Sitting of 15 January 1924

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (Lieut.-General Sir William Pulteney Pulteney, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., D.S.O.) was announced.
Addressing Mr. Speaker, the GENTLEMAN USHER said: "The King commands this Honourable House to attend His Majesty immediately in the House of Peers."
The House went, and, having returned,
The Sitting was suspended until Three of the Clock, and then resumed.

MEMBERS SWORN.
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law:—
Thomas Power O'Connor, esquire, Borough of Liverpool (Scotland
Division).
Lieutenant-Colonel Assheton Pownall, O.B.E., Borough of Lewisham (East Division).
Right honourable George Clement Tryon, Borough of Brighton.
John Leng Sturrock, esquire, Montrose, District of Burghs.
Major Richard Whieldon Barnett, Borough of St. Pancras (South-West Division).
James Childs Gould, esquire, Borough of Cardiff (Central Division).
Lieutenant-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, K.C.B., D.S.O., County of Ayr and Bute (Bute and Northern Division).
Sir George Rowland Blades, baronet, County of Surrey (Epsom Division).
Colonel Edwin King Perkins, C.B.E., V.D., Borough of Southampton.
Robert John Lynn, esquire, Borough of Belfast (West Belfast Division).
Penry Williams, esquire, Borough of Middlesbrough (East Division).
Sir Charles Henry Wilson, Borough of Leeds (Central Division).
Right honourable Robert William Hugh O'Neill, County of Antrim.
Herbert Dixon, esquire, Borough of Belfast (East Belfast Division).
Geoffrey William Algernon Howard, esquire, commonly called the Honourable Geoffrey William Algernon Howard, County of Bedford (Luton Division).
Robert Chancellor Nesbitt, esquire, County of Kent (Chislehurst Division).
William Pomeroy Crawford Crawford Greene, esquire, Borough of Worcester.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Edward William Mackley Grigg, K.C.V.O., Borough of Oldham.
Sir Philip Albert Gustave David Sassoon, baronet, C.M.G., Borough of Hythe.
Richard James Mellor, esquire, County of Surrey (Mitcham Division).
Captain William Humble Eric Ward, M.C., commonly called Viscount Ednam, Borough of Hornsey.
James Duncan Millar, esquire, K.C., County of Fife (Eastern Division).
Frederick Martin, esquire, County of Aberdeen and Kincardine (Eastern Division).
Robert Macgregor Mitchell, esquire, County of Perth and Kinross (Perth Division).
Colum Edmund Crichton-Stuart, esquire, commonly called Lord Colum Edward Crichton-Stuart, County of Chester (Northwich Division).
Brigadier-General Edward Louis Spears, County of Leicester (Loughborough Division).
Major Cyril Fullard Entwistle, M.C., Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull (South-West Division).
Lawrence Roger Lumley, esquire, Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull (East Division).
Herbert Harvey Spencer, esquire,
Borough of Bradford (South Division).
Right honourable Herbert Henry Asquith, Burgh of Paisley.
Esmond Cecil Harmsworth, esquire, commonly called the honourable Esmond Cecil Harmsworth, County of Kent (Isle of Thanet Division).
Major Sir Arthur Clive Morrison-Bell, baronet, County of Devon (Honiton Division).
Thomas Henry Parry, esquire, Borough of Flint.
Sir Samuel Hill-Wood, baronet, County of Derby (High Peak Division).
Commander Oliver Stillingfleet LockerLampson, C.M.G., D.S.O., R.N.V.R., Borough of Birmingham (Handsworth Division).
Alfred Cooper Rawson, esquire, Borough of Brighton.
Lieutenant-Commander Joseph Montague Kenworthy, R.N., Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull (Central Division).

SESSIONAL ORDERS:

  ELECTIONS.
  Ordered, That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their Election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the Return for that place; and if any thing shall come in question touching the Return or Election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in Debate; and that all Members returned upon double Returns do withdraw till the Returns are determined.
  Resolved, That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by Bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such Bribery or other corrupt practices.

  WITNESSES.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any Witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime
  48
  or misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person bath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Ordered, That the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid.
  VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS.
  Ordered, That the Votes and Proceedings of this be printed, being first perused by Mr. Speaker; and that he do appoint the printing thereof; and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same.
  Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
  OUTLAWRIES BILL.
  "For the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the First time; to be read a Second time.

  JOURNAL.
  Ordered, That the Journal of this House, from the end of last Session to the end of the present Session, with an index thereto, be printed.
  Ordered, That the said Journal and index be printed by the appointment and under the direction of Sir Thomas Lonsdale Webster, K.C.B., the Clerk of this House.
  Ordered, That the said Journal and index be printed by such person as shall be licensed by Mr. Speaker, and that no other person do presume to print the same.
  Mr. J. JONES:Is it possible for the proceedings of Parliament to be broadcast?
  SPEAKER: That question does not arise now. The proper course would be to put a question down to the appropriate Minister.
  Mr. JONES: I do not know who he is.

  CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS AND DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, "That Mr. James Hope be the Chairman of Ways and Means, and that Captain Fitzroy be the Deputy-Chairman."
  In this new House and with the peculiar circumstances of the balance of parties to-day, a few words explaining why the Motion is made are eminently desirable. It is well known to the older Members of the House that these appointments used not to be made until after the conclusion of the Debate on the Address. The change in practice arose when the custom was given up of Mr. Speaker leaving the Chair for an hour or an hour and half during the course of the evening for dinner. It is well known, probably to all Members of the House that no one can take the Chair in Mr. Speaker's absence except the Chairman or the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, and, therefore, for the continuance of our debates and the convenience of debate, it is necessary to have these officers appointed on the first day of the Session.
  I would like to say a word or two about the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He is not in any sense a member of the Government, nor is he a Minister of the Crown. He is not subordinate to any Minister, he is not responsible to the Crown, to the Government, or to the Prime Minister. It is true it has been customary of recent years for his name to be put before the House by the Leader of the House for the time being. His responsibility, however, is not to the Leader of the House, but to the House itself, whose servant he
  50
  is. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means in the last Parliament, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Deputy-Chairman, arc fully sensible of that responsibility, and if, after their election, circumstances should occur in which the House itself should desire a change, and the desire for that change should be intimated to them, they would immediately fall in with the wishes of the House. That is the reason for making the proposal to-day that they be appointed to the offices which I have named.
  I think it only right that the House should be aware of this fact, and should realise that the appointment is for their convenience. On the other hand, if there is a general desire in the House that during the short period of the Debate on the Address, the old custom should be followed—subject, of course, to Mr. Speaker's assent being obtained, and Mr. Speaker has always been, as we all know, ready in these matters to fall in with what may be the wish of the House—in that case, I would not press this Motion. I would, however, remind the House that in the event—and I hope nothing of the kind may occur—of the Speaker being ill, or incapacitated in any way from taking the Chair, then, in the absence of these officers, there is no one who can be called into the Chair, and the House would have to adjourn until the Speaker's health permitted him to resume his duties. I felt that I owed it to the House in these circumstances to give this explanation. I hope, very much, they may see fit to support this Motion, but I shall await what may be said in the course of the discussion which will undoubtedly follow, and T shall endeavour, as far as I am able, to fall in with the wishes of the House.
  Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I am sure the House is very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for putting the case in the fair and open way in which he has put it. It is perfectly evident that since we altered our Standing Orders, so that Mr. Speaker was no longer able to adjourn the House during a dinner-hour, it was necessary to elect a Chairman of Ways and Means, and a Deputy-Chairman, at this sitting. There is no use, however, shutting our eyes to any of the facts. We are meeting to-day in most unusual, most exceptional circumstances, and I think it would be a profound pity

  51
  if we started with a Division at this time upon this subject. We are going to have a great many difficulties during the life of this Parliament. [HoN. MEMBERS: "You are!"] We are, whether it is short or whether it is long, and I feel it would be far better if an avoidable Division were obviated. I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be well if you informed us whether you could see your way to help us in this matter by saying it would be possible to adjourn the House for a short time—say, an hour—each day during the Debate on the Address, while you had your refreshment and we had ours in the evening. By the end of that time we will see what a greater and more critical Division will bring forth, and then we will be in a position to set about our business in the ordinary way. I think it would be far better, if I may express my own opinion, if this matter were adjourned, because it is quite impossible —however much one may regret it—to get this Motion through without a Division which would be most regrettable. If the matter were adjourned, and if Mr. Speaker were to get us out of our difficulty in the way I have suggested we could proceed later on to the appointment of these two officers.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: An extremely interesting situation has developed, and apparently even before the Speech from the Throne has been read, some arrangement has been made by the parties represented on this side and by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. MacDonald) to decide that there shall be no Chairman of Ways and Means until such time, I suppose, as he is in a position to form a Government and to decide who the gentlemen are to be. That is only carrying on exactly the same tendency against which I protested the other day, and I most emphatically enter my protest against it now. This is a House of Commons appointment, as admitted by the Prime Minister in making the proposal. It is only an accident that the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the House as a rule makes the proposition, because it rarely happens that there is a Government which has not a majority of the Members of the House supporting it. It so happens that this Government has not a majority of the House supporting it, but while that may be urged against them, as a reason why this
  52
  matter should be delayed, when the hon. Member for Aberavon forms his Government, he will be in a still more insignificant minority. If this argument holds good now, then we ought not to elect a Chairman of Ways and Means or a Deputy-Speaker at all, and the Government would be ill-advised if they accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Aberavon, and delayed this matter, especially as this old House is a peculiar institution and the hon. Member for Aberavon is no doubt counting his chickens, but they may be lost even yet. The hon. Members behind him, I suppose, occasionally sing that verse in their particular song about
  "Craving for power and pelf."
  [Interruption.] It is the first time I have ever had the chance of being in Opposition. For over 20 years I have been in the House, and I never had a chance of being in Opposition, but I have that chance now, as you will discover very often. Apart altogether from that, this is a House of Commons appointment, an appointment which should proceed from the Members themselves. These two gentlemen have given service to the House. They are not new men, they are not untried men. We have had them during the last Parliament, and for some considerable time their services have been well known to the House. I am astonished that the first pact made by the parties in this new Parliament should be, of all things, a pact between a Conservative Prime Minister and a prospective Socialist Prime Minister. That is a peculiar combination in my estimation. I would beg of the House to proceed with the election.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think there will be general agreement that the Prime Minister has fairly consulted the probable views of the House in the course which he has taken. He has offered in respect of the Motion now before the House two alternatives, and I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon has on behalf of his Party, and the Opposition, selected the second of those alternatives. I think it would have been unfortunate had the first been chosen, and for this reason—that it would have been open to all the objections which have just been put by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Stoke (Lieut.Colonel J. Ward). We would be in this

  53
  position, that to-day, on the motion of the Prime Minister, we would be electing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. J. F. Hope) as Chairman of Ways and Means, and the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy) as Deputy-Chairman. That would be an assumption on the part of the Government, and an admission on the part of the House, that these appointments were within the gift of the Government of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am putting it as it appears to me, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite disagree with me, I am quite ready to hear any arguments which they can bring forward. I am endeavouring to suggest in a deferential way that such an arrangement as I have indicated would lead to these inferences—first, that the present Motion admits a right on the part of the Government, and that right having been admitted on the part of the present Government, then it would be the right of the new Government, whoever composes that Government, to nominate whom they please to sit in the Chair of Committee of Ways and Means and to be Deputy-Speaker.
  It seems to me any such an arrangement would be most unfortunate, and furthermore, that in the exceptional and unusual conditions of the present House to which the hon. Member for Aberavon has referred, it would be wise to depart altogether from the, tradition of having the Chairman of Ways and Means and his deputy nominated by the Government of the day. It is true, as the Prime Minister has said, that for many years now the Government of the day has nominated the Chairman and that nomination has been accepted by the House without challenge, but there is one very interesting precedent, which is an exception to that rule, and it is an exception which arose under conditions very like those in which the House is now met. In 1835 Sir Robert Peel, like the present Prime Minister, was a minority Prime Minister. He had appealed to the country in exceptional conditions, in the hope of attaining a majority like the present Prime Minister. He had failed in his appeal but not so badly as the present Prime Minister. On that occasion Sir Robert Peel decided that he would endeavour to carry on The first trial of strength between the parties occurred then on the election of Mr. Speaker—a precedent which was
  54
  happily not followed on the present occasion. When it came to the nomination of the Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Robert Peel, whose nominee for the Speakership had been defeated, wisely saw that it was impossible for him to put his party nominee in the Chair of Committee of Ways and Means, and he nominated—I think it was in the month of March, 1835—Mr. Bernal a member of the Whig Opposition. That Motion was accepted without a Division by the House. On that occasion, he recognised, as I think the Prime Minister now recognises, and any future Prime Minister must recognise, that in these appointments the wishes of the House must be consulted.
  It seems to me that the second alternative which the Prime Minister has put forward, namely, to adjourn the whole matter, would be preferable from every point of view. It is true that it would mean a temporary change in the order of our proceedings, in that you, Sir, in the Chair, would require to follow the example of your predecessors about 30 years ago, and suspend the sitting for the dinner hour. I apprehend that that can be done without any alteration in the Standing Orders of the House, but I have no doubt that the House will be prepared to be guided by you in that matter. If this is left open, there will be an opportunity in the intervening time to ascertain the general view of the House as to who should fill these offices, and, if I might make a suggestion, it would be to this effect, that such efforts as are possible should be made in the interval to ascertain the general sense of the House, so that in the Chair of Ways and Means and in the office of Deputy-Chairman, there should be those who commend themselves to all sections, and that, therefore, for the purposes of the present Parliament, the best possible appointments should be made.
  Mr. SPEAKER: At this stage, perhaps, it would be well if I answered the question put by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald). I am the servant of the House, and, as far as human frailty permits, I shall carry out the decision of the House. It may be necessary for me to leave the Chair in a long sitting for a short period.
  Mr. J. JONES: I am one of those who believe in spoils to the victors, and I believe that this is an attempt to queer

  55
  the pitch. Instead of being in the House of Commons, I imagine I am in Petticoat Lane. [An HON. MEMBER: "YOU ought to be."] I have been. Surely it ought to be left to the new House of Commons to get into order, to appoint our own officials without having them appointed for us. Who are these gentlemen who are coming along? Hope and Fear. I do not object to whoever gets the job. I never stand a chance, but I do want to ask the House to realise that we ought to have a chance of getting our breath. Some of you have lost it, but we are in the position to-day that we have parties more than equally divided, and I have the right to reecho the sentiment of one of the most celebrated statesmen of the day: "Wait and see." We have a right to ask that these appointments shall not be made until the proper time arrives, and then the gentlemen who are nominated may find themselves cremated. I hope they will not be, but I hope they will live to see a better time. I am, however, supporting the proposition that this Motion be adjourned until we have the opportunity of fully considering the situation and electing the officers of this House in accordance with the position of the people who have given their decision.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lt.-Col. J. Ward), who always stokes up, who is always lecturing us on this side of the House about our imperfections, has, I am glad to see, turned over to the other side of the House. We are gradually finding him out. We were members of the same labour organisation when I was 17 years of age and he now becomes a reactionary and talks to me about constitutionalism.[HON. MEMBERS: "Order"] I am prepared to go on with it. This Gentleman knows more about it than I do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order"] This hon. Gentleman, if I may he allowed to say so, cannot give me any lectures on constitutionalism. I want to see the officials of this House properly appointed, and we claim the right to appoint them, and we are going to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] Yes, I am one of the "we's." We are going to keep on keeping on until we have a chance of doing so, and we leave the House to judge.
  Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: This House has constantly created new precedents, and probably this Parliament will do so
  56
  more than ever. I am one of those who have always been jealous for the privileges of the private Members of this House, and although there may he some difference in custom about it, it has always been considered, I believe, the right of this House as a whole, irrespective of party, to elect its Speaker. The position of Chairman of Ways and Means has of late years assumed a rather different aspect as his position as Deputy-Speaker has become more important, and it seems to me that the Members of this House should strive to preserve that same absence of any party spirit in the elections of these officers which it has been the tradition of this House to follow in the matter of the election to the Chair. Under these circumstances, I rise to ask the Prime Minister, and, if I may be allowed to do so, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) also, whether, in the case of these appointments, whoever may be the particular Member of the House who proposes the names, they will take off the Whips of their respective parties in the case of any Division on these appointments.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  INTERNMENT OF A MEMBER. (MR. CAHIR H EALY).
  Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following letter:
  Stormont Castle,
  Strandtown,
  Belfast, Ulster,
  27th December, 1923.
  "Sir,
  In accordance with the instructions of the Government of Northern Ireland I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Cahir Healy, elected as one of the Imperial Members for Tyrone and Fermanagh, is subject to an Internment Order under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act.
  I am, Sir.
  Your Obedient Servant,
  W. B. Spender,
  Lieutenant-Colonel,
  Secretary to the Cabinet,
  Northern Ireland."
  Mr. PRINGLE: I desire, Mr. Speaker, on the letter which you have just read from the Chair, to raise a question affecting the privileges of Members of this House. Members of the last House will recall that on a similar occasion in

  57
  November, 1922, a communication from the Department of Home Affairs of Northern Ireland was also read by you, and I then raised the matter of privilege. On that occasion you came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie case, and that consequently I should not be in order in moving the Resolution which at that time I desired to ask leave to propose. In re-opening this matter, it is not to challenge the ruling you then gave I do not for one moment suggest that the ruling which was then given was a ruling which was incorrect or contrary to the practice of Parliament on the materials which were then at your disposal. I plead guilty to some extent to being responsible for the meagreness of the materials which were then put before you for the purposes of judging. The first point I wish to deal with on the present occasion is as to whether the fact that Mr. Cahir Healy is at present interned does not prevent privilege arising, or, in other words, that the privilege of freedom from arrest only occurs when a Member of Parliament is arrested subsequent to his election to this House. I have taken the trouble to look up the precedents in this matter, and I find that in those cases of arrest and imprisonment where privilege is admitted, in the past that privilege has been asserted by this House in relation to Members who were imprisoned before their election, with one exception, and I think you will find that this is clearly set out in Erskine May.
  The precedents to which I would refer extend from the early part of the seventeenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth century. On 4th July, 1625, Mr. Bassett was imprisoned before election and afterwards discharged, but the House ordered his return. Sir Thomas Mores, who was in the same position, was discharged on 2nd April, 1673. George Galway Mills, who was in the custody of the Master of the King's Bench, was discharged on 8th July, 1807, and I now come to the latest case, Robert Christie Burton, who was discharged on 28th January, 1819. The only exception to that rule was a case which occurred in 1452, and that was the case of a Member called Thorpe, who was Speaker of the House, I regret to say, but when the precedents were subsequently surveyed, it was held that that case was irregular and "begotten by the iniquity of the times." On that point, as to the existing imprison-
  58
  ment preventing the assertion of privilege, I submit to you, that on the precedents this House is entitled to call for the discharge of a prisoner if it sees that in fact the privilege has been infringed.
  I pass from that to make one or two observations on the general question of privilege. It is agreed by all constitutional authorities that there is no privilege for a Member of Parliament who is arrested on a criminal charge or on an indictable offence. The different categories of crime include treason, felony, seditious libel, and, when a Member has been ordered to give securities to keep the peace, and has not obtained these securities, his imprisonment has been held net to be contrary to the privileges of this House; but in all civil cases the privilege was held to prevail, and that is illustrated in connection with contempt of court. Imprisonment in regard to contempt of court did not follow the invariable rule. If the contempt was civil in its character, the House of Commons was entitled to order the release of the prisoner. If, however, the contempt of court was criminal in its character, then in no case has the House asked for the discharge of the Member of Parliament who was imprisoned. Subsequently there arose a new type of case. When Acts were passed suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, it was frequently the practice of Parliament to insert an express provision dealing with arrests under the terms of such Acts, and I think I could quote the provision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] It is a very important matter. It is essential that Members of the House should be familiar with all the relevant arguments and all the relevant precedents in regard to it. The terms were that in cases of arrest under these Acts, intimation should be made by the Judge or Magistrate committing the prisoner to the Speaker, just as if the Member of Parliament had been imprisoned on a criminal charge.
  I submit to you, Sir, that the effect of this provision is clearly that Parliament did not regard imprisonment under these conditions as imprisonment for crime. It drew a distinction—a distinction which has subsequently been drawn with regard to imprisonment under later Statutes—between imprisonment which was punitive in its character, and imprisonment which was merely precautionary. I submit to you that the imprisonment in the present

  59
  case is not imprisonment punitive in its character, but is imprisonment which is purely precautionary, and that therefore it is proper for this House to assert its privilege. The question of the exact nature of internment, first of all under the Defence of the Realm Acts, and the Regulations made thereunder, which were in operation during the War, and subsequently under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, has been a matter of judicial determination. It came before the House of Lords in 1917, in what was called the Zadig case, and on that occasion Lord Finlay, formerly a respected Member of this House, and at that time Lord Chancellor, gave a very carefully considered opinion. He pointed out, that under the Statute measures which were of a punitive character could be taken, and also measures of a precautionary character, and he then went on to show that, under Regulation 27B, which is similar to that referred to in the letter which you have read from the Chair, the action taken by the Executive was precautionary in its character. He said:
  "On the face of it, the Statute authorises in this Sub-section provisions of two kinds, for prevention and for punishment. Any preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, do not partake in any way of the nature of punishment, but are taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the State."
  I would point out that that statement by a former Lord Chancellor clearly defines the nature of the detention which has taken place in the case of Mr. Cahir Healy, that it is, in other words, not criminal in its character, but purely precautionary. I could also quote a statement made in this House by the present Lord Chancellor at the time when he was Home Secretary. A question had been put to him on the 19th June, 1917, as to the distinction between internment and imprisonment. He there made it clear that internment is a precautionary measure, and he then distinguished imprisonment, which is a punishment imposed on persons convicted of crime. Therefore, on this distinction, I can fortify myself with the authority both of the present Lord Chancellor, and of his predecessor, Lord Finlay.
  There is a further point which arises. Erskine May has laid it down—and this is a point which I did not submit to you
  60
  at all on the last occasion—that when intimation is made by the authority responsible for the arrest and detention of a Member of this House, it is incumbent upon the authority making the intimation to state specifically the cause of arrest and detention. Now, the letter which you have read to the House contains no information at all. 1 invite any hon. Member in any part of the House to state now whether he has even the faintest and remotest idea in his mind why a Member of this House is now being detained by the Department of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. I submit, therefore, that the failure to indicate the cause of imprisonment makes it advisable and appropriate that, following precedent, this House should appoint a Committee to inquire into the cause. On the last occasion, the letter which you read was very vague, but it is even shorter on the present occasion. I submit that the letter in the terms in which you have read it is positively disrespectful to this House. I can recall no example at any time, even in times of the greatest iniquity, in which such slender and meagre information has been offered to this House in relation to the imprisonment of a Member. We have had several precedents during the War. I am not going to quote many of them. There are some that are against me, and I wish to make a frank avowal as to those cases which are apparently against me. But the first case which arose during the War was on the 3rd June, 1918, when Mr. De Valera, Count Plunkett, Mr. Cosgrave, the present President of the Irish Free State, and Mr. McGuinness were interned. The intimation was then made to your predecessor in the Chair, and a long letter was read from the Chair stating the effect of the Regulation under which the arrest had been made, and stating clearly also the reasons why the representative of the executive—at that time Mr. Edward Shortt, who was Chief Secretary—thought it necessary that those people should be interned. So that if the House did not then assert its privileges, it was not because it was not clearly informed.
  Let me recall, that if no discussion took place on their special case, there was at the same time prolonged discussion in the Rouse itself on the policy of the measures which the Government had taken, not only in regard to those four Members,

  61
  but in regard to a largo number of Sinn Feiners in various parts of Ireland. That was a precedent during the War. I am also informed, that if you take practically the invariable custom in relation to this matter, on every occasion in which an intimation has been made, the cause of arrest has been clearly stated. On this occasion it is not. I would like to make a few observations as to the facts of the case. I agree that what I have to say will be an ex parte statement; but in determining whether there is a prima facie case, all that a judge, under usual conditions, has to help him, is either one or more ex parte statements. On the last occasion, I knew nothing of the facts. I merely raised the question from the point of view of this House, without any knowledge either of the wishes of the individual Member or the circumstances under which he had been arrested. Now information is available to me. The hon. Member has written several times to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City (Mr. F. Gray). He says, in a letter dated 15th December:
  "I have again been elected for Fermanagh and Tyrone. When the last Parliament was assembled, I was in custody. I am still in custody. No charge can be brought against me. I have always kept the law, and the Northern authorities desire my being kept in custody until the boundary matter arising out of the Treaty is settled. They think they will, by holding 450 odd Wren here, and on the old cargo boat in Belfast Lough, have something to bargain over.
  Mr. MOLES: Is the hon. Member not aware that Mr. Cahir Healy has publicly repudiated that letter as a forgery?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I expected that interruption. It is due to the fact that the Northern Government has suppressed news. It is true that a statement has appeared in the "Belfast News-letter," of which the right hon. Member who has just interrupted knows something, stating that Mr. Cahir Healy had repudiated that letter. But he has since written in the following terms to Sir Dawson Bates, who, as the hon. Member opposite will know, is the Home Secretary of the Northern Parliament:
  4.0 P.M.
  "I have seen the statement issued to-day's 'Irish News' from the Belfast
  Home Office which indicates that I repudiate the contents of a letter published by Mr. Frank Cray, M.P. Though I did not pass the letter out "—
  62
  he would not be allowed to pass it—
  "it represents the exact facts of the situation, and was written by my authority."
  Mr. MOLES: It is a forgery!
  Mr. PRINGLE: "Please give this letter the same publicity you did to the notice of to-day."
  That letter, Mr. Speaker, from Mr. Cahir Healy has been suppressed. I am not going to read all the letters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]—but I have another letter here in which he states his case somewhat more fully. As these are the statements and the authentic statements of a Member of this House, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, in giving your decision as to whether there is a prima facie case it is at least fair that his statements should be taken into account. Here is the letter:
  "I have never been convicted of anything. Fermanagh, in which I have spent almost 30 years, is the most peaceful county in the North and has always been so. Once, it is true, I was prosecuted for the possession of some bills calling a meeting to protest against conscription—."
  That may interest hon. Members of the Labour party. There was, I think, a dinner party the other night.
  "The magistrate's conviction being taken into the County Court it was dismissed on the merits."
  That is the only time Mr. Healy has been in Court. He had not at that time qualified for the dinner!
  "I enclose you an original affidavit signed by a thoroughly reliable man who has never been convicted of anything either, and witnessed by a magistrate of the County Derry in the jurisdiction of the Northern Government, who happens to be interned here also. I was interned"—
  This is a continuation of the letter, not the affidavit—
  "in May, 1922. This affidavit, if it means anything, means that the man in charge of the police authorities in County Fermanagh was seeking evidence to justify my arrest as late as March, 1923."
  For evidence against him in March, 1923, nearly a year after he had been interned!
  "It also means that he was making suggestions to a man under arrest to incriminate me, and that if he gave information he should go free, as they had no charge against him. I was never an Intelligence officer or any other officer in the I.R.A., and I challenge them to produce a scrap of evidence in support of this."
  I do not desire to read the whole of the affidavit; I will read a part.
  Mr. D. REID: Might I put a question? I do not suggest for a moment that the hon. Member who is speaking is not within his right in raising a question of privilege, for that is something which may happen to anyone; but I submit what he is doing now is to attack the administration of the Northern Government, and you, Mr. Speaker, have held in respect to the jurisdiction of the Northern Parliament that questions regarding local matters are not permissible in this House. I therefore submit to you that any investigation of the facts or the special facts of this case or of the action by the authority is not a matter which ought to be discussed.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite true, that as the hon. and learned Member for Penistone, will remember, this House by statute transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland the responsibility for peace and order in that place. At the same time, I want to be very careful not to refuse to admit any matter which may be relevant to the question of privilege now being submitted to me. I confess, however, I do not see the relevance of the statement now being dealt with. While I think I am right in being careful not to refuse the admittance of anything which may seem to bear upon the matter, I do not desire that we should entrench upon the province of the government of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. PRINGLE: If in anything I have quoted from these letters I have overstepped the limits, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; but I have been anxious to give the true effect of the letters. I will refrain, in reading from the affidavit, quoting anything that refers to anything except Mr. Cahir Healy, and in what I may give I trust I satisfy the hon. Member opposite:
  "On Wednesday 7th, about 11 o'clock, I was taken into a room "—
  This is an affidavit by a gentleman called Patrick Cleary, junr., which was sworn on the 7th day of January, 1924, before a Justice of the Peace of the County of Derry.
  "—in the same building and interrupted by the county inspector of the R.U.C.… He asked mo if I knew Cahir Healy, and I replied I did. He asked: 'Do you know that Cahir Healy is a County Intelligence Officer?' I replied: 'It is the first time I have heard it.' He said: 'There is a secret society going on in this county. The
  64
  Sinn Feiners are all the same: the Free Staters make the buildings and the Republicans fire them.' I replied: 'I know nothing about any secret society.' He asked: 'Do you know any man who is likely to be at the head of this society?' I said, Do you want me to give a name not knowing whether he is innocent or not?' He replied: 'You will have to bear with the consequences.'"
  The importance of this is that this conversation, which is sworn to in the affidavit, took place in March, 1923, 10 months after Mr. Healy had been arrested; and the conversation indicates an endeavour to get evidence upon which to found a charge against Mr. Healy. I submit that all the evidence I have put before you shows that there is no charge against him. As has been publicly stated in the Northern Irish newspapers, he is solely interned because of unfavourable police reports. If these are the facts, as asserted by a Member of this House, and as shown in the evidence by the affidavit which I have read, I submit that there is here material for a Committee of this House to inquire into the facts, and further, to report to this House. In these circumstances I ask leave to propose a Motion similar to that which was proposed by Mr. Parnell from this place on 15th February, 1883, in regard to the imprisonment of Mr. Timothy Michael Healy, now His Majesty's Governor-General of the Irish Free State. It is in these terms:
  "That the letter informing the House of the internment of Mr. Cahir Healy, a Member of this House, be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into all the matters referred to therein, and of reporting whether they demand the further attention of this House."
  Sir JOHN SIMON: Might I be permitted, in a very few sentences, to supplement the submission which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). It is apparent from the letter which you, Sir, read to the House just now that an hon. Member, a man who has been elected to serve in this Imperial Parliament, is in custody, and is being physically detained from the opportunity of coming and sitting here in this House of Commons. That, I submit, raises an ancient and most important privilege of this House. It does not merely raise the question of the right of the individual who is thus detained, but it raises a question

  65
  as to the privilege of the House of Commons itself, the ancient and undoubted privileges of the House of Commons, including those to which you, Sir, referred when you submitted yourself to the Sovereign in another place a week ago. One of the ancient and undoubted privileges of the House of Commons is this; that any Member of this elected body enjoys the privilege of freedom from arrest. While it is perfectly true that exceptions have been laid down to that wide proposition, those exceptions, you will know, have been laid down by Resolution of this House, and have not yet—I say it with great respect—been laid down by rulings from the Chair. It has been laid down ever since the 17th century that the privilege of freedom from arrest which anyone elected to this House enjoys does not extend to secure his release if he has been arrested for, or is serving a sentence of imprisonment for, treason or felony. I think it was in the time of John Wilkes, about the middle of the 18th century, that a Resolution of this House added to such exceptions the case of seditious libel—but it was done by Resolution of this House. I have it here. On 29th November, 1763, it was resolved by this House:
  "That the privilege of Parliament does not extend to the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor should be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of law in the speedy and effectual prosecution of such heinous and dangerous offences."
  I submit to you it is plainly laid down that the privilege of freedom from arrest, which is one of the privileges enjoyed by every Member elected to this House, extends not only to save him from future arrest but to discharge him from past detention in every case, except the case where it is shown to the satisfaction of the House that he is detained on a charge of, or as a punishment for, treason or other indictable offence, or for a breach of the peace, or for the rather unusual case of contempt of Court of a criminal character.
  May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in the past history of the House of Commons this has been illustrated more than once in a case where a Member has been elected to this House at a time when he was a prisoner for debt? There have certainly been two cases—I think more—which I have looked into where a Member was elected to serve in this House who was at the time detained in the Fleet
  66
  Prison for debt. May I give an illustration? If the vacancy in the City of London which now exists were to be filled by Mr. Samuel Pickwick, now detained in the Fleet Prison, the mere fact of his being elected would give us all the gratification of welcoming him here, and he would be automatically released from the Fleet Prison. It is quite clear that, except in the cases where you have an approved and definite report to the House that an individual is being detained for an indictable offence, or for a breach of the peace, that no communication of process to this House of Commons will deprive that Member of his privileges. May I quote a single sentence from a work of undoubted authority, the work of Sir William Anson, who observes in the first volume dealing with Parliament, on page 158:
  "It should be added that the privileges of Parliament operate to take a Member out of custody if he is elected while in custody, always supposing that he is not in custody for an indictable offence or for contempt of court."
  I submit with great respect that the question of my hon. Friend which is raised comes down to this: The letter you, Mr. Speaker, have read from the Chair is a singularly curt and uninforming document in some respects, but it is a letter which makes it obvious to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, that this Irish Member is not in custody for an indictable offence or for contempt of court. I submit with the greatest confidence that nobody who knows even approximately the circumstances of internments which have taken place under the Defence of the Realm Regulations during the war, and under similar regulations now apparently existing in Ireland, will for a moment suggest that a person who is detained under them is detained for an indictable offence or for contempt of court. I see the Home Secretary sitting opposite, and I think he has good reasons to remember that when orders are made for the internment of persons who have never been put on trial, or charged with any crime and have never been sentenced or convicted, they cannot be described as persons guilty of an indictable offence or contempt of court. If the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone had been placed in an internment camp in this country by order of the Home Secretary—[An HON. MEMBER: "He is not interned in this country"]—we shall see in a moment whether the

  67
  privileges of the Imperial Parliament are to be considered inferior to the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
  Even if a Member elected to this House was interned by order of the Home Secretary here, under the authority of a British Act of Parliament, that would not avail to keep such an individual in custody once this question of privilege is raised. How much more is it obvious that a Member elected to serve in this House cannot lawfully be detained in custody by the mere report to Mr. Speaker that he is detained by the order of some subordinate Minister or official in the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I would point out that a test has constantly been applied whether the report made to you, Mr. Speaker, has been adequate, full, and precise, and you cannot imagine for a moment a report more barren and empty than the brief letter which you, Mr. Speaker, have read to the House informing us that this hon. Member, elected to this Parliament, is detained by order of the Home Secretary in Northern Ireland. I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone is quite right, and that this is not a matter which merely affects the rights of this individual, whoever he may be, but it is a matter which goes to the foundation of the rights of the Members of the House of Commons. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that you should recognise that this matter is not so plain that it may be set on one side as not affording a prima facie case, but that it is one which plainly calls for investigation by a Committee of this House.
  Mr. HARBISON: As the colleague of the hon. Member who is now interned, I would like to state one or two simple facts. Some time ago I had reason to pay a visit to my colleague at the Larne Workhouse, where he is interned, and he refuted a statement made in this House that he was not willing to come to this House. The hon. Member who is now interned has always been a constitutionalist Member. He was a Sinn Feiner, but he was a Constitutional Sinn Feiner, and he informed me before the election that if he were elected for Fermanagh and Tyrone, and his constituents so wished it, he would certainly attend this House. I do not wish to elaborate the able statement which has
  68
  been made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) to-day, nor do I wish to enter into the legal technicalities of the case which have been placed before the House by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I wish, however, to point out that the Home Secretary has the power of life and death, and the power to wipe out all our civil liberties in the northern area of Ireland.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to trench on matters which are within the province of the Government of Northern Ireland. We are not here to criticise their laws or their methods, and we must deal with this case simply as it affects a Member of this House.
  Mr. HARBISON: I only wish to put before the House the facts of the case as neatly and as apropos as I can. Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which created a subordinate Parliament in Belfast, lays down:
  "Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland, or the Parliament of Ireland, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and Undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Ireland and every part thereof."
  I appeal to this House as the superior authority to guard our liberties and give my colleague a chance of proving his innocence by having an inquiry before a Select Committee of this House. I am in a position to speak on this subject for my colleague, and I know that he is not afraid to appear before a Committee of this House or a Judge of any kind. He is an innocent man, who has now bean imprisoned for nearly two years without being charged and without a trial, and he demands a trial before any Judge, or before a Committee of this House. I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion, and I trust, Mr. Speaker, that this House will grant it.
  Mr. REID: I believe the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley laid down, in the course of his speech, that if a man were imprisoned in this country under the authority of an Act of Parliament, he could not be detained in prison, if during that time he were elected a Member of this House.
  Sir J. SIMON: What I said was that if at present there were Defence of the Realm Regulations operating in this country under which an individual had been interned in this country who had never been tried or convicted, but had merely been detained, the privileges of Parliament would secure his release.
  Mr. REID: Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that an Act of Parliament can prevail against the privileges of this House. A state of affairs has arisen in Northern Ireland which has never existed before. This House, in its wisdom, under the Act of 1920, transferred to the Parliament of Northern Ireland the responsibility for law, order and good Government in Northern Ireland. It has not been suggested that the Act of Parliament referred to passed by the Government of Northern Ireland is not within its competence. It is not suggested even that the regulations made under that Act are not authorised by that Act. My submission is that this matter refers to an entirely different state of affairs to that which has been argued. This House, by concurring in the passing of the Act of 1920, has transferred the responsibility and the power of enforcing law and order to the Parliament of Northern Ireland and within the ambit of that Act there are Acts which cannot be questioned. I submit that the Section of that Act quoted by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harbison) has no application whatever to this case. Of course, it preserves the powers of this House, but it is my submission that nothing connected with the Parliament of the United Kingdom can override the Act of Parliament of 1920, and that the matter therefore is not a question which raises the privileges of this House.
  Mr. J. JONES: It seems most extraordinary to some of us—of course, I am one of the unconstitutional Members of the House—to hear this unconstitutionalism preached by those who pretend to be the upholders of the Empire. Southern Ireland is supposed to have control over its own affairs. They have interned certain people in the South of Ireland. The Government of this country has used its influence, and has been defeated in the highest Courts of Law on the right of subjects not to be
  70
  interned. These men have been released, and compensation has been paid by the Government responsible. Here we have the case of a Member of this House who has been interned for over 18 months without trial and without any crime being charged against him. The only crime that he has committed is that he is supposed to be a Sinn Feiner. So am I, and so are you. We are all Sinn Feiners. We believe in our own country first, do we not? I hope we do. This man's crime has not yet been alleged against him. He has never been on trial; he has simply been interned because he is supposed to be a dangerous person in the eyes of the Government of Northern Ireland. They are more dangerous to England than Mr. Cahir Healy ever was, because they are creating a feeling among the Irish people of Great Britain—[Interruption.]—I am telling you what I mean. This man has been interned for over 18 months, he has not been on trial, and he has never been convicted of any offence. He is entitled to a trial if there be any offence charged against him, and he is entitled as a Member of this House to be released under the privileges of this House. I am not innocent. I have been in gaol three times. I am not going to apologise for it. I am willing to go again for the same reason. Why should this man—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not quite relevant to the matter before the House. We should rather keep the subject of the personality of the hon. Member for a more appropriate occasion.
  Mr. JONES: The appropriate occasion is now. I want to support the proposition that an inquiry should be established for the purpose of discovering the guilt or innocence of this hon. Member.
  Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I want to deal with a different aspect of the case. The letter which you, Sir, have read seems to me, and I think it must have seemed to many hon. Members, both curt and, indeed, I might almost say, insolent, as addressed by an inferior officer of an inferior Parliament to the Speaker of the Parliament of Great Britain, and I hone that in any future communication which you may have with the authorities of the Parliament of Northern Ireland this House will authorise you to address to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland a very

  71
  sharp rebuke for the insolence of their servant. It has been the custom in the past—
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. Is it competent for any hon. Member of this House to criticise the action of the Government of Northern Ireland?
  Mr. SPEAKER: When we have transferred business to another Parliament, we must be careful in this House that we do not, by criticism in this House, infringe the authority of that body within the limits that have been given to it.
  Mr. JOHNSTONE: I submit that in any communications which the Parliament of Northern Ireland chooses to hold with the House of Commons of Great Britain there should be some control over the language and forms used in addressing you. I believe that men holding much higher and more dignified offices than the gentleman who wrote that letter have been accustomed in the past, in writing letters to the Speaker of the House of Commons of Great Britain giving similar information, to use forms and terms of far more courtesy, and I might almost say of obsequiousness. We do not ask for that, but I think this House of Commons is entitled to ask for respect from the servants of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and I therefore reiterate my original statement that I hope that in any future dealings that you, as our representative, may have with the Parliament of Northern Ireland you will be asked to bring to their attention the lack of courtesy which has characterised this communication, with the hope that in future greater courtesy will characterise them.
  Mr. MOLES: I do not for a moment intend to enlarge upon the principles of constitutional law which have been raised, but there is one observation which I would like to make about the point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). The greatest authority on constitutional history that we know, Professor Morgan, in that impeccable organ the "Daily Mail," only the other day publicly rebuked him as one of the most hopelessly incompetent and misinformed authorities on constitutional law that the country has ever known.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Who is Professor Morgan?
  Mr. MOLES: In so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) is concerned, I notice that he bolstered up a somewhat weak case in constitutional law by invoking the immortal memory of Mr. Pickwick. I rise to enter a protest against the wholly fantastic and unfounded charge of discourtesy made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Johnstone). I can appeal to the older Members of this House who will remember the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland when he sat on that Treasury Bench, and on both sides of the House. I think I may fairly challenge their opinion, as to whether he was not, by nature, instinct and training, a gentleman in demeanour—
  Mr. JOHNSTONE rose—
  Mr. MOLES: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Nobody could have a greater regard and respect for the dignity of this ancient and honourable House than the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, from whom that letter came.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. I desire to ask your ruling whether the character of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is relevant to this matter, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland had nothing to do with the letter. It was written by a subordinate official of the Home Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps I may dispose of this matter at once. Had I thought that there was any such thing as discourtesy in the letter addressed to me, I should have sent it back to the writer.
  Mr. MOLES: That was the observation which I was about to make—that I thought possibly the dignity and respect due to this House was in as worthy hands when they were left to you as in the hands of the hon. Member opposite, who seems, in my judgment, to have very little acquaintance with either. The hon. Member for Penistone has advanced one or two startling propositions, the effect of which is not, perhaps, quite realised. The first of them was that whatever is in an affidavit is true. I wonder whether he has ever heard the dictum of a famous Irish Judge who once said—and I commend it to his notice—that occasionally, but only

  73
  occasionally, the truth slips into an affidavit, and particularly affidavits of the type which he presented. The second proposition which he advanced was that the only people whose testimony can be trusted are culprits examined in each other's favour. That perhaps is why he presented this series of affidavits in this Gentleman's favour.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order.
  Mr. MOLES: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Penistone rises to a point of Order.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Gentleman has referred to one of the Members of Fermanagh and Tyrone as a, "culprit," although this Member has never been tried. I put it to you that that the hon. Member is out of Order in describing any Member of this House as a culprit.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that the phrase was directed to the hon. Member for Penistone, but, if it were used in the sense of a convicted offender, of course it ought not to have been used.
  Mr. MOLES: I will restrict the observation entirely to the hon. Member. The last proposition which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley advanced was that to be elected to this House is in the nature of a general gaol delivery. I venture to warn the right hon. Gentleman to take care he does not make that doctrine too widely known, because the effect may be this that some 3,000 internees in Southern Ireland will proceed to assail the seats of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and perhaps dispossess them—
  Mr. PRINGLE: At any rate they will not gerrymander the constituencies, as you have done.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am very jealous of the privileges of this House, and I am therefore very reluctant to interfere with the complete presentation of the case under consideration, but the hon. Member is going very far wide of the question that is before the House.
  Mr. MOLES: The hon. Member for Penistone does not like my personal references. Exceedingly little has been
  74
  said about the facts of this particular case, and, perhaps, I may be permitted to tell those facts in a few very simple phrases. What was the position and what were the conditions which led up to the arrest and internment of this Gentleman? I am in the happy position that I can appeal to hon. Members in various quarters of the House for confirmation of the facts I am about to state, and more particularly can I appeal to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that when there was cast upon the Government of Northern Ireland the duty of taking over responsibility for law and order, the position was that £8,000,000 worth of property had been burnt by incendiaries and Sinn Feiners—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now go into the merits of that Act, or even refer to the way in which it has been administered.
  Mr. MOLES: The House will, I am sure, wish to realise what was the position taken over by the Government of Northern Ireland, and it ought to have a clear and precise picture of that position. The whole country was in chaos. Murder and outrage were rampant. The old Irish Royal Constabulary had just been disbanded, and within a short distance of Enniskillen, the town in which this hon. Member resided and was arrested—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. and learned Member confine himself solely to the matter on which privilege is claimed? I shall not allow these other matters to enter into my mind in any decision to which I may come.
  Mr. MOLES: I appreciate your point, Sir, but may I respectfully submit that the hon. Gentleman who has lodged this attack assailed the Northern Government and said that this man was wrongly interned and wrongly detained? Surely in justice to that Government which he has attacked, and also in the interests of truth, I am entitled to submit what are the real facts?
  Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Is not the matter under discussion the privileges of a Member of this House, and is the hon. Gentleman entitled to raise any other question than that?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I might call upon the hon. Member to be a little consistent in his example.
  Mr. MOLES: In this town of Enniskillen, to which the hon. Member belongs, let me remind this House that a raiding party from the Free State entered the place, shot some people, and carried off—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is the very matter on which one of the hon. Member's colleagues appealed to me, and I ruled that I could not allow any discussion in this House on the administration of the Government of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. MOLES: I submit at once to your ruling, although I confess it is with some feeling of disappointment that I am not permitted by the rules, which I, of course, observe, to submit some considerations to this House that would immediately dispose of the totally fictitious case which it has been attempted to make here. It comes to this that this Government, like other Governments, has been faced with exceptional circumstances and from time to time has been forced to resort to exceptional measures to deal with those exceptional circumstances and the justification for their action is this: that they have succeeded in breaking up the agitation led by terrorists, and, to use the language of the hon. Member for Penistone, Fermanagh and Tyrone have never been so absolutely free from crime as they are under the administration of the Government of Northern Ireland. That is the justification for what has been done.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman please come to the questmn of privilege?
  Mr. W. THORNE: On a point of Order. How many times are you going to call upon a Member to resume his seat before you say he may retain his seat?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. MOLES: The privilege claimed on behalf of this hon. Member is this, that,
  76
  having been elected to this House, he is entitled to come here no matter what he has done elsewhere.
  Mr. PRINGLE: What has be done?
  Mr. MOLES: The hon. Member asks me to say what he has done, but the ruling of Mr. Speaker precludes me from telling him. Otherwise I could answer the question on the instant.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is it not your ruling that an hon. Member is entitled to say what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone has done, but not what other people have done and not what the Government of Northern Ireland have done?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter of substance in the present case.
  Mr. MOLES: An hon. Member suggests I should ask the "Belfast Telegraph" what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone has done. If the hon Member who made that observation would consult that paper occasionally, he would know a good deal more of the facts.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But what has the hon. Member done?
  Mr.MOLES: The hon. Gentleman has had his case raised here by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am reminded that he stands somewhat—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not at all relevant to the matter, and I must now ask the hon. Member to resume his seat. I have, I think, had every point submitted to me, and I am, as is the House, naturally very jealous of its ancient privilege. I do not think that any matter has been adduced which was not present to my mind when I gave my decision in November, 1922. But, after the long submission that has been made to me by the learned Members of the House, I think it would be courteous to them and to the House if I were to defer what I have to say until I have seen in print what has been submitted to me to-day; and I will ask the House to permit me, in these circumstances, to give my answer to-morrow.

  GOVERNMENT BILLS TO BE PRESENTED.
  Notice was given that the following Government Bills would be introduced on an early day:
  Health Insurance Bill.
  Rating and Valuation Bill.
  Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
  Bill for the Improvement of Mental Treatment.—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]
  Bill to carry into effect a Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other Powers and certain Conventions and Protocols and Declarations connected therewith.—[Mr. Ronald McNeill.]
  Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to Trade Boards.—[Mr. Better-ton.]

  KING'S SPEECH.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have to acquaint the House that this House has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy, which is as followeth:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
  MY relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly. I am glad to be able to record definite progress in the solution of questions which have hitherto blocked the pathway of mutual understanding and have retarded the recovery of the world.
  The Reparation Commission has set up two Committees, on which Experts from the United States of America will co-operate with others from. Great Britain, France, Italy and Belgium in examining the very serious financial questions involved in the position of Germany.
  The future status of the Tangier zone of Morocco, which has been a longstanding source of trouble, has been the subject of an Agreement between the
  78
  delegates of the Powers principally concerned, which provides for the creation of an international régime and for the promotion of communications and trade.
  A Bill will be introduced to give effect to the Lausanne Treaty with Turkey. As soon as it has been passed, the Treaty will be ratified, and a new era of peaceful relations with Turkey will open.
  My Ministers, in common with the Dominion representatives, have been anxious to remove the difficulty with regard to the illicit importation of liquor into the United States, and have made proposals for an agreement which is on the eve of conclusion, and which should further strengthen the happy relations prevailing between the two countries and peoples.
  It will continue to be My object to support by every means in My power the steady growth in influence of the League of Nations.
  The recent series of murders on the North-West Frontier of India by criminals who have sought refuge in Afghan territory or are Afghan subjects, has caused Me much concern. My Government have made vigorous representations to the Government of His Majesty The Amir, and I earnestly trust that these persons will be punished, and more satisfactory relations on the frontier be established, at a very early date.
  The recent Imperial Conferences marked a very definite progress in Imperial co-operation. More particularly was it found possible, without departure from the existing fiscal system in this country, to meet the wishes of the Dominions by a substantial extension of the principle of Imperial Preference established by the Conference of 1917 and in force since 1919. Proposals to give effect to the conclusions of both Conferences will be submitted to you.
  I welcome the opportunity that will be afforded by the British Empire Ex-

  79
  hibition to increase the knowledge of the varied resources of My Empire and to stimulate inter-Imperial trade.
  Members of the House of Commons,
  Estimates for the public services will be laid before you.
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
  While I am glad to note that the schemes for providing employment now in operation have had an appreciable effect during the last year in reducing the numbers of those actually unemployed, the number still unable to find work causes Me the gravest concern. My Ministers recently laid before the country proposals which, in their judgment, would have contributed materially to a solution of this problem by affording to industry a greater measure of security in the home market and an improved outlet for its products in My Dominions overseas and in foreign countries; but these proposals were not accepted by the country.
  In these circumstances your assent will be invited to an extension and amendment of the Trade Facilities and Export Credit Schemes, to the proposal of the imperial Economic Conference for expediting and assisting the execution of certain public enterprises throughout the Empire by the grant of financial aid from public funds, and to an extension of the contributions towards the cost of Public Utility Works, whether undertaken by local authorities or promoted by statutory and private corporations.
  You will also be asked to assist in providing work in the shipbuilding industry by the immediate construction of cruisers and auxiliary craft in anticipation of the Naval Programme.
  Steps will be taken to develop the existing system of Juvenile Unemployment Centres and to provide increased facilities for general and technical education.
  The condition of agriculture remains a source of serious anxiety. My Ministers propose to summon a conference representative of all those interested in agriculture, and of the various political parties, with the object of arriving at an agreed policy, by which the acreage of arable land may be maintained, and regular employment at an adequate wage secured for the agricultural worker.
  Bills will be introduced to improve the position of pre-War pensioners, and to deal with the discouragement of thrift involved in, the present means limitation to the grant of Old Age Pensions.
  You will be asked to develop the probationary system of dealing with offenders. Bills will be introduced to amend and consolidate the Factory and Workshop Acts, to legitimize children born out of wedlock whose parents have subsequently married, and to amend the law relating to separation and maintenance orders.
  Under the Housing Act of last Session My Ministers have approved the erection of a large number of houses, both by local authorities and by private enterprise. The local authorities are being approached with a view to increased activity under those sections of the Act which enable the working population to become the owners of their homes.
  Measures will be laid before you to complete Land Purchase in Northern Ireland, and to guarantee the principal and interest of bonds issued by the Government of the Irish Free State under the Land Act recently passed in that Dominion.
  The obligation to alleviate hardship caused by the former disturbances in Ireland is one which is recognised by My Government and will continue to engage their active attention.
  Proposals will be submitted to you for the expansion of the Royal Air Force in connection with Home Defence.
  Preparations have also been made for measures dealing with the property and endowments of the Church of Scotland, the 'improvement of the road traffic of London, for the reform of the system of valuation and rating in England and Wales, and of rating in Scotland, for the improvement of the administration of civil and criminal justice, for making valid certain charges imposed during the War, and for the ascertainment of costs and profits in connection with the distribution of milk.
  And I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your deliberations.

  DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
  Mr. BANKS(in Court dress): I beg to move:
  "That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
  5.0 P.M.
  It is seldom, indeed, that any Member rises to address this House with the knowledge that his rising will gratify, not only those who promoted, but also those who opposed, his return to Westminster. I feel assured, however, this afternoon, that not only my friends in the Swindon Division, but even my adversaries, will appreciate a distinction which is conferred, not upon the individual nor upon the party, but upon the constituency as a whole. In the course of the impending engagement, it is to be expected that hon. Members will employ the whole armament of Parliamentary warfare; but the long traditions of the office which I am discharging this afternoon hind me to a certain punctilio, which is aptly symbolised by the costume that I wear. Dressed, as I must be, in the mode of the age of Fontenoy, and girt, as I am, with the weapon of that age, it is not my duty to commence the onslaught, but rather, having made a few observations on the
  82
  Gracious Speech, to make what I believe has been called the gesture of Fontenoy, and to say to hon. Members opposite:
  "Gentlemen of the Guard, fire first!"
  The Gracious Speech from the Throne covers a large number of important topics, and my comments must be confined to a very few; but I observe with pleasure that it forecasts the submission to this House of proposals connected with Imperial Preference. In my humble view, those proposals come under quite a different category, and should be approached in quite a different spirit, from the other fiscal proposals which are alluded to in a subsequent paragraph. I am aware that the Resolutions of the recent Conference cannot become effective until they have been approved and ratified by Parliament, but it seems to me that they do in some sort constitute au obligation towards the Dominions. We have summoned the leading men of those Dominions from the four quarters of the earth to the heart of the Empire in London, in order to discuss in detail a policy which has been accepted in principle by previous Imperial Conferences. They have expressed, in that impressive gathering, certain opinions and certain wishes, with which His Majesty's Ministers concurred; and deliberately to flout those opinions would, it seems to me, and, I believe, will seem to them, to be little short of a national breach of faith. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no" and "Hear, hear!"] Of those Dominions we may well say:
  "The lot is fallen unto us in a fair place; we have a goodly heritage."
  What, one wonders, would any other nation in Europe, in these times of darkness and distress, give for those vast territories and varied resources which are at our command? I say "at our command," because the good will of our kindred towards the Mother Country has been demonstrated beyond all dispute. May I remind the House that the Prime Minister of Australia told the Conference that
  "During the last few years in Australia we have had many requests that we should enter into reciprocal arrangements with different countries. Those countries offered to give us very great advantages in their markets for our primary production, in exchange for advantage they sought in our markets for their manufactured goods. We have rejected all those requests, and have refused to listen to them. We say that the

  83
  whole basis of our trading policy is to ensure, as far as we can, the Australian market for the British manufacturer."
  Other Dominions give the same account; but it is not to be supposed that those other countries will continue to woo in vain if we who should be warm remain cold. A man would be very deficient in imagination who supposed that the fidelity of the Dominions, so wonderfully testified in Flanders and Gallipoli, could be adequately recompensed by any such commercial arrangement; but it seems to me to argue, if I may say so, an equal lack of imagination to measure these proposals merely by their cash value to either party. I think that Disraeli never showed greater insight than when he said, speaking on the question of Imperial relations in a classic speech:
  "No Minister of this country will do his duty who neglects any opportunity of responding to those distant sympathies, which may some day become a source of incalculable strength and happiness to this land."
  Do not let it be supposed, however, that, if I stress the sentimental aspect, I desire to underrate the practical effects of these proposals. May I remind the House that the value of the preference which the Dominions gave to Great Britain last year was about £11,000,000, and that, of the exports of our produce and our manufactures, the Dominions purchased from us goods to the value of £270,000,000, while Europe only took £247,000,000? Indeed, I hardly see how any statesman can approach the question of employment in this country without giving all those figures very serious consideration. So much for the importance to us and to our workmen of encouraging business with our kinsfolk. As to the importance of the new proposals to them, surely the beneficiary himself is the best judge of the value of the concessions offered, and their views in this regard have been made abundantly clear in passage after passage of the Report. The warmest expressions of appreciation have been employed by all the Dominion Ministers; I will only select two. Speaking of the proposed preference on dried fruits, Mr. Bruce observed:
  "These proposals are extraordinarily welcome from our point of view, and we are gratified that the British Government have seen their way to take the action which they have taken. I think I can assure you
  84
  that this will materially revolutionise the whole of the problems of the settlement scheme that I went into this morning."
  That, of course, referred to the Murray River scheme, where we are informed there are bright prospects for hundreds of thousands of men, provided only that they can feel sure that there is a market for their products. Our men want work, and Australia wants men, and surely something can be made out of these two facts in conjunction. But Australia does not desire to fall into an error which is very easily made, and before she settles these men on the land she wants to feel sure that they can sell what they produce; and that, surely, is the department in which we can render her assistance. One more example on this question I quote with some diffidence. It is that of tinned salmon, which shares with its humbler congener, the kipper, the fact of making an irresistible appeal to a sense of humour which must be subtler than my own—a commodity, none the less, which the Canadian Minister took quite seriously. He said that it was threatened by competition and would be helped by a preference, and he expressed his thanks for the action of the British Government, which he believed would be very helpful to Canadian producers. The spirit in which those transactions were conducted seems to me to have been aptly expressed by the wise Greek who said:
  "Much grace may go with a little gift, and all the offerings of friends are precious."
  There is not one of the proposed preferences to which the Ministers of the Dominions affected did not refer in terms of the warmest appreciation, and I hope and believe that Parliament will decide that these proposals may be brought to fruition without laying violating hands upon that venerable system of economics without which, it appears, there is no political salvation, and upon which, I am sure, the leaders of our Dominions desire to make no assault. I welcome again the possibility that the agricultural problem may be raised above the plane of party strife and engage the best brains in every quarter of the House in friendly consultation. Such a suggestion savours, it is true, of idealism, but hon. Members opposite will not reject it on that score if, as I believe, their own professions or idealism are sincere. We who sit for industrial constituencies know well how direly the depopulation of

  85
  the countryside affects our own peculiarly urban problems. It increases the congestion which is our deadliest enemy, it touches our health, it swells the crowds that throng our employment exchanges. Strangely enough it is upon us, the least instructed in agricultural technique, that the advocacy of remedial measures must always fall, for no measure to help the farmer and the farm labourer can be passed without the assent of the townsmen and that assent it is the duty of the industrial Members to secure. In these circumstances it would indeed be a joy to me, when appearing in an agricultural case before the tribunal of an urban electorate, to be in a position to say "I appear for all the parties concerned."
  But no passage in the whole of the Gracious Speech will be welcomed with more unfeigned delight in every quarter of the House than the passage which predicts an alteration in the means limit of old age pensions. I can only say on that score:
  "Let the galled jade wince, my withers are unwrung."
  It is recognised that a soldier in the industrial army is entitled to the care of the community when he becomes a veteran, and I have never been able to see why a man should forfeit that right because he has exercised the qualities of prudence and thrift in the days of his vigour. [Interruption.] If I decline to embark upon repartee, it is not due to any personal incapacity to do so. I long ago gave an unconditional pledge to vote for such a proposal from whatever quarter of the House it might emanate. I have already redeemed that pledge upon one occasion, and I trust that the next time I cast my vote on that topic it will be for a Conservative measure.
  My prologue is becoming too long, but I cannot conclude without expressing the hope that the drama which is to follow will be worthy of its historic setting and the gravity of the times. The fall of
  ministries, the defeat of parties,
  the making and the overthrow of reputations are mere episodes which these walls have witnessed 100 times, but what is of importance is that the institution of Parliament itself should suffer no discredit. I know well that this House has a well-founded distaste for the moralist. I cannot help saying I think the country has lost its
  86
  appetite for a great many of the things which in happier days—I pay them the passing tribute of a sigh—used to delight it nearly as much as cup ties. The epigrammatic phrase, the adroit party manœuvre, these combats of Ajax and Hector, where the exchange of gifts rapidly followed on the exchange of javelins and no one was a penny the worse for it—these ancient sports have somewhat lost their popularity since the age of artificial politics was succeeded by the age of real politics. Those who sent us to the great council of the Realm expect, I think, that the spirit of our deliberations should be such that they may truly deserve the blessing which His Majesty invokes upon them, and I join in wishing inspiration:
  "To all our statesmen, so they be
  True leaders of the land's desire—
  To both our houses may they see,
  Beyond the borough and the shire."
  Lord APSLEY(in Court Dress): In rising to second the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, moved in such eloquent well-chosen phrases by my hon. and learned Friend, may I say that, like him, I feel keenly the compliment paid to my constituency of Southampton upon the honour conferred on one of its Members. Perhaps, indeed, my colleague for Southampton and myself might be excused if we felt some slight personal satisfaction also, since during the last three weeks, in common I believe with other Members of this House, we have been congratulating our constituents on the wisdom of their choice of representatives in this House. I may add, however, that the wisdom of Southampton has been commended by others besides ourselves. That well-known American, Mr. Henry Ford, for whose judgment and whose cars I have always entertained the very highest respect, was once, I am told, overheard to remark that what Southampton says to-day Manchester will say to-morrow, thus giving our constituents a clear two days' start over the rest of England. The main theme which runs through the Gracious Speech from the Throne is the plea for stability. Without that neither our Imperial development nor our foreign relations, nor our home reforms can possibly proceed on their steady course of growth and improvement.
  The League of Nations, to which the Gracious Speech refers, has its roots firmly embedded in good soil, but it must

  87
  be carefully and adequately protected if it is to grow from a tender plant into a mighty tree under whose shade we and our descendants hope to rest. That is has, however, already borne fruit this year in the Treaties of commerce concluded between our country and Esthonia, Czechoslovakia and other small nations under the auspices of the League of Nations is already a hopeful sign for the health of the plant, and greater impetus yet is to be given to its growth from the fact that the United States have decided to send representatives to the committees which are to be set up to settle this urgent problem of reparations. We are told in the Gracious Speech that a Bill is to be introduced for the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne with Turkey. The House is to be asked to treat this as an urgent Measure, because the matter has been delayed, and the Oriental mind is not always able to fathom the intricacies of British constitutional procedure, and we could not blame our friends the Turks if they grew impatient at this delay. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is to be congratulated upon the speedy conclusion of the agreement over the question of Tangier which had previously been in abeyance for a great number of years. The Gracious Speech refers to the regrettable murders on the Northern frontier of India, and through the good offices of the Amir of Afghanistan, it is hoped that these murderers will be punished and that the motives of these dastardly crimes will be inquired into. The Gracious Speech foreshadows a further extension of the Royal Air Force for home defence. Hon. Members will agree with me that every impetus given to the art, now fast becoming a profession, of aviation is to be encouraged and that the next few years may see an important development in commercial aviation. The Minister of Health is to be congratulated on his able execution of the Housing Acts. Over 85,000 houses have already been approved since this Act came into force, and they are proceeding at the rate of over 3,000 a week. Apart from subsidised houses, there has been a great recrudescence in the building of houses which are not subsidised.
  The House has reassembled united in the opinion that the problem of unemployment must be solved but divided as to the method used in its solution. I
  88
  understand that each party is convinced that its particular method is the right one and has in reality the greater support in the country, for one party has returned the strongest in the House, another has gained a greater number of seats, and a third claims to be the only party which did not go to the country with a policy which was to meet with the country's emphatic rejection. It reminds me of a battle fought between the armies of three States of mediæval Italy, which happened to be at war. They all met on the same day, but the generals commanding—and they were three of the most-highly-skilled and highly-paid condottieri of the day—came to an agreement not to spoil the battle, and it was arranged that while two of them should immediately join battle, the third should fight on the one side in the morning and on the other in the afternoon. When nightfall came the battle was still undecided. Each army returned to its camp, but on the following morning, as no one ventured to re-occupy the battlefield, each General sent despatches home saying that his army had won a glorious victory over both his enemies. I will not for a minute suggest that this system of partisan warfare should be applied by any party in this House to politics to-day. The Gracious Speech deals with a matter, the furtherance of which is close to the heart of every hon. Member, and that is, the government of the country. Though a young, inexperienced and humble Member of this House, I am convinced that there is no chance of the prosperity we all desire returning to this country unless we can ensure a stable government under the party system, with a strong Government in power and an active Opposition.
  Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Since I entered this House in 1906 I have listened to many hon. Members moving and seconding the Address. They have all apologised for the way they were to do their work, and they have all said that it was a great honour not to themselves but to their constituencies. While the House always likes to listen to these modest expressions, very often those who do what I am now going to do, namely, congratulate the Mover and Seconder on the way they have performed their duties, say that it has not only been an honour to their constituencies, but to themselves as well. To-day we have listened to two

  89
  speakers. One is an old friend whose sense of combativeness must have been restrained with a very master hand before he consented to don the Fontenoy garb, and show himself to us as he has done this afternoon. It has been a difficult part, which he has played admirably. I am not sure whether the speech of the Noble Lord who seconded the Address was a maiden speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I wish it had been, because our anticipation of the prospect of listening in times to come to the Noble Lord taking part in the more serious and dreadful encounters which may take place in this House later on would have been very much greater. Still, my function, my duty in congratulating the Mover and Seconder of the Address to his Gracious Majesty is most sincere, after listening to the two hon. Members to-day.
  The Speech itself is rather a curious one. It is a miscellaneous collection of odds and ends. I can imagine how ponderously the Government scraped and searched for every item to put in its shop window in order to avert a probable calamity. It reminds me very much of the stock-in-trade of a penny bazaar. I do not like to say that any items have been stolen; certainly a great many items have been borrowed. The goods borrowed and stolen from us on this side[Interruption]—decorate the shop window of the party opposite. For instance, I am very much interested in finding that at last, after much pressure, financial giants are to be made to public utility and similar societies. I am very much interested to find that
  "Steps will be taken to develop the existing system of Juvenile Unemployment Centres."
  Who reduced them? Who starved them? I am very much interested to find that there is to be a conference upon agriculture, a suggestion which has been brought forward again and again by my colleagues and myself without, I admit, the somewhat idealistic proposal that the Government is to invite the representatives of the other political parties to take part in the conference. Idealism like that goes much too near to the sky for me, and does not keep near enough to the solid facts of political experience on this earth. I am also very glad to find that:
  "Bills will be introduced to improve the position of pre-War pensioners, and to deal
  90
  with the discouragement of thrift involved in the present means limitation to the grant of Old Age Pensions."
  I wish hon. Members opposite had been in that frame of mind last February. We moved on this side of the House a Resolution to this effect. What happened? When the Division took place, 208 went into the "Aye" Lobby and 230 into the "No" Lobby. Of the 208, 131 belonged to the Labour party, 65 belonged to the two sections of the Liberal party, and 13 were hon. Members from the other side of the House. Of the 230 who went into the "No" Lobby, 229 were sitting on the opposite side of the House. We congratulate ourselves upon the massive capture that we have made.
  "When the devil was sick, the devil a monk would be."
  Hon. Members opposite are now experiencing the saving grace of sad sickness. I congratulate them and I welcome their declaration, because it means that whatever Government is in power, in carrying out a programme like this, right hon. and hon. Members opposite will raise no opposition, but will assist them in every possible way.
  There is a question which occupies a good deal of space in the Address, and I do not object to it at all; I welcome it. I refer to the question of foreign affairs. The position becomes more and more serious. Again and again I have spoken from this box on this subject. The days have gone, weeks have gone, months have gone, and at this moment Great Britain stands on the Continent of Europe for no definite, no decisive, no effective policy. It is time we had a change in that respect. It is a very curious and melancholy thing that the results of the last Election and the prospects of a change of Government have done more to bring the influence of Great Britain into the minds of dominating Continental statesmen than 12 months of the last Government, and a good many years of government before it.
  From the human point of view what is going on in Central Europe is absolutely deplorable. Anyone with a heart, anyone with any common human sentiment, reading the tales of destitution, reading of the experiences, of the harrow that is being driven over men and women, and children, above all, who feels no impelling sentiment as the result, is certainly not the type of

  91
  man or woman we have been proud to associate with the name of Englishman and Englishwoman. That aught to be stopped; this country ought to speak quite plainly about the stopping of it and this country ought to be prepared to take its share in starting policies and creating machinery that will effectually stop what I have been describing. That is from the human point of view.
  From the political point of view, every day accumulates the danger. It is one of those things about which one does not care to particularise too much. To-day the state of Europe is far nearer what it was in 1912 than anyone cares to think about—rival armies, rival nationalist policies, expenditure of enormous sums of money—not on reconstruction, but in preparing again for destruction; nations that were allies glaring across at each other in only semi-concealed hostility. That is the sort of thing that needs whole-hearted binding together of men and women of good-will of all parties to try to prevent it, and to try to bring back to it the sane, serious, solemn influence of this country in order that a new leaf may be turned over, with better prospects for all the peoples of Europe. We want new minds to deal with these problems. We need very skilful handling of the diplomacy that arises out of handling [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes. We want the objective observation of other people's susceptibilities and at the same time a friendly, firm, emphatic assertion of our own interests. We want a European outlook at the back of it all and, given that, 1 do not despair of Europe yet.
  Twelve months ago we had a Government in power disagreeing with great policies which were being drawn out by France, and when it was advised by its own advisers that what was being done was illegal it said, "We cannot support you, we think you arc wrong, but we hope you will be successful." What folly! How can you expect anything when a nation is so treated, so dealt with, so hampered, and then, when the time comes when that, has got to be changed, when we have to speak, can any Member of this House imagine the colossal difficulty of the Government that does speak and does attempt to drag back this country into a state of importance which it ought
  92
  never to have lost as it has lost it? We must have a new beginning. We cannot be disregarded. Our interests will not allow us to be disregarded, and I am certain that there is no nation in Europe that wishes to disregard us if we show enough self-respect to impress upon them our determination.
  When, having said first, "We do not agree with you, so we stand out," as spectators they said, "We hope you will succeed"; another Governmentsucceeded, which took another view, which drafted a strong despatch, and then suffered paralysis, which went to Paris—everybody was listening, everybody was looking on, everybody was hoping—and issued a paragraph or statement, a beautiful reassuring paragraph; when that was done, everybody again looked and listened, and to this hour we have not heard any whisper of the result. What confidence can this House have in a Government like that? It is the same Government that is responsible for the two phases of foreign policy which I have described. There is not a single man or woman who would have the least hesitation in saying that on that indictment, and on that indictment alone, the Government is not worthy of the confidence of this country. Then there is another paragraph of great importance that deals with the Imperial Conference. I regret very much that the Mover of the Address associated himself with the claim that, if the Dominion Premiers come here and meet our Government, and they and our Government in conference come to a decision to recommend something to this Parliament, that means that this Parliament is under an obligation to accept that decision. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman holds no such constitutional heresy as that. I protest further against any hon. Member of this House holding that doctrine—a doctrine so subversive of our own rights of self government which we shall never surrender.
  Mr. BANKS: I did not propose such a doctrine. I said that thought that the obligations which were concurred in by His Majesty's Ministers should he met in view of the very handsome behaviour of the Dominions towards us.
  Mr. MacDONALD: I accept that explanation, but I want to point out that if the explanation of that handsome

  93
  behaviour leads to the conclusion, which was enunciated also by the hon. Member, the effect would be that if such conferences were held in future and if that doctrine be accepted, Ministers may go to those conferences and aid in the passing of resolutions contrary to the will of this House, and then say, if this House does not carry the same resolutions, that this House is breaking the pledges given by its Ministers. Nobody said that in that form, but it was implied in that form, and I want to say this emphatically so that there may be no mistake about it. The Mover spoke about the obligations of this House to fulfil pledges. He talked about flouting the Dominions. I think that these are very unfortunate words, and let us remember that it is going to be a great misfortune—I will put it no higher than that—if those of us who stand by the rights of this House, and those of us who hold the doctrine that in fiscal matters the vote of the people of this country must determine the conduct of this House, and having established that, come here fulfilling our mandate are to be told by the other side, "You are doing violence to the pledges given to the Dominions, you are not good friends of the Dominions.' If that is to he done then I say that that is unfair political controversy. It is unfair to us, it is unfair to the Dominions and it is not a very good service to the British Commonwealth taken as a whole.
  The position is perfectly plain. I do not care if the right hon. Gentleman opposite remains in office or if somebody else takes his place, but this will be done and there need be no mistake made about it. Every pledge given by Ministers at the Imperial Conference, economic and otherwise, that matters shall be brought before this House, shall be fulfilled to the last letter, and the fullest extent. What was that pledge? My right hon. Friend at the Guildhall banquet—he spoke several times and gave the same pledge several times but here is the most convenient form—said perfectly emphatically and, if I may say so, perfectly properly—I am reading from the report which appeared on 10th November:
  "The purpose of that Conference had not been to frame final and binding resolutions. The conclusions at which they had arrived must be subject to any action which might be taken by the Government of the different Dominions later on."
  That is quite right. That freedom is not to be one sided. That freedom I claim
  94
  for this House. Having made it perfectly clear that every Dominion Parliament is absolutely unfettered by these resolutions, then he went on:
  "He was convinced, however, that what had been accomplished would readily commend itself to the Parliament-at home."
  Implying, of course, that, whatever was decided at this conference would be brought before the House, and in his opinion the House of Commons would accept the promise and programme which they had laid down. I think it far better that the position should be understood and not played with, and that this House should not be misrepresented abroad, especially in the Dominions, as having broken pledges when it was doing exactly what was promised. Moreover in the official report the position is perfectly clear. On page 4, you see a series of resolutions upon Imperial Preference. The second paragraph says:
  "Further, as regards Imperial Preference under the United Kingdom Customs Tariff, to Empire goods, His Majesty's Government intimated that they intended to submit to Parliament the following proposals,"
  and the following proposals will be submitted to Parliament, whoever is in office, and Parliament is absolutely free to carry those proposals or reject those proposals, and that is the only position with which We can deal. But in His Majesty's Speech there is a very interesting attempt made, by—I should imagine a right hon. Member, skilful in meaningless drafting to imply that the pledges which the Government gave at the Dominion Conference were given
  "without departure from the existing fiscal system of this country."
  What is the meaning of "without a
  "departure from the existing fiscal system of this country"?
  I am not going in for any logic chopping, but I think that if Ministers are going to extend a small beginning which was never accepted as a system, but as the exception to the system, that extension of the exception does become a new system. That was the position of my hon. and learned Friend. I will put it in another way. We are all opposed here to the taxation of food on principle. Food is taxed however, but food has always been taxed for revenue purposes, and that has been the only justification alleged, and a justification of that

  95
  character must always be an apologetic justification, one, which sometimes creeps in, and we only lay this down that, where food has already been taxed for revenue purposes, the parts of that food which comes from the Dominions may be subject to a remission of taxation for the purpose of Dominion Preference. That is the present system accurately and coldly described. The Government now say, "We are going actually to tax for the purposes of Dominion Preference." That is where the departure comes in. Every Member of this House sees that that is not a small departure, but is a very fundamental departure which the House will resist most emphatically. That is another reason why we should refuse confidence to the present Government.
  At this point the speech becomes a little modest, and refers to the fortunes of Ministers at the last Election. I would like to put a very simple question. I hope it is a searching one, although it may be simple. Does the Government still believe in Protection, or does it not? I suggested to my right hon. Friend, when he made one of his first speeches in the old Parliament, that he had hauled the flag of Protection only half-mast high. Is it still there? Has it gone? Supposing the House keeps the right hon. Gentleman there, can we really trust right hon. Members that they are not going to harbour again in their hearts that desire which compelled the right hon. Gentleman to run from Plymouth to a General Election? We all admit—I quite agree with the Seconder of the Motion—that all parties in this House would like to do something really substantial to relieve the burden of unemployment. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does. He has again and again told us that he does not care about all these political manoeuvrings, and so on, and that he wants to get straight, right, honestly down to the substance of the problem. I am sure that he does.
  When we went away in the summer on the long vacation it was without a word about Protection, without a suggestion that the Parliament was drawing to an end. In the autumn, he told us that he had made up his mind—I am sure honestly—that he could not deal with unemployment unless he had power to establish tariff walls. He knew that he
  96
  could not do that by the use of his majority last year; he knew that the pledge given by his late Leader stood between him and that. He declared for an election. He is back here, as full of sympathy with the unemployed as he was when he went away. He has no power to begin the building of tariff walls. Has he the intention? Has he given it up? Is he still going to try for Protection, or is he going to tell us now definitely, categorically and without any equivocation, "I am not any longer a Protectionist, and I believe that unemployment can be solved without it"?
  So far as the unemployment programme is concerned, it is the old thing. We have had all these stories before. It is all very well to say, "We are in favour of grants." How much and under what conditions? Who is to pay them? Rates or Imperial revenue? Under what conditions are relief works to be carried out? It is a very old story. These phrases, these words, may allure the new Member who has never read them or heard them before, but they are rather hoary to us. We have been doing our level best not only to get words from the Government, but, to get a meaning imparted to the words in the Government's programme. That being so, we have no confidence that they are going to carry out these things. We are quite certain it will end in an energetic policy pursued by someone else, but, quite honestly, I would prefer trying someone else to spending months and months and months again trying to get some improvement in this scheme, produced by a Government that really has not enough driving force to face this tremendous problem of national unemployment.
  The election has left this House in a very peculiar position. There is no party here that has a majority of its own. I am not sure that I am sorry, but we will not discuss that now. No, I am not at all sure that I am sorry, because I think that if this House is to go on for a century or so, and always with a Government in it that has in its own pocket the majority of votes that it requires to remain here, before the end of that century there will be no private Members' rights left. In making the remark that have made, I had no thought of what may happen in a few days. I was thinking only of Parliament as a great national institution which I wish to leave

  97
  behind more powerful, more respected, and with more authority than it has even in our own days. Therefore, I am not at all sure but that in the practical working out of what is called a minority Government—a word that can be very easily abused, and certainly by none more than by hon. Members opposite—it may be a good exercise for the independent intelligence of hon. Members of all parties, and the experience may not be a bad one for the House of Commons as a whole. But in the ordinary course of affairs hon. Members opposite may say that they are the largest party, and that we ought to refrain from moving any Vote of no confidence in them.
  I am in this difficulty, and I would like the Prime Minister to get me out of it. The right hon. Gentleman said last August, or September, or October, "I have a majority over all parties a 80, but unless I get authority to impose tariffs, I cannot rule, and I cannot make myself responsible for the Government of the country." That is a clear statement. He goes to the country and puts his case, and he comes back here with a minority of 100 as against the rest of the House. With a majority of 80, as against the rest of the House, he cannot rule without power to impose Protection, but to-day he is coming back and saying, "I have changed my mind most fundamentally, and with a minority against me in the House I am prepared to rule now." I am in a dilemma. In any event, I think there can be no confidence reposed in the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. It is absurd; it does not stand to good-humoured common sense that the right hon. Gentleman, having put the nation to the expense of an election, having broken his own word, having risked the steady development of European policy, having left his offices unattended, and having roused all sorts of passions and class hatred in the country[Interruption.] Hon. Members know perfectly well, and there is no use blinking the fact, that in the minds of other people there is a vast, narrow class hatred against us. We have had experience of it. That hatred is based neither on reason, nor on character, nor on their own superiority, nor on anything else except on false tradition and a good deal of vulgar vanity. But, that having been done, let me forget any passion which was aroused by the interjection.
  98
  Really, after that had been done, can the right hon. Gentleman come back here and say, "Now that we have done all this, we will just begin again where we left off; we will just pick up the threads of our policy, of legislation and administration, where we left off in November. Do not say anything about our little escapade; let bygones be bygones. Do not let it make any difference. We have been to the country and have been defeated, and now we will start again from just where we were defeated last November." It is impossible from the point of view of the traditions of this House. It is impossible from the point of view of just ordinary common sense. Therefore, from these benches I propose to be moved at the very earliest opportunity an Amendment to the Address in these words:
  "It is, however, our duty respectfully to submit to Your Majesty that Your Majesty's present advisers have not the confidence of this House."
  As I have said, this House is in the unfortunate position—I am not quite sure which I should say, whether "fortunate" or "unfortunate"—I would like to see the experiment—this House, at any rate, is in the position—I will not use any adjective—of not having a Government that can command a majority composed of its own supporters. This House would, therefore, have to face a problem in constitutional government that no House has had to face before. It is a question of three great parties. The situation of previous Parliaments has not been at all the same as the situation of this Parliament. What I do wish to say is this, that if we are to have fresh minds dealing with foreign politics, if we are to have vigorous minds dealing with unemployment, if we are to have determined minds dealing with housing, this House, if it is going to maintain the reputation of Parliament, cannot afford merely to pursue old-fashioned partisan tactics. If we are to take up old age pensions, as no Government can refuse to do. if we are to deal with pre-War pensioners and other items in the King's Speech, we must try to find grounds of common agreement whilst we maintain our party independence and our party principles. I have already referred to an evil result of the election. Before I conclude, I wish in a sentence to refer to an evil result of after the election. The Press—certain sections of them—with their maniac

  99
  ravings of evil and disordered minds, have been imagining that they are keeping back something—us. They have struck at us. They have done us no harm, but they have done their nation, their nation's credit and their nation's trade a great deal of harm.
  Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: During the Election.
  Mr. MacDONALD: Even during the Election, and it was misrepresentation that did it. So far as we are concerned, we want to make it perfectly clear that while such things are done, it is not us, it is not a party, it is not a section that is injured—it is an evil effect upon the whole national life that is wrought by criticism which is mere insanity and fears that are worse than insanity. I felt, rightly or wrongly, I ought to say that before resuming my seat. We have not got confidence in His Majesty's Government and we will try to show effectively that we have not got confidence in His Majesty's Government. What may happen is in the lap of the gods. Whatever is there, there is no party that can take over the responsibilities of this nation to-day without feeling that it would rather avoid doing so if it possibly could. The state of Europe, the state of affairs at home are so bad that nothing but sheer folly would rush in to take responsibility for them, but the nation's Government has to be carried on.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: The King's Government.
  Mr. MacDONALD: The King's Government—I do not make distinctions of that kind. That is a new contribution to patriotism and loyalty. The nation's Government—the King's Government—must be carried on and whoever carries it on, under these circumstances, is entitled to appeal for fair play, entitled to appeal to the sportsmanlike instincts of Englishmen and Englishwomen so long as they are doing their duty. So long as they are helping on the people of this country they are entitled to appeal for the support of this House.
  Mr. LLOYD 'GEORGE: I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) has not sufficiently recovered control over his vocal chords to be able to take part in the Debate to-day, to administer the customary interroga-
  100
  tories to the Government and make the prescriptive comments upon the King's speech which are usual. Before I come to that I should like to join with my hon. Friend who has just sat down in felicitating the Mover and Seconder of the Reply to His Majesty's Gracious Speech upon the very admirable way in which they discharged a most difficult function. I have heard a good many of these speeches in the course of my membership of this House, and there is no function that demands greater dexterity, tact and lightness of touch, but I am sure it will be the general feeling that on this occasion the duty has been performed with more than usual success, and that great tact, judgment and a good deal of humour and eloquence adorned the speeches which were delivered. I congratulate both the hon. Members upon the way in which they acquitted themselves.
  The King's Speech is a very, remarkable document, and had there been no General Election it would not have been a bad document. As a matter of fact, it looks rather like an Election Address issued after the Election is over. Protection has been dropped—the one issue of the Election, the only issue, the dominant one—by the King's Speech. With one or two emendations the rest would not be a bad programme, and when Protection is dropped, the throwing over of a few more trifles would not embarrass His Majesty's Government. As a matter of fact, with these exceptions, it is a kind of re-hash of the Liberal manifesto—I should even say of the Labour programme without the seasoning. It is the result of very urgent advice given to the Government by their supporters, that before they departed this life they should say they would never do it again, that Protection was gone, that they would never repeat that indulgence again, and, in fact, if they were forgiven, they would lead a reformed or, at any rate, a reforming life. We should congratulate ourselves upon that were it not for the fact that there is no expression of regret or of repentance. It is put entirely on the grounds that the country caught them out.
  I should ltke to make some comments upon two or three special paragraphs of the Speech and to ask one or two questions of the Prime Minister, if he will be good enough to answer me with regard to them. I am not going to say

  101
  a word at the present moment about the Motion of which my hon. Friend has given notice to the House. A Motion, I believe, will also be put down in almost similar terms, by some hon. Friends of mine below the Gangway. I would rather confine myself on this occasion to a few comments upon particular paragraphs in the King's Speech and asking a few questions of the Prime Minister which will enlighten us as to our duty in reference to these Motions which have been put down and give guidance to us as to the way in which we are to vote. I should like to say one word with regard to what has been said about the Colonies and Dominions. The Dominions have never claimed that any Government had the right to commit the Parliament of Great Britain to any policy any more than has a Colonial Conference the right to commit the Parliaments of the Dominions. Mr. Bruce made that very clear in that admirable speech to which reference has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) and if the hon. and learned Member had proceeded—and I am not complaining that he did not, because that was not the point he was making—to quote a further passage, he would have observed that Mr. Bruce made it very clear that he had no grievance against this country because the Imperial Parliament would not honour the decisions of the late Conference.
  He also said another thing which is very significant, and I think it is very important that this House and the country should realise it. Preference does not depend entirely upon duties. I have always thought that more practical advantages could be given to trade with the Dominions by means of improved transport than by means of duties. That was the view which I took in 1907, and which some of the Dominion Premiers shared then, and I am very glad to see that in Mr. Bruce's speech he did not exclude all possibility of dealing with the question of Preference by means of improved transport relations between the Dominions and the Mother Country, and, whatever Government comes into power, I hope they will be able to do a good deal in order to promote better trading relations between the Dominions and the Colonies and ourselves by that means.
  With regard to agriculture, I do not know what the Government have in
  102
  their minds. Whether they have any idea of a round-table conference, of a Commission, or a Committee, there is no explanation given in the particular paragraph bearing upon the subject, but there is no doubt that this is one of the most vital social and economic questions of the hour. It is not a question merely of whether the farmers are making profits this year or whether they will make profits next year. Like every other business, it has its bad times and I daresay the farmers, as a class, may survive even these bad times.
  That is not the real mischief with regard to agriculture. It is that gradually rural life in Britain is withering away, and there is no more vital question for any Government or party to take into account than the question of how agriculture is to be restored and the life of rural England, Scotland and Wales regenerated. If anything can be done by co-operation between the parties to achieve anything on those lines, then this Parliament will have done something which will be memorable in the history of Parliaments, but I should like the Prime Minister to state what is his idea upon that particular subject, because I conceive he had some special proposal in his mind when he put clown that paragraph.
  I come now to the questions relating to foreign policy, and there are three paragraphs here which I think arc gratifying. The first is the paragraph which refers to the liquor question in the United States of America. It is rather cryptic and a little ambiguous. It is not quite clear what is meant by removing "the difficulty with regard to the illicit importation of liquor," and it makes it all the more doubtful because we are told that the measures are taken with a view to strengthening the happy relations between the two countries I think we are entitled, therefore, to some explanation, but, seriously, I should like to say one word with regard to this. There is no doubt at all that this is doing us a lot of harm in the United States of America. It is not a question of whether we believe in prohibition or riot. The United States of America has definitely decided to make the experiment. I was told on all hands there by men who are opposed to prohibition that if you put it to the vote tomorrow you would get a vote of at least

  103
  60 per cent. in favour of renewing the experiment, and, what is rather important for us is this, that even those who are in favour of varying the experiment only wish to vary it by introducing light, wines and beers. If it were proposed to sell spirits, you would get 95 per cent., so I am assured, of the population of the United States of America voting for prohibition on the question of spirits. Smuggling from Great Britain and smuggling from the Dominions takes the form of smuggling spirits, so that therefore we are becoming the base from which operations are conducted for the purpose of breaking a law of which 95 per cent. of the people of the United States are in favour.
  Another thing I am told is this. We are alienating our best friends. The men who are in favour of this law are the best friends of Great Britain in the United States of America, and, by giving facilities for the breaking of the prohibition law, we are offending some of the men who stood by Britain throughout the war, and stood against every section of the community there. Through good and evil report, they have always stood by Great Britain. Those are the very men we are offending by giving opportunities for the breaking of the liquor laws of the United States of America, and I sincerely trust that the Government are taking very effective measures for the purpose of stopping this smuggling. If it had been any other law, no one would have dreamt of permitting the British Empire to be made a base for breaking it —if it were the laws of property, if it were the laws of revenue or smuggling, for instance—and why should this law, then, be. made an exception? Whether they are prohibitionists or not is their business, and we have nothing whatever to do with it, and therefore I am very glad to read this paragraph.
  The other question I should like to put to the Prime Minister has reference to Tangier. I am delighted to read this paragraph. There was a very ugly situation developing there, a situation that might at any moment produce a conflagration between some of the great Powers of Europe. What I should like to ask the Prime Minister is this: If he cannot tell us now what the terms are, will papers be laid immediately stating what are
  104
  the terms which have been arrived at and especially what is the position with regard to the control of the port of Tangier, because our interests in the port of Tangier are vital, and if they pass away under the control of any other Power it will be very mischievous, not merely from the point of view of trade, but from the point of view of the security of the Mediterranean, which is vital to us. I, therefore, would like, if the Prime Minister cannot tell us now what the full terms are, to know what the terms are with regard to the control of the port.
  The next question I should like to put is with regard to the appointment of a Committee of Experts under the Reparation Commission. I frankly rejoice that this has been done at last, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister this question: Why was not it done before? This was a proposal that was made, as I know, in October, 1922, by the Secretary of State for the United States of America, first of all to France. France turned it down. It was then communicated to our Ambassadors by the Secretary of State. Then he made a speech, in December. 1922, and the first thing I want to ask is this: When were those communications made by the Secretary of State of the United States? They were made, I know, before he delivered that speech. In what form were -they made, and could papers be laid on the Table?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Newhaven speech?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, before the Newhaven speech. That was about the end of December, 1922. The Secretary of State made that speech because nobody took any notice of his communications. He made that in despair. I was under the impression that that was his way of making the offer to Europe, and I thought, frankly, it was not a very good way of doing it. Then I discovered that Mr. Secretary Hughes had communicated it formally to the Governments, and no notice had been taken of it at all. I should like to know whether Papers can be laid on the Table showing when these communications were made, and in what form, because it is a very serious matter. You are now investigating the question of the capacity of Germany to pay under the Versailles Treaty.

  105
  Under a provision in that Treaty Germany had the right to that investigation. The United States of America, who was in the original Treaty, were prepared to Dome in, and offered to come in. Not only was that offer not accepted, it, was not even discussed for months and months. There were several conferences held between the Allies in Europe, and a proposal that comes from the United States of America, from its Secretary, was never even put on the agenda. That is a thing which is incredible. Since then the assets of Germany have naturally got less and less and less, and it is no use saying we are in the same position now as we were 12 months ago. We are not. I should like to ask the Prime Minister that question: What about the communication of Mr. Secretary Hughes made to the Ambassadors? The next question I should like to put is this: What has happened under the Customs Recovery Act?
  Mr. PRINGLE: The Reparation (Recovery) Act.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, the Reparation (Recovery) Act. Here is a question in which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon will have a very practical interest, as there is a revenue of £7,000,000 in it. What is the position?Under that Act, when a German exporter Gold to a British purchaser, 74 per cent. was remitted to the German and 26 per cent. was paid to the Customs here. With the remission to the German exporter, a receipt was sent from the Customs here, and that was full payment. The German Government then reimbursed the German exporter the 26 per cent. in German currency. By that means we were collecting £7,000,000 a year, which was paid to our account. On 15th November last the German Government withdrew the payment of that 26 per cent. What was the result? It was that that 26 per cent. which was paid by them is now being paid by the British trader. It operates as a tariff, and sometimes a very high tariff, bemuse it is in addition to the 33 per cent. put on by the McKenna duties, But that is not the point. It means that we are collecting reparations out of our own traders. As long as we were paying here only 74 per cent. of the cost, and the 26 per cent, was paid by Germany, then it was the Germans who were paying reparations, but now, when we are paying not merely the 74 per cent. but the
  106
  26 per cent. as well, then of course we are paying it.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: No, it means that we are prevented from importing the goods now.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Iam surprised at my hon. Friend, who knows very well that the City is up in arms about this subject, and that there has been a deputation to the Government on the subject, because there are certain raw materials that you can only get from Germany, and now we are paying the full 100 per cent., whereas formerly we were paying the 74 per cent. There are two things the Government can do, and they can do them under that Act. They can either suspend the Act altogether, or they can enforce it. Why is it that this happens now? It is contemporaneous with the time when Germany surrendered to France. Franca imposes her terms, and the moment she does it, we tamely accept a refusal on the part of Germany to carry out their terms with us. I think we ought to know what the Government have done with regard to that Customs Recovery Act, and what they propose to do.
  The next question I want to ask is with regard to the Ruhr. What is the position in the Ruhr to-day? We have heard that the Germans have at last surrendered. What does surrender mean? Before the French marched into the Ruhr the Germans were delivering over 18,000,000 tons of coal out of a quota of 20,000,000 tons. The shortage was only 10 per cent. Does surrender mean that the position before the occupation is restored, and that henceforth the Germans will be delivering the quota they were delivering before the French ever entered the Ruhr, or is the quota to be increased What does it mean? The next thing I want to ask is this, because of certain very remarkable articles which have appeared in the "Times." Does surrender mean that henceforth the management, the control, the engineering of the mines is to be French, and the labour purely to be German If it is, it will end in inevitable mischief and disaster there. I constantly heard, when I was discussing the problem with the French and others, that the Ruhr miner is not like the British miner, and that he will stand anything. That is not true. He is a thoroughly independent man, who is not very easily handled, and I am certain that there is

  107
  no miner in the world who will stand for years being ordered about by foreign managers, foreign directors, under foreign engineers, with his mines being run in the interests of the foreigner. If surrender means that, it means inevitable trouble in the Ruhr, and we have an interest in that.
  I ask another question. We hear a good deal about certain arrangements between the French Government and German magnates. What are these arrangements? Have they been communicated to the Government? Have the British Government even been consulted about them? Do they involve control of the iron, the steel, the workshops, the factories of the Ruhr, with the coal of Lorraine and the Saar, by the French Government? It is vital to our industries to 'mow what they mean. Are we even in the negotiations? It is really incredible, after the sacrifices we made, after the fact that our intervention alone saved France from disaster, that when you come to settle a question of that kind, with interests from the reparation point of view, and the European point of view, and while we have vital interests from the business point of view, that we are not brought into the negotiations. I cannot believe it. I do not understand it, and I should like to ask the Government what is going on there, whether they know, whether they have assented to it, or whether they have protested against it, and whether they have made their protest effective. M. Loucheur, who is a very able man, and very friendly to this country, said, in the course of an article he has just published, that he is in favour of the four Allied countries coming into whatever control there is. But he is not the Prime Minister of France. Is that the basis? You may have the greatest coal and iron combination in Europe organised against us, and, in the interests of reparations, which we alone enabled France to achieve, we have a right to know where we are about that. It comes very near home to the industries of this country. M. Loucheur, I observe, says that British Governments have invariably refused to consent to any scheme for controlling German finances. That is not true—it is not accurate. M. Loucheur is quite incapable of saying
  108
  what he knows to be untrue, but it is not accurate. In August, 1922, when my right hon. Friend the Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Horne) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) was also with me,- we proposed an elaborate scheme for the complete control of German finance, which, I believe, the Germans would have accepted. I asked the Prime Minister to publish those documents and the report of the Conference.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They were promised.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They were promised, I quite agree. My two right hon. Friends pressed it at that time. They urged that those schemes should be published. It is right that the French should know. France is under the impression that we never proposed to do anything. It is right that France should know exactly what we did propose, because I am certain of this, that before any real settlement is effected, whether it is by my right hon. Friend or anybody else, they will have to come back practically to the scheme that was proposed at that date. It is the only way of securing reparations upon a real basis. I ask the Prime Minister. would he not consent to redeem the promise he made?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If I gave the promise, it will be done: but I will refer to it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was at the end of the Session, and a good many things have happened since. The Prime Minister has been very busy, like the rest of us, and he has kept the rest of us busy, too. I ask him to redeem that promise. There is a special reason why he should do it. Why should the proceedings of the November meeting and the January meeting be published in full, while the proceedings of the August meeting, which was simply adjourned till November, are not published? I ask the Prime Minister to publish those as soon as he possibly can. Then what about the Separatist movement on the Rhine? What is the position about that? It is a very grave position of things, and it is going to create infinite trouble, and may precipitate bloodshed. If the Allies had been

  109
  genuinely neutral when that movement started, there is no one to blame. If any of the Allies encouraged it, it was a disgraceful breach of the Treaty they themselves had imposed upon Germany. They treated their own document, which, by force of arms, they compelled Germany to sign, as a scrap of paper. What has happened? I remember quite well in 1919 the French military generals on the Rhineland attempted to engineer a Separatist movement. They were dealing then with M. Clemenceau—as straight a man as any with whom one could have the honour of dealing. [Interruption.] The fact that my hon. Friend does not approve his policy does not show he is not a straightforward man. That he is a fearless, straightforward man, I think all will agree.. I have never seen him mislead a Conference or fail to carry out a bond once he had given his word, and that would be the testimony of everybody who dealt with him on that occasion. He reported instantly to the Conference that the French generals were doing this, and he gave the most peremptory orders that they were not to meddle with it. What was the result? You heard nothing of it. M. Millerand took the same line. M. Briand took the same line. Recently there is clear evidence that French money has been fostering the Separatist movement. More than that, when the outbreak came it did not come within the British lines. Why? Because we gave fair-play to the German authorities to deal with it. We did not encourage it. We dealt straightly with them. Within the French lines, what happened? There is overwhelming evidence that the population were opposed to it. The police were not allowed to deal with it in the only way you can deal with a treasonable conspiracy. More than that, a man in the position of the Lieut.-Governor of one of the cities was prosecuted, because he gave orders to the police to suppress a treasonable conspiracy against the Fatherland. There were brutal sentences by French courts-martial. The Lieut.-Governor was given 20 years' penal servitude because he gave an order that it was his business to give for the police to suppress the rebellion.
  What has been done? I am not suggesting that the Government have merely no sympathy with it; I am perfectly certain they take a very strong
  110
  view with regard to it. I am only asking questions now, and not suggesting the slightest sympathy with it; but I should like to know what action they are taking to put an end to something which is an outrage upon a document to which we ourselves are parties, and about which we have a right to say something. The fact of the matter is this, and I think the sooner we realise it the better. Take what is happening in the Saar. These articles in the "Times" are revelations to the outside public; they are not to those dealing with the matter from the inside. There is a powerful section of French opinion which feels that the Rhineland ought to have been annexed as the result of victory. The Treaty of Versailles refused to assent to that proposition. They have never accepted it. Marshal Foch, at a meeting of the Peace Conference, got up and protested openly against the action of M. Clemenceau and the French Government in assenting to any proposition that would not annex the Rhineland. All the other French Prime Ministers have honourably adhered to the pact. It looks to me as if that school of French opinion were dominant. If it succeeds, there is no peace in Europe. There will be an inevitable conflict. Whether in our time or not—next time it will be a more terrible conflict than we had before, and I think it is our duty to do our best to avert it.
  My hon. Friend has given notice of a Motion which may. terminate the life of the existing Government. There will be another Government that will come into power. It will be the third Government since I had the privilege of being at the head of affairs. Each has come in with very high hopes. Each has felt that this trouble in Europe would be set right if you bad only the right methods and the right men to deal with it. Each had his own formula—more. sympathy with France, the revival of the Entente, keep the Allies together and all will be well. I cannot say that the sequel has been very encouraging. My hon. Friend is undertaking the task, also with high hopes. I wish him well. He will find that formulas, however unexceptionable, ideals however exalted, are not so easy to translate into action when you have got to deal with other nations. But I wish him well. Above all, I do hope that whatever Government comes into power, it will assert the authority and the

  111
  influence that this Empire is entitled to by its power and by its sacrifices.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My first duty is to associate myself with the remarks which have been made by the leaders of the two branches of the Opposition in praise of the Mover and Seconder of the Address. It is always a feature of the Debate to-day that we open our proceed- ings in harmony, and by passing across the Floor of the House that meed of appre- ciation which is always so well earned by those who move and second the Address. And I must say I was delighted to hear that praise bestowed to-day, because I felt it more than justified the selection from among my own friends which I had made on this occasion. I congratulate them most warmly on having executed what we say every year—and it is absolutely true—is a most difficult task. But when we get away from that, we have departed a little from common form in the Debate, because usually there is a leader of the Opposition who tries to extort from the Leader of the House explanations of policy and explanations of portions of the King's Speech. To-day I have to face two leaders, representing I do not know how many schools of thought. The first leader who spoke was—most naturally— very impressed with the gravity of the occasion which is so soon to come, and his speech often appeared to me one perhaps better fitted to be made on the Amend- ment to be put forward to-morrow, or the next day, than on the main subject of the King's Speech. I think that was natural, and I find no fault with it. The only fault I do find—it was unpremedi- tated, I am sure, and came out in the excitement of the moment—is when he said that I had broken my word. I am going to speak about that by-and-bye.
  The King's Speech, he said, was a miscellaneous collection of odds and ends. Then he said how pleased he was for the first time we had taken into consideration the extension of juvenile centres, additional aid to public utility works, and 50 forth. Of course, he must remember this: That we went to the country with our own proposals to relieve unemployment. Those proposals were not accepted. [Laughter.] I must just interpolate here, in answer to that laughter, what I did
  112
  not mean to say. I remember saying from a platform in 1903 that when Protection came in this country, it would come from the Labour party. It was perfectly obvious that the constitutional duty of the Government, even though its proposals had been rejected in the country, was to meet the House of Commons, and take the verdict of that Chamber, which is what we are doing. That being so, it fell to us to introduce a King's Speech, and being debarred by the verdict of the country from putting into that Speech any such proposals as we should have done had the country confirmed us, we then had to take every other step outside that which we thought might be of use.
  In regard to agriculture, there are slightly different points of view between the two leaders of the Opposition. The one leader, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), thought that in trying to unite the parties of this House on the subject, I was hitching my wagon to a star. I think he was hitching his wagon to a star when he came to speak of foreign affairs—but I will perhaps come to that later. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) seemed to think it was not so quixotic an enterprise. Let me explain, and I commend it to anyone who may succeed me. We believe that certain proposals that were put forward would have been of lasting benefit to agriculture. The country did not think so. None the less, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that does not remove the agricultural problem at all. It is one of the gravest we have got. I may have my own view that it is almost insoluble without adopting remedies which the country at present would not give us. But that is no reason why we should not try to do something. It seems to me that in a House like this, where you have now three parties, not of equal strength certainly, but where none of them can govern without the support, to some extent, of either or both the other parties, the only way is to attempt a round-table conference, to see if there is at least some common measure on which they can agree, and see what must be eliminated. I am not sanguine. But that is no reason why it should not be tried. There may be something done by the agreement of the House. If there be the least possibility of it, I think any Government would be failing in its duty

  113
  if it did not take any step, however distant and remote the prospect of success might seem to be.
  The Leader of the Opposition dealt with the question of the pre-War pensioners. That is a subject left over from the last Parliament, and, had it not been for the events which took place, a. Bill would have been brought forward in the Autumn Session. There seems to have been some misunderstanding about the proceedings of the Imperial Conference. I think the Leader of the Liberal Party stated the gospel of the matter quite correctly. Any resolutions that are carried in the Conference are, naturally, subject to the ratification of the Parliaments, whether it be the Dominion Parliaments or this Parliament. When I made the statement that Parliament would ratify what was done, quite clearly I spoke then in the position of a Prime Minister who was able to ensure the ratification of what he put forward. Supposing any Prime Minister in such a case had put a matter forward, and Parliament refused to ratify it, then, of course, he would have had to resign. There is no question about that. As long as a Parliament lasts, whatever is agreed to by a Government can, naturally, count upon being ratified by Parliament, but there is no binding upon any subsequent Parliament. I think that is perfectly clear. It is a question of policy which our successors—if we are going to have any—will have to decide for themselves. Whether it is a wise thing to do is another question altogether; but it cannot be fairly said that there is a breach of faith if Parliament later on refuse to ratify action taken in the last Parliament. That is my view.
  Any speech on an occasion like this has to be delivered in fragments, because the Minister never knows what he is going to be asked. He is asked a number of questions, often on intricate subjects. I am going to answer as far as I can today. To two or three of them, which are very technical, I am going to ask if I may reply to to-morrow. For this reason: they are very difficult questions, and I am extremely reluctant to give any answer that. may not be as full as possible, and may in any way make a difficult situation more difficult for those who must follow very soon. I am rather afraid at the present lest by anything I may say on the spur of the moment, and without con-
  114
  sideration, I should make an already appallingly difficult situation more difficult, because depend upon it, just at this time when there is uncertainty as to the political future of the Government, whether the Government is to remain, or a new Government is to come, that does militate against us in the councils of all the nations—so that the sooner the period of uncertainty is put an end to the better. The more care, therefore, should be exercised by a Prime Minister as to what he says lest he should prejudice the work which may have to be taken up by others.
  In regard to the American liquor question, I am glad to say that is in a fair way of being settled. The United States will have the right of search up to a certain distance outside the three-miles limit, and British vessels will be allowed to bring, as every reasonable man would agree they ought to bring, the liquor into American harbours under seal, so that liquors for the consumption of the crews and passengers of British ships should not be interfered with before their voyage back again. The proposed Treaty is being submitted to the Dominions concerned for examination. I do not anticipate any difficulty there, and I give an assurance—if it has not been given, as I think it has—that full opportunity will be given, as far as I am able to give it, for the discussion of this Treaty in Parliament before it is ratified. 1 am quite sure, whoever may succeed me, would give that same undertaking.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is the extension a fixed distance?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it may be possible soon to publish the terms.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is agreed?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes, it is agreed. There is no hitch of any kind, and there is no doubt that its ratification will do away with what may seem to be a small matter, but will do more good between our two peoples than almost anything of which you can think. Iam glad to think that is one more troublesome question that has been got out of the way. In the same way in regard to Tangier, I should prefer that a statement on that subject should be made by the Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs to-morrow.
  With regard to the Expert Committee, I can quite understand the feeling with

  115
  which the Leader of the Liberal Party spoke about the position on the Continent at this moment. Looking back over the last year it has not been a successful period in advancing the cause of European peace and prosperity. The Committee of Experts—and I agree that it has been a form of inquiry which we have pressed more than once from this country—was only agreed to in its present form by the Reparation Commission at the end of November. I am not awake myself of any communication of the nature to which my right hon. Friend alluded as having been sent by Mr. Hughes, but I will have that matter looked into, and the full reply shall be given. If it was sent, it must have been sent when the right hon. Gentleman's Government was in power.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The first proposal that was made to France was in October, that is after I left. That was not immediately communicated to us. My information is that France took no notice of it, and it was afterwards communicated to us.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will look into it. It has been set up by the Committee of Experts to advise the Reparation Commission, and it is really the first step of progress that has been made in this whole year. It is a real step of progress because, in the first place, you get America in, which is worth a good deal, and, in the second place, you are going to get for the first time a real and thorough examination into what is necessary to stabilise German currency and balance German budgets. It is impossible to go fully into these matters without getting the very information which is the pre-requisite of any further conference of the Allies in Europe. As all who have had to do with these matters know, the great difficulty of dealing with them has been a consideration of the figures of the reparations problem, the consideration of the way in which German finance can be so rectified after reparations, and the unwillingness of the Allies to confer. Some of them have been most pessimistic during the past month about the prospects of bringing the Allies into conference, or of being able to accom-
  116
  plish anything towards a settlement of the problem_ The most pessimistic of them now feel that there is a ray of daylight in the work of this Commission, and we must all trust that that belief is justified. It may be that the French Government will see in the present loss on exchange in that country that there are reasons coming why there should be no further delay in reaching close quarters with the whole problem, which they have kept at such a distance, with such success throughout this year.
  With regard to the Separatist movements, I can assure the House that they have caused us just as much anxiety as they have caused the Leader of the Liberal Party. The Separatist movement which is occurring in the Palatinate at present has caused us the very gravest anxieties, and we have sent one of our own officials to visit that country, and to report to us. At the present moment we are awaiting his visit and its result, and if it be possible to communicate anything more to the House during the progress of this Debate, I shall be very pleased to do so.
  With regard to the question of the negotiations between the French and German industrialists, and repayments under the Reparations Recovery Act, those are matters with which I should like to deal as fully as possible at a later stage in the Debate. I want to content myself with just touching on the other points which have been mentioned, points perhaps not so serious, and which can be answered very briefly and more easily. Having said that, I think there is nothing to which attention has been drawn which now calls for any further comment. I will only say one word in conclusion, and it is that when a challenge is thrown down on the Floor of the House, we shall be ready to take it up. No doubt there will be a very interesting Debate. We shall watch with interest the forces which will be allied, if allied they are, and which defeat us, if defeat us they do, and we shall watch with much interest to see what Government may be evolved out of the benches which I see opposite. I agree with one thing which fell from the Leader of the Opposition. It is that

  117
  the Government of the country must be carried on, and if we find ourselves in Opposition, we shall be ready to criticise, we shall be ready to oppose, and to fight when we think things are wrong. But there will be no factious or fractious opposition from us, and we shall endeavour, as I expressed the hope when I spoke of the agricultural conference, in any matters where we can get unity in this House, to help such a cause as agriculture or unemployment, and we shall certainly not be behindhand in doing our
  118
  utmost to put something into the common stock for the benefit of the country.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Commander Eyres-Monsell.]
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now a adjourn."—[Commander Eyres-Monsell.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes after Seven o'clock.

THE KING'S SPEECH.
THE KING being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and then retired.
His Majesty's Speech was as follows :—
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
" My relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly. I am glad to be able to record definite progress in the solution of questions which have hitherto blocked the pathway of mutual understanding and have retarded the recovery of the world.
"The Reparation Commission has set up two Committees, on which Experts from the United States of America will co-operate with others from Great Britain, France, Italy and Belgium in examining the very serious financial questions involved in the position of Germany.
"The future status of the Tangier zone of Morocco, which has been a long standing source of trouble, has been the subject of an Agreement between the delegates of the Powers principally concerned, which provides for the creation of an international régime and for the promotion of communications and trade.
"A Bill will be introduced to give effect to the Lausanne Treaty with Turkey. As soon as it has been passed, the Treaty will be ratified, and a new era of peaceful relations with Turkey will open.
"My Ministers, in common with the Dominion representatives, have been anxious to remove the difficulty with regard to the illicit importation of liquor into the United States, and have made proposals for an agreement which is on the eve of conclusion, and which should further strengthen the happy relations prevailing between the two countries and peoples.
"It will continue to be My object to support by every means in My power the steady growth in influence of the League of Nations.
"The recent series of murders on the North-West Frontier of India by criminals who have sought refuge in Afghan territory or are Afghan subjects, has caused Me much concern. My Government have made vigorous representations to the Government of His Majesty The Amir, and I earnestly trust that these persons will be punished, and more satisfactory relations on the frontier be established, at a very early date.
"The recent Imperial Conferences marked a very definite progress in Imperial co-operation. More particularly was it found possible, without departure from the existing fiscal system in this country, to meet the wishes of the Dominions by a substantial extension of the principle of Imperial Preference established by the Conference of 1917 and in force since 1919. Proposals to give effect to the conclusions of both Conferences will be submitted to you.
"I welcome the opportunity that will be afforded by the British Empire Exhibition to increase the knowledge of the varied resources of My Empire and to stimulate inter-Imperial trade.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"Estimates for the public services will be laid before you.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"While I am glad to note that the schemes for providing employment now in operation have had an appreciable effect during the last year in reducing the numbers of those actually unemployed, the number still unable to find work causes Me the gravest concern. My Ministers recently laid before the country proposals which, in their judgment, would have contributed materially to a solution of this problem by affording to industry a greater measure of security in the home market and an improved outlet for its products in My Dominions overseas and in foreign countries; but these proposals were not accepted by the country.
"In these circumstances your assent will be invited to an extension and amendment of the Trade Facilities and Export Credit Schemes, to the proposal of the Imperial Economic Conference for expediting and assisting the execution of certain public enterprises throughout the Empire by the grant of financial aid from public funds, and to an extension of the contributions towards the cost of Public Utility Works, whether undertaken by local authorities or promoted by statutory and private corporations.
"You will also be asked to assist in providing work in the shipbuilding industry by the immediate construction of cruisers and auxiliary craft in anticipation of the Naval Programme.
"Steps will be taken to develop the existing system of Juvenile Unemployment Centres and to provide increased facilities for general and technical education.
"The condition of agriculture remains a source of serious anxiety. My Ministers propose to summon a conference representative of all those interested in agriculture, and of the various political parties, with the object of arriving at an agreed policy, by which the acreage of arable land may be maintained, and regular employment at an adequate wage secured for the agricultural worker.
"Bills will be introduced to improve the position of pre-war pensioners, and to deal with the discouragement of thrift involved in the present means limitation to the grant of old age pensions.
"You will be asked to develop the probationary system of dealing with offenders. Bills will be introduced to amend and consolidate the Factory and Workshop Acts, to legitimize children born out of wedlock whose parents have subsequently married, and to amend the law relating to separation and maintenance orders.
"Under the Housing Act of last Session My Ministers have approved the erection of a large number of houses, both by local authorities and by private enterprise. The local authorities are being approached with a view to increased activity under those sections of the Act which enable the working population to become the owners of their homes.
"Measures will be laid before you to complete land purchase in Northern Ireland, and to guarantee the principal and interest of bonds issued by the Government of the Irish Free State under the Land Act recently passed in that Dominion.
"The obligation to alleviate hardship caused by the former disturbances in Ireland is one which is recognised by My Government and will continue to engage their active attention.
"Proposals will be submitted to you for the expansion of the Royal Air Force in connection with Home Defence.
"Preparations have also been made for measures dealing with the property and endowments of the Church of Scotland, the improvement of the road traffic of London, for the reform of the system of valuation and rating in England and Wales, and of rating in Scotland, for the improvement of the administration of civil and criminal justice, for making valid certain charges imposed during the War, and for the ascertainment of costs and profits in connection with the distribution of milk.
"And I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your deliberations."
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales—Singly, took the Oath.
His Royal Highness the Duke of York—Singly, took the Oath.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro forma, read 1a.
LIST OF THE LORDS TEMPORAL.
GARTER KING OF ARMS attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the First Session of the Thirty-third Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table: The same was ordered to be printed.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The King's Speech reported by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, I rise to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. I appreciate very much being invited to undertake this duty to-day and would ask noble Lords to be kind enough to give me that indulgence which is so generously extended on all occasions to those who address your Lordships' House for the first time. I had the privilege of occupying a somewhat similar position nearly a quarter of a century ago in the House of Commons, after a rather unfortunate week during the Boer War, and I realise the difficulty of undertaking this task, especially as it is necessary to be uncontroversial in regard to all matters.
In the first paragraph of the gracious Speech from the Throne we note that progress has been made in the solution of questions which have hitherto blocked the pathway to mutual understanding, and retarded the recovery of the world. When we look around the world to-day, and see the difficulties and dangers in the pathway of all nations, we realise the absolute necessity of every man trying to the utmost of his ability to help statesmen of the western world who are faced by so difficult a task. I think that what we really require is more reality in our religion, and a very strenuous endeavour on the part of every member and every class of the community to try so far as possible to reduce the passions and prejudices of the people of the world. My noble friend who sits beside me

11
[Lord Kylsant] will deal with the questions of foreign affairs that are mentioned in the gracious Speech. Perhaps I might be permitted to say here that when I first aspired to become a Member of Parliament my noble friend on my right was my opponent. He belongs to a family, as I do, that does not claim any immunity from the charge of lazy political uniformity.
I would like, in the first instance, if I may, to deal with the Imperial Conference. All those who noted the magnificent reception which the representatives of our Dominions received in this country will realise the importance of that Conference. And those who attended it, when they left these shores, must have had an abiding sense of the strength of the link which binds them to us, a belief in the utility of the Conference from the Imperial point of view, and a belief in our desire not only to entertain them but to understand their difficulties, as well as a desire to increase in every possible way the prosperity and happiness of those peoples whom they so worthily represent.
The discussions at the Imperial Economic Conference covered a wide field, including the following particular points:—Overseas Settlement within the Empire, co-operation in financial assistance to Imperial development, Imperial Preference, and a number of miscellaneous questions, some of which are of great importance, and which fall generally under the head of steps for the improvement of mutual trade between the countries of the Empire.
With regard to the tariff preference paragraph I should like to quote from the Report—
"This Imperial Economic Conference, holding that, especially in present circumstances, all possible means should be taken to develop the resources of the Empire and trade between the Empire countries, desires to re-affirm the Resolution on the subject of Imperial Preference passed by the Imperial War Conference of 1917."
That Resolution read as follows:
"The time has arrived when all possible encouragement should be given to the development of Imperial resources, and especially to making the Empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials, and essential industries. With these objects in view, the Conference expresses itself in favour of:—

(1) The principle that each part of the Empire, having due regard to the interests
12
of our Allies, shall give specially favourable treatment and facilities to the produce and manufactures of other parts of the Empire.

(2) Arrangements by which intending emigrants from the United Kingdom may be induced to settle in countries under the British flag."

Your Lordships will remember the speech delivered by His Majesty the King when Prince of Wales at the Guildhall, in 1001, on his return from the Dominions after a reception greater perhaps than any given to any man in the Colonies. In that speech he referred to the extraordinary possibilities for colonisation. He said that the old country must "wake up." He referred to the extraordinary amount of virgin soil in the Dominions and to the possibilities in regard to mineral supplies, and hoped that this country would realise the necessity of sending suitable emigrants in order to show the attachment of the motherland to her children. As one who is connected with the Church Army and has seen something of the need for emigration, I suggest that there is an absolute necessity of concentrating upon a real and satisfactory form of emigration. His Majesty's Government has done a great deal already in this direction.
Other important recommendations of the Imperial Conference are those relating to co-operation for technical research and information, an Imperial policy with regard to forestry and Imperial communications. I express the opinion very humbly that it must be the duty of any Government to give effect to those Resolutions. If not, it is possible that in the years to come the representatives of these great Dominions may think that the sacrifice involved in travelling so many thousands of miles is not justified.
The gracious Speech refers to the question of the League of Nations. I am sure that this House will feel much satisfaction at the fact that there has been a real growth in character and active administration by the League of Nations. It will welcome, to-morrow, one who has done more than anyone else in the world to make that League a living reality. It is the duty of all men to put aside all preconceived prejudices and work wholeheartedly for the objects of the League. There are some men who think

13
it is only a dream, but we believe that if it is carried into effect it may be the means of preventing the indescribable calamities of war and of promoting the priceless blessings of peace.
Your Lordships will be glad to note that unemployment is decreasing in this country. Almost week by week we see a reduction in the number of those who are unemployed. The action of the Government in regard to this long-continued problem is right; I think they have taken the line of common sense. They have stimulated to a great extent normal trade by the anticipation of Government contracts, and have helped by trade facilities and export schemes and by the grant of interest and sinking fund on loans raised by local authorities. We all welcome the action of the Minister of Transport in regard to the question of roads. Altogether the amount of money which has recently been spent, apart from Unemployment Insurance funds, amounts to the large sum of £100,000,000 in terms of worth of work, and yet this difficulty is still with us. With all this effort we still have terrible unemployment in the country. There is no man in this House who does not realise the hardness of the lot of one who is unemployed, who walks about seeking that work which never comes. Only those whose eyes are blinded, whose hearts are hardened, can contemplate serenely the position in which such a man is placed. Your Lordships will excuse me one personal note, but I have had some real experience in regard to this problem as I have interviewed a large number of men who have sought refuge in the Church Army homes. In almost every case the man was not depraved or dissipated, but really anxious, so far as we could gather, to obtain work for which he was well qualified. I trust that means may be found to deal in some way with this absorbing difficulty.
In the gracious Speech a statement is made that steps will be taken to develop juvenile unemployment centres and to provide increased facilities for general and technical education. Whatever our sympathies may be for the older men, they go out in much greater degree to those young men who have never learned to work, who, owing to the stress and' strain of the war, will possibly never be able to find work for which they are
14
suited, some because of the fact that today there is no opportunity for apprentice work and some because of other causes. There is no greater need to-day than to find some way by which these young; men can get on to the ladder of industrial life. They are in this position through no fault of their own, and anything that can be done, apart altogether from Party, will be received by this House with acclamation. My noble friend will deal with many of the other points mentioned in the Speech, but, in conclusion, let, me say one word in regard to the necessity of every one doing all he can in order to find some way out of these difficulties. President Roosevelt, the great representative of a nation whose interests are inextricably bound up with our own, once said:
''A love of ignoble ease, a love of pence, which springs surely I from lack of a desire to have to bear the straining after great things, is as little worthy of a nation as of an individual."
Your Lordships' House and every class in the community, should realise day by day what your duty is as far as you can ; and those who are paid should give a full day's work for a full day s remuneration.
I note with great surprise that there has recently been a tendency in the Press to disparage the British Empire and to pretend that we are no longer in the position which we once held among the nations of the world. If this were true it would hardly be possible to render a greater disservice to this country, and I believe that such a policy is fundamentally unsound. But when we look around the world and travel among other nations, or when we meet travellers and diplomats, we find that such a statement is absolutely untrue, and that in spite of the great sacrifices which we made and the difficulties with which we have contended, the prestige of the British nation is as high as or higher in the world than ever in our history. Other nations wish to know what we are thinking, and some of those who disparage the British Empire are just those who are unwilling to grant that amount of material defence which is necessary to a country with such world wide responsibilities as burs. I thank your Lordships very much for the kindness and friendly forbearance with which you

15
have listened to my remarks, and I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
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 Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Lord Daryngton.)
LORD KYLSANT: My Lords, after the able manner in which the noble Lord has proposed that a loyal Address be presented to His Majesty, it is with some diffidence that I rise to second the Motion. Everybody will welcome the reference in His Majesty's gracious Speech to the good relations now existing between His Majesty's Government and all foreign Powers. There is no greater need in the world to-day than assured peace, in order that the nations may recover from the devastating effects of the great war. In particular, the people of this country will receive with pleasure the announcement in regard to Reparations, and will be glad to hear that two Committees upon which Great Britain is represented by men of such eminence and capacity as Mr. Reginald McKenna, Sir Robert Kindersley and Sir Josiah Stamp have been appointed to deal with this matter. Any report approved by them will be accepted as strictly impartial and as tending to clear the way for a definite solution of this long protracted problem.
It is also a source of gratification that the last of the peace Treaties—namely, the Treaty with Turkey—has been concluded. The fact that the difficult and complex negotiations have resulted in the conclusion of that which in all the circumstances may be considered a very satisfactory Treaty is due to the patience and diplomatic skill of the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, and constitutes a further debt of gratitude which the nation owes to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The conclusion of this Treaty has undoubtedly increased to a great extent the prestige of Great Britain in the Near East. The agreement with the Powers principally concerned in con-
16
nection with the status of the Tangier zone is also specially noteworthy as settling a long outstanding question which might easily, at some later date, have become a source of discord.
Turning to home affairs, it is gratifying to learn from His Majesty's Speech that the position in regard to unemployment has somewhat improved, and that it is proposed to continue and develop the schemes at present in operation. The orders for eight new cruisers, which I understand are about to be placed, should materially assist to relieve the situation so far as shipbuilding and allied industries are concerned. Unfortunately, about a million persons are existing on doles, and British working men do not want doles, but work. As was usually the case in this country forty years or more ago, I personally was brought up in the old Free Trade school and was taught that Free Trade between all the nations of the world was the only sure means of securing general prosperity. The principles which I then learnt are, I believe, equally true to-day, but unfortunately no foreign nation is willing to act on the principle of admitting free imports of manufactured or partly manufactured goods. Even our Dominions have decided—and they have every right so to decide—that it is in their respective interests to erect tariff barriers against the free importation of manufactured or partly manufactured commodities. These tariff barriers, both in foreign countries and in the British Dominions, have been steadily rising since the end of the great war, and this country has consequently been brought face to face with a commercial situation which it has never previously had to meet in so acute a form. We have to contend with unfair and unequal competition, which is aggravated by the advantage which foreign countries receive from their depreciated exchanges, and I still hope that some way may be found of effectively dealing with this grave situation.
This country has been confronted with a period of severe and protracted depression in industry and commerce unparalleled in its history. Indications exist, however, that the low-water level has been reached and that the tide of industry is beginning slowly but surely to turn. The great need of the present time is peace abroad and confidence at home. In order that trade activity may steadily

17
revive, bringing with it progress and prosperity to all concerned, it is absolutely necessary that confidence, which is the basis of commercial life, should be assured. It is also essential that every man, whether employer or employed, should individually do his utmost to co-operate in stimulating British trade. Everybody will be pleased to observe in His Majesty's Speech the reference to the progress made in the all-important matter of housing and to learn that every effort is being made to provide ample housing for the people. The facilities to be made available for assisting people to secure the ownership of their own houses constitute one of the most hopeful developments of our time.
It is a matter for gratification that in the sphere of home defence provision is to be made for strengthening the Royal Air Force, in which members of this House take such keen interest. The country is anxious that in this arm of the Services we should achieve a position which will secure and maintain the national safety.
As one personally interested in farming, I am glad to notice in the King's Speech special reference to the position of agriculture, and to know that active steps are to be taken to deal with the very grave situation which exists to-day in this; primary industry. When the great war broke out the British nation was deeply stirred by the realisation, perhaps for the first time, of the extent to which we had become dependent upon foreign countries for the supply of the necessaries of life. It was felt at that time that every effort should be made largely to increase home food production. Notwithstanding, the acreage under the plough is still steadily declining, and the nation is more than ever dependent on food from abroad. The people of this country will therefore welcome the announcement that it is intended to invite the co-operation of those interested in agriculture, and the various political Parties, to evolve a scheme for placing agriculture upon a sound basis, so as to secure a reasonable return to the farmer for his outlay and industry, and a regular and satisfactory wage to the farm worker.
The noble Lord who moved the adoption of the Address has already spoken about the Imperial and Economic Conferences, and I am aware that it is not customary for the seconder to travel over the same
18
ground; but, as one whose daily work as a shipowner brings him into close touch with nearly all parts of the British Empire, I hope you will allow me to make a passing reference to this important subject. Every one who has the progress and welfare of the British Empire at heart will rejoice at the statement in the King's Speech that it is proposed to give effect to the conclusions reached at the recent great Conference of Dominion Premiers and statesmen. I am convinced that the development of the enormous potential resources of the British Empire could, and should, be stimulated and encouraged to the mutual advantage of all concerned. This would not only result in a big increase in inter-Imperial trade, but would also enable a large number of people from this country, who are unable to secure suitable openings for work in this country, to migrate to the Dominions, where they would be valuable additions to the wealth of those great countries, which always welcome settlers of the right type.
To every one in the great Commonwealth of Nations under the British Flag the King-Emperor stands as a symbol of Imperial unity, and as the link which binds together all the scattered peoples of the British Empire in one confederation of loyalty and devotion to the Throne. His Majesty's keen personal interest in all parts of the Empire, and in the welfare of all its widely-differing peoples, has been vividly shown on innumerable occasions, and is once more manifested in the forthcoming visit of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales to the Great Union of South Africa. His Royal Highness has been deservedly called, by reason of his tour of other Dominions, the "Ambassador of Empire," and this visit will further strengthen the loyal affection of the people of South Africa for His Majesty's House. I beg to second the Resolution.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I would like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Motion on the efficient and agreeable manner in which they have performed the duties entrusted to them. I especially was glad to hear from the mover of the Address his obviously whole-hearted and hopeful reference to the League of Nations, and also his unmistakably sincere and sympathetic reference to the question of

19
unemployment and the hardships connected therewith. I should like to recall to him one incident. He referred to his own entry into Parliament nearly twenty-five years ago. I was then an ex-Under-Secretary, and ex-Under-Secretaries were particularly in demand at by-elections, and I went to Darlington by request of the authorities of my Party, and endeavoured to prevent the candidate who is now the noble Lord from getting into the House of Commons. I was not successful. I dare say he has forgotten it, but I remember the incident because directly afterwards a member of his family, a very valuable and intimate friend of my own, reproached me, saying that he thought I might have found some better use for my oratory than that of opposing a member of the, Pease family, among whom I had so many friends. I should like, as an amende for this act of very long ago, to welcome the noble Lord to this House and to congratulate him upon his maiden speech, and also upon his career in the House of Commons, in which he had not only the attachment of his own Party but the respect and esteem of those who sat on the other side of the House.
As to the noble Lord who seconded the Address, we used to find ourselves in the same Lobby in the other House. There was no mistaking the fact, because whenever the noble Lord was in the Lobby, I was always conscious of his presence, and I welcomed it, and I had hoped that the political friendship would have continued. I cannot say that I heard from him any explanation, to-night, as to why it is we are now on opposite sides of the House. I will not go into the fiscal question, upon which he enlarged, because it is so dangerous to touch that question, and if one attempts to do it shortly it so soon opens out into a debate. But, apart from that, I agreed with the greater part of what the noble Lord said, and I would like to join in recognition of the important part which the noble Lord has played, and still plays, in one of our greatest industries, that of shipping, and to recognise that it is as a great public service that men like himself who are closely connected with the great industries of this country should also give some of their time and ability to the practical work of politics.
There is one point in the Speech from the Throne which seems to me the most
20
remarkable thing in it, although neither the mover nor seconder referred to it. That is, so far as my recollection goes, the unprecedented, abnormal, and extraordinary length of the Speech. It contains a programme for a Parliament rather than for a Session. I could almost think that when this Speech was drawn up the idea was that the Septennial Act was still in force, and that a programme was being provided for a longer time than the present shorter Parliaments can have. I do not know whether the noble Marquess opposite [the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston] can explain to us when he replies how it is that the Speech docs come to be of such great length.
I cannot attempt to go into the whole of the Speech, but I will take some of the paragraphs relating to foreign affairs first. I entirely recognise the justice of the second paragraph of the Speech, which refers to the two Committees established under the Reparation Commission. That is the first ray of light we have had on this very dark question of Reparation for a long time. It is a real step forward, especially with the participation of the United States. I know that these Committees are limited in their scope, but the Reparation question is so intricate, every part of it is so bound up with every other part, that it is almost impossible that an inquiry should take place into one part of it without opening up the larger issues involved.
It is a great advantage that the United States is participating in those Committees. But I would observe, on that point, that the United States is participating because those Committees were set up with the co-operation and agreement of the Allies. It is another instance of the truth that no progress can be made in European affairs unless the Allies, and particularly the British and French Governments, are co-operating. I have said that constantly, and emphasised how essential it is that there should be that co-operation, and I have been constantly criticised for doing so by those who disapprove of the present French policy, more particularly with regard to the-Ruhr. I feel about those people, who make attacks whenever co-operation with France is emphasised, that they really belong to that class of people who, when there are disagreeable facts, think that they can alter those disagreeable facts by

21
attacking the person who states them. The facts remain, and these two Committees emphasise the fact that without Anglo-French co-operation you cannot make progress. To talk about American participation in European affairs unless that comes as the result of a unanimous request from the Allies is really waste of breath. That is one of the cardinal facts of the situation, and one of the satisfactory facts with regard to those Committees.
But, though Anglo-French co-operation remains as desirable and as essential as ever, I am bound to say that I regard with great apprehension what seems to me the growing difficulty of that cooperation caused by the different views of the Ruhr policy taken by the French Government and His Majesty's Government. And I do not see that that difficulty is getting less. I am not reproaching His Majesty's Government with taking the view which they have taken; it is the view which this country generally takes, that the French policy with regard to the Ruhr and the kindred questions connected therewith is a policy which, we believe, cannot but lead to disastrous results.
I should like to ask the noble Marquess with regard to that whether he can throw any light on, or give us any information about, the inquiry which we read of in the newspapers with regard to the Separatist movement in the Palatinate. The aspects of the Separatist movement have been most distressing to those of us who are most anxious for co-operation with the French Government. Officially, I understand, the French attitude is that their authorities are absolutely neutral between the different parts of the population, and that the Separatist movement is a spontaneous and genuine movement. Then there come Press reports, apparently genuine reports from independent persons, that the French authorities on the spot have favoured the Separatist movement; that the Separatists are a minority of the population; that they are armed, while the rest of the population is not armed; that they are some of the most undesirable elements in the population; and that some of the German police who resist them, and who apparently act in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the native population, receive heavy
22
sentences. That is a policy which makes co-operation between the two Governments impossible, because it must lead to most serious and, as I think, eventually disastrous consequences in Europe. It really means that if there is a Separatist movement—not a genuine one, but a false one—which ends in the separation from Germany of these districts of German population, against the will of the vast majority of the inhabitants, we are going to have in Europe in future an Alsace-Lorraine question poisoning the whole atmosphere of foreign polities, on a larger scale, and worse, than the question of Alsace-Lorraine was for so many years. I hope the noble Marquess will tell us what exactly is being done about that inquiry, and what exactly are our relations with the French Government with regard to this policy of separation.
Although I have agreed with the sanguine note of the paragraph relating to the new Committees, I must say that, with regard to the European situation generally, I cannot take a sanguine view. It seems to me that the European situation is drifting—if it continues in the same direction, drifting towards eventual catastrophe. What is going on? In Germany, of course, the seeds for a future recanche are being sown in a most fertile soil: Russia a pariah outside pursuing a wrecking policy: the three countries of the Little Entente and Poland all arming—naturally arming while this state of things continues, and arming obviously to make a solid armed block with France. That means drifting towards the old state of things which preceded the last war. And what is the cause of it ? The cause of it, of course, is fear. France is all-powerful for the moment, but looking forward to the future with fear, or, at any rate, apprehension, and for that reason taking all these precautions with regard to her own armaments and encouraging the armament of the countries closely associated with her.
And that comes from the fact that the peace made in 1919 really miscarried. That peace consisted of the Franco-British and Franco-American Treaties As I understand, France asked for the left bank of the Rhine. The President of the United States said that was asking for territory inhabited by an alien population, and

23
he induced France to abate that demand for the left bank of the Rhine, and offered her instead the Franco-American Treaty, while we joined in offering the Franco-British Treaty. And that was the peace. The American Treaty fell through; our Treaty fell through. America, who was really the pivot of the peace, withdrew from and never ratified the Versailles Treaty, and the result was that the peace which was made in 1919 ceased to exist. And what France has been doing, and not unnaturally doing, since has been trying to make the Versailles Treaty do the work of the Anglo-French and Franco-American Treaties which have disappeared. Of course, that means that the Versailles Treaty has been strained in doing it, and, as I think, France, by pursuing that policy of trying to make up by forcible occupation of German territory for the disappearance of those two treaties of guarantee, will never in the long run achieve her own security.
One of the great lessons of the past which the war and the events before the war have taught us is that building up great armaments does not lead to security. Great armaments lead to counter-armaments, and they lead to a state of things in which there is not a sense of security, but fear all round. Fear breeds distrust and suspicion, and distrust and suspicion breed future wars. In what direction can real security be looked for? I believe it can be looked for only in one way. We are travelling now on the old road over which Europe travelled before the last great war. If we go on we shall come to the same lamentable result. We must travel a new road, and that new road—the only one that I can see—is that you should get every European country to sign the. Covenant of the League of Nations; that you should have an understanding that the forces of different countries will be used not for separate quarrels, but to uphold the Covenant of the League, separate quarrels to be dealt with through the machinery of the League, and force to be used to uphold the Covenant of the League against any one who breaks it.
Of course, it will take years to build up the sense of security in that way; but if only a real, consistent League of Nations policy had been pursued in the last five years instead of being sometimes fitfully
24
adopted and then, it seems to me, dropped, we should have made some progress already. If any one sees a better way by all means let him develop it; but I see Europe now going the old way along which it was going before the war. All the seeds of future war are being sown, and I am sure that only by building up a steady policy of confidence in Europe that the League of Nations—which is only an instrument, but an effective instrument—if used, will be used by the Governments who have signed the Covenant to settle their disputes, is real security to be found. After ten years or so, when every quarrel which arose had been referred to the League of Nations and it had become clear that if quarrels were not referred to the League of Nations force would be used to uphold the Covenant, you would have a real sense of security growing up. In no other way can I see a real hope for the future.
I pass from the general situation to deal with one or two separate paragraphs in the most gracious Speech. I have not examined the Tangier Agreement carefully; but Tangier has for so long been a deadlock and impediment to trade and an unsettlement in our relations with other Powers that I am very glad that an agreement has been reached. As regards the Lausanne Treaty I observe that a Bill has to come before Parliament before the Treaty is ratified. We have plenty of other things to discuss at the moment and, therefore, I will reserve any observations upon that, as it is bound to come before Parliament separately, until the Bill is brought before Parliament and the Treaty can be discussed.
In reference to the agreement with the United States about smuggling, I am delighted to hear that we are on the eve of concluding an agreement, for two reasons. The first is that we have all felt that the rum-running on the coast of the United States was something of which the Empire could not feel proud and that it was very desirable that it should come to an end. My other reason is that I believe in a separate agreement with the United States to waive for a certain purpose the three mile limit, provided it was—and on this I should like the noble Marquess to inform us—on the distinct understanding that the United States is going to be as firm as we are in upholding as a part of International

25
Law the three-mile limit except where nations have voluntarily agreed for a special purpose to depart from it. If they do that then this departure for this purpose from the three-mile limit is not going to weaken the general doctrine of International Law, but is going to strengthen it by securing solidarity between ourselves and the United States for upholding that doctrine of International Law for the nations in general. I hope the noble Marquees will give us some information on that subject. I see in the newspapers that before the agreement has come into force British ships have been seized outside the three-mile limit, and I should like the noble Marquess to give us any information he can upon that point; because if this is to be a friendly agreement between the two nations based on upholding the rule of the three-mile limit, the rule of the three-mile limit ought to be observed until the agreement made between the two Governments has come into force.
According to the newspapers the representations to the Amir regarding the North-West Frontier of India have had a favourable result and the murder gang, I think, has now been surrendered. Perhaps the noble Marquess will be able to tell us something on that point. It will be a great relief to everyone to know that those of our officials who are on the North-West Frontier are not to be exposed to the terrible risks which they have lately had to run and that the representations to the Amir have really had an effect in breaking up the murder gang—if that be so.
I will pass over the question of Imperial Preference with this remark only. I agree personally that where we impose taxes for our own purposes we should give a preference to the Dominions. I understand that where they impose taxes for their own purposes they give a preference to us. Where I differ from part of the policy pursued is that I do not think we should impose taxes which we do not at present impose and which we should not impose otherwise, simply for the sake of giving a preference. I do not understand that, the Dominions themselves do that, and, so far as I am concerned, I think that is not called for by the reciprocal policy and that it is more likely to injure the cause of Imperial Preference in this country than to help it. But where we do impose
26
taxes for our own purposes I think it is right that we should reciprocate what the Dominions themselves do and give a preference on those taxes.
Now I come to the rest of the gracious Speech from the Throne. I observed, in listening to it, that a great deal of it was very familiar to me. On reflection I have come to the conclusion that I have read something very like a great part of it elsewhere and that I have read it in the manifestos both of the Liberal Party and of the Labour Party at the last Election. A great deal of it, almost the whole of it, is not controversial and is really common ground between the three Parties. But there is one point on which I would like to ask a question, and that is in reference to the fourth paragraph from the end, which is in these terms:—
"The obligation to alleviate hardship caused by the farmer disturbances in Ireland is one which is recognised by My Government and will continue to engage their active attention."
I should like the noble Marquess opposite to tell us just what is meant by that. There has been, it must be within the knowledge of many of us—it is certainly within my knowledge—in more than one case the most brutal and wanton destruction, the burning of the homes of persons in Ireland who lived there, who did their best for the country, and who had accepted the Free State. Is what is meant by that paragraph that we should arrange some compensation for those people who have suffered in Ireland, either through the Irish Free State or in some way or another? There are cases of very great hardship, and I should be quite prepared to extend my sympathy. I know so many were people who, after having accepted the Irish Free State quite loyally, after having spent their whole lives living in Ireland amongst the people, and doing their best to contribute to the prosperity of the country, have had their homes most wantonly destroyed with everything in them. If that is one of the things covered by that particular paragraph I regard it with entire sympathy.
For the rest, I cannot conclude without observing that we are discussing this Speech under entirely unprecedented circumstances. The Speech is before us, but, as we know perfectly well, what has been present in the minds of all of us here and outside for the last few weeks has been the general situation which has

27
been created by the Dissolution. It is an unprecedented situation. The situation is this. The Conservative Government are in a precarious position, because they are at the mercy of the Liberal and Labour Parties if they vote together. If a Labour Government comes into power it will be in a still more precarious position, because it will be at the mercy of the Conservative Opposition unless at least sixty Liberal Members attend the House of Commons and vote with it. And if the Liberal Government came into Office it would be in a still more precarious position, for it would be at the mercy of either of the other two Parties, unless one supported it against the other. That is not a satisfactory situation for the country.
I cannot say what I think, especially as I had accepted the situation which was the result of the Election of 1922, when the Government asked for a majority from the country for non-controversial purposes. I had accepted that situation, and, as far as I and I think many others in Opposition were concerned, we had done everything we could to smooth the path of the Government after they had got that majority. I do not remember a single speech that I made in this House last year which was calculated to do any-thing but make things easier for the Government, especially in foreign affairs. With that majority intact, that they should have thrown away the majority which was given them for one purpose, and then asked for a majority for another and very controversial purpose, seems to me one of the most lamentable and astonishing things that has ever happened in our political life.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: I know their case is that unemployment was very urgent, and that they felt they could not deal effectively with it without being authorised by the country to adopt a policy of Protection. Unemployment, though very serious, and very distressing —justifying all that the noble Lord who moved the Address said about it—is not worse but rather better, though only slightly better, than a year ago. But observe the result on the position of His Majesty's Government. They dissolved because they held that unemployment could not be dealt with effectively unless they were authorised to embark on a
28
policy of Protection. The other two Parties had their programmes. The Labour Party had the Capital Levy and Nationalisation, but they never linked those up with the question of unemployment. Its remedies for unemployment were quite separate from the Capital Levy and Nationalisation, which were rejected by the country even more emphatically than Protection was rejected. Put the result is that of all the three Parties His Majesty's Government are the only Party who are in the position of having said that in their view unemployment is an urgent question and cannot be dealt with effectively without Protection, yet that they are prepared to deal with unemployment when, by their own confession, they cannot do so effectively. Neither of the other two Parties is in that position. They had put forward their remedies for unemployment. They are not handicapped in approaching the question of unemployment by having to say that the one thing they thought was necessary to make it effective has been denied them.
The situation which has resulted is very serious. In foreign affairs it is lamentable. I cannot imagine a more, disagreeable position than sitting in the room at the Foreign Office engaged in laborious conversations with Ambassadors and communications with foreign Governments knowing that you represent a Government whose position is so precarious that your words abroad carry no weight. I do not know how that situation is to be bettered. It will, of course, apply to whatever Party succeeds the present Government. It can only be bettered, I think, if the Three-Party system remains, by some system under which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs takes the leaders of the other two Parties into his confidence, and is therefore able to say, on the general lines of his policy, that the country is behind him.
We have a further very serious difficulty arising from the Election. It is that the Sovereign may be put in a very difficult position with regard to Dissolution. It seems to me conceivable that the Sovereign might find himself in this position—that there was a Prime Minister representing a minority advising him to dissolve, and the House of Commons, by a large majority, passing an Address praying him to withhold his consent to

29
a Dissolution. I hope no Prime Minister would put the Sovereign in that position, but it is just conceivable that it might happen, and I think (now that it is just conceivable) that all Parties will have to address themselves to the question of what arrangements can be made which will prevent the Sovereign from being placed in such an invidious position—in a position, in fact, in which no constitutional Monarch ought to be placed.
The Government have had a tremendous reverse at the Election. It has destroyed all their prestige. When other Governments have had to change their policy—and Sir Robert Peel did it on Protection—they have resigned, as he resigned, and he only took Office again when no one else could be found to succeed him. There are other cases of the same kind that I might mention. I do not believe that the Government which has suffered such a rebuff on its policy from the country can recover that prestige and regard which are necessary to enable it to carry on effectively the government of the country, until it has gone through the process of resignation. After that it begins to recover in I two ways—either it remains in Opposition, reforms, revises its policy, formulates its views on the current questions and the new questions which arise, and goes again before the country as a fresh and live Party, or it takes Office again because no one else can do so. It does so reluctantly, but it does it from a sense of duty that the King's Government must be carried on, and it begins to recover prestige by doing a national duty which is thrust upon it when no one else can perform it. Until the present Government has gone through one or other of these processes I do not see how it can possibly begin to recover from the disaster of the last Election.
But what about the Liberal Party? I hold the view that the temporary destruction of the Independent Liberal Party in 1918 was a great disadvantage to the public life of this country and to the House of Commons. It is very desirable that the Liberal Party should be maintained as an independent party; increased strength to the Liberal Party would be for the good of the public life of this country. But lot us be quite sure on this point, that there can be no permanent working arrangement between the Liberal Party and the Labour Party.
30
And for this reason: The Labour Party, as I understand, still hold the view—it was held by the late Mr. Keir Hardie out of no hostility to the personnel of the Liberal Party or to Liberalism—that it would be better that the Liberal Party should be eliminated altogether from public life, their opinion being that a great many people who now vote Liberal would in those circumstances vote Labour. Whether they are right or not I will not discuss now, but that is their view and permanent co-operation must be impossible. If the Liberal Party is to retain its independence it must not become the satellite of the Labour Party or of the Conservative Party.
The situation is very confused, complicated and uncertain, but the more confused the situation the more simple the course you should adopt. The course we ought as Liberals to adopt, having put our views before the country at the last Election, is simply to vote on each question as it comes up in accordance with those views without regard to the effect it may have on a particular political position. I would not refrain from voting in accordance with the views expressed at the last Election in order to keep the present Government in office, but if a question comes up on which I should naturally vote and the effect of that vote, if it were given in accordance with the expressed views of Liberalism at the last Election, would be to displace the present Government, I should not refrain from giving that vote. Should a Labour Government succeed them I should do exactly the same thing. If any question comes up on which we ought to vote, in accordance with the views we put before the country I should not refrain from giving that vote, not even in order to keep my noble and learned friend, Viscount Haldane, on the Woolsack or on the Government Bench, should he be in that position on behalf of the Labour Government.
I believe that straight voting like that, though it might result in the first few weeks and months in considerable oscillations in the political situation, would, in the long run, help to clear the atmosphere and bring about a state of things under which we should see more clearly how the King's Government can be carried on. We on the Liberal side are in this very comfortable position. We found ourselves at the last Election

31
between the danger of Protection on the one hand and the Capital Levy on the other. We find ourselves now in a Parliament in which neither of these things can be carried out. They cannot be dangerous in this Parliament; they were dangers at the Election. That is a position of considerable comfort.
Let me say one word on the question of the advent of a Labour Government. I regard the advent of a Labour Government in these circumstances with no apprehension at all. In foreign policy their aims are the same as ours, and I have some little hope that in spite of all the difficulties the introduction of new men and new minds into foreign policy may bring some better response from some other European countries than the last two Governments have been able to obtain. I know the difficulties are great, but the moment the Labour Party comes within reach of responsibility Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has been the first to realise the desirability of co-operation with France and he proclaims that as one of his objects. He appeals for co-operation to humane men and humane women in other countries of Europe, a very desirable aspiration, but the difficulty is to reach public opinion in other countries over the heads of their Governments. Nevertheless, I will not adopt his own metaphor about the spirit of pessimism being used to stem the hopes which the Labour Party entertain of being able to produce increasing friendship in Europe with other countries. I see no reason to suppose that in their foreign policy there will be any risks or dangers which are not inherent in the foreign policy of previous Governments. Imperial questions may be different. The difficulties in Egypt and India, I fear, will not be less for a Labour Government than they are for the present Government. In home affairs nothing can be done in the House of Commons except what is common ground to the three Parties and uncontroversial. We run no risks there.
Therefore I think the panic with which the advent of a Labour Party to power is regarded is quite unwarranted and even mischievous in present conditions. If any manœuvres took place to keep them out of power there would be dangers. It is perfectly monstrous that there should have been any suggestion that the Labour Party has not been having fair play since the Election. There
32
was a suggestion by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald that they were not getting fair play. They got less than one-third of the votes polled at the last Election and so far from there having been any lack of fair play there has been in some quarters, some very unexpected quarters like The Times newspaper, a readiness, almost an eagerness, to get them into Office which, if I were a member of the Labour Party, I should regard as being almost too good to be true and look upon with a certain amount of suspicion. Certainly there has been not less but more readiness to clear the way for a Labour Government coming into Office than there has ever been for any Party which got so few votes at an Election. If it gets abroad in the country that the Labour Party is not receiving fair play it will begin to produce the very danger which I think is a real apprehension before the country.
The real cause for apprehension is not the advent of a Labour Government to power which is going to act by constitutional means. The real danger which we may have at some time to face will be that, if a Labour Government is displaced, or if, after being in existence for a year or two, it is suspended, the hands of its extreme supporters, of those who (and there are such in this country) wish to carry by force that which they cannot carry by constitutional means, will be strengthened. The struggle is, in my opinion, far more likely to be between those who are in favour of constitutional methods and mean to uphold them and those who wish to follow the precedent of some foreign countries, a very frequent precedent now, by breaking down constitutional methods and thrusting Parliamentary government aside. The danger is not a constitutional Labour Government; it is direct action and the attempt to set Parliament aside.
We have four great things upon which, as it seems to me, our Constitution and our liberties depend. One is an impartial and independent judiciary: another is that no man is to be arrested or imprisoned without being brought to trial before those impartial Courts by due process of law; a third is that no taxes are to be collected and no money is to be spent without the authority of duly elected representatives of the people; and the fourth is the right of free speech,

33
both inside and outside Parliament. You may say that none of those things is apparently threatened. The first three are not threatened, but there were ominous signs at the last Election that the right of free speech outside Parliament was in danger. There was at least one constituency where no public meetings could be held. The right of free speech means the right to hold public meetings and express views, and there has lately been a growing tendency to interfere with that right of free speech.
We shall see what the result of future events will be. We know very well that these events will depend upon what happens in the House of Commons, and this is a matter concerning which I do not think we should attempt to make a prediction this afternoon. We know that the situation is very precarious, but so long as a constitutional Government comes into power, a Government which acts by constitutional means, I do not believe that there will be serious trouble in this country or serious danger—certainly not in this Parliament; and, when this Parliament is over, I have confidence in the good sense of the electors. If there be danger ahead, we are misdirecting our apprehensions if we direct them to a constitutional Labour Government coming into power. We had better reserve those apprehensions for that which, I think, is a real though perhaps a remote possibility, that of a struggle between the forces who are for maintaining the Constitution and our liberties and the forces who are in favour of settling things by violence. If that struggle comes I have no doubt as to the way in which it will be decided. We depend to-day, as we have always depended, upon the sound sense and the feeling for liberty of our people. If that is gone, if that is weakened under modern conditions, then no Government and no system will save us; but if that remains, as I am sure it does remain, then no changes of Government and no changes of system will undermine the prosperity and strength of this country.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, before I attempt to deal with the questions which have been addressed to me in the very remarkable and far-reaching speech from the noble
34
Viscount to which we have just listened, I should like to say one word upon the loss of a distinguished man who has disappeared from our midst since we last met in your Lordships' House—I refer to the late Earl Loreburn. Lord Loreburn was a man of very strong personality and character; he was a man who cherished certain convictions with an almost passionate intensity; but he was a man of the highest integrity and the greatest moral courage. I sat with him for years in another place, and when he came here he appeared to me to be an illustration of a not uncommon phenomenon—namely, that his peculiar combination of gifts seemed to find a better theatre of display in this House than it had done across the way. There I remember him as a rather fiery partisan, but in this House he was an embodiment of mellow and judicial wisdom, and I think we all of us remember with respect and even with affection the attitude which he always adopted when he occupied the Woolsack, and which was a mixture of urbane dignity on the one hand with a gentle and rather attractive form of reproach upon the other. He has gone. His name will always remain honoured in the annals of this House. Certainly, during my recollection of your Lordships' House, no more popular or respected man has occupied that Woolsack.
The noble Lord who seconded the Address alluded in a sentence to the impending visit of the Prince, of Wales to the South African Dominions of the Crown. This will be the latest—I am sure we all hope that it will not be the last—of the Imperial tours of His Royal Highness. During the last few years, by means of these tours, he has placed a chain of loyalty and devotion round the globe, and the noble Lord who spoke behind me never said a truer thing than when he remarked that at no period in our history was the Royal House more deeply rooted in the affections and devotion of the Empire at large. Certainly no heir to the Throne has ever contributed so much both by his qualities and his energies to bring about that result as has His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
I do not think I need say much about the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address. They were listened to with great favour by your Lordships' House, and they were exactly the

35
character of utterance which, on an occasion like this, we are disposed to welcome. In the debates on the Address in this House we listen more often, perhaps, to noble Lords who yet have their spurs to win, and whose performance on this rather delicate occasion is often a presage of future success. But this afternoon we listened to two noble Lords whom I think I might almost call Parliamentary veterans. One of them told us that nearly a quarter of a century ago he discharged a corresponding duty in the House of Commons. One of the main sources of strength in this House is the perpetual recruitment that we receive from the experience and strength of the other, and after listening to these two noble Lords this afternoon not only do we feel assured that we have such a contribution to our membership here, but I am sure that their speeches left us all with the hope that they will many times again intervene in our proceedings.
The main part of the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down related to foreign affairs, and I will endeavour to deal with the various points that he raised. My noble friend Lord Daryngton spoke in the latter part of his observations about the tendency which he had noticed to belittle the efforts of the Government and to disparage the position and prestige of Great Britain in the world. Indeed there have, during the past year, been many symptoms of that tendency. When the noble Viscount began his speech just now I wondered how far, if at all, I should hear in it an echo of the rhetorical reverberations of his chief, Mr. Asquith. Only a month ago Mr. Asquith was making a speech in which he said that the record of this Government in foreign affairs had been one of unbroken impotence and humiliation, and he spoke of this country being reduced to a cypher in the council chambers of the world. If that were the case, should we not have heard something about it from by far the most powerful exponent of foreign affairs in the ranks of the Liberal Party, in speaking this afternoon? If it were true, why have not Mr. Asquith, or other members of his Party, moved votes of censure upon us, either in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords? I cannot recall a single occasion on which such an attempt has been made, and when I read these rhetorical denunciations my withers are quite unwrung.
36
We all know that at Election times it is a common thing to say that under the auspices of a Government with which you do not agree the prestige of the country has sunk to a lower ebb than it ever occupied before. That is part of the stage properties of Party warfare. I remember, nearly thirty years ago, when I served Lord Salisbury as Under-Secretary, that exactly the same language was used about that great Minister, but when he had passed away the country awoke to the fact that its foreign affairs had been administered by one of the greatest Foreign Ministers of modern times. Therefore, I am, personally, not much disturbed by these charges brought at this moment and in this particular way, and I say this to myself: A year ago, at this time, I happened to be at Lausanne. I will not say anything this afternoon about the Treaty which was concluded, because I agree with the noble Viscount that we had better postpone our remarks until the Bill comes before the House; but I certainly carried away from Lausanne no impression that the voice or weight of England ranked low in the councils of the world. Rather, I should say that my impression, which would be borne out by every one there, was that of all the Powers represented the prestige and power and moral weight of England stood incomparably the highest, and if you were to ask who stands best with the nations with which we concluded Peace, I do not think that there could be any doubt as to the reply.
May I mention one other point on the general question? A little while ago the Ministers of the Dominions of the Crown came to this country to take part in the Imperial Conference. They were necessarily ignorant of much of the inner history of foreign affairs, although the information which we give them is as full as it is possible to give in the circumstances of the case. They came to this Conference, they asked many questions, they made important speeches, and I think we discussed foreign affairs for several days at a time. Surely, if there had been this decline in the influence and power of Great Britain, they would have been the first to find it out; but at the end of that time they expressed unanimous approval of the principles upon which the policy of the present Government has been carried out, and I remember with particular pleasure the personal

37
assurance from each one of the Prime Ministers, before he left the country, that he ardently hoped that that policy would be continued on the same lines, and even by the same person who was then charged with the task.
The noble Viscount said, and said with truth, that the international sky is heavily overclouded, and that it is difficult to discern many rifts in the, cloud. He always speaks with balance and judgment and sobriety on these matters, and what he said was perfectly true. For my own part I have felt, since I had the honour of being connected with the Foreign Office, that, apart from the general settlement of the great confusion caused by the war, the first task incumbent upon the Foreign Minister of this country was, so far as possible, to clear away what might be thought the unnecessary and removable obstacles that block our path. They are alluded to in the King's Speech. Certainly, when I went to the Foreign Office I did find that the sea I was navigating was strewn with the wreckage of unsolved problems, and that the channels on which I sailed were marked by uncomfortable and dangerous rocks, lifting their heads above the surface: and prior to the big all-round settlement which we had in view we did undertake, and have proceeded with the undertaking, one by one to eliminate those sources of difficulty and trouble, feeling that if you can get out of the way all these petty and irritating; sources of disagreement or discord, you introduce a better atmosphere in which you can approach the larger issues. It is therefore with some satisfaction that we record in the Speech from the Throne that several of these small obstacles have been removed.
The noble Viscount asked me one or two questions, and I will deal quite briefly with each. There was first the difficulty which arose with the United States Government owing to the illicit importation of liquor into their ports. The point of view from which we regarded it was this: Prohibition, whether you think it wise or unwise, is part of the settled policy of the United States. It is the law of the land and it represents the moral conviction of an immense majority, I am informed, of the people of the United States. There fore, the United States Government having taken that line, there did seem to be
38
something unpleasant, undesirable, incongruous, in the spectacle of other nations, including our own, using their legal position to interfere with the due execution of that policy. I agree with the view of the noble Viscount that the spectacle of this rum running, of a row of ships outside trying to smuggle liquor into the United States, is a sorry and sordid spectacle, and the fact that it was legal did not make it any more attractive, because these things have to be regarded not from the print of view of their legality but from the point of view of their effect upon international sentiment.
And therefore, when the Dominion Premiers came over here, one of the first things we did was to settle down to discover how far we could meet the American point of view. Then we were brought up against the point to which the noble Viscount rightly attached supreme importance, and that is that we should not in any way jeopardise or qualify the fundamental principle of International Law and of British policy, namely, the three-mile limit of territorial waters. On that point we found the United States Government entirely prepared to meet us, and not only to agree to our enunciation of that principle, but to enunciate it themselves. And when the Treaty comes before your Lordships' House you will find that it contains a declaration in which that principle is reaffirmed by both parties to the Treaty. The other point to which we attached importance was the getting of permission for our ships to take their liquor under seal into the territorial waters of the United States, provided we made the concession that was indicated. The Treaty is, I hope, on the verge of conclusion. It has gone to our Dominions for the expression of their final approval and ratification, and I hope that, this matter being out of the way, one of the few existing sources of possible friction or disagreement—they are very few—between the United States and ourselves will disappear. The noble Viscount asked one question. He said: What about these American ships which seem to be pouncing outside the three-mile limit at the present moment? I think that is due to an excessive zeal on their part which I deprecate, but which I do not, wish to take too seriously, because I want these matters to be brought to a proper ending.

39
The next question that the noble Viscount asked was about Afghanistan. Here, although I am in general agreement with what he said, I think he was disposed, perhaps, to place the matter in a rather more favourable light than is actually the case at the present moment. It is not a case only of the murder of one person, or of one set of persons. There have been several murders, and these murders have been committed, as the House, I think, knows, in that turbulent and disputed fringe between the British and Afghan territory, by persons, some of whom are Afghan subjects, some of whom belong to tribes who are nominally our subjects because they are within the Durand Line, but who, after the perpetration of outrages like these, are apt to run across the border in order to take shelter there, and who belong to tribes with whom the Amir himself finds it difficult altogether to quarrel because they receive subsidies from him, and their friendly attitude towards Afghanistan is an element of importance to him on his side of the frontier, just as it is to us upon ours.
What has happened has been that one of these gangs only has surrendered to the Afghan authorities—the gang that were responsible for the murder at Kohat in British territory, and the Afghan Government have undertaken to remove them to a remote part of Afghanistan and keep them under surveillance there. We shall, of course, expect the Afghan Government scrupulously to adhere to its undertaking in that respect, because it is not consistent with the laws of hospitality that prevail in those regions to expect that the Afghan Government will consent to give them up. But it now remains for the Amir—and that is my reason for saying that the case is not closed—to deal with the other murderers, of whom there are two or three, if not more, other groups. When these things have been done the air will be cleared, and we may anticipate that peace will reign again upon the Frontier. So that, although the omens are, on the whole, encouraging, I would not like the noble Viscount or the House to pitch their expectations for the moment too high.
The next question that he said a word about was Tangier. Here, again, I think I can dismiss the matter in a few words, although I am sure the House will join in the general congratulations that have
40
been offered upon the removal of this rather troublesome affair from the international board. The case was this. Out-interest in Tangier, apart from the historical and sentimental interest arising from the fact that it once belonged to the British Crown, over two hundred years ago, has been partly strategical, and partly commercial—strategical because of its place at the entrance to the Mediterranean, commercial because we have a large trade with the port, and, when the railway is built, we shall have a still larger trade with the interior, and because we were fighting there, as elsewhere, for the principle of the open door.
This matter has been dragging on unsettled for years. As far back as 1912 negotiations began between the French, the Spaniards, and ourselves, who were the parties principally concerned, and were almost on the verge of conclusion in 1914 when the war broke out and brought them to a temporary end. During the four or five years that I have been at the Foreign Office I have made efforts with each successive French Foreign Minister—M. Millerand, M. Leygues, M. Briand, and M. Poincaré—to bring the matter to a head, and we succeeded at last in getting a Conference in the concluding months of last year, and we have now got a settlement, which provides for the permanent neutralisation of Tangier, which gives us the open door, and which sets up in the Tangier zone an international administration. I hope the matter will now be satisfactorily concluded. The Spanish Government are still anxious to get one or two modifications that are of importance to them. They have behaved in difficult circumstances with moderation and statesmanship, and I hope that we may succeed in giving them something of what they desire. If that be so, the matter will be concluded, and one more of the obstacles of which I spoke will have been removed.
There is just one other of these smaller affairs which is not mentioned in His Majesty's gracious Speech, but which I am enabled, in consequence of what has happened during the last twenty-four hours, to refer to. I speak of Greece. You will recollect that in November, 1922, when the Revolutionary Government in Greece executed a number of Ministers, His Majesty's Government felt compelled

41
to protest against this barbarous action, and to break off diplomatic relations. Since then Greece has been in a position of very considerable instability, which has reacted in every way upon her fortunes, both internally and externally. At length a Constituent Assembly was held in the late autumn, at which a moderate Liberal majority was returned, the King was invited temporarily to leave the country, pending the settlement by plebiscite at a later date of the form of Constitution which the people desire to adopt, and then Greece did the wisest thing which she has done for some time past in inviting and persuading M. Venizelos to go back once more to Athens. That eminent man, much against his personal will, consented to throw himself again into the political whirlpool, and he has formed a Government in Greece of which he is the President. It does not contain any members of the revolutionary committee who were responsible for the act which brought about our severance of relations with them, and accordingly we have intimated to M. Venizelos that we have had great pleasure in at once resuming diplomatic relations with Greece. That means the beginning again of a connection between ourselves and that little country which has lasted for over a hundred years, and which has been marked by incidents throughout that occupy a prominent place in the recollection of both parties.
I have now dealt, I think, with the smaller questions raised by the noble Viscount on foreign affairs, and I will deal with the, larger issues that he raised. I do not think that I dispute in any respect anything that fell from his lips upon the point of the European situation. The difficulty with which we have been confronted for the past year arose from the occupation, exactly a year ago in this very week, by the French and Belgian troops of the Ruhr. That occupation was dissented from by Mr. Bonar Law's Government. We declined to accept any responsibility for it, nor were we, willing to participate in it; and the prognostications that we hazarded at that time as to its probable results have, I fear, been more than fulfilled. Nevertheless, we felt profoundly, as the noble Viscount feels, that the only key to a settlement of the European question lies not in discord but in union, not in the disruption but in the maintenance of the Entente. I have
42
often stated that in this House with just as much emphasis as we have heard it stated in the speech of the noble Viscount. It is the basic principle of European recovery, and for the last few years we have made unceasing and strenuous efforts to continue and to cement that union.
I recall that in the last two years I have been live times to Paris in order to try to keep this Entente not only upon its legs but strong and vigorous, and throughout our policy has been one of pacification, of persuasion, of conciliation, and of compromise. We used all the influence we could with Germany to get her to desist from her foolish policy of passive resistance. We sought at every moment the co-operation of America without which, in my judgment, the matter will never eventually be settled. When the German Government answered us on June 7 we were anxious to send a joint reply to them from the various Allies; while on the spot itself, in the occupied area, we have done everything that we could to make things easy for the French Government in respect of the running of railways, in respect of the imposition of German Customs, and of the kind of arrangements that have been set up between the French and the Gorman industrials. I do not think it would have been possible for any Government, consistently with its principles, to have shown a more reasonable or conciliatory attitude, and if from time to time we have been called upon in Despatches or otherwise to state our views with clearness—that is a duty incumbent upon this or upon any other Government—they contained no element of provocation whatsoever.
The noble Viscount, I think, was right in attaching importance to the constitution of these two Committees set up by the Reparation Commission for the examination on the one hand of the question of the German budget and German currency and on the other hand of the flight abroad of German capital and the means of bringing it back. One of my noble friends behind me spoke of the high authority of the British financiers who had consented to serve upon that Committee and, without pitching my expectations too high, I do hope, I feel assured, that they will take a wide and statesmanlike survey of the whole situation and that when we get their report it will mean a move forward

43
towards a settlement of this Reparation problem. At each stage I must confess that the difficulty, the main difficulty, I might almost say the sole difficulty, that we have found has been the very uncompromising and unswerving line that has been taken by our great Ally. Whether that is likely to be modified in our time or in the time of our successors I cannot myself say. But this I would like to add, that if His Majesty's present Government is to be ejected from Office and to be succeeded never mind by whom, there is not a single telegram or Despatch or record of an interview for which His Majesty's Government or I as their representative at the Foreign Office have been responsible in this matter for the last four years that we would mind being laid before the public. And if at any time my successors and the successors of this Government, whoever they be, contemplate such a publication and ask our leave to it, for my part it will be unhesitatingly given. I say that myself I court the fullest publicity for our policy in every one of its aspects, and the more it is known the more will it be realised how consistent it has been and how little it deserves the charges of irresolution or impotence that have been so unfairly directed against it.
The noble Viscount then asked me to say something about a very troublesome question that has arisen in the Palatinate of Bavaria during the past few weeks. I understood him to accompany his question on that point by a general statement of his view that these Separatist movements, this setting up of upstart and artificial States out of the body of the German Reich should, as an act of public policy, be discouraged by the Allies; that is to say, unless they represent a genuine feeling among the community or unless they represent a tendency which is approved by the German Government itself. I heartily endorse that policy. The history of these Separatist movements can, I think, be summed up in a sentence or two. Ever since last summer or the beginning of the autumn there was a series of these sporadic attempts at setting up little local Republics. They began at Aix. They were transferred to Coblenz. They were mostly the result of the action of a set of adventurers without authority, not representing the sentiments of the bulk of the population, and accompanied by much
44
terrorism and disorder. The whole of these schemes one after the other, against which we always set our faces, which we discouraged by every means in our power, gradually collapsed one by one and we all of us thought that the atmosphere was more clear, when suddenly, in November last, we heard of a fresh movement organised in the Palatinate.
That is an area on the left bank of the Rhine which happens to be occupied by French troops and where another sort of sham Republic was set up. Our information is that there was no real movement for separation, that both the head of the Roman Catholic Church and the head of the Protestant Church in the Palatinate visited the High Commission and assured our representative that the movement was utterly alien to the spirit of the people, and that the signatures to the Declaration of Independence which had been given had been largely extorted by threats. The matter became rather acute when, only a few days ago, this so-called autonomous Government submitted certain decrees which it had passed to the body known as the High Commission, consisting of British, French and Belgian representatives, which has authority in the occupied areas, and asked that this High Commission should register those decrees and enable them to come into effect. Our representative, Lord Kilmarnock, had no hesitation in declining to give his assent to a proposal which would practically have amounted to recognition of a State which had no legal existence at all, and which did not represent the sentiments of the people.
Further, our view was influenced by the conviction that the High Commission is not there for that purpose at all. The High Commission, according to the terms of the Versailles Treaty and the Rhineland Agreement, is there for the purpose of maintaining the security, et cetera, of the troops, and has nothing whatever to do with politics. We were, therefore, unable to agree that this body had any authority whatsoever either to register those decrees or to recognise this Government. And here let the House remember what I said just now. Supposing the movement was a genuine one there is provided in the terms of what is known as the Weimar Constitution—that is to say, the new Constitution of the German State—means by which, on application from a

45
third of the voters in any area, a plebiscite can be taken, and autonomy within the Reich can be secured. Therefore still less justification was there for this hasty and upstart simulacrum of a government in the Palatinate.
Our difficulty was in ascertaining exactly what was going on. Here there has arisen some trouble with the French, which, I hope, we may be able to compose. We instructed Lord Kilmarnock to send one of his officers to report to us on the situation. The French objected to that on technical grounds, and accordingly we said that if they did not think an officer of the High Commission should be used for the purpose we would gladly withdraw him, which we did. We then instructed our consul at Munich, in whose consulate area the Palatinate lies, to visit the country and give us an account of what was going on. Here again the French took up an attitude which, I must confess, I am incapable of understanding. They took up the attitude of saying that if this consul of ours went into territory occupied by French troops (to which we have just as much right as they), they would feel it their duty to attach an officer to shadow him and to see what he was doing. Meanwhile, in the area occupied by the British troops further north at Cologne, there are any number of French officers regularly employed, given every facility that we can accord to them, and during the last day or two, when a proposal was made by the French Government to consent to French officers going into our area to make certain investigations which they had in view, we replied at once that we should be delighted to see them and give them every facility in our power. There the matter rests for the moment. I do not think I should have alluded to it had not the noble Viscount asked me to do so, but it indicates a situation of some little anxiety, but one which, I hope, discretion, wisdom and reserve may enable us to solve.
I think I have now dealt with all the questions of foreign affairs about which the noble Lord asked me, but may I, before I sit down, add a word or two about the very important question which he raised in the latter part of his speech? Somewhat perhaps to our surprise, but undoubtedly greatly to our edification and satisfaction, the noble Viscount favoured us with his estimate of the
46
present situation, of the circumstances in which we are all placed, of the duty that will be incumbent upon the Party of which he is so prominent a member, and of the future that he anticipates if another Government of Labour or Socialistic complexion is placed in power. It was a very weighty and well-balanced survey. I am not certain that I agree with it in all parts, but as he was delivering his estimate I was in my own mind trying to make out what my estimate would be, and if it does not precisely coincide with that of the noble Viscount your Lordships will still forgive me if I follow his lead in placing it for what it is worth before you.
The noble Viscount alluded to the length of the King's Speech, which, he said, was unprecedented, and he asked me to give an explanation. I admit that it is rather long, and many of us would have liked to make it shorter, but it is far from being unprecedented. During the last three or four years only there have been speeches nearly double as long. The fact is that when you commence to put a programme down upon paper, or measures to which you commit yourself as a Party without necessarily implying that you can carry them in a single Session of Parliament, it is very difficult, in the complexity of modern politics, to secure any very considerable compression.
What is the position in which we are placed ? The present Government went to the country with a programme which was designed, in their judgment, to supplement, and to some extent replace, the other methods of dealing with the unemployment problem, and they sought the judgment of the country upon that programme. Whether they were wise or unwise in doing it, whether the country was taken by surprise or not—points upon which the noble Viscount favoured us with his view—is irrelevant to the present situation. We are confronted now with this bald fact that the Government, having, rightly or wrongly, invited the decision of the country upon this policy, what may not unfairly be called a referendum took place upon it. The result of the referendum was that the policy failed to meet with the acceptance of the people. There we are on common ground. Nevertheless, while our prescription was rejected, the country expressed no preference for the prescription of anybody else. The country

47
certainly gave no vote for Labour. Both Conservatives and Liberals were opposed to the Labour programme, and at the present moment, as we all know, Labour only has something like 190 Members in the House of Commons. But neither did the country express the smallest regard for Liberalism. The noble Viscount spoke somewhat sanguinely just now of the Liberal programme. It is a discovery to me that there was any Liberal programme at the last Election. It is true that noble Lords and others wrapped round their bosom the tattered flag of the Liberalism of the last century, and that they pursued the negative policy of equally denouncing the programme of the Conservative Party and the programme of the Labour Party, but where the positive elements in their programme were I still have to discover.
Therefore we come to this rather anomalous position, that in so far as the country expressed at the last Election any preference for any Party it was for the Party that is going to be turned out. Nobody can deny the fact that the numbers of the other Parties are 190 and, I think, 160, while our total is 260, and we polled in the country, I have been told, within 25,000 votes of those which were recorded for our Party at the preceding Election fought by Mr. Bonar Law a year earlier. If so, if we are to be governed, as seems likely by the three-Party system, it would appear that the country would really, judged by its votes, prefer to be ruled by the Conservatives rather than by the Liberals or Socialists; and that is the justification for our Speech. We have yet to learn, possibly we shall learn before long, that the country, as represented by the new House of Commons, is unwilling to trust its destinies to our hands, but for the moment, being the leading Party and by far the leading Party, we have no alternative but to place before it proposals which we shall be prepared to proceed with, dropping that proposal which the electorate declined to accept at the recent Election.
Now let us take the question another stage further. It now appears that as Labour alone cannot turn us out, as Liberalism alone cannot turn us out, the two are going to combine to turn us out. What happy bedfellows they will be. As I listened to the noble Viscount just now and heard his stern repudiation of any sympathy or truck with the Labour Party
48
there was brought home to me the singularly precarious and composite character of the support on which a Labour Government will have to rely. Mr. Asquith made a strong speech about this a little while ago. If I may be allowed to say so, I think it was a most unwise and deplorable speech. It is not for me to pass judgment upon the attitude which he and his colleagues are going to take up. It is for them to say; but I think he will repent that speech in the future. I do not think that the man who seizes on a great public occasion to say that he will not lift a little finger to maintain the present Government in office will have cause to be surprised if in the future, when he wants support, he does not find many little fingers lifted up for him. That is my personal opinion. I deprecate and deplore the speech he made, at the same time recognising his perfect right to take the action he contemplates.
What is the task thereby imposed upon us? It is not in this House that the axe is going to fall; it will descend over the way. But it is the most extraordinarily long drawn out execution on record. In our history we read that at executions it was ordinarily the victim who was invited to make a speech, and who, advancing to the edge of the scaffold, made his last defence or apology to the crowd; and the only delay that then took place was the delay which might arise from a lack of skill on the part of the executioner in making two or three strokes instead of one. On this occasion it is not the victim who is to make the speeches, it is the executioners, and in another House I am told that for four days all these executioners are going to explain at enormous length why they have put on the mask and how they will wield the axe. It will be most interesting to hear a Liberal, whether he be of the actual complexion of the noble Viscount or not, explaining how, with an ardent adherence to the principles of Liberalism, he thinks it consistent with his public duty to put a Socialist Government in power, and it will be equally interesting to hear a Labour Member express his views about the Party upon whose co-operation he relies for getting into power at all.
I have been told that after I sit down, which will be in a few moments, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, is

49
likely to address us. I look forward with absorbing interest to his intending performance; I look forward to his lifting some little corner of the curtain that veils the features of the future Ministry, and if when the curtain is lifted I see the ample and acceptable form of the noble and learned Viscount seated under it I assure the House and the noble and learned Viscount that it will be with sentiments of the most profound gratification. He perhaps will tell us what will happen. Then I suppose, if the axe falls in the way I have indicated, your Lordships will have to adjourn for a while and the new Government will devote some time to considering what it is to do with this Bench. During the last few years I have sometimes had to complain of its congestion. The noble and learned Viscount will have no trouble about that. The difficulty will be to get anybody to sit upon it at all, and I suppose we shall have the spectacle of the noble and learned Viscount filling the same rôle as the Duke of Wellington who, in former days, represented in this House six posts in the Government at the same time. The noble and learned Viscount is quite equal to the charge, and if he is a multiform personage in the future I assure him we shall not spare him.
One word upon the point raised by the noble Viscount. He said that he was not afraid of a Labour Government coming into power. I was glad to hear him say that because it shows the vigilant and effective nature of the check which he personally is prepared to apply. I do not altogether share his feelings, but in one respect I am in agreement with him. He spoke about foreign affairs, and the historical tradition of continuity in foreign affairs, a tradition of which, I may be allowed to say, he has been a most consistent and loyal exponent, and to which to the best of my ability I have also adhered. Whether it be possible to arrive at the kind of agreement of which he speaks, by which Foreign Ministers shall act in-consultation as he suggests in great events, I cannot say. It would be difficult although perhaps not impracticable. If a Labour Government comes into power, and pursues a policy, whether it be exactly the same as ours or not, but a policy which is consistent with the dignity, honour and interest of the country as we regard them, there
50
will be no factious opposition here, any more than the noble Viscount has exposed us to factious opposition. I hope I shall be as incapable of it as he. But if, on the other hand, the violent proposals and schemes we sometimes hear foreshadowed in the speeches of important members of the Party that seem likely to take our place come before us, then I hope your Lordships, as you have on many occasions been called upon to do in the past, will remember that here perhaps more than in any place lies both the duty and the power of conserving those principles which lie at the root of good government and even of society itself.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, after the cordial invitation which the noble Marquess has given to me to give enlightenment to your Lordships' House I feel it is impossible for me to remain silent, however little light I may feel myself in a position to throw. But at least I need not be very long, because there are some topics from which I feel myself warned off. There is the delightful controversy between the Leader of the House and my noble friend, Lord Grey, upon the respective merits of the programmes of their Parties. Heaven forbid that I should enter upon that topic! With the speech of my noble friend beside me I found myself almost in entire agreement. For a moment I thought that he was making a speech as a Labour leader, until I recalled to myself that he was not, and it was only towards the end of his remarks that any question arose which raised doubt in my mind.
The noble Viscount spoke of the great principles which are the safeguards of our liberties and of the Constitution, and referring to the fourth, that of free speech, he spoke as if it had an appearance of being in slight peril and he alluded to that which had taken place at the recent Election. There is no doubt that at the recent Election there was a great deal of violent interruption and, on many occasions; a denial of a fair hearing. But I would remind my noble friend who sits by me of what took place when he and I entered Parliament together in the December of 1885, though that is a long time ago. A new Franchise Act had just been passed, and I remember my anxiety and, I think, his anxiety, too, to redeem ourselves from the reproach that our too enthusiastic supporters,

51
gifted with the new gift of an increased franchise that had been conferred upon them, would not allow the Conservative candidates to obtain a hearing at all. That was our fear in my constituency, and I think I recall something of the kind in his own constituency, which was adjacent to mine. It always happens, and it cannot help happening. You cannot keep your people within the restraint which you would like to impose. No authority in a Party can do it. They are very keen and deeply moved, and the result is that they are not very fair to the other side. Sometimes it happens among the supporters of our opponents, and I think we have all had difficulties of that kind. If anything of the kind happened the other day, I do not think that it was designed to put the great principle of free speech in peril. That is a principle to which the Labour Party are at least as much attached as any other Party in the State.
The noble Marquess, with his customary facility of phrase, dealt with the items of the most gracious Speech, and, with great dialectical skill, he dwelt mainly upon these items one by one. But that which has been impressing me has been more the appearance of these items taken in globo and looked at together than their effect when they are taken separately. The items themselves are excellent, admirable, but surely the shining raiment in which the Government has clothed itself under the agis of the Throne is a raiment which was measured and cut out for someone of a very different stature from that which the Government possesses at this time. Even a Government with a noble figure, a great majority, would have found this mantle a little long for it, and the Government of to-day has provided itself with a robe which will inevitably trail on the ground, and probably in the mud. Why they adopted a King's Speech of such a complex and enormous character I am puzzled to understand. Two course were open to the Prime Minister. One was to resign at once after the last Election, in which case he would have had an easier time, and I am not sure that his Party would not have had an easier time. The other course was to carry on, as Sir Robert Peel did under trying circumstances long ago, and that meant a very restricted and businesslike programme to which nobody could take exception. I am not saying that of the items which compose
52
the present gracious Speech there are not many to which no Party, neither the Labour Party nor anybody else, is likely to take exception, but I do say that the spirit means everything, and that the question will be whether the spirit which enters into these items and which animates the declarations of the Government is a spirit large enough to carry the thing on.
That which I am going to say is a criticism upon my noble friend, Lord Grey, as well as upon the noble Marquess. There has been growing, and steadily growing, a current of democracy. Every extension of the franchise has accelerated it, and now it is very large. They sit on the bank—and this, I agree with the noble Marquess, applies to both of them—they watch that current flowing, and they have taken very few steps and they have shown no earnestness about giving it a larger and more secure channel in which it can flow freely. I do not mean to say that much has been done in the way of damming it up, but some things have been done accidentally and, I think, unintentionally, which have had that tendency, and I think the result has been that the current, being dammed up, has threatened to overflow the land around the banks and to produce devastation. That always happens unless you are most particular to keep the channel in which public opinion in this country has to flow adequate to the requirements of the time.
Many of your Lordships are troubled at the idea of Labour coming to power, but this is not the first occasion upon which people have been troubled in this country, and troubled, as it has turned out, wholly without reason. In 1832 there was great terror, and what was the result? As soon as public opinion had a channel in which it could flow freely things became quiet, as they had not been for twenty years before the great Reform Act of 1832 was passed. When the Chartists' riots came about in 1848 almost every country in Europe was afflicted with a revolution except our own. The Chartists were making demands some of which were thought to be very violent, and the Whigs—not people who were altogether immaculate in their ideas, but very shrewd people—frankly refused to listen to the appeals which were made to them in this House and elsewhere to deal

53
with the Chartists as it was said they ought to be dealt with. The Chartists were threatening to march on London. Nobody threatens to march on anybody in these days, but that is what the Chartists did. What was done by the Whigs? Instead of retiring to the fortress and locking themselves up, which would probably have been disastrous, they spoke with the enemy within the gate and found him to be their own flesh and blood, very much like themselves. In the end very nearly the whole Chartist programme was incorporated into reforms which took place, the only exception being the annual Parliament, which was found to be unnecessary and which was put aside by the desire of all Parties.
The same thing happened again in 1868. We were then told that we were about to shoot Niagara. We passed a very great Franchise Bill, and there was much excitement, but the result again proved to be that public opinion, having found a channel in which it could flow, flowed freely in that channel, and there was a period of very fertile reform which went on until those leaders of the Progressive movement on both sides got out of date—became antiquated, as the Leader of the House suggested that the Liberals have now become. Then what happened? There was a new Franchise Act in 1895, which led to enormous changes, not only in the machinery of our Government but in the Constitution, and the result was that in the end there were such developments in Parliament and outside it that the country became animated by a very different political outlook Nothing wrong happened. There was security, and finally things went on developing under the influence of the War until the great Franchise Act of 1918 was passed by the Conservative Party, which added enormously to the electorate, bringing it up to over 20,000,000. The noble Marquess took no exception to that Act. It was an Act which gave to a great many people the opportunity for that freedom of speech of which we have heard tonight and enabled them to express their views.
Inevitably, as in the case of the earlier movement, something new has developed—new demands and higher standards, and if you want to know why these higher standards have developed it is easy to ascertain Go to Glasgow, where
54
it is said that such violent things are happening, and get anybody to take you over the slums of that City. See the horrible overcrowded tenements in which the people are housed. Look at the misery caused by unemployment on the Clydeside, and then ask yourselves whether it is wonderful that in Glasgow things are being carried on rather violently. But it is not only in Glasgow—it is everywhere. Go to our mining villages. I know some mining villages which are perfect models—there everything possible has been done-but I know-other pits where the villages at the pitheads are not places where you could possibly breed Yahoos, much less human beings. Those things exist still, although they are much better than they were. Still they are bad enough to make a very great difference.
There was a nobleman who sat for a long time in this House and who did notable work for the State. I mean the late Lord Shaftesbury. He used language in this House which was violent. He spoke, and he was resisted. He spoke of these things with which I have been dealing. He had very little to support him, but in the end he triumphed, as that sort of appeal must always triumph when it is based on reason, but not until very strong language had been used. All over there is a heightening of standards—a desire on the part of the people to have more of a chance of life on the same footing as their neighbours. I have probably addressed as many meetings on the subject of the education of the people as anybody in this country in the past few years, and it has brought me in contact with working men and women, who were not thinking about wages but of a chance of better education for their children. Those are things we have looked on at in the past, and the result is that you have had 192 votes returned to the House of Commons, there to secure that there shall be a better standard of things in this country, and that we shall no longer relapse into the old ways. It is a deep regret to me to find myself separated from my old Liberal friends. I was brought up in the traditions of the Liberal Party, and I hold them still, and it is only because I hold strongly that it is not a question of what we can control but of what are the facts, that I am satisfied there is this great new movement which,

55
if it be not put into shape and not given its chance, will make itself one very difficult for the Government of the King.
In the gracious Speech there are a great many valuable items. I do not say anything about the relations with the Dominions—there is a little difficulty about those, as we shall hear hereafter—but there is a reference to the failure of the policy of Protection. I sometimes wonder why we are so unimaginative. We live on an island, and that is an important consideration for two reasons. In the first place, it necessitates our getting our food and raw materials across the seas. Otherwise we should sink into the condition of an over-populated and discontented nation, which might be reduced to miserable starvation. In the second place, it brings about a national sentiment which demands a large Navy to keep the seas policed. To enable the stuff to come to us we require a Navy which can take sufficient care of our affairs as to ensure our safety against starvation. I was glad to see in the Speech from the Throne a reference to cruisers, which I assume to be for the purpose of looking after our trade routes. The subject of trade routes is one which has been very much neglected, and if this means that study has been given to trade routes then I think it is a good point, and certainly not one which is likely to be overlooked by any Government that comes afterwards.
Then there is the question of the air. Nothing is more damaging to your diplomacy than to find itself in a weak position in which it may be threatened without any power to assert itself. We have been in a false position owing to our insufficient Air Force. We are in a position of some peril without a proper Air Force, and I am glad to see reference to that in the King's Speech. In fact, the whole question of defence is one which wants careful study—not study which I believe will lead in the end to an increase of armaments, but study for this reason, that much as you may wish to cut down your armaments you cannot do it unless other people agree to join in the reduction of armaments, too. I agree that what we have to aim at is to bring that idea about, and to bring it about in the form of the League of Nations, which will be our deliverance from armaments in the end. But we have to get there first.
56
And now there is a criticism which I will venture to make upon what the noble Marquess said. It is all very well to say: "We have done this and done that, and we have been so diligent in negotiations and so active in pushing forward all proper claims"; but there is one defect which we have as a nation, and which there has not been much serious attempt to rectify of late years. We are extremely bad at making ourselves understood by other nations. We are very insular. We have insular minds, and it is not so easy for us as it is at least for some foreigners to make ourselves intelligible to other people. After all, whether you go to Paris, or Washington, or Berlin, or Rome, or even to Moscow, you find that men and women talk very much in the same way. They have the same ideas; they have far more in common than they have in difference. And it has always been our fault that we have not endeavoured to speak in the full and frank way in which Mr. Ramsay MacDonald spoke in the speech which he delivered in the Albert Hall the other day. More communication, more openness and, above all, more of what I will call the international mind, and more freedom in our intercourse with our neighbours—these are the things which, I believe, will do more to get over some of the difficulties with which we are faced than anything else.
Of course, I know that it is all very difficult, and that it must be very slow. The point I am making is that it is a feature in which I think our foreign relations have been defective in the past. Go where you will, you always find the same thing—that we are a people difficult to understand, suspected of having things up our sleeve, which we never have, and altogether sparing of ourselves in taking the trouble to get into the heart of other nations. If that ceased, and if the foreign policy of the Labour Government can do anything to make that less than it is at present, then I think it will have accomplished something worth doing. They have only 192 votes in the other House, and, even supposing a Labour Government came into office, I do not think your Lordships are in danger of anything revolutionary being passed in the form of Statutes—for, without the necessity of my taking care of things here, as the noble Marquess suggested, they will be taken care of elsewhere. But

57
there is a great deal that can be done and ought to be done in the way of administration.
This morning I read in The Times a letter written by Lord Esher on the subject of the reform of administration in this country. It is a subject to which very little attention has been given, and in regard to which the need of reform is very great. We waste money horribly by bad administration. A good deal of it might be cured, but there are some parts of it which we could not and do not want to cure. There are some odd ceremonies and institutions which have been handed down from antiquity and are our pride. I see a representative of one of them sitting near me, the noble Marquess, Lord Lincolnshire. He is the Lord Great Chamberlain, and responsible for the Palace of Westminster, but he is not appointed by any Government. Unlike the Lord Chamberlain—a wholly different official—he is not there by any popular voice; he holds by a different title. He holds an incorporeal hereditament which has descended to him from the time of William Rufus, and he is the traditional and lawful heir to whom that office has now descended. As Lord Great Chamberlain he exercises various functions which are extremely difficult to define in relation to those of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and to other authorities who have the control of this House. But we do not complain. We put up with such inconveniences as there may be in order to keep up a great tradition which, after all, is as much esteemed by those who depend on us as by ourselves. It is administration of a different kind which wants looking into, and there is a good deal of it required.
If you take these things together—if you take the field of administration, if you consider what can be done in making ourselves more easy of access to foreign nations, if you take the whole area of reform which is urgently called for in order to bring the state of our laws and institutions up to the standard of the time, then there is ample field for a Labour Government to work in, without its being even tempted to do anything revolutionary. Its hands will be full if it does that. For my part, I have not the slightest fear that your Lordships will be put to those alarums of which we have heard something even this afternoon. The task is difficult enough, and it is very
58
likely that little of it may be accomplished, but at least it calls for the greatest effort we can make, for the way of contentment and the way of peace is the way of the redress of inequalities and injustices which afflict large numbers of your fellow countrymen without your being adequately aware of it. Our business is to inform ourselves fully and completely of these things, and then to do the utmost that lies in our power to bring about their reform.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, the admirable but hardly laconic speeches which have adorned the debate in your Lordships' House to-night have brought our proceedings to a point at which your Lordships usually find it convenient to adjourn. But I am none the less hopeful that for a few moments I may be permitted to make some observations about the present position of politics, as revealed partially and incompletely by the King's Speech, and as it presents itself to my mind. For, in the five years during which I have been a member of this House I have never listened to a debate which had so little contact with reality.
The noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down has indicated to us in vague and nebulous language some of the benefits which he obscurely thinks may result from a Labour Government, if and when it is formed. He has spoken to us of housing conditions in Glasgow—housing conditions to which, give me leave to remind the noble and learned Viscount, I called attention when I was a member of the Opposition in the House of Commons, when Mr. John Burns, who did nothing for housing except use it for his perorations, resisted the appeal which I made. The noble and learned Viscount was then his colleague, and, instead of pointing out and insisting with his colleagues that these causes would breed that Socialism from which, if I read his obscure phrase aright, the noble Viscount to-day is to benefit, he remained in that majestic silence which, I know, to him is the most difficult of all poses.
And I am bound to make this further observation. The noble Marquess, with apprehension, has called attention to the possibility that alone the noble and learned Viscount may sit upon the front Government Bench. I would have reminded the noble Marquess, if at a moment like this it was my purpose to

59
challenge controversy with him, that I gave two repeated warnings in the last twelve months that this very crisis would find this House unreformed and unfit to he an instrument of Government. My warnings were treated with complete contempt. On two occasions I was told that in two years the Government would advise the House of Lords to reform itself, and in the meantime we have embraced an electioneering adventure which is likely to place a Socialist Government in power, with this House utterly unequipped to he even an instrument of government.
I raised an issue in this House which I hoped might have won the assistance of the noble Viscount, Lord Grey, for at least we had gained from a Coalition Government—the Government which he thinks so unwholesome—a measure of agreement in the Committee presided over by the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, the Leader of the House, which gave us four vital things. We agreed upon the principle that we might have life Peers. We agreed that it should not be in the power of the Speaker of the House of Commons alone to determine what were the conditions of a Financial Bill—where, believe me, is the dynamite of your Socialist Government. We agreed that under the terms of the Parliament Act its own provisions could neither be extended nor modified. All that was swept away. All that would have been law to-day, with vital protection to the liberties of this House and to the liberties of the subject.
But those who were wiser swept the Government away. They said it was un-wholesome to ask for or to maintain any power of combination in men belonging to different Parties who in a period of great crisis were able to arrive at a large measure of mutual accommodation. It was swept away; it was unwholesome; its place was taken by the Die-Hards. Where have the Die-Hards planted the country to-day ? They have planted it in this position, that within three days without any protection to this House, with no reform, we are to have in power a Socialist Government. What is our compensation? We have the smooth and easy assurance of the noble and learned Viscount. Lest it should be thought that I entertain any opinion unfriendly to himself, let me make it plain that when I sat upon the Woolsack none of my predecessors
60
gave me wiser, more friendly, or more sympathetic help than he did, and if it were a mere question of technical efficiency I should indeed rejoice to see him sitting once again upon the Woolsack which, in technical equipment, he formerly adorned.
To what are we drifting? The noble and learned Viscount says that he sees no great peril in attempting the adventure of a Socialist Government, and I hope and believe that he will be a member of such a Government. Was the noble and learned Viscount on the platform of the Albert Hall a few nights ago? Did he support his new colleagues while they began the proceedings by singing the "Marseillaise" and concluded them by, singing "The Red Flag"? Did he hear Mr. Clynes—and the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me for saying that even Mr. Clynes is a more important member of that movement than he is—say : "We cannot attain our objects without the reform of the whole capitalist system"? The question which I ask of the noble and learned Viscount before your Lordships and before the country is this: Is he or is he not in favour of the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange? That is the crucial and the final question. If he is, he is a Socialist. If he is not, he is indistinguishable in his political label from his old colleague who sits beside him on the Front Bench opposite to-day. I know perfectly well that the noble and learned Viscount will tell neither this House nor the country that he is a Socialist. Then what is his purpose in supporting a Socialist Government? He knows as well as every one of your Lordships knows that the whole spring of human endeavour depends upon an adequate motive being given to individual initiative.
What is the use of the noble and learned Viscount showering down snowstorms of words without contributing one single word on the only vital points which are engaging the attention at this moment of this House and of the country? There is not one of your Lordships who heard that speech who knows at this moment whether the noble and learned Viscount is a Socialist or not. I would gladly give way to him if he would tell me, because I would make some observations in further elucidation of his; but I know perfectly well that he will not tell me. He never

61
dealt in all his career in facts. He is incapable of dealing in facts. He is a muster of nebulosities. He is only really happy when he is dealing either with Einstein or Hegel. One cannot expect that anything concrete can come from him who, as I understand, is to lead the Labour Party in this House and to lead it without even being prepared to tell us whether he belongs to it or not. The noble and learned Viscount is a man of great resource. Never have I been prouder of the class to which I belong than I am at this moment. But I observe that cross-examination is not likely to lead to any profitable result as far as he is concerned and, therefore, I pass, with the permission of your Lordships, to another topic which I thought even more depressing and that was the contribution made to this debate by my noble friend Lord Grey.
The Leader of the House, extending I thought the kind, of indulgence which one always gives, and rightly gives, to those who move and second the Address in this House, said of the speech of the noble Viscount that it was important and far-reaching. I have the misfortune, and I must indicate the difference with courtesy, to differ from both his conclusions. I thought it neither important nor far-reaching.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I said remarkable and far-reaching.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Well, I did not think it very remarkable either. I do not think it either remarkable or far-reaching, nor can I conceive of one single point upon which this House and this country required guidance on which it received the slightest tittle of guidance from the speech made by the noble Viscount. What did he say? He told us in relation to France—and we must receive him in this House as the mouthpiece of the Liberal Party—that he greatly desired to see our friendly relations increase and that he maintained great anxiety as to the position in the Palatinate. What help is that? We have known for four years that we, all of us, wanted to maintain friendly relations with France, and we have known for four years that there was always some one or other point upon which France was making it utterly
62
impossible at that given moment to maintain friendly relations. Then he says that our one hope is in relation to the League of Nations. What you must do, says he, in relation to the League of Nations is to embrace within its scope every European nation and then to arm it with coercive power. We have had four years of the League of Nations, and the only experience we have had up to the present is that all the nations in Europe are not included in it and that it never could have been a powerful League unless the United States of America were also included. The noble Viscount knows as well as I do that there is not the slightest prospect of the United States coming into the League of Nations. And as far as the nations of Europe are concerned, all those who belong to it, whenever they have a quarrel that they particularly care about, carefully withdraw it from the jurisdiction of the League of Nations. As to arming it with power and force, who is going to arm it with power and force? Has there been the slightest indication in the last four years that any great nation in Europe is going to arm it with force?
Let us deal with realities, not with theories. How are we going to assist the debate on this Address by this kind of talk, which was very fashionable and very contemporary and very much in vogue when President Wilson visited Paris five years ago, but it has passed far, far from the contemplation and the expectations of reasonable men? Let me put this further question to the noble Viscount who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Party in this House. He says that the policy of the Unionist Party, which was Protection, has failed. So it did fail—at this Election. I hold no post mortem. I do not attempt to distribute praise or blame for the circumstances in which that issue arose. Let me accept it from the noble Viscount in his own words and at his own valuation—Protection has failed as a remedy. What remains? What is the only other remedy that any other-Party put forward? The only other remedy was the Capital Levy. Does the noble Viscount accept that? What is his argument? He says, in effect, that "in accordance with Liberal belief, I shall vote against every Party which proposes anything with which Liberals do not agree." Is there anything in the King's Speech with which Liberals do not agree?

63
Was he able to call attention to one paragraph in the Speech with which he did not agree?
Nevertheless, the Liberal Party, as we are told, by Mr. Asquith, and, I gather, by the noble Viscount, is to take the supreme responsibility of placing in power in this country a Government pledged to the disruption of the whole of our existing system, with the knowledge that that Government has behind it in support only one-third of the electors of this country. And the only defence of the noble Viscount is that he is going to vote on behalf of Liberal principles. Liberal principles! What are Liberal principles? Where are they? In what document are they contained? By what statesman who uses intelligible language can they be understood? They were not in the programme which was put forward at the last Election, because the Liberal Party carefully abstained from putting forth any programme at all. The noble Viscount's programme is for the future. While Lord Haldane, as a Socialist, is determining the affairs of this country and of the Empire, what is the noble Viscount and his Party going to do? They are going to vote, in accordance with the fluid and undefined Liberal principles, against everything with which they do not agree.
Let us work this out. First of all, the noble Marquess is dismissed with contumely from the Foreign Office, and all his colleagues go with him. What happens then? Mr. Ramsay MacDonald comes in, I suppose. It will not be long before somebody moves some Amendment, for instance, to the re-edited King's Speech, "that this House disagrees with the principles of Socialism." The noble Viscount will then no longer find himself in conflict with us. The noble Viscount will say: "Those are not Liberal principles which we can support." Out goes Ramsay MacDonald, and then, I suppose, in come Mr. Asquith and the noble Viscount. Is it reasonable of the noble Viscount, who brings so much magnanimity to these considerations, to think that if he has already turned out the Conservatives in obedience to Liberal principles, and the Socialists in obedience to Liberal principles, there is any particular reason why either of the two other Parties, who do not think there are any Liberal principles at all, should support him?
64
Then what is going to happen to the country? The Liberal Party having turned both these other Parties out, presumably Mr. Asquith, or very likely the noble Viscount, will be sent for by the King. He will be asked: "What is your programme?" "Liberal principles." "Who support them?" "Mr. Asquith and I do." "Have you a majority?" "No." "How are you going to carry on?" These are the principles of statecraft which the noble Viscount, with his long experience of politics, recommends to this House. No more reckless gamble was ever undertaken by men who have held the responsibility of great office. I distribute neither praise nor blame for that which has happened, because the consequences are too serious. The results are these. At this moment two-thirds of the electors of this country would vote against Socialism, yet the noble Viscount and his friends, by a vote unparalleled in recklessness in the political history of this country, are to enable one-third of this country to destroy, if they so wish—as they can by administrative action—the whole balance and equipoise of this ancient State.
I have never concealed, and I will not conceal, my view that the adequate and final reply to this menace can only be found in a combination of men of all Parties who definitely range themselves in this controversy on the side of those who believe that the whole of our prosperity depends upon private initiative and private enterprise. The Liberal Party, by the decision which they have taken, have undertaken, in my judgment, a greater measure of responsibility than any Party in our long political history has ever taken, and in reaching that decision—I deliberately make this prediction—they have sounded the knell of the doom of the Liberal Party.
On question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente, and Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The VISCOUNT HUTCHINSON (E. Donoughmore) appointed nemine dissentiente to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
Committee for Privileges—Appointed.
Committee for the Journals—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.
Appeal Committee—Appointed.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be reprinted.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (VISCOUNT NOVAR): My Lords, I beg leave to bring in a Bill to deal with the
66
property and endowments of the Church of Scotland, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Novar.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I understand there is to be a meeting of the House to-morrow, not for business but for the admission of a certain number of noble Lords who will be introduced to your Lordships' House. I would then suggest, unless any business is impending, that we adjourn till Monday, when we can decide what steps next to take.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.