§ Sir LEO CHIOZZA MONEYI crave the indulgence of the House for a very few moments in order briefly to say why I have resigned my post as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping. I should like to say, in the first place, that my reasons are purely impersonal. I yield to no man in my admiration for the work of the Prime Minister, who has led the country to victory. I need not, to those who know him, say anything in regard to the personal qualities of Sir Joseph Maclay, but I should like to say to those Members who do not know him that he has won not only the confidence, but the esteem of every member of his staff in the Ministry of Shipping, and I am quite sure that the more his work is known and understood the more it will be appreciated. I do not think it is too much to say that the work has been a main factor 3200 in saving the country from one of the direst perils ever encountered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I pass to the reasons for my resignation. I am one of those who deplore the fact that the forthcoming General Election is to be taken at this time.
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYThe election has been sometimes called a "khaki" election, but I hardly can agree with the term, when one considers that a very large number of those who are wearing khaki will be unable to take part in it. I think, too, that the postponement for a limited period would not only permit the soldiers to exercise the franchise, but it also might lead to a better consideration by the public of the issues which are before the public. Granted that a Coalition in peace time is a good thing for the purposes of reconstruction, I think it will be generally agreed that that Coalition should embrace the whole of the parties in the State. I have been amongst those who have represented that a Coalition Government of the kind, to be successful in the extraordinarily difficult task which it will have to face, should contain, not merely eight Labour Members, but a very much larger proportion, and that those eight or more Members should, at any rate, have the full backing of the organised Labour forces of the country. But there is a deeper reason than that, which goes, as it seems to me, to the very root of the questions which are before the country. I need not dwell upon the difficulties which confront us. They are apparent to us all. But I do think it is perhaps imperfectly realised by those who are—perhaps they will forgive me for using the term—forcing this election upon the country that the programme of reform which is before us, progressive and benevolent as it may be in intention, does not really touch the root of the matter—that it does not meet the just aspirations of the millions of the people whose unrest is, I think, visible at the present moment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"]—if the hon. Member will allow me—[Cheers]—I feel very strongly that something much more is necessary than the programme that is before this House, and before the country, if the difficulties of the times which are before us are to be met in such a way as to prevent very great trouble indeed.
3201 In my view, it I may express it in a very few words, distinction is as between the question of public ownership on the one side and questions of social reform on the other. It is a social reform programme which has been put before the people of this country, whereas, in my opinion, the real issue which is before the working classes is this: Who shall own the means of production upon which rests their work? That is a very grave issue indeed. I do submit to this House that if it is not faced the consequences may be very serious. Above all, I fear this: That the results of an election, such as this may be, will be to exclude from this House such a proper and full representation of Labour as to cause Labour to seek for other than Parliamentary means of expression. I say that that is a danger for the country which we have all got to face. The issue must be faced sooner or later. If we will not face it in this House, we may be quite sure it will be faced out of the House, and we shall have to face an extra-Parliamentry means of expression. If I may give one or two illustrations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!]—I promise not to be very much longer—one or two illustrations taken from the work in which I myself have been engaged. The country, for example, possesses some hundreds of ships. The Americans, on the other hand, are building thousands of ships, thousands of ships which are to be owned by the American nation. They are the property of the American nation. One of the issues before the people of this country is whether the ships of this country are to be owned by the people of this country, and that issue is being prejudiced before the election has been taken by the sale of the ships. That is one of the reasons involved in the step I am taking.
Another point is this: We have built and are building in the West of England some magnificent shipyards which are a model of industry. We have not only model shipyards, but model houses for the housing of the workers. This, to my mind, is what Reconstruction ought to mean. It is part of the issue which I am putting before this House, and, I hope, also before the people outside. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] As to whether or not—I say this is part of the issue— 3202 whether or not that magnificent industrial undertaking is to be sold by us or whether it is to be retained as the property of the people of this country. These are very grave issues. I do most respectfully invite this House to face them. They are concerned also with the question of transport. They are concerned with the ownership of land, with the ownership of mines, of electrical power, of water power, and, indeed, with this great issue, as to whether or not this country is to continue to own the £62,000,000 worth of factories which it has set up for the purposes of the War—whether, I say, these things are to be owned by the nation or whether they are to be handed over, as I am afraid is hinted in some quarters, to what is euphemistically called private enterprise, while the workers of the country are left in the position they occupied before the War. I am well aware—[Interruption]—that the things I am saying are not frequently said in this House. I am also aware that they do not frequently appear in the newspapers of this country. I venture, however, to say that they will be heard in the future in this House and also outside.
Even if it is a little unpopular to say these things in this House, I venture to take the opportunity of doing it at a time like this On the other matters which have entered into the reasons for my resignation I will not dwell, because I think I have already-trespassed too much on the indulgence of the House. But I am bound to say this: That it seems to me that after three General Elections in this country the people have decided that the fiscal policy of this country should be a Free Trade policy. They have also decided in favour of Home Rule. As I understand it, the Government are intending to make a very big breach in the Free Trade policy of the country. In the second place, as I understand them—if I do understand them!—they promise that they will indefinitely postpone Home Rule. With these two things I am sorry to say I cannot agree. I should add that my resignation was made before the publication of the Prime Minister's letter on Saturday, and that the last two points which I have mentioned are, therefore, merely, as it were, added reasons for the strong conviction with which I have taken the step. It follows from my resignation that I shall 3203 not be a Coalition candidate at the next election, and indeed, the time at my disposal is so short that it is exceedingly improbable that I shall return to this House as the result of this election. If I ever return to this House it will only be as the untramelled representative of a constituency which believes, as I believe, that there is only one true future for the people of this country, the end and aim being the establishment of a co-operative commonwealth. I thank the House for so kindly listening to me.