My Lords, Whitsuntide is drawing near and, in those circumstances, I am sure that it would be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, were able to tell us anything with regard either to the adjournment of the House during the Whitsuntide holiday or to the management of business between now fund that date.

My Lords, there are several Bills with which the Government hope that your Lordships will see fit to deal before the Recess. I do not think that they present any great difficulty. They are, of course, of varied importance, but even the important ones are not really controversial. We have the Imperial Institute Bill, which stands for Committee to-day; the Agricultural Returns Bill which stands for Report the Importation of Pedigree Animals Bill, for Third Reading; the China Indemnity (Application) Bill, for Committee; the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill, for Second Reading; and the Northern Ireland Land Bill, for Committee. We hope to get all those Bills, and the only one upon which it seems to be necessary to say a word is the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill. That Bill has not yet been read a second time, and I need not tell your Lordships that I do not under-rate for a moment its great importance. But it is not presented to your Lordships for the first time, and, from inquiries that I have been able to make of noble Lords from Scotland, it does not seem as if it is likely to be at all of a controversial character. Should your Lordships desire to spend a longer time upon that Bill, the Government will be only too ready to afford it.

There is one other Bill which we hope to get, and that is the Rent and Mortgage Interest, (Restrictions Continuation) Bill, which stands for Committee; but this again is a matter for the House, and, if there were any feeling that the Bill ought to be carried over beyond the Recess, the Government would fall in with that view. The only Bill which I have not mentioned is. I think, the Valuation (Metropolis) Bill. That Bill has left your Lordships and is now with the Commons. Certain Amendments have to be considered by the House of Commons, and no doubt that Bill will be returned to us and we shall finally dispose of it. Under these circumstances you will see that, although the programme is varied, it is not of a controversial character. There does not appear to be very heavy labour immediately awaiting your Lordships. There will be, of course, towards the end of the Session, matters of very great importance to consider, and, in applying myself, therefore, to the question of the Recess, I have borne in mind those considerations. The House of Commons I think is to adjourn for a comparatively short adjournment, but I see no reason why, if your Lordships were to adjourn on May 27—that is, the last Wednesday on which any Orders are set down—we might not remain on holidays until June 11, which is a Thursday. That is a complete fortnight. I do not want to bind myself to those dates, because I shall be very glad to receive representations from any noble Lords who have any reason to call in question those dates. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will understand that what I have said is really submitted for the consideration of the House.

My Lords, one is, of course, glad to hear the statement made by the noble Marquess opposite, the Leader of the House, but there are two matters which strike me in the statements he has made. On May 27, which he suggests as the day of the adjournment, there is a very important matter down for debate in the name of Lord Arnold, and it will certainly be very convenient to him and to us to know whether that is likely to be brought on, as he desires to bring it on. Of course, if there were to be an adjournment on the same day that would be a hopeless way of taking the discussion on a great question of this kind. The other point is this, that with the majority of Bills referred to it is not likely that much time will be occupied, but there are one or two other important matters to be brought forward. I have an important Question which I want to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, to answer on Wednesday next, and for that there is amply sufficient time. With regard to the Scottish Church Bill, I speak with bated breath in the absence of my noble friend Viscount Haldane, who, unfortunately, cannot be here. I am told that it is important that the Bill should be passed before the Assembly meets. I am not certain on what day it meets, and perhaps that will be considered. The Bill has been very fully considered in this House already. Then I am reminded—it is a mere matter of date—that June 11 is not a Wednesday, but a Thursday.

I meant till the Thursday. It is a complete fortnight.

It would still be a complete fortnight, and yet leave sufficient time for the discussion of Lord Arnold's Motion.

I did not intend to interfere with that Motion. We would meet on May 27, discuss the Motion, and then adjourn for a fortnight. I will not ask noble Lords to make a final decision. If they have anything to represent to me I hope that they will do it.

My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say one word on a sad subject, namely, the loss which your Lordships have sustained by the death of the noble Viscount, Lord Milner. Lord Milner's great position, of course, is well known, and also his achievements in the public service. He was not a very prominent Parliamentarian. He was not a Party man in the strict sense of the word. I do not think that his political opinions fitted in altogether with the mould of any Party. He did not, as it were, stand between Parties, because he was independent of both: but when he did address your Lordships, or when he spoke in the country, I need not say his words were listened to with deep interest, coming, as they did, from a man of great talents, the widest experience, and the most prolonged public service. I think, perhaps, the most marked characteristic of his mind was independence. He brought to bear upon every question his own views, and he was not susceptible—I need not say he was purely disinterested, because that goes without saying—to pressure in modifying his opinions. He was a man of great talents, wide experience, of a lofty ideal, and with a most profound interest in the responsibilities of this country and in its great Imperial position, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that in his death the country has sustained a real and a deep loss.

I should like, my Lords, to say one word, rather on a personal note, in answer to the tribute so justly and rightly paid by the Leader of the House to the late Lord Milner. I was almost an exact contemporary of his in my undergraduate days at Oxford, and had many opportunities of seeing him and meeting him in those days. Of course, even in that early time his intellectual supremacy was of a very marked character, but in addition to that he always had those qualities of intellectual sincerity and courage to which the noble Marquess has referred, and in his later life he gave those great qualities of intellectual sincerity and courage with unsparing labour and industry for the benefit of this country and the Empire. All honour to his memory! Especially, I think, I may speak on behalf of his old Oxford contemporaries, who will never forget the value of his friendship in those days, and who have since that time always appreciated that in his public life he carried out the great principles which we acknowledged. All his Oxford contemporaries have throughout watched his career with great sympathy and a feeling of its greatness. Let us give all honour to him for the great work he has done.

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "at any entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment of money or otherwise, any performing animal, or train any such," and to insert "or train any performing." The noble Lord said: I must apologise sincerely for the number of Amendments to this Bill which stand on the Paper in my name. Most of them are drafting Amendments, and I do not suppose that they need occupy the time and attention of the House for very long. This Bill is the result of the Report of a Select Committee which sat for some length of time, and also of the Standing Committee in another place, which sat still longer. My noble friend Lord Raglan has put down certain Amendments. He pointed out certain weaknesses in the Bill, for which we are grateful, and, although I do not propose to adopt any of his Amendments except one, I think the substance of what he proposes is incorporated in Amendments which it will be my duty to submit to the House, and I think he will agree with me that, although we are not accepting his actual Amendments, we have gone a very long way towards meeting him. I beg to move.

As the member of the House in charge of this measure I entirely accept this Amendment and, indeed, practically all the Amendments of the Government, because they appear to me to improve the Bill.

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "for the purpose of being so exhibited." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.

moved, in subsection (3), after "the," where that word first occurs, to insert "class of." The noble Lord said: This Amendment has two objects. The first is to limit the amount of detail for which the Secretary of State may call, and the second object is as follows. As the Bill now stands, it requires that the animals which are to be trained shall be certified, and a man may be fined £50 for training an animal in respect of which he is not registered. The Amendment is designed to obviate that. I beg to move.

I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. In the first place, it seems to be unnecessary, and, in the second place, it might hamper the discretion of the Secretary of State, who has to prescribe the form in which, particulars of performing animals should be given. I am sure my noble friend will agree that the Secretary of State will not act unreasonably in prescribing those particulars. It is the view of the Government and of those who have studied the Bill on behalf of the Government that to accept this Amendment would unduly limit the Secretary of State's discretion.

The Home Office adopt the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Danesfort, with this one point of difference. We define "exhibits," and my noble friend behind me wants to define the animals. We do not wish in any way to hamper the Home Office, who would consult the profession before drawing up the rules. I cannot accept the Amendment.

I cannot see why the Home Office should not accept it, but I do not press it.

moved to leave out, at the end of subsection (3), "and the effect of registration under this Act shall be limited to the matters so entered in the register." The noble Lord said: These words appear to be unnecessary, as they are dealt with in a subsequent clause. I beg to move.

moved, in subsection (6), after "shall," where that word first occurs, to insert "subject to the provisions of any Order made under this Act by any court.' The noble Lord said: This is also a drafting Amendment.

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "of, or any performance or intended performance by an animal has been or is likely to be," and to insert "or exhibition of any performing animal has been." The noble Lord said: I submit that this Amendment is an improvement to the Bill.

I think this is certainly an improvement of the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Raglan will be glad to notice that it incorporates an Amendment which he has placed on the Paper, and in that way meets his views.

I agree, and I do not intend to move that Amendment.

moved, in subsection (1), after "restricted," to insert "and that such cruelty has taken place within the jurisdiction of the court." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether there is any substance in this Amendment, but trainers of animals are rather in doubt. It appears that there are in some areas in this country such strong prejudices against performing animals that a trainer who is training there has a very small chance of obtaining justice. What they are afraid of is that it might be possible for the trainer who had trained in one of those areas to be charged with having committed cruelty in some other area. The Amendment has the object of obviating that. I beg to move.

I have taken the precaution of consulting the Secretary of State and the officials of the Home Office as to whether this Amendment is necessary or not, and I am advised that it is not necessary. Under the clause as it stands either an application will be made to the court where cruelty has actually taken place, which is what my noble friend desires, or an application will be made to the court where the performance has taken place which it is proposed to show has been accompanied by cruelty elsewhere. Therefore, none of the evils which my noble friend anticipates as likely to occur, where there is a prejudice against performing animals, could, in the opinion of the Home Office, possibly occur.

In that case I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The next two Amendments are drafting.

moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts," and to insert the following new subsection:—

"(3) An order made under this Act shall not come into force until seven days after it is made, or, if an appeal has been entered within that period, until the determination of the appeal."

The first Amendment to this clause is drafting.

moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "exhibited," to insert "by any registered trainer or exhibitor of performing animals." The noble Lord said: The Bill as now drafted gives very wide powers indeed to the police to make searches into private houses for performing animals. I think it would be better if their powers were limited to those people who have agreed to submit themselves to the registration. As your Lordships know, a policeman cannot enter a private house in order to search for a murderer without a warrant, and it seems absurd that he should be able to enter a house without a warrant to search for a performing dog.

I am afraid it would be quite impossible to accept this Amendment. I do not think my noble friend quite realises what the effect of it would be. If adopted the Amendment would have the effect of encouraging illegality, for it would prevent a properly authorised person from entering the premises of an unregistered person who was illegally training or exhibiting animals. On the one hand, when a man is acting legally and training or exhibiting animals, there would be a power of inspection in regard to him, while on the other hand, when a man was acting illegally by training or exhibiting animals without being registered, there would be no power to inspect his premises. It is quite impossible to accept this Amendment.

moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "engaged in the training or exhibiting," and to insert "a trainer or exhibitor." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I believe the Government are prepared to accept.

I think this is an improvement, and we shall be glad to accept it.

The next Amendments on the Paper are drafting.

Lord Raglan has an Amendment down on this clause, but I think it is covered by a Government Amendment later.

I do not move.

There are a number of drafting Amendments here.

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "animal'" includes bird, reptile and fish," and to insert "'performing animal' includes any animal, bird or reptile which has received or is receiving individual instruction in the performance of tricks intended for public exhibition." The noble Lord said: I think this is an Amendment of some importance. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, brought in a Moneylenders Bill recently it was opposed on the ground that "moneylender" was not defined. Lord Carson was able to point out that moneylenders were defined in a previous Act. Performing animals are not defined in this Bill, nor in any previous Act, and I think they should be defined. Are, for example, the elephants at the Zoo performing animals? There is another point that I might mention here. In Clause 7 certain animals are left out of the Bill. The implication seems to be that if they were not specifically left out of the Bill they would be included in it. At many a horse show, for example, a class of animal is exhibited which has nothing to do with military, police, agricultural or sporting purposes, such, for example, as a tradesman's turn-out or children's pony cart, and things of that kind. It seems to me, as the Bill now stands, they would be performing animals within the meaning of the Bill. I think the Government or the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should either accept my Amendment or draft a better one. I beg to move.

This question has been most carefully considered in another place and by those who are concerned with the Bill, and it has been thought desirable not to put in any definition at all. As a matter of fact, the Amendment which Lord Desborough is to move presently defines the word "exhibit" as meaning an exhibit at any entertainment to which the public are admitted, whether on payment of money or otherwise, and defines the expression "train" as referring to training for the purpose of any such exhibition. It must be noted that in the first clause of the Bill the prohibition is against the exhibition or training of any performing animal unless the person is registered in accordance with this Bill. Can it be conceived that any Court having these words in mind, and considering the whole scope of the Bill, would hold that elephants at the Zoo are performing animals? The Courts, no doubt, are human, but they are also fairly intelligent, and in this country we are accustomed to treat them as being intelligent. If a question was brought before the Courts of this country with the definitions we propose to put in the Bill, I cannot conceive that they would say that an elephant at the Zoo was a performing animal within the meaning of this Bill. The same applies to trade horses at shows. I am certain that the noble Lord, if he were sitting on the Bench, would not suggest that a tradesman's horse in an ordinary show was a performing animal, except in the sense that it was performing its duty. But that is not the kind of performance meant or dealt with in the Bill. That is, I think, sufficient to show why this definition is undesirable.

When I sat on the Select Committee which considered this measure, I did think it might be desirable to introduce a suitable definition, but everyone concerned came to the conclusion that it was not possible to introduce a definition which would be wide enough to include all the animals it is desired to include, and which would exclude animals it was desired to exclude. We have put in a clause showing the animals that are excluded, and by no possibility could they he called performing animals. For instance, the Bill is not to apply "to the training of animals for bona fide military, police, agricultural or sporting purposes, or the exhibition of any animals so trained." That will exclude all sporting dogs, animals trained for the Grand National, bloodhounds trained for police purposes, and horses trained for exhibition at Olympia or elsewhere. I submit that the definitions in the Bill are sufficient to exclude all such animals as the noble Lord thinks might possibly be included, and the promoters of the Bill, with the full assent and at the desire of the Home Office, cannot accept the Amendment.

I have been trying to follow the results of the Amendments which your Lordships have passed on this measure, and I am a little bewildered. I have a dog at home which I have taught to beg, and in Clause 1, as it now stands, it says that no person shall exhibit or train any performing animal unless he is registered in accordance with this Act. As I say, I have trained my dog to beg, and it is a performing animal. I suppose. I am told that I am protected by Clause 7, which says that the Act shall not apply to the training of animals for bona fide military, police, agricultural, or sporting purposes. My dog is not for a bona fide military, police, agricultural or sporting purpose, and I gather that, as the Bill now stands, if I endeavoured to make him proficient, I ant doing an illegal act, for which I may be punished. I should like to ask for some information on this point.

Let me put the most, rev. Primate's mind at rest at once. A dog is an animal under this Bill, and if the most rev. Primate has trained his clog to beg he must not exhibit him for money. If he did so and received a well deserved penny piece in the process, the most rev. Primate would become liable.

There is much substance in what the most rev. Primate has said, and at first I read Clause 1 much in the same way as he did. It did appear that any person who trained any domestic animal in any of these harmless amusements, with which we are not unfamiliar, would under Clause 1 be liable to the penalties under the Bill; they would be training an animal. But the definition which is proposed to be inserted by the Home Office really covers the matter, and the most rev. Primate will be able to continue training his dog, unless he intends to train it for the purposes of an exhibition. But if he intends to train it for the purposes of a bazaar, or any such useful occupation, I am inclined to think he would come under the Bill at once. Subject to that, it seems to me that the definition proposed by the Home Office does afford sufficient protection.

I should like to know whether "animal" includes insects? I will not say that I am a trainer of fleas, but they are insects and are sometimes trained. I do not think that scientifically they could be called animals. What is to happen to the man who withholds from the fleas their natural food, which I presume would be human flesh? If he abstains from giving them human flesh is he not treating them cruelly; and would he not come under the provisions of this Bill? Is an insect an animal? Does a performing flea come within this Bill? Apparently we are left in grave doubt because the word "animal" is not defined. Does it include mammals? It is a wholly unscientific definition. The only person who appears to know anything about it is the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and in order that we may be quite clear on the matter can he give me an answer to any of these questions?

The expression "animal" is defined, and it includes "bird, reptile and fish."

That is hardly a definition of "animal." You say the Bill includes animals, and that "animal" includes "bird, reptile, and fish"; but that is not a definition of the word "animal."

This Amendment, I understand, comes from the Home Office. When it has been passed and inserted in the Bill I think all these problems and conundrums will disappear.

I do not think it is a very sound principle of legislation to put all these things into a Bill, whether wise or foolish, and rely on the proper authority not to enforce the foolish ones.

I beg to move my next Amendment, in subsection (1), after the word "fish" to insert the words which appear on the Amendment Paper.

moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "municipal" and to insert "county."

moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "municipal" and to insert "county."

I take it that the real object of this Amendment is to limit the number of authorities who have jurisdiction in the matter, and therefore it is thought desirable, instead of having every municipal authority brought in, to leave it to the county authorities.

No noble Lord who has read these Amendments can see to what we have committed ourselves. A strange phrase to use is that the expression "animal" includes bird, reptile and fish. It is quite obvious that it includes a great deal more. It does not explain that it only means bird, reptile and fish. I confess to be still a little doubtful about the point I raised a little while ago, though my doubts may have been removed by the clause inserted at the end of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is, however, supported by us all.

I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider before the Report Stage the point I suggested to him, whether insects are included. An insect is not technically an animal. It is certainly not a reptile or a fish. I hope he will consider that point, especially about performing fleas.

I thank the noble Viscount for drawing my attention to these matters. Until he spoke I had not realised their great importance. We shall be quite prepared, indeed glad, to consider this question of animal, not forgetting the fleas, before the Report Stage, and if we can get a more precise definition which will meet the general views we shall be glad to do so. I shall consult the Home Office as to the best form of it. With regard to the general question which the most rev. Primate raised as to the effect of the Amendments generally, the Bill will no doubt be reprinted before the Report Stage.

I wish my attention had been drawn to the fleas before. What they think about fleas in the House of Commons I will ascertain. I do not wish to bully a performing flea, but I did think of fish. I have never heard of performing fishes. I asked all my friends. They said that they had heard of them, but had never seen them. I believe in the north of France there have been since the time of Louis XV fish that came to the sound of the dinner bell. They do not exactly perform, but I have at least a reason for including fish which I will read to your Lordships:—

"Ernest and Eva, the two famous goldfish that for years had their home in the fountain of the Winter Garden of the Savoy Hotel, have died from misadventure. At the inquest it was found that a cigar ash flicked into the water by an unthinking guest had brought their gambols to an end. The most notable of Ernest's feats was the cork trick. He would wait for one of his admirers to place a cork in the water, and then he would leap over the cork."

If he did not do this for money he would not come into the category of the most rev. Primate's dogs. If he did it for the purpose of gain he would come under all the protection given to him by the noble Lord.

Will the noble Lord give us a little time before we proceed to the Report Stage, in order that we may think over all these problems? Some of us, for instance, have the misfortune to have to attend a bazaar. If a dog at a bazaar comes round and solicits people to put money into a box on his back, and is trained to do that, then the trainer would be liable under this Bill. Although a dog could be trained to do it at a railway station without coming under this Bill, the trainer would come under this Bill if the dog were allowed to attend a bazaar. If the noble Lord will look into matters of this kind he will no doubt be able to arrive at a solution satisfactory to everyone.

If the most rev. Primate were to allow the dog which has been described to attend a bazaar, even at Lambeth, he must either register him under the Bill or expose himself to prosecution, which everybody would regard as a perfect calamity. Apart from the amusing aspect of the Bill, there is the aspect whether, as this is a penal Statute which exposes His Majesty's subjects to prosecution, it is desirable that it should pass into law in a form in which any malicious person could institute a prosecution on trivial grounds against perfectly well-disposed people. Is it not desirable that before it is put on the Statute Book some responsible person should see whether people are to be subject to prosecution? I hope my noble friend who represents the Home Office will have that considered.

had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "within such time as specified in the notice" and to insert "within twenty-eight days." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice in a somewhat different form—namely, after the word "time" to insert the words "not being less than twenty-one days." I see that the Government have on the Paper an Amendment to insert "fourteen days." Your Lordships will remember that last year the noble Lord opposite, who was in charge of the Bill, offered twenty-one days. I was then prepared to accept twenty-one days, but your Lordships held that twenty-eight days would be a better period, and that period was inserted. I myself much prefer twenty-one days, but I am in the hands of the House; if your Lordships prefer "fourteen days" to "twenty-one days," I should not object to "fourteen days," but I hope that the Government may meet me by accepting "twenty-one days." I beg to move in the altered form.

My Lords, I am anxious to try and meet the noble Lord as far as possible. I understood that his main complaint was that under a Bill of this sort there was an intention to give general powers to Departments, which they could exercise according to their own sweet will, and not according to the desires of Parliament. So far as the principle is concerned, I am bound to say that I think there is a great deal to be said for the noble Lord's contention, and I for my part am quite prepared to meet him and have put down an Amendment accordingly specifying the period within which these Returns shall be made.

I rather hope, however, that the noble Lord will not press me too hard regarding the length of the period, because it is quite obvious that we must have these Returns within a reasonable time, if they are to be properly collated by the Department with a view to the information and instruction, not merely of the agricultural public, but of the public generally. It is quite obvious that the person making the Return should be allowed sufficient time in which to do so, but at the same time the period should be sufficiently short to enable the collation to commence at as early a moment as possible. Under these circumstances I venture to hope that, since an overwhelmingly large proportion of the Returns are already received within the period of fourteen days, the noble Lord will be prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which I have placed it upon the Paper.

There is really no very great difference between fourteen days and twenty-one days, and I hope that the Government will meet my noble friend on this point. Lord Banbury had great success last year, and I hope that the Government will allow him to carry one of his Amendments, as there is really so very little difference.

In view of what the noble Duke has said, I am quite prepared to agree to twenty-one days as a compromise, if your Lordships approve.

had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "and of the persons employed thereon." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I really cannot see what the Government will gain by ascertaining the number of persons employed, but they have put down an Amendment later on which, I think, will make it easier for the farmer to fill up the form, and, as my noble friends upon the Front Bench have met me so far, I propose to agree to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, and I do not move the Amendment which stands in my name.

moved, in subsection (1), after "thereon," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "shewing separately the numbers of persons in regular and in casual employment." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment with a view to trying to meet a point which, I think, was raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch. I think that there is a desire on the part of many of your Lordships that it should be made perfectly clear in these Returns what proportion of the persons returned as employed in the agricultural industry were in regular employment, and what proportion were in casual employment. With that object I have put down these words, which provide that the number of persons in regular employment and the number of persons in casual employment shall be separately stated.

moved, at the end of subsection (1), to leave out "date" and to insert "day." The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is really all but a drafting Amendment. I am informed that the Bill would be rather clearer and easier to understand if the word "day" were put in instead of the word "date," and, if the Government have no objection, I beg to move.

My Lords, I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment. I cannot quite see what is intended, but I assume that the noble Duke would like to see the day of the week as well as the day of the month, and I think that there may be some force in that suggestion.

moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert the following new paragraph:

"(b) If any person makes a return under this Act which is to his knowledge untrue in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."

I am quite satisfied.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth concur with the Commons in their Message.

had given Notice to call attention to the present position of the British film industry; and to ask if His Majesty's Government will consent to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the causes of the present depression of the industry and to make recommendations as to the best means of re-establishing this industry having regard to the industrial, commercial, educational, and Imperial interests involved.

I did not quite say that.

Almost. Anyhow, am informed that persons connected with the trade to whom this statement was reported went so far as to say that the Board of Trade does not know very much about it. I submit that the best way out of the difficulty is to appoint a Committee, and I suggest either a Departmental or an Inter-Departmental Committee, for this reason. A Departmental Committee is a very unobtrusive body. There is no limelight about it. You can put on it persons who are quite conversant with the details of the industry affected, and the chances are that you get a unanimous Report, and—perhaps what is not to be despised—as a Departmental or Inter-Departmental Committee costs next to nothing, I think £100 or £200 would cover the whole expense. On the other hand, if you appoint a Royal Commission or a Parliamentary Commission you get on it people who probably are more anxious to advertise their own views than to enquire into the real circumstances of the case, and you are almost certain to finish with a Majority and a Minority Report.

For those reasons I am inclined to think the simple course which I have suggested would be not only the most practical, but also the quickest. Everybody will be able to come and lay their plans before it, and the public, if it is really interested in the matter, will be able to see how things stand. It only remains for me to state that, as far as I am personally concerned, I have no trade interest whatever in this question. I am not a film director, I have no desire to be one, and I do not suppose I ever shall be one. It is purely by accident that I have interested myself in the question, but I do not make any apologies for inflicting this speech upon your Lordships, because I consider the question is of much greater interest and importance than is generally recognised.

My Lords, before the Government reply to the noble Lord I should like, if I may, to say one or two words on behalf of the Federation of British Industries, who have been considering this question for some time, and have been in close negotiation and conference with a large number of national organisations. They desire that the Government should have an Inquiry and deal with the situation, which, they agree with Lord Newton, is most deplorable one, inasmuch as so many films of a foreign origin are displayed on the screens in this country and throughout the Empire, while films representing British life and British interests are conspicuously absent. The Federation believe that an Inquiry is necessary, and very essential in order to increase the prestige and promote the interest of British industry, but they think the present moment, when certain action is being taken on their behalf, and when they have been holding conferences, is not quite the most suitable one to them, because they have not yet come to a definite opinion as to the character of the evidence which they ought, on behalf of the industry, to place before an Inquiry. They, therefore, ask for a little further time, believing that a short postponement of the date on which the Committee would sit would enable them to get ready their evidence, and would promote the permanent interest of the industry. That would enable them to secure united action. After further conferences with all the interests concerned, and after consultation with the trade itself, they will be able to come to a unanimous conclusion and present their evidence in a way that will secure a much more rapid and effective solution than if this matter is precipitated.

My Lords, I think it is greatly to the public advantage that my noble friend has called your Lordships' attention to the subject of the British film industry, which is one of urgent national importance, even though it be far removed from the beaten ways of Party politics. I believe, with him, that it is impossible to exaggerate the influence of the cinema in forming the taste and in influencing the habits of the world. The cinema makes an appeal to the universal eye: the League of Nations only appeals to the universal heart. It has been said that newspapers now are written mainly for the half-educated, but the cinema goes direct to those who can neither read nor write all over the world. Under the conditions of modern life there is no institution which counts for so much, if you regard the world as a whole, and it is not too much to say that the cinema has now wholly become an American institution.

You cannot account for it in any one way. There is no doubt that the United States had an enormous advantage in being able to organise and perfect the machinery of the trade during the Great War. Practically the history of the cinema is all contained within the last decade. The Americans had an unrivalled opportunity. They have unequalled resources. I do not conceal from your Lordships that in the opinion of those best able to judge, of whom I am not one, it will be very difficult, it may be impossible, to oust America from the virtual monopoly which she now enjoys. The very scale of cinema production at present favours the wealth and the numbers of America. Whereas some of the greatest and most successful films which have brought the greatest profit to renters and exhibitors did not cost originally more than £30,000, it is calculated that the great film of "Ben Hur" now being prepared, will cost £1,500,000.

America is able to indulge in this gigantic enterprise because in the United States you have the most sheltered industry of which the trade of the world at present gives all example. We have only 3,000 cinema theatres, and half the population of this country goes to the cinema house once a week. In America there are 15,000, and more; I am not sure that I do not under-estimate the number, and with that protected market, into which no foreign film ever enters, they are naturally able to send the films abroad, and especially to the countries of the British Empire, at prices with which it is impossible to compete. Manufacturers here have told me that, whereas they might be prepared to embark thousands, in America the Americans will embark tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands in the same effort to keep their hold upon this great trade, and also, I believe, to influence the opinion of the world in favour of the trade of the United States as a whole.

I think we ought to give the cinema industry of America the credit for great patriotism in the way in which it has extended its efforts all over the world. But it has a rather curious effect. I myself last year, going twice to the cinema, saw two of what are called travel films. They were really in a sense educative, one dealing with the cultivation of rice in the Philippines. They were wholly American. If an Englishman ever appears in a travel film it is always in a rather ridiculous and contemptuous guise. That, of course, is not desirable for the observation of the world or for the character of the British people.

It is much more difficult to say how this competition is to be met, and still more how it is to be effectually conquered. Perhaps my noble friend expects a little more of the Departmental Committee than it is likely to give, but on the whole I believe it would be a very good thing if public attention were drawn not only in this country but throughout all the countries of the British Empire to the existing state of things. It might rouse a patriotic feeling sufficient to prevent the scandal of British films being actually excluded from the great majority of film houses here and elsewhere in the other Commonwealths that make up the Empire. To that point I would especially draw the attention of the noble Viscount who is to reply on this issue.

The difficulty, I believe, in the case of most of the exhibitors, as they are called, is that they have to enter into block contracts, to accept, not one but the whole set of films that are provided by any of the renters, who in their turn take them from the manufacturers. Some of them may be indifferent, but the appeal of the one in particular may make up for the deficiencies of the rest. The point, however, is wider than that. If all these films are American, with naturally an American bias, of which we need not complain and which is not necessarily anti-British, then what chance has the British manufacturer of getting his film into any of the houses in this country? And I believe the terms and conditions are much the same in the other communities. May I suggest that the Motion of the noble Lord is justified if it will only lead to the examination of the legal status of the trade. If these block contracts with their prohibitions and exclusions are contrary to the public interest, then I cannot see why they should not he made illegal. I do not say that this is easily done: far from it. I cannot tell whether the remedy would cure the disease, but, at the same time, nobody can fail to recognise that we are suffering enormously in the estimation of the world, in our trade, in our character and in our influence, by this form of propaganda, which exceeds anything that has been known or dreamt of before, and the effectiveness of which I do not think anybody who acquaints himself with world movements would deny.

I see that the League of Nations has recently proposed that no film should be exhibited that has not got its approbation. I hardly think that will be very successful, but, at all events, if it only comes to the point that they wish the films to have the stamp of their approval in order that people may be satisfied that they are likely to conduce to good results, it is quite intelligible that such a proposal should have been made. Whether that is so, however, does not matter. It is quite time that the Legislature took some cognisance of the film industry. It is far too great a subject far us to ignore. We are constantly discussing, at enormous length, questions of international relations and international trade, and we very often, to my mind, leave out those things that are of most account. If your Lordships turn to the histories that have been published of the last century you will very seldom, if ever, find any reference to the newspaper Press. It is totally ignored. In the same way we are inclined to ignore the cinema. If we do so, we do so at our peril. I venture to think that the proposal of my noble friend is of great value, and, if it does nothing else but give us public information and show us where we really stand, it will have been more than justified.

My Lords, I am sure that the wealth of information that has been given to the House this evening, both by my noble friend who initiated this debate and by the noble Viscount behind me, will be of great value to the Board of Trade, whose information on this subject my noble friend seemed inclined to depreciate. I must tell him this, and I tell it in confidence, that. I am not quite so simple as he believes, because I make at least an effort to test the information provided for me by that body. Last week I paid a visit to one of the few film-producing industries, and tried myself, by looking at the processes and examining the managers, to test some of the information which was given to me officially. I am bound to say that what I heard where oat extremely well the information I had received from official sources.

I am sorry to say that I can only echo, as regards the position of the industry, what has been already stated by the noble Lords who have spoken. I am speaking, of course, of the portion of the industry that deals with production. I am not speaking of exhibitors, or of those that rent the films, and, I understand, sub-let them to exhibitors. Let me give the House some figures on the subject. I am told that in 1914, of the films exhibited in this country some 25 per cent. were British, whereas in the year 1923, two years ago, only 10 per cent. were British. In the year 1925 I am sorry to say that the picture is even darker, because only a negligible quantity of British films are exhibited in our picture theatres and cinemas. It is the same thing, I am told, in the British Empire—Viscount Burnham, with his wide experience of conditions abroad, has spoken of that—for there, I believe, the proportion of British films is something like 2 or 3 per cent.

Again, in 1923 there were, I believe, something like twenty firms engaged in the film industry in the United Kingdom. At the present time there are only four or five of these which are still in action. I think the causes of that are clear, and they were very clearly stated by my noble friend behind me. They are economic. It is the tremendous volume of competition which our producers have to meet, mainly, of course, from the United States of America. I think the noble Viscount under-estimated, if anything, the dangers of American competition, because I understand that there are a good deal more than 15,000 of these picture theatres in America. I understand there are something like 17,000 or 20,000, which is a vast number, and which corresponds to only 3,000 in our own country, so that, if each country has complete command of its own market, the enormous advantage which the United States possesses is obvious in having six times the area of propaganda for spreading their films in their own country that we have. They are further secured in the United States because there are, I think, three main corporations in the United States who either own or control a great number of these theatres. The result is that they have got almost a monopoly in that country, and they can not only have their own films produced, but they can prevent anybody else having their films produced. Therefore, the chance of the entry of our films into that country is absolutely negligible, and hardly exists at all. There is no market for other films than the home films in the United States.

There is another difficulty, too. Lord Newton paid a great tribute to the skill and enterprise of the British film producers and actors. But what happens? So soon as these film producers have trained up a man or woman (and they lay much more stress upon the women actresses than on men) they are attracted to the United States by fees and salaries, which, of course, they can pay from their large market—salaries and fees stupendously above anything that can possibly be paid in this country, and beside which the highest professional incomes in this country are contemptible pittances. I fear, if the whole of the British market was secured, that the drainage of the best talent in this country to the United States would still continue.

Both the noble Lords have discussed the command which this gives over the British market. The control is really complete, because, with these immense profits in the United States, even in spite of the most lavish expenditure on pro- duction, and in spite of the pay to the artists, they can send their films to this country, and anything they get from the rent of those films is clear profit. It is obvious that competition in those circumstances must be attended by the very greatest difficulty. My noble friend, Lord Burnham, referred to the system of "blocks," by which some houses in this country can only get the right to rent and produce a good American film—he does not think there are good American films, but I am assuming that there are—by taking half a dozen rubbishy films in order to get the good one. It prevails in some parts of the industry, but I know from personal knowledge obtained from some of the largest owners that they have swept themselves free from that, and are free to get the films they desire. Of course, other forms of contracts are made, and they very often secure the rights for a long period in this country by making long contracts, and giving films for a very cheap price. The result of all this is that the film producer in this country has to fight almost impossible competition—I will not say an almost impossible competition, but a very serious competition.

My noble friend alluded also to the McKenna Duties, which are certainly not very operative in the case of films, as they no doubt are in other cases, because I understand that the specific duty upon films is based simply upon the film value, and that, of course, is quite different from the exhibition value of the film. The result is that this duty is really almost negligible compared with the profits that are made. Indeed, from what I have said, I think your Lordships will agree that it is rather difficult to see how anything short of prohibition of these American films could really secure an opportunity for the film exhibitors of this country.

In spite of the plaudits and the laurels which my noble friend has bestowed upon the British film producers, I have seen the other side of the picture. I do not say that it is true, but I have heard the criticism rather freely expressed that the public in this country deliberately prefer these American films to our own. Whether that is a criticism of our own films I do not know, but I think that, if you talk to the exhibitors, they will tell you that, for some reason or other, these American films, whether owing to their good qualities or their bad qualities—I do not dogmatise upon that point—for the moment seem to attract audiences far more magnetically than British films. Everybody admits, 1 think—and the point has been put so forcibly by both noble Lords that I really need not dwell upon it—that this is a great loss to us from an educational point of view, from the point of view of propaganda and from the point of view of British feelings, British institutions and British habits, to say nothing of the effect, not necessarily very inspiring, upon the people of this country of the constant contemplation of the sort of pictures that are produced in these American films.

My noble friend approached the question of possible remedies, and he discussed a particular remedy which is, I think, in force in Germany where, for instance, if you are to produce one foreign film you must produce also a native film in order to balance it. There would naturally be very great opposition from the exhibiting side to this particular proposal. Exhibitors would, of course, contend, and, in fact, do contend that the cinema theatre would very likely be empty, and would not pay the expenses of production if they were forced to balance their American films by showing British films at the same time. I cannot say how drat would be, but, though it might be possible to get over the feelings of the exhibitors, the difficulty is with the general public. It would be very difficult to state dogmatically at this moment whether there is such a demand among the people who go to cinemas or among the general public for the British film that they would assent to an arrangement of this kind by which American, or foreign, and British films were alternated in the cinemas.

In spite of what my noble friend has said, I am inclined to think that the causes of the depression are pretty clearly appreciated. They are economic, and they are understood. I doubt very much whether, at any rate at the present time, an inquiry into causes could throw very much new light upon this subject, which is already very familiar, not only to the Board of Trade but, I think, to all who have looked into the industry. We are more concerned to ask what are the remedies. If the Government were to appoint a Committee to examine this subject, and if that Committee were to propose remedies, you would certainly be raising the expectation in that particular industry that some at least of those remedies were to be carried into effect by the Government. After all, the present Government is a very practical Government. It does not, I believe, appoint Committees or Commissions unless it is determined in most cases to carry out many of the recommendations of those Commissions. It is a Party of swift and immediate action after information has been obtained. Accordingly I should rather deprecate, at any rate at this particular moment, appointing a Committee of that kind, which could discover little that is not familiar to most of us, and would raise up the expectation that the Government was going to deal at once with the matter, although our feeling is that the state of public opinion relative to American and British films is not so strongly developed that the public would support or welcome strong action against. American or foreign competition.

There is another point regarding a Committee which was referred to by Loral Gainford, and that is that at the present time a great deal of discussion is going on between different sections of the trade and representatives of the British Federation of Industries. I think it would be unfortunate if the Government, by rushing in at the present moment, were to disturb, or possibly interrupt, these fruitful conversations, which we hope may result in some action. As my noble friend Lord Burnham knows very well, the Federation of British Industries is extremely well aware of the disadvantages to British trade which occur from the fact of this widespread propaganda of another country through the cinema. They are fully alive to all this, and the Government feel that, at the present time at any rate, it would probably be better to allow this development to go on and see if these people are able to deal with the subject and, by rousing public opinion, to make the public and the trade insist upon British films being exhibited both here and throughout the Empire.

On those grounds I hope that my noble friend will not press me to accede, at any rate at present, to the appointment of this Committee. May I add that I think he has done, and will do, very great service by making all these facts public? He might do a great deal by rousing public opinion, and I hope that he will not content himself with merely bringing this matter forward in the House of Lords, but will continue his propaganda throughout this country and, with his powerful eloquence, make the cinema haunters of this country realise the tremendous advantages of the British film

My Lords, the discussion that has taken place this afternoon has really ranged around two particular points, and I would ask leave of your Lordships to say just a few words concerning them. The first point concerns the competition of the United States of America, and it is perfectly clear that the chief reason why that country has secured pre-eminence in this matter is that during the early years of the War, while the whole of our efforts were concentrated on winning the War, the Americans were able to turn their attention to this matter. It was in that way, while we were engaged in more important affairs, that they secured the lead, and your Lordships will readily understand how, when one country gets the lead in a matter like this, it is very difficult for any other country to become a rival.

But there is yet another reason, to which I think no reference has been made. I would ask any of your Lordships who remembers what last summer was like to imagine the unfortunate producer waiting day after day, week after week, I might say month after month, for a fine day upon which it might be possible to take a successful film. No doubt the action of a good many of these films takes place indoors, and we need fear no rival in regard to indoor films, but there are many which contain scenes that take place out of doors as well, and your Lordships will readily understand that, however successful we may be in beating our competitors in indoor scenes, it would be very difficult for us to succeed if we had also to take into account the state of the weather. We all hope for a better season this year, due no doubt to the advent of the present Government, but whether we have it or not it is clear that no company is likely to bank upon the possibility of fine weather in any particular year.

There is another matter which has been mentioned, and it is the possibility of assistance from the so-called McKenna Duties. I think it is important in this regard to remember why those Duties were imposed. They were imposed, not to assist the various industries, but to hinder them—to prevent the goods from reaching these shores. They were put on in order that space might be used for more important things than pianos, watches, or even cinema films, and their re-imposition is only likely to have the same effect as before, and once more to make it difficult for these goods to reach these shores. It is interesting to notice the opinion held inside these trades of the position of the Duties. I take this from what was said by Mr. George Smith, Chairman of the Cinematograph Renters' Society. He said:—

"The re-imposition of the duties on foreign films is preposterous. Were it of any use, it might indeed be justified, but to-day there is no British film industry that needs protection. At the moment exhibitors have booked films for the next six or nine months ahead, and that at a price which must necessarily mean that, if a further sum has to be paid before they are shown, an additional charge will have to be extracted from the picture-play going public. To impose a duty on foreign films to protect a home industry which is nonexistent through lack of initiative, foresight or enterprise, is sheer stupidity."

That is the opinion of an important person connected with the industry itself.

I should also like to draw your Lord ships' attention to the actual figures showing what has happened since the McKenna Duties were happily taken off by the late Government. For the first quarter of 1923, when the Duties were on, the imports were 23,700,000 feet. For the first three months of the present year, when the Duties were off, the imports were 32,000,000 feet. The export figures are still more remarkable for practically the same periods, the figures being 5,800,000 as compared with 33,700,000 feet. That, I think, is a great tribute to the wisdom of the late Government in taking off those Duties. There is one other question I should like to submit to your Lordships. We have to bear a sufficient burden of taxation. Already this industry, like all other industries of the same character, is bearing its burden of taxation. The Entertainment Tax is a considerable burden upon this industry, and I think it would be unfair to put a still further lax upon it. I wish, indeed, that the Government had seen their way not to re-impose this particular burden upon the film industry.

With regard to an Inquiry, I confess that I feel some little regret in the matter. I am quite sure that what we all want is information upon the subject, and I do not share the optimism of the noble Viscount with regard to the way in which action immediately follows inquiry by His Majesty's Government. It is not the experience of this country that even Conservative Governments have immediately followed inquiry by action, and I do not suppose we should have expected immediate action even if inquiry had taken place; but I do welcome the possibility that inquiry may take place at some future date. The noble Viscount is careful not to commit himself too closely to an Inquiry in the future if further facts are brought forward, but if such further facts are brought forward which justify an inquiry I hope he will, on behalf of the Government, see his way to accede to the demand.

My Lords, I desire to call attention to one aspect of the question to which I think attention has not been drawn in any of the speeches, except only in a passing reference by the noble Lord who raised this Question. It was certainly not dealt with by the noble Viscount who replied for the Government. It is that, as far as I understand it, in America, in addition to all these other advantages with which previous speakers have dealt, the industry is organised as a whole, and in fact that two or three years ago all the several branches of the industry combined together to form one organisation, at the head of which I think they placed an American ex-Cabinet Minister. So far as I understand there is in this country nothing of the kind, and there are three separate branches of the industry, all of which are competing, with rival views as to what is necessary for the prosperity of those individual branches of the industry. I think, from some of the opinions we have heard, it is fairly evident that the exhibiting branch of the industry, quite contrary to what is done in America, is not acting in co-operation in any degree with the British producing section, but rather in enmity with it.

How far that has a direct bearing upon the present deplorable state of the producers I am not in a position to say, but I should have thought that before a case for an Inquiry was pressed it would be well for the, industry itself to see how far its three branches could be harmonised and made to work together with that harmony which we see in America. Until the industry docs fuse its three branches into one I cannot see how the Government can be urged with any real reason to conduct an Inquiry into it. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, I was not dissatisfied with the noble Viscount's reply on behalf of the Government.

My Lords, I must confess that, although the reply of the noble Viscount is satisfactory and sympathetic up to a certain point, yet I feel a certain amount of disappointment with regard to it. The noble Viscount concluded his speech with an impassioned appeal to me, personally, to head a sort of cinema crusade. If that involves a personal appearance on the screen I must respectfully decline to take any part in an agitation of that character. I cannot say that I am convinced by the arguments of the noble Viscount against holding an Inquiry immediately. He seems to think that the effect of setting up a Committee will be at once to encourage false hopes—that everyone would imagine that something startling is bound to happen immediately. I have had experience of Commissions and Committees, and so forth, and I am the last one to believe that people expect immediate results therefrom. It must be years before anything happens, but the reason I press for an Inquiry is that, as was pointed out in the debate, the public really will then have an opportunity of judging how the matter stands. Everybody will have an opportunity of putting his case before the Committee, and we shall all be able to form our own opinion. I further urge it because I know that, whatever the noble Viscount may say, it is inevitable in the long run, and therefore the sooner you make up your minds to have it the quicker you will advance in the matter.

had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Civil Service expenditure, omitting war pensions, is three tunes what it was before the War and five times what it was before 1906, and when they propose to reduce it by a substantial amount. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to postpone my Question until a day next week.

who had placed the following Question on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the amendment said to have been moved by the British Delegate on the Technical Committee of the League Conference on Arms Traffic, said: My Lords, I suggested to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that I should postpone the Question which stands in my name on the Paper because I thought there would not be time to deal with it after the noble Lord Lord Banbury of Southam's Question was disposed of. Seeing that he has postponed his Question, and, as I understand it is not inconvenient to the noble Viscount that I should proceed to ask mine, I propose to do so. I have also given private notice to the noble Viscount of my intention to raise the question of publicity, in addition to that which actually appears upon the Paper, so that if I go somewhat outside the terms of the Notice it will be remembered that I have informed the noble Viscount of my intention.

My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for having given me notice that he intended to extend the ambit of his Question. I will endeavour to answer as shortly as I can the questions he has put to me. In the first place I should like, as a matter of historical accuracy, to explain that this question of the traffic in arms did not arise under, and has not really any connection with, Article 8. It is a separate matter altogether, and it arose in this way. At the Paris Conference an arrangement was arrived at by which, under the Convention of St. Germain (not the Treaty of St. Germain, but the separate Convention of St. Germain) broadly speaking two things were done. Publicity was secured for traffic in arms generally speaking, and the traffic in arms, as part of that publicity arrangement, was to be with Governments, and not with private individuals, unless they were specially authorised, I think, by Governments. I am quoting from memory.

Secondly, there was a provision extending the Berlin and Brussels Acts, prohibiting in fact, except under very exceptional conditions, the trading in arms altogether in certain areas of the world. That arrangement was arrived at between the main signatories to the Treaties of Paris, but unfortunately, owing to circumstances of which the noble and learned Lord is well aware, it was not ratified by the United States, and it therefore fell to the ground. Evidently an arrangement of that kind depends on a general agreement. It is no use four out of five producing countries making such an arrangement, if the fifth country is left absolutely free to do as it likes.

At the very first meeting of the Assembly of the League attention was called to this matter, and strong resolutions were passed at each Assembly urging that in some way this deadlock should be removed. The matter was referred, as all matters connected with armaments were referred, to the Temporary Mixed Commission, which dealt with these questions. It was not upon my suggestion at all, but on the suggestion of Mr. Fisher, who represented the British Government at the First Assembly, that the Temporary Mixed Commission was appointed. I did not have anything to do with the Temporary Mixed Commission until some little time later, and I was glad to hear the somewhat belated tribute to its merits by the noble and learned Lord, because he was largely responsible for putting an end to that Commission, an action with which I was never able to sympathise. After a great many discussions, into which I need not enter, the United States at last intimated that they would be prepared to attend as observers a meeting of the Temporary Mixed Commission, to consider whether anything could be done to remove the difficulties, arid it was at that meeting, attended by Major Hills, and at which Major Hills, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, did the most admirable work—a meeting which I also attended—that the Draft Convention was drawn up which is now practically the basis of the discussions that are going on at Geneva.

The broad lines of that Draft Convention followed the lines of the St. Germain Convention. It was the same principle—namely, that you should have a system of licensing for the export of arms, that is of all arms primarily of a warlike character, and only to be exported to Governments and not to individuals, and that there should be publicity as to the trade. The main purpose was to secure publicity. It was recognised that Governments should be entitled to buy arms where they liked. You could not control that, but it was of great advantage to the world at large to know what was happening in the trade of arms. Whether some subsequent control of that trade could be carried out was to be a matter of further consideration. But within what are called prohibited zones, special zones, we adopted with certain modifications in detail the original St. Germain Convention, though there was no difference in principle. That was the Draft Convention.

Great difficulty was found in determining to what arms it should apply, and, ultimately, after a great deal of consideration, this plan was adopted. Three categories of arms were drawn up; first, those which were exclusively of a military character, things like cannon: secondly, those which were of ambiguous use, which might be military in character, but might also be of civilian character, such as for sport or personal defence, which would include—I am speaking rather vaguely, because 1 have not the document before me—such things as sporting rifles; and, as the third category, arms which practically could not be used for military purposes, like fowling pieces. It was said that the first category should only be exported to Governments, that the second category might be exported to anybody, unless the numbers were so great that it led to the view that they really were for military purposes; and that the third category might be exported with much greater freedom.

That was the plan, and in the first category we included in the Draft Convention warships and aeroplanes. It is quite true, as I understand it, that the British Delegate, not Lord Onslow, but his representative, moved to exclude warships and aeroplanes. I think perhaps I shall most clearly express the reasons for this action by reading an answer which was given in the House of Commons this afternoon on the subject. This is the answer:

"Compressed within the limits of an answer to a question, the grounds underlying the instructions of the British Delegate on this point are as follows: The object of the Drat Convention is to institute a general supervision of the trade in armaments by giving it, through the medium of a licensing system, the fullest possible publicity That condition already exists in the case of warships, the construction, movements and ownership of which are public property."

It is evident there can be no concealment of the expert of warships.

"While, therefore, no increase of publicity would be gained by the application of the licensing system to warships, the execution of the provisions relating to search in transit which is an adjunct to that system, would lead to serious inconvenience. As regards aircraft, experience has shown that it is impossible to formulate any satisfactory definition of military as opposed to civil aircraft, and it was feared that the application of the Convention to aircraft designed exclusively for war would only lead to difficulties without achieving any useful result."

It is evident that this is a technical matter, on which I am not competent to express an opinion. That is the answer given on that point in another place, and I am afraid I cannot carry it any further.

With regard to the other very interesting point made by the noble and learned Lord, I am afraid my information is even less. The noble and learned Lord asks me what has happened with regard to the suggestion of Mr. Theodore Burton. I do not think this is a question that arises under Article 8 of the Covenant. There we have undertaken an interchange of information, and that ought to be done, and is being done. The lamented Temporary Mixed Commission did set on foot a system by which information should be published of all the armaments and all the provisions for armaments which the signatories of the League were carrying out. There was considerable difficulty about it, because these are delicate matters, but ultimately an arrangement was arrived at by which all the published documents should be collated by the Secretariat of the League, and a book published—and I believe it is published annually—setting out the whole of the armament situation as far as it can be derived from the published sources of the different countries who are Members of the League. That was the question of interchange.

Mr. Theodore Burton's proposal is a rather different matter. What I understand happened was this. The smaller countries, the non-producing countries, said: "You wish to control our purchase of arms, no doubt by a system of licence and publicity; but still you wish to control. That will put us at a certain disadvantage. All you big countries, which produce your own arms, are entitled to produce them for yourselves without any publicity or control at all." That, I understand, is the difficulty that has been reached at Geneva, though we have no information which goes beyond the accurate report in The Times newspaper. Still I understand that is Mr. Burton's main proposal: that all the producing countries shall state not only what they use for themselves, but what is their production of armaments in their own country, so that everybody will be on equal terms if you have this control by publicity as far as publicity amounts to control. I have no information as to what exactly Lord Onslow has said on that point beyond what has appeared in The Times.

If I read rightly what appeared in The Times, he proposed that we should go on with the publicity proposal of the Draft Convention which, after all, is a Convention for traffic in arms, and not for anything else at present. The British Government favour very strongly the adoption of publicity, so far, at any rate, as that is concerned, and on general grounds. He appears to have been very successful in that appeal, and to have induced the Convention to take up the question of the whole of this publicity system, which there was apparently some fear might be strangled at birth. Unless I am misinformed, that is all that has happened at present. I am not in a position to say exactly what view the Government will ultimately take of Mr. Burton's proposals. I need not say that proposals coming from that source, from a gentleman of Mr. Burton's eminence, and with the support of the powerful Delegation he has taken to Geneva, will receive the most sympathetic consideration of the Government. I cannot go further than that.

May I say a few words in answer—

Did you move for Papers?

No, I did not move for Papers. With the permission of the House I will say a word in answer to the noble Viscount. I think that his answer on the publicity question is in many ways satisfactory. There is a reasonable doubt from the report which I read, and it is the only report that has given information as to the extent to which this publicity principle has been recognised. I hope it has been recognised in the full sense in which it was brought forward by Mr. Burton. I accept what the noble Viscount says, that he has no further information at the present moment, other than that which he has stated so clearly. He read to us, I understand, an answer of the Government in another place. The answer appears to me extremely unsatisfactory. I shall not go beyond that, because it is only with the leave of the House that I can say anything at all. Subject to that, I thank the noble Viscount for the information he has given.