Sitting of 29 June 1925

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
Bath Corporation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Sheffield Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Saint Mary's Church, Birmingham, and General Hospital Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Mansfield Corporation Bill [Lords],
Mid-Glamorgan Water Board Bill [Lords],
Royal Exchange Assurance Bill [Lords],
West Ham Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (New Capital) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a quarter-past Eight of the Clock.
Wemyss and District Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

EAST INDIA (BUDGET).
Address for Return of the Budget of the Governor-General of India in Council for 1925–26.—[Earl Winterton.]
NEW WRIT.
For County of Gloucester (Forest of Dean Division), in the room of JAMES WIGNALL, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Arthur Henderson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    ARMY (INDIANISATION).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will state the reason why Indians in India are not admitted into the Artillery or Air Forces?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I presume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to commissioned rank. His Majesty's Government sanctioned in 1923 the introduction of a scheme, of which I will send him details, intended in the first instance to test the ability of Indians to officer selected units of the Indian Army. They decided that before they could usefully consider the systematic admission of Indian officers to other branches of the combatant services they must be guided by the results of the first step, which, as I have stated, was taken only two years ago.

    SMALL-POX.
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state in what cities in India there have during the last two years been serious outbreaks of small-pox in which Europeans have been attacked; how many Europeans have been attacked; how many of them were un-vaccinated; and whether any, and, if so, how many, Europeans, vaccinated or un-vaccinated, died?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid I am unable to supply the information desired by the hon. Member, as the latest reports issued by the Public Health Commissioner in India and Provincial Directors of Public Health relate to the year 1922, and as the statistics of vaccination for and mortality from small-pox among Europeans are not separately tabulated, except for the European troops in India. I shall be

    1983
    glad to furnish the hon. Member with a copy of the report of the Public Health Commissioner for 1922 if he so desires.

    CIVIL SERVICE (BRITISH CANDIDATES).
    Sir WILLIAM LANE-MITCHELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware that a considerable number of vacancies which exist in the Home and Colonial services are likely to be offered at the forthcoming examinations to candidates who are also candidates for the Indian Civil Service and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider what steps can be taken to avoid the danger that a sufficient number of qualified British candidates may not remain available for India, in view of the small number of British candidates who have entered for the Indian Civil Service and of the urgent need of British recruits for that service?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend is fully alive to the contingency to which my hon. Friend refers. But the number of European candidates for all the Services to be recruited on the result of the open competition is, I understand, substantially in excess of the number of vacancies expected, and he does not consider that special measures are required at present.

    BURMA PROVINCIAL FOREST SERVICE.
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India has received a memorial from the Anglo-Indian Association, London, containing representations from the Burma Provincial Forest Service as to the conditions in that service; and if he is in a position to state what action, if any, the Secretary of State proposes to take in the matter?
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. The Provincial Forest Service in Burma is employed in a transferred department, under the control of the local government, by whom its officers are appointed, and to whom, and not to the Secretary of State in Council, its representations should be addressed. My Noble Friend is causing the Anglo-Indian Association to be informed accordingly.

    SIKAR (LAND TAX).
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can now state whether there
    1984
    has recently been an increase of 25 per cent. in the land tax levied on the peasants in the sub-State of Sikar; whether a number of them on protesting were arrested and punished, and what was the nature of the punishment inflicted on them; whether 18 peasants who had assembled on 5th March for the purposes of laying their grievances before the authorities were arrested without warrant; whether any charge has been preferred against them in a court of law; whether two of their leaders have been flogged; and whether he has any statement to make in the matter?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have not yet received any official information on this subject. A reference has been made to the Government of India.

    RAW SILK.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state the total amount of raw silk produced in India during the past 12 months; and the total amounts exported with countries of destination?
    Earl WINTERTON: As the reply to this question contains a number of figures and a tabular statement I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I regret that I have no information as regards the first part of the question; the total amounts of raw silk exported by sea from British India during the 12 months ending 31st March last, with countries of destination, so far as available, are shown in the following table:

    Raw (reeled) silk:

    lbs.

    To United Kingdom

    57,115

    To France

    51,010

    To Other countries

    42,831

    Total

    150,956

    Chasam (waste) and cocoons

    1,495,470

    Total raw silk

    1,646,426

    The last period for which more detailed statistics showing the destinations of exports of raw silk are available is the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1924, in respect of which the figures are as follows:
    Total amounts of raw silk (including waste and cocoons) exported by sea from British India during 1923–24, showing destinations.

    Destination.

    lbs.

    United Kingdom

    226,124

    Aden and dependencies

    1,953

    Federated Malay States

    5,920

    France

    924,754

    Italy

    422,901

    Siam

    10,680

    Indo-China

    1,640

    United States of America

    24,106

    Other countries

    1,489

    Total

    1,619,567

    CURRENCY.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state the intention of the Government in re-regard to the appointment of a Committee to consider the future currency policy of the Government of India?

    RUPEE (GOLD STANDARD).
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the partial restoration of the gold standard in this country, he will take the earliest possible opportunity of linking the rupee to gold at a ratio which is effective?
    Earl WINTERTON: I will answer these questions together. I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on 21st May, to which I cannot at present add anything.
    Sir F. WISE: Could the Noble Lord not press this matter, as since the last question was asked the rupee has risen in price?
    Earl WINTERTON: I will convey my hon. Friend's views to my Noble Friend the Secretary of State.

    VICEROY AND SECRETARY OF STATE (CONFERENCE).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has any statement to make about the decisions arrived at by the Government consequent on the conference which has been taking place between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India?
    Earl WINTERTON: The discussions between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy have naturally been confidential. The conclusions reached, if affirmed by the Cabinet, will be fully stated by my Noble Friend in another place. The House will have an opportunity of debating them when the India Office Vote is taken.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the Noble Lord in a position to deny the accuracy of the forecast recently published in the "Statesman" newspaper, of Calcutta?
    Earl WINTERTON: I cannot add anything to my answer. In due course an announcement will be made as to the result of these conversations.

    COTTON GOODS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the proposed abolition of the Excise Duty on Indian cotton goods and the institution of a system of Preference for British goods?
    Earl WINTERTON: My hon. Friend will realise that it would be altogether unusual for me to make any announcement on fiscal changes in India affecting future budgets; he has, no doubt, followed the recent discussions in the Legislative Assembly regarding the cotton excise.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state the imports into India during the past 12 months of cotton goods of all kinds, giving the countries of origin, together with comparative figures for the years 1913, 1922 and 1923?
    Earl WINTERTON: As the question involves a tabular statement, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HANNON: Are the Government making representations to India to give as much consideration as possible to imports into India of British products, in the shape of cotton goods?
    Earl WINTERTON: That does not arise out of the question, which merely asks if I can state the imports into India of cotton goods, and I have replied that, as the answer involves a number of figures, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Member is now asking a question as to policy.
    Following is the statement promised:

    STATEMENT showing the total value of cotton manufactured goods imported by sea into British India for the 12 months ending 31st March, 1925, giving the countries of origin together with the comparative figures for the years ending 31st March, 1914, 1923 and 1924.

    —

    1913–14.

    1922–23.

    1923–24.

    1924–25.

    Rs.

    Rs.

    Rs.

    Rs.

    United Kingdom

    …

    59,75,14,350

    59,22,57,379

    55,28,27.033

    65,82,32,861

    Gibraltar

    …

    —

    —

    7,452

    —

    Aden and Dependencies

    …

    34,830

    77,200

    25,336

    —

    Mesopotamia

    …

    —

    43,778

    12,626

    —

    Bahrein Islands

    …

    28,065

    3,522

    2,312

    —

    Ceylon

    …

    1,37,985

    3,05,262

    5,27,197

    —

    Straits Settlements (including Labuan).

    5,22,300

    21,88,265

    22,61,271

    —

    Hong Kong

    …

    2,98,230

    7,83,622

    6,89,060

    —

    Kenya Colony

    …

    —

    1,946

    4,048

    —

    Anglo-Egyptian Sudan

    …

    —

    5,460

    —

    —

    Mauritius and Dependencies

    …

    —

    21,728

    —

    —

    Australian Commonwealth

    …

    —

    13,033

    4,120

    —

    Germany

    …

    1,41,67,560

    9,82,131

    23,16,461

    —

    Netherlands

    …

    1,10,53,695

    1,05,54,509

    93,22,961

    81,79,264*

    Belgium

    …

    75,46,350

    4,51,902

    15,22,983

    —

    France

    …

    3,76,950

    1,86,821

    3,48,962

    —

    Switzerland

    …

    34,57,305

    45,36,559

    91,88,722

    88,33,831*

    Italy

    …

    99,14,700

    23,98,767

    56,72,390

    76,38,481*

    Austria

    …

    33,77,280

    1,77,117

    6,47,908

    —

    Hungary

    …

    663

    —

    Czechoslovakia

    …

    —

    1,58,361

    1,81,263

    —

    Java

    …

    21,525

    1,24,840

    4,92,598

    —

    Borneo (Dutch)

    …

    —

    —

    76,500

    —

    China (exclusive of Hong Kong and Macao)

    13,185

    11,77,489

    27,26,538

    —

    Japan

    …

    1,20,48,900

    8,19,40,247

    8,35,48,472

    11,19,55,545*

    United States of America

    …

    26,16,750

    28,61,531

    32,92,954

    32,23,987*

    Other Countries

    …

    12,510

    48,823

    45,453

    2,51,87,340

    Total

    Rs.

    66,29,92,650

    70,13,02,032

    67,48,45,756

    82,32,51,509

    *The figures of imports from these countries are not exhaustive totals, some part of the value of goods imported from them may be included in the figure for "other countries."

    BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government has in recent times received any indication of Bolshevist agitation in India or on the frontier?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend means by "Bolshevist agitation." Attempts at Bolshevist propaganda in India and on the frontier are continuous, and are openly advocated by the Communist leaders in Russia.

    BERHAMPORE GAOL (TREATMENT OF PRISONERS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that
    1988
    prisoners in Berhampore Gaol are on hunger-strike as a protest against the Government of India's refusal of their request for articles necessary for daily worship; and whether he will see that the policy of non-interference with religious customs is extended to prisons?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have not received any Report on this matter, but would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Lambeth on the 18th June.

    POLITICAL AND TRADE CONDITIONS.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day before the end of the present Session for discussion of the present political and trade conditions in India?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The whole question of political and economic conditions in India can be raised when the India Office Vote is before the House.

  GOLD COAST (MINE WORKERS).
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received the Report upon the health statistics of the native mine workers in Gold Coast Colony; and whether it is proposed to publish this Report?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The Report has been published on behalf of the Gold Coast Government by the Crown Agents for the Colonies, and copies may be purchased from them. I will place a copy in the Library.

  KENYA AND UGANDA (BICYCLE IMPORTS).
  Sir SYDNEY HENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the number of bicycles imported into Kenya and Uganda during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively?
  Mr. AMERY: The number of bicycles imported into Kenya and Uganda was 383 in 1928, 2,767 in 1923 and 17,430 in 1924.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the increase? For what are the bicycles used?
  Mr. AMERY: The natives are acquiring the habit of riding bicycles.

  NYASALAND (A. L. BRUCE ESTATES).
  Sir S. HENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the acreages given in the Report of the East Africa Commission by the A. L. Bruce Estates, Limited, and the British Central Africa Company, in Nyasaland, are incorrect; is he able to state what acreage of the A. L. Bruce Estates, Limited, is developed; and whether, in fact, rent is charged by
  1990
  the company to natives resident on the estates?
  Mr. AMERY: I regret that the figures for the acreages of these estates, as given to the Commission, appear to have been interchanged. I am now informed that the actual acreage of the A. L. Bruce Estates, Limited, is 169,326, of which 162,000 is in a single block. On this estate, in addition to native gardens, there are 31 plantations in cultivation of not less than 200 acres each. The company does not, in fact, charge rent, resident natives being only expected to put in two months' work a year at the standard rate of wages.

  KENYA.

    RAIDS FROM NEIGHBOURING TERRITORY.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Reports have been made by the Kenya Government to the Home Government protesting against the raids into Kenya from neighbouring territory; whether he can say for what purpose these raids are carried out; and whether he is prepared to give an assurance that during these raids no British subjects have been captured and that no casualties have been suffered either by British subjects or British forces?
    Mr. AMERY: A comprehensive Report on this subject has been asked for as a result of the question of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney on the 16th March. I will bring the hon. and gallant Member's question to the notice of the Acting Governor in order that the Report already asked for may be amplified, if necessary, on any of the points which he mentions.

    RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION (NATIVE LABOUR).
    Mr. SNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, subsequent to March last, any further quota of the 4,000 labourers to be conscripted for railway construction in Kenya Colony has been called out; and, if so, how many have been recruited?
    Mr. AMERY: My information relates to the number of men actually working, which was 1,620 at the end of March, 2,493 at the end of April, and 1,587 at the

    1991
    end of May. On 10th June the Acting Governor reported that at that moment there was no need to compel labour for railway construction as voluntary labour was coming out satisfactorily.

    MASTERS' AND SERVANTS' ORDINANCE.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty has assented to the amendment of the Masters' and Servants' Ordinance, 1910, of Kenya, whereby a servant may be punished with rigorous imprisonment and/or fine up to 100s. for breach of a contract to work?
    Mr. AMERY: The provision referred to is exactly repeated from the former Ordinance (now repealed) of 1918, except for the change from 50 rupees to 100s. consequent on the change of currency. The Acting Governor has been informed that His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his power of disallowance in respect of the new Ordinance.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Have any special circumstances arisen recently to cause this revision in the ordinance?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. In this respect the Ordinance has not been revised from the Ordinance of 1918. The alteration to which the hon. Member refers in the 1910 Ordinance was a part of the Ordinance of 1918, and the present Ordinance brings it up to date.

  TANGANYIKA.
  Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the cost of administration of German East Africa in 1913; how many officials, civil and military, were required to administer that territory in that year; and what are the corresponding figures for the year 1923–24?
  Mr. AMERY: Excluding extraordinary or capital expenditure, the figures are as follow:

  1923–24.

  £

  German

  1,025,250*

  British

  1,406,464

  * Converting marks at 20 to the £.

  1992
  Including extraordinary or capital expenditure, the totals are:

  1923–24.

  £

  German

  2,737,750

  British

  1,901,158

  European officials employed by the Government of the German East Africa Protectorate in 1914: 1,120.
  European officials employed by the Government of the Tanganyika Territory in 1924: 860.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the rise in the cost of living so that we may have some comparison of the real values?
  Mr. AMERY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will calculate it. He will see that the cost of British administration allows for that factor.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it the case that sanitary services are falling into disuse to a certain extent because of the small amount which is allowed to be spent on them?
  Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. I hope we shall be able to spend more upon them.

  CROWN COLONIES, AFRICA (MEDICAL SERVICES).
  Lieut.-Colonel McDONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of qualified medical officers allowed for in the establishments of the West African Crown Colonies and East African Crown Colonies and Protectorates respectively; whether all the positions are filled; and, if not, what is the number under authorised establishment strength?
  Mr. AMERY: The Estimates of the four West African Colonies provide for a total of 246 qualified medical officers. There are at present 32 vacancies after allowing for selected candidates at present under instruction in tropical medicine. In the East African Medical Service, which includes the medical staff of Kenya, Uganda, Nyasaland, Zanzibar, Somali-land and Tanganyika, the authorised strength is 152. There are seven posts unfilled. The medical department of Northern Rhodesia has an establishment of 13 medical officers, and there is one vacancy at present.

  CROWN AGENTS (DUTIES).
  Lieut.-Colonel McDONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the. functions of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, as laid down in the White Paper dated March, 1904, have been modified so as to authorise them to act as consulting engineers or give technical advice to the Secretary of State or Crown Colony Government in connection with the construction of railways, harbour works, or other important public works?
  Mr. AMERY: The instructions of. 1904 are no longer up to date. The Crown Agents have for many years past advised the Secretary of State and Colonial Governments on railway and other technical matters which are referred to them. They are not, however, responsible for railway construction; similarly for harbour or large electrical works they employ special consulting engineers.

  NIGERIA (COTTON EXPORTS).
  Mr. SANDEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total quantity of American type of cotton exported from Nigeria in the seasons 1923–24 and 1924–25 respectively; what percentage of the 1924–25 crop was marked as first-grade lint; and what was the average Liverpool price obtained?
  Mr. AMERY: In 1923–24 the total number of bales of 400 lbs. weight of lint of American type purchased for export was 15,704; in 1924–25 it is estimated at a minimum of 26,000 bales. About 94 per cent. was classed as first grade in the colony. The average price in Liverpool in the 1924–25 season has been 13725 pence per pound of lint.

  MALTA (TRADE UNIONS LEGISLATION).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Trades Union (Constitution) Act, disfranchising Maltese trades unions that are affiliated to British trades unions, was passed without having in the Maltese assembly the majority of two-thirds required by the constitution; and whether, seeing the Act has been reserved
  1994
  for the assent of His Majesty, he will say what action he proposes to take in regard to this Measure?
  Mr. AMERY: The Bill referred to has not yet reached me. When it does, I will consider the points raised by the hon. Member before tendering any advice to His Majesty with regard to it.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: How many Maltese trade unions are there in working order?
  Mr. AMERY: I could not answer that question off-hand.

  NAIROBI-VICTORIA FALLS ROAD.
  Sir W. de FRECEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to build the recommended new road from Nairobi to Victoria Falls; and whether the general programme of works in East Africa can be expedited so as to give employment here?
  Mr. AMERY: This is one of the recommendations of the East Africa Commission, on which it is for the present impossible for me to make any statement. I may remind my hon. Friend that for the finance of this and other schemes the Commission have recommended a course which will necessitate Parliamentary approval. With regard to the last part of the question, works already approved are being pressed on as quickly as possible and as far as financial considerations will allow.

  IRISH FREE STATE.

    ATTACK ON BRITISH SOLDIERS, QUEENSTOWN.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any persons have been arrested in the Irish Free State for complicity in the murders and wounding of British officers and soldiers at Queenstown in May, 1924; and if the Colonial Office has made any representations in this matter recently?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part, as the hon. and gallant Member was informed on the 1st April last, His Majesty's Government are satisfied that every effort has been

    1995
    made by the Government of the Irish Free State to trace the perpetrators of this outrage, and there would not, therefore, appear to be any ground for representations in the matter.
    Colonel GRETTON: Have His Majesty's Government given up all hope of anyone being brought to justice in connection with this outrage?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir, I would not say that. I do say that the Free State Government have made every effort to try to trace the perpetrators.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Has any compensation been given to the relatives of these men?
    Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. That question has been dealt with already.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Has the ownership of the Rolls-Royce car, on which the machine guns were mounted which shot down our men, been ascertained; have inquiries been made as to what became of it, or who owned it?
    Mr. AMERY: I must ask for notice of that question.

    TREATY (ASSESSMENT).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the arrears in the contributions to the British Exchequer due from the Irish Free State under Article V of the Treaty; and what steps are being taken to obtain the payments due?
    Mr. AMERY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) on 5th May last. No determination has yet been made under Article V of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty, and no question of arrears has therefore as yet arisen.
    Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman means to tell the House that no assessment has been made and no payments have been made in accordance with Article V?
    Mr. AMERY: I think I have made it clear before that the British statement of claim has been put forward. Naturally there may be counter-claims and other points to be settled before a definite assessment can be arrived at.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Cannot we be informed of the reason for the terrible delay which has occurred in getting some of the many millions due to this country—of which we are very much in need?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has not the delay in connection with the findings of the Boundary Commission something to do with it?
    Mr. AMERY: That may be one of the factors in the case.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is not Ulster being made to pay, although the boundary applies to Ulster as well as to the Free State?

  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

    ADMISSION CHARGE.
    Colonel DAYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the fact that the small daily attendances at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley are caused through the great majority of the people living in Greater London being unable to visit it during the daytime on account of their employment and to the high price of admission charged, he will consider recommending to the management committee the reduction of the admission price to half-price at 6 p.m. each day?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): No, Sir. I am informed by the British Empire Exhibition authorities that the number of visitors who, in 1924, took advantage of the reduction then granted after 5 p.m. was not sufficient to warrant its re-introduction this year.
    Mr. HARRIS: What do the Government intend to do to stimulate attendances at the exhibition, so that the nation shall not be called upon to pay the guarantee?
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: As the figures for this year are very unsatisfactory, and as it is very possible the exhibition will continue for a considerable period, will the hon. Gentleman make these representations to the authorities?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; those authorities will, of course, see and take into consideration the suggestions of hon. Members.

    PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what have been the average daily figures of attendances at the British Empire Exhibition for the period 15th May to 15th June; what has been the highest and lowest figure of attendance since the exhibition has been opened this year; how do these figures compare, respectively, for the same dates of 1924; and what steps are to be taken to give greater publicity to the merits of the exhibition?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed by the exhibition authorities that the average daily attendance from 15th May-15th June, 1925, was 60,565; that the highest and lowest daily figures this year are 243,292 and 33,934 respectively, and that the corresponding figures for last year were 102,403, 321,232 and 25,784 respectively. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that the exhibition authorities are devoting as much of their resources as possible to publicity, and I am confident they will continue to receive the patriotic support which they have always enjoyed from the Press. I would remind the hon. Members that they can themselves render great assistance by drawing attention to the merits of this great Imperial enterprise in their own constituencies.
    Sir W. de FRECE: Is it not a fact that the exhibition authorities have reduced their publicity arrangements on account of the expense?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say offhand. If the hon. Member puts down a question, I will have inquiry made.
    Colonel DAY: In view of the great decrease in attendances, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the maximum amount which the Government will be asked to find this year?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It would be impossible to answer the question as to what the attendances will be in the coming weeks.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.

    WIRELESS RECEPTION.
    Colonel DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Com-
    1998
    missioner of Works, whether he will consider the desirability of the provision of a wireless receiving set in one of the smoking rooms for use of Members of this House?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): I am not aware that there is any demand for an installation of this sort.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the pressure of business before the House, he will arrange that the House meet on alternate days, giving the other days for uninterrupted Committee work upstairs and allowing all Members of the House to be present at Debates in the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I do not think that the hon. Member's proposal is practicable, or would meet the purpose which he has in view.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that outside this House the electorate are beginning to feel that a House which cannot organise its own business cannot organise an Empire?

  CHINA.

    SHANTUNG RAILWAY.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether China offered cash payment for the services rendered in connection with the conquest of the Shantung Railway from the Germans; if such cash payment was refused by Japan; whether he is aware that the Washington Conference in 1921 compelled China to raise a Shantung Railway loan, borrowing from Japan for this purpose; whether the British Government associated itself with this policy; and what were the terms of the loan?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): No such offer appears to have been made by China. No such railway loan was made. The railway was paid for with Chinese Government Treasury Notes, secured on the properties and revenues of the railway. Agreement on the subject was reached between China, and Japan at Washington, but outside the Conference, and His Majesty's Government did not intervene.

    CONSORTIUM.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government supported the Consortium in China in 1913 in its negotiations for the lending of £25,000,000 to President Yuan; and whether he is aware that, as a result of the conditions attached to the loan, the Government of the United States announced its refusal to give moral support to the Consortium?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: After the Chinese revolution of 1911, it became evident that a large loan was necessary to enable the new government, under President Yuan Shih-kai, to consolidate its position, and negotiations for such a loan were begun at the instance of the American group in the Consortium; but, as these negotiations drew towards a conclusion, the administration of President Wilson, which had meanwhile come into power in the United States, issued instructions to the American group to withdraw from the loan, for reasons which were not clearly defined but which appear to have been based on the idea that some of the conditions attached to the loan might be held to infringe the sovereign rights of China. This decision, however, did not imply a refusal on the part of the United States Government to give moral support to the principles on which the Consortium is based, as is shown by the fact that the Consortium was reformed after the War on the initiative of the United States Government, whose instructions to the American bankers concerned contained a full re-statement of the policy of co-operation which they favoured in the matter of loans to the Chinese Government.

    RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT, HUNAN AND HUPEH.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British Government representatives objected to the projected railway development in the provinces of Hunan and Hupeh on the ground that British nationals held preferential con cessions from the late Viceroy, Chang Chih Tung, and if he can state the nature of these concessions and the considerations for which they were given?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to trace the incident to which the hon. Mem-
    2000
    ber refers, but if he will give me the date and any other particulars in his possession, I will look into the matter.

    DISTURBANCES.
    Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the disturbances in China were fostered or aggravated by agents of another Government, he has now decided what action he will take to secure the cessation of such activities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This question involves wide political issues, with which it is not possible to deal by means of question and answer.
    Sir A. KNOX: Are we to understand that His Majesty's Government are not making any representations on this subject yet?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made no representations. This raises large and very important questions, which really cannot be handled by means of question and answer.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not it is an express provision of the Trade Agreement that Russian emissaries should cease their propaganda against the British Empire, and, failing that, that the Agreement should be forfeited?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a question not of propaganda against the British Empire but of Russian propaganda against the combined diplomatic body in China.
    Mr. THURTLE rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member's question had better be put on the Paper.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in this matter? Is it within the ordinary procedure of this House for an hon. Member to put down a question which definitely states that some other Government has caused certain disturbances in some other nation, unless substantial proof can be given of the statement made?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not see anything which was a ground for refusing this

    2001
    question. The Foreign Secretary has a right to decline to answer a question of this kind.
    Mr. MACKINDER: On a point of Order. May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the question on the Paper it states: "in view of the fact" that certain things have happened? Is it possible for us to get to know how that has been stated as a fact?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that would be a matter for me. I usually watch these questions very carefully, to see if they contain unfair implications.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the question on the Paper is based on the statement made by the Foreign Secretary himself?
    Mr. BASIL PETO: Is it not a fact that in the official organ of the Soviet Government, Zinovieff has gloried in the fact that he is at the bottom of these disturbances?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Russia on the brain!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I can do anything more. I did not see a ground for refusing the question.

  HOUSING.

    RURAL DISTRICTS.
    Mr. FOOT MITCHELLasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, according to the view of his Department, the erection of houses for agricultural labourers in the rural districts is being substantially met?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is aware that there is still a shortage of housing accommodation in agricultural districts, in common with the rest of the country, and the problem is receiving his serious and continued attention. I may mention that since 1919 some 75,000 houses have been erected in rural districts under the Housing Acts, and during the past two and a half years over 53,000 by private enterprise without the aid of subsidy. My right hon. Friend anticipates that increasing advantage will be taken of the special Exchequer subsidy provided by the Housing Acts for the erection of houses in agricultural parishes, and he has hopes
    2002
    that alternative methods of house construction will contribute something towards the housing needs of these parishes.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the 75,000 to which he has referred were largely erected for miners in new mining districts, and that the 53,000 built by private enterprise were largely erected for sale, and that they in no way serve the needs of the agriculturists in the various agricultural areas?
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that, in answer to a question in this House last week, the Minister gave the figures as to the number of houses built in districts of this character, and that they were very small, and does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do anything to remedy that?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have no knowledge as to the question to which the hon. Member refers, but, so far as the number of houses erected are concerned, the figures that I have given are perfectly correct. As the hon. Gentleman knows, further efforts are being made to assist in housing in these particular areas, and I know we can rely upon his support in this connection.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the hon. Gentleman not give any idea as to the proportion of these 75,000 houses that were built for agricultural labourers?
    Sir K. WOOD: No. If the hon. Baronet will put down a question, I will endeavour to ascertain the figures.

    ABBEY HULTON (HOUSING SCHEME).
    Mr. MacLARENasked the Minister of Health the number of acres of land to be acquired by the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation for their housing scheme at Abbey Hulton; and if he can state the present rateable value of this land and the price demanded by present owners?
    Sir K. WOOD: The area of the land proposed to be acquired by the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation at Abbey Hulton is 39·376 acres. My right hon. Friend is unable to furnish the hon. Member with the information asked for in the second part of the question, but will communicate with the authority and let the hon. Member know the result of his inquiries.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that it is not a question of the high price of land that has caused the jumps up of the rent, but that it is the interest they have to pay on the loans?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Would it not be possible for the Member representing the City of Stoke-upon-Trent to obtain the information from the Town Clerk if he wished for it?

    CROFTON PARK.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the floors and woodwork of the new houses situated at Ewhurst Road, Crofton Park, built under the Housing Act, 1923, are in a very bad condition; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter to see that the houses are kept in a good condition of repair?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend was not previously aware of the matter to which the hon. Member refers, but will make inquiries.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.
    Mr. ATTLEEasked the Minister of Health what local authorities in England and Wales have not promoted housing schemes under either the Housing Act, 1923, or the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is having a statement prepared for the hon. Member.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    NEUTRAL MARKETS (CREDIT).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if, taking the chief countries with which in neutral markets we are in competition, he can give some idea of the length of credit granted by their respective chief firms?
    Mr. SAMUEL: If my hon. Friend will indicate which are the chief countries, and also the particular neutral markets and chief firms and commodities to which his inquiry is directed, I shall be glad to communicate to him any information which may be available in my Department.

    BALFOUR COMMITTEE.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister when he anticipates receiving the first interim Report of the Balfour Committee on Trade and Industry?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. I am informed that a1 first volume, entitled "Surveys of Overseas Markets," is about to be published. The volume is based on material furnished to the Committee from official sources, with an introduction by the Committee. It will not contain the Committee's recommendations, as they cannot be formulated until the Committee are able to consider the effect of the evidence as a whole. The Committee have received by now most of the evidence they propose to take, but the representatives of certain important organisations remain to be heard.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the present condition of trade, will the hon. Gentleman press the Committee to make recommendations at an early date, so that they will be available for His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir.

  SUMMER TIME BILL.
  Mr. COOPER RAWSONasked the Prime Minister when it will be possible to give the promised time for the Report stage and Third Reading of the Summer Time Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In the present state of Parliamentary business, I regret that it is not yet possible for me to make any statement.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did we not understand that this Bill would be passed into law, and did not the Government star it for the purpose?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that there are some differences of opinion with regard to this Bill. If each side would be content to take something less than the maximum desired, it might be passed by agreement, but if the Bill is a controversial Bill, as it appears to be at the moment, I am very much afraid it will be difficult to find time for it, owing to the congestion of Parliamentary business.
  Mr. BASIL PETO: Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary, on the Second Reading of the Bill definitely gave a pledge that these controversial questions would be settled by a free vote of this House?
  Mr. RAWSON: In view of the majority by which the Bill was passed in this House, and in view of the fact that all the arguments on both sides have been exhausted—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—in the opinion of most people, anyhow, will not the right hon. Gentleman give an evening after 8.15 to dispose of this question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I doubt if that would be sufficient.

  WESSEX FLAX FACTORIES, LTD.
  Colonel BURTONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Wessex Flax Factories, Limited, now in liquidation, owe a considerable sum of money to the flax growers of this country; whether he is in a position to state if any of the assets have been realised and, if so, the amount so realised; whether there is any possibility of a distribution of such assets; and, if so, can any date for such distribution be indicated?
  Major HENNESSY (for Mr. Edward Wood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The realisation of the assets of the company is practically completed, and a sum of about £4,000 will be available so far as the Ministry is concerned. In view of the losses sustained by the growers the Ministry has decided to forgo this sum and to distribute it pro rata among the growers. Instructions are being given to the Receiver accordingly, and my right hon. Friend hopes that the distribution will be made within the next few weeks.
  Colonel BURTON: Can the hon. and gallant Member tell us what the loss was, and what is the amount by which the growers of Somerset are still out of pocket?
  Major HENNESSY: I am afraid I cannot give that information, but I will ask my right hon. Friend.

  TITHE (DEPRECIATION).
  Captain GUNSTONasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give figures estimating the total loss to the clergy due to the depreciation of the tithe between the year 1884 and the year when the tithe again rose to par?
  Major HENNESSY: My right hon. Friend has no reliable information as to the actual amount of tithe rentcharge that was payable in each year to incumbents, but he is endeavouring to frame as close an estimate as possible, having regard to the various factors involved, and will communicate the result to my hon. and gallant Friend.

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY (HOURS OF WORK).
  Mr. LAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether representations have been made to the Government to the effect that the present legal limit on the miners' working day shall be extended to eight hours or modified in any other way; and, if so, whether he will state the Government's policy on this matter?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): I have been asked to reply. I understand that the present legal limit on hours of work underground in coal mines is one of the topics of the discussions now proceeding between the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation, but no authorative representations have as yet been made to the Government on the subject.
  Mr. LAWSON: Might I ask the Prime Minister if he can give the House the assurance that there will be no interference with the Mines Seven Hours Act, so as to allay the feeling caused by the suggestion of the owners as to the extension of hours?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The matter has not yet been considered, and I think it would be very inadvisable at this moment to say anything on the matter.
  Mr. LAWSON: I am extremely sorry to have to press the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him if he is not aware that the very suggestion on the part of the coal owners has roused a spirit in mining areas which is going to make negotiations on other matters very difficult; and, there-

  2007
  fore, could he not give a definite statement to the House that the Government will not interfere with the Seven Hours Act?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think very definite statements at this moment might tend to prejudice the very matters we hope to see settled.

  MEXICO.
  Mr. WARD LAW-MILNEasked the Prime Minister whether any communication has been received by the British Government from the Government of the United States in connection with the situation in Mexico, and whether he will intimate the concurrence of the British Government with any action forecast by that Government with the object of bringing about stable conditions in Mexico?
  Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I am not aware that any particular action has been forecast by the United States Government.

  GREECE.
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any official information with regard to recent disturbances in Greece?
  Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: My official information on this subject does not go beyond what has appeared in the Press, but it confirms the fact that General Pangalos, by a coup d'état, has overthrown the Government and installed himself, with the help of Admiral Hadjikiriakos, in power.

  TANGIER.
  Captain WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the obligations of the British Government for the protection of the Tangier zone; and whether any request has been received that British troops should be sent to protect the frontier?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government are parties to the Tangier
  2008
  Convention. By Article three, the Tangier zone is placed under a regime of permanent neutrality, and by Article four, the surveillance of contraband traffic in arms and munitions of war in the territorial waters of the Tangier zone is to be exercised jointly by British, Spanish, and French naval forces.
  I have this morning received a communication from the Spanish Government upon the subject, which I have not yet had time to consider, and I shall be obliged if the hon. and gallant Member will defer further questions.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  Commander LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to recover the losses incurred by British nationals in Russia from the Soviet?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has not so far been possible to take any effective steps.
  Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has come to repudiate a Government that repudiates its debts?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    CATTEWATER SEAPLANE STATION.
    Sir PHILIP PILDITCHasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the promontory of land known as Mount Batten, and forming part of the shore of Plymouth Sound which is to be taken over by the Air Ministry under the Cattewater seaplane station scheme, is the piece of land along which Drake warped the British Fleet out to gain its position to windward of the Spanish Armada; and whether he will take effective steps that the features of the land so historically valuable shall not be interfered with?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am aware that there are historical associations connected with Mount Batten promontory and the Sound. I have no reason to think that they are likely to be interfered with in

    2009
    any way as the result of the Air Force occupation of the station. No further construction work is. at present contemplated.

    CRANWELL FARM.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for Air what was the total cost of Cranwell farm, including all capital charges of outlay; what is the acreage of the farm; and how much per acre is being received from the present tenant?
    Sir S. HOARE: In answer to the first part of the question, the farm was part of a much larger area which was purchased as a whole by the Admiralty, and no separate purchase price can be quoted for it. The capital expenditure on buildings and fencing since purchase has been £3,945. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the acreage is 385, and the rent received is 10s. per acre for 343 acres and 15s. per acre for 42 acres.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think this is a very inadequate payment, seeing the cost of the ground and the money that has already been spent upon it?
    Sir S. HOARE: It was the best rent we could get in the neighbourhood. I do not think it compares unfavourably with the rent in the proximity of the station.

  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (PENSIONS).
  Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider appointing a committee to inquire into the whole pensions system as affecting different Government servants, with a view to removing some of the anomalies which exist?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to adopt this suggestion. A uniform pension system would not meet the diverse requirements of the various branches of the public service.
  Major HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that some of the more glaring anomalies and injustices of the present system should be remedied?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a different thing.

  INTERALLIED DEBTS.
  Sir F. WISEasked the Prime Minister if the United States of America has called a meeting of the World-War Foreign Debt Commission next month; and, if so, if the British Government will be represented?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Foreign Debt Commission is an organ of the United States Government, and I have no special information about its dates of meeting.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    EMPIRE SCHEMES.
    Mr. DIXEYasked the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the danger to the Empire caused by the present state of trade in this country, he will consider the culling together of representatives of the Dominions to see if Empire schemes can be formulated with the object of developing the resources of the Dominions and finding work for our unemployed population?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are engaged in furthering to the best of their ability inter-Imperial co-operation for the development of Empire resources and increased mutual employment on the lines agreed upon at the Imperial Economic Conference of 1923. I doubt whether at this stage the summoning of another Imperial Conference would materially advance the objects which we are all equally concerned to promote.
    Captain BRASS: Is it not a fact that the unemployment problem cannot be solved until the population in this country is decreased?

    MIDDLESBROUGH (POOR LAW RELIEF).
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that Middlesbrough town council after careful inquiry have estimated that even if a normal state of trade were resumed, 4,000 workmen would be permanently unemployed in that town, partly owing to the introduction of new machinery and new organisation, his department can suggest any means of utilising this surplus labour so as to prevent this large number of willing workmen being left permanently on unemployment payment or Poor Law relief?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The situation suggested by the hon. Member forms part of the general question of unemployment, on which a statement will be made this afternoon.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour what is the total amount of unemployment benefit paid under the Unemployment Insurance Acts since the Armistice; and the total amount paid, in addition to ex-Service men, munition workers, and others, as out-of-work pay since the same date?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The total amount of unemployment benefit paid from 18th November, 1918, to 30th May, 1925, is £206,118,000. In addition, out-of-work donation was paid amounting in the case of ex-Service men and women to £40,720,000, and in the case of civilians to £21,725,000.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Minister of Labour if it is the intention of the Government to reduce unemployment benefits; and, if so, for what reason?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The proposals of the Government will, I hope, be made known to Members almost immediately in the form of an Unemployment Insurance Bill. Meanwhile, I cannot disclose the contents of the Bill.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Labour what were the total amounts paid out in unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts during each of the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, and the amounts paid out to juveniles, persons between 65 and 70 years of age, and persons over 70, respectively, in the same years; and the average number in receipt of benefit during each of these years of juveniles, pensions between 65 and 70 years of age, and persons over 70 years of age, respectively?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The amount of Unemployment Benefit paid during the years 1922, 1923 and 1924 was £47,930,000, £39,360,000 and £37,880,000 respectively. The accounts of the Unemployment Fund are not kept in such a form as to distinguish between the sums paid to old persons, juveniles and others.

    RELIEF WORK.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour haw many unemployed persons have received employment since His Majesty's Government came into office, as a direct consequence of any proposals introduced by the Government?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The only figures available are those of persons directly employed on works put in hand for the relief of unemployment with assistance from the Government. The numbers so employed on the 30th May last and the 25th October, 1924, were respectively 110,183 and 91,351. These figures take no account of the employment provided indirectly.
    Mr. MORRISON: Are we to take it that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman represent the men who have been employed as the direct result of schemes introducd by the present Government?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, the figures are to be taken as I have given them. As I understand them, the figures are the figures of persons who have obtained employment or were in employment on the date mentioned. As the hon. Member knows, some of these schemes go on from year to year, and, of course, it is impossible at a particular date to say which Government is responsible for them.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that in all probability in the first six months of this year such workmen would be at work under schemes which were passed by the Government last year?
    Mr. BETTERTON: There, again, I cannot be certain.

  MILL MACHINERY (TRADE FACILITIES).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that, as admitted at the annual meeting of the Iron and Steel Institute, no serious attempt has been made in Britain to keep pace with the class of mill machinery installed by rival nations, the Government will guarantee the provision of new cheap capital to complete extensions and improvements of plant?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I assume that my Noble Friend has in mind assistance of the kind afforded under the Trade Facilities Acts, namely, the guarantee by the Government of loans raised for capital undertakings. Such assistance is already available, and it is open to any undertaking to apply to the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee for guarantees to loans to be spent in replacing obsolete and inefficient plant by modern machinery.

  IMPERIAL COMMITTEE OF CIVIL RESEARCH.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the social and economic problems with which the new Imperial Committee of Civil Research will be occupied, and in order to secure the most representative character in the Committee, he will give special sympathy to the claims of the Labour movement in this country for adequate representation on the Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. Member will have gathered from the copy of the Treasury Minute which I sent to him, it is proposed to invite the co-operation of outside specialists in the work of the sub-committees of the Committee of Civil Research. The choice of these specialists will not be restricted to any political party.

  POSTAL FACILITIES, DEPTFORD.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the sub-post office at New Cross Road, Deptford, has been removed to a comparatively inconvenient position; whether such office has been established there permanently or temporarily; and when it is intended to give effect to the promise given in July, 1924, to establish a district post office in the New Cross Road between the South-Eastern Railway station and the Broadway?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The sub-postmistress at 393, New Cross Road, Deptford, resigned her appointment in February last, and the office was moved about 80 yards to the premises of the only applicant. The question of estab-
  2014
  lishing a branch office in New Cross Road will be reconsidered in about a year's time, as explained to a deputation from the Deptford Borough Council in July last, and, in the event of a branch office being opened, the sub-office in question would probably be closed.

  POOR LAW RELIEF, WEST HAM
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health on what Act of Parliament he relies in fixing a maximum scale of relief, as a condition precedent to giving sanction to a loan asked for by the West Ham Board of Guardians and refused by the Goschen Committee because the board of guardians refused to assent to the scale of relief laid down for them to adopt?
  Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, in connection with the relief of destitution within the Poor Law union of West Ham, conditions have been imposed from time to time by the Government Committee responsible for granting loans to this local area tantamount to the establishment of a scale of relief; and whether he will state under what Act of Parliament the Ministry obtains power to fix scales of Poor Law relief?
  Sir K. WOOD: The present situation is that the guardians have applied to my right hon. Friend for a further loan from funds for which he is responsible to Parliament, and that he has asked the guardians to make such alterations in their administration as seem to him required to enable him to satisfy Parliament that the loan, if made, will be properly spent. No Act of Parliament is required for this purpose.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last Wednesday a statement was made in this House that the granting of outdoor relief in individual cases was a matter for the discretion of the board of guardians, after a consideration of the circumstances of the particular case, and that the Minister had no power to intervene. How then can the right hon. Gentleman have the power to intervene and fix a scale and the conditions the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned?
  Sir K. WOOD: Both answers are perfectly correct. What has happened in this case is that the guardians are asking

  2015
  for a loan, and my right hon. Friend is asking for conditions to be observed when he lends the money to the guardians.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Can the Minister refuse to give a loan by insisting upon conditions that he legally has no right to insist upon, as the right hon. Gentleman himself told the House last week?
  Sir K. WOOD: A Minister has a perfect right, when he lends money, to impose proper conditions as to the use of it.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact, and can he state reasons why the Department should take advantage of West Ham to impose conditions which are not being imposed in other parts of the country?
  Sir K. WOOD: The answer to that is that West Ham has had conditions imposed. As the hon. Member knows, the relief granted there is very much in excess of that granted elsewhere.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman seek to impose a maximum of 45s.? Is he aware that in some of the guardians' districts in this country I know of they are paying 70s.?
  Sir K. WOOD: All I can answer to that is this, that in certain cases in this district the relief that has been given is in excess of the amount of wages which have been paid in the same district for unskilled labour for a full day's work.
  Mr. MACKINDER: Shame!
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that last week he told the House that the question of whether the relief was too much was entirely a matter for the district auditor? Is he not aware that his Department is now taking the responsibility of saying what, in the individual case, is necessary for public assistance?
  Mr. BARNES: Are we now to take it that it is the policy of the Department of the hon. Gentleman to base permission in this matter, and the relief to be given, on the wages in the most sweated industries of the district?

  NAVAL RATINGS (CIVIL RIGHTS).
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that previous to November, 1918, there were no written Regulations dealing with the civil rights of naval ratings at general elections; that on that date permission was given to officers and men to address political meetings in plain clothes and for ratings to attend political meetings in uniform; and that paragraph 6 of A.M.O. 3349/1922 has been cancelled and no officer or man may in any way, even privately, take part in an election; and if he will issue an A.M.O. reverting to the older practice?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): It is the fact, first, that there was before 1918 no written Regulation specifically prohibiting the participation of naval officers or men in general elections or political campaigns, but the unwritten rule of the Service was well understood and was generally observed. The special directions giving certain liberty of action in this matter were issued for the December, 1918, election, solely owing to the fact that general demobilisation was in progress but not complete and that therefore the Navy, like the Army at that time, contained numbers of officers and men whose service was for the War only, and who were reverting to their normal peace statue as civilians. After the War it was recognised that this rule was really only applicable to the special circumstances of the demobilisation period and it was therefore cancelled as stated. With regard to the last clause of my hon. Friend's question, the effect of the foregoing is that a reversion to the pre-1918 practice has taken place; for though restrictive rules were not at that period codified the custom and rule of the Service prior to 1918 gave no encouragement to, but discountenanced, the participation in political campaigns of serving naval officers and men.

  AMERICAN FILM (TERRITORIAL TROOPS ESCORT).
  Captain A. EVANSasked the Secretary of State for War who was responsible for ordering the 22nd London Armoured Car Company (Westminster Dragoons) to proceed to Waterloo Station on the 24th instant; whether they took part in any

  2017
  official or unofficial procession; whether any payment, or promise of payment, was made by the European Motion Picture Company, Limited, or their agents; and if he will assure the House that in future Regular or Territorial troops will not be used for advertising commercial undertakings?
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an American business man was provided with an escort of British soldiers at Southampton, and that they, or a section of them, accompanied him to London and marched through the streets; will he say whether payment was made for their services; if so, how much and to whom; and will he take steps to prevent such action in future?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I will answer these questions together. The explanation of the Hampshire Heavy Brigade, Royal Artillery, is that they were approached by the agent of the European Motion Picture Company, Limited, to assist in a film which, they were given to understand, was to be of a purely military character, representing Territorial soldiers entraining, detraining and on the march; and that they consented to take part in the belief that a film of this kind would encourage recruiting for their brigade. No mention was made to them of an American film to be met and escorted, and nothing was said to make them suspect the real purpose for which they were required. The officer commanding the brigade was the more easily persuaded to fall in with the proposal because he was engaged at the time in a recruiting campaign in Southampton, where the first part of the film was to be taken, and further he was informed that London Territorials would take part in the march in London. The film company paid the travelling expenses of the Hampshire Artillery, 10s. or 15s. to each man of the party and £25 to the Band Fund, which I am informed has been returned. The officer in charge of the detachment reports:
  "Nothing whatever was seen of the film we are presumed to have been escorting, and we had no knowledge that it, or any film, was on the train. On arrival at Waterloo, we fell in for the route march. I was told by a police sergeant on duty that the armoured car which was to join in. the parade had a few minutes previously
  2018
  returned to its depot on account of having waited three hours. We proceeded along the route that the police had instructed us to follow, namely, via Westminster Bridge, Embankment, Trafalgar Square to Wardour Street, as the film representative stated that the recruiting film could only be completed in the studio. It was not until we entered Wardour Street that the real purpose for which the troops were needed became apparent, owing to a banner being unfurled in front of the band and handbills being distributed. I therefore, had the banner immediately removed, and refused to take further part in the proceedings, and with as little delay as possible the party was marched up a quiet side street and stood easy for five minutes. I then marched the party back by a slightly different route to Waterloo."
  Fortunately the Armoured Oar Company in London were warned in time of the real object of the march, and did not take part in it.
  As the agent for the company had previously applied to the War Office for soldiers to appear in scenes at the arrival of their film and had been told that permission could not be given, he should not have applied to the Territorial units independently, and in any event he should not have concealed the true object of the application. But in agreeing to the company's proposals the Officer Commanding the Hampshire Heavy Brigade acted without proper authority and contrary to the precise instructions contained in the Territorial Army Regulations; he has had long service and has worked hard in the interests of his unit, which has won the King's Prize several times, but his judgment on this occasion was at fault and he was made the victim of a clever and humiliating hoax.
  There is, of course, no question whatever of permission having been given for troops to be used to advertise American films or any other kind of commercial enterprise, and I am glad to say the British film industry have shown their resentment at the lengths to which the agent of the European Motion Picture Company has gone to secure publicity, and the company itself has expressed its regret.
  I may add that both the negative and the only positive copy of the film of the scenes in which these Territorial troops took part have now been handed over to the War Office, and the film will not be produced.
  Captain EVANS: In view of the regrettable circumstances outlined by the right hon. Gentleman in his reply, will he undertake to forward those particulars to the British Board of Film Censors, and ask them to take any action in connection with the film in question which they deem desirable under the circumstance?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Then is no necessity to take that action. I have got the film, and I do not intend to have it published.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: As it was an error of judgment, cannot the matter be allowed to drop?
  Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take steps to see that in future unsuspecting military officers do not fall into similar traps to this?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think there is the slightest probability of its happening again.
  Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: Would it not be better to say that the film brought from America should not be shown in this country?
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I presume that this gentleman is over here on a permit. May I ask the Secretary of State for War whether any steps are being taken to see that the permit is not renewed?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not a question to be addressed to me. I do not know what is the gentleman's nationality
  Major HORE-BELISHA: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which relates to the escorted film? Have the Government any power to prevent it being shown in this country?

  DISTINGUISHED VISITORS (GUARDS OF HONOUR).
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for War what is the authority responsible for an escort or guard of honour to distinguished visitors to this country?
  Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The provision of a guard of honour for distinguished visitors in certain cases is prescribed in the King's Regulations and
  2020
  the Territorial Army Regulations. In other cases it depends on the circumstances whether a guard of honour is provided; the authority for such provision would be not lower than that of the Divisional or Area Commander.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (MR. G. C. BAINBRIDGE).
  Miss WILKINSONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. George Charles Bainbridge who, as the result of a fall while employed at the works of the Synthetic Ammonia and Nitrates, Limited, of Billingham, is now detained in a mental institution; whether he is aware that no compensation has been paid and that the man is not in receipt of National Health Insurance; and whether, seeing that the man fell in a doorway near the carbon monoxide plant and that the laboratory at Harrogate, while unable to certify that Bainbridge had been gassed, did contend that he sustained concussion as the result of the fall, he will inquire into this case?
  The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have made inquiries with regard to this case, and am informed that after a full hearing the Judge accepted the view that the man had been suddenly seized with an acute brain illness which caused him to collapse in the position in which he was found, and decided that his condition was not due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

  PRIVATE DINNER (POLICE OFFICERS).
  Miss WILKINSONasked the Home Secretary on whose authority and for what reason two police officers disguised as waiters attended a private dinner given to an ex-Cabinet Minister and several other hon. Members of this House at the Boulogne Restaurant, Soho, on 14th May?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Two police officers dined in the public room of the Boulogne restaurant on the night in question, but they did not attend the hon. Member's dinner disguised as waiters.
  Miss WILKINSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department has been supplied with any notes from those two police officers as to any speeches that were made at that dinner?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I certainly am not going to give any answer as to any notes of any kind supplied to the Department over which I have the honour to preside.
  Miss WILKINSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer my question? I did not ask for the contents of those notes, I simply asked whether it was a fact that any such notes were supplied.
  Captain BRASS: Is it not the fact that the name "Boulogne Restaurant" is merely camouflage for a Russian restaurant?
  Miss WILKINSON: May I ask whether or not the two police officers were there in an official capacity, or otherwise?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I told the hon. Lady in my answer that two police officers dined in the public restaurant. I do not wish to conceal anything from the House. I knew nothing of this until yesterday, and I made inquiries. They were sent there by higher authority, but they were not disguised as waiters, and they did not attend the hon. Lady's dinner. What they went there for it is not my duty to tell the House.
  Mr. W. THORNE: They went there to spy.
  Miss WILKINSON: Is it the policy of the Government to exercise surveillance over their political opponents?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No; and I go so far as to say that had I known that the hon. Lady and her friends were dining there, those police officers would not have been sent, and I will undertake that they shall not be sent again.
  Miss WILKINSON: Thank you.
  Mr. SHORT: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that an hon. Member opposite made a reference to this restaurant based purely on the supposition that it was associated with Russia? Is it not a well-understood course in this House that all
  2022
  questions, whether supplementary or otherwise, should be founded upon sound information, and not upon supposition. In this case the reference is likely to do considerable injury to this particular restaurant. Are you aware that this restaurant is an Italian restaurant?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say that I have ever been there. I must deprecate any hon. Member putting questions which are likely to damage either persons or companies.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
  Captain BRASS: I understood that this was a Russian restaurant. If I have said anything wrong, I withdraw.
  Mr. THORNE: It is more respectable than the club that you go to, anyhow.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Withdraw it! Be a man.
  Captain BRASS: I have stated that I understood this was a Russian restaurant. I made that statement because I understood it was so. I have withdrawn the statement, and I do not know what the hon. Member is referring to.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Some of you fellows have got red heads. [Laughter.] I understand that some of my hon. Friends think I am referring to the hon. Lady (Miss Wilkinson). As a matter of fact, she has got auburn hair, and not red hair.

  SOVIET OFFICIALS (VISIT TO POPLAR).
  Mr. DIXEY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the reports of political remarks made by Soviet officials at Poplar on Saturday last, in which a desire was expressed to see a Republic in this country at an early date; whether the reports are correct and, if so, whether officials of the Russian Legation or other Soviet officials are to be allowed to interfere in politics in this country, and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the privilege of putting questions by private notice after 3.45 is not reserved for ques-

  2023
  tions of urgency; what was the urgency of this particular question; and why it could not have waited until Wednesday next?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I considered that this was an urgent matter and, therefore, I allowed it.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend wishes me to apologise for having to leave the House, and he has asked me to reply to this question. My right hon. Friend is making inquiries into what happened.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was a perfectly private party, and the expression of opinion by an Englishman holding the same principles advocated by Mr. H. G. Wells in the "Times" newspaper three years ago, and no one took any notice of them?
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a clause in the Trade Agreement which expressly provides that no Russian propaganda will be introduced against this country or against the British Empire, and will he take notice of these activities?
  Mr. DIXEY: When can I expect an answer to my question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as the inquiry has been completed.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reference which has been referred to was made by a Member of this House?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Colonel GRETTON: May I ask the Prime Minister what orders he proposes to take after 11 o'clock to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: We shall take the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the first three Bills on the Order Paper; the Committee stage of the Greenwich Hospital (Disused Burial Ground) Bill; and the Financial Resolution relating to the Air Ministry (Cattewater Seaplane Station). I understand that none of these matters are controversial.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 103.

Division No. 217.]

AYES.

[3.55 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Brittain, Sir Harry

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Albery, Irving James

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

Bullock, Captain M.

Dixey, A. C.

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Burman, J. B.

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

Applin, Colonel R. V. K,

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Drewe, C.

Astor, Viscountess

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Eden, Captain Anthony

Atholl, Duchess of

Campbell, E. T.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Atkinson, C.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Baldwin, Ht. Hon. Stanley

Cazalet, Captain Victor A

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Elveden, Viscount

Balniel, Lord

Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Chapman, Sir S.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Barnett, Major Sir Richard

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Clarry, Reginald George

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Clayton, G. C.

Fansnawe, Commander G. D.

Bennett, A. J.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Ferrnoy, Lord

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Fleming, D. p.

Berry, Sir George

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Ford, P. J.

Betterton, Henry B.

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Cooper, A. Duff

Forrest, W.

Blundell, F. N.

Cope, Major William

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Couper, J. B.

Fraser, Captain Ian

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Frece, Sir Walter de

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Gates, Percy

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Crook, C. W.

Gee, Captain R.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Brass, Captain W.

Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Gower, Sir Robert

Grant, J. A.

Macintyre, I.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

McLean, Major A.

Sandon, Lord

Gretton, Colonel John

MacMillan, Captain H.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Malone, Major P. B.

Skelton, A. N.

Hall, Capt. W. D' A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Margesson, Captain D.

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Hanbury, C.

Meyer, Sir Frank

Smithers, Waldron

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Harrison, G. J. C.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Hartington, Marquess of

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Moles, Thomas

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & wh'by)

Murchison, C. K.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland,

Hilton, Cecil

Nelson, Sir Frank

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Tinne, J. A.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Homan, C. W. J.

Nuttall, Ellis

Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Oakley, T.

Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Wells, S. R.

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd. Whiteh'n)

Penny, Frederick George

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Hurd, Percy A.

Porey, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Perring, William George

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

Jacob, A. E.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Pielou, D. P.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Preston, William

Wise, Sir Fredric

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Price. Major C. W. M.

Wolmer, Viscount

Knox, Sir Alfred

Radford, E. A.

Womersley, W. J.

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Ramsden, E.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Remnant, Sir James

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Rentoul, G. S.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Loder, J. de V.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Looker, Herbert William

Rice, Sir Frederick

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Lougher, L.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

Lumley, L. R.

Ropner, Major L.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Hacking.

NOES.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Gibbins, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Gillett, George M.

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Ammon, Charles George

Gosling, Harry

Lansbury, George

Attlee, Clement Richard

Greenall, T.

Lawson, John James

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Lee, F.

Baker, Walter

Groves, T.

Livingstone, A. M.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Grundy T. W.

Lunn, William

Barnes, A.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

Barr, J.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Mackinder, W.

Batey, Joseph

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

MacLaren, Andrew

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

March, S.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hardie, George D.

Maxton, James

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Harney, E. A.

Montague, Frederick

Broad, F. A.

Harris, Percy A.

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Buchanan, G.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Naylor, T. E.

Cape, Thomas

Hayes, John Henry

Oliver, George Harold

Charleton, H. C.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Owen, Major G.

Cluse, W. S.

Hirst, G. H.

Paling, W.

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Ponsonby, Arthur

Dalton, Hugh

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Potts, John S.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Both well)

Day, Colonel Harry

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Rose, Frank H.

Dennison, R.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Dunnico, H.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Kelly, W. T.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

2026

2027

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Thurtie, E.

Windsor, Walter

Snell, Harry

Tinker, John Joseph

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. p.

Stamford, T. W.

Wallhead, Richard C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Stephen, Campbell

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles

Sutton, J. E.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Edwards.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
Finance Bill, without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    VOTE OF CENSURE PROPOSED.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I beg to move,
    "That this House has no confidence in a Government which, after a lengthy period of industrial depression and confronted by a rapid and alarming growth in the numbers of unemployed, has failed to take measures to deal with a situation of unprecedented gravity."
    4.0 P.M.
    I move this Resolution, placing on record the fact that, faced with a state of unprecedented gravity so far as unemployment is concerned, the Government have not done their duty. On this question of unemployment, the attack made upon the working classes, such as was made the other day from the Front Bench by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and such as is made almost every day in our newspapers, is one that has to be rebutted. The figures have risen to such proportions and have kept so steady that the subject will brook no delay, and, so far as we are concerned, we certainly hold the Government responsible for a neglect to use their powers and their influence which it is very hard to understand. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) a short time ago was quite accurate in one part of his pamphlet, where he gave a description of the crisis. He said:
    "The position is much too serious. Our whole industrial system is arraigned by its failure to deal with the problem of unemployment. Our reigning economic system cannot justify itself unless it solves this, the greatest of our industrial and social problems."
    I quite agree. It is not any idea of a reorganised society that is in the dock. It is capitalism, capitalism in this country in particular, and this Government is standing alongside of it. What were the figures? In May, 1924, there were 1,057,000 on the unemployment registers, according to the Minister of Labour. That figure works out at 9·5 per cent. In the same month, in 1925, the figure had risen to 1,253,000, and the percentage was up from 9·5 to 11·2. The trade union figures are even worse. In the former year, they showed a percentage of seven
    2056
    unemployed, and last month they showed a, percentage of 10·1. It is not possible to paint that lily or to adorn that talc. The mere figures must strike everyone as charged with the most tragic significance unless we can reduce them.
    At the very outset, there is on consideration that I wish to brush aside. I have heard it suggested again and again from the Front Bench that this is owing to an increase in mere registration. They did not make that explanation last year, and they are much less entitled to make it this year than we were entitled to make it last year because, while it is perfectly true, owing to the legislation for which we were responsible, that men and women who were unemployed, but who had been neglected hitherto, were put upon the register and were helped and thereby swelled the figures of unemployment since this Government came into office it has been sleepless in its attempts to knock off the register people who are properly entitled to be on it. We have been told, for instance, that the number of applicants that were rejected in Great Britain last year was 200,000, and we have been further told that of these there were 11,000 rejected because the state of their payments did not satisfy the rules and regulations of insurance. It is perfectly evident that thousands of people have been knocked off the register in order to try and save its funds, while a few thousands have been put on on account of the abolition of the gap and one or two other amendments, proper and adequate amendments, that were made while we were in office.
    There is another point. We were told the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a large part of the increase was owing to fraud. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that!" and other HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, he did!"] That was his suggestion. It is not true. I would recommend hon. Members who think that I am doing him an injustice to read the report of his speech in the "Times" the next day. I do not know what he meant.
    Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: Why not the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the "Herald," does he not, against the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. MacDONALD: For the very simple reason that certain reports were supplied by an agency, and the two or three newspapers that published the qualified report must only rank as one, whereas, so far as newspaper accurate reporting is concerned, untouched and unrevised by Ministers and speakers, I prefer to take the "Times." [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not the 'Herald'?"] Because the "Herald" report comes from an agency. I have not made these statements without going very carefully into them. The "Herald" report comes from an agency and is not supplied independently by its own shorthand writer in this House. The whole trouble is this. Let me be perfectly candid. Hon. Members on the other side will agree with this. Outside, there is a tremendous lot, if not most, of this volume of public opinion, which is passed along and expressed along from mouth to mouth, and from society to society, which goes upon the assumption that it is the fraudulent applications that have got successfully through that is so largely responsible for the increase in the figures of unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I say that unemployed men, like employed men, are oftentimes tempted and sometimes fall, but the percentage of fraud which has been proved in claiming and enjoying the unemployed pay is not a large one, and, if moral conduct of any section in society, from top to bottom, could be measured mathematically, as the conduct of unemployed men and women can be, the proportion that could be shown by any section of society would compare not much more favourably, if more favourably at all.
    There is another point. It is suggested that if the workers would only consent to a reduction in wages, then the cost of production would be so lowered that we would bring our costs of production to a world level. While I do not quite know whether that statement is made with an absolute conception of a lower wage in mind or whether it has any standard of life that is going to be maintained by the lower wage, all I have to say is this: wages have been lowered. I have heard it stated in this House for years, and I have heard it stated outside since 1922, that if wages are lowered, then the cost of labour in production
    2058
    would be so substantially lowered that the cost of production would become an effective competitive cost. I have heard that said so often, and yet in our substantial industries the real wages paid to-day, compared with the wages paid in 1913–14 have fallen instead of increased. The increases in nominal wages have not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. And so to-day the general poverty of our people is greater than it was in 1913–14. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] I hope hon. Members will notice that I say that the general poverty of our people is greater to-day than it was before the War, and still figures are produced to show that our cost of production is so high that effective competition cannot follow.
    A year ago the outlook was quite different. A year ago there was confidence about it. [Interruption.] I warn hon. Members not to laugh too soon; I warn them not to laugh until I have finished this section. There was a confidence about it, a confidence that could not be upset by the lurid tales of rack and ruin which hon. Members opposite went about spreading all over the country. The outlook was brightening, and it did not suit their party purposes at all; they had to try to persuade the commerce and industry of this country that the advent of the Labour Government was going to depreciate the industrial condition of this country, and make grass grow in the streets of the City of London. I compliment them. They did it with energy and they did it heartily, without very much scruple. Nevertheless, the Government remained in touch with the industrial interests of the country, although the political uncertainties were somewhat hampering. Later on, the whole forces of commercialism, with very rare exceptions, raised themselves against us. "Given a Tory Government," they said, "then every condition that makes for stability and security will be with us; trade will boom, working men will be employed, and you will see the benefit of the exchange." There is not a single hon. Member on this side of the House who had not that sort of thing talked in his constituency. I remember very well the extraordinary imagination shown by one of them, a fellow-countryman of mine, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir It. Home). He was not merely content with his great business ex-

    2059
    perience and knowledge, but he went into poetic rhapsodies about the tremendous catastrophe that was going to result—and he did his best to produce it. I do not know whether the country really took him at his word or not, or took other right hon. gentlemen at their word, and believed that the return of a Tory Government was going to solve their difficulties, but, so far as it seems to me, they have been "sold a pup."
    I warned hon. Members not to laugh too soon when I said that twelve months ago there was confidence growing. I find that in the King's Speech this sentence was used:
    "I am glad to note the signs of improvement in the state of trade and industry."
    That was the opinion of the Government, and that was an accurate description. I think they might have gone further and said:
    "But I guarantee that with this Government they will not last long."
    If that prophecy had been made, it would have been very adequately fulfilled now. Test the national industrial position as we may—gilt-edged securities, railway returns, the psychology of general confidence, our export trade, the position of the coal trade in particular, which is one of the dramatic key trades of our country —test it by any of these tests, and deterioration is alone apparent. It is much worse than that. There is another test which Sir Allan Smith has placed upon record, one which really must give everyone who understands the signs and seasons a very great amount of disquiet. If the House will allow me, I will read what Sir Allan Smith wrote on the subject. He wrote:
    "The income available for investment abroad—in other words, our trade balance was £252,000,000 in 1920, £154,000,000 in 1922, £102,000,000 in 1923, and £29,000,000 in 1924. In the current year we have come, on estimate, to a position which, apart from war conditions, has not previously been reached. Estimated from the result of the first five months, the trade balance in 1925 will be adverse to the extent of £26,000,000. In this estimate 'invisible exports' are taken on the same basis as in 1924, and, with the slump in shipping freights and other conditions, the figure taken is probably too favourable. The fact of supreme importance is that there is an estimated adverse balance for the current year which
    2060
    may turn out to be more than. £30,000,000 sterling."
    Such is the condition and the outlook of trade after eight months of a Tory Government being able to assure the country that the outlook was prosperous. These facts make one thing perfectly clear. There may or may not be wastrels in the ranks of the unemployed. Eliminate them all, and leave only as a residuum the very finest of human characters, and the best endeavour and skill of British brains. Do that, but, with trade in the condition I have described, your army of unemployed is to be enormously large, and the amount of suffering that is indicated by your statistics is to be most distressing. The country was led to expect that, when this Government came into office, all those things were steadily to disappear. It will to remembered that the Prime Minister's great campaign in 1923 was a campaign undertaken because he believed that the great problem of the nation was the problem of unemployment. He said—I am quoting from his Queen's Hall speech on the 19th November, 1923—that there were:
    "Two main objects to attain—first, how to employ the people, and, secondly, to secure them a variety of employment."
    And, after painting a picture of unemployment and the effect it had upon him, he said:
    "We have never been confronted before with a situation like this. Certainly within recent years, while you have had the unemployed chart running up and down, you have never had this prolonged rest at the bottom."
    That was two years ago, and still there is a very prolonged rest at the bottom. Upon that he commented:
    "My proposals are the only ones before the country that are directed to the one end of fighting this nightmare of unemployment."
    What could the country expect? The country, remembering that, expected that there would be some definite, some effective, and some fruitful action if a Tory Government came into office. Moreover, he said:
    "We regard unemployment as vital; we regard it as the one question of the day."
    Eight months in office, and we have still got to ask what they are doing in order to meet the difficulty! I would remind them that, in the mind of at least one of their Ministers, six days was quite

    2061
    enough to produce unemployment schemes. I would not like to pass any opinion about the Minister, but the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has been selected as a Minister, and I find that six days after we came in the hon. Member—he was in Opposition—was terribly troubled; he was making a reputation—
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, it was never said that we had a positive remedy for unemployment.
    Mr. MacDONALD: I have quoted sentences from the hon. Member's own lender to show that he gave the country to expect exactly the same thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!'] I see that hon. Members mean that what they said in 1923 they do not mean in 1925; or they mean to say that they are so tremendously keen about unemployment, so tremendously impressed with the seriousness of its character, that the cures they had are going to be kept in their pockets, and they are not going to take upon themselves the public responsibility of fighting for them at all costs—they will win elections rather than cure unemployment. After six weeks—the hon. Member for West Woolwich having started within six days—the Prime Minister, speaking on the 10th March, 1924, complaining that we had not produced great schemes, said:
    "This problem will break you in time, as it will break every Government that fails to deal with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1924; col. 1992, Vol. 170.]
    The Home Secretary—not merely the hon. Member for West Woolwich, but an important, first-rate Minister—on the 8th April, three months after we came into office, said:
    "How many men are in work to-day under schemes produced by the present Government since they came into office? Not one." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1924; col. 336, Vol. 172.]
    What about the eight months? But the Minister for War, not being a vague-minded man, but a man who is always on the spot—he was on electricity, and he was in a tremendous hurry. He felt quite certain—I think over-estimating our capacity in the wealth of his charity— that four and a-half months was quite enough for us to produce a full-blown
    2062
    electrical scheme, a scheme to deal with the electrical power of the country; and so he said, looking rather threateningly at us:
    "The right hon. Gentleman"—
    that was my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Labour—
    "seems to forget that he has been in power, not for six weeks, but for nearly six months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1924; cols. 2179–80, Vol. 176.1
    Nearly six months! Now it is eight months, and where is the scheme for electricity? We also had what amounted to a vote of censure moved upon us—not in the form in which I am doing it to-day, because I think it is very essential to-day that we should be able to discuss legislation as well as administration; but that is merely in passing. On the 29th May last year a Motion to reduce my right hon. Friend's salary was put down, and it was dealt with, quite properly, as a vote of no confidence. The Prime Minister, winding up, made it perfectly clear that he thought four-and-a-half months was quite enough for any Government to have to deal with unemployment. He said:
    "We believe that in giving our vote to-night we are giving it as a protest against the handling by the Government of this subject of unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1924; col. 732, Vol. 174.]
    That is four-and-a-half months. He has very nearly been twice that time, and still I put it to both sides of the House, what information of a substantial character have we really had regarding schemes dealing with unemployment? There are certain disquieting rumours going about. I should like to ask whether this is the action that is going to be taken. We are told by newspapers that are claiming, at any rate, to be pretty well informed, that the Government proposes to make a triple change in the present law. First of all it wishes to reduce the scales of payment. I should like to know if that is true. Are the scales of unemployment pay going to be reduced or are they not? Secondly we are told it proposes to widen the gap—to re-establish the six days again. We want to know is that so. We also want to know whether they are going to stiffen the regulations simply for the purpose, not of making unemployment insurance a genuine thing, but of saving funds and enabling certain

    2063
    proposals they are going to make regarding insurance to be practicable. Those three points ought to be dealt with. When one comes to consider what has been done, the field is pretty barren. I do not know if they have been hiding their light under a bushel or not, but at any rate they have not been putting it in the window. Perhaps they will give some information, Information should be given on three main subjects—young persons, women and men. What is being done for the young person? Every year 500,000 are coming out of the schools and are going into the factories. I remember a very interesting little experiment in which I was associated some years ago of linking up the back door of the school with the front door of the factory. I came across a report the other day showing that that had been carried on, and that during the last 12 months—I suppose it was an annual report—very successful work had been done in a certain district in London.
    I should like to have information upon what the programme is that the Government has produced to deal with the peculiar case of the 500,000 young persons who leave school and, instead of getting into a factory or getting into the industrial habit, find nothing but the streets open and ready to receive them. Again we ought to know what is being done specially for the unemployed woman. Evidently road work and relief work of that kind is of no use to her. But it is when we come and make contrasts that we are appalled at the action of the Government. We (have just had a Budget that puts millions of pounds per annum into the pockets of people who certainly cannot be called poor, and whilst that is being done the Government is holding up its hands pleading poverty, pleading inability, pleading the end of the national resources. We ask it for large capital sums which, if wisely spent, will not be thrown away either in personal or in national luxuries, but will be sunk in national development, in other words will be bread thrown upon the waters which will come back after many days with a substantial addition to it, because it will result in the enrichment of the nation and the development of our latent possibilities. There is no relief for the burdens of the poor suggested in that Budget, no prospect of lightening burdens, no prospect of an economic ex-
    2064
    penditure of national wealth in such a way that the greater part of that wealth will fructify in the pockets of the masses of the people.
    There is one important direction in which all Governments which have been concerned with unemployment have been trying to find some profitable channel down which their energies and their sympathies might run. I refer to land. We have our derelict land. We have water-logged land. We have land that may easily Ibe reclaimed. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Wash."] Not only the Wash. Hon. Members seem to be far more interested in remembering a word which has an amusing significance than in applying the problem of unemployment to this derelict and reclaimable land. But that is not all. We have spent millions of pounds upon roads and upon public works during the last few years, and when we have done that, and are now coming to an end, and find boards of guardians coming to an end of their resources, town councils coming to an end of their resources, and public authorities coming to an end of their resources, the expenditure which has brought them into that condition is now fructifying richly in the pockets of the private individual who happens to own the land. Is it not time that common sense and justice should take the place of class sympathy in this respect? We do a man no injustice, having improved his land, by enacting that those who did the improvement are going to claim the reward of the improvement. We take nothing from him. We simply say that money spent by the public for a public purpose shall yield the harvest to the public so that its public work may be continued. Fortunately I have a very interesting speech in my hand delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is at this moment the most emphatic condemnation of the Government and its policy that anyone could utter. He was dealing at Manchester with the Manchester Ship Canal. He said of it:
    "It is a channel to enable foreign goods to be imported cheaply into this country. It is a tube to bring dumping into the very heart of our national life, and you have built it. You have built this canal yourselves. You have built it at great cost, and you have thrived upon it. You have actually thrived in the process of committing this extraordinary folly.
    There the policy he inaugurated the other day for the purpose of improving trade,

    2065
    for the purpose of reducing the unemployed figures, so he said, is condemned by him in Manchester only a few years ago in connection with the Manchester Ship Canal, in which he took the most profound pride and in the existence of which as a dumping agent he made no apologies. He said:
    "What kind of fools are those who come to us and say that when we have spent so much money in building a canal and making foreign goods cheap in the Manchester market, we should spend more money in Custom House officers and Custom House buildings in order to make them dear again? These arguments are not only against reason and logic, they are against nature."
    This is the reply to the big economic move that they make in order to deal with unemployment. He sides with me and my feelings on the point I just raised —the question of the land. He tells us in this speech how many acres of land had to be bought. He draws a contrast between the value of that land on the rate book and the value of that land in the agent's register after it had been sold to the Manchester Corporation. He goes on:
    "I am told that 4,495 acres of land, purchased out of something like 5,000, I think, immediately after the decision to buy—4,995 acres were sold for £770,000, or an average of £172 per acre, that is to say, seven times the value of the agricultural land and the value on which it had been rated for public purposes."
    He comments upon that, that it is very bad for trade. He says:
    "What had the landlord done for the community? What enterprise had he shown? What service had he rendered? What capital had he risked in order that he should gain this enormous multiplication of the value of his property? I will tell you in one word what he has done. (Cries of 'Nowt!') Can you guess it? (Cries of 'Yes!' and 'Nowt!') Yes. nothing."
    They were automatically enriched. He goes on to put in a plea for some methods by which the enrichment that they enjoy at the public expense shall be withdrawn from them and acquired for the public use:
    "Here in England we have long enjoyed the blessings of Free Trade and of untaxed bread and meat, but, on the other hand, we have to set against these inestimable boons a vicious and unreformed system of land tenure. The system of local taxation to-day is just as clumsy and nearly as wasteful as the old unreformed system of national taxation. In many cases it is as great an impediment to progress, and it is, I think, the most sensible burden that the poorest class have
    2066
    to bear on their shoulders. I believe that it weighs to-day upon the interests of the country as heavily as the tariffs and Corn Laws sliding scales. 'You who shall liberate the land,' said Mr. Cobden, 'will do more for your country than we have done in the liberation of its commerce.'"
    There is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Twenty years ago.
    Mr. MacDONALD: 1910. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I have changed my views." [An HON. MEMBER: "The War!"] Wars do not change fundamental economic facts. They are there. If the right hon. Gentleman has changed, very well. Let him say so. His speech from which I have quoted is, to me, such an admirable economic condemnation of the present Government's fiscal policy, and its lack of dealing with the land policy, that I am perfectly content to forego expressing my views and to quote a few sentences from the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
    Instead of these sound economic views being adopted, tending to new markets, increasing our efficiency, imposing as public charges the benefits that the landlord is now enjoying on account of the expenditure of public money, the sort of Budget we had the other day will damage our industrial prospects, limit our markets and increase our difficulties. It is no use discussing unemployment, and it is no use discussing the question of trade by a mere superficial scratching of the surface. One has to consider the foundations, the architecture and the building. The building indicated in the speech which I have quoted was a sound and wise one, whereas the building that the Government is now putting its hands to will increase difficulties which are already too heavy. Instead of bringing about these benefits, the Chancellor of the Exchequer now casts his eye round about for any young virgin industry, promising in its youth, and, like the Minotaur, he looks abroad expecting a maiden tribute in order to swell his Exchequer receipts.
    So much for the general policy. In regard to details, what have the Government done? A large programme is possible in national development— reclamation, drainage, afforestation, not merely for trees, but for men, and electrical development. What have they done regarding any one of these things?

    2067
    In regard to reclamation, they can joke about the Wash. In regard to drainage, we have heard nothing of any amendment of agricultural grants in that respect. Regarding afforestation, the last we heard was that they were limiting the amount of money that can now profitably be spent by the public in the afforestation of land, and that no scheme for the association of afforestation with land settlement, village communities, and so on, has yet been elaborated. As to electrical development, when we came into office we found practically nothing; but we left certain schemes in a very advanced stage of exploration. [Laughter.] Certainly. If hon. Members laugh and say that we did nothing in nine months, what are they going to do about their own Government doing nothing after eight months? At any rate, they had a start which was equal to one month, over and above the beginning that we had. Undoubtedly, the development of national electric power schemes is a very complicated, very difficult thing. It is not a scheme that can be produced in a week. Everybody knows that. The Government have been eight months in office and they are not even in a position to tell us upon what lines they are going or what is the general aspect of the scheme on which they are working.
    Take Imperial matters. Take East Africa and Indian railways, desiring development and requiring development. Nothing has been done so far as we can see. The Report which has been issued by the Committee that went to East Africa indicates great possibilities. What is the Government doing to meet those possibilities? Take the question of foreign trade. There is still the Russian market. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh. I was told the other day, and I have just been told, that practically every State in Europe at the present moment is in Russia by its agents and representatives who are negotiating for grain deliveries. Whilst we imagine that we are staying out, it is our money that is enabling certain States to conduct negotiations and force prices up against us. That is business, I suppose, from the other side of the House.
    If hon. Members had seen what I have seen, whatever their political prejudices
    2068
    may be about Russia—[Laughter]. It is not a laughing matter. Go to the East Coast of Scotland now. This, normally, is the fishing season. Normally the vast worthy population of that part of Scotland is on the sea catching herrings, mainly for the Russian market. The fish curers refuse to buy because there is no market. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] "Hear, hear!" That is all very well. They refuse to buy because there is no market. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will not pay."] There is any amount to pay. By bringing Russia within the scope of the Overseas Credit Schemes—[Laughter.] I repeat, by bringing Russia within the scope of the Overseas Credit Schemes, there would be scores of thousands of men and women in the north-east and the east of Scotland who would be happy, because they would have something coming in, whereas to-day they are in a state of distress unparalleled in the memory of living people. It is all very well to indulge in political prejudice, but when the political prejudice is indulged at the expense of the lives and the happiness of thousands of our people, then I protest. We do protest, and we shall protest in the most emphatic way we possibly can by carrying this Vote into the Division Lobby.
    There is the question of foreign exchanges. That brings me to the edge of matters of large foreign policy, to which I do not intend to refer. The policy of the Government regarding depreciated exchanges, apparently, is simply to protect ourselves against imports from countries with depreciated exchanges, and then to leave the rest of the world's markets for our people to take their chance. What more does the Lace Duty mean? Of that trade, 73 per cent. is export. The only thing that the Government can do for these poor people in great distress in Nottingham and elsewhere is to say, "We will protect you against imports, but you have to take your chance in the world's markets for 73 per cent. of your produce." That is one of the most remarkable illusions, one of the most extraordinary pieces of deceit practised on the public that I have ever known since I have sat in this House.
    Take the position of coal. This trade has been going worse and worse month after month, until now we are on the very edge of the precipice of a crisis. The Government says, "We can do

    2069
    nothing." They have seen the deterioration of production going on, and they have tried to suggest that the miner is to blame; but the figures given the other day show that the production per British miner is better than the production of the French miner, of the Belgian miner and of the German miner, better than the production of any miner outside the United States of America. In the United States, the production is due to two things, namely, special facilities in getting the coal on account of the nature of the sea, and special developments in the mechanical contrivances that the workmen use.
    The competition is becoming more and more marked month after month: the production from new coalfields in Russia, the expansion of production in Alsace, the use of coal from the Saar Valley. Everything has been perfectly plain and patent, so that "he who runs may read": the diminution of our exports, which has hit hard certain districts like South Wales, Durham and Scotland, the attempt to reduce wages, the attempt to increase hours, and relations between the two sides not improving but steadily growing worse. All that has been going on for months, and the Government, apparently, has done nothing to use its influence in order to bring them together and smooth over difficulties and rough patches and see whether some agreement cannot be come to so that the industry can be carried on with peace and prosperity. There is just the old-fashioned typical laissez faire Government action, which takes the view that a Government can do nothing to influence industry, unless it is to protect certain interests that are certainly not the common interest and not the national interest.
    This is being done at a time when the Government enjoy a Parliamentary position that has not been enjoyed by any Government for a great number of years. They have no Parliamentary worries. That is a very important consideration. They have no recurring crises every second or third day which take up a very large percentage of the time of overburdened Ministers. Their Divisions on the Budget show that they have not only a large but a very servile majority.
    Captain C. WATERHOUSE: There is only one leader over here!
    Mr. MacDONALD: That may be one of the benefits of having one leader, and, in any event, it certainly has been to the advantage of the leader.
    Mr. ERSKINE: It is because he is a trusted one.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. MacDONALD: It is a position of the utmost importance to the political situation. A Parliamentary situation which gives the Government a, perfectly free hand to develop this policy apart from any other consideration except what it considers the best thing to do. All these things have been steadily getting worse under the Government with their Parliamentary power unchallenged and unchallengable. At the end of eight months they have a barren record so far as industry is concerned. Schemes that were begun have been neglected, proposals that were very nearly finished dissipated. Up up, up go the figures of unemployment and the misery and unhappiness, and, I am not sure but what is much worse than all, the bad temper and the increasing effects of friction and despair on the people. That being the situation I have no hesitation in doing what I consider to be the duty of the Opposition to-day and moving the Vote of Censure which I now move.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I have no fault to find with the Opposition for moving a Motion of this nature. I do not know how far the speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman may be acclaimed as a powerful and convincing attack on the Government. I am quite sure that it has not been a helpful contribution to the solution of these pressing problems, which weigh not only on the Government but on both sections of the Opposition and on all the House of Commons. I have often wondered how it was that speakers in old days used to stand at this Box for three or four hours at a time. I never realised the necessity for doing it until I tried to compose for this afternoon a speech which would deal with the whole of this tremendous subject. I am not going to speak for that length of time, but I do want to cover as much of the ground as I can, for the benefit of the whole House and of the country.

    2071
    I only regret that in attempting to do that so much must of necessity be left out, but I hope that much that I may leave out may be taken up later by my right hon. Friend, who sits beside me (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). Before I begin, I would apologise to the House, because I shall have to detain them at rather greater length than is my custom.
    I think that at a time like this—grave, not graver perhaps than some times we have passed through during the last six years, but graver in some respects than it was last year—one of the most necessary conditions for all of us is this, that we should try to envisage afresh one problems, and that we should do what is often difficult in polemical politics, get our sense of perspective right, because if we get our sense of perspective wrong, if, to use a common phrase, we allow ourselves to get rattled, we may be driven collectively into some action that may not be either for the present or for the permanent benefit of the very industries which we are all desirous of helping.
    Let us bear in mind that we have to-day on the unemployed register over 1,250,000, an increase of something like 228,000 over the corresponding date of last year. In examining those figures, we must bear in mind that about 70,000 of those numbers are due to certain changes which were made in the Insurance Act. I mention that, because we must have a comparative figure. It does not make the unemployment any better. The comparative figure is bad enough, but let us have it accurately. The comparative figure is a net increase of something like 160,000, and those are to be found almost entirely in a very few staple industries— coal, iron, steel, engineering and shipbuilding.
    I may say, in passing, that, had it not been for the occupation of the Ruhr, in my view you would have had this crisis through which the coal industry is passing to-day a year or 18 months ago. In a less degree than in those great industries you have to reckon, too, great unemployment in cotton and wool, but in neither of them is it of so serious a nature. When you remember that the normal pre-War unemployment has been estimated at about 500,000, you will see, what I believe has been stated in this House before, that
    2072
    by far the greater part of what I may call the abnormal unemployment to-day results from the unemployment in the great industries that I have mentioned.
    But we have to remember—and this should not be forgotten in considering unemployment statistics: it is part of the perspective—that the emigration, which used to average 200,000 a year for the five year period before the War, has fallen, in the last five years, to about 130,000, and that, although this country suffered the losses which it did suffer during the War, yet during the War there was no emigration. You have besides that to consider the gradual growth in the population which has gone on the whole time. There is no close estimate to-day of the increased population in this country, compared with what it was before the War, but it is considerable, and all these facts, when we look at the unemployed figures, must be borne in mind.
    There is one other figure—and I am going to give the House very few figures in what I intend to say—which I think we ought to keep before us. Grave as is this unemployment, affecting, as the Leader of the Opposition said, something like 11 per cent. of the employable population, there is yet close on 90 per cent. of that population employed. That is a simple fact which is often overlooked, for two reasons. First of all, the localisation of the unemployment, that makes its incidence press with such weight, and calls everyone's attention to it; and, secondly, the way in which many men of all political views, and many newspapers in this country, have a habit of speaking about unemployment, as though this country was played out, as though everyone was out of work, and giving an impression abroad, where it has done infinite harm, that we have so far gone downhill, and that we are unable to fulfil orders, even if they are given to us. I think that some correction to that point of view ought to result from our attempt in this Debate to recover a sense of perspective, while fixing our gaze on what have been called the black spots to which I shall refer more than once before I sit down.
    In considering unemployment there is another factor to be borne in mind. Unemployment is intermittent in most industries, and also it is interesting just to note what has been the difference in

    2073
    unemployment in the three great industries of coal, wool, and cotton over the last year. Last year 3 per cent. of the miners were unemployed. This year the figure is 16 per cent., and I fear that those figures must grow worse until the existing crisis, on which I am not going to comment to-day, is passed. In wool we see a deterioration and in cotton an improvement. In wool the percentage was 4½ last year, and it is 18 per cent. this year. In cotton it was 15½ per cent. last year, and it is 7½ per cent. this year, but on the other hand iron and steel and shipbuilding and engineering have remained depressed throughout, not only this year, but last year and the year before.
    There is one other series of figures, and I hope that I shall not have to trouble the House with any more. Last autumn—I forget under which Government it was made; it is immaterial—a careful examination was made of a representative sample of the whole unemployment register, and out of a possible maximum of 125 weeks it was found that of the males 23 per cent. were employed for from nothing to 29 weeks; nearly 23 per cent. were employed for from 30 weeks to 59 weeks; over 23 per cent. for from 60 to 89 weeks, and over 30 per cent. for from 90 to the full 125 weeks; and, except in circumstances where one big trade dominates a whole district, as does happen unfortunately in certain districts of the country, out of every 100 registered as unemployed in any month, more than 60 obtained work for some period in that month. So that generally speaking, and always excepting the black spots, unemployment has not been, and is not continuous, but is intermittent. And our task therefore is not to substitute an artificial market for a vanished natural market, but to strengthen if possible the natural market, because intermittence has always been, even in normal times, a regular feature of unemployment.
    The changing economic conditions of the world have always hitherto made it impossible to maintain demand at an equal pressure at all time over all industry. Against the general and the protracted depression in the black spots, you may fairly set the general, and on the whole progressive, improvement in the trades that are more related to personal consumption—clothes, boots. and shoes, furniture and distribution. The importance of that is that it shows that up to
    2074
    now, during these difficult times through which we have been passing, the purchasing power of the community as a whole has not been seriously impaired. [Interruption.] If hon. Members challenge that statement, it is open to them, of course, to give their reasons when they speak, and I hope they will do so, because this is a very important question, and my statement can be substantiated with figures. It is one of the questions which to-day ought to be brought out into the light of day. I am not speaking of the black spots, to which I shall return. I am speaking of the general condition of the country, where the areas are not dominated by the few industries which to-day are suffering so much.
    Of course, remember this: The danger of the situation is that these depressed trades which I have quoted are mutually inter-dependent, and they are mostly grouped together in the same parts of the country, which increases enormously the weight of their burden, both on themselves and on the community as a whole. Indeed, the whole social structure of the community in some parts of the country has been threatened by the havoc that has been wrought in their industrial and economic life by this black cloud that has rested particularly on them. And the risk is that where you have trades of such importance, contributing by themselves so large a percentage of the total unemployment of the country, in the condition that they are in now, they run the risk of breaking down other trades by reducing the purchasing power of those who naturally and normally look to these "basic trades for, at any rate, a portion of their livelihood.
    After these preliminary remarks, surveying the whole industrial situation, and the policy of this and past Governments to industry, I ought to say a few words on agriculture, to get it clear of other industries. Agriculture as an industry, broadly speaking, is not affected to-day by unemployment. There is, indeed, a certain shortage of skilled labour in some districts. In June of last year there were just over 800,000 workers on the farms in England and Wales, 34,000 more than in the previous year, and about the same as before the War. Such unemployment as does exist is mainly among casual labour. That difficulty has been met by the provision, by successive Governments,

    2075
    of drainage schemes, and, including this last season, 3,250,000 man-days have been provided by this work. But there is a real difficulty here. Beneficial as are the drainage schemes to the land, there will be a difficulty in finding sufficient unemployment now in the rural population to get labour that is accustomed to this kind of work.
    I know very well that hon. Members opposite have turned their eyes for some time past—I rejoice that they should— to the land. But I venture to think that they have still a good deal to learn about the land. The difficulty is this: There does exist, perhaps not among hon. Members opposite, but certainly among their supporters in the country, an honest and genuine belief that by a stroke of the pen you can put the unemployed on the land—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—I am very glad to hear that—and enable them to keep themselves. Any substantial increase in arable land in this country must depend ultimately on prices. It is undoubtedly because of the fall in prices that the 1,000,000 workers of 40 years ago have become the 800,000 of today, and the drop in arable land from 14,000,000 acres to 11,000,000 acres accounts for over 100,000 of these men, the rest being accounted for by the largely increased use of mechanical implements and labour-saving devices. But, all the same, no Government to-day but must have studied, as I fancy each Government in turn has in recent years, how and in what way land settlement in this country ran be proceeded with.
    It may not be generally known to Members, except those who have made a special study of the subject, that in Denmark, a country that is often held up as being the model of what every agricultural community should be, last year they passed a law that anyone wishing to get land must have supported himself by agricultural work for at least four years after his 17th year. I just quote that to show the amount of care that will have to be given to education and practical work before any scheme of this kind can be brought into fruitful being, and to effect that purpose would unquestionably mean a very large expenditure of public money. It is because this is the case, that the Government are taking their
    2076
    time, and will take their time, in spite of the jibes which we may receive, in examining this question with an ardent desire to find a solution for it while we are still in power.
    Before I pass from agriculture, there is one really cheerful subject on which I would like to say a word—the subject of sugar. Sugar employs 10 men for every 100 acres on which beet is grown. In 1919 there were 400 acres under beet. Last year there were 23,000 acres, and this year 50,000 acres have been sown. That means that 5,000 men have found work which should be permanent, and 3,000 men are in continuous employment in putting up factories this summer. Ten factories which will be working this autumn will employ another 5,000 men, mainly unskilled, during the winter months, and this will tend to a decasualisation of the labour that is brought into the country districts for the purpose of hay-making and harvesting. In addition, these factories mean a permanent staff of chemists, foremen and engineers, numbering 600. They will each take 5,000 tons of coal, 2,500 tons of limestone, and all the consequent transport. I mention that merely to show that a start has been made, with the help of all parties in the House, and over a, period of years—a start has been made in an industry which may easily grow to be one of very great dimensions. I would only say here that, as is so often the case in this country, whatever the reason may be, it is always difficult, in the starting of a new industry, to get adequate capital. It is a matter which any Government might be asked to investigate—whether there is anything they can do, by making it more easy to have the capital provided, to enable the speed to be accelerated considerably at which these factories may be increased and spread throughout the country.
    I would like to make two or three observations on two branches of policy which themselves affect the industrial situation of the country—foreign policy and financial policy. I shall be very brief on each. Our foreign policy, no matter what Government has been in power, has for the last few years been directed to replace chaos and turbulence in Europe by order and peace. It has been difficult, and it will be difficult. There have been new countries to be dealt with, new countries who have had

    2077
    to organise themselves, and old countries who have been faced with vast problems of reconstruction. But real progress has been made. We ourselves have played no mean part in the restoration of Austria and Hungary and Germany itself; and this country has exercised, either by herself or in conjunction with other countries or through the League of Nations, a steadying influence, and one directed unceasingly and unswervingly to peace, knowing that peace in Europe, as has been said over and over again in this House from all benches, is an absolutely essential concomitant to any industrial progress in this country. We are making, I think with the general assent of the House, one more attempt to take a step which we believe will have great effect in steadying and solidifying the position in the West of Europe, and helping to begin to heal the age-long strife and rivalry between two great nations. If our efforts, with the support of the people of this country, are crowned with success, I feel confident that we shall have passed another milestone on this long and toilsome road.
    In a Debate of this kind we cannot omit to say a few words on financial policy. I do that the more readily because of the extremely powerful Budget speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition between the beginning and the ending of his unemployment speech. The object, again of all parties —because there has been continuity in finance as there has been continuity in foreign policy—the object of all parties, when in office, has been to balance the Budget out of revenue, to reduce debt and to reduce public expenditure, and by doing that to reduce taxation. From the beginning of the period after the War there really were only two money policies which could be followed. One was the policy which we followed and the other the policy of adopting a practically unlimited paper currency. That was followed by Russia, by Germany, and to a large extent by France. But we put ourselves in harmony with the principal gold-using countries of the world, the United States of America, our own Dominions of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and Holland, Sweden and Switzerland among the neutrals, and the reconstructed Germany.
    If you look back, you can see there could have been only one course for a
    2078
    country like ours, which depends absolutely, if it is to maintain its standard of living, on a substantial foreign trade and its ability to meet competition. Had our domestic prices in this country remained at anything like the height at which they stood so recently, it would have been impossible for us to have sold any goods in the foreign markets, and our foreign trade would have been far worse even than it is to-day. The effect of monetary policy, however, in my views is often greatly exaggerated, for it is political uncertainty which withers up credit more perhaps than any other single cause, and it is the political uncertainty that Europe has been feeling lately, while these negotiations have been proceeding on the Continent, that have had a bad effect so far as credit goes; and there is no doubt that both in the United States and this country that bad effect has been felt.
    To go back to what I said on foreign policy, I feel convinced that one of the first effects of a settlement being reached between France and Belgium and Germany and ourselves will be to give a much better environment in which foreign credit may flourish than we have enjoyed for some time. Whatever may be said about our financial policy, we can, at any rate, take comfort in the fact that our Bank rate in this country is lower than that in any other European country, except Holland and Switzerland. I thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to me up to this point, and I pass now, gladly, to explore what a Government, what the House of Commons, what the country may be able to consider and to do at this time. I am never one to dig about, either in my own speeches or in other people's. I have only one quotation which I want to give the House as a preface to what I am going to say now. I choose it because it is pellucid, and contains a profound truth, and in it, not for the first nor for the last time, the late Minister of Labour puts his finger right on the spot. He observed, on 4th August last:
    "After three or four years of acceleration of work, the time has come when it is getting more and more difficult to find work to accelerate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August,. 1924; col. 2572, Vol. 176.]
    Every Government has been brought up against that, and every Government must recognise the profound truth of

    2079
    this observation. I told the House I was not proposing to give them many figures, and if figures on some of the points, to which I am going to allude, are desired, they can be given later in the Debate by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. J. JONES: You have them all behind you.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Thank you very much. I wish to observe that as regards what I may call the palliatives which have been adopted for many years past, we continue to use each one of them. They were mostly started I think in the time of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party; they were continued by Mr. Bonar Law's Government, by my Government, by the Labour Government, and we are continuing them to-day. As time has gone on they have been extended in certain directions, but the principle remains the same. In export credits I cannot say whether it will be possible to devise anything that will be of great service, but we are considering, in connection with export credits, a 6cheme of insuring debts. With regard to trade facilities we have advertised that we are prepared to give facilities under that Act for the modernising and repairing of plant in works. I think that is something which may be of real value, and I should be glad to see advantage taken of it. Direct work on roads, of course, goes on and also schemes devised by local authorities and assisted by the Government. But there again we are up against this difficulty—that each successive year it becomes more difficult for the local authorities to put up schemes, and in some districts they have been so severely hit by what has gone before that you have a fresh problem, which did not face you years ago. Moreover, these schemes are mainly adapted to unskilled labour. The labour for which I must say I have the greatest sympathy and which I think has suffered most, is skilled labour. It would be a terrible thing for this country if, when we have passed through this terrible time, we found that the best of our skilled labour had had to go to foreign countries to earn their livelihood.
    I want to say a word or two about what fell from the Leader of the Opposition with regard to certain statements of mine
    2080
    made in 1923. I perhaps read into them a meaning different from what he did. I will tell the House what I read into those remarks which he quotes. I was obsessed then, as I am to-day, by the cumulative effect of year after year of grave unemployment when it is, as we know it is now, centralised in a few staple and essential industries. It was for this reason that I proposed what we thought was—call it a remedy if you like—but owing to the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite we were soundly beaten. That, in my view, makes it all the more incumbent on hon. Members who, from their own conscience, fought us and beat us on that issue, and said, "This remedy at any rate you shall not apply"—all the more obligatory on them that they should devote their minds to what they think should be done, and what contribution they have to make to this problem which we are all trying to solve, when they have taken from us what we believed to be the surest remedy Hon. Members all know that one of the greatest difficulties which we have to-day is in the increasing restrictions which foreign countries are putting up against us, and I myself—and I think my fiscal opinions are well known—believe that to-day if it were possible, it would be to the benefit of this country if the whole of Europe went Free Trade. But though I would work for that, I see no possibility of it. I am not so confident whether it would be to our benefit to-day if the United States were to do that, and I, think to discuss it would be rather outside the terms of this Debate, though it would be a very interesting subject for discussion.
    What is there that can be done? I remember very well a powerful speech made last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he was then, in the Labour Government on a Vote which we had on unemployment—I think at the beginning of August. Now, the right hon. Gentleman is an orator and he has imagination. I am not an orator, and I have no imagination. I remember very well I followed him in his flights when he explained to us that, while it was impossible for the agricultural labourer to "warm both hands before the fire of life," yet it would be possible if the right hon. Gentleman stayed on a little longer to enable the agricultural labourer to warm his inside with untaxed tea and his outside with an electrical kettle. He drew a picture of what rural development

    2081
    in this country might be if we paid proper attention to electricity. I do not propose to make any prophecies, or to paint any rosy pictures, but merely to make to the House a statement of the fact that the Government have had a practical scheme worked out for them which is at this moment being examined very carefully by a strong Committee, and if that Committee report as I hope it may—and it certainly will report before long—that that scheme is practicable, we shall then take the necessary steps to get the scheme put into existence, and to pass whatever legislation may be necessary to enable it to be done. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] I will tell hon. Members all about it in due time.
    I want now to make some observations based on a very powerful speech made recently by Mr. Frank Hodges. He was speaking of what he thought a Government ought to do with regard to the low temperature carbonisation of coal and the general efficiency of scientific research. If the House will bear with me, I should like to make a few observations on scientific research in this country because I believe in a Debate of this kind a Prime Minister can have no better opportunity of bringing before the country what he believes the country ought to do in that direction.
    No one will assert that British industry can be saved by science alone, but it is none the less true that until scientific methods and scientific men can take their place in industry, and an equal place, with the administrator and the financier, British trade will never be strong enough or resilient enough to meet the shocks that it is bound to meet as the years go by, or to meet the sudden and unexpected changes which will always arise in international trade. Englishmen are glad enough to employ science in a brand new industry, and they are glad enough to call it in at a time like this, when they fear that a great deal of their trade is slipping away, just as they call in the family doctor if they have some pain they cannot explain. But they are reluctant to employ it in the day-to-day work. The late Lord Lever-hulme attributed his success as a business man to the working of fear on imagination, and it is marvellous what can result if you have imagination and allow fear to play upon it. But I think the present
    2082
    situation in industry will cause our people more and more to turn their minds to what scientific research and scientific management can do. The electrical industry to-day is spending £250,000 a year on research, an impressive figure for this country. But there is one company in the United States of America that is now spending 9,000,000 dollars a year, has 3,000 trained workers in its research laboratories, and is going to increase that number to 5,000. There is no doubt that victory in the long run will go to the nation which can harness most efficiently and most securely science to its industry.
    Our people, the majority of them, find it very difficult to realise that the days are gone for ever when we manufactured for the world, when we supplied the people with the goods we liked and not with what they wanted, and when they would have to take them at our price and our convenience. Those days are gone for ever. We were, of course, the first in the field. To-day we no longer hold a commanding position. Our very geographical position is less beneficial to us than it used to be, owing to the speeding up and improvement of transport throughout the world. Our shipping is open to severe competition. There is a tendency throughout the world to displace a great deal of the work of the skilled mechanic by making more and more efficient automatic machinery. There we have a tendency to lose, to that extent, what has been hitherto one of the most priceless assets to our country. Therefore, our success depends more and more on the quality of the goods we supply and on the cheap and efficient methods of our production.
    The Government are doing a great deal to help in scientific research. There is work going on in the preservation and transport of foodstuffs, both in the scientific laboratories at Cambridge and in the low temperature research stations; research is going on into building materials and methods of construction, for which a new station will soon be opened, at Watford; there is research into the preservation and grading of timber and forest products; research into wireless is being conducted at Slough and Teddington; and there is all the research in the problems of mechanical and physical engineering which has been going on for some time at the

    2083
    National Laboratory at Teddington. That is all to the good, as is the help that the Government have given for the last few years to certain large industries in this country to organise research on the basis of the whole industry for the benefit of that industry, and I am glad to say that there are no fewer than 24 industries which are at present working on those lines. I thought it right to touch on that subject—I should like to say a great deal more about it—just to show, before I pass to another subject, how I regard it as vitally important to link up science with our industries to-day, and to say that the Government will always consider in what way they can best help in the attainment of this great object.
    Now I come to the question of the low carbonisation of coal and the production from it of oil out of smokeless fuel. There are many people to-day who speak as though it would be possible, if the Government desired, to start these processes working on a commercial basis at half the pit heads in the country. But that is not the case. Put quite shortly, the position is this: Research has been going on at the Government station, and by various processes in private hands, several of which have reached remarkable results as far as the laboratory is concerned. The time has not come yet when a commercial process has been successfully devised. It will come, it may come soon, it may be in a few years, but it is as certain as we are standing and sitting in this House this afternoon that what has been proved successful in the laboratory will be proved successful commercially; and when that day comes, although what is discovered in the laboratories must be the common property of the science of the whole world, yet it will give this country probably the greatest push forward in development that it has had since the discovery of steam.
    Mr. MACKINDER: And will be used for profit-making.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say what it will be used for yet, but I hope it will be used, first of all, for producing oil. If the results of the new experiments at East Greenwich justify it, the Government will certainly consider the question whether they might not erect a plant upon
    2084
    a commercial scale to help in the development of this scheme. The time is not ripe yet, but when it is ripe—and I hope it may be soon—we shall examine it with that desire.
    I pass from that—and I have very nearly finished now—to three or four other lines of possible development. There is development in the Colonies, which we are examining all the time. There is one subject on which I would only say one word, and that is the film industry. I think the time has come when the position of that industry in this country should be examined with a view to seeing whether it be not possible, as it is desirable, on national grounds, to see that the larger proportion of the films exhibited in this country are British, having regard —and I put this to the whole House—to the enormous power which the film is developing for propaganda purposes, and the danger to which we in this country and our Empire subject ourselves if we allow that method of propaganda to be entirely in the hands of foreign countries.
    Now there is one way in which Members of this House and people of this country can directly help, and that is to make a firm determination, wherever they are, so far as practicable, to insist on buying British goods and British goods alone. My hon. Friend who sits for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson1) is never tired of asking what can be done for Middlesbrough. He is one of those who always urges us to use cheap iron and steel coming into this country, and now it has helped to ruin the borough in which he is so interested, let him lead a crusade for the purchase of British goods, and let our municipalities, in this time of stress and this time of danger to our industries, resolve that a slight saving of money shall not prevent them placing their contracts through this coming winter in this country rather than abroad.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those mills which have kept in employment during the last few months have been running on cheap steel that has come in, and found work for thousands of men in re-rolling it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to hear, for the sake of Middlesbrough, that it is not so bad as it has been represented.
    Miss WILKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he allows the Admiralty to use German steel in British warships?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I believe the hon. Lady is misinformed in that statement. I am told by the Admiralty that it is quite untrue.
    6.0 P.M.
    Now I come to the last question about which I wish to say a word. I spoke some time ago about the "black spots," I spoke about the cumulative effect of unemployment, and it may well be that the time has now come when we ought to look at every possible kind of remedy, and examine it to see if it can be made applicable to meet the present situation. It may be that the time has come when, to give a stimulus to specially distressed industries, it may be desirable to take steps that would not or could not have been taken until unemployment had lasted for so long as it has. And, therefore, I think it would be useful if the House itself, in the course of this Debate, would examine and consider, as the Government are proposing to do, whether by any form of subsidy it may be possible to give, as I said, that stimulus and lift in the region of those industries which seem at the moment beaten down into a position of helplessness. The various forms in which subsidies may be given— and I can think of no others—are either by bounties on production or on export, or subsidies of specific contracts or orders mainly for export, or subsidies in specially distressed districts in aid of rates, to take that burden off those who manufacture in that district, or a subsidy to help to bring down goods rates on the railways. In all these methods of subsidising, the difficulties are great, and the difficulties may be insuperable, and, as far as I am concerned, so far as the Government are concerned, even in the case where any of these methods might be found practicable and desirable, I believe in the long run it would do more harm than good if any assistance of this kind were given to any industry that was not itself efficient and making every effort, and continuous and increasing effort, to make itself efficient.
    Mr. LAWSON: The question in the minds of quite a number of Members on
    2086
    this side is, does the Prime Minister's reference to subsidies include the coal industry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: At this moment I do not propose to say anything about the coal industry, because of the critical position of the negotiations, and I am quite certain at this moment, if I were to say anything as to the future of that industry, it could do harm in the discussions that are taking place. I have no right to appeal, perhaps, to this House, but I do beg hon. Members to reflect in this discussion whether if we were to bring the special subject of coal at this moment into our Debates, we might not run the risk of doing more harm than we should do good. The cause that the hon. Member has at heart is as near to me as it is to him, and I only say this because I am firmly convinced that I should do more harm than I could do. good if I were to discuss the prospects of that trade at this moment.
    Mr. LAWSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman make things worse?
    The PRIME MINISTER: To sum up, I would like to remind the House that I have tried to point out the extent to which a few and limited number of industries have affected the unemployment figures. I have tried to point out that the incidence of unemployment is changing, except in the black spots where the full weight of the depression, is felt; that, in spite of the depression, 90 per cent. of the workable population are employed, and a considerable number of trades are doing reasonably well, indicating the continuance of purchasing power, except, again, as it may be affected in the worst districts of the country; that the Government are maintaining the various expedients which have been practised during the last few years; that we are examining the question of land settlement, of speeding-up the development of sugar, colonial development, and are seriously going to explore the possibilities along these various methods of subsidy, and we shall be glad to hear them discussed in the House of Commons this afternoon; that we hope to be in a position to proceed with a big scheme of electrical development, assuming that the report which is now being examined proves satisfactory, as I believe it will.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The Prime Minister has asked that the matter of subsidies should be discussed in the Debate this afternoon. If that is going to be done, it is important that we should have some idea, at least, what the Prime Minister means. Does he mean subsidies to industry, subsidies to rates, subsidies to individual firms, and subsidies to railway companies, in order that they may reduce freights?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will tell my right hon. Friend what is in my mind. I am taking the House of Commons, as I think the Leader of the House should, entirely into my confidence. I do not say that any of these things which I have mentioned are practicable or beneficial. I say that the Government are going to explore them. I think we need to make a great and special effort this winter. None of these things that I have mentioned, I repeat, may be practicable, but in mentioning them, and in mentioning them before we have considered them, I think it would be of great service if any Member in this House has criticism or opinion on these subjects that he should give the House the benefit, because I believe the subject of unemployment is one which the whole House should join hands to try to solve, and not employ all the time, although this is a Vote of Censure, in picking holes in what has been or what has not been done. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about last year?"] In this matter of unemployment, I have never been a supporter of picking holes unduly.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Your Front Bench did last year.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am only going to say one word about that Debate. The crux of that whole Debate was the unfortunate promise that there was a remedy. I have never pretended to have a remedy, because there is but little—as I have said again and again over the last five years, in one position and another— that any Government can do, and I believe that statements of that kind have been made from the Front Opposition Bench when they were in power.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour told me the other week, in the
    2088
    House of Commons, that he and the Government had a remedy for unemployment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I am not a very close student of what other people say. I am responsible for myself, and, of course, for my colleagues. I dare say what my right hon. Friend said I should approve of, just as the Leader of the Opposition would approve of everything said by the late Minister of Health. I was just saying there are limits, and very strict limits, to what Parliament can do to help the industries of a country. After all, in a democracy, if people cannot save themselves, no Government can save them. Ultimately, whatever this or any other Government may do, the only thing that can save the trade of this country is brains and work. We are moving, and we shall move, into a state of far closer co-operation in industry than we have before. If we do not, we shall never recover our industries; and to win that position, and get that co-operation which is essential, I shall continue to devote every effort of which I am able. I know it is the fashion among some hon. Members opposite to call my speeches "sermons." I do not mind if they do. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is what your own people say about them!"] I do not mind who says it, because I know I am right.
    I would make this observation. The peace, for which I have pleaded so much in this country, is to me as much as international peace is to the heart of the Leader of the Labour party. I remember so well, when the War broke out, I felt I understood what caused him that distress of his inner mind. It was this, that he saw shattered at his feet the ideal of international peace, to which he had given years of his life, years of his work, for which he had spoken, in which he believed and for which he longed. The outbreak of war to him meant that all that had gone, and it was that which cut him to the heart. I saw it, and I understood it. But I have exactly that passionate desire for peace at home. Let me just say this. I do not expect that peace will always be maintained. I keep my ideal. I shall never reach it, but my ideal is shared by many among you. It is shared by many of your people in the country. There are hundreds of thousands in this country to-day who are behind me

    2089
    and with me in this matter, and I thank from my heart those in prominent positions in this House and those in the country who work for peace. But I can say, that whenever my ideal is broken at the moment, whenever I fail, I shall go on the next day. I shall try to rebuild the shattered fragments of the house each time it falls to pieces. I shall carry on in this way, and try again and again so long as I have the power.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The House, I am sure, has listened with pleasure to the earnestness and sincerity that has characterised the Prime Minister's eloquent speech. If sincerity and earnestness were the remedy for unemployment, then, within a very short time, it would have disappeared from our land. Unfortunately, the paths of Government, like the path to a certain place, are strewn with good intentions, which have not materialised. I should have liked the Prime Minister to have devoted most of his time rather to dealing with the situation that confronts us than in assuring us of his anxiety to bring about better conditions. He devoted his time rather to endeavouring to show that things are not quite so bad as they might be. He told us that 90 per cent. of the employable population is still employed. I think it is a dangerous frame of mind that finds a solution in that. He reminds us that unemployment is found mainly in a few trades out of the whole, in the coal, iron and steel industries, and probably he would include shipbuilding and one or two other trades. Is it necessary for me to remind the House that these are the basic industries of Great Britain, and that, if these collapse, the whole structure on which British industry rests will come to the ground? The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if he regarded the present situation as being merely a temporary one, one that will pass away as soon as industry has had the opportunity to adjust itself. He seems to assume that no great harm will be done by drifting.
    How many captains of industry on the other side of the House or outside the House would, I wonder, agree with that complacent view of the situation? We have now had unemployment for four or five years, and during that prolonged period the anxiety of the workers has been increasing. We read the reports of various great industrial concerns in the
    2090
    country, and we are assured week after week that they are carrying on at a loss. In the financial columns of the "Times" last week, I read the annual report of a very large concern in my own Division— William Beardmore and Company, Limited. In this it was stated that during the past 12 months they had lost £500,000. I wonder how long concerns like that, and similar concerns, can go on losing money, half-a-million at a time? Is the Prime Minister certain that the amount of capital at the disposal of the coal, iron, steel and shipbuilding industries is sufficient to withstand this state of unemployment for a few years to come; and, if it be not sufficient, if the captains of industry lose heart in the struggle, and if coal, iron, steel and the shipbuilding industries collapse, or, perhaps I should say, continue to collapse, how long will the clothing trade, the boot trade, or the printing and other trades which rest on these, continue in comparative prosperity? I am afraid the Government have not yet realised the gravity of the present situation. I think its most dangerous feature is its look of permanency.
    We are told that during our period of office we did not find a remedy for unemployment. I quite admit that we did not find a remedy for unemployment, but I submit to hon. Gentleman opposite that the failure of our Government or any Government to find for this nation a way out of its difficulties is not a fit subject for exultation, but is a matter of the very deepest regret. May I remind the House that we were not the only Government that failed to find a remedy? Since unemployment began in 1920 we have had five different Governments in power. We had the Coalition Government, which failed to find the remedy. Other Governments followed, and I can find for them, I think, an excuse which will appeal to reasonable men. When the Coalition Government had to tackle this problem, it was not of the serious dimensions with which it faces us now, and had not assumed those symptoms of permanency that are now its most dangerous feature. It was felt in those times that all that the industry required was time to adjust itself, and that in six or 12 months, when the workshops and machinery of this country had been adapted to the purposes of peace, order would be restored and British

    2091
    industry take on a, course of prosperity thus repairing the damage of the War. So though the Coalition Government, and I think we all shared their view and treated unemployment as a temporary difficulty.
    In his speech the Prime Minister made certain remarks about the late Mr. Bonar Law's state of health preventing him and his Government from undertaking any great scheme of reconstruction. He also reminded us that during the brief period that his first Government held office his desire to obtain a majority for Protection, which attempt led him, unfortunately, to disaster, prevented his Government from contributing anything towards the solution of the problem. Is it surprising that the Labour Government, with a hostile and powerful majority in this House against it, compelled to operate an industrial system in which it had no great faith, during the period that it was in power, failed to remove unemployment from the path of this nation? Isn't it ridiculous to compare the failure of any of these Governments with the failure of the present Government? Here you have a Government that has a considerable majority in this House, that has no House of Lords to contend against, that has the support of the captains of industry, that has the friendship of the financiers, the backing of a powerful and influential Press, and has been blessed with unprecedented industrial peace. No Government in the history of Governments has had such an opportunity. Yet for the purpose of solving this problem the country might just as well have had no Government as the present Government. I do not think it is necessary to emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition laid down, that if this country is to survive, the problem of unemployment must be solved. If the industrial system under which we operate stands in the way of the solution of unemployment, and has become a menace to the survival of Britain as a nation, then I hope that all sections of the House will abandon their political prejudices and face the facts of the situation. The Prime Minister has taunted us with having had a sovereign remedy for unemployment! He stated that he had never claimed to have a remedy. I do
    2092
    not think it would be difficult for me to prove from the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that when they went to the country they led it intentionally to believe that if they were returned to office with a substantial majority, unemployment would disappear. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That trade would revive, and that there would be work for all.
    Sir JAMES REMNANT: That is not a true statement, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to quote from any responsible person to that effect.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: They have been in office now as long as the Labour Government was in office. Conditions have got worse and worse, and the longer they stay in office the worse the conditions become. I have been asked to state the remedy that they told the electors would cure unemployment. What they said was that if the Socialists were removed from office and the Conservative Government returned, the country would have confidence in that Government; that as trade was such a delicate thing, a requirement for its health was a state of national confidence. Believing that appeal the electors gave them their substantial majority, a majority which, I think I am right in stating, far exceeded their expectations. That majority was given to the Government which we assumed to be stable. It seems to be stable, and I suppose I am safe in assuming that in that stable Government the captains of industry and the merchants of the country have absolute confidence. Yet, notwithstanding that majority, that stability, and that confidence, the trade of the country is not reviving. It is steadily disappearing, and the condition of our country becomes more and more dangerous every day. It seems to prove that confidence without action is useless, and action from the present Government is something which need not be expected. Their absence of policy demonstrates, I think, to most people that, however much confidence they have in them, the Government have no confidence in themselves or their system.
    We were told that the next thing that industry required to assist it was industrial peace. There, again, the Government appealed to all sections of industry, employers and employés, to come to-

    2093
    gether and to keep out of the discussion anything that might cause friction where harmony was necessary. Eight months ago that appeal was responded to with enthusiasm. You have had perfect industrial peace since the present Government came to power. This truce in industry, if it had been properly handled, might have been utilised to lay the foundation of a more stable and prosperous industrial order that would have carried us over the next few critical years. But no use at all has been made of that period of peace. The Government have themselves succumbed to the craving for peace, and the result is that we are getting an industrial peace of quite another order, an industrial peace that in many districts is not being disturbed by the turn of a wheel or the sound of a workshop "hooter." The Government have no policy to put before the country. The Government cannot be bothered. The Government are allowing things to drift. The Government believe that industry will cure itself. The Government claim that it is none of their business to interfere in the present industrial position.
    I submit that it is a serious matter when the Government of the country, recognising and admitting that the nation is in a serious and a dangerous condition, declare that it is no business of theirs to hold out a helping hand to save that sinking nation. During the Election the Government told the country that industry would be helped by a reduction in taxation. The Government have done nothing to reduce the taxation on industry. Anything they have done, or are proposing to do, is in the direction of increasing the taxation on industry. The Government have allowed the Bank Rate to be raised and credit made dearer for the industrialists of this country. In my opinion, they have restored the Gold Standard before conditions in this country warranted it, and in that way have helped exporters in every country but this. We have heard again to-day of the great things we may expect from Empire development. Any proposals that have come from the other side in regard to Empire development have been of the most pettifogging character. They do not yet seem to have developed the glimmering of a policy that would knit the various parts of this Empire together for
    2094
    mutual aid. Their views on Empire development have never soared higher than cheap currants and slave labour. That was their view when they came into office, and it is their view after eight months of office.
    Now we are being told, not so much in the speech to-day as in the Press which supports the Government, and in the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite outside the House, that the way out of our present difficulties is by reductions in the costs of production, and that we must be prepared to face a substantial cut in the wages of the workers. I would like to hear the party opposite dispute that that is the view held by them and their friends outside. It is the only view before the country, coming from the other side, as a means of dealing with our industrial difficulties. In my opinion, that is the maddest course of all. If I wanted to bring ruin upon British industry I would advocate a reduction in the wages of British workers, not because it might lead to trouble from those workers, but because it would be the surest way of ruining the home market for British products. The Prime Minister himself was careful to remind us that 90 per cent. of our workers who are employed are kept in trade and industry largely by the demands of our people at home. It is the export trades that are suffering; it is not the home trade that is suffering. Where can one find a surer way of ruining the home trade than by bringing down the purchasing power of the British people? The Leader of the Opposition rightly reminded the House that there would be nothing experimental in that policy. During 1921, 1922 and 1923, wages in this country were reduced by £10,500,000 a week. During the eight months of a Labour Government in 1924 wages were increased by over £500,000 a week. The net result is that to-day the purchasing power of the British people, who are, after all, mainly wage-earners, is £10,000,000 a week less than it was in 1920. If reduction of wages had been a remedy for unemployment we should have seen unemployment disappearing at the rate at which wages were reduced, but we have seen the exact opposite occurring: as wages were reduced the purchasing power of our people diminished, the demands in our shops

    2095
    decreased, their orders to the factories correspondingly reduced, and unemployment naturally increased.
    The Prime Minister appealed to us to try to get a proper perspective of the present situation in order to shape our course in an intelligent direction. May I respectfully submit to the Prime Minister, in his absence, that he does not yet seem to have grasped the fundamental cause of the present industrial stagnation? Let me try to state it very briefly. The Primp, Minister reminded us in his speech, and it has reference to what I want to say, of the fall that has taken place in the number of persons employed in agriculture in the last 40 years. He attributed much of it to so many millions of acres going out of cultivation, and said a large part of it was also due to the introduction of mechanical devices to do the work formerly done by manual labour. That is exactly what has been going on in industry outside agriculture, and multiplied by a thousand times. The present situation, I think it is worth while remembering, is one that is world wide. We were reminded of that the other day in a speech by the Home Secretary, in which he said many foolish things, but this wise one—that it is a situation that is world wide, and that we have to regard ourselves not merely as if we were a world within ourselves, not as if we occupied the isolated position that we occupied a century or even less ago, but that we are to-day in relation to the remainder of the world where London was to Lanarkshire a century ago. Through improvements in transport and other things the world has become a much smaller world, and to-day we have to consider our conditions, our proposals, and our policy in relation to the conditions and the policy prevailing in other parts of the world of which we are a part.
    What is the world-wide situation which is facing us? Ever since the application of machinery to industry man's power in the production of wealth has" steadily decreased. When the other demands had been met out of the products of labour, the remainder was added to capital and used for new mills, new railways, new mines, new workships and new shipyards in the development of this and of every other country. Every time we increased our output we at the same time increased
    2096
    our surplus and restricted the area for the disposal of that surplus. During the War that process, which had been going on for a long time, got a great impetus. I think it would be safe for me to claim that in the four or five years of war-time we developed as much as we would have done in 50 normal years. It is not only that each man can now produce much more than he could in 1913, but we have now brought new nations into industry, brought new races into industry. The result is that the population of the world, being mostly wage-earners, cannot buy up the whole product of their labour, or even a substantial part of the product of their labour. In Western Europe, at any rate, we cannot get an outlet for the surplus that remains in the old way of adding to capital by raising additional workshops and adding to the number of our workers. A feature in the present situation that should not be neglected is that we have now more workshops than we can use, that we have more railways than we require, that we have more shipyards than are necessary, and that the old outlet for surplus goods no longer remains. The result is that as the workers cannot buy up the goods as rapidly as they are produced, or the capitalists dispose of the surplus in development, we have, and have naturally, industrial stagnation. To reduce wages will not help that.
    The intelligent course, if it were possible—I am not submitting that in the world-wide position in which we are placed it is momentarily possible—the intelligent way out of the difficulty would be in a substantial and ever-continuous increase in the wages of the workers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not money wages!"] Not in money wages, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that an increase in money wages would be no use. This enables me to make a correction in what I believe to be a popular fallacy. We lived for years in the fallacious belief that a reduction in the cost of goods would lead to an increase in the consumption of goods. We forgot two things. We forgot that three-fourths of the consumers of goods were wage-earners, and that the wages of the wage-earners are fixed by the price of the commodity, and that when you bring down wages as you bring down prices you do not add to the purchasing power of three-fourths of the population. That being the case, if it

    2097
    were a practical policy, the way out of our present difficulties would be to increase the purchasing power of all people of the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to find agreement with that in other parts of the House. We were appealed to to-day to pool our brains, and see if anything could accrue from the mixture and the co-operation, and if we agree on that should not this House have as the prime factor in its foreign policy the economic conditions of foreign workers—the wages and the conditions under which they are employed? Is there not just as much danger in the 20th century of the British nation being smashed by international poverty as there was in the 19th century of the British nation going under because of international armaments? I submit that the Government day by day and this House week by week, until we get out of our present difficulties, should be dealing with the problem of unemployment in its relation to the living conditions of the workers in all parts of the world. I hope that the policy of finding a way out of the difficulty by reducing wages will not receive any influential support from hon. Members in any part of this House, and particularly I allude to hon. Members opposite. Such a policy would be ruinous and it would only increase unemployment in the home trades and make our difficulties worse, and bring us much nearer to that industrial chaos and social disorder which no hon. Member desires to see in this country.
    I quite agree that we might gain a momentary advantage and snatch a few orders by reducing wages, or what is the same thing, lengthening the working hours without any corresponding increase in wages, but by adopting that method we do not add to the total number of orders but we diminish them by reducing wages and the world's purchasing power. We must not forget that this is a game at which more than two can play. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the Prime Minister, and I say with all due respect, that, however idealistic and sentimental he may be, his speech leaves the fundamental facts entirely out of consideration. I do not want to ridicule the proposals which he has made, but there was nothing new in them except the proposal for
    2098
    subsidies, on which I am sure he will not expect us to give a decision this afternoon. That raises a very big question which all hon. Members of this House will require time to discuss.
    Leaving this question of subsidies out of account, when you run over the other things mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, such as the continuation of road schemes, research work, electrification, and so on, there we find nothing new. There is nothing new about the development of the beet industry, and, if I desired to score a party point, I might say that the Labour party did more to develop the beet industry of this country than any other Government of modern times, because it was our subsidy to the beet industry which placed it in its present prosperous position. When we come down to such questions as electrification and research work, where is the justification for the claims which have been put forward? We must remember that other countries can do the same. We have not a monopoly of these things, and much as these things will add to the productive capacity of this and every other country we must not delude ourselves into thinking that such things are any remedy for unemployment.
    May I point out that industry is not at a standstill because of a shortage of goods or any lack of productive capacity, but simply because we cannot find a sufficient number of customers for the goods we are producing. Let us not get into a tangle by believing that when we increase our productive power, and when Germany follows suit, and we increase the world's output of goods and, at the same time reduce the purchasing power of the people, we are finding a remedy for unemployment. If we are going to follow out this competitive course we should be clear in our minds as to where it will lead us. Of course, we can reduce the wages of the workers in this country, and we may find in that way a little temporary relief. We may take some of our people off the dole and put them into employment in this way, but at what price? Simply at the price of taking orders from Germany and putting the Germans on the dole and placing them industrially in the position in which we are to-day.

    2099
    What is the next point? The next consequence of such a policy would be that the German capitalist would go to the German Government and say to them quite reasonably, "The British, having defeated us on the military field, are now trying to defeat us industrially. They have lengthened the hours of their workers and reduced wages in order to secure markets in Europe, and it is up to the German Government to ask the people of Germany to work longer hours for less wages in order to put the Britisher again on the dole." But it does not stop there. If you are going to pursue this policy of reducing wages and worsening conditions in the world generally in this way you must be prepared to see British workers go down to the level of their poorest competitors, and you must be prepared to see three-fourths of the British population going down to the level of the coolies. I hope no section of this House is going seriously to support a policy of that kind.
    The only other suggestion that was seriously made is that we should attempt to bring production down to the level of the purchasing power of the workers. I read an article yesterday contributed to a Sunday paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond), and he proposed to secure industrial progress by taking national and international action to bring down the output of goods to the level of the purchasing power of the people of the world. I was glad to read that the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope other hon. Members now realise that we can make no further progress with production and trade until we have provided for consumption, provided an outlet for our goods. If that truth be more fully realised, I think it will do more than anything else to solve the problem of unemployment.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen does not suggest that we should take national or international action to bring up the purchasing power of the world. He recognises that the purchasing power of the world in reference to increased productivity is comparatively stationary, but he proposes to leave it stationary but recognising that it is necessary to bring about a balance between production and consumption he
    2100
    would stop the progress of production and keep it where we found it at the beginning of 1925. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman wants to put a stop to evolution in one of the important departments of life. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to attempt, as a political Mrs. Partington, to stop the flow of knowledge, and the world's progress. The world will go on in this way whether it suits the right hon. Gentleman and his industrial friends or not. Stephenson once said, in reply to a question as to what would happen if a cow got in front of his engine, "So much the worse for the cow."
    I want to impress upon the House that the stereotyping of industry is no remedy at all. That policy is in operation to-day in the case of the banks. The policy of the banks in restricting credit and making it dearer is for the express purpose of restricting production. The shrewd financiers recognise that if you allow a superabundance of goods to get into your markets for which there are no purchasers, there is bound to be a collapse in price, and a corresponding collapse in the securities in which their money is invested, and, therefore, desiring to prevent that collapse in the value of securities, they try to balance consumption and production by making credit dearer as it suits their purpose.
    But, after all, the great cause of unemployment in our country is the poverty of our own people. We on this side of the House always condemned poverty from a sentimental point of view, and we always subscribed to the idea that if poverty could be abolished that it would be well to abolish it, but poverty has now become a national menace. The Prime Minister appealed to us to have vision and imagination. Is it not more noble to contemplate a Britain in which the purchasing power of the wage-earning population has been raised to a standard that will enable them to purchase the goods at the rate at which hon. Members of this House purchase goods, and in that way provide an outlet for our goods, thus oiling the wheels of industry. Is it not much nobler to contemplate that than the competition which has been suggested, and which would only cause Britain to continue to go down and

    2101
    down. We want to improve generally the condition of the workers of this country in a way which will make the people happier, and the nation more prosperous. We want a Britain which will take its place in the future in the industrial world to an extent which will bear favourable comparison with the most prosperous days of the Britain we inherited.
    7.0 P.M.
    Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: In rising to address the House for the first time, I do so with considerable diffidence and in the hope that the courtesy which is always extended to new speakers will not be lacking in my case. I anticipated when I attended this Debate this afternoon that we might possibly have envisaged this subject on something less of party lines, and with something of that broader vision which has permeated much of what the Prime Minister has said, than in fact we have met. But it did not take very long before the key to the discussion which we have listened to was set by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, because he had scarcely opened his lips before he made what I might, perhaps, without disrespect call a bee-line for an old stunt, and attacked the competitive and private capitalist system, as he called it. The whole of his argument and a great deal of that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) were both too purely political, and, I venture to say, that in the opinion of many of us were unworthy of a Debate of this importance, which demands so much sincerity from those who wish to make their points. One of the first points that was sought to be made was that between May of last year and the present time the unemployment figures had increased by something like a quarter of a million. That may be true. What was not indicated by the speaker was that the greater portion of that increase had taken place during the regime of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that, in fact, the figures at the present time, compared with the end of last October, are, with the exception of the increase in the coal industry, not so very greatly increased.
    But I wish in the few minutes that I propose to detain the House to take a more general line and to depart from what, after all, are purely party views,
    2102
    on what is really a great national tragedy that is being enacted before our eyes. If I might say so, it has always struck me that we are in danger of confusing what actually is the great difficulty of the present time, of confusing the really vital unemployment problem with a minor problem, which is the problem of the efficient redistribution of labour, and which I maintain is another problem altogether. We have, in the first place, this vast army of one and a-quarter million men unable to find labour for their hands to do, and side by side with these men we have in many branches of our national life an almost unprecedented demand for the product of their labour. There seems to be no means at hand, at least no means have been discovered by any party that has held office in the past four years, to correlate these two features—the enormous demand for the product of labour and the enormous surplus of unemployed labour. It is in the hope that we might be helped towards a solution of that part of the problem that many of us are listening to this Debate this afternoon.
    The pivotal needs of the people may be roughly classed as food, shelter, and clothing. As far as food is concerned, we, by a generation-long tariff system which has long passed its usefulness, have grown increasingly dependent upon the products of other countries. So far as shelter is concerned which, after all, is one of the first needs of the tribe, and which even savage tribes successfully provide for—we are not dealing usefully with the resources, either in manpower or in materials, that we have at hand, and it is open to critics of our society to suggest that in the sophisticated circumstances of our civilisation we are lagging behind the resourcefulness of even the savage. When we examine the figures of unemployment which were furnished by the Minister of Labour the other day, it must be a striking commentary to anybody that at a time when houses are in unprecedented demand there should be 59,000 people unemployed in the building trades alone.
    Not only that, but, at a time when all the resources both in manpower and material are unable to contribute shelter for the people along traditional lines, the leaders of labour, and not the least among them the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, are doing all

    2103
    in their power to prevent alternative methods of accommodation, which will contribute towards the solution of unemployment at the present time. There we have a ready means of putting new methods into practice. The steel trades depressed beyond measure could be producing an alternative form of house, and there is unskilled labour ready for the work, and yet by the iron, inflexible rules of the trade unions which control the building industry, fostered I may say by much of the class prejudice aroused in the country by the right hon. Gentleman himself, we are unable to supply that alternative need, and correlate supply and demand in that way. That seems to me to be in part, at any rate, an answer to the right hon. Gentleman, because the burden of his speech was that we must establish a new demand before we begin to produce more wealth. Here is the demand ready and waiting. All we have to do is to correlate it, by goodwill, and it can only be done by goodwill, with the available labour supply.
    There are many other directions in which that striking feature of modern unemployment seems to protrude itself. It does not matter what simple operation of daily life you require to have performed, what simple need of the home is requisite, it is almost impossible promptly to obtain the labour to deal with it. Take a homely instance. I went to buy a pair of shoes seven weeks ago. I am afraid I am still standing in the same shoes as when I went to order the new ones, and the answer of my shoemaker was that it is almost impossible to obtain shoemakers at the present time. The tailor very often is obsessed by the same difficulty, and I understand that representations have been made to the Minister of Labour quite recently to the effect that the tailoring industry is in urgent demand of more men. Yet at the same time, if we look at the figures, we find that something like 9,000 tailors are unemployed and over 14,000 boot and shoe makers.
    There is a wider aspect of the same feature of the problem, and that is as regards female unemployment. There are 88,000 women between the ages of 18 and 25 who are at the present moment unemployed. Most of these people it is reasonable to think have never really
    2104
    learnt a trade, and have never been apprenticed to anything. They are of an age and upbringing which make them suitable for quite a number of occupations. Owing to prejudice aroused, and purposely aroused in many cases, against domestic occupations, there is at the same time and side by side with all these young women a considerable shortage of domestic labour from one end of the country to the other. Here is another line of supply and demand we want connecting up. There has been the grievance hitherto that the Minister of Labour has taken the attitude that where a woman undertakes domestic service, if she undertakes it permanently, she is thereafter deprived of unemployment relief benefits, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that that is a matter which wants redressing at the earliest possible moment so that there shall be no reasonable excuse to prevent these women from obtaining occupations in domestic service.
    Looking still with the eyes of one who sees a great deal wrong in the distribution of labour, as apart from the major problem, there is a far wider question and one which appeals with particular force to those of us on this side of the House, the possibility of redistributing our population and stimulating an increased demand within our own Empire. I regret very much that we did not hear this afternoon any new proposals for the stimulation of our overseas settlement campaign. There lies a possibility which has not been one tithe exploited by any party in this country. The figures of emigration have declined since 1913 from something like a quarter of a million to something like 130,000 last year. We have in Dominions like Australia vast open spaces only waiting manpower to develop them, only demanding to be filled with our own kith and kin, and we have the men, the young blood and young life that we could dower readily, even with the limited financial resources that we have in 1925, and so strengthen and foster the links that bind us, the Mother Country, to the Dominions. There was in 1923 a scheme I believe introduced by the Western Australian Government by which they proposed, in return for a loan of £10,000,000, to settle 100,000 young people on the land, and, as the figures of our juvenile unemployment amount to 300,000

    2105
    or 400,000, that seems to me an investment that would be very well spent. Better to spend lavishly, freely beyond any experience we have had in this direction, rather than waste this money in degenerating and demoralising boys of 16 and other young people by the dole.
    I do not want to trespass on the courtesy of the House to any great length this afternoon, especially as many want to follow, but, if I might in conclusion, I would use a simile which struck me as I was listening to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, to describe the position as regards unemployment as I see it to-day. It seems to me as though we had this tragedy being enacted before us, a drowning man clutching at anything that he could get, while a vivisectionist and an anti-vivisectionist stand on opposite sides of the river, neither willing to go to his help because neither can accommodate his theories to meet the views of the gentleman on the other bank. Do not let us allow that kind of artificial prejudice to stand between us and the opposition. It is a political remedy that we want; we want a remedy that will combine the efforts and the good will of people in all parts of the House and in all parts of the country. Do not let us approach it with our own particular shibboleths or ideas in view, whether they be Free Trade, Protection or Socialism, but let us realise that in the hearts of every party there is a sincere and real desire to see this great blot on our national honour removed, and that we will stretch many a point in favour of people of any other party, and even swallow a certain amount of their medicine if they like, in a real effort to see it cured.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken upon the success of his maiden effort. It was a real and very thoughtful contribution to our Debates, and he may be well satisfied with its success. He referred to the present situation as a national tragedy being enacted before our eyes. That was a very strong expression, and I wish I could be quite convinced that it was exaggerated, but I am afraid I cannot. The situation is a very serious one. I have recently made inquiries in many quarters as to the position of affairs, and have consulted men of high standing
    2106
    in the financial and business world, but I have never met one of them who did not take a very gloomy view of the prospects, and, whenever I asked them to find any rift anywhere in the clouds, they said, "No, we cannot see it anywhere." They had the confidence, which every Britisher has, that somehow or other we should pull through. We have done so before, and they all seemed convinced that somehow or other we should get through sooner or later; but not one of them could point out to me how or where they hoped that the present prospect was going to be amended.
    If I may say so, I should have thought that this was the worst subject for a Vote of Censure. If the facts mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition are approximately correct—and I think they are—if the facts mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who made such an admirable speech a few minutes ago are correct, then it is a subject for very grave combined consideration by all parties in the House, representing, as we do, the nation which is suffering and which has ultimately to be saved. May I say, too, that not only do I think that this is a very inappropriate subject for a Vote of Censure, but I should have thought that the Leader of the Opposition was the last man who had a right to move a Vote of Censure upon this subject. I remember perfectly well when I was in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and was grappling with the subject of unemployment, feeling, as he does, that it is very easy to theorise, but that when you come to the practical difficulties they are not so easy to settle. There are a great many projects that occur to one's mind, but the moment you begin to examine them you find many factors and obstacles in the way.
    I remember that the Leader of the Opposition made a speech at that time in which he said that the Labour party had a constructive policy which they could put into operation the next day if they found themselves in a position of governmental authority in this country, and that that policy in six months would bring them much nearer a desirable position of affairs, both at home and

    2107
    abroad, than any that the Coalition Government had exercised. I would ask any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who is going to speak in this Debate whether he can point to any project—I will not say any scheme—which has been submitted to the House of Commons for dealing with that problem that was not merely an extension or development of what had already been introduced by the very Government which the right hon. Gentleman was attacking at that time? There is not one. It is very easy to dogmatise about these matters. The right hon. Gentleman went down to my country last year, just after he had been made Prime Minister, and talked about the problem of unemployment, in order to show how he was equipped to deal with it, and he said:
    "We are in some respects, especially on all the big questions that can only be solved by new conceptions of social organisation, intellectually superior to the other parties, because we are more up-to-date—we have used the experience of the years gone by with more effect. We will not reach perfection, but we will approach it."
    That was when the right hon. Gentleman was feeling a certain sense of exaltation after his appointment as Prime Minister; but then came the tragic declaration which he made at the Queen's Hall after he had announced the Dissolution of Parliament, after he had announced practically the end of his Ministry:
    "The cure for unemployment has not yet been found."
    He had been feeling very confident. He had schemes, and there was the late President of the Board of Trade, who was oozing schemes—[An HON. MEMBER: "So were you!"] Yes, but I carried the schemes. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, if he is going to speak, to point out a single scheme which was even proposed in this House beyond the schemes that were introduced by the Coalition Government. There is not one. Unemployment insurance, export credits, trade facilities, research, the construction of great roads—there was not a single scheme that was introduced by the late Government that was beyond a small, halting step on the road on which we started. Therefore, I say that the right hon. Gentleman has moved a Vote of Censure to-day on a subject which it is peculiarly unfitting to censure at this
    2108
    stage, and that he is the last man who has the right to move it. [An HON. MEMBER: "After you! "] I have not moved it, because I think it is a most inappropriate occasion. And let me point this out, that when last year—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen will allow me to proceed. Two of their number have already spoken, not, it is true, at inordinate length, but still they have been allowed to state their case. When, last year, a Motion was proposed involving a censure upon the Government, although we felt that the Government of the day had by no means made a real effort to carry out their promises, still, on that occasion we gave them a further opportunity, and it was entirely due to our votes that they got that opportunity. They must bear that in mind.
    Mr. J. JONES: Thank you for nothing! Keep your votes; we do not want them!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, you thank us for nothing now, but it was not nothing at that time. May I just refer to what was said at that time by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) speaking, I think, about six or seven months after the late Government came into power? This is what he said:
    "It can be truly said that we have not tackled unemployment as we were expected to do. It is simple truth to say that there is a growing sense of disappointment beginning to express itself because of the failure to produce any new schemes or big expansion of old schemes for finding work for the unemployed."
    Those are the facts. I am not at the present moment criticising them, because there is no one more conscious of the difficulties than I am, but speeches can be quoted from every right hon. Gentleman on the Labour Benches about what they were going to do. The only one in the case of whom I cannot find anything is the late Colonial Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). [An HON. MEMBER: "He is a Welshman! "] And he is not a Welshman for nothing. He did not make those promises, but everyone else did. As a matter of fact, this Vote of Censure is not directed against the Government, but rather against the small group sitting here behind me, who have been deprived of one of the very few opportunities which they have of raising

    2109
    questions in this House—a very generous effort.
    This is a question for very calm and! careful examination. We have been for five years in the trough of the wave, and I cannot see that there is any immediate prospect of improvement. I was a little disappointed in the speech of the Prime Minister. I expected him to give us a careful survey of the trade prospects, and the opinion of the Government as to what is going to happen. He said that he had been accused of preaching sermons, and I do not mind that—I was brought up in it. I do not mind his preaching homilies so long as he does not leave the collection to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he has a very heavy hand. I did expect from him, however, that he would have given us, upon the advice of the Departments and upon the advice of those whom he has a right to command to come to Downing Street to tell him what they think of the position, a real survey of the trade position and prospects. I have missed that in the speech of the Prime Minister, and I do hope that it will be made up when we get the next discussion upon the prospects of trade for this country.
    The President of the Board of Trade made a very admirable survey, I remember, about two years ago, and I am sorry to say that all he said has been realised by what has happened since. He was quite clear. He had consulted all the authorities on this subject, financial, industrial and others, and I do hope that when next he comes to discuss the affairs of his Department—and I hope there will be an opportunity in a week's time— he will tell us, upon the authority of his advisers, where we stand. The right hon. Gentleman said that the purchasing capacity of this country had gone up. Is he quite sure that he is not confusing that with spending, which is a very different thing. I think we are spending more. I have gone through the trade statistics for last year very carefully and I have compared them with the Statistical Abstract for 1907–1913 and I find there that we are spending very much more in many directions than we are spending to-day. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that we are doing that because our purchasing capacity is higher? I saw a very great authority on the subject the other day and I asked him "How is it everyone
    2110
    looks so prosperous? You have 1,250,000 of unemployed, your trade is down, but all the same there is a great look of prosperity about the country. Wherever you drive about, you see it." He said, "You are living on your reserves." I said, "How long will that last?" I asked him that two years ago, and he told me that then. I asked him last week, and he said, "I take a more pessimistic view." I said, "How long will that last?" "Well," he said, "you have very great reserves, but you are living on them." I should like to know what is the opinion of the Government upon that, because if that is true I am afraid we are watching a national tragedy. Is that true? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at one set of figures. He said the purchasing capacity of this country is up. In most of the big substantial staple trades production is down. Here are some figures which the London School of Economics have published. They first of all take the figure of 100 as the average production between 1907 and 1913. Upon that basis, last year agriculture was down in production 11·3, taking an average of the last five years, mining was down by 129. This is quantity. Prices, of course, are much higher. Iron and steel, engineering and shipbuilding were down 119.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The figures issued by the Empire Union show that steel production was up last year.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am taking an average of the last five years after the War, compared with the seven years before the War. It is very much down this year. When you come to textiles that is still more serious. Production is down by 29 per cent. When you come to other metals it is 40·9. When you talk about these industries you are talking about the most important industries in the country. They are all down, and some of them are still further down this year. It is no use talking about our purchasing capacity being greater than it was before the War when our production in our most important industries is down by these percentages, and in some of them still going down, with a population of three more millions at least to maintain. There must be something rotten in the State somewhere, and I think we ought to know from the Government what is their explanation of that. In the last

    2111
    year when I held the position the right hon. Gentleman occupies now, on 10th January unemployment was 2,000,000. When we left office it was 1,340,000. It was down by roughly 650,000. It is almost at the same figure now. You have had three years since then. What arrested it? I am not suggesting that it was due to the fact that you had a different Government. I am not making that point. It is much too serious for that. Something happened at that time. Whether it was the Ruhr occupation, which threw back the making of peace in Europe and further disturbed the exchanges or what not, something has happened to arrest the progress that we were beginning to make. It may be that we had reached the maximum we could hope to reach. If that is so that is a very serious factor indeed. I am rather in the stage of asking questions than of making suggestions. I am quite prepared to make my suggestions, but I want, first of all, to get from the Government of the day what the facts are. They have got them.
    There has been an inquiry initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). He appointed it about a year ago, and it is a very admirable body. They are investigating the whole problem. I should like to know at what stage that investigation now stands and whether they have got any facts which can be published to the House and the country which will be of the slightest use. I should also like to know how the census of production is proceeding, which was also, I believe, renewed last year. Can the President of the Board of Trade give us some sort of idea so that we may know what are the permanent factors? I expected the right hon. Gentleman to say something about that. What the country wants to know is this: Is this a temporary business, or are there permanent factors that we have to deal with? If it is purely temporary we will stand it. People will suffer. They will go through with it with greater determination and hope and comfort—there is comfort and hope in the worst conditions—if the Government car. tell them on the authority they possess to a degree that no one else could possibly do, because they have the whole of the facts and the machinery at their disposal—if they can say that in their judgment the factors are
    2112
    such that they will be gradually eliminated, and that the trouble is temporary, and that all we have to do is to sit tight and we will see the thing through. But we ought to know. There are factors which are certainly not temporary. I saw a very able letter yesterday in one of the Sunday papers from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley). It was a very careful, moderately stated, thoughtful contribution to the problem. His view, as far as I could see, was that the factors were permanent. He mentioned that whereas before the War we were only importing £3,000,000 of oil, now we are importing about £24,000,000 of oil. I should like to know to what extent have factories been set up in other countries to produce goods which before the War we were selling. Then there is China, of course. There is the extent to which Japan has captured our trade, and there are other factors of that kind.
    The right hon. Gentleman did not give very much hope with regard to remedies. I did not discover a single remedy that he suggested which he and I were not jointly responsible for five years ago. I think we ought to get some idea from the Government whether they have any suggestions to put forward which will deal with the problem, whether it is temporary or permanent. The situation is undoubtedly a very serious one from every point of view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston takes that view, I can see very clearly, and there was a good deal in what he said with which I agree. But it is the Government of the day that ought to be able to tell us, first of all, is the problem a temporary one or is it a permanent one. Whether it is temporary or permanent, what are their suggestions for grappling with it? You cannot go on maintaining a million and a quarter of men on the bounty of the State. The right hon. Gentleman gave us some figures, on the examination of ten thousand unemployed people who have been subjected to some kind of exploration by the Ministry of Labour, as to how long they have been on the fund. I think he will find that not far from a quarter of them have been on the fund for pretty nearly two years. Anyone who makes inquiries will know for himself what a demoralising effect that has had. There is another fact in that investigation which the Prime Minister did not call attention to, that

    2113
    the majority of the people on the fund, if that is a sample, are people who are either very young or in the prime of life. They are not old people. They are not the unemployable class. There is a very large proportion of men in the neighbourhood of 24 and 25. It is a very serious thing to have hundreds of thousands of young and vigorous people who have nothing to do and who are hanging about. It is not merely the problem of destitution. As a matter of fact, the fact that there is no destitution is one thing that is screening the gravity of the situation. In the old days, when you had 400,000 or 500,000 unemployed and there was hardly any provision for them, except what two or three very powerful trade unions were able to make, the whole country was aroused and excited, the public conscience was impressed and there was a great feeling that something had to be done. Now you have this enormous fund. It prevents actual privation.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: It prevents actual hunger.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Very well, I will use the hon. Member's word. I do not want to have a controversy about a thing of that kind. There is no doubt at all that this is hiding from us the gravity of the position, and, therefore, I implore the Government to set on foot some investigation to ascertain what is likely to be the prospect. Let the House of Commons know. We have been discussing many things this year, some of importance, and some of no importance. There is nothing that could engage the attention of this great council of the nation which is of more consequence to the lives of the people than an examination of the trade prospects of the country, on which the livelihood of the people and the strength and might of the country depends.
    Major STANLEY: If the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), instead of moving a Vote of Censure against the Government, had moved the same vote against politicians in general, there would have been much more justification for it, I believe that some, at any rate, of our present difficulties and a great deal of the despair and despondency we feel now, comes from the fact
    2114
    that for some years politicians, not only of one party, but of all parties, have consistently held up as a kind of dope promises of some political remedy for unemployment. Hon. Members opposite are, perhaps, the worst offenders in that line. For years at every street corner they have preached that Socialism is the cure for every ill, that Socialism, in some extraordinary way, is going to fling open markets that are closed to us, that Socialism is going to make China a consuming nation again, that Socialism is going to make Russia pay its way, and Italy to revert from electric power to the buying of British coal. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) drew a comparison between the Prime Minister and Mrs. Partington. If he liked to look round for similes, he might have seen a resemblance between his leader, or shall I say his colleague, the right hon. Member for Aberavon and King Canute. He, like that monarch, but without the royal knowledge of the futility of his act, is trying to command the economic waves to flow backward at the mere mention of the word Socialism.
    Members of my own party have also been to blame. Protection has been preached as an economic remedy based on the soundest lines. However well it may be argued, you cannot help leaving behind the impression that a tariff wall is an inefficient substitute for industrial efficiency and industrial enterprise. It is, perhaps, hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite who have least to reproach themselves, and that is due solely to the fact that so remote is their chance of ever again being in office that nobody has paid any attention to what they have said. The position has been laid before us very clearly. It is quite simple to find, on broad lines, what is the reason for the present state of unemployment. The reason is world depression. It is easy to find, on broad lines, a solution for that world depression, it is world prosperity. I saw, the other day, a definition of world prosperity which was not a new one, but I think it was rather a neat one. It described world prosperity as a state of free exchange in which everyone could use the purchasing power inherent in their own labour and circumstances to purchase, the produce and service of others. If we look round the world now, does that state of things exist? We see one great nation

    2115
    in economic collapse. We see another great nation which, through years of incessant civil wars, has ceased to be a consumer as far as the world is concerned. Everywhere we see high taxation, which reduces the proportion between the purchasing power of the producer and what he produces. Everywhere we see large armaments which withdraw from production large classes of men whose purchasing power in the world market has to be made up by other producers.
    All these things are outside national control, yet it is for not dealing with them, for not dealing with subjects over which the Government has no control, that this Vote of Censure has been moved. What lies within the national authority is in very small compass. All that we can do is to try to raise the ratio between the purchasing power of the producer and what he produces. We can only do that by turning his labour into better lines of production. The Prime Minister threw out the hint of subsidy as a remedy. I trust that if that policy is to be pursued, the only subsidy given will be a subsidy in relief of present burdens. I should like to take an illustration which was in the mouths of hon. Members opposite on several occasions during the Debates on the Budget. I refer to the case of the cotton industry in. Lancashire. There, as we all know, during the War and after the War the heavy trade, the trade in cheap cotton, was lost. Our markets were captured by Asiatic competitors. But the cotton industry was self-reliant, and it set about to find new markets. It set to work with its ingenuity, its artistic taste and its scientific skill. And it is gradually finding new markets for new products, in place of the old markets which the old produce now fails to capture.
    What would have been the result in that industry if instead of being self-reliant the industry had come to the Government, and the Government Had been weak and a subsidy had been granted? They would have been able by that subsidy to compete more or less on completely uneconomic terms with the Asiatic produce. That would have gone on for one, two or three years until the cumulative burden of that subsidy and the other subsidies which would have had
    2116
    to be given to other trades became too great. The thing would collapse, and the industry would find that they could no longer compete in the old market nor with other nations who had not been drugged by subsidies and doped by Government action, but had been forced to look for new markets where they were firmly established. In those new markets we have now, by our ingenuity and energy established ourselves. I trust that the Government will not recede from what they consider to be not only a wise, but a courageous policy. It does not require any ingenuity to think of a subsidy, but it requires a great deal of courage to stand up, as the Minister of Labour has stood up in this House, and lay down the principle that any interference by a Government in the directing of industry can only lead to a worse situation that we have at the present time. Although I believe that it would be fatal to the Government to interfere directly with industry, there are, of course, certain lines of action which it should pursue. There is the alleviation of the suffering which is caused by unemployment. There is the foreign policy, which will tend to bring the world into that state which is essential for world prosperity. I do not propose to pursue the latter subject now, but I would like to say a few words on the other. The function of the Government is to act as an efficient enterprise, as a circulator of scientific discoveries, as well as an inventor and experimenter of its own.
    Is it not possible to utilise the present system of factory inspection in some way? At the Board of Education there are inspectors who tour the country, inspecting schools. Their function, primarily, is to report on the schools, but, in fact, each inspector acts as a kind of propagandist. In every school he visits he sees some new idea, some experiment being started, and some successful achievement. At the next school he visits he hands on that knowledge. He says that such and such a school is trying this, or such and such a school has obtained very good results from that. I wonder whether it would be possible to utilise, within certain limits, the present system of factory inspection for that purpose.
    A further point is in regard to economy. Obviously, the higher taxation

    2117
    is, the lower is the ratio of the purchasing power of the individual to the value of what he produces. That is one of the essentials of world prosperity. I do not propose to emulate the agility of the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir Fredric Wise) who, on the Third Reading of the Budget discoursed on subjects varying from seed potatoes to stud farms; but I would refer to one big avenue for economy, and that is, the service of the War Debt. Do the Government consider that the psychological moment has arrived for a voluntary conversion of the War Stock which is at admittedly uneconomic rates? Some of us believe that we are faced now with difficulties and with dangers which are as great, if not greater, than any that faced us during the War. We believe that it is time to re-create the atmosphere of sacrifice which we found during the War. The difficulties in the way of a scheme like this may be many in theory, but there should be no difficulty in practice. Nothing could be simpler than to issue in place of each existing denomination of War Stock, whether Five per Cent. War Loan, Four and a Half War Loan, or Three and a Half Conversion, Stock exactly similar, bearing a reduced rate of interest for a limited period of years. At the end of that period of years, that Stock would rank once again pari-passu with the existing stock.
    The effect could not be harmful. It is not like the suggestion of hon. Members opposite. There is no realisation to be made. Every man inspired by a sense of sacrifice could decide for himself whether a sacrifice on this account would do good or would do harm. The result would not be negligible. If only one half of the War Stock was converted, and the rate of conversion was only ½ per cent. lower than the existing rate, we should have an annual saving of £25,000,000. That saving of £25,000,000 could be spent in scientific experiments, in grants-in-aid of rates, or in whatever capital development of industry might be desirable. Over and above the actual economic advantage, there would be an advantage in psychology. We are faced with tremendous difficulties, difficulties which I believe we shall overcome, but which we can only overcome by sacrifice, and sacrifice to be effective must be national, and not a sacrifice made only by certain classes in the community.
    8.0 P.M.
    Miss WILKINSON: In this House I re-present one of the districts that has been most hardly hit by unemployment—a district to which the Prime Minister rightly alluded as one of the black spots. It is a district which produces heavy iron and steel, a district with very highly skilled workers, whose skill and knowledge means a very definite asset to the country. As the Prime Minister said, this is one of the districts where unemployment is very definitely growing. Those of us who represent Teeside in this House, like the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton (Captain Macmillan) and the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) are continually receiving reports that more and more blast furnaces are closing down, and we have to decide how this problem can be met. The Prime Minister's suggestion admittedly do not deal with these black spots. Roads and reservoirs have had their turn. They are almost of no further use now. Therefore, with the pre-War market for heavy steel closing, with other coutries manufacturing under the stimulus of war, now competing where they once imported from us, we have to find new markets, and I suggest that there are two requisites for those new markets if they are found. That is, that they should be mainly agricultural and raw material producing.
    The Prime Minister suggested in August, 1923, that the things which were necessary are a restoration of stable conditions throughout the world, and a development of new markets. Those who like myself were listening with great intentness to what the Prime Minister had to say were very disappointed to notice that, except for a very casual reference, he made no suggestion as to where those new markets were to be found. I am going to suggest that one of the markets which ought to be explored and considered by the Government, especially by the President of the Board of Trade, is Russia. Russia is about the only country left that fulfils these requirements. When the name of Russia is mentioned many people, especially hon. Members on the opposite side, immediately become alarmed and say "Bogey," but those of us who have listened to this discussion will have realised that on all sides Mem-

    2119
    bers have shown a very real desire to deal with this problem on a business basis, and I believe that by the extension of credit facilities to Russia we would open up new markets which would give a certain amount of employment in many of those trades in which we have not been able to do more than touch the fringe of the problem, namely in the iron, steel and engineering industry. The result would be to save an enormous amount in unemployment pay and it would be a safe investment for the State.
    First of all we have the Prime Minister as an authority for the statement that in Russia we have one of the largest potential markets in the world. British and Russian trade, even with all the handicaps that political prejudice could place upon it, has been steadily growing. In 1921 it was £6,000,000; in 1922, £16,500,000; in 1923, under the then Conservative Government, it fell to £14,500,000; but in 1924, under a Labour Government which encouraged this trade, it had risen to £31,000,000. In the same time, the total foreign trade of Russia had increased five times. I am not about to suggest that this alone is sufficient to solve the whole unemployment question, but I do suggest that it provides a demand in respect of the kind of goods supplied by those of our industries which have been worse hit.
    The vice-president of the Soviet Delegation stated in the course of negotiations that were proceeding last year that the credits would have been used for purchases, in this country, of steamers and motor ships, equipment for mines, mills and railways and internal-combustion engines and electrical equipment. Those are just the trades that are suffering at the present time. From my own personal knowledge I can state that my brother happens to be working in Metropolitan Vickers, on an enormous contract for what is the old Russian Co-operative Society. Without that contract hundreds of skilled engineers would be unemployed in Metropolitan Vickers, but the chairman, Sir Philip Nash, stated in his latest address to the company:
    "Before leaving the subject of our export trade, I would like to draw your attention to some large contracts which we have taken from Russia, which have been accepted by us without being able to utilise the export credits scheme or the Trade Facilities Act. Your Board feel that they have practically
    2120
    reached the limit of business which we are able to provide, in accepting at our own risk in the present condition of things. On the other hand, there is a large amount of business offering of a desirable nature, and we feel that a natural corollary to the efficient recognition of the Soviet Government would be an extension to Russia of the Trade Facilities Act, or some other scheme of a similar nature which, provided a concern like our own had already shown its bona fides by accepting a certain amount of business at its own risk, would enable it to take at least an equal amount of business under some financial guarantee provided by the Government."
    The curious thing is that Russia is today, I believe, the only country that is explicitly excluded from credits by the order of the President of the Board of Trade. Whenever the question of trade with Russia is mentioned there are certain reasons that are brought forward for excluding Russia. One, for example, the Foreign Secretary stated to a recent delegation of the Trade Union Congress that waited on him on the subject of Russian trade and unemployment. Russia, he said, could use her trade balance with Great Britain for the purchase of commodities from this country to a much greater extent than she does, if she wanted to do so, but I want to point out that at present Russia is very much in the position of a very small shop people without credit who has to buy in order to turn over very quickly, and sell again, and consequently Russia has had to buy in this country not goods that set our factories to work but largely re-exported goods, cotton, rubber, goods that have been brought into this country, and are re-exported, which provide a certain amount of employment for clerks and shippers, but do not deal with the fundamental question of employment in industry.
    Obviously the purchase of plant requires the use of capital for a considerable period, and Russia at present has no available free capital. In addition to this enormous handicap that is placed on trade between this country and Russia, I am told by a responsible official of the Soviet delegation that she has had to pay as high a rate as 25 per cent. for discounting her bills. Then the second reason which is given is that Russia has never taken more than a small percentage of the total goods of this country, but if hon. Gentlemen will refer to the pre-War figures they will find that just previous to

    2121
    the War there was a very largely increased trade between the two countries. In the 15 years previous to the War the export of Russia to this country, mainly of food and raw material, more than doubled, and the imports from this country into Russia increased at a similar rate. I have the quantities here which I could give to hon. Members if they desired. It may be said that Germany is the natural source for the supply of Russian trade, and trade between Germany and Russia did increase enormously before the War, because the German manufacturers were prepared to give three years' credit to the Russian agriculturists. Now Germany has no spare credit, and we have.
    When we suggest that extending these trade facilities would be a better means of utilising our resources than by spending our money on giving unemployment pay, the reply is that Russia will not pay her debt. May I ask hon. Members to listen to the type of men who have said that as far as trading debts are concerned Russia does not owe us a penny. We have the men like Mr. Leslie Urquhart, chairman of the Russia Asiatic Consolidated Company; or Mr. A. G. Marshall, director of the British Engineering Company of Russia, which is responsible for large exports of engineering plant from this country to Russia; we have the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which I can assure hon. Gentlemen is not a Bolshevist organisation; and we have men of the standing of Sir Alfred Nimmo, of the Federation of British Industries. They have all testified that these trading debts are being honoured to the last pound. Obviously it would be madness if one farthing of these trading debts were not honoured by the Russian Government.
    Hon. Members may say, "What about the confiscated property and the pre-War debt?" There does exist a great deal of misconception on this subject. First of all, there are of course the counter claims for the damage due to the civil war, and in Russia it was largely subsidised through the activities of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not one word has been said about the activities of the Labour Government last year, in trying to get this whole vexed problem settled, and to get those counter claims met and to have the whole thing settled. I may state that had the Labour Government
    2122
    still been in office the late Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary, would have been able to lay on the Table of this House a very adequate settlement of all these outstanding matters, and until there is full diplomatic recognition there never will be a settlement. Merely saying that you cannot settle it because those pre-War debts were not settled simply lands us in a vicious circle from which somebody has to break loose. I am aware of the enormous social pull that is being exerted against Russia, but we want markets. Our people are more concerned about getting employment than they are about the feelings in reference to Russian political matters.
    I wish to endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor), in an admirable maiden speech, in which he spoke of what is happening in this country while we quarrel about our theories of the Government of Russia, which, in any case, will not be settled according to our ideas. Meantime, we allow all this valuable trade to go past us and other countries are going to take advantage of it. May I remind hon. Gentlemen that here we have in Russia a potential market of 100,000,000, who occupy one-sixth of the total surface of the globe. This one-sixth produces raw materials that are vitally necessary for our industries. That country for many years to come will never be a manufacturing country in the sense which we understand it. They are a nation of peasants, of agriculturists, and not 5 per cent. of the population is concerned in manufactures in the sense in which we are a manufacturing nation. The only thing that is necessary, when we have, as I see in my constituency every time I visit it, a growing number of men, highly skilled, standing at the street corners desperate and despairing, while in Russia we have the people, as I have seen them, ploughing their land with pointed sticks because they cannot get tractors and agricultural machinery—all that is needed is to relate that demand to that capacity to supply, that the Government shall be prepared to send the credit along the channels and, as it were, to irrigate that market. Although I am not suggesting that this would solve the whole unemployment problem. I do say that we in the North-East demand the renewal of trade with Russia—I was one

    2123
    of the candidates who won an Election on the Russian Treaty—and that one of the most popular things this Government could do would be to use the export credit facilities and the Trade Facilities Act so as to allow great firms like Metropolitan-Vickers, and Ruston & Proctor, of Lincoln, to get the orders that they are anxious to accept. It is stupid to put men on the streets when there is this demand for equipment in Russia.
    I will deal very briefly with the question of unemployment among women. As I am the only woman Member of my party in the House, I must say something on this head. It is one of the tragedies that there are no unemployment schemes for women. The woman who was a Minister in the Labour Government was, I know, taking the most special care of this subject, but, unfortunately, she had to go before her schemes were completed. Here you have all these women unemployed and no schemes whatever to meet their needs. I know I shall be told that there is a large demand for skilled domestic servants. In many cases the unemployed women are skilled workers or women used to factory conditions, and they would be hopelessly unsuitable in any kind of domestic service. We have had schemes for training the women in domestic service, but they do not solve the problem. It is ridiculous to say that every woman can become a domestic servant. There ought to be at the Ministry of Labour some kind of committee or small department to look into the question of finding a new outlet for that kind of women's labour which was called into the labour market very largely as a result of the War. Owing to the enormous depression you have thousands of women who must earn their own living, but cannot get work to do. There is an enormous possibility for women's labour in the proper development of the telephone system. Three or four times the number of women now employed could be employed. I have tried to deal with one or two practical remedies, because I do not think it matters in the least what we feel of each other as parties. Our remedy is Socialism. If we cannot get that, at least let us explore these practical matters, in order to get a certain number of our people back to work.
    Captain MACMILLAN: I do not suppose there has often been a Debate in which there was a greater desire on both sides of the House that no word should be spoken which would be of a hindering or even of an unhelpful character at this crisis. There are, indeed, many occasions on which the interchange of repartee between us is a matter which affords us useful entertainment, and in which the thrust of some skilled duellist causes almost as much pleasure to the victim as to the author of the blow. But these weapons are more properly confined to that species of mimic warfare which we politicians are supposed to carry on. I was interested, when listening to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, to see that it was in that character that he conceived it to be his duty to bring forward this Motion. At this time it seems to me that any kind of interchange of this sort is mischievous and wicked. Unemployment Debates in the past have consisted chiefly in the party that is momentarily out of office unmercifully twitting the party that is for the moment in office, and the party that is in office, with equal fervour and even less novelty, spends its time in recalling the history of the time when those now out of office were in office. I have not any deplorable past, because I am not one of the older Members of the House. I rise for the sole purpose of saying one or two things which some of us believe may usefully and properly be said from this side of the House.
    There is no question of the gravity of the problem that confronts us. Those of us who sit for purely industrial constituencies, and particularly those who sit for constituencies where the great trades, iron and steel and shipbuilding, are mostly concentrated, are fully aware of the poignancy and the pathos of the situation with which we are every day confronted. There is no division of opinion upon that point. I think, therefore, that if we consider the situation to-day, and compare it with the situation of last year, or the year before, there are two main differences of which we are all conscious. The situation has become more grave, but it is not a new position. It i.3 simply the intensifying of an economic situation that has been developing for the last three or four years. We are, as it were, like people suffering from a

    2125
    disease, and the moment of crisis is approaching. That is the only thing that is new about the present situation: the crisis is become day by day nearer. While we have been theorising and talking the stark and gaunt spectre of economic fact has been slowly and steadily pursuing its devastating path. That is new. But only in that respect.
    The second feature is that there has never been a time when these facts were becoming more generally understood by the people as a whole, when the condition of the depressed areas of England was being more generally known in the country as a whole, and when there has been a greater desire on the part of all people, both in sheltered and unsheltered industries, whether they belong to the rentier class, or to any other—a more general desire to use every means they can for a peaceful solution of these difficulties. Then again you have conferences in progress in every industry that is affected at the present time and we hope that these will be fruitful of benefit. I think the Leader of the Opposition would have been better employed had he dealt in his speech with some of the very proper points which organised labour can make, should make and, I hope, will make in putting forward its case in these industrial conferences. Organised labour will, I hope, have the assistance of the highest skill and of the best accounting and auditing advice in connection with this matter. There are suspicions that figures put forward are inaccurate or that something is being concealed. I hope the best accounting skill and advice as I say, will be available so that if these suspicions be true, we may know of it and so that the country may deal in the proper manner with those who have put forward such figures. If, on the other hand, these suspicions are false, it is well that they should be dissipated by the clear light of fact.
    In the second place, organised labour should employ skilled technical advice so that it may be in a position to say, where necessary, "You ask us to make sacrifices and concessions but your works are out of date, your machinery should be replaced, and your organisation is inefficient." That is the sort of answer which a trade union leader is properly employed in making in these industrial
    2126
    conferences where the facts justify such an answer. If that is found to be the case, we have the machinery of the Trades Facilities Act and we can devise fresh machinery for seeing that where concessions are asked, particularly if those concessions are to be made by Labour, they shall be made to industries which are efficient and properly managed. While that is true as to the proper procedure of organised labour at these conferences, nothing can possibly be done in bringing this crisis to a successful conclusion except there is an absolutely open and fair attitude on the part of the employing class. It is either now or never that all the cards must be put on the table.
    There may have been periods, though I do not myself believe it, when the Conservative party could have been properly accused of taking too much the side of the employing classes. That certainly is not true to-day, and, speaking for myself and for any of us in this House, I can say that if we are satisfied—or rather unless we are satisfied that in the conferences now going on, the employing class is prepared to put all its cards on the table and to adopt what was called by a great statesman the only cure for industry, the open-air cure, then they will not get any support from us. There is talk of subsidy. I believe that along the lines of inquiry into the incidence of Imperial and local taxation may be found a fair and proper means of subsidising the depressed areas. We have at present before this House a Bill which is the necessary preliminary to the setting up of any such machinery. If an industry is to go to the rest of the country and ask for subsidy and support, surely it must go as a united and harmonious body. If there is disunion with the industry itself, what can it expect from the country as a whole?
    I think it was Lord Derby who described those areas where unemployment is most pressing, as devastated areas. In France the devastated areas have been given special concessions in regard to local taxation, and that may be the solution of our own problem. If these industries, as a result of the negotiations now proceeding, can go to the rest of the country with unity in their own ranks to seek help from the more prosperous and the more fortunate, I believe they will have an overwhelming case. I frankly and sincerely say that from whatever side opposition may come

    2127
    to such unity, that opposition will not have our support. We feel at this time, above all others, the only useful Words any of us can say from this side of the House are to appeal, particularly to the employing class, to come forward frankly and fairly and put their position so clearly to the leaders of Labour that such harmony and unity as we all desire may be accomplished and, in that way, industry may find its own cure for its own ills by its own efforts.
    Mr. LAWSON: There has brooded over this House during the whole Debate a sense of helplessness in relation to the unemployment problem, and I think that sense of helplessness is due to the fact that the Government, since it came into office, has steadfastly refused to have anything to do with the investigations now taking place in regard to Various industries. During the past few months those of us who are connected with the mining industry have been asking questions and making suggestions to the Government, but if there is one Department in this Government which seems more helpless than another it is the Mines Department. I sometimes wonder if the Prime Minister took the miners' representatives in this House seriously when he appointed to that Department a very estimable gentleman, but one who seems to me to take as little interest as he possibly could in the industry which he is supposed to superintend. There was a further instance of that attitude this afternoon in an answer which was given to me by the Prime Minister. The mining industry has reached a crisis which will probably further intensify the unemployment position. I asked the Prime Minister for a definite assurance, regarding the coal owners' proposal that the Seven Hours Act should be set aside and that the miners should work an eight-hour day, that the Government would not contemplate setting aside the Seven Hour Act. The Prime Minister says that at the present moment he cannot say anything in view of the negotiations which are taking place.
    The question that occurred to my mind was: Does the Prime Minister think that the Seven Hours Act is something that can be concerned with negotiations? The Seven Hours Act is something that concerns the Government alone, and the
    2128
    Government ought to make up their mind definitely to stand by that Act and not allow any extension of it, for the simple reason that the suggestion laid down by the coalowners has created a spirit of unrest and irritation throughout the whole industry and will undoubtedly go far to mar the negotiations which are going to take place. The miner does not believe that the eight hours suggestion is in any way going to affect the present position in the industry. We have sat in this House during the past few years, and in prosperous times we have heard mineowners claim that the seven hours should be eight hours. I have even heard an outstanding coalowner in this House rebuke other coalowners because they were asking for an extension of the seven hours to eight hours when, as he himself said, the miners were producing more under the seven hours than they were under the eight hours, and how, in those circumstances, the coalowners can suggest to the country generally that an extension of an hour in an industry in which the markets are already glutted with coal is going to improve the position, I fail to understand.
    According to the official figures given by the Minister of Mines, there were on 25th May 199,154 men unemployed in the mining industry, but I venture to say that those figures are totally inaccurate. The Prime Minister this afternoon pointed out that one of the difficulties that they were in was that, owing to certain alleviations and extensions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the operation of certain new benefits since they came into office, the number of people on the unemployment insurance fund had been artificially raised, but I suggest to him that the steps that the Government have taken to rob men and women of unemployment benefit have more than accounted for the number that have gone on as a result of the benefits given by Labour during the last Government. In my own County of Durham—and I know I am speaking of the mining industry generally—out of something like 150,000 to 170,000 workers in Durham, there are nearly 50,000 unemployed in the mining industry alone. I have had a list given me, and some men have had suggestions made to them by the coalowners to accept reductions of wages and some to accept increases of hours, because we have a

    2129
    local agreement on the question of hours too. The amazing thing is the extent to which the miners in that district—and I believe it is uniform—have been prepared to suffer reductions. They have met these people in the most reasonable way, and yet what have they done? In some cases they have suffered reductions, but they would not agree with the coalowners that the county agreement, to which the owners were partners and which they signed, should be set aside. "Very well," said the coalowners, "we will close the mine."
    I was talking last night to the secretary of a large lodge, one of the most moderate and rational men you would find in any part of this country in any class, and he told me that a coalowner said: "We want a reduction of wages, and we also want an increase of hours, over and above what the county agreement gives." They said: "What reduction of wages do you want?" The owner said what they wanted, and they gave him the reduction, but they said: "We cannot suffer any violation of our county agreement." He said he wanted both the hours agreement to be extended and the wages, or prices, to be reduced. The secretary, speaking for the men, said: "We will not violate the hours agreement signed by you. What increased reduction will you take in order to keep the pit going, in place of the violation of this agreement?" He said: "None; we want the increase of working time." Will this House be surprised when I say that those men, although they have submitted to a drastic reduction, and although they were willing to increase that reduction rather than violate a county agreement that affects all the men, have been refused unemployment benefit by the representative of the Ministry of Labour? That is not a single case, because there is case after case, in my own county, of men who have been not only willing but anxious to consider ways and means of keeping the pits open and who have been told that the pit was closed as the result of a dispute over wages, and they are not getting unemployment benefit.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, nor am I acquainted with the facts to which he refers, but is
    2130
    he certain that that is not a case which was decided by the umpire, over whom we have no more control than he has?
    Mr. BATEY: That is the trouble.
    Mr. LAWSON: Yes, it has been tried by the referees. There is a claim for a re-hearing, but we have had so many cases of this description in Durham that we are not very hopeful about the result of the re-hearing, in view of our experience.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I only want to be quite clear that the hon. Member is not unwittingly making a statement which is not quite fair to the Ministry of Labour. From what he said, I gathered that this is a definite case which would go to the umpire, and we have no more control over the decision of the umpire than he has.
    Mr. LAWSON: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is the Ministry of Labour's representative who first of all refused the benefit, and the whole proceedings are carried out by the Ministry of Labour. I am not in doubt about these facts, because I was talking only last night with the secretary, and I got the details with a view to giving them in this House. We have, on the list given by one of the chief of the Durham Miners' Association about 5,000 colliers idle, having refused local reductions or longer hours. Then there are about 8,000 who have simply refused longer hours, and 5,000 who have refused local reductions. This is the position, that men are saying to the coal owners: "We want to keep this pit open; what are your terms for keeping the pit or the district going?" They say so and so, but they go back a week after, or a fortnight after, and those terms are not low enough; they want lower terms. I speak, I think, for the mining industry generally, and if it is representative of industry at all, it is a shameful thing to the Ministry of Labour. Some owners in the County of Durham at the present moment seem to me to be taking deliberate steps to put the men in the wrong, and leaving those men to the mercy of the representatives of the Ministry of Labour, which the hon. Member opposite represents. I do not like to say a thing like that, but we have unemployment in my county and in Wales on a scale which other people scarcely understand.

    2131
    Unemployment is a terrible thing, wherever you find it, but you get some areas where it is scattered here and there, and although large numbers of people are concerned, it is varied to such an extent that it is not felt quite so heavily as in other places. But what is the position in Wales and in Durham? [An HON. MEMBER: "And in Yorkshire."] Yes, and now in Yorkshire, too, I believe. You have people in Wales in the remote mountains where, if you stop a pit, the population is derelict. If they go to another colliery, that colliery is in the same position. It looks very much as if it will sweep through the whole of my county, and you will have a derelict area, the population of which includes the finest men it is possible to find. I was speaking with a friend, who is not a miner, of a miner who had been nine months out of work, and the friend remarked that, so far from being pleased at being released all that time from the dangers of the mine, the thing that was more painful to that man than all the dangers of the mine, was that he could not get the opportunity of facing those dangers.
    I am not hopeful of the industries of this country so long as the Government of the day maintain the attitude of detachment which the Prime Minister manifested when he spoke this afternoon. Are the coalowners always to be in the position of saying, "This is my coal, and we are going to do simply what we like, and if we deal death and destruction among the population of this country nobody is to do anything about it"? The Prime Minister and the Government have got to do business. I was pleased to hear some of the things the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. I confess I am charmed with his spirit, but this House can take it from me, that because of the peculiar nature of the unemployment problem at this moment, because of the black spots about which the Prime Minister spoke, this country is in a dangerous position, and I warn the Government that the last thing they should do is to cut down unemployment benefit or continue to rob miners of their right.
    I would not have said a word about this to-night, because I should not like to do anything or say anything which
    2132
    would mar the proper solution of these questions. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have done it."] I have done it because I believe that the coalowners want an extension of hours, and an extension of hours will intensify the position, because I believe that if the coalowners carry on for an extension of hours, they are aiming at it, not because of the present position of the industry, but because they want to get back to the old position, and they see an opportunity. I would warn them and the Government that the miner is never so dangerous as when people think he is down, and if they do not realise it now, they will realise it before the trouble is over.
    Mr. RADFORD: The Prime Minister in his speech this afternoon was good enough to say that the Government would welcome suggestions from any part of the House for dealing with this question of industrial depression and unemployment. I do not know whether that is a formal way of inviting suggestions from the leaders of the Opposition parties, and that he would hardly expect to get suggestions from his own back benches, but I have a scheme that I would like to submit to the House in broad outline. I am sure there is no subject of such paramount importance to our nation to-day as the one the House has been discussing this afternoon and evening. I do not know whether the motives of those who proposed this Motion were such as to entitle them to praise from these benches, but, at any rate, the result of it has been that this all-important subject has been ventilated once more, and I am sure we cannot give too much time and thought to it. The appalling loss this country is suffering with an unemployed list of something like 1,250,000 hardly bears thinking about. In calculating it in terms of money alone, on an average earning power of somewhere in the neighbourhood of £3 a week, it means a loss to the country of nearly £200,000,000 a year. But beyond that monetary loss there is the appalling amount of misery, of loss of self-respect, heartache and disappointment, and, particularly among the younger members of the unemployed, the loss, shall I say, of character.
    I am sure that of the 1,250,000 unemployed, we are all agreed that the vast majority would much rather be working.

    2133
    Only this morning I received a pathetic letter from one of my constituents, a man who has been unemployed for two years. His wife had kept the place going as a cleaner, and now she has lost her job. They say they do not want the dole, but only some work. I am sure they are typical of the great bulk of these unemployed. But the position is even more serious than even these huge figures indicate, because, in addition to the 1,250,000, or thereabouts, unemployed, we do not know how many unemployed there would be if those firms, which have been struggling on, hoping against hope the last two or three years, waiting for the tide to turn, have to close down. Undoubtedly, many more hundreds of thousands are within reasonable reach of being on the unemployed market. These unemployed constitute a load on the remaining workers in employment, and on the industries still working, and, as every hundred thousand is added to the unemployed ranks, it casts a heavier load still on those still working, and tends to make costs higher. The result of these additions to the unemployed list is cumulative, and rises by arithmetical progression. In the past we used to have a comfortable trade balance. Our imports exceeded our visible exports, but, added to that, were our invisible exports, and so that left us with a surplus. That surplus has been dwindling, and, as has been stated in the Debate to-day, it is calculated that this year there will be actually a deficiency. There are a limited number of years during which we can go on with a deficiency. We are living on capital, and we are heading to a state of affairs which we cannot contemplate with equanimity.
    What is the root cause of unemployment? I have heard it debated here by much abler men than myself, but I have never heard in plain English as to what really is the explanation of our unemployment; and that is that British goods and British productions are too dear. We want to get our markets back. We talk about looking after new markets. The Prime Minister was blamed the other night for not pointing out fresh markets, but if we provide the right quality of goods at a price that is competitive with those of our competitors throughout the world our goods will find their market once more. Whether the capitalist
    2134
    system prevails, or whether, as hon. Members opposite say, we should have goods-produced under Socialism they have got to be manufactured for no greater cost than they are sold for. No concern can for long carry on the production or the sale of goods at a loss. We are under the necessity, whether it be private enterprise or not, not to do that. Hon. Members opposite overlook that point sometimes. An hon. Member in one of our debates referred to the instance of a colliery in his own constituency, and said if the mine had only been owned by the State that colliery would never have been closed down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] But the present private owners of that mine would not have closed it down had it not been that the sales of the coal were not recouping them for the wages, and the overhead and other expenses. Is it suggested that under State ownership the State should be ready to make good out of the Exchequer what might be lost in that way? If that be so, then I think we must be more careful than ever in seeing that we do not have State ownership.
    9.0 P. M.
    I come back to the question of costs. This is the scheme I wish to submit for the consideration of the House. Our problem is to get the cost of goods down. Of what does the cost of the production of goods of any kind consist? It consists of raw materials, the wages of the manual workers, the wages of the salaried officials, the clerical staff, salesmen, managerial staff, and so on, also the fuel, railway carriage, cartage, rents of premises, ground rents, or royalties, rates, electricity, gas, water, postage and other expenses, and interest on money borrowed. Broadly speaking I think the expenses can be massed under the heads I have named. Broadly speaking, too, half the cost of the production of goods is wages. In some cases it is more, in some cases less. Therefore, both equity and necessity demand that wages ought not to be called upon to bear the whole burden of getting costs down. Hitherto amongst the suggestions we have heard we have generally been told that the workers have got to work longer hours, to give more intensive production, or to take less wages. My proposals involve these, but. in addition we must take steps to reduce the salaries of the officials by the same percentage and also the other costs for fuel, railway carriage, rates, elec-

    2135
    tricity, gas, water, interest, rents, and other expenses, bank charges, and so on, incurred in the manufacture of these various things. By permission of the House I should like to put before hon. Members my proposals for reaching that end. I propose, with all diffidence, that a committee of all parties, with all manufacturing interests represented—this only from the point of view of getting expert evidence—and Board of Trade officials should be appointed, and that that committee should investigate and see by what percentage, broadly speaking, it is necessary to reduce the selling price of British ships, British steel, British machinery, British engines, pig-iron, British coal, and other British productions, by what percentage it is desirable and necessary to get the price down, so that we may once more command our share of the world's markets. That can easily be ascertained. Take shipbuilding. It is common knowledge, it has been discussed in this House, how our lowest tender for a £50,000 job has been beaten by some foreign firm tendering for £40,000, and so on, in bigger sums—it may have been in the neighbourhood of £100,000. Any of the figures will do for the sake of argument, and showing what I mean. This committee, having made its inquiries, would, I suggest, report and recommend that British productions must be reduced in cost by a certain percentage if we are to once more secure our fair share of what is going in the trade of the world.
    By way of example, let us assume the rate recommended to be ten per cent. The matter having been reported, the next thing would be for the Government to pass an Act called, if you like, the National Emergencies Ten Per Cent. Deduction Act, or some analogous title.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Call it the Shareholders Emergency Act!
    Mr. RADFORD: Take first the case of a Municipality. Under the provisions of this Act, rent, interest and other payments of that nature, the salaries of the people—under agreement for 10 years if you like—must be accepted less the deduction. The municipality, accordingly, would pay interest on its debt less the deduction arrived at. Its salaried officials would be all receiv-
    2136
    ing a lower rate of pay, and the result would be that that municipality would require to levy a smaller amount for the rates in order to cover its commitments. Therefore, the amount of rates levied on the manufacturing concerns in its area would be reduced, with corresponding benefit. Take the case of a railway company, or a canal company. Every official in the employ of that company, from the highest to the lowest, would come down under this statutory 10 per cent., the interest on money borrowed by the railway company or the canal company would similarly be a less sum owing to the deduction, and the end of it would be to debit the interest on that railway company's profit and loss account by a reduction of 10 per cent. The company would be able to reduce its rates and charges for the carrying of passengers and goods by the same amount. The result would be that on each concern the freight account for railway carriage would be reduced by the 10 per cent.
    We come now to a difficulty. Unfortunately our industries are divided into sheltered and unsheltered industries. In the sheltered industries, I believe, calculations have shown that in the existing state of affairs in the country an uneconomic rate of pay is in many cases being paid. In those cases the 10 per cent. would be deducted from the wages as well as from the higher salaried people. In the case of the unsheltered industries, those in which there is the greatest volume of unemployment, and where, unfortunately, the rate of pay is very low, instead of asking for any reduction we should have to ask for an increase of output equivalent to the 10 per cent., or extra time worked. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I would ask hon. Members opposite whether it is better to have a nominal wage of £2 15s. per week and be employed in earning it, or to call your wage £3 15s. per week and be out of work? I could understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards the reduction of wages or the increased output on the part of those whom they claim to represent if the suggestion were made that the wages should be lowered or that the output should be made greater to swell the employers' profits. In this case it is not so. The idea is to keep works going that would otherwise stop.

    2137
    They are not merely in competition with one another in this country, but with firms in Belgium, France, Italy, America and Germany. If hon. Members would remember that fact, I am sure they would adopt a more reasonable attitude towards proposals for either reducing wages or intensifying output.
    Next we come to steel. The same rule would apply. The steel people would get their pig iron at 10 per cent. less, their wages and salaries bills would be 10 per cent. less, and their coal at 10 per cent. less would represent a terrific saving. Seeing that it takes, as I think it does, approximately, four tons of fuel to make a ton of steel, it would mean that the present price of nearly half a ton of coal would be saved in the price of each ton of steel. In the shipbuilding industry, one of the most hard hit, shipbuilders would buy their steel plates at about 10 per cent. less than now, their wages and salaries bill would be reduced by 10 per cent.— or, if wages were not reduced, they would get a 10 per cent. more intensive output. The charge for notes, the cost of power and lighting, and, in fact, every other overhead expense would be down in the same way; the legal charges and the auditors' and accountants' charges would all be down by 10 per cent., and with everyone bearing their share of the sacrifice shipbuilders would be able once more to quote prices for ships which would allow us to compete in the markets of the world.
    The biggest difficulty—though I suppose it is not the way of a skilled politician to suggest any difficulties in his own scheme—would be with regard to retailers. If this scheme, or something analogous to it, were adopted, steps would have to be taken to prevent retailers from sticking to their present margin of profit. It could be done. What would be the effect on the national Budget? Under this scheme interest on War Loan, interest on Consols, all interest, would be paid subject to the same deduction of 10 per cent. The present Budget of approximately £800,000,000 would be reduced, not by 10 per cent. on the whole, because of the, interest to be paid to people abroad, for we should only be able to make this deduction in the payments to our own nationals; but it would mean a saving of some £70,000,000 out of the £800,000,000. What a relief that would
    2138
    be all round. In addition to the benefits I have endeavoured to enumerate, every industry and every workman or workwoman would benefit by the reduction of the present levy for unemployment insurance, because of the vast number of people who would be brought into work again; and since this sacrifice would be general and universal—[Interruption.] Can hon. Gentlemen point out anyone who would not be bearing a share under this scheme? The people; with independent incomes, the "idle rich," as they are called, and all the middle class people who receive interest on their investments would receive interest, even on Government investments, less this deduction of 10 per cent., because it is only by everybody bearing a share that it is possible to get the cost of production down all round. With everything coming down by a common percentage we should all be nearly as well off with the reduction as we are at present. The only things on which we could not effect this deduction would be purchases of raw materials and foodstuffs abroad and the payment of interest to nations abroad. In those cases we should have to pay the gross amount. If we decided that a 10 per cent. reduction in sale price was necessary, it might be that to enable it to be effected we should have to have a 12½ per cent. reduction all over the country.
    In conclusion, I would remind the House that this is a time of national crisis. The position is far more serious than the people of this country and, if I may say so with respect, than many Members of this House realise. We are at a crisis in the affairs of our nation. In the last decade we faced more than one crisis and we came through by mutual sacrifice, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite, to hon. Members on this side, and even to the Government to probe these suggestions—I put them no higher than that—to see if it is possible for us to arrive at some scheme which may help to get our country out of the present serious position, so that the generations who come after us may be able to say of this generation, in the noble words of Macaulay:
    "Then none was for a party;
    But all were for the State."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Sir Alfred Mond.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] May I speak on a point of Order? As the one person representing a well-acknowledged party like the Communist party, upon whose work in Parliament should depend the ultimate future of the growing voting strength in favour of the anti-capitalist movement of this country, may I have your ruling as to whether, as such, I should have a place in the official and important Debates or I should have no place at all, and thus that all my supporters should be cut out of Parliamentary representation?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: The Debate has now ranged over a very large field, and it is quite impossible in the time at my disposal to cover even a part of the ground on such a very large subject as that we have been discussing, but I would like to draw attention to certain phases of the question and to some points in the various speeches. The hon. Member for the Chester-le-Street Division of Durham (Mr. Lawson), who has left the House, made a very strong and a very impassioned speech on behalf of the unemployed miners in the Durham district. His speech raised a question which I want to put to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has asked us not to go into any detail in discussing the coal crisis, and he probably has his reasons for doing so, but I would like to ask, Is it not possible for the Government, through the Mines Department, to give to the country, as well, perhaps, as to the various interests, some really authoritative opinion on some of the questions which form part of the controversy? One of those questions is the extension of hours. We have the very important question of whether or not an extension of the daily hours from seven to eight in coal mining would reduce the cost or not, or would be beneficial or would not be beneficial to the industry.
    I gather from the speech I listened to that the hon. Member who represents a mining constituency is of opinion that the extension of hours would fee of no benefit to his industry, and would probably have no effect in reducing costs. On the other hand, I have heard other people, with as
    2140
    equal authority, tell me it is the only way of saving the coal-mining industry. It is obvious that on a question like this it is difficult to get two parties to a discussion to accept each other's view, and it is even more impossible for people outside to form any opinion. The Government, through the Mines Department, ought to be in a position to form a definite and clear opinion and to issue definite information. Everybody is more or less agreed as to the necessity of getting the coal industry on to a better basis. One way of getting it on a better basis is to reduce costs. It seems to me a great pity that, after all the discussion that has taken place between the coalowners and the miners, nothing seems to have been arrived at as to what is actually required to solve the problem.
    In all these discussions we seem to deal with these matters as if they were simply a national affair. We are told that trade depression is a national question. I would like to point out that the coal industry and other industries are not dealing simply with a national question, but they have to face an international situation. The whole of the coal industry is now working without any profit, and in every country it is being put forward that if you lower wages you will get more orders. May I point out that once you start that process it will go on indefinitely, and therefore, instead of pursuing that course, your real solution must be an international one. If more coal is to be produced all round, then it is only by some international agreement that any stability can be secured.
    The same applies to the steel and iron trades. In these cases the War has caused a much larger capacity for producing steel and iron, and you have to go much further than a consideration of the national aspect if you want to deal substantially with the difficulties which are affecting all the countries of Europe in the same manner as our own. The Prime Minister said that this was a financial problem. All I would like to say in that respect is that for the past four years I have been pointing out that a policy of deflation is bound to create unemployment. The policy which has been adopted by the Government has created the very thing we do not want, and in trying to

    2141
    find a solution we have, by our financial policy, created and extended the evil which we are all so anxious to remedy.
    We have had various steps of deflation. We have had the policy of deflation in exports, we have had heavy taxation, heavy sinking fund charges and, finally, a gold standard, and every one of these steps which have been taken has diminished our exports. This enables us, it is true, to import more cheaply and buy raw material and food at a lower price, but at the same time it must not be overlooked that the effect of this policy is that your export trade is being continually decreased. We look at the unemployment statistics and we say, "What is the matter, our export trade is going down?" The fact of the matter is you have been taking steps to help them to go down, and you cannot carry on two contradictory policies at the same time. All those who have studied the policy of the gold standard say that it must have some action of that kind, and therefore you must grin and bear it. The result is that by all these means you depress industry and we find as a consequence the House of Commons and our political leaders in a state of helpless despondency, not knowing what steps to take in order to remedy the evil. That is the position we are in.
    Let me give an instance on the American Exchange. The American Exchange went down, and South Wales sent tinplates to America and jumped over the tariff wall. Now this position has been reversed, and you find a large number who were employed in this trade now unemployed. That was a direct consequence of the improvement of the American exchange. I invite the Government to present us with a balance sheet demonstrating the advantages which they claim for the policy which they have adopted. We do not send so many goods to America as we do to countries with a bad exchange, and the coal trade is at a standstill to-day because your former purchasers abroad cannot afford to buy the coal at its present price. We are really living, in this matter, in two different constellations, in which you have good exchange and bad exchange countries, and you have to examine carefully which are your best customers.
    2142
    The Prime Minister has invited suggestions, and he has made a reference to subsidies in regard to certain industries which contribute about 50 per cent. of our unemployed. I will not follow the hon. Member, who spoke last, in regard to his new idea, but as I have put forward a scheme in which there was a suggestion of a subsidy, perhaps the House will permit me to say a few words on this subject. The root ideas of subsidies are the same, that is, you have too great a difference between the cost of production and the capacity to purchase, which means that the price is more than the customer can afford to pay. How are you going to bridge that gap?
    There is a certain school of thought which refuses to bridge that gap at all and they say it is unsound economically to endeavour to do it. They say that we had better leave things alone and in time matters will right themselves. That is the view which has been expressed by the Labour party in a criticism of my scheme in a memorandum which they have issued. They take a most orthodox economic view which certainly surprised me, and I wondered who was responsible for drawing up such a remarkable document. The statement that my scheme is superficially inadequate does not prove anything except an abusive intention. It is said it would deflect the Insurance Fund from its proper purpose in order to subsidise employers to pay wages to workers who would have obtained employment without the aid of the scheme. Very well, if the workers could obtain work without the aid of any subsidy, why are they not obtaining it, why are they walking the streets? Why are you moving this Vote of Censure? Obviously if these people can obtain work, one has to assume that they are slackers and do not want to obtain work. Why are not they getting it? They are not getting it because the work is not there; the work is not there because people are not making the goods; they are not making the goods because they cannot sell them; and they cannot sell their goods because their goods are too dear. Therefore a subsidy on wages, reducing the cost of production, would enable people to get work. To-day they cannot get it. That is my first answer to the extraordinary statement, which is signed,

    2143
    I may say by a number of the leading members of the Labour party.
    Let me deal with some of these objections. What is the fundamental objection? That the money which has been subscribed for the purpose of unemployment insurance should not be used for the purpose I propose. What kindness are you affording to any workman when you say: "Here is the money to walk the streets with, and by heavens, you use that money to get a job, and off you get!" What service are you rendering to him or his family by taking up an attitude of that kind. I cannot understand by what manner of method you are supposed to advantage in any possible way those we all want to help by taking up that attitude. It seems to me an incredible attitude, if there are 10,000 men out of work and 9,900 would accept and would be glad to have the chance of accepting it because they want to get back to work.
    Let me go on to another point which has been brought up on more than one occasion. I have been told, and this is one of the chief points that has been put over and over again: "You are discriminating against efficient firms by a premium on inefficient firms." Let me deal with that, one of these curious theorist recondite points that I am continually meeting. Let me take shipbuilding. Is there one shipyard working at even 50 per cent. of its capacity, however efficient it may be? They are working far below the full employment capacity of that industry. Some of your most efficient works are those in which you have your largest measure of unemployment. That is very curious. Some of your largest plants put up during the War, some of your latest plants, as the Prime Minister knows probably as well as anybody, are to-day not running because their unit capacity is so large that you cannot operate them. The old-fashioned plants to-day are more economical plants to work than some of the best plants put up in South Wales for steel. It is not merely inefficiency to-day. These are the basic facts.
    The scheme I have proposed is a voluntary scheme, leaving it free to any man to either take or surrender his unemployment benefit for his job or not.
    2144
    It is not compulsory; I am not taking anything away from him; I am not giving the employer even full advantage of the men he takes on. I am only giving him three-quarters and keeping 25 per cent. for the Unemployment Insurance Fund. What will that do? It will immediately reduce the growing burden on your unemployment benefit fund, and will immediately reduce your contribution. What do I ask him to do? I ask him to prove to a committee, composed of his own and trade union representatives, and, if you like, a Government representative, two essential facts, that the work which he wants to employ people on is new work, and that he is not simply taking away work from one person and handing it out to another. It is work which is not to be got otherwise for this country at all. I am always being told that my scheme does nothing but take an order from firm "A" to give it to firm "B." Obviously, if it did not do more than that it would be entirely useless. What is happening to-day is not that firms "A" and "B" are taking from each other; it is firms "X" and "Z" in Holland and Germany which are taking these very ships from this country. We have had example after example where a narrow margin of difference has meant loss of orders, and you deliberately go on paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in unemployment benefit. Under my scheme a very much smaller amount would give thousands of men employment, save your unemployment fund, and get industry going again.
    Sometimes I wonder whether we are still a business nation. We seem to have become a nation of academic economists —mere political word-spinners, occupied with our own shadows instead of dealing practically with practical questions People put up bogies and ask me to knock them down. I have been knocking them down month after month. You can put up any number of theoretical bogies to any scheme and no human being can ever tell you whether that will happen or not until you try. When you try, you find something quite different happens to what anybody expects. You can raise endless hypotheses. But there are three fallacies which I would point out. One fallacy is that the volume of trade is limited, therefore if one man gets an order another man loses it. That is not true. The volume of trade is not limited. Trade is not static, but dynamic. The

    2145
    second is about efficiency, as I have pointed out. The third is that the area of subsidised labour would be immensely extended. As my scheme stands, it could not be extended. I have a datum line by which a man has got to give the Employment Exchange a return for the number of people employed in his place every six months. He cannot get any advantage of any kind unless he is employing more people. I have endeavoured to safeguard against a man who simply dismisses people and then says, "I want more men," and who does a little fake that way. I think I have killed that and successfully killed also the idea of a continued area of extension and also against an automatic ending.
    Let me argue from what we do to-day. You say you are not subsidising. Yes, you are. You are subsidising idleness; you are paying £100,000,000 a year in Poor Law relief and in unemployment benefit in order to artificially keep up the labour market. If you withdrew both, the obvious result would be an enormous slump in the labour market. That, your true economist, your theoretician, would tell you you ought to do. That is what we did in 1837, when the Poor Law Commission abolished able-bodied relief altogether, and threw that whole system of outdoor relief over and produced a revolutionary result, largely I think because trade was so much improved that they could afford to do it. No one would do that to-day, and I do not think it would be possible or right to do it. But, surely, it would be a sensible thing to utilise this money in order to create work, rather than simply pouring it away year after year. We are not working on a true economic basis, but on a false and bad economic basis. Any kind of basis which will create work and give people something to do must be better than one which keeps them in a demoralising state of idleness.
    I do not want to go into details, because I have provided Members with copies of the pamphlet which I published, and I am going to provide them with copies of a revised edition shortly; but I am not going to let this idea sleep. I do not say that it is ideal; I do not say that nothing better can be done, but I am not prepared to go on waiting year after year while nothing is being done. It is no use our standing here saying that it is a
    2146
    great tragedy, that it is a great crisis, that it is a great national disgrace, if we are not prepared to take any steps to remedy it, or make any effort to alter it. We had much better say that we cannot deal with it, and forget about it. Since I first started this idea, in 1922, we have had these Debates year after year, but we have really made no substantial progress. I am not reproaching anyone, but no member of any party can honestly get up and say that they are taking any decisive action in the direction of making a change. When I was chairman of the Cabinet Unemployment Committee, which considered these matters very carefully, there was always the idea that after the winter things would be better, and, whenever a scheme was proposed which would last for a few years it was always said, "You must not do that, because there will be no unemployed." I think it is that attitude which has entirely spoiled our whole handling of the situation. We have always temporised. If we had made up our minds five years ago that we were going to have five years of unemployment, we should certainly have launched, as we ought to launch to-day, large schemes employing large bodies of men over a number of years.
    This is only one scheme in the line of progress that ought to-be pursued. I should like to draw the attention of the House to another country which also went on to the gold standard and had enormous unemployment, namely, Switzerland. The Swiss found what we have found, namely, an immense depression in their chief export trade, the watch industry, especially to countries with very depreciated exchanges, and, being hard-headed, practical people, they said, "We have got to do something about it." They did so. They began, some years ago, in 1921, with 27,000 people unemployed in their watch and clock industry, and they laid down a scheme for a subsidy under conditions similar to mine, although the machinery was not exactly the same. They laid it down that there should be a further employment of personnel which would otherwise have been unemployed, that the subsidy should only be given to manufacturers who would otherwise be working at a loss, that the amount of the subsidy should not exceed the sum which

    2147
    would otherwise be paid in unemployment benefit, and that, where the result justified the possibility, repayment should be considered. They started in 1921 with 27,000 unemployed. In March, 1922, they had 22,000 unemployed; in June, 1922, 13,000; in December 1922, 9,000; and in March, 1923, 7,000; so that they reduced their unemployment figures in that industry by 75 per cent. They have done that, and I have yet to learn that anything terrible has happened; I have yet to learn that some fearful economic disaster has overtaken the country.
    I give that as an example of a similar scheme which has worked and which has produced a result which is rather what we should have expected. I still say that, of all the schemes I have considered and discussed, the scheme I have put forward has some transcendant advantages. It has the great psychological advantage of employing men in the factory where they have always worked; it has the great advantage of marrying the man to his job, and making him feel that he is doing something to get a job; it has the great advantage that automatically the employer knows exactly what subsidy he is to get; and it has the great advantage that it will be automatically safeguarded from abuse. It can be used by local authorities and public-utility societies, and I have had communications from a great many saying that they are prepared to use it. I say, let us make a start somewhere and try. The worse that can happen is—what? It may be that you will have no more people unemployed, that you are no better off. The best that can happen is that you would make a real hole in unemployment. When once you start one of a series of industries going, others will follow suit. We know that they are all correlated. You would get ships going you would get steel going, you would get rolling mills going, you would get coal going. It is like throwing a stone into a pool, and making rings form which extend outwards, interlocking with one another, so that you could never say how great the effect would be.
    There are other directions, also, as to which I hope we shall hear a little more. We have our national credit, and we have achieved that national credit by enormous sacrifices. Why should we not use it on
    2148
    a big scale, on a scale which would achieve some results? I remember very well the Minister of Health, before he was in office, bringing forward a scheme of great importance for a great waterway between Bristol and Liverpool. Such schemes produce permanent assets. Even if, like the Manchester Ship Canal, they do not show any interest on capital at first, they would have an indirect effect upon industry which it is almost impossible to calculate. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about land reclamation. I remember very well being in Bavaria after the War, and driving out to Munich and seeing large peat bogs being reclaimed for agricultural purposes. I asked the Bavarian Minister what this was for, and he said it was being done by ex-soldiers who were going to be settled on the land. It was an elaborate scientific process, and I asked him, "How can you afford to pay for it?" He said, "We have got to pay for it. These men have to be found something to do." They had not got a great national credit, but they did pay for it, and those men are producing food and feeding themselves. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be so frightened about putting people on the land. There is not quite so much mystery about it as some people make out. But I would say, do not put them on the land on the terms on which you have put the ex-service soldiers on the land. Do not put them on to dear land, and make them pay rents three times higher than farmers have to pay. Do not try to make them repay the cost of putting them on the land, out of which they are trying to make something, in a certain number of years; do not charge them with the expenses for buildings which ought never to be put up; and do not leave them disorganised, without proper co-operative machinery either for produce or for sale. That scheme fell through, but I have seen in Palestine people, very unfitted for the land, doing quite well on the land under proper direction and on reasonable terms. We have thousands of people here to-day who could make some kind of a living for themselves on the land under a really properly organised and generously treated system.
    Then we have heard only one line about Empire development. Why not more? Why not deal with this matter financially in a bigger way? I am certain, from

    2149
    what I have been told in the City, that they would much prefer the Government to raise some big loans of its own, instead of continually petering out small loans under the Trade Facilities Scheme and so on. The continual creation of a few millions of stock is not at all popular. Money can be found. The right hon. Gentleman will probably be advised that it cannot be found. He will be told the money market is choked up and the underwriters do not want any more, and all that kind of talk, which is quite true. But if he made one of the great speeches he is in the habit of making, if he asks the country to find the money to re-establish the Empire and to find the money to solve the unemployment problem, he could get any number of millions that he wants. Really, we want something like £100,000,000 or £200,000,000. When I was Chairman of the Committee of which he was a member, when someone told us that £10,000,000 were required, I remarked that you might as well put a postage stamp over a battleship which had got its side blown in by a torpedo to stop it sinking. You cannot deal with the unemployment problem, which is a large capital problem, in this pedantic manner.
    May I tell the House one experience. This Spring I was in Greece. Greece is a small country with 7,000,000 inhabitants. It has had 10 years of war. Into that country, owing to the exigencies of the late war with Turkey, 1,500,000 refugees have been dumped. You see their huts, cottages and wooden shanties everywhere. I talked to the Minister of Finance there and said, "What are you doing with these people? Have you any unemployed?" He said, "No, we cannot afford to have them unemployed. We have them settled on the land." I said to the governor of the Bank of Greece, "How do you do it?" He said, "We have had to give them large credits, probably more than we ought to have given them, but we could not leave them to starve." We have made a large loan to Greece to establish her unemployed, but we have not done anything of the same kind for ourselves. Does it not seem remarkable, and rather a disgrace? Supposing one of our Dominions had been invaded. Suppose 2,000,000 English families came overseas to our shores. What would you do with
    2150
    them? Would you sit down and debate at length what you could afford? No, you would have to deal with them as Greece has had to do. You would gather the army of unemployed in one spot and exhibit them to the British people. They would insist, not that more committees should be appointed or that more investigations should take place, but that something should be done at once. They would get a Government which would take rapid and decisive action. They would really deal with the canker in their midst.
    One thing I am convinced about is that you cannot afford to go on as you are doing now. That is the real point. You have to make up your mind that it is so bad and so dangerous to the commonwealth that you cannot allow it to continue. The real feeding ground of the Communists is the despair you are creating. Decent, respectable people want to work, and apparently we have not the organising capacity to create anything. Surely you ought to sweep aside the whole of these pedantic and theoretical considerations, which to my mind have been holding us up too long. I am disappointed in that sense with the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He means well, but I do not think he has really taken the helm of his own ship. If he really made up his mind as to the course he wanted to steer and insisted that it should be done, it would not be rejected on the ground that it was either too uneconomic or too unsound or too visionary. I invite him to deal with the question in a broad and courageous way. Let us show the world that after all we, who pride ourselves on our power of organisation all over the world, can deal with this problem at Home.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Snowden.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: On a point of Order. May I respectfully ask if the Standing Orders and the practice of the House permit the Whips of the majority party to entirely freeze out from the right of speaking one who has the misfortune of being in an extreme minority though representing a new political party?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Neither the Whips nor the Standing Orders of the House have anything to do with the question who catches my eye.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I ask what regulations the representative of a new party should follow or observe in order to catch the eye of the Speaker?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have not been able to see the hon. Member on this occasion, but he has not been unheard in the present Session.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In the few minutes I propose to occupy the time of the House, I shall devote myself to the subject which ought to be before us. In view of most of the speeches which have been delivered in this Debate, neither excepting that of the Prime Minister nor that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I think it is necessary to remind the House that we ought to be discussing a Vote of Censure upon the Government. One can understand the affection of a fond parent for his own offspring, and that may explain the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has occupied so much of the time this evening in explaining and attempting to defend a scheme which is antiquated and for which, up to the present, he has been unable to find even one single supporter.
    HON. MEMBERS: That is not true!
    Mr. BASIL PETO: I entirely support the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: We are discussing, or at any rate we ought to be discussing, the neglect of the Government to deal with this question of unemployment. The Prime Minister said the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was not helpful as a contribution to the treatment of this problem. I wonder now much the speech of the Prime Minister himself is likely to help the solution of this question, or even to find work for a single one of the million and a quarter of unemployed. The Prime Minister's speech made no attempt whatever to defend the action or inaction of the Government in regard to this matter. We ought not to be having an academic mutual improvement society debate upon the causes of unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was nothing more than a string of platitudinous analyses, well-known to everyone, of the general causes of unemployment. What we want to know, and why we have put down this Vote of
    2152
    Censure, is what the Government are going to do to find work now. The Prime Minister told us that he could have occupied three hours of the time of the House this afternoon. He spoke for an hour. I am sure the House would have been quite content and glad to listen to the Prime Minister for another two hours if he had been able to contribute anything at all substantial to the treatment of this question.
    My right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition referred to the treatment which the Labour Government received at the hands of the Opposition 12 months ago. We had not been in office a month before we began to be bombarded every day with questions from hon. Members opposite, wanting to know what our plans were. The Prime Minister took part in. a Debate on the subject within five or six weeks of the Labour Government taking office. On that occasion he did not, as he did this afternoon, speak about the difficulties of dealing with this problem. He did not on that occasion talk about its grave character. He confined himself exclusively to criticising the young Labour Government for not having already abolished unemployment. We are in the position this evening that the Prime Minister occupied 12 months ago and we are not going to be led away into general discussion, into academic discussion of the causes of unemployment. We are prepared to do that at the proper time and on the proper occasion. This evening we are not in the dock; it is the Ministers opposite who are in the dock.
    On the advent of the Labour Government, 12 months ago, commercial confidence began to improve. By every sign and by every test of improvement, trade, following the advent of the Labour Government, was of the most satisfactory and promising character. The price of Government stock went up, which is the best indication of improving national credit. What has happened under this Government, which was returned to improve trade? We were to have a stable Government, which would give greater confidence to the commercial and financial interests of the country. They have been in office eight months. As they have been reminded this afternoon, they themselves admitted in the King's Speech that there were promises of improving trade. What

    2153
    has the Prime Minister had to say about that this afternoon? He said that trade is no worse. Trade is worse. I would like to tell the Prime Minister, and I am sure that he will agree with this statement, that when we have a state of industry such as exists to-day, if there be no improvement, things are going worse.
    10.0 P.M.
    Commercial men, great industrialists in the country, are losing heart. That is the most fatal thing that can happen. They are losing heart very largely for the reason that was bluntly confessed by one of the supporters of the Government only a few days ago. Speaking as the representative of the industrial group in this House, he said that the opinion was widespread amongst commercial people in the country that this Government either knew nothing about industry or cared nothing about industry. Are there any signs that the confidence which was to be brought about by the return of the present Government to power has been realised? Take Government stocks, one of the best tests that you can have of financial and commercial confidence in the Government. Consols when the Prime Minister took office stood at 58½. They were down the other day below 56. The 3½ per cent. conversion loan stood at 79¾ in October last year. It is down now to 75½. This lack of confidence is not-shown only in the decline of Government stock. It has affected all industrial securities.
    Has the Prime Minister seen the monthly summary of the "Bankers' Magazine," in regard to the falling value of securities, which was published two or three days ago? They tell us that during the month of June, on 365 representative securities, there was a shrinkage in money value of not less than £48,000,000, and that British funds alone accounted for £31,000,000 of that amount. This is not a political document. Then they go on to make this remarkable observation:
    "It is impossible not to be impressed with the very considerable reaction that has taken place in securities as a whole during' the first half of the current year."
    During the tenure of office of the right hon. Gentleman. He spent the earlier part of his speech, the greater part of his speech, in trying to minimise the import-
    2154
    ance and severity of the unemployment problem. He told us that there were 89 per cent. who were employed and only 11 per cent. unemployed. We are not concerned with those who are in work, but with the 1,250,000 who are out of work. It is no consolation to those who are out of work to know that there are more people in employment. If the right hon. Gentleman remains in office, supported by his colleagues, for the next four years, he would be a venturesome man who would say that the proportion of employed and unemployed would 'be in anything like the ratio that they are to-day. It is much more likely that you will have as many people out of work as you have in employment. In the face of this situation, what has the right hon. Gentleman to offer? Nothing, absolutely nothing. He spoke for an hour, and he never made one single constructive proposal.
    We have been reminded—we knew we should be reminded—of the statement which appeared in a former Election manifesto of the Labour party that we had a positive remedy for unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman had a positive remedy for unemployment at the same Election, and at that Election, although he failed to secure a majority of the Members of this House, he had behind him a larger number of Members than the Labour Government had when in office Therefore we are justified in asking him, why does not he apply his positive remedy. The only reply he could give to us this afternoon was that, as we had said we had a positive remedy, it rested not with him but with us to propound some practical scheme for lessening the number of unemployed. But the right hon. Gentleman should be the man of action—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why!"] We are not in office. The responsibility of dealing with this question rests with the right hon. Gentleman.
    I ask again, what does he offer us? Nothing, except this: He is considering a number of questions, he is inquiring into a number of questions, he is going to see whether certain developments take place or not. In regard to low carbonisation there have been successful laboratory experiments, and some time in the dim and distant future that may become a commercial proposition. He is going to watch and wait and see. Meanwhile

    2155
    the number of unemployed is continually increasing. Is that going to do anything for those who are out of work now? Is that going to do anything to stimulate our dying industry? What has it got to offer in regard to electricity? At any rate, we did do something in that matter, and we left the work well prepared for the right hon. Gentleman. We were in office a shorter time than the right hon. Gentleman has already held not merely office, but power. If we had remained in office up to the present time those electricity schemes which we had well in hand would be, in a very large measure, in practical operation to-day. They have had our Reports, they have had those Reports for months; they appointed a Committee to consider them and now the Government are considering them. Again, what is that going to do for the trade? How many unemployed will that provide work for? Again, it is inquiry, it is consideration, it is wait and see, but there is not one single practical Measure.
    The right hon. Gentleman made a statement to the House, and if he had not read it carefully from the notes of his speech, I should have thought that it was an unconsidered impromptu idea which occurred to his mind. It is just like the one that he made in his speech when he was censuring us 12 months ago, when he made the suggestion that the Government might buy up the whole of the food supplies of the Dominions and market them in this country. I had the temerity to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to ask him what he meant, and it was perfectly clear from what he said in reply that he did not know what he did mean. I asked him if he meant subsidies to private firms. Subsidies to landowners, subsidies to rates. He did not know, but he appealed to the House of Commons in the course of this Debate to give him some ideas about the question. It is not for the House of Commons to give the Prime Minister ideas. It is for the Prime Minister to give his ideas and his schemes to the House of Commons. Again, is that going to do anything for the unemployed now?
    I have done the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. He did offer one suggestion. He was speaking, he said, to the country—I wonder what the country and the unemployed will think about his
    2156
    speech to-morrow morning—and he advised the country to buy only British goods. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister did not give one moment's consideration to the matter before he gave that advice to the country. What are the industries which he tells us are depressed, which constitute in the main the unemployment problem in its aggravated form? Cotton? The people are advised to buy only British cotton— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and by that means improve employment in the cotton trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because they buy practically only British cotton already. Not only do we supply the home market with cotton, but in normal times four-fifths of the output of Lancashire is sent to foreign markets. Again, another of those depressed industries is coal, and we are advised to solve the unemployment problem by buying only British coal. The shipbuilding industry is also an exceedingly depressed industry, and so we are to buy only British ships —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and by that means we are to solve the unemployment problem.
    An hon. Member opposite by his interruption confesses that he does not know much about it. He asks "Why not?" Does the Prime Minister advise this country in regard to international trade to adopt the isolationist policy and to exclude foreign goods? Is that the policy? But the Prime Minister knows well that that is the most fatal policy that could be advocated in the country, which has to depend to such a great extent upon markets for its own manufactures in foreign countries. If you are going to adopt that policy then you cannot blame other countries if they follow your example, and what is going to become then of your export trade in cotton goods, and in woollen goods, and indeed in all our manufactured articles? That was the only suggestion which the Prime Minister offered, a suggestion which, if carried out, would make the present condition of things worse than it is to-day.
    Then he recommended us subsidies. It is true that he does not know what he meant by subsidies, but apparently somebody had said to him, "subsidies."
    He asked the House of Commons what they have to say about subsidies. In reply to my interjection he showed that he evidently had some recollection of the

    2157
    phraseology by which he had supported the Safeguarding of Industries scheme, by talking about subsidising efficient industry. But it is not efficient industry that needs subsidising, if subsidising an industry is going to do any good at all. Even in industries like coal and iron, there are firms, well organised firms, efficient firms, who are making very considerable profits. A very large firm of iron and steel works in South Wales had its annual meeting last week, and it had had a very prosperous year. That was a very efficient firm. Therefore, it is not the efficient firm which wants subsidising. I must not be understood as giving any support whatever to the vague and indefinite suggestion of the Prime Minister that it was efficient industries, those best able to compete, which would have any claim at all on the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Nothing doing in electricity; nothing doing in agriculture, except what was started by the Labour Government last year. Nothing doing to train the agricultural worker, about the need of which he spoke very strongly. Nothing doing for afforestation; nothing doing for roads, except what the Labour Government started last year; nothing doing in research. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a long list of research that was going on, all of which was in actual operation under the Labour Government. But, perhaps, I have again done an injustice to the right hon. Gentleman. He thinks that the development of the film industry would solve the unemployment problem. When the Parish Councils Bill was before this House the late Lord Salisbury said that what the rural worker wanted was not parish councils but circuses. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is very much like that. He cannot provide work for the unemployed and, therefore, he proposes to give them British films.
    "The most extraordinary feature of this present Government is, not that they have not only done nothing to reduce unemployment, but that they have made a point of going out of their way to do everything they can to increase it."
    Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise those words? Speaking a year ago at Manchester the right hon. Gentleman said that. How truly the words apply to his own Government! Not only have they done nothing to improve trade and
    2158
    unemployment, but in the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they have deliberately gone out of their way to injure trade and to imperil the financial position of the country. After eight months they stand there, objects of pity. Eight months ago their supporters in the country hailed their return to power as the beginning of a new era of prosperity. Trade to-day is admittedly in such a state that employers are losing heart and giving up the struggle, in many cases, in despair. The number of unemployed is increasing; the mining industry of the country is hurtling to ruin, and the only thing the Prime Minister could say about it this afternoon was that there were 3 per cent. unemployed a year ago and 16 per cent. to-day. That is the only consolation he can give to the mining industry.
    Eight months in office, and to-day the Prime Minister gets up and has not one grain of hope to give to these 1,250,000 unemployed! It is not merely that, because this 1,250,000 are not always the same persons. The right hon. Gentleman himself read out figures which show that probably half to three-quarters of the workers of this country are unemployed for some time during the period of 12 months. Therefore this is not merely, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to make appear, a problem of 10 per cent. of our population, but a problem of 40 per cent., of 50 per cent., of 70 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Make it 100 per cent.!" and Laughter.] It is quite consistent with the record on this question of hon. Members opposite to treat an increase in the number of unemployed as a matter for laughter and joking. I do not include the Prime Minister in that indictment of his party. I sympathise with him in the character of the men who support him. The right hon. Gentleman concluded with one of his very feeling perorations. I know it is almost sacrilege to lay ruthless hands upon a man's peroration, but the unemployed are not going to be fed by copy-book maxims, and what I would say to the Prime Minister, with all respect, is, "Let us have a little less sentiment and a little more practice." It is all very well to be an idealist, but to be an idealist you must have ideas. The right hon. Gentleman to-day, seat-i-mentalist though he be and though his heart may be, and I believe is, in the

    2159
    right place, is utterly devoid of all ideas for dealing with this grave problem which is growing more grave day by day. That is why we ask the House of Commons to support this Vote of Censure. Of course we know that we shall not carry it. Those servile hordes, including the squads who have been recalled from leave, will support the Government in the Lobby to-night. Dare I conclude with these words. [HON. MEMBERS: "A peroration!"] Yes, but not my peroration:
    "He prophesied that by the time the next Election came, the conduct of the Labour Government in regard to the question would be regarded by the electorate as one of the most damning episodes in the whole of their career. Whatever chance they might have had of winning the sympathy of the country would be thrown away by the manner in which they had thus lost every opportunity they had of improving the condition of the people and of doing something for the unemployed."
    If that were true—those are the words of the Prime Minister—of the Labour Government, I venture to say that, when the next General Election comes, in a far greater measure the country will consider it to be true of the present Government.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): We have listened to a remarkable speech, characterised not, certainly, with sentimentality, but with the usual sweetness and light and good-nature that we expect from the right hon. Gentleman. He has given us his pity, and he has given the Prime Minister his sympathy, two most valuable gifts, which, I am quite sure, the Prime Minister appreciates at their true worth. A few minutes before, he ridiculed, in his own characteristic style, the Prime Minister's appeal to buy British goods. If I were to judge from the right hon. Gentleman, talking with the pure milk of his own fiscal doctrine, which probably would have been curdled by the time that it had reached the rest of us, he would ask us simply to buy foreign goods. Is that the policy he would like us to carry out more and more under the circumstances? Is that what he thinks would cure the present situation, or is he not going to prescribe until he is again called in?
    Look at what underlies his own criticism. He says: "Here you have the iron and steel industry depressed and the shipbuilding industry depressed; are you
    2160
    going to buy heavy iron and steel and ships?" I say to the right hon. Gentleman that his researches do not seem to have carried him very far in the economics of which he talks. Let him take some of the goods that might be bought. I will take some of those that come in in quite large quantities, something that might be bought by ordinary consumers: glassware, gloves, sewing machines, garments of various kinds, hardware. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that, if we were to buy more of these, it would not follow, as has happened in every trade cycle and change up till now, that the orders in constructional steel and machinery would follow the increased consumption of other goods in this country? If he does not, I may say that his research into and knowledge of industry do not seem to have led to very good purpose.
    Now, I come back to one or two of the other statements which have been made, which have given rise to a good deal of misconstruction this afternoon? I made a note of some of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. He was talking about the numbers that were unemployed, as the right hon. Gentleman has just done, and he apparently, so far as I could gather from the words that I took down, asked for this inference to be drawn, that thousands and thousands had been knocked off by the Administration and a few thousands had been put on by the Labour act of last year, as though, for purposes of comparison, unemployment was greater than it apparently seems at present from the figures. If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that, there was no other inference that could be drawn from his words as he used them, which I took down. Moreover, the words which he used were these, that this Government had been sleepless in their efforts to knock off the register those who were entitled to be on it. There is not a single shadow of substance of any sort or kind for that. [Interruption.] Let us ask him, as with the other vague and general allegations he made, to give us the actual facts and figures.
    The Leader of the Opposition has tried to blacken the situation from the point of view of the wellbeing of the country. I do not want to minimise the situation, but it is equally bad, from the point of

    2161
    view of the country, to try to make it out worse than it is. It is absurd to pretend at this moment, as the Leader of the Opposition did, that the standard of wellbeing in this country on the whole is worse than it was before the War. The whole facts point the other way. To pretend at this moment that it is worse is to go against all the facts Take what is an indication for the country as a whole. You get an increase in the importations of food into this country of 26 per cent. by volume over what they were in 1913. If all allowance is made for the state of agriculture in this country and allows for the increase in population since then, it will be found that the aggregate amount of food consumed in this country is much larger per head. There is no one who can say, in the light of facts and statistics of that kind, that any allegation such as the right hon. Gentleman has made is justified for one moment.
    The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) asked a good many questions about the future of industry and the outlook. The Vote for the Board of Trade is going to be taken on Monday, and as there is so little time to-night—otherwise I would have gone into the question of the trade outlook—I have to pass that by. All I can say to the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is that when he says we have not analysed the situation, when he says we have not attempted to think it out, we must presume no doubt that he has analysed it and thought it out. We have attempted to think it out just as much as the right hon. Gentleman has. When I hear allegations of that kind, all I can say is that for many years the temple of the world has re-echoed to the Pharisee's prayer, but, undoubtedly, on this occasion the accent of it is the accent of the party opposite.
    Let us go on to the things that have been done. The Leader of the Opposition said that we led the country to expect a cure from us. Let him point to an authoritative statement.
    Mr. B. SMITH: The Prime Minister himself.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Let him point to the statement the Prime Minister has made.
    Mr. SMITH: He has said it to-day.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: He never said anything of the kind, and we were very careful indeed—[Interruption]— because we were honest with the country. I have said again and again at this table, and in the country, that no Government can actually provide a cure for unemployment. We have been scoffed at for saying that openly, straightforwardly, and honestly, but I say it again to-night. Every one who is honest with himself in this House 99 per cent. of us—must realise that no Government, whoever they be, can create a cure at this moment for unemployment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not say that last year?"] I did. I put it in my Election address. I do not for a moment propose to say that the Government should' do nothing, or should support merely a negative policy, but I do say quite openly and honestly for people to realise that, all that can be done by a Government to-day, however active, must be limited in amount as compared with the present volume of unemployment, and also limited in time. Some remedies can be applied at once, but many remedies must take some time in maturing. Some are quicker than others.
    Take the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) who has just spoken. He spoke about grants to local authorities. Here the difficulty is as, of course, we all know, that a grant is a strain upon their funds. Take also afforestation. That is going forward faster than was the case when the Government of the right hon. Gentleman was in power. Then road making, the amount of that work is half as much again as when the right hon. Gentleman's Government was in power. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give us the figures!"] In the case of ordinary road-making employment is mainly given to unskilled labour; whereas in bridge-building there is more employment for the engineering trade. We are therefore paying particular attention to the question of bridge-building. We all agree, however, that at the best these things are palliatives. I could give hon. Gentlemen opposite figures which would compare very favourably with the figures that they could produce. Then what about our measures which are not merely palliatives, but good in themselves and a help for the future,

    2163
    to help us to get a larger share of the export trade in order to fill up the gap which has been made through the collapse of the foreign markets? We are helping in that direction and we also have Measures directed to trying to expand internal production in this country.
    Take the question of Imperial Development to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, by migration to the Dominions. A migrant to the Dominions is an infinitely better customer for the goods of our manufacturers in this country than is any other citizen of any other country abroad. I wonder what the party opposite, with one or two honourable exceptions, have done for promoting migration to our Colonies? [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the good?"] The right hon. Gentleman has asked what are we doing for agriculture and migration? We have thought out two training schemes for young men who are unemployed. They have been approved. These are not in order to turn the men into complete agriculturists, but to give them some degree of training in order that they may make good agriculturists if they migrate. It is asked, why migrate?
    Mr. MacLAREN: Why not keep them in agriculture at home?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Gentleman wants to swallow two things at once, and such a course often causes mental indigestion. I am not asking anyone who wants to keep people at home to do what I have not done myself. I have relatives of my own who have emigrated to Canada and connections in New Zealand. Why on earth should anyone say they ought necessarily to stay in this country and should not go to the Dominions when it means strengthening the Empire? At any rate, it is interesting to know what the attitude of the party opposite is.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: This is very important. Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House of any improvement in the migration schemes that we made when we were in office that the Government have altered in any syllable—any one scheme to any of the Dominions?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The schemes are being pressed forward in order to get the people to the Do-
    2164
    minions. [Interruption.] We all know the zeal of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. He would be the first to say that the real founder, the real person who has pressed migration more than anyone else in this House, was not himself but the present Colonial Secretary. This all helps to relieve unemployment. Then, what has been done in the Colonies? Just recently several orders have been put out by the Colonies. We have just recently given trade facilities to the Benguella Railway for over £1,000,000, to be spent in this country in relief of unemployment. That is a type of what is happening in the Colonies.
    Take the case of electricity. I am going to deal in a moment with what the right hon. Gentleman said about electricity. That is not the only scheme we have considered since we came into office. It was put to me, by a very competent engineer, when I came to my Department, that the whole railway system should be subject to review, so that we might have 50-ton trucks in this country and the whole of our railway equipment on a larger scale. I went into that carefully, and came to the conclusion, after taking careful advice, that it was a proposal really not suited to this country; and therefore a detailed scheme with regard to that was not wanted. Then there is the question of the waterways of this country. I sat in business for months with the canal schemes of Germany, France and Belgium opposite me. They have been put upon the shelf, pigeon-holed, and I hope to have them, after having made some inquiries about them, gone into again. Take the proposals for safeguarding industries. The right hon. Gentleman does not approve of them; and yet I am bound to say far more employment will be given to industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Scheme than by anything which his Government ever approved or considered. Take the question of sugar. The Leader of the Opposition pointed to the adverse trade balance against us. There was little encouragement for the beet-sugar industry from the party opposite, and yet what is the result of the increase of the sugar-beet crop? It means that we shall get additional employment, one man for every 10 acres under beet, and if we get a production, which is perfectly possible, of

    2165
    some 300,000 tons of sugar, we eat into the whole adverse trade balance of some £34,000,000 a year.
    Mr. MacDONALD: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that that never received support from us?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman in a minute. I am going to deal with coal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sugar!"] I will come back to sugar. Hon. Members opposite need not be disappointed. I am coming again to sugar. Just one word about coal. All these new systems cannot mature at once, and we do not know exactly what they may do when they come to fruition. There is doubt about the coal industry being able to regain its full former prosperity, and so we are trying to aid the development of these schemes. As I have already said, neither this Government, nor, in fact, any Government, has got an absolute cure for unemployment, and that is quite true, but all these things may help. The fact remains, however, that if you want a real cure you have to go back to the great basic industries, and get them back to their former prosperity. That is why we have asked the Committee on Civil Research to have a careful, close and adequate inquiry into the iron and steel industry. These trades have made an application for help under the Safeguarding of Industries Scheme, but that application is suspended until a close inquiry has been made by the Committee of Civil Research.
    In connection with that inquiry, may I be allowed to say that it is not proposed to exclude any of those subjects which may be material. Further than this it is not proposed to exclude subsidies from that inquiry. But it is no good talking about subsidies in a vague and abstract way. We must consider them in relation to some concrete industry, and in this connection the Committee will be asked to consider the question of subsidies. We are no doctrinaires with regard to subsidies, but up to this time we can say that no scheme has been proposed which we think would achieve the object desired, although we are perfectly willing to consider any of them in relation to a concrete industry. I wish however to make it perfectly and absolutely clear that no industry, neither coal nor any other industry, should look to us for
    2166
    a subsidy when such an application would postpone other negotiations for a settlement.
    I have run through these various points as quickly as I could. I now turn to examine the position of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Snowden), who says that he is the prosecuting counsel, and we are the criminals in the dock, lie has complained again and again that we have charged the Labour party with not producing their cure, and he has asked what is our cure? He told the House that we came forward with a policy of Protection for this country. We did so, and we put it before the country. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends pressed forward what they call their positive remedy, but they have never yet disclosed what it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes we have!"] Then what is it?
    Mr. MACKINDER: Socialism.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can any ex Minister tell us what was that positive remedy? It is interesting to note how silent hon. Members are on this point when a single word might give us the answer. We have had many men who came back from the War with dysentery and ulceration. Every wise doctor knew that you could only treat an illness like that by a long, a careful treatment, and yet many quick and quack remedies were suggested. Our quarrel with the party opposite is not that there was a cure for unemployment which they did not apply, but that the Labour Party promised a cure when they knew quite well that they had not got one.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston, in his interview with the Leader of the Opposition again accused us for not being prepared to make a scientific study of this question. He referred, of course, to the Bill that was brought before Parliament on a Friday some weeks' ago by the Labour party. He complained that it was a Bill of vital importance—I refer to an interview published this morning—a. Bill of vital importance which Tories sacrificed a Friday to come down and cast out. Is it not significant, if he thought it of that vital importance, that neither he nor the late Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it worth while to come and say anything to support it? That was their

    2167
    proposal—a proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer well knows would never have worked if they had tried to put it into operation. But the Leader of the Opposition has a Celtic imagination and sometimes when he thinks of a bright idea, his imagination projects it into the world of fact as though it was a thing already in being [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you going to do about unemployment!"] Let us take one or two of these questions about which we have been asked. Electricity.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Take sugar.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Take sugar then first of all. Who was it brought it in? It was brought in by the Coalition Government, and was likely to give employment in this country. Who opposed it? Who brought in the official Labour Amendment opposing it? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lymo (Colonel Wedgwood) on behalf of the party opposite. Now take the electricity scheme. The right hon. Gentleman made a great claim for the electricity scheme. He says we have done nothing. I say without hesitation, we came and we found the scheme in an utterly rudimentary condition. More work has been done upon it, by us, more real useful work, to bring it in the way of fruition than was ever done before the right hon. Gentleman and his friends left office.
    Mr. LANSBURY: What about the unemployed?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: And if it had made no greater progress, we should all have been in our coffins before it had ever had a chance of being realised. I challenge anyone, looking at the state in which it was left by the last Government and the amount of work that has been done since, to come to any other conclusion of any sort or kind. Look at the comparative record of the safeguarding of industries—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Tell us what you are going to do!
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Again and again the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Mr. MAXTON: Tell us something! Tell us what you will do!
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman's record—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members do not give the Minister a chance to reply.
    Mr. MAXTON rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order! Name!
    Mr. MAXTON: For 25 minutes—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members have kept up a flow of interjections—
    Mr. MAXTON: I have kept up no flow of interjections—
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Mr. MAXTON: He has been talking utter rubbish for 25 minutes. He has said not one single scrap that is of any use. [Interruption.]
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Hon. Members opposite know quite well that I have been through the different things that this Government have been doing —[Interruption.]
    Mr. MAXTON: Not one solitary thing. This is a farce.
    HON. MEMBERS: Name!
    Mr. MAXTON: You can shout for all you are worth—
    HON. MEMBERS: Name!
    Mr. MAXTON: I will not listen to them.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members have brought forward a Motion, and really must listen to the reply.
    Mr. MAXTON: It is not an answer; it is an insult to every hon. Member. It is utter rubbish. He has taken up 25 minutes in pettifogging debate.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is not it significant of what is happening? Here have I been right through the whole of the facts and figures briefly but in detail—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members have brought forward a Vote of Censure on the Government—
    Mr. MAXTON: Yes, and they deserve to be treated with very little respect.
    Mr. SPEAKER:—and they really must listen to the reply.
    Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. We bring forward a Vote of Censure on

    2169
    the Government, and now we are listening to—[Interruption.]
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I rise to a point of Order. [Interruption.]
    Question put,
    "That this House has no confidence in a Government which, after a lengthy period
    of industrial depression and confronted by a rapid and alarming growth in the numbers of unemployed, has failed to take measures to deal with a situation of unprecedented gravity."
    The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 373.

    Division No. 218.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Scurr, John

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sexton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Barnes, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Batey, Joseph

    John. William (Rhondda, West)

    Smillie, Robert

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Briant, Frank

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirk wood, D.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lansbury, George

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clowes, S.

    Lee, F.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lowth, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Connolly, M.

    Lunn, William

    Thurtle, E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Mackinder, W.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Varley, Frank B.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    March, S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Maxton, James

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dennison, R.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Warne, G. H.

    Duncan, C.

    Montague, Frederick

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murnin, H.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gosling, Harry

    Palin, John Henry

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)

    Paling, W.

    Whiteley, W.

    Greenall, T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Ritson, J.

    Windsor, Walter

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)

    Wright, W.

    Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

    Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Rose, Frank H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. T.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Kennedy.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Albery, Irving James

    Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Bennett, A. J.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Berry, Sir George

    Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Astor, Viscountes

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Blundell, F. N.

    Burman, J. B.

    Atkinson, C.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Balniel, Lord

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Butt. Sir Alfred

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Brass, Captain W.

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Campbell, E. T.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cassels, J. D.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Gretton, Colonel John

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Cayzer, Maj Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

    Macintyre, I.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    McLean, Major A.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    MacMillan, Captain H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hanbury, C.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Christie, J. A.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Harland, A.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Clayton, G. C.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Moles, Thomas

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Cope, Major William

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Morning, Captain A. H.

    Couper, J. B.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

    Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Crook, C. W.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Neville, R. J.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Holt, Capt. A. O. J.

    Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

    Curzon Captain Viscount

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Davidson, J. (Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Oakley, T.

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Davison Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Dawson Sir Philip

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)

    Owen, Major G.

    Dixey A. C.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd. Whiteh'n)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Doyle Sir N. Grattan

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Drewe, C.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Perring, William George

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Hurst. Gerald B.

    Phillipson, Mabel

    Elveden, Viscount

    Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Pielou, D. P.

    England, Colonel A.

    Iliffe Sir Edward M.

    Plicher, G.

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Preston, William

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Jacob, A. E.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Radford, E. A.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Raine, W

    Fermoy, Lord

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Ramsden, E.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Finburgh, S.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

    Fleming, D. P.

    Kidd, J- (Linlithgow)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Ford, P. J.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Reiner, J. R.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Remnant, Sir James

    Forrest, W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

    Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Ropner, Major L.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Gates, Percy

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Gee, Captain R.

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)

    Rye, F. G.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Loder, J. de V.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lougher, L.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lowe. Sir Francis William

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Grace, John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Grant, J. A.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sandon, Lord

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E.)

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Savery, S. S.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    2172

    2173

    Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Winby, Colonel L. p.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Skelton, A. N.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Winter-ton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Tinne. J. A.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Womersley, W. J.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Waddington, R.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Storry Deans, R.

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Wells, S. R.

    Strickland Sir Gerald

    Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Colonel Gibbs.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Lords Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

  AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Edward Wood.]
  Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: There are one or two matters connected with this Bill to which I wish to draw attention.
  Mr. SPEAKER: At this stage we are strictly limited to dealing with the Amendments from the other House. If the hon. Member has anything to say on any of these Amendments, it would be in Order after we dispose of the motion "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  AGRICULTURAL RETURNS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Tower to require returns.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 2, lines 3 to 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert as a new paragraph:
    "(b) If any person makes a return under this Act which is to his knowledge untrue in. any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."— [Mr. E. Wood.]
    Sir D. NEWTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords
    2174
    Amendment, to leave out the words "ten pounds" and to insert instead thereof the words" five pounds." I do so because I think that in view of the facts which are now before the Members of the House, the penalty proposed in this new paragraph is an excessive penalty. I would like to give my reasons for stating that.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member Is not entitled to move an Amendment after the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," has been proposed. He can speak against that Motion.
    Sir D. NEWTON: It is really a peg on which I wanted to hang my observations rather than to move a concrete Amendment. Since this Bill was introduced on 9th April and since it received its First Reading the (agricultural industry has been called upon, as it will be under this Bill, to fill in most elaborate returns. This Bill proposes that the Minister shall be empowered to require agriculturists to complete very detailed forms of return resembling somewhat the form of return which agriculturists have recently been called upon make. I think every hon. Member will admit the value of having accurate statistics from the point of view of being able to frame, at some future date, a far-reaching agricultural policy; but the thirst for information which officials and officialdom have recently shown has gone beyond all reasonable bounds. Agriculturists have been called upon to compile information which seems to me to be of very little practical utility from the point of view of promoting an agricultural policy, or from the point of view

    2175
    of the good of the industry. In the form of return recently issued which we were called upon to fill up, and similar forms of return which might be required in future—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, I think, has not quite understood what I said. This Lords Amendment is a mere redrafting of the penalty Clause as it left this House, and any discussion must be confined merely to the question whether the drafting of the Lords is better than, or worse than, the other drafting.
    Sir D. NEWTON: I venture to suggest that our drafting is the best. The point I want to make, and that I think I am entitled to make, with great respect, is to give an illustration of the way in which this Bill would work. That is what I was endeavouring to point out: the effect of the Lords Amendment. But if you rule that I am scarcely in order in proceeding further with the matter, i must bow to your ruling and withdraw my Amendment.
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 2, line 11, at the end, insert
    "or if the Court is of opinion that the offence was committed wilfully, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding three months."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. E. Wood.]
    Mr. MacDONALD: I am not quite sure that the Lords have seen the effect of the Sub-section (4) of the Bill:
    "Any person who uses, publishes, or discloses contrary to the provisions of this Act any individual return or part of a return shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
    I presume the object when the House had in mind when it put in this provision as to a fine of £50 was to punish a person who had committed the offence wilfully. It will be agreed that it would be an extravagant penalty for a pure mistake. But the Amendment which we are now considering claps on to that imprisonment. There must have been
    2176
    some mistake in the other place when it was proposed to insert this Amendment. Everybody will agree that it is an excessive punishment. I hope we are not, in every case where we impose a fine by new legislation going to supplement the fine by imprisonment. It is a most subversive doctrine. This offence might be a very innocent thing or, if it is not innocent, a £20 fine by summary jurisdiction is quite adequate.
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in this matter we are dealing with very confidential returns that are made under the seal of confidence for official purposes and are made on that explicit understanding. When the House sent this Bill to another place it stood in the form which appears in the copy which the right hon. Gentleman has in his hand and in which no distinction was drawn between publishing unwittingly and publishing wilfully. When the Bill was under examination in another place, attention was drawn to the importance of safeguarding the information that is furnished and the effect that it would have on the general character of the returns if there was any reason on the part of the occupiers to fear that the information at their disposal would be published. It was for that reason that the point came under revision in another place as to the desirability of imposing a further penalty in cases where it might be established that the information was wilfully disclosed. It was for that reason that their Lordships introduced this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is in unwitting error in supposing that the Amendment introduces a new principle into our legislation, because it is taken verbatim from Section 15 of the Corn Production Act of 1917. The House will remember that that Act deals with offences of an almost similar, if not exactly similar, character, and it is the fact of that similarity which is the ground for asking the House to agree with the Lords in the Amendment.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

  CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL
  Order for consideration of Lords Amendment read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[Mr. Guinness.]
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: On a point of Order. Before the House takes this Amendment into consideration, I should like to ask your opinion, Mr. Speaker, upon a point which appears to be of some constitutional interest, namely, whether it is within the power of this House to consider the Amendment, in view of the provision of the Parliament Act, which appears to govern this particular Bill. This Bill was endorsed by you as a Money Bill, under Section 1 of the Parliament Act. That Section states:
  "If a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons, and sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session, is not passed by the House of Lords without Amendment within one month after it is so sent up to that House, the Bill shall, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to His Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill."
  This Bill was sent up to another place as long ago as 5th May. It was returned here on 26th May, with an Amendment, and, so far as I know, no action has been taken by this House in the matter. It would appear, therefore, that, under the Parliament Act, the Bill is now ready, and has been ready for the last week or ten days, for the Royal Assent. As no action has been taken by this House, it seems to me that someone or other should have presented the Bill to His Majesty for the Royal Assent, and that consequently we cannot take into consideration the Lords Amendment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is no part of my functions, fortunately, to give legal interpretations of Acts of Parliament. All that I can say is that this House has ordered this matter for consideration this day, and that is enough for me to say that it is competent for the House, therefore, to deal with the business which it, itself, has ordered to be considered.
  Captain BENN: On that point of Order. Supposing that the- persons in charge of
  2178
  Government business, by design, so arranged that the provisions of the Parliament Act should be rendered nugatory, what remedy would other Members have?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has not occurred in this case. This Bill was set down within the month referred to in the Act, and from time to time it was postponed by the House, and a later date was fixed for it. I had better not deal with hypothetical cases,
  Captain BENN: I was not raising merely a hypothetical question. I was very anxious that something should be said to prevent any loss by this House of its powers under the Parliament Act.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that really arises. It does not seem to me that there is any danger of losing the powers of this House under the Parliament Act
  Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

  CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Application of Chinese Indemnity.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 2, line 12, leave out from "before" to "as", and insert "each House of Parliament."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Guinness.]
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Could we have an assurance, on this side, that the proposed Amendment in no way limits or weakens the privileges of this House in so far as the control of financial affairs is concerned? This Bill was certified as a Money Bill, and the alteration made in another place is to take out the words "The House of Commons" and substitute the words "each House of Parliament", so that in future the annual accounts of receipts and expenditure under this China Indemnity Bill are not only to he placed on the Table of this House, for the consideration of this House, but they are to be sent to another place for consideration there, and I should like to be assured that that is not an invasion of the privileges of this House, privileges which, I have hitherto understood, meant that only the Com-

    2179
    mons should have control of finance and that members of another place had no right of interference in financial affaire whatsoever. If I understand this proposed Amendment, it means that in future in so far as the accounts of receipts and expenditure in respect of the China Indemnity Fund are concerned, they shall not only be submitted to this House, but shall be submitted to another place, where, hitherto, they have had no control by right to interfere with financial affairs. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in this matter.
    Mr. SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, the hon. Member may be assured that, so long as I am responsible, there will be no interference by the other House in matters of finance. This is merely a matter of information, for what it is worth.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: On that point may I ask whether, if this House agrees with the Lords in this Amendment, it then becomes part of an Act of Parliament that we have to submit to the House of Lords any financial matters dealing with this China Indemnity Bill? May I ask if that is not the admission by this House of a new principle which ought to be resisted?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): Perhaps I may reassure the hon. Gentleman if I explain that there is no question of financial control involved in this Amendment. The House of Lords was left out from the Bill by chance, not on account of any principle whatsoever, and in support of that view, I may point to the fact that in the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, there is an exactly parallel provision that
    "The pensions account and the treasury pensions account shall be annually examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and shall, together with his report thereon, be laid annually before Parliament."
    By chance these two Bills were drafted by different hands, and different words were used. The House of Lords have always had the right to Parliamentary information. They can discuss matters of finance, even although they cannot decide them, and this proposal that they should have these reports brought automatically before them is an easy way to
    2180
    satisfy their natural interest, and avoids the expense of trouble of separate reports by the Foreign Office.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any statement as to what accounts now go, or have gone in the past, to another place for their annual examination?
    Mr. GUINNESS: These papers are only laid before another place, which does not have to come to any decision upon them. It is not like an Order that has to be laid on the Table of both Houses, and where they have the right to object. These are papers that are published in the ordinary way, and it is simply that in the House of Lords there are a great many Prelates and others who are greatly interested in reforms in China, and they wish to have this information brought before them in the ordinary course.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an answer to a plain question? Can he give an instance where it has been the custom or practice to submit to another place the annual accounts dealing with income and expenditure under the control of this House?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I cannot, off-hand, give the details of the procedure in the House of Lords as regards the circulation of Parliamentary Papers, but there is certainly no restriction limiting the circulation of financial papers to this House.
    Captain BENN: We know that a large number of Members opposite are anxious to secure for the other House control of finance, and that makes us very suspicious. Can the right hon. Gentleman quote any precedent for this, and, if not, why should he make a precedent?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I see no possible danger in the course we have adopted. These matters are laid before the other House. This course was suggested as an alternative to a special Report being prepared showing how the money is to be spent in China. We see no principle involved in the matter; therefore we recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I suggest that this House doth disagree with the Lords Amendment. This House would be lacking in its duty if it allowed this thing

    2181
    to slip through in what I may call an "easy-oasy" fashion. We ought not to allow an ancient privilege, established by law and by custom to slip away from us in this way. The matter has not been properly discussed, and hon. Members who are very much interested in the rights and privileges of this House have left. This ought not to be done surreptitiously.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) is under a misapprehension. There is no doubt about it that the House of Lords has always received information on financial subjects. Every day questions may be —are—asked by the House of Lords on financial questions. It is part of the policy of the Parliament Act, which withdrew the control of financial Bills from the House of Lords that they should still pass through their stages there precisely as before for the very purpose of that House debating them and deriving information from the Government, and that there might be the informing of public opinion. It is common ground with all parties that in matters of discussion both Houses may take part, but financial control is with the House of Commons alone. Obviously no question of control can possibly arise merely in regard to information. It is a fantastic suspicion, and it will not do any good to the privileges of this House to display this somewhat fantastic suspicion. It is not a question of financial accounts, but a case of those interested in Chinese affairs. This Bill, though technically financial in substance, is a Bill interesting to those who are interested in China. The objection is merely a mare's nest, and I hope the House will not lower its reputation or dignity by condemning altogether, on a false issue, and suspiciously, as though we had all been caught in a trap. A perfectly reasonable proposal is at stake, to give the House of Lords the information which, very naturally, they desire to have.
    Mr. GUINNESS: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) will look at the volume I hold in my hand he will find, from pages 563–564, that it is the usual practice to let the House of Lords have this information.
    Captain EDEN: May I remind the House that this Bill has already been delayed on many occasions, and nothing could be more unfortunate than that we should, by chance, create the impression that we seek to delay it? From the point of view of China it would be very unfortunate if any technical difficulties were allowed to create the impression that we did not mean business.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought the Ayes had it. On his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed. He accordingly called upon the, Members who supported, and who challenged his decision, sucessively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, three Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hope that my protest against this business will be registered, although my colleagues deserted me on this point.

  VALUATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Neville Chamberlain.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is a Bill dealing with rating. In a strictly technical way this House has considered any matter of rating to be a matter of privilege. It is my duty to point out that the Lords Amendments are drafting Amendments, and it has been the custom of the House in matters of that kind not to claim strict privilege on such small points as are contained in this Bill. I have done my duty in pointing out this purely technical aspect of the matter, and it is open to the House to take what course it pleases as the Amendments come up.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL (DISUSED BURIAL GROUND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  AIR MINISTRY (CATTEWATER SEAPLANE STATION) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm an agreement between the Cattewater Commissioners and the President of the Air Council in relation
  2184
  to the acquisition of certain lands in the county of Devon, and for purposes in connection therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the said President under the said Act and the said agreement, including the amount of any costs payable by him." (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Sir Samuel Hoare.]
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  EXCHANGE REGISTERS.
  EXCHANGE REGISTERS.
  RELIEF SCHEMES (STATE ASSISTED).
  RELIEF SCHEMES (STATE ASSISTED).
  ENTERTAINMENTS AND SPORTS.
  ENTERTAINMENTS AND SPORTS.
  INDUSTRIES (INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT).
  INDUSTRIES (INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (INDUSTRIAL TRAINING).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (INDUSTRIAL TRAINING).
BRITISH ARMY.
  GUARDSMEN (EMPLOYMENT AS SUPERS).
  GUARDSMEN (EMPLOYMENT AS SUPERS).
  RECORDS CLERKS.
  RECORDS CLERKS.
  IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION (EXAMINATION OF EFFECTS).
  IMPERIAL WAR GRAVES COMMISSION (EXAMINATION OF EFFECTS).
  SALVAGED GERMAN WARSHIPS.
  SALVAGED GERMAN WARSHIPS.
  HOME AND FOREIGN PRODUCE (TRANSPORT CHARGES).
  HOME AND FOREIGN PRODUCE (TRANSPORT CHARGES).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  PORTUGAL (BRITISH CREDITS).
  PORTUGAL (BRITISH CREDITS).
  GERMAN WAR LOANS (NECESSITOUS HOLDERS).
  GERMAN WAR LOANS (NECESSITOUS HOLDERS).
FINANCE BILL
  IMPORT DUTIES.
  IMPORT DUTIES.
  ESTATE DUTY (SMALL HOLDINGS).
  ESTATE DUTY (SMALL HOLDINGS).
MOTOR TRAFFIC.
  PETROL CONSUMPTION AND TAXATION.
  PETROL CONSUMPTION AND TAXATION.
  SIGNPOSTS.
  SIGNPOSTS.
  AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY (INTERALLIED CONTROL).
  AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY (INTERALLIED CONTROL).
HOUSING.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCHEMES APPROVED).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCHEMES APPROVED).
  WRAGBY ROAD ESTATE, LINCOLN.
  WRAGBY ROAD ESTATE, LINCOLN.
  KING EDWARD'S HOSPITAL FUND.
  KING EDWARD'S HOSPITAL FUND.
  DEFENCE SEEVICES.
  DEFENCE SEEVICES.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  NORTH AFRICA TO CAPE TOWN FLIGHT.
  NORTH AFRICA TO CAPE TOWN FLIGHT.
  AIRSHIPS (COST).
  AIRSHIPS (COST).
  COMMUNISTS, GREENOCK (STREET PROCESSION).
  COMMUNISTS, GREENOCK (STREET PROCESSION).
EDUCATION.
  SCHOLARS, PENISTONE.
  SCHOLARS, PENISTONE.
  SIZE OF CLASSES AND CURRICULUM.
  SIZE OF CLASSES AND CURRICULUM.
  FINSBURY TECHNICAL COLLEGE.
  FINSBURY TECHNICAL COLLEGE.
  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1922 (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1922 (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
INDIA.
  2ND BOMBAY PIONEERS (PARSIS).
  2ND BOMBAY PIONEERS (PARSIS).
  BRITISH TROOPS, WAZIRISTAN (BERKSHIRE REGIMENT).
  BRITISH TROOPS, WAZIRISTAN (BERKSHIRE REGIMENT).
  NORTH-WESTERN AND BENGAL RAILWAY (STRIKE).
  NORTH-WESTERN AND BENGAL RAILWAY (STRIKE).
  NIGERIAN RAILWAYS (CONSTRUCTION).
  NIGERIAN RAILWAYS (CONSTRUCTION).
  PROPOSED SECURITY PACT.
  PROPOSED SECURITY PACT.
POST OFFICE.
  EXPENDITURE (OFFICIAL PAPERS).
  EXPENDITURE (OFFICIAL PAPERS).
  TELEPHONE OPERATORS, NEWARK.
  TELEPHONE OPERATORS, NEWARK.
AGRICULTURE.
  CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETIES (LOANS).
  CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETIES (LOANS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GEANTS (COMMUTATION).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GEANTS (COMMUTATION).
  HOLDINGS.
  HOLDINGS.
  SWEEPSTAKES AND LOTTERIES.
  SWEEPSTAKES AND LOTTERIES.
  TIMBER YARDS (FIRES).
  TIMBER YARDS (FIRES).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past Four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ALLOTMENTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
IMPROVEMENT OF LAND ACT (1899) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTERS OF RELIGION (REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL PER FORMERS' PROTECTION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).

HONOURS (PREVENTION OF ABUSES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not think it will require many words of
818
mine to recommend to your Lordships the Second Reading of this Bill, because the circumstances out of which it arises are comparatively fresh in the recollection of nearly everybody who is now listening to me. A few years ago, public opinion in this country was profoundly concerned at certain scandals which had arisen in connection with the distribution and conferring of honours. It appeared that there were several cases in which insufficient care had been taken in recommending persons for the receipt of honours to His Majesty. There were grounds for thinking that pecuniary considerations entered into the reasons for the conferring of these honours in a way in which they ought not to have done, and the country became convinced that a matter which ought to be above suspicion had become discredited. It was resented in the country, and properly resented, as an insult to the King and as an outrage upon decency.
It had this further effect—this want of care in the distribution of honours—that there was evidence to show that a number of persons had grown up who were prepared to exploit the insecurity which seemed to belong to the distribution of honours and they put themselves forward, entirely without justification, of course, as being in a position, for pecuniary considerations, to put forward certain names and to secure their selection for particular kinds of honours. What my late noble friend Lord Curzon described as "this ignoble phenomenon" was, I think, one of the very reasons which led to the appointment of a Royal Commission, presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Dunedin. The Commission was entrusted with the duty of considering the matter and making recommendations so as to prevent those mischiefs to which I have alluded. That Commission sat and made a series of recommendations. One of them was the appointment by the Privy Council of a Committee of their own body, whose business it should be to examine the names of proposed recipients of honours before they were submitted to His Majesty. That has been done by every Government which has been in office since Lord Dunedin's Commission reported. They also recommended that, in order to deal with these persons who professed that they could manipulate honours for money, the traffic

819
in honours should be made a criminal offence. A good deal of evidence was laid before your Lordships on this matter, notably by my noble friend the Duke of Northumberland, who made one or two speeches which made a great impression upon this House and the country.
This proposal was made and, in consequence of it, the Government which succeeded Mr. Lloyd George's Government, the Conservative Government of 1923, introduced a Bill and passed it through your Lordships' House, making this traffic in honours a criminal offence. This Bill, with the exception of very small changes to which I shall call your attention in a moment, is practically a repetition of that Bill which has already passed this House. It was sent to another place, but, owing to pressure of time and other work, it was not proceeded with, and so it still remains to be carried into law. There is, in fact, of course, no difference of opinion in all political Parties as to the propriety of this Bill. I feel a strong conviction that both the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lords who sit above the gangway opposite will agree in considering that this traffic in honours is ignoble and that public opinion ought to be vindicated by pronouncing it to be a criminal offence.
Of course, speaking as I do at the end of June, amongst an audience who are familiar with Parliamentary proceedings, there is no chance of this Bill being carried into law—although I have no doubt your Lordships will agree to it—unless there is a general consent that it ought to be enacted. I have a hope that if the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the Opposition uses his influence with his friends in another place, and if the noble Earl, Lord Oxford, also uses his influence with his friends in another place, then the universal feeling of reprobation of this practice will be sufficient to carry the Bill through as an unopposed measure in another place; otherwise, I am afraid, it has no chance in the; present Session. I am aware that, although I am quite certain the noble and learned Viscount agrees in reprobating these practices, he expressed a doubt the other day, when we were discussing a Motion in the name of Lord Selborne, moved by Lord Danesfort, whether a Bill of this kind would be
820
altogether effective in preventing such a practice. Of course, it is quite true that in all these matters of corruption, and practices allied to corruption, where the corruptor and the corrupted are agreed together that they desire to break the law, it is always very difficult to bring home the offence. That has been the experience in respect of electoral corruption, as everybody knows, but at the same time I would suggest to your Lordships that there is a real and independent value in marking the sense of reprobation of Parliament and the country in the form of an Act of Parliament.
After all, there are many laws—I was going to say most laws—which would be more or less ineffective unless they were supported by the weight of public opinion, and it is the combination of public opinion and the crystallisation of public opinion in the solemn form of an Act of Parliament which has a great effect in a country like ours. It sets, as it were, upon these practices the seal of ignominy. Everybody knows henceforward that the highest authority in the country has solemnly pronounced that to buy an honour, or to be concerned in buying an honour, which ought to be the reward of merit—to do it for the squalid consideration of money—is an ignominious act and it will operate, I am convinced, as a strong deterrent from the pursuit, of these practices.
I feel very strongly, if I may say so, that your Lordships would fail in your duty if you did not carry out the recommendation of this Royal Commission. No doubt we all forget, and even in the four years which have elapsed since these scandals a little of the feeling has evaporated, but still sufficient remains. I am quite sure that public opinion expects that these things shall be reprobated, as I have suggested that they ought to be. It is therefore with great confidence, and in the hope that our action may result in adding this Bill to the Statute Book, that I move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the noble Marquess who leads the House has appealed to me and so far as I have any influence he certainly has not appealed in vain. The Labour Party does not like honours in general. It was very, very

821
sparing in distributing them when it was in power and it certainly is favourable to the most stringent application of such a law as is contemplated in the Bill. If I have any doubt, it is not about the principle' of the Bill, but as to the possibility of getting hold of all the people who indulge in the practices which the Bill reprobates and proposes to punish. I have myself seen the system at work. I have known cases, and known them in detail, when, if there had been such a law as this, it would, I think, have been easy to obtain a conviction.
But there is another class of case which I have known which is more difficult to get at. To me it seems almost as disgraceful that anybody should ask for an honour on the ground of services which he proposes to render or has rendered as to work for an honour in consideration of some pecuniary payment. It has happened to me, and I dare say it has happened to others of your Lordships who have been in office, to be asked openly and blatantly for a reward, a knighthood or something of the sort, as a consideration for rendering some public service. I need not say that so far as I am concerned the applicant always had short shrift. But that there is a great deal of that I have not any doubt, and I am not sure that this Bill wholly reaches it.
This Bill may create a public opinion which will be operative against that more subtle class of case, but it does not wholly cover it. There are cases which I have seen which the Bill will cover, but the more delicate thing is the attempt which is made by persons who desire honours, or by persons who are acting in their behalf, to put forward quite unworthy considerations for the granting of the honour. It is not the Prime Minister who is responsible for these things; he is the victim. The Ministers are generally the victims. But down below there is a class of persons who are quite unscrupulous in these matters, who go and say: "I can get you a knighthood or a baronetcy if you will only put yourself in my hands." There is not much discussion of the reward at the time, but the reward is discussed afterwards, and the result of what is done is that various subtle means are resorted to for creating a favourable attitude towards the claim of the person con-
822
cerned. That happens on a very large scale, and I am afraid it will not wholly cease to happen even if this Bill becomes law.
But this Bill will do something to stop the more flagrant cases. I think the condition of its success is that the Public Prosecutor, to whom the matter will pass, should have instructions that he is to be very strict in applying the law and in prosecuting wherever he gets decent evidence on which to proceed. Everything lies in the execution of a law such as this, and I trust that if the Bill passes, which I hope it will do without any opposition, the Government will do their part by giving the most stringent instructions that these cases are to be looked out for and prosecuted without mercy.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I rise only to say, in a few sentences, that the appeal which has been made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has certainly not fallen on deaf ears on this Bench. Anything that we can do to facilitate the passage of the Bill will naturally be done. I confess I join issue somewhat with the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken in regard to the probability of this Bill being frequently used. I think it is more likely that no prosecution will ever take place under the clauses of this measure. It is extremely difficult to prove a secret commission and evidence which would perfectly satisfy us in our private capacities would probably fail to satisfy a court of law. Evidence sufficient for that purpose will, I am afraid, be exceedingly difficult to secure. However, this Bill will remain as a deterrent, as the noble Marquess said, and mark the sense of reprobation which we feel towards practices of this kind. It is regarded in that light that my noble friends and I will be happy to support it.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I Have often listened to somewhat unreal discussions in this House and discussions upon unreal Bills, and I am not without a lingering hope that this particular discussion may be invigorated and vitalised by a contribution from, say, one of those gentlemen the conferring of the distinction of an honour upon whom excited u certain amount of criticism not long ago. How far more interesting this debate would be if some of those gentlemen could

823
be induced to come forward and tell the House exactly what took place under the circumstances.
This Bill, I imagine, emanates from the Report of the Royal Commission which has been alluded to in such flattering terms. For my part I feel quite unable to speak in flattering terms of this particular document. To be quite candid, I do not think that I ever read a document of a more disappointing and more unconvincing nature, and I say that with all the more regret because I expected a great deal from my noble and learned friend Lord Dunedin, with whose ability and capacity and energy I am well acquainted. Really the only important part in this Report is the Minority Report of Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson is a person with whom I do not often find myself in agreement, but on this particular occasion he seems to me to have been absolutely right. Mr. Henderson appears to have conceived the notion, which I am inclined to share myself, that this particular Commission was never intended to do any business at all He observes with great truth that the Commission might with advantage have been much move searching in its Inquiry and that the omission to examine persons who had asserted that they were in a position to obtain honours and also those who had been approached "has left unexplored one of the gravest abuses." Faced with this charge the majority of the Commissioners took refuge in the terms of reference, asserted that they were precluded and prevented from inquiring into anything in the past, and claimed that they were concerned solely with the future.
But this tame, colourless and anæmic Report of the majority is not altogether without interest in itself. There is one page at all events in it which excites my interest, and it so much excites my interest, that I cannot forbear reading it textually to the House. The majority of the Commission reported:—
"We put the question to each Prime Minister in turn, whether he had ever been cognisant of any bargain or promise to the effect that an honour would be contingent upon a contribution to Party funds. We received the answer that we expected, that they had not. Answers to the same effect were given by the Patronage Secretaries and Party managers."
824
Then the Report goes on:—
"The existence of Party funds is notorious and the necessity for such existence under modern conditions as to the conduct of elections is equally so. Indeed, two of the Party managers with great frankness informed us, giving actual figures, as to the sources of supply. They were at the same time emphatic that, so far as they were concerned, no bargain of the sort alluded to had ever taken place."
The first portion of this extract, that which deals with the statement of the Prime Ministers, does not surprise me at all. Prime Minister would be an exceedingly simple person—and I do not suppose, we have ever had a really simple Prime Minister—if he had any cognisance of any question of this kind. He would take the greatest possible care, naturally, not to know anything about it. Why should he?
But when I turn to the second part of the statement, where you have Party managers and Party Whips laying their hands upon their hearts, so to speak, and saying that in no single instance within their recollection had they ever known of an honour being conferred in return for some contribution, I can. only say that I am filled with amazement, and I expect that many other people must be filled with amazement, too. In fact, it makes my brain whirl when I read statements of this kind and I might almost ask the House to attach no importance to what I am saying because it strikes me as such a perfectly amazing statement. But my surprise hardly equals that of the Party managers and Party Whips; because their surprise must have been mingled with extraordinary satisfaction, unexpected satisfaction, since what we are led to assume is that the whole question of the bestowal of honours and the return of some consideration is a pure coincidence.
Apparently, in the opinion of the majority of the Commissioners, the Party managers and Party Whips are altruists, who go about the country in search of merit. They search the highways and the byways, they search the backwoods, and occasionally they come across a gentleman who is considered worthy of an honour, and, by another strange coincidence, this gentleman generally happens to be very rich. What must be astonishing to these innocent and ingenuous people is that they select a man for an honour and, perhaps, a few days

825
afterwards, they receive a handsome cheque. I can imagine the correspondence that takes place:—"Dear Mr. So-and-So," or "Dear Lord So-and-So, When I recommended you for an honour to the Prime Minister the last thing that ever occurred to me was that any money should pass. But as you are evidently anxious to devote this money to patriotic purposes, I am ready to accept it and to make any use of it that you may approve."
I confess that I am not much of a believer in coincidences. I expect that the enterprising gentleman from America who landed here the other day would tell you that it was a pure coincidence that he discovered on the pier at Southampton a detachment of Territorials who were good enough, by a pure coincidence, to take charge of his tin box on its way to London. I remember a case not long ago in which a gentleman was tried and convicted of having murdered his wife by drowning her in a bath. The question was asked him:—" Did not your two previous wives also die by drowning in their baths? "And he replied:—" Well, yes, it is quite true they did, but it wag only n singular coincidence."
This theory of coincidence is really too thin. And it is buttressed up by another explanation which also carries no conviction at all to me. We are asked to believe that there are a number of people in this country who make a livelihood, and apparently a dishonest one, by going about and getting money from people on the ground that they are in a position to obtain honours for them. I have not much belief in these people I am rather inclined to class these so-called touts with "hidden hands," international spies, vampires and the usual creations of people's fancy. But even supposing they exist, even supposing these touts are actually living people of real flesh and blood, how on earth can they procure an honour? A tout may come to anybody and promise him anything that comes into his head; but surely nobody believes that he is in a position to carry out his promise?
Who confers these honours? The tout does not. He is not in a position to give them at all. These honours are distributed by the Government, by means of its Patronage Secretaries and Party managers and, finally, the Prime Minister. In that case it seems to me
826
perfectly idle to contend that the Government have no responsibility at all and that the blame attaches to these mythical beings who, for the sake of convenience, are described as touts. I have no personal experience of these gentlemen. Nobody ever tried to bribe me, except a gentleman of Levantine extraction, who gave me some cigarettes and then wrote to me and said that he would like to be made an English baron. If anybody made a serious proposal to me I do not know how I should take it, but let us assume, for a moment, that I am a person who is very anxious to be made, for example, an M.V.O. or to become a Viscount.
Under the theory of the Bill I go to some noble friend of mine, for choice, possibly, shall I say, to my noble friend Lord Younger, and I say or write to him:—"Dear Younger, I am very anxious to become a Viscount, and if you will secure this for me I am prepared to contribute a handsome sum towards the building of the new ladies' dining room at the Carlton Club, for which I gather funds are urgently needed." Presumably, that is how I should act under the Bill. Of course, Lord Younger, Lord Banbury, or whoever it might be, are law abiding people and it would be their duty to inform the Public Prosecutor, or the Attorney-General, or some important person of the sore and denounce this. Under the Bill I should be liable to a penalty not exceeding £500 and, possibly, to two years' imprisonment. But I am not so simple as the members of this Commission. I should not set about it in that way at all. I should approach Lord Younger or Lord Banbury in some secluded place, possibly in this House-there is not usually much congestion here—and I should do it verbally, and it would be impossible to convict me, because there would be only my word against his, and they would be just as likely to believe me as either of my two noble friends.
It is just as well, it seems to me, that we should recognise certain facts in connection with this matter. I think the first act that we ought to recognise is that the Government administration of this country is much less corrupt than it is in any other country, and the integrity of our permanent officials is infinitely higher than that which prevails in countries elsewhere. I can call to mind

827
a notable instance, which probably has occurred to many besides myself. Only a few days ago there died one of the most distinguished public servants this country has possessed in the person of Sir Eyre Crowe. I observe that he left the miserable pittance of something like £1,300. I have no hesitation in saying that if a person occupied Sir Eyre Crowe's position in some foreign countries which I will not name he would, in such circumstances, have died a multi-millionaire.
Another fact which is worth bearing in mind is that there is really nothing disgraceful in contributing to Party funds. It is certainly a much lees objectionable procedure than bribing individual Ministers, which is done in many countries that I need not mention. As has been pointed out in this Report—about the only sensible thing in the Report—it is a necessity, because political organisations cannot be maintained without private subscriptions. The fact is that it is a kind of non-official political levy which is recognised, and we do not particularly resent it unless it is carried to excess, or, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury observed just now, unless there are outrages upon decency. Provided it is carried on in moderation it is like everything else—like drinking in moderation, or betting in moderation, or overcharging by tradesmen in moderation. You submit to it up to a certain point; it is only when the thing becomes a scandal that your indignation is aroused and you rebel. And a very good thing, too. I think one of the most useful things that ever was done here was the action of my noble friend Lord Harris, who I regret is not present this afternoon, in preventing the elevation to the Peerage of a gentleman whose reputation was of a somewhat dubious character.
This Bill, it seems to me, is a very poor attempt to whitewash the people who, if there are offenders at all, are the real offenders—that is to say, people in Governments. This is an attempt to divert attention from them, and to make us believe that this imaginary race of villains exists who are debauching our public life. Personally I do not think it matters in the smallest degree whether this Bill passes or not. I think that things will go on as they have gone on in
828
the past, and I do not regret it, provided, as I say, the thing is not carried too far. As regards the Bill itself I do not believe it can have the smallest impression on any man, woman or child in the country.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FINANCE BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: My Lords, the constitutional supremacy of the other House in matters of finance is unquestionable, and now unquestioned, and so far as the present financial year is concerned the provision made both for Expenditure and Revenue is unalterably embodied in the Bill which your Lordships are now asked to read a second time. But that does not, at any rate in my opinion, in the least take away the privilege of this House, or absolve it from the duty, of contributing in debate, so far as its members can in a domain in which it cannot legislatively intrude, to a dispassionate review both of the actual and prospective financial situation of the country. And that is the task to which for a few moments, with your Lordships' indulgence, I propose to address myself.
I may say at once that I approach the matter with a full and sympathetic appreciation of the almost unprecedented difficulty and complexity of the problems which confront any man, to whatever Party in the State he may belong, who is called upon under existing conditions to undertake the stewardship of our national finance. It is almost exactly twenty years since I myself undertook the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. We had in those days to grapple with serious questions—on the one hand, the liquidation of the enormous addition which had been made (enormous as we thought it in those days) to our National

829
Debt in consequence of the South African War, and on the other hand, as time went on, the making of adequate provision for national defence against new and menacing external dangers, and for the urgent and, indeed, the clamorous requirements of social reform. That was an anxious situation which required to be handled with such care and courage as we could bring to it.
I may perhaps recall, for it is not irrelevant to the situation in which we now find ourselves, that, in undertaking that task we accompanied a large diminution in the capital of the Debt, and considerable reductions and remissions of burdens from taxation, with a number of schemes for improving the permanent conditions of the industrial classes—Old Age Pensions, National Insurance and the rest—the new burdens of which were imposed upon the community at a time of prosperous and expanding industry. The conditions are very different to-day. The situation? with which we had to deal was not comparable with the exigencies which in these times face the financial Ministers of all the European countries who were combatants in the War, and certainly not least our own.
I say that in order to assure your Lordships that it is not in any captious or controversial spirit that I have set myself to examine the Budget of the present year. Indeed, so far as personal prepossessions may be legitimately carried, I had every reason for at least anticipatory sympathy with the proposals of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom I am attached by long and tried association in the past and by unbroken and undiminished friendship. There are, I know, censorious critics who have professed to have discovered in Mr. Churchill's career signs or symptoms of what I may call political versatility. But there was always one fixed pivotal point, which no one could deny or ignore, and that was his strict and even stern adherence to the pure doctrine of Free Trade. Indeed, in those occasional moods of diffidence or of doubt, which from time to time over-cloud the most robust believers, I know of no better medicine than to take down from one's bookshelves the collected speeches of the right hon. gentleman and to refresh and reinvigorate one's Free Trade principles by
830
a bath in those pellucid, perhaps I may say, those saline streams. Therefore, I confess that I never thought I should find him toying even with the fringes or fripperies of Protection.
But I gather, not from his speech but from an aside which he emitted in another place, that since he has become Chancellor of the Exchequer he has been restudying the foundations of belief and that he has come to the conclusion that fluidity of conviction is the secret of intellectual perfection. That accounts for some, perhaps not the most important, of the features of the present Budget. I will not dwell in detail upon them, but I will pass a few of them in brief and summary review. I observe in this connection that a recent recruit to the Labour Party in another place—and, if I may venture to say so, a very valuable recruit, for he is evidently a trained economist—Mr. Dalton, has discovered that there are seven different commodities and groups of articles which are afforded in greater or less degree protection in the Budget. Some of them, it is true, are old friends—the disinterred McKenna Duties on motor cars and the rest. Of them I will only say this, that having regard to their origin, to their history, to their actual operation and to the present condition of the trades concerned, their resuscitation at this moment is, in my opinion, a freak of fiscal perversity almost without example in the whole of my financial experience. So much for them.
What of the newcomers—hops, silk and lace, which make up the seven? Of hops I will say nothing—de minimis may suffice for a commentary upon them. But what of silk? I can hardly conceive of a new Import Duty which is exposed to more fundamental objection than this tax upon silk. It is a tax on raw material, a thing which Mr. Joseph Chamberlain never overtly advocated in the heyday of the fiscal controversy; and when all allowance has been made for the countervailing Excise Duty it has about it a very distinct and unmistakable favour of protection. It is in no sense a tax upon luxury. It is absurd so to describe it. I agree that it is not in the strict sense of the term a tax upon one of the necessaries of life, but it is an impost upon articles which in the recent developments, mysterious,

831
perhaps inexplicable to some of us, of taste and fashion in this country have become, and tend increasingly to become, a part, and an integral part, of the comforts or what I may call the simple adornments of our national life.
Then I come to lace, a small affair no doubt in itself and upon its own merits, and on which, in itself, it would not be worth while to waste even five minutes of your Lordships' time. This heavy Import Duty upon lace, imposed in consonance, or in supposed consonance, with the policy of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, has two features which, quite apart from its intrinsic insignificance, deserves, I think, at any rate a passing notice. In the first place, it does not comply with the conditions which are deliberately laid down by the Government themselves in the White Taper which they issued at the beginning of the present Session; and in the second place—what is much more important—it opens a door to claims for similar protective treatment from industries immeasurably more important and in themselves suffering to a far greater degree from the inroads and the menaces of foreign competition, industries—I will take one which has already put forward a claim, though I understand that it has been, for the moment at any rate, rejected or postponed—such as iron and steel, an import duty upon which would have a depressing and even a disastrous effect upon a whole group of ancillary and dependent British industries.
I am not going into the question of whether these protective or semi-protective duties (for such they are) are a violation of the pledge which was given by the head of the present Government and renewed elsewhere in the early days of the Session and which is defined by Mr. Churchill as amounting—I will take his definition of it—
"to no more than a promise not to commit the country during the present Parliament to decisive changes in our fiscal system."
I see that Mr. Churchill claims credit that in the ease of lace, which comes within the ambit, or the supposed ambit, of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, he has proceeded by a general tax against all importations, whencesoever they are derived, and not by discriminating duties against particular countries. He takes
832
refuge in one of his ingenuous epigrams and says that a general duty is a general duty (which is undoubtedly true) but that a general tariff is an aggregate of general duties. See what that means. It means this: that Free Trade, that what we are accustomed to regard, and what I certainly regard, as the citadel of Free Trade, is to be sapped and mined by a succession of timorous, exiguous, piecemeal instalments which are, as everybody knows, preparing the way for what, under the pledge given, cannot be attempted in the present Parliament but is clearly contemplated and intended by the great bulk of the supporters of the Government—an open and a frontal attack. That is all that I think it appropriate to say on the present occasion of the detailed proposals of the Budget, except—and it is a large exception—to express my complete approval of two very important points. The first is the maintenance intact of the increased Sinking Fund; and the second the reductions and readjustments in the Income Tax.
But, as I said at the outset, if your Lordships will give me a few moments' more indulgence, I think it is more important on an occasion like this, and in this place, to come face to face with the general financial situation, both actual and prospective. I am no pessimist—I never have been, and I hope I never shall be driven to be—but I view that situation with solicitude which verges, at any rate, on apprehension. Let us look at it. It is idle to pretend that there are any trustworthy signs of a genuine revival of British trade. At this moment, in some of the greatest of our national industries—I will instance two or three: coal, shipbuilding, the main, or at any rate some of the most important, branches of engineering, iron and steel—it is to-day and, for all that we can foresee, it is for some time to come to be, not a question of making profits, but of cutting losses and of closing down mines and factories; and side by side and, perhaps, as a natural and. indeed, a necessary accompaniment of that process, the straining of relations between employer and employed threatens to approach—we hope it will not reach—the breaking point. The figures of unemployment, instead of abating, grow month by month with a disheartening and, indeed, I might say a menacing rate of progression.

833
And yet, with all this going on before our eyes and with no visible, I might almost say with no imaginable, prospect of immediate or speedy amelioration, Parliament is invited, as it is in this Bill, to sanction for the current year an Expenditure of £800,000,000. If you add—as you must add. to take a just estimate of our national liabilities and commitments—our local expenditure, made out of rates, there is an addition, according to the figures of last year (this year they will probably be increased) of at least £160,000,000. That is to say, you are confronted with an aggregate expenditure, national and local, which will not and cannot fall far short of £1,000,000,000. Even in these days of colossal international arithmetic that is not only an unexampled, but if is a most formidable figure.
Let me give one illustration—at least, it is not an illustration but a relevant fact which shows how formidable it is. Our national income is estimated by great authorities such, for instance, as Sir Josiah Stamp, at £3,800,000,000, and therefore you are taking toll upon that of a quarter. Compare that with the state of things which existed before the War—and this comparison is not in the least invalidated or even affected by the changes which have taken place in the value of money; not in the least. Before the War the national income was estimated by similar authorities at £2,500,000,000 and the expenditure, national and local, at that time was not one quarter but one ninth of the whole. That surely ought to give us pause, and I am stating, after a somewhat prolonged experience of public affairs and particularly of finance, my deliberate, opinion when I say—and I say it to the people of this country, not only to the Government, for I am not for the moment in any critical spirit so far as they are concerned, because I believe they will agree with most of what I have said—I say to the people of this country and to both Houses of Parliament, in the plainest possible terms, that expenditure on this scale is more than this country can afford.
Yes, but one of the worst and most aggravating features of the case is this, that that expenditure tends not to diminish, not to remain stationary, but to grow. This very Budget sanctioned by the Finance Bill, which your Lordships
834
are about to pass, has increased not only upon the Estimates but upon the actual Expenditure of the year for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government was responsible. It has increased the cost of our fighting Forces by £6,000,000, and, as we know—it has been intimated upon the authority of the Government themselves—there is a Supplementary Naval Estimate to come—an Estimate which, quite apart from the additional charge, which it will throw upon the Revenue of the current year, will mortgage the Revenues of succeeding years—three, four or five, at any rate— by a heavy and unavoidable burden. Then there is—and here I know I shall not be expressing the view of the majority of the members of this House—the Singapore adventure, which seems to me, and I have given it the most dispassionate consideration, to be quite unwarranted on the ground either of sound strategy or sound policy, and which, though it calls, it is true, for only a trivial instalment of expenditure in the present year, will throw an increasing burden upon the next nine or ten years—a burden, unless my prevision is wholly at fault, probably largely in excess of any estimate which has yet been made. I regret to say that even within the last few days we have heard rumours—I trust they will turn out to be unfounded in fact—that there are fresh demands coming from Mesopotamia, where, in my judgment, neither the honour of this country nor the permanent interests of British taxpayers call for or justify any further commitments. I was right, therefore, when I said a moment ago that so far as the actual aggregate of Expenditure is concerned we are not justified in hoping for, still less in counting upon, any prospect of diminution. On the. contrary, the prospect is altogether the other way.
I am not saying these things, as I am sure you will believe, from any desire to make Party capital As I said at the beginning, I realise to the full the special and the unexampled difficulties of the problems with which any Government, to whatever Party it may belong, is in these days confronted; but we must look these things in the face. Let me turn, if I may, for a few minutes, to the other side of the account. I have been speaking of our national Expenditure. Can we hope, as

835
a set-off against that, for any substantial increment of Revenue? Here again the only, as I think, intelligent and trustworthy forecast is entirely the other way. Your Lordships must remember that the Revenue of the present year, like that of all the years which have passed since the conclusion of the War, has been artificially swollen by special receipts. The amount, I believe, for the current year has been no less than £30,000,000, special receipts, which will not recur and cannot recur in the years that lie before us. But I should like to say something further in regard to our prospective Revenue. In my judgment the limits of taxation, actual or possible taxation, have been all but, if not altogether, reached. There are no substantial additions to existing taxes and, so far as even my imagination can conceive, no new taxes that can be invented which will not further depress industry and impair, instead of increase, the productiveness of your sources of revenue.
What is the inference from all the facts, undisputed and indisputable, which I have ventured to lay before your Lordships. The inference, the inevitable inference, is that there is one and only one way of escape—ruthless and relentless cutting down and cutting off of every form of avoidable expenditure. The country—and I am sure that the Government will agree with me here—will not be, and ought not to be, content with vague declamatory assurances, of which no one need doubt the sincerity, that they are hoping to reduce our Expenditure, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, by £10,000,000 a year. Those assurances would command more weight if the Expenditure had not been actually increased during the current financial year by a substantial number of millions sterling. Nor will it or ought it to be reassured by the information that a Cabinet Committee is to be set up to discover possible economies. A Cabinet Committee! Those of us who have beer' any length of time in public life know by experience that the appointment of a Committee is a facile expedient which offers almost irresistible temptations in moments of perplexity to even the most austere and high-principled Governments. I myself when I was in a responsible position have more than once resorted to it. I make that candid admission.
836
But as regards this suggested Committee, there are two questions which I should like to ask and to which I hope that the Government will vouchsafe an answer to-day. The first question is this. Has it, in fact, been appointed and begun to function, and if not—and this may be regarded as an indelicate inquiry—what is the probable date of its birth? The second question, which is a more important one, is, why and for what purpose is such a Committee needed? A committee is or ought to be an instrument of exploration and, if possible, of discovery in a region of which some at any rate of the facts and features are still imperfectly ascertained. That is not the case here, not the least. All the relevant facts are already on the table. They are perfectly well known because they are disclosed, under our wise and politic system of publicity, in the accounts and the accompanying documents which every Government submits to Parliament and the country.
In my judgment no remedy is to be found in the necessarily dilatory and, as I think in this case, otiose proceedings even of the most expert and most inquisitorial committee. Where is it to be found? It is to be found only in one quarter and only by one agency and that is in the independent and authoritative activity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It is for him to control the spending Departments and, if in the Cabinet they succeed in eluding or frustrating his control, to disclaim further responsibility and give up his office. I have seen many of these struggles myself in a comparatively long experience of Cabinet life and sometimes there has been an almost ironic and paradoxical change of the different personalities who have been engaged upon the one side and upon the other. The spending Departments always have at their disposal a well-filled arsenal, not only of plausible, but often of well-founded arguments. Are you going, they ask, to starve national defence? Are you going to cashier devoted and efficient servants of the State? Are you going—an argument which is perhaps more potent to-day than it used to be in days gone by—to cripple or maim the machinery and the further and future developments of social reform?
Those are difficult and distasteful questions for any Chancellor of the

837
Exchequer, who knows well, as all Chancellors of the Exchequer know, with an intimacy and a fulness of knowledge denied perhaps to anybody else, the devoted and able men who, for often most inadequate rewards and uninviting prospects, man both our fighting and our Civil Services. But all those things, relevant as they are and, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point of view, difficult as they are, must give way to the supreme national necessity. And I have come to the conclusion, not, I confess, without hesitation or, indeed, reluctance, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the performance of this invidious but imperative duty, must boldly take the line of rationing the Departments; that is to say, be must tell them frankly:— "Your functions are important, your objects are excellent, many of the proposals which you make are proposals which, as a politician and a statesman, command my complete sympathy and approval. But you must cut your coat according to your cloth." In these times, in the actual and prospective conditions with which we are confronted, with a very large discretion to individual Ministers as to how they will apply for the special purpose of the services for which they are responsible what is allocated to them, there must be a maximum which they will not be allowed to exceed. It sounds a crude and, perhaps, a somewhat dictatorial procedure; but there is no other way or so far as I know, suggestion by which the unprecedented exigencies of our national finance can at this moment be adequately met.
Apologising as I do for detaining your Lordships so long, it is a matter upon which I feel Very deeply, and I am expressing very deliberate and wholly dispassionate convictions. I recognise to the full the enormous and wholly creditable impulses which lead1, and necessarily lead, ardent and progressive Ministers to raise their Departments to the highest level of efficiency and, in many cases, to enlarge the ambit of their operation. No one feels that more strongly than I do. But I do not think that anybody who has held, as I have held, responsible offices as a spending Minister, as Chancellor of the Exchequer and as First Lord of the Treasury, would be doing his duty to your Lordships' House or to the country unless
838
he pressed upon you, as I do with whatever emphasis and, if I may say so, with whatever degree of authority I can command, the views which I have endeavoured to put forward.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, this is the fifth debate upon financial subjects which has taken place in your Lordships' House since February last, and on each previous occasion I have had the opportunity of speaking in great detail and placing fully before your Lordships the views of the Labour Party. Therefore, to-day it is not necessary for me to do more than make some general observations and my speech can be one of comparative brevity. Nevertheless, there are still some things which I wish to say, especially after hearing the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith. I will come straight to what I regard as the, main feature of the debate, although it is a feature upon which the noble Earl spent, I think, only about half a minute. I allude to the reductions in the standard rate of the Income Tax and the reductions in the Super-Tax, amounting as they do altogether to £42,000,000 a year. I am not criticising the increase in the earned allowance, which absorbs altogether some £7,000,000. That increase we in the Labour Party support.
On a previous occasion I put before your Lordships many reasons why, in my view, these remissions cannot be justified in the present circumstances. I emphasised, in particular, a point which I should like to submit to the attention of the noble Earl who has just spoken, because I think it has a very close and important bearing upon certain figures which he gave your Lordships at the end of his speech, in regard to the total national Expenditure and the relation which that expenditure (that is, the total national Expenditure of the Exchequer and the expenditure on local rates) bears to the estimated total national income. I emphasised the point that you must look at the Budget as a whole when you are considering the relative positions at the present time, so far as national burdens are concerned, of the richer classes and of the poorer classes, and I pointed out that on the Expenditure side of the Budget the richer classes are now receiving somewhere about £300,000,000 a year in War Loan interest and in Sinking Fund payments. I said that

839
taking that into account (and surely it ought to be taken into account) the richer classes to-day, looking at the Budget as a whole, are pretty much in the same position in relation to the poorer classes as compared with pre-War days.
I do not think that can be disputed if all the various figures are analysed. It is true that the richer classes are paying more; they are contributing a larger share of the national Revenue in direct taxation. It is also true that they are receiving a very much larger proportionate share of the national Expenditure. It is true that, taking everything into account, they are, as I have said, compared with pre-War days, in pretty much the same position as they were in relation to the poorer classes. Therefore I said that it cannot be argued, or if it is argued, it is an argument which cannot be sustained, that the richer classes are bearing too heavy a share of the national burden when compared with the poorer classes. Broadly, that was my case so far as the proportions of direct and indirect taxation were concerned. That is what I submitted to your Lordships in great detail. What reply was given from the Government Bench? No reply was given. Why was no reply given? No reply was given because no reply could be given, because what I said represented the facts.
I submit very earnestly to your Lordships that these particular points have not yet received the attention which they deserve, because they go a very long way to destroy the constant contention that the richer classes are bearing far too great a share of the national burdens. This sum of £300,000,000 of War Loan interest, and so on, amounts to the whole sum of the Income Tax and to nearly the whole of the Super-tax; so that, looking at the matter in that way—and it is the proper way to look at it—the richer classes are receiving back again from the Expenditure side of the account practically the whole amount they pay in Income Tax and Super-Tax. I do not wish to deflect from my argument at the moment, but later on I shall venture to submit that the figures which the noble Earl gave of the proportions of expenditure from the Exchequer and local rates are open to a good deal of criticism and that, if they are analysed closely and put in what I think is their right perspective,
840
the result comes out materially different to that which he advanced.
It is quite true that throughout the Government have sought to justify these remissions of Income Tax and Super-Tax on the ground that they would help industry and that attitude is the basis on which the Liberal Party has largely supported this reduction of Income Tax. It seems to me that in this matter the position of the Liberal Party is inconsistent and illogical and cannot, indeed, be defended. This is not the first time the Income lax has been reduced under the plea of helping industry. It was done in 1922, when a shilling was taken off the Income Tax, It was done again in 1923, when another sixpence was taken off the Income Tax, so that 1s. 6d was taken off the Income Tax in order to help industry, as we were told at that time. What has been the result? Here we are to-day lamenting, as unhappily we must, the fact that the trade, and industry of the country are in about as bad a position as they ever have been since there was any trade or industry. Therefore, how can it be contended with any degree of force or truth that these remissions of Income Tax, which were made to help industry, have helped industry? If they have not, and it is quite clear that they have not, then what reason is there for saying that this further reduction of sixpence will be of any material benefit to industry? The whole proposition is demonstrably false.
This theory about the benefit to industry of reducing Income Tax has been put forward by the Government and by its supporters on so many different grounds that it is really very difficult to keep pace with them, but I think I am right in saying that their chief argument is this: It is necessary to increase the capital of the country in order to help industry and therefore you must reduce the Income Tax and the Super-Tax in order that the savings and the capital of the country may be increased. I will show the weakness of that argument. In the first place, a very considerable proportion of the remitted Income Tax and Super-Tax is not saved at all, but is spent. There can be no doubt about that. I pointed out on a previous occasion that a far more effective plan for helping industry in the sense of increasing capital is to pay off more National Debt.

841
Money devoted to Debt redemption is practically all saved. There can be no doubt about that.
At the present time the Sinking Fund amounts to £50,000,000 a year on a Debt of £7,646,000,000, in round figures say £7,500,000,000, so that the Sinking Fund amounts to two-thirds of one per cent. I is not enough at that rate. Moreover, it is a flat Sinking Fund, it is not a cumulative fund, and it will take 150 years to pay off the National Debt even if the Sinking Fund is not raided and, of course, it is quite certain to be raided before 150 years have elapsed. No Sinking Fund for National Debt has ever run anything like that period of time without being raided. I therefore suggest that the Sinking Fund ought to be increased to at least £75,000,000, which would make it one per cent, of the Debt. Even then it would be a smaller Sinking Fund than there was before the War when the Sinking Fund was about 1¼ per cent.
The noble Earl who has just spoken supported a similar proposition two years ago in another place. He supported the proposal that the Sinking Fund should be increased as soon as it could to £75,000,000, and in doing that he said of this proposal—
"I believe we could confer no greater boon on the financial stability of the country and the rehabilitation of trade."
That is how he described that proposal. I say those are true words, and they are as true to-day as they were two years ago. What I want to know is how is it that the Liberal Party have not supported this proposal which, in the words of their own leader, would confer such a great boon upon industry, instead of supporting the reduction of the Income Tax? If the reduction of the Income Tax is good for industry in the way in which the Government had argued, it is perfectly certain that the reduction of the Super-Tax will also be good for industry. If one is good the other also is good. You must support both or neither. I am quite unable to understand the position of the Liberal Party when they support the reduction of the Income Tax in order to help industry, but oppose the reduction of the Super-Tax. I say that is illogical and inconsistent. You must do both or neither. We are opposed to both. We do not believe these reductions will be of any material benefit to industry. We say
842
that all past experience proves that. I think it is a great pity that the Liberal Party have got themselves into this position and have not adhered to the policy of paying off more Debt. That would help industry, while these proposals of the Government will do little or nothing.
At the same time, I am bound to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the Government. For many months prior to the Budget, almost day by day, they were told by the Conservative Press that the one thing needful was to reduce the Income Tax in order to help industry. They were told that day by day with monotonous insistence. Accordingly, they reduced the Income Tax, and also the Super-Tax, which practically nobody was expecting them to do. Did they get any gratitude from the Conservative Press? Scarcely a syllable. Almost at once the same newspapers which had been saying, "You must reduce the Income Tax in order to help industry," dropped the idle pretence that it was of the smallest service to industry. Then they began to attack the Budget on the ground that it would injure industry, mainly on account of the new Pension? scheme. I agree with that criticism. I think the burden of this new scheme is bound to be harmful to industry, and Chat gives all the more force to the views of the Labour Party, which urged that the scheme should be non-contributory.
I should like, if I may, to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, because on a previous occasion, in one of these financial debates, he said: "How can you make the scheme non-contributory? Where is the money to come from?" The money, of course, should come from this £42,000,000, which is being remitted to Income Tax and Super-Tax-payers. Very nearly enough can come from that source to make this scheme non-contributory and to increase the Sinking Fund. That would have this real advantage, that it would mean the rentier class was contributing its fair share to the cost of this Pension scheme instead of the whole burden of it being put upon industry. I think the rentier class should bear its share, and that we should not put the whole of this burden on industry. To do that at the present time is a most regrettable proceeding on the part of the Government. The financial and industrial situation of the

843
country has never been worse, and my imagination fails to conceive what would have been said by noble Lords opposite if they had been sitting here and the Labour Party had still been in office under existing conditions. We should have had most denunciatory speeches about the way the Labour Party was ruining the country, and so forth.
As for myself I will try to be fair. I do not lay the whole of the blame for the present industrial and financial troubles upon the Government, but I lay some of the blame upon them, for they are certainly not free from blame. I have just been speaking of the burden of the Budget so far as it bears upon the unemployed problem. That problem is reaching a most menacing stage, and the Government simply look on helplessly, and do not seem to be able to do a single thing that will be of any real service in dealing with the situation. I think I am correct in saying that during every week this year, except one, the number of unemployed has shown an increase over last year. We drift from bad to worse, and the Government do nothing at all. I submit that it is becoming increasingly evident that the Labour Party was right when it warned Parliament and the country of the injurious consequences which would follow a return to the gold standard and, in particular, the long preparations for that return. On a previous occasion I showed to your Lordships that these preparations were bound to be injurious to the export trade. There is no dispute about that, and it is our export trade which is in such a very parlous condition at the present time. There are men in all Parties, including some leading Conservatives, who are of opinion that the gold standard policy of the Government is in no small measure the cause of many of our present troubles. Therefore, looking at all these problems as a whole, I say that the Government can by no means escape responsibility for the appalling condition of the country. Unemployment is going up and gold-edged securities are coming down, and there is a general lack of confidence prevailing throughout the length and breadth of the land.
The difficulties of the Government are somewhat increased by the ridiculous expectations they have aroused in certain
844
quarters on account of their so-called safeguarding of industries proposals. I am not going to speak of them to-day, as I had an opportunity, shortly after the Session began, of examining these protective taxes and their probable effect. I fully endorse all that has been said by the noble Earl on this point and I am perfectly certain that experience will prove, as it has proved before, that the Safeguarding Duties or the McKenna Duties will all do far more harm than good.
There are one or two matters to which I desire to refer before concluding. The first question is that of national Expenditure. The noble Earl who has just spoken devoted a good deal of the concluding portion of his speech to that matter, upon which we had a debate some four or five weeks ago. I think it is clear that under the present Government there is to be no substantial retrenchment. This year, for the first year since the War, the Expenditure shows an increase, and thus one of the first achievements of the Conservative Government is to start an upward curve in national Expenditure. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, will not overlook this fact and that I shall hear no more from him of Labour extravagance. It is a Conservative Government that has reversed the salutary process which has been going on since the War, and I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will restrain himself when he criticises the Labour Party.
I do not propose to go through again the figures of national Expenditure which were given by the noble Earl, but there are one or two points to which I should like to refer. He said that the national Expenditure is now £800,000,000 and to that you must add the expenditure on local rates which would make a total of £960,000,000. Then he said that the estimated total national income was £3,800,000,000, so that, speaking broadly, it might be said that the combined cost of the national Expenditure and local expenditure came to about a quarter of the estimated total national income. He went on to say that if you went back to pre-War days you arrived at a very different result. Then, he said, the estimated total national income was £2,500,000,000. It is with great diffidence that I question anything which the noble Earl says in regard to fiscal matters, but

845
I submit to your Lordships, though I do not defend the Government on this matter of retrenchment at all, that we should get the true perspective and that his estimate of £2,500,000,000 as the pre-War national income in 1913 is rather high.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: It rests upon the same authority as the other estimate.
LORD ARNOLD: I accept that, of course, from the noble Earl, though with some surprise, as I went into the matter very closely at the time. The authorities I consulted could not put the estimated national income then higher than £2,250,000,000. But that is not the main point. I certainly think that if the national income was £2,500,000,000 in pro-War days it is more than £3,800,000,000 now. Some authorities do put it higher than that at the present time. Personally, I should not put it higher than £3,800,000,000. The noble Earl also said that, taking the national income at £2,500,000,000, if you add together the national Expenditure and the expenditure on rates in the pre-War years, they come out at about one-ninth of the estimated national income; therefore, in pre-War days you were spending about one-ninth of the national income as against one-quarter now. The point which I think is most important in this matter is that the national Expenditure of £800,000,000 to-day includes £355,000,000 for the cost of the War Debt and National Debt and about £300,000,000 goes back to the wealthy classes of this country in interest and Sinking Fund. That £300,000,000, therefore, is really in the nature of a redistribution of national income. The total amount which went back on National Debt interest and Sinking Fund in 1913 was £23,500,000 as against the £300,000,000 which now goes back to the wealthier classes of the country.
My point is that this £300,000,000 ought to be deducted from the £800,000,000 of national Expenditure for the purposes of the comparison which the noble Earl made, thus bringing the Expenditure down to £500,000,000. Add to that the expenditure on rates, £160,000,000, and you arrive at a total of £660,000,000. I submit that this is the relevant figure to put against the £3,800,000,000 estimated national income, or somewhere about
846
one-sixth, which is a very different figure to one-fourth. However, I will not again question his estimates, but if I were to go into that matter I submit that the probabilities are that the pre-War corresponding proportion, instead of being one-ninth, is probably about one-eighth.
There is one final matter to which I should like to refer. It is this. Throughout all these debates, and this is the fifth debate we have had on finance, I have not myself challenged the Estimates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the Revenue for the current year, nor have I questioned the small surplus he expects to realise next March. For aught I know his Estimates may be right; at any rate, I have not challenged them. I remember very well last year moving the Second Reading of the Finance Bill from that box, and when I had sat down Viscount Grey of Fallodon rose from the Liberal Benches and made, not tentatively, but without any reservation or qualification whatever, the most direct criticism of the Budget on the ground that it was improvident; that Mr. Philip Snowden had no right to give away what he was giving away—the remissions of the Tea and Sugar Duties. The noble Viscount told your Lordships that there would be a "gap" this year and that it would be necessary to increase taxation this year in order to meet the demands of last year's Budget; that the gap between Revenue and Expenditure would be increased this year because of the remissions which Mr. Snowden the Chancellor of the Exchequer was then making.
That was what the noble Viscount told your Lordships without any reservation or qualification. No prophecy was more completely falsified than that, because, so far from there being a gap, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in a position to dispose of somewhere about £40,000,000 this year. It is quite true, as I have pointed out, that he is not disposing of it in the right way; but that is not the point. The real point is that the criticism of the Labour Government, made last year by Viscount Grey of Fallodon from the Liberal Benches, was just about as wrong as it could possibly have been. In regard to this Budget I make no prophecies about Revenue or surplus. What I say is that this is a Budget that

847
will not help industry, that instead of decreasing our present difficulties it will increase them, and it is certainly a Budget which, judged by the best financial principles, is grossly inequitable.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me, after the two speeches delivered on behalf of the two other Parties who form part of your Lordships' House, to say a word on behalf of the Government in reply. I fully recognise the great importance of the speech that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, just now, and therefore I am sure that the noble Lord who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not dwell upon his condolences with the Conserva-time Party as to the iniquities of certain Conservative newspapers. I think the noble Lord reads those particular organs of opinion more carefully than I do, but I am quite aware that they are not friendly to the Government. I can assure him, however, that we do not disturb ourselves very much on that account. I will just refer to the noble Lord's remarks concerning the gold standard. I think that he must have observed the remarkable fact that, in the very full speech of the noble Earl, who is a great authority on finance, no word was said in reprobation of our having adopted the gold standard.
LORD ARNOLD: He supported you.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a matter of great satisfaction to us that we should have had support in that quarter. I am quite sure that the noble Lord who has just sat down would not have been himself prepared to face the disintegration of our exchanges which would have followed upon our shrinking from adopting the gold standard. Whatever he may say after the event, I feel confident that, had he been responsible for affairs, he would not have faced the consequences of that disintegration. I may add, with regard to the prophecies which were made about the gold standard, that one of them at least has altogether failed to be fulfilled. It was said that the gold would all be drained from this country.
LORD ARNOLD: Not at once.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no sign of it, no indication of it whatever, and therefore I hope that the noble
848
Lord will not take too gloomy a view of our proceedings in that respect. I turn now to the speech of the noble Earl. I recognise that it was the last part of his speech which was of the greatest importance, and yet I must say a word or two, if he will allow me, in reply to his criticisms of the present Budget. He made a great deal, in his own sarcastic and humorous vein, of what he considered to be the falling from grace of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Earl has returned to the position of an unadulterated Free Trader. All the old doctrinaire beliefs of his youth still survive in him, and not the changes of experience, not all the events of the War, not all the devices which the Liberal Party themselves were driven to adopt, have shaken his belief in that o doctrinaire position. I certainly do not belong to that way of thinking. I have never been able to understand why these questions of Free Trade and Protection should be looked upon as if they were religious dogmas which cannot be deviated from. The truth is that, in respect of this rigid Free Trade, the Liberal Party themselves have fallen from grace. Why, even the noble Earl is a sinner. Let him remember what the Liberal Party was responsible for both in respect of the McKenna Duties and the safeguarding of industries.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: I had nothing whatever to do with the safeguarding of industries.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said the, Liberal Party. A very important colleague of the noble Earl is Mr. Lloyd George. Was he not responsible for the safeguarding of industries?
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: As a matter of personal responsibility, I opposed that Bill in all its stages in the House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl, of course, might succeed before your Lordships in contrast with his colleague, but at any rate the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons is certainly up to the neck in responsibility for the safeguarding of industries. As regards the McKenna Duties, I agree that they were probably

849
not imposed at the beginning for the purpose for which they were afterwards continued. They were imposed, no doubt, at the outset, in order to prevent the overburdening of the shipping of this country and for similar reasons; but they were continued for revenue purposes, and they were continued by a Liberal Prime Minister for revenue purposes over and over again, not in one year, but in repeated years. And he was perfectly right. Revenue purposes are very important in this connection, and they are the reason why we are continuing them to-day.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, speaking of the McKenna Duties the other day, said that the repeal of them by noble Lords opposite was an act of stupidity, a throwing away of revenue, and that they had been re-imposed by us for revenue purposes and for revenue purposes alone. There was nothing about Protection. Why should the noble Earl despise these revenue purposes? It is a question of£3,000,000 in a full year, and I must say, having regard to the great strain which is thrown upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these days—for I agree with a great deal that the noble Earl said—I cannot understand why he should grudge us this method of raising£3,000,000, which does not do anybody any harm whatever, merely because it has a protective effect. I do not know whether it really has a protective effect, and I do not care a bit. What we want is the money, and we want to raise the money without throwing a greater burden than we can help upon the shoulders of the taxpayer. We want to place the burden upon commodities or other sources of revenue in such a way that it will be felt as little as possible. These McKenna Duties are not felt. The kind of people who have to pay an extra duty upon motor oars do not feel it, but we get £3,000,000 without any extra friction or burden upon the taxpayer.
What is true of the McKenna Duties is also true of the Silk Duties. They are for revenue purposes and revenue purposes alone, and they raise £6,000,000 in a full year. I cannot understand the position of the noble Earl in this matter. I do not even recognise the Free Trade doctrine. I always thought that, whether you were a Free Trader or a Protectionist,
850
duties for revenue purposes were admissible, that they violated no dogma and that there was nothing blasphemous about them. By the McKenna Duties and the duty on silk, we are going to raise in a full year no less a sum than £9.000,000. I say that is thoroughly defensible. I know that the noble Earl said that silk was not in a sense a luxury. It is very difficult to define what is a luxury and what is not, but what I think is certainly true is that the people who buy silk or artificial silk can afford to contribute to the revenue, and the fact that they buy silk and artificial silk proves that they can afford to do so. I am astonished, and if I may say so a little disappointed, that so great an authority as the noble Earl gives us no credit for attempting to tax sumptuary articles or luxuries. I should have thought that he would have welcomed it.
It always seemed to me to be the real method of taxation, in so far as it can be adopted, that you should place the burden as lightly as. you can upon the necessities of the people and the income of the people, because that income becomes fruitful when it is invested in industry, and that, you should concentrate as much as you can upon sumptuary articles or luxuries. I know, of course, that that source will not go very far, but as far as it does go I believe it to be correct finance and I am disappointed that the noble Earl did not support us in this respect. I do not want to say very much about lace. The noble Earl, in considerable passages on his speech, dealt with lace. He spoke of the safeguarding; of industries—of the method—as something which almost amounted to a breach of faith to the country.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: I did not say so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then I apologise; I did not mean to misquote the noble Earl. I am glad that I was mistaken, because I think it is quite understood in the country, after the pledge given by the Prime Minister against Protection, that the safeguarding of industries, such as was indicated, was always excepted. Moreover, it figures in the King's Speech of last December. We promised in the gracious Speech a Bill

851
for the safeguarding of employment in efficient industries where the need for exceptional action could be shown.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH:. I never suggested to the contrary.
THE MAHQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I misunderstood him, but it has been suggested in the country. At the same time that the Government said that they were not prepared to reintroduce a system of Protection in this country, they said that in particular cases—where exceptional difficulties were felt by industries of minor importance and where the result would be the disturbance of labour in that particular area or district or trade which would be very burdensome to the people—the Government were prepared, not being doctrinaires, to use fiscal methods for safeguarding those industries.
1 turn to what I will describe as the more important part—everything which the noble Earl said was of importance, but the most important part of the noble Earl's speech was that in which he spoke of industrial depression. I am sure your Lordships must have heard what he said in respect of economy with a great deal of sympathy. Certainly it was received with full sympathy on this Bench. We are firmly convinced that economy is essential in this country. We know, of course, as the noble Earl knew when he was in office and as noble Lords opposite knew last year, how very difficult in practice it is to carry out economy, but that economy must be practised and carried out we are quite as convinced as the noble Earl. I certainly am not prepared, although I have not had time to consider them, to reject the methods of economy which he suggested, but I should like, by way of comfort to the House and to the noble Earl, to remind the House what reductions of Expenditure there have been in the last few-years. I know that the noble Earl says: "You have raised Expenditure again." I am not looking at small matters, but I want to look at the big matter. I am prepared to give credit to the Labour Government for what they have done. Consider what the reductions have been. Expenditure has been reduced from somewhere about £1,000,000,000 in 1919–20 to something like £546,000,000 in 1923–24 and £407,000,000 in the Estimates for the present year. That is a very consider
852
able reduction. Although I agree that the burdens are still far too heavy, we must not leave out of sight what has been done.
LORD ARNOLD: I presume the noble Marquess is now speaking only of Supply Services?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, I am speaking of Supply Services only. I need not remind your Lordships also that the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks to a further reduction in Expenditure. The noble Earl says: "But why appoint a Cabinet Committee about it?" I confess I was rather surprised at that criticism of the noble Earl. He must know that when it is a question of one Minister compelling another Minister to spend less money he is enormously strengthened if he has a body of his colleagues to support him in that effort. I know that the noble Earl spoke of a sort of Draconian Chancellor of the Exchequer who was to 6tand firm, say "No," and force his colleagues to give way, but he himself knows that, although there have been such Chancellors of the Exchequer, yet even the sternest I ever knew, the late Lord St. Aldwyn, would have been enormously strengthened in his action if he could have spoken in the name of a Cabinet Committee of his colleagues when trying to force economy upon the Departments. Therefore I cannot think that the noble Earl was very serious when he criticised the method which we have adopted.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: Yes, I was.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The truth is that the real method of staying industrial distress in this country is by greater effort on the part of all concerned
THE EAEL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: As the noble Marquess was speaking of the Cabinet Committee, may I ask him whether that Committee exists?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It has been decreed, but if the noble Earl asks me whether it is operating in the middle of a Session of Parliament, I frankly admit that it is not. He knows well that these things cannot be done when Parliament is sitting, and when Ministers have little leisure. I pass to the most

853
important part of the speech of the noble Earl, that in which he spoke of the actual industrial depression through which we were passing. That is not to be met merely by economy. Believe me, essential though economy is, economy will not do the trick. There is not the capacity, if we made all the economies that are feasible, to produce a really vital change in the industrial depression in this country. I think sometimes that Members of Parliament and statesmen who have been engaged in Parliamentary work all their lives get an exaggerated belief in the powers of Parliament in matters of this kind. They think that a little change in the law, a little modification of the Budget, a little economy in the Departments, is really going to make a vast difference in a condition such as we see now before us in the industries of this country. No; the industrial condition of the country can only be remedied by effort, and by effort of all concerned. What the Government can do is really limited. But this they can do. they can inspire all concerned with confidence. That is the main thing they have to do, and that is what we are trying to do.
The noble Earl spoke of the cost of the Pensions scheme of the Government. Well, it is very heavy. I should like parenthetically to remark that if the noble Lord opposite had his way and the Pensions scheme was non-contributory the cost would be much heavier till, lie would increase the charge about £20,000,000 a year now and it would rise to £40,000,000 within a limited number of years.
LORD ARNOLD: If I may interrupt, the point which the noble Marquess is making is not one that will bear very close investigation. As a matter of fact, the amount which is being given away by the Government this year is £42,000,000 and that would be sufficient even to find the cost of the present? scheme plus the extra £20,000,000 of which the noble Marquess speaks. The cost would grow, it is true, but that would be met by the decline in the cost of War Pensions and therefore the thing would be about square.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, it is quite easy, with the dexterity
854
Of the noble Lord, to show that if you saved on some other head you could meet the charge.
LORD ARNOLD: It is automatic.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But I am quite correct in saying that the difference between the contributory Pensions scheme and the non-contributory scheme is a difference of £20,000,000 now and it would rise to £40,000,000 hereafter. But I return to my point. The cost of Pensions is very heavy indeed, but it belongs to the policy of increasing the confidence and therefore the effort of the working class. We give them security. We give them security in respect of their wives in case they themselves should be cut off. We give them security because they will become entitled to a pension five years earlier than the law provides as it stands. And we give them self-reliance because we insist that they themselves should be contributors to the Pension scheme. The object of the whole of that policy is to give confidence and security to the working class and so increase their desire to make the necessary effort. That is, to us, absolutely vital and it is in exactly that spirit that we have done what the noble Earl praises us for doing—namely, reducing the Income Tax. It is because we want the employing classes also to make an effort, to make a supreme effort, to increase the spirit of enterprise.
The noble Lord just now gave some very interesting figures to show that, after all. the distribution of burden was not unfair as between the different classes of society in this country. I really am not interested in that point for the moment. What I want to know is what will increase the spirit of enterprise in industry, what will induce the employing classes to make the necessary effort, and the fact that they receive an interest upon their investments in War Loan does not bear upon the point, even if it were all true, as the noble Lord says, which I do not admit altogether. What we are advised is this, that taxation by way of Income Tax and Super-Tax hitherto has been so heavy that people engaged in industry hardly think it worth while to launch out into anything new. The return is so small that it is not worth their while. No doubt, if they acted with sufficient public spirit, they would not be restrained, but, unfortunately, one

855
cannot rely upon public spirit altogether. Looked at from the point of view of private gain, a large number of these persons hardly think it worth while, and it was for that reason that the Government reduced the Income Tax. It was for that reason that they reduced the Super-Tax, too. The noble Lord was surprised that we reduced the Super-Tax. He seemed to think that because the cheap Press have not suggested to us that we should reduce the Super-Tax it was quite wanton of us to do so. We do not take our policy from the cheap Press. We reduced the Income Tax and the Super-Tax because we believed that we should thereby increase enterprise, and for that reason only.
It is only upon that basis that any real way out of the difficulty is to be found. Effort is the only way, effort is the successful way. And we urge this upon all those who are interested in the country. All we can do is to help it forward by restoring confidence, by giving hope, hope to the working class, hope to the employing class; and then, if they will make the necessary effort, all these difficulties, all the gloomy prognostications of the noble Earl will vanish like a mist. It does not want so very much more effort, but it does want a certain amount of effort, just to increase the output of the country, just to reduce the cost of production, just to make it possible for us to compete in the foreign market.
The cost of production cannot be reduced except by superior organisation, or by lower wages, or by longer work, or by better work. I do not suggest lower wages —I should be very sorry to see lower wages—but I should like to see longer work, and I should like to see better work. I believe it to be true about a large part of the working class of this country—not all, but a considerable part—that a sort of paralysis has overcome them. Love of recreation, it may be, or a feeling that, after all, it is not worth while to exhaust oneself in effort. And so, in a measure, they sit with folded hands, and do not make the necessary effort; and yet it is only by that effort that the thing can be achieved.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE indicated assent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount agrees with me. And therefore, when you
856
criticise the Budget, and say: "Why spend so much in pensions?" or "Why reduce the Income Tax?", according as the criticism comes from the Liberal quarter or from the Labour Benches, our reply is the same: Our object is to increase the confidence of those who are engaged in the industry of this country. Confidence, we believe, will beget effort; effort will beget enterprise; and by that means, and that means alone, shall we redeem our country from its present position.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, after the very important speeches to which we have listened, it is with some diffidence that I ask you to listen for a few minutes to some remarks from one who has been practically engaged in finance and industry. I should like to refer to one remark of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, with which I am able to find myself in some agreement. He said that he did not think that sixpence off the Income Tax would do very much good to trade. I am inclined to agree with that, and I am inclined to agree further with him in saying that the small reduction in Super-Tax will not have very much effect either. What I think would have had a considerable effect upon trade would have been if the Government, instead of making a reduction in Income Tax, had used that money to cut the Super-Tax in half, as they could have done. I notice that the noble Lord opposite laughs. It is a ridiculous suggestion no doubt, but it would have had an effect on trade and this will not, in my opinion.
If I might make somewhat of a bull I think the best part of the Budget was the speech with which it was introduced and the best part of a very good speech was that part in which Mr. Churchill dealt with the Super-Tax. As that is the point to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention, and as Mr. Churchill's language is very much better than any I can employ and of course he speaks with much greater authority, I would ask to be allowed to quote one or two of his remarks, although it may not be strictly in order to do so:—
"The burden of direct taxation falls with injurious effect upon the enterprise of the nation. It is a delusion to suppose that the evil is confined to the classes who actually pay. It manifests itself in all sorts of … ways; it manifests itself above all

857
in a contraction and relaxation of effort and in the loss of saving power. Thus the evil descends, tier by tier, in varying degrees upon every class of the population, and it reveals itself, I am confident, to some extent at least, in the present grave and exceptional unemployment from which this country is suffering."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say:—
"I believe that the Super-Tax at its present rate constitutes an excessive burden both on the enterprise and the saving power of the nation, and that it is an impediment to the creation of that new wealth without which our present load of Debt and Expenditure cannot be borne."
Unfortunately, Mr. Churchill did very little to carry out his excellent views, and what little he did he balanced by an increase in Death Duties. It was a further misfortune that, as he did so little, his admirable arguments attracted very little attention.
In my judgment, the remarks which I have read to your Lordships ought to be written in letters of gold or, to use a more modern method, broadcasted, because they are not generally understood in the country. Mr. Churchill did. not overstate the case. Super-Tax and Income Tax have almost entirely stopped new enterprise. No one will risk his money, as the noble Marquess below me said, when the loss falls upon himself and the Government takes up to nearly half of the profit and up to 40 per cent, of the balance when he dies. If your Lordships would make inquiries you would find that even those who do not pay the highest rate of Super-Tax will not take risks because the rate of taxation is so high; and investments are now almost entirely in stocks of Governments, Loans of Governments, Debentures and Preference Shares, and the investments in ordinary shares are a negligible quantity. My noble, friend Lord Banbury would confirm this, I am sure.
Superfluous income, which is the subject of these attacks, is superfluous, no doubt, so far as the owner's comfort is concerned; but it is an essential part of the mechanism of trade. It is only from superfluous income that any savings can be made, and it is only superfluous income that can be justifiably risked in new enterprises; while it is only by new enterprise and from new markets that, we can hope to maintain our excessive and in-
858
creasing population. In case your Lordships should think that our present position is not sufficiently depressing, even after the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, I should like to give you some figures compiled by Professor Hewins, whose statistics I think your Lordships will respect. Apart from those employed in schemes for giving work to the unemployed, he takes the numbers on the unemployed register on March 16 last—no doubt they have greatly increased since then—and adding thereto the number in receipt of Poor Law relief on a day in 1923 (which I presume was the last figure available) he calculates that there were over 2,750,000 supported by the State.
Besides the schemes, municipal and otherwise, for relief works your Lordships must remember that manufacturers very often take orders at a loss so as to keep their men together and employ them. As a matter of fact, I had a message this morning from the North British Locomotive Company, who told me that for that very reason they had accepted an order for 35 locomotives and tenders for Egypt at a great financial sacrifice. Mr. Hewins further calculates that on the basis of 1913 prices our exports diminished in 1924 by 24½ per cent, as compared with 1913. In face of those figures, can any one say that new enterprise and new markets are not required? It must be remembered that our present exports are greatly due, not to the excellence of our manufactures, as we are always told, but to the influence of British capital which is invested in enterprises which require them, and the more those enterprises can be increased the greater will be the demand for British exports. Your Lordships will remember that Messrs. Furness, Withy accepted tenders earlier in the year for five ships from abroad. The really striking point about that transaction was not that British shipbuilders lost the tender, but that Messrs. Furness, Withy, with their British capital, were willing to pay £1 a ton to assist British shipbuilders to secure the contract.
Now, however, with the present attacks on wealth, the amount available for investment is steadily falling. About this time last year I reminded your Lordships that the amount available for foreign investment was estimated by the Board of Trade at £181,000,000 in 1913 and at £97,000,000 in 1923. I see that for 1924

859
this amount is calculated at less than £30,000,000. These figures are arrived at, as your Lordships know, by taking the balance of imports over exports, and setting against it what are called invisible exports; that is to say, freights, services and commission. So the figures represent, at least for purposes of comparison, the savings of the country, and when you see that these figures have fallen from £181,000,000 in 1913 to less than £30,000,000 in 1924 in a currency of less value, and when you remember that the population has increased considerably in the meantime, I think it will be agreed that they are disquieting, to say the least of it.
There are, of course, ups and downs in trade, but the alarming fact is that the tendency is steadily downwards and our present position is not a crisis properly so-called; it is, in my judgment, the inevitable and foreseen result of the unfavourable conditions which exist in this country, amongst which are the attacks on the accumulation of wealth and enterprise. I might point out also that the depression here is not due, as we are so often told, to the War or to the failure of purchasing power abroad, because almost every nation except our own is improving its position daily. There is practically no unemployment anywhere but here, which means that other nations are producing as much as they can, either for their own wants or for export, and therefore are well able to buy. The fact is that since the War the mass of the people have not taken their share in the recuperation of the country, and have thrown it more and more on accumulated wealth and enterprise with the inevitable result that trade, by which alone the people can exist, is falling off every day; and they refuse competitive wages.
Just think what the position of this country is 43,000,000 of people living in an island which only provides half the meat and 20 per cent, of the bread stuffs required for their support, and the trade by which they should obtain the balance of their food falling away. Is it not time to cease arranging our taxation on the basis of sentiment—casting the burden on those best able to bear it—and to take as our only principle so to levy taxation as to inflict the least injury possible on the permanent interest of the nation? The population of the world was estimated
860
at 750,000,000 in 1800, and is now estimated at 1,750,000,000 and it does not require a prophet to foretell that just as last century was a struggle for wealth, this century will be a struggle for existence, and in that struggle we shall stand to lose more than any other nation because we cannot feed ourselves. As I see it, subject to your Lordships' better judgment, the preparation which we are making for the struggle is, from the moral point of view, to undermine the fine character of this people by "doles" of every description from the cradle to the grave, and, from a material point of view, to check enterprise and reduce savings by which alone the people can live.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 3a, and passed.

FIRE BRIGADE PENSIONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, at this very late hour I shall only occupy your Lordships' time and attention for a very few minutes on the Bill of which I now move the Second Reading. The object of this Bill is to provide a pension scheme for those whole-time firemen who are not at present covered by any pension scheme. There have been numerous schemes, some of which are in operation at the present time all over the country, but this Bill is the result of the deliberations of a Committee, and afterwards of a Royal Commission, which reported on the matter in 1923. This Bill practically is based on that Report. I do not think it is necessary for me to go in detail into its provisions, because the circumstances are such that I do not think your Lordships will be unwilling to give it a Second Reading It left another place

861
in its present form, practically as an agreed measure—that is to say, the promoters now have the support of the Government, and the Bill is an agreed measure with the local authorities. I am sure that your Lordships are willing to recognise the spirit of self-sacrifice of our firemen and also the dangers and risks to which they are subjected, and you will no doubt agree with another place that both they and the police should have adequate pensions as a reward for those sacrifices and for undertaking those risks.
The Bill in its present form applies to Scotland. There were the names of two Scottish members on the back of the Bill. During its progress through the House of Commons overtures were made to the representatives of local authorities so that they should not continue to have any grievance to which they felt themselves subjected. No opposition, however, was-offered to the Bill in another place on behalf of the Scottish authorities, and an Amendment excluding Scotland was not even moved. The author of the Bill, which is now a Government measure, offered to meet all the Scottish local authorities, but they did not happen to accept his invitation, and no further objection was taken to the Bill. I have had private information that on behalf of Scotland certain objections may be made, but, as I have indicated, they had in another place the very fullest opportunity of stating their case but did not do so. Therefore, I take this opportunity of moving the Bill as an agreed measure. If your Lordships should be willing to give it a Second Reading, and we can get it through the Committee stage in a moderate amount of time, the idea is that the Bill should come into operation in April of next year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD BANBUEY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, earlier this afternoon we listened to a speech from the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, in which he pointed out how great was the necessity for economy, and how enormous was the burden which was imposed at the present moment upon the taxpayer and ratepayer. Unless my memory deceives me, I think he said that the rates alone amounted to something like £150,000,000
862
a year and the total annual burden to something very like £1,000,000,000. I believe I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord Salisbury said that the chief idea of the Government was in some kind of way, and in the best way that they could, to reduce expenditure, and so lessen taxation and rates. This Bill is a very good illustration of what is going on.
I dare say it is a very good Bill, provided we had the money to do what it proposes to do. It proposes to compel local authorities to pay a certain rate of pension, based, as I understand, upon what is paid to the police, to firemen. Lord Desborough is a little wrong when he says that this is an agreed Bill, because I hold in my hand a memorial from the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland in which they object to the Bill altogether, and wind up by saying that on the whole they do not think it should be passed; or, alternatively, if it is proceeded with, that it should not be made to apply to Scotland. It is evident that the Scottish people, at any rate, with their natural love of economy, are opposed to this Bill.
I want chiefly to show to your Lordships what actually is going on at the present time. It is nothing new. During the many years that I was n the House of Commons I always found everybody there was in favour of economy, except in their own particular constituency or in some particular thing in which they had an interest, and then nobody was in favour of economy. The same thing is going on to-day. We are continually having these little Bills brought before us. I do not suppose this particular Bill will impose a very great burden upon local authorities. It is the principle to which I object. Instead of seeing whether or not we can give increased pensions to various people, increased "doles," etc., we ought to say to everybody that we are going to reduce our expenditure, and that we certainly are not going to put anybody in a better position than he was in before at the expense of the State. This comes just after we have listened to a powerful speech by. the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, confirmed, as I understood, by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, with regard to national

863
economy. We are asked to compel local authorities, who already have powers, to give pensions, increased pensions, to firemen. Firemen have done very well up to this year, and why on earth should ratepayers be asked to spend further money in this direction?
And, by the way, this is a private Member's Bill, which has been taken up by the Government. I always objected, when I was in the House of Commons, to the Government giving facilities to private Members' Bills and then taking them up as their own. This is a private Member's Bill, probably because the tire-men in his constituency have said, "If you bring in a Bill to give us more money out of the public expenditure we shall probably vote for you next time." Probably that is the whole reason for the Bill. I know it is no use trying to stop the Bill if the Government are in favour of it, but I earnestly ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House 'o endeavour to put a little backbone into the Government and prevent them bringing forward all these popular measures of social reform, which is but another phrase for Socialism, and try to relieve the unfortunate Income Tax and Super-Taxpayer, and the taxpayers generally, because, unless they do that, the noble Earl is absolutely correct in saying that we are on the road to bankruptcy.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose this Bill but simply to ask a question, and I do not desire an immediate reply unless the noble Lord is able to give it. But it would be interesting to many of us if he could tell us how much money this Bill is expected to cost. I am quite sure that the figure is somewhere in the Department, and if, on the Motion to go into Committee, it could be given to us we should be very grateful.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I think I could give the figure roughly now. This is not a Bill to increase pensions but to give pensions to those unfortunate whole-time firemen who have not pensions at the present time whilst their confrères have; and it is introduced as the consequence of a Committee and a Royal Commission. I understand that the number of these unfortunate whole-time firemen is not more than 700 or 800. They will be pensioned. The rateable deductions are
864
to be five per cent, and I am informed that the amount which local authorities will have to find will not be more than two per cent, over and above the rateable deduction of five per cent. The noble Earl, who is a mathematician, can possibly work out the cost; at any rate, he can be quite sure that it is not a big amount and we are only doing justice to a body of men who at present are outside the pensions scheme.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I will repeat my question on a later occasion.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES ELECTRICITY DISTRICT ORDER, 1925.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, moved by Viscount Peel on Wednesday, June 24, That the Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, constituting the London and Home Counties Electricity District, and establishing and incorporating the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, which was presented on the 21st day of May 1925, be approved.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, as an amendment, to leave out "be approved" and to insert—
"be referred to a Select Committee to con-skier and report:—

1. Whether the matter has been sufficiently dealt with by a departmental inquiry or inquiries.

2. Whether an opportunity ought to be afforded for petitioning against the Order.

3. Whether, having regard to the answers to the preceding questions and to the findings, if any, of these inquiries and to the other circumstances of the case, any amendment of the Order is desirable, or whether there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee.

That the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:—

V. Peel.

L. Stanmore,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Emmott,

L. Danesfort."

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, when your Lordships had this matter under discussion a few days ago the Government agreed to an adjournment in order that they might, if possible, meet the difficulty which this particular Order presented. I may say that the difficulty is not confined to this particular Order, but because of the great importance of this Order it appears in rather an aggravated form. Your Lordships a pc aware—you were reminded on the last occasion—that there has been a Report already of a Select Committee of this House recommending that these affirmative Orders should be subject to a certain check as a matter of ordinary everyday procedure. I believe I am responsible for originally suggesting this course to the House, and I received support from every quarter. I think all Parties in the House supported it. In the Select Committee itself there was a unanimous opinion, no single member of the Committee dissenting for a moment, that some checking procedure ought to be established.
The difficulty is this. As things stand these affirmative Orders go through practically unchecked. On the other hand, we must not invent a procedure which seriously hampers the proper passage of matters of this importance. That would be contrary to the interests of the country: and while it would not be in order for me to discuss the Report of the Select Committee now, your Lordships will observe, if you read it, that the Committee have tried to steer a course between these two extremes. The Report is on the Table of the House, but the Standing Orders, which are to be founded upon it, have not yet been passed, and, consequently, this particular Order of great importance has been presented to the House during an interim period, when the new procedure has been recommended but the House has not discussed it. I thought myself, and I think the Government agree, that it would hardly be fair to the House to ask it to put through this important Order without any check when there was upon record the unanimous Report of the Select Committee that these affirmative Orders ought to receive certain consideration. Consequently, it has been my object to make a sort of interim arrangement, which is represented in the Amendment i am now moving, under which some sort of check
866
analogous to what the Committee suggest in their Report should apply in this particular case.
This is a good example of why some such chock is necessary. There are upon the Paper Amendments standing in the names of the Earl of Strafford, the Earl of Bessborough and Lord Monk Bretton, and any one who Las any experience will know that it would be extremely difficult to discuss these Amendments with any profit on the floor of the House. They are obviously things which should be discussed in Committee. But it is important all the same that there should be no undue delay in passing this Order. I have been informed of its great importance, and I am sure that the Committee, to which I propose to refer it if your Lordships assent to the Mot on, will bear that in mind. A member of the Government is proposed as a member of the Committee and I am certain he will take care to represent to the Committee the importance of there being no undue delay.
On the face of the reference your Lordships will see that the first thing the Committee is to inquire into is whether the matter has been sufficiently dealt with by a Departmental inquiry or inquiries. In matters of this kind there are Departmental inquiries, which are of great use, and where, matters have been sufficiently inquired into by a Department it relieves the House of a great deal of anxiety. That stands on the face of it as one of the first things the Committee will have to inquire into. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will allow me to insert this Amendment into the Motion of the noble Viscount. It will, I think, meet the legitimate criticisms of various members of the House and enable this particular affirmative Order, and all affirmative Orders in the future, to be passed only after that due consideration which the public have the right to demand, as they rely upon the two Houses of Parliament to see that no injustice is done.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("be approved") and to insert ("be referred to a Select Committee to consider and report"):—

1. Whether the matter has been sufficiently dealt with by a departmental inquiry or inquiries.

2. Whether an opportunity ought to be afforded for petitioning against the Order.

867

3 Whether, having regard to the answers to the preceding questions and to the findings, if any, of these inquiries and to the other circumstances of the case, any amendment of the Order is desirable, or whether there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee.

That the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:—

V. Peel,

L. Stanmore,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Emmott,

L. Danesfort—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF STRAFFORD: May I ask the noble Marquess if an opportunity will be given to those who object to the Order in its present form to appear before the Committee and state their case?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is quite understood.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: And that these Amendments will all stand over until the Committee meets?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That, of course, is for your Lordships to decide. Might I add to that which I said to my noble friend opposite, that the matter will be in the hands of the Committee? If they think there is no reason why the parties should be heard, and that the matter has really been decided, no doubt they will so report to your Lordships. I thought for the moment that my noble friend was referring to the Amendments which are upon the Paper. I can assure him that all his own views will be carefully considered.
THE EARL OF STRAFFORD: I was referring only to my own opinion.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords. I should like to be allowed to say that I welcome very much that part of the remarks of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in which he said that he did not propose, in moving this Amendment, that the machinery which it is proposed to set up should be hampered, and his further remark that he hoped that this Select Committee which he proposes to set up will act without undue delay. I think that one has to bear in mind that this Order which
868
appears upon the Paper is the result of an Act which was passed six years ago, the last legislation on the subject being dated three years ago, and therefore it seems to me that it would be unfortunate, if the policy of those Acts is to be carried out, if this machinery were not set up without unnecessary delay. After all, it cannot be expected to be the subject of additional confidence to an important industry like the electrical supply industry that it should be left for a very long period in a state of hesitation and doubt as to the lines upon which it is in future to proceed, and I should like therefore to appeal to the noble Marquess to use his great influence to see that this Committee, if set up, will move quickly and deal promptly with this matter. I should like to suggest that it will act before the end of the Session.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Very rapidly indeed, I hope.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I should like, if I may be allowed, to associate myself with that which has fallen from the noble Earl. I do not want to repeat what has already been said. The noble Marquess is aware of the urgency of this matter, an urgency which is being felt by all the local authorities in London as well as in the country. I suppose that it is not possible, under the third part of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, to deal with the Amendments upon the Paper summarily. I had almost hoped that it might be. But I would ask the Committee to remember that the Act of 1919 promised a cheap and abundant supply of electricity to Londoners, and that now, after three or four years of negotiation, we have nearly arrived at that result. If this Committee can enable a joint electricity authority to be established before people depart for the summer holidays it will be a great advantage, at any rate, to the population of London.
On Question, Amendment agreed to: Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

BEDWELLTY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  BATH CORPORATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
NEW SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROOEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lords following lie proposed to the House as Members of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, namely: —

L. Elphinstone;

L. Hamilton of Dalzell;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been reported from the Committee: Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
HONOURS (PREVENTTON OF ABUSES) BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday, July 7.
STATUTORY GAS COMPANIES (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY POWERS) BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Wednesday next) put off to Thursday next.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
To be read 2a on Wednesday, July 8 next.—(Lord Monk Bretton.)