Sitting of 21 May 1930

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Western Railway Bill (Certified Bill).
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, and agreed to.
Faversham Oyster Fishery Company Bill [Lords].
Malvern Hills Bill [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Coquet Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Bognor Regis and Chepping Wycombe) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Cranbrook District Water and Seven-oaks Water) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Folkestone Water) Bill.
Salford Provisional Order Bill.
Read a Second time, and committed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hexham) Bill (by Order).
Third Reading deferred till this evening, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  CHINA (PIRACY).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of attacks by Chinese pirates or brigands on British ships on the high seas or rivers for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; whether any passengers during these attacks have been killed, wounded, or kidnapped: and can he give particulars?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): During the 12 months ended the 1st of May, two British ships were attacked by Chinese pirates. In one case no passengers were killed, wounded or kidnapped; in the other five Chinese passengers were killed, about 20 wounded, and a number of others drowned. There was no kidnapping, and the European passengers on board were unharmed.

  RUSSIA.

    RELIGIOUS SITUATION.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information from the British Ambassador that the Soviet Government have recently issued a special decree ordering a renewed mass attack on religion?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answer is in the negative.
    Sir K. WOOD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received any information about the new official decree which was published in the official Soviet Press only a few weeks ago ordering a fresh mass attack upon religion?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I think I have already said that I have not received any information.

    LABOUR LEGISLATION.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow on the subject of forced labour in the Soviet Union?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. I have received no report dealing specifically with this subject, although His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow has furnished me from time to time with information on labour legislation in the Soviet Union.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: As this matter is of great importance to our workers, especially in the timber trade, will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made in regard to this matter?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I think I will take this matter into consideration.

    TRADE DELEGATION (DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY).
    Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet considered by what methods legal disputes between British subjects and members of the Soviet trade delegation in enjoyment of diplomatic immunity may be settled?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Any legal disputes arising out of commercial transactions entered into in the United Kingdom by the trade delegation will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 6, of the Temporary Commercial Agreement, and the additional protocol attached to that Agreement, be determined by the Courts of the United Kingdom in accordance with British law; and the privileges and immunities conferred on the head of the trade delegation and his two deputies may not be claimed in connection with such disputes.

    BRITISH EMBASSY, MOSCOW (CHAPLAIN).
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the appointment of a chaplain to the British Embassy in Russia?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. I do not feel called upon to consider such a suggestion at present.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the question should be treated differently in the embassy during the Soviet Government from what it was in the embassy during the Tsarist Government?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No, I have nothing more to add.

    PROPAGANDA.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) when he will be able to announce the decision of the Government with regard to the article in the issue of the "Daily Worker" of 8th May;
    (2) whether he is aware that the Communists have taken steps to prolong the dispute in the wool trade and to provoke disorder among the pickets; that leading Communists have been drafted into Yorkshire; that Isador Dreazen, alias Jack Mills, was sent from Moscow as supervisor and organiser in the dispute;
    372
    and, seeing that the Communists are acting under orders from Russia, will he make a protest to the Soviet Government?
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the attitude of the Soviet Press towards the situation in India, he will say when he will be in a position to make a statement as to whether he has decided to make any representations to the Soviet Ambassador respecting the revolutionary opinion therein expressed, having regard to the absolute control which the Soviet Government has over the Press in Russia?
    Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the issue of "Pravda," the official organ of the Soviet Government, of the 12th instant, stating that the events India are encouraging and the events in Peshawar, Karachi, Bombay and Calcutta prove that the masses are winning, that they are beginning to defeat the counter-revolutionary forces, and that in the whole country there is only one cry, Down with the imperialists and long live the revolution; and what action he is taking in the matter?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: As I informed the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on Monday last, various questions connected with Communist propaganda are receiving my serious consideration.
    Mr. SMITHERS: When is the right hon. Gentleman going to take some notice of this ceaseless propaganda which is going on? Has he seen two cartoons in this week's "Punch"?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know why the hon. Member puts the question. I have already told him I am giving the matter my serious consideration.
    Mr. SMITHERS: What we want is some action taken.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the urgency of this matter and the fact that this propaganda is causing considerable anxiety in this country as well as in India, give a date when he will be able to make a statement?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No, I cannot give any date. This matter is receiving my most careful and serious consideration. These matters are appearing in the Press, and I have to consider them as they arise, and I cannot say definitely when I shall be able to make a further statement.

    DEBTS, CLAIMS AND COUNTER CLAIMS.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that a claim, in respect of debts due to the late Tsarist Government, was made by the Soviet Ambassador in the formal declaration made by him which is attached to the recent trade agreement with this country, signed on 16th April, he will ascertain and inform the House of the reasons given by the Soviet Government for claiming the benefit of debts due to their predecessors while disclaiming the payment of debts incurred by them?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The declaration by the Soviet Ambassador, attached to the Temporary Commercial Agreement of the 16th of April, is a statement of the claim of the Soviet Government to the ownership of certain property, and does not refer to debts due to the former Imperial Government of Russia. As I informed the hon. Member on the 5th of May, this declaration by the Soviet Government does not connote any recognition of this claim on the part of His Majesty's Government.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar claims have recently been made by the Soviet Government against China in regard to the Eastern Railway? Does he not see that it is the practice of that Government to make claims for debts, although they themselves disclaim liability?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do not see that that has any connection with the question which I have tried to answer.

    NAVAL MOVEMENTS.
    Sir K. WOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information concerning the action of the Soviet Government in transferring certain of their naval forces from the Baltic to the Black Sea?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): No,
    374
    Sir, I have no information other than a Press notice that the battleship "Paris Commune" and the Cruiser "Profintern" arrived at Sevastopol on the 18th January, 1930.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that the Straits Commission have intervened and issued an order forbidding the passage of any additional Russian warships?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have no official information.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put a question to the Foreign Secretary? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult him in regard to it?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: On any question affecting the Foreign Office my right hon. Friend and myself are always in close consultation.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the movements of these ships?

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended that Sir Cecil Hurst, as a judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice, shall also remain a member and the only member of the British national group entitled to nominate candidates for the court; and whether he will consider if it is desirable for this situation to continue?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I am considering the present situation, which appears to me to be somewhat anomalous, as regards the composition of the British national group.

    COVENANT (AMENDMENTS).
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government, when giving a general assent to the amendments proposed by the League of Nations Committee on the Covenant and Pact of Paris, intended to reserve their right to reject or alter particular amendments?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: His Majesty's Government think it desirable that the Covenant of the League of Nations should be amended so as to bring it into harmony with the Pact of Paris. The Committee referred to in the question was appointed to propose amendments with this object, and His Majesty's Government are of opinion that, generally speaking, their proposals are satisfactory. But they reserve to themselves the right to make suggestions for modifying details.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As the adoption of the Amendments will extend the obligations of His Majesty's Government, when does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the judgment of the House upon it?
    Mr. HENDERSON: It is a matter of debate as to whether they extend the obligations of His Majesty's Government. There may be a slight technical extension, but I think the Amendments as a whole have the effect of making much more remote any possibility of conflict.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is a matter of debate, and I agree. When does he propose to give the House an opportunity of debating it?
    Mr. HENDERSON: If the right hon. Gentleman desires to proceed through the usual channels and ask the Leader of the House to give a date, I am quite prepared to agree.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not what I proposed. I assumed that the Government were going to follow their often proclaimed course of not committing this country to any such obligations without first taking the judgment of the House?
    Mr. HENDERSON: It all depends upon the obligations. In this case we are only putting into one document what the previous Government agreed to in a second document. We are only agreeing to try to put the Briand-Kellogg Pact of Paris into the Covenant of the League of Nations. If the right hon. Gentleman dissents, surely he knows that his Government accepted the Briand-Kellogg Pact, and all that we are doing is to try and harmonise the two documents.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the effect
    376
    of putting into the League Covenant what is novel in the Briand-Kellogg Pact is to extend the obligations of this country under Article 16, and does he propose to bring the matter, on a Motion of the Government, before the House?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have already said that it is a question of debate as to whether it is really an extension, and I have also said that if right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite desire a day they know the usual way to obtain it.
    Captain EDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to go to Geneva, where this matter is to be discussed in the autumn, before he has received the approval of this House?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do; and, when the document is laid for ratification, the House will have an opportunity of debating it.

  EGYPT (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE).
  Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the breakdown of the Anglo-Egyptian Conference, he will now approach other European capitulatory Powers in Egypt for the purpose of effecting the reform of criminal procedure in that country?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. If the Egyptian Government desire to expedite reforms in this direction, it is for them to approach the capitulatory Powers.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has not Great Britain considerable responsibility in this matter?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, but I think that the initiative in this matter must be taken by the Egyptian Government.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CONSULAR SERVICE.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Consuls-General there have been in Kashgar since 1918; and whether he is satisfied that the system by which these Consuls are appointed for a maximum term of two years is the best?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Since 1918 there have been five Consuls-General at Kashgar. There is no fixed maximum period of tenure of the appointment.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present system is very unsatisfactory by which young Indian Army officers are appointed without any knowledge of Turkish, Chinese or Russian, and can he not go back to the old system under which they had to remain there for a large number of years?
    Mr. HENDERSON: That is entirely a different question.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: No, it is not.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British and Russian Consulates in Chinese Turkestan?
    Mr. HENDERSON: There is one British Consular establishment in Chinese Turkestan, the Consulate-General at Kashgar. According to the latest information available, there are two Soviet Consulates-General and three Soviet Consulates.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very important province, and should not we be represented in the capital of that province, seeing that the Russians have no less than five Consulates, with 10 to 12 Russians in each?

    CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the precise nature of the duties at present allotted to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are to control the management of the Duchy Estates and Revenues and also, within the County Palatine of Lancaster, to appoint justices of the peace and county court judges and to direct the administration of the estates of persons dying intestate and without kin and to perform various duties which in other counties devolve upon the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary. On several occasions
    378
    recently the Chancellor has, however, been used for special work, which is not clearly assigned to any particular Department.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Chancellor of the Duchy has resigned?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that that is coming on later.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (LEAGUE OF NATIONS PUBLICATIONS).
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the conditions which should govern the supply of League of Nations publications for the use of Members of this House or take other appropriate means to have the question considered in consultation with Members interested?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: In reply to a question from the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward) the day before yesterday, I promised to consult the Treasury as to the possibility of presenting a White Paper dealing with the report of the League of Nations Committee regarding the proposed amendment of the Covenant. I have now consulted the Treasury, and find that, in their opinion, the expenditure involved in re-publishing this document as a White Paper would not be justified. I am prepared, however, in order to meet the wishes of hon. Members, to arrange for an additional number of copies of important League of Nations documents to be made Available for their use. In these circumstances I do not consider that inquiry by a Select Committee, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, would serve any useful purpose. I would, however, be willing to confer on the whole subject with the right hon. Gentleman, and any other Members who may be especially interested.

  VENEZUELA (BRITISH CLAIM).
  Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's

  379
  Government accept the principle laid down in the Stevenson claim against Venezuela that if injury is done to a British subject, the basis of the Governmental intervention being the wrong done to the State, any change in nationality of the individual who has borne the loss or seeks to benefit by the presentation of the claim is immaterial?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir; His Majesty's Government accept the view, which is supported by a very large number of arbitral decisions, that a continuance of national interest in a claim is essential to justify its presentation to a foreign Government. The contrary view was rejected by the Tribunal in the case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is very unfair that moneys due from the Russian Government to a British national should not be recovered with the help of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. HENDERSON: That is an entirely different question.
  Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman really considered the matter? It is not a different question.
  Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me the particulars connected with the case winch he has in mind, I will see how far I can go into it.
  Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Thank you, Sir.

  EUROPEAN FEDERAL UNION (FRENCH MEMORANDUM).
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the original text and a translation of the memorandum of the French Government on the organisation of a régime of federal union in Europe?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. The necessary steps will be taken as soon as possible.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SHIPS FOR DISPOSAL.
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make a statement as to what ships of His Majesty's Navy it is intended to place upon the sale list during the current financial year?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: On the assumption that the London Naval Treaty will be ratified in the near future, the list of ships to be disposed of during the current financial year is under consideration, but no further statement can be made at present.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make a statement?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I think the hon. and gallant Member had better reserve his questions about ships for disposal until the House has had an opportunity of dealing with the new programme.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: May we know when we shall have the new programme before us?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: As soon as it is ready.

    OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
    Captain W. G. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of captains who have been retired since 1st January, 1929, after holding flag rank for one day only; and the total extra yearly cost entailed in pensions to these officers over that payable had such promotions not taken place?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: 22 officers have been retired since 1st January, 1929, after holding flag rank for one day. At current rates their total annual pensions are £19,523. If these officers had continued to be employed as captains on the active list until they reached the age for compulsory retirement their pensions at current rates would have been £846 per annum apiece, a total of £18,612 or £911 per annum less than that actually awarded.
    Captain HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among officers of lower rank on this question, and will he consider the possibility of extending

    381
    to junior officers the rights of senior officers in this matter?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I cannot promise that. All I can say is that we are considering how far we are justified in having such a large number of flag officers.

    BUILDING PROGRAMME, 1929.
    Major ROSSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the appropriate number of destroyers that should be laid down annually in order to provide us with an efficient destroyer fleet; and how many destroyers of the 1929 programme he has cancelled?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The destroyer programme originally presented to Parliament for 1929 consisted of a flotilla leader and eight destroyers. The programme as now amended is correctly stated in another question standing in the hon. Member's name as a leader and four destroyers. The question of future construction in this category is now under consideration.
    Major ROSS: As the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to formulate the appropriate number of destroyers required annually, why did he complain of the inadequate programme that he inherited? Was it merely that he wanted to have more ships to cancel?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The inadequacy of the provision left to us makes all the greater difficulty for us in settling what our programme should be.
    Major ROSS: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman cancel ships in a programme which he says was inadequate?
    Major ROSSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether work has begun on the 6-inch-gun cruiser, destroyer leader, and four destroyers of the 1920 programme; and whether a decision has been come to with regard to the construction of the three submarines of that programme?
    Mr. MARKHAMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the three submarines of the 1929 naval construction programme, the building of which was suspended pending the conclusion of the Naval Conference, are to be laid down?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Orders have been given for work to proceed on the 6-inchgun cruiser ("Leander") to be built at Devonport and on the two destroyers to be built at Portsmouth; the preparation of material for construction has already commenced. Tenders for the leader and the two remaining destroyers which will be built by contract, are now under consideration. It is proposed to proceed forthwith with the building of the three submarines. Two will be of approximately 650 tons each and one of approximately 1,800 tons. The two smaller submarines will be built at Chatham Dockyard and the larger one by contract.
    Major ROSS: Are we to understand that the Admiralty are making every effort to get on with this work?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The Admiralty always does its work quickly.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this the new programme of construction that was foreshadowed in the presentation of the Navy Estimates?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: No. I have explained more than once to the hon. and gallant Member that this is part of the 1929 programme which was not cancelled. A considerable portion of that programme was cancelled, and this is the remainder.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are not these submarines in addition to the 10 already building?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: These three submarines are three of the six which were approved by Parliament in 1929 of the 1929 construction programme. Three were cancelled and the remaining three are now being proceeded with.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that there is a further shipbuilding programme awaiting presentation?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I have explained to the House already that the Government must consider what necessary replacements must take place in accordance with the terms of the Treaty.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister give us any idea how soon we may have the full naval programme of the Government?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: That question has been put already to-day. I cannot say more at present than that I will inform the House as soon as the programme is ready.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of private dockyards as well as naval dockyards when the new programme is put forward?

    NETLAYERS.
    Major ROSSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether netlayers of efficient type are classified as miscellaneous vessels exempt from limitation under the provisions of the Naval Treaty?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Under the provisions of the London Naval Treaty naval surface vessels are exempt from limitation, irrespective of their duties, if they conform to the limitations enumerated in Article 8 of that Treaty. It is considered that efficient netlayers can be constructed within those limitations.

  WEST INDIES.

    IMPERIAL CONFERENCES (REPRESENTATION).
    Mr. HURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if assent will be given to the suggestion of representative British West Indian bodies that Lord Olivier be chosen as one of the representatives of the sugar Colonies at the proposed conference in London this autumn on Colonial affairs?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): No such suggestion has been brought to the notice of my Noble Friend. The form of re-representation of the Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories is not yet decided, but the hon. Member may be assured that the interests of the West Indian Colonies will be adequately represented.
    Mr. HURD: May we take it that if they desire to have direct representation it will be taken into consideration?
    Dr. SHIELS: As I say, we have had no representation to that effect.
    Mr. HURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if representations
    384
    have been received from the British West Indian Colonies asking for direct representation at the Empire conferences to be held in London this autumn?
    Dr. SHIELS: The answer is in the negative.

    SUGAR INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will act upon the proposals put forward by representative British West Indian bodies and approach the Empire Marketing Board to secure financial accommodation for West Indian sugar estates, which will otherwise be unable to carry on after the end of the current crop, and enable them to market their sugar with British refineries or otherwise?
    Dr. SHIELS: I am not aware that any such proposals have been put forward. His Majesty's Government have already made certain offers to assist West Indian sugar estates to cultivate their crops and any further offer of financial assistance of the kind indicated would not be a matter within the scope of the Empire Marketing Fund.
    Mr. HURD: Has it not come to the knowledge of the Under-Secretary that in the opinion of the best authorities in the West Indies the proposals of the Government do not begin to meet the absolute necessities of the case?
    Dr. SHIELS: We have certainly had a number of representations to that effect.
    Sir RENNELL RODDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the crisis in the sugar industry in the West Indies, his Department has given attention to the manufacture from sugar-cane pulp in Florida and Louisiana of a new material known as celotex, which has proved so valuable as a lining for buildings that the extract of sugar from the cane is becoming a secondary consideration?
    Dr. SHIELS: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for raising this question. Celotex is known in the West Indies and has been manufactured from the fibres of British West Indian sugar cane. Up to the present, however, it has usually proved more profitable to employ the

    385
    residues of pressed cane as fuel in the sugar factories. The further possibilities of profitable development of this secondary industry will, however, be kept in view.

  PALESTINE.

    MCMAHON CORRESPONDENCE (PUBLICATION).
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the desire recently expressed on all sides of this House that the McMahon correspondence should be published, he will now reconsider the question of publication?
    Dr. SHIELS: In the light of the expression of hon. Members' views, this matter is now receiving further examination.

    PRISONERS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many men and women are now on hunger-strike in Palestine prisons; how many are in Jerusalem; how many in Jaffa; and how many in Haifa; on what charge these persons have been imprisoned; what is the nature of the demands in support of which they are hunger-striking; and whether any deaths have recently occurred in prison attributable to the effects of hunger-striking?
    Dr. SHIELS: I would invite reference to the reply given yesterday to a question in similar terms by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman).
    Mr. HORRABINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a girl named Hannah Milstein, aged 18, has recently died in gaol in Palestine from the effects of hunger striking; why she was not removed from gaol to hospital when it was evident that she was in a critical condition; and whether he will take steps to ensure that special treatment is accorded to political prisoners in Palestine?
    Dr. SHIELS: My hon. Friend has been misinformed. At no time did Hannah Milstein take part in a hunger strike in prison: and during the term of her sentence she was in fact admitted to the Government Hospital. She suffered from chronic valvular disease of the heart,
    386
    and died of heart failure more than three months after her discharge. So far as I am aware there is no discrimination in the law of this country between political and other prisoners, and I see no reason why such discrimination should be exercised in Palestine.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether any steps are being taken in Palestine to put an end to flogging in gaol.

    CONTRACT (RAILWAY WORKSHOPS, HAIFA).
    Mr. Charietonasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information concerning the tender for the construction of the railway workshops at Haifa; whether the contract will be financed from the proceeds of the Palestine Loan; and, if so, whether a fair-wage clause will be included in the form of tender submitted to the competing contractors?
    Dr. SHIELS: I have no information with regard to the first and third parts of the question. It is contemplated that the contract will be financed from Loan funds, which would involve the application of the provision in the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, as regards fair conditions of labour.
    Mr. Charieton: Will the Under-Secretary answer the last part of the question with regard to a fair wages clause?
    Dr. SHIELS: I have explained that the money has been advanced from the Palestine and East African Loans Act, and there is in that Act a Section dealing with fair wages.

    IMMIGRATION.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement regarding the action of the Palestine Government in cancelling the certificates for 2,300 Jewish immigrants previously authorised to enter Palestine?
    Mr. MARCUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Jewish Agency for Palestine recently applied for 3,300 immigration certificates on the basis of the actual requirements of each Colony; that the Palestine Government

    387
    granted the application; and if he will explain why the Colonial Office has since instructed the Palestine Government to cancel these certificates and to suspend all immigration until Sir John Hope Simpson has completed his inquiry.
    Dr. SHIELS: There has been no general stoppage or prohibition of immigration. The Secretary of State is aware that, owing to a misunderstanding a schedule of 3,300 persons was approved early in May by the High Commissioner for the half-yearly period ending 30th September next. This figure included 950 persons whose admission bad been sanctioned in advance. His Majesty's Government have taken the view that, having regard to the criticisms made in the Shaw Commission Report and the consequent mission of Sir John Hope Simpson to Palestine for the special purpose of examining questions relating to land and immigration, it is desirable, pending the receipt of Sir J. Hope Simpson's Report, that further arrivals should in the meantime be restricted. It has accordingly been decided to confine the issue of certificates for the present to the 950 persons whom I have mentioned. No certificates have been cancelled, nor has a final decision been reached as to the Labour Schedule covering the whole period to 30th September next.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: How many people will be affected by the suspension of this provision to enter Palestine?
    Dr. SHIELS: I think that about 2,000 people will be affected in the meantime, but there is no reason why they should be ultimately affected.
    Major sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: If the economic capacity of Palestine is insufficient to absorb these 3,300 people, why were these certificates granted by the High Commissioner? If, on the other hand, Palestine is capable of absorbing these 3,300 immigrants, is it not contrary to the terms of the mandate that the Government should stop these people going in?
    Dr. SHIELS: The position is really this: The situations to which these people were going were all of a temporary kind, in the orange groves and so on. We have been attempting to carry out the policy as stated in the Command Paper in 1922, of only allowing immigration into Palestine
    388
    according to the economic capacity of the country to absorb it. A Commission was recently appointed, as hon. Members are aware, in connection with the disturbances of last autumn. That Commission criticised, not the principle of our immigration policy, but the way in which it had been carried out, and they made the suggestion that an expert should be sent out in connection with the land question. That expert has been sent out, and surely it only seems ordinary discretion that in the meantime the immigration should be restricted, so that we should not be accused of making the mistakes which the Commission said we had made in the past?

  KENYA.

    GOVERNMENT AND RAILWAY SERVANTS (INDIANS).
    Major GRAHAM POLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is the intention of the Government in Kenya to effect reductions in the number of Indians employed in the Government services, including the railways?
    Dr. SHIELS: There is no present intention to reduce generally the number of Indians employed either in the Government service or the railway and harbour administration. In the case of the former, the annual expansion of the service has necessitated during the last five years addition to the Asian staff. In the case of the latter a few reductions have been made on the score of economy and it may be necessary to carry out certain further reductions of the same nature in the future. As it is the policy to train African natives for Government employment, the proportion of Indians employed may be expected to decrease in course of time.

    SETTLERS (PROTECTION).
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information showing that the recent murders of a missionary lady and a settler in Kenya were due to propaganda among the natives; and what steps the Kenya Government are taking to protect the settlers and their wives in isolated districts against similar occurrences?
    Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. My Noble Friend believes these to be isolated and exceptional cases, and he has no grounds for thinking that the Government of Kenya would consider it necessary to take any special steps of the kind suggested.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Does the Under-Secretary not know that there is considerable unrest among the natives which is causing apprehension on the part of the settlers?
    Dr. SHIELS: I know there has been some apprehension on the part of settlers, but our latest information is that the native reserves are very quiet and that there is no sign of anything which will justify apprehension.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not the apprehension among the natives that the settlers will take their land away from them?

    DEFENCE FORCE.
    Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Home Government have refused to allow Kenya to have a defence force; and what is the reason that they have disallowed a sum of £9,000 for the defence force which was duly passed by the Legislative Assembly in their recent budget?
    Dr. SHIELS: The hon. and gallant Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The Kenya Defence Force has not been abolished. On the draft Kenya Estimates for 1930, as first submitted to the Legislative Council, larger provision than that approved for 1929 was made for the Force, but in Select Committee a further sum of £9,000 was added mainly to provide a capitation grant. My Noble Friend took the view that the provision made in the draft Estimates should suffice, and he therefore asked that the figure originally proposed to the Council should be restored.
    Mr. MARLEY: How does this figure compare with the amount spent on native education in Kenya?
    Dr. SHIELS: I have not the exact figures, but I think this amount bears only a small relation to the amount spent on education.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir G. DALRYMPLEWHITE: If the white settlers themselves consider it necessary to have a
    390
    defence force for the protection of their wives and children on farms in distant parts, is it for the Government at home to veto their wishes?
    Dr. SHIELS: I should like to point out that what happened was that my Noble Friend considered that this £9,000 might be more profitably spent in other directions.

  EAST AFRICA (GOVERNMENT POLICY).
  Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received representations from East Africa to the effect that the delay in announcing the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the future of this overseas territory is prejudicing the position of the country from the economic and other standpoints; and if he can now make any statement as to when this announcement of policy may be expected?
  Dr. SHIELS: As regards the first part of the question, I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) on the 12th February, of which I am sending him a copy. As regards the second part of the question, it is proposed to present to Parliament as a Command Paper the conclusion's of His Majesty's Government regarding the question of closer union in East Africa on the 20th June. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies proposes shortly after that date to move in another place for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the proposals of His Majesty's Government in this matter.

  MALTA.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Archbishop of Malta and the Bishop of Gozo are British subjects?
  Dr. SHIELS: The answer is in the affirmative.

  MALAYA (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies

  391
  if he will publish the Report from the Governor and High Commissioner relating to the mui-tsai system in Malaya?
  Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend is arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House together with copies of the laws referred to in the Report.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether the report of the sub-committee of the Economic Advisory Council on the iron and steel industry will be made available to the public?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not possible for me to say whether this report will be published until His Majesty's Government have had an opportunity of studying it.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: What conceivable reason in principle can there be against the publication of the report upon this economic question, in which there is great interest taken by all parties?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Just the reason that the right hon. Gentleman must be acquainted with, that these reports are primarily private. Exceptions have been made with regard to publication. We are perfectly willing to make that exception if the report is of such a nature as to allow it, but until we see the report we cannot say what will be done with it.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish the report, whether the Government intend to act on its recommendations or not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that that will not be one of the considerations. It will depend on the nature of the report itself.
    Mr. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have expedited it as much as possible.

    TEA RESEARCH AND LAC MARKETING (INDIA).
    Major POLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can give information in regard to the project for scientific research which was recently placed before the Empire Marketing Board on behalf of India; if any decision has been taken in regard to this project; and, if so, the total expenditure from the funds of the Empire Marketing Board involved?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): Two projects relating respectively to tea research and lac marketing have been submitted to the Empire Marketing Board with the approval of the Government of India and have been sanctioned. The maximum amounts involved in grants for the Empire Marketing Fund in support of these projects are, in the first case, £3,125 on account of capital and £687 per annum for five years on account of maintenance, and, in the second case, £500 per annum for five years. The first grant is designed to meet half the cost of establishing and maintaining a Laboratory of Tea Plant Physiology at Tocklai. The second grant will meet half the cost, for a period of five years, of an expert to promote the marketing of Indian lac.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (FILMS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that one of the cinematograph films made under the auspices of the Empire Marketing Board is being shown in America with American captions, and in such a manner as to give the impression that the film represents the production of American articles; can he state whether there are any restrictions in the contract made for the sale or production of this film in America which would restrict American exhibitors from altering this film in this manner; and can he say what action has been taken?
    Mr. LUNN: I am making inquiries into this matter, but have not yet received the necessary information. I will communicate further with my hon. Friend as soon as it is available.
    Mr. DAY: Did my hon. Friend not admit on 16th April that he had knowledge of this matter?
    Mr. LUNN: The only knowledge I had was from Press cuttings that I had received, that the film had been made to apply to a fishing village named Gloucester, on the coast of Massachusetts.
    Mr. DAY: In future contracts will my hon. Friend make provision so that the films made by the Empire Marketing Board are not made to apply to America?
    Mr. LUNN: The hon. Member had better wait until I have information as to whether that was done in this case, before asking me to decide as to the future.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to make a statement to the House when in a position to do so, instead of merely communicating privately with his hon. Friend, because this is a matter of public interest?
    Mr. LUNN: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: If this is a North Sea fishing film will the hon. Gentleman see that our fishermen get the credit for it?
    Mr. LUNN: That is the whole intention of the Empire Marketing Board

  LONDON NAVAL TREATY.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister how many signatories of the Washington Naval Treaty ratified the rules for submarines attacking merchant ships on the high seas contained in that Treaty; whether any nations not parties to that Treaty signified their adherence to those rules; and whether the new rules in Article 22 of the new Naval Treaty of London are intended to replace and supersede the Washington rules and also the hitherto accepted rules of visit, search, and capture of merchant shipping at sea?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Washington Treaty of 6th February, 1922, Articles 1–4 of which dealt with the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants at sea in time of war, was ratified by the British Empire, the United States of America, Italy and Japan, but not by France, and therefore has never come into force. Consequently no non-signatory Powers
  394
  acceded to that Treaty. Article XXII of the London Naval Treaty cannot be described as replacing or superseding the above-mentioned articles of the Washington Treaty of 6th February, 1922, since the latter never became effective. Its provisions are expressly described as representing established rules of international law.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a much earlier Washington Treaty, that of 1919, on Labour matters, has not yet been ratified, although we are still living in hope? With regard to the latter part of his answer, on these new rules, is it maintained that these are not contrary to the very old-established rules as to war at sea?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Regarding the first part of the supplementary question, there is no hope of the Article regarding submarines contained in the Washington Naval Treaty. Regarding the second part, as it is a matter for legal experts, I can only accept the conclusions to which they have come.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the legal experts advised him contrary to all the other legal experts in the past?
  Commander SOUTHBY: Do we understand that Article 22 a the London Naval Treaty is intended only to emphasise the time-honoured, existing rules regarding visit and search at sea?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is my information.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Are we to understand that these rules make provision for the settlement of disputes as they arise?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I had better have notice of that question.

  AIRSHIPS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can yet announce any policy with regard to the future of the construction of airships?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): No, Sir; no decision has been or will be taken in

  395
  regard to future airship construction policy pending further progress with the programme of experimental flights to be carried out by the R 100 and R 101.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take that reply as a denial of the report which appeared in the "Daily Herald" that a great airship was to be built?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot see that I am called upon either to confirm or to deny newspaper reports. Probably the basis of that report was that the Airship Guarantee Company, Limited, has been given a designing contract by the Air Ministry in order to keep their technical staff in being, in the event of new construction being approved.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY PASSENGER COACHES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport whether any correspondence has recently passed between his Department and the railway companies which will have as its object the replacement of non-corridor stock by corridor stock on all their passenger trains; and can he give particulars?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No correspondence has recently passed between my Department and the railway companies on the subject.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making representations in regard to having space provided in non-corridor trains between compartments?
    Mr. MORRISON: If my hon. Friend will communicate with me on the point, I will see if it is desirable to take any steps.

    CHARING CROSS BRIDGE BILL.
    Mr. SANDERSasked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement as to the attitude of the Government in relation to the present position of the London County Council (Charing Cross Bridge) Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The action now to be taken in relation to the Charing Cross Bridge Bill rests with the
    396
    London County Council. I can only say that in the event of the Council deciding to ask for a recommittal of the Bill in order that Parliament may have a further opportunity of expressing its views, the Government, while leaving the matter to a free vote, would advise the House to adopt that course.
    Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, however much one may want this bridge, to recommend the House to overthrow one of its Committees is a very grave constitutional precedent? I hope the Government will take that point into consideration.
    Mr. MORRISON: Yes, that has been taken into account, but the fact cannot be ignored, particularly by Members of the late Government, that what the London County Council has done has been done particularly at the request of the late Government in connection with the Charing Cross Bridge Bill and Waterloo Bridge. We have continued the policy of the late Government on this matter, and we do not feel that we are entitled lightly to throw aside the arrangements in that way without, if the council desires it, giving an opportunity to the House of a further expression of opinion.
    Later—
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Minister of Transport a question arising out of the matter which passed earlier as to what exactly is the Motion which he proposes to make in respect of the Charing Cross Bridge Bill, and to what Committee does he propose to recommit it?
    Mr. MORRISON: The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to what I said. There is no intention on the part of the Government to bring forward a Motion to recommit the Charing Cross Bridge Bill. I said in my answer that, in the event of the London County Council deciding to ask for a recommittal of the Bill—that is to say, they would promote the recommittal Motion in order that Parliament might have a further opportunity of expressing its views—the Government, while leaving the matter to a free vote, would advise the House to adopt that course. Therefore, the question as to which Committee the Bill

    397
    would be referred is entirely premature at this stage, and no doubt the county council will have to be influenced in their consideration of the chances of success by the attitude of Members of the Opposition, who urged them to go into this policy when they were a Government, as well as by the attitude of His Majesty's Government.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will not go into past history, for my share in which I take full responsibility, but I am concerned with the constitutional practice of this House, and for the respect which we owe to our Committees. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his answer. I had understood that the Government were going to make a Motion, but they have only undertaken to support the Motion if made. I presume that it will be a condition of their support that the Bill should be recommitted to a Committee which could hear evidence, as the previous Committee did, before undertaking to reverse that Committee's decision?
    Mr. MORRISON: Clearly. That would certainly have to be the case.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Thank you.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (REPAIRS).
  Miss LEEasked the First Commissioner of Works the amount spent on repairing the buildings of the Houses of Parliament since May, 1912; the expenditure since May, 1929; and the estimates of proposed further expenditure on repairs during the next year?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I assume that my hon. Friend refers to expenditure on repairing the stonework. The total expenditure up to 31st March last on this service amounted to £61,475; of which £26,896 was expended during the financial year ending on that date. The estimated expenditure for the present financial year is £31,200.

  REGENT BAPTIST CHURCH, KENNINGTON.
  Mr. MATTERSasked the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, as representing the Charity Commissioners,
  398
  if his attention has been drawn to the proposed sale of the Regent Baptist Church, in Ethelred Street, Kennington, the property of the Commissioners; and whether it is proposed that this sacred edifice is to be used in future for commercial purposes?
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON (Charity Commissioner): The Regent Baptist Chapel is vested in and administered by the London Baptist Property Board. At the request of that Board the Commissioners on 9th instant made an Order authorising the sale of the chapel for £1,200 subject with regard to such portion as has been set apart for the purposes of interment to all statutory restrictions affecting the user thereof and to the condition that the graves in such portion shall not be disturbed except under competent authority. The solicitors to the London Baptist Property Board were informed by the purchaser that if the property should be sold to him it would be used entirely for religious purposes.
  Mr. MATTERS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the report which has been circulated in my constituency that this chapel may be used as a talking-film studio?
  Mr. RICHARDSON: I can only say that our information is to the effect that this building will be used for religious purposes and religious purposes only.
  Mr. THURTLE: Has the reported use of this sacred edifice for commercial purposes evoked any protest from the Russian Soviet Government?

  AGRICULTURE.

    POTATO EXPORTS AND IMPORTS (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of consignments of potatoes landed in Scotland during the present year for domestic use and the total quantity of potatoes represented by these consignments, giving the countries from which they were exported?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): During the period 1st January to 30th April, 1930, 1,171 cwts. of potatoes imported into the United Kingdom were registered as landed at ports

    399
    in Scotland. Of this quantity 1,167 cwts. were consigned from the Netherlands and re-exported, the remaining 4 cwts. being consigned from the Irish Free State. The total quantity registered at ports in Scotland during this period was entered by eight landings, but it is not possible to state the number of consignments represented by these landings.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the proportion of the 973 certificates issued by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in 1929 in respect of potatoes destined for export which applied to seed potatoes and ware potatoes respectively; and the total quantities of each class exported under these certificates?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I regret that I am unable to give the desired information. The certificates referred to are issued in compliance with the requirements of the importing countries in respect of freedom from disease or infection, and do not differentiate between seed and ware potatoes.
    Mr. MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman not ascertain from the Department of Agriculture for Scotland how many of these consignments represent seed potatoes and how many ware potatoes? Is the Department not in a position to give that information?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I can give the hon. and learned Member the total amount, but I cannot distinguish between the ware potatoes and the seed potatoes.
    Mr. MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman not have inquiries made with a view to ascertaining this information?
    Mr. ADAMSON indicated assent.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Minister of Agriculture when he will announce the agricultural policy of the Government?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): Proposals are under consideration and will be announced in due course.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has embodied
    400
    his policy in a memorandum which has been rejected by the Cabinet?
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the proposals will be under active consideration?

    PIG INDITSTRY.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet given effect to any of the recommendations of the Pig Industry Council?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: My Department have given wide publicity to the recommendation of the Pig Industry Council with regard to the use of the large white boar, and have asked the council for their suggestions in further detail on the subjects of litter-testing and on a register based on commercial achievement. A further recommendation that a common unit of weight is desirable, and that this should be the score of 20 lb., has been adopted by the Ministry in their official quotations in the Agricultural Market Report.
    Viscount WOLMER: Are the Ministry prepared to find money for the litter testing station?
    Mr. BUXTON: A proposal to that effect was not made specifically to the Council.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are these recommendations for dealing with the large white boar available to Members of this House?
    Mr. JAMES GARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate in this House who is the large white boar?

  COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

    EXPORT TRADE (RUSSIAN COMPETITION).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Secretary for Mines to what extent Russian coal has become an effective competitor in Mediterranean destinations against exports of Welsh and north country coal; and has he any information as to Russian prices and qualities?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): There has been some increase in the export of Russian coal to Mediterranean markets and the necessary figures are being collected to ascertain the extent. I will circulate a statement

    401
    in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible and such of the particulars for which the hon. Member asks as I can obtain.
    Mr. SAMUELasked the Secretary for Mines if he will ascertain the prices at which Russian anthracite coal shipped from Crimean and other Russian ports is being offered c.i.f. Canada?
    Mr. TURNER: I have not the required information, but I will try to obtain it.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman get in touch with the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce on this matter?
    Mr. TURNER: We are in touch with the High Commissioner for Canada on the matter.

    FIREDAMP DETECTION.
    Mr. MORTasked the Secretary for Mines if, in view of the fact that the use of the McLuckie gas detector has proved to be successful in the detection of gas and the prevention of explosions, he will make its use compulsory in the mines?
    Mr. TURNER: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. This instrument is not a firedamp detector at all in the ordinary sense of the term. It is in the nature of a portable laboratory apparatus designed for the purpose of obtaining exact measurements of the percentage of firedamp in mine air, and its manipulation takes approximately seven minutes for each measurement. There are circumstances in which an apparatus of this kind is useful below ground, but they are occasional and not general.

  EDUCATION (TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS).
  Sir JOHN WITHERSasked the President of the Board of Education how many of the 1,100 additional students in training for the teaching profession are men and how many are women?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): Of the 1,014 additional students admitted to training colleges in 1929,579 are men and 435 are women.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RECRUITING, SCOTLAND.
    Earl of DALKEITHasked the Secretary of State for War if he will inquire into the reasons for the diminution of recruiting for the Regular Army in Scotland during the last three months: and what steps he is taking to stimulate recruiting in view of the widespread unemployment?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The fall in recruiting during the months of February, March and April, compared with the January intake, is largely seasonal; but I can assure the Noble Lord that the problem of maintaining the strength of the Army is engaging the constant attention of the Army Council.
    Earl of DALKEITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the fall in recruiting is in any way connected with legislation dealing with unemployment benefit?
    Mr. SHAW: I do not know whether that is the case or not. It is a hypothetical question.

    SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSION (MR. J. HUNTER).
    Miss LEEasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John Hunter, of Longriggend, Lanarkshire, who has produced conclusive evidence that he is over 65 years of age, yet is refused consideration for the special campaign pension on the ground that he has not attained the age of 65 years according to his Army documents; and will he inquire further into this case?
    Mr. SHAW: I have already been in correspondence with my hon. Friend about this case. The age given by a recruit on his first attestation is accepted as his correct age throughout his Army career for various purposes, including the assessment of his pension, and I regret that I am unable to reverse the decision already reached.
    Miss LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that many old people, especially of the working-class, do not know their exact age; that this man gave his age in this statement to the best

    403
    of his knowledge and that he has now produced his birth certificate, showing that he is over 65?
    Mr. SHAW: I am quite aware of those facts. I am also aware of the fact that in, probably, nine cases out of ten, the age as stated is higher than the real age and consequently the benefit goes to the soldier.

  TEXTILE INDUSTRY (HIGH COURT JUDGMENT).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the judgment given in the High Court in respect to the old custom of fining cotton weavers for defective cloth; if he is aware that the judgment will affect thousands of textile workers; and if he will state whether any legislation is proposed to deal with the matter?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I have seen the reports which have appeared in the Press of the judgment of the High Court in the case referred to in the question. The judgment, which is an important and far-reaching one, was in favour of the workman, and I understand that the manufacturers have decided to appeal against it. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend cannot make any statement.

  MONMOUTHSHIRE STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE (CHAIRMAN).
  Mr. VAUGHANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at the recent annual meeting of the Monmouthshire Standing Joint (Police) Committee the representatives of the county council and quarter sessions voted in equal numbers for the election of a chairman and, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act. 1888, were compelled to draw lots to decide the chairmanship; and whether he will consider the amending of the said Act so as to give the choice of chairman of the Standing Joint Committee to the representatives of a county council?
  Mr. SHORT: I have seen a newspaper report of this meeting. An equality of votes for two or more persons as chairman
  404
  was contemplated by the Act of 1888, and no amendment of the Act would appear to be required.
  Mr. VAUGHAN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the difficulty in which the police are placed when they are expected to prosecute people for playing "pitch and toss," when under the Act of 1888 the police authorities themselves indulge in gambling?

  GOVERNMENT SURPLUS PROPERTIES (DISPOSAL).
  Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee he set up to report on the disposal of surplus Government properties has yet reported; and, if so, whether its recommendations will be made public?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The Committee have not yet reported.

  BELGIUM (RECONSTRUCTION CREDIT).
  Mr. MORTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the amount loaned to Belgium by the Government in 1921 under the British reconstruction credit scheme; what was the rate of interest charged to Belgium; and how much of the loan and interest has been repaid?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member presumably refers to the reconstruction credit of £9,000,000 granted to Belgium in 1919 in order to assist in the placing of orders for products and manufactures of the United Kingdom required for the restoration of Belgium. The rate of interest charged was 5 per cent., which has from the outset been paid in cash. No part of the capital has yet been repaid, but it is due to be repaid in annual instalments from 1931 to 1955, interest at 5 per cent. continuing to be paid on the amount outstanding.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (RESIGNATION).
  Sir OSWALD MOSLEY: With the leave of the House, I rise to make the statement which is customary when a

  405
  Minister resigns from the Government of the day. I understand that it is in accordance with precedent and the usual convenience of the House that this state-merit should be confined to the actual reasons which led to the resignation. I propose, however, to take the first opportunity, when the appropriate Vote is down for discussion, to advance the detailed, and I fear rather lengthy, case which I think that it will be necessary to make on the merits of the issues which have arisen. My present statement can perhaps be summarised if the House will permit me to read the letter which I addressed to the Prime Minister:
  "My dear Prime Minister,
  On 23rd January last I submitted to you a memorandum on unemployment policy, which was an attempt to work out in detail the programme of our party at the last Election and to provide a more effective alternative to the policy which the Government has pursued. In my covering letter, I explained that the memorandum was 'not advanced in any dogmatic spirit,' and that I was 'more than open to any alternative which could be shown to be superior.' I made it clear, however, that I had reached 'the very definite conclusion that it is impossible to continue as at present.'
  The Cabinet subsequently decided to appoint a committee under the Chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the unemployment situation and in this connection to have regard to the memorandum. That committee presented a report which not only rejects in its entirety the memorandum, but also adopts a position which would involve the rejection of any effective alternative to present policy.
  Since the report of that Committee you have been good enough to discuss with the Ministers charged with unemployment both the memorandum and the report. Unfortunately, those discussions have only served to emphasise our differences, while during their currency the Chancellor of the Exchequer has affirmed the position adopted by his committee as the policy of the Government in a public speech delivered to the British Banking Association on 14th May last. This policy was reiterated by the Lord Privy Seal in yesterday's Debate.
  In these circumstances, I regret that I hold it to be inconsistent with honour for me to remain a Member of the Government. On the back benches, I shall remain in vote and action a loyal member of the Labour party. In speech and in the advocacy of policy I shall claim the right always accorded by our party to its members to ask the party to adopt a policy which I believe to be more consistent with our programme and pledges at the last Election.
  It is to me a matter of great regret that as a Minister I have no means of appeal to the judgment of our party except by resignation from the Government."

COURT OF SESSION.
Mr. SCOTT: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove doubts as to the powers of the Court of Session."
For the benefit of those Members who are not acquainted with the Scottish judicial system, I would explain that the supreme court in Scotland in civil matters is the Court of Session. It was instituted by the Scots Parliament in 1532, and therefore it has had an honoured career of some 400 years. The Treaty of Union between Scotland and England, which was ratified in 1707, made very careful provision for retaining for Scotland its own laws and its own judicial system, and in particular the Treaty provided that the Court of Session should remain as it was then constituted by the laws of Scotland and with the same authority and privileges as before the Union. To this day the powers and jurisdiction of the Court of Session remain unaffected by any Act of the British Parliament. It may be asked why, in these circumstances, it should be necessary to present a Bill to remove doubts as to the powers of the Court of Session? In Scotland we have no doubt; I had almost said on any subject, but in another place there has been some doubt on one important matter, namely, with regard to the adjudication upon claims and disputes relating to titles, honours and dignities of the kingdom of Scotland.
The people of Scotland are very jealous of everything Scottish; indeed, they have been wrongfully accused of being jealous of everything English; but they are at least jealous on this matter of their own judicial system, and for some generations they have been watching with anxiety the attempts that have been made by the House of Lords to arrogate to themselves the right of adjudication upon claims and disputes regarding peerages and other dignities which are purely Scottish. No attempt is made in this Bill to deal with the privileges of the House of Lords in regard to English peerages or dignities, but we in Scotland say that the House of Lords have no legal title whatever to deal with those relating purely to Scotland. May I remind the House that there is no doubt whatever that for some 200 years, from 1532 to 1732, all such

407
cases were tried and decided by the Court of Session, but I find from the records that since 1732 the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords have usurped this ancient and treaty right of the Court of Session to deal with such cases. The last case was the famous one of the Gordon Peerage of last year; and may I also remind the House of a still older case, the case of the Earl of Mar peerage. The decision of the Committee of Privileges with regard to that case caused such a turmoil in Scotland that a special Act of Parliament had to be passed afterwards practically reversing the decision of the Committee.
The crux of the question lies here. Claims for Scottish peerages may involve difficult questions of legitimacy, of succession, and of titles to lands, and with regard to these there have to be submitted documents which contain Scots legal terminology. There have to be produced original charters and other documents which have to be personally in charge of officials drawn from the Registry of Deeds in Edinburgh, from the Sasine Register in Edinburgh, and from the General Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Edinburgh. Further, not only are the claimants themselves Scottish, but their witnesses, their law agents and their counsel are all Scottish, and obviously it is for the public advantage that such cases should be tried and decided in Scotland. More than that, if they are not tried and decided in Scotland, there is a grave risk of a miscarriage of justice owing to the fact that the Committee of Privileges does not pretend to be and is certainly not a court of law. The decision of one Committee is not in the least binding upon another.
All I would say in conclusion is this, and I address it particularly to my Friends on the other side of the House, although they have no more partiality for peers than—for that matter—I myself have, we in this House ought to see that the Peers act justly towards one another. Further, and this is a matter which ought to commend itself, and I believe does commend itself, to Scottish Members of Parliament of all parties, and we should unite now in having the ancient treaty rights of the Court of Session vindicated by this Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Scott, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. Marcus, Mr. Macquisten, Major Graham Pole, and Mr. Duncan Millar.
COURT OF SESSION BILL,
"to remove doubts as to the powers of the Court of Session," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

HOURS OF MEETING AND RISING OF THE HOUSE.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILLS REPORTED.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENABLING) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
  Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.
  Special Report brought up, and read.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

  ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (NO. 2) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Tees Valley Water Bill (Certified Bill), with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Portsmouth Water Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill), without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Llanelly and

409
District Electric Supply Company, Limited, to abandon their light railways and provide and run trolley vehicles and omnibuses; and for other purposes." [Llanelly District Traction Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the borough of Darlington; to empower the Corporation of Darlington to construct a weir across the River Tees and street improvements; to confer further powers upon them with regard to their water, electricity, and markets undertakings and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Darlington Corporation Bill [Lords.]

TEES VALLEY WATER BILL (Certified Bill).
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.
LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BELL [Lords].
  DARLINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:
1. "That, in the case of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension, etc.) [Lords] (Certified Bill), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Shoreham Harbour Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill), Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
Resolutions agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [9th Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,332,310, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, a Grant under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, Loans to Co-operative Marketing Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants for Eradication of Tuberculosis in Cattle, Grants for Land Improvement, Grants-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and other Grants including certain Grants-in-Aid; and the Salaries and Expenses of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew."
    4.0 p.m.
    Colonel Sir GEORGE C0URTH0PE: Before speaking to the Vote or moving a reduction, I should like to ask your Ruling, Mr. Young, on a point of Order—whether it would be in order, as I believe it would be for the general convenience of the Committee, for the discussion on sugar beet to be included in the general discussion on the Ministry of Agriculture, although it falls under a separate Vote, which is also on the Paper to-day?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. It has always been the Rule of the House that when a discussion on agriculture or any other subject is taking place, if the question is not covered by any other Vote, then it is in order when the Minister's salary is under discussion, but if there is a separate Vote, it must remain a separate discussion.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: On the point of Order. I gather that the Minister as Minister is responsible also for sugar beet. In these circumstances, if a reduction of the Minister's salary were moved, would it put a discussion on Sugar beet in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: Everything for which the Minister is responsible will come under this Vate, provided there is not another Vote dealing with the particular question. There is another Vote dealing with sugar entirely.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I move this reduction, not through any personal hostility to the Minister, but because he is for the time being responsible for the Ministry of Agriculture. In my opinion, agriculture to-day is in a more deplorable condition than has been known in recent history. Last week a number of very interesting points were raised as to the agricultural depression, but there are certain other features, and, to my mind, the most serious feature of the agricultural depression, about which little or nothing was said, and to those I want to refer briefly this afternoon. The first point I want to make is that the depression in agriculture to-day—I suppose it is common of any period of acute depression—has this very unfortunate effect, that while practically every section and branch of the agricultural and horticultural industries are depressed, the depression hits hardest those branches of the industry which are most intensive, most productive, and give most employment, in other words, those which are of the greatest national importance.
    To-day, I believe it is true to say that there are only two considerable sections of the great group of industries which make up agriculture that are holding their own at all. One of those is hill sheep-farming, for the simple reason that its costs of production are practically nil; it has the lowest of any section of agriculture, an industry where 1,000 acres, or, in some cases, as much as 1,500 or 1,800 acres, give employment for one man and two dogs, a valuable industry, no doubt, but not one which we wish to see extended at the expense of the more intensive forms of food production. The other industry, of course, is sugar beet. I am not going to speak about the subsidy. I am only mentioning sugar beet to this limited extent, that sugar beet is reasonably prosperous because it is receiving a substantial subsidy which will be debated on a later Vote. Even sugar beet is in some considerable doubt as to its future position, because it is uncertain for how long a portion of the industry

    423
    will be able to hold its own and carry on when the next automatic fall in the subsidy takes place next year.
    With those two exceptions, the whole of agriculture is depressed to a deplorable degree, and, from the national point of view, the depression is more serious than appears on the surface, for this reason. It is possible, and is an actual fact, that a great many farmers, probably the majority, during a period of depression, while they are not receiving profits from the sale of their products sufficient to cover the costs of production and reasonable living expenses, are still able to carry on for a number of years by the gradual exhaustion of the stored up fertility of their land. That is going on to-day, and it is particularly serious for the reason that while this deterioration, this destruction of fertility, is not very apparent at first, it is a thing that takes endless toil and many years to restore when once it has taken place. Principiis obsta: sero medicina paratur. It is a case of the old Latin motto, that it is very difficult, indeed, to get back, when times are better, to the state of prosperity from which the depression has led. I consider that it is the urgent duty of the Government of the day and of this House to bear that fact in mind, because it emphasises the importance of checking the depression, stopping the rot before the exhaustion of the stored up fertility of the soil becomes really acute.
    It may be said with perfect truth—if I remember aright, the Minister himself said so in his opening speech on Monday of last week—that this depression is not peculiar to Great Britain. It is perfectly true that there is very general agricultural depression all over the world. There is very general over-production of foodstuffs all over the world, but, while that is true, it is equally true to say that the depression is felt more acutely in Great Britain than probably in any other quarter of the globe, for a variety of reasons. In the first place, Great Britain is a more convenient dumping ground than any other part of the globe for the surplus products of other countries. I do not think that anyone can dispute that statement. As a result of that, we are getting wheat and oats, meat and potatoes, particularly in the case of potatoes, produced under conditions we should never tolerate for one moment in
    424
    this country, coming in to render more acute the depression and the deplorable state of our agriculture.
    I should, perhaps, define what I mean when I say that the potatoes are produced under conditions which would never be tolerated in this country. I believe it is a fact—it has often been stated, and, as far as I can ascertain, it has never been authoritatively denied—that a considerable importation, and the most damaging importation, because it comes about a month before our own products are ready, is produced by unpaid convict labour. This House should bear that in mind, because it brings it quite out of the ordinary range of fiscal considerations. It puts it right outside the ordinary bounds of a Government which is ruled by a Free Trade policy, and I urge upon the Government that this question of Algerian potatoes might very well be dealt with from quite other considerations than those of fiscal Protection or Free Trade.
    There is another reason, and a very important one, why the depression hits this country the hardest of all, or, perhaps I should say, harder than many others. It is that we maintain—and rightly maintain—a higher standard of wages, hours, and living generally, and hygiene in the production of foodstuffs, than many of the countries whose surplus goods are dumped without restrictions here. All those conditions are right. Personally, I should like to see a much higher wage paid to-day, but we have, first of all, to get the industry into a condition to be able to pay even the present rate. I do not find fault at all with the attempts that have been made to eradicate disease from our flocks and herds. The hygienic conditions required in cow-Sheds, the attack on tuberculosis and all those things are all right, but they all add to the costs of production, and they all put us in an inferior position to compete with products coming from countries which do not add, by legislation, to the cost of production by imposing similar restrictions.
    Thirdly, we are more hardly hit than other countries by depression, because our burden of taxation is far and away higher than that which is borne by any of our competing countries. All these considerations—the taxation, the standard of wages, the requirements of

    425
    hygiene, and so on, have this result, which is a very deplorable one, that our costs of production are fixed on an internal and purely national basis, but our produce has to be sold in an international market at international prices, and the two are hopelessly inconsistent. So long as you have internal national costs and international prices, you will never succeed in getting British agriculture out of the trough of depression in which it is floundering to-day.
    There is one other topic, which I do not think has been mentioned before, although I think it has a very important bearing upon the depression of agriculture to-day, and a bearing which is more severe in Great Britain than in probably any other country in the world. I believe that, owing to our rapid deflation, we are suffering more acutely than any other country from the world shortage of gold. That is particularly shown in the failure—I maintain that it is practically a complete failure—of Part II of the Agricultural Credits Act, which was designed to provide that urgent necessity for agriculturists, short-term credits for the working capital necessary to enable them to raise and harvest their crops. I admit that that was not the fault of the Act.
    I also admit that the agricultural charge devised by that Act was a most convenient form of security upon which a great deal of valuable credit circulation might take place. But although Part II creates a new form of security, it does not add a single penny to the fund from which agricultural credit is available. When you come to think of it that is a ridiculous position. Every year we are producing on our farms and in our gardens a vast amount of new wealth. If we take the figures published by the Minister of Agriculture, which I think are reasonably accurate, that new wealth varies from something like £225,000,000 up to nearly £300,000,000, according to the season. That is the amount of new wealth which is produced every year. What a preposterous thing it is that all that creation of new wealth should not give rise to a single penny of increase in the sum available for short-term credit for the people who produce that wealth.
    The reason is obvious. It is no use their having the security if the money is not there. Under the existing system,
    426
    and so long as the world shortage of gold continues, the aggregate sum which the banks can advance on short-term loans, whether to agriculturists or to other people, is restricted and related to the amount of the deposits in their hands. Those deposits depend upon the currency, Which is limited directly by the reserve of gold. You may produce thousands of millions of new wealth each year, but, unless the gold reserve increases, and, consequently, currency and deposits increase, there can be no increase in the amount of money available for the banks to lend on short-term credit. I urge the Government to consider—I know that the Macmillan Committee are considering it—as a matter of great urgency, whether, without upsetting the gold standard for international purposes, and the general credit system, they might not give such negotiable instruments as the agricultural charges set up under Part II of the Agricultural Credits Act an internal value which would enable additional credit to be advanced upon that security, instead of upon the security of the deposits in the banks and indirectly of the gold reserve. To my mind it is inconceivable that the £250,000,000 of new wealth produced on the farms of Great Britain each year should not be just as good as gold as a basis of credit up to a reasonable proportion of its value. Short-term credit is required by the farmer, as a rule, during the summer and early autumn, at the very time when the deposits are the lowest, because the agricultural community, who in many cases are only able to make deposits during the autumn and winter, after they have harvested their crops, have withdrawn all that, and deposits are down. Consequently, the amount available for short-term credit is down also. They have withdrawn their deposits because they require money for their cultivation. It is true that a good deal of credit is available to a limited extent from the agricultural merchants, but very often—I do not blame the agricultural merchant because his position is one of uncertainty—the rate of interest charged for that credit is abnormally high. Another drawback is that that credit is definitely limited to the supplies obtained from that merchant, because the farmer cannot go to his seedsman or manure merchant and say, "Lend me £1,000 to spend in labour on the harvest." He will not get it.

    427
    He may get three months' credit for his manures or seeds, but that is all.
    There is another form of credit which is worse still. Most of the agricultural merchants deal perfectly fairly with the farmers; it is only in exceptional cases that there are unfair charges; but there is an old form of credit which has sprung up under a thoroughly undesirable custom which is still in operation in some parts, more particularly, of the West of England. It is a custom under which, when the drovers of store cattle come round to the market towns to sell their cattle, if they cannot sell for cash, the price of each animal, regardless of what it was, goes up £1 a month. Let me give an example. You have a farmer who wants store stock. He buys 40 or 50 head of store cattle at ¤12 apiece, but it is six months before he can pay for them; and when he pays, he pays £18 apiece, or 16 above the original price, which is an increase of 50 per cent. The farmer is only just beginning to realise that in a case like that he is paying 100 per cent. interest for the credit which he gets. If the credit fund could be divorced from its relation to gold, and short-term loans could be made more readily available to the farmer, all that kind of ruinous credit would cease automatically, because the farmer who wanted to buy 50 head of store stock could go with his agricultural charge to his bank and borrow the money which he required to pay for those cattle at 5½ per cent. or 6 per cent., or whatever the rate was, and he could leave his charge there so long as those cattle remained on his hands, instead of paying 80 or 100 per cent. interest through ignorance. He would get his loan, probably, at not more than 5 per cent, or 6 per cent. I urge the Minister of Agriculture to go very seriously into that question—
    Mr. DALLAS: Does the dealer exercise jurisdiction over the sale of those cattle?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I believe not. I am told that in most of those cases there are no documents passed at all. Many of the drovers are illiterate, but the drover sells store stock to farmers in certain districts, and there is a system of trust which has sprung up. It is very seldom abused, but what is abused—I think not intentionally—is the rate of
    428
    interest. All these matters to which I have referred, and the consequent terrible depression that is pressing so hardly on the farmers, are having this result. The farmer, when he begins to feel the pinch, skimps the labour for the maintenance of his farm and he is being driven bit by bit to inferior forms of production. I do not say that all the country can ever be converted into hill sheep farms; but it is tending in that direction; it is tending towards a lower production of foodstuffs, a decrease in the employment of labour, and a general lowering of the capital value of the agricultural equipment of the country.
    One particularly evil result of this tendency is shown in the dairying industry. A few years ago dairying was reasonably profitable. Arable farmers had begun to feel the pinch very severely, and a number of farmers started turning down their land to grass and going in for dairy farming. The result is that we have an over-production of milk. That is particularly serious, not so much because of the inadequacy of the price for the milk which is sold for direct home consumption as milk, but because of the inadequacy of the market for surplus milk. Everyone who has had anything to do with dairying knows that if a dairy farmer succeeds in delivering his contract minimum of gallons of milk day by day all through the year, at a particular time of the year he must have a considerable surplus, very often amounting to as much as 40 per cent. What we need more than anything in this country to maintain the dairying industry and keep it out of difficulties is a fairly steady and reasonable market for surplus milk? Why have we not got it? Because we threw our doors open to all the rubbishy stuff—the milk powder, condensed skimmed milk, and everything else—that any other country in the world chooses to send us. I am told, though I frankly admit, because I do not want to mislead, the Committee, that I have been unable to obtain anything like official verification of it, that in more than one case the countries that send us this condensed skimmed milk, which is really worthless from the point of view of nourishment, do not allow it to be sold within their own borders. I put that to the Committee with this qualification, because I have been unable

    429
    to verify it. I do urge that even the most rigid Free Trade Government should be able to place some restriction upon the imports—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Baronet is now trenching on something which would need legislation, and, if that be so, it would not be permissible to discuss it on this Vote.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: Thank you, Mr. Young. I was afraid that I was getting a little over the mark; but I think that perhaps, without my enlarging further on this very serious importation, the Committee will have taken my point sufficiently. All these tendencies that I have mentioned—even the conversion from arable farming to dairying, and, still more, the conversion from dairying to ranching or anything like that—may save the individual farmer from ruin. They may enable a man who used to employ 40 or 50 hands to carry on, more or less, only employing five or six; but that is not what the country wants. If the country requires, as it does, a different standard of production, and a more intensive form of agriculture than the farmer would naturally give in view of the economic considerations which control him, the country must do something to help. The country must make it economically possible for that more intensive form of farming to be carried on. In other words, it must make that more intensive form of farming pay from the farmer's point of view.
    Things are getting worse. It is quite true that Government after Government has been in office during the period of gradual decline. I admit that quite frankly. I admit perfectly frankly that I believe that every one of those Governments has been equally genuine in its desire to help, but each one of them has been equally cowardly in facing the real situation. Taking the last four years, when my own party was in office, I have not been able to find in the Parliamentary records any other period of four years in which so much time was devoted to agriculture, and in which so many Measures were passed—excellent Measures in themselves, but with what result? They were not big enough. The present Ministry are carrying on the work that was instituted by the last one in regard to the National Mark and things of that kind. That is excellent work,
    430
    but what is the good of it? It is not nearly big enough. This depression is culminating now. I do not think we have got to the bottom of it yet. It is infinitely worse this year than it was last year, and, as the present Minister is responsible for it now, it is he whom I have to attack, and whom I am attacking.
    What has he done? He has done nothing worth doing, nothing big. He set up an Agricultural Conference, and I give him all credit for getting it together. I was a member of it, and I see other members of it in this House, but, because its deliberations were conducted in secret, my tongue is tied to a much greater extent than in the case of those who have talked quite freely in public about its deliberations and its conclusions, because, not having been there, they knew nothing about it. I was there, and I do know what happened, but I can say nothing about the work of that Conference except to refer to the published Reports. A very important Report was published, with the sanction of the Cabinet, in March last. It gave a certain amount of summary of the work that the Agricultural Conference has done, and some of its conclusions, and it gave, in my opinion, a very important and adequate lead to the Government as to what was required to be done at once. I will read some extracts from this Report, and will then make my point that, in spite of the unanimous recommendation which was made to the Government, they have done nothing.
    This Report, which was published officially, and may have been read by many hon. Members, contained this most important statement:
    "The representatives decided to concentrate on the proposals which would make it possible for a capable farmer on average land in this country to make ordinary farming pay. It was agreed that the key to this problem was the profitableness of cereal growing, as the decline of cereal growing had caused a reduction of the arable area and a change in the system of farming, which had resulted in increased competition in other branches of the industry, with a consequent decrease of the financial returns in those branches. Proceeding on this principle, the Conference has considered various methods of improving the price which the British farmer receives for his wheat."
    Then the Report sets out that, at the meeting on the 28th February, the Conference passed unanimously the following resolution:

    431
    "This Conference views with the utmost concern the present position in arable agriculture, the increase in unemployment amongst agricultural workers, the amount of land going out of cultivation, and the lack of confidence created thereby. The Conference, therefore, desires to place before His Majesty's Government its unanimous opinion that measures should be taken to assure to farmers a remunerative price for cereals. The Conference has under consideration various proposals for securing this object, but further detailed examination of them is required to enable it to make final recommendations. Meanwhile, the economic condition of arable agriculture is deteriorating, and aggravating the unemployment problem. In order to avert further deterioration, there is urgent need for an immediate pronouncement calculated to restore confidence to the industry in the meantime."
    That was on the 28th February—
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I really do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend need feel tongue-tied in any way in regard to the deliberations of the Conference.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I thank the Minister very much for saying that, but I can make my point quite well on this report, and it is a little difficult to refer to secret discussions.
    Earl WINTERTON: As far as many of us are concerned, we have every intention of pressing the Government to tell us quite clearly what has occurred at this Conference, so that my hon. and gallant Friend need not run away with the idea that we shall be content with any statement that the Conference was secret. We want to know what it is doing, and why it has been delayed for so long.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: On the 28th February, this resolution was passed, and it was forwarded to the Government through the Minister of Agriculture, urging the necessity for some immediate pronouncement. The urgency arose because the spring seed-time was coming on, and we all felt, from the reports which had been received from the National Farmers' Union and other authorities, that, unless something was done at once to restore confidence, a very large area of land which had been prepared for spring sowing particularly in the Eastern Counties, would remain unsown, and we considered, in the general interest of the country, and particularly in the interests of agricultural employment, that it was very important
    432
    that that land should be sown and that the necessary' encouragement to sow it should be given.
    Has that encouragement been given? Not at all; and now the seed-time is past, and that land remains unsown. Whether we shall ever get it back remains to be seen, but one thing is quite certain, and that is that it will need a great deal more help, financial and otherwise, from this or some other Government, to get it back, once it has gone out of cultivation, than would have needed to keep it in arable cultivation if the necessary confidence had been inspired. Other recommendations are referred to in this memorandum, such as the supply of home-killed beef to His Majesty's Forces, the use of home-produced meat and flour in public institutions, and so on, but I do not want to weary the Committee by dwelling too long on these points. It is sufficient for my purpose to say that this Conference made unanimous recommendations of great urgency, that the urgency was ignored, that nothing has been done, and that the time for doing anything effective, as far as this year is concerned, has gone.
    Then it became a matter of public knowledge that, while this Agricultural Conference was sitting, the Government set up another Committee, consisting partly of Members of the Cabinet and partly of experts from outside, to consider very much the same problems, and we were given to understand on the Floor of this House that a report had been drawn up, in the form of a White Paper, setting out the agricultural policy which it was proposed to pursue, and that that White Paper would be available to the House immediately after Easter. Where is it? Hardly a day passes on which it is not asked for. No one can doubt that it is in existence, and I am entitled to put this question to the Minister, because I do not doubt his personal willingness to publish this policy and put it into effect. If he supports this policy and his colleagues do not, why does not he take a stronger stand? To-day we have seen one Minister withdraw from the Government because he cannot get his policy carried out, and we should expect that any other Minister who takes a strong line in the interest of such a great industry as agriculture would not remain a Member of a Cabinet which refused to

    433
    carry out what he considers, if he does so consider it, to be an essential policy for the industry which he represents.
    At all events, neither as the result of the Conference nor as the result of the Cabinet Committee, has anything been done at all. As I have said, nothing has been done of a big nature, and this is essentially a question of big remedies for big troubles. They have got to be dealt with on big business lines, quite apart from petty considerations of party advantage or anything of that kind. Last week I was very much interested and delighted to hear a short speech on this subject from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It seemed to me to be an attempt to initiate a general move in the political rather than the party world to lift agriculture out of the realm of party strife. The right hon. Gentleman proposed a conference, and, although from my experience I have not much faith in conferences, yet as a gesture, as a move in the right direction, I welcome it, and I hope that, if I rightly interpret it as a move in the direction of getting agriculture away from party strife, it will be pushed on, not only by the right hon. Gentleman who made the proposal, but by the leaders of both the other parties as well. I am quite sure that, if we are to deal with the depression in the agricultural industry in an adequate manner, we must get away from the prejudices and shibboleths which restrain our actions now.
    I have been, quite rightly, warned off the Protectionist issue, because that would inevitably involve legislation as well as change of heart. I have advocated the change of heart, but I must not advocate legislation. There are, however, certain things which this or any other Government could do without further legislation. I believe that they could place restrictions upon competitive articles produced under conditions of labour less favourable than those which we ourselves maintain. I believe that they could equally impose restrictions upon the import of articles produced under less satisfactory hygienic and sanitary conditions than those which we impose. I urge them to do that. I have already mentioned the question of credit, and I believe that they could deal with that by a few strokes of the pen.
    434
    There is another thing that I want to press upon them. I have already referred to it briefly in connection with potatoes. The principal trouble, not only with potatoes but with many classes of vegetables and fruit coming from abroad, arises from the fact that they are ready for the market just before our own products, and, I urge upon the Minister the adoption of a policy which is associated more prominently with the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Sir B. Eyres Monsell) than any other, and that is that, while potato imports should not be subjected to fiscal interference or anything of that kind, there should be a restriction during the first months of our own products coming into bearing.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am in doubt whether this would not mean legislation also.
    Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: I think that what my hon. and gallant Friend is advocating could be done purely by administrative action. The matter is one that concerns my constituents in the Vale of Evesham. The difficulty they have is that the foreign crop, say of asparagus or cherries, comes in about a fortnight before ours are ripe. Whether the crop is a profitable one depends on the early prices, which are high always, and the foreigner invariably skims the cream of the market. What my hon. and gallant Friend is advocating is that, by an administrative order, the competing foreign crop should be kept out until our own crops have the advantage of the fortnight's high prices.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Minister must not keep me in doubt about this. If he has power to do it, the hon. Baronet may proceed. If not, it is as much out of order as fiscal policy.
    Mr. N. BUXTON: I think that the right hon. Gentleman refers to powers that are conferred on the Ministry to deal with cases of foreign produce which may bring in disease.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Minister has certain powers, but I do not think he has power to keep out commodities other than those that have already been laid down in legislation. I do not think there is any power to keep out cherries or asparagus.
    Mr. GUINNESS: We were expressly told by the Prime Minister that a White Paper on agriculture was not desirable, and that the normal opportunity of discussing policy was on the Estimates. As we have had that direct invitation, are we not justified in dealing broadly with policy, even if it might involve legislation?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. It has always been held that matters of policy do not enter into these Estimates. Their purpose is to criticise those responsible for administration. Questions of legislation have always been barred.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We have the statement of the Minister himself, when he was asked for a statement of policy, that he is taking administrative steps which will enable such a statement to be made. Those administrative steps surely come entirely within the rules for discussing these Estimates. Is it not right, therefore, that we should be able to ask as to those administrative steps, and as to the results of them, in arriving at the policy though not, of course, to discuss any legislative matter that may be involved?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Minister may be going to state what steps he is taking but, as he has not told us, we are not at liberty to discuss the import of fruit.
    Mr. N. BUXTON: The right hon. Baronet is mistaken in attributing to me any statement implying that it would be in order to discuss policy on Estimates.
    Earl WINTERTON: While not wishing to controvert your Ruling, Mr. Young, which seems to me to be in accordance with what has always happened in Debates on the Estimates, I submit that it has often been the practice where, there is a general desire, which I think exists now on both sides, to have the widest possible latitude in discussing the operations of a particular Ministry, and it has sometimes happened that the Chairman of Committees has indicated that he will allow rather greater latitude than the actual letter of the law allows. As a rule, when that is done, it is based on some statement that has been made by a responsible Minister. The statement was most distinctly made by the Prime Minister at Question time that there would be an opportunity to raise the
    436
    whole matter of the Government's agricultural policy on the Estimates. I think it has very often been done.
    The CHAIRMAN: If I were to accept that, then every Estimate would lead to a general discussion. I do not think I can do so.
    Earl WINTERTON: This would not always arise. Frequently the Chairman of Committees, or Mr. Speaker, says, "I take it it is the general wish of the House that there should be the fullest discussion on this point." It is true that, if anyone objected, the Speaker would hold that such a Debate should not take place. This is not a usual occasion. It is rather a special occasion. Short of moving a Vote of Censure, it is impossible for the Opposition to discuss the policy of the Government on agriculture without being allowed reasonable latitude.
    The CHAIRMAN: I, myself, have on occasions agreed to such a general discussion, but it was when such discussion would save time on other topics down for consideration in connection with the one then being considered.
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I do not dispute your Ruling, Mr. Young, but I do not think this point very much matters. I think that, in the Statute giving the Minister the powers to which he has referred, he will find repeated more than once the rather vague phrase "or otherwise," which appears to give a very wide power. We have objected more than once to these powers. All that I ask is whether he could not put a wide enough interpretation upon those words to deal by administrative action with this case which I have brought to his notice. It would be an effective method of dealing with this very damaging form of competition. Whatever means the Government see fit to adopt to deal with the matter, they must not let the land go back. In the national interest it is imperative that it should not be allowed to go back. A farm is not like a mine OT a factory. Many factories can be closed down and, so long as the machinery is kept greased, no harm is done. Two or three years later you can open it again and go straight on with your output. Many mines can be closed down, so long as you keep the water out, without any serious injury. But a farm is not like

    437
    that. You cannot close it down and then start work on it again where you left off. You have the terrible loss of fertility from the failure of the flow of water through ditches and drains, and there is the growth of weeds and the thousand and one other difficulties against which the farmer has always to contend. If once you let a farm go back, it takes years of labour before it will pay you again. It is almost true to say that our agricultural land is an artificial thing. It has been made by countless years of labour. Once let it go back into its original state, and you have to go through weary years of heavy expenditure.
    More important even than the land are the people who work on it. What is to happen to them if you let them go? It has been difficult enough for many years to make it worth while for the boys and young men of the country districts to learn to work on the land. People are apt to speak of agricultural labour as if it was an unskilled job. It is a very highly skilled job and an efficient agricultural labourer has to be a very highly skilled man. He has to learn his job from his youth if he is to be any good. If you once let arable agriculture go, as it is going very fast to-day, and let the families who have provided agriculture with its labour in many cases for centuries drift into the towns, do you think you are going to get them back? I do not. You will have to start afresh and train up a new peasant population, and it would cost the country untold gold and untold labour and trouble to do it. You may, by a stitch in time, save the situation to-day. If you let it get much worse, it is going to take a generation to accomplish.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. LAMBERT: We who are interested in the agricultural situation welcome this further opportunity of pointing out to the House and the country the very difficult crisis into which arable agriculture is drifting. I have been brought up to understand—and I believe that it is true—that agriculture was the largest single industry in the country, employing the largest number of workers. I do not want to make any political point, but, if hon. Members look at the newspapers this morning, they will find that the drawing of unemployment pay occupies by far the greatest number of persons in the
    438
    country at present. It is a very startling fact that there are three people drawing unemployment pay to every two engaged on the land. I do not think this House can spend its time better than in drawing attention to that serious fact. Undoubtedly, the cultivation of the land is declining and our food imports are increasing. I congratulate the Ministry's officials on the publications that they put out from time to time. I have here a very admirable document which reflects very great credit on those who have compiled it. We are producing less and importing more food than before the War. Before the War we produced 23 per cent. of our wheat, and in 1927–28, which are the latest figures available—they will be worse to-day—it went down to 20 per cent. We imported before the War 47 per cent. of our total consumption of meat, and that has gone down to 40 per cent. Of butter, we imported 13 per cent. before the War, and 11 per cent. in 1927–28. Cheese has also gone down; and the one article of food that has increased its production in this country is margarine, of which we produced 47 per cent. before the War and 76 per cent. in 1927–28. Our dependence upon foreign foodstuffs was never so great as to-day. A few days ago we were discussing the Naval Treaty, and hon. Members rightly expressed a considerable amount of anxiety as to the number of cruisers for guarding our food supplies in time of war. It would be very much more to the point of we grew more food at home. Some little time ago I asked the Ministry what it would cost the country to guarantee to the farmers a price of 55s. a quarter for their wheat, and the answer was that it would be something under £3,000,000. I thought to myself that it costs £7,000,000 to build a battleship, and that that sum would more than guarantee to the farmer 55s. a quarter for his wheat for two years. I have heard of people having a, squint in the eye, but we seem to have a squint in the brain in this matter.
    We have had all sorts of theories, and that is why I am glad these discussions are taking place. We have had the theory that if you only take the land out of its present ownership, and if you have public ownership, all will be well. I think that even some Liberals have

    439
    advocated county ownership. But the real, basic consideration in agricultural cultivation is prices. We had the other day a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), who made his maiden effort here, and a very admirable maiden effort it was. If he were here, I should have liked to congratulate him on the good sense which he displayed. He then said, quite explicity, that he was engaged in another industry but that he was a director of a co-operative society that had been engaged in farming. These were his words:
    "On everything that we have sold, apart from milk, we have lost money in the past 10 years. … We were not short of capital; we had any amount of it. It was not that we had not a market for our produce, for our shops are our market, and we took our goods to the doors of our customers. The fact was that for everything we produced we did not receive an economic price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1930; col. 1516, Vol. 238.]
    That really sums up the agricultural situation, that the cultivators of the land are not getting an economic price. I am glad hon. Members opposite have had this opportunity of listening to these facts, because I know it is their habit to say, "Only put the land in the hands of a public authority, and all will be well." Here is a co-operative society, with plenty of money, and admirably directed, as it would be by the hon. Member opposite, which has failed absolutely to make farming pay. I do not propose to make any political points, but we had promises made at the General Election. I suffered from them myself, because I knew too much about agriculture to make those promises, but my opponents were not so particular. I remembered in my constituency that farming had to be made to pay, and hon. Members on this side too, in 1924, premised that agriculture had to be restored to prosperity as an essential balancing element in the social and economic life of the country. Well, there has been no progress; there has been recession, and things are going back.
    The real point was given by the late Minister of Agriculture, when he said that during his first season at the Ministry of Agriculture the price of wheat was 52s. 6d. a quarter. The other day I sold wheat in Devonshire at 35s.
    440
    a quarter. That is no fault of the farmer. It is a great drop. The Ministry's statistics give us some of these facts. I believe that another volume is being issued soon, but here they say:
    "It will be seen that in each of the past three years the gross value of the output has been lower than in 1924–25. In 1924–25 the average return was £6 7s. per acre. In the following year"—
    that is, a year of Conservative administration—
    "this sum was reduced by 7s. an acre and the year following by another 7s. per acre"—
    so that in two years the value of the farm crops dropped by 14s. an acre. Now, owing to the very steep drop in agricultural prices, I should not be surprised if it does not amount to another 7s. an acre. That means that the farmer is receiving for his produce, through no fault of his own, £1 an acre less than in 1924–25. That is the real point that we have to meet. The costs of production to the farmer have not decreased. We talk of Free Trade, but there is no Free Trade in agriculture to-day. Wages are fixed, but they are not a whit too high. Everyone who knows the agricultural labourer knows that he is a skilled man and that he deserves every penny, and even more, of the wages that he receives. Rent is the same as pre-War, and as regards upkeep, someone has got to keep up the buildings. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that capital had to be replenished every 13 years. If you take the upkeep of agricultural buildings, it has doubled since the War.
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that rent to-day was the same as pre-War?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Agricultural rent.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: In the county of Durham rents are £1 an acre more than in 1914.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I am only speaking from my experience in my own part of the world. I willingly accept my hon. Friend's correction, but if he would take a general view, I think he would find that rents are about the same. It does not, however, greatly affect my argument. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) has really touched upon a point here which has far too little been discussed in this Parliament.

    441
    I had the fortune or the misfortune of not being here from 1924 till the last General Election, but during that time the producers in this country, to borrow a metaphor of W. J. Bryan, of America, have been crucified on a cross of gold. We were told last night that the French had reduced their National Debt by one-fifth. We are told that agriculture is depressed all over the world, but here is a quotation from this morning's newspaper:
    "Rush for shares. Over-subscribed 150 times. The French share of the capital of the Bank of International Settlement established at Basle under the Young Plan was offered to the public to-day. It was almost, immediately over-subscribed 150 times. Here in provincial centres queues of people, chiefly peasants eagerly seeking shares, assembled outside the bank long before the hour of opening."
    It would take a very attractive loan in this country to get peasants in the country districts to stand outside a bank to subscribe to it. In fact, they have not the money, and there is the difference. The French had their crisis five years ago, but we still have to go through our gruelling, and we are not at the bottom of this yet. The producers have been sacrificed to the bankers, because our bankers wanted to have their foreign investments paid in gold, and they have got it, but how has it affected the agricultural industry? I said just now that under the régime of the late Minister of Agriculture wheat was 52s. 6d. a quarter and that to-day it is about 35s. The farmer in 1925 could pay £1 of labour, or £1 of rent, or could purchase £1 of feeding stuff for three bushels of wheat. To-day he has got to produce four bushels to liquidate the same debt. That is the real point, and the worst of it is that the costs of production have not been decreased. Our expenses are the same.
    Take the price of bread. The President of the Board of Trade gave us same figures the other day—and, in fact, it is general knowledge—showing that the price of wheat to-day is about the pre-War price; but the price of the loaf before the War was between 5d. and 6d., whereas to-day the price of the 4-lb. loaf is between 8d, and 9d. That means that there is 3d. added to the cost of the loaf, though wheat is at the pre-War price. Since I have been asking questions on this subject in this House, I have
    442
    had some correspondence from the bakers, and I cannot help thinking that there is too big a lag between the cost of the loaf and the price of wheat. The Government say we shall have a consumers' council and fixed prices. I welcome the inquiry, but fixing prices is, in my judgment, quite hopeless.
    Mr. ALPASS: What is the use of the council if it does not fix the price?
    Mr. LAMBERT: If my hon. Friend goes into the difficulties of fixing prices, all sorts of things will come in. For example, what is a new laid egg? A baker gave me some figures as to the cost of producing a loaf of bread. He said that in 1913 the average price of flour delivered to the baker was 29s. 6d., and in 1929 it was 37s. 6d., and yet, for all that, I do not think that the country millers are doing well. I know a country miller in my part of the world—a very capable man—who is giving up. He said, "I have been in business for the last 10 years, and I have not made any profit, and I shall not go on." Where the money is going, I do not know. The baker said that the average price of salt was 22s. in 1913 and 95s. in 1929, and that coal had risen from 22s. to 38s. Then take wages. The average wage of a foreman in 1913 was 32s. 6d., and to-day it is from 75s. to 85s. A journeyman in 1913 received from 28s. to 30s., and now he receives from 60s. to 70s. The rounds-man with his barrow received 26s. before the War, and to-day he receives from 50s. to 55s. I am wondering whether the producer is getting his fair share of these profits. We go on. He says that rents show an increase of from 25 to 40 per cent.—that is, in regard to shops—and rates pro rata, while oven and other repairs cost 50 per cent. more than in 1913.
    The fact we agriculturists have to come back to is that our costs of production have not decreased whereas everything we have had to sell has fallen in price. People who talk about farmers being unskilled men, really do not know what they are talking about. Agriculturists are capable of holding their own with any business men in the country. If any man does not believe it, let him go down to a farm, take it, farm it, and make a profit. I said the other day, in the presence of some of the right hon. Gentleman's advisers, that if I had my way I would not let a single man draw a salary

    443
    to advise farmers how to farm unless he had made farming pay for at least three years. By jove, there would be a clear out!
    Take milk. The production per cow has increased enormously, and, if you look at milk prices, the farmer to-day gets 3d. per quart for his milk delivered on rail. Hon. Members know well—I know, because I have always been farming—that it takes about four years to get a cow to the milk-producing age. After four years the farmer receives 3d. a quart and the distributor who distributes the milk probably within six or seven hours receives another 3d. There is something wrong. I should like the Minister to go into this matter. An hon. Member the other day said that we wanted more pure milk. I agree with him, but it is all a question of price. I happen to be the chairman of an agricultural college in Devonshire and we produce there certified grade "A" milk. The man who goes in to milk the cows puts on a white coat, washes his hands, washes the teats of the cows, "milks" the milk through a very small aperture into a container, which is sealed up. All this adds to the cost. Some time ago I was in Nottinghamshire where a friend of mine, a fairly wealthy man—he does not make his money out of farming—is engaged in this business. His dairyman said to me, "Well, Sir, you know, of course, it is the expense. People would rather pay a penny a quart less for a little more dirt than pay a penny more for pure milk."
    We are told that meat production is to be the future salvation of agriculture in this country. I confess that in the West of England our cultivation of arable land is being enormously reduced. We have adapted our land to growing sheep and cattle. I remember that when I first started farming we were growing about 40 acres of wheat per year. This year we have grown nine, and next year I do not know whether we shall grow any at all, because it is almost impossible at the present price to grow wheat. We are told: "Oh, yes, you have a great deal of stored up fertility in the land." We have, but you cannot utilise it all at once. Sir William Haldane has said that there is going to be a scarcity of meat. I am very dubious of these prophets of scarcity. I remember a few
    444
    years ago Sir William Crooks saying that there would be a scarcity of food products, but the world is now overflowing. Those who tell us that we must produce more meat should consider what Sir Edmund Vestey has said. The Vestey family know a very great deal about meat. He gives us an entirely different opinion. I am told, in regard to the prices of meat from Australia, that the bottom has dropped out of the market, and it will not surprise me if meat prices do not follow wheat prices in this country. If they do, I do not know what will happen to agriculture.
    Wool has gone down. The price of wool has dropped tremendously, and at this point, Mr. Young, I hope you will allow me to say, when we are hearing a great deal about Empire Free Trade, that it does not matter to the farmer Whether the product conies from the Argentine or whether it comes from Canada; it is the price which the farmer receives which is the real point for him to consider. I should like to reinforce the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I want to see this agricultural question lifted out of the rut of party politics. We shall have to do it at some time. We have had an experience given from the other side of the House of public ownership. That is no good. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has not been tried."] I really thought that it had been shown by the speech of an hon. Member on the other side that a co-operative society could not make farming pay. If a co-operative society under very skilled management, with shops to dispose of the produce, cannot make farming pay, co public authority in the world can ever do so. I know too much of the work of public authorities. I was a member of a board of guardians when I was very young, and I have been a member of a county council for many years, but I would not trust any public authority or Government Department to produce a barrel of apples. As I have already said, I want to see this question of agriculture lifted out of the rut of party politics, for this reason. I have been observing what has been going on here with regard to Safeguarding. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that references to nationalisation, Empire Free Trade, and Safeguarding are apt to lead us to a wider discussion than the Vote will allow.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I am really talking about an administrative matter. I want to get all political parties to agree, if they can, on an agricultural policy. I make the suggestion seriously, because I believe that it is the only way out of the difficulty. It is no good at all when you have one party producing a policy which may probably be reversed at the next General Election. We had this sort of thing to contend with in 1920. The Corn Production Act was passed here—I remember it well—amid the applause of all parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, it was criticised, but it was passed by a large majority. The following year it was repealed. That was one of the very worst things that could happen. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who was responsible for it?"] What does that matter? If my hon. Friend is going into this political question to see who is responsible, it will not get us any further. I want to get on.
    Mr. ALPASS: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a thoroughly practical agriculturist. He has been criticising the suggested failure of the Government. He is suggesting a conference of the three parties, and I should like him to tell the Committee, and especially hon. Members on this side, what definite concrete proposals he would suggest.
    The CHAIRMAN: Concrete proposals from the Opposition do not come into this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestions should be made to the Ministry of Agriculture and not on this Vote.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I could give my hon. Friend many suggestions. In this matter, we have to cease to be politicians and think of the countryside. If I were called upon to go into a conference, I should cut straight across party loyalty in order to save British agriculture from decay.
    Mr. BEN RILEY: I wish to congratulate the party opposite on having had the enterprise to put down this subject for discussion on the second day. I agree, apart from the question of party
    446
    politics, that the question is a vital one. I was interested in the argument of the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) that the solution of the problem with which agriculturists are concerned, is the question of prices. I suppose that, in a certain sense, we all subscribe to that view, but I suggest that although the problem may be one of price, the complaint is not with regard to the price paid by the consumer but the price which the producer receives. The real problem that the agriculturist has to face—and he is going to get very little further unless he does face it—is not simply the question of price as in-cheated by the retail price, but the question of how to cut out as between the producer and the consumer the excessive tribute levied by the middleman. The argument of the right hon. Member for South Molton is an argument for the necessity of applying and working out organised marketing.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: How does the middleman affect corn prices?
    Mr. RILEY: I will deal with that point, but I want first to illustrate the point that I am making by referring to a question which was put last week by the hon. Member for Holderness (Mr. Savery), regarding the average price ruling for potatoes at Leeds, Hull and Doncaster for the month ended the 30th April last. The reply was that at Doncaster the price realised by the growers, on the average, on sale to wholesalers ranged from 20s. to 25s. per ton, while at Hull and Leeds the prices obtained by the wholesalers in selling to the retailers ranged from 40s. to 70s. per ton. An hon. Member opposite, who happens to be a farmer, told me that he and a brother, who are farming together, some two months or 10 weeks ago sent six head of cattle to be sold at the Ashford market, in Kent. They realised £11 10s. per head. They were bought by a dealer who sent them the same night to the Romford market, in Essex, where they were sold next day for £15 per head. The dealer who bought the cattle at Romford came from Derby, and he sold them at Derby for £18 per head. They then passed on, I understand, to the butcher who would probably realise £27 to £28 per head over the counter.
    That is the problem to be faced. It is not that the retailer is paying too

    447
    little, but that the producer gets too little. These facts emphasised the importance of organising marketing and eliminating the tremendous disparity between the retail price and the price that the producer gets. I congratulate the present Government on having pushed forward the system of organised marketing. On the previous occasion when this Vote was under discussion the Minister pointed out that in the organisation, grading and marking of eggs substantial progress had been made, that in 1929 an additional £500,000 had been realised as compared with previous years, and that there had been a diminution of 200,000,000 imported eggs. I suggest that those are the practical lines on which to go. The agriculturists must get down to their own problem and face it as business men.
    I should like to deal with the question of the utter stagnation that exists in regard to the agreed policy or the agreed necessity of doing all that can be done by administration to promote extended land settlement. Let me call the attention of the Committee to some striking facts. The Minister of Agriculture, in referring to the question of unemployment, pointed out the other day that in Biggleswade, a purely agricultural district, returns were furnished recently showing that there were 800 unemployed agricultural labourers in that area. He also said that, taking such returns as had come in, there were between 30,000 and 40,000 unemployed agricultural workers. That figures out, as the right hon. Member for South Melton has said, to three unemployed men to every two working upon the land. Side by side with that position of things we have the statement which was made by the Minister of Agriculture, less than a fortnight ago, that from 1926 to the end of last year the machinery of Parliament has only settled 390 men upon holdings in this country. It seems to me one of the most staggering situations that apparently nothing can be done to get a substantial move on in placing men on the land under circumstances that would be beneficial to themselves and the country. There seems to be an attitude of helplessness, and that we are doing nothing. What are the reasons? The right hon. Member for South Molton decried
    448
    the suggestion of public ownership. I am surprised at that, because he is a member of a party which, with the Conservative party, has been doing something during the last 20 years to meet the agricultural position by the policy of public ownership. He is probably aware that to-day the county councils are the owners of 500,000 acres, which have come under their control during the last 20 or 22 years.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: And a nice mess they make of it.
    Mr. RILEY: The hon. Member says that they have made a mess of it. I should like to indicate—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot pursue that point unless the Minister is responsible for the work of the county councils.
    Mr. RILEY: I must accept your Ruling.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: The control of the Ministry over county council action and the need of the counties to keep in touch with the Ministry is so very close that it is, in my opinion, hardly possible to distinguish.
    Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: As a county councillor and vice-chairman of a small holdings committee, one finds that it is impossible to get county council schemes through without the co-operation and definite aid of the Ministry, which shares in the administrative work.
    The CHAIRMAN: I can well understand that the Minister may have schemes submitted to him, but if we are to enter into discussion of the administration of the county councils, we shall be getting wide of the Vote. The hon. Member is in order in suggesting that the county councils have not been sufficiently active, but he cannot go into details.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Under what Vote can such a discussion come regarding the subject which the hon. Member has raised?
    The CHAIRMAN: In so far as the Minister is responsible for the activities of the county councils, it comes under this Vote, but if the hon. Member goes into details with regard to county council administration, that is out of order on this Vote.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: Surely, it is germane to this issue, inasmuch as the Minister can withhold grants if the county council administers badly. Therefore, I submit that this matter comes under the control of the Minister.
    The CHAIRMAN: We must keep to the Vote and not digress.
    Mr. RILEY: I would point out that in this Vote there is reference to the administration of small holdings, and small holdings are administered by arrangements between the Ministry and the county councils.
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will understand that I do not object to any remarks that he may make in pressing upon the Minister of Agriculture to increase the number of small holdings.
    Mr. RILEY: I will call the attention of the Committee to the facts of the case. What is the reason for this apparent stagnation which has afflicted the country for the last four or five years with regard to the promotion and the extension of settlements of people upon the land, with a view to increasing agricultural prosperity? It is not because the system of small holdings has not been successful. An hon. Member opposite suggested that the system had been a ghastly failure. I should like to quote the words of the Minister of Agriculture in his own Government, who, in connection with the Small Holdings Act of 1926, said:
    "Undoubtedly, great success has been obtained in stock farming, probably owing to the amount of individual attention which smallholders are able to give to their holdings."
    In the same speech he quoted from the report of a judge at a prize distribution in the Lindsey Division of Lincolnshire, in connection with small holdings. The judge said:
    "On visiting the holdings"—
    he was referring to the South Lindsey small holdings—
    "fifty in number, it was pleasant to find that, with one or two exceptions, they were farmed in such a way that the tenants could not help but be successful."
    That is testimony which was quoted by the late Minister of Agriculture. In 1926 the late Government with a view to promoting small holdings introduced a Bill which later became an Act of Parliament.
    450
    They estimated that by their programme and policy they would establish 8,000 new holdings in the course of four years, that is, 2,000 new holdings per year. That was the defence put forward when the Bill was before Parliament. The actual result is that 390 new holdings only have been established since 1926.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Why?
    Mr. RILEY: I shall answer that question later. At the present moment the arrangements do not encourage or facilitate the promotion of small holdings. The figures are very striking. From 1908 to 1914 14,000 statutory holdings were established, that is, 2,000 per year. From 1919 to 1926 16,000 new holdings were established, or at the rate of 3,000 per year. Then the legislation and policy under which these holdings were created was brought to an end and a new policy was started under which only 390 new holdings have been established in the course of four years. What is the reason? It is not because there are no applicants. The late Minister of Agriculture when introducing the Bill in 1926 said that there were waiting on the application list 6,000 approved applicants—and the Act has only produced 390.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the hon. Member say how many the present Minister has established?
    Mr. RILEY: My right hon. Friend is operating the Act of the late Government. Let me quote from the Reports issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. In their Report for 1927 they say:
    "The unsatisfied demand as revealed in the returns remains large, and there is no doubt that there is, in addition, a considerable latent demand from men who only come forward when suitable land in the locality is known to be available."
    It is said that the reason why there is a stop in the establishment of small holdings is because they are not successful. That is not true. Again, in the same Report for the year 1927 there are these words:
    "So far as can be ascertained councils have no serious anxiety as to their ability to re-let any existing holdings that become vacant without reducing the aggregate amount of their rent roll. Recent experience has shown that when any small holding is available for letting the council can

    451
    take a choice of at least three or four, and often as many as 10 and 15, thoroughly satisfactory applicants."
    Why is it that nothing is being done? At the present moment there are between 6,000 and 8,000 applicants waiting, the majority of whom have been approved, and yet less than 100 per annum are being satisfied. The reason is because the late Government passed an Act of Parliament—
    Viscount WOLMER: Is the present Government going to introduce a Bill to amend that Act?
    Mr. RILEY: —which has put obstacles in the way of these holdings being established. They have placed on the county councils the liability of meeting expenses which should be borne by the nation, because this is a national problem. They have the responsibility, they have to ask the local ratepayers to find a certain amount of money, whereas the burden should rest on the nation as a whole. The conditions of land settlement should in my opinion be thoroughly overhauled so as to give the Ministry or some independent body the power to initiate and set going a policy which will offer better facilities for obtaining small holdings for people who are suitable for agricultural settlement.
    Lord STANLEY: The Debate of last week and the list of speakers which you have before you, Mr. Chairman, this afternoon testifies to the interest which hon. Members take in agriculture. The speeches which have been made show that there is a very considerable basis of agreement on all sides of the Committee and I hope that this measure of agreement will encourage the Minister to overcome his shyness and let us into some of the secrets of his policy. The Debates have also shown that a great number of industries are covered by the single word "agriculture," but for the sake of brevity and general convenience I propose to classify all those branches of agriculture into two divisions. First, those tranches which are firmly established and which can be said to be doing well or reasonably well, or not too badly, and where there is a general measure of agreement as to future policy with regard to them. Their future progress and prosperity depends mainly on increased research and better organisation
    452
    which, of course, includes drainage, marketing and standardisation. On the other side you have the less fortunate branches of industry, those which are particularly hard hit by foreign competition. The reason for their failure is that they are unable to get an economic price for what they produce. In regard to these branches of the industry we feel we ought to have had a long time ago, and certainly must have in the near future, some idea from the Minister as to what he proposes to do to assist them.
    Let me deal with the first of the categories first. This category includes dairy produce, poultry and pigs. The Ministry deserves great credit for the work they have done in encouraging better organisation and better trade methods with regard to these particular branches, and great credit is also due to the Minister for the industry he has shown. The credit for the origination of most of these schemes goes to the right hon. Gentleman who administered agricultural policy in the last Government, but the present Minister of Agriculture, in this instance, has not erred from the path of righteousness and in anything he can do to assist and encourage agricultural organisation, I am sure that all members will be very happy to co-operate. There is only one fear, and that is that the word "standardisation" may be used so often that it will lose a lot of its meaning. I make no apology for speaking on that subject for one or two moments because I have preached it so often in the days before it had received the official blessing. There is the danger that standardisation may become one of those blessed words, like Mesopotamia and rationalisation, which cover a multitude of sins and which every speaker talks about when he is at a loss for something else to say. But standardisation is a very definite subject, and it is going to be the basis of the future prosperity in many of these branches of agriculture.
    I would recommend everybody who is interested in agriculture to read the speech made by Mr. Street, an official of the Ministry of Agriculture, at the Farmers' Club. He points out the absolute necessity for progress in the marking of goods and their standardisation, and he shows that the very accessibility of our markets should be of the greatest advantage to British farming is in some ways a disadvantage,

    453
    because our produce has to compete in these densely populated areas with the selected goods which come from abroad. The fact that farmers are just outside these very easy markets does not encourage them to improve their marketing organisation. If they were a long way from their markets they would obviously have to combine and send their produce by rail in the cheapest form, but being just outside they are likely to become slack in their methods of marketing and deal with it in a slipshod and haphazard fashion. The fact that the densely populated areas have admirable railway or sea connection makes them an excellent target for the well organised products from abroad.
    6.0 p.m.
    Standardisation has two particular advantages. The first is that produce can be bought by description and not by inspection; and that is going to cut out a great deal of the waste which goes via the middle man at the present time. If a retailer can ring up the farmer direct and order something, knowing exactly the quality he is going to get, there is no need for him to go into the market and inspect it first. That is a great saving of time, trouble and money. It will also give the wholesaler an opportunity of buying in bulk. At the present time variations in quality are too great to allow them to do so, and, finally, and most important of all, standardisation is the foundation of all successful advertising. If we are going to compete with the dairy produce from abroad, which is coming in in large quantities well advertised, we shall have to do some advertising on our own. Many of us who live just outside London and are continually going up and down will have seen vans with the words "Good Best Danish." That is very good advertising, and I believe if we go on the lines that are now being laid down by the Ministry we shall have in a short time the words "Good Best British" instead of the words "Good Best Danish." At present we cannot advertise British butter as such because there are so many varieties of quality and grading. It is only when we have some uniformity of character in our products that we can hope successfully to advertise them.
    I am afraid that in discussing this particular category of agriculture and the method of dealing with it I am knocking
    454
    at an open door. Probably it would be more worth while to devote attention to that form of agriculture which we can roughly describe as arable agriculture. I have personal connection with it only to a small degree as a farmer myself, and there is practically no arable agriculture in my constituency; but anyone who is interested in farming has always friends who know perfectly well the deplorable state of British arable agriculture to-day. The bad part of it is that the capital of these arable farmers is being gradually diminished. They are the experts, and if once they are driven out of farming owing to lack of capital you will never get them back and you will lose from agriculture the men who know the most about it.
    The time for drastic action has undoubtedly come. The days of Couéism, the belief that it is going to right itself, are past. I agree with previous speakers that every Government has to take some measure of blame. It is much the same as the case of the doctor and the patient. A patient is ill and the doctors naturally hope to cure him or her by moderate methods, by rest cures or medicine or something less drastic than an operation. When the time comes for an operation the doctor is blamed for not having taken a serious enough view of the situation beforehand. That is what is happening in arable farming to-day. We have been trying to doctor it up by small doses and by a rest cure. The time for that has past and the time for drastic action has come. If such action is not taken arable farming will cease altogether, and those who are now engaged in it will have to turn their attention to other forms of farming.
    Remember that if you are going to do something for arable farming it is bound to cost money. You have somehow to bridge the space between what it costs to produce and what you are going to get for your production. If you do not do that it is certain that you are going to see an end of any form of successful arable farming in this country. I think we are entitled to ask why the Minister has not told us anything of the ideas that he has in his head. It might not have been possible for him to produce the whole of his policy, but we do know that he has considered the matter and has put forward some proposals to the Government. Why have not those proposals

    455
    seen the light of day? Is it owing to cowardice? Is it because the right hon. Gentleman's investigations have resulted in a policy which is unpalatable to the Members of his own party and particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Or has he found that he has come to an end of his resources and that he is unable to make any recommendation at all?
    Whatever his conclusion I consider that the Committee is entitled to have the benefit of them. We all realise perfectly well the great difficulties with which he is faced. We are prepared to put aside a lot of our party prejudices in order that we may see British agriculture brought to a prosperous condition. If the right hon. Gentleman will only let us into his confidence we will do whatever we can to assist him in formulating a policy or in putting through a policy that we believe will bring prosperity to the agricultural industry. At the present time, as far as I can see, the Government's agricultural policy is as barren as their industrial policy. They have duped the agricultural electorate to the same extent as they duped the industrial electorate. In fact they have done nothing but betray a great industry.
    Mr. BLINDELL: It is rather a good thing for the industry of agriculture that at last the House has been given two opportunities within 10 days for a full discussion of this very important matter. As a result of the discussion we shall probably find that the Government, and the Ministry of Agriculture in particular, will be brought to a knowledge that up and down the country there is a serious measure of, not distress, but fear of disinterestedness on the part of the Minister with regard to the acute position of the agricultural industry. To say that the industry is depressed is to state the fact quite moderately. In many parts of the country and from many points of view there is real cause for alarm at the position. In spite of all the political parties having at various times professed to take specific care of the industry, in spite of their profession of being interested in it above any other industry, in spite of their lauding agriculturists from the housetops as the saviours of the nation, in spite of all the promises made by all
    456
    parties, the industry to-day is undoubtedly going further down than it has been for a quarter of a century.
    I believe that the politicians of this country and probably the leaders of the parties fully realise that each and everyone of us have professed to take agriculture under our wings but have sadly disappointed the industry, and I could imagine that politicians would be quite pleased to get the subject out of the realm of politics and to deal with it from an industrial and economic point of view entirely. If the Committee desires to do something of that kind I hope that all Members of all parties will give full expression to that point of view, so that the offer which was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) last week shall be pressed upon the Minister of Agriculture and the Cabinet until there is no other course open to them than to take the initiative in calling together a conference of the heads of parties in order to try to hammer out a policy that will save a great industry from destruction.
    In the House last week the reply by the Prime Minister to a question was very evasive. I suggest that on this question of the help that the Government are likely to offer to the industry as a whole, the industry is positively tired of evasive answers. The offer made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was that so far as he and his party were concerned they were quite prepared to discuss with the leaders of the other two parties the great question of the prosperity of the industry, to waive aside all political theories and to enter the conference with a free mind, ready to discuss every reasonable proposition that could be put forward. The Prime Minister was asked whether he would call such a conference, and his answer was to the effect that the Government were willing to discuss but they would not go so far as to call the conference. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that if he believes, as I think he does, that this is not a political question and that it cannot be settled by political action only, but that the three parties together probably could do some good, he should impress on the Prime Minister the necessity for the Government itself taking the initiative in calling the leaders of the

    457
    parties together. Then we can see whether something definite cannot be done for the industry.
    I know that from time to time the political parties have presumed to make very rash promises to the agricultural industry. I am rather afraid that the agriculturists have pinned their faith to political action as a means of getting them out of their difficulty rather than to action that they, as an industry, if united, might take themselves. On this side of the Committee speaker after speaker, with the notable exception of the Noble Lord who has just spoken, and in the country Conservative speaker after Conservative speaker, has said that the one thing that will save agriculture is the introduction of a system of tariffs. Mat may be right; I do not want to argue it; but I do say that I would like to know whether those speakers mean a system of Protection or tariffs for agricultural products or for—
    The CHAIRMAN: The question before us is not what Members of the Opposition mean by these things. We are discussing a Vote of the Ministry of Agriculture.
    Mr. BLINDELL: As a new Member I may get out of order, but I am always willing to come back straight away. The other two parties cannot be exonerated from blame in the matter. Take my own party. We stick tenaciously to Free Trade and ridicule the idea that tariffs will save the industry. By members of the Socialist party nationalisation of the land has been put before the people as the one thing that will save agriculture and put it on its feet again. The immediate solution, the inducement held out to the agricultural community at the last Election by the Socialist party, was not only nationalisation of the land—in some parts of the country that was dropped altogether—but stabilisation of prices. In my own Division the candidate who opposed me told a body of smallholders that nationalisation of the land was not intended to apply to smallholders, and it did my candidature a tremendous lot of good. As I say, the immediate solution that was put forward was stabilisation of prices. Here the farmer was going to get what he wanted, a definitely fixed price for his produce.
    I ask the Minister, if that was a part of his party's policy before the Election
    458
    what steps has he taken during the past 12 months to give effect to that policy? So far as I can see no effort whatever has been made, and the Minister himself, when questioned on this very point, has always given evasive answers. To-day we do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman believes in that policy. If he does believe in it, he has never yet told us in any definite form whether he thinks it possible to put the policy into operation. If it can be put into operation he can capture the farmer to-morrow. If he can guarantee to the farmer an adequate price for his produce the right hon. Gentleman can capture his sympathy and support straight away. Before the last Election it was so easy; the farmers were told it could be done. On behalf of the farmers in my Division I want to know why that policy has not been put into operation and why this thing that was so easy before the Election has become so tremendously difficult.
    What is the position in this industry, which is one of the greatest in the country and one in which we are all taking such a tremendous interest now? I believe it was the Minister himself who told us—and certainly it was stated in the House of Commons—that 400,000 acres of arable land have gone out of cultivation during the last two years. There are 100,000 fewer men and women employed in this industry to-day than there were in 1921, in spite of the fact that we have such a serious problem of unemployment confronting us. The majority of those 100,000 people, who ought to be employed in the agricultural industry, have simply drifted to the towns and aggravated the unemployment situation there. I believe that the industry is languishing because of the prices which are obtainable for its produce. I refer, specially, to the potato section of the agricultural industry, though indeed I should not call it a, section of the industry, because it is a distinct industry of itself. I believe that during the last four or five months the price of potatoes has been the lowest recorded for 20 years although there are increased charges of every kind on the producer.
    There are 40,000 men unemployed in that industry to-day. These are men who have been born on the land and who want to live on the land. They are men who know their job, and the reason why they are not living on the land is because they

    459
    cannot live on the land. The work is not there for them and efforts are not made to provide them with the work. No encouragement is given to them to stay in the countryside, and yet here we are, talking about solving the problem of unemployment, while we are actually creating a new army of unemployed in the countryside. If we tackled this problem and brought forward schemes which would give work to these 40,000 men, we should, at any rate, be helping to solve the general problem of unemployment. All this time, the State—and by the State I mean not only the Government, but all of us—looks on. We wonder what can be done, but no practicable agricultural policy is produced from any side of the House of Commons, and, in my judgment, we shall never get such a policy until the question is taken out of the political arena altogether, and we put aside party squabbles, and set about the job in a businesslike way.
    When one asks what is the cause of the present position of agriculture, one is told by certain sections that arable farming is decaying and the land is going into grass, on account of the free importation of foreign foodstuffs. If that is so, we ought to face up to it; if not, we ought to cease talking about it. A lot has been said about German bounty-fed wheat coming into this country. Now the importation of German bounty-fed wheat affects East Anglia, the district from which I come, more than any other part of the country. The farmers there know the full force of this competition which is subsidised by a foreign Government, but I do not want to overstate the case. I do not say that if we solve the problem of German wheat, the farmers are going to be put on the road of prosperity again. If we solved that particular question to-morrow, we would not have solved all our difficulties. I admit that it would help, but it would not deal with the general position. I think we ought to look at this matter dispassionately and deal with it as business men and if there is not such a tremendous amount of importance to be attached to this factor in the situation, then we are doing a disservice to the agriculturists of this country by unduly emphasising it and inflating its importance.
    460
    The total consumption of British wheat in this country last year was 134,639,000 cwts. and the total importation of wheat from all countries was 103,056,000 cwts., but of that total, the importation of German wheat represents less than 1,000,000 cwts. I would like the Government to deal with the importation of German wheat, and, as I say, I believe it would help if they did so, but even if that problem were solved straight away it would not dispose of our difficulties. Constantly preaching that the dumping of German wheat has forced down prices is, I believe, doing a real disservice to the agriculturists of this country. Hon. Members in dealing with this question ought to state the full facts to the people and they ought not to lead people to believe that it is solely the dumping of German wheat which has forced down prices.
    Major BRAITHWAITE: But surely the hon. Member knows that even a comparatively small importation of this kind affects the general price.
    Mr. BLIDELL: I quite agree, but I do not agree that the importation of that quantity has been the sole cause of the drop in wheat prices in this country. I have already said that it is a contributory factor, that it is something which ought to be stopped. In my judgment anything that is subsidised against our manufacturers or our producers, ought to be stopped. But to say that that will meet the case and give the farmer the price which he wants is overstating the case and in my judgment we ought to be very careful. [Interruption.] I know that it has not been said in the House of Commons, but it has been said outside, and there is an impression abroad in the agricultural constituencies that the dumping of German wheat is a paramount consideration in connection with this matter. I say that it is not and that you will not deal with the position by dealing with that one matter. I am not in a position to talk about policy, but I have one suggestion to make to the Minister which I think would help cereal growers in this country. I think it is quite a logical and reasonable demand to make on Behalf of the agricultural community that, in order to help them with their wheat, and to get them to produce more wheat, the Minister should insist on all British-milled flour containing a percentage of British-grown wheat. I

    461
    believe that would help and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the suggestion.
    I am particularly interested in the potato section of the industry which, as I have already indicated, is really an industry within the agricultural industry and is an industry of major importance. It is an industry which represents £30,000,000 per annum. It provides the working class with probably the cheapest and most nutritious food that is provided 'in this country. Last year there were 500,000 acres under potatoes and the annual production is in the region of 5,000,000 tons. It employs more men per acre cultivated and more men per £1 sterling invested than any other section of the agricultural industry; and for all these reasons it is an industry which we should seek to foster. No section of the agricultural industry has suffered more during the last two years. Never before have prices been so bad. Never before have the potato growers of this country produced more and never before at the end of a season have they been in such tremendous financial difficulties as they are in to-day on account of the bad prices. Again, I do not accept the suggestion that the cause of their difficulties is foreign importation. I know that at this period of the year there is an importation of potatoes which seriously affects the sale of the old crop produced at home, but there is one way in which the British public can put an end to that situation and that is by demanding British potatoes.
    A fortnight ago I put a question to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Compton), the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, as to how many foreign potatoes were being consumed in the House of Commons, where Members are so deeply anxious and concerned about this industry. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but I should like to know the gentlemen who are eating foreign potatoes. A little bit of example is worth ever so much precept, and I wish the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee could debar Members of this House from the luxury, if it is a luxury, of foreign potatoes when we have an abundance of our own production. The hon. Member's answer on that occasion was that there was a demand for foreign potatoes and perhaps it is also the case that in the country there is a demand
    462
    for foreign potatoes. But as regards the main crop, the importation does not affect the position. We have in this country a consumption of 5,500,000 tons a year. It is computed that we consume 9,000 tons per day, yet the total imports over the last 12 months only amount to 300,000 tons. If it were possible to keep out the lot it would not materially affect the position as far as the main crop is concerned, but there is a distinct difficulty. These potatoes come in at this time of year and they compete unfairly with our own production. I say that quite frankly. It may be said by hon. Members above the Gangway that I am bordering on Protection, but nothing of the sort. I am bordering on Free Trade common sense.
    The point which I want to make is this: With regard to potatoes, very special circumstances have to be taken into consideration, and a fair judgment must be given on those circumstances when we are discussing this matter. There are special circumstances over which we have no control—circumstances of climate and all the rest of it. [Laughter.] I am glad that I have given the Noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench something to laugh at and I shall be very pleased to listen to him later on when, I am sure, he will have something very illuminating to say. In regard to potatoes, the real trouble during the last two years has been the question of price, and not the question of production. South Lincolnshire has produced a super-abundant supply of really good potatoes; indeed, the abundance of their supply has in a measure been their undoing. The tremendous difficulties in my Division are due to the prices obtained by the producers. The difficulty is to assure for the producer of the potatoes at least a price which will compensate him for what he has had to lay out to produce them. In the past two years, many farmers and small holders have got less than half the cost of production.
    It is useless to say that the public have to pay a big price, because the truth is that the public have had cheap potatoes, for the retail price in many parts of the country during recent weeks has been less than one halfpenny per pound. [An HON. MEMBER: "In places it is over a penny!"] There may be a demand for a specific service which has

    463
    caused the price to rise, and if you ask for a service you ought to pay for it. In all parts of the country, however, potatoes can be bought at less than one halfpenny per pound. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. T. Snowden) asked me during the Debate on the Consumers' Council Bill last week to tell the House the difference in the price received by the producers of potatoes, and the price that the consumer has to pay. My answer is this: If the consumer of potatoes can buy an ample supply at less than one halfpenny per pound, he has nothing to grumble about. Even at that price the producer, if everything had been right, would have got much more than he has been getting during recent weeks.
    It is not altogether a question of large profits being made, although I daresay that some people have made profits. The real trouble is that there are tremendously loose methods of marketing of potatoes, and the reorganisation of the marketing system is the most important factor in the solution of this problem. Covent Garden, Birmingham, Leeds, Leicester, and all the markets have been glutted with good potatoes, and on top of the glut more potatoes have been pouring in, with the result that the price has been forced down, and the poor producer has not received what he ought to have received for his production. A compliment ought to be paid to the Minister of Agriculture and to those who are working with him for the marketing section which he is pushing forward with all the speed that he can command. During the last few years the Ministry have done exceptionally well and instead of trying to get a big policy to put things right by a stroke of the pen, they are taking a line which, if pursued persistently, will make a tremendous difference to the prosperity of agriculture. The schemes for marking, grading and packing are all good things, and the Minister can do a great work in urging those schemes on to the industry. Inside the industry there is a strong and solid belief that production is all right, but inside and outside the industry they do not understand how to market their wares properly.
    I am sorry if I am trespassing a long time on the time of the Committee, but the question of potatoes is
    464
    one in which I am closely interested, and which tremendously affects my Division, and if something is not done for the potato industry, there will be no industry left. Those people cannot go on planting and planting and tilling and tilling unless they can get an economic price. At the end of last year I, with some other gentlemen in the industry, decided to make a determined attempt to improve the marketing of potatoes. We were convinced that outside political action, but inside the industry, much could be done to improve the condition of the industry. We called a conference; it was a wonderful conference, and nothing like it has ever been held in the industry before. All sections of the industry were gathered together—producers, wholesalers, retailers, consumers, workers, and allied traders—and they were all of one mind, determined to evolve some system of marketing that would give to the producer an economic price. The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) made a reference last week to this conference. I am sorry if I interrupted him during his speech, but I did not realise that it, was his maiden speech. I entirely disagree with him, and I think the Committee will, too. He said:
    "The fact was that for everything we produced we did not receive an economic price. Conferences have been mentioned. A huge conference was called in Lincolnshire, but I would not take the trouble to go, because I knew before I went that the subjects that were to be discussed would not touch agriculture, and that whatever was discussed and decided upon would die a natural death."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1930; cols. 1512–3, Vol. 238.]
    I am thankful that Members of this House do not approach the problem in this spirit. Why did not the hon. Member go to the conference? If he did not want to go, he could have left alone the men who were attempting to do something for the industry. The real position was that he did not know what was going to be discussed. Although he would not go and believed the conference doomed to failure, the Minister of Agriculture thought that it was worth while to send his representative to see what happened. A good deal happened. Very many forward steps were taken, and the first real attempt was made at establishing a marketing board for this section of the agricultural industry. If that board had been allowed to function

    465
    to-day, there would have been a different state of affairs than there is in the potato industry. [Interruption.] I know that there is a difference of opinion in this matter, but it is useless talking about the difficulties of the industry unless one makes an effort to help the industry on to its feet again.
    The National Farmers' Union and the organised body of the wholesale potato merchants did not give all the support that they ought to have given. As a result of the conference, three sections of the potato industry were called together by the National Farmers' Union, and the Secretary to the Ministry of Agricuture attended one or two of the meetings to discuss marketing. I have not been able to get to know, although I put a question down, what was done by these three sections in association with the Ministry of Agriculture. I urge the Minister to get the whole of the sections connected with the industry together; if he did, I am certain that the industry would evolve a marketing scheme that would be of benefit to the industry. If the potato industry could solve the problem of marketing, they could solve the difficulties in that industry almost entirely. The difficulties are not created by profiteering, but by a very loose method of marketing, which the Minister of Agriculture ought to be able to assist the industry to put right.
    Small holdings have been mentioned. I am sorry to hear the Minister state that during the last four years only 319 new holdings have been established in this country. In my district we have a whole army of smallholders, and they are fine agriculturists. Most of them, until this slump, were doing exceedingly well. Out of a rent-roll of £40,000 a year the Holland County Council have only about £1,000 rent owing to them. In our district we have a waiting list of between 000 and 1,000 men anxiously waiting for holdings which they cannot get. I hope that the Minister will take note of that. In my Division a large number of smallholders are holding land under the Commissioners of Crown Lands, and there is what is known as the Crown Colony of ex-service men, while at Sutton Bridge there is another colony of smallholders who are holding land under the Crown. Both of these bodies of men have recently petitioned the Minister of Agriculture,
    466
    asking him to give them special consideration with regard to the Lady Day rent.
    I hope that I have said sufficient to convince the Minister that this year these men are entitled to some special consideration with regard to their rent. I look upon the Commissioners of Crown Lands as model landlords. From what I know of landlords, especially those connected with the soil, I know that they are usually good enough to give consideration to their tenants in bad seasons. I ask them as model landlords to give sympathetic consideration to the petitions which the Minister has received, and to let these men know at the earliest possible moment what the Ministry are prepared to do to help them over these difficult times. Among the smallholders are men who have grown nothing but potatoes, and- who have lost 30s. or £2 per ton on every ton that they have produced. They cannot pay their rent, and if they are forced to pay they will be driven out of business. The wisest course for Members to adopt with regard to the agricultural industry is to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and to get together in order to take the industry right out of politics and try to get a real policy which will bring the industry back to prosperity.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am sure the Committee will be glad to hear one thing which I can tell them at the outset of my speech, and that is that its length will be rather less than the average length of the speeches which we have had this afternoon. The potato growers of this country will be exceedingly grateful to the hon. Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Blindell) for the full exposition he has given of the real difficulties and the real grievances under which they suffer. Everyone appreciates the sincerity with which he has put his views, but though I followed his speech very closely, I am still left in considerable doubt as to what exactly is the remedy he seeks. We are stopped from discussing the question of a tariff, but I understood the bon. Gentleman's somewhat drastic remedy was to prohibit the importation of potatoes at a certain period of the year. All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman, in putting forward those views, was departing somewhat not only from the

    467
    general policy of his party, but from the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) earlier in the Debate. However that may be, no one, and least of all any of us who have had experience of the industry, will deny that the situation in regard to potato growing is very serious indeed, and those who are anxious to arouse public opinion in the country to the really critical condition of the agricultural industry will welcome such a speech as that of the hon. Member's.
    When we had a discussion on agriculture in the House the other day my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Agriculture, with a generosity of which I am afraid I am not capable, described the Minister as a good man struggling with adversity. I thought that was a rather euphemistic statement. I should certainly describe him as a good man, but I should say that he was struggling with adversity caused partly by economic circumstances but very largely by the mismanagement and misunderstanding of agriculture which is inherent in the Socialist attitude towards it. I will quote an example of that. We have heard a great deal this afternoon about keeping agriculture out of party politics, but we know that the party opposite did not keep agriculture out of party politics at the last election. I have here a voluminous number of documents published at one time or another by the party opposite, but I will quote only one phrase from the pamphlet "Labour's appeal to the Nation":
    "Labour is deeply concerned about agriculture which, having been the plaything of both the older parties, is now facing a very critical time both for farmers and workers. Farming must be made to pay."
    Those words were used at the last election, and I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary, apparently, still agrees with them; and yet this was the answer which was given on the 25th November last by the Minister of Agriculture in reply to a question put by my hon. Friend beside me. The Minister said:
    "I cannot accept the suggestion that the agricultural industry on the whole is in such distress as to demand special and immediate relief."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1929; col. 974, Vol. 232.]
    Mr. N. BUXTON: Perhaps the Noble Lord will be good enough to give the context, in which I spoke of the severe depression which existed.
    Earl WINTERTON: I have not the context with me, but I remember the observation perfectly well; but how can his statement that he cannot
    "accept the suggestion that the agricultural industry on the whole is in such distress as to demand special and immediate relief."
    be squared, to use a convenient if vulgar phrase, with the statement that Labour is deeply concerned about agriculture, that it is facing critical times, and that it must be made to pay? Everybody knows that if there were critical times in May of last year they are doubly critical to-day. There has not been a speaker in either of these two Debates—let the Government note this fact—who has not said how serious the position is. I say in all sincerity, and with no desire to embarrass him, that I read with the greatest interest the very earnest speech on the subject which was made by an hon. Member opposite in this House and another speech which be made in the country.
    We are prevented by the rules of Order from discussing the only two remedies which, in my opinion, can do any good, Protection or a subsidy, 'because either of them would involve legislation, and I will make only this observation on them. We have had speeches this afternoon, of course within the bounds of Order, but perilously near the boundary, in which it has been suggested that no one of the political parties is prepared, on an occasion when remedies can be discussed, to put forward any remedy of a drastic character. That is not so. The party which sits here above the Gangway is pledged to a subsidy on wheat for milling purposes. What alternative remedy, or what lesser remedies besides those two which I have mentioned, and both of which are rejected by the Government, can be applied? First of all, there is the proposal for what is generally known as mass buying, which figured very prominently in the election literature of the Government. I understand that I can refer in detail to that, because it can be held that it could be introduced through administration. Again and again the hon. Member for East Leicester

    469
    (Mr. Wise), who is well known to be a great authority in this subject, has by speeches here and in the country, and by means of questions, put forward his views, but it is an astonishing fact that we have not had one word from the Government to say whether they contemplate putting this very fundamental reform—whether it would be an efficacious reform is a different matter—into operation. We do not know what the views of the Government are on the matter.
    Then conferences have been suggested. It was said by the last speaker that there might be a conference of parties at which agriculture should be discussed on an entirely non-political basis. I would like to discuss that aspect of the case, because it seems to me we are all rather liable to get into a confused condition of thought about it. How can you discuss the question of agriculture apart from political views? The thing is impossible. On every question of the day—unemployment, the coal industry and now the agricultural position—people come forward and say, always to assenting cheers, "This is a matter which ought to be discussed apart from political views." How can you do it? We are sent to this House by political parties to represent the point of view which those parties have, and how can we discuss matters of primary importance apart from the political views which we are here to represent? Farmers themselves are much to blame. Again and again at farmers' dinners I have heard them say, "Agriculture ought to be treated as a non-political subject," and then a little later a farmer will say that he quite agrees with the previous speaker and what is wanted is to get Parliament to take more interest in agriculture. How can you get Parliament to take more interest in a question of fundamental importance without bringing in political opinions? The fiscal question, which we cannot discuss now, is bound to come into such a discussion.
    Mr. KEDWARD: How did the Noble Lord do it during the War?
    Earl WINTERTON: I did not do it at all during the War. I was fighting in the War.
    Mr. KEDWARD: Was he fighting politically during the War, or was he in a common cause?
    Earl WINTERTON: No doubt during the War national questions were to a certain extent discussed on a non-party basis, but, after all, during war you may be able to do what you cannot necessarily do in peace time. The hon. Member could not have chosen a worse example for his ease. What was done for agriculture in the War? There was a general agreement that agriculture, in return for what it had had to put up with and had had to forgo in the way of profits, should be given substantial assistance by the State, but the party, or rather the Government, of which the hon. Member's own leader was the head, as soon as the emergency was over, and in a manner which I think was most—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is getting out of order. I think he has quite answered the question which he wanted to answer, and he must get back to the discussion.
    Earl WINTERTON: I venture to submit that while we cannot discuss fresh legislation—this is rather a substantial point of Order—we are entitled to discuss the effect of past legislation on the industry and the policy of the industry. I think that has generally been held to be the case.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member below the Gangway was asking the Noble Lord how certain things were done during the War.
    Earl WINTERTON: I admit that probably his interruption was out of order as was my reply. I will return later to that question of what happened during the War, because it is very pertinent to the consideration not only of the position of the agricultural industry but the position of the Liberal party in regard to it. Let us be quite frank in this matter. I suggest that it is ridiculous to say that we can ever have a solution of the major problems of agriculture on a non-party basis. The thing is impossible. All one can do is to get some party in the State to adopt a policy which the industry itself says it wants adopted.
    7.0 p.m.
    Let us turn from this to the conference composed of groups of different sections of the industry. Obviously, that offers a much more hopeful chance of reaching a solution, for this reason: if the political parties in this House are faced

    471
    by the unanimous decision of a conference representative of all elements in the industry, it will be far harder for the Government of the day, whatever its political complexion, to refuse to accept those conclusions than it would be for them to refuse to accept the conclusions of almost any other kind of conference. We are entitled to ask the Minister to give us a little more information about this agricultural conference which is supposed to be in existence. My hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), with a meticulous regard for the conditions which govern such conferences, and for which I give him credit, said he was not at liberty to disclose what had occurred. I have no doubt that is correct so far as the deliberations are concerned, but it does not in any way stop me from asking the Government to tell us what they are going to do about the unanimous resolution passed by the conference, and, secondly, to tell us why it is that at the most critical period of the existence of the industry this conference, which was given a great deal of advertisement, and sent off under very distinguished auspices, the Prime Minister himself making some statement—why it is that nearly six weeks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ten weeks!"]—ten weeks—bave elapsed since its last meeting? It is an astonishing situation. If it had been a question of the coal industry we should long ago have had indignant protests over the fact that the conference had not met for ten weeks at the most critical period in the industry. I sincerely hope we shall have from the Minister some clear exposition of his views not only on the subject of the resolution but why it is that the conference has been for so long in abeyance. Turning now to another matter, one of the lesser things which the Minister could carry out without requiring legislation, we still have had no adequate answer as to why the Government have refused to put into operation what my right hon. Friend pledged himself and the late Government to do if we were returned, that is, the purchase of British meat for the Forces. Here we have an astonishing situation. From the Free Trade point of view, it does not matter whether you purchase British meat or foreign meat, but the
    472
    Government have rejected that argument, and they are encouraging private consumers to purchase British meat. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman, with such ferociousness as his gentle nature would allow him to display, make a reference to certain restaurateurs in London for having done the same thing as his colleagues the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister of War had done, namely, refuse to purchase British meat. He said he hoped that his efforts would make them see where their duty lay in this matter. I would like to say that I hope his own colleagues will also see where their duty rests in this matter.
    Mr. B. RILEY: What did the late Government do?
    Earl WINTERTON: I am obliged to the hon Gentleman the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for that interruption. It was the next subject for reference which I have down on my notes. The only answer we have had from the hon. Gentleman on this subject was that he proposed to apply exactly the same policy that my right hon. Friend applied while he was in office, and that was greeted cheerfully by his supporters behind him. Assuming that is the answer which the party opposite seem to think adequate, I do suggest that to say that during four years we did nothing, which incidentally was certainly proved to be true, and that that is a good reason why the present Government, who have been in office 11 mouths, have done nothing, may be popular with their own supporters, but it is not an argument which is likely to be popular with the farmers and agricultural labourers in the country. Are they prepared to say to these people: "We have done nothing during the 11 months we have been in office, but, as the late Government had done nothing, we tell our supporters that, and they are satisfied, and thus we have been able to score against the Tory party"? That sort of thing will not satisfy the agricultural electors. The right hon. Gentleman can only use that argument if he wishes to suggest that my right hon. Friend and the late Government did not intend to carry out their solemn promise. We made no such promise in the 1924 election, and during that Parliament we said we were not going to do so, but we said we would do this if we were returned to power

    473
    again. I say that we have had no adequate explanation from the Government why they have not done it. According to a reference made by an hon. Member this afternoon, practically the only decisive action of any sort which they have taken was to repudiate it. It is a serious charge, for its practical and psychological effect would be very great, and I ask the Minister to reconsider it.
    The hon. Gentleman who spoke from below the Gangway, and other speakers, particularly the right hon. Member for South Molton, paid a tribute to what the Government had done in the matter of marketing. I thought that that tribute was due rather to my right hon. Friend, who, in face of great opposition, was not only instrumental in passing the Merchandise Marks Act, but also carried out a number of useful and important marketing proposals. We are entitled to some credit for that. While it is true that the measures we took have not made agriculture prosperous, no one can deny that those measures were useful in themselves, and they have been supported by the present Government with enthusiasm.
    I should like to leave the Government for a moment, for I do not think we will get information to-day on their policy, even if the circumstances of the Debate did not make it slightly difficult. I should like to turn to another matter—the attitude which the party below the Gangway is adopting towards agriculture, and towards the policy of the Government. It is a matter of some importance to know that this Government is being kept in power by the support of that party. I do not wish to say anything hard on them. I deprecate the use of words comparing them in any way with any foreign nation, but I am bound to confess that the party which has put itself into their peculiar position reminds me of the Eskimos, who are said to be able to put up with any amount of cold providing they have a sufficient supply of blubber.
    Mr. KEDWARD: Does the Noble Lord mean the supply of blubber by the two Noble Lords, Beaverbrook and Bother-mere?
    Earl WINTERTON: My reference had no personal application. What, I ask, is the attitude of these allies of the Government? We have heard from time to time
    474
    speeches by the leader of the party below the Gangway drawing injurious comparisons as between British farming and Danish farming. Some of these comparisons are based on inadequate knowledge of the circumstances. One of the statements which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party makes is that Denmark is one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world. That is not true. I have made extensive tours in Denmark and I find that much of it consists of very rich land indeed. The well-instructed agricultural correspondent of the "Times" has pointed out that the altitude of the land in this country, on the whole, is higher than that of Denmark. That is to say, there is more arable land here than in Denmark, which is difficult of cultivation. Another reason for this fallacious argument is that Denmark is a country which organises for export, and it is easier to organise for export than for your home market. I think, therefore, it is rather unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to use this comparison and it vitiates a great deal of his argument.
    It is untrue to suggest that farmers are uninstructed and foolish people. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) generally makes two points when he speaks upon agriculture. One is an attack on the landlords and the other is a suggestion that farmers themselves are hopelessly inadequate and out-of-date. I do not think that is true. I dare say they can learn, like anyone else, where there are new ideas to be obtained, but the accusation is not true. The right hon. Gentleman has also given it to be understood that one of the difficulties of this country is the fact that land is not available. In my opinion, speaking of the south of England, I doubt whether anywhere in France, Holland, Denmark, Germany or countries adjacent to this country you will find so much agricultural land in the market as there has been in the south and west of England during the last 10 years. It is an astonishing fact that land in my constituency has been selling as low as £8 per acre. That is much lower than you can get for good land in Kenya. It is less than you pay for land in many parts of the world. Whatever the causes, the price of land is not one of them. Nor is inaccessibility

    475
    a cause. Land is available in large quantities at cheap prices.
    The main grievance against the Leader of the party below the Gangway is that he was primarily responsible for the greatest blow which was ever struck at the agricultural industry, and that is the injury that was done by the abolition of the Corn Production Act. I myself, and I believe some of my colleagues, gave a general support at the time to that Act—[Interruption]—I cannot give way to any more interruptions. I know all parties have to share the responsibility, but the primary responsibility is with the Leader of the Liberal party, who is constantly saying that no party is prepared to come to grips with the agricultural problem. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was during the War."] I know that there was a national agreement during the War. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Tory party joined in it!"] It does not matter whether the Tory party joined in it or not, because it is a fact that the Liberal Leader was the principal villain of the piece.
    We have been told that before the War we produced 23 per cent. of our food supplies and that now we are producing only about 20 per cent. The present state of arable cultivation of land in this country is testimony to the terrific decrease which has taken place in agriculture. I will not follow the remarks which were made about the naval defence of our food supplies. I will only say, in passing, that it seemed to me that the hon. Member suggested that it is possible to grow so much of our food supply in this country that it would not be necessary to provide a navy to protect it. In reply to that argument, I have no hesitation in saying that, under any circumstances, we should still have to import a large proportion of our food supplies from overseas.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton has spoken on this subject, and, if I may say so without making any invidious comparisons, he made a most instructive and instructed speech. At the end of that speech, he declared that there was something wrong with our present system and that the cultivator of the land was not getting an economic price for his produce. The right hon. Gentleman stated that that was at the root of the trouble, and that
    476
    unless you can get an economic price for your products, you cannot carry on at all. While I do not share the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton in other respects, I agree that we must get a more economic price for our agricultural products.
    The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the prosperity of the French peasants. For two successive summers I spent my holidays in a remote part of rural France, and I discovered that, although the agricultural wage earners in this country get better wages, the standard of living of the French peasant is higher than any other peasant population. You cannot go through the French country districts and see—or it is very difficult to see—a French peasant who is not well fed. They are undoubtedly prosperous, and they are saving money. There are many reasons for that, but it would be out of order for me to go into all of them. One of them is that the French peasant believes in very hard work, and he realises that the industry of agriculture demands of those who get their living by it a harder task than perhaps is demanded by any other industry with the single exception of mining. In France hard work is not merely a means to an end, but it is considered to be a fine thing in itself. I fear that that is not the policy of the Government or of the First Commissioner of Works because the right hon. Gentleman, speaking the other night on the unemployment problem, said:
    "According to the Scriptural story, work was imposed as a test, and mankind has been trying to use the brains that God Almighty gave him to get rid of the test at the earliest possible moment. I am very glad to think that mankind is slowly but surely reaching that desirable end. None of us want to go to manual labour. I ran away from it myself at the earliest possible moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1930; col. 167, Vol. 239.]
    If you want to compare the success of the French peasant system with the agricultural policy adopted in this country, you have only to realise the difference between the point of view of the French peasant and that of the First Commissioner of Works, which represents a wholly different philosophy. The French peasant has advantages which the agricultural workers of this country

    477
    have not, but it would be unfair and out of order to carry the comparison too far. One advantage which is enjoyed by the French peasant is that he has not to fight the apathy of the most urbanised people in the world towards the welfare of agriculture. The apathy of the people of this country towards agriculture is astonishing. For 25 years I have been a Member of this House, and every occasion upon which I have listened to a Debate on agriculture I have never seen the House full. I have never heard anyone deny that the agricultural industry was in a bad way, and yet years roll on and nothing is done on a big scale.
    Unless human nature changes and unless you get people to take an unselfish view, unless you get the people whom Kipling calls "the little street-bred people" to take an interest in fields which at the present moment seem to convey nothing to them except something in which to throw orange peel as they pass them in chars-a-banes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—well, not all of them, but thousands of them. As one interested in the country, I ask in Heaven's name why these people make the countryside into such an awful mess? I do not know any people who make the countryside more untidy than the British people when they go on holiday, and I only wish that they would be more tidy. Hon. Members know that we are the most urbanised people in the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who made them so?"] I should say it was the Free Trade system and as much as anything else the policy of Mr. Cobden. It is against that system that we are struggling to-day. [Interruption.] However that may be, it does not absolve the Government of the day. No Government has ever given less sympathetic attention to agriculture than the present Government has done. The only Government which has had the courage to remove from the agricultural industry the greatest burden which, in the old days, that industry had to bear—that is the rates—was a Conservative Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who interrupts me knows that perfectly well, and, if he does not know it, he should read the literature on this subject. The present Government have done nothing for agriculture, notwithstanding what they promised in their pamphlets.
    478
    We have been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the reason for all these difficulties in agriculture is one of markets and things of that kind. I have here the figures relating to co-operative societies in which hon. Members opposite are so deeply interested. There are 150 co-operative societies, and they own between them 57,978 acres, and the losses which they have made are astonishing. Those societies made a profit of £26,889, but that profit was reduced to £4,000 when the interest charges had been paid. They made losses amounting to £61,762, and the total losses reached £164,000, after allowance had been made for interest. Instead of attacking the landlords and the middlemen, surely it is worth the while of hon. Members below the Gangway to study the history of co-operative farming, which, without the intervention of the middleman and with assured markets, has made these enormous losses. Why have they made those losses? It is because under the present fiscal system of this country it is utterly impossible for arable farming to be made to pay.
    Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: I should like to bring the Committee back for a minute or two to the Vote that we are discussing, and to say at once that I rise in opposition to the reduction which has been moved. I do so because the Vote includes the provision of money for the work of the Ministry along administrative lines, and, as we have been told definitely from the other side on several occasions since the Debate commenced, this Government is but carrying out their policy, and, therefore—
    It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEXHAM) BILL (By Order.)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions which I think are appropriate to an occasion of this kind. It will be remembered that these Provisional Orders have to be confirmed by the House itself, and it will be realised that the House does not insist on having this power without very excellent reasons. There are two reasons for bringing these Bills on to the Floor of the House for discussion. The first is that it enables certain people to raise certain grievances in connection with the locality itself. I personally have no particular grievance, nor am I mixed up with any, in connection with the locality covered by this Provisional Order. There is, however, a second reason, and that is that it enables the House of Commons to watch with a jealous eye what the Minister is doing in connection with these Provisional Orders.
    I have never liked or pretended to like these Provisional Orders, and it is essential, in my view, that the Minister who makes them should come and explain, if necessary, why he is making them. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is here, and I presume that the hon. Lady intends to reply, although her name is not on the Provisional Order. I fully accept the fact that she will be able to give an adequate explanation, but, having regard to the particular circumstances of this Bill, I think it is a little ungracious of the Minister not to be in his place on this occasion to explain his own Order. I say that because this Order, as far as the Minister is concerned, deals with a most important place which is of great interest in many ways, and I think that, when an Order of this kind is before the House, the Minister of Health, if no more, ought to be present, having, if necessary, the able assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary.
    The first point that I wish to raise in connection with this Bill is in regard to the First Schedule. It will be noticed that it is there stated that, under the Act of 1888, certain powers are given for the borrowing of money, and I think that one of the things which it is essential that we should know in the House of Commons on these occasions is what are the limits of the borrowing powers of
    480
    these districts. I notice that it is stated in the Schedule that the limit of borrowing powers under the Act of 1888, which is the Act that we are now amending, is a sum not exceeding £4,000—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must recollect that this is not the Second Reading of the Bill. On the Second Reading all these matters could have been raised, but I do not think I can allow, on the Third Reading, an explanation of the meaning of the provisions of the Bill.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and, 40 Members being present—
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I was raising a point which might seem to be one of detail, but I only raise it as a point of principle in connection with the Act. I think, subject to your ruling, that I should be entitled, on the Third Reading of the Bill, to raise as a matter of principle the point that we should have some knowledge of the limit of borrowing under the powers with which we are now concerned. I should not wish to extend that to a system of general questioning, but I submit that it gives the Minister the opportunity of saying what is the exact position in regard to this general principle. I understand that there has been some sort of dispute between various people in connection with this Bill. If I understand the matter aright, that dispute has now come to a peaceful and amicable settlement, and that for that reason there has been no further opposition to the Bill. I think we ought to know from the Minister, as a point of principle, on what grounds the dispute was settled, and whether the hon. Lady is satisfied, as representing the Minister of Health, that, on the one hand, the locality got fair terms, and, on the other hand, that the various parties interested in this dispute have not in any way been oppressed by the Order or by the Minister of Health.
    There is a curious point in the Schedule, where it states that only steam motor vehicles may not be used. At the present time, on the roads of this country, it is the principle that steam motor vehicles can be used, and I should like to know if this indicates any unseen hand of the Minister of Transport or anything of that kind in endeavouring

    481
    to exclude steam vehicles from the roads in favour of petrol vehicles. I should like to emphasise very clearly that I raise these points, not in any sense in opposition to the principle of the Bill, but in protection of those very vital principles which belong to the freedom of the House of Commons, and in order to indicate that the House should have the perpetual right, on occasions when these Orders are brought forward, to raise the matter here, so that we may get a proper explanation of the position of the Minister in regard to any particular Order. For that reason I have chosen what I think is probably one of the most important and interesting Orders that we could discuss.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member again that this Bill was brought before the House for Second Reading, and that that was the time to raise these questions, and not on the Third Reading.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    CLASS VI.
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on Consideration of Question,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,332,310, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, a Grant under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, Loans to Co-operative Marketing Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants for Eradication of Tuberculosis in Cattle, Grants for Land Improvement, Grants-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and other Grants including certain Grants-in-Aid; and the Salaries and Expenses of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."
    Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,332,210, be granted for the said Service."
    Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: I was saying, when our proceedings were interrupted, that I opposed the reduction of this Vote,
    482
    and I am bound to express my surprise that such a reduction should be moved on the merits of the case. In the judgment of all quarters of the House, the administrative work of the Ministry has been carried out in so efficient and progressive a manner as to merit general approval, and, therefore, I was somewhat surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) should wish to move a reduction.
    The proceedings on this Vote provide for those of us who have come to the House of Commons from agricultural constituencies, the opportunity of expressing approval or disapproval of the Ministry's work, and I am bound to say, as a county administrator and a member of an agricultural committee for many years, that in my judgment there never was a time when the Ministry was more sympathetic or more definitely determined to associate itself with all forms of progressive work helpful to the development of the agricultural and horticultural industry in this country. It seems to me that, in such a precarious and difficult time as that through which the industry is undoubtedly passing, we cannot attach too much importance to this aspect of the work of the Ministry. It was my privilege on Saturday last to preside over a large meeting of horticulturists and fruit growers in the City of Norwich, when the Ministry's representative gave a lecture on the National Mark and methods of marketing; and, after all the doleful expressions that we have heard in this House in relation to the industry, it was refreshing on that occasion to discover a note of marked hopefulness, and almost of enthusiasm, on the horticultural side, in their determination to make the very best of the industry that is possible in existing circumstances. We were fortified very considerably by the admirable advice and guidance that the Ministry's representative was able to give.
    Not only on the administrative side of this work would one wish to make a remark or two on the horticultural aspect but I should like to comment upon the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) in regard to his somewhat unexpected attack on this side of the House in relation to the question of the public ownership of land. To many of us who

    483
    have been associated with administering the Smallholdings Act which the right hon. Gentleman's Friends passed in 1908—I have been on the Committee in my county administering that Act ever since—it was a matter of very real surprise to find him putting in a protest against the principle of the public ownership of land. We have 27,000 acres in Norfolk run under public ownership under the direct control of the county public authority and, with some 2,500 tenants, so far as the financial position is concerned, and the rentals due from time to time we have found only 2 per cent. which have been actual failures with regard to that side of the work. Having regard to the depressed condition of the industry as a whole, we who believe in the principle of public control may congratulate ourselves that at least the tenants under that system are doing as well as those who are under private ownership.
    I rather regret that we should cross swords so often in a controversial manner in regard to these two principles. It seems to me that, especially in connection with this great industry, without either party departing from its own principles and outlook, in a great national industry of this description, of its size and importance, second to none in the country, having regard to the work that those engaged in the industry did during the years between 1914 and 1918, remembering that when the men from the countryside were giving their lives, and many of their women folk were at home helping to produce food to keep the country from famine when our food ships were being sunk by submarines in many seas, we should at least be able as a national assembly to bring our minds down to the impartial task of facing this position on the bare merits of the starved condition of the industry as it exists to-day.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has appealed for a conference of all parties, and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has to-night put his veto on behalf of his party upon any such idea. One's experience of that method of approach to the problem is rather towards the feeling that, whatever Government is in power, it must take the ultimate responsibility
    484
    for any policy that is passed, and whether it fails or whether it succeeds, upon that Government the other parties will place the blame, and if possible claim the credit for themselves if it happens to be a success. It does not matter much who gets the credit or who gets the criticism. I do not suppose, whatever is done, the British farmer will ever be completely satisfied. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I do not know why not, but possibly he could give an answer if you could only get him in the mind to tell you.
    I want to associate myself with the very definite expressions on all sides of the House as to the parlous condition of the arable side of British agriculture. I should like to appeal to the Minister to see to it that the utmost elasticity is given to every administrative power he possesses to give the industry the fullest possible benefit. Notwithstanding the constant leaning of hon. Members opposite towards a certain definite reactionary policy in relation to the future, it appears to me that, if we concentrate upon the problem of securing a just, economic price for the food grown in this country, it can be achieved through marketing and control along lines which need not be accompanied by anything in the nature of a tariff. I hope, as the result of this discussion, the House will grow still more courageous in demanding at the earliest possible moment a more definite declaration of a practical character to put our industry, on the arable side especially, upon a sound financial basis.
    Major ROSS: It is clear that the hon. Member who has just spoken is engaged in the horticultural branch of agriculture, because no one could have handed a bouquet to the Minister with better grace than he has done. I wish to direct attention to a portion of the United Kingdom which is predominantly agricultural, but whose interests seldom come to the forefront of the House. Northern Ireland is an agricultural district of smallholdings. The average farm there is a small one. Eighty-five per cent. of them are under 50 acres. The farmers are not subject to a landlord. They have temporarily the State as their landlord in many cases, but they are in the process of becoming owners of their own farms. It is peculiarly situated as

    485
    regards the arable side of agriculture in that we are devoted almost entirely to two crops, oats and potatoes. The production of wheat and barley is negligible, less than 1 per cent., which is entirely consumed in Northern Ireland. The production of oats covers 340,000 acres and produces over 5,700,000 cwt., and of potatoes, 167,000 acres and over 1,100,000 tons. Agriculture in this area reached its high water mark in many parts of the country in 1918, when it had got back to the standard set in 1882 as regards the large amount of land that was under tillage. When one comes to compare that state of affairs with the state of affairs now, there is a very marked difference, because the area under tillage at present is 34 per cent. less than the area that was under cultivation in 1918. That 34 per cent. has either gone completely out of cultivation or has been turned into pasture. Most of us who are interested in agriculture deplore that this land should pass—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure what point, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in view. The Minister of Agriculture does not control agriculture in Northern Ireland. I understand that Northern Ireland has its own Minister of Agriculture and does not come under this Vote.
    Major ROSS: There is certainly a Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland, but his powers are entirely restricted to such things as he can do within the area. All questions dealing with the marketing of British agriculture as a whole, and all questions of agricultural products being sold within the United Kingdom, come under the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible to this House. I have myself formed one of deputations, exclusively Irish, who have interviewed the Minister upon the question of policy which I propose to raise as soon as I have sufficiently prepared the argument to make that matter appropriate. I am not going into any details that are touched by the Minister of Agriculture of Northern Ireland as far as I can avoid it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the point I wanted to ascertain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must confine his remarks to such matters as come
    486
    within the purview of the Minister of Agriculture responsible for this Vote.
    8.0. p.m.
    Major ROSS: Precisely, and I hope to be able to do so. The ambit of my speech is more circumscribed than that of many who have spoken, but I hope to keep within it. I should like to develop the question as to the selling price of oats and potatoes. Wheat and oats are at present selling at from 6s. to 7s. a quarter, compared with 8s. to 9s. last year, and in 1925 up to 9s. 11d. Potatoes, which cost £3 a ton to produce, are practically unsaleable. They are selling at £1 to £1 10s. if they are sold at, all. It must work out at a crushing loss of something like £14 an acre, because you require to spend a large amount in wages in the production of potatoes. Those farmers who have bought their seeds and manures on credit, having been unable to sell these two products of their industry, are in a very desperate position. The question as to the sale of these commodities is one which the Minister can do very much to improve, and it is in order to bring to his notice some of the ways in which I think he can help matters that I am addressing the Committee. I do not know whether the question of the importation of oats from the Continent has been alluded to as fully as it deserves, because to the oat-producing districts it is a matter of extreme seriousness. You have, as regards the consumption of oats, a smaller quantity required nearly every year, because, oats being used not so much for human consumption as for food for horses, as horses go off the road and are replaced by motors, the demand for oats gradually decreases; and it ought to be the particular care of the Minister of Agriculture to take every step to support the price of oats, bearing in mind also that there are many areas where only oats can be grown. Being the hardiest of all our cereals, you are often precluded on bad lands and in high country from growing anything else. It is rather a serious situation when one considers that for 1 cwt. of German oats imported in 1927 something like 16 cwts. are imported now.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am still unable to connect the hon. and gallant Member's speech with the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.
    Major ROSS: It surely has this connection, that, as regards the importation of any agricultural commodity into the United Kingdom, it can go without any interference from one part of it to another, because the whole area of the United Kingdom is a fiscal entity, and therefore it is impossible for the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland to take any independent step in that matter. I was going to inquire—and with hopes that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say something about this later—as to how far he is working in liaison with the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and how far the two Ministries are working hand in hand to protect the interests of the people in Northern Ireland who are engaged in arable agriculture from the very serious disadvantages which they are facing.
    In addition to the importation of oats, there is the question of potatoes. I am saved the trouble of dealing at any great length with that question, because the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Blindell) dealt quite adequately with that question, and so I hesitate to address myself to that topic beyond saying this, that I think it is a subject for just criticism of the Minister's method of dealing with the subject that he has been so markedly unsuccessful in his negotiations with Canada and the United States of America. While in this country potatoes were selling at from 10s. to £1 per ton, as I understand it, in Canada and the United States the price of potatoes had risen to something like £18 a ton, and the British grower was precluded from importing potatoes into those countries because there was an absolute prohibition upon them. I would like to know whether it was not possible, by some bargaining method, to have got that prohibition relaxed. I know the Minister engaged in negotiations and made representations on that topic, but were they made with sufficient force, and were we not able to bargain a little better to try to get this prohibition modified, at all events in respect of those potatoes which could be certified by the Government of this country as being free from any taint or possibility of infection?
    I will also ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little strict in his own exercise of prohibitions on imported foreign potatoes. It is very hard for anyone not connected with imported
    488
    potatoes to know whether or not they are infected cargoes, but there seems to be a certain amount of potato disease in France and some other countries, and practically never do we hear of orders being severely carried out to keep foreign potatoes from our markets. I cannot, as I would like, allude to the legislative measures which I think would be desirable to improve the lot of the farming community, but I think more might be done by administrative action in order to prevent the market for oats being flooded by oats produced under a bounty-fed system. A very small extra quantity of oats put on our congested market must produce a supply exceeding the demand, and that is why the price has dropped in such a catastrophic way. I would also urge the right hon. Gentleman to make further efforts, with the assistance of other Members of the Government, to prevent British potatoes being shut out from the American markets in the way that they have been this year.
    Mr. SANDERS: I take part in this Debate as an urbanized citizen with some trepidation, but my excuse is that I think, with hon. and right hon. Members opposite, that this subject is one of the utmost importance to the welfare of our country, and I want to assure them that, whatever they may think of us generally as politicians, we are as much interested as they are in endeavouring to make agriculture a subject of interest to the mass of our fellow-countrymen. We have had to study, not only the present circumstances of the mass of the people whom we represent, but also the history of the efforts that have placed the mass of the people in the position they occupy to-day, and one of the things that we regret most in the history of those people is the fact that we have allowed what are sometimes, I think, wrongly called economic laws, but which might be more rightly described as economic caprice, totally to upset the proper balance in our population.
    We realise that if we had a proper balance between agriculture and industry we should not have to face such a tremendous problem as we are having to face now in regard to unemployment in our industrial areas. I want especially to point out that the problems were neither created, nor neglected when

    489
    created, by the party to which I belong. I do not want to bandy history across the Floor of the House, but we are an entirely new party, and probably an inexperienced party, and we cannot accept responsibility for the creation of the problems that we have to face. We can only accept responsibility for doing our best to solve them according to our strength and power.
    I do not know that I should be in order in referring to certain remarks that were made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I was sorry that that speech at times took on a tone with which we on this side of the House are sometimes inclined to be irritated. The greater part of that speech, to which I listened with great attention, was a most interesting and valuable analysis of the agricultural situation, shot through occasionally with very special knowledge of the subject, but he did digress into the realm of party strife when he accused us on this side, in the person of the Minister of Agriculture, with not, in 12 months, keeping all the pledges and promises which we have given to the agricultural regions. I agree that to say "You are another" does not make an altogether good reply, but I would point out that the agricultural interest was definitely promised, by the other side, the protection of Safeguarding, and when they were asked in this House why they did not apply it, the predecessor of my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench said that the reason was that the farmer would use it in order to raise prices.
    Captain BRISCOE: When was the farmer promised Safeguarding?
    Mr. SANDERS: I do not want to take up time with purely party polemics, but if the hon. and gallant Member doubts my word, I would refer him to the "Morning Post" of the 14th September, 1927. I would refer him also to the "Yorkshire Post" of 15th July, 1927, when there was a statement to the effect that Mr. Baldwin's address contained also a passage promising Safeguarding or analogous measures to any industry imperilled by unfair foreign competition, agriculture not being excluded.
    Captain BRISCOE: That was the opinion of the paper and not of Mr. Baldwin.
    Mr. SANDERS: I do not think that the "Yorkshire Post" would be likely to
    490
    misrepresent Mr. Baldwin. I do not want to pursue this matter. Although I think with some of the other speakers that you cannot eradicate political party feeling from the discussion of any economic question, I do not want to continue my speech on those lines, but I am willing to quote at considerable length from documents which I have in my possession if hon. Members doubt my word. If they accept the views expressed by their journals with regard to the responsibility of the party, I will continue to deal with my subject. [An HON MEMBER: "No, we do not!"] I have nothing more to say, if hon. Members do not accept what their own journals say with regard to the responsibility of the leader of their party.
    I want to say something of a constructive kind, if it is possible for a townsman to speak constructively on agriculture. I started out in life as a farmer's boy at the age of 11, and I suppose that because for a few months I occupied that lowly position I have never lost entirely my interest in this depressed industry of our country. As an Englishman who loves what is probably the most beautiful countryside to be found in any part of the world, at least as far as I have visited other parts of the world, one is naturally anxious that as many people as possible should live in those beautiful surroundings under proper conditions. We know that in order that they should be able to do that it is essential that there shall be a flourishing agricultural industry which can suport them and which they can support by their labour.
    I consider that certain speakers on the other side have not done justice to the importance of the question of marketing, which, I admit, was very largely promoted by the party opposite when they were in power, and which our party have recognised by endeavouring as far as possible to extend the beginnings which they made. I want to say, as a student not only of the countryside but of London marketing, that there is still an enormous amount of work to be done which I believe would be of the greatest practical value to the industry. I live in an industrial constituency. It is not one of the poorest of the industrial, constituencies. It has an excellent market. It is a place where, both in regard to shop and outdoor marketing, large crowds are attracted from other

    491
    boroughs of London on account of the comparative cheapness of the goods that can be obtained there. There is one thing I notice as a social student, that much of the foreign produce which is brought in—I agree not often produce of the same kind that we grow in this country—is made exceedingly attractive by the care with which it is packed and displayed both by the producers and by the sellers. That is not true to the same extent of English produce, especially in regard to fruit. I can assure the Minister of Agriculture that if he can get the growers of fruit to take as much interest, as do some of the foreign producers, in making what they sell attractive, it would have a great effect upon that side of the agricultural industry.
    Let me take another item, because I wish to be practical. I am, like most Englishmen, a man who prefers to have a bacon breakfast 365 days out of the 365. I have tried personally and my wife has tried all over my district to find any place on certain days where we could obtain a single piece of English bacon. It is not a question of price and it is not a question of price with many of my friends, but English bacon cannot be obtained. Why, I do not know. Is it because the price will not attract the retailer? Is it because there is insufficient publicity with regard to the virtues of this bacon, which is infinitely superior, in my opinion, to any bacon which comes from other countries? If the line is pursued by the Minister of Agriculture of encouraging the fanner and the agricultural producer generally to take more interest in the marketing and advertising of his goods, I believe we shall have a considerable improvement in the condition of our agricultural industry.
    We hear a great deal about what is called an economic price. I think that whatever you may do you will never be able to ensure an economic price for long unless you keep the quality up to what people expect at that price, whatever artificial aid you may bring in. One of the first factors in securing an economic price is to make the article worth the economic price you expect to get for it. One of the ways of getting that economic price is to assist the Minister of Agriculture in his efforts to improve the marketing methods of the British farmer and the British producer of food.
    Major BRAITHWAITE: I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture has returned to his place in the Committee. I should like to address a few remarks to him, particularly in connection with arable agriculture. I think he has wasted one of the most golden opportunities that a Minister of the Crown has ever had in the history of British farming of getting agriculture put on to a sound basis. He has got on this side of the House great sympathy with agriculture, and he has got in his own party lip service to agriculture which, at any rate, pretends to be something. [HON. MEMBERS: "Pretends!"] Definite statements have been made by hon. Members on the other side of their desire to help agriculture. It is a well known fact that on this side everyone will go out of his way to do everything possible to assist the agricultural industry. Surely, a combination of these circumstances formed a most golden opportunity for the Minister to have done something definite and positive. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did your Government do?"] I am taking no credit for anything that has gone before. The Governments of this country, all of them, have let down the farmer very badly, and the last Government was no exception to the rule. The position to-day has entirely altered. Here you have three-fourth of this House undoubtedly sympathetic towards agriculture, and ready to give a big and generous measure of assistance to that great industry, and yet we have had a year of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Agriculture, and, beyond a very few small details of agricultural policy, we have seen nothing on a big scale to assist agriculture.
    I want to give the right hon. Gentleman and his Department full credit for what has been done in connection with marketing. I believe that the national mark applied to articles produced in this country has been a very great inducement to a larger sale of those particular commodities, and I hope that no pains will be spared to extend the scope of that national mark over a very much wider range of commodities than at the present time. Members on the other side say that farming must be made to pay, but after a year of the present Government farming is in a very much worse position to pay than it was when they took office. The conditions have been

    493
    greatly aggravated by the lack of policy, and there has been lost a great deal of confidence that there was in the industry a year ago. In my own Division, which represents 800 square miles of Yorkshire, and where we grow the largest amount of wheat that is grown in any constituency, conditions are unparalleled in the history of the industry. I have had 1,000 agricultural workers out of employment practically the entire winter. These men have no unemployment pay. They have trudged through the snow and mud scores of miles to draw their provision from the Poor Law officer. They have lived under wretched conditions, and even to-day, when every agriculturist ought to be fully employed, they are not back again in their jobs.
    I want to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Dallas) for the work he has done up and down the country during the past few months in trying to create a greater interest in the towns in the deplorable state of arable farming. He has rendered great service, and the people in my constituency appreciate what he has done in trying to ventilate some of the troubles which the arable agricultural industry is passing through. The condition of the industry seems strange seeing that we have probably the greatest market in the world for foodstuffs, and we have a tremendous population who require the bulk of the things that we produce in this country, and who are sympathetic towards the agriculturists in the main. And we have, admittedly, some of the finest farmers and farm workers that the world has yet produced. If you want to see the work of our farmers and you go to the newer countries, the Colonies and Dominions, you will find that the British farmer there is holding his own against every other class of farmer in the world. The farmers at home are the stock from which those farmers come; they know their job and are very capable. Therefore, it must be something altogether outside their control which makes it impossible to-day to run arable agriculture on economic lines.
    I am afraid that different Governments have done their share towards hampering and handicapping the arable farmer. Today, there is the eight-hour day in arable farming. I am a believer in a short working week, but in my opinion there will
    494
    have to be a good deal more give and take between the farmer and his men if we are ever going to get back to a practical way of running arable agriculture. It is not a practical proposition to run an eight-hour day all through the year. Many times an eight-hour day is too long. You cannot work eight hours, but there are many days when it is necessary to start earlier and work later. In that direction I feel that the Minister might make a gesture to the industry by encouraging a little more give and take between the farmer and his farm workers, without its operating to the disadvantage of either of them. To quote an example: when the harvest comes along and there has been a heavy dew, it is impossible to get the machines to work until the sun is out and the corn has dried enough to be cut. On such an occasion it ought to be reasonable to work a little longer at the end of the day.
    Mr. ALPASS: There is nothing to prevent that.
    Major BRAITHWAITE: Yes, at the present time it does not operate that way. I am reminded that one could go longer if one paid overtime. I agree, but paying overtime does not give you a greater crop yield or a greater revenue for the farmer. Consequently, that would act adversely against the farm worker. Hon. Members opposite who have studied this question closely must realise that the prosperity of the farm worker is bound up with the prosperity of the farmer. If neither of them is prosperous, there is no health in the industry. If the farmer is prosperous he can afford to carry his man along with him, and he can afford to be more generous in every possible way than is the case at the present time.
    I want to make some definite suggestions to the Minister in the hope that during the next few months he will do something to save arable agriculture from the distressing condition into which it got last harvest time. We are getting along in the new year. The crop is now sown, and some preparations ought to be afoot now with a view to marketing the crop when it comes along. I can see in my constituency hundreds and hundreds of stacks of corn that have not been thrashed from last year's harvest and unless something is done, and done now, we

    495
    shall find the same bad conditions in arable agriculture at the end of this year that we had last year. Is it not possible for the Minister to do something about the quota in connection with British milled wheat, without having to resort to extensive legislation?
    The millers of this country have been selfish and soulless people towards the British farmers in these last few years. They built up their fortunes very largely out of the work of the British farmer, and having got their money together they transferred it in huge blocks to the ports and now it is more convenient to take a great shipload of grain alongside the mill and to grind it into flour there, than it is to help the British farmer by taking his wheat crop. In the main, these large millers have deliberately gone out to buy up and to close up the country mills that used to take the product of our arable land, and thereby they have taken from the farmers of this country the great outlets that they used to have for a very large proportion of their crop. Seeing that these people whose livelihood depends upon the British public eating their flour, there ought to be some way for the Minister to induce them to take a proper and respectable quota of British wheat in the flour that they mill and sell to the public.
    Three or four years ago I introduced a private Member's Bill, which unfortunately never got beyond a First Reading. It set out, on the advice of millers and the National Farmers' Union, the percentage of British wheat which could be milled in flour without doing any damage to the loaf. It got no further, and it was only in the last Parliament that the Minister of Agriculture agreed to incorporate the principles of that Bill in the Army contracts for flour and meat. I was disappointed that the present Minister of Agriculture did not go on with those principles in Army contracts. They would not have done anyone any harm and they certainly would have done a great deal of good to the farmers of the country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that it was not very wise to cancel those provisions and will do what he can to restore this small market to our farmers.
    I want to ask the Government generally whether they do not consider that agricultural workers are quite as deserving
    496
    as miners. They are prepared to go out of their way to legislate to ensure that the miner has proper and reasonable wages and hours of work. Do they not think that they should also do something for the agricultural worker to stabilise his position? It is not fair to heap all the benefits of Government legislation on to one particular section of the community to the total exclusion of another, and I put this plea forward on behalf of the agricultural worker, who has to work just as hard and just as long and must have quite as much general knowledge as the miner in carrying out his particular job. I ask for him the same generous terms which the Government are giving to another section of the community.
    There is a great future for British agriculture if we tackle it properly on big lines. We are confronted with the problem of unemployment which is baffling the best brains of the country and yet, staring us in the face, is a possible field for the employment of a further 500,000 men on the land if we tackled it in a sensible way. It is about time that we dropped talking pious platitudes and settled down to a real programme irrespective of party politics. I do not see in the attitude of the Government any desire to do anything on a large scale for agriculture. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us something about the conferences he has had during the past few months. After all, there is nothing secret about them, and surely we ought to be in possession of the information which is likely to guide agricultural politics for the next year or two. If there is anything that is likely to Dome along which is going to give even a shred of optimism surely it should be disclosed now so that people can go along with more confidence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in my opinion, has done a very grievous harm to agriculture in his attack on the landlords of the country in the Budget. This policy of preventing companies being formed for the exploitation of farming is quite erroneous and utterly wrong. If it is to deal with tax evasion I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I do not see why a company should not operate agriculture in the same way as any other industry. The provisions in the Budget are directed strongly against the industry.

    497
    On the Vote for the salary of the Lord Privy Seal I made a suggestion that we should encourage the sale of home-grown and Empire-grown commodities. I venture to repeat that suggestion now to the Minister of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman has had considerable success with the national mark, which has created larger sales in particular commodities. The first week after British meat was marked with the national mark sales went up in Smithfield Market 6y 30 per cent. Surely that is something which we should encourage. I want to go a little further; I want to make patriotism pay. I want to make it possible, if a person is prepared to go out of his way and buy home products or Imperial products, that he should have some benefit for so doing as against the person who spends his money on any sort of product from any other part of the world. We should do something on the same lines as co-operative societies; that when you buy over the counter a certain article which has the national mark, which is the product of British labour, that you should receive with the receipt for that article some sort of coupon which would be useful and might be used in the same way as a co-operative dividend scrip—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is getting very near to legislation, and it is not in order to discuss legislation on this Vote.
    Major BRAITHWAITE: I am very sorry, but I am full of enthusiasm for the development of the sale of home produce and anything we can do in that direction should be done. May I pay a tribute to the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture for the way in which they have carried on their work? The amount of research and information which they have collected has been most useful to farmers all over the country, and I am satisfied that the Ministry has got together a very efficient and capable staff.
    Just one purely personal matter relating to my own constituency. The Minister of Agriculture made a grant to the Bridlington Harbour Commissioners for the erection of a new pier and fish docks The amount was about £7,000; but in order to carry out the work £11,500 was needed. The Harbour Commissioners had £4,000 in reserve, but the Minister refused to allow them to use it because
    498
    they said that if the pier was blown down in a storm the Commissioners would not be able to rebuild and they must, therefore, carry this amount as reserve. Consequently, they have had to go outside and borrow £3,000 upon which they have to pay substantial interest. This has necessitated their asking for higher harbour dues, which is operating unfairly amongst the fishermen who depend for their livelihood on work in the harbour. To quote an example, before the War it used to cost them 5s. a year to keep a small coble boat in the harbour. It was raised to 35s., but now, owing to this new borrowing, they are charging the fishermen of Bridlington Harbour a year. That is nearly 100 per cent. more simply because they have had to borrow this £3,000. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has considerable sympathy with the small harbours of the country. I hope the Minister will see that any moneys lent by the Government to these harbours do not result in extra charges to the fishermen, who are really very poor people. At Bridlington we have not the advantages of a railway line alongside the harbour. There is cartage to the station to get the goods away, and a good deal of extra expense that has not to be incurred by other harbours. I hope the Minister will try to do something so that the Commissioners at Bridlington can either use the money that they have or obtain an increased grant, and thus be able to operate the harbour on the basis of the same rates as those hitherto paid.
    Finally, I would remind the Committee that we are past the time for paying lip service to agriculture. It is time that we got down to the doing of something really practical. Hundreds of thousands of acres are annually going out of cultivation. It is not a bit of good passing on pious platitudes about what we are going to do. Let us get down to the problem now and give the farmer some direct hope that this House intends to see fair play given to him. Let the farmer know that this House is determined that he shall have a chance to work the industry economically, to keep employed those people who are on the land, and to reabsorb many of those who have migrated to the towns. On those lines I am certain that the Government will find a better opportunity for the solution of the problem of unemployment,

    499
    and on those lines he will find many on these benches who will be glad to help him in his efforts.
    Mr. KEDWARD: There was once a doctor who had considerable difficulty in getting in his accounts. Money was tight and people could not or would not pay. One day he was driving in the country and met a farmer who had owed him money for years, and he suggested that the farmer might do something towards liquidating the debt. The farmer replied, "I am very sorry. I am very hard up. Money is very tight and we have had a very rough time. But I will tell you what I will do. I will send you a wagon load of hay. You keep horses and you can take the value of the hay off your account." It was agreed, and a few days later the doctor was very surprised to see a wagon load of hay upset outside his house. A small boy was working very hard with a pitchfork putting the hay back into the wagon. The doctor said, "Hallo, little man, you have had an accident." The boy replied, "Yes, sir." "You look very small and tired. Go to the kitchen and get some refreshment," the doctor continued. The boy replied, "No, thanks. I would, but I do not know what my father would say." "Your father would not mind," the doctor continued. "I will not go; I do not know what my father will say" was the reply again. At last, very reluctantly, the boy consented, but all the time he was partaking of the refreshment he kept repeating, "I am sure I do not know what my father will say." "Where is your father?" asked the doctor. "Under the hay" said the boy.
    I think it is perfectly true to say that the farmers to-day are under the hay. They are ground down beneath the iron heel of a depression which has persisted during a long period of years. I am hoping that the Minister of Agriculture will be able by his conduct at the Ministry and by his suggestions to do something to bring a gleam of daylight to the agricultural community. I want to address to him one or two questions on rather minor matters, though they are matters of very great importance to agriculture. I want to know whether the Ministry has ever initiated any prosecutions under the Act of Parliament dealing with rings, and whether the Ministry
    500
    is satisfied that the Act is being carried out properly in the markets of this country. From my own observation I should say that the rings persist to-day just as much as ever. Let anyone who doubts go to any market. I understand what I am talking about. Anyone can see the rigging of the price to suit certain people, and the cheating of the farmer and the agriculturist out of the real value of the things that they have to sell. There is the mock auction and the dividing of the profits afterwards. I can see it with my own eyes, but no one seems to take any particular interest in the matter. I wonder whether the Ministry is satisfied with the working of that Act, and whether there are any inspectors who attend markets for the purpose of detecting this sort of thing? I feel sure that if we could have the administration tightened up a great deal could be done to help farmers to obtain real value for their goods.
    The next question relates to short-term credit. The Government are doing a great deal to help trade in other ways, but farmers are subject to considerable pressure from the banks to reduce overdrafts, and many of them are greatly worried because at this period of the year, before the harvest, they cannot reduce the overdrafts. I was wondering whether something could not be done to make short-term credit a real help to the farmer. Many farmers are under-capitalised; they have not the money to buy stock or to deal with the land properly. It seemed to me that if we give credit to other industries and trades we might render a very real help to farmers by means of short-term credit. Then there is the question of tithe rent charge. Some time ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he would be prepared to to include in the agricultural conference a representative of the tithe-payers. Unfortunately he did not see his way to accede to that request. A tremendous burden was cast upon agriculture by the Tithe Rent Act of 1925. The Conservatives never dealt a greater blow to agriculture than when they passed that Act and fastened an annual charge of from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 on the land of this country, making, instead of a movable charge that went up and down with prices, a fixed charge upon agriculture. £105 or £100 tithe, with £4 10s. per cent. redemption, is

    501
    fastened on agriculture at the present time, so that in a number of years there will come out of the agriculture of this country a capital sum of between £70,000,000 and £75,000,000 for Queen Anne's bounty.
    The time has come when we should have some inquiry by the Ministry as to the incidence of tithe and its working. The day has passed when the farmers are prepared to go on carrying a burden and a charge which does not and cannot issue out of the land on which it is charged. In my own constituency there is pasture land, hopland in days gone by, now carrying that heavy burden. Many men who bought the land just after the War at high prices now find that under the operation of the Act tithe rent charge is practically double what it was when they purchased their holdings. That is something that needs to be very carefully reviewed. I hope I shall not have appealed in vain to the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture for an inquiry into this most urgent problem.
    Every week, farmers are being brought into the County Courts and some of them are allowing land to become derelict sooner than face a tithe rent charge of from 6s. to 10s. and 12s. an acre. I know that the reply is made that the charge was on the land when the farmer bought it and that he knew it was there, but I ask what sort of property is this, which neither rises nor falls? It is a better security than War Loan. It does not even fluctuate. In every other country in the world tithe rent charge has disappeared; this is the only country where it persists. An hon. Member above the Gangway shakes his head. But I am stating as a fact that tithe rent charge on agriculture has disappeared from every country except ours. In other days it applied not only to agriculture but to professions and industries. Agriculture alone is now called upon to carry this very heavy load and to be relieved from this burden of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 annually would be a great gain to agriculture. If the Minister cannot see his way to set up a committee to inquire into this question—I know there are already many committees—I ask him to receive a deputation from these people who have a real grievance and to see if it is not possible, at any rate, to lighten
    502
    the burden. The. Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) made a statement which is liable to create a very erroneous impression if it is allowed to go unchallenged. He conveyed the impression that the average value of agricultural land in this country had fallen to about £8 an acre.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I on behalf of my Noble Friend correct that impression. I am sure he never meant to say anything of the kind, nor did I understand him to say so. What he said was that there were cases in which the value of agricultural land had fallen as low as £8, but that is not saying that the average is £8 an acre.
    Mr. KEDWARD: I then rose and put a definite question to him and asked him if he maintained that that was the average price and his retort to me was that if I bought some land I would know more of what I was talking about. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Evidently hon. Members above the Gangway think that they have the monopoly of the intelligence as well as of the land of this country. That is in keeping with the Noble Lord's arrogance in suggesting that nobody could own land but a Tory and that nobody could know anything about the price of land but a Tory Earl. I think that in mentioning the price of £8 an acre he was probably referring to bog land in Ireland.
    Mr. BUTLER: I not only heard what the Noble Lord said but I know for myself that it is possible to find even good agricultural land selling at £10 and under and to have the buildings and farm-house thrown in as well.
    Mr. KEDWARD: I know there are cases of that kind but to suggest that that is general or that it is anything like an average is wholly mistaken. I could give cases of farms which I purchased recently on the break-up of an estate in Kent, where comparatively light sandy land has sold at from £18 to £20 an acre. Every tenant who has purchased his holding knows what the price of land is to-day and to suggest that good agricultural land and buildings could be purchased in this country for such a price as £8 an acre, and that that is an average price, is nothing but sheer exaggeration.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It was not suggested.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. KEDWARD: I say that it was suggested. And when hon. Members read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow they will see whether I am correct or not. I rose in my place and asked the Noble Lord specifically whether he intended to convey that impression, and his impudent retort to me was, that if I bought any land myself I, or my leader, might know something about it. That impudent suggestion was worthy of the source from which it came. There are one or two matters of detail to which I would invite the attention of the Minister. One is the question of the rapidity with which the inspectors of the Ministry are enabled to deal with cases of swine fever. One or two cases have occurred in my constituency in which there has been great delay. [Laughter.] Hon. Members above the Gangway seem to know a, great deal about this subject. It is a very important matter and one which agricultural people who have suffered great losses by it do not regard as a laughing matter. The complaint is that many of the Ministry's officials who deal with these cases are not on the telephone, and in a scattered district, a man who suspects that there is a case of the disease in his herd, may have great difficulty in getting in touch with the proper official. I know of one case in which the official was not on the telephone and a man who suspected a case of swine fever in a herd had to undertake a considerable journey to find the inspector. By the time he had reported the case and steps had been taken to make an examination, 200 or 300 pigs had been infected. Had the official been on the telephone it is possible that 250 or more might have been saved. It would be a good thing if the officials of the Ministry in the various counties who deal with these matters were within reach by telephonic communication.
    Various suggestions have been made from time to time for helping agriculture, but I think it will be found that the key to the situation lies in wheat growing. We can never deal effectively with the agricultural situation unless we are prepared to deal with wheat. More than any other crop it influences all branches
    504
    of agriculture, both directly and indirectly, and the peril to agriculture arises from the fact that much of the wheat land is going into grass or is being used for the growing of potatoes. We get over-production in other branches of the industry, but if we could deal with wheat and put wheat-growing on a sound basis, it would correct a great deal of over-production, both of potatoes and of milk, and would also help in regard to rotation and methods of cultivation generally. How can this be done? I do not know if the Minister is prepared to appoint a committee to consider the possibility of giving the farmer a price for his wheat which would compensate him for growing it. Suggestions have been made that the bread for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force should be made from British milled wheat. I think, quite frankly, that was a valuable suggestion, but as a remedy it does not go far enough. We shall have to come to the question of getting millers to take anything up to 15 per cent. of British wheat, and if there is chemically-treated flour coming into this country, as I understand there is, in fairly large quantities, I hope the Minister will deal with that matter, if he has the necessary power to do so.
    Mr. DALLAS: That is a, very valuable suggestion, and it has been made already from the benches where the hon. Member sits. May I ask him whether he is speaking officially for his own party? Are we to take it that is his party's point of view?
    Mr. KEDWARD: I am speaking as an agriculturist—as one who was born in agriculture and represents an agricultural constituency. I am putting purely my own point of view, which I shall continue to put as long as I am a Member of this House. Despite what the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said about conferences, all the while lauding to the skies the partisanship point of view, there are still a number of people in this House who are prepared to deal with agriculture aside from party prejudices; and if the Minister would deal with this question of wheat he need have no fear of anything. If only we could deal with the use of chemically-treated flour and bring our own wheat to our mills, we should secure a supply of offal for our farms which

    505
    would help those engaged in stock raising, help dairy farmers and others, and, incidentally, give employment to a larger number of men at the mills, while at the same time that policy could not be of the slightest detriment to the consumers of bread in this country. References have been made to the subsidy which was given to agriculture in the past, but that was a subsidy given without a limit and in a wrong way, being based on the acreage of the land and not on the quality of the grain, and the subsidy broke down under a Tory Minister of Agriculture because of the terrific burden it imposed upon the taxpayers.
    Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: May I ask the hon. Member whether he would support a policy to give a guaranteed price, based on the cost of production, for wheat grown in this country
    Mr. KEDWARD: Certainly I would. I suggest that the Minister should confer with those concerned to see whether it is possible to fix the price of wheat at, say, 55s. a quarter. If he could induce millers to take 15 per cent. increasing up to 20 per cent., of British wheat at 55s. a quarter, leaving them free to buy the rest of their wheat at world prices, as cheaply as they could, while the consumer would not have to pay any more for his bread the agriculturist would get an adequate return on the capital he had invested in the land. That would be a valuable suggestion for a conference if one could be brought about. The Noble Lord suggested that we should all go into the conference with our minds hermetically sealed, viewing things merely from our own particular angle, but the condition of things is too serious for that. There are men of good will who wish to see the countryside revived and feel it is necessary that something should be done, and if we could get those men together, we could find a basis for the revival of agriculture. Of course there will be cries of "subsidy." There are a number of hon. Members round me who objected to the subsidy on sugar beet. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member may say "Hear, hear!" but the fact remains that although that subsidy cost a good deal it had the effect of reducing the price of sugar, and the consumers in this country have received in direct benefit five times the amount of the subsidy which has been paid. [Interruption.] You cannot get away
    506
    from those figures. They are there for anybody to see. I have them here in a schedule, but I am not proposing—
    The CHAIRMAN: We must not discuss the sugar beet Vote.
    Mr. KEDWARD: I was under the impression that sugar beet was included in this Estimate.
    The CHAIRMAN: No. At the beginning of the Debate I said there was another Vote dealing with the sugar beet subsidy, and we must not discuss it now.
    Mr. KEDWARD: I am sorry; I was under a misapprehension. I hope the Ministry will give attention to the few points I have raised, and will try to respond to the invitation which has been given from all quarters of the House to bring us together to see if we cannot find a common policy for the lifting of agricultural depression and the restarting of prosperity in the countryside.
    Mr. GOULD: The Debate so far marks a very substantial advance on any previous Debates on agriculture in this House which I can remember. The general unity of parties and the fact that on all sides there is a desire to make this industry one of our big, basic profitable industries is a marked feature of the Debate. I am glad that it is at last recognised that we on this side of the House take an intelligent interest in this industry. It is questionable whether on any side of the House there is a full appreciation of the tremendous possibilities lying dormant in the industry. The call is imperative. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), speaking for the official Opposition, made an observation regarding the urban mind of the House of Commons with which I am in total agreement, though it is rarely that I can agree with him. Throughout the last 10 years of Parliamentary Debate and Parliamentary effort, both from the administrative and the legislative point of view, the urban mind has dominated the House and taken far too full a measure of time. That could be proved.
    The old country is not played out, and it is wise to take stock when we come to a period like the present. It may be questioned whether we shall recapture industrial markets to any very large extent, but I believe that there are markets to recapture. A new force and a new

    507
    factor are operating in the World. It will be generally agreed that with the new world in the East just beginning to industrialise its machines, and with the secondary industries developing in our Dominions, there is a whole new set of forces and factors at work which make a new outlook for this country, and which ought to give a new prominence to agriculture if agriculture is to be put in its relative place in these islands. By that I mean that I regard our industrial expansion as stabilised, if not declining and contracting, and we ought to look at the great potential possibilities in the agricultural world to see whether or not we cannot make a big advance to put this industry on a now basis and give it some fresh security and its proper place in the life of the community. That is the premise from which we should work.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made the suggestion that there ought to be an effort to try and find a common foundation on which we could settle a basis for agriculture. I was sorry to hear the Noble Lord decry it and say that they are not willing, and that no solution can be found except on a one party basis. I have yet to find the basis on which any party legislation will have continuity for 10 years. The position of the great industry of agriculture, employing over 1,000,000 workers and with at least 40,000 idle waiting to be reabsorbed, is a national emergency that demands that all men of goodwill should come in, irrespective of party label or doctrine, to see whether they cannot get an agreed policy in order to give the industry stability, security and some prospect for the future. If I were to give my voice or vote on behalf of this party, I would be prepared to say to the leaders, "Go in and see how far you can get out of it a mutually agreed policy so that this industry can lift its head again with some sense of security." I realise that in debating this issue there are three or four industries within agriculture. I come from the smiling county of Somerset, and if hon. Members want a holiday, they should go down there. We will give them rest, Cheddar cheese and cider—[An HON. MEMBER: "Free?"] Yes, if hon. Members will call at my house, but do not come in groups.
    508
    I regard the milk and dairying part of the industry in relation to arable cultivation. I regard meat as one industry, milk and dairying as another, and arable cultivation as a third. Whenever there is depression in arable cultivation and land is put down to pasture, the milk and dairying section is increased, and sooner or later there is a glut and a falling market, and an industry, which otherwise would have had some security and some economic basis, is broken. That is exactly what will happen in the fall of this year in milk and dairying. In the coming negotiations between the negotiating committee of the Farmers Union and the big combines, the combines will barter with the possibility of big surpluses in milk production, and they will have in their hands a weapon which will break the economic basis of milk and dairy farming, and which will be to the detriment of that large section of agriculture in the south west of England. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an indication that the marketing proposals will be available to-night, for they will give some sense of security to this section of the industry.
    With regard to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward). I cannot speak on behalf of the farmer, but I have worked on a bakery committee for a long time, and I know how the sales of a big bakery fluctuate according to the quality, texture and colour of the cottage loaf. I have seen a drop of 10 sacks one morning, and a drop of another 10 sacks next morning. Inquiry at the bakery revealed that a certain flour was being used out of proportion, and the buying public had a prejudice against this; and a little round white loaf had been put on the market by a competitor. I do not believe that that is a problem beyond solution. I stand firmly on the principle that there should be a quota of British wheat by compulsion, so that a keen competitor should not be allowed to come out with his little white loaf to cut out those who desire to do a fair deal with British products. I do not believe it is beyond the mind of the miller and the science of the miller to make British wheat as palatable and as saleable as Argentine, Canadian and Australian wheat. If an announcement on those lines could be made, it would have a wholesome effect

    509
    on arable cultivation. I congratulate the Minister on his marking proposals for wheat and flour, and the acceleration of egg production. That is all to the good. I believe that administratively the Minister has justified all the confidence we have in him. With the party system in this House it is impossible for him to embark on the legislative proposals we should desire.
    In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister three things. Will he at least consider a quota of British wheat for British milling and bread baking; will he ask his colleague the Postmaster-General whether the telephone service cannot be more liberally granted to rural communities and farmers, and can cheap money be afforded? Hon. Members may ask why there should be cheap money for agriculture rather than other industries. I do not want to differentiate, but when you have an industry depleted and broken, I am not so tied to any philosophy that I could not go to a Minister and urge that, with the power of the House of Commons and the country's credit at his back, the best possible credit facilities should be arranged at the cheapest rates possible. I believe that is due to the industry in order to enable it to pass from this transitional period. Along those lines I particularly congratulate the Minister on the work he has done. I believe he is still hoping to bring in a marketing Bill—though that is outside the scope of discussion to-night—and I want to assure him of the very sound and solid backing of these benches in any legislative proposals he cares to bring in, and in the further administrative proposals which I know he is anxious to carry through.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I am quite sure that the Committee has listened with interest to the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Gould). I want to make one observation with reference to his remarks. As a Committee we have been learning a good deal as to the inner mind of the Socialist party in relation to this question of agriculture. Up to the present it has been generally assumed, and there has been good reason for the assumption, that the inner mind of hon. Members opposite has been concentrated on one solution, and one only, for the agricultural problem, namely, the solution of nationalisation. This is rather remarkable,
    510
    although I am aware that a full dilation on that particular policy would not be in order to-day. It is a welcome sign that there are hon. Members on the other side who are becoming fully aware that it is not the only solution. When any farmer, like myself, looks through the Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and comes to Vote 8, which we are discussing to-night, the first thing that will strike him will be the magnitude of the sum of money allotted to this particular Vote. It is a sum of no less than £2,250,000, or rather more. Any farmer who sees that figure will say to himself, "What an extraordinarily big sum!"
    Here we have the country, year by year, voting this particular sum for the maintenance of the Ministry of Agriculture. As a taxpayer and a farmer, I am entitled to ask what the Ministry of Agriculture is doing to justify the expenditure of that sum. I am well aware that the whole sum is not payable in respect of the salaries of the Minister and his staff, but it is a very big sum, and I think the industry as a whole may well ask whether we are getting sufficient value for the money. After all, we are the only industry which has the benefit of a full-blown Ministry all to itself. Surely, that being so, we ought to be the one industry which is really flourishing, but, unfortunately, as we know only too well, of all the industries which are languishing, the industry of agriculture is probably the most languishing to-day. Why is it that this situation has been permitted to arise? We have in the Ministry a multitude of departments. There are departments dealing with matters ranging from small holdings to the care of shell-fish and the compilation of statistics—a very wide range of subjects. The fact is that agriculture to-day is a completely languishing industry, and it is obvious, therefore, that there must be something wrong. I would like to put it in this way. The agricultural industry is rather like a kettle. The Minister and his colleagues are sitting holding the kettle, which has some small holes round the spout, and they are putting their fingers on the holes to prevent the water leaking out. Meanwhile, they are utterly oblivious to the fact that the whole bottom has long since fallen out of the kettle. That really is the position to-day. We are tinkering with the subject, instead

    511
    of putting a new foundation and a new bottom on to the kettle of the agricultural industry.
    If we review the position as it has obtained in the last year, we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he has to his credit in relation to the great industry of which he has charge. Has he anything to show to his credit in new ideas and a new policy—even though we may not discuss the items of that policy to-night? Have the Government of to-day any really sound ideas as to how to rescue the industry from the plight in which it finds itself? As with unemployment, matters in agriculture have gone from bad to worse since the present Government have been in office. One knows that there has been a further fall in world prices, and that no responsibility attaches to this Government or to any other Government in that respect. We know, too, that the fall has been severely accentuated by the fact of a large importation of bounty-fed cereals. We have had bounty-fed wheat and oats from Germany, and double the total quantity of bounty-fed oats in the past 12 months that we had in the previous 12 months. We have got bounty-fed flour, as well as bounty-fed wheat, coming from France in ever-increasing quantities. We have had dumped Russian grain which has been refused entry into Continental ports, in Holland and Belgium, which has been diverted to British ports.
    We have had all these things to contend with, and what action have the Government taken? What action has the Government taken to try and stay the flood of importations of grain into this country from so many different sources? We know quite well that the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues, and all the personnel of his Department, have been extraordinarily busy and active in their respective spheres, and that the Ministry as a whole has been doing excellent work in many directions, but really is all this worth while when all the time the agricultural industry continues to go backward? The particular things that matter are the things to which the Minister of Agriculture should address himself. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is neglecting the things that really matter in the Department of which he has charge. In the debate last
    512
    week I was surprised that the Minister was at such pains to minimise the effects of the importation of cereals.
    The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the importation of wheat from the Argentine. I think we get two very clear distinctions in regard to this matter. While the Minister was emphasising the importance of the importation of Argentine grain, and minimising the importation of bounty-fed grain from Germany and other countries, he neglected to tell the Committee the great effect which these two points have upon that particular matter. The first point is that German wheat is a far more direct competitor with English wheat than Argentine wheat. It is true that Argentine wheat does fall into the category of soft wheats, but Argentine wheat is one that stands in a, middle position between hard and soft wheats. The Argentine wheat coming to this country competes more with Canadian wheat than with English wheat. On the other hand German wheat is a soft wheat, and falls within that category, and therefore it is the German wheat which hits us most as a competitor when it comes to our shores, and doubly so when it comes as a bounty-fed wheat. That is one point which I think the Minister rather neglected to tell the Committee last week in regard to this matter.
    I come to the question of oats. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture stated in reply to a, question a fortnight ago that the German subsidy on oats was equivalent to 3s. per cwt., that is 9s. per quarter. The German oats which came into this country in large quantities last year reached these shores with a subsidy of no less than 9s. a quarter, that is to say, nearly 50 per cent. less than the price of English oats. There is another point which the Minister of Agriculture forgot to place before the Committee in regard to foreign importations, and it is that although the Argentine sends us a very much larger quantity of wheat than Germany in cwts. or quarters, it is true that a, comparatively small amount of German bounty-fed wheat has an effect entirely out of proportion to the general effect of importations from the Argentine. Both Argentine wheat and oats would have been infinitely dearer in this country during the past year but for the fact that

    513
    the price has been kept down by bounty-fed German wheat. That is a point which ought to be made clear.
    I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not think that I have been too hard upon him in what I have said, and I must now turn to the acts of the Government in regard to this question. What have the Government done for agriculture since they have been in office? I know I must not discuss the acts of the Government during the past year in detail unless they come within the scope of the Ministry of Agriculture, but I think that those who represent agricultural constituencies are entitled to know what the Government have done for agriculture, and what has been the effect of their legislation as a whole. I do not think that I shall be out of order in referring to coal, which is an important raw material for the agricultural industry. Coal is going to be dearer in the cottage home of the farm worker, and we certainly have had no assistance from the Government for agriculture in that respect. One may well ask if the producers of coal are to be allowed to fix the prices which the farmer will have to pay when he buys coat. Is it not a corollary that the farmer, when he sells corn, should not have an equal measure of protection in fixing the price of his products which are supplied to the coal miner? Logically that must be right. I know that we have to consider the relative importance of the two industries, and we are all agreed that the coal mining industry and the agricultural industry are undoubtedly the two main industries in the country. Both those industries are productive. One of them produces energy for the steam engine in the shape of coal. On the other hand agriculture, in the form of corn, produces energy for the human engine. Which is the most important? Obviously, that which produces energy for the human engine.
    There is another quality besides that of production, and that is reproduction. Corn possesses the quality of reproduction which is not possessed by coal. I make no apology for alluding to an analogy which I have made before in this House, and I ask the Committee to consider this point. Take, for instance, a lump of coal. It is put into the furnace and produces energy for the engine, and its ultimate destination is to go up the
    514
    chimney and disappear in the form of smoke. On the other hand take a handful of corn, and drop it into the earth; it has a reproductive quality, and it can reproduce itself perhaps 80 or 100 fold. That great quality of production gives agriculture a quality which is not shared by any other industry in the country. Consequently those of us who represent agriculture can claim that we are charged with looking after the interests of an industry which is a prime industry, and one which should stand first in the economic policy of the country. We have another instance of the care which the present Government have for agriculture. They have introduced a Consumers' Council Bill—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is really making a Second Reading speech, and not a Committee speech. He cannot go into all these details now, but must try to keep to the administration of the Ministry.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I am sorry if I have transgressed. What I was trying to say was that, in connection with these Bills, which we cannot, of course—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Government are responsible for the Bills, but the Minister is responsible to-night for the agricultural side, and that is what we are actually discussing.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I fully understand, but at the same time I would respectfully suggest that the Minister, in his capacity as a Member of the Government, has surely some responsibility, both for the passing of Bills which have already been passed and for the legislation—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Minister may have some responsibility for legislation which has been passed, but to-night we are discussing a Vote of £2,000,000, and it is the expenditure of that £2,000,000 that is under discussion. The hon. and gallant Member is not the only one who has made a Second Reading speech to-night.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I think I was in very good company, and I am rather surprised, Mr. Young, that you should be so hard on me, but I fully accept the position, and will try to keep within the bounds of order. That being

    515
    so, it is quite obvious that I must make no allusion to the taxation of land values, even though that is going to add a new burden on the land. I think I shall be within the bounds of order if I try to put the position of agriculture to-day in a very few words. There is a brief method of expressing the economic position of the industry. If we take the cost of living index figure, we find that the figure for April was 57 points above the pre-War figure. If, on the other hand, we take the figure for prices of farm produce which was given to us by the right hon. Gentleman himself last week, it is only 36 points above the pre-War figure. That is to say, there is a gap of some 20 points between the cost of living index figure and the index figure for the price which is being received by farmers for agricultural produce. That gap of 20 points puts in a nutshell the position of the industry to-day. Of course we know that, in addition to that gap, we are burdened with extremely high costs, the chief item of which is in connection with labour. We all agree that the agricultural labourer is not paid too much, but it is fair to ask, when a Socialist Government passed the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act in 1924, whether that Government, when they took steps to protect the agricultural labourer, could not also have taken steps to protect—
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps they could, but that again is a matter of legislation. I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to try to keep off anything of that kind, because a number of other Members want to speak. They have been besieging me all the afternoon.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I was only going to ask why they had not taken steps, by administration or in some other way, to protect also the product of that labour. That is the only point that I wish to make in that connection. It is quite obvious that the situation obtaining in the agricultural industry to-day cannot go on for ever. Matters are getting so strained that some solution of the problem must be found. A refusal on the part of farmers to accept defeat is no excuse for the Government refusing to face the facts of the situation. Let me turn for a moment to the question of remedies. It is quite clear that, if the Government have a responsibility
    516
    in regard to the situation in which agriculture finds itself, it is the duty of the present Government to try to find some solution. I am precluded from indicating methods which involve legislation, but at least I think I am entitled to ask the Minister whether or not his Government propose to act on the advice put forward by the Conference which they themselves called into being. As we know from the right hon. Gentleman, that Conference came together in a very happy social frame of mind. I can only say that the position as between the three parties in the industry, the landowners, the farmers and the farm workers, has always been good, and I myself did not go into that Conference to improve social relations, because my own social relations were good before. I went with a sincere desire and intention to try to contribute something towards the benefit of agriculture, and to the hammering out of some policy. I think we are entitled to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to act in any way on the lines set forth by the Conference, and as quoted to-day by my hon. and gallant Friend who opened this Debate. I hope that the Minister will give us a definite reply on that matter. One word about Unemployment Insurance—
    The CHAIRMAN: Any Amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Acts would require legislation.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: May I point out that, in almost every case which I have mentioned in my speech, I have gone through the speech of the Minister last week, and I am merely alluding to matters to which he then alluded? I hope I am not completely out of order in following the Minister.
    The CHAIRMAN: It may be that the Minister, in explaining his policy, mentioned that Unemployment Insurance might have to come in, and hon. Members on the other side have done the same. But to elaborate points of that kind, which involve legislation, would be to get away from the Vote altogether. When the Minister is explaining his Estimates, he has the right to make references to matters which are not open for discussion on the Vote.
    Viscount WOLMER: Surely, a Member is entitled to comment on the statements of the Minister?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not remember exactly what the Minister said. He may have made reference to Unemployment Insurance, but to argue the question of Unemployment Insurance would be out of order on this occasion.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: It was not my intention to argue the merits of the case, but merely to make one comment on the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman himself in relation to the number of people unemployed in the agricultural industry, and on the fact that apparently, according to the reports which he has received, about 5 per cent. of the workers in agriculture are out of employment at the present moment, of which 5 per cent., if I may quote the Minister, the major portion are casual workers. All that I have to say on that point is that, in view of the gravity of the general situation in regard to unemployment to-day, it is obvious that any step which the Government may decide to take should be rather on the lines of trying to get these men back into their industry, even though they may only be casual workers, than of imposing upon the industry a new burden in regard to them. On the general question, I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will give the Committee some indication of what he proposes to do. He may say that within the limits of this Debate, and in view of the fact that we are tied down to criticism of his administration, he is precluded from going into any question of policy, but, as I am sure you, Mr. Young, will agree, it is the custom to allow a certain amount of latitude in dealing with matters of national gravity—
    The CHAIRMAN: There seems to be a quite general misapprehension of what we are doing. When we are discussing Estimates, we are confined to expenditure inside the Estimates. There are many items in connection with agriculture which come under this particular Vote, and these are the matters that ought to be debated in this Committee, but, unfortunately, both on the last occasion and to-day, the discussion took such a wide turn that it was quite impossible properly to tie it down to the Estimate. I confess that I myself have been at fault in allowing such a wide discussion but I am anxious that it should not be widened still further.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I have only this to say. I started off by drawing attention to the magnitude of the Vote and I asked if the agricultural industry is getting full value for the money that is being spent. There are many Departments dealing with different minor activities of the industry and all the time the industry itself is falling more rapidly into decay. I ask the Minister to stand up and justify the expenditure that we are asked to vote and to give some indication that he has some plan whereby he may rescue the industry from the plight into which it has fallen.
    Captain BRISCOE: I wish to make a few remarks on the question of the conference that has been raised on the Liberal benches. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) announcing this proposal, I was full of distrust and I felt sure that it was insincere. The speeches from the Liberal benches to-day have confirmed me entirely in my suspicions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) started off by recommending the conference. He said we should lift agriculture out of party politics and put it on a higher plane and all go in with our hands untied. He had not spoken more than two or three sentences when he said he would have nothing whatever to do with nationalisation. The hon. Member for Holland and Boston (Mr. Blindell) also recommended an unfettered conference, and he next remarked that he would have nothing whatever to do with tariffs. I believe that is the reason why the Prime Minister the other day told us, in answer to a question, that in view of past experience, a conference of this sort would be of very little use. I should like to know the views of the Minister himself.
    The CHAIRMAN: The views of the Minister would be out of order on this question.
    Captain BRISCOE: But if the Minister has power to call a conference—
    The CHAIRMAN: He may have power to call a conference, and the hon. Member may ask him to do it, but he must leave it there. He cannot develop it on this Vote. He must find other time.
    Captain BRISCOE: May I not ask the Minister whether he thinks the calling of the conference is a good plan or not?
    10.0 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: I really think all these matters are subsidiary to the question that we are discussing. If I had done my duty, I should have been calling on nearly every speaker to point out on which part of the Vote he was speaking. I did not do that because I had in my recollection the rather wide scope of the first day's Debate. I did not want to go back on that, but on the third day we shall have to keep strictly to the Estimate.
    Captain BRISCOE: In the Debate last week, the Parliamentary Secretary distinctly gave his views, and I want to know if the Minister's views coincide with those of the Parliamentary Secretary. I will quote what he said.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is an understanding that the second day is quite independent of the first. I remember that the discussion was of a rather wide character. If I was at fault then, I am not going to be at fault any longer. I must ask those who speak to confine themselves to this Estimate.
    Captain BRISCOE: I wish now to ask the Minister one or two questions which I am sure will come within the Vote. The first is with regard to field drainage. There is a good deal of disquietude amongst agriculturists because the Minister only gives the grants on completion of the work. It would be a great help to farmers if he could find some way of giving them at periods during the work. They find it very hard to produce the money to pay the wages if the Minister does not give the grants until the work is actually completed. If he would look into the question and do something to meet the farmer in that respect, we should be very grateful indeed. I should also like to ask a question with regard to foot-and-mouth disease. We have during the last few months been almost entirely immune from it. It has been a wonderful period of immunity for which we are all distinctly grateful. Could the Minister let us know to what he attributes this immunity, whether he attributes it in any way to the mission of Lord Bledisloe to the Argentine and also to the embargo that has been placed on Continental meat coming into this country, or if there are any other reasons apart from the very energetic staff which he has at the Ministry to carry out his instructions.
    520
    During the last year, market gardeners have been in very grave distress. They have gone through a harder time than almost any other section of the agricultural community. It has been due a great deal to drought and fly and to competition from foreign imports. I would ask the Minister to see whether he cannot do something to help these people. In this respect I would particularly call his attention to the question of the Channel tunnel.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Channel tunnel was a private Bill. It does not in any way come under the responsibility of the Minister. It is not in the Estimate. If I allowed the hon. and gallant Gentleman to proceed, someone else would ask about some other tunnel.
    Captain BRISCOE: I do not want to deal with legislation at all. I want to ask the Minister—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Minister must be asked questions in relation to this Estimate. There is nothing in the Estimate for the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. GUINNESS: On a point of Order. Is it not in accordance with practice to discuss this matter in connection with marketing? The Ministry of Agriculture has had many representations from agriculturists interested in the market gardening industry as to the effect of competition from nearby European countries. Is it not important to ask as to the attitude of the Government on the question of the Channel tunnel, seeing the very large marketing vote that is included in the Estimate?
    The CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to ask about the Channel Tunnel at all. I must again inform hon. Members that in these Debates they are confined to the Estimates. Owing to the discussion which took place on the first day, I have allowed this Debate to be somewhat wider, but I must say that I think nearly every hon. Member who has spoken has been going very far wide of the Estimate.
    Captain BRISCOE: I will obey your ruling and ask the Minister a question in regard to research into arable stock farming. This is a very important question for agriculture, and about a year ago the Ministry undertook investigations on

    521
    several farms. Those investigations proved not very successful, and an assurance was given by the last Government that further investigations would be carried out, to see whether they could get any information from experiments. I would ask whether the Minister is making any experiments or investigations into arable stock farming, and whether, when he has received the results of the experiments, he will give them at once to the agricultural industry.
    Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: As representing a constituency where there is a great deal of milk production, I am exceedingly anxious to hear from the Minister what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to deal with the very serious situation which is likely to arise with regard to the surplus milk which the present market cannot absorb. I would like to know whether he has taken any steps to impress upon the community the desirability of drinking more milk. I notice that certain traders who are interested in another liquid are spending between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 a year on advertising the virtues of beer and spirits. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] It has been stated before the Royal Commission on Licensing by a representative of the liquor trade, in answer to a question from one of the Commissioners. It seems to me—and there is evidence on the hoardings that such a campaign is in being—that it needs some effort on the part of the Minister of Agriculture to counteract that invitation to absorb liquids of an intoxicating character. I am very sorry to observe that when farmers have an agricultural show, though they are supposedly very interested in milk, they are generally to be found at the bars where beer is sold, and it seems to me that they are not encouraging the general mass of the people by setting an example of that kind. Somebody ought to boost the virtues of milk.
    Mr. MILLS: What about hops?
    Mr. WINTERTON: I will leave that to the hon. Member, who represents a division of Kent. I want to be quite serious in suggesting that the situation is becoming one of very great urgency in all milk-producing districts, which, not only in the Midlands, but in the West of England, are very adversely affected, and are likely to be, during the next
    522
    few months. Before long we shall have the fixing of the price of milk, and the farmers will be at a great disadvantage, with the tremendous surplus of milk that there will be, unless some means are taken to induce people to consume the available supplies. I want, therefore, to ask the Minister whether he has considered the suggestion which, I believe, was made by the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Alpass), that steps should be taken, during the five months when there is likely to be a glut of milk, to arrange for every school child for five days in the week to be supplied with milk. If steps of that kind were taken, if the local authorities were approached in order that they might buy milk under such conditions, and if the Ministry were willing to suggest a grant in aid of that, I believe the local authorities themselves would respond and help to create the milk drinking habit in children.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Would the hon. Member also press that the milk should be free from tuberculosis?
    Mr. WINTERTON: That goes without saying. I am not advocating the giving to children of anything which is as deleterious as beer. I want pure milk given, and the research department of the Ministry would, of course, be anxious that only the very best milk should be supplied. I believe, moreover, that the farmers would welcome a suggestion of this kind, and would be willing to supply milk at the very lowest rates, in order that they might thus be relieved of a great deal of their surplus milk, which in other circumstances would probably be given to the pigs. I therefore press on the Minister the importance of this suggestion, and I would further ask him if he would be willing to circularise the local authorities, asking them to convey to the education authorities a suggestion upon these lines.
    It will be within the knowledge of a good many Members of this Committee that there has been very great difficulty with regard to the production of cream, and that British cream has lately suffered a great deal because of an Order of the Ministry of Health forbidding the use of boric acid. I want to ask whether the department of research at the Ministry has looked into that matter and

    523
    is satisfied whether boric acid in small quantities can be safely added to cream as a preservative, and so help to reinforce the market in cream as against some of the artificial cream which is produced at the present time and very often, I am sorry to say, sold as British cream. That artificial cream, I understand, is in some cases a combination of milk powder and in other cases of sweet oil, and I suggest that this is a problem to which the Ministry should devote itself. In conclusion, I hope the Minister, when, he goes about the country, will take as his slogan in dairying and other districts, "Drink more milk."
    Mr. CHRISTIE: I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture does not even now fully appreciate the very serious condition of the agricultural industry. I should like to remind him of the state of affairs in his own part of the country and in my part of the country as well. In the last five years the crop of wheat has gone down by no less than 25,000 acres, which means that about 500 men have been left completely out of the industry with, it seems to me, very little chance of their being absorbed again. The income of the farmers in the last five years has decreased by about £1,000,000. What makes the position worse is, that in 1925 they were paying an average of 28s. 6d. as a minimum wage, whereas now they are paying an average of 30s. It is not that I wish to stress the amount which they are paying; what I wish to stress is the amount of their income—a definite loss of £1,000,000 in five years. The position which has arisen from that is exactly what we might have expected. Each year large quantities of land are being put down to grass. We have not the climate they have in the West where good grass grows very easily; it is a very difficult proposition with us, but it is going on steadily. I was talking to a constituent of mine the other day, and he told me that he had been to an iron-monger's shop in a small town to order some wire fencing in order to increase his pasture. He said that the man in charge of the ironmonger's shop told him that that very day he had sold to farmers 14 tons of wire for fencing. That will give the Committee an idea of what is going on.
    524
    There is also the financial position of the farmer. In Norfolk at the present time there is literally a deplorable state of affairs. The banks are carrying the farmers to a very great extent, and they are keeping them going, because they have an idea, I suppose, that there may be a chance one day of the industry recovering so that they may get back their money. That sort of feeling will not go on for ever. The banks are business corporations, and the day will surely come when they will think it necessary to cut their losses. What will happen in the county of Norfolk if that is brought about I really cannot imagine. It is a very serious thing, and I honestly feel that the Minister cannot possibly realise how serious it is.
    I will give the Committee an instance of how it is affecting the unfortunate farmer. It is a perfectly true one. My wife met an old lady, the wife of a farmer, and the old lady said to her that she was very anxious about her husband because he would carry so much money about with him in his pocket. My wife said that she was very glad to hear that any farmer had any money at all, and the old lady replied, "Well, it is just like this. He has just sold some bullocks. He has the money in his pocket, and I am so worried because he will go to market with it, and I am afraid he will get it stolen." My wife said: "Why does he not put it into the bank?" The old lady replied that he dare not do that. If he did the bank would take it against his overdraft, and so he had to carry the money about in his pocket. That sort of thing is not good for any industry. It is very bad that members of any industry should be so much in the hands of the bank that they cannot lay their hands on any capital. It is undoubtedly the fact that in many cases when harvest comes some of the farmers in Norfolk will not have the money with which to pay their men. I do not think the Committee realise that that sort of thing can possibly exist, but it is an absolute fact that a great many Norfolk farmers will not have sufficient money with which to pay their harvest wages, in order to get in their crops. I hope that something may be done in order that the short-term credit scheme may be so extended that money can be found for that essential purpose.

    525
    The Minister of Agriculture has received, quite justly, commendations for the way in which the marketing schemes have gone forward, but is he perfectly satisfied with the way in which the egg marketing scheme is going? Does he consider that it is making as much progress as it ought to do, after its very admirable start? I would suggest to him that it might be speeded up, perhaps, if the method of paying the farmer for his eggs was slightly altered. At the present time the farmer delivers his eggs to the depot, where they are graded, and he receives a certain sum for the different grades. He does not see them graded and he does not know when he hands them over to the depot what sum he will get for the eggs. Farmers, like other people, are rather a suspicious race and they have a sort of idea that, perhaps, they do not get the right amount. I suggest that, if possible, after excluding the small eggs of under 1¼ ounces, if the other eggs that the farmer sends in were paid for by weight on the spot at the depot, you would gain very greatly the confidence of the farmers and they would make much more use of the depots. I do not think the depots will find it unprofitable, because I think the general experience is that if you exclude the 1¼ ounce eggs, you would find that among the others there are just as many over the standard size as there are under the standard size. Therefore, it is perfectly safe to pay on the standard weight.
    There is also the question of the retail sale of eggs. Very often when eggs are sold in the big towns the distributor takes national mark eggs and when he gets them to his depot he mixes all the grades together and sells them, mixed, as best new laid eggs. He sells them, small or large, at the price of best new laid eggs. That is a very bad thing for the national mark, and I suggest to the Minister that he should—as I understand he has been advised to do by the National Farmers' Union and other bodies interested in poultry—insist that eggs should be sold either by designation or by weight.
    In regard to the question of sugar-beet, the one thing which is more necessary in my judgment than anything else in order to assist this industry is a good plant. Some method must be found of properly milling the seed so that instead
    526
    of sowing the pod we sow the seed itself. However, I will not bother the Committee with the technical side of this industry. I know that some work has been done at Cambridge, and it is quite within the bounds of possibility that this subject will be solved. If so it would do more to make the industry of sugar beet profitable than anything else. The farmer cannot undertake it, and the factories do not mind, because they are getting as much beet as they want. The Ministry could get the thing done if only they would realise its importance. We are all agreed that agriculture should be kept out of politics. I think the late Government did their best for the industry, but the measure of the importance of agriculture can be estimated by the small number of members who have taken the trouble to attend this Debate. In my judgment we shall never do anything for agriculture until all members of the agricultural community take a leaf out of the book of the miners and make themselves so objectionable to the Government of the day that they will have to do what they want, and I hope it will not be very long before all members of the agricultural community see fit to take that sensible course.
    Mr. N. BUXTON: The Debate has reflected the heavy anxiety which hangs over a great part of the industry, and the large number of suggestions for administrative improvements indicate the desire of all parties to help the farmers. I have, on the one hand, to express my thanks for the sympathetic references of many hon. Members to the activities of the Ministry, and, on the other hand, to note that the Government is taken to task for not having announced its agricultural policy in the Debate upon the Estimates. You, Mr. Chairman, would have called me to order if I had attempted to discuss legislation, but I will only in passing note that if there has been delay in the announcement of the Government's policy, a much longer delay occurred in the time of the late Government before any announcement was made.
    Viscount WOLMER: No, they passed five Acts of Parliament in the first Session.
    Mr. BUXTON: The right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) in the Debate last week expressed the

    527
    difficulties he felt in reconciling the action of the Labour Government with past pronouncements. I could not help wondering, when he expressed sympathy with myself on this account, what may be his own feelings now, when his party have adopted proposals for Protection and subsidies, and he is inconveniently reminded of the cogent arguments which he used himself and which were used by his party not very long ago. As an administrative Act I might mention the White Paper of the late Government which said:
    "Any general scheme of subsidies for agriculture is open to the gravest objection;"
    and he himself on another occasion said:
    "The benefits which some agriculturists assumed would be achieved by Protection were very much over-estimated."
    If it is inconvenient to be reminded of differing actions and pronouncements, we suffer together. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) offered a general condemnation of all Governments during the last 25 years. He showed that in his opinion agriculture has been the victim of shocking neglect ever since 1905, when he first entered the House. I also entered the House for the first time in that year, and I was particularly interested in this reflection. It is somewhat consoling to me to feel that out of those 25 years a Labour Government is responsible for only two. Ninety per cent. of the responsibility must be put down to other parties, and the charge which the Noble Lord made recoils in much greater measure on the head of each party except the Labour party.
    Sir GEORGE JONES: Were you not a Liberal then?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have been asked by several Members to say something about the proposal of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for a conference of the three parties. We all heard his proposal with very great interest. I did not gather that the suggestion is welcomed with enthusiasm in all parts of the House, but we on our part are most willing to consult with all parties, and I myself have not waited till the suggestion was made to seek consultation with the leaders of the other parties. I understand, and I am delighted to say so, that the Prime
    528
    Minister has extended an invitation to the Leaders of the Conservative and Liberal parties to join in conferring upon agriculture, and to bring with them any colleagues they may choose with a view to finding common ground. I trust that they will be willing to accept the invitation. There is another conference about which I was asked for information, the Industry Conference, and two points were put to me about it: First, why had we not adopted the views of such an influential body? It is true that a resolution was adopted in general terms calling attention to the need of action to help cereal growing, but it is, perhaps singularly enough, a fact that the conference was not able to come to a unanimous decision upon any specific proposal of a political character for the treatment of agriculture.
    Viscount WOLMER: Political proposals?
    Mr. BUXTON: When I said political proposals, I meant general proposals, legislative proposals for the treatment of agriculture. No unanimous agreement was come to. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) suggested when he spoke last week, that the conference had been put into cold storage. He suggested that it had taken the bit between its teeth and had gone at a pace which was inconvenient to the Government. I think I ought to remove the impression which that suggestion may have conveyed and, indeed, I was asked why the conference had not lately met. It is not a fact that the conference was adjourned by the Government. There was a feeling among the members that there was no object in continuing to discuss proposals which had been fully debated. The conference, therefore, decided to adjourn, but I have have found from such members as I have been able to consult, that the desire is to hold the conference in readiness for a further meeting whenever material should be available for useful discussion. Therefore, I am guided by the desire of the members that there should be no finality at this moment, and it is the desire, as I find, that the conference should remain available. I must now do my best to answer the large number of inquiries which have been put to me on the administrative actions of the Government.
    Viscount WOLMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when he is going to summon the agricultural conference again?
    Mr. BUXTON: I shall be entirely guided by communications from Members whom I have informed that I trust they will let let me know whenever there is a desire in any part of the conference for further discussion. I was asked by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) whether it was not possible to use the administrative powers of the Ministry to exclude goods under certain conditions, for purposes of economic embargo. It transpires that he referred to the powers possessed under certain Acts, which are designed to exclude disease, and he was under the impression that those powers might be extended beyond the strict application of authority to exclude diseased products. That would be contrary to the International Convention for the abolition of prohibitions and restrictions on imports, and would be quite contrary to the principles on which the Acts are based. It would, in fact, be bringing in Protection by a side door, and it would certainly not be a legitimate or possible use of those Acts. The Ministry exercises the greatest severity in the administration of the Acts where there is any danger whatever of the introduction of new disease in the case of fruit and potatoes, and in many other directions.
    That brings me to the question raised by several hon. Members as to potatoes. The facts are very interesting in regard to potatoes, because there has been an extraordinarily heavy supply both in 1928 and 1929. The slump has been entirely due to the abundance of the home crops. In 1929 the crop was 4½ per cent. greater than in 1928, and the slump in prices was due, not to imports, but to the extraordinary crops. The average imports of the five seasons ending 1927–28 in regard to September and April are only 3 per cent. of the total supply. In 1928–29 they were less than 1 per cent. Even the total prohibition of imports would be quite ineffective. The remedy, as was indicated by a number of hon. Members, is undoubtedly organisation among the producers, and concerted action by them, which would have the desired effect. It wants the best brains
    530
    in the industry to organise on national lines.
    One hon. Member said that the Ministry ought to help. The Ministry has issued a most valuable orange book, one of the "economic series," on the potato situation, which lays down the lines that should be followed in regard to marketing, statutory grades, and the disposal of surplus; and the Ministry would help on these lines to the utmost of their ability. I would suggest further that, if farmers would themselves ask for powers which will require legislation to make more easy the organisation of the producers as a whole, they would make a proposal that would deserve the most careful and favourable consideration, and I only hope that they will ask for organisation of that kind.
    I was asked in regard to Algerian potatoes, which it was alleged were produced by convict labour. This question has been raised in the House more than once. It appears that the great bulk of Algerian potatoes are grown by smallholders who do not employ convict labour at all. There is one large potato-growing establishment which employs a certain amount of convict labour, and then it uses such labour for potatoes only when work on other crops is not available. The cost of the convict labour is much higher than that of free native labour. It is therefore not a fact that this convict labour enters into any appreciable extent into the competing power of the imported potatoes.
    I have some difficulty in choosing between the very large number of interesting questions which have been raised. Swine fever was one, and I take due note of the suggestion made in regard to telephonic communication which might be further used by the inspectors. Swine fever raises the question of research, and I should like to say that research is being pursued at the Ministry's laboratory at Weybridge. Further attention ought to be, and will be, devoted under the general scheme of expansion of research which is contemplated, but research is hampered not by want of money so much as by the lack of trained research agents. It is that lack which has first to be supplied before any great progress can be made. That is the subject of inquiry by a subcommittee of the Economic Advisory

    531
    Council, which I hope will very soon remedy the situation and enable progress to be more rapid. We are spending something like £50,000 a year on animal disease research. That is not enough; there ought to be expansion, and I hope there will be very shortly.
    Both to-day and in the Debate last week I was asked several questions about milk. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. Gould) raised the question of the marketing organisation. There, again, I would like to say that organisation is the main remedy. If producers will put forward schemes of organisation, if necessary with Government help through legislation, I should welcome them as a subject for inquiry which may produce results of the greatest possible value. The hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Hastings) raised last week another aspect of the milk question, and I wish to say a word on the operation of the Tuberculosis Order of 1925. Rapid eradication would not be practical without unduly depleting our herds and incurring enormous expense, but a great deal is being done. The Order covers the cases of cows giving tuberculous milk and also bovine animals infected in a much less dangerous way. The Order requires farmers to report cases, but it is sometimes difficult for others than experts to detect tuberculosis, and I have consulted with the Minister of Health on the extension of periodical veterinary inspection. The hon. Member asked if inspected farms were disinfected. The answer is that local authorities have full powers for that purpose under the Order. He also asked whether other cattle were examined. As a general rule they are. Possible "contacts" on the premises are all examined. The working of the Order is illustrated by these figures. Premises examined as a result of reports have declined from 21,000 in 1926 to 18,000 in 1929. The number of animals found infected and slaughtered also declined from 17,000 in 1926 to 15,000 in 1929. In 1929 there were 241,000 animals examined, and the animals infected within the terms of the Order worked out at 2.8 per cent. of the total number on the premises—a very different figure from that which was quoted the other day.
    532
    Cows and heifers giving tuberculous milk numbered only 2,600, or 1.4 per cent. of the total number of cattle examined. An hon. Member behind me asked whether we could do anything with regard to extending the use of milk in schools. That is not a matter within my responsibility, but I will gladly communicate the suggestion to the President of the Board of Education.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Cambridge (Captain Briscoe) raised the question of foot-and-mouth disease. It is a very satisfactory feature of the past year that immunity has attained a degree not known for many years. There were only 38 outbreaks in Great Britain, being the lowest number since 1917. The net cost of £41,000 was less than half the amount in 1928. The expenditure in 1923, which was the peak year, was actually 73 times greater than the expenditure last year. If I shall not break the spell by stating the facts, there has been complete freedom now since the 23rd December. That is the longest interval since 1918. It is really amazing to contrast the situation on the Continent. Against these 38 outbreaks, there were in France 22,000 and in Germany over 4,000. Research continues to be conducted by the committee which was set up in my time in 1924, and progress is steady, though we might wish that results had been more tangible than up to now.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Cambridge also asked questions in regard to field drainage, and made a suggestion that the Ministry should facilitate the utilisation of these schemes by interim grants. It is the case that up to the present arrangements have not been made for the payment of interim grants to landowners during the progress of the work. Except where transferred labour is used, the amount of the Ministry's grant is one-third of the total cost, the remaining two-thirds being found by the owner. In the large majority of field drainage schemes the cost is less than £100, and it was thought in these circumstances that interim grants were not necessary. Moreover, the system of interim grants might increase the number of inspections of the work by the county councils, and so increase the cost of the administration. But the Ministry would much regret it if schemes of field drainage were not to be put in hand as

    533
    the result of any difficulties in securing interim grants. I am prepared to notify county councils that in suitable cases interim grants would be made. A similar procedure would also be adopted in regard to the water supply grants for agricultural holdings which were initiated last year.
    I am afraid time does not permit me to deal with other questions that have been raised, but perhaps I may say one word on a subject that has very frequently been raised in the House at Question time, namely, the exportation of horses for slaughter, which arouses very great interest among a large section of the public. I do feel that so much misrepresentation has prevailed that lovers of animals are entitled to know the facts, because their feelings are often unduly harassed on this matter. The facts ought to be known. The law prohibits the export to the Continent of any horses which are not fit to work without suffering. The requirements are very rigidly observed. I have myself visited the docks to see the horses embarked, and I have found a good class of horse was being exported. Over 99 per cent. of the horses exported for slaughter in 1929 went to Holland, where the use of the humane killer is compulsory. In France progress is being made. Very few horses are sent to France for this purpose, and there were only 29 last year. We have done our best to ensure the utmost possible humanity, but the first effective step would be to concentrate on humane slaughter in this country.
    Reference has been made to the subject of party pledges, and perhaps I might be pardoned for drawing attention to the words of that great Conservative newspaper
    the "Daily Mail." Within the last few days the "Daily Mail" said:
    "The unfortunate farmers obtained cart-loads of promises from Mr. Baldwin on the eve of the 1924 Election.… The present state of agriculture is a bitter comment on the sincerity of this pledge. He came back to power, but once in office he forgot his promises, and used his power only to pass semi-Socialist measures, and to pile up new burdens on our industries. And he might do the same again."
    Viscount WOLMER: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe all that he reads in the "Daily Mail"?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am satisfied to leave it there. It is gratifying that there is no attack upon the Labour administration, and there is some praise of several of our activities. I have been asked to state what is the policy of the Labour party. The policy of the Labour party is on record with an exactness which, in the view of Lord Ernle, is greater than in the case of the policy of any other party. It is undoubtedly a policy which would help to make farming pay. When it is suggested that Bills should be brought in embodying this policy when no majority exists for them, it is not a suggestion that is very helpful. We must find measures which command a majority, and I hope that in connection with this Party Conference we may find common ground. There is perhaps a great deal of common ground between all parties, certainly between the Labour party and the Liberal party, and I trust that an opportunity will be found to pass those Measures into law.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,332,210, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 248.

    Division No. 301.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Albery, Irving James

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Christie, J. A.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

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

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Boyce, H. L.

    Cranborne, Viscount

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

    Bracken, B.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Crookshartk, Opt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Cunliffe- Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Guinneas, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Buchan, John

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Butler, R. A.

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

    Hanbury, C.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. sir Arthur

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Remer, John R.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Lamb, Sir J. O.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Train, J.

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, sir Kenyon

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Lymington, Viscount

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Savery, S. S.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

    Womersley, W. J.

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Sir George Penny and Sir Victor

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

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Warrender.

    NOES.

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

    Egan, W. H.

    Logan, David Gilbert

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

    Elmley, Viscount

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Arnott, John

    Foot, Isaac

    Lunn, William

    Aske, sir Robert

    Forgan, Dr. Robert

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

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

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

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    McElwee, A.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Gossling, A. G.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Barr, James

    Gould, F.

    McKinlay, A.

    Batey, Joseph

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Bellamy, Albert

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

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

    Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)

    McShane, John James

    Benson, G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Groves, Thomas E.

    March, S.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Marcus, M.

    Blindell, James

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

    Markham, S. F.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Marley, J.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Harbord, A.

    Marshall, Fred

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hardie, George D.

    Mathers, George

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Matters, L. W.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Maxton, James

    Bromfield, William

    Haycock, A. W.

    Melville, Sir James

    Bromley, J.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Messer, Fred

    Brooke, W.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Mills, J. E.

    Brothers, M.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Milner, Major J.

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

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

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Morley, Ralph

    Buchanan, G.

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

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Burgess, F. G.

    Herriotts, J.

    Mort, D. L.

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

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Moses, J. J. H.

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

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Muff, G.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

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

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

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

    Charieton, H. C.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Chater, Daniel

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Isaacs, George

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

    Clarke, J. S.

    Johnston, Thomas

    Palin, John Henry

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Perry, S. F.

    Compton, Joseph

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Cove, William G.

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Daggar, George

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Picton-Torbervill, Edith

    Dallas, George

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Dalton, Hugh

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

    Potts, John S.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kinley, J.

    Price, M. P.

    Day, Harry

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Pybus, Percy John

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Dickson, T.

    Law, A. (Rosendale)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Richards, R.

    Dukes, C.

    Lawson, John James

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Duncan, Charles

    Leach, W.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

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

    Edge, Sir William

    Lees, J.

    Ritson, J.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

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

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Romeril, H. G.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Walker, J.

    Rowson, Guy

    Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Wellhead, Richard C.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunlermline).

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Snell, Harry

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Sandham, E.

    Sorensen, R.

    West, F. R.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Scurr, John

    Stephen, Campbell

    White, H. G.

    Sexton, James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Strauss, G. R.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Sullivan, J.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Shield, George William

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Shield, Dr. Drummond

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

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Shillaker, J. F.

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

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Shinwell, E.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    Simmons, C. J.

    Tout, W. J.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Sinkinson, George

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Turner, B.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Viant, S. P.

    Charles Edwards.

    Original Question, again proposed.
    It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

  TRANSFERRED WORKER'S DEATH.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Mr. McSHANE: I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter of some considerable importance, and in the brief time at my disposal I will briefly state the circumstances. It is the case of a young man named Harry Lynex, of Walsall, the town which I represent. He was sent to the training centre in Birmingham by the Ministry of Labour, and trained there for six months ending March, 1929. After March, for three months, he was receiving unemployment benefit at the Employment Exchange, and at the end of three months, before a court of referees, he was further disallowed, and for two weeks he was receiving no benefit whatever. The Employment Exchange obtained for him a situation at Southampton, and he was sent from Walsall to Southampton, a distance of some 200 miles. Within two weeks of his reaching Southampton, that
  538
  young man of 21 years of age was dead. The boy died from meningitis. On the Saturday he became ill, and on the Sunday the police, acting on instructions, got into touch with his father and mother at Walsall, and informed them that the boy was lying seriously ill. On the Monday morning the father and mother set out from Walsall to Southampton, reaching Southampton in the afternoon. When the mother saw the condition of the boy she received such a shock that she immediately became ill, and both she and the father had to return to Walsall. When the lad was sent from home to Southampton by the Ministry of Labour, his mother pleaded with him not to go. I was informed by the Minister that the young man stated that he was only too glad to go. That may be so; dead men tell no tales. One cannot say anything to the contrary except that his parents were entirely opposed to his going. They had gone to considerable expense after the boy had decided to go. He decided to go because he had already had his benefit disallowed. When in my question to the Minister I said he had gone under threat of losing his unemployment, benefit it is true that if he had not gone to Southampton he would undoubtedly not merely have lost his benefit but would have had a black mark against his name in the future.
  His parents, after having had to provide for him going, by spending a considerable sum of money in order to send him out respectably dressed, had to pay their railway fares to Southampton, and the father had to go down again on the Friday, after the boy had died. In addition

  539
  to that, they had to pay for the transport of the body from Southampton to Walsall, and, apart altogether from the funeral expenses, the cost of the transport of the body wan £11 10s., which the father and mother, being poor people, could ill afford to pay. The Minister has said that she made inquiries, and found that no question arose with regard to the threatened loss of benefit. I have already dealt with that matter by saying, on the authority of the father and mother, with whom I have been in close contact for some months, and whom know well, that he was turned off by the Court of Referees two weeks before, and his benefit was disallowed. He was told that his parents must keep him.
  I have asked the Minister whether under such tragic circumstances compensation cannot be paid. Surely the Minister can make some ex gratia payment in order to help these poor people in these tragic circumstances. I am told that this is the case of the average man or woman who may be sent to jobs in various parts of the country. Most of us have noted the remarkable changes that have taken place in regard to sending men to jobs as compared with pre-War times. In those days it was an extraordinarily rare thing for a man or woman to be sent such a long distance, because jobs were much more plentiful. To-day, the pressure of economic circumstances is such that a man would be glad to get a job almost anywhere. I am not going to deal with the fact that in Southampton, when he was sent there, a considerable amount of unemployment existed, but it is a fact which might have been taken into consideration. This House is rightly regarded as the custodian of the liberties of the people of this country; I ask that it should also be regarded as the guardian of the masses of poor people, who have a right to appeal to it in cases of this kind. I ask the Minister if she cannot, in the circumstances, make some ex gratia payment to poor people who are afflicted in this way. It is bad enough that they should have suffered the tragic bereavement which has happened to them, but that misfortune is accentuated when people in these circumstances are asked to undertake a burden of about £12. To other people that would only represent a matter of £1 or £2 in relation
  540
  to their means, but it is a really heavy burden to people in the conditions which I have described. I would ask the Minister to consider the question either of making some ex gratia payment or, if she has not the power to do that, that she should regard it as high time to take power to deal with such cases. I have had to give the circumstances of the case rather hurriedly, but I hope the Minister will give me some consideration that will be worthy to take back to the people whom I represent.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): This case was fairly fully dealt with in the reply I gave to the question my hon. Friend put down. The facts of the case are substantially as now presented except that the information my hon. Friend gave with regard to the parents is not information that was on the file. The position of this young man—I have been able to trace his history back—was that he first came on the Unemployment Benefit Fund in March, 1928. He was in receipt of the unemployment benefit throughout that year and in October he was asked to go into a training centre in the hope that it would help him to get work. He went into the centre and took six months training, which finished in March, 1929. He was then in receipt of benefit until the next 78 days' review, when the court of referees suspended his benefit for six weeks.
  That suspension was imposed on the 3rd July and took effect from 25th June, and therefore it is quite true that the suspension was operative, and had been operative for nearly a fortnight before a job was offered to him. A job was offered to him on the 12th July as a plasterer's labourer in Southampton, and he was able to start work on the 15th July.
  I have made very careful inquiries and I think it is perfectly clear to everybody that not only was there no feeling against this young man, but that the Exchange was very desirous of helping him, because there were not a great many plasterers' jobs going, and he was given an opportunity of taking this job. I am sure that he responded readily and gladly to the opportunity to take the job, and he went to Southampton. No question arises about the job itself. He worked at the job for a fortnight and

  541
  then became ill, with the lamentable consequences which have been described to the House.
  Mr. McSHANE: He was dead within a fortnight.
  Miss BONDFIELD: The statutory position is as I have explained. I have no power whatever to make a grant in circumstances of this kind. It is perfectly clear that there is no responsibility on the Employment Exchange in connection with this particular case. It is quite obvious that under the statute not only can I not pay such expenses, but that it would not be a proper charge to place upon an Employment Exchange. There are many points that could be raised with regard to the adequacy of the services of this country to meet every conceivable ill which may befall parents or children, but I submit to the House that the request of the hon. Member while it does credit to his humane feelings, is obviously one which, when made to this Department is in the nature of an unreasonable request.
  Mr. McSHANE: If the Minister of Labour has power to pay for the railway journey to Southampton why, in circumstances like these, should she not have power to pay the railway fare back?
  Miss BONDFIELD: There is a misunderstanding under which many hon. Members are labouring. There are cases in connection with the transference of men from depressed areas in which certain sums have been allowed for transference expenses, and in regard to the question of fares, under the Labour Exchanges Act I have power to issue warrants for railway fares, which are in the nature of loans which have to be repaid, and hon. Members will find in the Report of the Ministry that a, large sum of money is issued under railway warrants, the greater proportion of which has to be repaid. A certain percentage is charged to the Unemployment Fund and to that extent the workman who travels is excused the payment of fares, but only to the extent laid down in the Regulations. Hon. Members are under a misapprehension in thinking that I have power to pay railway fares
  542
  to those who take situations away from their own towns. I am sorry that in a matter upon which the hon. Member feels so keenly it is impossible for me to give him the satisfaction he wants, but it must be perfectly clear to the House that the request he makes is entirely outside the law which I have to administer, and that it would be a very serious departure if such a grant was made.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Is the Minister not receiving from some anonymous donor gifts to be used in connection with her work?
  Miss BONDFIELD: There has been—shall I says?—a very pleasant surprise caused at many Exchanges by the anonymous donation of sums of money, but it would be quite improper for the distribution of those sums of money to be regarded as part of the work of the Exchanges. As a matter of fact these sums of money are being distributed through recognised agencies locally. I really think that the hon. and learned Member's suggestion is rather a good one, and that if this matter was taken up locally from the standpoint of the voluntary gifts, it might be a question for the local committee to consider whether this comes within the terms of the donor's conditions.
  Mr. McSHANE: Will the Minister make that suggestion?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I do not think I can make the suggestion. The condition is that the money is to be spent to help the unemployed men.
  Mr. MOSES: Does the Minister know whether any of these gifts have been sent to Walsall or Southampton?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I believe there was a sum of money sent to one of the Birmingham Exchanges. I can supply the hon. Member with the addresses of those who have the disposal of the fund.
  It being Half-past Eleven o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  INDIA (ACCOUNTS, AUDIT).
  INDIA (ACCOUNTS, AUDIT).
  LACE INDUSTRY.
  LACE INDUSTRY.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (ALTERNATIVE WORK).
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS (ALTERNATIVE WORK).
  UNCERTIFICATED AND SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS.
  UNCERTIFICATED AND SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EXHIBITION, BUENOS AYRES).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EXHIBITION, BUENOS AYRES).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (GRANTS).
  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (GRANTS).
  DOMESTIC SERVICE (TRAINING).
  DOMESTIC SERVICE (TRAINING).
AVIATION.
  WIRELESS TELEPHONY.
  WIRELESS TELEPHONY.
  LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS.
  LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS.
  AUTO-GYRO MACHINES (RESEARCH).
  AUTO-GYRO MACHINES (RESEARCH).
  WOOLWICH COUNTY COURT.
  WOOLWICH COUNTY COURT.
TRANSPORT
  ROAD TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS.
  ROAD TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS.
  TROLLEY TRAMWAYS, LONDON.
  TROLLEY TRAMWAYS, LONDON.
  NEW BY-PASS ROAD, FERRYRRIDGE.
  NEW BY-PASS ROAD, FERRYRRIDGE.
  DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL.
  DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL.
  PROPOSED BY-PASS, EWELL.
  PROPOSED BY-PASS, EWELL.
  GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL.
  GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  RUSSIA (TRADE DELEGATION).
  RUSSIA (TRADE DELEGATION).
CHINA.
  OUTER MONGOLIA.
  OUTER MONGOLIA.
  OPIUM (CARGO).
  OPIUM (CARGO).
AGRICULTURE.
  CONFERENCE.
  CONFERENCE.
  BLACK CURRANT MITE ORDER.
  BLACK CURRANT MITE ORDER.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BRISTOL CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a.
LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TEES VALLEY WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DARLINGTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

UNEMPLOYMENT AND FISCAL POLICY.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to move, That this House views with grave concern the serious and increasing depression manifesting itself in the manufacturing and agricultural industries of this country, and the resultingly expanding figures of unemployment, and is of the opinion that the most practical and immediate remedies are to be found in a comprehensive policy of Safeguarding, anti-dumping and Imperial economic unity.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Motion which I am privileged to move this afternoon covers very wide ground indeed and might lend itself, without unnecessary verbiage, to a very lengthy speech; but there are quite a number of speakers who wish to take part in this debate and therefore I propose to confine
946
my remarks within as short a compass as possible. When the Socialist Government came into power last May they found the country in an economic condition which was gradually but surely improving. There was a quiet optimism which, with the extended application of the Unionist policy of Safeguarding and Empire development, might have turned into definite progress and restored to some extent the economic condition of the country. But the electorate in their wisdom decided to listen to the insidious notes of the Socialists and to a lesser extent to the grandiose unemployment schemes of the Liberals. So, instead of returning the Unionists once more to power, they launched into office a Socialist Government with authority, if only to a limited extent, to try their hands at restoring the country's prosperity.
How has that Government responded to the task that has been placed in their hands? We find that during that year there have been 600,000 more unemployed. As a certain candidate who is now a Member of the House of Commons stated at an important by-election recently, for every minute that the Socialist Govern-has been in now it one more British workman has been put out of work. Not only has unemployment grown to that alarming extent, but there has been a serious falling-off in both our import and our export trade. I find that, compared with the exports of April, 1929, one month before this Government came into power, those of April, 1930, have receded by £13,000,000, while imports have fallen by £20,000,000. What has the Government done to try and cope with that situation? First of all, we have the "Minister of Unemployment," the Right Hon. J. H. Thomas, and I should like to give him credit here for having done his best under the most difficult circumstances and under a fiscal system that is entirely out of date and unbusinesslike. What has Mr. Thomas done under those conditions? He tells us that he has to-day unemployment schemes that are employing 100,000 men. In addition, he makes great play with what he has done towards the rationalisation of our industries. I only wish to say that it seems to me that Mr. Thomas in that part of his schemes has omitted the most important thing—namely, the remedies that are proposed in this Resolution—for

947
without a tariff wall I do not believe that it will be possible to rationalise the industries of this country in an effective and efficient manner. In the United States of America such rationalisation as has been performed has been behind a tariff wall, and the same applies in European and other countries that have tried it.
So far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Snowden, is concerned, all he has done is to impose extra taxation at a time when some other countries are taking off taxation. This taxation has been direct taxation, and in a cold and callous manner be is taking off the Safeguarding Duties, the only duties that have helped our trade in the terrific blast of foreign competition under which they have been suffering, not only during the past year but during the past few years. I cannot understand why, in spite of the fact that every other country in the world, including our own Dominions, has abandoned this old shibboleth of Cobdenite Free Trade and has assumed Protection in its place and prospered under it—I cannot understand why Mr. Snowden should still stick to the old fetish of Free Trade.
What has happened with regard to the manufacturing trades? I want to run quickly through the various terms of my Resolution. What is the existing condition in the manufacturing trades? In order to give a fair and clear idea of the position it is necessary to divide the manufacturing trades into safeguarded trades and non-safeguarded trades. So far as the non-safeguarded manufactures are concerned, I find that for the three months ending March, 1925, the retained imports of non-safeguarded manufactures amounted to £56,000,000, while for the three months ending March, 1930, they were £66,000,000, or £10,000,000 more. With regard to exports of non-safeguarded manufactures, for the three months ending March, 1925, the figure is £157,000,000, whereas for the same period in 1930 it dropped to £118,000,000, a fall of £39,000,000. This shows a loss in the wealth and purchasing power of the community of £49,000,000 in three months, or the colossal and, I might say, calamitous rate of some £200,000,000 per annum.
It would take too long to analyse all the various trades that have suffered
948
through the importation of goods of foreign origin into this country, but the cotton trade is a very well-known example, as is also the iron and steel trade. Both of them have suffered, as we know, very severely from foreign competition. In the case of the cotton trade, Japan has become one of the most serious competitors, not only in the overseas trade but in Lancashire itself. I am informed that in Manchester to-day it is possible to buy a cotton shirt of Japanese manufacture for the sum of 1s. 9d. whereas a similar shirt manufactured by British workers in Lancashire cannot be sold under 2s. 6d. Then if you look at India, I find that in 1913, just before the War, we exported 3,000,000,000 yards of cotton lengths into India. To-day we are exporting exactly half that amount—that is, 1,500,000,000 yards of cotton lengths. What has Japan done in the same time? Before the War, Japan exported into India only a 400th part of the whole cotton importation into that country. Now she is exporting one-fifth of those importations.
With regard to the iron and steel trade, I find there that the output to-day is 60 per cent. of full capacity, and I find also—and I think this is well known to your Lordships—that the average importations of steel into this country to-day are 3,000,000 tons. That quantity of steel, imported into this country, is giving work to 120,000 foreigners, and if we were to manufacture even half of it in this country we should at any rate be giving work to half that number of British workmen instead of to foreigners. Not only so, but the coal required to manufacture that steel would be mined by British coal miners instead of foreign coal miners, and British coal would be used for that purpose instead of foreign coal.
Now let me turn to agriculture. So far as that industry is concerned, the condition is parlous. Do noble Lords opposite really believe that the meetings of agriculturists which have been taking place all over the country during the last few months, representing all classes of agriculture, have been held for amusement, or for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of their fellow countrymen, or for seeking assistance where none was needed? Of course noble Lords know just as well as I do that that is not the case, but that the agricultural

949
industry is in such a parlous condition that it requires the most anxious and early consideration on the part of the Government, and of anyone who has an interest in that industry, which is the greatest industry of this country. The right hon. gentleman, Mr. Noel Buxton, the Minister for Agriculture, speaking in the House of Commons only a few days ago, admitted these conditions, but he had no remedy; and then, speaking directly afterwards, that well-known Cobden Free Trade purist, Sir Archibald Sinclair, was compelled to appeal to the Government to set up a conference which might consider every form of remedy, including even Protection, for meeting and trying to produce a remedy for those conditions. Of course nothing could be done along those lines by this Government, which is so obviously and vocally a Free Trade Government.
I want to support my case for agriculture with a very few facts. I find that home-grown wheat is now only one-fifth of the total annual requirements of the United Kingdom, compared with one-fourth in the pre-War period, and I find that to-day—and I think this was stated by the Minister for Agriculture in the debate in the House of Commons the other day—the number of workers in agriculture has fallen by 100,000. In Morley's Life of Cobden, Cobden is reported to have said on one occasion "not an acre of land will go out of cultivation under my policy." What has actually happened? Before the War there were in round figures 7,000,000 acres under crops in this island. To-day there are only 5,500,000 acres, or 1,500,000 acres less, and we know what is the reason for this. It is due to severe foreign competition. It is due also to the dumping of German wheat and oats and of French wheat and other cheaply grown cereals into this country. What can be done in order to cope with such conditions? I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the best remedies, the most immediate and practical remedies, are to be found within the terms of the Motion what I have placed on the Order Paper—namely, a wide application of Safeguarding measures, of anti-dumping measures, and Imperial economic unity, or, as I would prefer to call it, Empire Free Trade.
I venture to believe that the only way in which I can prove that Safeguarding
950
may be effective in this direction is by giving your Lordships certain facts, which I will try to put to you as shortly as possible. When Safeguarding was first inaugurated Cobden Free Traders made, and even now make, certain statements which I think you will agree, when I have given you these figures, have been refuted by actual experience. First of all it was said that employment would not be increased. What has actually happened? In the safeguarded trades we find that employment taken in all has increased by 80.000. Then it was said that production would not be increased. What, has actually happened with regard to that? There has been an increase in production of from 57 per cent. to 192 per cent. of safeguarded articles. The highest is fabric gloves, the production of which has increased by 192 per cent. Another statement made was that safeguarded goods would cost more. What has happened there? There has actually been a decrease of from 3 up to 40 per cent. in the price of all safeguarded articles. It was also stated that exports would decline. What has happened there? Exports have not declined. On the contrary they have increased in safeguarded goods by £10,000,000 per annum in the aggregate.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): Will the noble Viscount be good enough to say what he includes in safeguarded goods?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I include all articles which have been actually safeguarded, including motor oars the duties on which the noble Lord prefers perhaps to call the McKenna Duties, but which I believe are as good an example as any other.
LORD ARNOLD: Does the noble Lord include artificial silk also?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Yes, I do, but I have not set them out separately, because it would take too long. I am including artificial silk, and with regard to artificial silk I see that 23 new factories have been set up since 1925. I unhesitatingly assert that if Safeguarding were imposed for all trades in which Safeguarding was required, today, the effect would be immediate. In fact, I believe that the effect on those trades and on unemployment would be so startling that everyone in this country

951
would wonder why Safeguarding Duties had not been imposed before. I am sure that the noble Lord in his remarks is likely to tell us that in protected countries wages are lower and living conditions are poorer. I am going to admit that so far as Europe is concerned, 'but at any rate those countries have consolation in the shape of supplying their own markets almost entirely; and so far as the United States, Canada and Australia are concerned, there we find under safeguarding conditions that the labourer is just as well paid, if not better paid, and his conditions are as good as, if not better than, those in this country.
So far as agricultural depression is concerned I believe that anyone who is not absolutely blinded by the fetish of Cobden Free Trade will agree that it is absolutely necessary to prevent the dumping of foodstuffs into this country, which has been going on during the past year or two. Various measures for doing this have been suggested. I myself believe that the simplest and most effective method is by way of countervailing duties. I do not agree with the remedy of licensing of quantities or prohibition of entry, because I think that form of assistance may get us into difficulties with the countries to which we apply it. Not only that, I believe that it will mean in this country the establishment of a form of bureaucratic control over trading in our foodstuffs to which I aim very strongly opposed.
But I think the greatest measure of help could come to agriculture through the policy of Imperial economic unity, or Empire Free Trade as I prefer to call it. Personally, I have never concealed from myself, either privately or publicly, that the best and simplest method of bringing about a large measure of Empire Free Trade is by means of trading agreements with the Dominions and Crown Colonies, which will involve the importation into this country on a protective basis of the primary products of those Dominions and Colonies, whilst in return securing for the manufacturers of this country a large proportion of the trade with the Dominions and Colonies, at present being supplied from foreign countries. This means that Empire foodstuffs such as wheat, meat, butter, cheese, eggs, bacon, etc. will be introduced into
952
this country entirely free of duties, whilst duties are placed on those articles from foreign countries. That is one reason why we call it Empire Free Trade. On the other hand the Dominions, in order to move towards the same ideal, would adjust their tariffs on manufactured imported goods in favour of British trade, and this could be done by reducing the duty on British goods, or increasing the duty on foreign goods, or by both methods.
So far as British agriculture is concerned, apart from our own production, this in my belief would provide for the consumption in this country of wheat and meat and other foodstuffs grown in the Empire, under conditions very similar and much nearer the price of wheat and meat produced in this country, than that now sent from the Argentine, and other foodstuffs from Denmark and other foreign countries. This would give immediate relief to the British farmer, and over and above that it is suggested that a guaranteed price should be given to the farmer for his wheat where that is necessary. I am told—we hear it constantly—that this will raise the price of food to the people of this country. I do not agree with that proposition. There have been numerous figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook to show that, even with wheat at 55 s. a quarter, bread could still be sold in this country at 9d. to 9½d. per quartern loaf. But even if, for the sake of argument, the price of bread were a little higher, would it not be better that the whole of our people should be employed instead of having a million and three-quarters of them unemployed? In addition, those who are employed would be better off, and more certain of holding the employment which they have to-day.
We are told also that the Dominions will not have Empire Free Trade or Imperial economic unity. For a quarter of a century the Dominions have been holding out their hands to us, and by repeated actions in granting preferences on British goods they have shown there is nothing they desire more than closer trading with the Mother Country. Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa are expressing themselves in favour of these trade agreements. Quite recently we have had a glorious example of this in the shape of the action of the

953
Canadian Government in reducing their tariffs enormously in our favour. I find that actually in the case of 589 tariff items out of 1,188 British trade will enjoy free entry into the Canadian market; while in the case of 270 items the duty on British goods has been lowered.
Just listen to an extract from a speech by Mr. Stewart, the Minister of the Interior in Canada, in a debate on the Budget only a few days ago. Speaking about the bold forward step the Government have taken in the direction of the extension of tariff preferences to British countries, he said:—
We hope to transfer to British countries the large volume of imports which are now brought in from countries which do not favour trade with us. It is not merely an expression of family sentiment, but a straightforward offer to Great Britain for increased trade, without strings attached. Ours is not lip loyalty, but a genuine desire for trade with our kith and kin to mutual advantage."
After that, for any people in this country to say that the Dominions do not want it is simply blinding themselves to a long series of acts and gestures on the part of our Dominions, and to brand themselves as Little Englanders, who would rather remain insular and unencumbered by Empire responsibility. In these days of severe competition it is ridiculous to suppose that the Dominions, in return for an assured market in Great Britain for their primary products, would not give us a large proportion of the trade they are now doing with foreign countries. The same applies to the Crown Colonies so far as their products are concerned.
To-day the Empire buys goods to the amount of about £600,000,000—and this, I would remind your Lordships, is a growing trade, as the population increases and their resources are developed. Our exports to the Empire amount to £275,000,000. Is there not a sufficiently wide margin between these two figures to indicate what a great opportunity the Mother Country has, through development of trade with the Dominions and Colonies? The various parts of the Empire have, as I have already intimated, made their gestures and are now waiting for a lead from the Mother Country. When did Great Britain give up leading the British Empire? It is, in my humble judgment, for His Majesty's Government to make offers to the Dominions, to ask
954
them to call an economic conference, which will be unfettered, unhampered, and entirely free to discuss all ways and means of bringing about Imperial economic unity. In a letter recently to The Times the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who has rendered great and distinguished service overseas, and who is now Chairman of the Empire Economic Union, wrote:—
"I say that we have already come to the conclusion that there should be no fundamental difficulty in principle to prevent the formulation of mutually satisfactory agreements between the United Kingdom and the various parts of the Empire."
I hope that, directly, the Chairman of the Empire Economic Union will give us some cases which we can consider ourselves.
I see that an Amendment to my Motion has been placed on the Order Paper and, perhaps, I shall be in order if at this stage I say a few words about it. The Amendment suggests that there should be a conference on a non-Party basis to deal with the whole subject of trade depression and unemployment. In times of war a conference on a non-Party basis is perhaps, practical politics, but in times of peace I do not believe that it will ever fit in with our political and democratic Constitution. I believe, indeed, that every subject which involves an issue like the fiscal issue will have to be fought out at the polls. This Amendment is, in my opinion, a side-tracking Amendment and an Amendment which will accomplish nothing at all. Therefore, whilst sympathising with my noble friend in his desire for finding on non-Party lines a solution of this very thorny problem, I am entirely opposed to his Amendment and much prefer my own Resolution, which indicates certain definite remedies which are every day receiving greater and greater support in the country.
If this Government does not adopt the policy of Empire Free Trade, the next Government will do so. West Fulham is the writing on the wall. Central Nottingham will be the next. The people of this country are waking up to the fact that they have a glorious heritage. They are waking up to the fact that they have a vast Empire with great riches, still undeveloped and waiting for population. On the other hand, the Empire itself is stretching out its hands to its British kinsmen across the seas and is appealing

955
in the clearest terms for a closer bond of trade and unity. If this present Government will not give it to them, then, as surely as the sun sets in the west, the people will displace the present Government and put into power a Government that will. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House views with grave concern the serious and increasing depression manifesting itself in the manufacturing and agricultural industries of this country, and the resultingly expanding figures of unemployment, and is of the opinion that the most practical and immediate remedies are to be found in a comprehensive policy of Safeguarding, antidumping and Imperial economic unity.— (Viscount Elibank.)
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY had given Notice of an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all words after "opinion" and to insert "that it would be of advantage to the State if the leaders and representatives of all Parties were to meet in conference to consider the necessary and remedial measures to be taken by agreement on non-political lines." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I have placed on the Paper an Amendment to my noble friend's Motion and I assure him that it is in no way a sidetracking Amendment. Although I agree in the main with all his arguments and with the statistics he has produced, I believe that the situation is one that would be better dealt with after conference between Parties than by a Resolution of your Lordships' House. After all, it must be remembered that if we passed my noble friend's Resolution, it would be looked upon as only a pious expression of opinion, and I am afraid that I cannot be sanguine enough to believe that it would do any practical good. The situation is more serious even than he has shown it to be. I believe that there is a better way of dealing with it, and I propose to give your Lordships my reasons for that opinion.
Two days ago the Lord Privy Seal, addressing the House of Commons used some very remarkable words indeed and made what I can only describe as a very alarming confession. He said that he did not disguise the fact that the feeling of a want of confidence which was permeating the country among all sections of business was having a bad effect.
956
When a Minister of the Crown admits that the condition of the country, owing to the feeling of insecurity, is such that businesses are shutting up, that trade is falling and that the state of things is as serious as he puts it, it seems to me that that admission must be regarded as one of a very alarming character. My object is to restore confidence to trade and industry by trying to induce all Parties to look at this great question, which is of vital importance to the country, apart from political lines. My noble friend told your Lordships that this question of Party conferences was only practical politics in times of war. I would remind him that many questions in our time have been settled by conference and compromise. I can remember when there was an agitation about lowering the franchise and the redistribution of seats, and that that great question was settled by Mr. Gladstone and Lord Salisbury at a conference by compromise on the matter. Whatever you may say, although it may have been in time of war, you have to realise that one of the greatest questions of the day, Irish Home Rule, which for forty years had agitated and disturbed the country, was settled under a Coalition Government of which Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister.
There is also another factor to consider. We have had an invitation from the Leader of the Liberal Party to consider this question apart from politics, and an answer has been given to that invitation by the Leader of the Government, the Prime Minister. He made a qualified answer to the appeal that he should respond to this invitation, because he said he was afraid that it would not be adopted—he meant that it would not be adopted by the Opposition. I am not so afraid of Mr. MacDonald adopting this proposal because, from what I see, the present Government and the Labour Party are more torn asunder than any other Party in the State upon this question. You have one wing, the extreme wing, which seems to be getting a few additions daily, which is all for enormous sums of money being raised by loan or by grants, and a great outlay of expenditure in order to provide work for the unemployed, and as an alternative it calls upon the Government to resign. There is another section of the Labour Party, headed by the stalwart

957
Yorkshireman who is Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is very chary, and rightly so, about any commitment to large expenditure on unremunerative work. But he is also adamant against maintaining the Safeguarding Duties. There are also sections of that Party in favour of maintaining those Safeguarding Duties, and I see in the Press that some of them are bold enough to appear at Nottingham and say that they disagree with their own Government. When doctors differ the patient dies. We were told the other day in your Lordships' House in connection with, the Coal Mines Bill that we were to pool our brains over that Bill. All I suggest is that when you have a national question of far greater importance to the whole country than the Coal Bill, you should pool your brains and consider the best way of dealing with such an important question.
There are other reasons, which my noble friend has not touched upon, that are put forward in many quarters as a cause of this depression that is afflicting the country. There is the phenomenon of the extraordinarily low price in every country of the world for produce. There is apparently no one who can give any reason for that phenomenon. I must ask the House to allow me to recall a personal reminiscence which perhaps may be of interest. It is 51 years since in this House I made a Motion very similar to that which my noble friend has made. I called attention in 1879 to the depression of trade and industry in the country. We had been suffering from five bad harvests in succession, and foreign competition was very severe. Rents were falling, farms were being thrown up, and it was a subject which was exciting the interests of the country very gravely.
I remember the day very well. It was after a number of other Questions had been put, and it was near the dinner hour when I rose to speak. The whole of the Front Bench on my side walked out of the House. The only Peers who were left to support me were my two old school-fellows, Lord Rosebery and Lord Lansdowne. We did our best. I put forward my case and there was a long debate. It was late in the evening when Lord Beaconsfield, to everybody's astonishment, rose to reply. He gave three reasons for the depression in the country. The first was the bad harvests,
958
the second was foreign competition and the third was the appreciation of gold. He said a very curious thing, and I think the House will be interested in it. He said:
"Notwithstanding an increase in population in the leading countries of Europe, which alone requires always a considerable increase of gold currency to carry on its transactions, the amount every year has diminished and is diminishing until a state of affairs has been brought about by the gold discoveries exactly the reverse of that which they produced at first. Gold is every day appreciating in value, and as it appreciates in value the lower become prices."
I believe the same thing could be said to-day, but to a greater extent, as Lord Beaconsfield said 51 years ago.
There is another aspect of the gold question which is very alarming. We have on either side of us great countries which are taking gold and hoarding it. This is disturbing the money market and I believe is preventing the conversion of our War Loan at a lower rate of interest. We look across the Atlantic, and we see that in America they have a different system to what we have in this country. There the Federal Reserve Board, when a country requires gold and applies for it, have a system of credit by which they make advances to that country and thereby prevent the movement of gold. As the gold is not transferred the cost of insurance, transit and brokerage charges is saved, and there is not the disturbance or dislocation of the market which would be produced by a great movement of gold. That is a matter which I believe is being enquired into by the Government. There are also other very important questions bearing upon the situation.
When we have these economic questions about which people may hold very different opinions, and when there is a crisis such as we have to face, in my opinion instead of fighting these matters out, as my noble friend said we must eventually do, at the polls, it would be a prudent thing for the Leaders of the different Parties to confer. That is my view. I think that when there is an appalling disaster facing the country it is wise for those who are the leaders of opinion, and who have to consider their duty as patriots and not merely as leaders of a Party, and who also are responsible to their fellow-citizens, to consider whether or not they should see if some mutual

959
common basis cannot be arrived at by which the difficulties with which we are faced could be met and overcome. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out from ("opinion") to end of Motion and insert ("that it would be of advantage to the State if the leaders and representatives of all Parties were to meet in conference to consider the necessary and remedial measures to be taken by agreement on non-political lines.")—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I do not intend to take up your time for more than a few moments. I should have liked to have talked upon the Motion of my noble friend Lord Elibank, but there are so many people more competent and desirous to speak upon it that I do not intend to say a word about it, except this. I do not think any one of your Lordships can doubt that it raises a most important question. Let us see what it is. It raises a, question of the increasing depression in the manufacturing and agricultural industries. We all know that exists, and it is a very acute question. It also raises the question of the expanding figures of unemployment. Unfortunately we know that that question also exists. It then suggests that there should be an immediate remedy, if one can be found. Nobody can suggest that that is not important. Therefore I, and I think most of your Lordships, came down with the idea that we should hear the considered opinion of your Lordships' House, than which I cannot conceive a body better able to come to a considered opinion upon this question, and eventually take a Division upon the matter.
The noble Marquess suggested in his speech that a pious Resolution of this House would do no good. I do not agree with him in the least. I think a Resolution of this House would not only carry weight in the country, even if this House could not carry out its desires, but would also carry weight in the Dominions and Colonies. I think this House ought to consider this question for itself, and not be put off by what I might call a clogging Amendment, which suggests that this afternoon should be devoted, not to your Lordships saying what you think about the main Motion, but whether or not it would be as well to get certain people together to talk among them-
960
selves and then have another debate as to whether we are going to take their opinion or not. Surely this House is perfectly competent to make up its own mind without having another body of people to come together to tell it what is its mind. Therefore, I hope, and I hope very sincerely, that the debate this afternoon will more or less be attached to the main Motion rather than to the question of whether or not this Amendment should be taken first, which, of course, according to the procedure of the House theoretically must be done. I hope that noble Lords who take part in the debate will address themselves to the main Motion.
The noble Marquess was good enough to say that when doctors differ the patient dies. Well, the only really successful doctor I ever heard of was a doctor who owned the freehold of the local cemetery and I do not think it is much good getting in another doctor. Your Lordships should be perfectly capable of dealing with the matter yourselves. For that reason I have ventured to rise in the hope that after what I have said the debate will be carried on on the lines of the Motion and not on the mere question of having another Locarno or another, if I may venture to say so, Aboyne gathering appointed by someone to consider the matter further before we are allowed to consider it. I hope your Lordships will accept what I have said without taking into account that possibly it has been in some parts out of order.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I think it would be perhaps for the general convenience of the House and for the symmetry of the debate if the views of His Majesty's Government upon the various points raised were stated at this juncture. I quite agree with the noble Earl who spoke last that the questions raised in the Motion of the noble Viscount are very important. The noble Viscount began the debate with a speech which was interesting and forceful, but a speech which, nevertheless, I hold will not bear close examination. Indeed, it showed, if I may say so, in some respects an almost reckless disregard of facts. I know the noble Viscount did not intend to be misleading, but in point of fact he was misleading in many respects. He began his observations by suggesting

961
that the trade depression in this country is due to the fact that there is now a Socialist Government in office whereas about a year ago there was a Unionist Government, and he informed your Lordships that if the Unionist Government had remained in office and had continued the policy of Safeguarding and so forth we should now—I do not wish to overstate it—have reached a state of comparative prosperity.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD ARNOLD: I am glad I have stated it fairly. It is very interesting in that connection to consider what has happened in the same period in other parts of the world. What has been happening here has been happening, more or less, and in some respects a good deal more than here, all over the world. The noble Viscount gave certain figures regarding our export trade, which he said has fallen off under the Socialist Government. Just let me look at that. Take the first three months of this year—the first three months of 1930 as compared with the first three months of 1929. I am putting it as fairly as I can. Great Britain's export trade has fallen from £181,000,000 to £164,000,000. That is a fall of 9.4 per cent. But then I turn to the United States of America, a country in which they enjoy in a high degree the blessings of Protection and where, so far from having a Socialist Government, they have something very different. In the same period their export trade has fallen from $1,419,000,000 to $1,133,000,000. That is a fall of about 20 per cent., so I find as a matter of fact the export trade of the United States during that period—and it is as fair a period as I can take—has fallen to about double the extent that it has fallen here.
It makes me again emphasise the fact that there are certain world conditions at work which are responsible for the present situation. Take unemployment. Unemployment, unfortunately, has increased here but unemployment is also very bad in other countries. I noticed that the President of the American Labour Federation said that in February last no less than 21 per cent. of his members were out of employment and in the building trade 42 per cent. The latest figures in Australia show about 14 per cent. of un-
962
employment and in Canada there is about 10 per cent, of unemployment. Trade has certainly been very depressed in Japan and a large number of works have been closing down. These things have been going on all over the world. The noble Viscount spoke about practically every other country except ourselves having discarded the shibboleth of Free Trade and he suggested that other countries had prospered under Protection. I venture to say, and I think I am stating a matter of fact, that he cannot sustain any proposition of that kind. Things are very far from prosperous in Australia where they have high Protection.
LORD MELCHETT: And a Socialist and Labour Government.
LORD ARNOLD: It happened before that. They are far from prosperous, and the same may be said of Germany and Japan. It is not true that every other country has discarded Free Trade. Denmark and Holland are not exactly Free Trade but they are largely Free Trade, and on the whole they are prosperous, and they are almost the only countries in Europe where real wages are as high as in this country. We have to look further into these things and that is where the noble Viscount's case completely breaks down. I suggest that his main premise was this, that unemployment and trade depression can be cured, or very largely cured, by Safeguarding and by Protection. But unfortunately, for him, if he will analyse the figures of unemployment in this country—
VISOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I said—and by Imperial economic unity or Empire Free Trade as well.
LORD ARNOLD: Yes, I am coming to that. I am not going to avoid anything. I shall be only too glad to deal with that part a little later, but I cannot say everything all at once. I was going to say that unemployment and trade depression are worse just in those trades which Protection would help the least. That is the position. If the noble Viscount will analyse the unemployment figures he will find that three-quarters of the unemployment is in industries not subject to foreign imports, or practically not subject to them; that is, in industries in which Protection will not only

963
not help but will positively injure. What good will Protection do for the coal trade? What will it do for shipbuilding? What will it do for the cotton trade, for the building trade and for the distributive and retail trades? What will it do for them?
Take the cotton trade. The noble Viscount spoke about increased foreign competition. There has been increased Japanese competition in India no doubt, but I fail to see how tariffs making the cost of production higher in Lancashire will help us in competing with Japan in India. He also spoke of the intensified foreign competition of cotton goods coming into this country. I wish the noble Viscount would go into the facts. If he does he will find in the matter of imports of foreign cotton goods that they are distinctly less, very very much less last year, 1929, than in the year before the War, 1913, which was a highly prosperous year in the cotton trade. They are not much more than half. There is nothing new about the phenomenon of a small proportion of very cheap cotton goods coming into this country. It goes back to the early years of the Tariff Reform campaign, the years between 1906 and 1910. We had then as a matter of fact imports of foreign cotton goods, but to-day they are not much more than half what they were in 1913.
Those are the facts. As a matter of fact, if we go into our trade—I am not now speaking of the cotton trade only but of our total trade—you will find that only about 10 per cent. of our imports are of fully manufactured goods and some of those could not be made here or not at anything like the same price. So the potential area over which the policy of Safeguarding and Protection can really be applied is quite small. I ask again. if Protection will cure unemployment, what is the reply to the figures I have given? What is the reply to the fact that in Germany there has been a great deal of unemployment, somewhere about 3,000,000, and what is the reply to the fact that in the years 1900 to 1914 under Free Trade our industries, speaking broadly, were prosperous and at one time unemployment was down to about 2 per cent.? This was under Free Trade, under this old system which we are told we ought to discard. What is the reply to that? Surely it follows that there is
964
no case for the contention that Protection will cure unemployment. It is opposed to the facts. Both theory and experience really prove the contrary.
Then I come to the Safeguarding Duties in detail, about which the noble Viscount said something. He took it for granted, as all Safeguarders do, that these duties were a great success. As a matter of fact, in many respects, as I will show your Lordships, they have been a failure. Moreover, even if the extravagant claims of the Safeguarders could be sustained, it is necessary to point out that any results that could be obtained under Safeguarding in particular industries would be at the expense of consumers in general and other industries. That is a point that Safeguarders always leave out of account. When the noble Viscount claims, for instance, that Safeguarding has led to a great increase in exports, I say that, as a matter of fact, this is not the case. I was sorry to intervene, but I wanted to be quite clear. I knew what the reply would be, because I know what the figures are. He only arrives, as all Safeguarders do, at any kind of result favourable to their case by including in these figures those for motor cars and artificial silk.
If I take the real safeguarded industries, which number eight—glass, cutlery, lace, gas mantles, wrapping paper, pottery, buttons and enamel hollowware—their exports have not increased, but have decreased. Taking the year before the duty was put on in each case, and totalling the exports, you begin with a total of £5,052,000, which comes down last year, in 1929, to £4,628,000, a decrease of 8.39 per cent. Accordingly I say that, as a matter of fact, exports have not increased but have decreased. If I take as an equivalent for comparison the export of all articles wholly or mainly manufactured from 1924 to 1929, which is as nearly as possible the same period, I find a decrease from £618,855,000, in 1924, to £573,833,000 in 1929, a decrease of 7.28 per cent. Therefore, if you take all the manufactured exports, they have actually decreased less than those of the safeguarded industries.
I have said that the noble Viscount arrived at his results only by including motors and artificial silks in the safeguarded industries. As a matter of fact,

965
the Safeguarding Duties were supposed to be put on to help depressed industries. Who can say that the motor industry or the artificial silk industry was a depressed industry? We Free Traders do not object to the introduction of the figures of the motor and artificial silk industries because they bring into the controversy something that we cannot answer or meet. That is not the reason why we object. We object because it is not a proper or fair method of controversy. We object because these are new trades, catering for a huge popular demand and bound to grow, duties or no duties. That can be proved. Their prosperity is demonstrably not due to the fact that they have duties. They would grow anyhow, duties or no duties, because they are new trades catering for a huge demand.
Let me give an illustration that I have given once before in your Lordships' House. Suppose that in 1922, for instance, a Safeguarding Duty had been put on wireless apparatus, a wholly new industry with an enormous demand. By 1928 the figures of production and employment would have shown an enormous increase, and the Safeguarders would have come along and said: "Look what Safeguarding has done, and haw this industry has grown because of it." As a matter of fact, Safeguarding would have had nothing whatever to do with it. It would have grown anyhow. In the same way, when the noble Viscount gives these figures of the safeguarded industries, why does he not give the figures of the electrical industry, in which there is no Safeguarding at all? The exports in that trade have increased very much without tariffs. They have increased from £16,034,000 in 1924 to £19,534,000 in 1929. The noble Viscount did not tell you that. He gives only certain figures which, as a matter of fact, ought not to be lumped together.
The artificial silk trade was prosperous long before there was any talk of duties. It was growing by leaps and bounds. Courtaulds did not want a duty and did not ask for it. At first they opposed it, and when they were helped slightly as regards the Excise Duty the most that the chairman of Courtaulds said was that he was inclined to think that the duties would be found in the long run not to have caused any damage to the British textile industry. That is not inconsistent
966
with the fact that later on he did not want them taken off. When you have them on, a different position is created. It is really quite idle to suggest that the prosperity of the artificial silk trade is due to Safeguarding or to duties. Their exports and production were growing by leaps and bounds before.
Similarly with the motor trade. I will give the noble Viscount some figures here to prove this point beyond all doubt or controversy. We can do that in the case of the motor trade, because there was a short interval when the Motor Duties were taken off, and disaster was prophesied. We were told that all kinds of things would happen. One prominent person, I think, said that more employees in the motor trade would be thrown out of work than there actually were in the whole trade. As a matter of fact, after Mr. Snowden took the duties off in 1924, precisely the reverse happened. The trade had a very prosperous time in the ten months when the duties were off. Employment increased, production increased and exports increased. If I take the average for the six months before the duties were taken off, there were 199,000 workers, and in the following ten months that figure grew to 209,000. How can it be said, therefore, that Safeguarding increases employment and that non-safe-guarding does the reverse? Similarly with the export of motors. For the six months before the duties were taken off it amounted to £354,000 per month, and in the following ten months to £538,000, a growth of over 50 per cent. I think the noble Viscount ought to have mentioned some of these facts in his speech. If he is going to quote figures in the way in which he did, I think he ought to have indicated that, as a matter of fact, similar figures could be quoted under totally different conditions, and that these figures do not result from Safeguarding but from quite different reasons.
Then we come to lace. It is suggested that Safeguarding has largely increased employment in the safeguarded industries. It happens that the only safeguarded industry in which there are official statistics regarding unemployment is lace. The other figures which the noble Viscount gave are not official, though I do not say that there has not been an increase in some cases. However, the only safeguarded industry in which there

967
are official figures is lace, and the figures show that, as between 1924 and 1929—that is between the year before the Safeguarding Duty was put on lace and the last year for which figures are available—there is a small decline in employment in the lace industry. Those are official figures. But even if it were not so, even if the reverse were the case, that is a very different state of things from the extravagant claims of the Safeguarders, who suggest that Safeguarding has enormously increased employment.
They always leave out of account the fact that, if in one particular trade employment has slightly benefited, unemployment has been created in some other trade. That is always left out of account. Take, for instance, the hosiery trade. That trade is not safeguarded, though perhaps a small amount might be held to be safeguarded because of the use of artificial silk. I have shown that the duties do not account for the growth of the artificial silk trade. There has been a great increase in the number of people employed in the same period in the hosiery trade. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions of the noble Viscount do not bear close examination. He said nothing about the damage done by the Safeguarding Duties to the re-export trades—a very serious damage indeed.
He then came to the question of prices. He said that prices had gone down enormously. There again, I should like to put it to your Lordships that there are no official statistics of prices in the safeguarded industries. The statistics upon which the noble Viscount based his statements are not official. As a matter of fact in this House from time to time the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, and I myself, have given specific instances of various articles the prices of which we say have been raised, and raised considerably. That is not official, because there are no official figures, but no attempt has ever been made by those who support Safeguarding to dispute a single one of those cases. Therefore we say that it is not a sustainable position to argue that Safeguarding has not merely not increased but has apparently decreased prices. The fact is that there has been a general fall in prices, and my point is that without the Safeguarding Duties prices would be cheaper still.
968
Similarly, with regard to wages. There really are no official statistics with regard to wages, but when the noble Viscount claims, as he does, that for instance in the United States of America real wages are higher than they are here, the reply to that has been made again and again and it is still true. We do not say that tariffs are everything, and that they transform and upset everything. We say that in a country like the United States, where you have a vast and to some extent undeveloped territory, with a great area for Free Trade within its borders, you may have wages higher than in the old European countries, tariffs or no tariffs, but real wages in this country are very much higher than they are in the European countries; that is, under more or less similar conditions with which they ought to be compared. The figures are 100 here, 71 in Germany, 53 in France, and 42 in Italy. Is it not, therefore, perfectly clear that under Free Trade the workers have better conditions with regard to wages than under Safeguarding? Then the noble Viscount mentioned iron and steel, and I would put a question here to Lord Melchett, and nobody can reply to anything which he may say better than himself a few years ago. Lord Melchett spoke a few days ago on the need of putting a duty upon steel. The noble Viscount asked why we do not make in this country the 3,000,000 tons of steel which is imported. It did not occur to him that that 3,000,000 tons of steel has to be paid for in some way, and that if it does not come in nothing is sent out to pay for it. If the question is asked: Why do we not make the 3,000,000 tons of steel here? the reply is that we cannot make it here at the same price. That is the reply. If you put a duty upon steel, steel is bound to be dearer, and of our total production of steel, which with the steel we import comes to about 11,000,000 tons, somewhere about half is exported. If we are going to make steel dearer by putting a duty upon the 3,000,000 tons which we import, we are bound to injure ourselves in our export trade, in our capacity to compete in neutral markets, and if we refuse the 3,000,000 tons some portion of that quantity will find its way, in intensified competition with us, into neutral markets. Therefore if we probe these things we find that they do not work out quite as simply as the noble Viscount suggested.

969
I will not say much about agriculture, because others will speak upon that, but I will say this. When all is said and done, so far as I can follow the noble Viscount, it came to this, that agriculture in this country is to be helped by a duty upon imports of foreign foodstuffs. That at any rate is the proposal of the noble Lord who is sitting beside the noble Viscount, and who is here to-day, and who, although he changes at times, is at any rate quite definite at any particular time about his programme. We say that a duty upon imported foreign foodstuffs will make food dearer. Does the noble Viscount deny that? I rather gathered from his speech that he does. If that is so, how is it that I can bring in here from the Library a Parliamentary Return for 1840–1910, showing the effect on the price of wheat of Import Duties in two or three of the principal countries of the world, as compared with our own prices? That return shows that broadly speaking the price of wheat in these countries—Great Britain, France and Germany—is affected by the amount of the Import Duty on wheat, about to the extent of that duty.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Can the noble Lord quote any figures for the years after the War?
LORD ARNOLD: I have looked into the figures after the War and the position is a good deal affected, particularly in the earlier years after the War, by the way in which foreign currencies were slipping about and constantly changing; but the economic law remains equally true over that period of time, that a duty on goods coming into a country must raise the price of those goods. Even Lord Melchett will not dispute that. Even he cannot have changed upon that because he said in 1921 that of course an Import Duty would raise the price; that that was what it was for. If a duty will not raise the price of food and wheat, why is the Conservative Party adopting the device of the referendum? Why does Mr. Baldwin think it necessary to have a referendum? It is because he knows that the people of this country are not likely to agree to anything which is likely to raise the price of food.
As a matter of fact even Lord Beaver-brook when he began his campaign last
970
July, used words which in my submission mean, if they mean anything, that in his opinion a duty on foreign foodstuffs coming into this country would raise prices, because when he spoke he said:—
"We present to our opponents the cry of dear food and the small loaf.…. Contrary to the established Free Trade belief, this cry was never an election winner in any great industrial centre when it was faced boldly as part of an Imperial policy. Men care more for steady employment at high wages, which the Empire policy offers, than a cheap loaf and no money to buy it with."
This must mean that he agreed then that an Import Duty would raise prices, and only later has the theory been evolved that it will not do so. If a duty will not raise prices why has Lord Beaver-brook been driven to this? At Preston, when he was asked what was going to be the effect of an Import Duty upon foreign cotton coming into this country—that was very awkward—he said, "Oh yes, it was so, but there was a system of rebate whereby cotton which was exported could get back the amount of the duty which had been imposed upon the import."
Just look at it. About three-quarters of the cotton trade is engaged in export. Now, does the noble Lord, Lord Beaver-brook, really propose that a duty should be put upon all foreign cotton coming into this country, and that all those engaged in the cotton trade, who are already harassed enough, Heaven knows, should try to get hack their proportion of the rebate on the foreign cotton which had come in? And if that is so, what is the advantage going to be? Will it not very much whittle down the advantage to the Empire in sending the cotton here? I could bring case after case all supporting the view that, even in the opinion of the Empire Free Traders and the Safeguarders, these duties must raise prices. If duties do not raise prices, or affect prices—which seems to be their contention—why was there all the indignation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not stating in advance of the Budget what his policy was about the Safeguarding Duties? What did it matter if they did not affect the price? Of course, everybody knows that they raise prices.
The noble Viscount dealt with the dumping of German and French wheat.

971
A great deal was said about this two or three months ago. I am not going to minimise that, but, as a matter of fact, it really was, in proportion to, our total imports of wheat, quite a small thing, and not only so, it is not a new thing. It has been going on more or less for years. It went on before the War
LORD HARRIS: Is the noble Lord referring to wheat only? Will he deal with oats?
LORD ARNOLD: I will deal with oats, if the noble Lord desires me to do so. As regards wheat, the position has already materially changed, because in the six months to the end of February this year the import was 493,000 cwts., against 1,847,000 cwts. during the corresponding period a year ago; showing that it was a sudden change, which has now to a large extent disappeared. And of our total imports of wheat into this country of 111,000,000 cwts., the wheat imported from Germany last year was 1,676,000 cwts. That is less than 1½ per cent. of our total imports. And yet it is on that that the noble Viscount apparently proposes that we should change our whole fiscal system, and increase the price of food to everybody in this country. And there is no certainty, when you have done it, that you will keep out the German imports. The noble Viscount, when he talks about dumping, overlooks that from time to time one of the greatest dumpers has been ourselves. We have dumped very heavily in foreign markets. That shows that tariffs do not stop dumping. They may in certain circumstances lessen it, but there is no guarantee. And you cannot have any guarantee that the tariff that he proposes will stop exceptional dumping, such as takes place from time to time.
As regards oats, it is true the imports have risen seriously and constitute a distinctly higher percentage of the total. In fact, last year I think they were about one-third of our total imports. But it is only fair to say that our imports of oats are very much less in volume than those of wheat, in fact, only about one-seventeenth of our wheat imports. And of our total agricultural production in this country of all kinds, wheat is now only about 4.4 per cent. and oats and barley, that is one or two other crops combined, only about 5.3 or 5.4 per cent. So, these figures proportionately are not
972
very overwhelming. But it is necessary to point out to the noble Viscount that what he proposes is that this duty in order to keep out German wheat and oats does involve a complete change in our whole fiscal system.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Hear, hear.
LORD ARNOLD: He stands for that, but the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Salisbury) is not standing for that. The Tory Party as a whole are not standing for that. They have devised the referendum to come between them and this change. I thought when I saw in the words of the noble Viscount's Motion the term "economic unity" that that meant Empire Free Trade, and he said at the very outset that it did. It is a euphemism for that. We had a debate on this last November. There is not very much that is fresh to be said on the subject. The whole policy is quite impracticable, because the Dominions will not give up Protection, and Great Britain will not give up Free Trade. That is the position. The noble Viscount spoke of Australia and other Dominions having welcomed it. Surely he must be aware of what Mr. Scullin, the Prime Minister of Australia, said. This was since our last debate. He said:—
"It is quite hopeless to expect Australia to agree to Empire Free Trade. From the Australian point of view the scheme is entirely impracticable, the country being engaged in building its own industries. Lord Beaverbrook's plan would be of no value, because it would remove the tariff protection from manufactures."
That is not very encouraging to the Empire Free Traders.
Then I come to the noble Marquess opposite. What does he say? He has had two or three letters in the Press on this subject. About two months ago he wrote in The Times:—
"The remedy he prescribed"—
the same remedy as that of the noble Viscount—
"of building up a fiscal union with the Empire, if it is designed to meet the urgency of our case, will be, I am afraid, of little avail. Lord Beaverbrook's policy is not going to save us now. The fruits of this policy, in fact, do not belong to the immediate future, and unless it is to be fully grasped it will not be merely useless, but dangerous."
Another quotation from one of the younger members of the Conservative Party, Mr. Ormsby-Gore. He says:—

973
"The policy of the new Party is Empire Free Trade, with a tariff wall ail round the Empire. That policy, however noble, is impracticable, and, put forward as it has been, is really dangerous. The policy now advocated by the new Party has not received the support of a single leading statesman in any part of the Empire. A fortnight ago it was denounced in strong terms by the Prime Minister of Australia."
Another quotation from Lord Salisbury:—
"The fulfilment of our dream is, I am afraid, a long way off, and if we were to pretend that the urgent gravity of our industrial position can be cured or even mitigated by generalities about Empire Free Trade, whose beginning is not even in sight and cannot be until public opinion in all parts of the Empire is changed, we should be only deceiving the country. To deceive the country on such a point seems to me to be the unforgivable sin."
The idea appears to be that we can get all we want—I know this is what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will say—both in food and raw materials from the Empire before very long, or nearly all. As a matter of fact that is not so.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, what reply has he to make to the very recent action of Canada? He has talked a great deal about Australia, but he said nothing about Canada.
LORD ARNOLD: As regards Canada the new Canadian tariff which has recently been introduced into the Canadian Parliament is something which we in this country of course welcome. We have not got the full details analysed yet. It is impossible to say precisely what its full significance will be. But the fact is that despite the preference which we have had in Canada and despite the preference we have had in Australia, American trade with Canada has increased immensely more than ours in the last six or seven years, and our exports to Australia have been declining while the imports into Australia from foreign countries without preference have been increasing. Therefore it would appear that this policy of preference does not accomplish anything like all that its supporters would suggest. I take meat. How are we going to get all the meat we require from the Empire. Last year we imported £36,140,000 worth; of that £2,224,000 worth came from Australia and nearly £28,000,000 worth from the Argentine.
LORD MELCHETT: When the noble Lords says meat, does he include mutton?
LORD ARNOLD: I include every possible meat which exists, raw, tinned, every kind of meat. The figure I have given is the total of imports, it is not merely imports retained for home consumption. But it makes very small difference to my argument. I could not get that figure because the statistics are not yet available. If the noble Lord would take my figure as given in my speech in your Lordships' House last November, he will find I think there, though it makes very little difference to the calculation, that about one-sixteenth of our meat comes from Australia.
Turning to timber, the imports of foreign timber last year were £37,960,000 and £4,600,000 from the Empire, so that between one-eighth and one-ninth came from the Empire. Taking cotton, there were £64,500,000 of foreign imports of cotton and nearly £11,000,000 from the Empire, or about one-sixth. How long is it going to take to supply these deficiencies from the Empire, and when it is done what is the price going to be? That is the point. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who is a business man, would address himself to that when he speaks to-day and not indulge in his vague and airy generalisations about Imperial rationalisation and mergers. What is the price going to be when the products reach this country? It is a question of price. That is where Protectionists and Empire Crusaders go wrong—they leave out of account the question of price. How much is it going to cost? Clearly even if you could make up these huge deficiencies from the Dominions it would only be at an enhanced price. You could not get at anything like the same price from the Empire all that we import now of foreign food and raw materials. It cannot be done.
There is only one other thing, and I think this is a thing which should be made clear. The noble Viscount just touched upon Empire Free Trade not merely with the Dominions but with the Colonies. Lord Beaverbrook has frequently spoken about that. There is to be Free Trade between ourselves and the Colonies. In the first place, of course, that means that the Colonies would lose

975
in many cases most of their revenue. As they cannot have direct taxation what are they going to do?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I had not time, as I said at the beginning of my speech, to traverse the whole of the ground in my Motion. I just touched on the question of the Crown Colonies. The noble Lord is perfectly right. It is not possible to do away with the revenue tariffs in those Colonies, and anything that is done there will have to be done, leaving those revenue tariffs alone.
LORD ARNOLD: Therefore, it is not Empire Free Trade. But let me give one illustration on this particular point before I sit down to show how the new scheme works. I will take two very similar islands, Mauritius and Réunion. Mauritius is a British Colony and Réunion is a French Colony. These islands are very similar and are very close together. Let us just see what effect Empire Free Trade would have there. As a matter of fact, Réunion is the bigger island and its soil, I believe, is supposed to be a little better than the soil of Mauritius. We find in Mauritius, where they only have a Customs system and can trade with any other country and trade can flow into any channel, that the position is this. The total imports of Mauritius in 1927, which are the latest figures I have got and are not chosen for any other purpose, were £4,320,000 and the total imports of Réunion were £1,402,000—about one-third. The total exports of Mauritius were £4,493,000 and the total exports of Réunion £1,187,000.
You see the effect. Réunion has to trade with France. She can practically trade with nobody else; that is the French system. The result has been that in those two islands where you have a specific illustration, the system has had a devastating effect upon the total volume of trade. Because despite this system, despite what is in vogue there, Mauritius actually bought more from Great Britain in 1927 than Réunion did from France. In addition to that Mauritius bought £3,319,000 worth of goods from other Colonies and foreign countries; whereas Réunion only bought from such countries £561,000. For that comparison, which I venture to say shows clearly what
976
Empire Free Trade would mean if it were in operation, I am indebted to Sir Graham Bower in a letter he wrote to the Press not very long ago. After his experience as Colonial Secretary of Mauritius he is entitled to speak on the question. He began with a leaning towards Empire Preference, but his experience changed his view. Those are the figures. I think they are very conclusive that if this system were in vogue it would mean, not more but less trade. It would unquestionably tremendously magnify our difficulties whether with the Colonies or the Dominions or elsewhere.
I must say one word about the Amendment of the noble Marquess. That Amendment has been spoken to by the noble and learned Earl. He proposes, in the words on the Paper, to have really a non-Party conference. I would say about that, that if the noble Marquess has some new proposals to bring forward which have their bearing upon present questions, we shall be very glad if he will bring them forward and we will give them consideration. But so far as the Conservative Party are concerned, apparently the only proposals or almost the only proposals which they put forward from time to time—I follow their speeches in another place, in the country and in your Lordships' House very closely—are Safeguarding of one kind and another. They come to much the same thing and the Amendment of the noble Marquess is not likely to carry the matter very much further, because the noble Viscount is proposing Safeguarding and it would appear to lead to very much the same result. If there are new proposals let them be put forward and the Government will certainly give them their close consideration.
Though not intentionally, of course, I venture to suggest that some of the speeches which are being made by Empire Free Traders and Safeguarders are not calculated to assist us in our troubles. I would deprecate what I would call this spirit almost of defeatism which is evidenced in their speeches. I think it will probably do damage to the trade of this country if we are told day after day and week after week by important personages in the country that we cannot compete with the foreigner, and the tendency will be for people in foreign markets to take note of that and say it is not as much use going to British

977
merchants as was formerly the case. As a matter of fact, we can compete with the foreigner, and on the whole we continue to compete with the foreigner with a pretty considerable degree of success. Another feature which I think is unfortunate about the latest campaign is this. In certain instances it is encouraging manufacturers and others to hope for Safeguarding instead of taking every possible means they can take now to bring about greater efficiency in their works and to get on as best they can under the system under which this country has prospered for so long.
I am sorry that I have spoken for so long, but this is a great question. There will not be many speeches from this side of the House and I believe there will be a great many from the other side, so I hope I shall be pardoned. But I do submit that the arguments and the figures of the noble Viscount must be put to the closest examination and scrutiny, and that if that is done they do not really come very well out of it. In those circumstances, I very much hope that his Motion will be rejected.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Lord in the course of his lengthy and interesting speech has referred to me and perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words, and they shall not be very many, in reply to him. So that is Labour's answer to depressed industry! That is Labour's answer to 1,750,000 unemployed walking the streets in this country. That is Labour's answer to the Dominions, after struggling and waiting for years to hear a sympathetic word of Empire economic union—"What is the price? How much is it going to cost?" It is more like the language of Shylock than of a member of the Socialist Government. What a speech ! A farrago of figures, tendencious, inaccurate, produced without any system or plan, a number of statements and assumptions contradicting each other from moment to moment, visualising no policy and arriving at no result.
Is that the constructive capacity of the Socialist Party, who, after all, are not bound by any of the old fetishes or any of the old ideas which prevailed in the days of the Manchester school, with its child labour, its own factory Acts, its theory of buying everything in the cheapest market with the human being,
978
the human child, as the raw material? Is that doctrine of cheapness the real doctrine that is surviving in the Labour Party to-day? I have not the honour or being a member of that Party, but I will tell the noble Lord that it is not the belief of the millions of the working men of this country. It is not the belief of the leaders of the great trade unionist movement. Not a single argument that he has produced will save him and his colleagues from defeat at the next Election if that is the best they can produce.
What is our position in the country? Unemployment is enormous. What is the use of pointing to what is happening in other countries? Let us deal with what is happening in Great Britain. The Labour Party is bankrupt in ideas. Sir Oswald Mosley has retired in disgust from the Government. Mr. George Lansbury, I believe, is shortly to follow in his train. All the bright young men and women of the Labour Party are rushing away from dismal economists like the noble Lord, and are asking for a wider and freer field of life. My friend the Lord Privy Seal still makes the same speeches as those which were denounced by the Party opposite, when they were made by Conservative Leaders, as "murder," and yet when constructive proposals are brought forward such proposals are brushed aside with a haughty assumption that nothing in the world has changed.
The noble Lord spoke of the days of 1912, 1913, and 1914. He said we then had 2 per cent, of unemployed. He was right. That is one great reason why I myself saw no cause at that time to change our fiscal system. Is that our position to-day? Has it been our position for the last five years? Are not our figures of unemployment much more chronic, much more basic and much more alarming that the figures for unemployment quoted from the United States of America or even Germany? Is it not a fact that, owing to political circumstances even more than economic ones, our export markets are being year by year restricted? I call the noble Lord the Rip Van Winkle of business. He seems to have entirely overlooked what is really happening in the world. He cannot imagine why I have changed my views on such economic subjects. The new facts are fundamental. What are they? The fundamental new facts are that during

979
the War the world covered itself with factories. Things we used to make are now being made in countries who never thought of making them themselves, and in many cases they are being made under entirely uneconomic conditions by the help of tariffs or prohibitions. For that reason our exports are sinking. Even for the things that we make ourselves we cannot hold our home trade, and how therefore can we expect to hold the export trade?
Why, then, do we advocate Safeguarding for a vital industry—a vital industry for Britain's national defence—like steel? Can you conceive Great Britain without a steel industry? Let me ask the noble Lord this. Suppose we could get steel from abroad at £1 per ton cheaper than it could be made in England, and made no steel whatever ourselves, allowing our blast furnaces to stand idle and our great steel furnaces to go out of commission. It might be an economic gain, but what a national position would result ! We should be defenceless, incapable of producing a shot or shell in the event of war. Great Britain would be at the mercy of almost any vagabond of the seas. Is that the kind of position you could possibly allow this nation to be in? Of course it is not. On the other hand, as the noble Lord knows, one of the great needs of modern industry is the continual increase of larger units of production. The larger units of production we have the greater security of output we get. Our great productive industries can only operate economically when they are producing up to nearly 100 per cent. of their capacity. Therefore, it is not merely a question of price. It is much more a question of the market.
It does not necessarily follow that a tariff will raise prices. If you are assured of conditions which will enable you to produce on a larger scale you can sell at a cheaper price. The Dyes Act created the dye industry in this country by prohibiting the importation of German dyes. I venture to say that in spite of that prohibition, owing to the size of the market, British dyes are being manufactured and sold at a price to British consumers which was formerly not possible, and thousands of people are being employed who would not otherwise be employed here. What is the use of telling me, with such an example under my eyes, that you cannot do anything
980
for employment, and that if you do not import your steel you cannot export something else?
The noble Lord knows as well as I do that goods are either paid for in gold or goods or services. We seem to be paying a great deal to-day in gold are we not? Contrary to pre-War experience the fluctuations and flow of gold in and out of this country is a most disturbing factor to the whole of our industry, and creates a continuous state of nervous apprehension. It is one of the things which can only be explained by unfavourable trade balances. You are paying with your works of art. It gives no employment in this country to sell a Hoppner to America, but it does give employment to make steel and iron in this country. You may be paying in services. Certainly you are broking bills, you are having commissions, you are employing a few clerks in offices in London, but how about the hundreds of thousands of men in the mine, in the forge, and in the rolling shop, sullen, discontented, wonderfully patient, but getting more and more impatient, more and more likely to listen to the agitators from other countries which noble Lords are so fond of letting in here? It is their funeral rather than ours. Do they think that these people will be satisfied to be told that because you have taken so much commission and accepted so many trade bills you are paying for this imported steel? How can you rationalise a great industry under such conditions?
I have been into the question of steel mergers for three years. The noble Lord was once associated with the Stock Exchange, and he knows very well the difficulties of raising capital in difficult times for our industries. What is the investor asking for? He wants to know what return he can get. Can you assure him of a return that he will be satisfied with on steel works when you have the German, French and Belgian cartels dumping their surplus steel here regardless of cost in order to stop our own industry from being rationalised. Surely, it is no use talking of an international arrangement. How can you make an international arrangement when the British manufacturer sits at the table with his hands tied behind his back? What is the argument? The European says: "You cannot send anything into my market; I have a tariff arrangement."

981
The Frenchman says: "You cannot export to my country; I have a tariff." The Belgian chips in with the same remark. What remains? Oh, the British market. Here you have nobody to help you and you will have to help yourselves. It is really a miracle that British industrialists are going on at all under these depressing circumstances, harassed from every side.
The noble Lord said I interrupted the other day during the debate on the Coal Mines Bill. I will tell him why. The coal measure of the Government is more Protection than anything proposed in the Motion of my noble friend. It is a Bill deliberately designed to make coal dear to the home consumer in order to give a bounty on export. If it does not make coal dearer to the home consumer the Bill does not work. Its object is to make coal dearer in order that the miner may be paid the same wages for fewer hours of work. You might put it the other way. Suppose coal was coming into this country from abroad you would have to impose an Import Duty on coal in order to produce the effect you are producing by that Bill. Would it not be better for our coal to be used in English blast furnaces and steel furnaces rather than be used in Belgian blast and steel furnaces? Is it really fair to this country to subsidise the coal used by the competitors of the English heavy metal trade? You are forcing that Bill through this House and I understand the Government are going to cram it down our throats.
What an illogical, what a farcical position! The Lord Privy Seal in great glee said the other day: "I have ordered local authorities, I have ordered the railway companies," to do what? To buy goods in this country. Why did not the noble Lord tell him how futile it was to do that, that of course there would be fewer imports and more people unemployed? Is that Free Trade? It is not a Free Trade doctrine which I have ever heard of. I quite understand the kind of doctrine expounded by Sir Herbert Samuel in the House of Commons, that whatever happens it does not matter where you buy anything. That is the old Free Trade doctrine—to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest market. The Lord Privy Seal at any rate does not spread that doctrine and the
982
Under-Secretary for the Dominions does not. The Government are giving £1,000,000 a year to the Empire Marketing Board to cover the countryside with wonderful pictures telling people to buy British, to buy Empire produce. Why should they buy British or buy Empire produce? Surely the Government should say "Buy cheap, buy foreign." That is really the propaganda of the noble Lord opposite!
Really we must have some kind of logic. We cannot be Protectionists half the time and then run away, and try all the oldest and most-worn-out theories of Free Trade for the other half. This country has drifted away from its old Free Trade practice. You have loaded up one side of the scale with enormous overhead charges for social services. You say to the manufacturer that he must pay not merely the ordinary wage—which the noble Lord admits is higher than in other countries—which of itself makes it difficult to compete in the world market or even to keep the home market. You also tell him he must pay for social services, and you say to him: "Why are you depressed? Gambol and be cheerful like the young lambs in the spring and be glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not taken the remaining part of the profits you cannot make." Manufacturers cannot do it. This is their answer: "If you want us to do these things, to maintain artificial wages and keep up the level of orders you must help us." And what will help? A big home market to enable them to export cheaply. America is proving that every day.
May I just refer to one point about Safeguarding? Why should there be this indignation on the part of the noble Lord when my noble friend speaks of safeguarded industries. He said that motor cars do not come under Safeguarding, that they come under the McKenna Duties. But my noble friend's Motion treats Safeguarding in a general way. If there is any kind of protective duty really it is Safeguarding. It is pedantry driven to the extreme to endeavour to differentiate between those two things. Then he says if an industry has done well: "Well, of course, that is not due to Safeguarding at all." But, if it does badly, then that is due to Safeguarding.

983
I hope the noble Lord will tell that to the lacemakers of Nottingham, who may continue a precarious existence owing to the fact that France has a tariff and therefore the French have been able by imposing a tariff on motor cars to reduce the tariff in America to such a state that our lacemakers may be able to sell something. I think the lacemakers might well send a deputation to the French Government to say: "Thank you, gentlemen. You are not debarred from fighting for your workmen, for getting justice for your people." They ought to ask how it is that the French Government can do those things which their own Labour Government entirely fail to do for them.
One word as to Imperial economic unity. Imperial economic unity connotes more to me than tariffs, or food duties, which are only a very small fraction of a very large sum. Since we had a debate in November one very striking event has happened to which the noble Lord did not refer at all. What brought me in 1926 to the position of being firmly convinced that unless you can tie the Empire together in bonds of economic union, it is bound, as certain as I am standing here, in time to disintegrate, was the fact that the economic organisation of the world to-day, for good or evil, is tending to larger and larger units. I have pointed out before that the great economic complex of America must be balanced by the economic complex of Europe. A few days ago that veteran statesman M. Briand issued an official Memorandum to the Governments of the world adumbrating a scheme for the Federated States of Europe involving, as it will have to do in time, the economic union of Europe. Whenever I have talked to people on the Continent, to statesmen, to economists, financiers, industrialists, the question I have always been asked is: "Where is Great Britain going to stand when we have formed an economic union?" The noble Lord has no answer to that, but we ought to have an answer.
Are we going to join that economic union or remain in a state of glorious isolation with no friends, or are we going to join together the greatest Empire the world has ever seen in as big a trade as we can possibly get, in as great a development in finance, in banking, in control of its valuable raw materials as we can possibly
984
get? Cannot the noble Lord have a little imagination? Has it never occurred to him that the Empire produces 75 per cent, of the world's gold supply Has it never occurred to him that that fact might be made of great use to the Empire and to-day is not? We do not want to get on to purely sterile controversies on small issues. Is it to be said that the people of Great Britain will never do anything so long as there is a possibility of a farthing being put on the price of the loaf? I was speaking some time ago to a man who has been Governor-General in the Dominions. He said: "Have you forgotten the hundreds of thousands of men Canada sent during the War? Have you forgotten the War munitions Canada supplied, the National Debt of £2,000,000,000 Canada has incurred?"
Is it to be said that Englishmen are ungrateful and think of nothing but price, price, price? The English people have always responded to great causes, to causes in which there was no money and no price. In the old Liberal days the Party to which the noble Lord belonged took up under Gladstone questions like the liberation of Greece and the Bulgarian atrocities, questions about which the British people were deeply stirred. Nobody asked the price. I say to the noble Lord I cannot tell you how long it will take to bring about the economic union of the Empire. It may not come at once. I do not quarrel with the noble Marquess if he says it is not going to solve the immediate difficulties of today or to-morrow. I say that however long it takes, or however great an effort is demanded, if it does not come then the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, the greatest Commonwealth of free people ever created will crumble and fall, and not all the statistics and niggling of Politics will prevent that fall.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that I do not intervene at this early hour of the debate by any wish of my own. I should have preferred to have allowed others more competent than myself to have addressed your Lordships and especially I should have liked to have heard the brilliant leader of this movement, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, who sits below the gangway now and who is more competent to deal with this question adequately from his point of view

985
than any other member of your Lordships' House. But it has seemed fit to those who are responsible for the order of debate that it should be altered, and of course I am delighted to fall in with any view that they have put forward. At any rate, we have had the speech of my noble friend Lord Elibank at the beginning of to-day's proceedings, a speech extremely well delivered, very moderate and conciliatory in tone and very cogent in argument, and we have also heard a very brilliant speech from my noble friend who has just sat down, full of that gorgeous Imperial sentiment which went to the heart, I think, of most of your Lordships.
There is a great deal in the Motion that is before your Lordships' House with which I cordially agree. I wish I could say that I agreed with every word of it, but one cannot expect everything. There is much in it with which I cordially agree, and I certainly do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, who sits opposite. Lord Arnold found fault with me, or at least he made a criticism. The noble Lord dissents? I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I value his approbation. The noble Lord said that I had written land uttered certain things, but if he thinks it worth while to look more closely into what I said he will find that I made a very broad distinction between what is required immediately, for the present great emergency, and the ultimate great policy which this country ought to pursue. The terms of this Motion do comprise that great policy, which I should hope that all Conservatives, I would almost say all patriots, would be willing to accept. I should have thought that even the noble Lord, with all his rigid Cobdenite views, would have realised—apart from the great sentimental reasons with which my noble friend who has just sat down has dealt—that he, as a, great Free Trader, would have realised the importance of getting greater access to these Dominion markets, to replace those markets from which we are shut out by the mistaken protectionist policy of other countries. He did not say one word in the whole course of his speech to show that he was sensible of the importance of that particular object.
As regards the great question raised in this debate, I should like to say this: that it is not a new question. Un-
986
doubtedly the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, with his vigorous leadership and his brilliant pen, has brought it before us in a way that we have not seen for many years, but I am sorry to say that I am old enough to remember the whole of this question coming forward thirty years ago. There was a time, of course, when this question, or the greater part of it, fell behind the leadership of that great statesman, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. He was responsible for submitting it to the country, and this was done with all the intellectual power that he possessed, with all the momentum, zeal and conviction of which he was master. But it failed. It failed on the question of food. I am not speaking for the moment in argument; I am speaking historically. That is what actually happened.
A great deal emerged from that controversy. The Conservative and Unionist Party was converted to a policy of Preference—the fundamental idea, of course, of the present movement—with the Dominions. I certainly was converted to that policy, and I have defended and worked for it ever since. I will yield to no man in my advocacy of the policy of Preference. Indeed I can remember, if I may be allowed a personal recollection, when I was an Under-Secretary a great many years ago, putting forward to the superior members of the Government what was, perhaps, rather a crude project in favour of freeing the ports of this country to Dominion ships and, of course, maintaining all the dues for ships that did not issue from the Dominions. I remember that this was about the first effort of the kind that I made, and it was, of course, Preference in its barest and most open form. I have always been in favour of such a policy. It might be extended in many directions, but the Conservative Party went into the policy of Preference, and it was so defined that the Preference was to take place upon any tariff which might exist in this country. We had, of course, in those days only a revenue tariff, but upon that revenue tariff the preference was to take place, and a sort of engagement was given to the country that, whatever might be the duties then or thereafter To be imposed in this country, then, in relation to any one of them, a preference should always be given to the Empire. That was the policy of Preference to which we were attached.

987
I should be very glad now to see a very great extension of the revenue tariff. I wonder whether many people have realised what a great difficulty Chancellors of the Exchequer of the future will be in in raising the necessary revenue for the country. I suppose we shall all admit that Mr. Snowden and his colleagues have not only reached the limit to which direct taxation can go, but have a long way overpassed it. What are they going to do for money, and what are future Chancellors of the Exchequer going to do? I venture to say one thing with absolute assurance: there must be a reversion to the policy of indirect taxation. There is no other alternative. We may have either indirect taxation or direct taxation for revenue purposes, but no other alternative exists. Therefore I look forward with absolute confidence to the time when there will be a very large extension of indirect taxation for revenue purposes, of course upon the principle to which I have just ventured to call your Lordships' attention, that upon every one of these duties a preference must be given to the Dominions. I only want to show to what an extent all Conservatives are really committed to the policy of Preference with the Empire and all that it implies.
I know that I shall at once be faced with the question: "What about food? Why do you exclude food from your tariffs? Why not a preference on food?" I want to be quite candid with your Lordships. I think the feeling against a tax on food, as such, is quite irrational. If other things are taxed why not food too? I do not for a moment defend it as it stands, but it is a very remarkable thing that the country feels a great hesitation about a tax on food Why is that? Our countrymen are not irrational, they are not stupid. On the contrary, nothing impresses one more as one grows old in public life than the immense shrewdness of our people. Why have they got this curious, strong feeling about a tax on food, so that any suggestion of it appears to arouse—I will not say universal but in great sections of the people the most acute opposition? There must be a reason for it. I think the reason is this, that the people are quite aware that so long as there is no tax on food the indirect taxation, whether it be in the form of Safeguarding or any other form, must be kept within limits,
988
because it is quite evident that high Protection without a tax on food would be an impossibility, because the producers of food in this country would not stand it.
Therefore, with their very shrewd political insight, our people see that so long as they can avoid a tax on food they do really prevent anything like excessive Protection—not Safeguarding, as I shall show in a moment, but against anything like excessive Protection, they put an impassable bar. Consequently it is most important, and almost vita?, for the success of the policy which is alike the policy of Lord Beaverbrook, if he will allow me to say so, and the policy of the Conservative Party, where those policies coincide, to overcome in the minds of the people any idea that a tax on food will mean an excessive system of Protection, and a consequential raising of the cost of living to the working classes in this country. I have tried with the greatest frankness and candour to show to your Lordships—I am not so vain as to think that you will all agree with me—why I believe there is what appears to be an almost irrational feeling against a small tax on food. I believe it to be in response to that almost unerring instinct of the people that the only way to protect themselves from a high protective tariff is to be firm upon the question of food taxation.
I am sure that we are right to consider that strong feeling. I believe that everybody, even my noble friend Viscount Elibank, and any others of us who are facing up to this great question of fiscal reform, must consider candidly and frankly what this feeling of the people against a tax on food amounts to. Therefore, when my right honourable friend Mr. Baldwin lays it down as an absolute condition of his policy that he will specially consult the people before he proposes any tax on food, he is merely responding, as I believe, to that consideration of prudence, nay, much more than consideration of prudence, that proper feeling for the legitimate susceptibilities of the people which I have tried to describe to your Lordships.
But I have said not one word in what I have ventured to say to you against the Imperial economic unity which my noble friend advocates in his Motion. On the contrary, I am a warm supporter

989
of it. It appears to me to be most essential, as I think Lord Melchett said just now, to the future unity of the Empire, and we cannot exaggerate the importance, not only to ourselves but to the whole world, of the continuance and prosperity of our Empire. It is the greatest instrument for good in the world, and any of us who have had the great privilege which I have had, of going round all the Dominions, and being a witness of the intense loyalty of our fellow subjects in whatever Dominion you go, cannot fail to feel an absolute obligation to do everything we can for the unity of the Empire. I agree with my noble friend, the noble Viscount, and with his leader who sits beside him, that fiscal unity as a method of Imperial unity is intensely valuable, even if I lay aside the question of markets, to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. Therefore I have nothing whatever to say against my noble friend being in favour of Imperial economic unity. He says what I intensely believe myself, nor do I disagree when he speaks about the severe depression in our industries. Perhaps I feel it more than he does.
Lord Melchett spoke with much greater authority than I can upon this point, and he used language of great weight in speaking of how far this serious depression had gone. In that respect we are in a worse position than Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was in many years ago, because in those days our country was intensely prosperous. Now it is not so, and the susceptibilities of the people upon the cost of living are naturally more acute than they were even in his days. What of this serious depression. It is due, of course, to causes which are not national only—they belong to the whole world—but still there are causes which we can observe, those of us who look into the subject closely and watch movements, which are profoundly alarming. There is a slackening of the fibre of our people. Not that there is anything fundamentally or radically wrong, but we can see it whether we look at the employers or the -workers. We see that there is not the same elasticity, the same enterprise, the same fitting to new conditions, the same determination to work even harder than before. On the contrary, they say: "Give us less work and higher wages." That is not the way to redeem the
990
country out of its depression. In the same way the employers, instead of saying: "Let us try any method which can rescue us from our depression," say on the contrary: "What was good enough for our fathers is good enough for us, and we will go on in the same old way." Those symptoms are far the most serious thing which we have to face; it is indeed, unless it be checked, a fatal disease. And therefore in what I have said I have emphasised as well as I could how deep our feeling ought to be in respect of it.
That is where I come for a moment to criticise the terms of the Resolution. The Resolution of my noble friend says that Safeguarding and Imperial economic unity are the most practical and immediate remedies. In my judgment the most practical and immediate remedy is a change of heart, a change of spirit—a new spirit in industry, and a new spirit in those who are responsible for the finances of the country. It is as though you were dealing with a patient who had a malignant disease. You would first try to stamp out the malignant disease: that would be to restore the new spirit. Then you would try to get the patient into robust health, and that can only be done by a policy of fiscal unity and the policy which is set forth in my noble friend's Motion. And that is why I put the thing in that order, and still believe it to be the right order.
Now this new spirit. I am not merely calling in question the attitude of those who are engaged in industry, I am calling in question the attitude of politicians. Just look at the present Government piling up expenditure. Can anything be worse than the present state of things? I should have thought it was apparent to every man that the first remedy for our present industrial depression is to turn out the present Government. That is the first, that is the most immediate, and I think the most practical remedy. And that is what I should like to see done. Certain symptoms of dissolution seem to be already apparent. I am afraid I cannot sympathise with noble Lords opposite in that matter. And in the establishment of this new spirit of which I have spoken Safeguarding is of the greatest value, and that is why I approve also of that part of my noble friend's policy. You absolutely require Safe-

991
guarding in order to carry out that reorganisation of which Lord Melchett spoke in such terms just now. That indeed is of immediate importance. That comes within the whole terms of the Motion. It is of immediate importance though, of course, I hope and believe that in applying Safeguarding there would be adequate discrimination between those industries which ought to be safeguarded and those industries for which Safeguarding was not necessary at all. But with that explanation that appears to me all right. We do require most intensely to restore confidence in our industry, and what has been said to-night can never be repeated too often: unless we can give some confidence to industry at this moment we cannot hope that it will set about this great business of reorganisation as it ought. And Safeguarding will undoubtedly tend to give it that confidence, and ought to be supported. Therefore, I approve that part of the Resolution too.
Well then, what does it come to? I will not spend any time upon the noble Marquess's Amendment. I understand the spirit in which he moved it, but I do not see any sign of that temper among the Leaders of Parties at the present moment which would render any such conference of the slightest use, so I am sure he will forgive me if I do not say anything more on that subject. But I am entirely and strongly for what I have called the new spirit. And if there is any criticism which I would like to address very respectfully to my noble friend the noble Viscount, it is this. In some of the agitation which is going on in the country I notice a certain disruptive element. Now, what we want of course, in order to turn these gentlemen out, is complete unity on our side among all Conservatives, among all men of good will—if noble Lords opposite will forgive my saying so. We want complete unity, and anything in the nature of disruptive tactics seems to me to be in the highest degree unwise. You cannot expect all the Party to be absolutely of one exact pattern; there must be differences. And the great object of Party leadership is not to get as few people as possible to follow you, but to get as many people as possible to follow you. Sometimes I think the noble Viscount and his friends forget that elementary rule.
992
I hope, therefore, that what I have said will show that, as far as I am concerned and as far as many others, I believe, are concerned, we are strongly in favour of all the positive parts of my noble friend's Motion, and we are still more strongly in favour of a new spirit in industry and a new spirit among politicians. When we come to the actual question of the Motion itself, I do not want to be too meticulous. I do not, after all, take a Resolution of this kind too literally. I am quite sure there is no member of your Lordships' House who will vote to-night in favour of this Resolution who does not put in front of it the object of turning out the Labour Government. I am sure that is so. Well then, we need not put too literal a construction upon it. But so long as this very grave condition of industry is borne in mind, and so long as we realise that our Party is on broad lines agreed, why, let us all go into the Lobby and vote for the Resolution.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I think perhaps the most instructive portion of the speech of the noble Marquess is that in which he appealed to his own Party against any disruptive tendencies. Well, I do not find any fault with him except this, that you cannot avoid disruptive tendencies if on great questions of financial and economic policy you try to include in one formula or in one line of policy measures and suggestions which are essentially distinct and antagonistic. It is not a matter of asking people to vote for a Resolution which they understand in different ways. It goes much deeper than that, and if the noble Marquess desires no disruptive tendency in the Party to which he belongs the only way to avoid that is to do what he can to impose a policy on which the mass of the Party to which he belongs are in truth—not merely in words—of the same opinion, and hold the same view.
Before I refer to what was said by the noble Viscount let me deal with what the noble Marquess has said about taxation of food. Does he really wonder that the taxation of food, which means the taxation of the poorer working classes in this country, should meet with such strong objection? I do not know whether the noble Marquess has ever considered it

993
in his own district. I have considered it in mine. The poorer the conditions are for the moment the larger is the consumption of bread, the reason being that bread is the food of the poorest; it has to be utilised above the average quantities when the conditions are below the average of prosperity. Now why should this tax be placed upon the poorer classes of this country? I differ from the noble Marquess in one respect. What he said may be true as regards those who have what are called regular meals, but to the really poor people who are almost on the verge of starvation and who have no margin whatever as regards the necessities of life, I say it is most cruel under these circumstances to impose a taxation on food. I am not sure what the noble Marquess himself meant when he dealt with the taxation of food. Is he against all taxation of food, or is he not? I understood him to say that the fear of a growing taxation was a very legitimate fear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I meant, if the noble and learned Lord asks me, is that a small tax on food is really no more oppressive to the payer of the tax than a small tax on many other commodities. Singling out food as being an absolute thing that you must never tax is in its nature irrational. That is the explanation which I venture to give your Lordships and which I hope the noble and learned Lord appreciates.
LORD PARMOOR: My answer is that when the immediate fear is of starvation, as is the case with the poorer classes in bad times, one would and must expect that they would fear any taxation placed particularly on bread, which in those conditions is their greatest necessity. What do you mean by Protection in the sense of taxes on food? You mean taxes on the poorest class. This is not merely a matter of trade. This is not only a question between Protection and Free Trade. It is also a question of taxation, and I want to ask the noble Marquess whether, under such conditions as exist in this and all other countries, there is any justification whatever for putting on a tax which admittedly has to be paid by the poorest class of all? It is not, as, is sometimes said of indirect taxation, that you may or may not buy a particular commodity. That may be true of a commodity of luxury, but regarding the commodity of food it is wholly untrue.
994
The poor are obliged to buy food for their sustenance, and to put on a tax which will fall on the poorest class of all is, to my mind, a cruel proposal and a very unjust one.
In connection with that, I should like the noble Marquess to consider what was said by the noble Viscount who brought forward this Resolution. It appears to me that what he said really destroyed his whole case when he went into details and figures. What he said was that since the War there are lower wages and worse social conditions in all the protected European countries than there are in our own country. Can you condemn Protection more wholly and absolutely than by a, statement of that kind?—lower wages and worse social conditions in all other countries affected by the European War and European conditions than in England. Is that a reason for introducing Protection in this country? Do we want lower wages and worse social conditions here? I am not ashamed to say, speaking for a Government which I think is justly called Socialist—it is not a term of reproach to me at least—that on every occasion and in every direction it is opposed to a policy which would have the result pointed to by the noble Viscount who brought forward the Motion.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Might I interrupt the noble and learned Lord for a moment? He has only quoted one part of my remarks in that connection. I referred to Europe; but I went on to say that in the United States of America, Australia and Canada wages were higher and conditions better under Protection.
LORD PARMOOR: I think that emphasises the argument I am using. If you go to countries which are so different from our own in economic conditions as Australia and the United States it appears to me that you are comparing conditions which, from an economic standpoint, are not comparable. Therefore, I think I am justified not only in restating but in emphasising what the noble Viscount said. Taking other European countries which are substantially in our condition, suffering as we are from the loss and trade dislocation resulting from the War, we do not find in those countries the halcyon state of affairs suggested in the debate, but in every instance lower wages and worse social

995
conditions. How can there be a greater condemnation than that of the system which is advocated? It seems to me that in that generalisation the whole case which he is seeking to bring forward in order to have a new economic policy in this country is met.
I answer him in this way. For the last eighty years under our system of Free Trade we have taken the lead in economic development. Under the conditions of Free Trade the working classes in this country have had better wages and better social conditions than on the average have obtained in European countries. We have withstood the evils of the War better than any other country in Europe, although the expense to us has been, of coarse, enormous. It is all very well for noble Lords to refer to the cost and trouble which have arisen from the economic dislocation consequent upon the War, and the enormous burden of debt which the War left upon this country—a debt of £10,000,000,000, which if you distributed it over the citizens of this country would mean something like £1,300 a head. Would the noble Viscount say that that was brought about by Free Trade? It was only Free Trade that enabled us to meet the enormous charge which modern warfare threw upon us, particularly amongst European countries.
I agree with what the noble Marquess said. You have no doubt to consider this to a great extent as an international matter, and no one is more immediately concerned that we are to ensure industrial peace throughout the civilised industrial world. Those of your Lordships who have read the report which M. Theunis—who is well known in this country and was Prime Minister of Belgium at the end of the War—made as Chairman of the World Economic Conference at Geneva, will know that in his view and the view of the great internationalists with him, the one great necessity for restoring economic prosperity in Europe was not to increase tariff walls but, on the contrary, to get rid of them owing to their obstruction of international intercourse amongst European industrial countries. I do not know whether the noble Lord laughed at that. It is a most serious question. It is not a question for laughter. It is a question we ought to consider, and one that goes to the whole basis of oar industrial position. It is far from being a
996
matter for laughter, at any rate to those who are unemployed in this country.
LORD LOVAT: I laughed at the credulity, not at the subject.
LORD PARMOOR: I cannot understand the distinction in what Lord Lovat has said. What does he mean by credulity? The question is whether you think a report of that kind was justified or not. That is not a matter of credulity.
LORD LOVAT: I will answer, if I may, later.
LORD PARMOOR: What I do object to is that when we are talking upon an important matter of this kind we should have interventions and the use of words which, as far as I can see, have no reference whatever either to the subject matter about which we are talking, or the argument which I am attempting to address to your Lordships. I do not think that the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion intended in any way to put out of sight what are the real causes of the present industrial conditions in Europe. Of course they are not due to the Socialist Government, or the Conservative Government or the Coalition Government. The present difficulty in industrial life is the result of the prolonged War. At the present time the charge upon us in respect of the War is more than £1,000,000 a day.
The next point I want to say a word or two about is this. We have heard a great deal about Imperial unity. I want to suggest to your Lordships that what is being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, and what has been suggested to-day, is not in the direction of Imperial unity. I suppose we have all come in contact with the statesmen who have come over here from the Dominions, we have met them on visits over there, both before and after the War. What I believe to be the truth is this. There is no matter about which the independent Commonwealths of which our Empire is now made up are more jealous than their complete independence in regard to their fiscal and industrial policy; there is nothing they are more rightly jealous of than attempts on our part, in accordance with the view which they do not hold, to try and create an economic unity which, in their opinion, is not to their advantage either

997
now or at any time in the future. That is quite rational. Why should we attempt to impose upon them a fiscal policy which they regard as not in accordance with their wants at the present time—a policy not only as between ourselves and the Dominions but as between the different Dominions?
Our Dominions in this matter of fiscal policy have not all the same interests obviously. No one can say that South Africa, Australia and Canada have naturally and necessarily the same common basis as regards the conditions under which they have to carry out their particular fiscal or tariff requirements. Apart altogether from the quotations made by my noble friend Lord Arnold, I regard it as not only quite impossible at the present time to obtain this Imperial unity, but I go further and say that to attempt to obtain it at the present time is much more likely to lead to disunity than unity. I do not know what may happen in the future. Of course we all wish for Imperial unity. It has been, and is, the ambition of this country to be the centre not only of the largest Empire but of the Empire which has done the greatest good as a civilising power in the World. I yield to no one in that. Then I come to the other side of the question—one that was pressed in 1927—that in order to produce Imperial unity you must allow each individual Commonwealth its full measure of independence.
EARL PEEL: Have they not got it now?
LORD PARMOOR: That is what I say; I think they have. I recollect rather criticising the terms at the time because we had not made sufficiently definite proposals. I quite agree that they have it, and I want them to keep it. It is by their keeping it and not by our attempting to interfere where they do not want us in matters of national, fiscal, and industrial policy, that we shall best preserve the great position which we now hold, and which, if we are prudent and do not attempt to invade the province of their Legislatures too far, I should hope we might retain indefinitely so far as one can look to the future.
There is one other point that the noble Viscount brought forward that I should like to say a word or two upon, because it is a matter about which I have had
998
a great deal of personal experience. That is the question of agriculture. I have previously said in this House more than once, and I state it again to-day, that if you want to benefit the industry of agriculture in this country and to improve its prospects, the first thing to do is to change the method of land tenure. That is the view of Professor Orwin, who worked it out in the greatest detail. I must say I have never seen any other scheme worked out in such detail which gives the same promise. What is the suggestion of the noble Viscount? It is a mistake to suppose that you have the same conditions of agriculture in all portions of England, Scotland, and Wales. As a matter of fact I do not believe—and I have had a good deal of experience—that agriculture is on its last legs, or anything like it, in this country, although in about one-fifth of the agricultural districts there is undoubtedly great difficulty and great depression. But that is, after all, a small proportion of the whole.
If you deal with the remedies which the noble Viscount suggests—namely, increasing the wheat market, or, as I should put it, enhancing the price of wheat—what you do is this. For the benefit of comparatively a small proportion of agriculture you throw taxation on all the poor consumers both in town and country. I say more. In the county where I know- agriculture the growing of cereals is practically a matter of the past, and there it is the farmers themselves who, more than anyone else, dissent from the proposal to put on a tax in the sense of enhancing the price of wheat, because it will neither improve their position nor will it give them any advantage in the industry in which they are particularly interested. I wish this matter could be considered from a general non-political and agricultural standpoint. The reason is quite clear. We do not approach the problem from the same standpoint. We do not approach it considering how an industry, as an industry, is affected by any particular measure proposed. I recollect the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, who I think represented the agricultural view on the other side of the House as fully as any one did, always said that so long as suggested agricultural reform could be said, either theoretically or practically, to enure to the benefit not of the industry but of the rent owner, you would never get reform.

999
I think that is true, and we have got to face it. No one has put it in a more admirable way than Professor Orwin of the Research Department of the University of Oxford.
There are one or two things I should like to call attention to in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I hope I shall not misquote him, but I think he spoke of us as being afraid of any vagabond of the seas or words to that effect. That is a rhetorical statement, but it is not only a rhetorical statement. It is one of those statements which tend to bring about the very slackening of spirit which the noble Marquess has so properly protested against in the speech he made, I do not mind rhetoric being used, but when it is used to advertise against ourselves and against our industrial position, I do regret its use. There was another passage of which I made a note. The noble Lord said he was an exuberant Imperialist. Well, we are all "exuberant Imperialists," but we mean different things by the word "exuberant." I am not an exuberant Imperialist in the sense in which he expressed himself. He went on to say that the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, had used inaccurate and contradictory figures. I only want to say that I happen to know that those figures have been most carefully prepared. Of course every one here heard them as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, but I wish in the strongest way to protest against a statement of that kind. They were statistics carefully prepared and I believe given in a perfectly accurate statement to your Lordships.
LORD MELCHETT: May I say that I do not mean that the statistics were arithmetically wrong? In controversy, I think, nearly all statistics have to be inaccurate in the sense that the people who prepare them prepare them for the sake of argument rather than for the sake of real abstract fact.
LORD ARNOLD: If the noble Lord will read the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find the figures I gave. He stated quite definitely that the figures were inaccurate and I should like to know which he said were inaccurate.
LORD MELCHETT: When I have had the chance of examining the figures I will let the noble Lord know.
LORD PARMOOR: I want to speak of the noble Lord with the greatest courtesy, but I think if we had had protection against chemical dyes perhaps we should not have had the advantage we now have of his great industrial knowledge in this country. I want to say to him: Is there any matter in which there is not an element at any rate of bias in the statement of figures? That does not show any inaccuracy when you take figures as the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, did out of official reports. All I want to say is you cannot get nearer to fact as regards statistical material than by adopting the method which is adopted by my noble friend Lord Arnold.
There is one other matter which struck me in the noble Lord's speech. I should have thought that a great deal of his speech showed the disorganisation which has been brought about in what I will call capitalist industry. I do not want to run down the word "capitalist." I use it because it is a significant term. I understand that his view is that in the future this disorganisation may be brought under the principle of rationalisation so as to produce better results. That is what I understood him to say. I do not want to attack anyone. I should like to adopt the view of the noble Marquess and see if we could not all act together. That, however, is not possible if we have diametrically contrary views. The only way you can have proper rationalisation of industry is by a perception of the necessity of national interests overriding the idea of individual profits, which came so much to the front during the last fifty years of the last century. That, I think, we have got to do and that is what we have to bear in mind. I do not want to be dogmatic, but I think we should bear in mind what Adam Smith said. He said that when you are dealing with industrial questions you must pay attention to what the consumer wants, and it is in proportion as you satisfy that want that you will succeed in any great industrial enterprise. I have not, I am glad to say, to make the appeal against the disruption on my side of the House which the noble Marquess made to his followers, and I think whatever else we may de we are all concentrated on the belief that it would be a fatal mistake to throw a burden upon the poorest in

1001
the country by departing from Free Trade policy into the labyrinths of tariff and Protection.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: My Lords, my intervention in the debate must necessarily be very brief because so much time has been taken up already and there are so many speakers who want to address the House. I will say what I have to say in as few words as possible. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down asked us to bear in mind the words of Adam Smith. I would ask him to bear in mind the words of Sir Alfred Cripps. It is only a short time ago that I was reading the urgent appeal he was making to the electors absolutely to reject the theory that Tariff Reform, as it was called at that time, would result in any increase in the price of bread.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to go into old history and I should like to say that I have never said a word in which I defended a tax on food.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: I have not got any documents here upon which to substantiate the statements I have made, but I will send them to the noble Lord at the earliest moment. I was much interested in the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House. He said our policy of Empire economic unity or Empire Free Trade is an old, old story. That is quite true. The policy, so far as I know, was first introduced by Sir John Macdonald, the Prime Minister of Canada, in 1874, and it was urged on this country in the exact terms that it is now being urged. It is quite true that the policy, according to the opinion of some persons, was varied in 1906 to 1910 on account of the proposal to tax foodstuffs. That is a statement which is denied. Others say nothing of the sort, the policy has never been tested. But it is certain that there is this great difference between 1906 and 1910 and the position to-day. In 1906 and 1910 the Empire could not produce enough food to feed itself. In 1930 the Empire can not only produce food sufficient for its purposes, but it produces a large surplus besides.
LORD ARNOLD: Does that apply to meat?
LORD BEAVERBROOK: To wheat?
LORD ARNOLD: To meat.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: That depends on the distinction between meat and beef.
LORD ARNOLD: It is all food.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: If the noble Lord means beef, it applies to meat. The noble Marquess must also remember the difference between the policy of to-day and that of 1906. In 1906 and 1910 Chamberlain proposed to put a duty on Empire foodstuffs as well as foreign foodstuffs. Our plan is that of a duty on foreign foodstuffs with free entry to Empire foodstuffs. I have said that it is no use considering our policy of Empire Free Trade at all unless you are prepared to put a tax on foreign foodstuffs and on some foreign raw materials. The reason we say that is that the imports from the Dominions and the Colonies are made up almost entirely of foodstuffs and raw materials, and of every £1 that we pay for imports from the Dominions and Colonies snore than 18 s. goes for foodstuffs and raw materials, so we are in the position that our whole policy appeals to the minds of those who are in favour of persuading the people of this country to adopt a tax on foreign foodstuffs. The noble Marquess went on to say that this is a difficult problem to get over. We admit that it is a difficult problem, but we should like to face it quite resolutely and frankly. He says that the referendum is a consideration of prudence. We can agree that it is a consideration—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said that it was much more than a consideration of prudence.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: I admit that the noble Marquess said it was more, but he said that it was, among other things, a consideration of prudence. But it was proposed at a time when conditions were very different from the situation at this moment. The Liberal Government in the Dominion of Canada had not spoken. Since the day when the referendum was put forward, the Canadian Government has adopted the principle of Empire Free Trade, and the Canadian Finance Minister, in announcing this policy, put it forward on the very terms that we have been advocating in this country. More than that, the Canadian Government is going to take this policy to the country.

1003
Shortly there will be an Election in that Dominion. It would be an inadequate response if we were to answer the proposals now coming from Canada by saying that we offer them in return a referendum. That is the principal reason why we are so completely opposed to it at this moment. We only urge this point as a counsel of expediency for the Conservative Party, and we hope that they will take note of our advice.
The noble Marquess said that he agreed with the Resolution of my noble friend Lord Elibank and would vote for it. I am very glad of that, even if he does not completely agree with it. What he wants is a new spirit, and his view is that the first principle of the new spirit is to turn out the Government. I am in agreement with that. I am quite satisfied that everybody would be completely pleased with the situation if the last Government were restored to its place on the policy that it held when it was last in office. The noble Marquess makes an appeal for unity. I would say to him that he is giving us a lesson in unity by saying that he will vote for the Resolution of my noble friend, but I would appeal to him on behalf of Empire economic unity as well. If Empire economic unity is taken up sincerely, fairly and frankly by the Conservative Party, there will emerge real unity in the whole rank and file. Of that I am quite sure.
Now let me refer, if I may, for a moment to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Arnold. He made a statement about a newspaper report—I do not blame him in the least—that I had recommended a tax on raw cotton. I am bound to say that I did nothing of the sort. I am not denying that the report appeared in the newspaper, but the noble Lord will see that at a subsequent date Mr. Benjamin Bowker, the editor of the Lancashire Daily Post, a Free Trader and a most distinguished editor, wrote a letter denying that statement. I am not criticising the noble Lord in the very least for giving currency to it, because it did appear in the newspaper, although it was subsequently denied.
LORD ARNOLD: May we clear this up? Am I to understand that it is not part of the noble Lord's policy to tax foreign raw materials coming into this country?
LORD BEAVERBROOK: I would much rather understand that the noble Lord will not again repeat the statement, since I have given him a correction.
LORD ARNOLD: Before I give any pledge of that kind, I want to know what the position of the noble Lord is. Is he or is he not in favour of putting a tax on foreign raw materials coming into this country as part of the Empire Free Trade policy?
LORD BEAVERBROOK: Our policy is advocated so frankly that I answer at once, that it is the intention of Empire Free Traders—and I am speaking only for Empire Free Traders—to tax those raw materials which can be produced in the Empire. That is the policy of the Empire Free Traders. Whether or not there would be a tax on raw cotton depends on whether or not raw cotton can be produced in the Empire—
LORD ARNOLD: It is being produced in the Empire.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: —and that could be settled quite easily. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, brings out his Parliamentary Return of 1810 to 1840 or 1880—I forget which. That Parliamentary Return has done duty so often that I really think he might bring down to the House a report giving us the range of prices up to date. He says that, if there is a tax on foreign foodstuffs, food will be dearer. We deny that food will be dearer if there is a tax on foreign foodstuffs, and in support of our contention we point out that in the Empire there is a surplus of foodstuffs. There is a surplus of 13,000,000 quarters of wheat a year, and there is a surplus of beef. Does the noble Lord question that? It is a fact, according to his own statement made in this House on a previous occasion, that 12,000,000 head of cattle supply one half of the beef requirements of Great Britain. In the Dominions alone there are 34,000,000 head of cattle. Surely, if 12,000,000 head of cattle would supply half our requirements, then from 34,000,000 head we can draw the balance of our requirements. Apart from the Dominions, there is Northern Rhodesia and there are one or two other parts of the Empire where cattle breeding could be extended and developed.

1005
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, quoted an article written by me in which I said that we gave to our opponents as a gift the cry of the dear loaf or the small loaf, and that we did not care. The noble Lord tried to twist that statement into a statement on my part that under Empire Free Trade there would be an increase in the price of bread. I deny that. I have never made such a statement, and I could not possibly make it because I am earnestly and honestly convinced that, if we have Empire Free Trade, we shall have no increase in the price of food. At once an attempt is made to put us on the horns of a dilemma by saying: If there will not be an increase in the price of food, how can Empire Free Trade possibly bring any benefit to the farmers? Such a question arises out of ignorance of the farming industry. That industry is out of balance at the present time. For instance, we import into Great Britain 10 per cent. of all the milk consumed in the country, in the form of powder and sweetened and condensed milk. If we put up a barrier against this foreign import it would be ridiculous to suggest that on that account there would be the slightest increase in the price of milk in Great Britain, and yet the farmer will benefit enormously, because he will have an expansion of 10 per cent. in his market.
I will go on to point out one or two other complaints which I make of Lord Arnold's speech. He has repeated what he said last November when this subject was last debated in this House. He has repeated that the Dominions will not have it and then when he wan asked some questions about the attitude of the Dominion of Canada he slid away and would not stand up. The fact is that the attitude of Canada has completely altered the situation. The Dominion of Australia is also giving us evidence of an intention to adopt the policy of Empire Free Trade. It is quite true, as Lord Arnold says, that the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Scullin, will not have Empire Free Trade. Neither will the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald; but we hope that the difficulty of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald will not stand in the way very long, and that the trouble about Mr. Scullin also will not last very long. What is really disturbing the Australians at the present time is whether Great Britain will agree to Empire Free Trade.
1006
Lord Arnold talked of timber, and yet timber is one of the very reasons why we advance the policy of Empire Free Trade. In the Empire we have timber forests undeveloped to the extent of 1,600,000 square miles. In the United States their timber forests only extend to 750,000 square miles, and yet Great Britain at this moment imports from the United States twice as much timber as she buys from the Empire. That is one of the mistakes of the present system, and as Lord Melchett said in his thrilling speech, it is not merely a matter of tariffs but it is something more. It is a question of the organization of the undeveloped resources of the Empire, and if you examine fundamentally all these undeveloped resources you will at once see that the possibilities and opportunities for putting the unemployed back again to work are so vast and tremendous that it is absolutely inconceivable that sane men with business experience can turn their backs on the policy.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, you will undoubtedly agree that the very able speech to which we have listened has added very greatly to the interest of the occasion. Indeed I think in some ways it has shifted the interest from one part of the House to another. As technically the debate is taking place on an Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Huntly, I may say that the Party to which I belong will be perfectly willing to take part in any such conference, if called together by the Government, and perfectly ready and indeed anxious to put at its disposal, if the Amendment is carried, our plans and estimates, in order that everything which we have which will deal with the question may be at the disposal of the conference. It is too serious a question to be made a Party question, and to try to turn out the Government on a question of this importance seems to me to be a most unfortunate line to take. It is a national question of immense importance. For my own part, if I make any complaint it is that we are discussing in one afternoon so many questions of such importance. Unemployment is of sufficient importance in itself, and the three remedies which are proposed are each of them of sufficient importance to justify an afternoon's discussion.
We are not really agreed as to the causes of the present distress. We say it

1007
is chiefly due to the fact that the world is poor, and that our old customers can no longer afford to buy from us those highly finished goods which we used to send out to them. The Resolution speaks of Safeguarding, anti-dumping and Imperial economic unity. May I congratulate the noble Viscount upon the adoption of that phrase, Imperial economic unity in the place of Empire Free Trade? It is a far more accurate phrase, and a far better and less controversial name than Empire Free Trade. I confess that I listened with the greatest interest to what was said by Lord Beaverbrook with regard to the question of whether taxes on food would result in an increase of price. He told us that there would be no increase in the price of food. It is interesting to have his opinion, and even assurance, but he must forgive me if I say that the experience of the world is diametrically opposed to that, and shows that tariffs in the past have always led to an increase in prices. Whatever form you allow the restriction of trade to take it must mean a rise in price, and we must remember that Lord Balfour said that the object of a tariff is to raise the price. It always has done, and I am afraid always will do, however that fact may be uncomfortable to noble Lords who think it will not happen.
There are also one or two elementary facts to which I would refer. Unemployment is as bad in protected countries as it is in this country. How are you going to help the cotton industry of Lancashire by putting a tax on raw material? You might, but I hope the Empire will never do it, insist upon the Colonies buying nothing but British goods. We might, for instance, insist that in Kenya, where they now use Indian and Japanese cotton goods, they should buy nothing but Lancashire goods. To do so would be to abrogate our position as trustees of the native races, and would cut at the foundation of the great reputation which we have built up as being the best guardians of those native races entrusted to us. Surely the chief reason why the cotton industry is doing so badly is the unrest in its chief markets, China and India. How can Import Duties help the consumption of Lancashire cotton in China or India to-day?
The noble Lord spoke of Canada and Australia. Of course, as your Lordships know, the original cause of the change
1008
in the Canadian tariff was undoubtedly the tariff now being considered in the United States. That has put up to an unprecedented extent the tariff upon a number of goods going into the United States, and to such an extent would Canadian goods be penalised that Canada began to look around for some form of retaliation and, amongst other things, introduced this tariff. I am sure your Lordships all welcome the fact that there is going to be a considerable addition to the preference to be given to this country. We have discussed Preference before. I think it will be sufficient for us to say on this occasion that we are profoundly grateful to Canada for what she is doing in this matter, and that, as we do not wish to interfere in her affairs, so we are perfectly certain that she will equally correctly abstain from interfering in ours. In Australia a different course has been taken, and there a much higher tariff has been put on with, more especially, higher duties upon British goods going into that country.
May I say a few words upon what has already attracted a good deal of attention this afternoon—namely, the remedies proposed? First of all with regard to Safeguarding. It is not unfair to remind your Lordships that when the Safeguarding of Industries Act was introduced in 1921 in another place Mr. Baldwin, who introduced it, said that in his opinion five years was the limit of what the manufacturers might reasonably expect to have. It does not seem to me in those circumstances unreasonable on the part of His Majesty's Government to have allowed the Safeguarding Duties to lapse. Indeed, if I had my way, they would have gone a great deal further and taken them all off. After all, let us remember what happened in regard to the Safeguarding of Industries White Paper and the adoption by the Conservative Party of an unlimited policy of Safeguarding. I used to think that the only useful thing about the White Paper was the limitations it introduced in the matter of Safeguarding. Apparently in future it is not necessary that a trade to be safeguarded should be of substantial importance. No doubt we shall once more have those applications for protection from industries like that of granite tombstones which used to amuse us two or three years ago. They did not get it.

1009
Or we might, indeed, have applications on behalf of those articles which have just become the subject of an order under the Merchandise Marks Act, coat hangers, which are not very likely to add to the industry of this country. And then, apparently, in future it will be no longer necessary to prove that the competition of foreign imports is exceptional, or that the production of goods will be seriously affected; nor will it be necessary to say that the competition is unfair—meaning by that that it will no longer be necessary to consider the wages, which, of course, are invariably lower in a protected country than they are with us. And so it goes on.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Earl says that wages are invariably lower in protected countries than with us. They are higher in the United States of America, Canada and Australia than here, and they are protected countries.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree that in America they are, but there is not a larger free trade area in the world than the United States of America, and that has always been our answer. It really is a very old familiar point, and I am sure the noble Viscount before he interrupted knew what my answer was going to be. The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, pointed out that so far as our competitors in Europe are concerned our wages and standard of living are higher. I think it was Mr. Baldwin who said so only the other day. I regret very much that those safeguards which were thought so proper not very long ago by the Conservative Party should be abolished when the Conservative Party once more gets its opportunity. But, after all, with regard to the safeguarded goods, of which so much has been said this evening, I think we must remember how very small a proportion of our trade they apply to—less than 2 per cent. of our imports, and less than 1 per cent. of our exports, unless, indeed, you include the goods to which Protection has been applied.
I do wish we could have more Accuracy iii this controversy. When we deal with safeguarded goods let us speak of safeguarded goods, but when you have goods which are merely protected under the McKenna Duties, do not speak of them as safeguarded. The process of Safeguarding was never applied to motor cars, gramophones, or silk, and therefore
1010
to speak of them as safeguarded goods is wholly inaccurate. They are protected, they are not safeguarded. They never came under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. How can anybody maintain that it is remotely accurate to state that those articles are safeguarded goods? Let us speak of them As they are, either as being the revived War Duties or else as protective—I do not mind—but do not let us confuse them in the future. Nor do I like to hear dyes spoken of as being included among the Safeguarding Duties. I understand that there is a Dyes Regulation Act under which dyes are only admitted under licence. That is quite different from any system which we have commonly understood up to the present by Safeguarding.
With regard to anti-dumping, that has occupied a comparatively small part of our discussion to-day. I would rather devote myself to the last part of the Resolution, dealing with Empire economic unity. Here I should like to make use of an interesting document, dated February 27, 1930, containing hints for speakers, issued by the Conservative and Unionist Central Office. On page 3 I find it stated that:—
"The responsible political leaders in Canada and Australia have definitely stated that 'Free Trade within the Empire' is impossible."
It then quotes Mr. Bennett, the Conservative leader in Canada, Mr. Scullin, the Prime Minister of Australia, whose words have been read out to-night, and Mr. Latham, Leader of the Opposition in the Commonwealth Parliament. The last quotation is from Mr. Fenton, the Australian Minister for Trade and Customs, who stated:—
"What I do say is that 'Empire Free Trade,' in so far as it concerns us, is not within the hounds of practical politics."
It then deals with the importance of Customs revenue to the Dominions, and on page 5 we have this:—
"In addition, the Dominions are not prepared to expose their manufacturing industries in the early period of their growth to the full blast of competition from the firmly established industries of other countries, including the United Kingdom."
They deal then with the Crown Colonies, and say that the introduction of Empire Free Trade would hold up Colonial development for a generation or more. Then reference is made to the West African Colonies, and, explaining some

1011
of the difficulties which arise out of existing treaties, the speakers of the Conservative Party were authorised to say—
"'Empire Free Trade' would involve the denunciation of those treaties, in some cases with disastrous results to British manufacturers."
They give a series of examples in which that would undoubtedly happen. One of them is interesting because it affects cotton. It says—
"In consequence of that Convention"—
a Convention with France—
"Lancashire is enabled to export a very large quantity of cotton goods to French West African territory. If the Convention were terminated the result would be the loss of trade to Lancashire running to hundreds of thousands of pounds."
On Page 10 I find this—
"Lord Beaverbrook's scheme would tend to disunite the various parts of the Empire."
And again—this is a point to which the noble Lord has just devoted a large part of his speech—
"Empire Free Trade' would involve the taxation of staple foodstuffs."
And I find, on authority which is obviously unquestionable, that this country imports very nearly half of its wheat supply from foreign countries, while with regard to imports of meat less than half comes from the Empire. Then we get these figures from the annual statement on trade—that while 52,000,000 cwts. of wheat come from the Empire, 50,000,000 come from foreign countries; chilled beef—the foreign imports are 9,000,000 cwts., while from the Empire we get 1,000 cwts. With frozen beef the proportion is the other way—more from the Empire, and much less from foreign sources. Frozen mutton and lamb—from the Empire 3,000,000 cwts., from foreign sources 2,000,000 cwts. In bacon the foreign imports are supreme—very nearly 8,000,000 cwts. as against 800,000 from the Empire. So with butter, eggs, and so on.
Then I venture to make a quotation from an article by Lord Rothermere which appeared on November 25, 1923:—
"We cannot tax food products imported by us from foreign countries in order to give a preference to Dominion wheat and meat."
On January 4 this year he said:—
"I am entirely against any duties on foodstuffs of any kind."
1012
In those circumstances, I venture to think that the position of the wheat grower of this country will not be improved by the adoption of a system of Empire economic unity, a system which, at the best, can only come into operation in the course of some three or four years, while there is an urgent need for dealing with unemployment to-day. Indeed, like noble Lords beside me, I regret that His Majesty s Government has no more plans for dealing with unemployment to-day. This is not the time to enter into it. We are discussing more the question of Imperial economic unity, and I shall look forward to the coming Division with very much interest in order that we may see how far, for the moment, an appearance of unity is attained and with still more interest in the future to see whether it is continued in the next twelve months.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I support the second part of this Resolution rather than the first in the hope that the debate will proceed along lines which would throw as much reflection on present fiscal controversies as possible. It is because I do not propose to attempt to quote statistics or enter into academic arguments on either side, but because I look at it from the non-controversial point of view, that I venture, for the first time, to intervene in your Lordships' debates. What is the position or the underlying fact which has led to this question being debated in this Chamber? Surely, it is that the trade of the country is getting progressively worse and causing those who have been accustomed to the traditional fiscal policy of the country to question whether some change is not needed. The underlying fact is that the whole world is suffering from the downward movement of price levels in terms of gold. Surely it is superfluous to mention the differences between a high-wage country like the United States and a low-wage country like France and say that there is no unemployment in the one and little unemployment in the other. The underlying fact is that the world movement of commodity prices in terms of gold has a reactionary effect on employment. It is causing many to question whether the fiscal policy which has suited this country in the past is really best suited to it to-day. For that reason those of us who speak as industrialists feel great gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for the campaign

1013
which he has carried out in this country, with the object of bringing into correct perspective this great question which, after all, is affecting the livelihood of the whole country.
Safeguarding is referred to in the second part of the Motion. In another place I consistently voted against the Bill which established the Safeguarding Duties and, until recently, I consistently opposed them mainly on the ground that until we had returned to normality it would be inopportune to risk changing our system. But, surely, we cannot fail to be influenced by the strong tide which is running of those industrialists, bankers and even economists who, having all their lives adhered to the rigid purist theory of free exchange, have now become convinced by the obvious fact that the free exchange of commodities in the world is slowly failing. One could quote any number of authorities. I choose just one—the remarks of the Chairman of the National Provincial Bank, Sir Harry Goschen. He said:—
"It may well be also that the circumstances of the time demand that serious consideration should be given to the fiscal policy of the country, in order that industry may not feel it is too severely handicapped in its competition with other countries."
The noble Lord who spoke last referred to the textile industries, and that brought him into close relation with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaver-brook. The argument has been adduced, and the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, emphasised it, with regard to the safeguarding of steel, that necessarily the safeguarding of any industry must raise the price. Your Lordships will recognise that in many industries it is the operating ratio which affects the cost of the article, and if you can increase the operating ratio (that is, the degree of occupation in the industry) then, because of that greater volume, the price falls and the selling price may be lower. One of the fundamental theories on which all Free Traders have been brought up is that if you impose a duty it necessarily means that the demand arising from that duty, superimposed on the previous demand, would necessarily be so reflected and focused in the industry as to raise the price to the consumer. Your Lordships must recognise that, no matter what leading industry of the country we take, there is producing
1014
plant to-day immeasurably in excess of any conceivable demand that the present demand plus the demand which may be added by the increased result of an Import Duty would make. That is not the condition in which the wealth of this country was built up.
Coal, steel, iron, engineering and textiles, the great fundamental, unsheltered industries on which the wealth of this country was based, are to-day All distressed. Is it not reasonable that free from Party controversies we should reflect coolly—and surely there is no better place than your Lordships' House—as to whether the moment has not arrived when some modification of this system is justified? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, resented the criticism of credulity. As one of the four British representatives who attended the Advisory Economic Council at Geneva I listened for many days, in that babel of tongues, to arguments as to why certain revised policies should be imposed on the fiscal system of England. I was one of those credulous economists who felt that we might succeed in persuading our European competitors that they would be better off if they reduced their duties. What has been the result of all the Conferences we have had at Geneva? I have listened to Frenchmen and others speaking with their tongues in their cheeks, doing lip service to the theory of free exchange and making all possible reservations in favour of their own tariffs. The truth is that they, at least, have so "jacked up" duties as to be in such a position of security that they could safely say: "We will not increase our duties if you will agree to our suggestions."
Agriculture has been referred to. That is a subject the economics of which are most familiar to your Lordships. I wonder if many of you have reflected on what is likely to be the effect on this country if the debenture plan tacked on to the tariff measure which has lately been discussed in the United States is put into effect? There you have a vast national movement for the application of a nation's resources to the handling of the nation's agricultural produce. Surely the throwing of the full weight of its economic force into buying wheat and selling it, and all the surplus in the

1015
world, at the best price possible involves a great hazard to this country and to other countries.
The position of the country at the present time has been referred to in connection with the textile trade. It will be within your Lordships' knowledge that 30 per cent. of our total exports are textiles. When you think of that, coal is relatively an unimportant commodity. If there is at the present moment in this country one industry which is undergoing a severe test it is the wool textile industry. Wool is a commodity on which the economics of the Empire are based. In that industry there is a conversation going on with regard to the terms of payment. A dispute arose. The Government appointed a Court of Inquiry. A Court of Inquiry was held and an award was given under the Chairmanship of a distinguished member of your Lordships' House. That impartial inquiry resulted in a recommendation that a decrease of wages was necessary. The employers accepted the terms of the award, and now six weeks have gone by and there has been no recognition by the workers' side that the fact that a Court of Inquiry has been held and an award given implies an obligation to abide by the award.
One may ask, what part can the Government take in that? It is perhaps indiscreet to refer to this dispute. I refer to it because it has such an important bearing upon the economic position of the country. In this unsheltered industry the conditions, according to the terms of the finding of the Court of Inquiry, justify a reduction of wages. As one who spent many-months of earnest conference with the leaders of Labour in the Melchett-Turner Conference, recognising across the table the sincerity with which those negotiations were carried on, one feels a regret that the atmosphere whereby the two large employers' organisations were brought into direct relations with the organisations of labour, should have been succeeded by an instance where it is clearly impossible for the new spirit in industry, to which the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition referred in his speech, to be implemented. Certainly if the findings of a Court of Inquiry are not respected it makes it extremely difficult to implement that spirit.
1016
The Minister of Labour made a move last week and addressed a letter to both sides. I feel it would be right that I should remind the noble Lord that in the reply which was sent by the employers to the Minister of Labour they stated that:—
"Under all the circumstances the employers cannot alter in any respect the terms of the notices posted. They did not post them without careful consideration nor without full regard to their responsibilities. They posted them in the conviction that by so doing they were acting in the best interests of all concerned, namely, their work-people, themselves and the country as a whole, and they cannot make any compromise."
That is an important statement because the livelihood of a large number of people is in jeopardy. Your Lordships may wonder why I refer to that. It is because this industry is fighting a national battle by requiring a deflation of wages in the unsheltered industries, and if there should be any wavering in the resolution to adhere solely to the terms of the Court of Inquiry set up by the Government, a great disservice would be done to the further deflation of industry in this country, and the position whereby industry could meet competition.
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, suggested it could be met by means of an increase in efficiency. He pleaded that the greater efficiency of manufacturers would avoid the cause of the appeal which he made. The one part of his speech with which one would agree was that the constant reiteration of the industrial difficulties of this country may do disservice to industry, and it is that spirit of defeatism which is dismaying industry. But how best can it be avoided? Surely, in reply to his own inquiry, it is due partly to the social service burdens which are being imposed, partly to inefficient administration on the part of the Government, and partly also, as the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition said, to the imposition of taxation, direct or indirect. It is not possible further to increase direct taxation. Gladstone said that he always regarded those two ladies, one dark and one fair, as those to which he must pay court. But the administration of the Government's social services may at least help in this matter. My object in intervening in this debate was to ask if we cannot leave out of political controversy this question, and recognise

1017
the fact that during the period of world deflation which is resulting from this downward movement of prices we cannot, on this lower basis of value, while maintaining the responsibility for the service of £8,000,000,000 of debt, continue in the existing fiscal situation where our market is open to the world and the manufacturers of this country are driven to sell, if necessary, abroad. We should, by putting on some duties at least, retain to this country the best credits, which is our home market, and allow some of our competitors to have those less secure credits which they, in the necessity to keep employment, are being driven to seek in every quarter of the world.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I do not wish at this hour to address the House for more than three minutes because we are going to have the Division, I understand, at seven o'clock, but I may perhaps be allowed to congratulate the noble Lord on the first speech that he has addressed to your Lordships, and to express a wish that, with his great experience of business and affairs, he may often address us again. I have been waiting to see whether the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, would rush to the assistance of the much-tried Government, and I was very glad to see that he gave them the assistance they required as Free Traders which he had so generously accorded to them as Protectionists on the Coal Bill.
I really have not risen, as I should have like to have done, to enter into the discussion raised by the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, about which he is so sensitive, the figures about the Safeguarding Duties; nor do I intend to discuss again that nice distinction between Safeguarding Duties and Protectionist Duties. I do not think myself they make a very great difference to the industry which is either being protected or safeguarded. As a student of the older economists I know how careful one has to be in the phrases one uses on that subject. I would only point out to the noble Earl that when he asserted with such firmness and force that tariffs always raise prices, I think he was forgetting for a moment that it was only on foreign stuffs and goods that these duties are to be placed, and that his experience is rather based on those countries where duties are levied on all goods brought
1018
in. Indeed I think it is part of the feeling or habit of this country that we have been accustomed, or the public have been accustomed, to duties laid upon goods which have not been produced in this country, in which case, of course, the duty does fall almost entirely on the consumer. That is why the public has not accustomed itself to the question of a duty on articles of manufacture of which the prices might be largely reduced by the greater security given to manufacturers in this country.
I should like to say one word in reply to the noble and learned Lord opposite. I thought he rather dangerously misrepresented, or did not represent fairly, our position in relation to the Dominions to-day. He told us that he thought that a conference or discussion with the Dominions on this subject of mutual trade and the increasing of mutual trade might lead rather to disruption than to further ties.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not say that. I said pressing the view of Imperial unity might lead to that.
EARL PEEL: I think I did not misrepresent the noble and learned Lord. The views taken by the noble and learned Lord regarding the Constitution of the Empire are almost as belated as his economic views. He seemed to have forgotten, or not to have realised, the great change made in 1926 by the definition of the relations of the Dominions to this country, that now they know and recognise that they are equal self-governing units of the Empire. I can testify from a recent journey in Canada with the Parliamentary Association that the people in that Dominion fully realise all the implications and the freedom of that new dispensation. Therefore, coming to a conference of that kind they would know that there is no desire to interfere with their legislation or economic affairs, but that it is a conference between equal self-governing communities to consider what is to be done for the economic advantage of them all.
Another point on which I think he spoke with some degree of regrettable complacency was the question of whether Free Trade within the Empire was completely realisable. No great ideal can be easily realised in a year or in two years. But surely, if by conference with

1019
the Dominions you are going to enlarge the opportunities for trade among the great constituent parts of the Empire, then, whether you do or do not at once realise complete Free Trade within the Empire, you have done something which must be of immense advantage to economic unity and Free Trade between the different sections of the Empire. I believe myself that if you have a conference of that kind with the present attitude that we find in Australia and Canada and other parts of the Empire, and if you pursue that conference, not in any sort of minimising and depreciaatory spirit, but in a spirit of good will
Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.
and determination to reach some further unity, such a conference will succeed. I believe also—and this is the last word I shall say—that the first step to a conference of that kind is to turn out the present Government.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Sidmouth, V.

Illingworth, L.

Westminster, D.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Jessel, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Bath, M.

Addington, L.

Kylsant, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Alvingham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ampthill, L.

Lloyd, L.

Annaly, L.

Lovat, L.

Albemarle, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Luke, L.

Bathurst, E.

Armstrong, L.

Manners, L.

Cawdor, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Melchett, L.

Denbigh, E.

Askwith, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Dudley, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Haddington, E.

Berwick, L.

Newton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Biddulph, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Lauderdale, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Lindsey, E.

Remnant, L.

Lucan, E.

Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

Rossmore, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Danesfort, L.

Roundway, L.

Midleton, E.

Darling, L.

St. Levan, L.

Onslow, E.

Daryngton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Peel, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sandys, L.

Selborne, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Sinclair, L.

Sondes, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Ernle, L.

Stratheden, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Templemore, L.

Yarborough, E.

Faringdon, L.

Teynham, L.

Ypres, E.

Forteviot, L.

Trenchard, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Vernon, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Greenway, L.

Vivian, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Greenwood, L.

Wargrave, L.

Burnham, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Waring, L.

Churchill, V.

Harris, L.

Wavertree, L.

Elibank, V. [Teller.]

Hastings, L.

Weir, L.

Falkland, V.

Hawke, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hothfield, L.

Wraxall, L.

Hailsham, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mersey, V.

Gainford, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Hemphill, L.

Arnold, L.

Kirkley, L.

Reading, M.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Cawley, L.

Pentland, L.

Clwyd, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Leverhulme, V.

Denman, L.

Stanmore, L.

Dickinson, L.

Thomson, L.

House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Torquay and Paignton Traction Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the West Ham Corporation Bill [H.L.]: Read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners Praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Torquay and Paignton Traction Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill [H.L.]: Read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
TEES (NEWPORT) BRIDGE BILL.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL.
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Lucan and the Earl Cawdor be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Feversham and the Lord Darling; and that the Earl of Lucan be Chairman of the said Committee: Read, and agreed to.

ARGYLL TRUST ESTATE.
Petition for a Bill, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto: Read, and referred to Judges in Scotland.

LONDON BUILDING ACTS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
NOW
LONDON BUILDING BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent and Consent of the Prince of Wales signified, and Bill reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BRISTOL CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.