Sitting of 29 January 1930

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Company (Bridge) Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Cardiff Corporation Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Dartford and Purfleet (Thames) Tunnel Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
Liverpool Corporation Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),
London and North Eastern Railway Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),
London Electric, Metropolitan District, Central London, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),
Milford Haven Urban District Council (Water) Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),
Newport Corporation Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Coquet Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH RESIDENTS, CHINA (TAXATION).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British residents in China pay any Income Tax either to the British Government or to the Chinese Government; and whether any British residents in China pay any local taxes to the Chinese authorities?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The fact that a person is resident in China does not of itself exempt him from liability to British Income Tax. British residents in China pay no income tax to the Chinese Government. Although in general British residents in China are not legally liable to local taxation by the Chinese authorities, they do, in fact, in areas controlled by the Chinese pay municipal taxes provided that these are regular and nondiscriminatory in form and reasonable in amount.

  RUSSIA.

    PROPAGANDA.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Presidium of the Komintern of the 24th March, establishing national secretariats for Communist propaganda in many countries, including Great Britain; and what action does he propose to take to obtain the dissolution of this secretariat in Great Britain now that the exchange of Ambassadors has taken place?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Owing to the hon. Member not thinking it necessary to give the year in which the decision to which he refers was taken my Department has been involved in a great amount of research. As a result, only one decision of the 24th of March has been discovered, and that was in 1926. This resolution of the Presidium of the Comintern dealt with an organisation located in Moscow, not in England, which, in any case, was subsequently abolished, presumably because it was ineffective.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow has received any representations from British subjects in the area of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics respecting their condition; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of their representations?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have received no notification from His Majesty's Ambassador that any such representations have been made.

    BRITISH RELATIONS (DOMINIONS).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if all the British Dominions have expressed approval of the Government's policy in resuming diplomatic relations with Russia?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): I would invite the hon. Member's reference to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) on the 13th November.
    Mr. ALBERY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me in that case why my question, which was put down to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was transferred to him, in view of the reply just made?
    Mr. LUNN: I have no knowledge as to which Department the hon. Member addressed his question when he submitted it to the Clerks of the House, but it has come to me, and I have given him the answer.
    Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. I put the question down to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have received a notification from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the question would be transferred, and it is under those circumstances rather extraordinary.

  EXTRADITION LAW (CONTINENTAL COUNTRIES).
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has discussed with the Italian Ambassador the desirability of a reconsideration of the extradition treaty with Italy of 1873, and particularly of mutual provision being made for the delivery up to Great Britain and Italy, respectively, of persons charged with certain criminal offences?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. I have not discussed this matter with the Italian Ambassador. The existing extradition
  966
  treaty with Italy provides for the surrender of persons charged with, or convicted of, certain crimes specified in the treaty. It contains a provision, however, that neither party shall surrender its own nationals. Negotiations with a view to the conclusion of a new extradition treaty have been proceeding for some time past with the Italian Government. While it is proposed that the new treaty shall contain an optional clause in regard to the surrender of nationals, I would point out that, according to the provisions of the Italian Criminal Code, Italian subjects cannot be extradited from Italy.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is the Foreign Secretary fully seized of the serious allegations that were made by the Attorney-General against an Italian subject in a criminal trial last week, and is it true that, under the present Treaty, if representations are made by the British Government in such a case, provision is made under the Italian Penal Code by which the Italian authorities themselves can take action?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Yes. I think that is correct. Of course, it would involve a great amount of expense for witnesses to be taken to Italy for the trial. I believe that the Department concerned has this matter definitely under consideration.
  Sir K. WOOD: May I take it that the Foreign Secretary agrees that in the case of a friendly State, such as Italy, he does not apprehend any difficulty if a decision to that effect was arrived at?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that that is the subject of a question on the Order Paper to-morrow.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether we observe the same practice, and whether cases have occurred in which we have refused to hand over British subjects to the Italian Government?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Sir GEORGE PENNYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the Hatry case and of the existing international ramifications of business and finance, he can make representations regarding the policy of extradition with Continental countries which at present give immunity to their

  967
  nationals from being brought to England to stand trial for alleged offences against the laws of this country?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The suggestion involves considerable difficulties which are being examined.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    PARAGUAY AND BOLIVIA.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information with regard to the recent incident between Paraguay and Bolivia which has been reported by the former Government to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: An incident between Paraguayan and Bolivian forces in the Chaco district is understood to have taken place on the 17th of January. The Acting President of the Council of the League of Nations telegraphed on the 24th of January to the two Governments reminding them of the pacific settlement of the incident which took place in the same district in December. 1928, and expressing confidence that no serious occurrence would be allowed to compromise the farther successful pursuance of pacific procedure.

    NEW BUILDINGS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the erection of the new buildings of the League of Nations; whether any additional construction has taken place since the foundation stone was laid in September; and what is the reason for the continued delay?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: No actual work of construction has taken place since the laying of the foundation stone owing to certain difficulties which have been encountered by the Building Committee, chiefly in regard to the acoustics of the Assembly Hall. The architects hope to submit final plans, with detailed estimates, by the end of May or the beginning of June, and it should be possible for the actual work of construction to begin in the autumn. Certain preliminary drainage work will be started within the next few weeks. Meanwhile arrangements are being made for inviting and allotting tenders.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COAL EXPORTS TO ITALY (BRITISH SHIPPING).
    Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the hardship inflicted upon the British shipping industry, in which there is considerable unemployment, by the restriction enforced by the Italian Government that the 1,000,000 tons of coal to be exported from this country to Italy must be carried in Italian vessels; and, having regard to the fact that vessels of all nationalities, including Italian, are free to bring to this country commodities of every kind without any restrictions, will he make such representations as may be necessary to the Italian Government, to alleviate the position?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I have been asked to answer this question. I am not aware that the Italian Government have enforced any such restriction as that mentioned by the hon. Member, but under the agreement made at The Hague the arrangements for shipping the coal bought in this country for the Italian State Railways were left to the Italian Government.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Surely the hon. Member, as representing the Government, must know that none of this coal—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not asking a question.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a great amount of unemployment and hardship in the shipping industry, and that none of this tonnage of coal has yet been carried in British bottoms?
    Mr. SMITH: Possibly that may be true, having regard to the fact that the carrying of the coal was left to the Italian Government.
    Sir N GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Member make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who agreed to this arrangement, to see whether it cannot be altered?
    Mr. SMITH: I am afraid that it may be difficult, having regard to the fact that the Italian Government have shipping of

    969
    their own, to ask them, to allow their ships to stand idle while other ships are being used.
    Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLE: Is it or is it not a fact that one of the main conditions made by the Italian Government was that this coal should be shipped in Italian bottoms?
    Mr. SMITH: I have already answered. The arrangements for carrying the coal were left with the Italian Government.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Why is it that in all these cases there is absolute neglect of British interests?

    TARIFFS AND IMPERIAL TRADE.
    Mr. DIXEYasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a committee of business men and trade union leaders to consider the whole question of tariffs and imperial trade?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. HANNON: Have the Government any policy at all in regard to Imperial trade?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's answer to the question was quite definite and needs no supplementary.

    GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of its possible effect upon our export trade to foreign countries of £400,000,000 a year, the Government will reconsider its declared policy that, provided the price and the quality of the article are satisfactory, all purchases should be made within the Empire and none from foreign countries?
    Mr. LUNN: The conditions mentioned by the hon. Member in his question limit the extent to which articles can be purchased from Empire sources, and therefore no further declaration of policy seems necessary.
    Mr. MANDER: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the disastrous effect that would be produced upon our export trade if all foreign countries were to adopt the same narrow-minded and short-sighted policy?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MEDITERRANEAN ESTABLISHMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY'S VISIT).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty which were the principal naval establishments on the Mediterranean station recently inspected by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty; and what was the principal object of this inspection?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary visited the naval establishments at Malta and Gibraltar in order to acquaint himself personally with the local conditions obtaining there.
    Mr. ALBERY: May I ask whether this visit was made in company with the Secretary of State for War, and whether it had any reference to the proposals to base the Mediterranean Fleet on home ports?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: No, Sir.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it intended to cut down the dockyards at Malta and Gibraltar?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have nothing to add to what I have said. The Parliamentary Secretary visited these naval establishments in order to acquaint himself with the local conditions.
    Mr. ALBERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question, as to whether the Parliamentary Secretary was accompanied by the War Office representative?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Yes.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: What did the trip cost?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does that mean, supposing that there is no work to do in the dockyards, that the men will not be discharged into poverty but into comfort? Are the Government going to see to that?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not think that arises out of the question or the reply.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is for Mr. Speaker to decide.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a point for me, and the right hon. Gentleman took the words out of my mouth.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: But, arising out of the reply: Are these men going to be discharged and no provision made for them to live? Are they simply going to be thrown on the scrap heap in the same way as 600 men have been thrown out at Beardmore's at Parkhead just lately by a Labour Government? [Interruption.] Yes, but we are up against hard facts, and I am not going to sit here—[Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows quite well that that is not the way to behave in the House.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question does not arise out of the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is for you to say, but I have a right, when I put a question, to get an answer, and it is your duty, Sir, to see that I get an answer. [Interruption.]
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not going to have any controversy with the hon. Member. He really must obey the Rules of the House.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am supposed to have some judgment as well as you.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's supplementary question did not arise out of either the original question or the reply.

    INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS (LEAVE).
    Captain W. G. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the decision to standardise the six days' leave with pay by closing the Royal Dockyards for a week each August has caused dissatisfaction; and, if the decision continues to stand, if he will state what the position of an employé not entitled to the leave will be during the week the Royal yards are closed?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to close all the dockyards during the next August bank holiday week in order that employés may take their week's holiday with pay at the same time; and whether, owing to the diversity
    972
    of opinion, before any decision on this matter is reached a vote will be taken of the men concerned?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: After full consideration of the representations on behalf of the men concerned put forward through the machinery of the Industrial (Whitley) Council, the Board have decided, in the interests of economy and efficiency, to grant the six days' leave with pay in Admiralty industrial establishments by closing each of them for a week during the usual holiday period. The actual week to be adopted in each case, and other matters arising out of this decision, will be discussed at further meetings of the council, and the Admiralty do not propose to adopt any other method of ascertaining and discussing the views of the men than that provided by this machinery.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this point the Whitley Council has not represented the views of the men? Surely, if a week's holiday is to be given, the convenience of the men in relation to the holidays of their children should be consulted?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: We have to consider the most economic and efficient way of carrying out the general decision of the Government in this matter.
    Captain HALL: May I ask if this decision is going to apply to the staff at the Admiralty, and why it is, when economies are necessary, that the workers have always to suffer?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not quite follow the question of the hon. and gallant Member with regard to the Admiralty staff; I do not know whether he means the civil staff at the dockyards or at the central office in London. There is no need to follow the same practice in regard to the central staff, because you do not get the same difficulty of the on costs in industry. That is the governing factor in this decision. As regards the latter part of the supplementary question, I should have thought that the actions of the Government show that we do take into consideration the case of the workers.

    DOCKYARDS (ALTERNATIVE WORK).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his

    973
    attention has been called to the fact that, in spite of the declared readiness of the Admiralty to explore avenues for alternative work in the dockyards, his Department has declined to undertake by Devonport Dockyard either the design or the erection of a 2,000,000 cubic feet gas-holder which it is proposed by the Plymouth City Council to erect at St. Levan Road, Devonport, at a cost of £32,000; and whether, seeing that the work involved would provide the employment of local labour, he will in future see that it is the policy of the Admiralty not to reject offers of this nature but actually to seek them?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The invitation to tender for this work was warmly appreciated and carefully considered by the Admiralty, but it was found that to accept the invitation would require a detailed and particular knowledge of the designing and erection of modern gasholders, for which a special staff would be required without any prospect of further orders. The utmost that the Department could, in the circumstances, offer was to tender for the fabrication of the steelwork, this being the portion of the work which would, in fact, give employment to dockyard labour. An offer was made to undertake this part of the work.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when he announced that it was the intention of the Government to explore avenues for giving employment for the dockyards, the city council of Plymouth offered this work to the Admiralty in conjunction with other tenders, and that the Admiralty wrote a most off-hand letter refusing the work? Is it the policy of the Government to explore avenues for alternative work or to reject them out of hand?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that this proved to be an important scheme, and is it right for Liberal and Labour Members of Parliament to raise false hopes in the dockyard workers?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: That is an expression of opinion.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Yes, but you will agree?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: With regard to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha),
    974
    may I say that there is no possible foundation for the statement that an offhand reply was sent, and I submit to the hon. Member that he would be the first to criticise any action taken by us to provide alternative work which afterwards proved to be economically unsound. As there was no prospect of any further work of this kind for the dockyard, it was decided not to engage a special staff to design and prepare plans only for the purpose of submitting tenders.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that negotiations are now proceeding at the Conference in London, which we hope will be successful in restricting navies, may I ask whether the Admiralty is making any provision to ensure that my fellow engineers who will not be required will find some work in the dockyards?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have stated in the House that we are making careful inquiries all the time with a view to providing alternative work wherever possible; and the hon. Member may rest-assured that inquiries in that direction will be continued.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that a number of established drillers, riveters and machinists employed in Portsmouth dockyard have been served with notices of discharge as being redundant after 20 years' service, and have been offered alternative employment at greatly reduced rates of pay, some on the lowest rate for skilled labour; if he will inquire into the matter; and if he can say how these men's pensions will be affected?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Owing to a dearth of work on riveting, drilling, caulking, etc., a number of workmen, including 14 established riveters and one established machinist have become redundant. The alternatives are discharge on reduction with pension and/or gratuity earned by service or such other employment in the dockyard as is available at the appropriate rate of pay. They have been offered the only available employment, which is in the grade of painter's assistant, and it is open to the men to accept or reject this offer. By remaining in employment, these men retain a possibility of filling vacancies that may arise in their former

    975
    grade. The effect on their pensions if they accept cannot, therefore, be estimated as pensions are assessed on the average earnings for three years prior to retirement.
    Sir B. FALLE: Will these men continue to pay their establishment fee of 2s. 6d. a week?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I should imagine so, but I do not want to be committed to that statement. I would like to make inquiries. I shall do so and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir B. FALLE: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that at any rate their wage will be lower than that of any other hired men in the yard?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have already stated the facts, and, if the hon. Gentleman requires any information arising out of them, I shall be pleased to give it to him.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the reasons for the abandonment of the cruiser programme in His Majesty's Dockyards; whether he will give particulars of the effect of the Government's decision on employment in His Majesty's Dockyards and of the loss of money on the Dockyard Vote; and what steps are being taken to provide alternative work for the workpeople in the dockyard towns who would have been engaged?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the cancellation of His Majesty's Ships "Surrey" and "Northumberland." The suspension of work on these ships was decided upon by His Majesty's Government in July last for reasons of high policy fully set out in the statement the Prime Minister made in this House on the 24th July (OFFICIAL REPORT, Columns 1304–11). As very little work had been done on these ships at that date the recent decision to regard them as cancelled is of no material significance and was taken as a matter of administrative convenience in connection with the framing of the Navy Estimates. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers that have already been given on various occasions to questions in this
    976
    House, showing that it has not been necessary to reduce dockyard employment in consequence of stopping work on these and other ships. As regards the future, I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the question of alternative work. The matter continues to engage the attention of the Admiralty.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that the abandonment of two cruisers is going to have no effect whatever on the employment in the dockyards? Does he mean to say that he cannot provide any estimate of the number of men who would have been employed if the cruisers had been built?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I should have thought that the hon. Member, representing a dockyard constituency, would have known that a good deal depends upon the other classes of work done for the Navy with the particular yard, and that, as there is more than one yard, when a ship is being constructed in one yard arrangements are made with the various yards and the work is spread over Up to the present I have had no difficulty, and I do not anticipate any difficulty.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that some of us have never made a party question out of the dockyards, and will he look at some of the promises that some of the Labour men have made?

    EAST AFRICAN COAST (CRUISE).
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the projected cruise of the East Indian squadron down the coast of East Africa has been postponed; and whether any other arrangements have been made to show the British flag to our traders on the East African coast?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have no information as to any postponement of the cruise on the East African coast. It is anticipated that His Majesty's Ship "Effingham" and His Majesty's Ship "Enterprise" will leave Aden for the cruise about the 1st of May.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question, whether any other arrangements have been made to show the British flag to our traders on the East African coast?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the answer to the first part of the question makes an answer to the second part unnecessary.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is not only protection for our ships but for our trade as well? It is very important to show our flag if we are to keep our markets against the competition of the Germans and Americans.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The Government have already taken note of that, and the hon. and gallant Member may be confident that we shall do all in our power to do what he desires.
    Mr. HAYCOCK: May I ask what connection there is between cruisers, implements of death, and trade?

    CRUISER STRENGTH.
    Mr. LESTRANGE MALONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the increase or decrease in the naval Estimates in each of the next five years which would result from fixing the British cruiser-strength at 50?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: There are at present 54 British Empire cruisers built, and four in an advanced stage of construction. The effect on British Estimates of fixing the total at 50 must clearly depend on the size of cruisers retained, the type of cruiser built in replacement of those that become obsolete, and the rate at which the change is effected. Decisions on these questions depend on the conclusions of the Naval Conference.
    Mr. MALONE: Has any estimate been made as to whether the cruisers will be of 10,000 tons or smaller?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the original question.

    INVALIDED LOWER-DECK RATINGS.
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of lower-deck ratings were invalided from His Majesty's service during 1929.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The percentage of lower-deck ratings invalided from His Majesty's Navy during 1929 was 1.37.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "SELKIRK" (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).
    Captain HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware
    978
    that the Christmas leave recently given to the majority of the crew of His Majesty's Ship "Selkirk" has meant unnecessary discomfort and hardship to those remaining; and if he can see his way in future to give the periodic leave, to which men employed on fishery protection duties are entitled, from their home ports?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I am having inquiries made and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

    BATTLESHIPS (REPLACEMENT).
    Mr. MALONEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the saving to the Naval Estimates in each of the years 1930 to 1936 if replacements of battleships as provided for in Article XX of the Washington Treaty be deferred until 1936?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Assuming that the ships would be of the maximum displacement allowed by the Treaty, namely, 35,000 tons, the estimated cost of building them, which would be saved if none were laid down until the beginning of 1937, is:

    £

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    1,030,000

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    6,065,000

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    10,050,000

    1934

    …

    …

    …

    11,873,000

    1935

    …

    …

    …

    12,035,000

    1936

    …

    …

    …

    10,370,000

    OFFICERS (PHOTOGRAPHS).
    Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with regard to the instructions recently issued requiring all officers at certain stages of their naval careers to submit photographs of themselves to the Admiralty, he will state for what purposes these photographs are required; and at what stages of their naval careers officers have to submit them?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: As the answer is long and detailed, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The photographs are required to make the records of officers which are kept at the Admiralty more complete, and to assist the staffs in dealing with officers,

    979
    many of whom call at the Admiralty on personal matters. The stages of an officer's naval career at which photographs are required are as follow:

    Executive officers:

    On promotion to sub-lieutenant or mate (confirmed).

    On promotion to commander.

    On promotion to captain.

    Engineer officers:

    On promotion to sub-lieutenant (E) or mate (E) confirmed.

    On promotion to engineer commander or commander (E).

    On promotion to engineer captain or captain (E).

    Chaplains:

    On entry.

    Instructor officers:

    On entry.

    On promotion to instructor commander.

    Medical officers:

    On entry.

    On promotion to surgeon commander.

    Dental officers:

    On entry.

    On attaining six years' seniority as surgeon lieutenant-commander (D).

    Accountant officers:

    On promotion to paymaster sub-lieutenant (confirmed).

    On promotion to paymaster commander.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ADMIRALTY).
  Captain HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an assistant secretary to the Admiralty is due for retirement at an early date; and, if so, whether this opportunity will be taken to revert to the pre-War position and merge the section concerned into another Department?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the position has already been carefully reviewed and it has been decided that it would not make for convenience or efficiency to make any change in the present arrangement.
  Captain HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1914 the
  980
  Admiralty Secretariat consisted of one permanent secretary and two assistant secretaries. It now consists of one permanent secretary, one deputy-secretary, two principal assistant secretaries, and seven assistant secretaries, and does he not think that as vacancies occur economies could be made?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I have seen the hon. and gallant Member's article in a Conservative newspaper this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "The 'Daily Mail'!"]—giving similar figures. I should say at once that those figures would require careful examination and qualification. In this particular case the man to be appointed will be in charge of the Labour Department of the Admiralty which is concerned with the workers in the Dockyards, and I should have thought that the hon. Member sitting for a dockyard constituency would have desired that it should be properly staffed.
  Captain HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the man to be appointed will be sympathetic to the point of view of the men working in the dockyards?

  PALESTINE.

    DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present state of the Dead Sea concessions; and whether the agreement has been signed and ratified handing over these concessions to Mr. Novomeysky?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The hon. and gallant Member was informed on the 13th of November last that a preliminary agreement had been signed in the previous May and that the final draft of the concession was under consideration. The transaction has since been completed and a deed was signed on the 1st of January granting the concession to Palestine Potash Limited, a company formed by Mr. Novomeysky and Major Tulloch for this purpose. The concession is on the lines of the heads of agreement printed in Command Paper No. 3326.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this was repre-

    981
    sented before the Commission in Palestine to be one of the causes of the trouble in Palestine? Is it not dangerous in the present position, that the agreement should be ratified?
    Dr. SHIELS: This agreement was made by the previous Government. We were committed to it and had in honour to carry it out.

    DISTURBANCES (REPORT).
    Major NATHANasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to receive the report of the committee of inquiry into the recent disturbances in Palestine; and whether the, minutes of evidence will be published at the same time as the report?
    Dr. SHIELS: I am not in a position to say when the report will be ready. On its receipt, my Noble Friend will consider the question of publication of the voluminous evidence, whether simultaneously with the report or not.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether, simultaneously with the publication of the report, there will he issued a statement of the Government's views on the outbreak and the methods to be adopted for avoiding outbreaks in the future, in view of the fact that up to now the Government have consistently refused to express an opinion on the ground that the matter was sub judice while before the Committee?
    Dr. SHIELS: Obviously, the Government cannot express an opinion until it has had an opportunity of considering; the report.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am asking whether, when the report is issued, the Government will also issue a statement of their views. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am perfectly entitled to ask.
    Dr. SHIELS: I cannot add anything to the answer already given.
    Earl WINTERTON: Then I will put down another question on the matter.

    REPATRIATION.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that numerous Arabs from Palestine had gone to the United States under old Turkish pass-ports after the War and have been re-
    982
    fused permission to return to Palestine or to obtain Palestinian citizenship; and will he see that similar treatment is given to them as to Jews who desire to return to their country and to obtain Palestinian citzenship?
    Dr. SHIELS: Many applications for Palestinian citizenship have been accepted from Turkish nationals resident abroad who were natives of Palestine. In cases in which applications have been refused, naturalisation can be obtained by the applicants if they return to Palestine and reside there for two years. Visas for Palestine are freely granted to any natives of Palestine who desire to return to that country if they can prove that they were born in Palestine and still possess Turkish citizenship, subject to the usual restrictions in regard to such matters as character and disease. The law and regulations on this subject apply to all persons born in Palestine, without distinction of race.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Why is it any more difficult for Arabs to come into the country than for the 100,000 Jews who have come in from Eastern Europe during the past 10 years? Why is there this differentiation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: On a point of Order. I was asking a definite question of fact, and it was not a hypothetical question at all. I asked why such a differentiation should be made.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I thought I heard the word "if" in the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary question.
    Colonel HOWARD BURY: No, I never mentioned the word "if."

  KENYA (DEFENCE FORCE).
  Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Select Committee revising the Budget of Kenya have insisted on an addition of £9,000 for the European Defence Force, and a corresponding reduction in other Votes; and whether the Governor and the official members agreed with the members elected by the settlers on this matter?
  Dr. SHIELS: The position is still as stated in my reply to the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) on the 22nd January. A despatch from the Governor may be expected to arrive at an early date.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in November I got the answer that the Governor assured him that he had no apprehension regarding defence at that time, and that three months afterwards this resolution was passed? Does it not look as if the circumstances were not as stated in November? Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Governor to keep in touch with the settlers so that he can fairly represent their views?
  Dr. SHIELS: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman says will be taken into consideration when the despatch arrives.

  SEA FISHERIES (KENYA AND TANGANYIKA).
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any assistance has been given to research into the question of sea fisheries off the east coasts of Kenya and Tanganyika?
  Dr. SHIELS: By agreement between the Governments of Kenya, Zanzibar, and the Tanganyika Territory, arrangements were made for Dr. von Bonde, Government Marine Biologist and Director of the Fisheries and Marine Biological Survey, Union of South Africa, to visit East Africa for the purpose of surveying the sea fisheries. Dr. von Bonde, who arrived at Mombasa on the 20th September, 1928, has made reports on the sea fisheries of Kenya and Zanzibar. As no suitable vessel was available for continuing the survey as far as Dar-es-Salaam, the Government of the Tanganyika Territory decided not to participate in the survey.

  IRAQ (BRITISH RAILWAY OFFICIALS).
  Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been come to regarding the future position of British officials on the Iraq railways?
  Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) on the 20th of November last.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: Are we to understand—taking into account the reply to which the hon. Gentleman refers—that a final decision has been come to regarding the future of these officials.
  Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, that is not so. Negotiations are still proceeding as opportunity offers. The position is that these arrangements were not made when the railways were taken over by the Iraq Government, and, therefore, we can only proceed at present by negotiation, and whenever possible this is being done.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question has now been hanging over for a number of years, and does he not think that the time has come to put an end to it; and is not the future of these British officials a matter of concern to the Colonial Office?
  Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir, it is a matter of great concern, but I must point out that the railways have now passed under the control of the Iraq Government. This matter was not settled at the time when that control was taken over, and, therefore, the conditions are not favourable for pressing the matter from our side. We are doing what we can.
  Mr. EVERARD: When are we likely to have a specific reply?
  Dr. SHIELS: I can give no date and no assurance except that we are trying to regularise the position. We are anxious to make it right, but we can act in the matter only as we have the opportunity and the power.

  UGANDA (AWARDS FOR GALLANTRY).
  Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information with regard to the action of a native on the Kagera Road, Uganda, who, by mounting and spearing a lioness, saved the life of Major Mathews, who was being mauled by the lioness and whether it is proposed to keep a record of these cases of exceptional bravery and secure some suit-

  985
  able award to be made by the Government in each case?
  Dr. SHIELS: I have no information regarding the incident referred to in the first part of the question. Should exceptional acts of bravery of this kind be brought to the notice of the Governor of a Colony, Protectorate or Mandated Territory, it is open to him to submit a recommendation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who would consider whether he could put forward the case as one in which recognition could appropriately be made by the award of the Albert Medal or the Medal for Gallantry or Meritorious Service of the Order of the British Empire, or in any other way.

  MALAYA.

    MUI-TSAI.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the existence of the system of mui-tsai in Malaya?
    Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has not yet received from Malaya the Report for which he has asked.

    INDIANS (TODDY DRINKING).
    Major GRAHAM POLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that there has been a serious increase in the habit of toddy drinking amongst certain sections of the Indian community in Malaya, and that Indian public opinion has expressed itself strongly in this matter and representations have been made to the authorities; and what steps are being taken to check the growth of this evil?
    Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has seen the criticism to this effect in the last Report of the Agent of the Government of Indian in Malaya. The High Commissioner for the Malay States will be asked for a report on the matter.

    TEACHERS.
    Major POLEasked the Under- Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been arrived at by the authorities in Malaya in regard to the proposal that, in view of the shortage of properly trained teachers for the schools on the estates, trained ele-
    986
    mentary school teachers should be recruited from South India until facilities are provided for training a sufficient number of vernacular teachers locally?
    Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has no information of any decision, but will ask the High Commissioner for a report.

  TANGANYIKA.

    TRADES LICENSING ORDINANCE.
    Major POLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give information in regard to the languages in which accounts necessary under the Trades Licensing Ordinance have to be rendered by traders in Tanganyika whose profits exceed £150?
    Dr. SHIELS: The Ordinance to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was repealed in March, 1927. Traders in Tanganyika do not now have to render accounts.

    RAILWAY SCHEME.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken on the Report of Mr. E. Gillman on the project for a new railway to open up the south-west of Tanganyika territory; whether the proposal has yet been submitted to the Advisory Committee under the recent Colonial Development Act: and whether it is the decision of His Majesty's Government to proceed as soon as possible with the construction of such a railway?
    Dr. SHIELS: Mr. Gillman's Report is a summarised version of surveys, which have been carried out during the last few years, of routes for a projected railway from some point on the Tanganyika Central Railway to a point on the Northern Rhodesia border. The alternatives discussed in the Report require further examination locally before the Governor can submit definite proposals, but, as soon as he is in a position to make a recommendation, it will be promptly considered and referred to the Colonial Development Committee.

  NIGERIA (ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE).
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if in view of the fact that litigants and

  987
  persons appearing before the provincial and native courts of South Nigeria are denied the right of retaining counsel to represent them, even in cases of persons charged with murder, and that persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment by the provincial courts of South Nigeria have no right of appeal or to ask for a case stated, he will take steps to bring the administration of justice in South Nigeria into conformity with modern standards?
  Dr. SHIELS: For an account of the court system in Nigeria generally. I would refer the hon. Member to Lord Lugard's Report on the Amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria and the Administration of the Dependency, published in 1920 as Cmd. 468. Native courts administer native law and custom, and their procedure is in no way modelled on that of the British Courts, and legal practitioners have never been admitted. In regard to the Provincial Courts, the reasons for not admitting legal practitioners are set forth in paragraph 50 of the Report which I have mentioned, but in regard to cases of murder, every accused person before a Provincial Court may apply to have the case transferred to the Supreme Court. As every sentence of a Provincial Court is reviewed before it is carried into effect, it has not, so far, been considered that there is any necessity for setting up further machinery to provide for appeals in criminal cases, while, in civil cases, appeals lie to the Supreme Court in any case over £50.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: By whom are the decisions reviewed?
  Dr. SHIELS: They are reviewed by the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, and, finally, by the Governor.
  Major NATHAN: Is this not the only instance to be found throughout the British Empire and the Protectorates where an accused person is denied the advantage of being represented by counsel before an official tribunal?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask if it is not axiomatic in the system of indirect rule in Nigeria that the native law and the native methods of carrying out justice should not be interfered with, and that, as far as possible, these cases should be left to the native courts?
  Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir, and I think it has been agreed that the system has worked well in the past and that these matters are better dealt with by purely native courts—which understand them better and have a better acquaintance with local conditions—than in the way suggested.

  FIJI (FRANCHISE).
  Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a Report from the Governor of Fiji as to the outcome of the conference convened by him on the franchise question; and whether he can state what the present position is regarding the vacancies in the legislature created by the resignation of the Indian Members?
  Dr. SHIELS: The Secretary of State is awaiting a despatch on the situation from the Governor of Fiji which is expected to arrive early in February.

  EAST AFRICA (CUSTOMS DUTIES AND RAILWAY RATES).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a summary of the conclusions of the recent conference of East African Governors regarding customs duties and railway rates has been received; whether their recommendations have received the approval of His Majesty's Government; and when the nature of the recommendations will be made public?
  Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has received a telegraphic summary of the provisional agreement reached at the conference concerning protective customs duties and preferential railway rates. Further local discussions are now taking place in regard to the conference recommendations on these matters. As has been announced in the Press, the conference also appointed an expert committee to examine in detail existing customs tariffs (excluding certain protective duties) and to recommend whether any alterations are necessary in the light of past working. My Noble Friend has not yet received the full report of the conference and no approval on the part of His Majesty's Government has been signified. He cannot say when the East African

  989
  Governments concerned will he in a position to make public the recommendations of the conference.

  WEST INDIES SUGAR INDUSTRY (COMMISSION).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the Commission on the Sugar Industry in the British West Indian Colonies is likely to be received; whether the members of the Commission are being paid any fees in addition to travelling expenses and subsistence allowances; and, if so, of what amounts and who will bear the cost of such payments?
  Dr. SHIELS: The Commission have just returned to this country and my Noble Friend expects to receive their Report at an early date. Fees amounting to £1,207 10s. are being paid to the members of the Commission, in addition to travelling expenses and subsistence allowances. The total cost of the Commission is being borne by the Colonies visited, and the expenditure will be allocated between them.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is there any precedent for the whole cost of a Commission of Inquiry sent out at the request of a Colony, being borne by the Colony, and, as these Colonies happen to be very poor, why has not the precedent, whereby portions of the expense is borne by the Imperial taxpayer, been followed in this case?
  Dr. SHIELS: I understand that this arrangement was agreed to between the Colonies concerned and the Government.
  Mr. THURTLE: Is it not quite a new departure to pay fees to members of a Commission like this in addition to their expenses?
  Dr. SHIELS: I must have notice of that question.
  Colonel ASHLEY: What was the payment made to the Chairman of that Commission?
  Dr. SHIELS: I shall require notice of that question also.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can we have the names of the Commission?

  HONG KONG (SLAVE TRADE).
  Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any information has yet been received from the reported discovery of a gang of slave traders in Hong Kong, whose operations extend into China for the purpose of securing children in order to sell them in the British Colony of Hong Kong?
  Dr. SHIELS: My noble Friend has received from the Governor a report of the occurrence to which my hon. Friend refers. There was, however, no evidence secured to show that the persons arrested were members of a gang, but it appeared that each establishment of the several traffickers was independent of the others. All the children discovered by the Hong Kong police had been brought into the Colony from Chinese territory and in no instance was any evidence forthcoming that they had been kidnapped. Several were claimed by the would-be vendors to be their own offspring, and those who were old enough to give an account of themselves usually claimed relationship. They were, at the time the Governor sent his report, being cared for by various charitable institutions in Hong Kong. 47 of the traffickers had at that date been arrested, of whom 17 had been deported from the Colony after due inquiry.

  COAST DEFENCE BILL.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Prime Minister if he intends to proceed with the Coast Defence Bill or if he intends to withdraw it and cause it to be re-introduced in a form in accordance with the many Amendments put forward on the Committee stage at the instance of several local bodies and other associations?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I ask the Prime Minister to get in touch with the local authorities, who are perfectly willing to help him get on with the Bill provided their objections are met, and may I stress the need of the unemployed, who will benefit considerably by a suitable Bill being introduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have done my best, seeing the interest taken in this Bill by several Members of the House, to master the problems presented by the Amendments, and to me, unfortunately, it is rather evident on the face of it that the Amendments are not all from local authorities genuinely wanting the Bill; but, if anything can be done in order to reduce the opposition to the Bill to a reasonable compass, I shall be only too glad to see what facilities are possible for the Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is for him to suggest the best means of having a conference or other measures with the local authorities, and that it is not for us private Members to suggest to him the best means?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My point is this, that, if a conference with friendly local authorities would really remove the difficulties, that conference would be arranged, but that would not, I think, remove the difficulties.

  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give early facilities for the Trade Disputes Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This Bill will be introduced as soon as possible this Session.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is it true that the Prime Minister stated to the representatives of the trade unions a few days ago that, while he hoped to be able to proceed with the Land Drainage Bill this Session, it was exceedingly doubtful if the Trade Disputes Bill could make sufficient progress to pass into law at any rate immediately?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should hope that ex-Ministers are not going to make themselves responsible for tittle-tattle.
  Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is true or not, and is he not aware that that statement appears in the official Labour organ?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that the statement appeared in the official Labour organ; but, at the same
  992
  time, I think, if I may say so respectfully, that ex-Ministers should not make themselves responsible for retailing these statements without inquiry.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: May we make the inquiry now, and will the Prime Minister give the answer?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has not improved matters. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is his function in this House to take up this question, and then to ask the question—[Interruption.]
  Colonel ASHLEY: When an ex-Cabinet Minister asks the right hon. Gentleman a question, will he have the courtesy to answer it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly. But ex-Cabinet Ministers as a rule have the courtesy not to put questions of the nature of those which have been put to me just now, whether a certain rumour that I said something to somebody else is true or not.

  IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  Brigadier-General MAKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when the work of the Irish Grants Committee will be completed; and whether by this date it is expected that all exceptional cases will be re-investigated and settled?
  Mr. LUNN: I understand that the Irish Grants Committee expect to complete their work by the first week in February.

  IRISH LIGHTS (MAINTENANCE).
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the British Government are still bearing the expense of the lights on the coast of the Irish Free State; what is the total sum spent in this respect since the establishment of the Irish Free State as a British Dominion; and why, in view of the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, this charge is not borne by the Irish Free State?
  Mr. LUNN: As explained in the replies given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on the 19th and 26th Novem-

  993
  ber by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the cost of maintaining Irish lights has been met out of the general lighthouse fund, and no contribution has been made from the public funds of this country. The general question of the future administration of the lights is still under consideration.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is an express provision in the annexe to the Irish Treaty that the cost of maintaining lights round the Irish coast would in future be borne by the Irish Free State, and is he aware that some £250,000 a year is being paid in the manner in which he described, which ought to be borne by the Irish Free State under the Treaty?
  Mr. LUNN: I do not think my answer contradicts anything that has been suggested in the supplementary question. What I said was that negotiations are now proceeding on this matter.
  Mr. KELLY: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when these negotiations with regard to pensions are likely to terminate?
  Sir W. DAVISON: Arising out of the reply—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not asking supplementary questions, but merely giving information.
  Mr. DIXEY: On a point of Order. I should like to ask for my guidance, and for the guidance of hon. Members opposite, whether hon. Members in this House who very rarely ask questions are ever entitled to have a reply from the Front Bench opposite?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a question for me to answer.

  LABRADOR.
  Mr. HURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if his attention has been called to the announcement of the Finance Minister of Newfoundland that Newfoundland is willing to sell for £60,000,000 the 120,000 square miles which that Dominion owns in Labrador; and whether he will make inquiries from the Newfoundland Government as to the character of their intentions?
  Mr. LUNN: I have not seen the report referred to by the hon. Member, though I am aware that references have, from time to time, been made in the Press to the question of the possible sale of Labrador to Canada. The Secretary of State does not think that there is cause for inquiries on his part at the moment.
  Mr. HURD: If it should prove, as stated in the telegrams from St. John's, that the Finance Minister has made this statement, will the Government make inquiries?
  Mr. LUNN: At the moment, we have no information upon this matter except that which has appeared in the Press, and we see no reason at the moment to make inquiries. If there is anything that comes from the Dominion Government asking for such, they will be undertaken.

  AVIATION.

    CONTINENTAL AIRPORTS (MINISTER'S VISIT).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air which were the principal Continental airports recently visited by him during his trip to study Continental air transport systems?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The airports which I visited were those at Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Copenhagen, Malmo, Lubeck, Travemunde, Berlin, Dresden, Prague, Vienna, Munich, Nurenburg, Frankfurt, Cologne and Brussels. So far the question is answered, but I would like to add that my journey over nine countries in ten different types of aeroplanes in four-and-a-half days afforded convincing evidence of the comfort and efficiency of Continental air travel.
    Mr. ALBERY: Can the hon. Gentleman say by what staff he was accompanied, and whether he made the voyage as a guest of the Continental transport lines?

    AIRSHIPS (COST).
    Captain HAROLD BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if the Air Ministry charge a reproduction fee in respect of all photographs published of airship R101; if so, what

    995
    is the amount of revenue so derived to date from this charge; and whether this practice is customary in respect of all photographs portraying Government aircraft?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer to the first and last parts of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part that the amount received up to 31st December, 1929, in respect of reproduction fees, was £67.
    Major SALMONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the amount of the Estimate originally submitted to the House for the construction of R101; what is its actual cost; and what was the actual total cost of R100?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: As regards the first two parts of the question, the original estimate was a composite one for the whole airship programme, of 1924, but the sum provided for the construction of R101 may be put at approximately £300,000. Owing to the novel and experimental character of the design, the time taken in construction proved materially longer than had originally been estimated, and in consequence, this figure had subsequently to be increased; and in the Air Estimates for 1929 a figure of £527,000 was given for this purpose. The figure of actual cost cannot yet be stated. As regards the last part of the question, I have no official information, but it has been publicly stated that the cost of constructing R100 largely exceeded the contract price of £350,000.
    Major SALMON: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is to the interest of the State that airships—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Lees.

    LOSS OF "CITY OF ROME."
    Mr. LEESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if any report has yet been received from the Italian Government about the loss of the seaplane "City of Rome"?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Yes, Sir; a report has been received from the Italian Air Ministry, but it relates mainly to the working of that department's organisation on the Naples-Genoa route. I am afraid that nothing material can be added to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend on 27th November.
    Mr. LEES: In previous replies the hon. Gentleman informed us that the Italian Government had not sent a report; what steps has the Minister taken with a view to getting it?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that a report has been received from the Italian Government.

  COAL MINES [MONEY].
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is proposed to withdraw the Financial Resolution which we debated yesterday, and to substitute a new one; if so, when will it be put down?
  The PRIME MINISTER: A revised Money Resolution to the Coal Mines Bill will be placed on the Order Paper tonight. I understand that it is to be in an agreed form—[Interruption.] I have only been able to make inquiries as to what was intended, and the intention is to come to an agreement as to the wording of the Resolution in accordance with what happened yesterday in the House. In accordance with the understanding reached yesterday afternoon, it is proposed to take the revised Resolution as the first Order to-morrow.
  Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow us, through the usual channels, to see the Resolution.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Mr. BALDWIN: The right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly stated the agreement that was arrived at yesterday.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I asked that this should be done, and I was informed that there was so little chance of any disagreement, that I could quite safely announce this in the form which I had used.
  Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Provided, of course, the Prime Minister can give an assurance that the Resolution is wide enough to carry all the Amendments on the Paper.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that an opportunity will be given to see the Resolution before it is put down; that will be a great help. The right hon.

  997
  Gentleman has stated the arrangement very fairly.
  The PRIME MINISTER: According to my request, the Resolution will be shown before it is put down, and it will be put down in an agreed form.

FANCY JEWELLERY (STANDARD TRADE DESCRIPTIONS).
Mr. WILFRID WHITELEY: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1911, and to define certain trade descriptions as applied to articles in the fancy jewellery and allied trades."
The object of the Bill is to give statutory meaning and effect to certain terms current in the fancy jewellery and allied trades, such as gold front, rolled gold, gold filled, and others which I need not mention. The expressions are not new but, owing to the absence of any statutory definition or consistent practice, they have taken on conflicting meanings. Purchasers have, therefore, no indication of the real nature of the article offered to them. The result is frequent deception of the public, and demoralising competition within the trade. The meaning of these descriptions were long since agreed upon by practically the whole trade, after careful consideration and a good deal of research. Such associations, with far-reaching ramifications, as the Birmingham Jewellers' and Silversmiths' Association, the London Wholesale Jewellers' and Allied Trades Association, the National Association of Goldsmiths, and others, have for some considerable time been in agreement about this. It is also a matter of interest that already in Canada legislation with regard to this class of goods has been embodied in the Precious Metals Act. Australia, also, has some legislation, and I understand that she is prepared to bring it into line with ours when this Bill is placed upon the Statute Book.
There is also a wider international aspect to this matter in that the International Conference of Gold, Silver and Allied Trades, upon which 22 nations are represented, has the subject under consideration, and I understand there is every likelihood that the terms of this Bill will be adopted by them. The Bill
998
has been considered and approved by the following bodies likely to be affected by it: The Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, His Majesty's Customs, the Board of Trade and the Law Society. Nothing in the Bill is restrictive of trade, nor is there anything in it to prevent the manufacture at home or the import from abroad of the cheapest or the most expensive goods of the type covered by the Bill. In short, the Bill seeks to assure that goods which are covered by it, whether they are manufactured at home or abroad, shall correspond with the descriptions marked upon, attached to, or used in conjunction with them.
To the older Members of the House, at least, this Bill is probably fairly well known. So far back as February, 1924, it was introduced by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and on other occasions since the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has brought it forward; but there are two new features about its introduction to-day. One is that, for the first time, the Bill is backed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and another, which I count as of especial importance, is that the organised workers in the trade are now ranged behind this particular Bill. Speaking through their national organisation, the National Union of Gold, Silver and Allied Trades have given their blessing on this occasion. With the optimism of a new Member I trust that not only will leave be given to bring in the Bill, but that the Bill may even go further than on any previous occasion.
Mr. HARRIS: As the hon. Member who is now sponsoring the Bill has told us, this is a very old friend. It has almost grown a white mane. For many years hon. Members now sitting in Opposition above the Gangway brought in this Bill, and year in and year out hon. Members opposite consistently opposed it as being a mischievous, interfering and bureaucratic proposal. The principal opponent is now in the pleasant position of First Lord of the Admiralty. I am sorry he is not here to oppose it to-day, as he is far more conversant with its machinery than I can pretend to be, but I maintain that at this time, above all others, this is the kind of Bill which ought to be resisted, because it will hamper industry, make employment more

999
difficult and interfere with our export trade. Already there is ample protection for the trade. There is a state organisation, the Assay Office, whose business it is to test and to prove all articles which are manufactured from precious metals. Here is a remarkable instance of hon. Members opposite not believing in State enterprise. They want to interfere with what in the past has been the prerogative of the Crown—to standardise articles made of the precious metals.
So far as I can see the inspiration, the whole inspiration, of this Bill comes from Birmingham. This is thoroughly "Brummagen" in manufacture. It is inspired with all the worst traditions of Birmingham industry. They feel that by putting barriers in the way of trade, by regulations of the kind proposed in the Bill, that somehow or other they will be strengthening their position to obtain a monopoly. The very last thing we ought to do at the present time is to manufacture new crimes. This Bill is related to the Trade Marks Act, 1911, and amending Acts, which make it a serious offence, punishable by heavy penalties, if any wrong description is applied to gold cases, jewellery, plate or any thing made out of precious metals. I maintain that that law is adequate for all the purposes of the trade, and if it is necessary to strengthen the law the new legislation should not be proposed by a trade organisation, should not be fathered by a private Member, but should be brought in officially by the Government Department concerned, the Board of Trade or the Home Office. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. Member say that this Bill was approved by His Majesty's Customs. They have a very good guardian in the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he thinks it necessary to amend the law to protect the public and stop fraud, a Bill can be introduced with all the authority of a Minister of the Crown. I hope this Bill will not become law, because there are far too many difficulties in the way of industry at the present time, and we do not want to put more sand in the machine.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by MT. Wilfrid Whiteley, Sir A. Chamberlain, Sir A. Steel-Maitland, Mr. Strachey, Mr.
1000
Simmons, Mr. Gossling, Mr. Longden, Mr. Sawyer, and Mr. Hannon.

FANCY JEWELLERY (STANDARD TRADE DESCRIPTIONS).
  FANCY JEWELLERY (STANDARD TEADE DESCRIPTIONS) BILL,
  "to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1911, and to define certain trade descriptions as applied to articles in the fancy jewellery and allied trades," presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Wednesday, 12th February, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]
BILLS REPORTED.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 13) BILL [Lords],
  reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]: Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRADFORD EXTENSION) BILL,
  reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Arbitration (Foreign Awards) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

EMPIRE FREE TRADE.
Mr. REMER: I beg to move,
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Empire should be developed as a single economic unit with internal free trade as the ideal; and that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom be urged to open negotiations with the other Governments of the Empire with a view to the formulation of a policy designed to secure that the purchasing power of the Empire shall he directed primarily to the full employment of the inhabitants of the Empire."
In moving the Motion which stands in my name, I think most Members of the House know that I am not a new convert to this cause. There appears in my Election Address at the last General Election these words:
"IMPERIAL PREFERENCE AND EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.—I also stand for the continuance and extension of Imperial Preference. It has proved to be of immense value to our export trade, and I sincerely hope that by pushing forward the ideal of Joseph Chamberlain we may achieve his ultimate aim of Free Trade within the British Empire."
4.0 p.m.
Most Members of this House are well aware of a book which was written by the great Conservative leader Benjamin Disraeli, called "Endymion." One of the characters of that book is a thinly-disguised replica of Richard Cobden, and that character is made to say that if the Corn Laws were repealed, in five years the hostile tariffs of the world would come tumbling down. In my copy of that book there appears, in my father's handwriting, the statement: "Forty years have passed, and the hostile tariffs are still there." Ninety years have passed, and the hostile tariffs are very much worse than they were in my father's time. I have been told by many people that this scheme is impossible. To the faint-hearted all things are impossible. I have been told that there are difficulties. Difficulties are things made for statesmen to get over. This is a great problem, and I ask the House to approach it, not in a party spirit, but in the spirit which the Prime Minister referred to at the opening of this Parliament, in a council of the nation, forgetting shibboleths which are 90 years old, forgetting quarrels which are 40 years old, even forgetting quarrels of last May, and to approach this sub-
1030
ject in a big, statesmanlike way and try to find in what way we can help our industries, our country and our Empire.
The first question I was going to ask the House to consider is: Is it worth while? The British Empire is the largest fiscal unit in the world, and it can be made the largest economic unit, covering as it does 12,500,000 square miles, populated by 440,000,000 people, or one-fourth of the territory and one-fourth of the population of the world. Quite apart from the £300,000,000 of manufactured goods which come to this country from foreign countries, there is the great flow of foreign goods into our Crown Colonies and Dominions. If we examine the raw materials, we find that the Empire produces 24 per cent. of the coal of the world, 71 per cent. of the gold, 80 per cent. of the nickel, 99 per cent. of the jute, 58 per cent. of the rubber, 62 per cent. of the palm products, and 22 per cent. of the wheat. The annual imports into the British Empire amount to no less than £2,200,000,000, and it is important to note that out of that figure foreign countries supply as much as £1,400,000,000, or very nearly two-thirds. I would like hon. Members to compare that figure of £1,400,000,000 with our total exports of £750,000,000.
Let us consider our Crown colonies and Dominions. Take, first of all, the Crown colonies and the non-self-governing colonies. For the purpose of convenience, I am going to divide the colonies into three groups. There is, first of all, the American group composed of the West Indies, and the two territories in the South American mainland—British Guiana and British Honduras. There is the African group, with ports on the East and West coasts of the continent of Africa, and there is the Asiatic group composed of the Malay States, Hong Kong, Ceylon and Borneo. I am dealing with these first, because here we are seeing the greatest development and the greatest increase of trade. These territories are being developed by our brains, our resources, our initiative and our capital, and they have been established by British pioneers. What are we doing it for? Apparently, at the present time we are developing those territories solely in order to find trade for our foreign competitors, for, if we

1031
examine the figures, we find that out of the total imports into those territories, this country sends only 26 per cent., and those territories are rapidly increasing in their trade. If the rate of increase that has taken place during the last five years is maintained, the present figure of imports into those territories of £250,000,000 will reach in the year 1932 the figure of £430,000,000, and in 1940 as much as £1,000,000,000. I ask the House to compare those figures with the total exports of this country amounting to £750,000,000.
I would like the House to turn its attention for a few moments to the great Empire of India. When Joseph Chamberlain started his campaign in 1903, there was an Excise in the Bombay cotton mills of 3½ per cent. There was an equivalent import duty of 3½ per cent. also on goods which Lancashire sent to India. To-day the Excise has gone, and the cotton goods from Lancashire and all other countries going into India pay an import duty of 11 per cent. What has been the result? In 1913 the proportion of Lancashire trade which was secured in cotton in India was 43 per cent., and Lancashire sent to India as much as 3,000,000,000 yards of cotton cloth. In 1928 Lancashire was able to send to India only 1,500,000,000 yards of cotton cloth. Where has that trade gone? Hon. Members may think that it has gone to the Bombay mills, but a close scrutiny which has been made by economists shows that this trade has very largely gone to Japan and also to Italy and other Continental countries. Japan sent to India in five pre-War years an average of only 3,000,000 yards, whereas last year the figure was 357,000,000 yards. I have here an extract from the "Financial Times" of Monday last, which I propose to read:
"At an extraordinary meeting of the Cotton Federation, at which the President, Mr. Fred Holroyd, presided, called to review the state of the trade, a statement was made that in the coarser counts of cotton margins had a tendency to get worse. This they were inclined to attribute to the activities of Japan, particularly in the Indian market. During the eight months ended October last, while our imports of cloth to India declined by over 40,000,000 square yards, the imports of Japan increased by 116,000,000 square yards, or more than a third of the total British imports."
I have extracted some figures as to Japanese wages which have been taken
1032
from a book published by the International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers Association by Mr. Arnot Pearse, on his visit to Japanese and Chinese cotton mills, with a preface by Mr. Frederick Holroyd, president of that federation, which it would repay all hon. Members on the opposite side interested in trade unionism to read. The conclusion which Mr. Pearse arrives at as to the comparison between British and Japanese wages is that, taking into account the welfare system in Japanese cotton mills, the wages in the Japanese mills are less than one-half what they are in the British mills; and let it be noted that, in spite of the fact that the Japanese mills have announced to the League of Nations that they have abolished night work, the women and children at the present time work in those mills from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. in two shifts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under Protection!"] If we look at the importation of Japanese cotton goods into East Africa, it is sufficiently alarming, and I am quite satisfied, from the investigation I have made, that the main cause of the trouble in Lancashire at the present moment is the serious Japanese competition which is taking place all over the world. In this country at the present moment, Japanese cloth is being sold even in Manchester. I think that if our forefathers had heard of cotton goods being sold in Manchester, let alone talking about taking coals to Newcastle, they would almost have said that such a thing was impossible and unbelievable.
The second question I ask the House to consider is: Can if be done? It can be done, and it must be done. In the French fiscal system all colonies and territories in a similar position to Crown colonies have been placed in the French Fiscal Union. Turning to the United States of America, where years ago tariffs existed between State and State, to-day there is complete Free Trade within the entire unit of the United States of America. In addition to that, included in the United States fiscal system are the islands of Porto Rico and Guam, and also to a very large extent the Philippine Islands. If I may take as an example the island of Porto Rico, which is in close proximity to Jamaica, we find that the value of the trade of that island was four times as great as

1033
that of Jamaica, and that 86 per cent. of the imports were taken from the United States of America, while in the case of Jamaica only 28 per cent. of her imports came from us. Take the case of Algeria: 79 per cent. of its imports came from France, while Madagascar took 81 per cent. Compare the figures of that one island with the imports to our own colonies of only 26 per cent.
I would ask the House to turn its consideration for a moment to Canada. By joining in she would have the resources of the colonies at her disposal equally with Great Britain, and their wide and great markets open to her. Moreover, there is only one country in the world capable of absorbing the wheat surplus of Canada, namely, Great Britain. Until the flow of cheap wheat from the Argentine and dumped wheat and flour from the continent of Europe is checked, the Canadian farmer, as well as the British farmer, will be faced with ruin. I ask the House to consider for a moment the question of wheat. In 1928, we purchased from Canada £22,000,000 worth of wheat, and we purchased from the Argentine £14,000,000 worth of wheat. In 1929, we purchased only £14,000,000 worth of wheat from Canada, but our purchases from the Argentine went up to £23,000,000.
Let us consider for a moment the position in Australia. I have been told that Mr. Scullin, the Prime Minister of Australia, is one of the greatest dangers to this scheme; but in my opinion a far greater danger is the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems to worship every morning at the shrine of Cobden with the fervour of a religious maniac. There have been signs in Australia within the last few days that, in that colony, there is a considerable body of opinion in favour of the principle of Empire Free Trade. Although the country party have not as yet finally passed this Resolution, we have reason to believe that they will take up this cause with enthusiasm. Australia could not fail to benefit by Empire Free Trade because 95 per cent. of her exports may be classed as primary products. Like Canada, Australia has been driven out of the British market by the imports from the Argentine. As Canada has been suffering in the case of wheat, so has Australia been suffering in the case of meat, Before the War Australia sent us 170,000,000 lbs.
1034
of beef per year, and since the War those imports have dropped to an average of 100,000,000 lbs. per year. It is important to note that under the new Government of Australia great efforts are being made to make Australia a great wheat-producing country. There are also some other minor Australian industries, such as wine and fruit, which are capable of great development.
Let me now turn to South Africa. It can be similarly said that South Africa would benefit to a very material extent by this policy. If we examine her imports, and leave gold, silver and diamonds out of consideration, we find that South African exports amount to £33,000,000, and there is great anxiety in the Union to increase its agricultural wealth. In the Union, there are 10,500,000 head of cattle, and yet South Africa only exported to the value of £170,000 in 1927. An Empire Free Trade market, involving, as it would, a tariff on foreign beef would give South Africa the opportunity to market more beef in this country. South Africa is exporting more and more fruit every year, and her exports in this respect have exceeded £1,000,000. There is an added advantage in assisting this fruit business, because we know it is grown, packed and shipped under wholesome conditions which is not always the case with the goods shipped from the Near East. There is also the sugar industry of Natal, which an Empire Free Trade market) would do a great deal to assist. Her exports of wool do not exceed £17,000,000, and yet Great Britain paid £15,000,000 to foreign countries for wool in 1927. Now I come to the Dominion of New Zealand. It should be noted that this island gives the largest preference and more trade per head of her population than any of our Dominions and Colonies; and yet, in spite of this, there is not one single item in our fiscal system which gives New Zealand assistance of any kind.
My third question is: How can my object be carried out? It can be done immediately. It can be done immediately by the formation of what I am going to describe as the British Empire Fiscal Union, and that Union would embrace, not merely these small islands, but all the non-self-governing Colonies, and that plan could be put into operation at once. It could be put into operation by placing

1035
a tariff on all foreign goods, so that these non-self-governing Colonies would be inter-trading between each constituent part and the Motherland. Look at the advantage that would be to this country! Not only would there be £300,000,000 worth of manufactured goods from abroad coming into this country, but also £200,000,000 worth of merchandise which comes into our non-self-governing Colonies. We should have greater scope for our manufacturers and producers of raw material and food in those non-self-governing Colonies. The House may ask: What are you going to do about the self-governing Dominions? We have given them self-government, and we cannot interfere with their discretion, but we can negotiate. They would say that their infant industries need protection against British competition. It is no part of this scheme that we should attempt in any way to crush any industries within the British Empire. There are many precedents which can be turned up where a tariff has been raised within a customs union.
May I now turn back for a moment to India. It might be said that the Bombay Mills would need protection of some kind, brut I have the highest authority for saying that the Bombay millowners are not in the least afraid of British competition. What they are really afraid of is Japanese competition. In the negotiations which our Empire would undertake, it would be the obvious duty of the British representative to suggest that the way in which we could help British trade would be to place a higher tariff on foreign cotton going into India than is charged upon British cotton, and that would enable our own mills to secure more trade. It may be asked: What is India going to gain in exchange I We would offer to India a great free trade market in the British Empire Fiscal Union which I have described. We should secure advantages for the Lancashire cotton spinners and weavers, which would be of untold value to all the workers in that industry. After all, India is losing the British market. In 1924, we bought £24,000,000 worth of Indian tea, and more than £6,000,000 worth of Indian wheat. In 1929, we bought only about £20,000,000 worth of tea, and practically no wheat at all. Given a fair chance in
1036
the British market, I think India could steadily increase her agricultural production and forestry products, and in that way she would increase the purchasing-power of her people.
It has been said by a well-known economist that, if the purchasing power of the Indian people was increased by one shilling per head per annum, India would be able to take £7,500,000 worth more goods annually. I well remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) saying in this House that if John Chinaman could be induced to wear his shirt an inch longer all the troubles of the cotton industry would be at an end. That may be regarded as humorous, but it is sound economically, because, if we can by any means increase the purchasing power of the people, it will mean increased trade. The difference between those sitting on this side of the House and those sitting on the benches opposite is that on this side we want to make all these things economic while hon. Members opposite take no steps of any kind to make them economic. This scheme has been proved to be founded upon sound economics, and it has proved successful wherever it has been tried.
I want hon. Members to turn once more to Canada. Canada imported last year £5,000,000 worth of anthracite coal. If Canada would put a duty of one dollar per ton on anthracite coal coming from the United States of America and leave free the exportation of coal from this country, there would be an additional trade of £5,000,000 a year for the South. Wales coalfields. If we consider structural steel and steel plates, of which there is very little production of any kind in Canada, we find that last year Canada bought from the United States £10,000,000; worth of these two items. That would mean £10,000,000 more trade for the workers in this country, who want work so badly at the present moment. I am told that £10,000,000 worth of structural steel and plates would amount to about 1,000,000 tons, and that means at least 3,000,000 tons of coal. What has Canada to gain from offering us these advantages? She would gain by the free importation of Canadian wheat here, and she would also gain by the free importation of other products, such as timber, newsprint, and wood pulp into the British

1037
Empire fiscal union. Furthermore, our Colonies would buy more agricultural machinery and motor cars from Canada than has previously been the case.
Australia has the greatest advantage of all by coming into the fiscal union, because she would have a free market for wheat, wool, and beef, providing that she was able to give us something substantial in the way of benefit for our manufacturers. South Africa, with sugar, wool, and other products, would get the free importation of those goods into our country, providing, also, that our negotiators were able to secure corresponding advantages in South Africa. Little New Zealand, also, would, I think, gain at last a recognition of the great services which she has rendered for so long to the cause of the Empire. What is our advantage, summed up? It is that we should by this means maintain a material increase in the exports of our manufactured goods, or, in other words, a large share of that £1,400,000,000 which is at present supplied by foreign countries to the Empire, to add to our present exports of £750,000,000.
Doubtless many will be asking the question whether I am in favour of taxing food and raw materials. If I am asked that question in this crude way, my answer would be in the negative, and in any case, we only propose to tax foreign food and raw materials. [Interruption.] There cannot be any rise in price, because the British Empire can supply us with all the food we need, quite apart from the production in this Island itself, which would probably tend to increase. As to raw materials, we have the example of the duty on raw silk, where manufacturers, when exporting their manufactured articles, receive a rebate, an arrangement which to my own knowledge has worked with complete satisfaction; and a similar system of rebates could be arranged in the case of other raw materials which might be subject to taxation. We must, however, look at this matter as a big business scheme. Let me emphasise that I regard this matter, not as a political question, but as a business question. Under this scheme, great volumes of trade would flow to our cotton mills, our woollen mills, our steelworks and our coal mines, and also to our agricultural workers. In circumstances like these, I have no hesi-
1038
tation whatever in facing the situation with a stout heart. I am not in the least afraid of the parrot cry of "Your food will cost you more." Even if that statement were true, which I do not believe for one moment, there would be the other side of the ledger to look at. We know and can prove that we should, under this scheme, be giving good and permanent employment to our people, instead of doles and unemployment. We know and can prove that our people would be offered happiness and prosperity, instead of misery and destitution.
I must turn for one moment to the Amendment which has been put down by the Liberal party. In the eleven years during which I have been in this House, I have seen a great advance in opinion. I have seen Members modify their Free Trade, or, rather, their Free Imports views considerably. To-day it is obvious that there are many Members who are thinking deeply on this subject with an open mind. It is true that there are some eminent Members of this House whom I have long given up as hopeless. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer I have given up as hopeless long ago. Until yesterday morning, I had given up the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), but I see that his name is attached to the Liberal Amendment. We have heard speeches from the benches on the Socialist side tending towards this scheme of Empire Free Trade. I remember that the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) and others voted for Imperial Preference in the year 1924, and that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made speeches which tended in the same direction, although they and their friends abstained from voting.
Nothing has been more marked, however, than the great advance shown by the Amendment which has been put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and his friends, and, comparing this Amendment with his speeches of 1906 and 1910 in the country, I congratulate him on his courage. Although he has not been able to see the full light of day by supporting the taxation of foreign food and raw materials, this will doubtless come in time. Therefore, so

1039
far from regretting the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, I welcome it, recognising, as I do, that he has abandoned the fetish of Cobdenite Free Trade; but I would point out that any vote given for this Amendment ties this country's hands when discussing the development of inter-Imperial trade at any forthcoming Imperial Conference. Speaking for myself, I shall vote against it, and I beg all my friends, whether they agree or disagree with me, not to tie the hands of any British Government in the future by voting for the Liberal Amendment.
Many times in this House I have heard Members of the Socialist party plead for the downtrodden populations of the British Empire. I have not agreed with all that they have said, but I have this much sympathy with their views, that I think it should be our object and our ideal to raise the standard of living wherever the British flag flies. Have we done all that we could in the past? I do not think we have. Are we doing all that we can at the present? I do not think so. May I ask the House to forget the past; may I ask them to forget even the present; may I ask them to look at the future? If we are to remain a great Empire, we must raise the standard of living of every deserving British citizen, in whatever part of the Empire he may live. The scheme which I have outlined puts forward a practical policy for putting the British Empire upon an economic basis. It alone holds the field; it is our only hope; and for that reason I ask the House to accept the Motion which I have moved.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to second the Motion.
I rise to do so with great enthusiasm, but with a nervousness almost equal to that which I felt when I first addressed the House. I stand here as a young man, as a new Member. I have had no experience, such as my hon. Friend has had, of the employment of labour; I have had no experience of the hard conditions of life which have been suffered by so many of my hon. Friends on the other side of the House; and this is the first of the great Imperial Debates which will animate the proceedings of this House until this Parliament is dissolved. This
1040
is a very great occasion, and I feel that it is a great honour for me to be speaking here now. There is an added embarrassment for me. This scheme has achieved a great notoriety in this country. It has been advocated by the Noble Lord who initiated it with great energy and sincerity. He has advocated it first in his newspapers, and then he had the courage to go before the electorate wherever they wanted to hear him and to preach it. It was discussed in Parliament in another place, and now at last it comes before the elected representatives of the people.
I stand here as a party man. The programme of the Noble Lord has appealed to all parties. He has, it appears, made converts outside our ranks. He has received criticisms even from these benches, but the criticisms which he has received have been mainly directed to the expediency or the practicability of his scheme, and not to the general principle. I stand here as a Conservative, and as a loyal supporter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin). I earnestly and passionately believe that the only hope of relieving the present distress in this country is a development of the Empire as a single economic unit. But, at the same time, I believe that this country will look to a united Conservative party to attack the false doctrines and principles put forward by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they are not to play "Old Hatry" with our finances and the institutions which we hold dear, we must have a united Conservative party. In legal parlance, a united Conservative party is a condition precedent to a united Empire, and I have both these loyalties. I see nothing to discourage me in the public utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley. His last great speech in public led me to believe that the one great hope for industrial England was Empire co-operation.
I speak as a party man, as I have said, but I am going to make an appeal wider than party; I am going to appeal to the nationalistic spirit which every Member of this House must feel knocking at his heart, whatever his political principles may be. I am going to ask hon. Members opposite to consider what, in spite of all our distresses, are the high standard of living and the high standard of morals

1041
of the British people. I am going to ask them to consider what the British Empire has meant to the world. I am going to ask them to remember that even those people whose consciousness of unity is demanding independence from us are asking for their liberty usually in the English language, and always according to English forms. I am also going to remind them that their own economist, Mr. G. D. H. Cole, has found it quite impossible to ignore the immense importance of Empire markets in his "Industrial Economic Policy of the Next Ten Years."
I venture to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends of the Liberal party below the Gangway not to be annoyed because we have torn from them their one last shibboleth, their one last splendid garment, the tattered garment of Free Trade. While I make this nationalistic appeal, I may as well at once make the confession that I am only half British myself. I might be reminded of that in the course of the Debate, and I will confess it now; but I do not think that my American blood need prejudice me in this matter; for, after all, if I believe, and I do believe, that the only hope for this country is the binding together of our Empire into one unit, I also think that a good understanding between Great-Britain and the United States is indispensable to world peace. Moreover, the knowledge, which I learned almost at my mother's knee, of how all the proud and independent States of the American Union were welded together into one great economic and social whole, leads me inevitably to the conclusion that, if we can make a United States of the British Empire, as they have made a United States of America, we could overtop even their amazing prosperity.
There are some facts which, if you have the courage to face them, are so eloquent as to be irresistible. What is the condition of the people of England to-day? We have much to lose, and much to gain. On the one hand, we have a higher standard of living among those of our workmen who are employed than any in the world except the United States of America, our Dominions, and possibly Denmark. On the other hand, we have the terribly haunting problem of unemployment always with us. The one we wish to preserve; the other we wish to
1042
cure. That was the issue upon which the last Election was fought, and for this purpose it is really necessary, in explaining this new policy, to consider what issues were before the electorate at the last Election. Of course, we all had a cure. The Socialist party said that it was Socialism, whatever that may mean. As I have said before, in the house of Socialism there are many mansions. I gather that what they put before the country was that, if wealth could be redistributed, if capitalism could be abolished, then we should have a new era, and should be on the threshold of a new prosperity for this country. However true that, may be, whether it be right or wrong, it would at any rate leave a terrible interregnum, in which the standard of living of the workmen of this country and of everyone else would be terribly lowered.
That was what the party opposite said. Of course, they misled the electorate by a number of other very material promises, none of which they have been able to fulfil up to the present time. That is how they got their votes. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) sprang upon the country a constructive remedy all his own. He said that in a year he would permanently cure unemployment by a vast system of relief works such as England or any other country had never seen before. He would reduce the number to normal. There were many members of his own party who, when he first announced this extraordinary scheme disagreed with him. They criticised, and even denounced, his policy, but the coffers were closed against them, and they came to heel. When nomination day came, 600 of them faced the electorate with a pledge which one cannot help thinking many of them did not really believe in, but which, for fear of ex-communication, they dare not withhold. If one cannot but deplore their political credulity, one can at any rate admire their courage. It was in the true Balaclava tradition:
"Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of death
Rode the six hundred."
Then they were returned, or they were not returned. At any rate, they were not the 600. If one may pursue the analogy even further, one can see the great spirits

1043
of Liberalism reviewing the gallant scene and, like the marshals of Napoleon III at Balaclava, saying, "It is magnificent but it is not Liberalism."
What was the Conservative policy at the last election? We fought upon our record, and it was a magnificent record. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) guided this country through a most stormy sea into a safe port. At the most difficult time, perhaps, of our modern history, he showed moderation, and a spirit of peace which added lustre to the name of statesman. It might have been better at this time if we had not called attention to the difficulty of the voyage through which we had just passed, but had flown all our pennants and ensigns to advertise our new adventure. That, I am afraid, was not the course we took, and, faced with these three policies, the country returned a negative verdict, a verdict of safety first. They gave absolute power to no party, but they gave office and a considerable degree of power to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. And what use have they made of it? The country must be bitterly disappointed even with giving them office. I think the whole country-must be longing at this stage for a new policy. They want a permanent remedy. Here we are still with half-a-million unemployed more than last year. What are we going to do about it? We need some constructive remedy. If we go upon the old watchwords and the old policies, we must agree with the Lord Privy Seal that the case is quite hopeless. We can only go in for palliatives. The old cries of Free Trade and Protection are dead and useless. If we go in for the old idea and the present plan of unrestricted and unreciprocal Free trade, of course, we are ruined.
I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a moment to come down from his financial heights and to desist from his bitter polemics against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who by some chance I do not see in his place. I withdraw that unreservedly. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to desist from his polemics against my right hon. Friend and to consider with me a few very simple facts. Before the War our export trade was 16 per cent. of the world's export trade and that of
1044
America was 12 per cent. At present, America has 16 per cent. and Great Britain has 12 per cent.—a complete reversal. According to 1913 dollar values British exports have increased 5 per cent. while those of the United States have increased by 48 per cent. The total world trade has increased probably by 20 per cent., whereas the total British export trade is only 83 per cent. of its pre-War standard. On these figures, surely one sees the writing on the wall as clearly as Daniel saw it at Belshazzar's feast, but I do not ask the right hon. Gentle man to put a golden chain round my neck or to make me the third ruler of the Kingdom, because any school boy must draw the natural conclusion, If we go on at this rate it will mean, of course, financial ruin. It will moan that our markets will be flooded with sweated goods from Europe and by mass produced goods from America, and we shall be driven even out of what place we have in foreign markets by the rising tariffs. Further still, we shall be driven out of our own Imperial market, of which we are so sure. We shall be driven out apparently by the rising tariffs in Australia. Of course, this is not an argument against Empire Free Trade, but it is-an argument in favour of it, because if the cause of unity of Empire is not preached, we shall be shut out of our Imperial markets by our own people.
The truth is that a narrow Protection will not save us either. We are the largest importing and the least self-supporting country in the world, and we shall be ruined if we have a narrow system of protection. So will our Dominions be ruined if they see themselves as a single economic unit. I ascribe the unemployment and the lack of prosperity in Australia to their high isolated protective duties. But, once either we or our citizens in the Dominions cease to look upon ourselves as single units and look upon ourselves as part of one great whole, we are on the threshold of a new policy which is neither Protection nor Free Trade but has the advantages of both and the disadvantages of neither. If we look at the simplest map, if we read our children's history books, if we study the marvels of modern transport, if we look at the magnificent example of the prosperity of the United States, we shall have some idea of the great power behind this Imperial move-

1045
ment. Of course, the United States must always beat little England in this international game. We cannot compete against them as things go on at present. M. Briand saw that neither this country nor any other single European country could compete against America, because they have a huge domestic market and we have not. They have not only the biggest domestic market but incomparably the richest, and not the richest merely per capita of her population. She has the riches of a common currency, a common taste, a common consumers' demand, and a common language—the English language. Of course, we cannot compete against the United States on those terms. Where then are we to go? Are we to join the United States of Europe and lower the standard of living for our workers immediately and give up everything hon. Members opposite have been fighting for. I am afraid the dream of the United States rejoining the British Empire is merely a Shavian dream.
Where then shall our commercial travellers look? They must look to their best customers—the Empire. What will they find? At first they will be exceedingly encouraged. They will see that the Empire takes half our manufactured goods. They will see that the Dominions buy more from us than the non-British markets and that, although our total world trade has decreased, our Empire trade has increased, and they will be able to form the conclusion that our Empire markets are on the whole stable and are increasing. If they look more closely at the figures they will he discouraged. They will see that Great Britain is not sharing as she should in the increased imports of our Dominions. Our share of the imports of Canada has fallen from 21 per cent. to 16 per cent., while the United States share has risen from 64 per cent. to 65 per cent. In Australia our share fell from 51 per cent. to 43 per cent., while the United States share rose from 13 per cent. to 24 per cent. In New Zealand our share fell from 59 per cent. to 47 per cent. and the United States share rose from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. That shows how we are losing the international game even in our own Empire, and what a fallacy lies behind these smug figures of increased Imperial trade.
1046
5.0 p.m.
I was in the United States Senate during a tariff debate this summer, and I saw a learned Senator reading a long speech for the benefit of his constituents, and the trend of his argument was that the United States could put up its tariff as high as she liked without doing herself any harm. Another Senator who sat behind me said, "We can only talk like this as long as England remains Free Trade," and he was right. What a competitor she would have if the Empire became a single economic unit! One quarter of the surface of the globe, one quarter of the world's population, of whom the vast majority are governed from London. A single change in policy could be taken to-morrow and make the first step in this great scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) gave the total figures of inter-Imperial trade and the total figures of imports into the Empire. If only we could change this and concentrate and circulate our wealth within our own Empire we can imagine the immense change and the far greater security that would be given to our manufacturers and to the workmen whom they employ. I think Lord Beaverbrook was perfectly right when he stressed the agricultural part of the wealth of the Empire if this scheme were put into operation. He has, at any rate, convinced me that the price of the main articles of food would not rise if a tariff were put on because we have such enormous resources within the Empire. A corollary has been put upon his argument in this way. It has been said, in view of the immense mineral wealth and other forms of wealth within the British Empire that the tariff question of food is a comparatively minor matter. When one considers our great mineral wealth, one is rather surprised that this wonderful position has never been put to the economic account for the benefit of the whole Empire. But we must remember that agricultural wealth is not like mineral wealth, a wasting wealth. It-renews itself year by year and month by month with the industry of man. That is the importance of the vast agricultural wealth of the British Empire. To turn to the mineral wealth, I will give one example—the copper of Northern Rhodesia. Locked away in that vast territory are 20,000,000 tons of copper ore

1047
which in five or six years on a moderate estimate would be enough to satisfy the demands for copper in the whole of the British Empire.
It has been said that this scheme should not be put forward to the House of Commons in a serious way until we had some guarantee from the Dominions that they will help us. I am confident that they will respond; and, at all events, since when have we lost the hegemony of Empire, since when has it ceased to be the duty of the House of Commons to initiate these Imperial tasks? It was a comparatively short time before the War that Mr. John Morley, of illustrious memory, wrote in a famous review of Seely's "Expansion of England" that he would be very surprised to see the day when one Australian would be interested in the neutrality of Belgium. Since then five continents have shed their blood for that unselfish cause. The cause of Empire has been immeasurably lifted, deepened, strengthened and enriched in consequence of the union of those tragic and terrible years. That was in an unselfish cause. It is for us to see for our own sakes that the union which we started in those years is not thrown, frittered and wasted away.
I have been dealing with spheres other than the economic spheres. It is now my duty to return to the economic spheres which lie behind all bonds. There is nothing sacred in economics. There is nothing sacred in either Protection or Free Trade. The ideal of Free Trade began as a theory. It became crystallised into a dogma and has ended up as a religion; but, of course, it had a humbler origin. It was good business. Mr. Cob-den was perfectly right; and, if I had lived in the days of Mr. Cobden, I would have been a Free Trader, as my family were. It was to the obvious advantage of Great Britain to have Free Trade at that time. It was a selfish policy and perhaps a cynical policy, but it was the right policy for the prosperity of England. It was to the obvious advantage of manufacturers in this country to buy in a cheap market, to choose what they would manufacture, and to sell to the world as dearly as possible. That is what Free Trade brought to England. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheap labour!"] I would not agree to that. If it had been carried
1048
to a logical conclusion, it would have meant the economic dictatorship by Great Britain of the whole world. Whether that would have been good for the world I do not know, because the whole of the rest of the world would have been in bondage. But in history these things have a way of adjusting themselves. The other nations put up their tariff walls and built up their own home markets, and after the American Civil War, the United States built up a vast home market and were able to send their subsidised goods over to England to compete with ours.
The immense prosperity which Free Trade brought to England had this ironical effect. The surplus profits of our industries were invested in competing industries abroad by free investments, and so our own profits have conspired to bring about our own present unfortunate position. It took a long time for the great prosperity of England to be seriously impaired; but there was a man who saw it before it became an obvious problem. He was a political prophet. I refer to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, the great father of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). He saw that the only way to counter competition that would come from tariff barriers abroad was by Imperial co-operation, and he began the first great Imperial campaign. I would like to quote from the great speech he made when he came back to this House badly defeated but confident that he was right. He said:
"The Prime Minister would be very shortsighted if he thinks he has heard the last of Tariff Reform. We believe that Tariff Reform is closely connected with this great question of the condition of the people. Do what you like, say what you may, it will be continually coming up in one form or another. At any rate we remember what happened when Cobden carried his proposals. He did not carry them all at once. He went through many defeats in the Parliament in which he sat and it was not for a long period—seven or eight years—after he started to agitate that he was able to congratulate himself on his success. We will not be more cowardly than he was; we will not be more discouraged than he was by defeat; and when the Government have failed to satisfy the expectations you have created, when the issues change, when the people once more desire a change of Government, then you will find that we have

1049
lost none of our activity, none of the conscientious belief in the necessity and justice of our cause."
Then his health failed, and there arose a generation which knew not Joseph. A great constitutional question came up, and then came the War, and all other causes were forgotten. After the War, which made America the most prosperous and richest country in the world, we had our domestic problems to solve. Among them were the problems of housing and unemployment, and everybody was too busy to look at the Imperial vista. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley did go to the country really on that issue, but the country did not see the connection between the condition of the people at home and the great Imperial problem abroad, and again we failed. The matter has been dormant for some years, but this cry of Empire Free Trade which is reaching the intelligence and hearts of the people comes to many of us like a ray of hope and indeed like a flood of light. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General said the other day that no man should try to do more than he can. I would respond by expressing the exhortation of the famous British General that
"to an Englishman nothing is impossible."
I could argue with him on economic grounds on these questions, and perhaps, after all, it is better to remind him of the words of one of the greatest patriots and one of the greatest orators whose words ever rang out in this House of Commons, words familiar indeed, but so noble and fine that they can never become hackneyed. I am sure that they are familiar enough to hon. Members on this side of the House:
"A great Empire and little minds go ill together. If we are conscious of our station and glow with zeal to fill our places as becomes our situation and ourselves, we ought to …. elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of their high calling our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a glorious Empire, and have made the most extensive, and the only honourable conquests, not by destroying but by promoting the wealth, the number, the happiness of the human race."
One word more and I have done. [Interruption.] I have appealed, not merely as a party man, to the spirit of legitimate nationalism in this House. I do not think that British nationalism is inconsistent with international peace.
1050
Rather, I think, the British Empire is the greatest bulwark for international peace in the world. If it were to be destroyed or to be disrupted, it would be a very-great blow to international peace. If it is going to have this great influence for peace in the world, it must be a prosperous, united and wealthy community. If my poor eloquence has persuaded—I do no suppose it has—even a hard heart of an hon. Member opposite to change his political views and to think at any rate Imperially, as I do, I am sure that we on these benches would welcome him. He would be received with cries of execration by his own people. He would be called a coward and a blackleg, and called by a number of names which undoubtedly would transgress the blasphemy laws which we discussed last Friday, but I think I could give him a reply which he could make to anybody who slandered him. They are the words of a piece of magnificent doggerel by a living English poet:
"Friend, call me what you will; no jot care I,
I that will stand for England till I die."
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has an Amendment on the Paper. It is my intention to call that Amendment, but I should like to point out that, according to our practice in this House, after an Amendment of that kind has been moved, strictly speaking, the Debate ought to be confined to the Amendment and not to the original Motion. The time at our disposal is so very limited on this occasion that I think I shall have the general approval of the House if I allow a wider discussion on the Motion with the Amendment attached to it.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words:
"provided that any such proposals shall not include additional taxation upon foodstuffs or raw materials imported into the United Kingdom."
I was hoping that this afternoon we might have a real Debate upon a subject matter which has aroused considerable interest, and, I think, growing interest, in the constituencies. I was looking forward to hearing this afternoon some exposition of this policy. There have been appeals from the two hon.

1051
Gentlemen who have spoken—very admirable speeches and eloquent in parts—that we should support the policy. We have even been invited to leave our respective parties and to throng to the standard of the new crusade. But I want to know what we are to fight for? What is the policy? Is it the policy of Lord Beaverbrook or of the other leader of the Conservative party, Lord Rothermere? I will not ask whether it is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), because that is not to be explained until next week. But which policy? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) taunted hon. Members opposite by saying that in Socialism there were many mansions. I should say that in the Conservative party there are many flats.
I should like to ask, what is this particular policy? I really expected to hear about it from the hon. Gentleman. He is a fervent Free Trader. He has all the characteristics of one. He has written a book, which I read with very great delight, giving a fascinating account of a brilliant legal advocate, whom I knew well, and whom I greatly admired. He points out in that book that his one great characteristic and his strength as an advocate was that he intensely believed in all his cases, however bad. I am not saying that, in writing of that great legal luminary, the hon. Gentleman seems to have imbibed the spirit of his leader, but, having taken up the case, would he mind explaining this crusade, this sacred crusade, as he called it? Is it really so secret that we are not to be told, we ordinary mortals, what it is, what it is all about? Sacred and secret! We are to enter into negotiations, I am told, with the Empire. We are to give instructions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. They are to negotiate. Negotiate about what? They might be told. When they go into a conference of that sort, they will say: "We have received instructions from the House of Commons to negotiate." The Dominions will say: "What about?" They will say: "We do not know." Nobody has condescended to tell us, and that is one reason why we put this Amendment down.
This is not common or garden Protection. It is something sublime. It is
1052
something extraordinary. It is Empire Free Trade. Very well! Let us find out what it is! The one test is not manufactures. We do not get any manufactured goods from the Dominions. If we offer to let their manufactured goods in, the offer is so insignificant as to be of no use. The real test is not what advantages we are going to get from getting all the trade of the Empire. You need not roll out statistics to prove that if we had all the trade of Canada, of Australia, of South Africa, of Gambia; if we had all the trade of all our Dominions, and all our Colonies and Dependencies, it would be desirable. The real test is, what are you going to give in return, and we have not heard a word about that in this Debate. I understand that there is to be a speech from the Front Opposition Bench. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon), who is going to speak, a genuine respect—I think everybody in the House will agree with me—as a Member of this House and as an admirable Minister. He will not regard me as saying anything which is in the least offensive to him if I say that he is not one of the big five, or is it the big four now? He cannot give a pronouncement on behalf of his party. If there was anything to be said on that vital matter surely it would have been said by one of the three or four men who more or less lead the party.
Therefore, I am assuming that we are not going to hear a word upon that particular topic; but we are entitled to know something. There is an Empire Economic Conference coming, I believe, this year. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were in office, what would they propose? The House of Commons is entitled to know, and the country is entitled to know. Are they going to the Dominions to say: "If you drop all your tariffs against us, we will tax the food and raw material that come from every foreign country." Is that the policy? We are entitled to know, because it is a very vital matter. It is no use giving us a schedule of advantages which we should get; what are we offering in return? This Motion is quite harmless, and in many ways quite desirable. I am all for making, if you can, an Empire economic unit. The Empire Marketing Board was an effort

1053
of that kind. I forget what it is costing us a year—it may be a million pounds, Whatever it is, nobody in this House has grudged it. Here we are, out of a heavily taxed country, voting a considerable sum of money for pushing the goods of the Empire, oven when they compete with our own.
If, on the other hand, you are to go to the Dominions and say to them: "Will you give us the same advantage, by pushing our goods in your country, even when they compete with yours?"—[Interruption.] That is an economic unit. I am all for an economic unit. I am all for improving the facilities between different parts of the Empire, especially transport facilities. Anybody who knows, as was pointed out by Lord Beaverbrook, what has been accomplished for the Argentine by improving shipping facilities will, know what that means for the Empire. In 1907, at the first Imperial Conference that I had the honour and privilege to attend, I proposed, on behalf of the Liberal Government, that we should consider together whether we could have some sort of improved shipping and transport facilities between one part of the Empire and another. Unfortunately, the great discussion about Imperial preference and tariffs cut right across, and it was impossible to get any decision upon the subject. But it was no fault of ours. I am all for it.
Empire Free Trade! Admirable! Admirable! We are not taxing the commodities of the Dominions. We concede free trade to them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Does everybody else?"] I am coming to that. That is a point that I want to know. We are conceding free trade to them. Their raw material, their food is pouring in here. We are encouraging it. We have not put a tariff upon it. There was a duty put on by the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman, when I was a Member of this House—I forget whether it was 1s. or 2s. on corn—but we fought it, and it was taken off. We are all for Empire Free Trade, and if they give us exactly the same free access for our commodities as we are giving to theirs, well! there is Empire free Trade. If they say: "There are certain things of ours which you are still taxing, and if you will take that tax away we will give free access to
1054
yours," well! there is something to discuss. But is that the proposition, or are you going to say: "We are going to put a duty on all the food and on all the raw material that comes from every other quarter, and let yours come in free"? If so, what are you going to ask in return? That is vital.
With respect to Lord Beaverbrook, I agree with everything that has been said about the extraordinary energy, intelligence and vigour which he hag thrown into this business. I have great admiration for him. What is the proposal? He has done a lot of shepherding of his party towards Protection, but not into his fold. He proposes that there shall be a duty on food and raw materials coming from any other quarter except the Empire. Is that accepted? They are not yet in that fold. Why? Because they have been there before. They have suffered severely from the weather, and have lost many promising lambs. So they do not like the fold, they do not care very much for the shepherd, and they like still less his miscellaneous collection of stray dogs. So they are not going there. I want to find out to-night what is their intention. I think they are more inclined for Lord Rothermere's pen—a tax on manufactures, none on food! They are between the two, but they will have to go to one or the other. Needs must, when two of them drive. Are the Conservative party for Lord Beaverbrook's proposition, that you should go to the Dominions and Colonies and say: "We will tax the commodities when they come from foreign countries, and leave yours free, on condition that you leave our commodities free to go in." No. He is to be allowed to be praised. They say: "This is very good! It is helping the grand cause of Protection!" He is still to be one of the teachers of the party, but the party is not going with him. This House and the country are entitled to know to-night whether the Conservative party is going to declare for or against that policy. The hon. Member who opened the Debate talked about Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's policy. That is not Lord Beaverbrook's policy. Lord Beaverbrook in his speech in the House of Lords, which I read with intense interest and very carefully, because I had to read what the apostle

1055
said in order to master the creed before it came here, said:
"I have great admiration for Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. I followed him at the time, but I want to make it quite clear at the outset that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's policy is not mine."
Lord Beaverbrook is not out for Preference; he is out for Empire Free Trade, which means a tax on food and raw materials coming from other countries which are not inside the Empire, provided there is complete freedom inside. Is that the policy which hon. and right hon. Members are going to support? I have tried to find out whether it is even Lord Beaverbrook's policy. I have been seeking an explanation, but as soon as I have read one explanation another is substituted. I have to begin again. He has outlined at least five different policies, not one of them the policy explained by his Friends in this House to-night. I am going to tell them the policy for which they stand. Lord Beaverbrook started only a few months ago; and there is a new policy every new moon. I notice one peculiarity; when he has a new policy, he sends it immediately to the editor of the "Morning Post"; trying it on the dog, so to speak; and if he survives then the "Daily Express" gets it, and then hon. Members here will have to swallow it. Hon. Members will be forcibly fed.
Let us see what these policies are. The first was perfectly clear and definite, that there should be no Customs barriers against Empire goods anywhere within the Empire; any goods sent from us to the Dominions, admitted free; any goods from the Dominions to this country also admitted free, but a ring of tariffs round the Empire as a whole. That is an intelligible, I will not say intelligent, policy. That was the bribe to the Dominions and the Empire—send our goods in free, and we will put a tariff against all your competitors. That was the inducement. Then came a slight alteration. He began to discover that that would be disastrous to the industry of Canada and Australia, so he said "except key industries." Then it was discovered that "key industries had a meaning," that it referred to those industries which were essential in the event of war, and he said that is not wise. So he said "key and important industries," and he writes a letter, not to anybody
1056
here but to Canada, and wants to know why anybody should have been so wicked and absurd as to think that he meant them to take away tariffs on our goods there. Then he goes on to realise that industries have grown up in the Dominions behind a tariff barrier erected as much against Great Britain as against the rest of the world. This is the apostle:
"If we were asking the Dominions to allow British manufacturers the right of free entry, I can well understand your dismay."
And he says:
"We are not asking this at all."
Where is Empire Free Trade? He is not asking for it. Key industries, gone. Important industries, gone Revenue, gone; nothing but a few odds and ends left, tattered remnants. This is the great trade we are going to get from the Empire; no important industry, iron and steel, machinery, textile goods, boots, nothing of that kind, only a few odds and ends, little things, which are not important. If they are not important to Canada they are not important to us. They have been crisscrossing this crusade until the pattern has completely disappeared. There is now a great scheme for the Crown Colonies, and I will come to that in a minute. Why are the Crown Colonies to be brought in? There are no democratic parliaments in the Crown Colonies. But why is it to be whittled down—because this is of the essence of the matter—and in five or six months reduced to this, shrunk until you can hardly see it? I have been trying to find what is left of it through a microscope; it has almost vanished. Why, because no one that matters will look at it. An Economic Conference of the Empire is to be summoned, and if anybody from any Dominion or Crown Colony puts down a motion for Empire Free, Trade, the representative of His Majesty's Government cannot rule it out of order.
A Motion was put down for Imperial Preference when we were in office in 1906–7 as a Free Trade Government, and the biggest Debate in that conference was the Debate on Imperial Preference. If any Dominion or Colony wants it, Lord Passfield cannot rule it out. Who is going to do it? There will not be a rush, and. I do not think the Colonies and the Dominions need ballot for motions in order to get in first. Is there one of them? There are 20 parliaments in the

1057
Empire, democratic parliaments, and there are at least 60 parties in the Empire. There are two or three parties here now on the Conservative side of the House; they are growing every day. But is there a single parliament in the Empire that has approved of this? Is there a single party in any parliament of the Empire that bas approved of it"? I am told that the country party in Australia is coming on. They have not yet arrived.
Mr. REMER: About the same size as the Liberal party in this House.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When they vote for it they will be as important as the Liberal party. I read the "Daily Express" every morning, and only this week I saw a huge headline. A very effective way of carrying on a programme when it does not stand much detailed examination is to conduct propaganda by headlines. Here is the headline this week:
"Australian resolution for Empire Free Trade."
Here, I thought, at last is support, important support, for Empire Free Trade. Like some members of the public, I look at the headlines and occasionally do not examine the paper any further, but as I had to make a speech I thought I would read it all on this occasion, and here it is. This is the resolution which was passed by the Kyabram Urban District Council.
Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Senator Elliott is one of the most influential men in Australia, and that the seconder of the Motion is an ex-Prime Minister of one of the States?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Kyabram is very fortunate in having two such important persons on the council, and I shall wait to see whether the influence of Kyabram will spread, first of all to the State in which it is situated and afterwards to the whole of the Dominion. But what is the resolution? It is not a resolution for Empire Free Trade. This was the resolution:
"It approved the idea of Empire Free Trade, provided there was no interference with the tariffs set up to protect Australian industries."
That is not quite sound, and I suggest to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr.
1058
Remer) that he should make a journey to Kyabram in order to convert them to Empire Free Trade, and then work his way round the Empire, and by the time of the next General Election he might reach home again. I must add that the Kyabram District Council carried the resolution unanimously.
But let us look at the latest proposal. It is not expounded here, and I think Lord Beaverbrook owes me a debt of gratitude for being the first man to put his policy before the House of Commons. Therefore, with the permission of the House I will explain the latest policy of Empire Free Trade. The Crown Colonies are to be experimented on; the Dominions for the moment are to be dropped, and you are to say to the Crown Colonies that they must buy all their goods from us. Surely that must mean, on the other hand, that we are going to put a tariff against their products if they come from foreign countries. You cannot trade with the Crown Colonies without giving them a fair deal. There is a long and imposing list of these Crown Colonies. The Dominions have been dropped, and now the great crusade is weather-bound in Sierra Leone. How are you going to help the Crown Colonies? This must be a bargain. I am told that they can buy prodigious quantities of goods. I would like to know a little more about those goods, whether they are goods that we produce or whether they are the goods which they buy from contiguous countries—a very considerable quantity of them. But never mind. Take the manufactures. You say to the Crown Colonies, "You will put a tariff against every country except ours. In return we will put a tariff against every commodity that you are purchasing if it comes from outside the Empire." That is the proposal. Take wheat and cotton. What have you got in cotton? You have Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria and the Sudan—they are all mentioned in this great list. What they produce mostly and sell to us is raw cotton.
HON. MEMBERS: Nonsense!
Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: There is no cotton at all produced in Kenya, but mostly coffee and other produce.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will give the hon. and gallant Member Kenya, but he

1059
will not contradict what I say about Nigeria, Uganda and the Sudan. I have the figures here, but I do not want to detain the House with them. There you have three colonies mentioned, and their greatest export to us is cotton. As a matter of fact the quantity of cotton that we are getting from the Empire, I am glad to say, is growing. When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer it was one of my privileges to pass through this House a Bill to lend money for the development of cotton-growing in the Sudan—I am not at all sure whether it was not the same in the case of Nigeria—and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was Colonial Secretary at the time. There the production of cotton is growing. It represented something like £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 last year. But seven-eighths of our cotton comes from foreign countries.
Are you going to say to these Colonies, "We will put a duty on the products that we buy from those foreign countries?" It would be a first class thing for the Colonies. You are talking about advantages. There is an advantage for the Colonies. If you are going to find employment for our citizens in the Empire, why not our citizens in Uganda and in the rest, which are mentioned? If you put a stiff duty on American and Brazilian cotton there is no doubt at all that you help Uganda, the Sudan and Nigeria, and you develop Empire cotton. But where would Lancashire come in? How long do you think it would take for you to develop cotton inside the Empire to make up the deficiency of the seven-eighths? There is more than that. Lancashire's trade is an export trade in the main. I should say that two-thirds, if not three-quarters of what is produced in Lancashire—I am told it is four-fifths—is sold abroad on very narrow margins. The greater part of the goods produced in Lancashire mills is exported. The manufacturers have to send it out to neutral markets, where it has to meet the commodities produced in other countries. We have heard of our fighting Japan in the East and fighting the Italian mills in this trade. That is true. Are you going to sweep away that margin, as you certainly would, if you put a duty on the cotton that comes
1060
from outside the Empire, and to send the stuff produced by the Lancashire mills to compete with goods which come from countries where there is no duty on cotton? It is an utterly impossible proposition.
Hong Kong is quoted. It shows the levity with which this thing is considered that Hong Kong should be in the list. Hong Kong does not produce. Its trade is a great entrepôt trade; it is a port. Lord Beaverbrook in the House of Lords referred to it as one of the five great ports of the world. That is true. The shipping there is 38,000,000 tons a year. But what does it thrive on? The proportion of goods that come from our country is a small percentage. It is just the place to which the commodities for China come, and they are passed on to China. Vast quantities come from the United States, from Japan, from Germany, from Siam, from almost every country in the world, and the proportion of British goods is a comparatively small percentage. Are you going to put a duty on all the goods that come into Hong Kong from foreign countries? If you do you wipe it out with one stroke of the pen. It is really too crude for words. But then I am told "The Empire can produce all the food that is necessary." When? How soon?
Mr. REMER: Now!
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not like to quote from the vocabulary of Tariff Reformers by saying "Nonsense!" but I would if I were a Tariff Reformer. Here last year we had 60,000,000 as against 40,000,000 cwts. in wheat; it was as six is to four. Does anyone imagine that you can, for years and years to come, develop the Empire to such a degree that you can make up that gigantic deficiency which would be the result of your closing your ports against foreign goods? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Anyone who thinks about it will realise that it is impossible, for the simple reason that the best and most accessible lands have been taken up and we have been driven further and further into the wilderness. Anyone who has passed over the prairies knows that. The growers are going further and further, and it is getting more and more difficult to develop, instead of easier. Last year the Canadian harvest was a failure. It

1061
went down to 40 instead of the 50 or 60 of the previous year. On the other hand the Argentine crop was abounding. What was the result? They more or less equalised things.
But then I am told—this was said in the House of Lords—"Your wheat may go up to 55s. instead of 40s., but really there is no difference between 55s. and 40s. It will not make any difference at all in the price of bread." Lord Beaver-brook is a very shrewd business man. I wonder whether he buys his pulp on that principle. It is said that there is no difference between 55s. a ton and 40s. a ton. There is bound to be a difference. If you add 40 per cent. to the cost of your raw material you are bound to pass that on in some shape or other to your retail business. I do not say that if there is in this or in any country any organisation to dump by mean" of subsidies, which enable you to put on the market goods below the cost of production, that that is in the same category. Lord Beaverbrook mentioned two cases in the House of Lords. He said there was the danger of the Federal Board in America. They have raised, I think, $400,000,000. What is the danger there? As I understand it, it is this: They are going to buy the farmers' wheat crop at a fixed price. Once they have disposed of the quantity which is consumed in the home market, there will be a gigantic or a considerable surplus, and that will be dumped on our market, not by the farmer, but by the Government, practically out of the subsidy which they have granted.
The other case is the case of Germany. Frankly, I have been unable to follow what the transaction is there. The real point is whether the German Government is subsidising the export of wheat in such a way that the Germans are dumping on this market, by means of that indirect subsidy, wheat below the coat of production. Let me say at once, that in my judgment that has nothing to do with either Free Trade or Protection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Upon that there is evidently a different point of view. My view is that a case of that kind is a proposition which stands by itself. Free Trade cannot carry that monster on its head, and on the other hand I am not prepared to see it there for Protectionists to climb on its back to a general tariff.
1062
6.0 p.m.
Any competition which comes from countries with low wages and long hours and high tariffs, we have faced for generations and beaten. We have demonstrated to the world that the higher-waged worker, fighting without being embarrassed by tariffs, has for generations been able to beat the low-waged worker who is burdened by tariffs in every part of the world. Take Europe. When you take vast countries like the United States, with its infinite natural resources, comparison is impossible. But take old countries where comparison is possible. Take the League of Nations figures. In France real wages are 60 per cent. of ours; in Germany 80 per cent. So that we need not fear them. But if a subsidy is used by a foreign Government to throw on to our markets, beneath the cost of production, commodities which we are producing here, that is a proposition which, in my judgment, ought to be dealt with drastically. But I do not believe that tariffs will deal with it. It ought to be dealt with in each individual case upon its merits, after all the facts have been examined by a competent tribunal appointed by the House of Commons to examine them, and, if necessary, there should be an embargo against any commodities of the kind. I apologise for taking up so much of the time of the House but this is a vital matter. I only want to say this. France has a great Free Trade Empire—as was pointed out by the hon. Gentleman—in this sense. It has an Empire of 4,000,000 square miles—[Interruption]. Yes, it is the second Empire to ours. It is a Free Trade Empire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not quite"]—in the sense of Lord Beaverbrook's first proposition with a tariff ring right round it. In the main that is the position. In the main it has Free Trade inside. What is the result? If we had only the foreign trade of France half our population would starve. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are starving now."] Really, that is utterly ridiculous. If we had only the population of France, to begin with there would have been no unemployment here. France has a population of 187 to the square mile; Germany has 348 to the square mile, and Great Britain has to maintain 468 to the square mile. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Belgium?"] If the hon. Member thinks

1063
it worth while to make that comparison he can do so later in the Debate. I am giving the three comparable countries.
Our problem is a very different one. France with half its population on the soil—[An HON. MEMBER: "We ought to have more!"]—I agree, but you have France with half its population on the soil, and, in addition to that fact, if you take even its prosperous industries, would you "swop" with France? If you "swopped" with France, this great Free Trade Empire, giving us the French trade and letting France take ours, the unemployed here would not be 1,500,000, they would he 10,000,000 at least. We have at the present moment the greatest international trade in Europe. We have the greatest international trade in the world per head of the population and the worst of schemes like this—attractive and fascinating, with catching words which appeal to Free Traders and with another aspect which appeals to the right-down Protectionist—the worst of them is, and the real danger is that they are going to take us away from an examination of oar real difficulties. All this will land us in a controversy which will take the mind of the nation away from the things that matter—the real development of the resources of this country and the real improvement of the conditions of this country. We have natural advantages that no other country in the world has and I have no fear of the future, though we may have more than double the population of France to provide for. We have advantages in climate, in the vigour of the population, in the great fact that our coal measures are within reach of our ports. But if we want to get out of our present difficulties we must stir ourselves and concentrate upon the re-organisation of the country, and, above all, stick to realities and drop fantasies.
Mr. PERRY: I think the attention and interest created by this Debate is an indication of the importance of the subject. Whatever may be the opinion of the various parties in the House on this question, I, for one, am indebted to the two Noble Lords who have raised it and who have at any rate revived interest in Empire and Dominion questions. Many of us on these benches welcome some of the expressions which we have beard in this Debate from another point of view. We
1064
have been appealed to by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) to treat this question apart from party considerations. We have been told that matters affecting the Empire are not the concern of any one party. What we have been told this evening, in this respect, is news to some of us, for we have repeatedly heard the claim made in the past that the interests of the Empire are the property of one party in this House. It is encouraging to find the question raised this afternoon to a loftier plane.
I wish to join issue immediately with the hon. Member for Macclesfield on some of the points which he raised. He referred to the relation of India with the Lancashire cotton industry and pointed out that Lancashire's trade with India had been greatly affected, and was now being largely transferred to Japan. He may have read in the "Times" the other morning about a group of mills—I think in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel)—having been closed largely on account of the capture by Japan of the trade formerly done with India. The hon. Member would doubtless draw the conclusion that this circumstance was bound up with the question of Empire Free Trade and import duties. If so he must have forgotten, though I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen has not forgotten, that that circumstance was largely the result of Lancashire's past policy of building and equipping mills in Japan and all parts of the world and sending out our skilled men to teach the natives there to produce these goods and thus largely to destroy Manchester's own market.
Had the hon. Member for Macclesfield taken his memory back far enough he would have recalled the fact that when Members of this House, some years ago, supported the imposition of the Indian import duties, every Lancashire Member who supported them, irrespective of party, lost his seat at the next Election. There is also the question of Empire cotton. Some 12 years ago a Noble Lord came down from Lancashire and told us that if we invested our money in cotton-growing schemes in the British Empire we should provide cotton for our mills and work for ourselves. Many of us believed

1065
that statement, and, in our small way, we helped to lay the foundations of the Empire Cotton Growing Association. We have lived long enough to see cotton grown within the Empire and subsidised by the British taxpayer being sold largely to Japan, the foremost competitor of Lancashire. The hon. Member admitted that the proposal of Empire Free Trade involved the necessity of putting a tax on foreign foodstuffs and raw materials. Then I was reminded by the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne of the close relationship between the units and the Empire, the development of Imperial Preference and the ultimate ideal of the Empire as an economic unit and Free Trade within the Empire. The hon. Member quoted part of a speech of the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's, but did not quote another important declaration by the same right hon. Gentleman. It was the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain who said repeatedly that you could not give a preference to our Dominions unless you placed a tax upon food.
As one who is associated with the great consumers' movement in this country, I say that we have been taught by bitter experience that all taxes on imported foodstuffs—yea, upon all articles—inevitably come out of the pockets of the consumers. I do not know how far I can speak for all my colleagues on this matter but I state quite frankly my belief that there are no Members of the House more desirous of developing and assisting the Empire than the Members on these benches. After all our own kith and kin, often driven away from these shores to seek a livelihood in the Dominions, have largely helped to lay the foundations upon which the Empire rests. But I think we are entitled to examine more closely the meaning of this proposal. I would willingly support Free Trade within the Empire but we are not to be content with that. We can only have Free Trade within the Empire under present conditions, in any judgment, by placing a tax upon imported foodstuffs and raw materials. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) asks how long it would take the Empire to produce the food necessary for our consumption an optimistic Member on the opposite side said "Now." I am
1066
reminded that in 1928 only 20 per cent. of the foodstuffs imported into this country came from within the Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I agree, but the shame does not lie here. In the same year, only 13 per cent. of our raw materials came from within the Empire.
I wish to deal with this question in a plain, matter-of-fact way. I have taken some little interest in what is known as the Canadian Wheat Pool, an organisation which now claims to speak for 60 per cent. of the wheat producers in Canada, whose chief representatives are in this country at the moment, and they are trying to link up with the wheat pools of Australia and New Zealand. Wheat buying in this country is now largely concentrated in the hands of two or three, or at the most four, large organisations. When one of those organisations' representatives goes to the Canadian Wheat Pool representative in London, our Canadian friend does not talk about the Empire, he talks about wheat and the price he can get for it. Wheat is food, and so small is the margin in this country, so far as its everyday needs are concerned, that we are often largely in the hands of those who control the wheat supply.
Here is another illustration. Some of us recall the election of 1923, fought largely in some districts on the question of tinned salmon. There were many jokes about that battle cry in Lancashire, but that was very largely the staple food of the textile population of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), who brought forward a proposal at that time to impose a tax upon imported salmon from outside the Empire met with a very serious rebuff in those textile districts.
It has been suggested that we might develop more fully the policy of Imperial Preference, but some of my hon. Friends here to-day will recall exactly how that works. During the time when we had a very heavy Sugar Duty imposed on imports into this country, very largely reduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we granted a preference to the West Indies. In one and a half year's time the British taxpayer lost over £5,000,000 in taxation on account of the preference to the West

1067
Indies sugar growers, and as the largest importers of sugar in this country we knew quite well that the British consumer paid the same price for that sugar as for any other sugar. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, went a step further than the preference of one-sixth on Australian sultanas and let them come in free. The preference at that time was about 5s. 6d. per cwt., and within a week of them being allowed to come in this country free, the price of Australian sultanas increased exactly by 5s. 6d. per cwt. With every desire to improve and strengthen the ties which bind the Dominions and the Crown Colonies to the Mother Country, I do not feel that it can be done by adopting such a proposal as is before the House to-night, though we have been indebted to the two Noble Lords for having introduced the subject.
To mention just one other illustration, I had some little part in 1924 in helping to form what is now known as the Labour Commonwealth Group of Members of this House. We felt that it would be helpful that we should know at first hand the importance of some of those problems which affect our Dominions and Crown Colonies. It is hard for us sometimes to understand what the Australian means by a White Australia, but he knows. It was difficult for some of us to understand the importance of the Pacific Islands to Australia until we met our friends from the Dominions and Crown Colonies. We have had the advantage of meeting those friends at our gatherings, and I said to one of them: "Seeing that we allow your wool from Australia to come in to this country free, cannot you consider allowing hats or other materials from this country manufactured from Australian wool, which comes in here free, to go back into your country free?" "Nothing of the kind," he said. "We grant you a preference, but first of all we protect the home market, and the home market is heavily protected against the British manufacturer."
Hon. Members will recall that time and time again within recent weeks questions have been raised in this House, especially by one hon. Member below the Gangway, as to the raising of tariffs in our Dominions and Colonies against
1068
articles imported from the Mother Country. All the optimism of the two Noble Lords notwithstanding. I am very doubtful whether our Dominions will accept that policy. May I be permitted to make two quotations only, and then I have done. One is from Australia and is taken from the "Melbourne Age" of the 17th July last:
"Under Lord Beaverbrook's conception of Empire Free Trade, all British manufactures must be allowed to enter Australia free. It is distressing to find anyone pretending to exercise influence giving expression to a statement so foolish. No species of Empire trade which would remove from Australia the right to regulate her own fiscal affairs can be acknowledged as even a subject for debate. The proposal strikes at the very roots of Dominion self-government."
My last quotation is from Canada, a country, I believe, well known to one of the Noble Lords, and it is even stronger. The quotation is from the "Canadian Gazette" of the 15th August, and it reads:
"Would Great Britain buy her grain, foodstuffs, and raw material from Canada and be free to dump her manufactured articles into the Dominion at the expense of the Canadian manufacturer? Blood may be thicker than water, but Canada means to be mistress in her own house, and not for ever be a hewer of wood and a drawer of water for others, no matter how closely related they may be."
With all the desire in the world to strengthen the ties between the Empire and the Mother Country, I do not think a solution can be found in the proposals now before the House. They bring into practical politics the larger issues. The moment you begin to strengthen your tariff walls and to create grave prejudice even with countries outside the Empire, then inevitably you are sowing the seeds of future trouble and probably future wars with other countries, and I hope the House to-night, while agreeing as to the importance attached to this Debate, will not accept the Motion.
Colonel GRETTON: It is somewhat unfortunate that the right: hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), on a private Member's day, with so limited an amount of time at the disposal of the House for any one speech, should have made a speech of almost one hour's length, and thus given so little time to other speakers to address the House. I will turn at once, therefore, to the Motion, which is headed by words not

1069
altogether in accordance with the Motion itself. The heading is "Empire Free Trade," but the Motion states:
"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Empire should be developed as a single economic unit with internal free trade as the ideal; and that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom be urged to open negotiations with the other Governments of the Empire with a view to the formulation of a policy designed to secure that the purchasing power of the Empire shall be directed primarily to the full employment of the inhabitants of the Empire."
With those words I entirely concur, and I intend to support them in the Division Lobby if the opportunity is given. I should like to know—and it is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the Liberal party is not present—what is meant by the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman made a very long speech, and he did not by any means clearly tell the House what he means to do by his Amendment. Does he mean to exclude from taxation all raw materials, whatever they may be, and all foodstuffs, such as flour, crushed oats, and other things which have been partially handled, but which may still remain raw materials for making up into various commodities in this country? He did not explain. He did not explain either whether his Amendment is intended to torpedo the Resolution, and until these matters are made clear, I am sure that many hon. Members will be unable to support the Amendment.
After all, his speech reminds one very much of old times. We heard economic and business questions discussed in the old academic, theoretical manner. This is not a matter of politics, but of hard business, and it is a pity that the atmosphere of politics has been brought into this Debate. I do not think there is any hon. or right hon. Member in this House who will object to the ideal of Free Trade within the Empire, but we must work meanwhile in the circumstances in which we live and with the means which are at our disposal, and I would remind the House that we already have a very large measure of Free Trade within the Empire. We have a large free list of manufactured goods and commodities of all kinds with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere. All those matters can be discussed, and no doubt will be discussed, at the forthcoming
1070
Imperial Conference, but I suggest that we, as business men, if we want to make a deal, should be able to go into that Conference with our hands untied. These matters have been dealt with for many years past, and there is nothing new in the idea of developing Free Trade with the Crown Colonies. That was suggested as long ago as 1905, but it was not proceeded with because a Liberal Government came into power—these accidents happen and sometimes they are tragedies—and they chose to deal with this question not as business men, but as theoretical politicians. They agreed to this Resolution at the Colonial Conference of 1907:
"That without prejudice to the resolution already accepted or the reservation of His Majesty's Government, this Conference, recognising the importance of promoting greater freedom and fuller development of commercial intercourse within the Empire, believes that these objects may be best secured by leaving to each part of the Empire liberty of action in selecting the most suitable means for attaining them, having regard to its own special conditions and requirements, and that every effort should be made to bring about co-operation in matters of mutual interest."
This is all very proper, and we can agree with that resolution which was passed by the Liberal party in those days. But nothing was done. The right hon. Gentleman wants to know how we are going to proceed. I would ask him to go back to the Imperial Economic Conferences of 1917 and 1918, and to study the resolutions they passed; and, if he likes to go a little further back, he might read the resolutions and recommendations of the Balfour Committee, which was famous and well-known at the time. The Imperial Conference of 1917 agreed:
"That the time has arrived when all possible encouragement should be given to the development of Imperial resources in anticipation of making the Empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies and raw materials of essential industries. With these objects in view, the Conference expresses itself in favour of the principle that each part of the Empire, haying due regard to the interests of our allies, should give specially favourable treatment and facilities to the produce and manufactures of other parts of the Empire."
Then there is something about emigrants, with which we all agree, and the resolution goes on:
"The Conference records its opinion that the safety of the Empire and the necessary

1071
development of its component parts require prompt and attentive consideration as well as concerted action, with regard to the following matters:

(1) The production of an adequate food supply and arrangements for its transportation when and where required …

(2) The control of natural resources available within the Empire … and

(3) The economical utilisation of such natural resources through processes of manufacture carried on within the Empire."

There is no mystery about these matters. These are mere business propositions. The trouble is that politicians, and Government after Government, have treated them as party questions. The time is not very long for dealing with these matters. The time is slipping by in the Empire; conference after conference takes place, and progress is not made. These resolutions stand; the Empire States will come over prepared to discuss business on these lines, and I suggest that, whatever Government is in power should follow up these questions and deal with them on business lines. If they will go into conference to deal with the affairs of the Empire, freed from academical theories, they will agree to set up duties where duties are required, in order to develop the Empire resources which are required either in the Dominions or in the Mother Country, giving mutual preference for one another, and not closing the door if they can make a bargain which is good for this country and beneficial for the Empire.
Politicians furbish up their old speeches of the past, as we have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs do, and try them on the new generation. They seem to be living without realisation that we are now in a different era. The necessity is urgent, for we have to deal with the unemployment question at home. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to deal with the financial problems, and he should know well the difficulties and dangers which beset the sources from which he hopes to draw his revenue. There are scales of duties which are necessary to protect employment in the Empire, duties in the Dominions which are necessary to develop their own infant industries, and duties which the Dominions consider are necessary to raise revenue. All such
1072
duties can give substantial Empire preference. There are duties, too, which we can put on, duties which are necessary to give our own people employment and save the Chancellor of the Exchequer the heavy contributions which he is making. I propose to vote for the Motion, and, not understanding the position of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, I cannot support his Amendment.
Mr. WISE: We are glad to have the opportunity of discussing this problem, but, after the handling which the Motion has received, I do not think that I need spend much time on the nebulous and contradictory details of the proposal that has been submitted. We listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) with much interest and pleasure. He engaged in the task, in which he excels, of putting questions and supplying the answers to those questions. I should like, if there were time, to put one or two questions about that very interesting little suggestion which he let drop at the end of his speech, and I am sure that several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite would like to do the same thing. For example, I should like to know whether he would propose to stop Canadian wheat coming here if, at the tail end of the season, the Canadian pool finds itself with a large carry over, and desires to realise it at market prices, if it happen that those market prices are less than the prices were earlier in the season. I would like to know whether he would stop Australian butter, if, as is normally the case, the export board set up under the authority of the Commonwealth Government, sells butter in this country at a price appreciably less than it sells butter in its own country. I might pursue these inquiries over a very wide range.
My purpose in getting up is to draw attention to what is indeed a very grave and serious problem, the problem of our export trade. I do not think that the policy of mere negation will help us very much in the situation in which we find ourselves. We used to say that, after all, the export trade would recover when we got away from the War. In fact, that is not happening. The world export trade is now about 20 per cent. above pre-

1073
War, but our export trade is about 17 per cent. below the world figure. The export trade of many other countries—not merely of America and Japan, but even of Germany—has recovered, but our export trade remains stationary. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side talk about the value of Imperial Preference, but, though during five years of their office the Preference Duties were existing in the Dominions, our trade with the Dominions is practically stationary. With Australia, for example, the figures of our trade are practically as they were pre-War, while the figures of the United States and Japan are about three times higher than pre-War. In Canada, British exports are again stationary, while American exports to Canada are four times the British exports, and have increased by nearly three-quarters of the amount of British exports in the last three or four years. The same phenomenon is to be observed in South America. Whereas before the War, we sold to South America about twice as much as the United States, now the United States sells to South American countries about half as much again as we sell to those countries.
These are very grave and serious facts, and it behoves us to face the situation. What is the explanation and what is the remedy? It is no good generalising about British export trade, and giving vague and unconnected figures, as the hon. Member who opened the discussion did with very great skill. You have to analyse British trade market by market, and you may reasonably and properly split it up into three great groups. There is trade with the Dominions, trade with Europe, and trade with the Far East. Take the Dominion trade, and with the Dominion trade I include trade—because it is of the same nature—with great agricultural countries like South America, Russia, and many of our colonies. On what basis before the War did we build up that great trade which was of such great value to us during the whole of the last century? I think that the biggest factor was that we in this country had more capital to invest than any other European country. Trade with the Dominions and with South America was based very largely on British investment of capital in those countries, not merely because that involved the movement of capital to those
1074
countries, but because it gave us an opportunity of getting a grip on the commercial and banking machinery of those countries which might have gone to other countries.
What has happened since the War in regard to that? We have found ourselves unable to carry on the investment of capital to anything like the same extent as before the War. We realise, and many people in many parties strongly argue, that now we cannot afford to invest, at any rate indiscriminately, capital which is badly needed at home for all kinds of purposes. In the meantime, another country, America, has come in and taken our place, and it is perfectly clear that we cannot out-distance her in this particular race. I have just quoted the figures of trade between ourselves and Canada, and ourselves and South America. It is interesting to compare those figures, which show a big comparative drop of British trade and a big increase of American trade, with the figures of capital invested before the War. We invested six times as much capital per annum as the United States in the Dominion of Canada. Since the War, the proportions have been exactly transformed, and America is investing six times as much as we invest. You get the same startling figures in regard to South America. It is clear that that particular weapon, which was so valuable in the Nineteenth Century, has gone.
The question is: Have we any sort of bargaining instrument by which we can replace it? I think that we have. This country is still, and is likely to be for some time, by far the best market in the world for the agricultural produce and the raw material of the Dominions and the great producing agricultural countries. A third of their wheat, three quarters of their meat, most of their butter and a great deal of their other produce must be sold in this market. Can we use that in any way in order to stimulate our export trade with those countries, as compared with the export trade of our competitors? We have heard a great deal from the Lord Privy Seal and others about developing our export trade.
A few months ago the Lord Privy Seal went, as he said, like a commercial traveller with a packet, or a bag, or, as I understand, a shipful, of samples to Canada, in order to see what he could

1075
sell. Apparently, he was not very successful. He suffered the fate of many commercial travellers, who go into a shop, but find that they are not very welcome. Suppose that instead of going with a bag full of samples, he had gone with a pocket full of orders. Suppose that he had been able to say to the Canadian wheat pool, the Canadian Government, "I want to buy wheat. I want to buy—shall we say—2,000,000 tons of wheat for each of the next five years. I am prepared to place a definite order. You will know precisely where you are during that period. You can have a steady price, or we can work out the basis of price to suit your convenience and ours. In any case, whatever may happen, you will be under no danger of your great markets being spoiled by German or by American or any other dumping, or by our custom being transferred elsewhere." Suppose that he had said: "I want to do the same for your cheese; and we would like to do the same with regard to other produce." He might also have said: "As a matter of fact, we already buy from you three or four times as much as you buy from us. Would it not be a reasonable business arrangement that some of those vast orders that you now place in the United States should be switched across the Atlantic to us?" Orders for their State railways, for their municipalities, for their State electric power stations, and orders, so far as the farmers are concerned for the supply of the consumable goods that are needed in their cooperative stores throughout the West—the co-operative movement is growing in the West—orders for the variety of goods which Canada must buy from abroad and which now she is buying from the United States and elsewhere.
He might have gone to Australia with the same sort of offer. Australia wants to sell butter, dried fruits, wool and a variety of other things. All the time that her market is here, her best market is here, and all the time she is buying from America, from Japan, and from other countries, an increasing, a rapidly increasing, quantity of manufactured goods that we used to supply and that we would like to supply. I think that is a business proposition, the sort of proposition which the Canadians would listen to: and it has the advantage that there
1076
is no question of taxing the food of the people in this country, or of increasing the price of raw materials. The offer we make to them, and it is a perfectly good business offer, is that we should give them a stable market, a secure market, and a guaranteed market, and I think if the offer were made the Dominions would very quickly respond. And even if they did not respond, I am quite sure there are other countries that would. In a small way this method has been already tried by Lord D'Abernon in South America. As a matter of fact I am informed, and I think the information is right, that in the last few months Australia herself has been making this sort of proposal in regard to the export of wool, I think, to Japan; and Japan herself has made a deal on those lines in respect of cotton and cotton goods with some of our East African Protectorates. It has never been tried on a large scale, but I submit that with the increasing centralisation of the sale of agricultural goods this is a businesslike way of dealing with the problem. On another occasion I dealt with wheat, and the same kind of principles apply to dairy produce, to meat and to a dozen other commodities. It is a method which would achieve the object which I believe actuates hon. Members opposite, and it would not involve any question of the taxation and the artificial increase of prices of food or raw materials here.
It would also help us in the other markets which we have to hold. There is no time for me to deal in detail with this, and I will not attempt to do so, but I would point out that the proposals of the other side neglect Europe altogether and would put up a ring fence between us and Europe. Never was there greater folly. Europe is still the largest importer, importing more than all the rest of the world put together, of manufactured goods; and in the last two or three years her trade has been increasing at a faster rate than that of the rest of the world. The proposal I have made would not interfere with, but by giving steady orders to our manufacturing trades, would help our hold on what is absolutely vital to us, especially for the highly skilled industries, the great European market, with its 375,000,000 consumers, and would also enable us to hold our own and develop

1077
the trade, so vital to us, with the Dominions and with the other agricultural countries.
I have no time to deal with the Far Eastern market, but there, again, the method proposed on the other side offers no hope. There is no question of persuading India to come into any such scheme. In the present state of Indian opinion the idea is quite preposterous. Nor, indeed, does Free Trade of the old type offer any hope whatever. Free Trade has no relevance to the conditions of the modern world, and Protection of the old kind is even more pernicious and injurious. The proposal I have made meets the world situation as it is, and it would, I think, develop the trade of this country and of the Dominions on lines which would secure the advantage of agriculturists and of producers and of consumers both in the Empire and here.
Major TRYON: I think I ought to mention that by the courtesy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I have been informed that he wishes to speak for only a short time. For that reason, I have got up very late to address the House. I am glad that this is so, because it has given me, as I think the whole House, the pleasure of listening to the speech of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise). That is a speech which is really encouraging to us on this side. It was not a party speech, and it looked at this great question from an Imperial point of view. If he had been present, I would have liked to contrast it at some length with the speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). This is a private Member's day, and I speak as the Member for my constituency, the largest constituency in the country, and I want to say to my hon. Friends behind me that in the hostile districts, politically, of one's constituency there is no part of the Conservative programme which is listened to with more attention than that part which deals with Safeguarding and with Imperial Preference. I would further say that I am very happy to find myself next to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), because he was the first Member to be returned as a supporter of the policy of the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. I have fought for that policy, and I have won a seat, which was twice Liberal,
1078
on the whole policy of Tariff Reform, including food taxes. I claim to speak as one who has fought eight elections and has entire faith in the policy of Imperial Preference. However, I will say no more on that, but will turn at once to the great problems which are immediately under discussion.
First, let me say that I welcome the way in which the Press of the country is directing public attention to this great question. I do not agree, of course, with all the newspapers, and it would only be pointing out what is obvious if I were to say that they do not agree with each other, but at any rate they direct attention to these fiscal and Imperial questions, and the speech to which we have just listened from the Labour party is a further and most interesting contribution to that discussion. After all, there is, at all events, one thing which we all of us support, and that is that the essential foundation of the campaign in favour of Empire Free Trade is right, because the essential foundation of it is to look for our commercial future to the Empire rather than to foreign countries I think it is there that our commercial future and opportunity lies. Many of us may differ as to the method, but we agree in this, that it should be to the Empire in the main that we look for our commercial reconstruction after the War.
There are, as I have said, many differences between those who support this Imperial cause, and I would only say this, that if those of us who hold the faith of Imperial Preference, and those who have very similar views will only cooperate, we can carry our policy through; but, if those of us who differ on some details from some of the more ardent advocates in the Press of this policy are to be attacked and driven out of public life, then there is no hope for those who are conducting this campaign, though I have no doubt the Conservative party will survive. In the Motion occurs the word "necessity." I think the word "necessity" is a very proper one to put in the Motion, because what is the position of this country?
Unlike the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, before deciding how I was to vote, I did not look out of my window to see if there was a hoar frost this morning. That is what he did on the morning of the Coal Bill Debate. I

1079
looked to another source of inspiration. I looked to the unemployment returns. The Labour party may laugh at those who propose this in the House of Commons, but the unemployed are not laughing. There are nearly 1,500,000 of our people unemployed.
Mr. MILLS: There are 3,000,000 in America.
Major TRYON: That gives me no satisfaction, though it may make the hon. Member smile.
Mr. MILLS: That is under Protection.
Major TRYON: I am concerned with the people of this country, and I find that hundreds of thousands more people are out of work since this Government came into office. It cannot be said that this is due entirely to seasonal changes, because nearly 50,000 more people are out of work at the present moment than at this time last year; and I therefore say, in view of the complacency which has been displayed, not from the Back Benches, but from one or two speakers on the Front Bench opposite, that though under this Government it may be a little easier to get the dole, it is very much more difficult to get work.
7.0 p.m.
Nor do I find much hope in the Liberal party's proposals for the unemployed. It is true they had some wonderful road schemes, but at the last Election they were committed to the repeal of the McKenna Duties, a proceeding which would throw out of work many thousands of skilled mechanics. It would be a very poor consolation to a skilled mechanic thrown out of work by the repeal of the McKenna Duties to get a chance of making roads for foreign motor cars to travel over. Among the speeches from the Liberal benches I remember one from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman). He speaks from the point of view of the shippers and of the distributors. Shipping, banking and distribution are all necessary and valuable parts of our public life, but a nation with a population as large as ours, on an island so small, cannot live by banking, by distribution, and by shipping alone; they must, in the main, get their employment from increased production. I say, without going into details, that our production cannot be satisfactory in this
1080
country when we have nearly 1,500,000 people out of work. Examined that way, we find that there is this difference. While the unsheltered parts of our trade are doing badly, there is a bright spot. Look at the trades which are enjoying the benefit of the Safeguarding and McKenna Duties. They are doing well. Let us then extend the area of benefit, and let us extend Safeguarding. When I say that, I am met by the usual Liberal objection that if you put a duty of say 33⅓ per cent. on anything, the cost of the article goes up by 33⅓ per cent. It would be interesting to know from the Liberal party what would be the rise in the price if the policy of prohibition of dumped goods which we have heard advocated to-night were put into force. If Safeguarding puts up the price by 33⅓ per cent., how much would prohibition of dumped goods put up prices? If the right hon. Gentleman who advocated that had heard the comments of the Liberal Members behind him, he would have found he was embarking the Liberal party on an unfamiliar course It is not for me to attack the right hon. Gentleman. I thank him for his references to myself. As one who has fought hard for many years for Safeguarding and for Imperial Preference, I do not forget the part that he played in those policies. I do not forget the extensions of Imperial Preference which he brought forward successfully when Prime Minister, although when in opposition he may laugh at these proposals which are put so seriously before the House of Commons.
We are in this position, that in our domestic trade part is doing badly and part is doing well. The part doing well is that which is safeguarded, or which is protected by the McKenna Duties, and the Liberal contentions against these duties are absolutely unfounded. When we suggest extending Safeguarding, their suggestion is: "You must not do that. You will send up the price of the article. What will happen if steel will cost more?" The Liberal contention then, is, that these duties will send up the cost. I would remind them that when the duties were put on motor cars the cost did not go up. It went down. It was said that it would mean less employment, but they gave more employment. It was said that these protective duties would bring about obsolete methods in the firms and busi-

1081
nesses concerned. Would anybody really argue that the motor trade of this country is lacking in enterprise, in good machinery, or in good methods? It is just the encouragement and help which these duties have given which has enabled the trade to instal better plant. So far from the export trade dwindling, as was suggested by the Liberal party, it has actually increased.
Let us, therefore, extend these duties. That was done by the late Government, and, so successful were the McKenna Duties on motor cars, that they were extended to motor tyres, and I myself have seen in many places additional factories put up in this country directly as a result of those duties and giving more employment to our people. The supporters of the present Government, at all events, cannot claim that their policy of nationalisation could do anything like what has been done by Safeguarding in the case of motor tyres. If all these products were made by the State, nobody but the State would be allowed to manufacture them, but, under our system of private enterprise, foreign firms come over here with their capital, with their better methods, and you get an addition to our methods of manufacture which is very useful, very helpful, and very encouraging to the trade which you obviously could not get under nationalisation. My first point—and I am speaking for myself and my constituency—is that I Would extend those Safeguarding Duties and make it much easier for them to be got through.
If from that we turn and look overseas, it all depends on the outlook of those concerned. One of the curious results of that odd form of gambling which we conduct in this House, the drawing of names out of a box, is that by taking out these Specimens from different parties you get some idea of what the various people who support the Front Benches are keen about. It is quite an interesting accident of the ballot box that when the name of the hon. Lady, the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) came out of the box, she proposed a Resolution directing our attention to the importance of increasing trade with Russia. We take a different view. When on that Same day a Conservative Member's name was taken out of the box, he proposed a very similar Resolution about
1082
the importance of increased trade with the British Empire, and rightly so, when you look at our overseas trade. Take the whole trade of the world and the exports of all the countries, and you will see that there has been some increase since the last normal pre-War year, 1913, but our share in the changing years which have come since has dwindled from 13 per cent. to 11 per cent. of the whole. Therefore, we who depend on overseas trade more than any other country are losing our place among the trading countries of the world. If Free Trade is the foundation of our prosperous past, surely Free Trade, which we are still practising, must undoubtedly have to answer for what has happened subsequently when we are undoubtedly not holding our own.
Just as in the home trade there was one bright spot, the safeguarded industries, so in our exports overseas there is also one bright spot, the trade that comes to this country from the Dominions. We are doing badly at home and badly overseas, but in both cases, where the policies of Safeguarding and Imperial Preference have been applied, trade is doing better. Why is there this difference overseas? Partly because throughout the world these new nations created by the Treaty of Versailles, and the old nations, too, are practising Protection. They may be wrong, but they are practising Protection. When we talk of what various people are in favour of, let me point out that in our Dominions there is hardly any serious Free Trade party in any of them. Moreover, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs goes rather further towards us on this matter than some of his supporters, we have bad very excellent speeches from some of his important speakers who used to speak for the Midlands and the North. I noticed lately that there is a little group of them who have been driven down like the ancient Britons into Cornwall where, again like the ancient Britons, they must be very sorry to be separated from their leader in North Wales. I believe that St. Ives is a considerable distance from Carnarvon, speaking both politically and geographically.
I spoke of our trade doing well overseas. So it is. Who are the people-who make it do well? There is the New

1083
Zealander who buys from us over £13 per head. I hardly like to mention the Russians, but they are worth 4d. each to us. I do not know what 4d. would be worth in the hands of my right hon. Friend, but at all events 4d. seems to me a very poor contribution for each Russian towards our unemployed. That is not so much due to the excellence of New Zealand—although I think it is indeed excellent—as to the complete failure of Socialism in Russia. But that, of course, is a point outside this question. If you look at the North American Continent, you see that the average Canadian buys from us nearly £4 per head, whereas the average citizen of the United States buys only about 7s. from us. That gives some measure of the value to us of the commerce of Canada. It is obvious that, if Canada was absorbed in the United States—and I pray that will not, and indeed I do not think that it will ever happen—but if, for the sake of argument, we assume that that should come to pass, then obviously those purchases would be measured in shillings rather than in pounds.
To come back to the question of Imperial trade—[Interruption]—I would remind hon. Members opposite that New Zealand and Canada are parts of the Empire, and Russia is not. There is a great measure of Empire Free Trade now in existence. We have lately had in office in Australia a Labour Government. Unlike the Labour Government here, they are highly Protectionist. That is a complete answer to the contention that Protection is simply the policy of a few rich manufacturers. I do not agree with the whole of their policy, but at any rate the Autralian Labour party is a Protectionist party and also a party which is in favour of Imperial Preference. Under their tariff, there is a list of articles which come in perfectly free, if made within the Empire, but pay duty if they come in from foreign countries. That is an example of Empire Free Trade actually working. Similar arrangements have been made in Canada, and there are quite a number of articles on which our Dominions put special duties in order to give a favour and advantage to the working people of the Mother Country.
Therefore, when I am asked for my policy, I say that I am in favour of an extension of Safeguarding and an ex-
1084
tension of Imperial Preference, so that, wherever we have duties for our own purposes, those duties should favour the Dominions. When you think that we have about a quarter of the whole of the world's population and about a quarter of the world's surface all under one flag living together in a peaceful commonwealth—because we have achieved peace between the various units of the British Empire such as no countries outside the British Empire have ever known among themselves—when you think that we have an overwhelming proportion within the Empire of nearly all the great essential products which go to make up the commerce of this country, then it is obvious that it is from the British Empire we should endeavour to rebuild the prosperity of our country after the Great War. If we extend Safeguarding and Imperial Preference and if, in consultation with the Dominions, we do everything that we can to encourage and develop trade between this country and the great overseas Dominions, we shall do something to remove a state of things which brings about the intolerable position that in the centre of this great Empire of ours there are 1,500,000 people out of work. I believe, if we did that, we should do something to tackle the present state of unemployment.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): When I see the large number of Members who are anxious to take part in this Debate, I feel somewhat conscience-stricken at interposing even for a few minutes in the discussion. In response to the appeals which have been made to me, I intervene to express the views of the Government on the proposal which is now before the House. I have always held that private Members' days should be given wholly to private Members' discussions, and, even if I were disposed to do so, I could not deal in the short time available with all the statements which have been made in the course of the Debate. I will therefore confine myself simply to that part of the Resolution which calls upon the Government to take action in this matter. May I congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Major Tryon) upon the dexterity of his speech. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman began by dissociating all the other Members of the late Government

1085
from anything that he might say in the course of his speech. The most remarkable feature of the Debate this afternoon has been the silence of the late Government upon this question. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton spoke for half an hour, and he never even honoured the Resolution by making any reference to it. Although it is a Resolution on the ideal of Empire Free Trade, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman never went beyond Safeguarding and Imperial Preference.
I have a difficulty in speaking on behalf of the Government at this moment, because, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I do not know what it means. The Resolution itself is nebulous and ambiguous, but the speeches of the hon. Member who introduced the Motion and the hon. Member who seconded were by no means ambiguous; they made it perfectly clear to the House what they mean and what they have in their minds. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) and the hon. Member who seconded the Resolution said that it means the taxation of food and raw materials.
Mr. REMER: Foreign food.
Mr. SNOWDEN: If we were debating that point I should have no difficulty in showing that the taxation of foreign food means the taxation of all the food in this country, because, if you put a tax upon imports from foreign countries, that necessarily raises the price. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] An hon. Member who spoke earlier in this Debate showed from his own practical business experience that the price of food imported from one of the Dominions upon which a preference was given was equal to the price of similar food imported from a foreign country. Therefore, you would give no advantage to the Dominions by taxing foreign imports into this country unless the effect was to raise the price in this country. No doubt this Resolution means, in the minds of those responsible for bringing it before the House, a tax upon food and upon raw materials, and, although not much on this point has been heard in the course of this Debate, it
1086
means, especially with regard to the Crown Colonies, a tax upon manufactured articles. Under these circumstances, perhaps hon. Members will not be surprised when I say that the Government can give no support to a proposal of that kind. In the Resolution we are asked:
"To open negotiations with the other Governments of the umpire with a view to the formulation of a policy designed to secure that the purchasing power of the Empire shall be directed primarily to the full employment of the inhabitants of the Empire."
If there were nothing more than that in the Resolution, the Government would have no objection to it. As a matter of fact, we have taken steps to hold an economic conference on that question. When we were last in office five years ago, we did everything we could by financial support to encourage migration to Australia, and we have supported every Measure which has been brought forward which, in our opinion, was likely to knit closer together the bonds which unite the Mother country and our overseas Dominions, but we can give no support whatever to a policy such as that which is hinted at in the terms of the Resolution now before the House.
What does voting for this Resolution mean? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brighton said that he was not speaking for his colleagues on the Front Opposition Bench, but I suppose that the members of the party opposite will go into the Division Lobby in support of the Resolution. What will their votes mean? Is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) going into the Lobby in support of this Resolution? I remember that about a month ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping called attention to the fact that about 30 years ago he was a member of a Unionist Free Trade party—
Mr. CHURCHILL: Free Food. And I see no reason why I should alter my views in that connection.
Mr. SNOWDEN: There should be no mistake about this issue, because it has been made perfectly clear in the speeches from the other side of the House to-day, that voting for this Resolution means

1087
voting for a tax on food. [HON. MEMBERS: "Foreign food!"]
Mr. MARJORIBANKS Mr. MARJORIBANKS rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) cannot interrupt the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer unless the right hon. Gentleman gives way.
Mr. SNOWDEN: What does voting for this Resolution mean? It means that every Member who goes into the Division Lobby in support of it is voting for a tax on the people's food—[HON. MEMBERS: "No! "]—and it means, also, that they are voting for a tax upon raw materials. They will be voting for proposals which, if carried into effect, would increase the cost of production of every manufacturing industry in this country. We have been told that this Resolution will bind together the workers of the Empire, but if this proposal is carried into effect, it will reduce the standard of living of the workers of this country to the standard of living of the workers in Protectionist countries.
Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I should like to take this opportunity of pointing out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his last sentence, has been far more concerned with political propaganda than with our trade. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to pass out to the country something which he must know in his heart is not the whole tale. I shall be quite prepared to debate this matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the proper time, but now I only want to nail this lie to the mast. [Interruption.]
Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. BALFOUR: I want to make this point quite clear. We say that the Empire can produce the food that our people require—
Sir R. HUTCHISON Sir R. HUTCHISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. BALFOUR: I only wish to say—
Sir R. HUTCHISON Sir R. HUTCHISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
Mr. GRUNDY: I beg to move,
"That, in the opinion of this House, unemployment insurance should be extended to include agricultural workers."
I am encouraged to hope that this Motion will receive the unanimous assent of the House, because I notice that, of the two Amendments which have been put down by the Opposition, one only asks for additional information, which I hope that I and other speakers will be able to give sufficiently to induce the hon. and gallant Member who put down that Amendment not to press it. The second Amendment asks, not only that additional information should be obtained, but that the action proposed in this Motion should be delayed until further assistance is given to the farming industry in this country. I do not think I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Members in whose names that Amendment stands as regards further assistance being given, but I see no justification for delaying the giving of just and proper treatment to the farm labourers until some Government offers a subsidy or a tariff barrier to help the farmers of this country. I see no reason why a body of men like these sturdy sons of the soil should not be properly dealt with until a certain period of millennium comes round. These men are helping the Divine Being in a wonderful way. Every day we pray to the Lord to give us our daily bread, and these men are helping the Divinity to carry out that prayer.
We have also to remember that the farm labourers do not unduly press their claims upon this House. They have sent some fine representatives here, whom we remember with great reverence and admiration, and in the preset it House they have representatives of their trade organisation who are a great credit to them, but no one can say that their claims have been pressed unduly on the

1089
House. Farmers have many representatives here, and it cannot be said that their side of the case is neglected, but very little has been said with respect to the farm labourers, and I think they are entitled to the sympathetic consideration of the House. Looking around them, they see all their fellow-workers—the great human family of toilers in this country—provided for in times of unemployment, and they feel that they are shunned and ostracised by reason of their omission from the Unemployment Insurance Act. At one time, probably through some misrepresentation or misunderstanding, there was a feeling among the farming industry in this country against their inclusion in the Unemployment Insurance Act, but years ago that indifference and lukewarmness was removed, and the farm labourers to-day see that only their inclusion in the Unemployment Insurance Act stands between them and the workhouse or Poor Law relief. Their wages are very low, and quite insufficient to make any provision for periods of unemployment. Their wages do not leave much to provide for the proverbial rainy day, and even if they deny themselves—and that is the only way that they can save—the necessities to which they are entitled, there may come two rainy days, and then, even with that provision, they would be helpless.
Several questions have been asked in this House as to the numbers that are unemployed, but we have found that the Government have been unable to give any accurate figures, and that has been made an excuse for not bringing these labourers into the Unemployed Insurance Bill. I should say that it is the fault of the Government themselves if they have neglected to get accurate information, and that that is no excuse. All that I am asking the House to agree to to-night is the principle of the inclusion of agricultural workers in our Unemployment Insurance scheme, and I shall try to supply at least some of the information that has been asked for. To-day unemployment hangs over the farm labourer like a great cloud. It worries him all the year round, and the young men in the villages, in order to escape it, are rapidly drifting into the industrial areas. I have said that a change of opinion has occurred among the agricultural workers of this
1090
country, and that is proved by the fact that, at their last three biennial conferences, there has been a unanimous vote in favour of their inclusion. I think that in fairness I ought to say—and if I do not put their case as well as my friends would like, I would ask later speakers to make up for the omission—that, if I do not put the case very well, it is not the fault of the Agricultural Workers' Union, for every bit of information that they have has been placed at my disposal.
While I cannot pretend to be a farm labourer, I can pretend to have been partly so as a lad, and I think that this entitles me to speak for them. As a lad, for a wage of 8d. a day, I followed a man with two dibbles, putting beans in the holes that he made. I scared crows with clappers at 10d. a day—which was not bad money then. I made bands in the harvest field at 1s. a day and drinks. Two years after that, I went into the pit at 1s. a day, and I would much prefer making bands if it went on all the year round, because you do get sunshine and you get a drink as well. As I have said, at the last three conferences there has been a unanimous expression of opinion in favour of their inclusion—
Mr. R. W. SMITH: May I ask if the resolutions to which the hon. Member refers were in favour of a special scheme for the agricultural labourer?
Mr. GRUNDY: I am coming to the question of a special scheme; the hon. Member has not given me a chance to deal with it. I was saying that at their last three conferences they have voted unanimously in favour of their inclusion in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I hope that the Government are going to get some data with regard to this matter I think it is due to the farm labourers that they should do so. We must remember that, even in the Tory days, there was an Inter-Departmental Committee, which reported in 1925, and that Committee was unanimously in favour of some insurance scheme for farm workers, though they had no more reliable data than we have at the present time—indeed, not so much. I am not going to commit myself to any special scheme; I am asking the House to vote for the principle.
I believe the agricultural workers themselves desire a special scheme be-

1091
cause of the insufficiency of their wages to pay the ordinary contribution. That is no credit to the country. A man who works in all kinds of weather and gives of his best ought to be able, as the result of his honest toil, to make a contribution, not only for that, but for sickness, death, superannuation and a decent old age. In January, 1920, there were no fewer than 7,306 agricultural workers registered at Employment Exchanges, not for the purpose of receiving benefit, but in the hope of betting jobs elsewhere. Last October the Agricultural Workers' Union tried to make up for the neglect of the Government in gaining reliable information. I will give a summary of the result which, I hope, will induce the hon. Member to withdraw the first Amendment. They sent out a questionnaire to all their branches. They got 474 replies, representing 990 parishes, dealing with 44,281 farm workers—not a great number out of the 700,000, I agree, but you must take the figures I give as being typical of how the farming industry stands in regard to unemployment. There were 2,011 unemployed in this number. I think that is a general average of between 4 and 5 per cent. In the winter of 1928–9 the same questionnaire was sent from the same area and there were 4,367 unemployed, and they estimate for this winter a number of 5,515, and the time of unemployment three months. [An HON. MEMBER: "What area is that?"] You can have the list when I have done with it.
Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Do any of these figures relate to Scotland?
Mr. GRUNDY: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has asked me that. I am missing Scotland out of my remarks, because I understand there is a very divided opinion in respect to this, though I am told by those who ought to know that there is a growing opinion in favour of inclusion, and that it is advocated by the secretary of the Scottish Farm Labourers' Union. I have the Scottish figures if the hon. Gentleman would like to see them. The figures I have quoted are sufficiently important to justify the House in at least asserting the principle. They have sent me some later figures. I may mix some of them up, but it will not be the first mix up I have been in. On 10th January the unemployed in the
1092
Bourne urban area were, registered, 48; and unregistered, 43; out of an approximate number of 375. In the surrounding villages of Morton, Tongue End, Witham, and Haconby there were approximately 85 unemployed agricultural workers. I have also been given the figures of the Faversham rural district and the parishes of Boughton, Hernhill, etc., where there are at least 40 farm workers unemployed since November last, mainly living in tied houses. Here is a tragedy. If farm workers obtain more remunerative employment they have to give it up to go back when the farmer wants them or they are evicted. I do not like that part of it. Unemployment, eviction and the workhouse—those are their three chances. I do not say that all farmers do it, but there is nothing to be proud of in the system that allows it. The better class farmers would not do it, but some have done it and they ought not to have the right. The parish council of Hernhill and Boughton passed a resolution urging the rural district council to put an unemployment scheme into operation for the benefit of some of the farm workers, but the council states that the owners refuse to sell land to enable them to do it. It is, no doubt, one of those old stick-in-the-mud places where, if the owner says "No," they will not obtain some paltry power to make him, because I understand it has been going on for 11 years.
I should like the Government to say what they are doing. This is a statement of what the other side have not done. Is there any question between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture? If so, how near are they to agreement? I dare not ask how far they are apart. If there are any difficulties, could we be told what they are? If a scheme has been agreed, can we know to-night what it is? I am pledging myself to no special scheme. All I am asking the House to do is to sanction the principle of a scheme for a body of men who are a credit to the country. It is the oldest profession there is. One cannot conceive, as soon as God made the earth, that someone did not begin to farm it in some shape or form. It is the second greatest industry and, if the House is satisfied that it ought to be brought in, the manner in which it should be done can be a matter of actuarial arrangement.
Mr. GOULD: I beg to second the Motion.
8.0 p.m.
There is no subject on which it would give me greater pleasure to assist in trying to win the support of all sections of the House than this extension of the social services to this much-needed and very considerable section of the working-class population. The fact that the second largest unit of the tremendous industrial population of the country is still outside any provision for unemployment is an indictment of those who have held power in Parliament. If I had any definite pledge or mandate which was clear and articulate from the last election, it was the provision of unemployment insurance for the agricultural workers of my division. I represent the northern part of the County of Somerset. They tell me that it is the only part of that beautiful county to lapse politically. I hardly know what "lapse" means. To me, it is a birth and not a lapse. But, whatever it may be, I regarded the voice of the agricultural worker as ringing most clear and definite throughout the whole of that campaign, asking incessantly, at village after village, for one definite piece of reform. It was not so much wages. Housing, yes. But the chief claim in regard to their political burdens was that they ought to have extended to them the privileges and provisions which other workers in their parishes and villages had already, and which were being denied to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Grundy) has stated that there are some 700,000 silent, scattered, agricultural workers living in our rural areas where there is very little group life and where they are cut off from many of the amenities. They are very frugal and most industrious men, women and children deserving of the best that this House can give to them. I do not forget the depression of agriculture. That matter is outside the scope of the Motion. I regard the claims of the workers as important as the claims of those who are behind the industry and whose interests are vested in the capital and in the land. We are to-night pressing the claims of the workers alongside of the claims of those who are responsible for this very large industry. We are not asking for prior consideration, but we do ask that
1094
the immediate attention of the Government shall be given to this immediate need.
There are four points which I wish to stress very briefly. I believe that in a Debate like this it would be better that 20 speakers should make their contribution than that one or two should make very long speeches. The first point is that there is known unemployment. I am not going to repeat the statement which has been made by my hon. Friend. In my Division, there are 82 parishes, but, if in reviewing the country you only take 990 parishes, you will find that in October last, at the beginning of the winter, there were 2,000 unemployed, while in the December returns the number was 4,800. I know that the figures are not proportionate to the respective parishes and areas, because you have the milk and dairies areas where unemployment is light and the arable areas where it is heavy. We have in reply to the questionnaire which the Agricultural Workers sent out, very reliable, and, as far as it goes, scientific data proving that there is a tremendous burden of unemployment in various localities, where there is no social service rendered in the way of a national scheme. We ask, in the light of that data, that, if the Minister is not prepared to act upon it, he will immediately get more complete data. I hope that to-night the Minister will be able to announce that data is available and that with the general cooperation of all parties—a council of State, surely—he will endeavour to formulate a scheme peculiar to agriculture and to the needs of agriculture. I am not going to say that there has been a scheme propounded which ought to be forced upon the House, but I believe that, if we could get unanimity on the principle to-night, it would make the way clear for the Minister to introduce a Bill, and that, by co-operative effort on the part of all parties, we could forge a scheme adaptable to the industry and the immediate needs of the people concerned.
Mr. SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether he has any data with regard to Scotland and whether he is making that proposal in the interest of England only? Is it to apply to Scotland?
Mr. GOULD: At present, the data relates to England and Wales. I do not want to go outside the scope of the data which has been laid before us. I believe that the workers have their own organisations in Scotland, and that, in co-operation with their own agriculturists, they could at least give an indication of their position. Personally, I would go all out for an all-inclusive scheme for Scotland, England, and Wales because I know the need of the unemployed agricultural worker.
Mr. SCOTT: In consequence of what the hon. Member has just said, may I again ask whether he has any reliable data with regard to Scotland?
Mr. GOULD: In the nature of unemployment, no. I am hoping that the agricultural representatives of Scotland will make their contribution. It would be presumptuous of a Somerset and English representative to teach Scotland anything about economy and national schemes. The second point is that these workers are consumers and taxpayers. These people smoke, and sometimes they drink, though rarely, and they have to buy these commodities from which Imperial taxation is obtained for these funds. Here you have the anomaly of the lowest-paid workers in the countryside, scattered as they are with no clear, articulate voice except through an organisation, paying liberally to the national funds, and yet when the bad days come they are excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance. We claim that as consumers and taxpayers, in the interest of the ratepayers of the localities, common sense should induce agriculturists and landowners, as well as the workers, to demand for the agricultural workers the benefits of a fund so largely contributed to by Imperial taxation.
The third point is that the low wage level of the worker necessitates the agricultural worker's family, sometimes a small family, and sometimes a large family, living from hand to mouth. It is not their fault. It is easy to imagine that, when unemployment occurs, within two weeks there is only one resort, and that the Poor Law. These people have the same feeling about the Poor Law as we have. They detest the stigma of the Poor Law. I have seen it operate. There
1096
are low wages, and often, owing to the fear of unemployment, workers acquiesce in receiving low wages. Sometimes the employer who refuses the minimum is a guardian of the Poor Law helping to administer Poor Law relief. The invidious position of these workers has a tremendous effect upon their individuality and independence, such as I am sure most hon. Members of this House would desire to eliminate.
Lastly, there is the fear, not only of the men who are out of employment, but of the men who are in employment which arises owing to the absence of unemployment insurance. I believe that the fear caused by the absence of such a provision is the worst factor in the whole of the areas. I did not get a demand for this provision from the unemployed so much as I did from the men who were in work and who feared unemployment. It is difficult to imagine, if one does not know village and hamlet life, how isolated these people really are. Their only amenity very often is the village "pub" or the village club. Their independence is often destroyed by fear, because unemployment often means eviction, and it often means stark privation, and that the family is haunted by the Poor Law with all its rigours. I submit that these four points are substantial points upon which we should all agree in this House, and that there is a tremendous case on the data available of the present unemployed figures. The wage level does not permit of any man or any home facing unemployment and the probabilities and possibilities of unemployment without tremendous fear.
What are the objections to the proposal? First, that the workers would be stood off. Very frankly, as a trade unionist with some administrative experience, I know that to be a correct statement of the position. It is a fact that employers do stand men off when they know that provisions are made out of national contributory funds. But that is not in any way the essential part of this case. It is part of the general case. You can turn to the whole of these social services, and on that test: you can prove your case. As a boot operative, I have seen workers approach the factory where there has been only three or four days' work and ask that "an arrangement" should be made. I do not think that

1097
upon those grounds you can deny the workers in the industry of agriculture such a provision as I advocate.
The second objection is that the milk and dairy sections do not compare with other sections. It is true that in the arable areas there is greater distress, greater privations, and larger sections of labour involved, and more unemployment. The unemployed agricultural worker should be brought into the insurance scheme on the basis of a fifty-fifty grant. The balancing power of a State grant of 50 per cent. should make it a feasible proposition. In a provisional scheme for the agricultural worker contributions were suggested of 1½d., 1½d. and 3d. After all, if the State proposed to contribute such a proportion there could be no hardship to the milk and dairy areas such as Somerset and parts of Devon and Cornwall. I think that that objection is minimised to a very large extent.
It is said that the industry cannot bear it. I have never yet known an industry which could bear any new imposition. I realise the unsatisfactory state of agriculture at the present time, and I come back to my point with regard to the burden on the arable farmer. I know that the consumers and taxpayers in those areas are paying contributions into the common fund in which the present insured workers are participating. They have to pay, and they are left high and dry in very difficult days. Commonsense ought to impel them to say, "We will come in and make our contribution, and we desire to receive an equitable share according to the needs of our unemployed." That is as far as I desire to go. I wish to press this last point upon whoever speaks for the Government, that this is definitely a Labour party pledge to these 700,000 workers. I gave no pledge so definite as this one. It would give me great pleasure to honour it. I hope that we shall co-operate in bringing necessary pressure, and I trust that it will be a great co-operative effort, in making such a scheme possible in view of the tremendous needs of these people this winter, in the hope that by next winter we shall have a scheme on a solvent actuarial basis, on an experimental basis, including England, Scotland and Wales, and thus fulfil not only the pledge to the party but the pledge to these men and women whose voices are rarely heard
1098
articulately in this wonderful House of Commons.
Captain DUGDALE: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
"this House urges the Government to obtain accurate information as to the prevalence of unemployment in agriculture, and is of the opinion that it would be premature to extend unemployment insurance to agricultural workers until such information is available."
In moving the Amendment, I crave the indulgence of the House on the occasion of the first time that I have addressed it. My one consolation at the present moment is the fact that hon. and right hon. Members who are present have been through this ordeal on one occasion during their Parliamentary career. In dealing with the question before the House, I would refer to insurance as a whole and to the insurance system from the general point of view. It may seem curious to hon. Members that in regard to the very system of insurance which is so generally accepted in industry to-day one should oppose to a certain degree the inclusion of a section of the community who, we all admit, are a worthy section. But there are two considerations which are absolutely essential before the Government, of whatever party, as justified in extending State insurance. The two conditions are, (1) that the risk to the insurer does actually exist, and (2) that the parties concerned are not only in a position to pay but also have shown themselves, from the general point of view, as being willing to pay their contributions or premiums towards the insurance scheme.
The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion told the House that in their view and in their constituencies the main mass of the agricultural population are in favour of becoming included in the scheme of general unemployment insurance. I speak only from what I know, and in my Division, which is one of the largest if not the largest Division in the country, consisting of more than 600,000 acres, entirely agricultural, I can say with absolute confidence that there is no desire whatever amongst the general mass of the agricultural labourers to be included in the scheme of general unemployment insurance. From where, then, does the pressure come? I think I am right in saying that the pressure for the exten-

1099
sion of the scheme of unemployment insurance to the farm labourer comes from the Agricultural Labourers' Union. For my part, and I think I speak for all hon. Members on this side of the House, when a question regarding agricultural workers comes before us we are the first people to take guidance and advice from the Agricultural Labourers' Union, but it must be remembered that the membership of that union to-day to put it on a generous estimate, is between 30,000 and 40,000, out of an agricultural labouring population of 770,000—a little less than 5 per cent. That being so, I do not feel that I am justified in taking the view of this union as expressing the general opinion of the agricultural labourers throughout the country.
Does the risk of the agricultural labourer becoming unemployed really exist? Again, it is only for me to refer to the part of the country from which I come. I will not refer to my own constituency, but to the whole of the North Biding of Yorkshire, which consists of more than 1,000,000 acres. On the 24th January of this year there were in the whole of that great district only 77 agricultural labourers registered at the Employment Exchanges. I fully appreciate the fact that at the present time it is not essential for agricultural labourers to become registered at the Employment Exchanges, but I have made inquiries from what I know to be a reliable source, and I find that, from the returns that I have received, on the same day there were estimated to be an additional 75 people unregistered, and yet unemployed, and that is accepting the most generous figure. That is a very email percentage of the labouring population. There are, no doubt, black spots throughout the country, parishes where unemployment conditions in agriculture are bad, but, taking it as a general rule, I am convinced that it is essential the House should ask the Minister of Agriculture to obtain more statistics to prove whether or not we are justified in forcing legislation upon this large section of the community, until we know that the situation demands it in the country as a whole.
May I turn to the question as to whether or not the farm labourer can afford to pay the contribution that is demanded? It may not be a pleasant topic,
1100
but we must face the question as to whether he can or cannot afford to pay. I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture has any scheme in mind as to what the amount of contribution the agricultural labourer should be asked to pay. I assume that if they come into the general scheme of unemployment insurance they would pay the same contribution, that is 7d. per week, as men engaged in other industries, and if that is so it will take away from the agricultural labourers of this country more than £1,100,000 every year. Are we justified in taking this large sum from them and putting it into a common fund, which this House will admit is already hopelessly in debt, in order to benefit other sections of the community, unless we are confident that the need is great and that the benefit which agricultural labourers will receive will be as much as, if not greater, than that which they put in? Unless we have further statistics, I think the House would be wrong to pass legislation forcing an unemployment insurance scheme on agricultural labourers.
The view of the mover of the Motion seemed to be that the agricultural farm labourer should be included in a general scheme of unemployment insurance because the labourers in all other industries are included. Hon. Members know it already, but let me repeat it, that the agricultural industry to-day, and always, has been entirely different from the other great industries of the country. In agriculture we have what is known as the family business, and I am sure it is the wish of the House to encourage this family business. Out of 400,000 holdings throughout the country no less than 260,000 are holdings of 50 acres or less, and these holdings of 50 acres or less are for the most part farmed by farmers and their sons. Is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to embody in his scheme sons working for their fathers? If so the House will realise the hardship which would be caused to these individual families. If not then the House will realise the hardship to other agricultural workers who happen to be farming for someone who is not their father. In either case you are going to do great injustice to this family business, which I am certain the House wishes to encourage.

1101
Let me refer to the farmer, who is the second party in this transaction. Is this a time to add a further burden on the farmer and the agricultural industry? At a time when prices are at their bottom, when farmers are suffering from subsidised foreign competition, when everything in agriculture is as difficult as it can be, is it right that we should add a further burden on the industry which indeed might prove to be the last straw? In my view an extension of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme to agricultural workers would result in farmers being obliged to turn away their permanent employés and take in more and more casual labour, which would be to the disadvantage of the genuine agricultural worker and to the disadvantage of the industry as a whole. Finally, let me turn for a moment to the State, which is the third party in this transaction. No doubt the hon. Member who has moved the Motion has satisfied himself that the money which is necessary for the State to pay would be found by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, It is not my intention to argue the question as to whether the House would be justified in voting that money or not, but let me refer to the attitude of the Minister of Labour. When the right hon. Lady was referring to farm workers in this House on the 9th December, 1929, she used these words:
"They are what I call the 'good lives' in relation to the national insurance scheme, and we want the good lives as well as the bad ones."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th December, 1929; col. 198, Vol. 233.]
Is it right, unless we are fully satisfied that unemployment exists in this industry to a far greater extent than I think it does, to take money from farm labourers throughout the country with a view of swelling the general pool. Having regard to the situation of the industry as a whole and to the welfare of the farm labourer I have come to the conclusion that the money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to give in this case would be far better spent on a scheme which would benefit the industry as a whole and thereby benefit not only the farmer but also the farm labourer.
Major GEORGE DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sure I am voicing the feeling of every hon. Member in every part of the House when I offer to my hon. and gal-
1102
lant Friend my hearty congratulations on the maiden speech which he has just delivered. He not only showed that he was master of his subject, that he had studied it, but also that modesty which should accompany a first speech in this House, and it kindled a hope in all those who have had the pleasure of listening be it that it will not be too long before he again intervenes in our Debates. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Agriculture that at long last he is able to take part in an agricultural Debate. For seven months he has been yearning for an opportunity to bring forward an agricultural subject before the House of Commons, which looks to him as its father confessor on the subject, and but for the introduction of the Supplementary Estimate in connection with sugar beet, the Debate on which was naturally narrow, and this Motion, which comes to him on a silver salver by chance of the ballot, he would still be looking for an opportunity of propounding to the House of Commons and the country his great schemes for the development of agriculture. It does not require a very vivid imagination to picture him, surrounded by his Cabinet colleagues, lamenting that all the sympathy is given to "Jimmy" and that there is none for himself, because his colleague merely promised to cure unemployment, while he was pledged to make farming pay. At the same time he dangles before the farmer the prospect that at some future time, not too distant, the country will be dotted with new village halls, at each of which will be sitting one of the inspectors of his Department, seeing that the farming community do not underpay their labourers, and that if they do, as St. Paul says in the New Testament, "haling men and women and putting them in prison." That is the great objective that the farmer is looking to.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Question before the House is Unemployment Insurance for agricultural workers.
Major DAVIES: I was hoping that I was finding employment for at least one of those who regard themselves as interested in agriculture. But I will pass to another point. My hon. and gallant

1103
Friend who moved the Amendment has shown that this matter is a much broader one than was appreciated by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. Incidentally I am glad that a colleague from Somerset has taken part in the Debate. What is the reason why we have before us the problem that a large section of the industrial workers of the country are not included in the Unemployment Insurance provision? We all remember that when the Unemployment Insurance Act was first brought into operation many industries wanted to contract out. It was said that a particular industry was a better risk than the others, and it did not want to come in under the whole scheme. But it was pointed out that if we began to make exceptions like that we got away entirely from the principle of insurance, by which, generally speaking, good risks must take their chance with the bad. Why was agriculture left out? Because it is intrinsically a different industry from any other.
My first point is this: As far as could be ascertained, the prospect of unemployment in agriculture was so small that there would have been an unfair burden on the industry in its contributions as a good risk compared with those employed in other industries who might be a bad risk. Agriculture was excluded in the interests of the agricultural workers themselves. The purpose of the Amendment is not to rule out consideration of the whole question, for it is not a party matter. It is a very important question as to whether we are wise in excluding agricultural workers from a principle which has been advantageous in other directions; but if we are to make a change surely there should be every opportunity given to find out what the facts are. In spite of the eloquence of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, I submit that they did not satisfy the House that the facts are at their disposal. One of the difficulties of those of us who like to get into touch with agricultural workers in our constituencies or elsewhere, is that such an infinitesimal number of them are members of any organisation through which we can get at them en masse. There are only 40,000 or 50,000 who are at present organised. It is impossible to get from them the data
1104
which are necessary for a big national movement like this.
There are three parties to whom we have to be fair. We have first to be fair to the agricultural worker. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion maintained that our present principle inflicts an unfairness on the agricultural workers, because they are excluded. But there are two sides to that question. I admit that there are points in favour of the scheme that have not been mentioned. For instance, a farmer wants to take on casual labour for two or three months' employment. A lot of men at present unemployed do not like to undertake such work because they would then be classed as agricultural workers at I he Employment Exchanges. It is difficult for the agricultural worker in the village to see a building labourer, who is held up on account of bad weather, drawing unemployment benefit from which the agricultural worker is himself debarred. These things are admitted. But there is the other side. If the agricultural worker, with his present miserable and too low wage is to have an additional financial burden placed upon him weekly, he will be unfairly penalised. We do not know what the general opinion among the agricultural workers is. Questions have been put to the Minister of Agriculture and to his Parliamentary Secretary, and the reply has been that they are not in a position to give reliable figures. The Amendment calls upon the Minister to undertake the task of getting reliable figures before schemes are submitted to the House of Commons.
My second point is this: While it is true that in certain directions certain branches of agriculture are not so hard hit as others, the difficulty of the employing farmer is to find the necessary weekly cash. By a proposal of this sort we are going to add to the actual weekly cash outgoing of the farmer. That will result in the farmer, in spite of what he would like to do, having to contract his liabilities, to think twice before he takes on additional hands or keens those that he has. Before the House blindly accepts the Motion it would do well to consider acceptance of the Amendment. We know that the Government is by no means backward in setting up committees of investigation in various directions. In an industry like agriculture, which all parties

1105
agree is fundamental to the well-being of our industrial state, it is not too much to ask that the Minister of Agriculture should take the necessary steps to get reliable data, so that we can decide whether the agricultural worker should be included in the general scheme or a special scheme or no scheme.
My hon. colleague from Somerset suggested what he called a fifty-fifty scheme. I understand his idea is that the State should pay threepence, the farmer three-halfpence and the labourer three-halfpence. The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. It is not so long since the Parliamentary Secretary said that people who thought that a scheme for agriculture could be carried by 6d. a week in that way were basing their ideas on groundless hopes, and that it would be nearer 11d. or 1s.
Mr. GOULD: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member if that implies that the burden of unemployment is far greater than when the Inter-Departmental Committer reported?
Major DAVIES: I am not prepared to answer that question. I am merely indicating that even those who have made some study of this subject consider that we are not in possession of sufficiently accurate data. I second this Amendment not from any lack of sympathy with those who have brought forward the Motion, but because I think that from a practical point of view it is not desirable that we should try to run before we walk or that we should legislate, and thus tie the hands of the Government, until we have all the facts before us. It is in order to enable the Government at the express wish of the House to take steps to get the facts that I commend the Amendment to hon. Members.
Mr. GRAY: Those who sit on these benches are bound to give a sympathetic hearing to this Motion, because the Liberal party were the pioneers of insurance both as regards health and unemployment. That party initiated the system of legislation which has brought such great benefit to the industrial workers of our country. Those who are familiar with the history of the early days of insurance will remember the violent opposition which it aroused, mainly from the party above the Gang-
1106
way. They will recall the cry of "nine-pence for fourpence" and the noble ladies and others who said they would die rather than lick stamps. It is interesting to find to-day that all parties are agreed as to the benefits of insurance. One may commend to His Majesty's Ministers the suggestion that perhaps on other subjects they might do well to follow the advice which comes from these benches.
I wish to point out, however, that possibly there is no more difficult class of persons to whom to apply unemployment insurance than the body of agricultural workers, mainly for the reason that the conditions under which they are employed vary so much throughout the country. It is not merely that the conditions in Scotland are different from those in England and perhaps in Wales. Even in England the conditions vary tremendously. For instance, in my own constituency, which is very largely a market gardening constituency, quite a number of agricultural workers are employed on piece rates, and, obviously, they fall out of employment when the particular job on which they are engaged is finished. In a large number of English counties, agricultural labourers are employed on an ordinary weekly basis, but there are, even in England to-day, a number of areas in which the old hiring system is still followed, and workers are taken on for periods of 12 or six months according to the practice of the district.
I suggest that it is time that we applied the principle of unemployment insurance to the agricultural community. I am faced with the knowledge that at this moment, in a considerable portion of my constituency, practically all the market garden employés have been out of employment owing to the failure of the winter crop over a fairly large area. I refer to the Biggleswade and Sandy area of mid-Bedfordshire. If I may-make an interpolation at this point, I wish to express the thanks of my division and of these people, for the assistance given by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Labour in connection with the schemes of relief which we had to undertake so as to enable these workers to get any kind of employment at all, and to keep them off the poor law. I agree that, in other areas, unem-

1107
ployment in agriculture is comparatively small, and I suggest that the proper method unquestionably would be to introduce a special scheme for agriculture. I certainly could not ask, and I do not think there are many Members representing agricultural communities who could ask, that the farmers or workers should make the contributions which are payable to-day, by employers and employed in industry.
If the suggestion were made to bring in the agricultural community as a whole, and add them on to the present unemployment scheme with its deficit of something approaching £40,000,000 and if we expected to get the contributions of the agricultural workers and farmers and use them to help the country out of its difficulties in regard to unemployment insurance, I certainly would oppose such a suggestion with all my strength. But I still urge that it is desirable to bring a scheme of unemployment insurance into agriculture and to do so with the minimum of delay. I agree that in drawing up a special scheme—and the Ministry or Ministries concerned would have to draw a special scheme—some kind of provision might have to be made to prevent injustices. It might be necessary to delay its application to a country like Scotland and it might be necessary to make some provision to deal with cases where engagements are for long periods of time and where the worker is, perhaps, definitely employed by the farmer for a period of a year. There might be, in some form or another, a provision for contracting out, at any rate in the first stages of the scheme. I further suggest that a scheme of unemployment insurance should not be a charge on the industry, but an assistance to the industry. Unless that is done we are not justified in laying additional burdens on the agricultural industry.
This industry, as the primary industry, ought to be encouraged and developed in every possible way. If it is put on a strong economic basis it is one of the most promising means of absorbing a considerable number of the men who are now crowding into the towns, to be employed there for a short period and then to go upon the Unemployment Fund and become a charge on industry and on the community. That is a point
1108
which we ought to recognise. Members of this House of whatever party who have to address gatherings of farmers know how difficult it is to say anything to a farmers' meeting which can give them any pleasure at all. In addressing such a gathering, I said one thing which did appeal to them. I mentioned that, at least, it could be said for the agricultural community that they had not placed a burden of 1,250,000 or more unemployed people on the Insurance Fund. A proper insurance scheme will assist the farmer as well as the worker and that is one of the reasons why it is not advisable to delay introducing this proposal until all the information has been obtained to which the Mover of the Amendment alluded. I join in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member upon a very able maiden speech, but in reply to that point I say that until you introduce some scheme of unemployment insurance, you will not get the information. We have addressed question after question to the Minister of Agriculture, and time after time he has told us he has not got the information and really does not know quite how to get it.
A further point is that the mere introduction of the principle of insurance itself tends to change the actual conditions of employment. Even hon. Members opposite, who at least in theory are opposed to capitalism and to capitalists, will agree that the average employer is a human being, after all, and has a certain amount of interest in the lives and conditions of the men whom he employs. The mere fact that there is nothing for the agricultural worker but Poor Law relief does induce the farmer frequently to keep him and to put him on to work which is not essential, merely because, if he does not, the man has no other resource than the Poor Law. If you speak to any farmer to-day and talk to him about his business and the way in which he is carrying it on, he will tell you, "It is true there is not a great deal of unemployment, but if we cannot get on the land, I look round the buildings, and I make a job of work for them." If agriculture is really to endure the competition which it has to meet, it cannot afford as an industry even to be philanthropic to that extent.
I want to put in a plea for the employer who does frankly use the

1109
Unemployment Insurance Act to assist him in carrying the burdens of his employés. It is a common practice in an industry which is subject to depression, and, if they are wise, both employer and worker, by arrangement, will divide the burden. We do it regularly in my own town of Luton, in the hat industry. When we come to a slack time, and we have work for only half our people, we divide it into sections. They are in the factory one week and on insurance the next, and that is one of the essential values to industry of an unemployment insurance scheme. You are able, without feeling that you are injuring the decent conditions of your workers, to run your industry at the lowest wage cost for your profit.
Let every farmer consider this. Suppose he has got his workers, and in the course of a year he only puts them off for two or three weeks and allows them to fall on the Unemployment Insurance Fund for that period, the amount of wages that he will save in those two or three weeks will probably much more than pay for the cost of contributions that he will have to pay throughout the year, and he will not have to put his workers in the position of having to fall upon the Poor Law, so that the payment of rates for that cannot fall upon him, in so far as he lives and pays rates within his own district. I urge that the provision of an unemployment insurance scheme is, first of all, the only way in which you will really arrive at an effective knowledge of what is the actual measure of unemployment in any particular industry, and that, if properly used, it will give a definite assistance in actual cost to the farmer himself.
9.0 p.m.
I do urge on the Government and on this House that in arranging a special scheme of insurance for the agricultural industry we ought not to go on the percentage, or fifty-fifty, basis. I will put this claim for the agricultural industry, that we ought to be prepared as a State to pay the same amount per insured person for an agricultural worker as we ask the State to pay for an industrial worker, and that is where I should start in building up an insurance scheme for agriculture. This House should ask itself on what ground it should say that the contribution per head by the State
1110
should be less for a man who is employed in agriculture than the contribution that we are prepared to make, and are making, to a worker who is employed in industry. If you accept that position, you solve a great proportion of your difficulty in working out an insurance scheme for the agricultural worker, because if you allow that industry to have from the State the same amount per head, the contribution that will be required from the fanner and the worker will be a contribution that they can pay; it will not be a charge upon the industry, and it can be so used as to be of definite assistance to the industry by really reducing the wage cost, because the contribution made by the State will, when fully taken into account, be one which will go into the total wage fund, if you include in the wage fund insurance benefit, that will be available for the payment of the agricultural worker.
It has already been pointed out that there are other advantages, but I would like to stress the one that was mentioned by the last speaker. You may consider that in an agricultural community all your workers are uninsured against unemployment, but that is not in fact the case. There is probably no village in this country, however small, in which, while the great bulk of the agricultural workers are not insured, possibly some half-dozen or more people are living in the village who come under the Unemployment Insurance Act and who, if they are unemployed, are receiving unemployment insurance, which, let it not be forgotten, if they have a family, is something very near if not as much as what the agricultural worker is receiving when in employment. I think it is a most undesirable state of affairs, causing a great deal of dissatisfaction in the agricultural industry, and it is an additional reason for the tendency to move out of that industry into other industries, that in the same village you may have a man out of work and receiving nearly as much as his neighbour who is in work, and who, if he is thrown out of work, has nothing whatever coming in and has to fall back upon Poor Law relief.
It would be a tremendous advantage to industry in securing the casual labourer that you should bring to all the workers of this country the benefit of unemploy-

1111
ment insurance, and if the scheme is devised as I have suggested, on the basis, first, of taking the contribution that we pay to the industrial workers, and merely adding to that the necessary contribution to make a sound scheme, I believe we can bring in a scheme of unemployment insurance for the agricultural industry that will be a relief to the master, that will remove from the worker the great shadow of the fear of unemployment, and that will be, perhaps, one of the first steps in assisting to place this great primary industry on a sound economic basis.
Mr. HAYDAY: It appears to me that we approach this subject of unemployment insurance from quite a wrong angle. We appear to wait until some distressing circumstance through unemployment becomes associated with any particular industry, and at once there is a call for its inclusion in a scheme of unemployment insurance. It would have been much better had a wise Government promoted its scheme in 1911 to include all industrial workers, rather than to experiment with 2,250,000 from selected trades, then in 1916 to extend that to another 1,750,000 industrialists in a few other selected trades, and then to wait until 1920, when they were faced with the possibility of a huge army of unemployed, and to throw wide the sphere and scope of unemployment insurance and bring in another 8,000,000 or thereabouts so that at the moment there are between 12,000,000 and 12,500,000 covered by Unemployment Insurance, and 16,000,000 covered by Health Insurance.
I support in principle the inclusion at once of the remaining industries which are not included in unemployment insurance, but which may be included in national health insurance. While supporting it in principle, I do not commit myself to special schemes. I want to see, and I am sure that the country is desirous of seeing, grow up a complete co-ordination of the whole of our social services in place of the present chaotic method, with its victims falling between the various gaps and step-overs from one form of insurance to another; and instead of waiting until distress is upon us and funds are not solvent, we should build them up in times of prosperity to meet times of adversity. Then you would not have a plea from a section who
1112
desired, because of the fear of unemployment coming more rapidly upon them than in past seasons, to come at once into unemployment insurance, a section who would not be able to provide a full quota of financial contributions that would assure them a safe fund. It would be better if, some time or another, the Government could overhaul the whole of the insurance schemes, and so rearrange them that the general level of contributions from the employés could be reduced. There has always been the constant plea, which was put up in 1911 by members of the Labour party, for a non-contributory insurance scheme, on the ground that it was to the benefit of the State in good times to insure its citizens against bad times If that had beeen done in 1911, and 16,000,000 persons had been included, the long run of trade prosperity would have so fortified the fund, that we would not have had occasion to complain in the House of Commons that it is impossible for a section of the community to come into the unemployment insurance scheme. I would rather the Government faced the difficulties and met the circumstances of the agricultural worker, but they should bring him within a general scheme.
Why do I suggest that? There are times when we must be deadly practical. If you start a separate scheme on the ground of low wages, you will at once have industrialists already insured, whose wages are almost as low as that of agriculturists, and some less, asking permission to contract out in a separate special scheme with an increased Government grant to meet the contingencies and deficiencies. You would have further large industries, more prosperous than others, renewing their applications to contract out, and to create special schemes. Contracting out was abolished because it was found that the best lives would contract out under special schemes to such an extent that if you permitted sections which had 5 per cent. unemployment to contract out, those remaining in would be called upon to pay greater contributions. I would not like a separate scheme of unemployment insurance administered by the Minister of Agriculture. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not? "] Because at the moment in our social services there is such confusion that we do not make the most effective use of those services. You get one service administered by the

1113
Ministry of Health, you get the overlooking power of the Treasury in the widows', orphans' and old age pensions scheme; you get another old age pension scheme under the Post Office; and unemployment insurance under the Ministry of Labour. If you bring in the Minister of Agriculture to administer another scheme, how are you going to unravel all this intricate network of separate and overlapping schemes, so that you can bring in one great scheme of social service administered under one Department, as I think it could well be, at much less expense than is the case to-day.
How could you support a special scheme for one section, which is not at present in insurance, and refuse a special scheme for another section which desires to go out? You cannot have a mixed up policy, and I would much prefer that the Government should consider how they can get over the difficulty of the inability to pay; that, however, must come just as much within a general scheme as any other section, and not be kept separate. The Government might well consider the possibility of making a special grant to make up for the deficiency represented in the inability of the employé engaged in farming to pay the full contribution. I would prefer it that way than that there should be a separate scheme. With the development of the beet sugar factories in connection with the land, the time is fast approaching when the land worker will intermingle more with the town and factory worker, and surely you are not going to have one type of Exchange for one class of worker, and another type of Exchange for another class. Why have an exclusive class at all? I feel keenly that there should be one great social service scheme that should include Unemployment Insurance, Health Insurance, Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions—a comprehensive consolidated scheme under one central department, so that they might take into account all these difficulties.
Good lives in insurance must always pay for bad ones. It is the good fortune of good lives that they never have occasion to seek the benefits for which they make provision, and those who are better able to pay ought to be only too delighted to ease the pressure of others who suffer. While I accept this Motion in principle, I would like the Govern-
1114
ment to consider the possibility of including other classes who are outside un employment insurance. If 16,500,000 people can be insured under one form of social service, and they are in industrial occupations, they ought equally to be insured under the other branch of social service. It ought to be known that there was a time when the farming interest had an opportunity of coming within the unemployment scheme, but I am not allocating responsibility for what happened. It is always said that we have to be faced with adversity before we realise the necessity of making provision for it. Whatever may be the reasons for the exclusion of agricultural workers in the past, I wish to express my fullest support for an all-inclusive scheme of unemployment insurance. Agricultural workers, no less than any other body of workers, ought to have extended to them the right to be included in insurance against unemployment.
Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I feel quite sure that the appeal which was made by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion on behalf of agricultural workers will find an echo in every quarter of the House. Probably we have all come into contact with members of that class at some time in our lives, and I happen to be very intimately associated with them. I work in close co-operation with them in farming, and they are a class for whom I have the very highest regard and sympathy. The Mover and the Seconder of the Motion are evidently profoundly sincere in bringing it forward, and think that if it is passed it will in all probability be followed in due course by a Bill which will put into operation some measure of unemployment insurance for agricultural workers. But although the House may be entirely convinced of the genuineness of the motives of both the Mover and the Seconder, it is none the less the duty of the House to examine the proposal before consenting to pass it. This Motion requires very close scrutiny I think, because I am not by any means satisfied that the boon which they intend to confer on agricultural workers is a boon at all. Before we pass this Motion we ought to be quite certain that it is a water-tight one and that it is founded on sound and safe calcula-

1115
tions and reasonably certain facts and figures; and here several questions undoubtedly arise.
Obviously, the first question is as to whether there is any great amount of un employment in the industry. We were given certain figures by the Mover, but he would be the first to admit that those figures were hardly conclusive. It is generally admitted that there is a certain measure of unemployment amongst agricultural workers in some few black spots which were described by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire (Captain Dugdale); but so far we have had no evidence that there is any general measure of unemployment in the agricultural community. Only on Monday last the Minister of Agriculture stated in reply to a question that he was not in a position to provide the House with any statistics on this important matter. He was then asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) whether he could give any general indication of the position of affairs, but the Minister was not in a position even to give that general indication.
This is not a question out of which one wishes to make any party capital or into which one wishes to introduce any party bias, but I think this observation may be permitted. It is now eight months since the Government took office. Their General Election manifesto, in its proposals for the agricultural community, definitely included a promise of unemployment insurance. From the absence of this information I can only assume that the Government, on taking office, found that after all there was not a sufficient measure of unemployment in the agricultural community to justify them in going to the trouble, and perhaps expense, of collecting statistics. In fact they seem to find no adequate ground which would justify them in pursuing the inquiry. That is the conclusion to which one is driven.
What is the truth as to the position? I am not in a position to make any general statement about unemployment in the agricultural community, nor is anybody else in the House. In common with other hon. Members, I can speak only of the locality in which I live, and in my
1116
locality the position is this: From fairly close inquiries which I have made I find that there is virtually no unemployment at all amongst skilled labourers; in fact, in some places there is a shortage of really skilled agricultural labourers. It is an arable district. In a neighbouring village a very large farm, which was very highly farmed, recently changed hands. Up to Michaelmas a larger number of bands had been employed on that farm than is normal, because it was so highly farmed. Every man on that farm was given notice when it changed hands. A few weeks later a demand for seasonal labour to deal with the sugar beet crop arose in my village, and inquiries were made in the village where these men had received notice to see whether their services could not be secured for this work I am happy to be able to say that those inquiries proved abortive, because in every case the men had been reabsorbed into the industry in one way or another. It is true that two of them had left the village, but they were highly skilled workers and they had found agricultural employment in neighbouring villages.
I should like to make one reference to the very important question of the arable districts, and to draw attention to the great importance, to this country and to agricultural labour, of keeping as much land as possible under the plough. It is almost a matter beyond dispute, and I make no apology for bringing this very important point to the attention of the House. What I have found in my pursuit for information on this question of unemployment has shown me that where unemployment exists to-day in agriculture it is almost entirely in places where a large area of land has been taken away from arable and put down to grass. There I have found black spots where there is, unfortunately, a measure of unemployment, but even there my inquiries as regards individual workers have shown it is not the really skilled workers who are out of a job. Generally speaking, the men who have lost jobs and are really out of work are the second-rate men—I am speaking in no disparagement when I say that—the lesser skilled men, and, of course, the casuals.
If it be true, as I believe it is, that there is no general measure of unemployment in agriculture, taking the country as a whole, we have got to be very care-

1117
ful that, in the absence of evidence as to the numbers of unemployed—and I support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Richmond Division, which is designed merely to get further evidence—in the absence of further and much more conclusive evidence than we have at this moment, it would not be right for this House to take a decision which would definitely impose a burden of contributions upon three different classes. First and foremost, there is the agricultural worker himself, then his employer, the farmer, and, finally, the State. Let us deal with the case of the agricultural worker himself. I think it is true to say that it is the skilled men who are less likely to lose their jobs. That is obvious. What are we going to do? By setting up an unemployment insurance system we are going to extract from the pockets of the skilled men, who are not likely to lose their jobs, and who are almost certain to have jobs for life, week by week, month by month and year by year a contribution to a fund out of which there is probably no likelihood whatever that they can ever get any benefit at all. Surely, before we take such an important step as that, we ought to be perfectly certain that we have adequate evidence to justify it.
Coming to the position of the farmers, I know it will be said that the contribution that they will have to pay is a very small one. It may be a very small one, and judged as a weekly contribution you might, perhaps, almost call it negligible, but, of course, there is such a thing as just another little straw breaking the camel's back. I was surprised by a figure which I happened to come across in the course of my business recently. I was looking through the accounts of a group of farms, and certain items of expenditure had been put in categories over a long period of years. I was rather startled to find that, as regards this particular group of farms, the cost of national health insurance, since that fund was started some years ago, had amounted up-to-date to no less than £1,000. I should never have believed it if I had not seen the figures for myself. It so happens that that particular group of farms is being operated to-day, owing to the agricultural depression, largely with the assistance of a
1118
bank overdraft running into four figures. That overdraft to-day is £1,000 greater than it would stand at had it not been for the contribution made towards national health insurance. I am not arguing for the moment against national health insurance, but merely trying to illustrate to the House how these little contributions, small as they look week by week, represent a very substantial burden upon the industry when you add them up month by month, year by year and for a decade of years. At a moment when agriculture is in very low water, we should he very careful, even from the farmer's point of view, before we put still another burden upon those already on his shoulders, however small that burden may be.
When we come to the State contributions, I quite agree that if a case can be made out for unemployment insurance for agricultural workers, then the State should contribute, because it would obviously be unfair that any fund should be set up in which, for the agricultural worker, there should be no State contribution, while for the town worker there is a fund to which the State does contribute. Therefore, I think that if an insurance scheme is set up, the same rule should apply. At the same time, we must ask ourselves if we are quite certain that we want to throw another burden, however small, on to the State. If we do decide to throw that burden on the State, let us be perfectly certain that we are going to spend the money to the best effect.
I would like to say a word on this question from another point of view. There has been, of course, during the last half century, a considerable drift of population from the countryside to the towns. There have been two main causes The first cause has been that urban industry has required a great deal of labour. Urban industry has been in a position to pay higher wages, and has had to pay them, than have been paid in the countryside, in order to attract the labour to the towns. Having got it there, they have had to pay a level of wages which would be sufficient to give the worker the necessary amount to meet the advanced cost of living in the town. It is beyond dispute that there has been this considerable drift from the countryside to the towns

1119
during the last 50 years, but to-day we have got an altered position. You have got urban industry no longer requiring labour, but saturated and surfeited with too much labour. I plead, therefore, that when we are discussing this matter of un employment, all those engaged in urban industry should take a greater interest in the agricultural industry, and they should be prepared to assist the industry back to prosperity. From their own narrow point of view they should want to stop this drift from the countryside to the towns, because when people get from the countryside to the towns, and there is no employment for them in the towns, they merely become burdens on urban industry. I say the same to organised labour in the towns. It is, obviously, to the interest of those—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is really wandering somewhat beyond the scope of the Motion. The question before the House is whether agricultural workers should or should not be brought within the compass of the Insurance Act. He is dealing with the general subject.
Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I quite appreciate that point. I was leading up to this, that we must not confuse this great drift from the countryside to the towns and draw the deduction that it necessarily follows that there is unemployment in the countryside. The two things are not directly connected. But I must not pursue that point any further. I will pass on to the question of unemployment insurance. We have just heard a speech from the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), and what I am going to say is rather in contradistinction to the line which the hon. Member took. There are some people who regard unemployment insurance as an end in itself. I think it might be summed up in the phrase "Work or maintenance." I regard that view as a mistake, and I think it is a pity that unemployment insurance should be regarded as an end in itself. We must rely upon the prosperity of industry. We have passed successive Acts of Parliament dealing with unemployment insurance. We have had in successive sessions from successive Governments a great deal of our time
1120
taken up in discussions upon the problem of unemployment and unemployment insurance. Nobody realises more than the Lord Privy Seal that we have been attacking this problem very much from the wrong end and that it is no solution of the problem. We should get away from terms of unemployment and concentrate on employment, because that is the only solution of the problem.
I know that there are signs of unemployment in the agricultural industry, but, happily, the disease of unemployment is not deep-seated in agriculture. I think there is general agreement upon that point, but if it is not yet too deep-seated, there is still time to ward off the disease before it becomes malignant. There is only one way to meet that difficulty, and it is to make farming pay. The Labour party, in their Election manifesto, stated that it was their intention to try to make farming pay. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, in a speech which he made in the Agricultural Hall last September, said that he entirely agreed with those who said that the proper way to attack this problem was to make farming pay, and that when that was accomplished, unemployment would completely vanish from the countryside. That is the proper way to attack this problem. All our ills will disappear if only we concentrate on this problem from that angle. Not only will our ills disappear in the country districts when we succeed in placing agriculture on its feet again, but there will be a remarkable reaction in the case of urban industries, because the purchasing power of agricultural workers will overflow into the towns. Consequently, the urban industries will gain just as much as agriculture. The reason why I support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend is that I do not think we shall be justified in attacking the problem of unemployment in agriculture from the end suggested by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, because there is not sufficient evidence to justify a conclusion of that-kind. I have pointed out some of the mistakes into which we might fall by the adoption of a Motion of this kind until the facts and figures have been placed very clearly before us.
Mr. DALLAS: The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) gave a very curious illustration from his own constituency in the course of which he said that there was an inquiry made at the time that a beet-sugar factory was being opened amongst the agricultural workers in the district to find work in the factory for some of the unemployed, and strange to say they could not find enough workers to start the factory because there were no unemployed in the Maldon area. The truth of the matter is that the workers in that district had been attracted to an engineering establishment because they were paying better wages. Not very long ago the farmers wrote to the head of this firm and asked them not to pay such high wages, because they were denuding the land of agricultural workers.
Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES - BRISE: There is no beet-sugar factory in my Division.
Mr. DALLAS: No, but this factory is on the outskirts of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Division, at Felsted. I was very much interested in the maiden speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Richmond Division (Captain Dugdale). Having made a maiden speech myself only a few weeks ago, I can quite understand the hon. and gallant Member's feelings, and I congratulate him upon the way in which he got through that ordeal. The hon. and gallant Member made a typical Conservative speech, presumably full of sympathy for the poor agricultural workers in his district, but it was a speech telling the agricultural worker that he was different from any other kind of worker, and that while other workers deserved unemployment insurance, he did not deserve it. The agricultural labourer has been told that by the Conservative party for generations, and he is not going to take very much more of it even from the Conservative party, as hon. Members will find out when the next General Election comes round.
It is quite true that we cannot get the exact figures relating to the number of agricultural workers who are out of employment, but we do know that when they are out of employment they are compelled to get parish relief, and there is no section of the community that abhors
1122
that kind of thing more than the agricultural worker. If it is right that an unemployed engineer or an unemployed chemical worker should be provided for by means of insurance when he is unemployed, then it is right and just that the agricultural worker should be treated in exactly the same way. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Gray) was quite correct in saying that, when the scheme is set up, the facts and figures will be obtained, and then it will be possible to adapt any scheme to suit the exact needs of the moment. We may quarrel about the figures and percentages, but there can be no denial that there is a large amount of unemployment, taking the agricultural industry as a whole. I was at a meeting in Bedfordshire only a few days ago where there were over 20 unemployed agricultural workers, whose great desire was for unemployment insurance. I was told that in that area over 100 bona fide agricultural workers are out of employment. What does it matter about high or low percentages? Unemployment can be found, not only in Bedfordshire, but in Kent, Lancashire, Essex, and even in Yorkshire. When the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond was speaking of his own constituency, he certainly was not speaking for the constituency of Buckrose, because the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) has repeatedly bombarded my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture with inquiries as to when he is going to introduce an insurance scheme for agricultural workers. If, therefore, there is no unemployment, it must only be in a very small area.
One aspect of this question was hinted at by the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon, who said that the people in constant work are skilled men. Let me give some figures to show what has actually happened, and the dangers that will confront the industry in the very near future. Taking the Census returns as far back as 1861, we find that in 1861 there were 1,098,000 agricultural workers employed in the industry. The figure went steadily down in 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901. It rose slightly in 1911, but went down again in 1921, to 560,000, so that there was a drop of one-half in that period. The figures which, as agriculturists will know, are taken out by the Ministry of Agriculture on the 4th June

1123
each year, are not exactly comparable with the census figures, because they do not relate to exactly the same set of people, but, according to these figures, the number employed in the industry in 1921 was 869,000, and in 1929, 770,000, so that between 1921 and 1929 there were nearly 200,000 fewer people in the agricultural industry. [Interruption.] These figures are for England and Wales. If the United Kingdom figures were taken, the decrease would be still larger. That means that thousands of young men, with their lives in front of them, having to choose an occupation or trade, are definitely declining to enter the agricultural industry. Let me give the figures in another way. Between 1921 and 1929 the total number of all agricultural workers declined by 11.3 per cent. The number of regular workers declined by 6.1 per cent., and the number of casual workers by 31.3 per cent. The number of adult male workers declined by 5.3 per cent., while the number of youths under 21 declined by 25 per cent. That shows that every year numbers of lads and boys who normally would go into the occupation of agriculture, if the conditions offered a reasonable life and fair prospects, are going into some other occupation.
We need normally in agriculture between 10,000 and 15,000 boys to come in every year; we are getting a little over 6,000 every year. During the next few years, therefore, the farmers of this country are going to be confronted with one of the greatest problems that has been presented to them in their whole history; they are not going to find sufficient men to work on the land unless the conditions on the land are made comparable with the conditions in general industry. This is a very small country in geographical extent, and you cannot maintain two standards of life in a small country like this—you cannot maintain a standard for the town worker at a comparatively high level, and a low standard for the country worker in the village. Every day is bringing the town nearer to the village; every year is breaking down the distinctions between town and country; and all the forces of modern society and modern life are tending to draw the enterprising, ambitious, clever and able boys out of our schools in the villages and to carry them into the
1124
towns and cities. Therefore, what we have to do, not in the interests of the agricultural worker alone, but in the interests of the industry, is to give the agricultural worker the social services that are given to the town worker, and to make his wages and housing conditions approximate to those of the town worker. That, in my judgment, is the only thing that will save the farmers within the next 10 years from having to change completely the whole form of cultivation in this country, and will save arable land from going out of cultivation even more rapidly than it is now.
There is no radical reason why any hon. Member should vote against this Motion. We are not entering into the question of a general scheme or a special scheme. If I may give my own opinion, I am in favour of a special scheme, and I do not accept the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). We had to take away from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour the administration of the Wages Board Department, which was part and parcel of the Ministry of Labour, and to put it under the Ministry of Agriculture, and I venture to say that anyone who knows anything about the working of the original Wages Board will be willing to certify that no wages board in this country, ether at that time or now, has been administered so efficiently, or has given such general satisfaction to both workers and employers, as the old Wages Board did under the chairmanship of the late Lord Ailwyn, who was the original chairman. There we had complete self-government in industry, with the workers and employers co-operating together. That, in my judgment, could be carried out with unemployment insurance. If agricultural workers are brought into the general scheme and pay the same contribution, we are faced with the difficulty that the unemployed agricultural worker will draw more money—I do not object to that, and I do not think he would—when he is out of work than when he is employed because the benefits for a married man would be on the average larger than the wages that he would get for his normal working week. Therefore, taking things as they are, there will have to be some re-arrangement. We must face this. Until we grant the agricultural worker unemployment insurance, and put him

1125
on exactly the same level and treat him as exactly the same kind of human being as the town worker, agriculture will never be in a satisfactory condition in this country. This is an act of goodwill. What will the burden on the employer be even if it is more than 1½d. and 1½d., as it may be. No one would say that is a burden which will be too great and which they cannot afford to bear. I am certain that would help to retain a good number of persons in agriculture and, if we do not do it, we are only accentuating the problem.
This was promised in the Labour party's election manifesto. It is a definite pledge to agricultural workers. Wherever I and my friends go, not only in my own organisation, in the Agricultural Workers' Union, but in every county I visit, there is a definite demand for unemployment insurance, and I hope the Front Bench will be able to give us some measure of comfort and assurance. I know that both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour have had very great problems. I regard it as really a bit of cheek on the part of hon. Members opposite to twit the Minister of Agriculture and ask him why he does not bring in his policy. Why do not hon. Members on the other side put down a Motion to discuss agriculture? Some of us are quite ready to discuss agriculture at any time. It is interesting to know that in this particular year, with its labour problems and with its agricultural depression, the problems with which agriculture is confronted, though they have become worse, are not very much worse. We had the same problems last year and the year before and for several years, and hon. Members opposite were as quiet as the proverbial church mouse. I hope we all shall see the justice of this case and that our friends opposite will not go to a Division, but will agree that this first step should be taken and that it is right and proper that the principle of insurance should be extended to agricultural workers. They may divide when it comes to a question of a special scheme or a general scheme, or on the different benefits, but on the general principle of insurance for agricultural workers I hope that we shall be unanimous, and, if there is a Division, I hope that every agricultural
1126
Member in every part of the House will vote for the Motion.
10.0 p.m.
Captain BRISCOE: I support the Amendment, not because there is no information available, but because all the information which is available and which has been examined in the past has shown that it is not desirable that the agricultural worker should be included in the insurance scheme. I am not prepared to vote for a reversal of that authoritative opinion which has been expressed without a further unbiased and exhaustive examination of the question. The last time it was examined at all exhaustively was by the Blanesburgh Committee, which reported three years ago that they did not recommend such a course. That Report was signed by the Minister of Labour. What has occurred during the meantime to make her entirely alter her decision? it is a matter of amazement that the party opposite, of all parties, should be prepared to vote for the inclusion of the agricultural worker without further inquiry. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Lady recommended that they should not be included.
The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): If the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me, if he reads the Report he will find that the details were not under the consideration of the Committee at all. They were considered by the Hew Committee, and we were largely guided by the result of their examination of it.
Captain BRISCOE: They definitely stated, after examining the Report of the Rew Committee, that they should not be included. One would imagine the party opposite would only wish to include the agricultural worker if they considered that the position in the future was going to be worse than it was three years ago, but they have been led to believe, I understand, by the Prime Minister that in the future, under his gracious guidance, farming is going to be made to pay. One would, therefore, imagine that in the future there would be a smaller case for the inclusion of the agricultural worker than there was in 1927 and not a greater. We have had a further statement from the Minister of Agriculture that, generally speaking, he does not consider that the agricultural industry to-day is in such

1127
a state that it wants special legislation. From that we may infer that, in his opinion, the industry is not materially worse than it was three years ago. There, again, we cannot see how the party opposite can, without further inquiry, possibly vote for including the agricultural worker within the scheme. In addition, we have the statement of the Lord Privy Seal not so long ago that, generally speaking, he expects unemployment to improve, which again would rather imply that if there is slight unemployment at the moment, there would be a better chance in the future of getting employment out of the land.
The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I said that it would not be correct to describe the depression as universal, though it was very severe.
Captain BRISCOE: I think mine was a fair statement of what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is amazing, after the Report signed by the right hon. Lady, after the party opposite being led to believe that in the future farming is going to be made to pay under the guidance of the Labour Government, and after the assurance of the Minister of Agriculture that agriculture is not in such straits as all that and is not materially worse than it was three years ago, they should completely reverse their opinion. I cannot help feeling suspicious, like many in this House and in the country outside, that this change of opinion is not because they have suddenly a desire to help the agricultural worker, but because they wish to extract payments from the agricultural worker and from the farmer in order to help the industrial insurance fund.
Mr. DALLAS: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and myself in 1920 sat on a Committee set up by the Minister of Agriculture, and at that time the agricultural workers were against it, and both of us were in favour of it.
Captain BRISCOE: I do not deny that at all, but I am stating events which have happened since then. The fact still remains that the present Minister of Labour two years ago definitely reported against it. That was after examining all the information which was then available. The report definitely stated that she examined
1128
the evidence of the Rew Committee as having definitely reported against the agricultural worker being included. I am really concerned about this matter. There is a great divergency of opinion throughout the country and throughout the ranks of the agricultural workers themselves. We have heard it stated this evening that there are definite spots in England where the agricultural worker is against being included. In my constituency there are agricultural workers who are in favour of it. I do not deny that fact at all, but there is a great divergency of opinion. The opinion is not divided politically. There are men who supported me in my constituency, very keen Conservatives, who are definitely in favour of it, but I can quote cases the other way round. If there is this great divergency, we ought to have a very careful examination of the whole question. Really, the opinion of the hon. Member opposite is not worth more than my own opinion. I have taken great trouble to find out what is the feeling in my constituency. It is impossible to say that there is a unanimous feeling one way or another.
Mr. DALLAS: The majority in the hon. and gallant Member's constituency are in favour.
Captain BRISCOE: It varies enormously. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a very great knowledge of my part of the world. My opinion is that it is not as decided as that. I am sure that if the agricultural workers were included, large sections of them would object. There is not the slightest doubt that the cowmen and shepherds and all the skilled men would definitely pay into the fund far more than they would ever hope to get out of it. There are large sections of agricultural workers who would be forced to pay, and would have no chance of getting any benefit out of the fund. I implore the House not to force a proposal of this kind on to the agricultural industry, and especially on to the agricultural labourer, unless it is perfectly certain that the Measure will be one of real benefit. It should not run the risk of compelling him to fall into a scheme which may well prove to be a great hardship upon him, and upon the industry as a whole.
Mr. KEDWARD: I do not wish to detain the House long, because most of the points have already been covered. There has been a good deal of dispute as to the actual facts, but I think that everybody is in favour of getting all the facts we can. At the same time, it is futile to deny that there is very great unemployment and hardships in agriculture just now. The industry is greatly depressed, and you are getting a drifting away from agriculture to the towns which is increasing your problem also there. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Richmond Division (Captain Dugdale) said as far as he could ascertain that in Yorkshire or, his part of Yorkshire at any rate, the problem did not exist at all; in fact there was no unemployment there. If he had read the "Farmer and Stockbreeder" he would have found something which had not been put in from any political point of view, but which was just a report of the representative in that area. I will give it to him now:
"Ploughing has been delayed by unusual wet and windy weather. Low-lying districts have been flooded. Ploughing is generally well advanced. The low prices for corn and potatoes, together with an advance of 1s. a week in wages, is having a very serious effect on employment. There are both married and single men out of work in many villages. One large village at the foot of the Wolds has 27 married men unemployed."
That is from the "Farmer and Stockbreeder" of this week's issue and concerns Yorkshire. I take it that the man who wrote that report had no particular interest in unemployment insurance, but was just reporting these facts to the paper, as it was his duty to do. A little time ago my brother, who is farming in Kent, advertised for a waggoner. He told me when I called upon him, that if he had known what was going to happen, he would not have inserted an advertisement in the paper. Some 30 or 40 men turned up expecting to be put on. He was very distressed at seeing some of these men, who had walked 10 or 12 miles on the off-chance of getting a job. I have heard a great many speeches from the Opposition on my right, and while they put forward all kinds or arguments in balancing the probabilities in regard to pin-points, no one has said that he is definitely in favour of the principle of applying this scheme to agriculture. You can have your inquiry. You will have to have the most searching inquiry. You
1130
cannot put this into operation without an inquiry. But are hon. Members in favour of bringing these men within unemployment insurance? That is the point.
Mr. DUNCAN: Or leaving them to starve.
Mr. KEDWARD: Two men came to me last week. One asked for a reference as he was going into the Coldstream Guards. He said he was going out of agriculture, because he did not feel that it was fair to get married and take the risk of the uncertainty in the industry, and he did not feel that he would like to face the fact that he might be discharged. Another man came for a reference because he was going out of agriculture into the police force. He said that while he was there, with unemployment hanging over him, he did not feel free, and a man who is not economically free is not politically free. We think it is right that agricultural labourers should be put on the same basis as other workers. I find a great difference of opinion. I have talked to a number of farmers. There are farmers who say, "Yes, but we cannot bear this burden." There are others who say that they are carrying too heavy a burden already, having, because no provision has been made, to keep their men on in periods of slackness and find something for them to do. If provision had been made for the industry to take care of the margin of labour in time of depression, they would not feel called upon, at any rate, to make a sacrifice they could ill afford to make in the depressed state of the industry, of maintaining labour which does not pay for itself. Then, I find that there are some of the workmen to whom I have spoken who are not in favour of this proposal. They think that probably, so far as they are concerned, they will never be unemployed. They have not been unemployed, and they are afraid that they would have to carry on their backs the people who drift in and out of agriculture, without getting any benefit themselves. Where you have an industry that is seasonal, that demands much more labour in the summer time than in the winter time, it is absolutely unfair to expect the country to provide for that margin of labour, and to keep on providing and making adequate provision for it.

1131
The House would do well to approve the principle of the Motion. A number of hon. Members from Scotland feel that this proposal could not be applied to Scotland, and that it is not needed there. Other hon. Members feel that it ought not to be applied to Wales. Some go so far as to say that it would be a good thing to try a regional experiment at this time, and that that is not new. I do not know whether that can be done, but so far as my constituency goes, which is largely agriculture, I believe the best type of farmer is anxious to get his workers the best conditions, and the younger workers who are looking to the future with the hope that agriculture will be made decent and give them a decent standard of life, are asking that they shall be put on the level of their fellow employés in the town. I hope that the House will not vote for a cut and dried scheme, but for the principle. The time has arrived when these workers ought to be insured against the worst that can come.
In court, the other day, it was a pathetic thing to see the magistrate give an order to evict a family which had fallen out of employment. I went to their aid. They were turned out of their house and had to go to a hoppers' hut, which had a concrete floor, and exist there for a number of weeks until someone took pity on them. That is a scandal, and I am not prepared, surrounded by the luxuries of modern civilisation produced in this House, to see these people robbed of a fair and decent way of life.
Mr. GUINNESS: Both the first speaker and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) joined in an appeal to the House not to worry about details, but to agree to the general principles of Unemployment Insurance for agriculture, as a result of the Debate. The mover of the Motion said that he had an open mind as to details. He referred to the Rew Report, but apparently he did not feel satisfied that the proposal made by the majority, of a small contribution of only 1½d. from the employers and the employed in agriculture, was satisfactory. He said that the proposal was debatable. By sticking to generalities hon. Members who support this change have avoided controversy, but in a case of this kind
1132
it really is the detail which matters. It is all very well to talk in generalities on the platform, but we have to do something a little more definite.
Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Amendment is a direct negative?
Mr. GUINNESS: I have not moved any Amendment.
Mr. TAYLOR: The Amendment which has been moved from your side.
Mr. GUINNESS: Our Amendment asks for more information.
Mr. TAYLOR: It seeks to cut out the practical part of the Resolution.
Mr. GUINNESS: It is not in order to put down a direct negative. The Amendment which has been moved from this side asks for information before coming to a decision. Is it not reasonable that I should put the case for further information? Details do matter on this issue. It may be that if unemployment insurance was extended to agricultural workers at the low cost of 1½d. for employer and employed, as against 7d. or 8d. in the case of other workers, that they would come into the general scheme. It is only reasonable to ask the advocates of this policy to tackle these difficulties of detail. The Rew Committee which went into all the available information were very evenly divided, and the acceptance of the principle of unemployment insurance for agricultural workers was only carried by one vote, and that the vote of the Scottish representative who had already voted against the application of unemployment insurance to the agricultural workers in Scotland. That seems to me to shatter the whole basis of that recommendation.
An HON. MEMBER: When was that?
Mr. GUINNESS: The report was issued in October, 1926. The inter Departmental Committee on unemployment insurance in agriculture, after a careful examination, came to the conclusion that to bring agricultural workers into the general scheme was unacceptable. They could not afford it. Their incidence of unemployment is very low, and if they came into the general scheme it would mean that the poorest paid section of the whole community, with the lowest incidence of

1133
unemployment, would give their contributions very largely to the relief of unemployment in the case of people who are far better off and to the relief of the responsibilities of the State in case of a deficit. The right hon. Lady, the Minister of Labour, agreed with this point just before Christmas. I have not her exact words, but I think she told the House how low the incidence of unemployment was in the ease of agricultural workers and that they were, so to speak, good lives which it was very proper to bring in for the solvency of the Fund. Everybody who sits for an agricultural constituency, if he has really discussed the matter with the workers, knows that some would like to come into an agricultural insurance scheme, because they have understood it is going to cost them practically nothing, but if they are told that there is any question of paying 7d. per week, they emphatically express their indignation at any such suggestion. A special scheme would have great advantages from their point of view, but we have no indication whether the Government consider a special scheme practicable and it will need very much stronger justification than anything which is contained in the Hew Report.
Unemployment insurance has gradually developed in this country. Originally there was an expectation of special schemes in the case of one or two industries, like the banks, but the general scheme has become stronger and stronger on the basis of one unified Fund, making no allowance for varying rates of wages or varying risks of unemployment. The finance of the general scheme has also become pretty well settled. In the way of contributions the State does not pay even one-third of the total cost.
Mr. BUCHANAN: It does now.
Mr. GUINNESS: I said "in the way of contributions." Ultimately the State has the responsibility for the solvency of the fund, and that would apply equally in any special scheme. But I am anxious to stress the very big departure from the accepted principle which would be involved both in taking out one particular business, and in the general finance—in giving to one industry with a low incidence of risk a larger contribution from the State than has been afforded to other
1134
industries. If you once begin to pick and choose between industries which are to come into the general scheme, it seems to me that there is a great danger to the efficient continuance of that scheme, and that you are subjecting the scheme to very serious dangers of disruption and breakdown. The Hew Committee Report which offered this advice was only passed by the vote of a Scottish member who would not have it at any price for Scotland but wanted to try this unpleasant medicine on the dog. This Committee was able to give no convincing statistical evidence as to what would be the position of the scheme. There was a suggestion that there would probably be 5 per cent. of unemployment amongst regular agricultural workers, and about 3 per cent. among casuals, but these figures were mere surmises. On the other hand we are told by the minority, which after all represented an equal number of English votes, that there is a serious shortage of labour in England.
The problem is not merely one to be looked at from the point of view of insurance, but also from the point of view of finding some better system to secure mobility of labour, to enable an agricultural labourer to transfer easily to a place where there is employment. Where statistics are unexplored the finance based on them is an absolute shot. We know that farmers keep men on if they possibly can, because they know that if the men drop out of employment, even for a few weeks, it means very great hardship. Farmers will not do that in future if they are included in a scheme. It is only human nature. So that will necessarily to a great extent vitiate the figures which have been obtained as to the incidence of unemployment under the present system. I suppose it was these considerations which caused the Blanesburgh Committee to recommend that the matter be left alone. Let me remind the Minister of Labour what the Blanesburgh Committee said. It is true that they did not themselves hear witnesses, but they had the whole available information about agriculture before them. In paragraph 112 they reported that they had had the advantage of re-reading the recent Rew Report. They gave a summary of their conclusions, and they said:
"In this matter, we are for leaving things, as they were."

1135
If the Government have changed their mind, no doubt the right hon. Lady will tell us what new factors have come to her knowledge and what new developments have taken place to justify a change of view. Apart from the practicability of the scheme we ought to know whether it is really wanted by those for whom it is suggested. Agricultural workers were deliberately left out in 1920, and I was very much interested to hear an hon. Member, who speaks with great authority for one of the unions, say that, although the unions were against it in 1920, he was in favour of it. I wonder whether he has had any conclusive evidence of any change of mind.
Mr. BEN RILEY: The Corn Production Act was operating in 1920. That made a great difference.
Mr. GUINNESS: I only want to know whether there is any evidence of a change of mind. I am not raising the point in any controversial sense, but we know the conditions and we know that it is difficult for trade unions to operate in the country. I am sure that he would be the first to admit that they have not the same facilities in the country as they have in the towns, where they are in close touch with all their members. Of course, it is difficult to ascertain the views of the agricultural workers, especially when we have not a concrete scheme about which to consult them. A committee of the Agricultural Wages Board in 1921 examined the matter again, and they came to the same conclusion. What is very interesting is that, admittedly, on the evidence of the Rew Committee the conditions were worse then. I quite see that it is not fair to take as a criterion the number of men registered at the Exchanges. One example has been given where the number on the Exchange was shown to be only half that which the trade union found to be out of work. Still they probably remain in roughly the same proportion and there were between four and five times as many people registered as agricultural workers at the Exchanges in 1921 as there are to-day, according to the figures given before Christmas by the Minister of Agriculture. The conditions therefore are improving and it is natural that they should improve, because we have gone through
1136
a period of very sharp contraction in agriculture. That contraction we hope cannot continue indefinitely, naturally, during a period of contraction distress is more acute than it is when agriculture gets to a level below which we hope it is not going to fall any further. Anyhow, the fall in employment is not as great as it was in the days immediately after the slump.
Mr. DALLAS: I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that things were, a little worse this winter.
Mr. GUINNESS: I am very doubtful. We have to go on very fragmentary information, but I would not say that they are any worse. I have made inquiries and I generally find that where people are out of work there is some local reason such as that land has been sold, or that a farmer has gone bankrupt. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not all that!"] Naturally, in our own interests, we find out as far as we can what the conditions are, and I would say, generally speaking, that they are very much the same as they were a year ago. The Rew Minority Report gave reasons which appeared to me to be fairly cogent why conditions would become easier. I have not got any evidence that agricultural workers would be anything but bitterly opposed to coming into the costly scheme which would be involved for people of such a small wage. Of course, we are debating all this under a handicap to-night. I do not want to make a party point, but it is evident that at any rate a material factor in the case is what the Government are going to do for agriculture. There will be no case for unemployment insurance if they are going to make the industry profitable. I should be out of order in discussing that, but that just shows the difficulty of these generalities and the necessity for more information. Until we learn more definite y what is to be the policy of the Government to make farming pay, until we have evidence that the evil is so serious that agricultural workers want to make the sacrifices necessary to go into an unemployment insurance scheme, until we know on what basis and on what terms such a scheme is actuarially possible, we are not justified in committing ourselves to the terms of the general Resolution which has been moved to-night.
Miss BONDFIELD: I think we have had an immensely interesting Debate to-night on a most important subject, and I can assure those Members who have taken part in the Debate that the discussion will be borne in mind and the points raised carefully scrutinised by the committee which has this matter under consideration. The question affects practically four Departments, namely, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Treasury, and those four Departments have been in consultation on this matter for some little time now, and hope to be able to prepare some basis, for schemes which we can submit to the Cabinet for a general discussion on the part of those interests concerned, as to whether it can or cannot be regarded as a practicable proposal. I agree that it is to some extent talking in the air, unless there is a concrete scheme to discuss, and, while to-night I shall be most happy to support the Motion before the House, it is a Motion, as has been pointed out, on general principle". When we come to details we have to face the fact that there is a very strong difference of opinion. May I remind the House that when they were trying to extend unemployment insurance in 1920 to many trades, they were in much the same position. The only statistics available in connection with a number of the trades were those supplied by trade unions which happened to be paying unemployment benefit or which had some other form or register of unemployment of their members, and at that period, in 1920, the actuary said about the estimated rates of unemployment:
"Wherever possible these have been based on the main annual percentages of trade union members unemployed, as supplied to the Board of Trade over a prolonged period, with certain adjustments, and in certain groups of industries no information as to the experience of unemployment appears to be available. In these cases, the rates submitted to me have no statistical basis, though it is evident that they have been very carefully considered. It is clear that while, in order to obtain a financial basis for the scheme, some estimate of the general rate of unemployment is necessary, the material available for the purpose is far from satisfactory. That is inevitable under the circumstances, and the defect is only to be cured by the institution of such a scheme of insurance as is now proposed."
In other words, we build up our statistics of unemployment by the operation of an
1138
Unemployment Insurance Act. We discover where the unemployment is by the operation of the general register.
May I deal with the point with regard to the Blanesburgh Committee's action in relation to agricultural workers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) said that the Hew Committee reported in the autumn of 1926. They were sitting concurrently with the Blanesburgh Committee, and we were not charged with the responsibility of investigating the position of agriculture. There was a regular patchwork of committees about this time. The domestic servants had been considered by a committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Woods, the question of the lowering of the age of insurance was being considered by another committee, and agriculture was being considered by a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Rew. All these committees were considering the question, simultaneously with the Blanesburgh Committee, who were considering other issues of the Insurance Acts. We were unable to do anything except report that we proposed nothing in relation to those people who had been considered by those other committees. It was quite impossible for us to analyse the Rew Report, although I can say without a breach of confidence that the tendency of our Committee was to broaden the basis of insurance in every possible way.
Mr. GUINNESS: Did not the Blanesburgh Committee report a good many months after the Rew Committee?
Miss BONDFIELD: As a matter fact, our report was being drafted before we got hold of a copy of the Rew Report.
Captain BRISCOE: Is it not true that the Blanesburgh Report was signed in January, 1927, and the Rew Report in August, 1926?
Miss BONDFIELD: Our Report was being made up in December. The point is that the statement was made that we examined the position of agriculture. We did nothing of the kind. What I want to point out is that since the issue of the Rew Report there has quite obviously been a change of opinion. With regard to the one signatory in the Rew Report who was referred to, we are informed

1139
to-day that the secretary and executive of the Farm Servants' Union have been converted by the sequence of events. Just now there is a difference of opinion as to how we are to deal with the question whether agricultural workers should be included in a special scheme or whether we are to try and make some adjustment to bring them within the general framework of the main scheme. That is a matter that will require considerable discussion and debate with the interests concerned. I want to warn hon. Members, especially those who are pinning their faith on the Rew Committee's recommendations, that we cannot do it on the cheap. We must try and find a financial basis which will not merely make a possible scheme, but which will he within the competence of the agricultural labourer to pay.
In relation to the general insurance scheme, there are millions of men and women paying into that scheme whose incidence of unemployment is exceedingly low. They pay year after year, and never suffer a week of unemployment. They do it because they recognise that, at any rate, the risk is covered, and it has a psychological value for them, because it is there in case they want it, but they are also helping to make it possible to pay the benefit for those who have to take greater risks. I take the opportunity of saying this to the agricultural workers of Scotland, and to agricultural workers who are working under the better conditions in the industry: I hope, for the good of other agricultural workers, who are working in the black belts, in the belts where it is almost casual labour, they will come in and add their resources to a general pool scheme of unemployment insurance. The fact that there are a good many good lives in connection with agricultural employment—I mean good in the sense of their having a fair certainty of employment—is all the more reason why those persons should be willing to add their contributions in order to make the lot of their fellow workers a little more easy and a little more secure.
I want to bring them in because I am convinced of the necessity, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Dallas) said, of bridging the gap between the conditions obtaining in the countryside
1140
and the conditions obtaining in the factories. I want to see the inter-changeability of labour. What is happening in industry to-day? Factories are being taken to the countryside. Workers in those factories are working under regulated wage conditions, perhaps trade board rates. They have their rates of wages fixed. The son or daughter of the agricultural labourer who is working in the fields goes to work in an adjacent factory. They pay their contribution every week into the Unemployment Fund. In time they may go back to the land, but they are not likely to go back to the land if by doing so they will forfeit all the benefit of their insurance. The engineer is coming into agriculture. The big mass production machinery is bringing a new class of labour into the countryside. A man is insured if he works the machine in a town. If he goes into the country to work the machine, whether it be one of electric power or oil power or steam power, he wants to take his wages with him and to take his insurance with him. We do not want to build a wall round agriculture. We want agricultural workers to share in the general social advantages. We want them to be able to feel that a man will be insured whether he works in a factory or on the land, and that standards of life will be more equalised, and I believe one of the ways in which we can help to do that is by evolving a scheme of insurance under which agricultural labourers will not be outclassed in the troublous times of unemployment.
In conclusion, I would say that, while it is perfectly clear that we must do a great deal more investigation, we are using every opportunity of doing this, both through the officers of the Ministry of Agriculture and officers in connection with Employment Exchanges. Where Exchanges are near certain areas of agricultural work, we regularly get labourers coming to them to register for employment, and we are getting their statistics brought into our normal unemployment figures. But there are other areas where we have no Exchange within reach, purely rural areas where, because there is no industry, an Exchange system will have to be developed. I realise, therefore, the difficulties of the task, but difficulties are there to be surmounted, and I assure the House that I should welcome

1141
the support which a unanimous vote in favour of this Motion would give us in our task. We could go on with the work knowing that there was general approval of it. We should proceed on the lines of evolving a scheme which would not come straight into this House, but would first be discussed by the farmers and farm workers concerned, and which we should hope to be able to present to this House as an agreed scheme.
Sir HARRY HOPE: I venture to intervene in this Debate in order to bring forward, in a very few words, the Scottish case. That case has not been spoken of to-night, and I hope that hon. Members representing constituencies south of the Tweed will bear with me in saying something about it. The position in Scotland was fully examined a short time ago by the Rew Committee, which was composed of 11 members, who reported unanimously that Scotland should not be brought within the scope of that Measure. The Blanesburgh Committee, in considering the Rew Report, held that nothing should be done. All that was after very exhaustive inquiry, and when we come to consider this question to-night, it is only right that attention ought to be paid to the findings of that Departmental Committee. One might ask how it is that in Scotland there was such unanimous opinion, that the whole of the members of that Departmental Committee reported against inclusion? I think one very important reason is that the system in Scotland has always been that men are engaged for a fairly long and definite period. There are far fewer weekly-rate engaged men than there are working south of the Tweed. Most of the farm workmen in Scotland are engaged either for a fixed six months period or for a yearly period. Therefore, that may have had some effect in determining the Departmental Committee against inclusion.
Consider, for one moment, the position of the agricultural worker at present. I should be out of order in making much reference to it, and I will only say that men engaged in arable agriculture are absolutely in despair as to how they are going to keep going. In these circumstances, what is going to be the effect if the right hon. Gentleman opposite says that the only thing he can offer them, and which he does offer
1142
them, is to bring them within the dole system? I think an announcement of that sort will create absolute despair and chaos throughout the ranks of agriculturists in Scotland. Consider the effect which this will have upon the industry in another way. Most of the men working on our Scottish farms are engaged for a lengthy period, either for six or 12 months. With men engaged for that lengthy period there are, of course, times when they are put on to do somewhat unnecessary work in the less-busy times of the year. If these men are brought under the Insurance Act, and a heavy burden is placed upon these farmers, I think one of the first effects will he that those farmers will discontinue keeping up these long-term engagements, which have been of such a very helpful nature to the men in Scotland. Instead of a Measure of this sort, we want the right hon. Gentleman to consider this question seriously, and take steps to make the industry profitable. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman does that he will have the support of the people in the agricultural districts of Scotland.
Mr. GRUNDY Mr. GRUNDY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. ROSBOTHAM: The Motion before the House is one which asks us to approve of the principle of the extension of unemployment insurance to agricultural workers, and I rise to support that principle. I wish to express my thanks to the Minister of Labour for her kind promise to give consideration to the proposal. On this question I speak as a farmer, and I believe it will be in the interests of farmers generally that the agricultural workers should be brought within the scope of this proposal. For these reasons I give it my whole-hearted support.
Mr. GRUNDY Mr. GRUNDY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question he now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. R. W. SMITH: I wish to express my regret that the Minister of Agriculture has not up to the present made any

1143
reply to this Motion on behalf of the Government. I think we ought to have heard from the right hon. Gentleman what is the condition of agriculture at the present time, and what he thinks the effects of this proposal would be upon the agricultural industry. The Minister of Agriculture might have told the House whether the Government have any agricultural policy, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken this opportunity of giving us some idea of what is the policy of the Government with regard to unemployment insurance. We have been left with no advice whatever from the Government on that point. The Minister of Labour said that the Blanesburgh Committee had not considered this question, but I believe that Committee was set up in order to consider
the whole question of unemployment.
Miss BONDFIELD: The hon. Member is mistaken. His own Government set up the other Committee to consider that question.
Mr. SMITH: The right hon. Lady says that the evidence was taken on this question by the other Committee.
Mr. GRUNDY Mr. GRUNDY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 82.

Division No. 121.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, Went)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

March, S.

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

Gray, Milner

Marcus, M.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Markham, S. F.

Alpass, J. H.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Marley, J.

Arnott, John

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mathers, George

Aske, Sir Robert

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

Maxton, James

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Messer, Fred

Barnes, Alfred John

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Mills, J. E.

Batey, Joseph

Harbison, T. J.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Harbord, A.

Morley, Ralph

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Hardie, George D.

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Benson, G.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Mort, D. L.

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Muff, G.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hayday, Arthur

Muggeridge, H. T.

Birkett, W. Norman

Hayes, John Henry

Murnin, Hugh

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

Bowen, J. W.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)

Broad, Francis Alfred

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Bromfield, William

Horrabin, J. F.

Palin, John Henry

Bromley, J.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Paling, Wilfrid

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Johnston, Thomas

Palmer, E. T.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Buchanan, G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Perry, S. F.

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

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk. N.)

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Pole, Major D. G.

Cameron, A. G.

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Potts, John S.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Kelly, W. T.

Price, M. P.

Clarke, J. S.

Kennedy, Thomas

Quibell, D. J. K.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kinley, J.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Daggar, George

Kirkwood, D.

Raynes, W. R.

Dalton, Hugh

Lang, Gordon

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lathan, G.

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Devlin, Joseph

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Dickson, T.

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Ritson, J.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Lawson, John James

Romeril, H. G.

Dukes, C.

Leach, W.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Duncan, Charles

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Rothschild, J. de

Ede, James Chuter

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Rowson, Guy

Edmunds, J. E.

Lees, J.

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Foot, Isaac

Lindley, Fred W.

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Sawyer, G. F.

Freeman, Peter

Logan, David Gilbert

Scrymgeour, E.

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Longden, F.

Sexton, James

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith. N.)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Gibbins, Joseph

Lowth, Thomas

Sherwood, G. H.

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Lunn, William

Shield, George William

Gill, T. H.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Shillaker, J. F.

Glassey, A. E.

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Simmons, C. J.

Gossling, A. G.

McEntee, V. L.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Smith, Ben (Bermundsey, Rotherhithe)

Vaughan, D. J.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Viant, S. P.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Smith, Tom (Pontetract)

Walker, J.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Wallace, H. W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Sorensen, R.

Wellock, Wilfred

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Stephen, Campbell

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Strauss, G. R.

West, F. R.

Wise, E. F.

Sutton, J. E.

Westwood, Joseph

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

White, H. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Tinker, John Joseph

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Mr. Dallas and Mr. Gould.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Alien, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

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

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Atholl, Duchess of

Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Skelton, A. N.

Beaumont, M. W.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Boothby, R. J. G.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hanbury, C.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Bracken, B.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Briscoe, Richard George

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

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

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

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Thomson, Sir F.

Christie, J. A.

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Colville, Major D. J.

Lymington, Viscount

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Courtauld, Major J. S.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Crookehank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Dalkeith, Earl of

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Mond, Hon. Henry

Wells, Sydney R.

Dixey, A. C.

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Muirhead, A. J.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Edmondson, Major A. J.

O'Neill, Sir H.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Peake, Captain Osbert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Everard, W. Lindsay

Penny, Sir George

Captain Dugdale and Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise.

Ferguson, Sir John

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

Flson, F. G. Clavering

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.
It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business.
Whereupon Mr. GRUNDY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Resolved,
"That, in the opinion of this House unemployment insurance should be extended to include agricultural workers."
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  TARIFF TRUCE.
  TARIFF TRUCE.
  CHINA (SITUATION).
  CHINA (SITUATION).
  SUDAN (DEVELOPMENTS).
  SUDAN (DEVELOPMENTS).
PALESTINE.
  HOLY PLACES.
  HOLY PLACES.
  PRIMARY SCHOOLS.
  PRIMARY SCHOOLS.
  BOXER INDEMNITY.
  BOXER INDEMNITY.
BRITISH ARMY.
  ROADS AND COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT, SOUTHERN COMMAND.
  ROADS AND COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT, SOUTHERN COMMAND.
  ESTABLISHMENT.
  ESTABLISHMENT.
TRANSPORT.
  SEAFORD-NEWHAVEN ROAD.
  SEAFORD-NEWHAVEN ROAD.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.
  RIVER THAMES (THE POOL).
  RIVER THAMES (THE POOL).
  TUNNEL, PICCADILLY.
  TUNNEL, PICCADILLY.
  TREES, ROADSIDES.
  TREES, ROADSIDES.
  MUNICIPAL SERVICES.
  MUNICIPAL SERVICES.
  ROAD WORKS (BRITISH MATERIALS).
  ROAD WORKS (BRITISH MATERIALS).
  BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, BLACKWATER.
  BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, BLACKWATER.
  BRIDGE, RIVER SEVERN.
  BRIDGE, RIVER SEVERN.
  RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS (BRIDGE SCHEMES).
  RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS (BRIDGE SCHEMES).
  LONDON TRAMCARS AND OMNIBUSES (NUMBERED TICKETS).
  LONDON TRAMCARS AND OMNIBUSES (NUMBERED TICKETS).
  LONDON TRAFFIC SCHEME.
  LONDON TRAFFIC SCHEME.
  MOTOR CARS (SPARE LAMPS).
  MOTOR CARS (SPARE LAMPS).
  MOTOR COACH DRIVERS (HOURS OF WORK).
  MOTOR COACH DRIVERS (HOURS OF WORK).
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAY (OVERCROWDING).
  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAY (OVERCROWDING).
  BATTERSEA POWER STATION.
  BATTERSEA POWER STATION.
POST OFFICE.
  KIOSKS.
  KIOSKS.
  MAILS, FOREIGN SHIPS.
  MAILS, FOREIGN SHIPS.
  MAIL BAGS (LOSSES).
  MAIL BAGS (LOSSES).
  CABLE COMMUNICATION, WESTRAY.
  CABLE COMMUNICATION, WESTRAY.
  MANIPULATIVE GRADES.
  MANIPULATIVE GRADES.
  PRIVATE COMPANIES (FINANCIAL OPERATIONS).
  PRIVATE COMPANIES (FINANCIAL OPERATIONS).
  NEEDLES LIGHTHOUSE (ROCK, DAMAGE).
  NEEDLES LIGHTHOUSE (ROCK, DAMAGE).
  LOCAL TAXATION (DOMINIONS AND COLONIES).
  LOCAL TAXATION (DOMINIONS AND COLONIES).
  NIGERIA (DISTURBANCES).
  NIGERIA (DISTURBANCES).
  ASHANTI (JUDICIAL PROCEDURE).
  ASHANTI (JUDICIAL PROCEDURE).
  HONG KONG AND MALAYA (WOMEN AND GIRLS).
  HONG KONG AND MALAYA (WOMEN AND GIRLS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  ESTABLISHMENT.
  ESTABLISHMENT.
  AIRCRAFT STRENGTH.
  AIRCRAFT STRENGTH.
  PRIVATELY-OWNED AIRCRAFT.
  PRIVATELY-OWNED AIRCRAFT.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.
  FOREIGN NAVIES.
  FOREIGN NAVIES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  "EFFINGHAM" CLASS CRUISERS (RECONDITIONING).
  "EFFINGHAM" CLASS CRUISERS (RECONDITIONING).
  SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  MOTHER'S PENSION.
  MOTHER'S PENSION.
  CRUISERS (MANNING).
  CRUISERS (MANNING).
  PERSONNEL, GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN POWERS.
  PERSONNEL, GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN POWERS.
  BLIND PERSONS.
  BLIND PERSONS.
  CHILDREN ACT, 1908 (AMENDMENT).
  CHILDREN ACT, 1908 (AMENDMENT).
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  BOXING MATCHES (CHILDREN'S ATTENDANCE).
  BOXING MATCHES (CHILDREN'S ATTENDANCE).
  AIR-GUNS (LICENCES).
  AIR-GUNS (LICENCES).
  FACTORIES (WORKERS' SUGGESTIONS).
  FACTORIES (WORKERS' SUGGESTIONS).
  TRADE, CANADA.
  TRADE, CANADA.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, LANCASHIRE.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, LANCASHIRE.
AGRICULTURE.
  CREDITS, SCOTLAND.
  CREDITS, SCOTLAND.
  SWINE FEVER.
  SWINE FEVER.
  HORSES (EXPORT).
  HORSES (EXPORT).
EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS' TRAINING COLLEGES (ADMISSIONS).
  TEACHERS' TRAINING COLLEGES (ADMISSIONS).
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, PORTSMOUTH.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, PORTSMOUTH.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (SIR HENRY MAYBURY).
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (SIR HENRY MAYBURY).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD DICKINSON.
The Right Hon. Sir Willoughby Hyett Dickinson, K.B.E., having been created Baron Dickinson of Painswick, in the County of Gloucester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD WAKEFIELD.
Sir Charles Cheers Wakefield, Baronet, C.B.E., having been created Baron Wakefield of Hythe, in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD TRENCHARD.
Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Hugh Montague Trenchard, Baronet, G.C.B., D.S.O., having been created Baron Trenchard of Wolfeton, in the County of Dorset—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD DARCY DE KNAYTH.
The House being informed that his Lordship was attending with his writ of summons, the Lord Chancellor explained to the House his Lordship's descent: Then his Lordship was called in and took the Oath, and then took his place on the Baron's Bench next below the Lord Grey de Ruthyn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, at the time of the adjournment of the House yesterday afternoon, certain doubt was left as to the expectation of the Government with regard to the day on which it would be the duty of your Lordships to consider again the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, on its return from the House of
348
Commons. May I venture to ask the noble and learned Lord whether a night's reflection has convinced him that I was right that Tuesday is the proper day?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): No! I think a night's reflection has convinced me that Monday, which was the first suggestion of the noble Marquess, is the proper day. I have made the most careful inquiries and I think that the House must meet on Monday to deal with the Unemployment Insurance Bill. I hope that it will not create difficulty or inconvenience, but after the most careful inquiries I can assure him that it is necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that it will create inconvenience. At the same time I do not feel able to resist the wishes of the Government on a matter of this kind on the present occasion, and therefore we will, of course, fulfil that appointment. I am very sorry.
LORD PARMOOR: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. As he knows, I made every possible effort.

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SHAKESPEARE BIRTHPLACE, ETC., TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

  PALESTINE COMMISSION.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government on what date the Report of the Commission appointed to enquire into certain events in Palestine and make recommen-

  349
  dations concerning them to prevent their recurrence will be published, and whether owing to the seriousness of the situation an early publication can be expected.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS AND THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I understand from the Commissioners that they are proceeding with the preparation of their Report with all possible expedition, but that, apart from other factors, the volume of the evidence which they have to take into consideration makes it impossible for them to name at this stage even an approximate date for the presentation of their Report. The noble Lord may rest assured that I fully appreciate the importance of there being no avoidable delay in publication after the Report has received the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his answer.

THE OPTIOIN AL CLAUSE.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON rose to ask whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Motion in this House respecting Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the same terms as that submitted to the House of Commons. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to say two or three words, not on the subject matter but on the point of the Question which I have ventured to put to the Government. At present the situation appears to some of us to be profoundly unsatisfactory. His Majesty's Government pledged themselves to secure ratification by Parliament of certain questions, such as the Soviet Agreement, but their interpretation of "Parliament" is, I venture to say, a novel one and one which certainly requires explanation in this House.
The question of the so-called Optional Clause which is now before us is specially dealt with in the Memorandum which was circulated on the signature by His Majesty's Government of the Optional Clause, presented to Parliament by command of His Majesty. That Memorandum contains on page 4, paragraph 8, the declaration of the Government, which begins:—
350
"On behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and subject to ratification.…"
that is, ratification by Parliament. On page 6 it is stated—
"The signature is also subject to ratification. This will enable the question to be raised in Parliament, if so desired…"
On page 7 it is stated:—
"With the objects which have led His Majesty's Government to sign the Optional Clause, and to ask Parliament to approve their action in doing so, there is, it is believed, general sympathy throughout the country."
I am not, of course, a constitutional lawyer, but it is not necessary, I believe, in all cases that His Majesty should submit Treaties to Parliament. Treaties which do not involve cession of territory or a special charge on the people of this country may be ratified by His Majesty without being subject in any way to Parliament. More and more in recent years the practice has been to submit Treaties to Parliament for ratification and, under correction, I think that a very good case in point was the Declaration of London which in 1911 was brought before Parliament in the Naval Prize Bill and was actually rejected by this House.
What I want to ask the Government is whether they laid down the axiom, when they pledged themselves and signed on behalf of His Majesty a Treaty with a foreign power subject to ratification, that ratification involved the House of Commons alone and not this House. We had a most extraordinary explanation by the Attorney-General on this subject in another place so recently as December 18 last. The Attorney-General seems to have had misgivings as to his action, because in his opinion he stated:—
"It may be that to use the word 'Parliament' in the Russian protocol was a slip in form…"
But he goes on to say that the Opposition are quite wrong if they think that in fact or in practice it was in any way erroneous. He goes on to make this strange statement:—
"But what is meant by 'Parliament' when it is said that His Majesty's Government is responsible to Parliament for its whole executive action? Not what is meant by 'Parliament' when we are speaking of legislation."
In other words "Parliament," in the view of the Attorney-General, applies in Treaties only to an Assembly which, as

351
he states, may turn out the Government; but it does not apply to an Assembly which is equally a House of Parliament, with every constitutional right except that of review of finance, as the Government may ignore a vote of that Assembly, and may not have its existence terminated by that vote. Therefore, they are absolved from submitting to it any Treaty when they have pledged themselves to that Treaty subject to ratification by Parliament.
Of course, we know that the Attorney-General's opinions are subject to change. There has been a good deal of experience of that in the last few months and I must ask His Majesty's Government whether that opinion is one on which they take their stand, and, if so, seeing that the ipse dixit of one lawyer, however eminent, cannot possibly govern a practice from which, so far as I know, there has been no departure in the whole history of the two Houses of Parliament, whether they propose to take any steps to elucidate what is the proper course, and whether, especially in regard to the Optional Clause, they propose to submit the question for debate in this House.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I would ask to be allowed to make one or two observations. I had no idea when I saw this Question on the Paper that it raised this very important constitutional issue as to whether this House is part of Parliament, as we have always understood it to be up to the present time; and I must say, had I known it was to be raised, I should have come here fortified with a good deal of information that I looked up when I read the astonishing opinion of the Attorney-General with reference to the Protocol entered into with reference to Egypt. I do not think that any serious lawyer having any responsibility would agree with the Attorney-General in the view he took upon that occasion. I may be wrong in that, but I have looked into a good deal of the law upon the subject, which I would be prepared to state at any time in this House. I do not consider that there is the slightest foundation for the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General; at least, I could find none.
In all these documents, unless the context shows otherwise, "Parliament"
352
means the two Houses of Parliament, equally the one and equally the other. There is no power in one that there is not in the other. It is such a very important constitutional matter that when this has been for the first time challenged, we should meet it straight away and emphatically. We know, of course, that statutory changes made under the Parliament Act prevent this House interfering with finance. But that was done by Act of Parliament, and you may say by Act of Parliament that this House is no longer in any wise to be included when Parliament is mentioned either in Treaties, in orders or in various matters which arise. But as I understood and recollect the opinion of the Attorney-General, he based it upon this. He said that the submission to the House of Commons was the submission of an executive act and because it was an executive act it was the House of Commons that could alone control the Executive. That goes to the very basis and root of our Constitution, because I can certainly find no authority for saying that the Executive are not controlled as well by this House as by the House of Commons.
One of the reasons given, if I remember aright, was that which has been mentioned by my noble friend—that the Government would have a right to ignore a vote of this House, as they very often do, but that they could not ignore a vote of the House of Commons. Where does he get that from? They have ignored votes of the House of Commons over and over again. I remember a Division during the long struggle on the Home Rule Bill in which there was a vote against the Government on a very important matter, and it was absolutely ignored. There is nothing to prevent them ignoring it any day. The only reason why they do not ignore it oftener is that if it was in respect to a very important matter they probably could not get on with their business. In exactly the same way here, the Prime Minister might be in this House, and all the Ministers might be in this House according to the Constitution. Do you mean to say that this House would have no control whatsoever in debate or discussion over a particular act because it was an executive act? And when it is said that this House has no power of controlling, it has every power of con-

353
trolling. Of course it is a very extreme case to put and I only put it to show how very glibly opinions can be given, but if in your Lordships' House tomorrow as each Bill came up a Motion was made: "That this Bill be postponed until we are consulted upon the question of the Egyptian Treaty" and it was carried, what could the Government do? What could they do if your Lordships postponed anything because of any executive act of the Government?
I do not like to use strong language in regard to a gentleman for whom I have so much respect as I have for Sir William Jowitt. So far as I am concerned, I am very glad that the Labour Government have the advantage of his legal learning, which is great. But I cannot but think that the opinion he gave upon that occasion was a most ill-considered and most unfortunate opinion as going to the very root of the procedure between these two Houses in relation to the action of the Executive. I saw a letter from a former Lord Chancellor, the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, in which I think he described the opinion as nonsense. At all events, he said that the Attorney-General would not get any other lawyers to agree with him. I have not consulted any lawyers about it, but I have had leisure enough to look into some books upon the subject and from beginning to end I can find no trace of a reason for the allegation upon which that opinion is founded, that it is only the House of Commons which has any power of control over the Executive. I do not believe that to be the law. I think that the matter ought to be settled one way or the other. If it is going to be laid down now that the House of Lords has no longer control in relation either to Treaties or other matters which require the sanction of Parliament, I believe a revolution as far-reaching as anything that has been done in relation to the interests of the two Houses, will have been quietly effected.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, you will perhaps prefer the unbiased interpretation of "Parliament" given by Anson to the biased interpretation given by the Attorney-General. What Anson says is this:—
"The sovereignity of Parliament is, from a legal point of view, the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. And my readers will remember that Parlia-
354
ment consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together."
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount who spoke last and the noble and learned Lord who spoke before him and raised a very interesting question regarding the use of the word "Parliament," will permit me, in the first place at any rate, to deal with the far narrower question which is involved in this case—namely, the constitutional principle involved either as regards a Treaty or the ratification of a Convention signed at Geneva. I think the constitutional principle—and I will ask the noble and learned Lord to consider this—is plain. In this country the right of making a Treaty is part of the Royal Prerogative, to be entered into, no doubt, under the advice of the Ministers for the time being. I think there can be no doubt about that; nor, I think, would anyone question it for a moment. Quite apart from how the word "Parliament" may be used, a Treaty is just as binding on the honour of this country, is just as binding as a national obligation which should not be treated as a scrap of paper, whether it has the assent of the Crown, His Majesty under His Prerogative, or whether it has been or has not been in addition submitted to Parliament.
That word I want to use in a neutral sense at the present moment. But a constitutional custom and tradition have grown up that before the Royal Assent is given by ratification, the House of Commons is consulted. It is consulted in order that its approval or disapproval may be obtained. The House of Commons, of course, is in a special position for two reasons, and what I am saying is in no way a derogation of the position of this House. In the first place, it is the representative Assembly and, as a representative Assembly, it represents in a special way the nation at large. It has been thought, I think for nearly one hundred years now and thought quite rightly, that it is wise and proper, therefore, to consult the representative body before very far-reaching obligations are undertaken by any particular Government. Speaking for myself, I think that is a constitutional practice of great value, and I hope it will never be departed from.
One other point I should like to raise before coming to the definition of the

355
word "Parliament." This question is not new in relation to this House. At the time of the Treaty of Locarno, when the Party opposite were in power and were represented in debate by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and their present Leader, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the question was raised here whether the approval which had been obtained in the other House ought also to be obtained here, either on constitutional principle or on some grounds which the noble and learned Lord has suggested. That was negatived. I have a note here of what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said, and also of what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said on that occasion. In saying that it was not the constitutional practice to have the matter approved in this House, Lord Balfour said:—
"There was a very full debate in another place, and a speech from the Minister of Foreign Affairs."
I think in this case there has been a very full debate in another place, and a speech from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Henderson. I would also quote what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, because it is not only good sense, if I may say so, but it states the constitutional principle. He said:—
"My noble friend beside me"—
that was Lord Balfour—
"did not propose to weary your Lordships by repeating what had been said by Mr. Austen Chamberlain in another place.… We are practical men.— What we always do is to approach the subject not merely by repeating what has gone before"—
the whole matter having been explained in the other House—
"but in order to add something fresh and useful."
I think those words were admirable. If in debates in this House you are only to have what is fresh and useful, I commend the noble Marquess opposite in the highest possible terms. I think there is no doubt about the constitutional principle. Some question has been raised in regard to the use of the term "Parliament."
LORD CARSON: In order to make the distinction clear, if there is one—as I think there is—has not the noble and learned Lord been dealing with cases where the matter can be carried out by
356
the King as King, and are they not entirely different from cases where Governments eider into matters subject to the ratification of Parliament? Of course what the King has done requires no ratification by Parliament.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think the noble and learned Lord is right, if I understand him. Ratification is in all cases for the King, of course under the advice of his constitutional advisers. There is no doubt tbout that. Whether a particular Treaty or matter of this kind has been submitted to Parliament or not in that respect makes no difference. It is the Prerogative of the King and not the approval of Parliament which binds the nation. The approval of Parliament may have been sought in some cases—I do not know—but not in a case of this kind, and what has been done constitutionally for some centuries—I think since Lord Castlereagh's time or at any rate for a century or more—has been to submit the matter for approval or disapproval, as the case may be, to the House of Commons in order that the country and the people at large should have full knowledge of what has been done, and that their representatives should have the power of saying "Yea" or "Nay" to the attitude to be adopted by the Government before the King gives his assent, after which of course the Treaty of ratification would he finally completed and finally binding. I will deal in a moment with the use of the word "Parliament." I am quite sure I can say this, that undoubtedly that is now, and has been for a long series of years, the constitutional practice, and the notion that either House really is the authority in Treaty making is a mistake. The only Treaty-making power, I think the noble and learned Lord will agree, is that which exists in the Prerogative of the Sovereign himself, and these are steps which the Government desire to take in order that full publicity may be given in the representative House before asking for His Majesty's ratification. That really answers the question which the noble Earl has put to me.
A matter was raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Carson, upon which I would like to say a word. I have read the opinion of the Attorney-General. I have it before me, but I do not think it is necessary to read it again.

357
I can find nothing in that opinion which purports in any way to cast any slight upon your Lordships' House. In the particular instance we are now discussing the noble Earl will know that the word "Parliament" was not used. He will not find it in the sense in which it was used in the Russian case, and there the question which I think was raised—and very properly raised—was whether, when he used the word "Parliament," the Foreign Secretary intended your Lordships' House as well as the House of Commons, or the House of Commons alone. It was on that point that the Attorney-General's opinion was given. May I say why I agree with him? The word "Parliament" is not a word of art, if I may say so. No doubt, in the case of an Act of Parliament—in the case quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie—it means the common action of the King, the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the members of the House of Commons. It is constantly used in that sense. Every time we use the words "Act of Parliament" we so use it.
Take another case. When we use it in the sense of speaking of a member of Parliament it does not bring to my mind the spiritual right reverend members of this House, nor am I aware that any member of your Lordships' House is familiarly spoken of as a member of Parliament. The explanation as it comes to my mind is very clear. The Foreign Secretary, practically having taken the advice of the Attorney-General, made the explanation. It is quite correct that he used the word "Parliament," but he only meant the House of Commons. I do not think myself that is a matter to be laughed at.
LORD CARSON: No, indeed it is not.
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps the noble Lord is right, but what is meant is another matter. It is meant to make clear what it was intended the word "Parliament" should mean in the context in which it was used. I think that at the time it was perfectly clear. But there it is. We really are not dealing with that at the present moment. I am not here to defend the Attorney-General or to attack him. I can only say that I entirely agree with what he said, but perhaps, as the noble Lord would say, that would not be much consolation to the Attorney-General. However there it is.
358
There may be a difference of opinion, and that is my own opinion.
As regards the constitutional point it really is extremely important. It would be impracticable, with the House of Lords as at present constituted, for a Government such as the Labour Government to submit to this House the question of the approval or disapproval of a particular Treaty before it was presented to the King for ratification. It would obviously be impossible; nor has it ever been done. I have looked thoroughly into all the precedents I can, and I cannot find any precedent for it. What I think the noble and learned Lord has in his mind is this, and it is quite true: if the particular Treaty you are dealing with cannot be carried into immediate execution without Parliamentary powers, then you find the Treaty is generally put into a Bill, in Parliamentary form, which gives the necessary powers in order to make the terms of the Treaty effective in the sense of the immediate obligation being undertaken. I am not quite sure, but I think your Lordships will find that that was the case, for instance, in the Treaty of Versailles, and in the Treaties at the close of the Great War. That is not because there was any lack of force or authority in the King's power, the Royal Prerogative, but because incidental to those Treaties certain matters had to be done, and done immediately, which required statutory power in this country or in the other country as the case might be.
That is a different matter. It has always been an acknowledged exception, that if you do want some measure of statutory power you must have it at the time the Treaty is made, and it is usual—certainly it is done in that case—to introduce the Treaty in the form of a Parliamentary Act. That is another matter altogether. In such a case things axe to be done outside the ordinary Treaty-making power which require the assent and authority of Parliament. There is no such thing as that in the present case. That is not suggested. There is nothing in the ratification of our signature of the Optional Clause which necessitates any statutory power affecting the rights of the Government in this country. That is quite clear. No one would say that for one moment. Therefore, although I appreciate the interest-

359
ing debate which the noble Earl has raised, the answer must be in the negative if we are to follow ordinary constitutional practice, and I do not think I can carry my answer any further. I hope I have dealt fairly with the arguments addressed to me. There is no intention on the part of the Government—it was not done in the Locarno case—to bring forward as a preliminary to ratification their signature to the Optional Clause for the approval or disapproval of this House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not at undue length but at considerable length, tried to explain away the opinion of the Attorney-General and with that object he has quoted some precedent from what happened in Parliament after the signature of the Treaty of Locarno. I listened with becoming apprehension to the quotation which he foreshadowed from some remarks of mine, but apparently that was confined to an assurance to your Lordships that the then Government would not be guilty of vain repetition, of going over again, merely for the sake of a statement, what had been already adequately stated in another place. I did not gather from what the noble and learned Lord quoted that the question of the responsibility of this House and its equality with the House of Commons from a constitutional point of view was called in question for a moment.
LORD PARMOOR: The question raised there was just the same as is raised here. It was raised by my noble friend Lord Arnold at that time and I read what was the answer.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I gathered that it was a question of a statement, not of asking the approval of the two Houses of Parliament.
LORD PARMOOR: I think it went beyond that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will certainly familiarise myself with the point, but that was what I gathered from what the noble and learned Lord said. But let us look for a moment at the present case. There is no question that the Government assented at Geneva to this Clause subject to ratification. When they came to describe the effect of the reservations they said this
360
"The signature is also subject to ratification. This will enable the question to be raised in Parliament.…"
so that in the declaration at Geneva Parliament was brought into direct juxtaposition with ratification. Then, in the White Paper—not, I admit, in the declaration at Geneva, but in the White Paper which contained the defence of the Government for their action on the Optional Clause—the Government say:—
"With the objects which have led His Majesty's Government to sign the Optional Clause, and to ask Parliament to approve their action in doing so.…"
Those words come two pages further on in the White Paper. There is direct continuity. Ratification which is to govern it, ratification which is to give opportunity to Parliament to discuss, and then the assertion of the Government themselves to your Lordships and of the right hon. gentleman in another place that it would not be ratified without the assent of Parliament. The whole thing seems to read together and one would have assumed but for the remarkable opinion of the Attorney-General that Parliament meant both Houses of Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord referred just now rather gingerly I thought to the opinion of the Attorney-General. I have in my hand the opinion which the Attorney-General as the senior Law Officer of the Crown gave to the Government in the Russian case. He said:—
"…there is a good case, from the constitutional point of view, for holding that the word 'Parliament' was the right word to use in an agreement with a foreign Power in which the purpose was to make plain to that foreign Power that a certain executive action could only be taken if the approval of the relevant Parliamentary authority had been obtained."
So upon his responsibility as a Law Officer of the Crown he gave the opinion that in an agreement with a foreign Power it was right to use the word "Parliament" when you only meant the House of Commons. That was the opinion of the Law Officer of the Crown on his responsibility as a Law Officer of His Majesty's Government. I should have nothing to say, of course, if the Attorney-General were merely speaking in debate. Many gentlemen, noble Lords even may I say, and right hon. gentlemen make rather rash statements in speaking in debate. After all, they are speaking as

361
advocates. They are trying to maintain a particular point of view and they undoubtedly state in strong and perhaps over-emphatic language sometimes the case for their own side. Even they may go a little beyond the point to which a rigid attention to sound opinion would have led them. But this is an opinion of a Law Officer of the Crown.
What are the conditions under which the Law Officers advise the Crown, advise Ministers, as to what is the law? Is it to be merely the attitude of an advocate or is it to be a quasi-judicial decision as to what upon their responsibility and with their knowledge of the law a thing really means? Of course the noble and learned Lord must defend his colleagues. I have nothing to say about that. He is very loyal to his colleagues. But what I want to know is how we are to determine the attitude of a Law Officer who says upon his responsibility as a Law Officer that in an agreement with a foreign Power it is right to use the word "Parliament" when you only mean the House of Commons? That is what we want to know, and I should be rather glad now if the noble and learned Lord would rise in his place and say he thinks that is so.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the Attorney-General was quite right in the opinion that he expressed. I said so before. You have to consider how the word "Parliament" is used in the context. I think it is quite clear that the House of Commons was intended on that occasion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I forget whether the noble and learned Lord has been a Law Officer of the Crown.
LORD PARMOOR: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then perhaps he is not so complete an authority as he otherwise might be, but he has been and is a Judge of the highest Court of the Realm, and I confess that I should be very much surprised if, speaking as a Judge here, he used the kind of language to which we have just listened. So far as we are concerned, I think we may leave it there. We place it upon record that in our judgment, when the Government of the day use the word "Parliament," they mean the whole of Parliament—that is to say, both Houses
362
of Parliament—and they are not entitled—this is, I am certain, the opinion of all noble Lords sitting on this side of the House and, I believe, of all noble and learned Lords, in whatever part of the House they sit, if they utter their candid opinion—they are not entitled to use the word "Parliament" in an official agreement with a foreign Power, or even in reference to a protocol or clause agreed to with a foreign Power, and to mean only the House of Commons. This use is inaccurate and ought never to be repeated.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think we are in a little danger of mixing up two different questions. The first is that of the constitutional necessity of submitting Treaties to your Lordships' House. I think it is perfectly clear that the right of making Treaties is a Royal Prerogative and that there is no reason why they should be submitted either to this House or to another place. Of course, as the noble and learned Lord opposite has said, it is often necessary that they should be cast into the form of Acts of Parliament, and then they naturally come before your Lordships' House. Otherwise, however, it does not become necessary.
The other point that has been discussed this afternoon is how far the use of the word "Parliament," when only the House of Commons is meant, is justified. I think it is perfectly obvious that, to say the very least, it is liable to lead to very grave misunderstanding. When we think of the usual use of the word "Parliament," the Parliament Act dealt with your Lordships' House quite as much as it dealt with the House of Commons. I venture to say that in general parlance the word "Parliament" does include your Lordships' House as well as the House of Commons. For my own part, I regret that this matter was not discussed in your Lordships' House, especially because we have in this House so many men of international authority in foreign affairs whose opinion, I think, would have helped to form the public mind in this matter. I regret that it was not thought necessary to have a discussion in your Lordships' House, whether that discussion had any legal justification or not. I hope that I may add my voice to what has been said already and ask of His Majesty's

363
Government that, if in future in an official document they mean the House of Commons, they will say the House of Commons. If they mean Parliament, your Lordships' House should be consulted. I do not think it is possible that the occasion should pass entirely with-
364
out comment. I think it is necessary that it should be placed on record that the use of the word "Parliament" should include your Lordships' House as well as the House of Commons.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.