republicans by making it impossible for British trade to be carried on with Spain, and the Government are doing their best to stop that trade. Under the Non-intervention Agree- ment they cannot forbid British ships with observers on board to take food, coal and commodities of that kind into Republican Spain, but they try to terrorist them into dropping the trade. In the case of the Basques last summer the Government did this by tremendously stiff warnings, issued by the Admiralty, against the dangers of entering the North Spanish ports, at a time when there was no real blockade. The Government said that the insurgents contemplated establishing a blockade. In that way they enabled General Franco and at a later stage encouraged him to make that blockade. In the case of this coast of Spain they cannot pretend that there is a blockade, because everybody knows that there is not and that ships are able to enter freely.

What are the Government doing? It is a grave charge to make against them, but what they are doing amounts to nothing less than conniving at deliberate attacks by insurgent and Italian aeroplanes upon British steamers, resulting in injury to and the killing of British seamen, because they think in that way to stop the trade. I am not allowed to discuss this matter as part of the Spanish question; I am doing so as a question of British prestige and humanity and of the duty of the British Government to protect the lives of their nationals.

What effect this policy will have upon British prestige is seen clearly. It is plain that the British Government do not care a snap of the finger for the lives of their nationals when they want to carry favour with either Signor Mussolini or General Franco. They hope when the latter has won the war by these dastardly methods to be able to fix up some sort of arrangement by which they can secure British interests. Will that be good for British prestige? What about British trade? A ship owner associated with a Newcastle firm wrote to the "Manchester Guardian" only yesterday saying that British trade with Spain was extremely important, was a very old trade that had been carried on for generations, was of considerable value and that it was specially valuable just now because of the general collapse in freights. He evidently took the view that the Government were actually conniving at the deliberate destruction of that trade, at a time of unemployment. What will the shipping industry and the seamen's organisation think about that matter? I shall be very much mistaken if, when the facts are really brought home in all the ports of this country and to the shipping industry, the situation will be taken lying down.

What a way to carry out our professions of neutrality at a time when we have at the head of the Foreign Office a man who is a champion of Christianity and a devout member of his own church. Does he really countenance this sort of thing? If we are helping to defeat Republican Spain by interfering with the legitimate action of ship owners belonging to this country and seeking to bring food to starving populations— the most ugly of all ways of bringing hostilities to an end is by starving the civilian population— it is contrary to all our professions of neutrality and of leaving the Spaniards to fight it out among themselves, as well as to the principles that were laid down for a settlement of the Spanish conflict.

The hon. Lady is now getting out of Order on the question of Spain.

I was merely glancing past it. From the point of view of British prestige, British trade, British honour and our reputation for humanity the Government ought not to put us off with reports that they have taken just enough action to still Parliamentary clam our. They should take the kind of action which they took in the case of the Nyon Agreement. It would soon put an end to this dastardly practice of deliberately bombing peaceful merchants engaged upon their legitimate trade and we should hear no more of this method of attempting to bring Republican Spain to its knees.

I do not intend to follow at length the line of argument which has just been pursued by the hon. Lady, but I gather from her remarks that she is concerned about British prestige and humanity. I am glad she told us that that was so, because, although she is an advocate of peace and has declared herself this afternoon a champion of humanity, there was very little peace in her speech and her humanity did not extend very far.

Only to British seamen.

Humanity, I should think, like charity, might very well begin at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about British seamen?"] I wonder how much real humanity there is when it is combined with such remarks as that this British Government connive at the death and destruction of British seamen. I regret speeches of that kind and, indeed, much of the sniping at the Government which takes place from the Opposition benches in the name of peace. I am a strong believer in peace and a convinced supporter of the League of Nations, and I regret that hon. Members opposite should try to make a party question out of the League of Nations. They are not serving the ultimate interests of their party by so doing— but that is a matter for themselves to decide. I am certain that they are doing nothing for peace and are certainly injuring the cause of the League of Nations in this country. The League of Nations has support from men and women of all political parties in this country. That is its real strength and its best chance of surviving. I appeal to all Members to hesitate before they try to use the League of Nations for party ends.

With regard to the general effect of their criticism of the Government's policy, it seems to me that they are confining themselves to points of detail, and are not really concentrating on the great question of peace. They are critical of the Government's action in regard to Abyssinia and in regard to Spain, but I would ask them quite frankly this question: Would they advocate that this country should go to war to restore the Emperor of Ethiopia to his throne; would they advocate that we should be prepared to go to war on behalf of the Government of Spain? If they say they are prepared to go to war on those issues, all I can say is that they would be leading a very divided country into a war of that kind, and I think, therefore, that no Government with any sense of responsibility would be likely to pursue such a policy. But if, as is likely, they reply that they do not want to go to war on either of those issues, I would ask them to hesitate before they encourage the pursuit of a policy which at least runs the risk of war, and rather to try to support the Government in their policy of appeasement.

We have heard to-day criticisms of the Italian Agreement, and the suggestion that the better relationships with Italy are beginning to fail. I would ask hon. Members, do they want those good relationships to exist, do they want the Agreement to fail, or do they not? If they are supporters of peace, they must want the Agreement we have made with Italy, or with any other country, to stand, and, therefore, I think it would be very much better if their policy was such as to encourage in this country an atmosphere of good will towards the Italian people, which I believe is the best guarantee of peace from our side, just as I believe that the good will of the Italian people is the best guarantee of peace from their side. There is this merit at least in the Italian Agreement, that it has created among the Italian people a feeling of good will for this country, and I venture to say that that is of greater importance than all the comparatively minor points to which reference has been made by hon. Members opposite. We have to face the facts, whether we like the facts or not. We have to recognise that the position in Abyssinia can only be altered by war or by the threat of war, and that is an eventuality which is unthinkable.

So far as our attitude towards the League is concerned, I believe that our behaviour over the Abyssinian question has been quite correct. We were prepared to go as far as any member of the League when sanctions against Italy were being applied, and the other day, we went to the League to ask for permission to free ourselves on the question of the recognition of the conquest of Abyssinia. I think it would be better to give the Government credit for having gone to the League than to go into comparatively unimportant points about whether a resolution was actually carried, or whether simply the sense of those present was taken. Even those who are critical of the Agreement ought to recognise that the Government have shown respect to the League in going to the League to get its approval on this matter. Other nations, which are often referred to by hon. Members opposite as better champions of the League than this country, did not wait for League permission to recognise the conquest of Abyssinia. In fact, 20 nations have taken the decision into their own hands apart from the League. Therefore, I think it is not fair to the Government of this country to criticise them on this matter.

I would appeal to hon. Members opposite to pay more regard to the vital issues which are involved in discussions of this kind. In this House, in the decisions that we have to take on questions of peace and war, we carry a tremendous responsibility. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), who opened the discussion this afternoon, spoke of three hospital ships with wounded Italian soldiers coming through the Canal, and he suggested apparently, that that was a reason why we should not recognise the conquest of Abyssinia. But anybody who knows the facts will realise that for practical purposes the conquest of Abyssinia has taken place. The guerilla warfare will be continued, no doubt, for some time, as has been the case in similar circumstances in other countries. But surely in the interests of humanity it is better that we ourselves should do nothing which is likely to prolong that loss of life. Certainly, I think the moral that we should draw from what is taking place in Abyssinia and from what is taking place in Spain is that we are anxious to see that our own countrymen are spared the horrors of a modern war. Because I believe that that is the highest and greatest question, and because I believe that we should not dwell on minor points, but rather should concentrate on the big question of general appeasement, I deprecate the attitude of hon. Members' opposite and support the policy of the Government in trying to come to an understanding with those countries with whom we have had differences, and in trying to create generally a better and more peaceful atmosphere in the world.

Reference has already been made to the generous interpretation of Mr. Deputy-Speaker with regard to the scope of these discussions, and I hope that similar generosity will be extended in the case of the question that I want to raise. With one or two of my hon. Friends, I wish to raise the question of the condition of pensioners in this country. I shall deal with the matter briefly, in order to give as many Members of the House as possible the opportunity of taking part in the Debate. I do not expect a reply from the Government, because I have not had an opportunity of giving them notice that I was going to raise this question, but if we in this House are to represent completely the people of this country we have not only to concern ourselves with international affairs, but we have to concern ourselves as well with the affairs of the people to whom we belong. While, as I say, I do not ask for a reply from the Government, I desire to get the matter on the records of the House, in order that all Members of the House may consider what we are raising and that the Government may give attention to the issues involved, and to let the people see that we are trying to represent them here on those issues.

The first question I want to raise is that of the position of old age pensioners. In 1919, after the deputation led by Bobs Millie to the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Car Narvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was so impressed that he promised to give consideration to the issues which they raised. He actually saw Bob Smillie himself, and as a result of the conversations which took place, the right hon. Gentleman and one or two others brought the question to the attention of the Cabinet with the result that in 1919 the old age pension was increased from 7s. 6d. to 10s. Between 1920 and 1923, I, along with many of my hon. Friends engaged in industry, saw that there was an enormous increase in production. Then, production was maintained at a certain level. From 1927 to 1937, I have no hesitation in saying, the production per man and woman in industry in this country increased to a greater extent than in most other parts of the world, and particularly in Europe. I remember, in 1927, passing through some very dark days in our movement, and being looked down upon, owing to the fact that a small number of us took a most unpopular view. In 1927, it was suggested at the Trades Union Congress, as a result of what was known as the Economic Report of the Congress, that we should be a party to what were called at that time the Monde-Turner Conferences. They had for their object, increasing production, the carrying through of rationalization and a number of other things. Many of us did not oppose a number of the suggestions. What we said was that as production increased the workpeople should get some of the benefits. We said it was not right that the employers should receive the whole of the benefits, and that if we were to be a party to increasing the productivity of this country every man and woman unemployed as a result ought to be decently maintained. In addition, we said that when men reached the age of 60 they should be entitled to a decent pension.

We differed from many people in our movement, because we recognised that our people were going to be affected by this policy. We found that, owing to this mechanization, the application of methods of motion study, and the application of scientific methods to piece work, our men at the age of 60 could not hold their own in industry. That meant either that they had to sign on at the employment exchanges or, when they were 65, they were automatically thrown out of industry. In addition, we find that there are relatively fewer employed, compared with the volume of production, than there were in 1919. I want to make that clear. I know that statistics prove that there are more employed in industry in Britain now than there ever were before, but they are relatively less in proportion to the volume of production. The effect on the old men is serious. I do not like calling them old men, because there are large numbers of men in this House who, at that age, are as active intellectually as young men, but we have to speak of them in that way, because these pensions are known as old age pensions. Having regard to the effects on the old men, we say that, in view of the enormous increase in production, 10s. a week is too low for old-age pensions, and that there is an unanswerable case for old-age pensions being increased.

The hon. Member is not entitled to suggest anything which would require legislation.

What I am asking is that an examination should be made. The facts are unanswerable, and anyone who approaches this in an analytical way is bound to come to the conclusion I have reached. I ask that we should have an opportunity of placing these facts on record, in order that everyone, may read them and examine them, and that the Government shall have an opportunity of considering them.

There is a great deal of indignation and uneasiness in the country over the way the ex-service men are treated. I had an experience yesterday morning which gave me a jerk. I went to a hospital and underwent an operation on my throat. While the local anesthetic was being allowed to settle, prior to the surgeon coming along, I listened to the tales of queues of men who were waiting to be examined. Some of them had British Legion badges in their coats, and when I saw an hon. Member over there to-day with a British Legion badge in his coat it made me wonder whether some hon. Members of this House who belong to the British Legion are doing their duty to that organisation. An elderly man came in. He looked a fine type of man—I am a fairly good judge of character, having had experience in a representative capacity in a fairly large type of shop. You could see that this was a broken-hearted man, and a man who wanted to do the right thing in life. When he was interrogated by the specialist, he said that he had lumps coming in his throat, and that they sometimes affected him when he was eating. Finally, he said that in 1916 he had an operation in France, because his tonsils were affected. He added that he did not think the operation was carried through in the way it should have been. The specialist immediately said, "There is the trouble."

There must be hundreds of men in that position in this country. These men were subject to abnormal conditions. Therefore, hon. Members of this House who have been closely associated with men of this character, must realise how these men are bound to be affected as they become old. We are not asking for any preferential treatment for ex-Service men. We ask that the Government should examine the facts.

I was just making the point when I was interrupted, that the men for whom we are speaking are subject to abnormal conditions. I have a friend who was in the Gallipoli campaign, and he told me that some of the trenches were on a hill, and that when it rained, and in order to hold their own, they had to stand breast deep in water. Men subjected to conditions of that kind were bound to be affected later in life. Such conditions must undermine the constitution, and such people are subjected to great risks from pneumonia, influenza and other diseases. I had an experience although, fortunately, I have not been affected by it, but several friends of mine, owing to the fact that they have not the same physique, have been affected. I was in a tank corps, and unless people have undergone these conditions and experiences they have no idea of the effect of being confined in a small space and working under conditions such as were experienced in the tank corps. These pieces of mechanism were as perfect as it was possible to make them, but no matter how perfect a piece of mechanism is, such conditions as prevailed were bound to have some effect. One was affected by the exhaust, by the firing, and the smoke. When the six-bounders were being fired, we were affected by the smoke. Inside the tanks you suffered from the combined effects of the exhaust from the engine, the fumes from the pyrene fire-extinguishers and from petrol fumes.

Therefore, it was with great disappointment that I and a number of my hon. Friends read the report dealing with the request which the British Legion made to the Prime Minister for an inquiry into the condition of ex-service men. I always hesitate to prophesy, but I will prophesy on this occasion, that this report will be reflected in the conference of the British Legion which is to be held shortly. The report states that the reply of the Government to the British Legion with regard to their appeal for the setting up of a committee of inquiry was that the British Legion itself had appointed a committee of inquiry with regard to the matter and therefore there was no need for the Government to hold such an inquiry. I am not seeking on this issue to raise this matter, because we have had a Motion on the Order Paper for some time. I have been most careful in considering that aspect of it, and I do not want to raise any issue that should not be raised, because the subject is already on the Order Paper. Therefore, I am steering clear of that Motion and am confining myself to the report. As I have said, the report states that the British Legion have already had a committee of inquiry and that there is no need for the Government to hold an inquiry. Our reply is that an organisation like the British Legion cannot have access to Departmental records and figures, and, therefore, it is important that, if an inquiry is to be held with the object of the facts being made known to the British Legion and to the nation, it should be carried through by the Government, who have access to the whole of the records. I ask that what I have said should be examined by the Government and by the whole of the Members of this House in order that these urgent questions effecting some of the poorest of the people in the country should receive consideration.

I apologise for not following the hon. gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), who has addressed the House on a matter of great importance, and has spoken with that directness and sincerity to which we are accustomed from him. I wish to return briefly to the subject raised earlier in the debate on Foreign Affairs. The hon. Member for Stoke, in raising a new subject, was good enough to say that, as no notice had been given, he would not expect any reply from the Front Bench on this side of the House.

He did not exclude the Back Bench.

I think that that was rather a pleasant contrast to the attitude of those who have spoken from the Front Opposition Bench and who raised the question of what happened at the League last week, without, as far as I know, giving any notice.

Notice was given by my hon. Friend and myself that we desired to raise a narrow issue about the Chamberlain-Grandi conversations. Notice was duly given at the Table and the Motion appeared on the Order Paper. The Chief Whip moved the Adjournment, and consequently the broadening of the debate was due entirely to the action of the Government. As far as we were concerned, we gave due notice to the Government through the medium of the Order Paper, which is the right way to do it.

I am very anxious not to be unfair to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, but I should have thought that the whole basis of the discussion on Foreign Affairs which has taken place was that it was entirely different from the Motion on the Order Paper, and that, therefore, if he was going to raise a different subject, as he was compelled to do, notice ought to have been given.

As the hon. Gentleman is so anxious to be fair, I am sure that he will allow me to explain. How could we give notice to the Minister, when we did not know that the Patronage Secretary was coming here to move the Adjournment, in order to deprive us of the opportunity of discussing the matter?

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) should have come down here with such voluminous notes, which he used, if he did not think that he was going to deliver the speech. I leave that matter and will merely express my own conviction that the questions of foreign politics raised in the Debate which has taken place are not such as call for any reply whatsoever from the Front Bench. This is a Private Members' day, and there are a few points which have been made in the Debate on foreign policy with which I should like to deal. The subject of nonintervention and the subject of Abyssinia have been so often discussed in this House that I do not wish to repeat adnauseam the questions so exhaustively debated,

Then why not deal with pensions?

I would not dream of replying without notice on the question of pensions, on which the hon. Member for Stoke has delivered a very careful speech, which he had prepared, and which deserves an equally careful speech from anyone who replies from this side. I have read with great interest and some concern the report to which the hon. Member referred, but I am not today prepared to speak on that subject. I am, however, entitled to reply to some points which have been raised in the foreign affairs debate.

I am not complaining of the hon. Member, but I do not want him to say that we have been speaking on foreign policy ad nauseam, and then for him to proceed on the same lines.

If the hon. Member had followed what I was saying he would have realised that what I was proposing to discuss was not the matters so often discussed before. What astonishes me so much is that those who represent themselves as great friends and champions of the League, such as the hon. Member for Derby, should be guilty of such misrepresentations of fact as those in which the hon. Member so frequently indulges. It was not long ago that he said in this House that there were millions of people in the United States—I do not remember the exact number of the population— who were agreeable to and anxious for sanctions against Japan. There was not the slightest justification for his statement, but great arguments were based upon it and it was used to vilify the policy which His Majesty's Government were then pursuing.

Today he did something precisely similar. He referred to the proceedings at the League last week, when Senor del Vayo made his attack on non-intervention, and he castigated His Majesty's Government for not joining with the many members of the Council who agreed with Senor del Vayo, in order to defeat nonintervention. The hon. Member for Derby knows perfectly well that Senor del Vayo had only one supporter who supported him in the Council. What right has the hon. Member to assume that all those who abstained from voting were in favour of ending non-intervention?

Why does the hon. Member assume that they are in his favour?

I am making no such assumption. If the hon. Member will listen in silence I do not think that he will find my argument too difficult to follow.

Say something, and I will listen.

It is a matter of complete indifference to me whether the hon. Member listens or not. In the vote at Geneva, as the hon. Member for Derby is perfectly well aware, one member supported Senor del Vayo and Great Britain, France and two of the smaller Powers opposed. I do not ask anyone to make any assumption whatever about those Powers who abstained; I only say that the hon. Member for Derby has not the slightest justification for saying that those who abstained wished to end non-intervention.

I was in Geneva at the time and I can only say that if the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) was wrong it was a mistake shared by practically everybody on the spot, and by many eminent journalists who attend the League constantly, who greeted it as a great triumph for Senor del Vayo.

The hon. Lady will agree, I am sure, that under the Covenant what is important is what the nations do in the Assembly and in the Council, and not what journalists say or think. I have stated what happened in the Council of the League, that while Senor del Vayo had only one supporter, there were four opponents, and it is not proper, nor is it even plausible, to assume that those who abstained were all in favour of ending non-intervention.

Or against it.

Hon. Members opposite keep making the same interruption, and I make the same reply. I am not making any assumption in regard to those who abstained. It will be remembered, how ever, that last September, when there was a proposal which merely contemplated the possibility of ending non-intervention in certain circumstances, it was defeated by the votes of two smaller Powers with a great many Powers abstaining, including two members of the British Common wealth of Nations who were known to have abstained because they were against the mere contemplation of ending non-intervention. The matter to which I desire most earnestly to draw the attention of the House is this: hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite who profess interest in the League of Nations—

The hon. Member has said that the thing which matters at Geneva is not what journalists say or think but what the Powers do at the Council. Now he says that two members of the British Commonwealth who did not vote did so for reasons which were very well known. How were they very well known?

Because of statements by the statesmen of the countries concerned. I cannot quote them now, but on several occasions public statements have been made, I think, by their representatives. Hon. Members who say that they support the League are always urging the rights of small nations under the Covenant. There is nothing that the hon. Member for Derby and other hon. Members more constantly advocate than respect for the rights of small nations, but what do these pretended friends of the League do when the representatives of the small nations at Geneva take action of which they disappove? Then no insult is too great for these small nations. I remember that when the question of what happened last September was debated in the House, when I alluded to the adverse votes of Albania and Portugal, an hon. Member called out, "Fascist puppets."

Hear, hear.

I observe that the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench says "hear, hear." In other words, those small Powers, which under the Covenant of the League of Nations have every right to be considered the equals of other Powers—

Like Abyssinia.

because they give a vote which is not agreeable to hon. Members opposite, are liable to any insult in this House. Those are the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who say that they are the friends of the League and want to promote the peace of the world. We had an admirable example of that last night from the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). In referring to the adverse votes of two Members of the Council of the League on the very matter referred to by the hon. Member for Derby this morning, she said that Poland was in the pay of Germany, and that Rumania was in the pay of somebody else. That is the sort of insult which those who pretend that they are supporters of the League heap on any small nation which dares to vote in a way of which they do not approve. It is time that hon. and right hon. Members either abandoned those insults to small nations or stopped pretending that they are friends of the League of Nations.

The other question to which I wish to allude very briefly is the other matter which was raised at the Council of the League last week, when it was the sense of the Council of the League that each nation should be free to decide for itself the question of the recognition or non-recognition of the Italian conquest of Abyssinia. The hon. Member for Derby referred to certain resolutions of the League or of some of its organs, against the recognition of any state of affairs brought about by breaches of the Covenant. As many hon. Members wish to take part in this Debate, I do not intend to go into any long legal discussion of the effect of those resolutions, but I think it is very doubtful whether any international lawyer would say that the effect of Article 10 of the Covenant of the League is that recognition must never, throughout all time, be given to any conquest which is achieved in breach of the Covenant. It was very noticeable that the terms of the Motion which was debated in another place did not suggest that that was the view of His Majesty's Opposition either.

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Derby, supposing that he assumes that the Resolution to which he referred is, so to speak, part of the Covenant, would assume that the obligation it imposes is joint or several, or, as has generally been said about obligations under the Covenant of the League, is general. I think that if the hon. Member looks into the matter more deeply, he will come to the conclusion that it is most material to consider whether the obligation, if it exists, of non-recognition of any conquest brought about by illegal means, remains incumbent upon every member of the League after it has already been broken by a great many Powers. I do not know whether the House has fully considered the consequences that would result if the view of the hon. Member for Derby prevailed. Suppose you got this position—that the League which had abandoned sanctions and had abandoned all attempts to reverse the facts of the conquest, proposed while doing nothing active to reverse the conquest, to refuse for ever de jure recognition. The effect, of course, would be that when an Ambassador to Italy died, or retired from old age, no other Ambassador could be appointed. Is it a practical proposition or one likely to lead to peace to suggest that it should be for ever impossible for the French Government to be represented by an ambassador in Rome? If hon. Members would face these facts, they would realise that, however unpalatable it may be to recognise de jure the conquest of Abyssinia, it may yet be a most necessary step towards the appeasement of Europe and the maintenance of peace.

I was astonished by the attack which the hon. Member for Derby made on His Majesty's Government for not following the lead of Senor del Vayo and voting for the ending of non-intervention. The hon. Member in that, is, of course, advocating a split in the alliance between this country and France. It seems reckless in the extreme to make such a suggestion, with not the slightest evidence that the French Government agree with it; in fact with direct evidence to the contrary, because France took the same line at the Council as we did. To suggest in the present dangerous state of Europe that we should take a completely independent line, with which France does not agree, seems the height of folly and recklessness and proves how utterly undeserving of the confidence of the country is the sort of foreign policy advocated by His Majesty's Opposition when they are in Opposition, though I assume, with my Noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, that in the unlikely event of their being in office, they would not adopt so reckless a policy.

I do not know whether the policy which they are now advocating has any support from the Liberal benches. There have not been many Opposition Liberals present today, otherwise it would have been interesting to see how far the Popular Front is holding. The Popular Front is a very ingenious scheme whereby, in the unlikely event of the Socialists winning the General Election, the Opposition Liberals will take office. For that reason it makes a great appeal to the Opposition Liberals, but is greeted with less enthusiasm by most of the sane Labour men. On the particular point of lunacy in foreign policy raised to-day, as no notice was given by hon. Members opposite to His Majesty's Government, perhaps no notice was given either to their partners in the Popular Front.

In conclusion, I would draw attention to the fact that it is not those who most often pose as champions of the League, who have most respect for its institutions. I deeply regret that one who has championed the League as often as has the hon. Member for Derby should have thought fit so to misrepresent what happened at the League last week in the matter of Spain. I do not think that His Majesty's Government have any reason to regret that the question of foreign policy has again been raised, but I hope that if it is raised again, at least on questions of fact as to what happens at Geneva, the Front Opposition Bench will show a higher standard of accuracy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) was anxious to get the House to devote the last hour of today's sitting to considering the needs of pensioners, but he has been most unfortunate. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) tried to prevent this important question being debated, by deliberately speaking at nearly half-an-hour's length. Previous to that, my hon. Friend was most unfortunate, because the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) did his best to prevent him from saying anything at all, by calling a count and attempting to stop the debate altogether. I should have thought that if the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland had had no sympathy with the question of old age pensioners, at least he would have had some sympathy with the ex-service men, and in order that he might be in a better position to understand the case of the ex-service men, I want to remind him that there has been issued a Command Paper containing copies of reports made to the Prime Minister by the British Legion regarding the condition of ex-service men, and the right hon. Gentleman's reply. I say nothing today in regard to the Prime Minister's reply to them, but he refused an inquiry because he considered that it would be "rambling." There is too much that can be said for the present position of ex-service men and of things needing to be done for them for anything in relation to them to deserve to be described in such language as that. But in order that the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland may understand the case for the ex-service men, I would direct his attention to pages 12 and 13 of this Command Paper, which says:

" Information was then sought from the Government as to the number of ex-Service men and non-Service men, in age groups 40 to 49 and 50 to 59, who were receiving assistance from the Public Assistance Committee."

Then, at the bottom of page 12 and the top of page 13, it says:

"It will be noted from these figures"—

which they have got from other sources, because they could not get them from the Minister of Health—

" that 4,493 Great War ex-Service men between the ages of 40 and 60 were receiving assistance from the Public Assistance Committees, compared with 5,170 non-service, and that 3,224 were receiving in-patient treatment in Municipal Hospitals, compared with 1,497 non-Service."

There is the case today that justifies my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke in raising this matter in the House and asking the House seriously to consider it. Another aspect of this question is dealt with in the 20th Annual Report of the Ministry of Pensions, which is published today. It is well worth reading by hon. Members. Dealing with unemployment assistance and disability pensioners on page 5, the Minister says:

" Material though indirect advantages of practical benefit to disability pensioners became operative during the year by general legislation. Foremost of these was the provision of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, which came into full operation under revised regulations in 1936, whereby the first pound a week of any wounds or disability pension is to be disregarded in determining the amount of the pensioner's resources for the purpose of unemployment assistance. (A similar provision applies to men seeking public assistance under the Poor Law Act, 1934.)

Then the Minister uses these pregnant words:

" This generous provision places the man whose health is impaired by service in the Great War in a privileged position as compared with other workers."

It is remarkable that the Minister of Pensions should talk about ex-service men being placed in a privileged position because they are able to go to the Poor Law and have certain things taken into account. That was never the intention of this House or of the country during the Great War. During the War the one thing that was said was that this country would never again allow ex-service men to beg in the streets or to go to public assistance in order to live. Yet we have to-day numberless ex-service men begging in the streets and a huge crowd going to the public assistance committees in order to live. We are justified in bringing to the attention of the House the terrible condition of ex-service men and in asking the House seriously to consider it, and to see whether a different spirit can be aroused so that some different treatment can be meted out to these men.

My hon. Friend also drew attention to the necessity of doing something for old age pensioners. For a long time we have been asking, not for legislation, but simply for an inquiry in order to see whether 10s. a week is sufficient to enable old age pensioners to live, and whether some addition should not be made in view of the increased cost of living. This applies not only to old age pensioners of 70 but to pensioners of 65 and those in receipt of widows' pensions. We submit that with the increased cost of living, 10s. a week is not sufficient to enable old age pensioners or widows to live as they ought to live.

Further, we believe that the time has come when there should be an inquiry into whether we did not as a House make a mistake when we said that when a man reaches 65 years of age his unemployment benefit must cease. A man will be drawing 24s. or, it may be, 26s. a week unemployment benefit, but as soon as he reaches the age of 65 that benefit stops and he has to come down in some cases —indeed, in a huge number of cases—to 10s. a week, although he is a married man. We should like that inquiry to consider whether the time has not come when the wife of such a man should not also receive the old age pension. Even 20s. a week for an old couple who have house rent to pay is not too much, in fact, is not sufficient, to enable them to live.

When we ask for an increase in the amount of the old age pension we are apt to be met with the retort "You forget what the Government are already spending upon old age pensions." This year the Government are proposing to spend £63,000,000 on old age pensions, including not only the pensions paid to those over 70 years of age but the contribution which the Government makes towards widows' pensions at 65; but the working class are paying this year far more than they are getting from the Government in old age pensions. By taxation upon tea the Government are taking this year £10,000,000; sugar, £11,750,000; tobacco, £67,000,000; and beer, £67,000,000. Some may say: "All that is not paid by the working class," but the great bulk of it is, and when the working class is paying those huge sums we are entitled to ask the House whether the time has not come when more should be given to old people in the way of pensions. Even if the inquiry reported that 10s. a week was not sufficient for old age pensioners and widows, and steps were taken to increase the pension, the working class would not be getting back from the Government what they are paying the Government today.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke raised this question today, and I hope hon. Members opposite will give more consideration to this case than they have done hitherto. Sometimes one feels that we spend a lot of time on foreign affairs. Here is a question that is well worthy of the consideration of the House not only on Friday, but on Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday. In my opinion the House cannot too often give consideration to this human question. Our old people are entitled to live in a way altogether different from the way in which they have lived hitherto. This country is rich enough. When we can spend nearly £ 400,000,000 upon armaments this year we can afford to give far more to the old people. So I ask the House to help us and to cultivate a desire to see justice done.

The observations of my hon. Friend who has just spoken about old age pensions find an echo on these benches. I have some justification for that statement for I was chairman of the London Old Age Pensions Committee for 15 years and vacated the post only when I no longer sought re-election on that body. I have been requested by the existing Committee to address questions to the Government, but since financial considerations would be in- volved and legislation would be required, I suggest to my hon. Friends opposite that, although it is too late to ballot for Notices of Motion or to bring in a Bill, I would willingly join with them when opportunity offers, if I were successful in the ballot, in putting down a Motion relating to old age pensions, and I hope I may look forward with confidence to some assistance from hon. Members opposite who have shown their great interest in this question.

We are fully aware that it is impossible to live on 10s. a week, but we are also aware that in order to increase the pension legislation would be required, and it would not be in Order for me to discuss that matter to-day. With regard to the ex-service men, just after the War I did make the suggestion to the biggest municipal authority in the world that they should resolve that, all things being equal between candidates, preference should be given to the man who had served his country overseas. That motion was carried and it has never been revoked to this day. I suggest that any Member of the House who has any influence with his local authority should get that local authority to pass a similar resolution. We know that some men did stay at home; they did not offer their bodies as a shield. I think that preference should be given to ex-service men. I know that many of my old comrades are in indigent circumstances, in some cases largely because of the happy-go-lucky and improvident way of the ex-service man. In many instances these men have lost their all or have been swindled out of their money.

The Debate has been concerned largely with foreign policy. I have never had the audacity to address the House on foreign policy because I do not pretend to know very much about the world or to be able to direct the Government on what they should say to other governments. My travels have not extended further than North and South America. I have never been East of Suez. I count myself as one of the rather ignorant people and I never talk about foreign policy in relation to other parts of the world. We on this side of the House are often twitted about the League of Nations and our professions during the General Election. In order that there may be no mistake, this is what I put in my Election Address:

" Our thoughts have been distracted by discussions about sanctions, coercive measures advocated to humiliate a friendly nation regardless of all its implications. One very vocal section of the community are exhorting us to intervene unduly, but it is my firm view that any attempt to indulge in isolated action should be resisted and that no obligation should be entered into unless it be collective and equally shared by all countries represented in the League of Nations. It is well to recollect that great nations like the United States of America, Japan and Germany are not Members."

Then there is one short paragraph of two lines:

" I am unwilling to support sanctions which involve the loss of a single British life of any man, woman or child."

[HON. MEMBERS: "Read the rest."] That was my declaration then and it is my opinion now. I very much regret that so much capital is attempted to be made by saying that we have betrayed the League of Nations and that we have not kept to our agreement.

My belief and my faith are similar to that of most Members on these Benches. We desire the League of Nations as an ideal, and we recognise that the greater the ideal the more greatly it should be encouraged. Its strength lies in combination and association; but if we take a calm view and are honest about the matter we shall admit that we expected far too much from the League of Nations. We thought it would operate far more effectively than it did. Unless the League is supported by force, power and might, those who desire to be dictators and act as dictators will ignore it and all who support it. Might is the only thing which is understood by certain people on the Continent. As a back-bencher, I deprecate very strongly the attacks which were made upon the personality of those who happen to be controlling the destinies of other countries. After all, other nations have a perfect right to form a view upon affairs, and to conduct their lives in the manner that they think fit.

I sometimes ask myself: Who are we to dictate to everybody else and to try to make everybody conform to our standards? It is utterly wrong. The conditions and troubles of other nations on the Continent are different from our own. They all have their own troubles and difficulties, just as we have, and I think that any undue desire to put everybody right is something which is regrettable, and from which we might well abstain in the future. One cannot help feeling that there is a lot of people who are nothing more than meddlers and muddlers, who conceive it to be their duty to put everybody right. That is an attitude to which I cannot subscribe. The right hon. gentleman the Member for the Gorton Division of Manchester (Mr. Benn) advocated very fairly, I thought, the case for the Opposition yesterday. Evidently he was anxious to avoid giving offence to foreign Powers, and I should like to say, if I may as a back-bencher, that I wish his action might be imitated by those who occupy a less responsible position than he.

We have to try to get goodwill, whether with Italy, or Germany, or Russia, or any other country. We all have to live in the world, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the last thing in the world he wants is another war. He and his gallant brother went through the last War, and they do not want any more. But what are we doing? It seems to be the policy of the Opposition to try to bring about in foreign countries a feeling of irritation and resentment such as will inevitably lead to war. If that is not the intention of hon. Members opposite, I think they might abstain from saying the things that they say in this House, and probably outside the House as well. May I express the hope that we may say good-bye to that blessed word "sanctions," recollecting that St. George did not kill the dragon by talking about sanctions, and recollecting, also, that, while we and other people were talking about sanctions, some of the others qualified it by saying that they would join in sanctions if they were recompensed for any loss of trade that they might suffer?

The question has been raised whether we should recognise the conquest of Abyssinia or not. I am tempted to tell the House what I have said to Italians in my constituency. I have many Italians in my constituency, but my attitude with regard to Italy is not governed by that fact. They have asked me," Why do you do not recognise our King as Emperor? "My reply has been," I do not mind very much whether you call him Emperor, Caesar, King, or anything else. When I come to think of it, my own King is an Emperor, but I should not be very vexed if you referred to my Sovereign as a King, as you do, though he is an Emperor nevertheless. I think you attach far too much importance to describing your King as Emperor." Does anyone mind whether the late German Emperor was termed Kaiser or not? Really, far too much importance is attached to questions of that kind. With regard to the conquest of Abyssinia, I think we must recognise that it has taken place. I do not say that it applies to every square yard or every square mile of the country, but the Italians are in possession. In 1868, we were in possession of Abyssinia, and we did not receive nearly the same amount of provocation when we went to war with Abyssinia as the Italians have received.

When I hear some of my hon. Friends speak of the Ethiopians as a very Christian race, I would remind them that we have spent large sums in employing ships of war to prevent trading in slaves by the Abyssinians. When you talk about their Christian principles, let us recall the emasculation that they practise. Reference was made by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Ruthbone) to the bombing of ships. Those who know anything at all about international law know that our ships are entitled to protection only outside the three-mile limit. If a ship chooses to try to run the blockade, the British Government ought not to be blamed for not sending ships into the ports to fire at aeroplanes or to try to silence the forts there. Surely the sensible policy is to try to keep to non-intervention. Those who know the history of Spain prior to the Peninsular War know that almost identically the same thing is happening in Spain today as happened before the intervention of Napoleon Bonaparte. Our men fought for years to try to save the Spaniards—a very proud, very gallant, very arrogant race—and when the end of he Peninsular War came, what happened? Spain merely said, "Thank you; clear out." I have declined to take part in discussions advocating this side or that side, whether it is the Spanish Government or General Franco—