HL Deb 03 December 1935 vol 99 cc9-38

Bill, pro forma, read 1a.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

The King's Speech reported by the LORD CHANCELLOR.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, we read this morning with deep regret the sad news of the death of Princess Victoria and I am quite sure that I shall voice the opinion of the House when I say that we all offer to His Majesty our most sincere condolences in this unhappy bereavement.

NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. My gratitude will be obvious to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for having entrusted to me this difficult and very responsible task, and I must ask for that indulgence which is always so kindly given to one who for the first time addresses your Lordships' House. There is a reference in the gracious Speech which makes one glad to be able to compliment the Government upon their continued support of the League of Nations and upon their determination at this stage to repair the gaps which have arisen in our defence forces. In the sincere belief that in our example of disarmament reposed the surest hope of shaping the peace of Europe we have in the past led the way to what has been found, unhappily, in the sequel, to be an almost unilateral disarmament. In the gracious Speech that is now before us there is, as I have said, a reference to making good the gaps which have thus been caused in our defence forces, but this question of rearmament will be more learnedly and more appropriately discussed by the noble and gallant Lord who is to second the Address than by myself, aided as he is by military experiences to which I am a stranger.

Your Lordships will allow me, however, to touch for a moment upon this vital question of our recent strong adherence to the Covenant of the League of Nations. It would be idle to pretend that the League has not been at every point confronted by formidable difficulties. In this case, however, let it be recorded, not that it has worked so slowly or that its machinery has been so cumbrous and so complicated, but to its everlasting credit that in the face of these almost overwhelming difficulties it has worked at all. And that in an age which has seen the swan song of almost every democracy in Europe, except our own, it has led fifty nations of widely divergent interests into a general and momentous agreement. The League was founded in an earnest determination to substitute once for all the rule of law in the international sphere for that condition of drab barbarism which history has inexorably shown is its only alternative. The recent adherence of His Majesty's Government to the Covenant of the League has commanded the respect of the whole civilised world. Supported by France and followed by the other nations, they have shown that the League is not going to founder under this new tempest, but will rather re-emerge as a stronger and greater instrument of international peace.

It is gratifying also that in the last four years unemployment has been substantially reduced. The Government have largely relied upon the restoration of credit and the consequent stimulation of industry to effect this result. It would be ungenerous and improper at this moment to enlarge upon the grim financial legacy that was bequeathed to them in 1931. The reference in the gracious Speech to the depressed areas is of the highest importance. Every man and woman in this country more happily situated earnestly hopes that within the next few years many of the people living in those areas will have been absorbed into useful and productive employment. The Government are giving constant attention to this problem, but it must be honestly and clearly emphasised that there can be no sudden, spectacular and all-embracing solution. They are, however, determined to extend the activities of their Commissioners for the economic development of those areas and to encourage the establishment of new industries. Above all, they fully realise that this poignant question, so difficult of solution and so vital to the complete recovery of the country, is the most formidable problem with which they, as a Government, are pledged to deal.

I hope that your Lordships will pardon me in this connection for reminding you what very great claims for relief are presented by the City of Liverpool. In so doing I am not unmindful of the claims of the other distressed areas, nor do I forget that Liverpool is not yet officially sheduled as a distressed area; but I remember my family's long association with Liverpool, and I remember also that constant loyalty with which it has always been rewarded, and I ask your Lordships to remember the terrible distress which, owing largely to economic conditions beyond her control, she has suffered. Liverpool has still at the present moment the appalling total of 85,000 unemployed—that is to say 4½ per cent., roughly, of the total number of unemployed in the country. In spite of this terrible burden she returned no fewer than eight National Conservative Members of Parliament out of eleven divisions, a record which no other distressed area can remotely approach. I should be shirking my duty if I did not point out very plainly that Liverpool has received in the past very little encourage ment for adhering so strongly to the Government, and I must respectfully suggest to your Lordships that unless she shares to a far greater extent in the coming schemes of reform her loyalty at the polls upon future occasions will be far more restrained.

I should like finally to say one word upon another matter touched upon in the gracious Speech, that of the coal industry. We all know that this industry has in the course of the last ten years passed through protracted and heartbreaking depression. The advancing tide of scientific discovery has ruthlessly worn into it; in many cases oil has been substituted for coal, and, as in the case of every industry which has falsely and perhaps short-sightedly believed that its specialised knowledge would remain unchallenged for years, other countries hitherto disregarded have cut into our coal markets. The coal industry has already benefited from the many trade agreements which have been concluded under the tariff policy of this country, particularly those with the Scandinavian countries, which have to a, certain extent benefited the depressed mining areas of the North-East coast, while the great question of safety in the mines is shortly to come under the survey of a Royal Commission. Looking to the future, the industry is suffering very greatly from the increased use of oil in the Navy and the mercantile marine. We have the word of experts that the immense strides which have been made in boiler-room design and boiler-room practice since the clays of battleships of the class of the "Iron Duke," and the quality of the present day coal which is far more easily bunkered, make possible the increased use of coal in the vessels of the Royal Navy and the mercantile marine. If the experts who hold these views are justified in their opinions, and if their experiments show that ships can be run as economically and efficiently upon coal as upon oil, a great and swift impetus will be given to this suffering industry.

Every country in Europe watched with anxious-eyes the result of the recent Election. This is certainly no occasion for any expression of Party arrogance. Let us rather hope that the incoming Government, returned with an overwhelming endorsement of their policy, and now stiffened by an experienced and determined Opposition, are upon the eve of a period of legislative achievement which will take its just and permanent place amongst the great epochs of this country. I beg to move that the following Address be presented to His Majesty: Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lord., Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, Leg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—

"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament." (The Earl of Birkenhead.)

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, may I at once echo those words of sympathy to His Majesty which fell so gently from the lips of the noble Earl. I am singularly happy that it is my lot to have the first opportunity of congratulating him on his first appearance before your Lordships. The felicitous manner in which he has overcome the double difficulty of addressing your Lordships for the first time and taking the responsible position of moving this Address has enabled him to accomplish his task with the greatest ease. I am sure that I am only voicing the sentiment of every one here when I say that I hope this is only the first of many times when he will help your Lordships. There is another reason why it is singularly fitting that I should have been given the honour of seconding the Motion for this Address. My father and the late Earl of Birkenhead travelled the Northern Circuit together and in the days when he was Mr. F. E. Smith my father very often followed him.

I am glad to note that the Government have issued invitations for a Conference for the limitation of naval armaments. Your Lordships have always emphasised the need for that. I cannot help expressing the hope that when this limitation is discussed it will be discussed on the lines of the limitation of the tonnage of vessels and not that of the number of vessels. This country must have freedom to supply herself with a sufficient fleet to protect those seaway arteries on which the British Empire depends for its life blood. We can all of us remember how a handful of German ships that were at sea when the last War broke out very nearly crippled our trade altogether. I am glad, too, to note that the strengthening of the defence forces is to be proceeded with immediately. I hope that the minimum proposed will be liberally translated. I would remind the Government of the lesson that they should already have learned from the difference between the McKenna Duties and full tariffs. A stick is no good, my Lords, unless it is a strong stick. It merely encourages the other fellow and does you no good. It may be as well just to remind the Government of the situation when the last War broke out. We were in the proud position of having the finest Army, the finest Fleet, and the finest Air Force in the world. But as far as the Army and the Air Force were concerned, they were very small. The result was that our word, when it came to trying to prevent war, was not sufficiently backed to make it possible for us to do it. That is the position out of which we have to get ourselves to-day.

Your Lordships will, I am sure, note with pleasure that help for the railways is promised. There is much progress that the railways should have made which has been held up by lack of capital. But in giving this help to the railways it must be remembered that help must go also to those who use the roads: the road contractors, the road hauliers, whose living is got from and dependent on the roads. They, also, must have their benefit in the provision of adequate roads and safe road surfaces, and this can only be done by putting the main arteries in one hand. I dislike State control as a matter of principle, but the present position, where the main road control changes hands every few miles, so that you never know what sort of surface you are going to be on, whether you will find your corners decently banked, your roads properly built or not, is an impossible one. Some degree of Government control is absolutely essential, which will result in the immediate employment of many and ultimate comparative road safety for all.

I personally am particularly glad to notice the reference to civil aviation, and I hope that the improvement of private flying, and especially the production of a large nucleus of embryo pilots, will not be overlooked. It is to be remembered that the cyclists, and particularly the motor-cyclists, provided in the last War practically the whole of our Flying Corps. To-day they are still a great source, but a dwindling source, for the supply of pilots. Italy and Germany have realised the value of the motor-cyclists to the full, and do everything they can to encourage them. My younger son, now just nine, if he could produce £25 could walk into a shop in Germany, plank it down, walk off with a light-weight motor bicycle and ride it down the street. He would not need a licence, he would not need an insurance policy, he would not pay a tax. May I express the hope that the Government will consider some means of encouraging our young motor cyclists—if not necessarily quite as young as that? At present cost, taxation and insurance are making the use of a motor-cycle prohibitive to thousands to whom it would be a real boon, getting them to their work and enabling them to live in the country and in healthy surroundings. Another point is that to-day it is almost impossible for a young man under twenty-one to obtain insurance as a motor-cyclist. Insurance is now compulsory, and the Government will need to give consideration to that problem. It is a serious matter to the nation that during the last five years we have lost no fewer than 320,000 motor-cyclists, every one of them just the type we want if our Air Force is to be expanded. I am glad to know of the continued intention to promote the Social Services, particularly as regards the health and physique of the nation. The provision of healthy homes and the abolition of slums is the most important step towards obtaining this. No nation living in squalid conditions is going to be a happy nation.

May I end by taking comfort from the wide terms of the gracious Speech, which to me are particularly noteworthy? I am glad to see that the Government realise that for the second time they have been given a blank cheque by the nation. I hope they realise that the safety, prosperity and happiness of all depend upon the immediate and fullest possible use being made of it. It is with confidence in their determination to do so that I beg to second the Address.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, I desire first of all, on behalf of my noble friends, to join in expressing our sympathy to His Majesty the King on the great loss that he has suffered through the death of his sister. We shall have other opportunities of formally expressing our sympathy. All that I need say to-day is that, when bereavements of this kind come, they are hard to bear whether they come to a cottage or to a palace, and we associate ourselves very sincerely in the expression of our sympathy with what fell from the noble Earl.

My first duty now—and it is also a great pleasure—is to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address on the way in which they have accomplished what is a very difficult task. I have had the responsibility myself in another place of proposing the Address, and I know how difficult it is to avoid trespassing upon controversial matters and yet at the same time to present a picture of the Address that you are supposed to propose. I should like to say a word about the noble Earl who proposed this Address. There was in his speech a quality which has already been demonstrated in the very readable biography of his distinguished father, the first Earl, a piece of work which showed the mentality displayed in his speech to-day. Those of us who knew his father cannot help feeling how proud he would have been if he could have heard his son's speech today. There was in the noble Earl's speech a precision of phrase and a compactness of statement which reminded us of his father's best form. There was not quite the old buoyant self-assurance, but there was nevertheless a hint of that quality when he reminded His Majesty's Government that the loyalty of Liverpool could not be relied on without adequate recompense!

We have all known the seconder of the Address as a colleague in this House and as engaged in useful outside work. I congratulate him on his speech in seconding this Address. I understood him to say that, though he disliked State control intensely, he would nevertheless endeavour to put up with it if it were accompanied by financial favours such as he described. I will not share his enthusiasm for children of nine driving motor-cycles down the streets of London, but with that exception I welcome his speech. I cannot help feeling, my Lords, that it is a shame to use the enthusiasm of youth to commend the not too obvious wisdom of His Majesty's Government as at present displayed. Youth saw in this document virtues which are hidden from more experienced eyes. Nevertheless I express the vain hope that we shall hear the noble Earl again on many occasions. I say the "vain hope" because it appears to be the habit of the Party opposite to call upon youth to give an appearance of vitality to a temporarily rejuvenated but chronically Lethargic and spiritually sterile Party. Then I think they are expected to sit in silence and listen to the somnolent declarations of their seniors. If they showed any keen disposition to intervene I could imagine the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, turning upon them and looking at them sternly, and, in the Words of an ancient king, advising them to "tarry at Jericho till your beards be grown, and then return." The noble Viscount will observe that I am trying to incite rebellion amongst the most promising section of his supporters, and I will only say to them that if the yoke of repressive seniority becomes too heavy, let them come over here and I will promise them honourable and regular participation in useful work, with something to believe in in addition.

My next duty is to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, upon his assumption of the difficult position of Leader of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships in all Parties will find in him a distinguished Leader, and on this side we shall, I know, find in him a courteous and very considerate opponent. I have no hope of converting him to my point of view, and we on this side will try and resist his political blandishments to the very uttermost of our strength. I hope his tenure, and that of his colleagues on the Front Bench, will be pleasant. It will be our duty to see that it is not too protracted.

Now, my Lords, we enter upon the work of this new Parliament, and I understand it is permissible that I should say a few words of a general nature on an occasion like this. I do not share the enthusiasm of the noble Earl and the noble Lord who proposed and seconded the Address. We know what to expect. We have seen them before. The Ethiopian has not changed his skin. It, is the some old firm; the same old board of directors. Some of the old stale goods are still in the window, and the new season's merchandise does not appear to have arrived. We have some promises made with which I will deal later, but the main purpose of the Government, I understand, according to the columns of The Times, is to hold back the "dangerous eagerness of the Socialists.' I think that at least that promise will be fulfilled. There is certainly nothing "eager" in the Address which has been so ably commended.

Your Lordships will perhaps expect me to say a word or two about the fortunes of the Labour Party in the recent Election. We have got back to something like the position of 1929, which is really not a bad omen. We can afford to wait, because the tide is flowing our way. The Government majority, though large, does not depress us. If it is as strong as has been suggested it will take us a little longer to destroy it than we should like, but nevertheless that will happen. We have been advised, I am sure most considerately, what we ought to have done in the recent Election. The Daily mail, quoting with great glee from the London Observer, said that if they Socialist Party had…declared altogether against risking war and imperilling Europe for the sake of the Negus and his Ethiopian Empire they would have won 200 seats and brought down the National Government. And they followed that up by saying that "the latter system has been saved not by any positive attractions of its own, but by the egregious blunders: of its opponents." The Daily Mail says that the Socialists by their demands for military sanctions cut their own throats, and that "they went everywhere up and down the country bellowing for blood." I am sure that it must be a great joy and pride to the Party opposite to have such advocates at their disposal.

That advice means that if we had been willing to betray our principles and willing to destroy the League of Nations and renounce the idea of collective security, we should, in spite of the manufactured mendacities of the millionaire Press, have become the Government of this country. I hope my Party will die before it purchases victory at that price. We will leave that ignominious and well practiced habit to whoever enjoys the high distinction of the support of the Daily Mail. The Prime Minister, a day or two ago at Dundee, where the jam comes from, made a similar reflection, that Socialism would never triumph in this country and that therefore we ought to give it up. My Lords, the Prime Minister would not betray any principle of his own for either reward or convenience, and he showed less than his usual insight and consideration when he suggested that we might do such a thing.

The result of the Election appears to be that the Government went to the electors to prove that the nation was behind them, and what they did prove was that 46 per cent. of the nation was opposed to them. That is not anything to be pleased about. Foreign nations will not fail to have observed that. After a Presidential Election in America a very distinguished American statesman, Mr. Elihu Root, was asked whether the new Government was a mirror of public opinion. "A mirror," he said, "certainly not! Governments never reflect." And I think that is the case with the Government which is before us. When we are contemplating the Government's programme we have to consider who it is that is going to bring those promises to fruition. One might have some hope in the National Labour section of the Government. These were all close political friends, and they, remain even closer personal friends, and will do so. I have never questioned their motives in this House or elsewhere. My own motives are so often misunderstood that I would not dare to question those of other people. But as an old friend they will permit me on this occasion to say that it hurts me to see them used to decorate the chariot wheels of a Party that is the negation of everything they ever stood for or believed in.

I have never dared to try to illustrate an argument in your Lordships' House by the use of a story, and yet to-day I cannot help risking your anger by doing so. Having ordered oyster soup in an otherwise reputable hotel, a diner complained that it had not even the flavour of oysters; and the waiter explained to him that oysters were not put in to flavour it; they put three in it—or was it six?—to christen it. And that is what the National Labour people are in the National Government for—not to flavour it but to christen it; and I remind them of their position. The Morning Post recently said: Who is (or are) National Labour, and through what mouthpiece or organisation does it (or they) insist on this, or that or the other thing? That shows the contempt in which they are held. I wonder why they do not come out of it and save their souls alive. If National Labour represented a cradle in 1931, it represents a sepulchre in 1935. It may be that they have made their peace with the princes of this world, in which case I think they ought to sail under their banner. Or it may be that they have got permission on rare occasions to bow in the Temple of Rimmon as they pass. I cannot help feeling that it would be a contribution to political honesty if His Majesty's Government dropped the imposture of calling itself National, when it is designedly, obviously and irrevocably Tory.

When we come to the details of the gracious Speech which has been put before us I cannot help feeling that its main content is vague professed good intentions—power without the will to make those intentions effective. It is really a manifesto of a policy, and not a programme of work which is to be carried through in a specific period. Take, for instance, foreign affairs. We welcome most heartily the proposed support of the League of Nations, but we deeply regret that the declaration which the Foreign Minister made at Geneva receives no sort of commendation in this Speech. There is no explanation given as to what it involved, or whether it is going to be carried one step further. There is no constructive proposal, and there is no suggestion of a way in which we can get out of the mess in our foreign policy that has been created since 1931. There is not a word about Egypt, which seems to me to be an ominous omission, although there was a great opportunity if the desire to remove misunderstanding had been in the mind of His Majesty's Government, which is responsible in a special degree for the present strain.

I will pass quite quickly to the question of armaments. Here again we are faced with a disturbing vagueness on this very vital question. The Government would appear to have a split personality. It be lieves in peace, but it also believes that preparation for war is necessary to secure peace. This affliction in its mind gives great joy to the Fighting Services, and even more joy to the armament firms who are going to profit out of it. But there is one point about which I wish to express very considerable surprise and great disappointment. The Speech mentions that we are to have immediately in London a Naval Conference, the aim being presumably to reduce armaments, to give an atmosphere of peace to the world whereby we may have this great affliction reduced. Yet the very next paragraph—as though it were designed to make the failure of that Conference certain—states that we are going to have a vast increase in our own weapons. I venture the suggestion that there never was a more unfortunate juxtaposition, both in time and event, of incompatible proposals.

Government speakers tell us that the armaments of other nations are provocative and offensive, whereas ours are the harmless furnishings of the temple of peace. They say we must arm ourselves in case we are attacked. Well, Mussolini said: "We must arm in case the Abyssinians attack us." There is some similarity between those two declarations. We are willing to support armaments to the extent which will enable us to take our share in enabling the League of Nations to impose collective security, but beyond that armaments are suspected by us as unnecessary and dangerous. The Labour Party renounces armed force as a weapon of policy, and hopes that in the Naval Conference and at Geneva and elsewhere we shall get universal disarmament. The propaganda of the last three months undertaken by newspapers of the Conservative Party assured us that our Navy is weak, that the Air Force is that of a fifth-rate Power, and so on. Well, if this is true one wonders what the Government have been doing during recent years. Have they the effrontery to say that, knowing of this danger, they were prevented from taking any steps to obviate it because of the opposition of sixty pacifists in the House of Commons? We have spent on the Navy since the Armistice £946,000,000. From 1920 to the end of the financial year in. 1934 we have spent over £1,820,000,000 on armaments—more than £10,000,000 a month. One wonders where this money has gone if our armaments are as inefficient as is now stated.

I pass from that—there is much more that I should like to say about it—to the outlook of social reform. The Government in its manifesto at the Election said that New and rapid progress in social reform has again become possible. Well, there is no evidence of rapid progress in the programme which is put before us at the present time. There is no dangerous eagerness displayed there. So far as the question of the mines is concerned, I understand we shall have opportunities for discussing that later, and I shall not delay your Lordships with it at this point other than to say that what is promised in the gracious Speech is again vague to the point of being incomprehensible. What does "unification of coal royalties under national control" mean? I hope the representative of the Government will define that a little more closely. There is no proposal for reconstruction in this vital industry. The nation is sweating the miners, and that process is apparently to continue. So far as the railways are concerned, we understand there is to be the guarantee of a loan. I should like to ask under what conditions that loan is to be guaranteed and whether, and to what extent, the nation will have control. I note in passing that this is another illustration of the failure of that individualism which is so stoutly upheld by noble Lords on the other side of your Lordships' House.

In regard to the distressed areas, all we are promised is that "special regard" is to be paid to them. It would be better, I think, if His Majesty's Government would tell us, definitely, precisely what they intend to do about them. The recommendations of the Commissioners were clear and specific, and mere "regard" for these areas without proposals to abolish their sufferings does not commend itself to me at least. Then there is the matter of education. The age of scholars is to be raised, and it looks as if the old controversy respecting voluntary schools is to be renewed, but so far as school age is concerned the Government appear to have no specific obligation. Is it to be accompanied by maintenance of children? And, we should like to ask, when is this reform to take place, how much is the age to be raised, and under what conditions; are there to be any exemptions, and, if so, what are they to be? I must not delay your Lordships longer on that point. There is one thing in the gracious Speech upon which your Lordships will permit me, as an old agricultural worker, to say a word, and that is that I welcome very sincerely the proposal to bring the agricultural labourer under the great system of national industrial insurance.

Now I should like to say a word about the omissions from the speech. First of all, it is noticeable that no reform of your Lordships' House is proposed. I did not expect it would be. I desire to call the attention of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to the omission of any mention of that particular reform. I do not know whether he will accept it with docility or whether he will protest, but I do not know why he should have expected that a Conservative Government would ever reform an institution which is already the perfect, the obedient, and the constant expression of its own will. In regard to road safety, I personally expected that some concern would be expressed for the slaughter which takes place daily upon the high roads, and yet nothing is suggested. It is more dangerous to walk on the streets of London than it is to go for a voyage on the high seas, and yet this great source of anxiety to our fellow subjects is altogether disregarded. There is another point, too, that is omitted and that is in regard to Ottawa. I believe, though I am not quite certain, that those treaties are due for revision in 1936, and yet not a word is said about them. I call the attention of noble Lords on the Liberal Benches to that omission. Then, in regard to pensions, the whole pension system requires re-examination. It is full of perplexing and distressing anomalies, and yet no word whatever is said about it.

As quickly as I could do justice to what I am trying to say on behalf of my Party, I have tried to tame the enthusiasm of noble Lords opposite under the influence of the noble Earl and the noble Lord who proposed and seconded. So, my Lords, we start on the task of this new Parliament with less than a dozen effective members on the Benches behind me, although we represent some eight million voters outside. We shall try to do our best to put the point of view that we represent. We shall listen with such fortitude and patience as we can command to what, no doubt, will be a sustained chorus of self-praise and glee over the alleged discomforture of the Labour Party. I venture in my closing words to advise your Lordships not to push that too far. The Tory Party has never been distinguished for its gifts of insight and prophecy. For two generations we have been trying to build up in our country a Parliamentary Labour Party in opposition to the old method of industrial strikes which occurred monthly two generations ago. We said to impatient men: "You can get a great deal that you want through the Houses of Parliament. We are a democratic country. You have got the vote, and you can use it to get what you want." The nation has profited immensely by the rise of the Parliamentary Labour Party. You have the blessing in England of a hopeful, orderly, and splendidly patient people, and the British Labour Party is the one sure bulwark of democracy in this country. If Communism is an evil—and about that I express no opinion—but if you regard Communism as an evil, the British Labour Party is the strongest barrier against it. Now the people in the country whom we have thus advised see the whole power of capitalist civilisation used to close the doors of Parliament to their representatives.

The idea of representative Government held by Tory propagandists is that there shall be no Opposition. We see a stimulated Press campaign, and the defamation of our Leaders. The workers are convinced that the scales are weighted against them, and through a carefully jerrymandered electoral system you may get a reversion to that old system of direct action and industrial struggle from which we have been trying to rescue the country for at least two generations. In that event you will reap what you have sown, an era of bitterness and strife. I cannot see anything in the proposals put before us by His Majesty's Government that are designed to meet that impatience. The Social Services are to be starved; the Fighting Services are to be fed; and a restless and embittered people may be driven to use the only weapon left in their hands, that of industrial action. We trust that His Majesty's Government will be satisfied with the results of their proposals. At any rate it is a responsibility that we should not like to share.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, in the first place I desire to associate myself with what has fallen from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Birkenhead) and also from the noble Lord who leads the Opposition, on the bereavement which the. Royal Family has just suffered. As we all know, their Majesties the King and Queen always show sympathy with any public disaster or private sorrow which His Majesty's subjects have to undergo, and it is therefore right that your Lordships' House should show—I understand there will be a formal occasion for doing so—the concern which we all feel for the Royal Fancily. Next I must offer your Lordships an apology for taking part in this debate. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Reading, whose health I am glad to say has greatly improved—

NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

—though he is not yet able to take part in debate n your Lordships' House, I was asked to fulfil a duty which I have in the past often undertaken from both sides of the House, that of saying something on the Address in reply to His Majesty's gracious Speech. I may remind your Lordships that in a very famous play, in the first scene it is not the principal figure, the Prince of Denmark, who puts an appearance but the ghost, and it is in that capacity that I appear here to-day. In that capacity I must offer my congratulations, having heard some dozens of similar, though by no means all such capable efforts, to the mover and seconder of the Address to the Crown. When the noble Earl was speaking we remembered how his distinguished father brought from another place to this Blouse not only a compelling rhetoric and a scintillant wit, but also the capacity to devote himself with the utmost industry, and also with the utmost moderation, to the consideration of the difficult problems which had to be confronted after the War. When the noble Earl was speaking I seemed now and then to catch an echo of his father's manner, and I trust, therefore, that he will continue, as so many Lords who have moved or seconded the Address so well have not done, to take a frequent, part in the debates in your Lordships' House. The name of the noble Lord who seconded the Address also brought back, especially I think to these Benches, the memory of a former greatly beloved and respected colleague in his uncle who, as we know, served the country well both at home and abroad.

Now to touch for a moment on some of the salient features in the Speech, His Majesty states that his relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly. That is in the common form, but it seems to convey a certain sub-acid suggestion when read in concert with the next paragraph but one in the Speech. I have no intention of dwelling on the question that has arisen between Italy and Abyssinia beyond expressing the same satisfaction which the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench (Lord Snell) expressed on the unqualified adherence to the League of Nations which His Majesty's Speech declares, and I may say, as I am not quite certain the noble Lord who spoke last would have said, that I agree with the statement that the ultimate solution of the question must be one which is satisfactory not to one country or to two countries or to the League of Nations, but to all three. I had an opportunity in an earlier debate on this subject of expressing my reasons for reaching that conclusion.

But there are one or two rather singular omissions from this paragraph dealing with foreign affairs. It is, I think, somewhat surprising that His Majesty's Government make no allusion to the economic troubles of the world, which lie at the root of the difficulties with which the different countries are now confronted. It is not too much to say that the conflict between Abyssinia and Italy has really an economic foundation. I cannot help wishing that His Majesty's Government had expressed their intention of pressing for further examination on the part of the most important Powers of this side of the question. It is perhaps also somewhat strange that no mention should have been made of the Far East, because so far as we are able to judge from the columns of the newspapers the situation there is, if not exactly critical, at any rate so anxious as to give rise to not a few fears of possible developments which may further endanger peace.

The noble Lord who leads the Opposition referred to the Naval Conference, and I think that without any such intention he was scarcely fair to the Government in that regard, because he seemed to imply that they had called this Conference of their own initiative, and it was a strange step to take at a moment when they were also considering the question of defence. As I understand it the meeting of this Naval Conference is automatic; unless all the great Naval Powers concerned meet together at once all the obligations now existing under the Washington Treaty would lapse, and therefore it is absolutely necessary that they should meet. The sentence on the subject of the defence forces—that the proposals "will be limited to the minimum required"—is undoubtedly a comforting one in itself, but as with so much in the gracious Speech, everything depends upon the mariner in which these words are implemented. We have to remember that there are a good many people who do not want to see the defence forces of this country kept on a minimum scale. There are a good many people who honestly hope that in order that this country should keep its place in the world our forces, at any rate in some branches, will be considerably in excess of anything that could be called a minimum. It is because those views are held by some that we welcome the words which are used in the gracious Speech.

The noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench spoke of the paragraphs relating to the distressed areas and unemployment relief, and I do not wish to dwell upon them. We all know that much resentment has been caused by the pooling of family resources where those resources are not large, and we assume that that is an aspect of the matter with which the Government are prepared to deal. I pass to the paragraph on education. The opening sentence runs thus: My Government are convinced of the need for an early and substantial development of the educational services of the country. That really looks as though a Government, having newly come to power, observed almost with startled surprise that some further development of the educational system of the country is required. Most of us had supposed that for years and years past this question had been regarded as one of urgency, but one is tempted to think that the noble Viscount opposite has never heard of Mr. Fisher, the Warden of New College, or of Sir Henry Hadow, or of any of the various examinations of the subject and reports on it that have been made. The Government seem to be bringing entirely, as I say, new and almost surprised minds to the question.

I need hardly say that I did not find myself in complete agreement with everything that fell from the noble Lord who leads the Opposition, but in one respect I did agree with the general tenor of his remarks—that the gracious Speech wears the air rather of an encouraging memorandum than of a definite programme of intentions. I cannot help feeling that, remarkable as has been the victory which His Majesty's Government obtained at the recent Election, they would be flattering themselves if they believed that that represents a verdict of unqualified commendation of all their past acts and a condition of complete and almost childlike confidence in their future doings. I think His Majesty's Government must have realised that there has been a widely extended feeling throughout the country—and that feeling was in some way reflected in the number of votes cast against them—that there has been not a little needless delay in considering some of these questions. In the matter of coal mines, in the matter of unemployment and in the matter of educational reform there has been a feeling that the Government might have got to work sooner.

We all understand the difficulties that they have had to confront. We all know that a vast amount of Parliamentary time was consumed by the great measure affecting India. At the same time we cannot help feeling that, during these years that have passed, the Government might have got to work more quickly. One cannot help feeling that those delays came from the fact of the Government being either Coalition, or National, or however you choose to describe it. This is a danger which is attached to any composite Government of that kind: that it does not proceed with the speed and activity which the Government has to adopt when it is confronted by a strong single Opposition.

All I can say as regards my noble friends on these Benches is that His Majesty's Government can look forward to receiving from them quite unbiased criticism, if criticism is required, and quite open approval and concurrence when my noble friends agree with the action of His Majesty's Government. We are not in the position of people who, being a regular Opposition, are bound to oppose, but our criticism is and will be unbiased, and, I have no doubt, coming from some noble Lords, absolutely unsparing on particular occasions. To put it briefly, there is a great deal in the bill of fare set out by foe Government which we can regard with hope, but it depends on the extent to which the ingredients of that bill of fare are well cooked and well served whether, next time the noble Lords opposite have to submit their views to the country, the country is likely to approve of them.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX)

My Lords, as has been said by each of the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, we meet under the shadow of a great affliction which has fallen upon the King and upon his Family. His Majesty, as I think the noble Lord opposite said, has always shared so closely in the sorrows of all his people—as he has always been willing to share their joys—that no sorrow can come to him which does not bring sorrow also to the whole country. It will be my duty when we meet to-morrow to invite your Lordships to join in the presentation of a humble Address to His Majesty conveying your Lordships' concern and condolence.

Before proceeding to what I have to say on the subject of the debate, may I say in one sentence with what pleasure we all learn from the noble Marquess who has just sat down of the continuous progress towards what we hope will be complete recovery of the noble Marquess, Lord Beading? Then I must also say a word of thanks to those who have so kindly expressed themselves upon the subject of my accession to this post of uneasy responsibility as Leader of your Lordships' House. I am only too well aware how great the responsibility is of joining a line of predecessors so distinguished, and of following in immediate succession one who, though he only led this House for a very short time, led it in a period—as I think all your Lordships will agree—of quite exceptional difficulty, and who by his unfailing courtesy earned the appreciation of all persons and of all Parties in the House, and who has constantly set an example to us all of allowing no smaller interests to interfere with the claims of public service in this place. Therefore I am under no temptation to underestimate the difficulties of my post, more especially when I realise that they will be performed under the critical, though I doubt not the generous and the kindly, eye of anything up to six ex-Leaders of this House, who may at any moment, for all I know, descend upon me in volume and expose me to a barrage of concentrated criticism and, maybe, of condemnation. But although I have not had the honour of being long a member of your Lordships' House, I have been here long enough to learn that there is no assembly more generous and more tolerant. I can only assure your Lordships that, so long as I have the honour to hold the place I do, I shall do the best that I can to discharge the duties laid upon me, and in so doing I am quite sure that I can rely upon the good will and the support of all Parties and of all your Lordships, wherever you may sit.

Now I have to pass on to associate myself with the compliments that have been paid by the Leader of the Opposition and by the noble Marquess opposite to my noble friends who moved and seconded the Address. I can well believe that there may have been occasions, possibly in another place or even in your Lordships' House, when those compliments may have been of a conventional type. Let me assure my noble friends that that has, at any rate, not been the case to-day. For my own part I can convey to them my praise with the greatest fullness of heart, because I have been fortunate enough always to escape having to perform the task that was laid upon them. It has never been my honour to move or to second an Address. I have always from a distance thought what an incredibly difficult thing it is to do, and each time I hear it done I am filled with greater admiration for those who successfully surmount what to me seem almost insurmountable difficulties. No higher praise can be given to them than that they should have so amply maintained the high standard to which this House has become accustomed.

It is quite true, I suppose, that the House is accustomed to look for a particular quality in the speeches of noble Lords who perform this task, and, as has been said this afternoon, we have been in no way disappointed. Both their speeches, if they will forgive me for saying so, seemed to me to be instinct with great political wisdom, and, as I suppose is the case with all true wisdom, to be based upon that just balance between human hopes and human aspirations which is the foundation of all wise philosophy. Both bear names of great distinction in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord who seconded is, of course, no stranger to our debates and—though I feel bound in this matter at least to associate myself to some extent with the noble Lord opposite in an expression of mild anxiety lest a son of nine years old, if I had one, should suddenly advance upon me on a motor bicycle—I am sure that all those who heard the noble Lord this afternoon will only have confirmed the high opinion which they had already formed of his Parliamentary powers.

My noble friend who moved the Address was indeed before his speech unknown to us as an orator, although not unfamiliar to us, as we were reminded by the noble Lord opposite, as an author. I suppose to no one more than to myself can that speech have given pleasure and satisfaction, because your Lordships well know that it fell to me, as Viceroy in India, to work with his father in what I have always supposed must be the closest intimacy—namely, the intimacy which exists between Viceroy and Secretary of State, exposing all one's sentiments, thoughts, anxieties and the like. In that capacity one learned—at least I think I learned—to appraise with correctness the great qualities of intellect, courage and heart which gave the late Lord Birkenhead so unrivalled and remarkable a place, both in the affections of his friends and in the councils of his Party. Therefore it gave me peculiar gratification to hear the speech of his son in this House, and I do not think that any of your Lordships will have failed, in both speeches, to-day, to detect evidence of the force of heredity, which in other circumstances some persons are sometimes disposed to underrate. I can assure both my noble friends, although I imagine they hardly need the assurance, that if they will venture, whenever they feel able, to participate in our debates, it will give very great satisfaction—in contradiction to the suggestion of the noble Lord opposite—to all on this Bench and, I am sure, in all parts of the House.

I have now to turn and endeavour to make a few observations upon the speeches that have been made on the gracious Speech. I have noticed, as is I think customary on occasions such as this, that a good deal of such criticism as there has been has been directed to the alleged vagueness of the Speech, and on the lines of suggesting that it is rather in the way of a memorandum than of a specific pronouncement of policy. That, I suppose, is to some extent inevitable, but I would remind noble Lords opposite that the purpose of the Speech, after all, is to proclaim in conventional though I hope in a fairly precise form, the intentions of the Government which will in due course fall to be translated into even more precise and detailed form, when laid before Parliament in the shape of actual legislative proposals. I venture to claim that the Speech gives a very adequate picture of the policy of His Majesty's Government in its broad lines, and suggests adequately enough what are the general governing motives which will underlie the development of that policy as this Parliament gradually does its work.

The Speech begins with a definition of the motive of His Majesty's Government in the field of foreign policy, and I was there greatly interested to hear the comment made upon that by my noble friend Lord Birkenhead. He, recognising to the full the degree to which the League of Nations is admitted to be ineffective, yet put his finger, I think, with great precision upon what is in my judgment a remarkable fact in the history of the world, that the League of Nations should have been responsible for bringing fifty nations, representing different schools of thought and different Governments, to approve a single agreed policy, the effectiveness of which is now under review by those who watch these events the world over; and I would not have your Lordships overlook the fact, less remarkable but not less happy from our point of view, that in all the policy pursued in this respect by this country we have been accompanied and supported with unanimity and warm approval throughout, by all the self-governing Dominions under the British Crown. Therefore it is along those lines that His Majesty's Government will pro coed. They have lost no opportunity of snaking it quite plain that they regard peace as the greatest British interest, and that they regard themselves bound to give every support in their power to that great collective instrument of peace, the League of Nations, to which both in honour and, because peace is the greatest British interest, by interest, they are bound. To that course His Majesty's Government mill adhere, and I am glad to know that in that respect at least we can count, as I think, upon the support of noble Lords opposite, and for that policy I think we have the support of an overwhelming mass of the people of this country.

Then the noble Lord opposite professed to discover a contradiction or inconsistency in the fact that in two adjacent. paragraphs of the Speech there was first, of all a reference to the forthcoming Naval Conference, and in the next a reference to the necessity of repairing the deficiencies in our defence forces. I have always been puzzled by the fact that there should seem to any one to be any inconsistency between a steadfast pursuit of peace on the one side, and, on the ether the determination to make such provision as is necessary for the security of the country while—as must evidently be so for some time—the future of peace cannot be held to be permanently assured. After all, let me remind the noble Lord opposite that however much we may be under the limitations of the Washington Conference until the end of next year, it is not only in actual ships that deficiencies may exist, nor is the Navy the only Service in which deficiencies exist, and I would regard any Government as gravely culpable and failing in their duty if, at the stage at which matters now stand—that is to say, when the hope of inducing other nations to follow our example in disarmament is, for the present at all events, temporarily postponed—we were any longer to defer the snaking up of those deficiencies, accumulated while that hope still existed.

The noble Lord opposite quoted large figures of the amounts that have been expended upon armaments during, I think, the last ten years, and he asked where had all that money gone, the suggestion being that it must evidently have been badly administered if the de ficiencies were so great as he has alleged to-day. Does it never occur to him or to others who put that question that, as I think everybody knows who has looked into these matters at all, the great bulk of the defensive expenditure in this country goes on pay for the personnel of the defence forces, and that that is why the defence forces of this country are so infinitely more expensive than the defence forces of any other comparable country, and why a just comparison between them and us is extremely difficult of attainment. I do not think I need add more on the subject of the Defence Services, except to say that in due course, as is said in the Speech, proposals will be laid before Parliament, and the country will have an opportunity of expressing its mind about them.

Those of us who have had any experience during the last mouth of public opinion in different parts of the country have, I think, been impressed—at least, I was—by two things. I think it is true, as has been said in this debate, that the overwhelming mass of public opinion in this country is passionately desirous of peace. As far as I know there was no dissentient to that. But they also desired, if I understand their mind at all, to be secure and to be able to discharge the obligations to which this country is pledged. And all that I would plead with noble Lords opposite is this, not to go about the country pressing for an even more dangerous League of Nations policy than many prudent persons on this side would always see their way to support, and at the same time look, as the noble Lord said himself, with such suspicion upon the filling up of the armament deficiencies, without which the intervention of this country could not be expected to be effective.

The other topics that have been discussed have, I think, been mainly concerned with the domestic policy of His Majesty's Government, and with the proposals for dealing with the several Social Services there mentioned. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, spoke, I thought, in terms of somewhat less than justice of the proposals of His Majesty's Government with regard to education. He affected to discover in that paragraph some element of surprise, but I can assure him that if that was the impression left upon his mind, it was—intentionally at least—entirely unsupported by the word ing of the paragraph in question; for no subject in this domestic field has been—I was going to say longer, but certainly more constantly and more intimately under the review of His Majesty's Government in the late Parliament than has this matter of education.

I was rather sorry to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in speaking about it said that he was afraid that this paragraph looked as if the old denominational controversy about the voluntary schools was going to be re-excited. It would be—and I am sure the most reverend Primate would agree whole-heartedly in this—a great misfortune if anything of that sort were to occur, and I do not myself see that it is the least likely to occur. The whole purpose of His Majesty's Government has been to avoid any such result, and I believe that those people make a great mistake who look at these old denominational questions in the atmosphere that prevailed twenty, or twenty-five, or thirty years ago. Public opinion in that, as in a great many other things, has moved forward, and moved very far from the old standpoint. I believe that what people are now concerned for is to secure the best measure of education for the children of this country that they can. For the purpose of so doing, they recognise that the great denominational bodies have laid the cause of British education under a great debt and have a great contribution to make, and that it is both policy and wisdom for the State to encourage and to assist them to make it. Therefore I am not unduly anxious on that head.

The noble Marquess referred to another matter in the social field that is perhaps of sufficiently outstanding importance in the public mind to justify a word of mention—namely, the question of family resources in the assessment of means. Of course, as he will know very well, there was no question that engrossed more public attention at the recent Election than did that, and I can only assure him that what was said on that subject in the public manifesto of the Leaders of the then Government before the Election represents the policy that His Majesty's Government now intend to implement. When they come to lay their proposals on that matter before Parliament they will deem it their duty to have regard to the necessity of introducing any reforms they may make gradually, to have regard to the inevitable variations of circumstance or necessity in different localities, and to have regard also to the desirability of not impairing the family as the unit of British society. It will be on those principles that His Majesty's Government will desire to move and by their adherence to, or departure from, those principles that they would claim to be judged.

I do not attempt to follow all the paragraphs of the Speech that have been mentioned, and I will conclude by two or three general observations of a wider sort. The noble Lord opposite was kind enough to think aloud a little as to the causes that had led to the defeat of his Party at the recent Election. I do not wish to follow him into that examination. I have my own views, and I think they are at least as near the truth as were his; and while I do not wish him—and I should be the last to respect him were he to do it—to change his views for the sake of winning votes, I think as a matter of plain fact it does remain true that those people whose official spokesmen continue to speak about the certainty of financial turmoil if their Party is returned to power will wait a long time before power returns to them, because if there is one thing more certain than another—and I think this last Election has proved it—it is that the British public as a whole have no desire to see extreme policies carried out.

On the whole, they thought that improvement, though slow, perhaps, was still steady and was going forward, and they were not prepared to take the risk of seeing such improvement as there was—and they measured it very fairly—interrupted by a departure from the sane paths of financial administration and business prudence. Therefore, while His Majesty's Government certainly would not be under any temptation to merit the warning addressed to them by the noble Marquess not to take the recent verdict of the nation as a verdict that the nation would be equally happy with them whatever they were to do, and would be willing to accept their work whatever it was, I think I am entitled to say that it is a somewhat remarkable fact that in these days of inconstant and very mobile public opinion, the Great Inquest of the nation, of this great democracy, should have resulted in the restoration to power of a Government for another term of office with so great a majority as was given this Government, largely, as I think, owing to the personal trust reposed in him who led us in the Election.

That imposes upon us on this side, I readily recognise, a great responsibility. We are not under any temptation to be complacent, or to think that there is not plenty of work, great difficulty, and great anxiety before us both in the field of politics international and the field of politics domestic. There is a great deal to be done, and we in this House will need the support of all our friends to assist us in its discharge. But I do say that the democracy of this country has deliberately chosen to impose that responsibility upon us, and we shall endeavour to be worthy of it. While the noble Lord was speaking, something he said suggested to my mind what is one of the essential differences between his Party and my own. He was saying how great a thing it was—and I agree with him—that the Parliamentary Labour Party had, through the last twenty, thirty, or forty years, been gradually built up to be a constitutional force in the State. So great is that truth that I hope he and his friends will use all their influence to keep it a constitutional force and to deflect it from paths sometimes suggested for it to follow of depriving Parliament, not only this House but the other also, of all effective Parliamentary control over legislation, policy, administration and, indeed, the political life of this country. But it is a great performance that that Parliamentary Party has been made and has been fashioned for the purpose of giving expression to the hopes and the aspirations of the people.

Certainly so far as we are concerned we wish nothing better than to work with noble Lords opposite so far as we may for ends that we have in common; but the essential difference, as I see it, between them and us is that while we, on our side, ate prepared to examine every public question and to bring to it the simple test: "Can this question be better solved by some form of State activity than it can on the old lines of purely individual enterprise?" they always, as I see it proceeding be a priori reasoning, assume from the beginning that most questions will be better tackled by the State than they will be by individuals. I am still Conservative and individualistic enough to believe that most questions are better tackled by individual initiative, and that there is always a danger of the State enterprise crippling individual freedom and volition. In this gracious Speech itself there are suggestions which ten or fifteen years ago—perhaps even to-day—would have been deemed highly Socialistic, but they have found space in the King's Speech because on the particular ease in point we have formed the conclusion that the objects we seek to serve of social progress can be better discharged by the agency we have proposed. I apologise for having detained your Lordships so long with, inevitably, a very discursive speech, but I thank your Lordships for the general reception you have given to the policy expressed in the gracious Speech, and express my hope that when that policy comes to be implemented in detailed proposals we may count on your generous and unfailing support.

On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente, and Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.