Sitting of 6 November 1928

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

BANKRUPTCY OF A MEMBER.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following Certificate:—
In the High Courts of Justice.
In Bankruptcy.
No. 1287 of 1927.
Re Cornelius William James Homan, of Windsor House, Victoria Street, Westminster, in the County of London, financial adviser.
In the matter of the said Cornelius William James Homan, of Windsor
2
House, Victoria Street, Westminster, in the County of London, financial adviser, a bankrupt.
It is hereby certified by this Court to the flight honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons that the said Cornelius William James Homan, being a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, was by an order made by this Court, on the 31st March, 1928, adjudged a bankrupt. And that, although six months have expired since the date of the said order of adjudication was made, the said order of adjudication hath not been annulled nor have the debts of the creditors who proved debts under the bankruptcy been fully paid or satisfied.
Certified under the seal of the Court this 1st day of October, 1928.
By the Court,
FRANK MELLOR,
Senior and Chief Registrar.

SPEAKER'S WARRANTS FOR NEW WRITS.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that he bad issued, during the Recess, Warrants for New Writs, namely:—
For the County of Gloucester (Cheltenham Division) in the room of the Right, Hon. Sir James Tynte Agg-Gardner, deceased.
For the County of Devon (Tavistock Division), in the room of Major Philip Percy Kenyon-Slaney, M. C., deceased.
For the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne, in the room of Cornelius William James Homan, Esquire, adjudicated bankrupt.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Wedgwood Benn, Esquire, for the Burgh of Aberdeen (North Division).
Sir Walter Reuben Preston for the Borough of Cheltenham.
Brigadier-General Wallace Duffield Wright, V.C., for the County of Devon (Tavistock Division).
Albert Bellamy, Esquire, for the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne.

SESSIONAL ORDERS.

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

  WITNESSES.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any Witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee
  4
  thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime or misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person bath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

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

  JOURNAL.
  Ordered, That the Journal of this House, from the end of the last Session to the end of the present Session, with an Index thereto, be printed.
  Ordered, That the said Journal and Index be printed by the appointment and under the direction of Sir Thomas Lonsdale Webster, K.C.B., the Clerk of this House.
  Ordered, That the said Journal and Index be printed by such person as shall be licensed by Mr. Speaker, and that no other person do presume to print the same.

GOVERNMENT BILLS TO BE PRESENTED.
Notice was given that the following Government Bills would be introduced on an early day:
Bill to amend the law relating to Unemployment Insurance.—[Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland.]
Bill to amend the law relating to Local Government.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
Bill to amend the law relating to Local Government in Scotland.—[Sir John Gilmour.]
Bill for the provision of a system of Agricultural Credits in Scotland.—[Sir John Gilmour.]
Bill to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1926.—[Mr. Hacking.]

KING'S SPEECH.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have to acquaint the House that this House has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy, which is as followeth:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
My Government have been happy to accept the Treaty for the Renunciation of War in the form proposed by the Government of the United States. To My great satisfaction this Treaty was signed in Paris on the 27th August by Plenipotentiaries on behalf of all My Governments, and on behalf of the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia.
In pursuance of their fixed policy My Government have continued to accord their full support to the League of Nations. They are co-operating in all its current activities, and in particular they have sought fully to discharge their obligations under Article 8 of the Covenant by reducing the armed forces of this country to the lowest point consistent with national safety and by assisting the League to formulate plans for a general reduction of armaments.
Agreement has been reached with the Governments of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Japan that negotiations should be opened in regard to the possibility of a complete and definite settlement of the problem of reparations; and it has also been recognised that negotiations should take place relative to the German Government's request for the evacuation of the Rhineland at present occupied by British, French and Belgian troops.
The Coronation of the Emperor of Japan is shortly to take place, and I take this opportunity, in the name of
8
Myself and My people, of wishing His Imperial Majesty a long and glorious reign. The historic friendship which for so many years has united Japan and My country has always been a potent factor in the maintenance of peace in the Far East.
I welcome the efforts which China is making to establish a central: government for the whole of that great country and to cope with these forces of disorder which have distracted it for many years past. I regard the progress of these endeavours as being of the highest importance, not only for the safety and prosperity of My subjects resident in China, but also for the peace of the world.
Members of the House of Commons,
The Estimates for the Services in the coming year will be laid before you, in due course. They are being prepared with strict attention to the continuing need for economy in. public expenditure. In anticipation of the general scheme for relieving agriculture and productive industry from the burden of rates, you will be asked to make provision enabling railway companies to make lower charges on important traffics of concern to agriculture, and to the coal, iron and steel industries.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
The situation in the mining areas continues to engage the earnest attention of My Ministers, who are taking energetic steps to promote the success of the scheme of industrial transference and migration. The abnormal expenditure out of the Unemployment Fund entailed by the displacement of labour from the mines will render necessary an increase of borrowing powers, and a. Bill dealing with, this question will be laid before you.
Measures will be presented to you for giving effect in this country and in Scotland to the comprehensive scheme which has been prepared by My Ministers for the reform of the rating system on a more equitable basis, for the reorganisation of local

9
government and for the readjustment of the financial relations between the state and the Local Authorities.
I trust that the relief from the burden of rates afforded under the scheme may benefit agriculture and lead to a greater measure of employment in industry generally, and in particular in those basic trades whose condition still causes concern. The proposed changes in local government and in the relations between the Exchequer and Local Authorities are measures of far-reaching importance. My Ministers anticipate that they will promote efficiency and economy in local government, will enable better provision to be made for the health of the people, and will direct assistance particularly to those areas whose needs are most pressing.
Proposals for extending the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme for a further period will be laid before you.
You will be invited to pass a Bill authorising the appointment of two additional members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and of one additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
Among other Measures a Bill for assisting persons engaged in agriculture in Scotland to obtain credits required for the pursuit of their industry will be introduced.
And I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your deliberations.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
Major EDMONDSON(in the uniform of the Honourable Artillery Company, Royal Horse Artillery): I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
10
The honour which has fallen to me to-day and which confers so great a distinction upon my constituency, reminds me that some men are born great while others have greatness thrust upon them; and while I, for a few brief moments, discard the more humble role of the stage hand for that of the Prologue, I trust, that like the chameleon, I have assumed such a cloak of protective colouration that when I revert once more to my own humble position, those who would charge me with some precocity or inefficiency will have difficulty in discovering the object of their criticism. The part of the Prologue is to touch upon some of the outstanding features of the programme, which I shall shortly proceed to do; and, when my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Jephcott) has seconded this Motion, and you, Sir, 'have put the Question from the Chair, the curtain will have been rung up upon the final scenes of this Parliament in which we have all played our various parts. Our cast, Sir, is an ever-changing one, and any one of us who had the opportunity that I have to-day, and who failed to say how deeply we regret the passing of a familiar figure would be lacking, not only in appreciation of length of service ungrudgingly given, but in that instinct which binds all Members of this House in a common brotherhood. The late Member for Cheltenham (Sir J. Agg-Gardner), apart from his many laudable and lovable qualities, in the assiduous performance of his Parliamentary duties and his constant attendance in this House, set a shining example to many of us who carry only half his years.
Although it is customary for the Gracious Speech to open with the familiar words
"My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly,"
those words are only possible as a result of the successful prosecution of the most vital work upon which any Government can be engaged, and in them we perceive no empty form but the realisation of our most cherished hopes and the falsifying of our darkest fears. If other words than these were the prelude to the Gracious Speech, little else would stand out as of any importance, and no words other than these would be more conspicuous by their absence. Therefore,

11
any reference in the Gracious Speech which reinforces their meaning or which holds out further hope of the permanence of those happy relations should be welcomed, not only by all sections of this House, but by all those who have the peace of the world at heart. We find such references here to-day. The Treaty for the Renunciation of War and its signature by no less than nine great Powers is surely a long step in the right direction, and, although we may find it sometimes easy to obtain agreement on questions of principle and more difficult when questions of detailed method are involved, we must, nevertheless, congratulate all those who have been responsible for the success of this effort so far. We look forward to an early extension of the signatories and to that ultimate good which must surely crystallise out of so great a conception.
The Gracious Speech refers to the question of the evacuation of the Rhineland, and in this, as in most other matters connected with foreign policy, it must be recognised that we are only one of the many parties concerned. We have not the power, even if we had the wish, to act alone, and any step we may ultimately take in this matter must be taken with the full co-operation of all those who were parties to the original occupation. It is unthinkable that in our endeavour to create an atmosphere of confidence or conciliation with one nation, we should run the risk of impairing those cordial relations which exist between us and others. I sincerely hope that as a result of this first agreement to negotiate, a. happy issue out of all our difficulties in that matter may not be long delayed. With this question is linked up the question of Reparations. None more than the people of this country would desire to see achieved a final settlement of this problem which would react to the benefit of all the parties interested. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that Great Britain has already made many sacrifices, and it would not be reasonable, nor indeed practicable, to ask her to give up the principle embodied in the Balfour Note.
Reference is made to the Coronation of the Emperor of Japan, and the people of this country will, in view of our cordial relations with the Japanese people,
12
whole-heartedly endorse the Royal wish which has been expressed in the Gracious Speech. A great factor of world-wide importance in the question of peace is this happy relationship which has so long existed between Great Britain and Japan, and so long as these two great naval Powers remain united in their historic friendship the waters of the Pacific will be pacific indeed and a formidable barrier will be presented to any elements of discord which may seek to disturb its calm. The Coronation of the Emperor of Japan reminds us that he is a personal friend of this country, as he visited us in 1921 when he was Crown Prince, and he then evinced a very real interest in our country and in its people.
Perhaps one of the great causes for satisfaction is to be found in the steady improvement that has taken place in that vast and distressed country of China. This should be welcomed, not only in the great cause of peace, but in view of the enormous commercial interests involved, many of which reflect directly upon the industries of this country and consequently affect the question of employment. Class and civil war have rapidly abated and a central Government is being evolved from that recent mass of chaos and discord. Our country has come through her difficulties, so recently acute, with enhanced prestige, and that vast cloud of misrepresentation and mistrust in which the unscrupulous agitator enveloped the Briton and everything British is being steadily dispelled before the eyes of the Chinese people. This country stands, where she has always stood, by the Declaration of December, 1926, by which we acknowledged—nay, even encouraged—the legitimate national aspirations of the Chinese people, and subsequent events have proved that we were right, not only in our attitude to the Chinese, but in the steps that were taken to protect the lives of our own people and their properties.
No Government programme since the War has been complete unless it stated what part the League of Nations has played in the efforts of that Government to maintain peace. I firmly believe that our Government are second to none in their support of and co-operation with the League. Our Foreign Secretary, whom I hope we shall shortly see with us again with health restored, and those who

13
work with him, very faithfully reflect the attitude of the Government towards the League's work, and I doubt if in any country we should find competent critics in any number who would not ungrudgingly accord to the right hon. Gentleman the highest and most unqualified praise for his determination to make the League the greatest possible factor in our international relations. We are accustomed to hear one of our Officers of State referred to as Secretary of State for War, and, if I might presume to make a suggestion, I think a well-earned and comprehensive title for the light hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary would be that of the Secretary of State for Peace.
The activities of the League are so many and varied, and some of its functions so technical in character, that I feel certain the House will agree with me when I say that it does not fall to my lot this afternoon to enter into the many ramifications that present themselves upon this subject, but rather to leave to more able hands than mine that detailed examination which will certainly form part of the Debates in this Parliament. We have had our disappointments in the past, we shall have further difficulties, doubtless, to face in the future, and in the working of so vast and complicated a machine, that combines such a vast diversion of interests, it is inevitable that we should have to face some questions many times before they are surmounted. In these days, when we are groping for something that has hitherto throughout the ages been unattainable, the greatest hope lies, not in that
"vaulting ambition, which o'er-leaps itself,"
but in a steady and determined will to overcome those obstacles that bar the way to confidence and peace.
Mr. JEPHCOTT: I beg to second the Motion.
I have a privilege conferred on me that is not accorded to many men, especially men in my own social position, and I feel a pleasure in it, because if there is anything democratic in this country, it is illustrated in the action of this House. I am a humble follower of the ideal of progress in this country, and it is a pleasure to know that men of all social positions and conditions shall be accorded the privilege of saying something in this House in relation to
14
that which affects the lives of our people in so near a manner. I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banbury (Major Edmondson) the proposer of this Motion in what he has said. I am in sympathy with the language which he has uttered in relation to foreign affairs. I am hopeful, with him, that we shall, at any rate, have peace in our time, so that nations can settle down once more to prosperity, and so that bitterness shall be buried among the nations of the earth.
If the Government and the Opposition and the House, combined, can by their action bring peace, whether through the League of Nations or through the Government themselves, I, for one, will give them cordial support; but I want to remind even my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion, as I would remind the House, that there are things at home vastly more important to us as a nation than even the settlement of the troubles of Europe. There is the social condition and position of our people. There is the looking forward to a renewal of prosperity among our workers. There is at any rate something in which all of us, to whatever political party we may belong, can join, and that is the alleviation of distress, the assisting of those who are sick, the security of those in old age, and the lifting up of our people to a higher level than they have ever attained in the past. I say, therefore, that, great and important as foreign questions are, they are not so important as the contentment and prosperity of our people at home. I say that because the Speech from the Throne relates almost more than one can imagine to the condition of our people at home.
We are told in that Speech that the Government recognise it, that there is a condition operating that, if left alone, may prevent even unemployment benefit being paid to our people, and the Government are coming along with a proposal by which there shall be a large measure of borrowing powers, so that no standstill shat operate in relation to our people who are unemployed. May I put before the House the necessity of a measure of that description? That fund at present is £28,000,000 in debt. None of us, no matter where we sit, want to see that fund exhausted and the men and women thrown on the streets, and if the Government will make a larger provision for the

15
time of emergency—and I know the Opposition will support the idea—I say that if the Government only did that, and was a recipient, I should think they had done a great deal. At any rate, they have recognised in that sense their responsibility to the people who are, unfortunately for themselves, dependent on out-of-work pay for their livelihood.
But that is not all. That will not relieve the problem of unemployment. [Interruption.] I have tightened my belt as well as some hon. Members opposite have, and in a period of time when there was no unemployment benefit, so that I do appreciate the national recognition of responsibility towards those who are unemployed. No one can look around and have a feeling of contentment with the position in which the miners are and in which my own trade is, or with the position generally of the basic trades of this country. It is not a party question, it is a social question; and when we look around and see, on the one hand, that the lesser trades and industries of the country are prosperous, and that the basic trades are in distress and want, surely the Government are called upon not to do something by charity, but something by which the lifting to a firmer position of the industries that are affected can be achieved. If that be so, then I claim that the Government's de-rating proposals—I want to warn my hon. Friends opposite, for they are my friends, that those proposals are not going to bring a new heaven and a now earth in a minute—if honourably carried out, have in them the possibility of recovery for the basic industries of this country.
If we can relieve industry by relieving the rates that press so heavily on industry—and we have to deal with rates, because certain gentlemen—I am among them, though I am not a gentleman[Interruption.]—How readily some of my hon. Friends can think of externals and not the real meaning. Still, there is this position to be faced, that the nation as such has not recognised, and will not for a period at any rate recognise, certain proposals that have been made in the past for the recovery of industry. If they will not recognise and put into operation such proposals, they must look forward to something else, and the Government are justified and wise in endeavouring to
16
meet the difficult industrial situation as we find it by relieving those industries of a large measure of their rates. Hon. Members know as well as I knew that rates are more important to-day than even rents, and if by that relief, whether only to agriculture or partially to our manufacturing industries, we can bring back, not the skill of the workmen, because it is there, not the energy of our commercial men, because that is there, but the opportunity of doing trade by which our workmen can be employed and our commercial life can be prosperous, I do not care personally in what form it is done if it is honourably done. I consider more the contentment and prosperity of the people than the way in which it is done; and if the Government in their de-rating proposals are going to bring a new life, a new energy, a new movement into these basic industries, I for one can confidently appeal to my fellow-workmen at any rate not to damn them, but to give a fair opportunity of seeing whether there is any value in them.
I recognise that the de-rating proposals that will relieve various areas of local government will make it difficult in the future for those local governments to function. I recognise that in the small areas, not rich in themselves, but which may have one large industry or factory or mine operating, for that industry or factory or mine to be relieved of its rates brings a position of burden on that area. I recognise likewise that the 40 years during which local government has been operating have at any rate brought out great weaknesses and that the modern trend and the modern necessity are not to keep small areas in existence, not to keep poor areas operating by the side of richer, but to link them all together, and to make self-contained areas in different parts of the country, so that the poor area shall not bear the burden by itself, but that the rich shall bear its responsibility; and the linking of these two together in the proposals of the Government with regard to local government reform has in it, I say, a real possibility of linking together the varying elements that comprise our local government as a means of strength and as a means, at any rate, of great progression.
If we have the local government foreshadowed by the Government and

17
abolish boards of guardians, we shall not abolish the opportunity of giving assistance to the poor, of helping the sick when they are in hospital, and of seeing to the aged and those who are decrepit. I say unhesitatingly that the linking-up of the work of the small areas with that of the larger areas of the Kingdom, whether county or borough, has in it the possibility, not of lessening the value of local government, but of enlarging its scope and promising a brighter outlook for those who come under its influence and under its work. I am old enough to remember the great outcry m the country when the school boards were abolished. We were told that the local voluntary services—and I joined in the outcry—which were rendered by school boards would be scrapped if the boards were handed over to the county or borough councils. Since that time have been a member of an education committee and I have seen the fears of those who thought that the voluntary services would be scrapped dissolved, and I have known of voluntary service rendered by numberless people in this country, even under the Education Act; they rendered wonderfully progressive service, and even if you abolish the small boards of guardians, the services which they render will still be rendered through the district councils that will be put in their place. I would like to recall and to repeat the words of Macaulay who said:
"Then none was for a party;
Then all were for the State."
If, as citizens and as members of all parties, we remember that that should be the basis of our work it will be agreed that, much as they may provoke opposition, the present Government and their work will go down—[Interruption]—they will go down, not unhonoured and unsung, as some people think; the Government will go down to history as having rendered a service in their day that was not little, and a duty that was of some value; and, if you and I were free from party politics and joined in a desire to benefit the interest of my fellow workmen and yours, we should do an immense amount of good in allaying trouble to some extent, and in uplifting to a higher life, not only my friends here, but my friends on the other side.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Once again the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech have given me the opportunity of a very easy and a very pleasant opening to my remarks. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banbury (Major Edmondson), who moved the Address, may be assured that, in whatever garb he may appear in this House, we shall always recognise the charm' of his manner and the graciousness of his speech. I am very sorry that the Seconder has delivered, according to the newspapers, something like a swan song. I regret that the newspapers have announced that he is to retire. One felt at times, as he went on with his very candid and most delightful speech, that he had been bottling up for the considerable time that he has been in this House a great many controversial speeches which he had never sought an opportunity to deliver. There was not only delight, but, if he will allow me to say so, a great deal of truth and more than truth in his half-finished sentence than there was in the full one. However, it gives me very great pleasure indeed to congratulate both our colleagues on the way in which they have done their duty, a very difficult and not to be envied duty, this afternoon. Before passing on, I would like just to dwell for an instant upon the memory that was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banbury. We shall search these corridors this Session for a very familiar and a very friendly figure, and we shall not find him. The whole House is exceedingly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for just pulling us up for a moment that we might all forget our party differences and the conflicts in which we are to engage this Session and remember our old and departed colleague.
Perhaps I might take the opportunity of asking the Prime Minister this point, as it might be difficult to fit it in anywhere else: if he can tell us what designs he has upon the rights of private Members in this House? I understand that he has sonic act of wild constitutional piracy up his sleeve; that he is going to come down to-morrow, and in one fell swoop annex the property of private Members without any compensation; and that these constitutional rights, which the private Member has enshrined in sacred Standing Orders and which ought to receive the unquestioning respect of the

19
Tory party, are going to be taken away by the brutal application of a majority of 200 Members of this House. Will the Prime Minister be good enough in the course of his remarks to tell us what his piratical designs are?
This is a queer King's Speech. It makes a great departure. The Prime Minister, or whoever is responsible for it., has used words in this Speech with a meaning that has hitherto not been attached to them. For instance, when he and his Government have been doing their best to destroy the meaning of the Kellogg Pact, they describe that action as the signing of a pact
"in the form proposed by the Government of the United States";
when they have been doing their best to crib, cabin, and confine the activities and the development of the League of Nations, they describe that as
"co-operating in all its current activities";
and, when they have been doing their best to put every obstacle in the way of the Preparatory Commission inquiring into the problem of disarmament and security, they describe that as doing something to assist
"the League to formulate plans for a general reduction of armaments."
The Prime Minister must really place some hounds to his revolutionary tendencies. Let us take the first paragraph on foreign affairs. The Government claim that they actually signed that Treaty in the form proposed by the Government of the -United States. Are they so much ashamed of their reservations that they refused to mention them or to think about them at all? Are the Government not aware that everybody who really has been trying to use that Treaty as an instrument for the outlawry of war has declared that the British Government's reservations have destroyed, not the form of the Treaty, but the substance of the Treaty? I would far rather change a form and retain the substance than retain the form and completely alter the substance. Take, for instance, what Doctor Morrison, one of the leaders of the campaign that has produced this Treaty, has said about us. He said:
"It is beginning to be evident that the British reservation is sabotaging the pact, that it leaves a huge gap in the renunciation of war—indeed, for Britain the gap is bigger than the renunciation."
20
He went on:
"But this British reservation has confused the issue. It has introduced 'ifs' and 'ands'. Thus our Senate has been provided with a smoke-screen behind which it can completely emasculate the Treaty, if not reject it altogether—and in terms which make it difficult for us to hold them to account before the bar of our public opinion."
That is the record of the Government fluent on the Kellogg Pact. A very distinguished jurist, Professor Borchard, of Yale, says:
"The Treaty now qualified by the French and British reservations constitutes no renunciation or outlawry of war, but in fact and in law a solemn sanction for all wars mentioned in the exceptions and qualifications."
That, is the effect of the reservation of the British Government, the signature of which is put to this Pact
"in the form proposed by the Government of the United States."
Take the second paragraph going on to deal with the League of Nations.
"They are co-operating in all its current activities."
4.0 p.m.
How? Have the Government forgotten—has this House forgotten—that the last great activity of the British Government in Geneva was in those Budget Committees, and every representative the Government had at Geneva on those Committees, in some cases absolutely alone, without the support of any other European Power, opposed extensions and the necessary money to make extensions in League work and League activities, until at last, almost shamefacedly, they had to with-draw from the discussion and content themselves by carrying out the instructions the Government gave them to vote alone against the proposals made at Geneva? As far as assisting the League to promote disarmament is concerned, again what is the story? It is no such thing. Where is the assistance to promote disarmament? Let us remind the Government of what has happened. There was, first of all, the last meeting of the Preparatory Commission. What happened then? There was, in the first the instance, a universal agreement that naval building tonnage should be limited. That was common to every country. Then within that agreement we proposed certain categories, to limit certain sections, certain parts of naval building. The French did not agree with us. The French

21
proposed a compromise. We could not agree with the compromise. Italy refused categories altogether, and the meeting was abortive in consequence. Then with regard to land forces: The French refused any limit upon trained reserves. Germany would agree to nothing that did not contain a limitation of such reserves. We urged limitation which the French would not accept, and our limitation was urged without any regard for Continental conditions created by the fact that the Continental armies were conscript armies. An agreement could not be come to on that section.
Then we proceed to Geneva, and what is commonly represented as the Anglo-American Conference. Here, again, what was the position? America was in favour of limitation of the total tonnage, and, in addition to that, of certain categories, especially the 10,000 ton cruiser category. We were in favour of no limitation of light 6,000 ton cruisers, and America's need of defence in the event of war breaking out being totally different from our need of defence in the event of war breaking out, and the Government being unwilling to meet them, the Conference broke down and there was no result from it. Then we come to the next stage—what is known as the Anglo-French Agreement. Again, we came to an agreement which provides that there shall be no limitation of light cruisers and no limitation of 600 ton submarines, and also no limitation of trained reserves of land forces. I cannot believe that those who negotiated that agreement were unaware of the fact that there was riot a single new point in the agreement, but that every point on which we met France had already been rejected by America, by Italy or by Germany. It was an agreement not to limit armaments. It was like trying to confine armaments within an area, and putting up walls on three sides of that area, leaving the fourth side open for any sort of action in which individual States might care to indulge, and the programme of free building, the very kind of arm which was left subject to International competition, was the arm that would have struck us most of all in the event of a war breaking out. They sacrificed in that agreement the most elementary consideration of the safety of Great Britain, except upon one consideration only, that there should always be a pool of our own Government and the neighbouring country across the Channel,
22
and upon that assumption so much mistake, so much false suspicion has been spread throughout the world, and for that we are solely responsible.
This was not only a failure to agree to limit armaments, That was not the only significance of this Agreement. It also meant this. By the way it was announced, first in this way, first this part and then the next part, the leakage in newspapers and so on, it upset the whole confidence of the Nations of Europe. No one could have been on the Continent at the time without seeing what a tremendous damage it had done to the calmness of the European mind. How could we do it? The excuse of the Government has been that all this was done in continuation of certain suggestions made by the Chairman and others of the Preparatory Commission. That is not the case. Whoever suggested, or whoever would have thought of suggesting that France and ourselves alone coming together, could possibly have produced a scheme that could be accepted by the nations of Europe and America? Two nations coming together in secret., devising means of an agreement, leaving America out, leaving Italy out, leaving out the other nations which had already disagreed, we two coming together and making up our minds, and then publishing in tie awkward and fumbling way the Agreement, could do nothing but damage the peace and security of Europe.
That is not all. When it did come out, what sort of candour did we exercise? If hon. Members will turn to the White Paper which has been issued, they will find on page 27 the telegram communicating the Agreement to Washington, to Tokio and to Rome, and that telegram made no reference whatever to the land side of the Agreement. You would think from that telegram that the question of trained reserves had never been mentioned. You would think that not a word had passed or had eventuated in any agreement or understanding of any kind between our representatives and the French representatives upon that matter, and the first notice of that comes from an alarmist telegram sent by our representative in Berlin. Sir Horace Rumbold says:
"German Government seem somewhat disconcerted by news of Franco-British naval compromise, and fear it may imply some concession on the part of His Majesty's

23
Government in regard to the question of the limitation of land forces."
That is the first way it comes out. The German Government suspect it, and are very disturbed about it. Was the reply an absolutely straightforward statement of what happened? Not at all. The reply from the Foreign Secretary, sent on 5th August, is as follows:
"The text of the compromise itself refers exclusively to naval limitation, but there is an understanding with the French Government, made before the text of the compromise was actually drawn up, that if they could meet His Majesty's Government on the question of naval limitation the latter would be prepared to withdraw their opposition to the views of the French and most other Governments on the question of trained reserves. … We have already informed the United States Chargé d'Affaires of the above."
There is no further record of that in this White Paper until five days after that a telegram was sent to Sir Horace Rum-bold. Never mind. The question want to put to the Prime Minister is this: Was that reserve agreement after the agreement, or was it not? He will have a little difficulty in answering, because both answers, either if he says Yea or Nay, are contained in the official papers issued by the Foreign Office. If he will turn to page 31 he will find that. in the long explanatory telegram from Lord Cushendun, after everybody's ears had been hearing and everybody's tongue had been set wagging, Lord Cushendun had to send a long explanatory telegram, apologetic in some sentences and phrases, to Washington, and this is what he says about the land agreement:
"It has been stated in press telegrams that this naval agreement with the French represents a bargain, one part of which is that His Majesty's Government agree to support the contention of the French Government in the matter of military reserves. Here, again, there is some misapprehension. His Majesty's Government have reluctantly reached the conclusion that it will be impossible to move the French and the majority of other European Governments from the attitude which they have reached and consistently adopted on this question and that, in present conditions, no further progress in regard to land disarmament will be possible as long as this stumbling-block remains in the way."
What is the impression there? Lord Cushendun tries—I must use the word; his language fully justifies it—Lord
24
Cushendun tries to persuade the United States Government that when the French were negotiating with us this naval compromise we did not have in our minds any agreement with France regarding land forces, especially regarding reserves. Is that so? That is not true, because if the Prime Minister will turn to page 24 he will find the translation of M. Briand's Note from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in France to the British Embassy. The very first paragraph recites the gist of the bargain and the offer in the Note which Lord Crewe had previously communicated to him. In the recital of that, he says—"he" is our Ambassador at Paris—
"If the French Government shared these views"—
that is, on the Naval Agreement—
"the British Government for their part would waive their opposition to the French standpoint in regard to the question of trained reserves.'"
I put it perfectly straight and pointedly to the Prime Minister: Is M. Briand right, or is Lord Cushendun right? Did we give the French to understand that if they would accept our naval proposals we would waive our objection to their proposals regarding trained reserves? The House knows perfectly well that when in any disarmament agreement we come to, the question of the number of trained and armed men is left out of the agreement, if no notice be taken of the number of men in a conscription country who are in civil life but have gone through an army training, the disarmament agreement will then not be worth the paper on which it is written.
Then there is another point about this, and a very serious one. In the document from which I have quoted, the French Foreign Office reply to Lord Crewe, the reply which enabled our Foreign Secretary to close the bargain, this is the final sentence. I hope the House will notice this, because it is a sentence about which a great deal of controversy is still going on, and which ought to be settled one way or another. This final sentence is paragraphed out, so that there will be no hiding it up.
"Whatever the result"—
says M. Briand—that is, the result of the negotiations—
"and even should this hope prove illusory—

25
that is, the hope of an agreement—
"the two Governments would, none the less, be under the urgent obligation to concert either to ensure success by other means or to adopt a common policy so as to deal with the difficulties which would inevitably arise from a check to the work of the Preparatory Commission."
What does that mean? Is it a mere meaningless tale? As the Prime Minister must know, it is upon this that all the suspicions have arisen that behind this there is something more, and it is not in our interest, and it certainly is not in the interest of France, that those suspicions should be granted a longer life than is possible. Does this mean that we are forming, as A were, a sub-committee upon the Geneva Committee? Does it mean that the round table idea in which each nation, quite honestly, quite candidly and quite untramelled by any secret agreement, is doing his level best to produce not an agreement merely between A and B, not an agreement between one nation and another, but an agreement which will cover and encompass the whole of the European nations so that disarmament may be an accomplished fact in reality as well as in words has been abandoned? So long as that sentence remains, this desirable end cannot be consummated. The effect of the whole is summed up in the dispatch of the American Government that the case might be left there, but this is the key sentence in that United States dispatch:
"The American Government feels, furthermore, that the terms of the Anglo-French Draft Agreement, in leaving unlimited so large a tonnage and so many types of vessels, would actually tend to defeat the primary objective of any disarmament for the reduction or the limitation of armaments, in that it would not eliminate competition in naval armaments and would not effect economy. For all these reasons the Government of the United States feels that no useful purpose would be served by accepting as a basis of discussion the Anglo-French proposal."
Never was a proposal made by one Government to another, or by two Governments to another, rejected so summarily, so bluntly and for such admirable reasons as this agreement has been rejected by the American Government. I want to know, and I put these questions quite specifically to the Prime Minister: What does that last paragraph of the French official dispatch mean—the paragraph I have read? Secondly, have we uncondi-
26
tionally withdrawn opposition to the trained reserves, so that when the question comes up again in the Preparatory Commission we are not even able to make new suggestions for limiting the number of those reserves and putting a limitation, say by Budgets, or by length of training, or by the number of men to be taken up year by year under conscription schemes—there are various proposals made for dealing with what is undoubtedly the most difficult and one of the most intricate problems, that of these trained reserves—hut are now in this position, that we cannot make any alternative proposal in handling that question? Have we absolutely bound ourselves that when this question comes up again before the Preparatory Commission we have got to consent to the French proposal for leaving it outside the scope of the Agreement? The third question is—and this, again, is also an important one, because we had better know exactly where we stand—what is now the position of the. Agreement? Is it still alive, or has it dropped completely? Further, have we entered into further communication with America? Has any reply been sent to the American Note, or are conversations or negotiations of any kind on foot paving the way for a reply to the American Government? Finally, have any further communications been had with France on the subject of this Agreement? If communications have been had with France, might I ask the Prime Minister if they could possibly be published, because the publication of those communications would, I think, tend further to pacify public opinion?
Although the hon. Member who seconded the Address said that domestic affairs were more important than foreign affairs, I think at the moment it is desirable that we should be quite as alive to foreign affairs as to domestic affairs. I am not sure if I detected in his mind a desire to separate them, but I am one of those who feel that they cannot be separated, and that we cannot have national prosperity unless we have the nations feeling a real sense of security. Both have to be worked together by different departments, probably by men of different frames of mind, it may he by men of different interests; but, nevertheless, whatever the differences may be, these problems must he worked by men

27
who are marching step by step and side by side, as the one cannot possibly get on without the other.
On domestic affairs an Amendment will be moved, and it is unnecessary for me to anticipate what will happen then. However, one reads rather grimly the reference to the mining population. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is an extravagant man or not, but I know he is extravagant in one thing, and that is in time. What opportunities he has had! Is this reference put in because this is his swan song? Is this put in for the Election? He may think that that is hard and unfair. Whether he does or not, I do not want him to think so. Let him put himself, say, in my position and look back, as he sits there this afternoon, over the four years since he sat there for the first time, and view how this situation has been growing steadily, how it has been growing from bad to worse all the time, how there has not been a single crisis in that industry but has been foreseen for months before it came; and how at last, every person who has a heart to feel and eyes to see—irrespective of class or party—who has gone down to the mining areas in. South Wales or to the mining areas of Durham, comes away feeling absolutely outraged in his conscience that such a state of things should have been allowed to develop in this country. All the Prime Minister says is—transmigration, migration. I venture to hope this, that any further schemes of migration he may put his hand to will he far better prepared, will show more forethought and foresight, and more anticipation, than that experiment in migration part of which I saw with my own eyes in the Canadian field. There is nothing that is moving the country more to censure than the neglect of the social conditions of our people, and particularly of our people in the mining areas.
Take the question of the unemployment pledges. The very first thing the Government did to-day after the new Session was open was to get the Minister of Labour to stand up and say "I am going to introduce a Bill which admits that everything I said last year on the unemployment question was wrong and that everything that the Opposition said was right." We are very much obliged
28
to the Government for giving its case away in such an innocent but certainly a magnificent way. But take the question of the borrowing for the Unemployment Fund. What have they been saying for years every time that this question was raised? They have been telling us: "Business is going to get better and better; we are not going to provide for any continuation of this terrible distress in which we now are with 1,200,000 unemployed, or 1,250,000, or 1,300,000, or 1,500,000; we are going to make no provision for that at all, because under our benign influence those figures are going down, down, down and the Fund is going to be self-supporting." Now, at the beginning of the last Session of this Parliament, they tell us that the Fund is almost bankrupt and has reached its legal limits, and in order that the whole thing may be kept going, the Government have promised to introduce legislation to extend the borrowing powers of those authorities. If that criticism had come from hon. Members of this side of the House, we should have found the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health telling us that we were always pessimists and that they were optimists right through. Therefore, we accept the self-condemnation of the Government on this question.
The other Measures referred to in the King's Speech have been well thrashed out in a preliminary way, but I think the Prime Minister is standing upon rather peculiar grounds, because he must know perfectly well that there is not a party in the State which has failed to observe the great deficiencies in the present rating system of this country. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Labour party has always been urging that the time has come for a reconsideration and a reorganisation of our system of local government, a system which has grown up piecemeal and has been patched up here and there by having services added. For many years the whole system has not been considered as a unified problem. When the local government proposals are presented I am not sure how far we shall be able to agree with them, but I can assure the Prime Minister that he will be addressing himself to a real problem.
I want to know what the Prime Minister is going to propose. I am

29
afraid that he does not know himself, and I feel sure that if I had asked this question three weeks ago he would not have known. Probably if the right hon. Gentleman had told me earlier what was going to be proposed, he would by this time have sent me a letter of apology saying that he had changed his mind. He has had what is known as a trade show. In a trade show the picture is thrown on the screen in order that certain experts may have a look at it, and, if the experts do not like it, then the picture is withdrawn or touched up. Up to the present time the rating scheme put forward by the Government has been a complete failure. I have been watching the newspapers very closely and I have not found a single municipal county or rating authority which has not condemned this scheme. If the Prime Minister has any cause for self-congratulation it lies in the fact that his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is not present, has been condemned more vociferously in regard to the scheme, than the right hon. Gentleman himself.
In my recreative moments I, like the Home Secretary, sometimes read the reports of ecclesiastical bodies. The other day I came across a newspaper published in 'Scotland, and I found what seemed to be a most interesting report of a conference of clergymen and ministers in Scotland, and I read it. I found that the first part of the business at that conference was a wholesale condemnation of the proposals of the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to local government. Another thing I should like to refer to relates to an omission. Why has the Prime Minister broken all his pledges in regard to the Factories Bill? In 1926 the Home Secretary was bold enough on a Friday afternoon to tell us in this House what a Factories Bill ought to contain, and what he mentioned did not consist of a lot of trivial things, because he convinced the House—as much on his own side as upon ours—that the time had come for a very comprehensive Factories Bill to be introduced and passed through.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was going to consolidate the law on this subject, but I would like to ask hon. Members if they think the confusion of
30
the law on this question is any less now than it was in 1926. The Home Secretary told us that the division between textile and non-textile factories was bad, and he said that he intended to wipe that out. Why has he not done so? The right hon. Gentleman told us that the divisions between factories and workshops were going to be abolished. He also told us that the problem of cleanliness was an important one, and that he intended to make a great contribution towards that problem. The Home Secretary further told us that he was going to deal with overcrowding, sanitary conditions, lighting and temperature, and that he was going to introduce an improved medical supervision to deal with the liability to sickness and disease, which was very necessary. The right hon. Gentleman said some nice things about accidents and gave us to understand that, although a great many accidents were clearly acts of God in the sense that they could not be foreseen or prevented, there was a heavy toll exacted from those engaged in factory work by accidents. The Home Secretary contended that it was the duty of any Government to try and reduce the number of accidents by energetic and wise efforts, and he said that he believed they could be reduced. At that time, the right hon. Gentleman was trying to convince some of his own supporters who had rather revolted against him. It was one of those very mild revolts which we see occasionally in the House, but which we never see in the Lobbies. On that occasion, the Home Secretary found himself in a rather difficult position, but he was more eloquent than I have known him to be for a long time, and showed a genuine desire to do something in the present Parliament in order to deal with this question. The right hon. Gentleman was not only anxious to prove that he was all right, but, fearing that some hon. Members entertained suspicions in regard to the Prime Minister, he gave a further pledge which is to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Factories Bill on 26th March, 1926, as follows:
"I am, therefore, authorised by the Prime Minister and the Government to say that I will introduce the Factories Bill during this current Session of Parliament for the purposes of consideration and discussion."

31
The Home Secretary made it perfectly clear that that Measure was not going to be carried in 1926, but he was going to introduce it in order to have it considered and discussed. The Home Secretary went on to say:
"That Bill will be one of the principal Government measures of next year and we will do our utmost, and ask the House to pass it into law."
In order to be still more emphatic upon this point, the Home Secretary continued:
"That is a categorical statement which I have been authorised to make in regard to this ma tter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1926; col. 1568, 103.]
Does the Prime Minister deny that statement? I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are hundreds of thousands of people whose health depends upon that Measure and whose liability to disease depends upon it. This subject was mentioned in the King's Speech in 1924 and again in 1925. We were promised that it would be dealt with in 1926, and it is a remarkable fact that the King's Speech which has just been introduced does not mention this question. The Home Secretary told us that this subject was going to be part and parcel of the work of this Session, and I would like to ask whether a pledge of that kind is of an exchange value equal to a deteriorated Russian rouble. [Interruption.] I think the Home Secretary is too modest for that, because nobody knows more about roubles, or imagines he knows more about them, than the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he will understand the deadly effect of that simile.
I think the present Government have the worst record of broken promises that any party can show, and there is nothing to justify it except pressure upon the Government by certain vital interests. And so we ring up the curtain on the last act of the very sorry drama which has been played by this Government for the last four years. [An HON. MEMBER "It is a tragedy!"] The gallery is getting very restive, and it wants the actors to go and take a rest; and even the stalls are getting out of hand. The Prime Minister is finding that the small confidence which the people had in his Government is ebbing and ebbing away. The Prime Minister's record is that he has deepened the poverty of the country affecting hundreds and thousands of
32
people; he has broken the pledges which he gave to thousands and thousands of the factory population of this country. The Home Secretary has admitted that years ago legislation for the protection of factory workers ought to have been passed, and yet the Prime Minister has broken that pledge. The Government have lost golden opportunity after golden opportunity of giving the nations of Europe security in order that they might, whole-heartedly join in a common arrangement for disarmament., and embark wholeheartedly upon peace. We are very anxious that the Prime Minister should hurry as fast as he can to that great assize of the country, and get the verdict passed upon him which will be passed before next summer is ended.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I cannot refrain from cordially endorsing the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman, but there are one or two observations which I must make at this stage of the proceedings, as it is customary for the Leader of the House to do, with reference to the Business of the Session and certain proposals of the Government. I would like, before I begin, again in accordance with custom, to bear my testimony to the manner in which the Mover and Seconder of the Address have dealt with their most difficult task. There are no questions which are more difficult to discuss in this House by the thoughtful and responsible Member than the question of foreign relations. It is always the thinnest of thin ice. Some word may be twisted and distorted which may cause harm across the world. Some word may be misunderstood. But I have never seen skating at the same time more confident and, may I add, more graceful, than that indulged in by my hon. Friends this afternoon. The hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Jephcott) spoke, as all who know him would expect him to speak, with that fervent sympathy for his fellow men which has been characteristic of his career from the first days in which he worked in a Birmingham factory.
I should like to say one word, after what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banbury (Major Edmondson) and by the Leader of the Opposition, with regard to the loss which we have all sustained in the death of our old friend the late Member for Chelten-

33
ham (Sir J. Agg-Gardner). There is not a man in this House who will not miss that shy, shrinking, hurrying figure as it went with head bent down through the Lobbies, or seated at a table immersed in correspondence, or seated at a little table, quite close to where I sit, in the Members' dining-room, always ready to intervene on behalf of any Member who wanted advice or help in connection with the business for which he was responsible. I think it is a remarkable tribute, both to him and to the House of Commons, the way in which a private Member who had never sought publicity, was little known outside his native town and this House, who rarely spoke in this House, who was never at any pains to court his fellow Members, but, by merely living among them on and off for half a century, passes away with the esteem,. I might almost say the love, of his fellow Members of all parties.
There are one or two Bills of which I think I should advise the House—Bills of importance, but not considered of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the Gracious Speech. There will, of course, be during the Session one or two hardy annuals which have been left over from last summer, such as the Expiring Laws and Public Works Loans Bills; but there will also be a Bill, which hon. Members will expect, to give effect to certain arrangements which were contained in the Imperial Cable and Wireless Conference; and there will have to be legislation, in what form I cannot say at this moment, concerning the services in the Western Highlands and Islands, arising, of course, from the result of the Committee which sat during last Session. But the whole work of this Session is very much complicated by the mass of legislation which it will be necessary to get through in connection with Poor Law reform. It is absolutely necessary, if the de-rating scheme is to come in on the appointed and desired day, that this legislation should get through, because it is wrapped up indissolubly with the finance that will play such an important part in this scheme.
I took some encouragement from the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that he wants to get on with the business and go to the country. Of course it is perfectly obvious, as has been said twice already,
34
that the curtain is rising to-day on the final act. The right hon. Gentleman, apparently did not very much enjoy the drama that has been played, but I followed with interest the simile which was put to the House a moment before the right hon. Gentleman came in; and when we meet again to discuss the King's Speech, there will undoubtedly be a good many changes, and I hope they may be to the satisfaction of the majority of this House. There was one point upon which the right hon. Gentleman touched, and I confess that it is a tender point with me and he got right there. That is the Factories Bill. I will tell him why it is a tender point with me. It is because it is a Bill on which I personally have been very keen for the last two or three years. I had hoped and had promised, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I did give an undertaking, that that Bill should become law, and it was my intention that at any rate it should become law in this Session. When the right hon. Gentleman becomes the Leader of the House for a long period, he will know, as I am sure he can realise, what the difficulty is in getting through all the legislation that you want to do, sometimes that you have promised to do.
This legislation with regard to Poor Law reform we have had to go on with. So far as we visualised the situation, it was the urgent necessity of embarking on these reforms for the assistance of industry that made us put it before everything else that we had to do. That, we felt, must be completed before the five years of this Parliament's life had elapsed, and there is literally no time for any other important legislation except the legislation that we are already providing for. There is no truth whatever that there is the pressure of any kind of interest in regard to this Bill. [Interruption.] I did not expect certain hon. Members to believe that, and they can take it as they like; that is the fact, and I still hope to see such a Bill go through under the present Government. Another thing arises from the length and complication of the Poor Law Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman asked me a, question about it. We cannot get this legislation through, without encroaching to some extent upon private Members' time; a Motion will be put down on the Paper, and there will be no Ballot for Motions or private Mem-

35
bers' Bills to-morrow. It is customary, as the House knows, on the part of every Government, although naturally opposed in turn by any Opposition, to take the time up to Christmas; but hon. Members will remember that it is only necessary for Governments to do that because the Standing Orders are left in a rather equivocal condition, and it is really not quite clear whether private Members have rights in the Autumn or whether they have not. In any case, every Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "We will remember that when you are in Opposition."]—that will not tax you very much—every Government takes that step, but we shall have to take it rather longer than that; we shall propose to take it until Easter, and the reasons for that I shall give in due course when I speak upon the Motion, which I think will he taken to-morrow. There was just one other point upon which I wish to say a word. The Leader of the Opposition complained about the use of English in the paragraph dealing with our relations with foreign Powers. I shall be perfectly prepared to justify the use of my own tongue in the Gracious Speech at length and in detail, but I understand that Amendments are going to be moved to the Address on the very subjects which were covered by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, although I am not certain from which benches the Amendments will come. In any case, the attack on the action of the Government has been so general from the Opposition during the last few months—
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And from your own friends, too.
The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be glad to have instances of that when the occasion arises. We are not immune from forming hasty judgments. But the attack has been so general that it- will be impossible for us to reply until we hear the fullness of the case. We have heard the case from the Leader of the Opposition, but we have not yet heard the case from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It would be a discourtesy to the Liberal party to attempt to deal with it piecemeal, but, from whichever party it comes, we shall do our best to reply to it. There are no other points on which I have to detain the House to-day. The most grave ques-
36
tion upon which the right hon. Gentleman said a few words—the question of the unemployment in certain areas in this country—[An HON. MEMBER: "In all areas "]—will be discussed on an Amendment put down officially by the Opposition on the first day of Amend-merits. That, for this afternoon, is all that I have to say on the Business of the House.
Mr. MacDONALD: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, may ask whether the Government have no statement at all to make upon the question of foreign affairs—the Anglo-French Agreement—irrespective of what we may say? Have they no statement to make which will make their own position perfectly clear, independently of what either my right hon. Friend or myself may say with regard to it?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would say this to the right hon. Gentleman, that we have published a full White Paper. We know that we are going to be censured on this matter, and that is the occasion on which the Government will state their case.
Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has gone into any precedents in this matter, and whether it has not always been considered that the Prime Minister's opening statement, out of courtesy to the House if for nothing else, should be a full statement of the questions raised in the King's Speech?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I have not gone into precedents; but I consider that, when the Government are going to be censured on a matter of importance, that is the right occasion.
Mr. MacDONALD: How does the right hon. Gentleman know that either from these benches or those an Amendment is going to be put down sufficiently wide to enable him to answer the questions which have been put to-day? Must we now take it that the Prime Minister knows that later in the Session something is going to he raised, and is he going to use that as a screen for saying nothing at the moment about it?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is not part of the Debate on the Address. This occasion is always taken for censuring the Government on important matters of policy.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to express my deep disappointment and dissatisfaction at the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has adopted in response the very incisive analysis by the Leader of the Opposition of the case presented in the White Paper. I have taken pains to go through the statement concerning the negotiations, and the points which have been elaborated and emphasised by the Leader of the Opposition are just those which, I maintain, are bound to cause very grave anxiety in the minds of any who give special attention to our foreign relations. The Seconder of the Address said the question of foreign affairs was subsidiary to that of our social conditions. I have some dubiety, to say the least of it, about that line of argument. From all I can read concerning our foreign relations, with special bearing upon this arrangement made with France, t here is undoubtedly a special reason why the Prime Minister ought at the very first opportunity to have relieved our minds of any anxiety on this score. The American reply not only summarily rejects the proposal, but also gives some indication of what is undoubtedly prevalent throughout America, that we are not playing a straight game with that great country. I had it in mind to take part in this Debate later on, and I am somewhat at a disadvantage as regards the actual wording of an utterance by the right hon. Gentleman the. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to Colonel House, whose diary has just been published, with reference to peace negotiations, but the right hon. Gentleman put it plainly to the American representative that this country would spend its last guinea and exhaust all its resources in order to he stronger on the seas than the United States. The colonel strongly advised our country not to pursue that course, but rather to adopt plain and reasonable negotiations, and, unless that were done, America had the money and had the resources, and she would pit her strength fully against ours.
When I read that statement I felt keenly antagonistic to the audacity of any representative of this country making such a proposal to a country like the United States, or to any other country for that matter. It is appalling to reflect that, at the very time when we
38
were trying to get that great war brought to a settlement, the right hon. Gentleman was capable of lighting a conflagration, which is now also being accelerated by the present Government. The statement in the White Paper, which the Prime Minister ought to have explained, was that we had been negotiating concerning a purely naval arrangement. Now we find, as the Leader of the Opposition has very definitely pressed home, that a specific arrangement has beers made giving France full scope in regard to her land forces, while we get a concession to suit our purposes on the seas, but on such lines as make our proposal decidedly objectionable to the United States. From a reading of that White Paper, I am gravely concerned about the drifting policy of our Government. We are actually moving on towards war, as same leading authorities in the Press are making clear. The "New Statesman" and the "Nation" are laying it down clearly that the gravest danger is being incurred by the policy followed by our Government in these negotiations. When we discussed this Peace Pact in the House I very strongly urged that such was the position that the reservations were really taking away the strength of the whole case, and it was somewhat disappointing to find afterwards that the Front Bench representative of the Opposition was inclined to say, "Do not let us lay emphasis on the reservations; let us take the purpose of the Pact as the reason for our congratulations." Now we find, from the authorities quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, that in truth, instead of being a peace pact, those reservations all go in the direction of practically insuring war in certain quarters of the world where we have insisted upon our right of declaring ourselves irrespective of the views held by any other nationality.
The White Paper gives us reason to believe that the League of Nations is not being utilised in the sense that its sponsors would earnestly seek to impress upon the public mind. The leading exponents of the League of Nations are pursuing a course which is certainly derogatory to the interests of the peace of the world. Preparations are being made in the study of gases by the Professors of our Universities, one of whom has declared that we must of necessity be paramount in the air, we must also of neces-

39
sity be the strongest in the power of utilising these deadly gases and, further, we must have something more than chivalry, something more than bravery, we must have the grace of God. I would say to bodies of professors who go putting their hands to this business, that it is an impossibility to associate the grace of God with any schemes whereby we are going to obliterate humanity. The Prime Minister's failure to meet the case, and the very fact that the White Paper concludes without an answer to the -United States Government's statement of the case, is significant. The intimation is given that the answer will be sent some time later. Even to-day the Prime. Minister is not in a position to lay down the situation as it ought to be submitted. I feel that in the midst of the conditions that are prevalent to-day perhaps the biggest thing that is taking place is this weakness on the part of the Foreign Office in the handling of these affairs with a view to complete unity, not simply in the matter of negotiating either the total tonnage in the matter of armaments on the sea or in the matter of arranging categories in such a way as our own Government have insisted upon, but that we should have the deliberate purpose of making that Peace Pact a realisable pact in the knowledge of the nations of the world.
At the present time the social conditions of the country are appalling, and there is no excuse whatever for the position that the Prime Minister has taken in defence of the Factories Bill not being introduced. The proposals which are now being submitted or will be submitted, as stated in the Gracious Speech, appertaining to local government and de-rating afford no excuse whatever for the failure to produce the promised Factories Bill, a promise which has been made repeatedly for years. The Prime Minister has said that there has been no pressure put upon him. He has also said that he, as well as the Home Secretary, was thoroughly agreed and definitely set upon the introduction and the passing of such a Bill. If there has been no pressure to keep back the Bill, what is the explanation? The de-rating scheme is practically a new concern. No member of the Ministry is going to tell us that the proposed de-rating scheme and the upheaval of
40
rating reform were on the tapis and were being considered by the Government when these repeated promises were being made concerning the Factories Bill. The de-rating scheme and the upheaval of our local government, this scheme, as the Leader of the Opposition has well said, as far as Scotland in particular is concerned, is damned from the beginning. The Secretary of State for Scotland has had a remarkably unhappy time in his pilgrimage during the Recess in regard to this very question.
It gives me special concern that we should be leaving the House to-day without the Prime Minister having said one word about the serious import of that White Paper, which I have gone through carefully. I submit that there are grave risks and serious responsibilities resting upon the Ministry as a whole if we are going to drift into trouble with America. I am not for one moment minimising the fact that America has her failures and weaknesses to contend with, but we are not dealing straightforwardly with that Power. America is now in the position in which Germany was as our former enemy. That is my reading of the situation. America is now strong commercially. She is the strongest of the nations of the world. She controls the gold power of the world, and there is not a shadow of doubt that, appalling as it is, the gamesters are playing ducks and drakes with the interests of millions of our people. The Prime Minister standing at that Box, after the thing has been examined from beginning to end by the Leader of the Opposition, has had nothing to say about it. He has left it alone; let it drift. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has not been able to be present through indisposition, which we all regret, and the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or some responsible representative of the Government, ought to have given answers to these serious points. One of the points referred to by the Leader of the Opposition was contained in a sentence which very clearly indicates that France and Britain will act together even irrespective of the position of the United States of America. That in itself is deeply significant, and I certainly could not allow the day to pass without expressing my deep-seated indignation and ventilat-

41
ing my condemnation of the drifting policy of the Government concerning our foreign affairs.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) has mentioned a point that naturally comes home to all of us who are keen on the health of the nation. It is the question of the Factories Bill. I think we are bound to consider that we are dealing with it on non-party lines because of the encouraging words which we have heard from the Prime Minister, who, definitely recognising the fact that he had made a pledge and acknowledging it with all that straightforwardness that we are accustomed to expect from him, points out at once the fact that he has not been able to find time for the Bill. I cannot help still hoping that, by the help of all those well-wishers of factory and workshop legislation on both sides of the House, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, who from the very bottom of their souls are keen on getting this legislation through, may yet be able to find time for this much-needed Measure before the end of the present Session. Hon. Members on the opposite Benches, no doubt, recognise that a great deal of the congestion of business depends naturally enough upon the amount of congestion which is caused by the Opposition. Although one does not want to rub it in too strongly, I am sure that hon. Members must recognise that the whole of the programme of social legislation during this Parliament has been upset by the days of the coal stoppage and the general strike, which put back the hands of the clock as regards time for years and years and, as regards money, the recovery and financial possibilities of this country, for an indefinite time. It may have been necessary for hon. Members on the opposite side of the House to take the line which they took in support of the general strike at one time and of the coal stoppage at another, but they must recognise that their attitude proved to be one of the strongest obstacles in the way of helping social reform in Parliament that any Government has had to encounter.
I am quite certain that hon. Members opposite are sincere in their wish to help housing reform, but I want them to recognise the equal sincerity which exists
42
on this side. From that point of view, I want to mention two or three points that occur necessarily to anyone who is in the position that I am of being Chairman of the Medical Committee of this House with regard to the position created by the Gracious Speech to-day. We have had in the Gracious Speech no reference to matters of health and no references to housing. It is proposed in the Gracious Speech that the Measures to be introduced for local government will enable better provisions to be made for the health of the people. This is not an encouraging feature to those who are keen on this or that particular measure of progress, still less as there is no mention of the question of housing. Therefore, I hope that I may deal briefly with the position, especially as it has been amplified by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in his statement just now. The Prime Minister referred in a passing sentence, of which, no doubt, some hon. Members took notice, to the fact that we should have to deal with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That Bill includes provision far the continuance or non-continuance of the position of rent restriction. Rent restriction goes to the very bottom of our difficulty in connection with slum property and slum treatment. It was recognised as being such a serious impediment to progress at one time that in 1923 the Government appointed a Departmental Committee, and, on the Report of that Committee, acted there and then, with the result that the Act of 1923 was put on the Statute Book. That has been postponed again and again, although the Act of 1923 was a very moderate Measure resulting from a study of the conditions of the time. It proposed that straight away there should be a certain change and that, as soon as you get rent decontrol, there should be a further period of five years of modified control.
Now what is the position? Year after year, because of the difficulties, because of the objections of one side or another, this matter has been postponed. What is happening with regard to houses? Development of estates is being delayed because of the exceptional instances of control in the hands of people, whom even the hon. Member who laughs would have no excuse whatever in defending. The present state of affairs is causing in-

43
equalities to owners and it is causing unjust profiteering on the part of tenants against sub-tenants. The Departmental Committee that dealt with this matter represented the Labour party as well as the other parties in the House, and the Report, if hon. Members will refer to it, recognised—even if hon. Members over there do not yet recognise—the inequalities of rent restriction and control and the need of decontrol. The minority of the Committee pleaded for a longer continuance of control than did the majority Report and they proposed that the control should last until 1930. 1930 is approaching us. I am going to ask for the concurrence of the different parties in this House in getting back to normality, which must be gradual, in the matter of housing and estate development; in the matter of decontrol on one side and desubsidising on the other, and in dealing with the slums in the third place. I believe that we have a consensus of opinion on all these matters, which obviously have to be carried out gradually.
We have heard nothing to-day with regard to the question of the removal of the subsidy. It is vital to the housing movement to economise our resources, and there is no question about it that a great deal of the subsidy on houses let at over £1 1s. a week is being thrown away at the present time. There is an abundant reason why the subsidy should be further knocked off houses of higher rateable value. I have asked that we should see to it that decontrol and desubsidising should march simultaneously. Keep your subsidy for houses of, say, 15s. a week rental, but above that level we should not waste our money and should not keep on control. If we did this there would be a considerable amount of money set free to be used for purposes for which it is wanted. By relieving the subsidy on the more expensive houses, which are being adequately provided by private enterprise, there would be set free more money with which we should be able to subsidise slum clearance and to embark upon schemes for providing cheaper houses.
We have had this promise again and again—no reference to it is made in the Gracious Speech—to deal with slum clearance. It is a pledge and a promise upon which we have been relying. The
44
Prime Minister said in December, 1924, within a month of this Parliament being elected, that we have to get rid of two things—the shortage of houses and the disgrace of the slums. That is a perfectly genuine feeling on his part and on the part of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House and of hon. Members in other parts of the House, and yet the solution tarries. I believe that we can have a solution of these matters if we will keep together these measures of decontrol and desubsidising, and if we realise that along with these measures we must get down to the actual building of houses for the people for whom they are wanted.
There are two other matters which have been left over until this last Session of Parliament for which we have been asking for legislation and for which legislation is urgently required. The Report of the Lunacy Commission which came out, I think, three or four years ago, dealt with a system which is insufferably hard upon a large number of mental cases. Many of us have intimate knowledge of the unfortunate cases which require to be dealt with. The subject was dealt with thoroughly in the Report of the Royal Commission and I believe there is no question as regards the kind of provision required to be made. It is requisite that we should be allowed to treat the early cases of mental illness like other cases of illness, without the necessity of certifying them for ever as lunatics. On that point I hope that we may find time for legislation in this Session or, at any rate, that we shall be pledged to do it before another Parliament carries it through.
There is one further point. I do not think hon. Members realise sufficiently, and therefore it is our duty to remind them of the fact, that the country is suffering at the present time from a vast outbreak of a preventable disease which could be prevented at any time and which, according to law, should be prevented but which has not been prevented—a disease which may at any time land us in disaster. I refer to the exceptional outbreak of smallpox at the present time. Owing to one factor or another the outbreak has been of a very mild kind and we are banking on the idea that it is a mild type of the disease and that it is not going to flare up into anything serious, like the small pox outbreaks of

45
the past. But we of the medical profession can give no such assurance. We as a community are sitting on a volcano which may flare up at any time. The matter in its technical aspect was referred to a Committee which reported early this year, but the result of the Committee's findings necessitated further research and investigation, and still we are sitting on the volcano, waiting. I am afraid that it has been the history of many diseases in past times that people have laughed and smiled and did not realise the seriousness of the situation. When the volcano bursts they turn upon us and say: "Why did not you tell us in time?" We tell you now.
Before we can be sure of what action is to be taken I am glad to say that the powers that be are consulting in the widest possible way, as should be the ease, under the aegis of the health organisation of the League of Nations. A Committee has been formed to study this matter internationally. This country, which generally prides itself on its pre-eminence in the matter of health, is damned as regards smallpox. We are, of the chief civilised countries in the world, at the present time one of the countries most infected with smallpox. Other countries know that we are most behindhand in the application of vaccination and in that they recognise disaster for themselves and the necessity of keeping up thir quarantine measures against us. I hope that we may be able to find them some proper solution of this matter very soon. I am not one of those who believe in compelling people to take measures that are good for themselves unless they definitely refuse to look into the evidence and accept it, and do what is necessary. The public have to be considered.
In this connection, I think we have reason to be encouraged by the proposals that have been foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech with regard to local government reform. Up to the present time, due to a strange anomaly, the matter of vaccination has been left in the hands of the Poor Law Guardians and that of small-pox in the hands of the sanitary authorities. In future, under the proposed reform of local government, vaccination will fall into the hands of the larger authorities, the county and county borough councils who, I hope, w ill be able
46
to look at the matter in a fresh light and possibly find some means of getting over the trouble. That it will require legislation is a certainty, and that is one of the necessary pieces of legislation which we hope to see carried through before the end of this Parliament. I hope that this measure of local government reform which is foreshadowed may be, as it should be, of immense value in improving the machinery of our public health organisation. Amongst the difficulties foreseen, however, is that by the abolition of the Boards of Guardians we may be losing an immense number of persons whose experience and good will has been invaluable in the past and may still be and should be invaluable in the future. I hope that in the Measures which are to be passed we shall retain all that is of great value in the present Poor Law Guardian system and that at the same time we shall help forward that co-ordination of the machinery which has been long delayed and is most vital for the efficient working of the machinery for improving the housing of the people.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House has been put into such an impossible and unprecedented position by the speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon that we see very little use continuing fie, discussion to-day, if the Government are either unwilling or unable to give a reply to any indictment that may be made upon their policy. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister might search in vain through the records of proceedings en an occasion like this to find a case where the House has been treated with so much disrespect as it was treated by him this afternoon. The Prime Minister, by way of excusing his conduct, said that he understood that certain Amendments to the Address were to be put upon the Paper. The right hon Gentleman had no right to make such an assumption as that. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put a case, particularly upon the question of foreign policy and the recent conduct of the Government in regard to these matters, which demanded an immediate, answer and it was the duty of the Prime Minister to supply that answer.
If there has been any intention of putting down an Amendment to the Address raising this matter, that might

47
have been made unnecessary if the Prime Minister this afternoon had been able to give a satisfactory reply to the indictment made by my right hon. Friend. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister, who, certainly, is not usually discourteous to the House of Commons, should have adopted this unparalelled attitude this afternoon. Is it because he has no reply? It is no use going on with the discussion if we make our case and then the Government will not give a reply and will not defend themselves. We are going to give them an opportunity of preparing a reply. I move, therefore, that the Debate be now adjourned, and I hope that the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Government will spend the hours between now and the time when the Debate is resumed to-morrow afternoon in seeing whether it is possible for them to find anything at all to say in reply to the indictment which has been made against them.
The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has put his case with perfect courtesy, and I propose to reply with equal courtesy. My conduct is not as unreasonable as he supposes nor, I think, is it wanting in respect to the House. In accordance with a custom which goes back for many years—the right hon. Gentleman will remember it, because he has been a Member of this House for a longer time than I have—the Debate has nearly always been of a general nature on the first day, and very often it has terminated with very few speeches after the Mover and Seconder have sat down. In the old days, before the last very few years, the House in-
48
variably rose before dinner on the first day. With regard to the particular matter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman I think he is misinformed. I am informed that an Amendment has actually been put down by his party on the subject. I was shown a copy of it when the House met. I was assured that an Amendment might come from the Liberal Benches if one was not put down from the benches opposite. The Government have been subjected to a great deal of criticism, and very hard things have been said of them in the country by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends and by Members of the Liberal party.
Mr. SHINWELL: You should have had your reply ready to-day.
The PRIME MINISTER: The Government desire to see, when what is equivalent to a Vote of Censure is moved, whether the same things will be said in this House that have been said outside, and they have a perfect right to reserve their reply until that occasion. In the circumstances, I can only congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon going back to the old practice of moving the adjournment of the Debate at an early hour, and I have great pleasure in accepting it.
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyre Monsell.]
Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes before Six o'Clock.

THE KING'S SPEECH.
The KING being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and then retired.
His Majesty's Speech was as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
"My Government have been happy to accept the Treaty for the Renunciation of War in the form proposed by the Government of the United States. To My great satisfaction this Treaty was signed in Paris on the 27th August by Plenipotentiaries on behalf of all My Governments, and on behalf of the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Poland and CzechoSlovakia.
"In pursuance of their fixed policy My Government have continued to accord their full support to the League of Nations. They are co-operating in all its current activities, and in particular they have sought fully to discharge their obligations under Article 8 of the Covenant by reducing the
2
armed forces of this country to the lowest point consistent with national safety and by assisting the League to formulate plans for a general reduction of armaments.
"Agreement has been reached with the Governments of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Japan that negotiations should be opened in regard to the possibility of a complete and definite settlement of the problem of Reparations; and it has also been recognised that negotiations should take place relative to the German Government's request for the evacuation of the Rhineland at present occupied by British, French and Belgian troops.
"The Coronation of the Emperor of Japan is shortly to take place, and I take this opportunity, in the name of Myself and My people, of wishing His Imperial Majesty a long and glorious reign. The historic friendship which for so many years has united Japan and My country has always been a potent factor in the maintenance of peace in the Far East.
"I welcome the efforts which China is making to establish a central government for the whole of that great country and to cope with those forces of disorder which have distracted it for many years past, I regard the progress of these endeavours as being of the highest importance, not only for the

3
safety and prosperity of My subjects resident in China, but also for the peace of the world.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the services in the coming year will be laid before you in due course. They are being prepared with strict attention to the continuing need for economy in public expenditure. In anticipation of the general scheme for relieving agriculture and productive industry from the burden of rates, you will be asked to make provision enabling railway companies to make lower charges on important traffics of concern to agriculture, and to the coal, iron and steel industries.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"The situation in the mining areas continues to engage the earnest attention of My Ministers, who are taking energetic steps to promote the success of the scheme of industrial transference and migration. The abnormal expenditure out of the Unemployment Fund entailed by the displacement of labour from the mines will render necessary an increase of borrowing powers, and a Bill dealing with this question will be laid before you.
"Measures will be presented to you for giving effect in this country and in Scotland to the comprehensive scheme which has been prepared by My Ministers for the reform of the rating system on a more equitable basis, for the reorganisation of local government and for the readjustment of the financial relations between the State and the Local Authorities.
"I trust that the relief from the burden of rates afforded under the scheme may benefit agriculture and lead to a greater measure of employment in industry generally, and in particular in those basic trades whose condition still causes concern. The proposed changes in local government and in the relations between the Exchequer and Local Authorities are measures of far-reaching importance. My Ministers anticipate that they will promote efficiency and economy in local government, will enable better provision to be made for the health of the
4
people, and will direct assistance particularly to those areas whose needs are most pressing.
"Proposals for extending the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme for a further period will be laid before you.
"You will be invited to pass a Bill authorising the appointment of two additional members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and of one additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
"Among other Measures a Bill for assisting persons engaged in agriculture in Scotland to obtain credits required for the pursuit of their industry will be introduced.
"And I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your deliberations."
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LIST OF THE LORDS TEMPORAL.
GARTER KING OF ARMS attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Fifth Session of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro forma, read 1ª.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The King's Speech reported by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. I need not tell your Lordships how deeply I feel the honour of being asked to do so. I approach my task in the hope that I shall be granted that generous hearing that your Lordships always accord to the more youthful and inexperienced members of your Lord-

5
ships' House. Your Lordships, I am sure, welcome the continued support given to the League of Nations by His Majesty's Government and will be the first to recognise that His Majesty's Government have discharged their obligations to the League by the great reductions that they have made in the armaments of this country since the War. In consequence of those reductions the armed forces of this country on land and in the air are now considerably weaker as compared with those of any of the other leading Powers, whilst on the sea they are weaker in comparison with those of any other Power, than they have been at any previous period in history. Speaking for myself, I am of opinion that the future of international peace can be assured only by considerable reductions in the armaments of the nations of the world, but the will to disarm and disarmament must proceed together, and I think that we cannot conceive of any real will to disarm unless and until the nations of the world renounce war as an instrument of national policy.
In this connection we shall all, I am sure, welcome the signing of the Treaty for the Renunciation of War mentioned in the gracious Speech. War is no longer to be looked upon as a normal continuation of national policy, and disputes—for disputes are bound to arise, however much we may deplore them—will in future be settled by pacific means and by arbitration. Personally I consider that the signing of this Pact marks a very great advance in the outlook of all the nations of the world. I may lay myself open to the accusation of being unduly optimistic, but I think that in the last few years public opinion abroad, and especially in this country, has been tending towards the idea of arbitration as opposed to war in the settlement of disputes; and I think that the signing by the great Powers of this Pact will do a great deal towards fostering that idea and removing the fear and hostility which are the main causes of the piling up of armaments. In the League of Nations we have machinery ready to hand for the settlement of disputes and, as your Lordships are aware, the ninth Assembly of the League has made great progress in codifying the means of arbitration and conciliation. Personally, I think that the very fact that the ninth Assembly of the League was otherwise rather uneventful may be taken as a real sign of progress, since it shows
6
that people have come to look upon the League as a normal means of the settlement of disputes.
Turning once more to the gracious Speech, your Lordships will I am sure be gratified to hear that negotiations are in progress with regard to a settlement of the problem of Reparations and especially to hear that negotiations will take place in regard to the evacuation of the Rhineland. I hope that during those negotiations those moneys that we are now receiving from Reparations will not be in any way jeopardised, since this country, which is more heavily taxed than any other country to pay for the War, receives under the (as I think) wise and generous terms of the Balfour Report no more from Reparations than is necessary to discharge our Debts to the United States. With regard to the evacuation of the Rhineland, we must, I think, move in co-operation with the other countries concerned, but I think that the future of international peace cannot be very much advanced while the forces of foreign powers are in occupation of a country with which we are at peace.
Coming now to home affairs, your Lordships will be interested to see that our antiquated system of rating is to be considerably modified. It dates, I think, from about the time of Queen Elizabeth, and it has been for many years felt to be antiquated, out of date and unsuited to modern conditions. The burden of rates falls upon all industries whether or not they are making any profit, and the greatest burden now falls upon those industries which are most depressed. Added to this, it is not only the burden of its own rates which each industry has to bear, but the effect is cumulative. For instance, the steel industry not only bears its rates on its own production, but also those of the iron and coal mines and of the railways, which are indirectly involved in its production. I think that everyone is agreed that the burden of rates is the main obstacle which prevents our manufacturers being able to compete on fair terms with foreign markets. While it is essential for the benefit of the industries of this country that the cost of production should be reduced, I think it, is unthinkable that such reduction should be effected by the lowering of wages or the lengthening of the hours of

7
work of the workers. I consider that the derating scheme of His Majesty's Government is the greatest attempt which has been made to cope with the unemployment problem since the War.
Another defect of the present system is that rates vary enormously in different districts and the extent of the post-War unemployment, combined with trade depression, has intensified the inequalities between one area and another. Accordingly, any scheme of rating reform must carry with it a comprehensive scheme of local government reform. In speaking of local government reform your Lordships will, I am sure, forgive me if I deal with this subject from a more or less local point of view, for as a London County Councillor I have more knowledge of the need for reform in London than in other parts of the country. The problem of Poor Law reform has been a burning question since the beginning of the century. The Royal Commission which sat under the late Lord George Hamilton, and issued its Report in 1909, suggested drastic alterations in Poor Law administration. Again, in 1917, a Committee sat with Sir Donald Maclean as President. Their Report, if adopted, also meant a complete remodelling of the Poor Law administration of the country and it is, I think, gratifying to find that after all these years, we have a Government with the courage to tackle this very difficult and thorny question. Obviously, the burden, falling on small areas as at present, involves extraordinary expenditure within those areas, with the inevitable result of high rates in places where industry is already depressed, for as each small area has to bear the burden of its own unemployed the cost falls on the local firms through the Poor Law, with the result that many of these firms are forced out of business altogether or else have to leave the district. Their former employees then have to go to the guardians for relief and the cost falls upon the firms which remain; and so the vicious circle goes on.
The proposal of His Majesty's Government, which entails considerable extension of these areas, will spread the burden more equally. For instance, in London, Poplar, which is very heavily rated indeed, will be able to spread the rates over the whole of the Administrative County of London. This will
8
enable manufacturers who might otherwise have been forced to leave London for other less highly-rated districts, to remain and play their part in that trade revival which I feel confident will follow this Act. By the proposed scheme not only will there be considerable benefit to industry by the stabilisation of rates, but also owing to the fact that all the Poor Law administration of London will be under one central body. Such overlapping as exists at the present moment will be abolished and greater efficiency and economy in administration will result. It appears that the financial proposals put forward in the White Paper were not definitely intended to apply to London as in that Paper it was stated that the position in London is very different from the rest of the country. From what I can gather, however, although the London County Council has not yet received a report, very satisfactory progress has followed the discussions which have taken place. I feel confident that by the time the Bill is ready to be presented to Parliament it will be seen that the proposals of His Majesty's Government will entail very considerable reductions in the cost of Poor Law administration in the County of London. Speaking generally, I think your Lordships will agree with me that these proposals of His Majesty's Government for the stabilisation of rates and the spreading of the cost of the Poor Law over many districts will do a great deal towards solving these problems which other Governments in the past have been unable to solve. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—
"Most Gracious Sovereign.—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual aad Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. (The Earl of Cranbrook.)
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I rise with the greatest diffidence on this occasion to second the Address in reply to the gracious Speech, and I should not have contemplated doing so for one moment but for the persuasive argu-

9
ments and kindness of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, as speaking on these lines is entirely out of my vocation. The noble Earl who has so ably moved the Address, if I may be allowed to say so, has very fully dealt with most of the subjects contained therein, and, I think happily, he has not left me very much to deal with. But I notice that in respect to our relations with foreign Powers no reference has been made to Japan or China.
The Coronation of His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of Japan, is an event of historic importance, and one which your Lordships, and the whole country as well, will welcome. An event of such importance to that nation, which has always been on such friendly terms with us, is one which we cannot pass by without wishing His Imperial Majesty and the country over which he reigns every success and the greatest prosperity in the future. Affairs in China are a more difficult topic to deal with. As far as we can see, progress is being made towards the formation of a central government, and that is most earnestly to be hoped for. Our interests in that vast country are so great that undoubtedly His Majesty's Government will, as they have always done in the past, use every endeavour to protect them; and they will also, I should think, make every effort to promote the pacification of that great country.
To come to the paragraph in the gracious Speech relating to the relief of rates, which has already been dealt with so fully by my noble friend, I do not think it would be inappropriate if I were to mention the question of road maintenance and road rates. I refer especially to the question of the Highlands, and more particularly the northern Highlands. The question of the roads in the Highlands is becoming a very acute one, and it is a matter of great difficulty for the local road boards in those districts to maintain their roads. The National Road Board has always in the past treated the Highland counties with the greatest consideration and generosity, but where new work is required and new roads have to be made, I think that what is needed is a 100 per cent. grant, instead of the 75 per cent. which is generally allowed now. The rates in many of the northern counties, in particular
10
the County of Sutherland, are very high. The County of Sutherland is paying a rate of 4s. 4d. in the £, which I think is the second highest in the Kingdom; and if His Majesty's Government can see their way to giving a larger grant in the future it would be very beneficial to those districts.
I turn to the question of the situation in the mining areas and note with satisfaction that that is receiving the earnest consideration of the Government. It is much to be hoped that the scheme for industrial transference and migration will be a complete success, but, if I may be allowed to go outside the proposals outlined in the gracious Speech, I should like in this connection to say a few words about Safeguarding Duties. The Act under which those Duties are levied has had the most happy results in all the industries to which it has been applied. It has increased production, it has largely increased employment, and it has not raised prices to the consumer. It has also resulted in foreign competitors building factories over here, which have given great employment to British labour. I need only mention the Ford motor works or the Michelin works recently erected in Staffordshire. Why should we not carry the Act one step further, and include the iron and steel industries, thus giving employment to enormous numbers of men who are now out of work and on the "dole"? I think I am correct in saying that 200,000 men in the iron and the steel industries are now out of work, and of those employed probably only 20 per cent. are working full time.
The same thing applies to the coal industry, because your Lordships will know that the best customers of the coal industry are the iron and steel industries. Could we once get the iron and steel industries really going again, we should absorb enormous numbers of men in the coal industry. The proposal for extending the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme will be welcomed by everyone connected with trade, but we must go beyond that scheme in order to get the great basic industries of the country going again; and, therefore, I would urge as far as lies in my power, that, if it be possible, the iron and steel industries should be included in Safeguarding, in the hope that we may get industry on its feet

11
again, as it was ten or fifteen years ago. I beg to second the Address of thanks for the gracious Speech.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, my first duty to-night, in accordance with precedent, as I understand, after consultation with the noble Marquess who leads the House, is to refer to the loss which this House and the country, and perhaps in a special manner those with whom I work in this House, have sustained in the death of Lord Haldane. For many years Lord Haldane had occupied a notable position in the public life of this country, and he himself held most important positions. He was endowed with great mental and intellectual powers, trained by him with untiring energy and by long contact with public life. I recollect that it was said of Lord Selborne that at the height of his professional life he sometimes sat up five nights without going to bed; but without saying so much of Lord Haldane, I believe there was no man of greater perseverance and industry and no man more anxious thoroughly to understand and appreciate the many great questions that came before him.
It seems a long retrospect to me when I say that it was fifty years ago that I first met him in the Law Courts. We were juniors in those days in a Chancery case. We took silk on the same occasion in 1890, and it is sufficient to add that in subsequent work at the Bar he held a unique position, his name appearing as a leader in a large number of difficult and important cases. He never occupied the position of a Law Officer, and on the formation of the Ministry of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman he became Secretary of State for War. This gave him a great opportunity of putting into force his special powers as a skilled organiser. The value of his work at the War Office has been consistently and universally recognised, and he won to the support of his new scheme a majority of the foremost generals and great military experts. It is not too much to say that in the drama of the War it was his work which played a decisive part in preventing the chances of an early disaster and bringing into operation the final victory of his country.
He passed from the War Office to the great office of Lord Chancellor, in succession to Lord Loreburn. Those who practised before him knew that not only
12
did he possess a great knowledge of legal principles, but that he had the power to detach his mind so as to give an impartial consideration to the arguments addressed to him—a power which, in my experience at least, has only been possessed by our greater Judges. From the beginning of 1914 I was again brought into contact with Lord Haldane as a colleague in your Lordships' House, as a Lord of Appeal and a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think that his great work as a Judge was done in the Privy Council. There he turned his mind not only to the great constitutional questions which came before him, but to a better organisation of our whole judicial system. He had not time to complete his work in this direction; but his influence is still seen in the proposal contained in His Majesty's gracious Speech where we are invited to pass a Bill authorising the appointment of two additional members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and one additional Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
I feel especial regret that he is not here to hear that announcement, because on more than one occasion he explained to your Lordships' House how ardently he desired an appointment of that kind in order to put the judicial system of this country on what he considered the most complete and satisfactory basis. We must not forget that in the meantime he was engaged on Committees and Commissions to organise our University educational system, so as to enable all classes to have the benefit of a higher education. Throughout his life education was one of the chief subjects to which Lord Haldane gave special attention. He was also a constant student of philosophy and. science with a mind ever open to the end to new discoveries, determined at all costs to keep abreast of all that was best in our modern thought. No doubt he felt keenly the change which brought about his retirement from the Lord Chancellorship during the War period, but this never interfered with the activity of his public work or his desire to devote the whole strength of his ability to the public service. On the formation of Mr. Mac Donald's Government, Lord Haldane returned to the position of Lord Chancellor and placed his great experience and ability at the disposal of the Labour

13
Party. I need not dwell on more recent events, but we, on this Bench, will never forget the value of his unselfish and untiring guidance, carried on latterly under conditions of much pain and suffering. I think that the impartial historian will regard him as one of the great men of our time, and that this is the testimony which of all others he would himself value most.
I pass from this reference to past services to add, in no formal language, my congratulations to the proposer and the seconder of the Address, both of whom have made notable speeches on the present occasion. We recollect the character and reputation of the first Earl of Cranbrook in the spacious days of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli. But having heard the speeches of a good many proposers of the Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne in your Lordships' House, I find no difficulty in saying that I have heard none which I prefer to that of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, this afternoon. I think all in this House will ardently hope that we shall hear him on frequent occasions in the future. I may add that I find myself in wonderful accord with a large number of the principles which he seemed to think right in our political and social life. It struck me that the difference between us was not so much on matters of principle as in the ways and means by which those principles could be brought into active operation.
I should like, too, to add a further note of admiration of the speech of the seconder. His father was perhaps the most lovable representative in the House of Commons, at any rate during my long period in that House, and when he came to this House we admired the same qualities at the same time as we admired his power of thought and expression. I might almost have thought, if the noble Lord will not mind me saying so, that I was listening to his father's voice when I heard him, not within the limits of the King's Speech but, as he said, from his own point of view, urging the value of Safeguarding, particularly for the great iron and steel industries. How often have I heard the eloquence of his father advocating the same policy for steel and iron and at another time extolling the mysterious qualities of the malting barley which came from Lincolnshire. I do not
14
think this is a time, nor do I propose to discuss such a question on the present occasion, but perhaps I may tell the noble Viscount, who seconded the Motion, one story on this question which illustrates the views of many who entirely differ from him upon the principles which he has put forward. My brother-in-law, Lord Courtney, was a sturdy, free-thinking Liberal. On one occasion, when he went to Cornwall, he was told that he could only retain his seat by advocating measures of Protection for the tin industry. He made no comment at the time, but when he came upon the platform in the evening he said the question had been asked him, and his answer was: "I will not; and I will tell you why. It may be that you here in Cornwall, or people interested in any particular industry, may get some advantage from Protection, but it, is obtained at the cost of the whole country's interest, and of our whole industrial future, and I, for my part, will not for one moment consider it." I was told by those present that not only did he receive loud cheers for his straightforward statement, but that, when the time came, he received a record majority.
I should like to say a few words now upon the Speech itself. The Speech naturally divides itself into two compartments—the compartment which deals with the relationships with other Powers and the compartment which deals with the terrible conditions of unemployment which now prevail in this country. There is no doubt a close connection between these two parts of the Speech, and I think that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, will agree with me when I say that unless we can establish a world unity on the basis of international peace, we are little likely to recover within any reasonable time our former prosperity in industrial life. Now that I have made that statement, perhaps I may indicate how deeply our industrial life is affected at the present moment. I noticed the other day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who on a point of this kind would only speak on certain information and after careful consideration, said, speaking to his constituents:
"The basic, heavy industries are in a state of collapse."
That is a very serious statement for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make after the Government of which he is a

15
member has had unchallenged power for a period of four years. I do not think a more serious statement could be made, or one which requires more careful and constant consideration. That statement is unfortunately almost more than supported by the statistics of unemployment. Taking the statistics of October, 1922, and comparing them with the corresponding figures of a year ago, we find that the number of unemployed persons has increased by no fewer than 270,168. the aggregate number of unemployed being now 1,344,200. Those figures indicate a serious outlook for the future of industrial life in this country. When I come to the proposed remedies, I want to say a few words on the suggested rating scheme, having already said what I think of the evil results which would follow any extension of Safeguarding.
As regards the three last paragraphs of the King's Speech, which refer to foreign affairs, I find myself in agreement with the principles there enunciated, and the only question which arises is, how far they can be carried out to a practical issue. I want, and we all want, a complete and definite settlement of the problem of Reparations, but that cannot be obtained unless we approach the question in a generous and straightforward manner, realising that a settlement, to be permanent, must be one which will commend itself as far as possible to all parties. I need not refer again to the Coronation of the Emperor of Japan, but I do want to say one word about China. There can be doubt that the conditions in China have very seriously affected the industries of this country, and more particularly the cotton trade in Lancashire. I saw the other day a statement that there is a diminution of output from £200,000,000 to £150,000,000, and I should like to read a passage from the report of the Chamber of Shipping for the United Kingdom for 1927–8. I read it because it appears to me to express in adequate language the real question which is involved in China.
This is the quotation:—
"At a time when the prosperity of this country depends so largely on developing new markets, we should lose no opportunity to improve our relations with China, for her people constitute one-fourth of the world's population, they are great producers, they appreciate quality as consumers, and they enjoy a reputation for honourable dealing
16
which has survived all the hardships of years of unrest."
I think that that quotation amply and properly states our interest in China. Our interest is a trading interest. Our interest is to have a maximum of peaceful international commerce, and for my part I beg to say this, that I think Sir Miles Lampson, appointed as he was by the present Government, has performed a notable feat in bringing the conditions of China under more prosperous and less difficult conditions.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: Let me at any rate add my voice, having heard, as I have from all quarters in China and from a very large number of Chinese who from time to time have come to this country. As regards the first two paragraphs in the gracious Speech I must ask the noble Lord to give me his special attention. It says:—
"My Government have been happy to accept the Treaty for the Renunciation of War in the form proposed by the Government of the United States."
Is that quite correct? I thought that when we accepted the proposal of the United States we accepted it with reservations and limitations—reservations and limitations which, in my opinion, went a long way to neutralise the effect of the simple statement contained in the proposed Pact, that never in the future would we approach a settlement of international disputes except by peaceful methods. I should like to know how the matter stands. I know there is a good deal of discussion, from the point of view of International Law, whether undertakings of this kind form part of a Treaty or not, but that is a minor matter for the moment. The wider matter is this: Do we really put weight on these restrictions or limitations, or do we regard ourselves as in the position of having accepted the Pact as it was put forward by Mr. Kellogg? That is a very important question in the whole of international polities.
As to the second paragraph there may be a difference, but we shall be able to discuss that on a subsequent occasion. I know the noble Lord, Lord Cushendun, will not answer this afternoon because that duty will be in the hands of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, but the matter may arise on a subsequent occasion and I would ask him to think

17
over this question: Does he think that we have fully discharged our obligations under Article 8 of the Covenant as regards disarmament? It seems to me that the fact that we have reduced our armaments since the War, or even that we have reduced armaments to a greater extent than other countries—about that there may be question—does not in any way solve, indeed it hardly approaches, the question whether we have fulfilled our obligations under Article 8 of the Covenant.
Not only have we obligations under Artiole 8 of the Covenant, but I may remind your Lordships of what was said at the time of the signature of the Treaty of Versailles and before the German Delegates signed that Treaty. These are the words:—
"The Allied and Associated Powers wish to make it clear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not made solely with the object of rendering it impossible for Germany to resume her policy of military aggression. They are also—
these are the important words—
"the first steps towards that general reduction and limitation of armaments which they seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war, and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote."
I want to ask the noble Marquess whether in his view that obligation has been carried out? It is of the utmost importance. Of course if it has been carried out to fulfilment, Preparatory Commissions or Commissions of Disarmament are no longer of value. I venture to suggest that not even a commencement has really been made as regards carrying out this great obligation, not only in the Covenant but towards the German people when the Treaty of Versailles was signed, and that it is time that we adopted a wholly different policy and a wholly different attitude towards the question of disarmament when we appear either before the Council or the Assembly at Geneva.
The other part of the Speech to which I want to refer is this. First of all there is a reference to the mining areas. The mining areas present an appalling tragedy at the present moment, a national tragedy. It is a national tragedy which the Government and the representatives of the country should use every effort to curtail and place on a more satisfactory
18
foundation. I see a reference to the scheme of industrial transference and migration. That is no good at the present time as a real remedy for the terrible conditions which exist in the mining areas. There are no open places in our industries at the present time to which transference and migration can be made. I want to know whether the Government are prepared, as I think they ought to be prepared, without delay and without running further risk, and not relying on private benevolence or private assistance—whether they are ready themselves, as the Government, supported by the resources of the country, to bring forward some scheme of their own, carefully thought out and considered, which may at least alleviate the appalling tragedies which are now in existence.
The other question to which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred is what is called the Rating Bill. I call it anything but rating reform. It is a suggestion absolutely inconsistent with the first principle of rating. It is a system which will inevitably bring confusion. It is a system which will give assistance to the wrong persons and which gives no weight to the distinction between local and national charges which has been regarded as the foundation not only of the Reports of Royal Commissions but of all other Commissions, expert or otherwise, which have reported on this subject in recent years. It is quite impossible to put under one head local expenditure for the benefit of local interests and national and onerous expenditure in which the localities have no special or exceptional interest. Just one word to emphasise what I mean. It is not easy, I admit, to give exact details, but so far as I have examined them—and they have not been questioned—I should say that forty per cent. of the present rating charges are properly raised on rating principles, and that the other sixty per cent. ought to be provided and paid for from the national resources. In round figures—one does not want to be too particular in a matter of this kind—some fifty per cent. of what are called our rating burdens are raised from the wrong people and based on the wrong principles, and until you recognise that fact and start your reform from that standpoint you do nothing but bring greater confusion and, as its accompaniment, greater hardship in many cases.

19
We have heard from the noble Earl a reference to the poor districts. It is the poor districts that suffer beyond all others from having national charges placed upon the locality when they ought to be placed upon the taxation of the whole country, and I say without hesitation, after a careful inquiry into all the figures that I have had before me, that a far larger, more equitable and juster reform of our rating system would be brought about by recognising this great basic distinction between local and national charges and proceeding on that basis to bring in a measure of true rating reform. I have read the objections raised by various local authorities and most of them seem to me to be almost unanswerable. I have not at the present moment the experience that the noble Earl has, but I have served my time on a board of guardians and for twenty-five years I served as a member of a country county council.
What is the result of this absurd basis of rating reform that has been suggested by the Government? The amount to be paid to what are called derated industrial productive manufactories will be paid, as to at least half of the sum provided by the country, to such industries as those concerned with kodaks, gramophones and perfumery, and to breweries, distilleries and the makers of chemicals and other luxury products some of which are paying as much as fifty or sixty per cent. on the capital involved at the present time. What could be more monstrous and more unjust, in a country as poor as we are, in a country where every penny is of importance, than that at least half the rating subsidy, perhaps a little more, should be diverted to productive industries which are at present in a state of great prosperity and are paying large dividends to their owners and shareholders? Surely this cannot possibly be justified. In regard to what has been called the formula of distribution it is said that this was discovered or invented by a senior wrangler. In my humble way I was a mathematical first-class man at Oxford, but at Oxford, of course, we are far behind Cambridge in mathematics. It is fantastic and fanciful to suppose that any scheme of this kind or any formula can possibly deal with the great variety that exists in the incidence of rates and taxation in our various localities.
On one point I am not out of accord with the noble Earl. It may be that
20
advantage can be obtained by a reorganisation of local government. That is a very difficult point, and I will give no opinion upon it until I see the scheme in detail, but I do say that there are a number of charges and services that can be more adequately dealt with in their proper localities, though the county councils in the country districts are not in a position to deal with them, being already overburdened with far more business and far more obligations than they can reasonably carry out in an effective manner. But let us wait and see. So far as I can understand, the Government are still groping in the dark, although I believe that, in connection with the London County Council and the London districts that have their special features, some progress in the direction of an agreement is being made.
As for the burden of rates, it is a burden upon property and not upon industry, and it is a burden on property only in the sense that it demands a common contribution towards a common advantage. I should like to know what people obtain greater ultimate advantage in this country from properly considered rates for local improvements than the property-owners. I do not grudge it them. When our agricultural land becomes ripe for building this is of enormous advantage to the landowner, but it can be developed only when you have lighting, roads, drainage, and so on. I cannot understand the principle of derating. The other day I asked a great authority on this subject and he said that the derating proposed in the Government scheme was lunacy. I do not think that he was very wrong, if I understand the principle. Derating should mean that, whereas all property in a certain district must contribute t local expenditure properly so-called, some of it obtains greater advantage than others, and so we have the principle of classification, which is carried further in Scotland than in this country and is a principle of the greatest importance. But derating does not here depend upon this at all. It depends on the special purposes for which the manufactory is used, and not upon the real principle, the advantage that any manufactory must obtain from the results of local rates such as lighting, drainage and sanitation. This is not the occasion for further detail upon a matter of this

21
kind, but I must protest in the strongest possible way against the notion that this rating reform is in any way justified, and still more against the notion that, if our great basic industries are in a state of collapse, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, they will get from this scheme anything that will in any way really affect their financial position.
As regards export credits, I want to ask one question: Will the scheme apply to all countries, or will it exclude Russia? Your Lordships know that there is no difference between any of the Parties in this country with regard to keeping Russia from any interference with our internal constitutional life, but there is no field more likely to find employment for our unemployed than the great area of Russia, with its huge population. During the past year the imports from Germany into Russia have increased by over £9,000,000. During the last year the imports from America and France have made substantial advances. At the same time, as a necessary condition of our present attitude, ours have been withering away. Are we to give up this great field of enterprise to our competitors, if, as I believe, we are amply powerful and have ample means of protecting ourselves from what is called the unfair infiltration of Russian ideas? I think I have dealt, I hope at not too great a length, with the various projects mentioned in the King's Speech. We all hope, and have a common desire, for increased prosperity. We all want peace, enduring and settled peace, as the basis of our foreign policy and as a substitute for war. We all deplore the industrial conditions in the country at the present time, and if we cannot join together in common projects, let us at least sympathise with one another and not spend our time too much in criticism, but feeling that from one source or another—of course I believe from the policy with which I am personally connected—we may find our way out of our present discontent and present impoverished condition.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I would like, as did the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, to begin my remarks by some personal references. In the first place, I wish to join him in expressing our deep regret at the disappearance and death of the late Lord
22
Haldane. No one can view without emotion the death of an old colleague, and especially of a colleague with whom one has spent past anxious days of difficulty and danger, and of one who was a colleague in those days, one feels that, however much one may differ from his opinions in later life, the real ties of comradeship will never be wholly relaxed. Lord Haldane was a very great friend to many who did not agree with him, but to whom, throughout life, he showed many kindnesses, and it must have been a great satisfaction to his relatives to read the terms of the resolution which was passed by the Army Council. It is almost incredible that one whose chief interest was in abstract philosophy, should live after his death as one who has done such practical work, and work which was probably greater than that done by any other Minister in the Cabinets of Sir Henry Cambell-Bannerman and Lord Oxford and Asquith. It is a curious contrast, and one which is very remarkable, as showing the great range of powers of Lord Haldane.
We regret his disappearance and we note also some changes on the Government Bench. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, returns to the India Office, which he has already administered for some time with conspicuous success. May I say, on behalf of my noble friends, that we shall never be lacking in giving him every assistance we possibly can in carrying out his duties, for we realise that a very difficult task lies before him. His old position has been filled by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, whom I hope I may congratulate upon his appointment to Cabinet rank, and his appointment to an office which is one of the most interesting and pleasant in the Government of the day, as I am sure he will be told by his noble predecessor and as I, another predecessor, can testify. To both noble Lords I hope I may be allowed to say that, although I hope their tenure of office will be pleasant, I do not particularly wish that it shall be long.
There is another change impending. We shall very soon see the Archbishop of Canterbury sitting in another place in this House. I am sure that we all welcome the idea that we shall still enjoy the advantages of his sagacious advice on great occasions in this House. He has been a

23
member of this House, and has been attending our meetings regularly for more years than most of those who attend here to-day, and I have never listened without interest, although not always with agreement, but always, I think, with profit, to what he has had to say. Those of us who listened to the moving words which he spoke from the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral on Sunday last will look forward with expectation of profit to the advice which I hope he will give on future occasions, and if the rank which he will have in this House is to be that of the most junior of the Barons, we may at any rate ascribe that new position to the modesty which refuses a higher rank in the Peerage. I am sure your Lordships will all join with me in the hope that for many years to come he will attend constantly the discussions in this House, and speak on the great questions of the day.
There are two other personal questions—the mover and seconder of the Address. I remember the Speech which was made by the first Lord Cranbrook in the Home Rule debate in 1893—one of the best and most vigorous speeches delivered in that debate—and I am glad to think that the noble Earl is likely to take part in the proceedings of this House. It is not the first occasion on which he has spoken. I remember an admirable little speech which he made last Session, and I hope that he will join in our discussions with the increased experience which he will gain as a member of that important body, the London County Council. Lord Chaplin, who seconded the Address, will not, I hope, carry out the expectation which he seemed to hold of not speaking often. I wish that, with his experience in the City of London, he would come down and tell us a little oftener how much economy is needed in administering the affairs of government, and I am sure that many of those with whom he works would give him constant support if he took that kind of action.
To turn from personal matters to those of wider importance: This is the last occasion on which during the present Parliament we shall hear a King's Speech, and I think we may make this prophecy with perfect certainty that the minority by which the Government hold office will certainly be a much greater minority when they go to the polls. Whether the
24
minority will be so large as to enable them still to hold office is a matter which lies in the lap of the gods, but at least I can say that it will be an increased minority when the time of the General Election comes, because every by-election shows with greater clearness that they have lost the confidence of the people of this country and I confess that I deplore the prospect of a minority Government of whatever Party it may be—whether a minority Government made up by noble Lords beside me or by noble Lords opposite, but representing a minority of the people of this country. Even at this late hour it is possible for His Majesty s Government, if they wished it, to alter and bring up to date the electoral system of this country. There is no mention of it in the Speech, and there are one or two other omissions to which I would venture to draw attention.
No reference is made to the reform of this House, and here I am speaking not so much on behalf of my noble friends as on behalf of noble Lords opposite who have so often pressed this matter upon the attention of the Government. On such an occasion as this noble Lords sitting behind the Government are silent, and have no criticisms to offer of the gracious Speech, and I have to speak on their behalf and to remind noble Lords of what was said by the Prime Minister to a deputation which waited upon him last year. To that deputation, according to the report in The Times, the Prime Minister, in reply, repeated the pledge which he had previously given that it was the intention of the Government to deal with this question in the lifetime of the present Parliament. It is evident that His Majesty's Government have no intention of carrying out the pledge which they made in regard to the reform of your Lordships' House.
Nor is there any mention in the gracious Speech of Safeguarding. That omission, indeed, was repaired by the noble Viscount who seconded the Motion for the Address, and I thought that the speech which he made demanded a reply from the noble Marquess who leads the House. It was almost an attack upon His Majesty's Government, and certainly a request that they should promise to introduce a tariff upon iron and steel. I should be very much interested to know exactly what is the position of the Government in this matter. Do they propose

25
after the next General Election, if they have a majority, to introduce a tariff upon iron and steel? Will they feel justified in doing it without further procedure? At the present moment, having regard to what happened at Yarmouth, when the Conservative Conference took place there, and a committee upon civil research refused to consider the idea of a tariff upon iron and steel, it does seem to me that His Majesty's Government is drifting very much into the position of Mr. Balfour's Government in the years 1903, 1904 and 1905. There is no reason why we on this side of the House should regret that position, because it is full of happy omens for us; but I do think that we are entitled, if not to-night on some future occasion, to know exactly where we stand on this matter.
I venture to encourage the noble Viscount who seconded the Address to pursue his investigations further. He made a series of allegations—allegations which are being made by his friends all over the country—but did not support them by a single fact or figure, and not even by the fraction of a statistic. I would invite he noble Viscount, I would even say that it is only respectful to your Lordships' House, to substantiate the statements which he made, by making a speech upon a future occasion, and giving us the grounds on which he made those statements. He owes it to this House, having made those statements, to speak further to your Lordships upon this question. It is perfectly obvious that the allegations he made are wholly without foundation. Let us take the question of unemployment. He told us that Safeguarding gave more employment. Why is it, then, that the figures of unemployment are 270,000 greater to-day than they were twelve months ago? Of course, the noble Viscount may say that Safeguarding has given employment this industry or the other industry; but the employment in those industries has thrown people out of work in other industries, and that is the invariable result of the policy which the noble Viscount recommended.
I would say more than that—that whether it is in regard to unemployment or whether it is in regard to output, he owes it to your Lordships to amplify and justify the statements which he made. After all—I speak from memory—the imports of manufactured iron and steel
26
are somewhere about ten millions a year, but our exports are sixty-nine millions a year. Is he going to jeopardise our exports of sixty-nine millions for the benefit of the imports of ten millions? Does he think that good business? Are those the principles of business which he has learned in the City of London? How does he think it possible to justify the policy of Safeguarding, if those are really the actual statistics which we get from the Board of Trade? And, lastly, I would say that with regard to prices I believe that what he has said is exactly on a par with what he told us with regard to unemployment and with regard to imports and exports. But, in any case, I venture to repeat my invitation to him to justify to your Lordships' House the allegations which he has made, and I also hope that he will try to extract from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, if I am unable to do so, some indication of what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in this respect.
But I have another matter to which I wish to draw attention and about which no mention—and naturally—appears in the gracious Speech of His Majesty, and that is the matter of the dismissal of a man from Government employment for his political opinions. I had hoped we had passed the day when persecution of that kind would be allowed in this country. That a man holding private opinions which did not coincide with those of the Government of the day should be dismissed from his position seems to me a very unfortunate precedent to set. It happened in old days in regard to other matters, but I had hoped that it was no longer possible for it to happen again. It seems to me a dangerous precedent to set.
Now I turn to the question of the Derating Bill, which is the positive contribution of the Government to the settlement of the difficulties from which people suffer in this country to-day. I am sorry to say that I cannot help feeling that if they think there is to be any genuine relief of unemployment from the method by which they deal with the derating problem, the Government are likely to suffer a very real disappointment. The method of payment will be changed, but a great deal of the money will be paid in future in another way. There will be no total reduction, but an

27
increase; and I cannot see how the Government expect directly to see an improvement in the employment in this country. At this moment, unfortunately, it looks as if unemployment were likely to get worse and worse week after week, till it may even reach the dangerous pitch of the year 1920, when it was worse than it had ever been before in this country.
As the positive contribution to the solution of this question which the Government offer us is the Derating Bill, I will tell your Lordships what is the formula under which the rearranged grants are going to be made. If the number of persons per mile of public road is greater than, or equal to, 100, the weighted population which will be the ground of the grant will be the population of the country in the standard year, plus 50 or the number of children under five years of age per 1,000 of the population, whichever is the greater, less 50; and that figure, having been ascertained, has to be divided by 50, and then you have to add 10, minus 10 or the rateable value in the £ per head on October 1, 1929, whichever is the less, and you are to divide that by 10. Then—this is all part of the same formula—you are to take the figure 1, plus 1.5 or the percentage of unemployed men, whichever is the greater, minus 1.5; and, having divided that by 10, you are to add to the number 50, divided by the number of persons per mile of public road.
I do not know if anybody in your Lordships' House is able to understand that. But we will go further, because that only concerns occasions when the number of persons per mile of public road is greater than, or equal to, 100. If it is less than 100 then you arrive at your conclusion in a different way. You take, first of all, the population of a county in a standard year, and you add to that 50 or the number of children under five years of age per thousand of the population, whichever is the greater, from which you subtract 50. You then divide that by 50. You then add 10, from which you subtract 10 or the rateable value in the £ per head on October 1, 1929, whichever is the less. Having divided that by 10, you then take the figure 1, to which you add 1.5 or the percentage of unemployed men, whichever is the greater, from which
28
you subtract 1.5. You then divide by 10 and add no less than 200, and from 200 you subtract the number of persons per mile of public road. Then, having divided that by 200, you have a perfectly easy and simple result. I must congratulate His Majesty's Government upon possessing people of such arithmetical facility that they are able to understand a simple formula of that kind. I venture to say, as I said at the end of the last Session in your Lordships' House, that an easier and a more commonsense scheme would have been far preferable to such a method as this.
I turn now to matters of foreign affairs. I learn from the newspapers that the question of the Naval Pact is to be debated upon another occasion. That, I suppose, is the reason why it was not discussed by the noble and learned Lord who spoke last. I confess that I am divided in my mind as to whether we should speak upon this question or not. For my own part I believe in maintaining the customs and traditions of your Lordships' House, and it has always been the custom and the tradition to speak upon every and any subject upon the Address in reply to the gracious Speech, and I think it is very important that we should maintain that privilege and that right. On the other hand, of course, if we had discussed it upon this occasion the noble and learned Lord might have given us the forty or fifty minutes speech which he will no doubt deliver when the Naval Pact comes up for discussion by your Lordships. Therefore, I confess I am divided in my mind as to whether it is or is not a good thing that we should discuss it upon this occasion.
I shall venture to ask only one question in relation to this matter in order that we may elucidate points that will come to be discussed when the subject of the Naval Pact is introduced into your Lordships' House. I would ask His Majesty's Government whether the Pact is now dead, and whether the compromises to which both parties agreed are now entirely abolished? Are we or are we not back to where we were before these conversations began? Is the whole position now like a clean slate, or are there any obligations either on the one side or the other? That, I think, is all I wish to say upon the Naval Pact itself: but, with regard to the more general

29
question of foreign affairs I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they associate themselves with the thesis, which is much maintained in France, that the question of Reparations should be allied with that of evacuation, or whether, as is contemplated under the Treaty of Versailles, the two matters should be dealt with entirely separately and that the one has no connection with the other? The third question I would ask His Majesty's Government is in relation to the presence of British soldiers in the Rhineland manœuvres last summer—whether the participation of a regiment of Cavalry was in accordance with the directions or the promises of the Foreign Office, or whether it was merely an act on the part of the General Command? I hope that is not an improper question to ask, but it is a matter of no small importance to know whether it was the Foreign Office which sanctioned this action on the part of the Cavalry, or whether it was only done by their immediate military commanders.
Returning to the Pact for a moment, I confess that I am really not able to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the way in which they have treated this matter. I do not wish to be partisan on this occasion; still less do I wish to be partisan on matters of foreign affairs. I will content myself, therefore, with quoting from a leading article which appeared in The Times this morning. The Times, if not actually a Government journal, is so favourable to His Majesty's Government that we know that it would never say anything contrary to their action unless it felt obliged to do so. The Times this morning said:—
"It is impossible to praise the Government for its diplomatic handling of the episode; for its sudden spurt of activity in the matter of disarmament at a time when, after the failure of the Three Power Conference, a respite from discussions on naval disarmament was obviously desirable; for its failure to recognise that the currents and cross-currents in the Preparatory Commission are hardly intelligible to the world at large, and that agreements reached in the arcana of that institution may easily be misunderstood unless the circumstances are fully explained. All this would perhaps have mattered little if the first announcement of the compromise had been accompanied by a full exposition of its terms and purpose—if, in fact, the Government had remembered on this occasion that an essential part of successful diplomatic tactics is a wise publicity."
30
I am glad to think that in one direction at any rate it has not done the harm which we might have expected. The people of the United States of America have realised that it was the act of His Majesty's Government and not in any way an act of the people of this country. Obviously, the secrecy with which it was conducted shows that the people of this country had nothing to do with it, and the almost unanimous disapproval with which it was met when its terms were made known must have satisfied the whole world that the people of this country disliked it when they knew what it contained.
Your Lordships may say, and it is said outside, that French militarism is no business of ours, and that it is not the business either of the United States of America, of the French, or of any other nation what may be the position of our Fleet, either as to its strength or its composition. As a matter of fact it is our business what may be the size of the French Army, just as it is the business of other countries what may be the size of our Fleet and our Army. What else is the meaning of the Treaty of Versailles and of the League of Nations? They mean that we have solemnly pledged ourselves to reduce our armed forces to the lowest point which is consistent with our national safety, and it is a matter which concerns us and which concerns them that our armaments and their armaments should be reduced to the lowest possible point.
I have very little hope of securing disarmament from His Majesty's Government. We have had Locarno; we have had the Kellogg Pact; but they have been followed up by too little action on the part of His Majesty's Government. I have very little hope that in the short time which it seems to me remains to them they will be able to carry out very much more in either direction. On this occasion, as I said before, of the last Address in answer to the gracious Speech from the Throne in this Parliament, we have great disappointment regarding the policy which has been carried out by His Majesty's Government not only in regard to disarmament but also in regard to economy, the way in which they have managed the financial affairs of this country and the total lack of success with which they have managed the unemployment problem in this country.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I should like to join the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, in the tributes they have paid to my old friend Lord Haldane. He was a man of singular intellectural gifts combined with great social charm, and he was a friend of many men and women who did not belong to his political way of thinking. In his public life, which of course was very distinguished, he was characterised by a great independence of judgment, great patriotism, great Parliamentary knowledge and skill, and great consideration for the difficulties of others. As the noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl have already said, he left a very special mark in his administration of the War Office and in the great work which he did there, and it was, perhaps, almost a tragedy that owing to circumstances which we need not recall he was unable himself to bear a prominent part in using the weapon which he had done so much to forge.
I have always looked back upon that period with great regret. I have never been happy as to the way Lord Haldane was treated in those days. I have said he was a friend, and so he was—a personal friend; but from a Parliamentary point of view he possessed that great spirit of comradeship which enabled him, quite independently of any Party consideration, to help any man, or any body of men who were responsible for affairs, in seeing that the business of the country was properly carried through. Personally, I can speak with great knowledge, for I received the utmost consideration at his hands. In many departments of public life he was altogether free from any Party feeling. He was a great Party man, of course, but, beyond his Party feelings, there was a large area of public life which he looked upon from an entirely impartial standpoint, and in which he was of the greatest assistance to any Government, whatever its political complexion. These were very great qualities, and I am sure all of us on this side of your Lordships' House will miss him from the Benches opposite.
I turn to the speeches which we have heard this evening. Like noble Lords who preceded me, I congratulate most warmly my two noble friends for their
32
speeches in moving and seconding the Address. I congratulate them not only upon their speeches but also because they bear names dear to all those who are fond of British Parliamentary traditions. Both the forefathers from whom they descend were close colleagues of my own father. One of them was my noble friend's great grandfather. I hardly dare to say it, because the fact that I remember him in the zenith of his power marks me as being very much down the hill. But undoubtedly the noble Lord has a great reputation to live up to in the tradition which still lingers in Parliament of the powers, eloquence and statesmanship of the first Lord Cranbrook. The father of my noble friend who seconded the Address was recently amongst us, and was a great personal friend of all of us, and we rejoice to hear one of his name again speaking in your Lordships' House.
I think the speeches themselves were both characteristic. The noble Earl showed a grasp of detail and a knowledge of his subject which might have warmed the heart, if he had heard it, of his great forefather, and my noble friend who seconded has evidently, as was suggested, the same fiscal enthusiasm which we remember so well. I earnestly hope that my two noble friends will be gratified, as they ought to be gratified, by the reception which their speeches have received in your Lordships' House, and that they will continue to attend our debates and join in our discussions and carry still further that tradition of statesmanship which their names entitled them to bear. My noble friend the mover of the Address showed a real knowledge of local government, and I certainly preferred his method of dealing with the rating proposals of His Majesty's Government to the tone which characterised the speech of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp). It occurred to me that it was much more likely to be useful in results than the criticism of the noble Earl. There was nothing carping about my noble friend, and I venture to hope that when we come to discuss the Bill, he will help us in the discussions.
The noble Earl who has just sat down told your Lordships that every subject was open to discussion on the debate on the Address, and as I cast a melancholy eye over the notes which I have

33
scribbled upon the subjects that have been mentioned in the course of the speeches, I really began to think that the noble Earl must, on this occasion at any rate, be really accurate. I cannot hope to deal with all of them, but I must say one word about the noble Earl's sneer at His Majesty's Government for representing a minority of the electors. The noble Earl and his friends are authorities on minorities. I do not know any more than the noble Earl does what is going to happen at the next General Election, but I shall be very much surprised if the Conservative Party return in as small, may I say in as exiguous a minority as the Liberal Party is likely to do.
The noble Earl asked me a great many questions. One was about a certain Communist who has been dismissed at Woolwich. I do not pretend to know all the circumstances of that case, although the noble Earl was good enough to give me notice that he was going to ask me about it, but upon the principle of the matter, which is what the noble Earl dealt with, surely there are limits beyond which liberality in employment so far as political opinion is concerned ought not to be allowed to go. Why should you employ a Communist in one of your military establishments? Would you send a homicidal maniac out to look after your children? There must be a limit. However broad may be the views which you have upon the freedom of political opinion, there must be a limit beyond which you cannot go in employing persons who are really intent upon subverting the whole structure of the society in which they are operating. I need say no more upon that.
The noble Earl referred to matters which, he truly said, were not in the Speech. Among others, he asked me a question about the reform of the House of Lords. I do not desire for a moment to shirk the answer to that question. It is a failing, I am afraid, of all Governments to be over sanguine as to the time at their disposal, though I venture to think that this Government have, on the whole, not deserved ill of their country. Yet in the respect which I have indicated, they are no exception to the rule. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister does not deny the commitments into which he entered that the Government would deal with the subject of Lords' reform in the present Parliament, and, as your Lordships' House is aware,
34
the subject was attempted to be dealt with in the proposals which were put forward in the name of my noble friend who preceded the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack. These proposals were received very favourably by your Lordships but were not received very favourably in another place, and it was found impossible to proceed with them. Now we have come to the present year and my right hon. friend wishes me to say that since these discussions took place the great scheme for the reform of local government and the relief of rates, to which the noble Earl referred, necessarily very complex, has crystallised as the work immediately before us, and it has become evident that nothing else of importance can be attempted during the remainder of the present Parliament. I need not say with what extreme reluctance I make this announcement. It is true. I have only said what is true, but profoundly do I regret, speaking personally, that it has not been found possible to deal with Lords' reform in the present Parliament.
I turn to what is the most important matter in the gracious Speech from the, Throne, the matter which, I think, has occupied the greater part of the speeches of the noble Lord opposite and the noble Earl—namely, the condition of unemployment. It is, of course, deplorable. It is no good pretending that the figures are not very serious. There is, however, one circumstance which I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind. The figures of unemployment are higher, but so are the figures of employment. It is not the fact, that is to say, that corresponding to an increase in unemployment there is a decrease in employment. On the contrary, there is an increase in employment as compared, for instance, with the year 1924. The figures of employment are going up at the same time as the figures of unemployment. Of course it means that there is a greater population but the two things are going on simultaneously and though we recognise, as we must recognise, the gravity of the unemployment figures, it is well to bear in mind that the increase in them does not correspond to a reduction in the figures of men and women who are actually employed. On the contrary, there are more employed than there were. Of course one would like to account for it, and undoubtedly the friends of the noble Lord

35
are responsible in a great measure for it in the industrial struggles of 1926. It is the aftermath of the great industrial struggle which took place, I quite agree without their wish, but which they were entirely unable to control, amongst their friends. That is fundamentally the main reason for it.
I cannot pretend that I can give a full account of it. There is this to be said, that the unemployment disease is not spread over the whole country. It is concentrated in particular black spots or black industries, and though that does not solve the problem, yet it enables us to have a better view of what it really consists in. I do not say that it is all becoming worse even in those black spots, because unemployment in mining is a trifle better than it was, though that is not saying very much. I can only, try to take, like my noble friend the mover, an optimistic view. Trade, on the whole, seems to be a little better than it was. The volume of exports is up in the first nine months of 1928 as compared with the first nine months of 1927. On the whole, I think that your Lordships will agree with me that there is a better feeling in industry, that there is a more conciliatory atmosphere between employers and employed, that there is a greater energy in organisation, and I think probably greater energy in the work of the individual worker. At any rate, the work of the average man per hour is more productive than it was. That is a very good sign. Though unemployment continues, yet if that tendency continues also we may look for better results in the future.
But, of course, I agree that the demand which the noble Lord made for action by the Government is fully justified. We must do everything we can, and I can only assure him that the question is receiving at this very moment the most urgent attention of the Government to see how far they can mitigate—for it cannot be more than a mitigation—the serious situation which has taken place. The Industrial Transference Board is certainly operating. It is calculated that of the 200,000 men who are at this moment irregularly employed with whom they have dealt there have been men transferred per week up to the figure of 400, and the expectation is that they will transfer during the next six months some 15,000. There will probably be an equal
36
number transferred without Government assistance, making 30,000. Then if you add the normal wastage which exists, and which I am sorry to say in one sense gets rid of the unemployed, that will reduce the outstanding figure still further, say up to a total of some 45,000. We have, in addition to that, the effect of the migration efforts, migration overseas I mean. Your Lordships have no doubt seen with satisfaction the effort which has been made in the last few months to promote the migration of harvesters to Canada. They have not all remained, but a very large proportion of them have remained, and we have every hope that, as the system becomes settled, next year a still larger proportion will go and a much larger proportion will remain. All these are good signs which we hope will gratify your Lordships. I will not go into the other activities of the Transference Board, but I would call your Lordships' attention to the training establishments which have been set up both for men and for women and which are operating successfully in training men and women who are unemployed so that they can take up their work either in this country or elsewhere. All these things are mitigations of the seriousness which the problem shows, though I am sorry to say that they do not get rid of it.
What else could be done? My noble friend the seconder believes in Safeguarding, and the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, asked me to make a statement of the policy of the Government in reference to Safeguarding. My noble friend is a diligent reader of the newspapers and I am sure it has not escaped his notice that quite recently my right hon. friend the Prime Minister addressed a letter to the Chief Conservative Whip in which he set out the actual position which the Government occupy in the matter of Safeguarding. We are not at all dissatisfied with the results of Safeguarding, so far as it has gone, and I think my noble friend who seconded the Motion was fully justified in what he said in that respect. But when my noble friend suggests that we should carry it further and that I should tell your Lordships that we are prepared to safeguard iron and steel, I am afraid I cannot follow him. I am not sure that he has realised the reaction that the safeguarding of these basic industries would have

37
upon other commodities and other industries and trades. As my right hon. friend said in the letter to which I have referred, we are opposed to Protection and we are opposed especially to the taxation of food. Every industry is to have an equal chance before whatever tribunal is to consider its demand for Safeguarding. We are in exactly the same position as we were in formerly, and we are not prepared to accept a policy of Protection or a policy of the taxation of food.
I turn, therefore, from Safeguarding as a remedy to ask what else can be done. The noble Earl says that he does not think that our rating relief will be of any value. I really do not know why he said that. I should have thought that to remove from agriculture and industry the burden that they at present have to bear ought to do them good. The noble and learned Lord opposite criticised very severely our rating principle. This is not the first time that he has done so, may I say, almost in the same words, but of course we do not agree with him. We agree with some of his premisses, but we agree with hardly any of his conclusions. In the speech that he has just delivered he told us that it was very unfair that the ratepayers should have to bear the large part of a local burden which ought really to be put on the shoulders of the taxpayers. That, of course, is one of the principles of the Government's derating scheme. We propose, as the House knows very well, to derate industry to a large extent and agriculture altogether, in order that the burden shall be thrown upon the Exchequer instead of upon the ratepayer. The noble Lord said that we were derating property. We are not derating property, but we are derating industry. If we were derating property that would, of course, affect house property.
LORD PARMOOR: Industry has never been rated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are derating the property which belongs to industry, if the noble Lord wishes it, but in effect we are derating industry. That is to say, we are removing from industry a burden that it has to bear—I do not think I have been inaccurate in the way in which I have described the process—and we believe that to be a
38
very great advantage to industry and that, so far as it goes, it will tend to mitigate unemployment. The noble Lord complained that part of our derating scheme would affect prosperous industries. Why not? What we want to do is to promote industry. By all means let us promote prosperous industries as well as those that are not prosperous. Indeed, from some points of view, the former is likely to be the more successful plan. What we want to do is to promote employment and for that purpose it would be very unwise to leave out the industries that are successful. We hope that the industries that are not now successful will become successful, or at least that some of them will do so, that those that are now successful will be more successful still and that in that way a larger body of labour will be employed and we shall diminish the black figures that we all agree ought to be deplored.
I turn for a moment to the part of the Speech that deals with foreign affairs. I was very glad that my noble friend the seconder expressed on the part of your Lordships our great satisfaction at the celebration in Japan and all the rejoicings of that country, which we have so long regarded with interest and regard. There is a curious similarity in many respects between the position of Japan in Asia and that of Great Britain in Europe. We are both island Powers, both deeply engaged in industry, both passionately anxious to maintain peace and order for the sake of our trade, and we have been, as your Lordships know, for many years closely connected in interest. It is a matter of the greatest satisfaction to His Majesty's Government and to the whole country that we are able to pay a compliment to Japan upon this interesting occasion. As regards China, I should like to join with the noble and learned Lord in saying on behalf of the Government how deep a debt of gratitude we owe to Sir Miles Lampson for his conduct of affairs in very difficult circumstances. I think it is impossible to exaggerate either the difficulties with which he has been confronted or the great skill with which he has surmounted them.
The noble and learned Lord said a word or two about the Kellogg Pact. He wanted to know whether we had, in fact, accepted it unconditionally. We accepted the actual text as the American

39
Government submitted it to us. The noble Lord says that we have made certain reservations. I hate wearying your Lordships, and I really think it is almost a pity that the noble and learned Lord should say exactly the same thing as he said a few months ago, and that I should be compelled to make exactly the same reply. The point that the abandonment of war did not include defensive war did not originate in this country. It originated in America.
LORD PARMOOR: But the reservations go far beyond defensive war.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must take them in order, at any rate. We were only accepting the view that Mr. Kellogg himself put forward in America in a famous speech and expressing our concurrence with it. As the noble Lord says, there were other reservations, but those had relation to parts of the world in which we had a very special interest and in regard to which it was right that we should explain that they stood upon a very different footing from other parts. That, if I may say so, is a point of view by no means foreign to the American frame of mind. The Americans quite understand that kind of explanation and have themselves adopted it on a famous occasion. I do not see any reason why the noble Lord should criticise the method in which we have received this very important step forward towards the abandonment of war as an instrument of policy.
I do not think, however, that the noble Earl said very much about the Kellogg Pact. He was interested in the naval arrangement with France. I confess, although I think the noble Earl was abundantly within his rights in asking his questions, there is a certain inconvenience in discussing this matter to-night, when we shall be engaged in discussing the same subject tomorrow. Therefore I am sure that the noble Earl will not think me disrespectful if I do not now go into the subject much in detail. In the first place, let me protest against the words "Naval Pact." It was an accord, a provisional accord, which we came to with the French Government, and communicated at once to the other Powers, upon the express condition that unless the other Powers agreed to it, it must at once fall to the ground. It is entirely wrongly described
40
as a Pact. It is merely a provisional understanding which we came to with France upon naval matters, and which we communicated at once to the United States Government and other interested Powers. Everybody knows that to be the case. Undoubtedly, that naval arrangement is at an end. We were confronted by a reception of our efforts which was not at all encouraging. I very much regret it, because I do not really know how this great disarmament problem—and it is a great problem—is to be solved unless there are preliminary understandings which are at once communicated to the other interested parties. I do not see upon what other principle you can proceed. It is no good your Lordships having any misconception of the matter. The solution of the disarmament question is profoundly difficult, and although we are properly very careful in what we say on both sides of this House, in discussing a matter of this kind, I think it is only fair to say that the difficulties do not always arise only in this country. When things go wrong we always talk as if it must be the fault of His Majesty's Government, but it must be remembered, if we all speak absolutely out, which I am the last man to desire to do, it would be found that the faults did not lie only with His Majesty's Government. I think I have said all that I need say upon this subject this evening.
As regards Reparations, I think the noble Earl asked whether Reparations were conditional upon the evacuation of the Rhineland. It is perfectly true that, as a matter of practical politics, there is a certain connection between the two; but so far as the Government are concerned, we have always been in favour of the evacuation of the Rhineland. We have always been very anxious to persuade the French Government to go forward in that direction, and we reserve to ourselves, of course, the right to push forward that policy, even independently of Reparations, if it seems to be the proper course to pursue. Lastly, there was a question as to the taking part by a certain Cavalry regiment in the manœuvres on the Rhine. The noble Earl was very anxious to find out which Department was responsible for it. His Majesty's present Government is one and indivisible, and it is not possible to say that one Department is more responsible than another. Of

41
course, in coming to a decision of this kind the War Office would consult the Foreign Office, or the Foreign Office the War Office, and the two Departments would act in strict union, but I should like to say that the reason for the proceedings was that this Cavalry regiment is the only Cavalry regiment with the British forces on the Rhine, and therefore if it is to have manœuvres at all it roust join with somebody else, and for that reason joined with the French forces. It is not unprecedented. Somewhat similar co-operation between British and French forces has taken place in previous years, although attention has not been called to it before. That is, I think, the simple straightforward explanation of what occurred.
On the whole, I do not think that the criticisms which have been made upon the Government have been very formidable to-night. At any rate I do not feel much disturbed by them, and I hope that when we get into details, as we shall begin to do to-morrow, the Government will be able as successfully to answer criticisms made upon them, as I hope I have been able to answer them to-night.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The VISCOUNT HUTCHINSON (E Donoughmore)The VISCOUNT HUTCHINSON (E Donoughmore) appointed nemine dissentiente to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
Committee for Privileges—Appointed.
Committee for the Journals—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Commission) revoked certain Letters Patent and had appointed the Duke of Devonshire, the Marquess of Reading, the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore), the Lord Granard (E. Granard), the Earl Waldegrave, the Earl of Clarendon, the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore), the Earl Beauchamp, the Earl of Plymouth, the Earl of Birkenhead, the Viscount Finlay, the Viscount Sumner, the Lord Denman, the Lord Hylton, the Lord Herschell, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Colebrooke, the Lord Buckmaster, the Lord Muir Mackenzie, the Lord Hanworth, the Lord Hailsham, the Chairman of Committees for the time being, and any person who shall have been Chairman of Committees, Speakers of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor: The said Commission was read.

BRISTOL GAS ORDER, 1928.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Bristol Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SHEFFIELD GAS ORDER, 1928.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Sheffield Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ASHFORD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the parishes of Kennington and Willesborough, in the rural district of East Ashford, in the County of Kent:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BURNLEY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the township of Briercliffe, in the rural district of Burnley, in the County Palatine of Lancaster:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

COLCHESTER ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the urban districts of West, Mersea, and Wivenhoe, and parts of the rural districts of Lexden and Winstree, Maldon and Tendring, in the County of Essex, and part of the tural districts of Samford, in the Administrative County of East Suffolk, and for the amendment of the Colchester Electric Lighting Order, 1893:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CRANBROOK ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of parts of the rural districts of Uckfield and Hailsham, in the Administrative County of East Sussex, and parts of the rural districts of Tonbridge, Maidstone and Hollingbourn, in the County of Kent, and for other purposes:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CRANLEIGH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the parish of Ewhurst, in the rural district of Hambledon, in the County of Surrey:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

DAWLISH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of part of the urban district of Dawlish and parts of the rural districts of St. Thomas and Newton Abbot, in the County of Devon:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

FELIXSTOWE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Woodbridge, in the Administrative County of East Suffolk, and for the amendment of the Felixstowe and Walton Electric Lighting Order, 1900:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LOUTH ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the Borough of Louth, in the Parts of Lindsey, in the County of Lincoln:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MAGHULL AND LYDIATE ELECTRICITY (AUGHTON EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the parish of Aughton, in the rural district of West Lancashire, in the County Palatine of Lancaster:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MID-WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the rural district of Monks Kirby and parts of the rural districts of Foleshill, Meriden, Nuneaton, Rugby and Warwick, all in the County of Warwick:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

MIDDLESBROUGH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Middlesbrough, in the North Riding of the County of York, and for the amendment of the Middlesbrough Electricity Orders, 1898 and 1924:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

PRESTON CORPORATION ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Kirkham and parts of the rural districts of the Fylde and Garstang, in the County Palatine of Lancaster:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

TAIN ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the Burgh of Tain, in the County of Ross and Cromarty:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WEST HANTS ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
Special Order in respect of the rural district of Hursley, in the County of Southampton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.