Sitting of 12 November 1930

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    NANKING GOVERNMENT.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an agreement has now been reached on all outstanding points between His Majesty's Government and the Nanking Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As I have already announced to the House, agreement has been reached on a number of questions. With regard to the question of extraterritoriality, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I returned to him on the 5th of November.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether conversations are going on, and how long it will be before they are concluded?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Conversations are going on.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does this refer to the agreement with reference to the Hankow and Canton Railway?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No, that is not included. If the hon. Gentleman desires to have further information on that point and will put a question down, I will give him an answer.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Does the agreement include any points in regard to the Boxer Indemnity
    Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, as I announced in the House, that is one of the questions dealt with.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Do not the Boxer Indemnity and the Hankow and Canton Railway fit in with one another?
    Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. Member requires further information on this matter, and will put down a question, I shall be pleased to give it.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    SLAVERY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to furnish to the League of Nations the information in possession of the Government respecting the present general position in regard to slavery, in accordance with the resolution passed by the Eleventh Assembly of the League of Nations?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: This matter will be carefully considered, but I am not yet able to state what action His Majesty's Government will take on the resolution of the Assembly.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in his consideration of this matter the question of slave labour in Russia?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Mander—
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I have an answer to my question, or shall I raise it on the Adjournment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Mander—
    Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I say, as the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give me an answer, that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at an early date?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) entitled to give notice to raise a matter on the Adjournment upon a supplementary question which has nothing whatever to do with the original question?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is too funny for words.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can raise any question he likes on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I quite understand that an hon. Member can raise anything he likes on the Adjournment, but I would like to ask is it in order for an hon. Member, in putting a supplementary question which has no connection with the original question on the Paper, to give notice that he will raise that question on the Motion for the Adjournment and thus take up the time of the House?
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) himself has been taking up the time of the House.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what nations are not parties to the Anti-Slavery Convention of 1926; and with reference to Article 4 that the high contracting parties shall give to one another every assistance with the object of securing the abolition of slavery and the slave trade, whether any endeavour has been made by this country separately, or in association with other countries, to secure the adhesion of countries where slavery is known to exist?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Twenty-four countries have not yet signed the AntiSlavery Convention of 1926, and 12 countries have signed or otherwise acceded, but have not yet ratified. I am circulating the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 5th of November to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White).
    Commander BELLAIRS: May I presume that Russia is among the countries that have not signed?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The hon. and gallant Member will get the list.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the five-year-plan which has condemned the bulk of the Russian people to penal servitude for five years?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that this matter has to do with any year plan.
    Following are the names:

    Countries who have neither signed nor acceded to the Convention.

    Afghanistan.

    Lichtenstein.

    Argentine Republic.

    Luxemburg.

    Mexico.

    Bolivia.

    Paraguay.

    Brazil.

    Peru.

    Chile.

    Salvador.

    Costa Rica.

    San Merion.

    Free City of Danzig.

    Siam.

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    Guatemala.

    Hejaz.

    Honduras.

    Switzerland.

    Iceland.

    Turkey.

    Japan.

    Venezuela.

    Countries who have signed or acceded to, but have not yet ratified, the Convention.

    Abyssinia.

    France.

    Albania.

    Lithuania.

    China.

    Panama.

    Colombia.

    Persia.

    Cuba.

    Rumania.

    Dominican Republic.

    Uruguay.

    MINORITIES (COMMISSION).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further action has been taken as a result of the declaration made by the Government in committee at the Assembly of the League of Nations in September last to the effect that they were prepared to consider on its merits the setting up of a permanent minorities commission?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The representative of His Majesty's Government at Geneva did not commit himself either for or against the proposal for a permanent minorities commission. General agreement was reached in the Sixth Committee of the Assembly that no change should be made at present in the existing procedure, which should, however, be applied as fully as possible.
    Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the Government have quite an open mind on this matter of a permanent minorities commission?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I think that follows from the answer I have given.

    DISARMAMENT.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any further action has been taken in pursuance of the

    1645
    policy expressed in his statement made at the Assembly of the League of Nations last September that, in the opinion of the British Government., Article 8 of the Covenant with regard to disarmament was as binding and as important as any other article contained therein or in the Treaties of Peace?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: As the hon. Member is aware, the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference is now in session at Geneva, and I trust that its deliberations will be successful in preparing the way for the execution by all States Members of the League of Article 8 of the Covenant.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that until other States have carried out their obligations under Article 8 they cannot rely upon us to carry out our duties under Article 16, which deals with sanctions?
    Mr. HENDERSON: That is a very large question to have to settle by way of an answer to a question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the instructions given to the British delegation to the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament include the acceptance of the principle of no limitation of trained reserves; and whether this principle has been accepted by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: When the present Session of the Preparatory Commission is ended, I will issue a White Paper setting out its conclusions and indicating the attitude adopted by the representative of His Majesty's Government on the various questions discussed. Meanwhile I do not, consider that such points as that raised by my hon. and gallant Friend can be usefully dealt with at this stage.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I sin much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Could the right hon. Gentleman find it convenient to say whether there has been any alteration of policy with regard to the question of the limitation of trained reserves?
    Mr. HENDERSON: During the sittings which are now being held I deprecate having to answer specific questions. I appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend to accept the offer which I have made.

    MANDATES COMMISSION.
    47. Captain EDENasked the Prime Minister what steps it is proposed to recommend to give effect to the declaration of the British Government's delegate at Geneva that the experience which the Mandates Commission was acquiring should be utilised more than it is for the benefit of Native races throughout the world?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The reference appears to be to the remarks made in the 6th Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Buxton) who was one of the British delegates at the 11th Session of the Assembly. My hon. Friend drew attention to the valuable process of pooling the results and experience in Colonial Administration derived from the work of the Permanent Mandates Commission, and he emphasised the fact that the principle of trusteeship was derived not only from the provisions of the Mandates but also from Article 23 of the Covenant which applied to all territories under the jurisdiction of members of the League. His Majesty's Government always devote close attention to the work of the Permanent Mandates Commission, and consider whether any lessons can be drawn from it involving principles of general application to the administration of Colonial Territories. They propose to continue to study the work of the Commission with this end in view.
    Captain EDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement referred to is an invitation to the Mandates Commission to extend their authority over all British Colonies, and can we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government to extend the authority of the Mandates Commission to any other Colony?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no hesitation in giving that assurance. That idea has never entered our minds.
    Earl WINTERTON: Before any recommendation of the Mandates Commission is given effect to by His Majesty's Government in respect of the territories aver which they hold a mandate, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be communication and consultation with the Government of the Union of South Africa and of the

    1647
    Commonwealth of Australia, which also have Mandatory territories under their control?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think that ought to have notice of such an important question as that.

  RUSSIA.

    RUSSO-ASIATIC CONSOLIDATED, LIMITED (CLAIM).
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the claims of the Russo-Asiatic Consolidated, Limited, against the Russian Government; and whether he has taken the matter up with the Russian Government through the Soviet Ambassador?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House as to what has happened in connection with the claim of the Russo-Asiatic Consolidated, Limited, against the Russian Soviet Government for £56,000,000 in respect of the confiscation of their property in Soviet Russia; and what action the British Government are taking in support of the claim of this British company?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The claims of this company arise out of losses due to the revolution of 1917. It is, therefore, one of a number of similar claims registered at the Board of Trade and now forming a subject of discussion by the Joint Anglo-Soviet Committee sitting in London.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is this not an entirely different matter from the Lena Goldfields case, in which the Soviet Government have repudiated the arbitration award?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman Not aware that the delay in the settlement of this matter involves a loss to British shareholders of about £8,000 a day, and will he urge the Committee to proceed with greater speed?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am doing all that I can to keep the Committee sitting in order to facilitate a settlement.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Will the Foreign Secretary answer the last part of my question as to whether he has taken the matter up with the Russian Government through the Soviet Ambassador?
    Mr. HENDERSON: It is not necessary for me to take the matter up with the Ambassador when there is a Committee sitting dealing with the whole question.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take up this question with the Ambassador?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: How many supplementaries are allowed?

    BRITISH NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS (FACILITIES).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will endeavour to obtain from the Soviet Government facilities for British newspaper correspondents in Russia similar to those which they receive in other large European countries?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I doubt whether this is a matter in which His Majesty's Government can usefully intervene. British newspapers, in deciding whether or not to send correspondents to Soviet Russia, will no doubt take into consideration the conditions under which their representatives will carry on their work.
    Mr. ALBERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principal grievance is the very severe censorship imposed, and will the right hon. Gentleman press this on the Soviet Government with a view to improving the understanding between the two countries?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am always trying to press the Soviet Government with one thing or another.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will call for a report from the commercial diplomatic officer of the wages and conditions in the timber trade, collectivist farms, and factories of Soviet Russia, stating where prison labour and forced labour are employed, and to what extent?
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I regret that I am unable to accept the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

  ANIMAL SHELTER, PRAGUE.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, as a result of an action of an employé of His Majesty's Embassy, a shelter for animals in Prague has been closed; and will he consider making representations on the subject, with a view to the withdrawal of their objections?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. It is true that certain citizens of Prague, one of whom happened to be an employé of His Majesty's Legation, recently lodged a complaint regarding the site of a shelter for animals situated near their private residences. As a result of this complaint the local magistrate ordered the shelter to be removed elsewhere. The employé in question is a Czech national who was only exercising the ordinary rights of a citizen. As he was not acting in his capacity of employé of His Majesty's Legation, the affair is not one which concerns His Majesty's Government in any way. The question of representations does not, therefore, arise.

  ARGENTINA (TRADE AGREEMENT).
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any intimation from the Argentine Government of their intention to seek legislative approval of the D'Abernon agreement?
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Argentine Minister for Foreign Affairs recently informed His Majesty's Ambassador that Lord D'Abernon's agreement was awaiting the approval of the Senate, and that when this was given the Executive would take the necessary steps to put it into force.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Are negotiations actually proceeding?
  Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know what the hon. Member means by negotiations. We are doing all that we can in the matter.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SPECIALIST COURSES.
    Mr. DAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of applications that have been made to his Department, during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, by officers (ex-mate class) to take specialist courses; the number of these that have been selected; and will he give particulars of the number of ex-mates who have been promoted to commander on the active list during the same period?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): During the 12 months ended 31st October, 1930, seven applications were received from officers, ex-mate, to take specialist courses. Of these, three officers have already been selected, and it is anticipated that two more will he appointed in January next and two in February. During the same period two lieutenant-commanders, ex-mate, have been promoted to commander.
    Mr. DAY: Can the First Lord of the Admiralty say whether the small number of applications is due to the difficulty of the examination?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: I think it is due to a variety of causes. The whole question of the position of the mates and ex-mates has not been satisfactory.

    NEW CRUISERS (TONNAGE).
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the respective tonnages of the three cruisers included in the recent naval building programme?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The standard tonnage of each of the cruisers referred to is about 7,000 tons.
    Commander SOUTHBY: Are we to understand that all three are of 7,000 tons?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Yes.

    REDUCTIONS (PENSIONS AND COMPENSATION).
    Major ROSSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will introduce a scheme for the pension and compensation of ranks and ratings in the

    1651
    Royal Navy and employés in naval establishments rendered superfluous by the London Naval Treaty?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: As regards personnel of the Royal Navy, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave him on the 25th June (OFFICIAL REPORT, Columns 1125–6). So far as employés in the Royal Dockyards are concerned, the occasion to consider the introduction of any special scheme of the kind suggested has not arisen, as there is sufficient work to keep the dockyards, with the normal fluctuations in numbers, fully employed.
    Major ROSS: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered any scheme, as he suggested in his previous answer to which he has referred me, in regard to officers who are to be retired from the Navy?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. and gallant Member's question in this case refers to reductions due to the London Naval Treaty. I said then that we would take into consideration the position of officers whom we failed to absorb. At the moment I am riot prepared to go further than that; we must wait and see what the outcome is.
    Major ROSS: The right hon. Gentleman is bearing it in mind for the future?

    RUSSIAN TIMBER (PURCHASES).
    Mr. MOSESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the amount of timber bought by his Department from Russia for the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929, respectively?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: All Russian timber is bought from importers in this Country. The amounts are:

    Standards.

    1925

    …

    …

    1,044

    1926

    …

    …

    1,327

    1927

    …

    …

    1,140

    1928

    …

    …

    558

    1929

    …

    …

    1,317

    1930

    …

    …

    984

    (up to date).

    Mr. MOSES: Are we to understand that the previous Government bought far more timber from Russia than the present Government? [Interruption.]

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the
    1652
    Board of Admiralty have now reached a decision regarding the award of marriage allowances to naval officers?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: No decision has yet been reached.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (APPRENTICES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many apprentices have been discharged from Devonport Dockyard in the last four months; the reasons for their discharge; and whether a system can be inaugurated so to regulate the engagement of apprentices in order that they shall not, bearing also in mind the necessary sacrifice made by their parents, find themselves discharged on the completion of their apprenticeships without opportunities of employment?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: With regard to the first part of the question, two apprentices have been discharged from Devonport Dockyard in the last four months, having been appointed to another Department. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. Member will appreciate that the number of apprentices to be entered in the dockyards each year must necessarily be fixed at least five years before they become qualified craftsmen, and that in the intervening period circumstances are liable to change. The number of entries has, however, been greatly diminished in the last 10 years, and every effort is made to secure that there shall be no surplus over Admiralty requirements.

    HOME ESTABLISHMENTS (LEAVE WITH PAY).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now considered the reports furnished by all yards and establishments in home waters which observed the closed holiday week; and what arrangements have been decided upon in the future regarding the week's holiday leave with pay?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: The detailed reports from the various establishments have only recently been received. They will he duly considered.

    SPECIALIST OFFICERS.
    Mr. THOMAS LEWISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of cadet-entry officers who have specialised in (G), (T), (N), A/S, (S), W/T, P, and R.T., and staff duties

    1653
    since the issue of Admiralty Fleet Order, No. 1,095, of 16th April, 1926, which stated that lieutenants promoted from the rank of mate are eligible to specialise under the same conditions as other lieutenants; the number of lieutenants (ex-mate) who have qualified in these branches since that date; and the number of these officers who are taking the 1930 courses and who have been selected for the 1931 courses?
    Mr. ALEXANDER: As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The number of (ex-cadet) officers who have specialised in these subjects since the issue of Admiralty Fleet Order 1,095, of lath April. 1926, is as follows:

    "G"

    …

    59

    "T"

    …

    55

    "N"

    …

    45

    "S" and "W/T"

    …

    39

    "A/S"

    …

    6

    "P. and R.T."

    …

    17

    Staff

    …

    99

    The number of ex-mates who have specialised in these subjects during the same period is as follows:

    "G"

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1

    "T"

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1

    No lieutenants (ex-mates) are taking the 1930 courses in these subjects, and none have yet been selected for the 1931 courses.

  PALESTINE.
  Major NATHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to be in a position to define the financial provision which it is proposed to make for the purposes of agricultural development, as referred to in the recently issued statement of policy relating to Palestine [Cmd. 3692]?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn):I have been asked to reply to this question. I have already told the House that the matter is under active consideration. I am not in a position to name a date.
  Major NATHAN: May I ask whether or not it is to be understood that no
  1654
  financial provision was defined or taken into consideration before the pronouncement as to policy?
  Mr. LUNN: I understand that there is to be a day next week for the discussion of Palestine, when the Government's financial policy will be fully explained.
  Major NATHANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government will publish the instructions given to Sir John Hope-Simpson leading to his visit to Palestine, and his report on immigration, land settlement, and development [Cmd. 3686.]
  Mr. LUNN: The hon. and gallant Member has already been informed of Sir J. Hope-Simpson's instructions. No formal commission was issued to him.
  Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of all the persons who accompanied him on his recent visit to the Near East; in what capacity they travelled; whether they all went at the expense of the taxpayer; and what was the total cost of the visit?
  Mr. LUNN: The Under-Secretary was accompanied by his Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Mathers), and by an officer in the Mediterranean Department of the Colonial Office. The tour was undertaken in accordance with the general policy of establishing closer contact between the Colonial Office and oversea Governments. The expenses of the party will be borne by public funds, in conformity with the established practice in such cases. The exact cost of the tour is not yet known, but it will be approximately £600.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Will this require an Estimate?
  Mr. LUNN: I should require notice of that question.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Is there any precedent for a Parliamentary Private Secretary going at the Government's expense?
  Mr. LUNN: I believe that there is quite a number of precedents.
  Major ELLIOTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the criticism and disapproval of the new statement of policy with regard to Palestine, His Majesty's Government will refrain from promulgating any ordinances in Palestine on the basis of the White Paper until Parliament has had an opportunity to discuss it?
  Mr. BRACKENasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the advisability of recommending the Government of Palestine to defer action upon the statement of policy recently presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State until an opportunity has been given for a debate in both Houses of Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The White Paper on Palestine issued by His Majesty's Government after the receipt of the Hope Simpson report has given rise to some misunderstanding and has been misinterpreted in some essential points; and His Majesty's Government, therefore, do not intend to proclaim ordinances before discussion of the White Paper in this House. I must repeat that His Majesty's Government intend to carry out their obligations under the Mandate to both sections of the population in Palestine.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sure that the Prime Minister will realise that it is important to have this matter cleared up as soon as possible. When can he give us an opportunity for a discussion on this subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The matter has been in the hands of the usual channels, and I believe that to-morrow, in the course of the statement of next week's business, the subject will be announced. I cannot quite say when it will take place. It may be Monday; it may be Tuesday.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to draw the deduction from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are prepared to modify the drafting of the White Paper and to make a statement to that effect in the debate when it takes place?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman might wait for the debate. The substance, I think, is all right.

  SOUTHERN NIGERIA.
  Mr. HORRABINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1), what action the Government proposes to take in view of the finding of the commission of inquiry that the firing by police at certain places, including that which occurred at Utu Etim Ekpo, in the Calabar province, Southern Nigeria, on 15th December last, by a platoon of 26 men with rifles and a Lewis gun, when 18 women were killed and 19 wounded, was not justified;
  (2), whether the recommendations of the Aba commission of inquiry into the disturbances in Southern Nigeria last December, particularly as regard the free pardon of certain persons, the desirability of changes in the methods of imposing taxation, and the reconsideration both of the collective fines actually imposed and of the whole subject of collective punishment, are being carried into effect?
  Mr. LUNN: It is not proposed to take a decision on the report of the commission until the views of the Government of Nigeria have been received and considered. The transmission of these views has been delayed owing to a change in the administration of the Government of Nigeria, but a telegram has been despatched urging expedition.
  Mr. HORRABIN: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, according to the report, out of 13 cases of firing which were investigated, eight were found to be not justified; and can we have some assurance that the officers responsible for these cases are at least being removed to areas which will give their qualities rather less scope?
  Mr. LUNN: All I can say is that there has been a change in regard to the Colonial Secretary in Nigeria, which has delayed the receipt of the report, and the Governor himself is ill in this country. We are awaiting the report, which I hope will be here shortly.

  CEYLON.
  Sir FREDERICK THOMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the resolution sent to him as passed at a mass meeting held in Colombo, Ceylon,

  1657
  on 23rd October, representative of all communities in the island, with regard to the financial position of the island; and what action it is proposed to take in the matter?
  Mr. LUNN: The resolution to which the hon. and learned Member refers has been received. My Noble Friend is satisfied that the Government of Ceylon is taking adequate steps to deal with the financial situation. He does not consider that any special action is called for on his part.
  Sir F. THOMSON: Is not the hon. Gentleman keeping in view the fact that one of the resolutions passed at this most representative meeting which is referred to in the question was to the effect that the Income Tax proposals were against the wishes of the people, and would do great harm and aggravate the difficulties of the country in a time of unprecedented depression?
  Mr. LUNN: I have very full information as to the meeting which was held, and more than a quarter of the people who attended that meeting were members of the Labour party, who were not allowed either to speak or to move an amendment. If an Income Tax is to be imposed upon Ceylon, that will be a matter for the Legislative Council. I understand that the Governor does not feel that it is in his power to interfere.
  Sir F. THOMSON: Is it not the case that on the Second Reading of the Bill the official members were instructed to vote for the Bill, and that without the official vote the Bill would have been defeated?

  KENYA.
  28. Mr. HORRABINasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give instructions to the Government of Kenya that in the preparation of the estimates of expenditure for the year 1931 the sums proposed to be spent on Arab and African education, respectively, shall be shown in separate schedules or in separate sections of the same schedule?
  Mr. LUNN: As the draft Estimates for the year 193I have already been drawn up by the Government of Kenya, my Noble Friend fears that it would be too
  1658
  late to make a change as suggested; but he will bring the matter to the notice of the Government of Kenya, and he hopes that it may be possible for the expenditure on Arab and African education to be shown separately in the Estimates for 1932 and subsequent years.
  Mr. HORRABIN: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this practice of the Kenya Government every year since 1926 has not been a device to prevent the ascertainment of what money has been spent on this object?
  Mr. LUNN: I do not know what was in the mind of the Kenya Government on this matter, and cannot tell the House what their intention was. We have promised to see that the practice is altered from now onwards.

  TRANSJORDAN.
  29. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present cost to the British Treasury and/or the Palestine Government of the administration of Transjordan; what is the cost of the defence force; and whether any subsidy, direct or indirect, is paid to the ruler or Government of Transjordan?
  Mr. LUNN: As regards the first part of the question, the sum provided in this year's Estimates as the British contribution towards the expenses of the Transjordan administration was £60,000. A further grant-in-aid of £24,000 will, however, be necessary, and a Supplementary Estimate for that amount is about to be presented to Parliament. Palestine does not contribute towards the cost. It is assumed that the second part of the question refers to the Transjordan Frontier Force. The cost of this force for the current financial year is estimated at £250,000, of which part is chargeable to Palestine and part to His Majesty's Government. As regards the third part of the question, the Emir's Civil List, amounting in the current year to £13,524, is provided for in the Estimates of the Transjordan Administration.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A subsidy was paid for a number of years. Has it been dropped altogether?
  Mr. LUNN: I think I have given my hon. and gallant Friend a very full reply. A supplementary estimate is to be put down.

  WEST INDIES (SUGAR INDUSTRY).
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position of employment and production in the West Indian cane-sugar industry; and how many contract labourers have been repatriated during the past six months at the expense of the Island Governments?
  Mr. LUNN: The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that this matter cannot be dealt with fully within the limits of an oral reply. Briefly the position is that as yet unemployment is serious only in British Guiana, Antigua and St. Kitts, where it is being dealt with by means of relief works, which are already in progress. In British Guiana these works will probably attain a considerable scale and are estimated to cost £112,000 by 31st March next. Such information as is at present available indicates that, so far, the aggregate production of sugar has not been greatly curtailed. There is, however, no recent report from British Guiana, but one is expected shortly. No contract labourers have been repatriated to India during the past six months, and the Secretary of State is not aware that any have been repatriated to other destinations.
  Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Seeing that the Secretary of State telegraphed specially in the middle of September to the Governors of the West Indies and British Guiana for a report on the subject, may we know whether a report has yet been received, and, if so, whether it will be published?
  Mr. LUNN: A report is expected shortly.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will it be published?
  Mr. LUNN: That I cannot say.
  Captain MACDONALD: In view of the need for relief works in these islands, do the Government think it is a good investment to guarantee loans to Russia?

  NORTHERN RHODESIA.
  31. Earl WINTERTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Joint Committee of this House and another place intended to be set up to inquire into closer union in East Africa will be instructed under its terms of reference to inquire into the future status and constitution of Northern Rhodesia; and, if so, whether those terms of reference will vest in the committee a discretion to admit evidence on behalf of the non-official members of the legislative council of Northern Rhodesia?
  Mr. LUNN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.
  Earl WINTERTON: I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question of the constitutional position of the people of Northern Rhodesia, the proposals of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, and the suggestions made by the Prime Minister of South Africa on the Adjournment of the House at an early date.

  AVIATION.

    TRANS-ATLANTIC PLIGHT ("MISS COLUMBIA").
    Captain HAROLD BALFOURasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that a Royal Air Force flying boat proceeded from Mount Batten to the Scilly Isles for the purpose of transporting petrol to the aeroplane "Miss Columbia" on its recent trans-Atlantic flight; and if he will state the cost of this voyage?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): Yes, Sir, petrol was supplied to this American0 aeroplane, as stated in the question, and the cost has since been refunded to the Air Ministry. No special expenditure was incurred as the flying boat was, in any case, due for a navigational exercise that day, and the opportunity was taken to carry out some photographic work at Penzance and the Scilly Islands, an occasion for which was already being awaited.

    LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can

    1661
    give particulars of the number of members of light aeroplane clubs who have obtained "A" licences during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, stating the names of the clubs to which these members belong?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The number of new "A" pilot's licences issued to members of subsidised light aeroplane clubs during the year ended 31st July, 1930, was 441. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the names of the clubs and the numbers of new licences issued to the members of each club.
    Mr. DAY: Does the table also show the number of light aeroplane clubs that commenced operations during the same period?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The table answers the question on the Paper.
    Following is the table:

    Club.

    Number of Licences issued.

    Bristol and Wessex

    20

    Cinque Ports

    38

    Hampshire

    44

    Lancashire

    26

    Liverpool and District

    23

    London

    47

    Midland

    28

    Newcastle

    33

    Norfolk and Norwich

    15

    Northamptonshire

    7

    Nottingham

    3

    Scottish

    21

    Suffolk and Eastern Counties

    12

    Yorkshire

    17

    Clubs affiliated to National Flying Services, Limited

    107

    Total

    441

    FLYING REGULATIONS (CROWDED AREAS).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Under Secretary of State for Air whether he contemplates issuing instructions to prevent loss of life by stopping aircraft flying over crowded areas except in cases of necessity
    Mr. MONTAGUE: The regulations governing civil and service flying now in force contain provisions, the object of which is to prevent danger to life in populated areas. It is forbidden, for
    1662
    instance, to fly over a city or town except at a height which will enable the aircraft to land outside the city or town in the event of mechanical breakdown or other cause, subject to this proviso, that the prohibition is not to apply to any area comprised within a circle with a radius of one mile from the centre of a licensed aerodrome, of a Royal Air Force aerodrome or of an aerodrome under the control of the Secretary of State. It is also forbidden to carry out any trick or exhibition flying over a populated area or, in general, to fly in such a way as to cause unnecessary danger to persons on the ground. Power has also been taken to impose such restrictions as are considered expedient in the interest of public safety upon flying over large gatherings of people in special circumstances. My Noble Friend does not think that further instructions such as those suggested by my hon. Friend are necessary or practicable.

    CONTRACTORS (FINANCIAL STABILITY).
    Major LLEWELLINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that several companies and firms which have supplied material, specified to be manufactured by them in Air Ministry contracts, to a heating engineering firm now in liquidation, have been unable to receive payment for goods so supplied; whether the Air Ministry takes any steps to ascertain the financial stability of firms with which it makes contracts; and whether the Ministry intends to do anything to meet the accounts of such sub-contractors?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the case to which, I think, the hon. and gallant Member is referring. The answer to the second part of this question is in the affirmative, but to the last part in the negative. Inquiries were made when the firm in question was placed on the Air Ministry list, but it would be impossible for the Air Ministry to guarantee the solvency of contractors in relation to the various sub-contractors with whom they may have dealings.
    Major LLEWELLIN: If there is still money unpaid by the Air Ministry, will it be paid over to the sub-contractors and not direct to the contracting firm?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot undertake that in answer to a supplementary question.
    Mr. ALBERY: Does not the fact that a firm is contracting for the British Government naturally lead the sub-contractors to believe that it is solvent?

    ACCIDENTS (INVESTIGATION).
    Captain MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the desirability of ordering that all inquiries into accidents to aircraft shall be held in public; that all relevant evidence shall be made public; and that a full description of the machine shall in each case be given where, as a result of the inquiry, the cause or probable cause of the accident is determined?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: My Noble Friend has the whole question of the investigation of aircraft accidents under his immediate consideration, but he is not at present able to make any announcement on the subject.

    SEA-GOING AEROPLANES.
    Sir RENNELL RODDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether, in view of the fact that at the naval demonstration on 1st of November an all-metal machine which was compelled to make a false landing on the sea sank immediately after touching the water, that an all-metal non-buoyant type of machine is the only one used at sea by this country for long-ranging reconnaissance flights up to 100 miles from the parent ship, and that such machines have never been known to remain afloat for more than three minutes, he will consider the resumption for use in such long distance flights of machines with a wooden fuselage and air bags in the tail which have a buoyancy of two or three hours in fair weather;
    (2) whether a rubber raft, which requires time for detachment and inflation, such as is furnished to all-metal machines, has been subjected to practical tests as a life-saving device in non-buoyant aircraft at sea; and, if so, with what results?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: A life-saving collapsible dinghy, which can be very rapidly inflated by mechanical means, has recently been subjected to practical tests with satisfactory results, and will be carried by all sea-going aeroplanes which are large enough to be so equipped. I am advised that the re-introduction of wooden construction would be a some-
    1664
    what retrograde step; but action is being taken to improve the buoyancy of all aircraft operating from aircraft carriers, and all-metal sea-going aircraft, at least up to the standard—two or three hours' buoyancy—mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Major ROSS: Is it not a fact that, owing to the introduction of the all-metal aeroplane, it was necessary to restrict the distance an aeroplane could fly from its carrier very considerably, and, in view of that, will the hon. Gentleman consider, at least temporarily, the reintroduction of a portion of the old type aeroplane?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: I think the answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative. So far as the first part is concerned, the whole question is a matter of experiment and consideration, and everything is being done on the lines of the answer to the original question.

    AIRWORTHINESS (FLUTTER).
    Captain MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what types of aircraft have been condemned or excluded from further use in Service flying, or on which pilots have made adverse reports, on account of wing-flutter or otherwise; and whether any machines of such types are still in use for Service flying and are permitted to be used in civilian flying services?
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Cases of wing, aileron, or tail flutter have been reported in different types of aircraft, mostly experimental, from time to time. If such flutter has proved to be incurable the type has not been adopted for Service or civil use. One obsolescent type of Service aircraft which is potentially liable to flutter at extreme speeds is permitted to be flown only at speeds at which flutter does not in fact occur. No flutter is known to occur in any aircraft now holding a British certificate of airworthiness.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAFFIC CENSUS, OXFORD.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Transport if he can state, from figures obtained at the last vehicle census taken by the Ministry, what was the number of vehicles passing through Oxford from the

    1665
    Midlands, the North, and the West, and vice versa; what proportion of these were through motor coach services; and haw many were heavy goods lorries
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): According to a census of traffic taken at Magdalen Bridge, Oxford, in 1928, the average daily number of vehicles was 22,584. These figures include 1,218 motor omnibuses and motor coaches and 1,746 goods motor vehicles, but the statistics do not enable me to differentiate between local and through traffic.

    STEAM-DRIVEN VEHICLES.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Transport what proportion of the 331,906 licences issued for goods road motor vehicles current at the end of May are in respect of steam-propelled vehicles of the lorry and tractor type, respectively; and whether any other country permits the passage through the streets of cities of steam-driven lorries?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am unable to state how many licences for goods vehicles current at the end of May were issued in respect of steamdriven vehicles but the census of mechanically-propelled road vehicles taken during the quarter ended September, 1929, showed that there were then 8,520 goods vehicles driven by steam. Tractors are separately classified and are not included in the figure quoted by the hon. and gallant Member. As regards the last part of the question, I have no information.
    Major GLYN: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether any other countries permit these heavy steam vehicles to go through the streets emitting sparks?
    Mr. MORRISON: With regard to sparks, regulations can be made, and are under consideration, under the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

    OXFORD BY-PASS ROAD SCHEME.
    Major GLYNasked the Minister of Transport in what stage are the negotiations between the Oxford City Corporation, the Berkshire County Council and the Ministry of Transport in regard to the by-pass road, plans of which have been prepared for the diversion of through traffic from the streets of Oxford;
    1666
    whether the point at which the road will cross the river has yet been decided; how soon is it thought that work will be commenced on this project; if the by-pass to the north of Oxford, which will run via Headington to Eynsham, has been finally approved; and, if so, when work will be commenced?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am aware that a, scheme for the diversion of through traffic from the streets of Oxford, which would involve the crossing of the river, has been under consideration by the authorities concerned but no application for assistance from the Road Fund has yet been made. The Berkshire County Council have, however, submitted a scheme for the construction of a new road between South Hinksey and North Hinksey, which road will enable traffic to by-pass Oxford on the South. The county council have been informed that the scheme is approved in principle for a grant from the Road Fund, and I hope that there will be no avoidable delay in the commencement of the work. The preliminary details of the northern by-pass are now being examined with a view to approval in principle being given. I am informed that if the scheme is approved it is hoped to commence the works early next year.
    Major GLYN: Is the Minister of Transport aware that heavy traffic passing through Oxford is doing very serious damage to buildings of every kind, and will he take steps to hasten the construction of this by-pass so as to avoid this danger?
    Mr. MORRISON: I am fully aware of the particular difficulties which exist in the city of Oxford, and I have taken very great trouble to try and put the matter right, but I must depend for success upon the active co-operation of all the local authorities concerned.

    ROAD SURFACE.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Transport if the experiments made by his Department have indicated which is the best road surface from the point of view of visibility at night?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The answer is in the negative. It seems doubtful whether any one material could be proved to be invariably the best from

    1667
    the point of view of visibility at night under all the widely varying climatic and traffic conditions to which roads are subject.

    GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.
    Mr. TRAINasked the Minister of Transport the approximate date when the Glasgow-Edinburgh road will be completed; and what are the reasons for the delay with the work?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am informed that the full extent of the Glasgow-Edinburgh road will probably be available for traffic before the end of the year, with the exception of short bypasses at Salsburgh, Bankhead and Newbridge, although the final surfacing operations may not be entirely completed for the whole distance. It is, however, anticipated that the whole will be completed during the coming year. The delay which has taken place is partly due to the negotiations with the railway companies with regard to bridges and in part to the fact that the constructional work on seven miles of the existing road was postponed until the cost of the other sections could be more closely determined.
    Mr. TRAIN: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that every effort is being made to give employment on this road to the unemployed in that area?
    Mr. MORRISON: As far as the present Government are concerned, certainly; I cannot answer for the last one.

    BRIDGE SCHEME, QUEENSFERRY.
    Mr. MATHERSasked the Minister of Transport the present position in connection with the proposed Forth road-bridge at Queensferry; and whether the Government, in considering the question of financial assistance, has taken into account the reduction in unemployment that would be effected by proceeding with the construction of the proposed bridge?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Certain technical proposals are still being examined. In considering the matter the fullest weight will be given to the effect which such a scheme would produce upon unemployment.

    LONDON TRAFFIC.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Transport whether it is
    1668
    intended to introduce before Christmas the Measure for the co-ordination of London traffic?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: No, Sir.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when this Measure will be produced?
    Mr. MORRISON: That seems to me to be a question for the Leader of the House and not for me.

    MOTORING OFFENCES (RETURNS).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the desirability of keeping a complete record of all cases affecting motorists which may come up in the courts during the year 1931, so that it will be possible better to gauge the actual operation of the Road Traffic Act?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): Under existing arrangements information is available concerning all motoring offences, and returns have been laid before Parliament, the latest having been printed this summer, as House of Commons Paper 139. There is no intention of altering these arrangements and in due course returns will be prepared first for 1930 and later for 1931.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to place before the House further proposals for dealing with unemployment; and, if so, whether he can state the date upon which the proposals will be communicated to the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certain legislative proposals bearing directly upon unemployment are already before the House and, in order that the House may have before it a comprehensive statement of Government unemployment policy in all its aspects, a White Paper is now in course of preparation and will, I hope, be available shortly.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to implement the alluring promises of "Labour and the Nation"?

    DISTRESSED AREAS (NEW INDUSTRIES).
    71. Mr. MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in establishing new industries in the depressed areas for the purpose of finding alternative employment?
    Mr. GILLETT: This is a question to which attention is given as and when opportunity offers, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is primarily a matter for industry to choose its own location, and that it is extremely difficult to attempt to influence this freedom of choice.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the answer that no new industry has been made during the 18 months?

    FULHAM ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the proposed extension of the electricity generating station at Fulham, which it is estimated will consume when completed some 2,250 tons of coal per day, he can now inform the House as to the nature of the report of the Government, chemist on the result of the experiments as to the possibility of eliminating the danger to surrounding districts arising from the emission of sulphur fumes?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The report will be published in the course of a few days.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the experiments at Grove Road have been on a scale which will give a sure reason that a conclusion may be arrived at with regard to this enormous consumption of 2,250 tons of coal at this proposed generating station?
    Mr. MORRISON: I think that the experiments on the part of the London Power Company have been on a scale of real substance which enable us to get conclusions out of the report, but the hon. Gentleman will, of course, draw his own conclusions from the report when it is published, and I think it will be wrong for me to anticipate it.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. BOWENasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that notices inviting Post Office employés to apply for appointments to the Ministry of Transport, Traffic Commissioners' office, were posted less than 24 hours before the latest time for the submission of the applications to the postmaster; whether it is intended to extend the time for the receipt of applications of these appointments; and whether, in view of the small number of promotions available to Post Office employés, he will see that more time is allowed if future announcements of this kind are made?
    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The arrangements made in the Post Office are a matter for the Postmaster-General. Notices inviting applications for the appointments mentioned were circulated to Government Departments on the 23rd October with a request that a limited number of names might be forwarded to the Ministry of Transport not later than the 4th November. I should point out that the number of posts available is very limited. Endeavours are made to give as long notice as possible in all announcements of appointments.
    Mr. BOWEN: Can the Minister say the date on which the Postmaster-General received the communication from the Ministry of Transport?
    Mr. MORRISON: The date upon which we notified the various Government Departments was 23rd October. The question as to when the Postmaster sent out his own notice should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

    NEW OFFICES, WHITEHALL.
    Captain BALFOURasked the First Commissioner of Works if the designs of the proposed new Government offices in Whitehall will be put to open competition or confined to architects of the Office of Works?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): While it has been decided that the design for the proposed Government offices in Whitehall will be entrusted to an architect in private practice, the precise method of selection has not yet been settled.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in accepting the design, he will insist upon British material only being used?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I think the hon. Member had better wait and see.

    RENTAL.
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the First Commissioner of Works the total cost per annum of the hiring or leasing of accommodation for the housing of Government Departments in the London area?
    Mr. LANSBURY: The total rental paid out of Office of Works Votes for housing Government Departments in the London area is £416,000 per annum.
    Mr. BROWN: In view of the magnitude of that expenditure, nearly half-a-million a year, does not the First Commissioner think that the interests of economy as well as of efficiency would be served by a much more extensive programme of building as distinct from renting from private owners?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I shall be very glad if the House will help me in the interests of economy by passing the very short Bill I hope to introduce shortly.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SMALLHOLDINGS.
    Mr. BEN RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture the approximate cost to the State, if any, of the Small Holdings Acts, 1908 to 1914?
    Mr. PARKINSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Up to the 31st March, 1919, the total amount paid by the State to councils in England and Wales in respect of smallholdings provided under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, was approximately £396,000. Of this sum approximately two-thirds consisted of legal and other expenses of acquisition which were repaid to councils under Section 21 of the Act. Since the date mentioned any losses on these holdings have not been shown separately from those incurred in respect of the holdings provided under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, but the proportion would be very small.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: Can the hon. Member tell us whether that figure includes the sum expended in rates?
    Mr. PARKINSON: I cannot say, but I will put the question to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. B. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the number of schemes for establishing smallholdings submitted to the Minister under the Small Holdings Act of 1926; the number of county councils which have submitted schemes; and the number of persons actually established in smallholdings under the 1926 Act to date?
    Mr. PARKINSON: 212 schemes for establishing small holdings under the Act of 1926 have been submitted by 44 councils. About a quarter of these schemes will not he carried into effect for various reasons, but on the other hand some acquisitions which did not involve loss have been effected by councils without reference to the Ministry. The number of persons actually established in smallholdings provided under the Act up to 31st December, 1929, was 444, and the total number of holdings that will eventually be created on the lands acquired including acquisitions effected this year, is approximately 670.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. B. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the approximate net cost to the State of the Land Settlement Act during 1919–26; and the number of persons settled on the land under that Act for the period 1919–26?
    Mr. PARKINSON: As the reply is long and contains a number of figures, it is proposed with my hon. Friend's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The number of holdings provided by councils under the Land Settlement Scheme during the period 1919 to 1926 was about 16,000. The net capital expenditure incurred on the purchase and equipment of land was approximately £15,250,000, of which £14,000,000 was advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners out of the Land Settlement Fund, the remainder being provided locally. These figures include a certain

    1673
    amount spent on the equipment of land acquired before 1918. The sum advanced is repayable in full over varying periods with interest at rates varying from 4¾ per cent. to 6½ per cent., the average rate being 6¼ per cent. The losses due to the fact that the rents of the holdings fall short of the loan payments and the charges for repairs, management, etc., were repaid annually to councils for each year up to 31st March, 1926. The amount so repaid was £5,100,000, but it should be observed:

    (a) That the number of holdings only reached its maximum in 1923; and

    (b) That some part of the loss related to pre-War holdings upon which further money was spent after 1938.

    As from 1st April, 1926, the Ministry pays to each council a predetermined annual contribution for the whole of the council's pre-War and post-War holdings. The total amounts so payable in respect of the first five years were approximately as follows, and it may he assumed that the hulk is in respect of the holdings created after 1918:

    £

    1926

    …

    …

    …

    737,000*

    1927

    …

    …

    …

    902,000

    1928

    …

    …

    …

    892,000

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    865,000

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    845,000

    The contributions will continue at a progressively diminishing rate until by reason of the repayment of loans, the annual charges will fall to the level of the annual income. The high costs prevailing during the period when most of the equipment was provided are, of course, reflected in these figures.
    *The full contribution of about £900,000 was reduced to this figure in consequence of overlapping with payments made under the arrangements in force up to 31st March, 1926.

    TUBERCULOSIS, KENT (SANATORIUM TREATMENT).
    Captain BALFOURasked the Minister of Health the number of tuberculosis cases awaiting admission for sanatorium treatment in Kent county on the 1st November as compared with the 1st May; and whether such cases awaiting admission include patients notified tuberculous on account of acute pleurisy?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): The number of persons who were awaiting admission to residential institutions under the county council's scheme was 99 on the 1st of November, as compared with 81 on the 1st of May, the number of persons who were receiving treatment on these dates respectively being 595 and 559. These figures relate to persons medically recommended as suitable for residential treatment, and include any such persons who may have been notified as tuberculous on account of acute pleurisy.
    Captain BALFOUR: In view of the fact that I can bring to the notice of the Minister specific cases where doctors have certified people as urgent cases and that they have had to wait many weeks, will she urge the county council medical authorities to take steps to provide greater sanatorium accommodation?
    Miss LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member will give me any cases, I shall be delighted to inquire into them.
    Mr. ALBERY: Is the hon. Lady aware that there has been a shortage of accommodation for a very long time and that the Minister has promised to look into the matter?

  SCOTLAND.

    CRIMINAL LUNATIC DEPARTMENT (PERTH PRISON).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state the number of persons who are still detained in the criminal lunatic department of Perth Prison who have been certified as sane for one, two, and three or more years, respectively?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I am obtaining the information desired and will communicate it to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the provisions of the 1857 Act are not used to give imprisonment for life to these people?
    Mr. ADAMSON: That is a matter which will receive attention.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL REFEREES).
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the names of the medical referees for Glasgow under the National Health Insurance Act; when they were appointed, and the salaries paid in each case; and whether the approved societies have any right of nomination and bear any portion of the expenditure involved?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: I am sending my hon. Friend a statement containing the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the latter part, the appointment of medical referees are made, with the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, by the Department of Health for Scotland who select the doctors best qualified in their opinion to act as referees. The cost of the referee service is a charge on National Health Insurance Funds.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are regulations for the guidance of medical referees under the National Health Insurance Act; and, if so, whether the rules lay down any period of time from certification by the panel doctor before the referee may question the seriousness of the illness of the person so certified by his or her own medical adviser?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Cases may be referred to the regional medical officer for his opinion either as to capacity for work or state of health at any stage of the illness.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who refers them to the regional medical officer? Has not the panel doctor any authority in regard to the state of health? Is it the panel doctor who refers them?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The selection of cases for reference is made by the approved society or general practitioner concerned and can be made either on a question of capacity or incapacity for work or in order to obtain a second opinion about the patient's state of health. Insured persons in receipt of certificates of incapacity for work from their panel practitioners can be referred at any time. It should be borne in mind that
    1676
    the medical referees merely express an opinion on the question of incapacity. The decision as to whether benefit should be continued or stopped rests entirely with the approved society and though they may be influenced by the opinion expressed by the medical referee the matter is one for which they must accept complete responsibility?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of discontent owing to the number of references that are made, quite obviously without any real reason, to the regional medical officer, and will he look into the matter and have it stopped?
    Mr. ADAMSON: If my hon. Friend has any particular case brought to his notice, I shall be prepared to have inquiries made about it.

  CAPTIVE ANIMALS' PERFORMANCES (CHILDREN).
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to prevent children attending performances in which captive animals appear?
  Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to introduce legislation on this subject.

  ALIENS (RUSSIAN SUBJECTS).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics repudiates responsibility for the activities of the Third International, he proposes to refuse admission to this country, either in official or unofficial capacities, of all Russian subjects known to have any connection, direct or indirect, with that organisation?
  Mr. SHORTEvery application for a visa to enable a Soviet citizen to come to this country is the subject of special consideration and as at present advised, my right hon. Friend does not think any change of practice is called for.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have declared that the Soviet Government and the Third International are identical, what steps

  1677
  does the hon. Member propose to take in answer to the latter part of the question?
  Mr. SHORT: I have already answered that question. We do not propose to make any change.

  TANGANYIKA (JUVENILE OFFENDERS).
  Mr. SNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies Whether there has been a further increase in the number of juvenile offenders in Tanganyika during the year 1929; and what steps have been taken to provide suitable accommodation for those needing institutional training?
  Mr. LUNN: There was some further increase in 1929. There is no special institution at present for juvenile offenders, the number under detention at any time being extremely small.

  NYASALAND (POLICE AND PRISONS).
  Mr. SNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any report has been received during recent years on the police and prisons of Nyasaland?
  Mr. LUNN: Brief reports are included in the published annual report on the Protectorate. No others have been received of recent years.

  EDUCATION (PROGRAMMES, 1930–33).
  Mr. BEAUMONT (for Duchess of ATHOLL)asked the President of the Board of Education which are the 218 local education authorities which have submitted programmes which include estimates of the expenditure to be incurred on elementary education for the three years 1930–33; and whether no estimates of such expenditure have been received from the remaining 99 authorities?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the list of 218 local
  1678
  education authorities for which the Noble Lady asks. Of the remaining 99 authorities 32 have not yet submitted programmes, and 67 have not submitted detailed estimates from which comparable figures can be obtained for the three years 1930–33.
  Following is the list:
  LIST of 218 Local Education Authorities which have submitted Programmes containing estimates of expenditure on Elementary Education for the three years 1930–33.

  LONDON (1).

  COUNTIES (33).

  Bedfordshire.

  Northumberland.

  Cambridgeshire.

  Somersetshire.

  Cheshire.

  Staffordshire.

  Cornwall.

  Suffolk, East.

  Cumberland.

  Suffolk, West.

  Derbyshire.

  Sussex, East.

  Dorsetshire.

  Sussex, West.

  Shropshire.

  Warwickshire.

  Durham.

  Westmorland.

  Essex.

  Worcestershire.

  Isle of Wight.

  Yorks, E.R.

  Herefordshire.

  Yorks, N.R.

  Hertfordshire.

  Yorks, W. R.

  Kent.

  Anglesey.

  Leicestershire.

  Brecknockshire.

  Kesteven.

  Caernarvonshire.

  Norfolk.

  COUNTY BOROUGHS (65).

  Barnsley.

  East Ham.

  Barrow-in-Furness.

  Gateshead.

  Bath.

  Gloucester.

  Birkenhead.

  Great Yarmouth.

  Birmingham.

  Grimsby.

  Blackpool.

  Halifax.

  Bolton.

  Hastings.

  Bootle.

  Kingston-upon-Hull.

  Bournemouth.

  Bradford.

  Leeds.

  Brighton.

  Leicester.

  Bristol.

  Lincoln.

  Burton-upon-Trent.

  Manchester.

  Bury.

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

  Carlisle.

  Chester.

  Northampton.

  Coventry.

  Norwich.

  Croydon.

  Nottingham.

  Darlington.

  Plymouth.

  Derby.

  Portsmouth.

  Dewsbury.

  Reading.

  Doncaster.

  Rotherham.

  Dudley.

  St. Helens.

  Eastbourne.

  Sheffield.

  Southampton.

  Warrington.

  Southend-on-Sea.

  West Bromwich.

  Southport.

  West Ham.

  South Shields.

  West Hartlepool.

  Stockport.

  Wigan.

  Stoke-on-Trent.

  York.

  Sunderland.

  Cardiff.

  Tynemouth.

  Newport (Mon.).

  Wallasey.

  Swansea.

  Walsall.

  BOROUGHS (87).

  Accrington.

  Kingston-upon-Thames.

  Acton.

  Aldershot.

  Lancaster.

  Ashton-under-Lyne.

  Leigh.

  Lewes.

  Bacup.

  Leyton.

  Barnstaple.

  Loughborough.

  Batley.

  Luton.

  Beverley.

  Lytham St. Anne's.

  Boston.

  Maidstone.

  Bridgwater.

  Mansfield.

  Bridlington.

  Morecambe and Heysham.

  Brighouse.

  Cambridge.

  Morley.

  Chatham.

  Newark.

  Chelmsford.

  Newcastle-under-Lyme.

  Cheltenham.

  Chesterfield.

  New Windsor.

  Chorley.

  Nuneaton.

  Clitheroe.

  Peterborough.

  Colchester.

  Pontefract.

  Colne.

  Poole.

  Congleton.

  Rawtenstall.

  Crewe.

  Richmond.

  Dover.

  Royal Leamington Spa.

  Dukinfield.

  Durham.

  Scarborough.

  Ealing.

  Stalybridge.

  East Retford.

  Sutton Coldfield.

  Folkestone.

  Taunton.

  Gillingham.

  Todmorden.

  Glossop.

  Tunbridge Wells.

  Gosport.

  Wallsend.

  Guildford.

  Walthamstow.

  Harrogate.

  Wednesbury.

  Hartlepool.

  Whitehaven.

  Haslingden.

  Widnes.

  Heywood.

  Winchester.

  Hove.

  Workington.

  Hyde.

  Worthing.

  Ilford.

  Yeovil.

  Ilkeston.

  Carmarthen.

  Jarrow.

  Llanelly.

  Keighley.

  Neath.

  Kidderminster.

  Pembroke.

  Kings Lynn.

  Port Talbot.

  URBAN DISTRICTS (32).

  Barking Town.

  Penge.

  Beckenham.

  Rowley Regis.

  Bilston.

  Shipley.

  Cannock.

  Spenborough.

  Chadderton.

  Stretford.

  Coseley.

  Swinton and Pendlebury.

  Edmonton.

  Enfield.

  Tipton.

  Erith.

  Tottenahm.

  Farnworth.

  Waterloo-with-Seaforth.

  Felling.

  Hendon.

  Wolstanton United.

  Heston and Isleworth.

  Wood Green.

  Aberdare.

  Hindley.

  Mountain Ash.

  Ince-in-Makerfield.

  Pontypridd.

  Kettering.

  Rhondda.

  Oldbury.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. ALBERY: May I put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, arising out of Questions. On several occasions many hon. Members have desired to put questions to the Postmaster-General but no opportunity so far has occurred as they have not been reached before Question Time has expired. In view of that fact, may I ask whether communications can be made through the proper channel with a view of effecting some alteration?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will have the matter looked into.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  ELECTIONS (USE OF MOTOR CARS).
  Mr. TOOLE: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the use of motor cars in elections, and move a Resolution.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the necessity of reducing public expenditure, and move a Resolution.
  SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the abolition of the Safeguarding Duties, and move a Resolution.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PAYMENT OF MEMBERS).
  Mr. HARDIE: I beg to give notice that, on this day four weeks, I shall call attention to the present method of payment of members of local authorities, and move a Resolution.
BILLS PRESENTED
  MINERS (PENSIONS) BILL,
  "to provide for the allocation of part of the moneys standing to the credit of the welfare fund from time to time to a fund and to provide for the payment of pensions thereout to aged miners on their ceasing to work in or about coal mines, and to extend the period during which payment shall be made into the welfare fund," presented by Sir -William Edge; supported by Mr, Evans, Colonel England, Dr. Hunter, Mr. Glassey, and Major Owen; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
  COURT OF SESSION BILL,
  "to remove doubts as to the powers of the Court of Session," presented by Mr. Scott; supported by Major Graham Pole, Mr. Marcus, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. Macquisten, and Mr. Millar; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

RETAIL MEAT DEALERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING).
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provido for the compulsory closing of retail meat dealers' shops on Sundays."
I am following the excellent example set by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Stewart) last session when he introduced a Bill for the compulsory closing of barbers' and hairdressers' shops on Sundays. That Bill met with approval on all sides of the House, and the hon. Member was fortunate enough to get a Second Reading, also Committee stage and, finally, to get the Bill on the Statute Book, and I am hoping that I shall have the same good fortune with this Bill. It refers to the sale of butchers' meat by retail. The practice of this kind of food distribution on
1682
Sunday has grown very rapidly since the War, and complaints have been received from many parts of the country, particularly from London, Newcastle, Bristol, Oldham, Gateshead and many other towns. This has given some concern to those who are engaged in this form of food distribution, and the National Federation of Meat Traders' Association have taken action from time to time. It has been found impossible to secure a voluntary system of closing. This Federation have unanimously adopted at conferences in 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929, and again this year, resolutions asking Parliament to give powers to close these shops on Sundays.
The Journeyman Butchers' Federation are equally anxious that something should be done, and they are cooperating with the National Federation of Meat Traders in order to bring about a better state of affairs in the industry. They have set up a joint committee, and a letter has no doubt been sent to every hon. Member, signed by Mr. Blois, secretary of the employers' side of the Federation, and by Mr. Misseldine, the organising secretary of the Journeyman Butchers' Federation, asking Parliament to confer this power. They say that apart altogether from the religious question any move towards increasing the hours of labour through Sunday trading is strongly to he deprecated; and I am asking the House to take this view into consideration. I know that there are a number of people who regard Sunday trading in any form as a sin. I am not going to express my own opinion on that point, but speaking as a retail trader myself, and from the point of view of the man who has to work in the shops whether he is master or workman, I say that it is unfair that he should have to work on Sundays.
Those who have to open their shops on Sundays have expressed themselves in favour of the Bill. They say that someone comes into their neighbourhood and opens on Sundays. Other butchers do not want to open, but are compelled to do so because the man who does takes away many of their customers. If there was compulsory power to close these shops all would have to conform and there would be no difficulty. The journeymen realise that hours of labour will be considerably increased if this practice grows. At the present moment

1683
journeymen who are employed in these shops have a just cause of complaint. They tell me that they are not concerned about getting overtime and extra wages but that they want their Sunday's rest, and I think they have a perfect right to ask Parliament to give them this day of rest. The Bill is in the same simple form as the Bill drafted by the hon. Member for St. Rollox. Provision is made for exemption in the case of Jewish traders dealing in kosher meat who close on the Jewish Sabbath. We are negotiating with the Jewish Board on this matter and we shall insert in the Bill a Clause which will be acceptable to them. The Bill is backed by hon. Members on all sides of the House. It is absolutely non-contentious, and I hope the House will give me permission to introduce it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Womersley, Mr. Blindell, Mr. Hannon., Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Graham White, Sir Robert Newman, Sir Gerald Hurst, Dr. Vernon Davies, Mr. Haycock, and Mr. Hoffman.

RETAIL MEAT DEALERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING) BILL,
"to provide for the compulsory closing of retail meat dealers' shops on Sundays," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
East Africa,—That they communicate that they have, come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa [Cmd. 3231 and Cmd. 3378], together with the Statement of the conclusions of His Majesty's Government [Cmd. 3574], and to report thereon."

PRE-WAR PENSIONS.
Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move,
"That, in the opinion of this House, those pensions to which the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, apply should be placed upon a basis more closely commensurate with the scale of postwar pensions payable for similar service; and further, that pre-War pensioners should be freed from restrictions in regard to age and private means, winch do not operate in the case of post-War pensioners and which have the effect of depriving them of the benefits of their past service and thrift."
I hope that the reception which has been given to the Bill just introduced by my hon. Friend is a good augury, and that the proposition I have to make will be accepted with an equal unanimity. My plea is on behalf of a body of State servants, and it is because these men have served the State that I am sure the House will be willing to listen to their ease and to remove the grievances from which they suffer. Ten years ago there were 127,000 of these pre-War pensioners. To-day there are only 70,000, of whom 40,000 enjoy the benefits of the Pensions (Increase) Acts referred to in my Motion. It is on behalf of this small number of survivors that I plead this afternoon. The cost of meeting their claim is infinitesimal. Death has diminished the figure. We have a moral obligation towards these men and it has been repeatedly acknowledged in this House.
It is because their numbers have so much declined that this Motion becomes a matter of urgency. Otherwise I would never have ventured at a time of financial stringency to advocate the expenditure of public money on any matter which could be postponed. But this Motion, if it is moved in two or three years' time, will be an anachronism, and everyone to whom it refers will be dead. Therefore I am certain that the House will not be prejudiced against me on account of the financial position of the country. Besides, as I hope to show, the House has really voted money for these pensions. All I am asking is that that sum which the House has already approved shall be spent upon them.
What is the general case applying to all these pre-War pensioners? After the War, as a result in many cases of agitation, and in some cases of what I would like to believe was conscience, the pay
1696
and pensions of all State servants were increased, generally by at least three times. Committees were appointed to examine into the conditions of pay and pensions. They all reported in the same sense, namely, that the old scales of pay and pensions were utterly indefensible, and they recommended that an increase should be made. The Jerram Committee was the particular Committee which inquired into Naval pensions. The Desborough Committee inquired into Police pensions. The Jerram Committee was presided over by a distinguished Admiral and staffed by a number of officers. It was assisted by a number of assessors from the lower deck. It visited all the naval ports. It examined witnesses and in the end it offered its conclusion to the House. What did it say It said:
"The revised scales of pensions …
That is pensions three times greater than before—
"to apply to all pensioners now on the roll."
That was the recommendation of the Jerram Committee. Did the Government accept it? They accepted everything that the Committee recommended, but they did not apply it to those pensioners who were already on the roll. They fixed an arbitrary date. They said that all pensioners who retired before such and such a date must remain on the old scale of pensions, which was perfectly inadequate, and all pensioners who retired after that date should have a pension three times greater. It is all a question of the arbitrary date. When a man goes to draw his pension the paymaster does not ask him, "Have you served 26 years in the police force or 21 years in the Army or 22 years in the Navy?" He says, "On what date did you retire? If you happened to retire before 1st April, 1919, you get a pension on the old scale, but if you retired five minutes after that you get a pension three times the size, although you have worked in harder conditions and for one-third of the pay." I suggest that that is a grievance which the House of Commons would wish to remedy. It can he done at very small cost. I am sure that the present system will not be justified by the Government, because they will remember that in 1925 the Conservatives introduced a Measure giving pensions to widows and others. The Government were not satisfied with that

1697
Measure, and they introduced an amending Bill. What did the Minister of Health say at the time? He said:
"But in establishing, as the late Government did, a contributory scheme of pensions and allowances, people of the same type as those for whom the scheme was intended were inevitably excluded. That arises from the fact that an arbitrary date was fixed … The main principle of this Bill is to bring within the scope persons for whom the original Act was intended, but who, by a pure accident of date, are excluded from its provisions."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1929; col. 371, Vol. 231.]
4.0 p.m.
That is the crux of my Motion, if it is good enough to remove an arbitrary date which affects hundreds of thousands of people, it is good enough to remove it for 40,000 old men, most of whom are over 76 years of age. On that ground, I am convinced that the Government will not resist the Motion which I now move. When this arbitrary date was fixed, neither the pensioners nor the House of Commons were satisfied. They went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day and they said, "An arbitrary date keeps us out of Paradise. Will you not let us in?" He said, "I agree that you have got a very good case. In principle, I cannot resist it for a moment, but then there are hundreds of thousands of you, and it will cost a great deal to put that grievance right. Therefore, I will go some of the way. I will introduce a Pensions (Increase) Act." And introduce that Act he did. It gave small increases—how small will illustrate in a moment. It did not bring the pensioners anywhere near the post-War scale, and it made it very difficult for them to get the increases at all, because it hedged the Act round with restrictions. The pensioner had to be resident in the British Isles. He had to be 60 years of age. He had to submit to a means test. None of these restrictions apply to the post-War pensioner whose pension is given to him as part of his retired pay. Whatever the virtues of a means limit when the State is making the grant on the basis of necessity, those virtues do not apply here. It hedged the pensioner about with these restrictions, and it gave very small increases.
Unfortunately, Governments are strong and back benchers are weak, and three years had to elapse before an hon. Member sitting on the other side of the
1698
House was fortunate enough to draw, as I have drawn, a place in the Ballot, and he selected this particular question which we are now discussing. His Motion was very similar to my own. Nobody opposed it, and I hope it will not be opposed this afternoon. On the contrary, everybody spoke in favour of it. Perhaps it was because of the eloquence of my hon. Friend the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, whose speech I would like to hand in, in order to save me the trouble of continuing, for it contains all the arguments anyone could hope to advance in support of this Motion. The House of Commons accepted that Motion unanimously. The Government in whose lifetime it was carried, went to the polls in search of a protective tariff, and they were defeated. My hon. Friends who now sit on the Front Bench succeeded them, and introduced a Pensions (increase) Act. It did not carry out any of the pledges to which the House of Commons had committed itself by that Motion. It did not abolish the means limit inquiry; it left it exactly where it was. It did not abolish the age limit restriction. It did, however, enable a pensioner to draw his pension in whatever part of the British Empire he might find himself, and on that account it was welcome, but, for the rest, it gave only very small increases, and nobody in this House, except the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was hold enough to support the Measure. Every hon. Member who spoke, including those who sat behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, criticised, and so bitter was their criticism that the Financial Resolution had actually to be withdrawn. However, it reappeared in very much the same form. We were told that that would do to go on with, and so we had to accept that Pensions (Increase) Bill.
What is the result of these two Acts which are now upon the Statute Book? The result is that a teacher, for example —and the same principle applies to all the services—whose pension was £37 4s. as a pre-War pension, got an increase under the Act of 1920 which brought his pension up to £55 14s. The effect of the Act of my hon. Friend opposite was to raise it to £63 4s., but the post-War

1699
pension remained somewhere between £120 and £320 per annum. So your old teacher—and every one of these men is now over 76 years of age—for a life-time of service, given in much harder conditions, gets £63 4s., because he is separated by an arbitrary date from his post-War brother, who gets several times that amount. I do not want to weary the House with figures, but that is the general principle of my Motion. In no case do these pre-War pension increases bring the pre-War pensioner anywhere within reaching distance of the post-War pensioner. They are all separated by very large distances.
The case of the police is even more striking. What is the effect of the arbitrary date there? A constable gets a greater pension than the superintendent under whom he served, because he is separated by one day. Nobody is going to justify that. A superintendent to-day gets a pension of £370. It is almost the highest rank in the force. A pre-War superintendent, with all the increases, gets only £145, and a constable gets £163, or something of that kind. Nobody can justify a principle of that kind, and surely it was not intended. Nobody has ever attempted to justify it in this House, and I am sure, for reasons I will presently give the hon. Gentleman, he will not attempt to justify it. Before these pensions can be given, every year the pre-War pensioner has to fill in a form for a very meagre pension. He may be getting, if an army man, £37 as a maximum. He has to fill in this form every year. It consists of three pages, full of the most extraordinary questions, the last of which is:
"Any other income or receipts whatsoever from other sources, including free maintenance received, if any, either in money or in kind, stating the yearly value of such income, receipts or maintenance, and giving particulars of the same."
An old sailor or an old soldier has to fill in this form every year—the particulars are very confusing. He has to take it to a Justice of the Peace, or someone in an equivalent position, who has to countersign it, and a police constable comes round to verify it. A whole staff of officials has to be kept at the Treasury and in every locality in the United Kingdom in order to judge each pension, not on the man's service, not on
1700
any flat-rate basis, but in accordance with a number of other facts. Consequently, the staff kept by the Treasury, both at headquarters and in the localities, must be enormous. I ask the hon. Gentleman to do away with that staff, and to give the salaries to these men. If the hon. Member would do that, he would go a great deal of the way towards meeting my case.
So much for the case on its merits. But it has another aspect. The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1924, was never supposed to be final. Things have happened since 1924. They have happened in regard to the means limit, for instance, because the Rating and Valuation Bill has put up the assessments of all these people's houses, and, consequently, they have to fill in this return and value their houses at a higher rental, and their pensions are decreased thereby. But other things have increased since 1924. There has been an Election since then, and these old chaps, who have never lost hope, circulated an inquiry to all Members of Parliament. The inquiry was in this form:
"Being of opinion that the pre-war rank and file pensioners, including warrant officers, of both Services are unjustly treated, and that their pensions should he forthwith reassessed in accordance with the findings of the Jerram Committee"—
which findings I have just read to the House—
"and Army Order 323/19, I promise to press for the award of that committee, in lieu of the present unjust and wholly unsatisfactory Pension (Increase) Acts, 1920–24."
The first signature on the form which I have here as an example is, I see, that of the Chief Whip for the Government. Is the Chief Whip going to help his followers into the Lobby against the very thing he has promised to use his influence to rectify? I refuse to believe that. Nothing can convince me that that can be the case. The hon. Gentleman has been many years in this House. He knows this case inside out, and, after due reflection, he decided to tell the pre-War pensioners at the last election that he would press for the total abolition of the means limit inquiry, for the abolition of the age restriction, and for the putting of these men on the post-War scale. Therefore, I am confident of his action this afternoon. The same applies to four or five right

1701
hon. Gentlemen who hold high Ministerial office, who did not disdain to give this pledge. It has even been given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is going to answer me this afternoon. I do not want to do him an injustice. I hope he is not going to promise me less than he promised in this letter, written in the Leicester election:
"The point is certainly one which ought not to be neglected, and I should be favourable to another inquiry being undertaken into the operation of the Acts 1920–1924."
Is the hon. Gentleman still in favour of an inquiry? We are going to hear him this afternoon. He was not satisfied with dealing with the slip of paper which was sent to him; he had to write a letter. The question has never been considered as settled, and that is a very important argument, because if you keep expectancy alive there must sooner or later come a time when you are going to give your decision. When the Act of 1924 was before the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a very guarded pledge. He is always guarded, but he did say this:
"I have every sympathy with these people, and, if I could do it, it would be a great pleasure to me; but, in view of the commitments of the Government …. we cannot …. be as generous as we would like to be. We are doing the best we can now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1924; col. 1546, Vol. 174.]
The effect of a statement of that kind on pre-War pensioners is to continue to aspire to the remedy of their grievances. They read those speeches just as they read the pledges which have been given to them, and they go on hoping that something will he done. Nothing has ever happened to lead them to believe that the matter is ended. The right hon. Gentleman who was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the former Labour Administration, in introducing the Financial Resolution in connection with the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1924, used words with which I should like to conclude my speech on this Motion:
"Having regard to all the facts and keeping in mind the consideration that the door is not necessarily closed as regards the future, I ask the Committee to pass this Resolution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1924; col. 1875, Vol. 173.]
He said that the door was not necessarily closed. These old men have come up here from every part of the country this
1702
afternoon. is the hon. Gentleman the present Financial Secretary going to bang the door in their faces?
Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) upon his good fortune in getting such a high place in the ballot, and also upon taking the very first opportunity of exposing to the House the grave injustices and grievances under which these members of the community suffer. My hon. Friend has identified himself for a great many years with this movement and his intimate knowledge of the movement, and the care with which he has gone into individual cases, has enabled him to-day to deliver a speech which can be characterised as being of his usual brilliance. He made reference to certain pledges which had been given to these men. My own view about pledges is that they are very often embarrassing and very often unprofitable but I think it is wise to recall to the memory of the House, the fact that two previous Parliaments passed unanimous Resolutions in favour of adequate provision being made for these old servants of the State in the evening of their days.
Many of these old servants of the State are known to us individually in our constituencies. They are, in almost all cases, fine types of old men who have done their duty to the State faithfully and well for long periods and on miserable pittances in the past. Reference has been made by the Mover of the Motion to the Act of 1920 which was passed by one Government, and to the Act of 1924 which was passed by another Government. I am not going into the various sections of those Acts, but the very fact that they were passed shows quite clearly, first, that there is a case for this Motion as presented by my hon. Friend this afternoon, and, secondly, that the House of Commons on two occasions, when it included different Members from those who sit here to-day, was prepared to recognise that hardship existed in these cases. But the more one studies these two Acts the more one becomes sure that such recognition as was given to these men was not by any means generous. Anomalies and injustices remain. I would recall to the House one economic fact, namely, that wages or pay ought

1703
to bear a fair and adequate relation to the cost and standard of living. In my view pensions arc deferred pay, and our case is that this deferred pay should, in these cases, be increased so as to make it equal in purchasing power to what it was before the War. That is our case in a nutshell.
During the War and immediately after it, great pressure was brought to bear on the various Departments of the State to increase the pay and pensions of the various servants of the State. It happens that I held office at that period and had to bear the brunt of that pressure, and therefore I can speak—particularly as I was afterwards Minister of Pensions—with some little knowledge, if not with some authority, on the subject. The plea then put forward was that the cost of living had changed so enormously that it was necessary, at once, first to increase the pay—which in the case of the soldier was miserable, as we all know, at that time when we were in the midst of a great War—and, secondly, to increase pensions or deferred pay in the same proportion. Various Commissions were appointed, and the result was that in every Department of the State there was a great increase both in the pay, and in the future emoluments in the shape of pensions, of those in actual service.
As far as I know nobody grudged the generous increases granted at that time. They were granted, not because the services which were being rendered then were more honourably performed than the services which had already been given by those former servants of the State for whom we plead to-day. They went through the same period of faithful service as men who are drawing pensions, to-day, three and four times as great as the pre-War pensions. As the Mover of the Motion has pointed out, the whole thing turns upon an arbitrary date. I have a statement here prepared by these old men themselves which has, no doubt, been sent to every Member of the House. My first quotation from it refers to widows who are to be considered on this occasion just as much as the men themselves:
"To the widow of any police officer or pensioned police officer who was serving in any police force on or after let September, 1918. a pension is awarded, varying from
1704
£30 to £50 per annum, according to the rank of the officer on retirement. The widows of officers who retired before that date, when the pay of a policeman of any rank was meagre and inadequate, and left no margin for saving, is granted no pension, although there is no distinction whatever between her and her more fortunate sister save the arbitrary one provided by the date, 1st September, 1918."
I take another quotation dealing this time with the case of the men themselves:
"The anomaly was created that a man who retired after 1st April, 1019, received more than twice as much pension as the man who retired on the day before, although the latter might have served for a longer period and in fact might have held higher rank."
It seems to me that that is an utterly inconsistent and grossly unfair position and we are here to-day to do our level best to have those grievances remedied. The Acts of 1920 and 1921 not only left grievances of that kind, but they added another grievance which is referred to in the second part of the Motion. I refer to the restrictions in regard to age and private means. The Motion makes it clear that we desire those restrictions to be swept away. As to age, my hon. Friend has eloquently pointed out that these men are an ever-diminishing number. They are growing older every day. The figures which the Mover of the Motion has produced in regard to numbers are very startling. As to the question of private means, and the inquisition into that matter, we heard a great deal on that subject yesterday and I believe that, in the stock phrase, there is a dislike of close inquiry. But the extraordinary thing about the case of these men is that the more thrifty they have been or their wives have been in the management of their homes the more they are penalised under this system. I take one further quotation from the document produced by these old men themselves:
"Those of our men who have managed, out of their meagre earnings, to save money are penalised, and those who have not saved money are quite unable to sustain themselves on their small pensions. They have been and are, in many cases, dependent on State or private benefactions. Surely there can be no reason why those who have served the State for the whole of their working lives should be placed in this unfortunate position, as compared with their successors whose pensions have been put on a scale commensurate with the cost of living."

1705
I do not know what answer the Financial Secretary will give to this claim, but I imagine he must have some qualms of conscience after having listened to the letter which my hon. Friend got from the archives of the pre-War pensioners. Probably the argument will be that we are living in a time of great financial stringency. If the amount for which we ask is small, we shall be told that that is no justification, in principle, for granting it. But I have been in this House fairly constantly since the present Government came into power and I have heard millions of pounds being granted for work on the Zambesi and in Palestine and in every corner of the globe. I hold very strongly the view, and I have expressed it inside and outside this House, that our own people should be looked after first. I am satisfied that the claim which we are pressing to-day is just and equitable. Whatever other economies may be effected by this or any other Parliament it is a claim which will be acknowledged by the people of this country. They do not forget their old servants, and I believe I shall carry with me every hon. Member when I say that the House of Commons would be false to the conception of government if it did not realise this opportunity and give what is fair and just and equitable to these men who have faithfully served the State in the past.
Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: My remarks on this subject will be very brief, but I feel it my duty to offer a few comments on this Resolution, for two reasons. First of all, I happen to be President of the Navy and Army Pensioners' Association, and my sympathies have always been with these old men, who are suffering financially now because they were too old to serve in the Great War. I feel very deeply that these old men, many of whom are here in this House this afternoon, will, after hearing the speeches to-day, go back home with optimistic feelings, but that nothing will come of this debate to-day, for reasons which I will give afterwards. My second reason is that mine is not a belated interest in these old pensioners. Ever since I have been in this House, for over 12 years, I have taken an interest in these old men and tried to do my best to protect their interests, and I was very largely responsible myself for the Pen-
1706
sions (Increase) Act of 1924. I have kept myself fully posted with all the arguments and details of this case week by week, interviewing old pensioners who are suffering under the disabilities of which we are complaining to-day.
I am not going into the history or a detailed discussion of their case. It has already been mentioned by the two previous speakers, and I suppose every Member in this House is fully acquainted with the facts, as they have been circulated by the various interests concerned. It cannot be contested that the pre-War man is drawing a substantially lower pension than the post-War man, in spite of the fact that he is very much older and, as has been said already, many of these men—nearly all of them—are over 70. I should think the average age comes out at something over 75, and they are incapable of working. It has been stated in this House that they have no grievance because they served under a contract. That is the legal case, but it has never been seriously urged that that is a reason for not granting them an increase of pension.
Increases of pension have been made on two occasions, but it is only a partial relief at best. This is a hardship due to the War, and, like most hardships due to the War, it falls on the shoulders of those who are least able to defend themselves. The railway-men and the municipal workers, for example, I am quite sure, would not tolerate such treatment. Political action would have been taken by their unions long before now, but these old soldiers and sailors in particular are an exceptionally loyal section of the community, and even if they could, they would not hold the State to ransom for their own advantage.
What is perfectly clear to me is that none of the parties, Conservative, Liberal, or Labour, will, under the present financial conditions of the country, face the expenditure required for the purpose of this Resolution. If it were applicable to the Navy and the Army only, the cost would be very small indeed, but similar claims have been put in by the police, the teachers, and others. It is well known that the Conservative party, after the recent advance in the pensions, refused to consider any further alleviation. They agreed in 1923 to the Pensions (Increase)

1707
Bill; that Bill was drawn up before they left office, and it was adopted, with certain modifications, by the Labour party, who brought it in and passed it in 1924. It is also well known, I think, that the present Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was asked to receive a deputation on this subject, not only refused to consider the subject altogether, but refused to meet the deputation. I think everybody will agree that that is a point blank refusal of this by the Labour party, so that we have little to look for from our friends opposite in this respect.
Now what about the Liberal party? They are in the comfortable position of being able to promise anything, because they know quite certainly that they will never be called upon to accept a responsible position and put into operation any of their promises. What a comfortable position for any Liberal, especially one in whose constituency there is a large number of these pre-War pensioners—such a constituency, for example, as that of Devonport. I can quite understand this Resolution being moved, and I do my hon. Friend the justice to desire that all that he has suggested should he put through, but what I complain about—and I think it is a despicable action on anybody's part—is to come to this House and move a Resolution of this sort, when they know perfectly well that it has been turned down point blank by both the parties who are likely to come into power in the future. That is what I dislike intensely.
I think the more straightforward course is to tell these people the position frankly, and to give them advice and warning that they are not likely to get what they want. In any free vote of this House, the pre-War pensioners will get plenty of sympathy of the sort now offered to them, but when the Whips are put on by either the party opposite or this party, they will not get the pension scale which they want, though, in view of the proximity of a General Election, I should not be in the least surprised to see the Labour party turn round and vote for this Resolution this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I had experience of this five years ago, when practically every Member on the Front Bench of the Labour party pledged
1708
himself to give all they wanted to these pensioners. Did they do it? No, not one of them spoke up for them. Personally, I should advise the Conservative party against taking any action in this matter at all. I should advise them not to promise now what they know they will not be in a position to fulfil, and I sincerely trust that the pensioners will be warned, that they will know what the true position is, and that they will not go away with that feeling of optimism that they are going to get something which I doubt whether either party is prepared to give them.
Mr. W. J. BROWN: I wish to make it clear in my opening sentence that I am supporting the Resolution which has been moved, and that I shall go into the Lobby in its support. I should like to say, too, that, much as I admired the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, I rather regretted the tones of the speech to which we have just listened. I feel that regret for two reasons. In the first place, it seemed to me to import a purely party point of view into what ought not in any circumstances to be a party matter, and I regretted it secondly because it seemed to me to be profoundly unjust to the Liberal party.
It is quite true that the Liberal party is emphatic in its demand for reductions in national expenditure. It is equally true that the Liberal party supports increases in national expenditure. And when the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) to-day proposes this increase in national expenditure, it really means that he and his party are much more right in their actions than in their philosophy. Provided they go into the right Lobby at the right time, that ought not to be a matter of reproach to them, because the outstanding impression left upon my mind after 15 months in this place is that, by and large, there is very little relation between the philosophy of any party and its actions here in this House.
I want to begin by asking who it is that is affected by the terms of this Resolution. The people affected comprise civil servants, teachers, Army and Navy pensioners, pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and, finally, pensioners of police forces all over the country.

1709
That is the scope of this Resolution, and it affects a number of people variously estimated at between 40,000 and 50,000. The present legislation of this House provides increases on the pre-War pensions of these people as follows: Where a pension does not exceed £25 pre-War, there is an increase of 70 per cent.; where the pension is between £25 and £50, there is an increase of 65 per cent.; where the pension is between £50 and £100, there is an increase of 50 per cent.; between £100 and £150, if the man is single, there is an increase of 30 per cent., and, if he is married, of 40 per cent.; and for pensions between £150 and £200, if the man is married, there is an increase of 30 per cent., but if he is unmarried, no increase at all.
That is the effect of the Acts of 1920 and 1024 put together, and I suggest that there are two very simple tests which can be applied to determine whether those increases are adequate or not under present conditions. One test is that of how the percentage increase compares with the actual increase in the cost of living, and the second test is as to how the revised pensions of the pre-War men compare with the pensions now given to men of a similar grade retired at the present time. It is interesting Lo apply separately both those tests to the pensions as they are left by the Act of 1924. The present index figure of the cost of living is 56, but it is not 56 for the purposes of comparison here, because, in all sliding scale arrangements for salary or pension, the practice is to take the average cost of living figure over a period, not the actual cost of living figure on a particular date. In the Civil Service the practice is to take an average of six months, and in other cases it varies between three months and a year. If we took an appropriate average figure we should take one of about 65 per cent., according to the index figure of the Ministry of Labour. That means that every pensioner, except pensioners who are in receipt of £50 a year or less, are receiving an increase since the 1920 and 1924 Acts of substantially less than the percentage increase in the cost of living as measured by the index figure.
It goes very much further than that. I assert that the index figure is not an accurate measurement of the actual rise in the cost of living of people situated
1710
as these pensioners are. Very many items that enter into the expenditure of a working-class family find no trace in the calculations of the Ministry of Labour in preparing the index figure. Many items do figure in their calculations in respect of which the weighting allowance is open to serious challenge. There are still other items where an over-riding percentage increase is allowed, as in the case of rent, which is based upon the assumption that everyone is occupying a house which is still subject to the Rent Restriction Acts, although it is notorious that there are whole ranges of houses that have been decontrolled, and that even in areas that are still controlled, where occupation has been entered into after a certain date, the original Rent Restriction Act ceases to apply. No one who has been compelled to make a study, as I have, in Civil Service affairs, of the relation between living costs and the index figure, would affirm without grave qualifications that the index figure is an accurate measurement of the upward movement in prices.
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion drew attention to the fact that our Chief Whip on this side was a signatory to the pledge given to the pre-War pensioners that something should be done to set right the sense of injustice from which they suffer. The Chief Whip also has relations with me—very often strained relations—and he has been good enough to send me a statement for my guidance as to what the Government's policy is to be on this Motion. I should like to say in passing that I do not like to see that sort of thing happen on private Members' Motions. When a Motion is introduced by a private Member, he might at least be allowed to discuss the matter on its merits without having statements made to us privately about the Government policy before those statements are made in the House of Commons. What is the kind of statement which, unless the Government take warning, we are likely to get from the Front Bench to-day? It is that if the Government are to do anything, they ought to bring the present pensions into line with the present cost-of-living index figure, and that if that happened, since the index figure is only 56 per cent. above pre-War levels, all those pen-

1711
sioners who are now getting 70 per cent. or 65 per cent. would have to come down.
I find it difficult to characterise that argument as it deserves to be characterised. In the first place, the index figure is only one criterion; in the second place, the correct index figure to-day is not 56 but, as I have tried to demonstrate, 65; and in the third place, why is it necessary to reduce anybody's inadequate pension when for many years past they have been paid a stationary figure regardless of the index figure? The index figure has moved from 230 in 1920 up to 276 in 1921–22 to the present point of 156. If one took the average over that period, it becomes apparent that in those years these men have been exceedingly badly treated. For the Government to say, when it is suggested that some increase should now be made, that those who happen to be getting a little above the present index figure level will have to have their pensions reduced, is a very unworthy and ungenerous argument to use.
Let us look at the other test, which is the relation between the pension given to these men and the pensions now given to men who retire from the same grade in post-War conditions. There are in the service of the State teachers, police, civil servants, soldiers and sailors, and since the 1920 Act was passed there have been revisions of pay; every revision in basic pay automatically under the Superannuation Acts affects the amount of pension which is received by members of the various grades when they retire from the Service. In the case of the Navy, the disparity is so great that men retiring now draw three times as much as the pre-War pensioner. In the case of the teachers, the increases under the Burnham scale have to be taken into account, and a large gap between pre-War and post-War pensions will be left. In the Civil Service, there have been various readjustments of pay of different kinds in different grades, which it is very difficult to assess in terms of an all-over percentage, but the same broad observation would he true, that there is a big gap between pre-War and post-War pensions on the Civil Service side. Finally, it is within the knowledge of every Member that in the Police service, there have been sub-
1712
stantial increases of pay in the post-War period, and there again it will be found that the same gap between pre-War and post-War pensions exists. Neither by reference to the test of present living costs, nor by reference to the test of how post-War pensions compare with pre-War, is the maintenance of the present level of pensions defensible from our point of view.
Another argument which is sometimes used, and may sometimes be used justly, when Governments are asked to spend more money, is: "Granted that there is urgent need here, somewhere else there is still more urgent need, and therefore, with all the sympathy in the world, we think that there are other people more deserving of better treatment than those in this particular category; and therefore we regretfully withhold the money." This Government represent a party—if that is not too strong a term—which in 30 years of propaganda has insisted that the first duty of employers is to the workmen who work in their industry. That argument applies just as much to Governments as to private employers. The Government's first duty is to those who do the Government's work, and the Government are not entitled to escape from the logic and the justice of the demand for an improvement here by referring us to some other people somewhere else whose case will fall to be dealt with at a different point of time.
The hon. Member who preceded me said that there was nothing to hope for from the Government because their attitude was known in advance, and that when Governments speak back benchers can do very little because Governments have their way. On the last occasion when there was a debate resembling this in principle, the Government did not have their way, and they were beaten at the last. I refer to the ease of the Lytton entrants into the Civil Service, and I refer to it in order to strengthen the plea which I make to the Financial Secretary not to give us the kind of reply which we have been told represents Government policy in this matter. On the occasion to which I refer I asked for justice for a large number of ex-service men now employed in the Civil Service. We received a reply from the then Financial Secretary—and the coincidence is ominous—expressing just as completely

1713
the Treasury point of view as does the forecast we have had of the reply to-day. The reply affronted the sense of justice of the House, and the net result of the Division on that occasion was that the Government were beaten by seven votes. That led in turn to the setting up of a committee, which did something to put right the particular grievance about which complaint was then made.
That happened then; it may happen today, and, when the Financial Secretary feels tempted to put up the orthodox Treasury view about this, I would remind him of a saying of Lord Curzon, that the Treasury consists of extraordinarily able men who are almost invariably wrong. I hope that we are not going to get the Treasury officials' point of view this afternoon. I know many of them; I respect them and admire their ability, but I frequently do not admire the kind of test which they bring to bear upon this kind of problem. The instinct of this House is sounder on matters of this kind than the instincts of the Treasury, and I beg the Financial Secretary not to let the amount of money which is involved in this thing—and I would stress the point that it is a charge which extinguishes itself in a comparatively short period—preclude him from saying that he will give effect to what he believes is the general view of all parties in the House, that die position of the pre-War pensioner is unsatisfactory, that it is a reproach to us, and that it ought to be put right.
5.0 p.m.
Sir BERTRAM FALLE: I have fought this case of the pre-War pensioners from the very beginning. My first attempt was made and was recognised by the then Premier in July, 1919, who was good enough to fell me that I could be hopeful. I brought forward then the ease of the Royal Navy only, and I did it for this reason. Though the Royal Naval pre-War pensioners were a very small body, I was perfectly well aware that the Jerram rate could not be given to them and denied to the pensioners of the Army, and immediately the Army and the Civil Service found there was a possibility of the Navy getting the pension in full they said, "We will force the Government, if they grant it to any single force under the Crown, to grant it to all." I am sorry to say that, perhaps, they did not trust me, and they
1714
certainly did not trust the Government then in office. We had a big and fully representative meeting in the House. There must have been nearly 100 Members present. I pleaded with them to allow the Navy to get the increase first, telling them that if the Navy got it it would be impossible to deny it to the others. There was one Member in that large assembly—he represented Altrincham at that time—who was kind enough to give me his vote, and he was the only one. The whole matter fell to the ground, and we succeeded only to the extent of getting a first ex gratia payment, a second ex gratia grant being made later. It was quite inadequate, no doubt, but at any rate it was something, and the old men who have fought for us in the past are, I believe, very grateful to the Members of the House, to the House itself and to the Government who were instrumental in getting them even that small increase. I do not believe in using adjectives such as "meagre" and "unjust," but it was a very small increase, and it really affected only those whose pensions were so entirely inadequate that starvation and the guardians lay before them.
We shall be met to-day, of course, as we were then, by the cry of the cost. If this had been confined to the Navy only the cost would have been exceedingly small, but we were told that it would run into millions if we were to pension everybody who had a claim in respect of a pre-War pension. At that time it ran into so many millions—I believe it was £5,000,000—that it was practically hopeless to ask any Government to put their name to the foot of the Bill. Since then many Members and Governments and would-be Governments have dangled promises before the noses and the eyes of the pre-War pensioner, and I am very much afraid that promises will continue to be dangled by Governments and, perhaps, by individuals. At the time I speak of, in 1919, we took time by the forelock. If you can get a horse by the forelock you have some power over him. If you wait until he gives you his tail, you have very little power. I am very much afraid that my friends have arrived at the time when they have lost the forelock, and I am inclined to ask whether they have even got hold of the tail. In my opinion it is undoubtedly our duty to give these old pensioners

1715
what is their due. The cost ought not to come into the matter. I am one of the rigid economists in the House, and last night I voted against what I thought was unnecessary expense, but I shall vote for a reasonable increase, if not for the Jerram increase, to all these poor old men who have fought in our wars and bled in our wars. As the sergeantmajor said: "The bayonets are pointed and the bullets are made of lead whether it is a small war or a big 'un."
I wish to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson). I helped him in securing the second ex gratia payment. He has fought all through for these men and he has the advantage of being absolutely honest and absolutely courageous, and he wants to tell our friends that whether it be a Socialist Government or whether it be a Conservative Government their chance of getting the Jerram scale is exceedingly small, and I must agree with him, having got to know a little about Governments during my 21 years in this House. Unless a Government can be forced one gets very little from it. Can we force this Government? If hon. Members opposite will do it I will work with them at any time, and always.
Mr. MAXTON: No, no! That is going too far!
Sir B. FALLE: For this purpose, naturally. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) invites me to cross to that side. It would be a great pleasure and a great honour to sit near him, but I shall have to wait until he changes his politics. These poor old men, out of their small pensions, are subscribing monthly and yearly to keep their association together in the hope of influencing Members of this House. We have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) some of the names in the list of those who promised before the election to help the pre-War pensioner. It is a long list. They have it in their power to help now, and we will help them, but is it fair to ask these old men to continue to pay out of their small pensions to keep their association going if there is no chance of their getting this increase this side of the Styx? We hear that the argument from
1716
the Treasury bench is to be that as the cost of living has fallen below 70 these people ought to have their small increases taken from them. The man who is paid £25 a year pension and has had it increased by 70 per cent. should have that 70 per cent. brought down to 56. I do not believe—
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)indicated dissent.
Sir B. FALLE: I am very glad to notice that sign of dissent from the hon. Gentleman, because I could hardly believe the statement. In the first place I do not think as a lawyer the Government could equitably do it, even if they could do it legally—it is a doubtful point; but they most certainly could not honestly or fairly do it and look the world in the face. I have always been of a hopeful disposition, and I have fought this matter for 12 years, and what I ask now is, Is there a possibility of more? From what the hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to indicate, that the view taken of the Treasury's attitude is a mistaken one, I trust he is going to tell us that there is a possibility. If he cannot give us all that we ask, at any rate I hope he will give us something. The Jerram scale may involve a heavy sum, and although I am entirely in favour of that scale, if he cannot give us all, will he not at any rate give us a large portion?
Mr. LONGDEN: I feel privileged to support this Motion, particularly that part which says:
"those pensions to which the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, apply should be placed on a basis more closely commensurate with the scale of post-War pensions payable for similar service."
The nation should see that it is a model employer. We here, as representatives of the electorate, ought not to look to private leaders of industry to provide model conditions for employés when we deny elementary justice to men who have been taken into the service of the nation during the past generation or so. Model employers we must he. At the same time, I was rather amazed when listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson). If he and his friends had wished to grant an advance upon these lines, they have had much scope within their own party. We all know that the Labour Government granted an advance in 1924. As a

1717
colleague of mine has pointed out, in 1924 the pre-War pensions of £25 per annum were allowed a 70 per cent. increase. The rate of increase was graduated down on higher pensions, and it was 30 per cent. on pensions of £130 to £200. Obviously, the Labour Government do intend to improve the lot of the men whom we took from their homes for State service in this country and abroad.
Sir J. DAVIDSON: Probably the hon. Member was not in the House at the time, but the fact is that in 1923 the Conservative Government produced a Bill to give an increase. They went out of office in that year, and it was their Bill that was adopted and passed by the Labour Government.
Mr. LONGDEN: I merely pointed out that the Labour Government did bring that Measure into force in 1924. Had there been a Tory Government we might have had that Measure and we might not. In any case, the association representing these men tell us that if equity be extended to them there ought to be an increase not of 30 or 70 per cent., but up to 150 per cent. There are other figures that are supplied to us by the same association, and they tell us— and this is very alarming—that the pre-War Naval man received Is. 7d. per day and the post-War Naval man 2s. 10d. per day. The pre-War Army man received 1s. per day, while the post-War Army man received 2s. a day. In addition, it appears that pension is based upon the level of pay and service given at, the rate of id. per day for pre-War pensioners, and 1½d. per day for postwar pensioners.
There is an inherent discrepancy between pre-War and post-War pensions, and I agree with the hon. Member who said that we have no right to take into consideration too closely the index figures of the cost of living. There are many other things than merely nominal receipts to be taken into consideration. I have in my possession cases which I will quote of the higher grades in the Army. The officer classes are well cared for, and it appears to me that the lower the rank the worse are the conditions in terms of pay. The Government recognised this in 1924, when we were told that most ranges of
1718
poverty far below the £3 or £4 per week mark were in greater need of assistance. Of course they are. It is down on the lower levels where the greatest need is felt. I should like to quote from a circular which I have received from the National Association of Navy and Army Pensioners, which says:
"Those of our men who have managed, out of their meagre earnings, to save money are penalised, and those who have not saved money are quite unable to sustain themselves on their small pensions, and they have been, and are in many cases, dependent on the State or private benefactions."
That can hardly be called a very happy state of things in 1930 under the Parliament of the British Empire. Perhaps it will be of interest to hon. Members if I read a short letter from a pensioner in my division of Deritend, who says:
"This is to be our last effort."
That is rather a pathetic note. The letter proceeds:
"I am a man 54 years of age, and was invalided from abroad about 20 years ago. I managed to work, on and off, for about five years, hut this last 15 years I have been a chronic invalid, not able to leave the house, and yet I have to exist on a paltry pension of about 14s. a week to feed and clothe myself, and to buy medical comforts, which cost me on an average 3s. a week. I served upwards of 14 years in the Service, 12 of them beyond the seas."
That is a tragic note. It is not the case of a man with £3 or £4 per week, but a man without any income whatsoever except a mean and despicable 14s. a week pension from a grateful State. That is why I wish to support this man's case. The circular issued by the National Association of Navy and Army Pensioners goes on to say:
"Our members rapidly decline year by year and to do us justice would cost an incredibly small sum of money."
Sir B. FALLE: In the letter which has just been quoted by the hon. Member, is it stated that the man was 54 years of age?
Mr. LONGDEN: Yes.
Sir B. FALLE: Then he would be 38 at the time the War broke out? If that is so, why did be not serve I
Mr. LONGDEN: He was invalided from the Army from abroad 20 years ago, and he has been chronically ill ever since. This man, after paying 3s. for his medical

1719
comforts, has 11s. a week to keep body and soul together. That state of things is not good enough, and it ought to be ended at the earliest possible moment. The circular from which I have quoted further states:
"We hope that this chance to lighten our burden in our old age will not be missed."
I hope it will not be missed. This reminds me of the old song:
"Old soldiers never die; they only fade away."
The country is permitting them to fade away, not by sudden death, but by a slow declining mind and body and spirit, and that is what a grateful nation does for the men whom it took from their homes to defend it. I hope the Government will allow us to have a free vote on this question. Why should we not have a free vote on a matter of this kind, which, although it may appear to be a small matter, involves a tremendous issue. It is a question of human values as seen from the State angle by representatives who believe that when we employ men to do our State work we should make certain that they are adequately paid and secure from poverty and misery throughout their day.
Major ROSS: It appears to me that no one can have any logical ground for resisting this Motion. The system of two scales of pension is one which cannot be supported by reason or logic. On this question the soldier, the sailor, the man in the Royal Irish Constabulary, the policemen and the teacher all stand together. I wish to address myself primarily to the Royal Irish Constabulary, not because I do not agree that all the other classes affected by this Motion are equally deserving, but because I am more concerned with this small class of men who were associated with a force which no longer exists. The relations of this House to the old members of the Royal Irish Constabulary is a rather peculiar one, because those men were the instrument by means of which the Government had to carry into effect the policy of this House. The men had no hand in devising that policy, but they were called upon to do their duty in times of bitterness and stress. It was the duty of these men to protect those who were boycotted, and we all know the great strain placed
1720
upon the small body of men who formed the Royal Irish Constabulary, who often had to face a large and hostile crowd. Let us now forget the bad old times and their passions and remember the faithful service of these poor old men who look to this country to make their old age comfortable as a reward for their past services.
The force was never a highly paid one. The pay of a constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary was only £70 a year after 20 years' service. I do not think that a man receiving £70 a year after 20 years' service is in a position to save very much. These men belonged to a long service force, and were dependent upon the pension which they hoped to receive. They enlisted in the expectation of a. pension, one adequate to the cost of living at the time. The pension has been fixed at an arbitrary figure, and I cannot imagine the State taking advantage of such a change of conditions as to give the men who enlisted in good faith such a bad bargain as they are getting at the present time.
What are the facts? I will compare the pensions of the pre-War constabulary with those of the post-War constabulary. The pensions of the post-War constabulary, though much higher, are certainly not much higher than the police pensions in this country. A head constable had a maximum annual pension before the War of £69 a year, while the maximum post-War pension is £236. A sergeant's pension before the War was £53, and post-War £195. A constable's pension before the War was £46 and post-War £164. It has already been pointed out by previous speakers that the Acts of 1920 and 1924 made additions, and I need not go into that point again.
I will take a typical case within my knowledge. I do not think that it is a particularly hard one, but it will give hon. Members an idea of the situation as it affects an old servant of the State who is now past work. This is the case of an ex-sergeant who had 32 years and 10 months' service in the force. He wore a sergeant's stripes for 20 years. He was pensioned in September, 1913, and, with the additions which are authorised, he now gets a pension of £83 4s. a year, or about 32s. a week, whereas a post-War sergeant would get £195 a year. Either

1721
all the pensions which we have in every service at present are wrong, or these old pensions are wrong, and I have little doubt as to what the opinion of this House would be in judging between those two alternatives.
It is not only that the pensions are very low, but, in the case of the old members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, there is even a deduction which is made from the miserably small pensions that they get. That is a contribution to what is called the "R.I.C. Force Fund," and, in the case of old members of the Constabulary, this deduction is still made from their pension. No one has become a subscriber to the fund since 1891. It was devised as, I suppose, a pension fund principally for the members of the Constabulary, hut appears to have been used for all sorts of purposes—outfit allowances for officers promoted from the ranks, awards and bounties to men who had done good service, and so on. The result was that as long ago as 1891 that fund got into a condition of confusion, and had to be assisted with money from the State.
What has been the action of the State from then onwards? It has been taking the contributions of these poor old men to pay the State back this money which was paid about 40 years ago. Most of the people who nay subscriptions to the R.I.C. Force Fund will get no benefit, or practically no benefit, for the subscriptions of a lifetime. For 36 years such agitation as has been possible has been going on for the winding up of this Fund and for the proper treatment of members who have to subscribe to it in respect of their contributions. If that Fund is allowed to go on any longer, in view of what I have said, namely, that apparently it is merely an attempt on the part of the State to get back from the few survivors of the Force that existed in 1891 money that was paid nearly 40 years ago, I think it is not good enough.
The Government will not have to pay for very long any addition which it may agree to pay, because there are only 1,000 odd left of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were pensioned off before the War. The vast majority of them are between 65 and 80 years of age, and they will not trouble any Government very long as regards pensions. It is said that politicians are forgetful of past services, and it is said that we do not care deeply
1722
for any measure which does not command a large number of votes. I am asking Members of this House to support the claim of a class whose period of usefulness is long over, and of a class that commands very few votes; and yet I do it with confidence, because I cannot believe that this House and this country will deny to faithful servants their due reward.
Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I should like to thank my hon. Friend who put down this Motion for choosing a subject which I think I may say is a non-party one. In saying that, I regret the remarks which were made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson). There is no one in this House who has done more for these old soldiers than my hon. and gallant Friend, and I am sorry that he should think that we as a party are trying to put forward, through this Motion, something which we think we as a Government will possibly never have to carry out. I deprecate that, because I should like to see this subject dealt with entirely from a non-party point of view.
Sir J. DAVIDSON: May I say that my object was merely to explain that I felt absolutely hopeless on this matter? That was the position that I was trying to put.
Sir R. HUTCHISON: I quite appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's observation. I hope that he will have more cause for hope. We hope to-day that possibly the Treasury will be softened, and that something will be done for this very deserving class. I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown), because he approached the subject on a line which I think is very practical, and his points ought to have great weight with the Treasury. After all, the improvement in the condition of pre-War pensioners which resulted from the Acts of 1920 and 1924 only went half-way. The percentages by which the pensions were increased, varying from 75 per cent. down to 20 per cent., were not really adequate. I want to emphasise the point which was put by the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Longden) in regard to the relative value of pay pre-War and of pay post-War. The basis of pay depends on the cost of

1723
living, and the present index figure of 56 has no relation to the conditions of those who served in the Army, the Navy, the Civil Service and the Royal Irish Constabulary. Therefore, I think that the Treasury might approach this question of the re-adjustment of pensions on a post-War as opposed to a pre-War basis, from the point of view of the value of the pay which the men concerned received. The present basis was fixed and arranged because it was found that the men in the ranks could not carry on on less than the amounts which they receive now, and, therefore, it seems to me that the former pensions ought to be re-adjusted on that basis rather than on the basis of the cost of living figure.
There is another point that I should like to put. We have had cases among pre-War pensioners of men who had disability or wound pensions, and, when they were reconsidered, they were brought up to the post-War basis. But why bring up the wounded or disabled man when the ordinary service man is left far behind? Surely he ought to be treated similarly, and at any rate brought up to the post-War basis. These old servants of the State, no matter in what service they have been, surely deserve from this House a certain amount of care in their old age beyond what we ought to give even to the younger servants, who, after all, can fight for themselves, while these old servants cannot. Therefore, it seems to me that the House of Commons, apart from party, ought to combine, and, as an indication of public opinion in this House, put pressure on the Treasury to re-examine this question and to look into the hardships of these cases. All of us, and especially those who, like myself, have been old servants of the State, get many appeals to try to help these people to get better terms. We all know of these cases. I do not want to put harrowing cases to the House, but everyone of us who has been in touch with these people knows the very hard circumstances in which they live. I am only saying what we all think in all quarters of this House when I say to the Treasury, "Cannot you, in view of the very small sum that is involved, look at this matter with a softened heart? Cannot you examine it to see if you cannot alleviate the ending days of these
1724
servants of the State?" After all, the State ought to be a model employer; it ought to do what it would like other people who employ labour to do; and, surely, we ought as a country to look after these old servants.
There is another point which is not actually involved here, but in regard to which great hardship is created. In the old days a pre-War service man sometimes served for a short time and then transferred to another service—say from the Army into the Civil Service, or from the Navy into the Civil Service. Those movements of service involved inequalities in regard to the amount of service counted in passing from one service to another, and those inequalities ought to be levelled up. I have always maintained that service for the State should as far as possible be put on an equality, with equal rewards. I do think that these pre-War men deserve our assistance. After all, to put it on a very low level, they have no political value, and, therefore, we are voicing something which we really feel from our hearts. I beg the Treasury to look into this matter and to set up some sort of non-party inquiry to see whether the difficulties of these old men to-day, owing to the extremely heavy cost of living, cannot be in some way alleviated.
Mr. WALLACE: I should like to support this Motion, because it asks that the Government shall really consider this case and do these men a simple act of justice. I do not want to attack the Government do not want to create hostility; I would rather re-echo the sentiments of the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), who has appealed to the Government to reexamine this question and see if they cannot give some help. May I give an instance from my own experience, namely, that of a postman who has served his country for 40 years—who has given 40 years' good and faithful service before he gets his pension? The method of calculating the pension is to give one-eightieth only for each year of approved service, and the maximum pension can only be forty-eightieths, or one-half, of the man's annual payment. For 40 years' good and faithful service he gets a pension of £40. Under the present scheme that pension can be increased to £68, a

1725
sum which would not, in this House of Commons, buy a modest dinner for any Member while the House was sitting.
Reference has been made to the cost-of-living figures, and it has been truly stated that the rise in the cost of living presses very harshly on those with a low income. These men have had to suffer an increase of their rent, and the landlord takes no account of their pension, he takes no account of the fact that they are not active and cannot agitate and use pressure to got their income increased. Where these men have had to go into post-War houses, or to give up their own houses and take apartments, I know of cases where nearly half the pension goes in rent, and these men would he glad if the Government would do something so that they might have milk every day.
I will take it as common ground that there is not a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench who has not as much sympathy for these men as I and others have. I have given cases of men who have done 40 years' service—and a man is exceedingly lucky who can do 40 years' service—in the Post Office. The aggregate service is nearer 20 years, and you have thousands of ex-service men coming to the Post Office late in their lives who have served the Government for years in other capacities. That service was not allowed to count for pension, and that aggravates this burden. In those cases something ought to be done.
Look at it from the point of view of one of these men. Here is the Post Office with a profit of £10,000,000 this year, and here is a pensioner who cannot afford milk every day. Surely the Government do not need anything more in support of this as a case for examination. The very fact that these Pensions (Increase) Acts have been passed admits that there is a case. Why were they passed? Because the House knew that these men were suffering an injustice. An hon. Member opposite mentioned the date, 1st April, 1919. My understanding of the Pensions (Increase) Acts is that they apply to men who were pensioned before 4th August, 1914. There may, of course, be modifications of which I am not aware at the moment, and I should like the Financial Secretary to deal with that point.
1726
Let me come to the question of men who are denied any increase because they are under the age of 60. I cannot find any reason for denying a man equitable treatment because he is under the age of 60. The Financial Secretary said on Tuesday last that it is believed that the number did not exceed 1,000. Cannot something be done for that 1,000? The others are dead. Do not let us leave these 1,000 men to pass away. I also object to taking into account the private means of the civil servant when you come to this question of estimating his pension, which is based on service. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite admit that a pension is deferred pay. I wish the parties who have formed the Governments of the last 30 years had always appreciated that principle. Private means ought not to come in. It is also unfair to impose a limit and say that a man who is getting a few pounds more than another should not enjoy this increase.
With regard to cost, I think the House might come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). He said that in 1920 we had more than 100,000 persons. They are now down to 40,000. Take the concrete case of the Civil Service. In 1920 the number was nearly 15,000. It is now down to about 7,500. The others are dead. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924 estimated the cost of removing this means disqualification at £3,000,000. The Financial Secretary said on Tuesday that the cost would be about £1,200,000. There is an opportunity for the Government to go into this question. These men are old, and many of them are living in misery. There is no other word for it. They have nothing to do, and they cannot get work. I have met men who have told me that every day of their life is agony, because they have not even a few coppers. They cannot even go to the pictures. I am not going to assume that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench have not as much sympathy as I have for these men. I feel that they have, but I hope that they will listen to this appeal. I hope they will appreciate that there are hundreds of thousands of people who will not see these old men deserted in the hour of their need. We intend to pursue this question. I hope the Government, in view of the change in

1727
circumstances since 1924, in view of men who have passed away, in view of the diminishing number, and in view of the urgency of the problem, will say they will look into the question and see if they can help.
6.0 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: This is not the first occasion when I have been present at a debate of this character. I remember very well in 1924 when there was practical unanimity on this subject. So unanimous indeed was the opinion on all sides of the House that the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury had to withdraw a Money Resolution and bring in an amending one. The right hon. Gentleman in charge tonight might very well follow his predecessor's example, although there is not a Money Resolution at the moment. It has not got to such a stage of success as that. I was very much surprised to hear my hon. and gallant Friend above the Gangway cast aspersions on the Labour party for not supporting the Motion in 1923. So far as I recollect, there was a Motion somewhat similar to this proposed by a Labour representative and seconded by a Labour representative, and in all parts of the House there was a unanimous opinion that something ought to he done for these pre-War pensioners. The Government in power in those days promised to do something, but their term of office was cut short, and the Labour Government then came into power. Again, representations were made to the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The same type of debate took place on a Money Resolution, and the unanimity of the House, as I say, compelled the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to withdraw the Resolution and amend it. In doing so, he used these words:
"I quite agree with hon. Members in not seeking to penalise thrift in any shape or form, but I would remind the House that, having regard to the fact that we have provided rather more than half a million, we thought it best to take the first step by increasing the percentage, and the other changes must form the subject of separate legislation if at any time the Government find themselves able to embark of that course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1924; col. 1874, Vol. 173.]
It came on later and finally the Act was passed. This Motion proposes to rectify the defects of the Acts of 1920 and 1924.
1728
It may have been considered in those days a large sum to expend on these pensioners, but after all, what was it? I remember very well that after the debate I said I was very sorry that I had to go home to Ireland and tell of the miserable pittance that the Government thought fit to give them. As far as I recollect, there were about 100,000 cases, and the annual increase amounted to £300,000—the magnificent sum of £3 per pensioner. Why is it that the means of the pre-War pensioners are taken into consideration in calculating their pensions while those of post-War pensioners are not? This is what happens. The old Royal Irish Constabulary man day and night served his King and his country faithfully and well. Perhaps his pension is £48 a year, and he has to answer almost an inquisition every year in order to satisfy the authorities as to his private means, while the post-War pensioner gets £156 per annum and is never asked a question. Surely, this is not a matter upon which we should have to plead with the Treasury. If we can do nothing else, let us at least wipe out the disgrace of asking these pre-War pensioners with their miserable pittance to furnish an account of their private means. After all, to what can these private means amount? What was their salary before the War? How could they save anything? It cannot have been very much. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will at least wipe out the demand which is made of these pre-War pensioners to submit details of their means annually to those who are in authority. I have said that there was practical unanimity in the debates of 1923 and 1924, and here we have another debate with a similar appeal to the Treasury. I do not believe that there will be a Member of the House who will rise in his place to oppose this proposal on the ground of equity. In fact, I am surprised that the representative of the Treasury on the Front Bench has not got up in his place and said, "We admit it all; we are going to give you all you want." Why should Member after Member have to stand here appealing for this simple justice? Every Member of the House of Commons is satisfied that it is a matter of simple justice.
Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: Bid the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask anything about this question in the live years previous to the Labour Government taking office?
Sir W. ALLEN: I can only recollect that when the Labour party brought forward a Resolution in 1923, the Government of that time were prepared to introduce a Measure in order to rectify all these difficulties. But that Government had not a lease of power, for very shortly afterwards the Members on the opposite side of the House had to transfer their allegiance to this side of the House and hon. Members opposite came into power. Again, in 1924, they had an opportunity, and I want to give them credit for taking it. If the Tory Government, as it is commonly called, had remained in power, I believe that these grievances would have been redressed, though, of course, I do not know to what extent. At any rate, we are all satisfied that these difficulties ought to be remedied. The appeal, I am sure, will not be in vain. I hope that when the representative of the Treasury speaks to-night he will be able to state that they are going to give something to these men during the last few years of their lives which will make them look back upon their service, and realise that, after all, they have been rewarded, even if only to a small extent. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to-night to give us that assurance, so that when I go back to Ireland at the end of the week I shall he able to look old pensioners in the face and say to them that at last the Government have been so generous as to admit their liability.
Mr. ROSBOTHAM: An hon. and gallant Member said that we politicians were apt to forget, but I do not think that we ought to forget seeing that we represent the people of the country. It is for us to see that justice is done. We in Great Britain pride ourselves upon being a people who wish to do justice and to see that justice and equity are carried out on all occasions. There is a great misfortune with regard to dates which apply in a very unfair way to the old pensioners. The dates ought to be revised or readjusted. I rise chiefly to put in a very strong plea in regard to the point to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen)
1730
referred, namely, the filling in of an annual form in regard to means. Friends of mine have complained to me about it and are very nervous about filling up this complicated form. If we are only able to get a promise to-day from the Treasury Bench that the forms will be dispensed with, we shall have made a great step forward, and done something to relieve the anxiety of these old pensioners.
These pensioners are getting on in years and it is for Members of this House to see that something is done for their comfort and for their advantage. I do not consider that this is one of the subjects in regard to which we should reckon up the sums of money involved. This is not the question at all. There is a principle involved of bringing comfort to these people in the latter days of their lives. Before I thought of becoming a Member of Parliament, it was my privilege to speak to some of these pensioners, and I always thought that it was a great injustice. Now that I have been elected a Member of Parliament, I feel that I should be neglecting my duty if I did not rise in my place for a minute or two and express my sympathy with these old pensioners. I trust that the Treasury will give full consideration to every point which has been raised this afternoon, and will, if possible, accede to the request so clearly put forward on the other side of the House. I make an earnest appeal to the Treasury to do away with the inquisition of this annual form. I wish to support the Motion.
Commander SOUTHBY: I am sure that every Member in the House regrets that these occasions, when we are able to express, on a Motion which is before the House, what is in our hearts, are so few during the course of our Parliamentary life. Let us at least make the most of this occasion. As a rule, the opportunities for back bench Members not to give a silent vote on some questions are of necessity very few, but here is an occasion when from all sides of the House the same expression of opinion has been given, that it is a matter of bare justice. Economy has been mentioned by more than one hon. Member. Economy is probably the most important thing in the country to-day, but I do not believe that there is a single voter throughout the country who will ask for economy at the

1731
expense of the bare justice which should be meted out to this old class of servant of the State. The fact is, that it is not a question of a future liability; it is a question of a past liability. I submit, therefore, that the question of economy does not come in. Because we have not honoured the bond in the past, it is no reason why we should not honour the bond, and honour this liability, now that we have an opportunity to do so.
I do not think that much can be added to the speeches which have been made by the hon. Member who moved the Motion and by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, but they made out a case which, I submit, is unanswerable. I hope that when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury comes to reply for the Government, he will tell us that he is prepared to give us the whole of what we are asking. At any rate, if he cannot give us the whole of what we are asking, surely he will be able to tell us that the most unfair inquisition into the means of these old men should be removed. Why should they be treated in a different way from any other class of pensioner since the War? Why should this inquisition be made into their private affairs, and, in many cases, pitiable private affairs It is not made into the private affairs of any other class of pensioners with whom we have had to deal.
The hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion made reference to the question of a pensioner who might, perhaps, have invested his money in a small house. I would like to point out that if a pensioner has invested his savings in some small investment bringing in an income and if his income from all sources does not exceed a certain amount, he is entitled to get a pension, and he gets it, but supposing he has invested the money which he has saved, not in some investment stock or shares, but in a house, then, if the assessable value of his house has gone up, through no fault of his own, not only does he probably have to pay more in rates—he has no more coming in, although his house appears to be more valuable—but it may be that his pension may be cut down, or taken away from him. Surely the House of Commons cannot be deaf to the appeal which we are making when a case like this is put before
1732
them. Such a monstrous injustice, I am sure, would not be tolerated by the House of Commons for one moment.
I am glad that several speakers have made reference to the fact that pension is deferred pay. I heard a question asked recently from the opposite side of the House which was rather on the lines that because a man received a pension he was not really entitled to it. A man who received a pension for service performed either in the Army or in the Navy is only getting back money which he has, in effect, saved during his period of service. He is not getting a charitable dole. He is getting something towards which he contributed, and something to which he is entitled by reason of the fact that he had a smaller income during the time he was serving. Therefore, if a man is to be made less well off because in the past he has been thrifty, and if he is to be compared with another man who has performed precisely the same service to the State and who, as the hon. and gallant Member pointed out, simply by reason of the fact that a difference in time occurred, is better off than he is, I say that it is not only absurd but a thorough injustice that such a thing should be allowed to continue for one moment.
The question has been raised of many of these pre-War pensioners who joined the Forces, and who, therefore, by reason of their joining the Forces, were put upon a different scale. I know of cases of pre-War pensioners who endeavoured to join the Forces, but who, either by reason of infirmity or from one cause or another, were not able to do so, and although they were perfectly ready to serve the State again during the Great War, they were not allowed to do so and for that reason, although they were willing, they have to be worse off than men who were taken. I cannot believe that the Government Bench opposite can possibly resist this claim. I do not want to make party capital. Thank God, we are discussing a Motion out of which really no party capital can be made either one way or the other. It is a Motion which is being discussed on its merits on the Floor of the House of Commons, which exists mainly for the purpose of rectifying injustices to those people in the country who help to send us here to do their work. It is not a question of party either one way or the

1733
other. For once in a way we can at least be a Council of State actuated by one motive only, and that is to remedy an injustice to old servants. I have often heard people plead that some Motion before the House is only a little one. Only last Friday we had suggestions from the benches opposite, "Oh, it is only a little thing; let us put it through." Well, this is only a little thing, a pitiful little thing. They are a wasting group of men; they are bound to get fewer and fewer as the years go by. They have decreased from a large number through death, and you can never remedy the injustice to those who have died since this agitation for justice has been set on foot. Though you cannot do justice to them, you can at least do justice to the remainder of those people who have suffered from this injustice since 1919.
Perhaps the worst thing that has been done by the present Government in this matter is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused even to hear a deputation. There was a non-party meeting of Members of this House who interviewed these old pensioners and heard their case. That meeting appointed a non-party deputation representative of all quarters of the House, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused either to hear the deputation or consider their case. How can he reconcile that attitude with the letter which he wrote on the 3rd December, 1927, to a citizen of Manchester, a retired civil servant? Referring to the pensions of 1924, he said that they might he regarded as a preliminary step and that that did not exclude further improvements in the future. If those were the views of the Chancenor of the Exchequer, the House is entitled to call upon him to implement what was Obviously in his mind when that letter was written, and what was obviously a promise. I hope that the House will remedy an injustice which has existed far too long, in the interests of an old and a deserving body of men throughout the State who have suffered quite enough, and whose sufferings ought to be ended to-night.
Mr. MOSES: I desire to congratulate my colleague in the representation of the City of Plymouth in the double flight that he has made in regard to this claim, a flight in order that he might be able to place these men in a, better position, and the flight of eloquence with which he
1734
supported the claim. We could not but be convinced of the sincerity of my hon. Friend when he moved the Motion. He has been consistent in his support of this claim, and I am delighted as a representative of the same city to support him in this claim for justice. This subject is not new to the louse. We have heard a great deal about what has been done in the past in regard to it. One cannot help noticing the keen anxiety of Members of the Conservative party to support this claim to-day. One wonders what they were doing in regard to it during the five years when they had power and could easily have given justice to these claimants. If they were then so keen as to-day they appear to be, one wonders how it was when they had the power that they did not use it, so that the House to-day would not have been detained discussing this question.
These claims have been recognised through the years, and although the House has done some scant justice, that does not take away from the supreme claim of these old servants of the State. The increases which were given under the Pensions (Increase) Act did something to remedy a grave injustice, but the main objection to the system that was then inaugurated is the inquisition annually put upon these old servants of the State, and the means limit which acts so unjustly. Many of these old servants, in looking forward to their old age, have taken out endowment policies, and I have known cases where the maturing of an endowment policy has put them beyond the limit which makes them entitled to any increase of pension. We recognise that something was done by the Labour Government in 1924, but a great opportunity of remedying the injustice was passed over by the party that had the power to do it. In this claim we are making no appeal to the State for charity. We are making an appeal for justice, on behalf of those who have a perfect right to make it.
The main plea of the Motion is that equal service should bring equal remuneration. We say that those for whom we are making our claim to-clay have rendered service to the State equal to those who have been able to claim larger emoluments. Mention has been made of the fact that this claim does not include only men who served in the Army and the

1735
Navy. It includes those in the Civil Service, the great service of the Post Office, also the industrial workers who are engaged in the industrial establishment of the Admiralty and those workers who were pensioned before the War and who are also subjected to the same inquisition and the same income limit. When we consider that the policemen are linked with the postmen and their widows in this matter, there is not a constituency represented in this House that is not affected by the matter in some degree or another. The great question with which we have to deal is whether justice shall be done to those who, engaged in public service, have had their pensions based on the scales of pay operating prior to the War, or whether they shall be subject to that remuneration which is based upon greater justice.
The scales of pay operating prior to the War in every part of the public service were glaringly inadequate. It was the inadequacy of the remuneration that called for the various commissions. Public -opinion was so strong that the Government of the day had to appoint commissions in order to deal with the scandal of the remuneration in the public service, especially in regard to the Navy and the Army. The inquiry also applied to the police forces of the country. We remember the agitation and the trouble that arose, and the consequent appointment of the Desborough Commission to inquire into the inadequate remuneration and pensions of the police force. These inquiries were based upon the conditions that were then prevailing. It was the inadequate remuneration that was received by those who were then serving that brought out the need for inquiry. The result of the inquiries produced new rates of pay and pensions, but the men who had suffered the indignity of the low rates of pay and had been subject to the hardships in regard to which the inquiries were set up, were shut out of any participation in the improved pensions that were the outcome of the inquiries which had been called for by their conditions. Therefore, we are asking only for justice when we ask that the rates of pay now established shall be the basis of the pensions of those who suffered the conditions which made the inquiries necessary.
1736
The Army and the Navy pensioners have been spoken of to-day. These men served their full period in the service in conditions which the present Navy and Army know nothing about. They suffered under arduous conditions. Almost every day of their service was akin to war service. Those were the days, in Service parlance, of bully beef and biscuits. Those men knew what hardships meant, and yet those men who knew those hardships and were subject to the ill conditions that prevailed, are not allowed to participate in the remuneration which comes to their comrades who serve under less arduous conditions. When we take a pension at its present limit, what are we asking on behalf of these men? The halfpenny a day that was given to the old soldiers and sailors as pension was contemptible for a nation such as we pose to be. Little wonder that our enemies called our army "The Contemptibles," when we treated them so contemptibly. In the pensions that were meted out to them, there was an indication of the nation's measure of the service that was being rendered. A sailor received is. 7d. a day pay and a soldier received 1s. per day, and upon that pay the basis of pension was fixed at one halfpenny per day for every completed year of service. Therefore, a soldier or sailor who had completed 22 years service was entitled to 22 halfpennies per day as remuneration for that service, in the form of deferred pay. These men for whom we claim justice performed identical services to those whose pensions are based upon the higher scale.
As a magistrate of the city of Plymouth, I often have to take declarations from these aged servants of the State. Were it possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to see the signatures on some of these inquisitorial forms, those signatures would be eloquent of the palsied hand and the shaking form of the men who signed the papers, speaking eloquently of their great need. Then there arc the industrial workers. Very few of them are able to render 40 years' service to the State because there is a considerable period that has to be worked in what is called the sphere of the hired worker or the auxiliary worker. Consequently, only a short period can be considered, but were the whole period

1737
considered the pension would be miserably low because the meagre pittance of the industrial worker before the War was only a men, hindrance to entrance to the poor house. In order to get a miserable addition to that pittance these men have to sign an inquisitorial form that their income is below a certain amount. The utmost pension that an industrial worker, a mechanic with 40 years' service, could get to-day would be about £60 per annum, while the pension of the pre-War pensioner, with all the added increases due to the Pensions (Increase) Act would amount to not more than £35 per annum. The industrial worker would receive a pre-War pension of £35 per annum for 40 years' service, if it were possible for him to put in 40 years, whereas the man who occupies the same position to-day and does the same class of work in the service would come out with a pension of £60 per annum. I submit that this indicates that it is necessary to apply justice in these cases.
Take the case of the police force in the city of Plymouth. Prior to the War, the watch committee were responsible for fixing the amount of remuneration; afterwards it became a question for a national inquiry. During the War, no policeman was allowed to leave the service, and. consequently, a number who had reached the age for retirement were not allowed to retire. After the War, a number of them, from the chief superintendent down to the lowest rank of constable, had to go. A number of policemen and officers retired prior to 31st March. We had sonic outstanding cases. There were some officers and policemen who went out on 31st. March, at 12 o'clock midnight. When the Desborough Report came in, we found that 1st April was laid down as the date on which a man should be serving in order to get advantage of this remuneration. The chief superintendent, who had risen from a constable in the ranks, went out on 31st March at 12 o'clock midnight. If he had remained until 12 o'clock noon on 1st April, instead of receiving £183 as pension, he would have been entitled to £383. That is an instance of the injustice. This did not apply only to the superintendent, but to constables who left under exactly the same conditions, some of them with distinguished service in the force. They went out on 3Ist March while those who
1738
remained until April just a week longer in the service received a considerably higher pension.
The maximum pension of an inspector before the War was £2 18s. per week. The maximum pension after 1st. April, 1919, was £4 9s. 9d. The maximum pension of a sergeant was £2 on 31st March, but on 1st April it was £3 15s. A constable on 31st March was entitled to £1 15s. 4d. per week pension, but on 1st April he was entitled to £3 3s. 4(1. It was a very big rise for those who remained until 1st April, but it was a great injustice to those who went out of the service on 31st March of the same year. There is greater injustice still when we consider the position of the widows of police officers who went out prior to 1918 with no pension whatever for their widows. They had joined the great majority, and their widows receive no pension at all. The Desborough award gave to the widows of police officers £30 per annum up to a maximum of £50 according to rent, and £10 for each child. In the case of officers who died prior to April, 1918, their widows have been the subject of charity or the cold administration of the Poor Law, while those who were left widows after 1st September, 1918, are in receipt of £30 pension and £10 for each child. I know two widows, each with three children. One is drawing no pension at all, and the other £60 per annum. I submit that there is a distinct claim for justice being done when you get cases like these.
Then there is another class, to which I should have expected hon. Members opposite would have referred, and that is the widows of seamen who lost their lives in the service of the country under harrowing circumstances and whose widows, under the regulations then in operation, were given what is called a patriotic pension—very patriotic indeed, for it forces them to live on 9s. per week. Widows in receipt of this patriotic pension have to fill up the inquisitorial form, and make a declaration as to their income. The greatest increase which can come to these poor widows who lost their husbands in submarine disasters before the War will bring their pensions up to 15s. 9d. per week. This is not an extravagant claim that we are making to-day. We are not.

1739
asking that there shall be a gift of public money. All we are asking is that there shall be a recognition of what the nation owes to those who have served it in these various spheres. Much has been made of the fact that this is a diminishing quantity. There is a quotation which is probably known to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to this effect:
"The sea of time is restless and encroaching, and the wave of each receding washes from off the shore some comrade in the battle of life."
I apply that to the subject before us. The wave of each receding hour and of each receding year on the sea of time is washing away many of these old servants of the State for whom we are claiming justice to-day. I am not making an appeal to a bogy Chancellor of the Exchequer, the creation of hon. Members opposite, who make him appear as a roaring lion going about seeking whom he may devour. I am not appealing to that kind of Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we know, the man with a mind and a heart, quick to feel and to do; and, consequently, I feel that in making this appeal to that Chancellor of the Exchequer I shall not be appealing in vain and that justice will be done to those who have a right to claim it.
Viscountess ASTOR: The sea of time is no more restless than hon. Members who are waiting to speak on this subject. I regret very much that the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Moses) started on a controversial note. Up to now we really have had a rare and refreshing debate for the House of Commons. The hon. Member asked why the Conservative party, when they were in office, did not do something to help these pensioners? May I remind him that this is a private Member's Motion, and also that during the four years that we were in office Members of all parties tried their best to get this Motion before the House of Commons. I do not for a moment want to make the question of pensions a political issue. I never have, and I hope I never shall; and anyone who heard the speeches of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) and the Seconder of this Motion, and the hon. and gallant Member for
1740
Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) will recognise that it has not been discussed on party lines at all.
I do not want to make a speech for my constituency. This is not a constituency matter; it is outside all constituencies. It affects all parties. The hon. and gallant Member for Fareham made, I think, the most non-party speech, because he said that he was disgusted with all parties. Probably the present Government are more pledged than any other previous administration upon this question. I am sorry for them, because I know how hard it is to carry out all their pledges. But I want to tell them to go on. If they accept this Motion, they will he astonished to find how much support they will get in the House. In 1924, when this question was discussed, the right hon. Member for St, George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) said that to say that at some time later the old people who would be shut out of the Bill would have their case considered was a mockery of time, as some of them were over 75 and approaching 80 years of age. All parties are involved in this question, and I want to bring the present Government up to time, not from any party point of view.
The tragedy of these old pensioners is that if they had belonged to a trade union, they would not be suffering in this way. Their only crime is that they were loyal to the State. I was going to speak about widows, but the hon. Member for the Drake Division has done so very eloquently. The means test will have to go. Of all the unfair things against these pre-War pensioners, the means test is the most, unfair. I could give the House ease after case in which the old people who are receiving help from their relations have had their pensions reduced. I am really thinking of the pensioners themselves; not of my constituency, and I beg of the Government not only to accent the Motion, but to go right on with it. They have so many pledges that they cannot possifly fulfil them all, but this is a pledge which it is quite possible for them to fulfil. It is not an increasing charge on the country; every year it will get less and less. I wish I could take the Chancellor of the Exchequer into my constituency, indeed into any constituency, and let him see the cases of some of these old pensioners. I believe he

1741
would take his courage in his hands and face this small increased expenditure.
I do not think this ought to be made a party question. There is no greater disservice that we can do to these people than to make this a party question. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham that if we are to do anything more for these old pensioners, we ought to let them know. Every year they are paying into their association, and they have little enough with which to pay. Even if the Government do not do all that we want them to do, we shall go on fighting to the end, because we feel that the House of Commons exists to do justice to minorities as well as to majorities. These people are a small minority, but a loyal one, and their case is a tragic one.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Noble Lady who has just spoken referred to the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend regrets his inability to be present, but he has had to be at the Imperial Conference and in those circumstances he felt that the House would understand and excuse his absence. I am sure that all who, like myself, have listened to the whole of this debate, will agree that the ease for the pre-War pensioner has been stated not only with eloquence but with the moderation for which this House is well known. But though the case has been stated with cogency and force by Members from all parties, I do not think that the actual facts of the situation have been stated by anyone, and therefore I hope that the House will forgive me it quite briefly I state what the facts are.
Broadly, the grievance from which all the pre-War pensioners originally suffered could be expressed in two ways. On the one hand they saw men of somewhat similar status to their own, who had retired later in date, placed in a position different from that which they themselves occupied. On the other hand they felt that when they accepted service under the State there was an understanding that when they retired they would receive a pension of a certain purchasing power. When they retired they found that the pension which they received, though it was in pounds the same as they anticipated, those pounds were not pre-War pounds hut post-War pounds of a very different purchasing power. In 1920,
1742
when the cost of living index stood at 155, the post-War pound was roughly worth about two-fifths of the pre-War pound. Everyone must agree that that was a very real grievance. Let me put it in this way. These men are called upon to pay part of the price which arises from the instability of the standard of value. That instability has resulted in extraordinarily sharp fluctuations in the purchasing power of the pound in the last 15 or 16 years, and in the course of the up and down changes has wrought enormous havoc to the community, not only in the case of people with large means, but in the case of those with small means. Not only that, but it is largely responsible, I believe, for the grave industrial disasters through which we are now passing.
In those circumstances, the pre-War pensioners made a claim for improvement in their position. This claim had, of course, no legal basis, but I Jo not think that a legal basis was ever suggested by the men themselves any more than it has been to-day by the Mover of this Motion. The claim was put forward on compassionate grounds for those persons who had served the State and were the victims of very hard luck due to changing circumstances arising out of the War and particularly the changed value of money. The Coalition Government which was in power in 1920 faced the situation. It divided the pensioners into two categories. First there were those whose means were very small. They included, of course, practically all the rankers of the Army and Navy, and included in the Civil Service all but the men of what were practically the highest, grade. To them it said. "We will make you an ex gratia payment as some compensation for the change in the value of money which has acted to your disadvantage." To others who were above the limit fixed it said, "Your hardships are due to changes in the value of money, and we cannot accept any responsibility for the bad luck that you have suffered."
I am describing what was the view of the Coalition Government in 1920. I imagine that what was in their minds was this—that if the Government accepted responsibility for changes in the value of money as such, it could not possibly stop there, but it must be held responsible for all the people, whatever their means, who suffered similarly

1743
from this result. That would have included professional people and all sorts and conditions of people some with large means and others with tiny means. As time went on, in spite of the fact that the post-War pound began to approximate more nearly to the pre-War pound, this House felt that the treatment accorded to pre-War pensioners was inadequate, and that revision was necessary. By the time the Labour Government came in, in 1924, in spite of the fact that the cost of living index had now fallen to 71, it was decided to make an increase. I am not attempting to make any party capital out of the point. It has been stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) that the Conservative Government had a Bill to deal with the matter. Whether that was the Bill that was brought in afterwards is another matter.
The Government of 1924 chose the line of increase which it was thought was most urgent, and it expended money on the humbler rather than on the better off. Although there were large numbers of Members in this House who did not accept this as an adequate or final settlement of a serious position, yet for what it was worth the House accepted it on the principle that half a loaf was better than no loaf, and, further, that the half loaf which the Government had chosen to give was the better part of the loaf; in other words that it was better to raise the pensions of the large number of humble pensioners than to carry out a general scheme of increase which would have increased also the pensions of those who were well above the limits fixed. I shall not weary the House with details of that settlement of 1924. It is common knowledge that it gave an increase of 70 per cent. to pensioners whose pension did not exceed £25; 65 per cent. increase to pensioners with pensions from £25 to £50; 50 per cent. increase to those with pensions between £50 and £100; 40 per cent. to those with pensions between £100 and £130, if married; and 30 per cent. increase in the remaining cases. These were all subject to the condition that the total means including the pension did not exceed £200 in the case of a married man or £150 in the case of a single man.
7.0 p.m.
The House accepted that scheme for what it was worth. Now since that time
1744
six years have passed, during five years of which another Government has been in power, and, though I am perfectly aware that Members have put questions during that time, yet there was no concerted action on the part of this House to induce the Government of the day to revise upwards this settlement. I would remind the House that some, though not all, of those years were years of national prosperity. There was one year, at any rate, when a very consider able reduction was made in the taxation of this country, yet there was no concerted action strong enough to have the effect of altering the scale laid down in 1924. Meantime, of course, there has been a further reduction in the cost of living, and, therefore, to that extent—it is only a very slight extent—the need is somewhat reduced from what it was in 1924.
To-day we have this Motion brought forward, and not only has it received support from every section of the House, but it must be generally recognised that the desire to see removed the hardships from which these pre-War pensioners suffer, and the hardships from which other people also suffer, owing to the changes in the value of money and other circumstances arising out of the War, is common to us all. In the-se circumstances, the Government are not going to ask the House to divide against this Motion, but I should not be dealing fairly with the House or with these pre-War pensioners if I did not add this: The House is fully aware of the difficulties of the times through which we are passing, difficulties far greater than any of those which existed in previous years. This House presses on the Government on all occasions the general principle of economy and of resisting increases in expenditure. But, when it comes to particular questions, on any particular demand, the House on all sides and on all occasions presses on the Government the importance of the expenditure. Therefore, I must make it perfectly clear that what I said about the Motion must not be regarded in any sense as a pledge to make provision in next year's Estimates to carry out the changes suggested.
Mr. MACPHERSON: Do the Government propose to take immediate action

1745
with regard to the means test? Almost every speaker dealt with the means test, which is a perfectly iniquitous thing. It is a means of cheating those men, who served the State in all sorts of capacities. Cannot the Government say now that they will abolish the means test straight away?
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid I cannot say that.
Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think the House can allow my hon. Friend to leave the question as it is. We have been told that the Government are perfectly—
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member has already made one speech.
Colonel GRETTON: I have had some experience, but I have never known an occasion when the House was placed in a position similar to this. The Government find themselves in a difficulty as to what to do with this Motion. They agreed to accept it, and yet, if I understand the hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Treasury, he told us that, although accepting the Motion, they do not mean to act upon it. We, who are pressing this situation on the Government, are left in the most equivocal and difficult position. The House of Commons is being put in an absurd position. Clearly, if the Government accept this Motion submitted to them by the House, it is their duty to set themselves to the task of fulfilling the command of the House. I press that consideration upon the Treasury Bench as a constitutional issue which cannot be resisted. The hon. Gentleman has not said what he will do. He may not be able to go the whole length of the speeches which have been made to them, but, at any rate, he might bestir himself to make an investigation as to how far the instructions of the House can be implemented by the Government. He has not even gone to that extent. The hon. Gentleman cannot leave the matter where It was left when he sat down.
We are not urging this as a matter of compassion, but of pure and simple justice. These pensions have been revised, but not on a liberal scale. They have been revised parsimoniously, and, after a long period of trial, it has been found that the shoe still pinches very badly and painfully in some of these cases. We are here to urge equity and
1746
justice in this matter. The hon. Gentleman and his Government are pressing on foreign Governments claims on behalf of British citizens on grounds very similar to those which we are now pressing on their consideration. The House of Commons is placing the Foreign Office in a very difficult position in making those claims and in urging justice for British investors if the House of Commons is not able to give justice to their fellow-citizens. I urge the Government to give more attention to what the acceptance of this Resolution involves, and to inform the House what steps they mean to take in order to implement the Motion.
Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: I have had the privilege of hearing the whole of the 15 speeches delivered in this debate, and I am surprised that, after the tone of all those speeches, every one of which supported this Motion, we should have had a speech from the Front Bench which answers none of the appeals which were made. There were three appeals made to the representative of the Treasury. The first was that there might be, at any rate, a re-examination of the facts; there was no response to that appeal. There was an appeal made that the inquisition, the lengthy list of questions which is submitted to these old men, should be clone away with; there was no response to that appeal, which was made from both sides of the House. There was a further appeal that the means limit, which does so much real injustice, especially to the very poorest recipients of these pensions, should be abolished; there was no response to that. As a new Member of the House of Commons, I do not think we ought to accept just the prepared reply of the Treasury on this matter. All the speeches that have been made are worthless and wasted if they made no impression whatever upon the Front Bench. Someone more cynical than myself in the House of Commons once told me that the best speeches ever made here were those you kept in your pocket and never delivered. It would have been to the advantage of this House and of the country if the speech prepared by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench had not been delivered to-day. Some kind of protest is needed from ordinary rank-and-file Members of the House of Commons against speeches of this kind, which arc apparently prepared for every contingency,

1747
being given to us after the appeals which have been made this afternoon.
The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) said that he hoped the heart of the Treasury would be softened. He was a very great optimist. I tried to recall during a speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Moses) some of the scriptural history about the appeals made by Moses to Pharaoh. My recollection is that on many occasions he made an appeal, and that every time Pharaoh hardened his heart. There have been 15 Moses who made an appeal this afternoon, and there has been a hardening of heart as a result of these appeals. I, therefore, suggest that the half loaf which was mentioned should, at any rate, be brought into the picture, that we should have some kind of hope and that, if the half loaf was given in 1924 in response to the keen feeling of the whole of this country on this matter, we are, at any rate, entitled to some crumb of comfort from the Front Bench after a discussion of this kind. It is not treating the Members of the House of Commons quite fairly that, after these appeals from every bench, after the consciousness that, if they went into the Lobby, the Government attitude would be defeated overwhelmingly, we have not got anything more than the mere historical account to which we have been treated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is not with any satisfaction that I make these remarks. I am not anxious to attack so good a friend and colleague as my hon. Friend who sits for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) but I am hound to say, having listened to every one of these speeches, that the House of Commons was entitled to a better response than we have received from the Treasury Bench this afternoon.
Sir BASIL PETO: I wish to support the view which has been put before the House by the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). I do not think that this matter can be left where it has been left by the Financial Secretary. I would remind the House that earlier in the afternoon the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) brought out a communication which had been sent by the Government to their supporters indicat-
1748
ing the attitude which they were going to take up in this matter and showing that they had made up their minds upon this question before hearing a word of this debate or knowing the views of Members of the House. It would have been bad enough had they stopped at that; but the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton showed us that their answer was going to be that, at the present cost of living, if they considered this proposal, it would mean a reduction in the case of those in receipt of the smallest pensions. I think that the House would know how to deal with that suggestion, but that is not the real answer which is now given from the Treasury Bench. We are now told that the Government accept the Motion, but that they are not going to implement the will of the House. They do not want the House to divide; therefore, they accept the Motion, but they are going to put it into the pigeon-holes and do nothing about it.
What is the use of telling us that although they have to get through a great deal of public business they are not going to take away the right of Private Members to move Motions of this kind. This debate has lasted since four o'clock until almost half-past seven o'clock. The House is unanimous as to what it wants the Government to do. The Government accept the Motion and then say that the question is to be shelved and nothing whatever is to be done about it. I suggest that such a procedure makes a farce of the proceedings of this House. It is opening up a fresh method of dealing with these questions. A Government may he defeated in the Lobby and bow to the will of the House on a non-party question such as this, but I have never heard of it being open to a Government to say that they accept the will of the House but that they are not going to implement it. I suggest that the matter cannot be left as it is and that the hon. Member for Devon port (Mr. HoreBelisha) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) ought to put it quite clearly to the Government that they mean either to divide the House or else to have the will of the House carried into effect. Let us have one thing or the other.
The Financial Secretary said the grievances of the pre-War pensioners

1749
were of two kinds. One was that other people rendering analogous and similar service to the State at a later date were given more adequate pensions, and the other was that the pound sterling did not now purchase what they had the right to expect it to purchase when these pensions were granted. The whole speech of the Financial Secretary was devoted to the second point. But the Motion does not mention the cost of living. What the Motion asks is that the pensions to which the Acts of 1920 and 1924 apply should he placed on a basis more closely commensurate with the scale of post-War pensions payable for similar service. Therefore, the speech of the Financial Secretary, in reply to all the speeches made earlier in the debate, did not deal with the Motion at all, but with a side-issue which he thought it was convenient to bring in, so as to divert us from the main issue. I do not know what course the Mover and Seconder of the Motion will take, but with all humility I suggest that, if they do not intend to allow the will of the House to be flouted by the Government, they will take the course of dividing.
Mr. MAXTON: I wish to add my voice to those who have already protested against the very inadequate answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Presumably, having sensed the will of the House, the Government have come to the conclusion that the House is unanimously in favour of some action being taken. They do not feel it necessary to have a Division on the subject and the Financial Secretary says in effect, "While agreeing that you are unanimous, yet we do not propose to take any notice of your unanimous opinion." A back-bench Member of this House is not a very important element at any time, but for the Government to take up an attitude of that description is to make us completely ridiculous and futile. I could have understood the hon. Gentleman saying, "We cannot promise to give full effect to the demand of the House." I could have understood him saying, "We cannot promise to give it immediate effect, but the Government will take the Resolution in the spirit in which the House is passing it and will proceed immediately to take the proper steps to give it the fullest possible effect." That would have been
1750
an adequate answer. It would have been an answer in keeping with the dignity of the House, but to say, as the Financial Secretary has said, practically in so many words, "You can pass any Resolution you like, but we shall take no notice of it whatever," is not the way in which this House should be treated, if it is still to continue to regard itself as a serious assembly. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible at this stage to move an Amendment to the Motion.
Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing in the Rules to prevent the hon. Member moving an Amendment.
Mr. MAXTON: I would prefer to have a satisfactory answer from the Financial Secretary, rather than proceed to that course.
Mr. SPEAKER: I must warn the hon. Member that if he moves an Amendment now there is hardly time left for a sufficient reply to be given to his Amendment. That is my trouble.
Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words:
"and, further, that action to carry this Resolution into effect be taken without any unnecessary delay."
As I say I would have preferred it, if the Financial Secretary had given an answer but, failing any indication of any intention on the hon. Gentleman's part to rise, I wish to move the Amendment.
Dr. BURGIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so formally in order that we may yet hear some reply from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite in order in moving this Amendment, but I must warn him that it is very likely to defeat the object that he has in view. I hardly think that there will be sufficient time for an answer to be given to the Amendment.
Mr. BENSON rose—
Sir B. FALLE: Would it not be posible to move the Closure?
Mr. SPEAKER: It rests with me whether I accept the Closure or not.
Mr. MAXTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That, in the opinion of this House, those pensions to which the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, apply should be placed upon a basis more closely commensurate with the scale of post-War pensions payable for similar service; and further, that pre-War pensioners should be freed from restrictions in regard to age and private means, which do not operate in the case of post-War pensioners and which have the effect of depriving them of the benefits of their past service and thrift."

WAGES AND TARIFFS.
Mr. MOND: I beg to move,
"That this House is of the opinion that the only means whereby the general reduction of wages in the immediate future can be avoided is the institution of a general-tariff system on foreign manufactured goods, in order to protect the Home market."
This Motion raises the question of the level of wages in relation to tariffs in this country. I have taken the opportunity afforded by my good fortune in the ballot to raise a discussion upon a question which seems to me to be more urgent and more vital than any other which confronts us at the moment. Although this is one of the topics which commonly arouse a great deal of animosity and controversy when debated in this House, I hope that we shall this evening discuss the subject free from some of the prejudices which usually attend such discussions and with the object, not so much of hurling epithets at each other, as of finding some solution of the problem which will be of benefit to those people who are likely to suffer should no solution be found. The problem is simply this. At present there is a tendency for a reduction of all commodity prices, a reduction of wholesale prices, a reduction in the cost of living and a very strong tendency towards a reduction of wages. There is no doubt that, organised as we are in this country, with our industrial system, any reduction of this kind will be strenuously opposed and will be carried, if carried at all, with great difficulty and in all probability after a considerable period of strife.
The trade union movement in England has built up a strong position in which it is able to resist downward movements of wages with great vigour and success, and, in times such as these, when there is a world tendency in that particular direction, we are liable to get grave in-
1752
dustrial trouble and domestic strife just when we can least afford it. It is within the memory of all of us that in the past decade there has been a great deal of industrial strife—we have happily not had so much of it in the last few years —and it has had in its own way a most damaging effect on the industry of the country. If you are in the habit of manufacturing a particular form of merchandise and exporting it, and if as a result of industrial trouble—strikes or lock-outs it does not much matter which —the supply of that merchandise is arrested, every purchaser abroad turns round to see where he can obtain a supply of the goods not now available from the source formerly open to him. He tries experiments and makes attempts, and if the stoppage is sufficiently prolonged, he probably finds some form of goods somewhere or other which are, if not quite what he had before, at least good enough to satisfy his wants, and, although you may cut your prices and find some other market, you will always find that a certain amount of that market is gone irretrievably, and that the men who made those goods for that market in the past are not required to work again. Their jobs are gone for good.
In the case of the coal trade, it was particularly noticeable. The great dispute of 1926 had some very curious reactions. The coal mines of Poland were, comparatively speaking, undeveloped before then, but during that prolonged stoppage not only did they get an opportunity to get into markets which had previously been held almost exclusively by British coal, but they got the capital necessary to develop and equip their mines, and they also had plenty of time in which to teach people that it was quite a good thing to use Polish coal, that it might not be quite as good as British coal, but that, at a price, it was good enough. People who would perhaps never have dreamed of making the change in other circumstances, did in fact make it. Some have never gone back, and none of them have been prepared altogether to sever the connection which they formed at that time, and which is an insurance to them against future troubles of this kind, over which they have no control at all and of which they may get very little warning.

1753
These dangers being present at a time when world trade is so bad, and our trade in particular is so bad, nothing would be more fatal than to see, as I said before, speaking in this House, a head-on crash between capital and labour to which all the signs and portents seem to lead us at the present time. Your markets would suffer irretrievably. British trade would suffer another blow, from which I am afraid it would probably never recover, and never wholly recover in any case; and surely it is our business here not to wait until the strife has begun, not to wait until loyalties have been formed and sides taken, until anybody who speaks with moderation is regarded as a traitor either to one side or the other, but now, before the strife commences, to attend to this matter carefully and, as far as we can with a judicial mind, to try to prevent the disaster which we see looming in front of us and to do those duties which we were sent here to do, namely, to carry out the government of the country in such a way that it suffers no damage and the people of this country are not prejudiced in their trade or their daily lives.
I do not think it can be argued that imminent reductions are not ahead of us. We have the case of foreign countries where reductions have been taking place, and, without wearying the House, there are one or two cases which I should like to put before them, so that it can be clearly understood what sort of tendency we are facing abroad. In Germany, as a result of an award made by the arbitration court, the present wage scale in the metal industry is to be reduced. A reduction of 5 per cent. will be applied in all grades until 18th January next year, and then a further reduction of 3 per cent. for workers under 18 and 5 per cent. for all other groups, and that is to last until 1st July, 1931. In the same industry salaries are to be reduced by 5 per cent. as from 1st April next, provided no agreement has by that time been come to in place of the existing agreement.
In the coal mining industry, the wages of all technical employés in the mining industry of West Germany have been reduced by 3 per cent. as from 1st October this year, and they are to be reduced by a further 3 per cent. on 1st January next. In France, the dockers
1754
of Dunkirk have accepted a reduction of wages in their daily rates from Fr. 43.50 to Fr. 42.50 from May this year. In Belgium, in the coal mining industry, the National Joint Commission for the Mining Industry has agreed on a reduction of 4 per cent. in the wages of miners in all districts of Belgium from 5th October of this year; and in the same country in the glass industry, after an examination of the position, the glass workers have agreed to accept a reduction of 5 per cent. in their wages. In Australia also certain reductions have taken place.
In the face of that, it cannot be denied that abroad reductions are slowly beginning, and it is exactly what one would expect in view of the tendency of world conditions. We have a report of a recent meeting of the Union of German Employers' Associations, where these questions were discussed, and they expressed a number of views, with which I will not weary the House except to give this quotation:
"The employers declared themselves opposed to the policy of short time, and in favour rather of reducing costs and ultimately increasing employment, by reductions in wages and in certain circumstances by extensions in working hours."
Those are not ideas which would find any favour with me. I do not think the Union of German Employers' Associations were right in the way in which they proposed to handle the matter, but I merely quote that as an example of what is going on. In his book on unemployment, Sir William Beveridge says:
"Post-war Britain presents two novel features—unexampled unemployment and a rise in real wages almost equally without precedent."
With this tendency going on around us, we have to look to the figures of this country to see where we stand, and the Ministry of Labour figures show that only too clearly. The cost of living index has fallen to 89, and the index of average weekly wages has fallen slightly from 100 to 98.25, but the index of real wages has gone up to 110.4. It is of no use denying that, if that tendency persists, we are bound to be faced with this question, and faced with it to a much greater degree than the figures which I have quoted indicate, because wholesale prices are very much lower than the cost of living index, and the cost of living index figure

1755
will come down materially from where it is now unless something happens to stop it.
When one deals with wages, one is faced by the even more difficult and more insoluble question of unemployment insurance relief. If you are going to reduce the payments made to men who are in work, what are you going to do about the payments made to men who are out of work? No one has less desire than I have to see either wages or salaries or doles cut down, but you will be forced inevitably, whatever Government may be on those benches, to take action in this matter, and whatever you may wish to do, whatever your hopes and desires may be, you will not be successful; you will be driven by relentless economic laws into adjusting these monetary conditions to a level which will enable this country to carry on.
There is an argument, which is usually raised in a discussion of this sort, about the distribution or the redistribution of wealth, and I should like to make one or two observations about that. This question of the redistribution of wealth is sometimes brought forward as an argument against any such tendency as I have just been describing towards a reduction. We have a great example of the redistribution of wealth in the world to-day, and the result of that amazing human experiment, carried out in Russia some years ago, when their wealth was in fact redistributed. As always in a case of this kind, force was necessary to obtain the redistribution, and a great deal of force was used, and a great deal of bloodshed and suffering ensued.
What has been the result? The people of Russia are a great deal worse off now than they were even when they started, and they started badly off enough. [HON. MEMBERS "Nonsense!"] That is indisputable. Anyone who knows the facts knows very well that the necessities of life are harder to come by in Russia than they have been probably for decades [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"]—in the history of that country, and in a great many cases they are not even to be obtained at any price at all. However, there is one thing that they have succeeded in doing. There are no wealthy people, there are no millionaires, in Russia. There are no rich men there,
1756
but the people have been reduced to a dead level of poverty, which is certainly unequalled among any other white race in the world. It comes down to the sort of basis of some of the coloured races and some of the less developed habitable parts of the globe.
As against that, we have another great country, with fewer people and a smaller territory, namely, the United States of America. There is no country in the world where there is a greater discrepancy in the matter of the possession of physical wealth than in the United States of America. There are men in that country who own as much as a thousand million dollars. There are enormously rich men, even after the Wall Street crash, in the United States. Nobody has made any attempt to redistribute wealth there, but the general standard of living of the people of America is higher than it is anywhere else in the world, and they have probably the highest standard of living that has been achieved by the human race at any time in its history for the general body of the people.
So, with those two great examples before us, I do not think it is of much use trying to adduce the redistribution of wealth as a means of solving this question, either now or in the future. It is, to put it at its very lowest, highly dangerous. It implies the use of force, bloodshed and disturbance of every kind that you can imagine, and I should not think that anyone who realises his responsibility would be prepared to get up and advocate that as a method of avoiding these reductions which we see staring us in the face.
The Motion which has been placed on the Paper falls naturally into two parts, the question of wages and the question of tariffs, and on the wages question I would like to say one or two things. First of all, wages in the United States are at 190 compared with wages at 100 in this country, and one of the reasons for that is that almost the biggest tariff that the United States has got is its labour tariff. The immigration restrictions in the United States maintain the price of labour in the labour market at a very high figure, and the Americans have for long refused to allow their country to be flooded by cheap labour, or by what you might now call, in the

1757
popular phrase, dumped labour, in order that they might regulate the standard of living of their people and maintain it at the level at which they wish to see it. Among all the other tariffs that the Americans use, their labour tariff is probably the most effective, because it amounts nearly to a prohibition, and only just so many are allowed to come in as to suit their particular need. As against that, we have in England stringent immigration restrictions, and the trade unions of this country have been very active at different times in seeing that they were carried out.
If we are to have Free Trade we shall be forced eventually back to the position, in a highly competitive world, of free trade in labour. If we are to have a Free Trade system with free trade in labour, with all the dumped Russian wheat that we can get, and all the cheapest raw materials and commodities wherever we can buy them and do every single thing we can to reduce the cost of manufacture, that is a feasible scheme, and one that we can work to quite well. We should inevitably be driven to a reduction of the social services at the same time, for we should not be able to keep them where they are, and certainly not increase them. We should go back to the old system that existed when Mr. Bright so vehemently, so eloquently and so powerfully defended the cause of Free Trade in this House, and with equal vehemence, eloquence and power resisted Lord Shaftesbury's Factory Act because it interfered with the working of the factories. The British manufacturers would be able to get their costs down lower perhaps than any other costs in the world, but, when they had done that, the country would be no better off. The working man would be certainly very much worse off, and the manufacturers would be no better off because they would have no exports. They would not be able to sell these very cheap goods, because they would be debarred from entering most of the countries to which we want to send our goods. They are now excluded by a series of tariff barriers from entering very cheap goods into any of the old export markets that we used to enjoy.
When the great Free Trade movement was started, it was a change in our fiscal
1758
system. It imposed considerable hardships to begin with on the working-class population, but the theory of the men who were working at it was a simple one. It was, "If we pursue this course, we shall become the dominant manufacturing country in the world, and in the long run people will be very much better off." That has proved true. We have become the dominant manufacturing country of the world, and the working classes are very much better off than they were. Has not the time come when another adaptation will have to be made, when we are faced with very different conditions and when those markets which were then open to us have been closed? Rave we not arrived at a point when we have made the British manufacturer the orphan of the storm? He can sit down at any conference table in Europe, and he will be faced by a German, an Italian, a Pole and a Frenchman, and they will say, "Yes, we have our own home markets; but there is the rest of the world, and we will talk about that." The British manufacturer has no home market; it is a free market for everybody. There are 60,000,000 people in Germany, which is a free market for the German manufacturers. There are 48,000,000 in this country, which means a free market of 108,000,000 people for the German manufacturer. What free market has the British manufacturer? He has no free market. We are handicapping him in a way which is abundantly proved by all the figures. Our export trade is going down continuously, and we shall never be able to get it right unless we have some weapon to use in bargaining with the other tariff countries.
The other side of the tariff question is that, if we at this stage bring in a general tariff, we will arrest the downward movement of domestic prices in this country and make unnecessary the wage changes which I have forecast. The whole of our troubles and difficulties will be at an end. There will be no strike in front of us, but there will be prosperity. There will be no clash between capital and labour, but there will be co-operation. We shall find that in our reserved home market manufacturers will be able to reduce their cost very considerably for the export market; they will be able to meet all the competition that arises, and at the same time they will have a

1759
weapon to use in dealing with foreign manufacturers when it comes to discussing the trade of the rest of the world.
There is yet another advantage in preserving the home market. We do not need any gold for our domestic trade. The foreign trade has always to have gold behind it at some stage. It uses gold very freely, but our domestic trade requires no gold backing. Therefore, the amount of gold available in this country, if we increase our domestic in proportion to our export trade, will be greater, and we shall get a very mild and sound gold inflation. That is another factor that will lead to a recovery of trade In this country and a return to prosperity. In arguments against tariffs, we are frequently asked what safeguards we have that British industry will be efficient, or that the workers will get higher wages or as good wages. People complain that British industry is inefficient. So it is. So is everything else in this world. I do not know one efficient thing. Is this House efficient? Are politics efficient? What is efficiency? If British industry is not efficient now, who is going to make it efficient?
Mr. MESSER: Socialism!
Mr. MOND: That is just the answer I wanted to get. I suppose that under Socialism the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour will take over the organisation and management of Unilevers, that great and complicated organisation which requires so much study and training to understand. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War might be chairman of Dorman Longs, and I have no doubt that he would be a great success. Then we might put the Secretary of State for the Dominions in charge of the Bank of England. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) might manage Bass' Brewery, and we should undoubtedly have a great increase in efficiency. I have no doubt, if you take the case of Unilevers, where you have a combination with another firm which is a foreign firm, they would be delighted to welcome someone else, someone from those benches to join those who are managing the business in working this great world-wide concern. I do not think that we could seriously contemplate this as a method of finding a way out of our
1760
difficulties, or avoiding those reductions which we have looked at with such disfavour. I cannot see where all the wisdom and experience is to come from that will so overwhelm the rest of the commercial world, that England will stand high as a manufacturing country, if right hon. Gentlemen opposite come to manage our affairs and teach us how to run our businesses. That may go very well at some meetings, but I doubt that it would go well at many meetings nowadays; it cannot be seriously produced in this House as an argument in favour of Socialism.
On the contrary, efficiency is very much inclined in this world to follow profit, and where an industry is making money, people are very anxious to get in, particularly the clever ones. That is a very good thing for industry and makes it better managed. You do not find men driving ahead to get into coal or iron and steel to-day, because these are businesses which are very hard and difficult to manage, and in which little profit is to be made even after great effort. Under a tariff imposition, a great deal more ability will be concentrated on these industries than in the past. We shall also find that where there is a demand for labour wages will tend to rise. That is the safeguard we shall get under a system of tariffs. We are not faced with the question of high or low wages in this matter; we have to realise that it is a question whether we have a general tariff and wages or Free Trade and doles. These are the alternatives. We have 2,500,000 people on the dole now, and we are likely to have 3,000,000 before the winter is finished. What are we going to do? Arc we going to sit still and do nothing? Are we not prepared to make any change in order to try and do something for these people and put them again in the factories? Are we going to pay people to do nothing instead of giving them a chance to earn decent money? That is an impossible contention, and one that the country will never stand for.
If we try and hold up the national development of this great manufacturing country, which is responsible for 48,000,000 people, because of any of these outworn theories, we shall fail miserably and the whole land will rise against us. I hope that we shall be able by means of reorganisation to produce greater pros-

1761
perity in this country than it has ever seen before. We shall have to regulate our domestic industry by means of tariffs just as world industry will eventually be regulated. There has been a little rationalisation of industry in England, but the great problem that faces the human race at the present moment is not only rationalisation of domestic industry, but international rationalisation. Nobody understands how to work the industrial machine; it is not old enough, and it has not been in existence long enough. Nobody has found how to do it. It goes by jerks and fits and starts. People suffer very much under the process, and the people who suffer under it most in every country are the working classes. The more it is controlled and regulated by such systems as general tariff systems that preserve markets, the less dislocation of labour there will be.
8.0 p.m.
I know that hon. Members opposite will say that the regulation we want is not regulation by tariffs, but regulation by Socialism. I think, however, that the remarks I made on that point are a complete answer to that. We should do very much better, instead of adopting a Socialist policy, to adopt a policy of Imperial insulation, and to build up the self-contained unit of the whole Empire which will be to some extent insulated from the shocks which occur when the machine that we do not know how to work very well stops and starts rather suddenly. With the greatest raw material wealth in the world, with the greatest population and the greatest territories, we have an opportunity to build up a civilisation which is unequalled in world history; but we shall never do it as long as we stick to outworn theories and creeds, and as long as we have sitting inert and inactive before us this somnolent, this seedy this deplorable administration, which is not prepared to raise a finger to solve the difficulties of the country, which is not prepared to do anything to assist the unemployed, but which, sitting on the Treasury Bench, is rapidly becoming the curse of this country.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I beg to second the Motion.
I do so with the greatest pleasure. I will not attempt to go over the ground
1762
which my hon. Friend has covered so well, hut I wish to put to hon. Members opposite one or two arguments with regard to the world situation in which we find ourselves at this moment. I do not suppose that any bon. Member opposite will deny that the general world situation does differ fundamentally from that which prevailed before the War. Before the War production all over the world was, on the whole, inadequate, particularly the production of manufactured goods, to meet world demand. To-day there is a glut in almost every class of commodities, certainly in a very large number of manufactured commodities. In other words, production has outrun world demand, and we are in a glut period, and that does make a difference; but we are carrying on in this country as if it made no difference, as if there had been no fundamental change. Hon. Members opposite will not deny, also, that modern methods of mass production have made it very much easier for what we call sweated labour, in other words Oriental labour, to compete with our own; that is, sweated labour working for wages which our own trade unions, quite rightly, will not contemplate for a moment. We cannot get away from that fact. That is happening in Japan at the present time, it is happening to an increasing extent in India, and it will happen in China and in Russia. Modern methods of mass production make it possible for Oriental labour to work machines in the same way that our skilled labour can work them, no better, but no worse, and Oriental labour will work for warms such as our men cannot live upon. What can we do? We cannot get away from the position. It is a fact staring us in the face.
The third point is that in the modern world the very foreign countries to which we used to send our manufactured goods in pre-War days, the markets in which we commanded a virtual monopoly, are to-day manufacturing those goods for themselves under the protection of very high tariff walls. This situation is further aggravated by the international monetary situation, the international debt situation. We still have interest due to us from our pre-War investments in foreign countries all over the world, and how can they pay that interest, how

1763
can the defeated countries, from an international debt point of view, pay the money they owe to us—how can Germany pay the reparations she owes to us— unless they have a favourable trade balance It cannot be done. In order to pay the interest on the private foreign investments we hold and to pay these reparations, which I think are fantastic, and for which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made so noble and so Socialist a stand at The Hague, for which he was prepared to jeopardise the peace of Europe in order to get another couple of millions out of Germany. [Interruption.] Fine socialist principles those were! How is Germany to pay? By goods. Money is worth nothing unless it is backed by goods. The Chancellor was prepared to insult the Finance Minister of France and to jeopardise the peace of Europe simply in order to get another £2,000,000 worth of goods from Germany dumped into our markets. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your party applauded him!"] The Chancellor was rapturously cheered for his performance at The Hague by hon. Members of his own party.
Mr. TINKER: And he was cheered on your side, too.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I am merely pointing out that all this is not very helpful at the present time. This is another aggravation of the international situation, and makes it all the more necessary for European countries in particular and, indeed, for all foreign countries, to secure a favourable balance of trade. In order to do that they must cut down their imports from us and increase, at almost any cost, their exports, and that is exactly what they are doing. They are going to enormous length to do it. They are subsidising their exports to a great extent. I am not talking merely about definite and open subsidies, as in the case of the subsidised oats or barley which have been coming from Germany and smashing our markets in the agricultural districts. I am talking more or less about concealed subsidies to the export trade of Europe with this country in a vast number of commodities. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Norton (Major Thomas), in a speech this day last week, gave some very
1764
interesting figures about the steel trade. He pointed out that whereas the price of sheet bars in the home market in Belgium was £4, and in the home market in France £5, they were exported to this country for £3 9s., and that the price of sheet bars from Belgium or France was 13s. 6d. in South Wales at the present time, as against our own price of £4 17s. 6d. He went on to give figures about joists which are even more remark- able. They are coming into this country at £4 17s. 6d., whereas it cost us £8 2s. 6d. to produce them. Nobody on the other side can say that our iron and steel industry is as inefficient as all that. The difference in price is not due to our inefficiency. It is due to different standards, due to higher wages in this country, and, above all, it is due to the fact that foreign countries have definitely made up their minds to smash as many of our home industries as they possibly can by subsidising in one form or another their export trade in manufactured goods. We shall be faced with that competition, and an intensified competition from Oriental countries, where the workers accept conditions and wage standards which we should not tolerate. The competition is coming from Russia, also, to an ever increasing extent.
That is the vista before us. What are hon. Members opposite going to do? Something has got to be done. We no longer have a virtual monopoly in world markets for our manufactured goods. For the last 10 years we have gone on anæsthetising ourselves, deliberately blinding ourselves to the facts of the world situation: pretending that it is only a question of time before something will happen to enable us to recapture our old position of world monopoly. But that is not going to happen of itself. We shall not automatically get back to the old position. All the forces and all the facts are against us, and in the face of this situation, which to my mind is one of growing menace, what do we do? We leave our home market absolutely defenceless before the foreigner, who is free to dump here without let or hindrance his subsidised goods and his goods produced under conditions which we will never accept; and at the same time we deny our manufacturers the only weapon with which to fight our way back into

1765
the export markets. Unless we can use the weapon of protection in some form or another in order to bargain with foreign countries, we will never get a lowering of the tariff walls they have raised against us. I should have thought that the excursions of the President of the Board of Trade to Geneva, which have been barren, futile and sterile, would have proved that even to hon. Members opposite. On the top of all this our manufacturers have had to contend with a continuous and steady fall in the world level of commodity prices.
An unemployment figure of 2,500,000 is not really very surprising under these Circumstances. I cannot understand why so many people in this country and so many hon. Members opposite keep scratching their heads and saying, "It is a most, extraordinary thing, this world blizzard, and the fact that our unemployment figures keep rising. How unfortunate it is that the Government should be faced with this world blizzard." It is perfectly obvious why we have 2,500,000 unemployed, and why we shall have an unemployment figure of more than 3,000,000 before the winter is out. The facts are there, and the conclusions can he drawn from them. It is nonsense to talk about a world blizzard when we have such facts staring us in the face. The causes are there; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not apply the remedy. I hope hon. Members opposite will he gingered up to-night to bring some pressure to bear upon the right hon. Gentleman.
What have hon. Members opposite imposed upon British industry? [Interruption.] I agree that we on this side of the House have joined in the process. We have imposed upon British industry charges for social services infinitely higher than the charges in existence in any other industrial country. Nobody will deny that. At the same time, the trade union movement in this country has demanded, and on the whole has succeeded in its demand, that wages shall be kept at a very much higher level all over, and particularly in the sheltered industries, than the wages in any competitive country. That is the position. I do not like to quote statistics, but facts emerge from the situation, which, I think, are significant and which ought to be considered by the House.
1766
The first fact is that of our imports of wholly manufactured goods 90 per cent. are not from the Empire but from foreign countries, and they have been steadily and remorselessly rising during the last six years. Every year we import more. The second fact, which was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in an interesting speech he made the other day, is that although the total export trade of the world has increased during the last few years our share of it has steadily decreased, in relation to pre-War days.
Those are two factors which ought to be seriously considered by the House. We hear a lot about rationalisation and I believe it to be essential, but I feel it to be impossible without some form of Protection. There are two aspects of rationalisation, and I wish hon. Members opposite would study with some care the observations of one of the very greatest industrial politicians of the post-War era, Herr Rathenau, who probably knows more about this subject, and has more interesting things to say on it, than any contemporary European statesman. He divided rationalisation into two parts, the first relating to the reorganisation of industry within a country, and the second to the international aspect of rationalisation. He laid it down that adequate supplies of fresh capital were necessary to carry out a policy of reconstruction and reorganisation. Certainly, we are not so badly off in this country as foreign countries are so far as the rationalisation movement is concerned, but there is not the slightest doubt that we should be a great deal better off if there was more confidence in the future of British industry.
That is one of the reasons why British industry fails to attract the capital which is necessary to place it in a better position. That is one of the fundamental difficulties of the present situation. What have the Government done to meet this position and to restore our industry? All that they have done is to pile up our taxation and spend large sums of money on what, after all, are purely unproductive purposes. Everything that has been done by the Government has tended to discourage British industry. If you consult business men either in the City or any other part of

1767
the country, you will hear the same story, and they will tell you that there is no confidence in the future of British industry, and that capital has ceased to flow into British industries as a consequence. What have the Soviet Government done to meet the industrial situation? They have done nothing but cry out for more capital. Capital is the petrol that makes the wheels of industry move. If you cut the petrol pipe of a motor car it stops at once. The present Government are choking the pipe which feeds British industry with capital and are then surprised when the wheels begin to slow down. One of the necessary things required to restore confidence in this country is a good sound substantial measure of Protection, and nothing else will do it.
Mr. PYBUS: Can the hon. Member say why, if the petrol pipe is cut in America and Germany, the unemployment figures are rising there every day, and those are the countries which have the highest protective tariffs of any countries in the world?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): hope hon. Members on both sides are not going to induce the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) to enter into elaborate arguments because if he does the result will be that other hon. Members will want to answer them.
Mr. BOOTHBY: I will not pursue that argument any further. I do not believe that either Germany or America is in a healthier condition, from an industrial point of view, than we are; at any rate the standard of wages in Germany is very much lower. I would like to ask if the Government are satisfied with the standard of wages in this country? If hon. Members opposite are satisfied, I am not. So far as the international aspect of rationalisation is concerned, surely it is an argument which ought to appeal to hon. Members opposite, because, when it is boiled down, it means that if you have a limited demand, narrowing markets, and intense international competition, you must have some form of conscious control of production. That is a doctrine which Rathenau preached to his dying day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I
1768
am pleased that hon. Members opposite agree with that argument but you cannot have conscious control of production without conscious control of imports. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] There seems to be so much agreement with my argument and I seem to have converted so many hon. Members opposite that it looks as if the two dismal occupants of the Treasury Bench will be alone in one Lobby and we shall all be found in the other Lobby. Wages are controlled in this country by one of the most efficient systems of trade unions in the world, and we impose a higher standard of social services and a higher standard of life than any other country in the world. Notwithstanding these facts, we still refuse to control production and import. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did your party do?"] When the Conservative party were in office, they did something in this direction, and, when we come into office three or four months hence, we shall do more. There is on the Amendment Paper one of the silliest Amendments that I have ever seen.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I may inform the hon. Member that Mr. Speaker has not selected that Amendment.
Mr. BOOTHBY: The Amendment on the Paper suggests that we should
"utilise the machinery of the League of Nations for the lowering and eventual abolition of the tariff walls of other countries."
The President of the Board of Trade has been to Geneva several times trying to establish a tariff truce, and what has he brought back? Absolutely nothing at all. When the right hon. Gentleman made his speech on the Address, we thought he had something important to say, but he was not able to inform the House that he had secured a single reduction of any tariffs. The right hon. Gentleman begged other countries to reduce their tariffs, but they all told him to go away. I am arguing in favour of the adoption of Protection for our home market. I want us to adopt a national policy instead of a policy of economic internationalism which when tried before has always landed us into a pretty mess.
The Amendment on the Paper urges the adoption of international standards of labour through the International Labour Organisation. What does that mean? Are you going to get foreign countries

1769
to pay the same wages as those which obtain in this country, and are you going to get them to observe the same conditions of labour? Do you think there is any chance of getting foreign manufacturers to pay the same wages as those which are paid to-day in the iron and steel industry? The short answer is that they will not do it, and they have told us so every time that we have asked them. Hon. Members opposite say, "Let us persuade the Poles and the Belgians to adopt the same standards of wages and conditions as we have in operation in this country." Those countries have been asked to do this, and they have refused, and I do not believe that you will ever get them to adopt those conditions.
The Government will have to do something in this matter before very long. The home market is about the only asset which is left to us, and I think we ought to use that market for the benefit of our own people instead of allowing it to be used for the benefit of every other country in the world. There are only two alternatives confronting the Government. One is a complete policy of laissez faire and the other is a policy of protecting the home markets. If you are going to adopt the first you will inevitably reduce the standard of living, you will reduce the social services and wages, and, more particularly, the wages in the sheltered industries. If we adopt the system of laissez faire, the workers will be faced by the employers with a general demand for a reduction of wages in the course of next year.
Mr. KELLY: How do you know that?
Mr. BOOTHBY: Wait and see, or rather, you will not have to see, because you will not be there. If that arises, and if these wage reductions are demanded by employers, as they assuredly will be if we go on on the present system, the result will be either a general lowering of the standard of living and a general lowering of wages, which nobody opposite wants, or a series of wage struggles conducted to no purpose up and down the country, which can only do illimitable harm to our industrial system. It is an essential condition of Free Trade in the modern world that you should compete on equal terms. You cannot, under a Free Trade system, impose social charges
1770
and wages upon an industry which make it wholly unable to compete with foreign industries in the markets of the world. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite going as far as that? If so, they abandon the only weapon that they have with which to fight these tariff walls which are being erected against us, and of which they complain so much, and they will have to submit to a wholesale reduction in the standard of life of the workers of this country. Is that in accordance with the trade union tradition? Is it in accordance with trade union practice? Is it Socialism? If such a policy of laissez faire is Socialism, it is a funny kind of Socialism. Or is it merely the application of an obsolete and outworn economic doctrine which fitted the conditions of 50 or 60 years ago, but which has no meaning at all in the modern world?
We hear from the opposite side of the House the theory and argument that tariffs in fact reduce wages. That is humbug and hypocrisy, especially coming from hon. Members opposite. I ask them, what about the Coal Mines Act? The avowed object of that Act was, firstly, to control and limit production, and, secondly, to raise the price of domestic coal to consumers in this country in order to subsidise the export coal trade.
Dr. MORGAN: That is the object of every combination. Every cartel does that.
Mr. BOOTHBY: In principle, I think that the Coal Mines Act was desirable, but do not go on with this canting hypocrisy about reducing wages by raising prices when you pass an Act for the deliberate protection of one of the basic commodities of this country in order to raise prices to the home consumer. According to the argument of hon. Members opposite, that Act was designed simply to lower wages; they cannot get away from it. I sit for an agricultural constituency. My agricultural workers are being charged more at the present moment for their coal, and, I think, rightly so; I think that they ought to share in bearing the burden of a revival of general national prosperity in the coal trade; but let us not use that argument of a tariff reducing wages. In any case it seems to me to be infinitely better that you should, by a system of Protection, at least maintain prices as

1771
against the consumer, than that you should accept the alternative, which is a definite and open reduction of existing wage standards. You cannot get away from that proposition so far as tariffs are concerned.
We on this side propose the method of Protection, because we believe it to be the most effective and efficient, and also the most lucrative in bringing in money, and we want money in this country in order to maintain our social services. I, for one, and many of my hon. Friends on this side, would not be at all averse to seeing put into operation methods, which could easily be devised for imposing on those industries which receive the benefit of Protection a certain standard of efficiency. It could easily be done. It would be possible, in conjunction with a tariff, to license the import of any particular article or commodity which was not being efficiently and cheaply manufactured in this country; there is no difficulty at all about it.
I would only say that, under present conditions in the world, we must have some form of Protection if our present standard of life and our present wage standards are to be maintained. The Government have nothing. This is probably the most inept and futile administration that was ever known in any country or in any age. It has absolutely nothing on any economic question—neither Socialism nor tariffs nor anything else. The Government just sit there helpless and futile, without a suggestion of any sort or kind. [Interruption.] What have they done? What practical proposition to deal with our economic problem has the present Government ever put forward. Absolutely none. There is no need at this stage to argue about the ineptitude of the present Government; no one in any quarter of the House disagrees in regard to that. Signs are not wanting, however, that, for the first time since 1918, our people are prepared to face up to the realities of the situation, and to fling this Government out at the very first opportunity.
Mr. JAMES HUDSON: The Resolution to which we are asked to agree to-night raises two principal issues, namely, tariffs and wages. In the first
1772
place, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond) on the charming simplicity with which he revealed to us the real purpose of the Resolution. The Resolution on the Paper asks the House to declare that the only means whereby a general reduction of wages can be avoided is by doing certain things. The hon. Member immediately went on to prove the necessity of avoiding what he called a head-on crash between Labour and Capital, and he showed that by that he meant that monetary conditions in this country caused such wage levels that an adjustment of wages must be made in order to enable the country to carry on. Lest we should be in any doubt about what this adjustment of wages should be—and I would especially ask the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) to observe this; I have no doubt that he did observe it, and that that is probably why he threw so much dust about in the speech which he has just delivered— the hon. Member for East Toxteth stated that in Belgium at the present time a reduction of wages is being proposed for miners and glass workers. That, by the way, is in a Protectionist country. In Germany, also, another Protectionist country, wage reductions and salary reductions are being put into effect, the hon. Member was careful to tell us, in the metal trades. In France, another Protectionist county, and in Australia, which is also Protectionist, reductions of wages are being proposed for other important bodies of workers; while, turning to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, in Poland and Belgium there are conditions of w ages which, in spite of Protection, will remain. The hon. Member says that the Poles and the Belgians will certainly keep to the lower levels of wages which are such a danger to this and other countries which are concerned.
Then the hon. Member for East Toxteth went on to say that the index of real wages in this country is now about 110.4 —from his point of view a very alarming situation, though from our point of view I am very glad that it is 110.4 instead of 100. The hon. Member suggests that it is going to get worse from his point of view—from my point of view better— because, he says, the cost of living will still continue to come down. Therefore,

1773
he says, something must be done, not, as the Resolution says, to avoid a reduction of wages, but something must be done in order to make effective the change whereby this head-on crash between Labour and Capital may be avoided.
I doubt whether I have ever heard so frank a confession of the aim of the Tory party as was contained in the speech of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. I want to say, to Tory journalists like Mr. Garvin and others who doubted the bona fides of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, in a speech in Manchester, he stated frankly that that was the aim of the Tory party —I want to say to Mr. Garvin and to others who assumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was casting unfair aspersions against the motives of the Conservative party, that we have had a very frank expression of opinion and confession from the Tory party itself as to what at the present moment it is intending to do. The Motion, it is true, says that we ought to have the institution of a general tariff system. It is not very clearly defined what that means, but I suppose we may adopt the point of view of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that the policy of the Tory party changes from day to day, and that a, general tariff system may mean a tax upon manufactured commodities, a tax upon half manufactured commodities, and indeed, as most of the raw materials that come into the country have some element of manufacture in them, a tax on raw materials as well, and very likely on food, too. In modern days, with the development of tinned foods, the element of manufacture becomes more prominent in the food that comes into the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] We have it, then, that the Tory party is drifting rapidly to a tax upon practically every kind of article that comes into the country.
Having got clearly from the hon. Member for East Toxteth what is the aim, may I make a reply to one or two points raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire. (Mr. Boothby). He seemed to think that there are some extremely special circumstances in our conditions in these days which have never existed before, and which require in a way the introduction of a tariff, which in former days could never have been justified. He
1774
forgets that, in the past-, statesmen and politicians who belonged to that party were always discovering these very special circumstances. I will read a passage from a very famous speech delivered at Blackpool by Lord Randolph Churchill in 1884. I am sure the hon. Member will recognise the language used in that speech as having been imitated in another very distinguished quarter. This is what Lord Randolph Churchill said:
"Your cotton trade is seriously sick. We are suffering from a depression of trade extending as far back as 1874–10 years of depression. The most hopeful can discover no signs of revival. Foreign cotton is pouring into the country flooding you, drowning you, sinking you, swamping you. Your labour market is congested. Wages have sunk below the level of the land. The misery of our large towns is too frightful to contemplate."
When Lord Randolph Churchill used those words, he confronted a condition in which a great slump existed, and at that time there started again a very serious propaganda in favour of Protection. The slump came to an end, and, when it was over, there occurred a very considerable advance in natural prosperity. It was the same in 1903 with regard to the predictions of Joseph Chamberlain, who again said something very similar to what Lord Randolph Churchill had said, and yet, following upon 1903, up to the period of the War, there was a very real revival after the period of slump that followed the South African war. The hon. Member is making an altogether fanciful case when he says that, because of the particularly bad situation in which we now find ourselves, we can never expect anything better by pursuing the policy that we have pursued. My view of the situation is this: We have in the world to-day a sufficient number of countries that have tried in its various forms the policy that hon. Members opposite ask us to try to enable us to judge of the value of the effects obtained, especially the effect upon wages, which is the particular subject under discussion.
Mr. MOND: How many have tried ours?
Mr. HUDSON: I thought the hon. Member who moved the Motion would have made some sort of reply to the remarkable challenge that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who, last

1775
March, reminded members of the party opposite what was the real relation of tariffs in Europe to wages systems in Europe. He took for his guidance, as we can all take for our guidance, the report of the League of Nations. I agree that we must be a little careful in what we say about wage levels and different conditions in European countries. As the Balfour Committee pointed out, there are so many different causes affecting wages that it may be difficult to compare absolutely the wage levels that exist in various countries, but, after allowing as much as is possible to allow, the International Labour Office authorities have come to the view that the three countries in Europe whose wage levels are the best and highest are Great Britain, Holland and Denmark. Those three countries, if I may answer the question the hon. Member put to me, come nearer to the Free Trade system and to the system that hon. Members opposite are asking us to adopt. Italy, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Spain have the highest tariff barriers and the lowest level of real wages, while France and Germany make a sort of intermediate class with regard to wages, with barriers not so high as the others, but at least high enough to give a very real hindrance to trade. At least from the point of view of what is obtaining in Europe, where Protection has been tried, there is no case whatever for attempting to help the wage level of our workers by imposing a Protectionist system.
I agree that you may have something to say about countries like America, where, it is true, the wage system is a good deal higher than ours, but let us not forget about America, that 90 per cent. of her trade is done within her own boundaries and is done, therefore, by a Free Trade system. There are no barriers between the States of America. You have in the United States what some of us think ought to be in existence in Europe. One of the real factors that is assisting Americans to get a better wage level for their workers is the ease with which they have been able to adapt themselves by their Free Trade inter-State system, to all the changing situations of the time. If there really was anything in the hon. Member's contention that, for the purpose of protecting wages and reaching a higher wage level, you need
1776
tariffs, the Americans ought to be arguing that, in order to keep up the wage level of the cotton workers in the New England States, there should be imposed a tariff to keep out the production of the sweated workers in the Southern States.
The same thing applies to Australia where, it is true, for the moment there is a higher wage level, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the specially constituted Tariff Board of Australia, which advises the Government year by year upon tariff conditions, warned the Government as far back as 1926 that they could not expect to keep the wage levels that they were trying to keep in Australia by the continuance of the tariff policy which was then in being. By 1927, the Tariff Board of Australia pointed out that the situation bad become extremely critical and that unless some new policy were devised it would not be possible to meet the situation which faced them. In fact, the board went on to say that the Protectionist system in those circumstances could be made a convenient shelter for obsolete plant and obsolete methods. Wherever you go, even taking the most favourable instances which hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to take, the whole case for improving the wage condition of our workers by interfering with our fiscal system is destroyed, at any rate, by such examples to which they are able to turn.
The real struggle in which we are engaged to-day is a struggle which was instituted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Finance Bill. We are engaged in trying to shift from the shoulders of the workers burdens which in the past they have borne far too much, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing their best to protect the shoulders of their own friends from the burdens which ought to be borne by them. Ever since the Finance Bill attempts have been made by general tariff proposals, by proposals to raise revenue upon tariffs and so on, to throw back on to commodities the processes of taxation by which ultimately the workers would be made to pay. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at Manchester—and his claim cannot be contested—that if the proposal to place a general tariff upon manufactured commodities coming into

1777
this country is carried out it will be as good as a raid of £150,000,000 upon the purses of the working class. As a matter of fact, in 1927 the Colwyn Committee said that the low-paid workers of this country, those who get 12 or less, have taken from their wages each year between 11 and 12 per cent. of their total income. Those with incomes of £500 a year, or who have an income of £10 per week, pay 6 per cent, of their wages in direct and indirect taxation, and it is only when you get up to the man with an income of 11,000 a year that that man pays at the same rate of percentage of his income as the poor man with a wage of £2 a week. It has been our object to shift the burden from the poorly-paid worker on to the shoulders of those who arc best able to bear it, and it is the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite to thug that burden back again. Here we have the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Toxteth telling us frankly that in order to stop a head-on crash between capital and labour we must devise a scheme whereby we can fleece the working class of their wages by the addition of a tax upon the goods which they must buy. Anyway, we have seen through it, and I believe that the people of this country will see through it. I shall be glad of the opportunity, which hon. Members say promises to come soon, when we may test the opinion of the country on this very question.
Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) has effectively answered the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion. I was a little mystified as to the position of the hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond). I always listen to him with considerable interest and instruction. I gather that he says that the present condition is one very largely of glut from which the whole world is suffering. Of course, there is a glut. While there is a glut of wheat in Canada, 2,000,000 people have died of starvation in China. There is a glut of manufactured articles throughout the whole world, and, if I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, he envisages this glut as being drawn almost inevitably to this country by reason of reparations or of interest on foreign investments. If it does not come in the shape of reparations or interest on investments, obviously it
1778
comes in payment for services which we are rendering. I should like to know at some time from the hon. Gentleman or from one of his party whether they, at any rate, object to manufactured imports coming into this country in payment of interest on our foreign investments. [Interruption.] He does. Well, I want to know why it is that his party is so anxious for the recognition by the Soviet Government of the Russian bonds. Recognition is no use to us unless interest is paid on the bonds, and interest can only be paid on the bonds by a further influx of this glut of manufactured articles into this country.
Mr. BOOTHBYThere is a great difference between recognition of the Russian bonds and trade.
Mr. OLIVER: Am I to understand that the hon. Member's enthusiastic friends, when they put questions in this House, are not asking for payment of interest by Russia but simply for a theoretical recognition? I do not understand the tremendous enthusiasm which they show in the questions which they ask. All these things seem rather to be beside the point in considering this Motion, which is very broadly worded indeed. It is a Motion for which no one in this House can properly vote, because it lays down the astounding proposition that the only means whereby a general reduction of wages can be avoided is by a general tariff. It is obvious that there are other means, rationalisation being no of them, in which we can hope to effect better trade and higher wages. I am willing, as a Free Trader, to admit that you can take a specific industry and by protecting that specific industry you can give higher wages and get better prices. But it is au utter and complete fallacy to generalise and to make the general statements which are made in this Motion.
It is important, especially as the Motion is worded in its present form, that we should stress the fact that more than half of the insured workers in this country arc not in any way subject to foreign competition, and therefore cannot be benefited or harmed by a tariff so far as normal money wages are concerned. How is the suggestion of a tariff going to assist the wages of the coal miner or of those engaged in other forms of mining and quarrying? How is it going

1779
to assist the wages of those in Crewe and elsewhere who are engaged in the manufacture of our railway carriages and railway engines? How is it going to assist those engaged in shipbuilding where we have no foreign competition to face? How is it going to help those engaged in printing, publishing and book-binding? How is it going to assist those engaged in the building trade, and in public works construction? How is it going to help any of those engaged in our public utility services of gas, electricity and water? How is it going to help those engaged in internal transport, in distribution, those employed in commerce and banking, insurance and finance, the employés of national and local government, those employed in the professions, those who keep us amused by entertainment or sport, those' who keep us well fed in restaurants and hotels, and those who are engaged in doing our laundry work? Those are only a few but, according to the latest figures of the "Labour Gazette" for October, they account for 6,625,000 of the insured population out of a total insured population at that date of 12,094,000. Therefore, 55 per cent. of the total insured population arc not subject to foreign competition and their cash wages cannot be affected one way or the other. These are what are called the sheltered industries. As we are discussing wages, it is important to point out that the sheltered industries have suffered very much. If we take only the three principal trades, mining, building and transport, we find that in the years 1928–20 more than 1,230,000 of these workers suffered a diminution in their wages and in 1930 we find nearly 500,000 of these people unemployed. That does not seem to show or to prove that diminution in wages necessarily leads to good employment. So much for the sheltered trades.
I, coming from Lancashire, want to know how this policy is going to help us in the cotton textile trade. There are 554,000 insured persons in that industry. Last year, 1929, the ratio of imports to exports was 8.1 per cent. We may rightly say, therefore, that the ratio of imports to production in Lancashire was about 6 per cent. If we cut out the whole of that 6 per cent., that glut of imports coming into this country, it is not sufficient to affect one way or the other the
1780
cash wages which are paid in that industry. When we come to the uninsured population, what about the great mass of uninsured population amongst the agricultural workers. We have not heard of the agricultural worker. How is he going to be helped by a tax on manufactured articles? It is obvious that at least two-thirds of the whole population of this country cannot be affected in any way so far as their nominal wages are concerned. The only effect upon them will be to decrease their purchasing power and therefore to lead directly to reduction of wages so far as they are concerned.
I want to bring to the notice of the House the effect in our competitive industries of the proposal for a general tariff. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said that it was only proposed to put a tax upon wholly manufactured goods. Those are almost identically the words that were used by the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) last week. Those wholly manufactured articles are to be subject to rough and ready tariff. We are told that they amount in value to £330,000,000. Of these 43,000,000 worth are taxed already, which leaves £290,000,000 worth of taxable manufactured imports. It is important before we go any further in the discussion of this matter that we should understand perfectly clearly that of this £200,000,000 worth of so-called manufactured imports which come into this country, more than one-half are raw materials which are imported on the orders of our manufacturers in order that they may be subjected to further processes here. In this remaining balance of £290,000,000 worth of imports there are 42,000,000 worth of ails and fats.
9.0 p.m.
We are told that the United States of America is greatly increasing its exports of manufactured articles. If we turn to the figures of the United States exports we find that in recent years nearly the whole of that increase is made up by an increase of £100.000,000 in the export of motor spirit, which is regarded by them and by us in our statistics as manufactured exports and imports respectively. Again. included under the heading of manufactured goods we find £12,500,000 worth of copper bars, pig iron, iron alloys, unfinished steel; £3,600,000 worth

1781
of crude zinc, definitely set out as crude but coming in as a manufactured article. As we are talking about crude things, I find that included in the list is £1,600,000 worth of rabbit skins. Could we imagine anything more crude than a rabbit skin? In addition to rabbit skins, there are £11,000,000 worth of hides and skins, which are all raw materials.
I would suggest to the Board of Trade that they might in future when they publish these figures, if it can be done without undue labour or cost, divide these manufactured articles into certain categories, and let us know how many of them are really what we call raw materials and how many of them have had a considerable amount of labour put into them and are required for other processes here. They might also let us know, in a third category, which of these articles are really finished articles like bricks and slates, which are required as component parts for any constructive work in the building of houses, etc. Finally they might, in a fourth category, let us know what are the things which are actually imported here as being required by the ordinary members of the community. I trust that that will be done, because it is of great importance. I hope that it will cost nothing. If it costs a lot, I am afraid that in the present state of affairs we must sacrifice truth to cost.
I have had these figures analysed independently, and I hope accurately, and it is clear from them that 52 per cent. or £150,000,000 worth of the £290,000,000 worth of manufactured articles imported into this country, which are to be subjected to a rough and ready tariff, are required for other processes here, and of this 52 per cent. not less than 62 per cent. are really crude materials. The hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond) and the right hon. Member for Edgbaston really propose something which will be putting a tax on raw materials. Out of the fund from which raw material is paid for we also pay our wages and if we increase the cost of our raw materials there will he less in that fund for wages, therefore, we run the grave risk of doing injury to the wage earners of this country. For these reasons, I hope that the Resolution will be rejected, as it deserves to be.
Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Listening to the speaker who has just resumed his seat one would not imagine that we had two and a-quarter millions of unemployed in the industries of this country and one would not realise that nothing has been put before the country to help to get those millions of people to work with the exception of the scheme put forward by the Conservative party, namely, protection of our home industries. I cannot see how we can preserve our present rate of wages in industry unless some form of Protection is adopted. A large body of opinion in this country which has the welfare of industry at heart, such as the Federation of British Industries and the Chambers of Commerce, realises the necessity for a change in our fiscal system, and I do not think that these men would do so if they felt that the employés in industry were going to suffer.
Free Traders say that Protection is not necessary because labour is protected by its own organisations, that labour if left alone can beat the industries in other countries. They also tell us that by cur example and precept rather than by a system of bargaining we should leave it to other countries to come down to the Free Trade system. Those of us who believe in Protection and honestly believe that protection of the home market is a necessity cannot see any hope of protectionist countries following our example and reducing their tariffs, but they would take notice if we adopted a tariff to protect our home market, and if we had a measure for Safeguarding all manufactured goods we should help to get freer trade throughout the world than obtains at the present time. We are told that tariffs will always result in raising prices. Where we have a tariff already we have not seen this result; and I should like to give the Committee what I think is the main reason why tariffs would certainly not advance prices.
I have some figures here of a branch of the iron and steel industry which certainly surprised me when I saw them. I know the iron and steel industry intimately. If you take a case, and this is an actual ease, of a firm with £100,000 as the normal output, take also the figures of the raw material purchased for the manufacture of goods and the productive wages, and all the items in the

1783
profit and loss account which have to be taken into consideration, and compare these figures with similar figures based on a 60 per cent. output it really gives you the reason why, if we get our factories working on a full output, there is no reason for advancing prices. In the case where the full output is obtained the raw materials purchased come to 35 per cent. of the total turnover, productive wages are 29 per cent. and items such as fuel, power, light, water, repairs to plant, stores, depreciation, insurance, rates, advertising and printing and, other items come to 31.1 per cent. What do we see when the turnover goes down to 60 per cent.; and there arc many firms in this country in the iron and steel trade which arc working on less than a 60 per cent. output. We find that on a percentage figure of 60 per cent. the cost of fuel, etc., advances to 40.7 per cent. That is 9.6 per cent. difference owing to the turnover being so much smaller. A firm with its normal output can, at the present time with the present costs of material and labour, make a margin of profit on a turnover of £100,000 of 51 per cent. which is just sufficient to pay 5 per cent. on the capital and a little to the good for reserve.
In the case of a firm working merely on a 60 per cent. output not only is there no margin at all but a 4.6 per cent. loss. Hon. Members opposite should realise that although firms can continue manufacturing for a year or two with a loss of 4.6 per cent. they certainly cannot continue in business for an unlimited period and sooner or later will have to shut down. If we could by protecting our home markets enable firms in the iron and steel trade to produce some of the millions of tons of stuff that are being imported into this country and thus get a full output of 100 per cent., many firms that are now in difficult circumstances would he able to carry on.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Junr.): Will the hon. Member tell us to what percentage of capacity the American Steel Corporation is working at the present time?
Mr. SMITH: It does not matter one little bit what percentage of capacity is being worked in any other country. We
1784
have to think of ourselves. The American standard of living is totally different to. ours, and American arrangements are totally different to ours. Their home market is much larger. I am sure the hon. Member will realise that a comparison between this country and America is quite unsuitable. It is difficult indeed for hon. Members on this side of the House to understand how hon. Members opposite, representing the workers in the industries of this country, who are having such a rough time at the moment, will not allow themselves to examine carefully a proposal which without doubt would help to keep the workers in full employment. How can a trade union protect the wages of their members if there is no trade being done. We must have trade: and the interests of the employés are interwoven with the interests of the employers. When we get that into our blood we shall understand the reason why 96.1 per cent. of the Federation of British Industries and nearly all the Chambers of Commerce, including the Free Trade Chambers of Commerce, have come around to the belief that a change in our fiscal system is necessary. I sympathise heartily with those men in this country who can see trade leaving these shores particularly for one reason, and that is that they are not better represented by trade union leaders in this House, who should study this question and certainly look at a change in the fiscal system without fear and without so much bias. I bone that we shall very soon sec a change on the other side of the House and that we shall have a tariff system for the protection of our home market.
Mr. MESSER: I feel sure that the House will forgive one who very rarely intrudes in the debates for doing so this evening. I am tempted to do so because of the easiness of the case. I have listened carefully to all that has been said but so far I have not been able to get the slightest evidence as to how tariffs will prevent a reduction in wages, and one is tempted to believe that this debate is really a smoke screen for the attack that is coming. In May of this year I read an article in one of our leading journals written by a right hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite. It was headed, "An Ostrich Policy," and the implication of the article was that wages

1785
must come down. Then in what is known as the "National Citizen," the official organ of the National Citizens' Union, a non-political body composed of Tories, we have had in large type a warning that wages must come down; and to-night it can almost be sensed in the atmosphere that the lesson which the workers have to learn is that unless wages come down we have to submit to a tariff.
I suggest that there is a great deal of truth in the statement that there are hon. Members on these benches who are not Free Traders in the sense in which the term was understood in the old Liberal days. There are many of us who believe in Protection, but are unable to see just why it should always be imagined that tariffs are Protection. If the object of tariffs is to keep out goods, we want to know why they do not do it. It is understandable that if a weapon can be used to reduce wages, those reduced wages lower the cost of production, and you can get under any tariff wall that is erected. We find that the German unemployed, at a time when they are embarking on wage reductions, increased in the month of October by 186,000, making the total of unemployed in Germany 3,250,000. If tariffs mean a reduction in unemployment, why have they not done it in a country with such vast natural resources as Germany? If they cannot do it there, why should they be expected to do it here? We want an answer to that question.
I oppose tariffs not merely from that economic standpoint. I want to follow out logically the working of these tariffs. It is said that we shall have a bargaining power. Where is that going to load? If we put on a tariff, the countries which are affected will retaliate. What is the logical conclusion of that retaliation? A tariff wall will end in a military war. It is because I believe there is a real danger to the peace of the world in tariffs that I am bitterly opposed to them. The hon. Gentleman who has introduced the Motion asked why we "cling to old, worn-out theories." But Protection is not new. We have heard instances dating from 1842. One could go back further than that. In the time of King James Protection was granted to the dyeing and woollen industry. As a con-
1786
sequence Germany and Holland refused to have the goods from England. Retaliation begat retaliation, with the result that trade began to decline. Then there was a great outcry on the part of the manufacturers and Protection and prohibition had to cease. That was in 1615. Protection has been tried right back from the beginning of the industrial history of this country.
The particular point I want to emphasise is the point of the home market, for the argument to which we have all listened from time to time is that if we arc able to prevent the importation of manufactured goods, the goods that are manufactured here will be consumed here. Does anyone believe that this country can live on the consumption of its own manufactured goods? It is fairly obvious that if we are going to develop the home markets it will not be along those lines. I am convinced that we have lost for good much of our overseas trade. I am convinced that we have to develop the home market. But the method by which we can do that is not by a system of tariffs, which can always be adjusted to meet the needs of the economic situation that may exist at any time. If we are going to develop the home market we have to start on the positive side of the question and not depend on the negative side. We have first of all to develop the land of this country so that it will maintain more people than it maintains now. We have to turn our attention to the purchasing power of the worker, to reducing rents and increasing wages. There is not any real mystery about unemployment. It is caused by the inability of the worker to consume the work that he produces. If we can erect a machine that will give to the worker a bigger share of the wealth he produce's, we shall not have to worry a great deal about unemployment.
In 1906 the Labour party introduced a Right to Work Bill. I think it was a mistake. What we want is a Right to Live Bill. In protecting the interests of the worker I want to come to the point that we are now prepared to admit that Protection is necessary. We have no right to encourage the manufacture of sweated goods abroad. But you do not touch that problem by putting on a tariff. What you do by putting on a tax is to

1787
compel the employer of the men who produce those sweated goods still further to lower the wages, if it is possible to do so. What we want is something in the nature of an import board that will examine the needs of the country and the nature of the goods being imported. Someone suggested that an import board was no new idea, that it had been tried 4,000 years ago by Joseph in Egypt. That is quite true. But it saved Egypt from seven years' famine. In referring to an import board two things are material. One is that we should discourage sweated goods, and the other is that we should not permit sweated conditions elsewhere to be used for the exploitation of the workers of this country.
As far as this Motion is concerned, subsequent speakers, perhaps, will explain how a decrease in the standard of living can be prevented by the imposition of a tariff. They have never made out their case yet, but I am quite prepared to be convinced. I am not one of those Socialists who believe we have got to a static position in society. Things are constantly moving, and we have got to adapt ourselves to the circumstances of life. My mind is fluid on that particular point, but it has not yet been made clear to me how wages are protected by the imposition of a tariff on goods imported into this country.
Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) made a rather startling admission when he said that tariffs would be no good at all, because if we were to impose tariffs the result would be that in foreign countries the employers of labour would merely have to depress the wages of the workers who were engaged in their industries. That is a very valuable admission, because it proves very conclusively why this country is suffering to such a terrible extent under the very process to which the hon. Member calls attention. It is a very good reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite should seriously consider the terms of the Motion which has been moved this evening. This question of a wage standard has been so eloquently considered by members of the party opposite that I should have thought we had almost reached a position where we found ourselves in general agreement, unless it be on the benches below me,
1788
because, after all, the speeches of the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) have made perfectly clear what some of us have been saying for many years from these benches, namely, that as long as you believe it is right to protect the standard of living of the workers of this country, it is absolutely inconsistent to take no steps to protect your workers from the products of foreign labour while you are endeavouring to maintain the standard of your own people.
Everybody realises that for a great many years in this country we have, as a nation, been accepting the right of trade unions to say that, as far as the economic circumstances permit, the workers shall be paid what, in the opinion of those unions, is as fair a wage as they can possibly wring out of the economic situation. I think everybody will agree that the trade union movement in tins country has done very fine work. As long as they stood by that part of their policy, they were performing a very useful function, and it was only when they branched out and became politicians that the effect of trade unions was so disastrous in our midst. The fact remains that you have succeeded in raising the standard of living largely owing to the original action of the trade unions, and to the fact that the general consensus of opinion in the industrial world in this country is that you get better work if you can give a reasonable wage.
What is the situation at present The whole world is depressed. The depression may be greater in this country than in most other countries, but, still, we have got to realise the fact that the whole world is depressed. Every country is confronted with the same problem which we are having to meet, namely, where can we sell our surplus products? Every country looks round to find new markets to dispose of those surplus products, and everywhere they find the hand of the tariff policeman being held up against them. Only after they have looked all round do they say, "Oh, well, thank Heaven there is still dear old England where we can get rid of our surplus goods." That is why our position is being so much exploited at the present moment, because from the very nature of this world depression we are the one country where other

1789
countries can enlarge their free market. That being the case, I should have thought t hat the circumstances were such that all the economic ideas of a free interchange of commodities, the open door and so on, no longer good. The open door is no longer applicable; it only opens one way. The result is that we have the products of foreign countries pouring into our midst, and we arc unable to discharge our products in those countries which are so much damaging our industrial position at home.
I would point to the fact that in recent months we have seen an extraordinary increase in the imports of manufactured goods. It really is very serious, as these facts are not realised, because hon. Gentlemen opposite do not convert the value of the imports of manufactures to-day into the values of 1924. If they did so, they would see from the enormous figures that in the last 18 months alone the increase in the imports of manufactures—I am calculating these values on the lines of the altered values —represent a labour-giving value of 400,000 workers. That is one of the greatest contributory causes of the appalling unemployment figures with which we are faced. Every Member will realise that, unless you can find some new method of dealing with this great flood of imports, you are inevitably driven to the disastrous remedy of the old Manchester school, namely, a reduction of wages. I am not speaking in any controversial spirit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry if I have given that impression. If hon. Members opposite mean that I have spoken with conviction and, I hope, with sincerity, I make them a present of it, but I did not think that I had been controversial.
As one who has been in business from his earliest youth, I want to say this. I think that sometimes the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a gibe at me, asking what right a soldier has to intervene in such a debate? If he were here, I would like to assure him that I was a soldier only in the same sense as every other citizen who took the trouble to defend his country in the Great War. I have been in a business for the last 30 years and in the last 16 years I have never employed fewer than 400 workers myself, either in this country or in the Empire overseas. I am abso-
1790
lutely convinced that the remedy for this state of affairs is not by the reduction of wages. It may seem for the moment that you are overtaking things, but, in the long run, it is absolutely certain that the idea which is generally accepted now in the United States, of increasing the purchasing power of the millions within that national system, is a more profitable means of increasing the prosperity of the country as a whole. How are you going to deal with it? Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh when one makes any statement on this subject, but you are driven to the fact that you have got to close down half your industries unless, on the one hand, you reduce wages or, on the other, you do what I want to do, and what all my hon. Friends want to do, namely, give the British manufacturer that amount of security which will make it impossible for foreign countries to compete unfairly by means of goods which have been produced under labour conditions which no decent trade unionist in this country would stand for one moment
Dr. MORGAN: And so reduce real wages.
Sir H. CROFT: Hon. Gentlemen have asked me if it is tariff countries which pay low wages? When you arc considering this vital question you should compare like with like, and if you are making comparisons with the social ideas of the people of this country, I ask you to take those countries which most nearly approach your ideas as to how a workman ought to live. I ask hon. Members to consider the cases of Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia which happen to he the four Most highly protected countries in the world. They also happen to be the four highest wage-paying countries in the whole universe. The hon. Member's argument is hardly vital at this moment. It is rather in the nature of a red herring, but I think if he wishes to make comparisons regarding conditions of labour, he ought to go to his own kith and kin, to people who have his own ideas of a standard of living, in order to get a fair comparison.
Mr. HAYCOCK: The American tariff is now higher than it has ever been. Have American wages been raised since the tariff was raised or have American wages come down since then?
Sir H. CROFT: The answer is so simple that I should have thought that it was hardly worth while putting the question. While we have had the Free Trade system in this country during the last 50 years, our workers have been flying to the United States as fast as the United States would take them, and at this very moment, as the hon. Member knows, there are thousands of workers starving in this country who are ready to go to the United States if they could go there.
Mr. GOSSLING: How many are there starving in America?
Sir H. CROFT: I think if the hon. Member works it out he will find the rather interesting fact that, during the last 10 years, unemployment in this country has been constant, although since hon. Members opposite formed a Government the figure has been doubled. But while unemployment here has been constant, in the United States there have been only two periods of serious unemployment. There are no official figures as to unemployment in the United States. [110N. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Then why produce the argument? I do not know the figure which the hon. Member who interrupted me would place on unemployment in the United States, but let us suppose that it is 5,000,000—a very serious figure. I ask him to remember, however, that the population of the United States is 120,000,000, and I think he will find, if he goes into the question of unemployment in the United States, that it has never reached for any time anything like the disastrous proportions which we have in this country. I beg of hon. Members opposite to consider this proposition. You can give security to your market, in which case you can maintain the standard of living, and, I hope, improve it. If you are not going to give that security, you are forced to the position that you must, somehow, compete on equal terms with lower-paid labour in Continental countries.
It is sometimes said that tariffs lead to inefficiency. I have been at some pains to examine conditions in those industries in this country which have had tariff security during the last five or six years. Anyone who has made any study whatever of industrial conditions will confirm my statement that in the industries
1792
which have received the security of a tariff—Safeguarding Duties, or McKenna Duties, or the Silk Duty—there has been a greater advance in efficiency than in other industries. That view is borne out by the fact that in every safeguarded industry—until the Chancellor took his fatal step of a few months ago—employment has increased, and production has increased even more than employment, proving conclusively that the efficiency of those industries has been improved. As a business man, I put it to any hon. Member opposite who has ever been engaged in business that when a business is flourishing, when it has a secure market —then is the time to launch out, to scrap old machinery, to recondition factories and to enlarge premises. But, when you are fighting for your life you cannot do these things. If industry is given a secure market arid a breathing space in these terrible times of competition, there will be an enormous extension in the direction of reconditioning industries and helping forward the general efficiency of industries.
I hope that hon. Members will think twice before voting against this Motion. At least we on these benches have a remedy. Hon. Members opposite have. I understand, come to the definite conclusion that Socialism in our time is impossible and I think the country is be ginning to hope that it may be found impossible, not only in our time but at any time. We have a definite policy and I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that in every single industry which has been given tariff security the trade unions concerned and the trade union leaders, actively support that policy and desire to see it maintained.
If hon. Members for some old party reason, oppose this Motion they are placing themselves definitely in opposition to a great section of trade union thought in this country and in opposition to the remarkable resolution which was passed some time ago. They will be voting in favour of handing this country over to the competition of the Continent, to the competition of labour in some parts of Europe, where, as has been stated by the Prime Minister himself, bestial conditions exist. Are hon. Members going to keep out the products of these bestial conditions, the products of slave labour in Russia? [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"]

1793
Now we understand the enthusiasm of hon. Members for the Free Trade cause. But I venture to assert on behalf of my hon. Friends that we are absolutely determined that the standard of living of our people shall not be dictated to us by Soviet Russia, or by conditions of the kind which I have referred. Hon. Members may scoff. Let them laugh, let them jeer, but their time is short. This country is undoubtedly going to give an overwhelming mandate—[HON. MEMBERS: "For what?"]—a mandate to the British workers that they are to have the right to live, the right to fair wages and that they are not to be undersold by the products of the bestial labour conditions to which the Prime Minister referred.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I have listened with great interest to this debate, and my first duty is to congratulate the Mover of the Motion on having thrown aside the hypocrisy of the average Protectionist. He proposes quite definitely in his Resolution in favour of a general tariff system. Tariffs have been called by different names from time to time. Gentlemen who are concerned in bringing about a tariff system have termed it Safeguarding or a policy of import duties, and by other names, but this Resolution is definitely in favour of a general tariff system. I have been more interested in this debate because I wish to test, if I can, whether the claim is justified that a tariff system of any kind gives die working people a decent standard of livelihood. I was interested above all to hear the speech of the hon. Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. L. Smith), to which I will return in a moment. The two tests to apply as to whether tariffs provide a decent standard of life are these: What are the wages paid to the working people in those industries that are already safeguarded in our own country, and, secondly, what are the wages paid in those countries that have imposed high tariff walls? I think those two tests ought to be acceptable to hon. Members opposite.
With regard to the first test, I have taken the trouble to inquire into the conditions prevailing from the trade unions covering members who are employed in safeguarded trades in this country. I look at this subject as a trade unionist, and from the working man's point of view, because ultimately he has to face this
1794
important problem. The Motion before us shows great concern for the wages of the working people of this country; that is the pivot upon which the Motion turns. Let me therefore read the reports of the trade unions in some of our own safeguarded industries. Take the spring knife workers of Sheffield. The cutlery trade is safeguarded, and this is what the secretary of the men's union says:
"The conditions in this industry are so very had that we have made application for a trade board. We asked the employers to join in our application, and they agreed on condition that we submit to reductions of wages first."
Let it be noted that this industry is safeguarded.
Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Member is surely aware that in that group a very small proportion comes under Safeguarding?
Mr. DAVIES: But this letter deals specifically with the working people employed in that portion of the Sheffield cutlery trade that is safeguarded. I will read on, because there is something more interesting to come:
"The employers also claim the right to make an immediate application for a further reduction of bonus when the trade hoard is formed."
Trade boards in this country were, by the way, definitely established for sweated trades. This is what the secretary says further, which will, I think, impress the hon. and gallant Member opposite:
"Although we have Safeguarding in our industry, both wages and employment are worse than before. The following rates were agreed upon with the employers recently before negotiations broke down:—Women and girls, from 7s. per week at 14 years of age to 23s. at 21. The rate for men and boys was from 10s. per week at 14 to 51s. per week at 22."
That is in a safeguarded industry in Sheffield, and their secretary goes on to say:
"There is nothing so low by way of wage rates under any of the present trade boards, and we are supposed to enjoy the benefits of Safeguarding."
Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Do they want it removed?
Mr. DAVIES: I will come to that later on. The secretary still goes on: "We have more unemployment to-day than we have ever known in the industry."

1795
Those are weekly wage rates not piece work rates, by the way. I will read later on something even more interesting. That is the real test of what Safeguarding has done for the wages and conditions of the workpeople in this country.
Mr. L. SMITH: Is it not a fact that practically every worker in that particular industry signed a petition for the retention of the Safeguarding Duties for a further period?
Mr. DAVIES: All I can do is to read the letter of the secretary of the workers to me.
Mr. SMITH: Then the hon. Member cannot answer my question?
Mr. DAVIES: No, I cannot, and I will not tell a lie, but I would ask the hon. Member at what date that application was made, because if it was two years ago, it does not meet my point at all.
Mr. SMITH: It was only during this summer.
Mr. DAVIES: Let me give the House another instance, covering the town of Leek. The Silk Duties were supposed to provide good employment and give decent wages for the workpeople in the silk trade. This is what an official of the trade union concerned states; it carries my test further still:
"Prior to the introduction of the duties in 1925, trade was good. There was only about 6 per cent. of unemployment. Now there is quite 15 per cent. There are 1,000 less workpeople employed now than before the imposition of the duties, and of those who are employed, 25 per cent. are working only four days per week, and wages have fallen during that period by 5 per cent."
That is what the duties have done for the silk workers at Leek, but I have something much better than that as an argument against the Motion. I will take the Macclesfield area, where the Silk Duties have operated in order to safeguard the interests of the working people there, and this is what their secretary says:
"Trade is had in Macclesfield. It is certainly worse than before the duties were imposed. Wages have fallen by at least 5 per cent., and a strike is now in progress affecting 900 workers against a reduction of 15 per cent. in wages."
1796
In putting tariffs and Safeguarding duties to the test, without any bias at all, either in favour of Free Trade or of tariffs, the working man really cannot from those experiences see that tariffs will help him. A test of that kind must show that tariffs do not help the workpeople in the least.
I have the same story to tell with regard to the chemical trade in this country; and my own trade union had actually a strike in the optical glass industry about two years ago against the imposition of a reduction of wages in that safeguarded industry. Some of those men are still out on strike; they have never been able to get back. That is what Safeguarding has done so far as the working men in those industries are concerned.
Let me now put tariffs in relation to wages to the test in foreign countries. Hon. Members opposite have talked a great deal about America. I have been to America twice. I get papers, journals and information from America every week, and I will give one case to prove that according to this test it does not help hon. Members opposite in their argument in favour of tariffs. The actual wages of coal miners in certain parts of America to-day are not higher than the very low wages of coal miners in this country, and that in spite of the fact that the cost of living in the United States of America is 75 per cent. higher than here.
Let me come now to my own Parliamentary Division. We all represent Parliamentary Divisions here, or are supposed to, though some people represent certain other interests here apparently.
Dr. V. DAVIES: Trade unions, for instance.
Mr. DAVIES: I represent coal miners in the main, in my Division, railway shop employés and textile workers; and when I saw this Motion on the Paper I made inquiries as to how many industries in my Division could possibly benefit by tariffs. Not one. Not a single soul stands to gain anything by tariffs in my Division.
Mr. L. SMITH: Railway workers are fully protected now, surely.
Mr. DAVIES: Let me ask in which way tariffs will benefit the coal industry of

1797
this country? Coal cannot be protected anyhow. That is admitted by everybody. Hon. Members complain about sweated goods manufactured abroad being dumped into this country. I have said it before, and I will say it again, that if a comparison of the life of the average British miner is made with the life of the better-paid workers in our own country, every ounce of coal produced in this country, according to any decent standard of life, is undoubtedly sweated coal. I represent a Lancashire constituency. A gentleman came from Canada the other day to the Imperial Conference and said that Canadian manufacturers and buyers were complaining that Lancashire textile goods were dumped there as sweated goods. The argument, I suppose, is that we must not have any goods from anywhere that are produced under bad conditions, but that we can send throughout the world coal or any other commodities which are produced under abominable and even bestial conditions. I have two brothers who are mine workers and they may work a week and earn only £2 10s. each in wages. Such conditions are sweated judged by every decent standard of life. Hon. Gentlemen cannot have it both ways.
This Motion has two objects. The first is to torpedo the work done by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade at Geneva; and if hon. Gentlemen were honest, they would declare emphatically against the League of Nations and wipe it out of existence, for that is their attitude. The second object is to make our own working people understand clearly that a general reduction of wages is coming along soon. The fiscal policy of a country has not after all the close relationship to wages that hon. Gentlemen believe. If they look up the figures they will find that if we had the same proportion of men and women in gainful employment in this country from 1912–1930, we should have at present about 600,000 more men at work and 600,000 more women at home. That accounts for 600,000 men at any rate who would not be unemployed if the same proportion of men and women had been in gainful employment for the last 18 years. The employers of this country, because there is heavy unemployment, engage women on certain jobs because they are cheaper, and they have disturbed the whole
1798
economic situation by so doing. As I have stated, real wages are determined less by fiscal systems than by technical improvements in processes of production, by climatic conditions and natural wealth. These affect economic conditions more than anything else.
10.0 p.m.
We are entitled to ask those who believe so intensely in a tariff system what is the relationship between the index of the tariff wall in a country and the index of the real value of wages in that country? The International Labour Office in Geneva is composed of 52 Governments, and it is an impartial organisation which I hope will develop its good work. This is what they found after an investigation, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will take note of it, because the organised labour movement of this country has already taken note of it to some effect. The tariff index In Spain is 41, and the real wage index is 52; in Denmark, on the other hand, the tariff index is 6 and the real wage index is 108; in the United Kingdom the tariff index is 5 and the real wage index is 100.
Sir H. CROFT: What are the figures for the United States?
Mr. DAVI ES: They do not give the information; it is a European comparison. It may interest the hon. and gallant Gentleman that my latest reports from the United States are that they have strikes as violent and as brutal there as anything that has happened in the industrial history of the world, in spite of their tariffs. If hon. Gentlemen want, to dwell on America, I will quote what a professor of economics said at a conference in Pennsylvania the other day. If he spoke in our debate to-night, he could not sum up our own position better. He said:
"No tariff can protect the coal miner, the railroad worker, the telephone and telegraph worker, the omnibus worker, the trolley worker, the building and engineering worker. All those who work in retail stores, wholesale houses, garages, and hotels get nothing from the tariff but higher prices for the goods they buy. Bankers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, ministers, artists, nurses, waiters, newspaper men and Government employés are all in the same position. There are some 42,000,000 persons in the United States who are listed as gainfully employed. Fully 34,000,000 of them are in trades which cannot conceivably gain by restrictive tariffs. These

1799
people are taxed by the Government in order to subsidise the 8,000,000 or less whom the tariff favours."
That is the position throughout the world.
Hon. Gentlemen bring these proposals forward as if they were new. An hon. Gentleman behind me has informed the House that up to 1860 this was a tariff country. That is not generally understood. A Select Committee of this House inquired into the problem, and declared definitely that Protection did in our own land what it has done in several other countries, that it was bad for trade and that it conspired to intrigues between certain politicians and the traders of the country. That will always happen.
The hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion was much concerned about wages; I wish he were here now, because I want to say something on the general issue of tariffs apart from wages. The Imperial Chemicals, Limited, is protected to a great extent by the Dyestuffs Act, and it is even alleged—I think with some degree of truth—that that colossal industrial venture has been made possible by the protection of that Act. The people engaged in the dyeing industry in Lancashire are in touch with the Board of Trade now, and their complaint is that because of this monopoly in the hands of one company, the dyestuffs users cannot purchase the dyestuffs they require at home except at an exorbitant price. It is cheaper for the Lancashire manufacturer to send some of his goods to the Continent to be dyed and brought back to England rather than pay the charges of the monopolists of our country. That is their case, and it is a very good case, against a tariff system.
There are some friends of 'mine who are rather inclined to tariffs and Protection, only they prefer calling them by another name. I tell the House quite frankly that whenever I hear a Socialist beginning to doubt both Free Trade and tariffs as fiscal systems I invariably find him landing ultimately in the arms of the Protectionist party, as if to say there is no alternative but God or Mammon. There was a gentleman who was a Member of this House once upon a time, who sat on this side when the Tory party were in power, though once he sat as a Liberal. His name then was Sir Alfred
1800
Mond, but he is now the great Lord Melchett. I remember a speech of his in favour of Safeguarding in which he deliberately said that the intention of Safeguarding was to raise the price of the commodity to the community, and that it would be no use if it did not. Therefore, I say, we ought to oppose this Motion very definitely, and I feel sure the House will turn it down to-night.
Another hon. Member whom I respect for his tremendous intellectual capacity who very seldom addresses this House, and represents one of the universities, spoke, too, in the same strain. This is what he said—I think I was in the House when he made the statement: that it was the deliberate intention, when a Government imposed a tariff, to increase the price of the commodity, but although a Conservative he was opposed to the whole system.
Dr. V. DAVIES: How many years ago?
Mr. DAVIES: That was quite recently.
A great deal has been said to-night about America being a land of milk and honey. Although the standard of life of the man there who works in a factory, a mine or a workshop is undoubtedly higher than the workman's standard of life anywhere else, when he is at work, yet when he is unemployed or sick not even the Stars and Stripes will cover his nakedness. There is no unemployment insurance, there is no sickness insurance, there are none of the social services that we know here. If anyone could sum up the total value of the wages of the American workman and the total value of the social services and the wages in this country I very much doubt whether the American workman would he found to be, throughout his life, better off than is our own workman.
I oppose this tariff system not merely on economic grounds but because I have seen a few foreign countries in my life, and I have seen their tariffs creating so much friction and hatred. I have also seen that hatred making for wars and conflicts. I oppose tariffs because they breed war and enmity between nations.
Let us see what one of the leaders of that great tariff country of America says, a man who, I understand, was once upon a time Ambassador to this country:

1801
"In my own country I have witnessed the insatiable growth of Protection which, I believe, has done more than any other cause to foster class legislation and create inequality of fortune; to corrupt public life; to banish men of independent mind and character from public councils, and to lower the tone of national representation."
That, I think, is a fair picture of public life in the United States, which is a great country in many other ways. In my view tariffs have made public life a farce in some parts of that great country.
The workman knows full well that his best protection in a Free Trade country as in a tariff country is a strong trade union organisation. I trust, therefore, that everybody on this side of the House, and I feel sure everybody below the Gangway opposite, will turn this Motion down definitely, finally, and resolutely.
Sir ARTHUR CLIVE MORRISONBELLI came here to-night to say a few words on the Amendment which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has had too much sense to move.
Mr. DAVIES: No, I beg pardon. That is not the case.
Sir A. CLIVE MORRISON-BELL: I know the position; it was out of order, and it is a very good thing it was, for if there is one place where we have been disappointed on the tariff question it is Geneva. Geneva in 1927 summoned an economic conference of some 50 nations. It was attended by some 600 delegates, with their attendant secretaries and their stenographers, and it sat for three weeks to deal with the question of tariffs. We heard a great deal of eloquence during those three weeks, but the result was absolutely nil. In fact, since that conference tariffs have risen in nearly every country, and risen considerably. It has been the one complaint of every conference which has met since then that the results at Geneva were absolutely futile, that nothing was done at all: and yet the hon. Member put an Amendment on the Paper saying that the real answer to this Motion was to trust in Geneva and the Labour Bureau. One of his colleagues, Mr. Pugh, who, with Sir Arthur Balfour, was one of the official delegates of this country to the Economic Council, made it the whole burden of his speech at Geneva in 1928 that, in spite of the resolutions passed in 1927, nothing had been done to
1802
bring down tariffs. Mr. Pugh said, in fact, that the whole of the work at Geneva was—well, I forget the exact word he used, but it meant that it was practically a "wash-out."
Monsieur Theunis, who presided at the Economic Conference, in one of his speeches, said that the Economic Conference was a great disappointment and had done nothing. In the face of a statement like that it is useless to argue that anything can be expected from the deliberations of another Conference at Geneva. For the last five years I have closely watched the proceedings at Geneva in regard to economic questions, and it has long been obvious that its proceedings are a waste of time. Practically, every Cabinet in Europe during the last three years has turned down the recommendations of the 1927 Conference, and I am convinced that the only possible way to lower the tariffs of foreign countries is to have some kind of retaliation which would deny our wonderful British market to those gentlemen in other countries who put up tariffs against our country. I have a right to express these opinions, as I have worked very hard for them. In regard to this particular question, the more I see of it the more I am convinced that persuasion will never induce foreign countries to reduce their tariffs. As a matter of fact, even since the tariff truce some of those foreign countries have raised their tariffs against us.
One of the points mentioned in connection with this question, was the Labour Bureau. If there is anything more futile in connection with the work of the League of Nations from the tariff point of view, it is the Bureau Internationale du Travail. I will only make one short quotation which I think will convince the House that there is some justification for the remark which I have just made. The other day the League of Nations, having despaired of doing anything, or of producing any results on the question of tariffs or unemployment, turned the question over to the Bureau. They had meetings to deal with the question. I do not know how many representatives were sent from this country, but I saw in "The Times" report speeches of two Englishmen, one representing employers and the other the workmen. That conference may have lasted several days.

1803
and here is the result of deliberations to which we sent out a deputation from England to settle the question:
"The governing body resolved to proceed to a careful inquiry into unemployment,"
as if that has not been done before. That is perhaps the only resolution they could come to. Then they came to this second conclusion:
"(2) To entrust this inquiry to an Unemployment Committee.
(3) To increase the number of the committee from three to 12."
Here is the final Resolution.
"To authorise the committee to consult experts."
That is the result of the work of the Committee to which we sent two noted speakers from this country. The League of Nations is being used like a cupboard into which statesmen put inconvenient questions, hoping that they will he forgotten. When the cupboard is opened and when the League is stirred up to do something, it hands the question over to the chest of drawers, and the only conclusion they come to is in which particular drawer, the top, middle or bottom, they shall put it. The hon. Member for Westhoughton was very lucky in the decision of the Chair that he was out of order, for, had he made his statement that that was the true remedy, I could have supplied him with a great many more facts which I hope would have undeceived him.
Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I do not intend to follow the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton (Sir A. Clive Morrison-Bell) in his line of argument, because, like those of many other hon. Members, it was, perhaps, not very intimately connected with the matter which we have been discussing, but I should like to say to the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker), who has followed this question very closely, does not by any means agree with the statement which the hon. Baronet has made about the work which is done at Geneva.
Sir A. CLIVE MORRISON-BELL: Would the hon. Gentleman deny the statement of Mr. Pugh?
Mr. GILLETT: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will settle that matter with my
1804
hon. Friend, but I want to make it clear to my hon. Friends on this side of the House that we have a Member who is just as well acquainted with this problem as the hon. Member for Honiton, and that his view of the question is quite different from that which has been expressed from the benches opposite. I naturally speak with hesitation in view of the remarks that have been made about the Government which I represent "Inept," "inefficient," and other eloquent terms which I forget, were used by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I can only speak of one Department, and that is a Department which is intimately connected with the question of trade. I do know that, when I arrived at that Department, I found that it was understaffed, and that more men were required overseas and at home for the efficient carrying out of its work; and it was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who provided the funds which gave my Department the opportunity of increasing its usefulness. Indeed, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to abolish it altogether, and was only stopped by the chambers of commerce, which are not usually considered to be Socialist organisations. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen, if he were here, might consider whether the terms inept" and "inefficient" would not be better applied rather nearer home than to some of us on this side of the House.
The hon. Member raised one or two very interesting points. He stated, or quoted a statement in the newspapers supporting the party opposite, that there was no confidence on the London money market in this Government. The party opposite have certainly not gone out of their way to try to support the credit of this country so long as they could make party capital out of an insinuation that the securities of this country were not absolutely A.1, but, if anybody had been so foolish as to follow their advice, or, rather, what they might have thought, from some of the words used by hon. Members opposite, was their advice, and had transferred their investments from British Government stocks to, say, the stocks of the United States when this Government came into office, they would be rather regretting the change now.

1805
It is very interesting that this Government, in whom, according to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, no one has any confidence, is witnessing this great rise in Government stocks. With my knowledge of the London money market, I am not suggesting that that is due to whatever Government is in office, because I know perfectly well that a rise in stocks of this kind takes place when you have bad trade and cheap money; but what is of interest is that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about conversion of the War Loan, and a large number of people who had their money in that stock decided that they would prefer to put it into a fresh investment of a longer term, there was a golden opportunity, if there were no confidence in this Government, of placing it elsewhere. But we know perfectly well, from the financial papers and from the money articles in the Tory papers, that part of the rise in the gilt-edged market is ascribed to reinvestments deliberately being made by these people in British Government stocks, which are so closely connected with the Government now in office. The hon. Member had better reconsider a few of his points before he makes sweeping accusations against us.
Another point that he raised was that savings are being discouraged. I think the limitation of the amount of money available for savings is partly due to the great change that is going on in the ownership of wealth. I was attending a meeting connected with a saving institution in my constituency, and I found that the small owner of capital is investing his savings more rapidly than ever, in spite of the conditions under which we are living to-day. Many people still think of these questions in the terms of 50 years ago, when you had wealthy men who, under the system of that time, by the use of their money, undoubtedly gave initiative to industry, but the joint stock company is changing this to a very great extent, and you can gather to-day on the London money market from the small investor the money that 50 years ago was being supplied by two or three wealthy men. When you talk about confidence being lacking, it is Hatry and adventurers of that kind who have shaken confidence incomparably more than anything connected with the present Government
1806
I confess to a certain disappointment in the speeches that have been delivered from the benches opposite, because I should have been very glad to hear anything that would really have convinced me that they had a cure for the very serious industrial position in which the country finds itself. I do not look upon Free Trade or Protection as being white or black, as being necessarily a principle that we must ultimately adhere to. It is essential to decide which is the system that is going to be most beneficial to the country with which I am connected, and I can conceive that in some countries my views would make me a Protectionist. In this country, we live on supplies coming to a great extent from overseas. We are dependent for our raw materials on other countries. Under those conditions, I cannot see that any of the proposals that hon. Members opposite are making are going to improve our condition. No one has attempted to meet the figures supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson). One or two Members laughed at them, but it is no use laughing at figures. You have to prove that they are incorrect. As a matter of fact, there is no need to try to prove them incorrect, because the very speeches of hon. Members opposite prove that they are correct. They told us of the condition of wages in the other countries of Europe which are being protected at the present time. They made no secret of it. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Mover of the Motion told us how wages a-re falling in those countries which are blessed with a Protectionist system.
Therefore, I think we may take it that there has been no case put up against his argument that under a Free Trade system, if we are comparing our conditions with the other countries of Europe, the working classes in this country to-day are better off than the working classes in any of the other European countries living under a Protectionist system. We are asked to change this system. Why should we change it if this is so? I have heard no reason ascribed to-night. I have heard the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who told us that the imports coming into this.

1807
country have been increasing. If you take the figures of imports and the unemployed figures spread over a number of years, say 20 years, you do not find when the imports go up that your unemployed figures are also rising. Generally speaking, you will find that it is the reverse. You will find that when the imports go up, your unemployed figures go down. You may find exceptions probably explained by other reasons. This is one factor which has to be faced before you accept the argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth.
The hon. Baronet spoke as if the people of this country who are buying imports, are spending money in France or Spain or elsewhere which might be spent here. You cannot send money out of the country, or at least only a very limited amount, perhaps, through the money market. Broadly speaking, you pay for commodities in gold, services or exports. How does the hon. Baronet suggest these goods are paid for? Is it not by interest due to us? We receive annually a large sum of money in the form of interest. If the English owners insist on having their interest in some form or other, that interest comes into this country in the form of imports. If the hon. Baronet had been here the point I should have put to him is that this money could not be used for employing Englishmen in this country, because it is in the currency of other countries in all parts of the world, and in order to be used to give employment to the English working man, it has to be changed into British currency. Until this is done it is no use whatever. Supposing we have £100,000,000 interest due to us represented in the currencies overseas, until you can exchange that money into pounds, shillings and pence it is of no use in giving employment to British men in this country. Therefore, you can receive your imports without any effect being made on the industrial market in this country. That is the point I should have liked to have put to the hon. Baronet if I had had an opportunity of doing so before he left the Chamber.
There is another question which has been raised. We have heard from several
1808
speakers that they want to use this tariff for bargaining purposes. They talk about helping the British market, but our position to-day is that we have with the countries which count in an industrial sense in the world in all our treaties a most-favoured-nation Clause. How are you going to improve on a record of that kind? Has the experience of other countries proved that they are better off with their bargaining tariffs? This bargaining competition usually results in the tariffs of the countries concerned becoming higher and higher. If hon. Members opposite could prove to us that the countries with high tariffs are better placed than we are, that might be an argument that would persuade us that they had a cure, but I fail to find anything of the kind in the arguments that have been put before us. It seems to me that we should be worse placed. What about our great shipping industry. What effect would tariffs have upon that. What effect would they have upon our unemployed.
The hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver) laid his finger on one of the most crucial points of the whole matter which has never been answered by hon. Members opposite. A large number of our unemployed belong to trades that are our great export trades. If we have any large system of tariffs we are going to have a rise in prices or we shall neutralise any fall in prices that would have taken place. It is inconceivable to have it otherwise. We limit our market. The idea is to limit our market. We do not allow other countries to sell us goods. The idea is that we thus increase the demand, and hon. Members opposite say that an increased demand with a smaller supply is going to bring cheaper prices. Did hon. Members ever hear anything like that argument? They might possibly get a trade here and then to act so, but it is against the whole idea of business and industry in this country. We have been confronted this evening with a most extraordinary proposal made by the hon. Member who moved the Motion. Outside "Alice in Wonderland" I never heard such a proposal. He asks us to adopt Protection in order to compete with the low wages in the Protectionist countries of the world. Is that a proposal to be put before us solemnly to-day? "It has failed

1809
in the other countries," the hon. Member says, "but if you adopt it you will find that it will be a cure in this country." That is all that he has to put before us. I hope that none of my hon. Friends on this side will be deluded by such a proposal. None of the speeches we have heard to-day has in any way shaken my belief that so far as this country is concerned the best interests of the working classes and of the great industries are served by remaining on a Free Trade basis.
Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I do not suppose that the Secretary for Overseas Trade expects us to accept the ipse dixit of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker) as conclusive on this debate. If so, we may have later on to accept three ipse, dixits from the hon. Member for Coventry, and it will then indeed be a chapter out of "Alice in Wonderland." If the hon. Member says a thing three times I suppose that we shall have to look upon that as the last word in wisdom in everything connected with the British Empire. We decline to accept any such ipse dixit. The Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade—where I spent three happy years—would have us believe that under him the Department is doing much better than before. I would like the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to look at the result of their work. We have 2,250,000 people out of employment. Look at the fall in our export trade. Is there anything to boast about in that result of his work at the Department of Overseas Trade? My view is that the Department of Overseas Trade is becoming nothing more than a Department for giving British Government guarantees to the Russian Soviet's credit.
I have listened to all the speeches on this Motion. They have been very good tempered, and we have enjoyed them. I should like to put the position as it seems to me. I will not deal with the variety of points raised on all sides. Hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), seem to regard this question of Free Trade and tariffs almost as a religion. Nothing will save them when the world comes to an end if they should change their views about Free Trade. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) also looks upon it as a matter of religion. Indeed, it appears to me that these hon.
1810
Members fear that they will lose their immortal souls if they budge one inch from the pure doctrine of Free Trade. But we have 2,250,000 people out of work at the moment. The hon. Member for Huddersfield referred to the League of Nations. This is the Report of the League of Nations Economic Intelligence Research Committee in the "Economist" on 25th October, 1930, that is only a few days ago. I beg the House to take what it says into consideration. It says:
The trade of the world has increased, but the share of the United Kingdom has decreased, and is decreasing. It is decreasing in the world, it is decreasing in Europe; and as we examine one group of industries after another the same problem presents itself."
That is a dreadful statement; but I fear a true statement. It is reflected in our 2,250,000 unemployed. The fact is established that the purchasing power per head of every person in the world is higher to-day than it was before the War. The general overseas trade of the world is 20 per cent. higher than it was before the War. We had 14 per cent. of the overseas trade of the world before the War; now we have 11 per cent. What is the reason? We see the result in the unemployment total. That is why this Motion has been put down. The hon. Member for Huddersfield boasts that the taxation policy implicit in the 1930 Budget is good; but it may be that this very policy is the cause of our loss of trade. It has made goods too dear for oversea people to buy. A few days ago, in reply to a question, the Secretary of State for India stated that the Government of India wished to place orders in this country under two contracts, one of which was for tubes and the other for a locomotive, and that in both cases our prices were too high. We lose the orders. The Secretary for Overseas Trade knows that we are losing orders day after day on account of our goods being too heavily priced. That may be owing to the heavy taxation upon production.
Then, again, look at the tariffs which keep us out of foreign markets. The President of the Board of Trade goes to Geneva. What does he get? All he gets is a proposal that tariffs should not be put up by Switzerland and Finland and the Republie of Monte Carlo. Of course, the great industrial countries of Europe

1811
and America will not give him the undertaking for which he asks. They will not come to any arrangement not to put up their tariffs in France, Germany and America. Why should they? They have the entry into our own markets and we have nothing to offer when we say they should put their tariffs down. The only thing is to get power to say that if they want to come into our markets we want something in return for it. Unless we do something like the proposal in this Motion, we shall never get hostile tariffs down, even if the President of the Board of Trade goes to Geneva every Saturday to Monday until the crack of doom. Neither will you get the nations to agree on a general scheme about hours of labour. The Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade talked about the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. N. Baker) being at Geneva. I was there, too, and I heard the discussions about an international agreement on hours of labour. The other countries simply laughed. I wish we could get other nations to come up to the standard of hours and wages which prevail in this country. We are mad to expect them to do such a thing.
Here is an example to the contrary. Only within the last few days I put a question to a Minister. In Manchester it was reported that the Soviet Government are dumping a. large amount of textiles in the Near East. The Russians do not care what we think about their hours of labour; they do not pay the slightest attention to our views about work, or whether it is done by serf or convict labour or labour that works nearly 24 hours a day. What is the good of asking them to change? They produce manufactured goods as they please and sell then in the export markets against us. I heard one hon. Gentleman opposite say quite truly that the position we have to face is kinetic and not static. I remember the effort that was made to get a change in the regulations of the London Coupnty Council so that it would be permissible to use steel and ferroconcrete for buildings. For years it was not permissible to use certain materials that would carry a strain greater than was possible a generation ago. The use of steel and ferro-concrete was prevented because the regulations of the London
1812
County Council were static; they had not moved with the times. Our views must alter as the conditions of the world change.
Here I will quote again from a document which was referred to in a debate a few days ago—the report of the Economic Intelligence Service of the League of Nations in the "Economist," 25th October, 1930:
"What is really important and significant in England is not the depression of the depressed industries, but the relatively small progress made by relatively prosperous industries. It is the growing and not the decaying which require watching."
That is the case of the small and new industries which we are so anxious to build up and which my right hon. Friend who was President of the Board of Trade in the last Government spent a great deal of time in fostering. You cannot build up these new industries if they are to be bludgeoned by imported goods. Neither can you build them up if no attempt is made to encourage the putting of money into them. I remember the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for the Dominions turning round to an hon. Member and saying that he was going to try to put new industries for the making of silk and chocolate into the district of Rhondda in order to relieve unemployment. I wish he would do so. But when you establish an industry in a distressed part of the country and it makes a profit, the Socialist party in that district soon begin to run down the employer because of their hatred of the capitalist. No one is encouraged to establish a new industry in this country. If there is the slightest chance of it doing well, the policy of the present Government is to allow cheaper foreign goods or slave-made goods to come in and so to kill the chance of the new industry ever reaching prosperity. If it makes a profit it is punished with vindictive taxation and the proprietor villified; if it loses money the proprietor has to bear the loss. Is this not a cause of un employment?
The hon. Gentleman made some references to imports and payment of interest with which T should like to deal. I hope that the Committee will extend a little patience, as I wish to deal with statistics. During 1929 we imported visible and invisible imports to the

1813
amount of £1,292,000,000, but we only exported visible and invisible exports amounting to £1,158,000,000. I want hon. Members to appreciate that the visible or merchandise portion was as nine is compared to five invisible and that in the year with which I am dealing one-third of all the exports was invisible. Invisibles do not give you very much employment, and they are increasing in ratio. Of what are they composed? Some of them are shipping receipts, some perhaps, earned by ships which carry foreign goods from San Francisco to Yokohama, or from Rio de Janeiro to Buenos Aires and very often they do not employ British crews, though it is true that we get the profit. I am all for having British crews. The shipping income of £130,000,000, as it was last year, is not as good for United Kingdom employment as if it had been money earned in the iron, or coal, or cotton industries. These invisible exports are good, but not as valuable for employment as the visible might be.
We were short in exports last year by £134,000,000 to meet our imports. What did we give to balance the amount? Hon. Gentlemen always say you must not reduce imports because you reduce exports. You can reduce the imports of manufactured goods by £134,000,000, and you will not reduce exports of goods, bullion or services by one penny. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but that only shows their ignorance of facts. This £134,000,000 excess of imports did not create the export of a single farthing's worth of manufactured goods or services. All it did was to reduce the amount of interest out of £285,000,000 which we were due to receive, on funds invested abroad, by £134,000,000. The 134,000,000 was not invested abroad with the result that we had £151,000,000 to invest abroad last year, instead of £285,000,000. The Board of Trade nett credit figure for 1930 is £151,000,000. If you reduce your manufactured imports by 134,000,000 by saying you will either keep them out or put a heavy tariff on them, you are going to make those £134,000,000 worth of goods at home and provide employment for pretty well half the unemployed, and yet will not reduce exports by a single farthing. Then we would have power to invest abroad not £151,000,000, as last year, but the whole
1814
£285,000,000 due to us as interest on oversea investment. You might lose a little money on your shipping or your banking services, but the result would be that you would make at least £100,000,000 of extra employment here for goods made at home, without reducing exports.
Mr. G LLETT: Will the hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to bring home this money in order to make it available to buy goods in this country?
Mr. SA M U EL: I am extremely amazed that the hon. Gentleman says that. We had due to us £285,000,000 in 1929, for interest on investments overseas, and lie askes me how we bring it home. We do not bring it home, because we leave it invested abroad. We can bring home the credit for interest next year or perhaps leave it abroad for reinvestment. Instead of leaving the whole of the £285,000,000 in 1929, we had to surrender out of it enough to give to foreign sellers of goods to us a sum amounting to £134,000,000, leaving us for investment £151,000,000, abroad. I cannot understand what is in the hon. Gentleman's mind to put such a question.
Mr. GILLETT: If you have the money in francs in France, of course you can buy French goods, but how are you going to turn it into English money to buy English goods?
Mr. SAMUEL: That shows that the hon. Gentleman has not studied the point at all. We bad owing to us, as can be seen from the Board of Trade return published on 3rd March of last year, £285,000,000 of interest, which we did not bring home and the balance of it we have never yet brought home. We left it abroad to fructify. Instead of bringing home our credit of £285,000,000 we surrendered £134,000,000 of it, and we did not bring anything home, either in francs or in shillings as the hon. Member seems to imagine. We left abroad £151,000,000 out of the £285,000,000, and brought home paper security-documents. The point which I want to make is that the £124,000,000 which we used in the form of a surrender of dividend warrants to pay for excess of imports, could have been kept by us for re-investment if this Motion were put into operation and tariffs on manufactured goods imposed, subject to an adjustment for the loss of shipping profits and banking commissions; the relative

1815
goods could be produced here, and the change would enable us to employ half our unemployed without reducing our exports of goods by a single farthing. For that reason, if for that reason alone, I am in full accord with the Motion before the House which advocates the use of tariffs on foreign manufactured goods.
Question put,
"That this House is of the opinion that the only means whereby the general reduction of wages in the immediate future can be avoided is the institution of a general tariff system on foreign manufactured goods, in order to protect the Home market."
The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 209.

Division No. 7.]

AYES.

[10.57 p.m.

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

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

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Bellairs, Commander Cariyon

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Gower, Sir Robert

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Boyce, H. L.

Greene. W. P. Crawford

Salmon, Major I.

Bracken, B.

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Briscoe, Richard George

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

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

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Buchan, John

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Savery, S. S.

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Simms, Major-General J.

Butler, R. A.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

Skelton, A N.

Campbell, E. T.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Carver. Major W. H.

Lamb, Sir J. O.

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

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Smithers, Waldron

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Thomson, Sir F.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Lymington, Viscount

Tinne, J. A.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

Ward. Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Davidson. Major-General Sir J. H.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Williams, Charles (Devon. Torquay)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

O'Neill, Sir H.

Womersley, W. J.

Duckworth. G. A. V.

Penny, Sir George

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Mr. Mond and Mr. Boothby.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Ramsbotham, H.

NOES.

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

Charleton, H. C.

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

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Chater, Daniel

Hardie, George D.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Clarke, J. S.

Harris, Percy A.

Alpass, J. H

Cluse, W. S.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Ammon, Charles George

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Haycock, A. W.

Arnott. John

Compton, Joseph

Hayday, Arthur

Asks, Sir Robert

Daggar, George

Hayes, John Henry

Ayles, Walter

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Denman. Hon. R. D.

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

Barnes, Alfred John

Dukes, C.

Hoffman, P. C.

Barr, James

Duncan, Charles

Hollins, A.

Batey, Joseph

Ede, James Chuter

Hopkin, Daniel

Bellamy, Albert

Edmunds, J. E.

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Benson, G.

Egan. W. H.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Elmley, Viscount

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Birkett, W. Norman

Foot. Isaac

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Blindell, James

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

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Gibson. H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Bowen, J. W.

Gill, T. H.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Bromfield, William

Gillett, George M.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Bromley, J.

Glassey, A. E.

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Brothers, M.

Gossling, A. G.

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

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

Gould, F.

Kelly, W. T.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Kennedy, Thomas

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Kinley, J.

Buchanan, G.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Lang, Gordon

Burgess, F. G.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lathan, G.

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

Groves. Thomas E.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Caine, Derwent Hall-

Grundy, Thomas W.

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Cameron. A. G.

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

Lawrence, Susan

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalyoridge)

Lawson, John James

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

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Leach, W.

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

Sorensen, R.

Lee, Frank (Derby. N.E.)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Stamford, Thomas W.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Stephen, Campbell

Lindley, Fred W.

Paling, Wilfrid

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Strauss, G. R.

Longbottom, A. W.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Sutton, J. E.

Longden, F.

Potts, John S.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Lowth, Thomas

Price, M. P.

Thurtle, Ernest

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Pybus, Percy John

Tillett, Ben

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Tinker, John Joseph

McElwee, A.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Toole, Joseph

McEntee, V. L.

Raynes, W. R.

Tout, W. J.

McKinlay, A.

Richards, R.

Townend, A. E.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Turner, B.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Vaughan, D. J.

McShane, John James

Ritson, J.

Viant, S. P.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

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

Walkden, A. G.

Mansfield, W.

Romeril, H. G.

Walker, J.

Marley, J.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Wallace, H. W.

Marshall, Fred

Rawson, Guy

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Mathers, George

Satter, Dr. Alfred

Wellock, Wilfred

Maxton, James

Sanders, W. S.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Messer, Fred

Sawyer, G. F.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Middleton, G.

Scott, James

West, F. R.

Millar, J. D.

Scrymgeour, E.

Westwood, Joseph

Milner, Major J.

Sexton, James

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Montague, Frederick

Sherwood, G. H.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Shield, George William

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Morley, Ralph

Shillaker, J. F.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Simmons, C. J.

Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)

Mort, D. L.

Sinkinson, George

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

Moses, J. J. H.

Sitch, Charles H.

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Muff, G.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Murnin, Hugh

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Nathan, Major H. L.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Mr. W. B. Taylor and Mr. Shepherd.

Question put, and agreed to.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSFER OF JUVENILES).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. C. Edwards.]
Mr. CHARLES WILLLIAMS: The question which I wish to raise is a vital one dealing with the transfer of the juvenile unemployed. I gave notice that I should raise this question the other day, because the right hon. Lady, the Minister of Labour, could not find an answer to my question. She had given figures to the House that in the London area for 1929, under a Conservative Government, there had been found employment for 590 juveniles, and that in the year ending 31st October, 1930, the number was only 309. That means that, in spite of the fact that double the number of people are out of work, the Government in one of the greatest areas of employment in the country, have been able to help only half the number of juveniles. I put down a question asking her if she could explain this position. That was
1818
not done in any hostile spirit. [Laughter.] I would like to persuade hon. Members opposite that I am not always hostile in this matter, because the unemployment question is too big a one to be treated always as a party question, and in the transfer of juveniles there is an opportunity for us all to help in a small way. We may differ on some bigger issues, hut if we can get these young people into work it is something.
I wish to ask the right hon. Lady, first, whether, since she has been in office, she has found any mechanical faults in the unemployment exchanges or other parts of the machinery for effecting these transfers. My second question is whether, in her administration of this Act, she has found any particular obstacles put in her way. Not long before the last General Election a large number of local authorities met in a room upstairs to explain their views on this subject, and it would be only fair if the right hon. Lady would tell us whether the local authorities in the London area, the only one with which I am dealing, have been found willing to give her all the help necessary. Further, I wish to know whether she has received

1819
adequate help from employers of labour. I am not asking her to give particulars, but only to say in a general way whether employers have done their best to help in what are, I admit, very difficult circumstances for them. As I have dealt with employers, lion. Members opposite will realise that it is only fair that I should also ask whether she has received help and encouragement from the leaders of the trade unions. I am not saying that either employers or trade unions have failed in their duty, but just asking whether she has received the help she would naturally expect from them in filling vacancies, and whether that help has been given willingly.
There are other points which I might have raised and other Ministers whose views I should have liked to hear. The Foreign Secretary made some very remarkable statements on a former occasion but I gather that he is at a banquet tonight and cannot attend here. Another point—can the right hon. Lady assure us that in connection with the transfer of juveniles she has received the fullest support from every section of the Government and from the whole of the Cabinet? Have they been encouraging her and urging her to do everything possible? If so, there has been a very great change of mind, and I welcome it; and if she has to confess that if only the House would put a little more pressure on the Cabinet her task would he easier many of us will, I am sure, he delighted to give her that help. This matter of the transfer of juveniles is not a small one. I look upon it as one of the methods by which, irrespective of party, we are able to do something to start these people in a definite trade and industry, bringing them from the great industrial areas where their outlook is almost hopeless and giving them a fresh start in London. This refers not only to boys but also to girls.
Mr. PYBUS: At this late hour will the hon. Member do a conjuring trick for a change?
Mr. WILLIAMS: I would do a conjuring trick if I could get the Liberal party to vote in the same Lobby. I ask the right hon. Lady, in this matter of transfer, as far as women are concerned, to realise that it is a very important question, and I would like to know
1820
whether she can hold out any hope for a large number of women in the northern industrial area who have very little hope of permanent employment in the future. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW do you know?"] I know, because I have some knowledge of these matters. I have listened to a large number of speeches made by hon. Members on this subject. I presume that some of their knowledge is valuable and I have listened to a great deal of it with considerable interest. The point which I am emphasising is this— has the Minister of Labour found work for a considerable number of women in the London area, and can she tell us where her difficulties are, so that it may be possible for the House of Commons to remove them? It is the removal of these difficulties which I wish to see done on the present occasion, and that is the only reason why I raise this most important subject to-night.
The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): This debate is only an illustration of the capacity of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) for raising a mare's nest. If he had only read the original question out of which this matter arose, he would have found that there is no question at all of any comparison between the figures of this Government and those of the last Government, and that the whole of his statement has been based on an entire misunderstanding. If he will permit me to say so, without intending any offence, I did not take his supplementary question seriously. I did not imagine that this question could arise out of the supplementary question. The figures show an increase for the period, if you take the comparable period between this and the last Government. This Government has been in office 17 months, and I can give the figures for that period. They show a very definite increase. From the 1st June, 1928, to the 31st May, 1929, the total number of juveniles transferred was 1,088. From the 1st June, 1929, to the 31st May, 1930, the number transferred was 1,107. I personally could not take those figures as a comparison, because the whole scheme has been working only for three years, and it is reasonable to expect that a few months will be spent in getting the scheme under way. If, however, the hon. Member wants comparisons, that is the comparison. During

1821
the last month or two there has been a definite diminution in the number of juveniles transferred to the London area. It is due very largely to the intensification of depression in that area. We do not transfer people on some rule of thumb, but in relation to the vacancies available for them, and, wherever the local supply is more than sufficient to fill those vacancies, it would be the height of folly to press on the top of that a further number of transferees. Therefore, although the figures show an increase, there is a smaller proportionate increase than in some other months.
In the London area we have had 262 second places, where the juvenile has been, not lost, but has probably been unable to retain his first job, and we have been able to place him in a second. I regard that as very important work. If I add these 262 second places, a steady increase is shown in the numbers. Taking the first places, there has been a slight proportionate drop in the number of places.
With regard to the hon. Member's questions, I can assure the House that, so far from there being any failure of the machine, the machine has never been working so well as at the present time. I am not content with the progress; I never shall be content until we get it up to 100 per cent.; but there has been a real effort on the part of local authorities to co-operate with us in connection with these committees for the better care and supervision of juveniles, and in the matter of transfer. For example, a very much bigger movement is now taking place in Lancashire, where the movement was very slow indeed. We now have better co-opera on between the local authorities and our own Exchange officers in connection with juvenile advisory committees.
With regard to help from other sources, I have no complaint whatever to make. I find that there is a general appreciation
1822
of the importance of looking after these young people, and, wherever employers and workers can help, they do so. Their opportunities are limited, because the vacancies are limited, but to the extent to which they are able to help, they help most willingly. Wherever we have asked for help in facing certain difficulties locally, for the most part there is a definite improvement on the position 12 months ago. I am still occasionally writing to Members of this House. This week I wrote to a group of Members asking for their good offices in connection with certain county authorities, where the improvement is not as quick as I should like, and I have to thank those Members who have responded so splendidly to any request I have made for their co-operation. I do not think I have had any case in which Members have refused to approach their own local authority when I have asked for their help in trying to get a move on in connection with the establishment of juvenile employment centres.
The hon. Member's last question referred to women coming down from the north. We are steadily developing, and propose to continue to develop as fast as we can find the demand to be met, the establishment of these training centres, which I believe are necessary in connection with the transference of women from one occupation to another, particularly to domestic work. Apart from the exchange machinery altogether, we have indirect evidence—it is not official, and I cannot give statistics—that there is a voluntary trek of women from the North to situations in the South. They come down by hundreds, mostly in connection with posts in some form of domestic work recommended by friends who are already here, and they send for their friends to come down.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  BAHREIN ISLANDS (SOVEREIGNTY).
  BAHREIN ISLANDS (SOVEREIGNTY).
  AIRSHIPS (ENGINES, WEIGHT).
  AIRSHIPS (ENGINES, WEIGHT).
  STAG HUNTING AND VIVISECTION (DOGS).
  STAG HUNTING AND VIVISECTION (DOGS).
SCOTLAND.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, FIFESHIRE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, FIFESHIRE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  BIRTH CONTROL.
  BIRTH CONTROL.
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (EMPLOYES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (EMPLOYES).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FOREIGN OFFICERS, INSTRUCTION).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FOREIGN OFFICERS, INSTRUCTION).
  KENYA (ORDINANCES).
  KENYA (ORDINANCES).
  DOMINICA (DISTURBANCE).
  DOMINICA (DISTURBANCE).
  SCIENCE TEACHING (ANIMAL DISSECTION).
  SCIENCE TEACHING (ANIMAL DISSECTION).
ROYAL NAVY.
  RAILWAY TRAVEL (MEALS).
  RAILWAY TRAVEL (MEALS).
  INVALIDINGS.
  INVALIDINGS.
  GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.
  GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.
  POLICE WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  POLICE WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD WORKS, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  ROAD WORKS, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (LEARNERS).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (LEARNERS).
  GILLINGHAM, KENT, RAILWAY STATION.
  GILLINGHAM, KENT, RAILWAY STATION.
  ELEPHANT AND CASTLE (IMPROVEMENTS).
  ELEPHANT AND CASTLE (IMPROVEMENTS).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY (ELECTRIFICATION).
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY (ELECTRIFICATION).
AGRICULTURE.
  WHEAT PRICES.
  WHEAT PRICES.
  FARM SETTLEMENTS.
  FARM SETTLEMENTS.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Carrington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR.
The Right Honourable Gerald William Balfour, having succeeded to the dignity of the Earl of Balfour on the death of his brother Arthur James Balfour, Earl of Balfour, by virtue of a special remainder contained in a Patent bearing date the fifth day of May, 1922.—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

IMPERIAL MERCHANT SERVICE GUILD PETITION.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg to present a Petition from the Imperial Merchant Service Guild against Article 41 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, which is usually known as the Helmsman's Order, on the grounds that no necessity exists for the proposed change; that the proposed change deals exclusively with matters belonging to their profession by an International Conference on which they were not represented, and that it is strenuously objected to by the masters and navigating officers whom the petitioners represent. The proposed change would involve grave danger not merely of casualties in pilotage waters but of catastrophes at sea in any sudden emergency, and that during the lifetime of the present generation of seamen.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

FRASERBURGH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Fraser-burgh harbour; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confirm a, Provisional Order relating to Grampian Electricity Supply, and to move that it he read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS TO MEETINGS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the admission of the Press to meetings of certain local authorities, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to he printed.

PEERS' WAR MEMORIAL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper regarding your Lordships' War Memorial.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to make the necessary arrangements for the erection of the Peers' War Memorial, and to deal generally with matters relating thereto; and that the Lords following, with the Lord President and the Chairman of

73
Committees, be named of the Committee:—

M. Salisbury,

M. Crewe,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Vane (M. Londonderry),

E. Buxton,

E. Peel,

L. Wigan (E. Crawford),

L. Desborough,

L. Arnold. —(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

EAST AFRICA.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD) moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa (Cmd. 3234 and Cmd. 3378), together with the statement of the conclusions of His Majesty's Government (Cmd. 3574), and to report thereon. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long this evening in speaking to the Motion which is upon the Paper. Four months ago, towards the end of the last Session, I spoke to a similar Motion which I subsequently obtained leave to withdraw. My object, as I then explained, was to give notice to all concerned that it was the intention of the Government to ask your Lordships' House to set up a Joint Committee to examine the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa by what is called the Hilton Young Commission and by Sir Samuel Wilson, and the conclusions reached by his Majesty's Government as stated in Command Paper 3574.
On that occasion I mentioned the more important points in the conclusions of the Government and outlined the functions which it was proposed to give to the High Commissioner appointed in respect of the three territories of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. Incidentally, I may remind your Lordships, I made it clear that the Government had not failed to take very carefully into account the position of the Tanganyika territory in their anxiety to ensure the continued observance, in the spirit as well as in the letter, of the Mandate under
74
which that territory is administered. On that point, the observations with which we might be favoured by the Permanent Mandates Commission would be taken, of course, carefully into account before any new Constitution was put into operation. But your Lordships have before you the Command Paper which sets forth, with a great deal of elucidatory appendices and explanations, the detailed proposals, and there is no need for me to go through them to-day.
There are, however, one or two questions of a more general character to which I should like to refer. I have recently heard some doubts expressed as to the desirability of setting up a Joint Committee to examine and report upon this matter. I would ask your Lordships to consider what are the alternatives to that. Of course, we might decide here and now to drop the whole idea of closer union so far as the economic system is concerned—a proposal which has been very strongly advocated in itself and for itself for the common advantage during the past five, six or seven years, and specifically and very definitely recommended in the Hilton-Young Report. On the advantages of that amount of closer union there has been, I venture to think, very little dissent, but there has been a great deal of controversy as to how exactly it should be carried out. It may be that the Joint Committee will make a negative recommendation of that kind—that we should drop the whole idea—but I do not think we can anticipate that, and we should not be justified in anticipating such a recommendation. The alternative would be that the Government should here and now proceed with its own conclusions, and put them into operation without further discussion.
I should be very sorry to have to do that, because, if I may put it quite simply to your Lordships, we have given a great deal of time and thought to this matter and we have not shirked our responsibility. We have quite definitely come to some conclusions on the subject, which we have put before the country and your Lordships in the White Paper, but we do not presume that we have all the wisdom, and we think it better that we should invite your Lordships and the other place to give us your aid in seeing that these conclusions are the best pos-

75
sible solution of this difficulty. We cannot escape our own responsibilities so long as we are in office, but at the same time the appointment of a Joint Committee seems almost the only way in which we can get the co-operation of other minds upon this problem to ensure that every point of view is adequately put forward, and that the conclusions may represent what I would venture to call the collective wisdom of Parliament. Quite simply that is our proposal. As I say, we have not shirked our own responsibility. We tell you definitely what our conclusions are. We do not claim that they are in any sense the whole of wisdom, and we should hope that the Joint Committee would go over them with due consideration so as to get a final conclusion which would represent the best opinion on the subject.
Perhaps I ought to say a word on the composition of the Committee if it is set up. I do so for a purpose that will appear presently. Your Lordships will realise that it is a matter for a separate Motion in each House, when concurrence in your Lordships' Resolution has been given in another place. Therefore, it is not put down now, but I mention it for one point, and that is the question of the procedure of the Committee. I want to make it quite clear that the Government have no right to dictate, and would not seek to dictate, to the Committee what its procedure is going to be, and, consequently, we have not been able to accede to the requests that have been made to us that certain arrangements should be made in advance. Suggestions have reached me from various sources that the Government might take the responsibility of summoning the representatives of different sections of East African opinion in order that they may put their several views before the Committee. I assume that the Joint Committee, if it is set up, will decide to take evidence, but it must clearly be for the Joint Committee to decide whether that evidence shall be oral or in writing and from whom it will be taken. Therefore, we have not—and it would not be right to do so—taken any action in that matter. I will only take this opportunity of saying that I shall certainly place no impediment in the way of carrying out any decision which the Joint Committee may come to on that point.
I might state for your Lordships' information what the Government have already done. Considered opinions upon the White Paper have been obtained in writing from the Governors of Kenya, Uganda and the Tanganyika Territory, and also from the High Commissioner for Transport, Kenya-Uganda, whilst the Government of India has been invited to record its own views in so far as Indian interests are concerned in the matter. These statements have been obtained specially for communication to the Joint Committee. I may say in passing that the Despatch from the Governor of Uganda includes a statement from the Kabaka of Buganda, and we thus have available already for the Committee a statement of the views of the ruler of the most highly organised native race in East Africa which, for special reasons connected with what is called the Uganda Agreement of 1900, has a special interest in the question of closer union. I have taken up more time than I meant to do. In conclusion, reverting to the Motion which is before the House, let me say that we feel that any proposal for setting up a new Constitution, even if only partial, for so large and important a colonial area as. East Africa, is no light matter, and we ask Parliament to go into the whole subject for itself by means of a Joint Committee. We feel that that is the best way of getting whatever light and leading can be got on the subject in correction, or supplement, or alteration of the conclusions which the Government have come to on this subject. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Reports on Closer Union in East Africa (Cmd. 3234 and Cmd. 3378), together with the statement of the conclusions of His Majesty's Government (Cmd. 3571), and to report thereon.—(Lord Passfield.)
LORD LUGARD: My Lords, I support the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with even more emphasis than I did when he proposed a similar Motion some four months ago, because there would seem to be some fear lest this very important issue should become the shuttlecock of Party politics. There is no need for me to urge upon your Lordships the

77
vital importance of continuity, whatever Government may be in power, in matters concerning—the interests of the millions for which this country has become responsible overseas. It is a principle which, I know, will meet with acceptance in every part of this House, and this is the reason why I consider that a Joint Committee composed of men of all Parties from both Houses is the best possible means of obtaining a national verdict which no Government could lightly set aside.
Nor is there any reason for me to dwell in your Lordships' House on the importance of the issues which are involved. The Duke of Devonshire, speaking in this House seven years ago as Secretary for the Colonies, described the question as one of vast and far-reaching importance, which extends far outside the limits of any one Colony, and upon the decisions now taken will depend the orientation of British policy throughout Africa in the future. When I was privileged to address your Lordships a year and a half ago on this subject, f urged the desirability of setting up a Joint Committee for these reasons, and I added that I hoped that the creation of such a body would attract delegations from the Dependencies more immediately concerned. That hope has not been disappointed, and we are able to give a warm welcome to those who, on the understanding that this Committee would be set up, have come from overseas to give their assistance, to state their views, and to give the Committee the benefit of their long experience.
The problem is not an easy one, and there is no royal road to its solution. Only those who have endeavoured to follow out in detail the various facile solutions which have been proposed can realise the difficulties. We are all agreed, f think, including the spokesmen of British residents in Kenya, and all those who have had experience elsewhere in Africa, that Parliamentary institutions are not suited to the governance of these large African Dependencies. I am convinced that in their later development that will result in additional racial conflict and in a policy of repression, which, as Mr. Justice Rose-Innes, with a lifelong experience of South Africa, said in
78
a letter to The Times the other day, can only end in a terrible disaster. The problem, as I see it, is to find an alternative method and to adapt it to the varying circumstances of the different Dependencies.
My noble friend Lord Cranworth, speaking on this subject in a previous Session, said that he thought it would be useless to appoint a Joint Committee because any members who knew anything about the subject would come with unalterable views. I do not share his pessimistic forecast. The ability to put aside preconceived prejudices and preconceived opinions, when called upon to act in a judicial capacity, is one of the characteristics of our race, and I believe that if those who appear to hold irreconcilable views would meet round a table with the sincere desire and good will to arrive at conclusions based solely on the good of the country and of its inhabitants of whatever race, a solution will be found. I have personally had an opportunity of talking with two or three of the leading exponents of views with which I do not myself wholly agree, and we have in each case mutually agreed that there was no insuperable barrier between us in principle. It will, therefore, be an immense advantage to the Committee to have an opportunity of personal contact with the delegates themselves and share with them (as I hope) the satisfaction of putting an end to the controversies of the past.
It has been suggested that the White Paper on Native Policy should be included in the terms of reference, and I had rather expected to hear an Amendment moved in that sense this afternoon. I do not personally attach much importance to that proposal, because, in the first instance, the Report of the Hilton Young Commission is included in the terms of reference and there is no aspect of native policy which is not dealt with fully in that Report. Moreover, the White Paper itself, setting forth the conclusions of His Majesty's Government, which forms the basis of the terms of reference to the Committee, does refer to the White Paper on Native Policy, and therefore I conclude that the latter is inferentially included in the terms of reference. In the second place, I understand that no exception is taken to the general principles laid down in the White Paper on Native

79
Policy, but rather to its phraseology, and it is not the function of a Committee of this kind to redraft a Government Memorandum even supposing that it considered that the wording could be improved.
The Committee will, of course, frame its own conclusions and state its recommendations in its own language and since the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, in his speech last July, stated that his object in proposing the appointment of a Joint Committee was in order quite frankly to see whether the conclusions of the Government could be improved, it may doubtless be assumed that any improvement which might be recommended would cover the question of phraseology. The noble Lord said that he desired in any case to get for the policy which may eventually be decided upon a sort of sanction higher than that at any rate of the present Government and, perhaps, of any Government confined to one Party. It is with this object that I join in asking your Lordships to adopt the Resolution.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I am sorry that I have to strike a somewhat discordant note at this stage. Your Lordships will recollect that when this Motion was before the House some months ago I ventured to say that I doubted whether the appointment of this Committee was either an opportune or a satisfactory method of settling the problems which we have before us. I have had considerable time to consider the subject since then and considerable opportunity, and I am sorry to say that I find that the reasons which caused me to form my then opinion remain sufficient to cause me to retain it still. I propose to give your Lordships briefly the reasons that cause me to hold that opinion very firmly. In the first place, I would suggest that the history of these joint committees, and more especially that one which dealt with not totally dissimilar proposals in connection with India, has not been such as to give entire encouragement for the formation of the present one. The second point I make is that I do not think that the personnel from which you will be enabled to appoint this Committee stands on a sufficiently broad basis.
I agree with my noble friend on my left that probably the two great
80
qualities you require in members of this Committee are, first, a broad and open mind, and, secondly, sufficient knowledge of what, after all, is a very intricate question to be able to weigh the evidence put before them at its true worth. I do not doubt for one moment that you will be able to get twenty gentlemen with impartial minds, but there must be many of your Lordships who are members of selection committees which select candidates for constituencies, and I would ask whether in selecting those candidates they ever require of one of them that he should have an impartial mind. I venture to suggest that as a matter of fact it is the very last thing desired. The more -bigoted his mind is on your side the more votes he will get among members of the selection committee. With regard to the second quality—sufficient knowledge to weigh the evidence before them—I feel certain that you will be able to get twenty gentlemen with that qualification, but when you have to combine the two that is where you will find the difficulty.
I venture to think, in opposition to what the noble Lord on my left has said, that it is a fact that the majority, if not all, of the people with sufficient knowledge have their minds made up on the major issues now. They themselves will say that they are convinced by the overwhelming mass of evidence. Those who hold opposite opinions will say that they are encased in prejudice and obstinacy, and, if they want to be nasty, they will add serf-interest. I will just give two instances to illustrate this point. I have lived some years in East Africa and I am firmly convinced that the natives gain benefits by living in contact with the white civilisation as distinct from contact merely with white officials and white missionaries. I admit that the white settler gains advantages from contact, but I am more convinced as years go on that the natives gain advantage too. I think the one is the complement of the other. I cannot believe for one moment that any evidence put before me is going to shake for one minute that opinion which I hold. The other instance is this: there have been two great Commissions—the Ormsby-Gore Commission and the Hilton Young Commission—Commissions that were formed from all Parties. They

81
were non-Party Commissions. They investigated the evidence at great length and with great care and they produced two fine—one might almost say magnificent—Reports. Do your Lordships really suppose that those gentlemen are going to change the opinions which they formed during those investigations merely from a réchauffé of evidence once more set before them? I cannot believe that this is likely.
The third point that I wish to make is that the time is not opportune. Those countries, especially Kenya, are suffering from the economic crisis through which the world is passing. They are having great financial difficulties. Their three main crops, sisal, coffee and maize, are at this moment probably being produced at a loss. They are unable to face any great expenditure. The expenditure with regard to these proposals has been Ira to Inc as a minimum of £50,000 and a maximum of £100,000 a year. The country is unable to bear it at the present moment, and it is on those grounds that I say that this is an inopportune dine for going into that great question.
My fourth point raises the most important consideration of all. I am afraid that the spirit of accommodation in that country is dead or, as I should prefer to say, temporarily gassed. Two Papers are mentioned in this Motion, but there is a third—namely, Command Pr per 3573, the Memorandum on Native Policy. I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of those who drew up that Paper. I am convinced that they believed every word they wrote, but I do say that it is a most unhappy document, and that its conclusions have been much more far-reaching than its authors contemplated. I would add that the tone of it is unhappy. It consists to a great extent of what may be described as excellent principles and platitudes, with nine-tenths of which we all agree. These are offered to the people in that country who have been carrying out those principles for twenty-five years and more. These principles are put to them as a novel doctrine. They are no novel doctrine. People out there have been carrying them out to the admiration, if not of all their countrymen, of most of the civilised world.
My second point regarding that Memorandum is that it seems to me to
82
breathe distaste and distrust of the white community in that country, whether it be settlers or officials. The third point that I would make in that regard is that it takes a phrase out of its context in another place and elevates it into a novel principle by which our Colony must be governed. I allude to the phrase "paramountcy of native interests." I admit that the phrase is taken out of the Memorandum on Indians in Kenya which was drawn up by the Conservative Government in 1923. I remember that I regretted the phrase when I first saw it, as many others did, and I feel now that we should have been more vocal in our distaste for it. But we thought—certainly I thought—that in its context it meant that our duty towards the natives was felt to be of such paramount importance that we did not dare risk entrusting them to the chance of domination by the Indians. That is what I thought it meant, and that is What I believe that its authors would say now that it meant. But that is not the sense in which, taken from its context, it is put into this Memorandum.
There may be several interpretations of the phrase "paramountcy of native interests." One of them appeared this morning in The Times, signed by among others, the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, with which I think few, and certainly not I, will be disposed to find fault. I should like just to read it to you:—
"We take it to mean no more than that the interests of the overwhelming majority of the original population must not be subordinated to those of a minority, belonging to another race, however important in itself."
That, I think, is happy phraseology, but that, even if it were the intention, is not the meaning that was put upon it in this Memorandum. The gleaning there was that for all time the European interests in this country—and you must remember that these Europeans were asked to go out there—were to be subordinated. They were to find themselves in a sub-ordinate position. Thus we find what is, to me, a somewhat peculiar spectacle—namely, a great sum of money (great in proportion to the population and riches) raised to enable a delegation to come over here to ask its own Government that in its own country it should have equal

83
rights with the rest of the population. That seems to me a peculiar thing to happen, and, I think, a regrettable one.
It may be said the meaning read into that phrase is not that which was intended. But I must further point out that it has raised intense antagonism, not only in Kenya and East Africa, but further afield, in the Union of South Africa. I say, with all due deference to the noble Lord opposite, that it seems to me a wrong thing to have ordered the publication of that Paper in those territories to millions of uneducated natives without first submitting it to His Majesty's representatives overseas. It is, perhaps, a foolish thing that the great change of policy indicated in that Paper should be placed before them without having been first submitted to the many other nations, such as the Union of South Africa, who are so deeply affected by the question.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships too long, and I do not wish to go into the many questions raised by the White Paper or into the conclusions of His Majesty's Government. These matters will be gone into by the Committee that is to be appointed. But there is one comment I should like to make on that point. There is one thing to which I do not think that Committee or anyone else can really agree. In one particular, the conclusions of the Government run counter to the "paramountcy of native interests," whether it be read in the form of the Memorandum on Native Policy or in the form preferred by the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, and myself. It does open the door, not once but in two major issues, to the domination of the natives by the Indians. I do not believe that any one who has any real knowledge of that country can believe that this can be in the interests of the native population.
In conclusion, I would make one suggestion to the noble Lord and one appeal to him. It does seem to me to be vital in this matter that we should recover the good will of the people on the spot. There are many things that we may say and think about them. You may wish that they had never come there, at the invitation of His Majesty's Government; you may deny them what they think is their fair share in the responsibility of trusteeship for the natives; you may add to their taxation until they find it hard
84
to bear; you may—I do not think you will—overwhelm them with illiterate votes; but there is one thing that you cannot alter, and that is the fact that, in this generation at least, so far as we can see, while they are there they will be the dominant race in that country. Accordingly, to my mind, if you are to tackle these great problems with the hope of success, it is absolutely essential that this good will should be recovered, and that the people out there, who will have to carry out whatever you decide, whatever the Committee decide, should look upon the Government of this country as their friend and not as their enemy.
The suggestion that I would make to the noble Lord is this. If the House decides, as I have no doubt it will, to appoint a Committee, that you should appoint the members in due course but postpone for a few months at least the setting up of that Committee. By so doing you will show sympathy for these people in their troubles—in their economic troubles. This delegation has been over here for two months, and is now forced by stress of circumstances to return. Surely, it would be an almost intolerable burden to ask them to leave their farms or their businesses, and to return again and give evidence before the Committee. I conceive that no Committee would reach any conclusions unless they really know what the people there have in their hearts. If you adopt my suggestion you will show at least that you have sympathy with them, and you will go a great step to get back the good will which I fear is jeopardised.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have no wish to prolong the discussion at this stage. I only desire to take this opportunity, on behalf of many who are deeply interested in the problems of the whole of Africa, to impress, if it is necessary, upon the House the great and far-reaching importance of the issues which are partly [involved and partly concealed by the Motion which is before the House, and to support as strongly as I can the proposal that these questions should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. As long ago as February, 1929, a proposal that this whole problem should be referred to a Joint Committee was made in a remarkable letter which was signed by seven members of your Lordships' House, including Lord

85
Lugard, who has spoken, and my revered predecessor, Archbishop Davidson. In that letter they used the words:
"The questions to he determined in East Africa are second in their importance only to those of India."
I regard it as not without significance that we should be having this discussion on the very afternoon of the day on which, with so much impressiveness and in an atmosphere of so much hope, the Conference on the problems of India was opened by His Majesty, for indeed There is a very close analogy between the two problems; and the point where we now stand with regard to East Africa is whether we are now light-heartedly to take decisions from which afterwards it may be impossible to withdraw, and which involve the welfare of the whole of that vast Continent.
This is, as your Lordships well know, touch more than a mere administrative problem. If that were all, it might be enough to know how successfully to get round the immediate corner. There are times when the question is not to get round the next corner but what road we are ultimately to follow, so as to see that no step is taken which is not along the road carefully and thoughtfully sleeted. It is because we have reached, in the judgment of many, a turning point in the whole future of that vast Continent of Africa, that we consider that the matter deserves the most careful and full consideration of Parliament, under the guidance and help of a Joint Committee. It is because the matter is so important that we should regard it as most unfortunate if it were approached with any misunderstandings. I am not attempting this afternoon any sort of criticism, but it may be, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has indicated, that some of the language of the last Government White Paper may have contributed to this misunderstanding—I am sure, quite unintentionally.
I would go further and admit that the language used in the famous statement of 1923 might have been more happily chosen. Your Lordships are all familiar with the oft-quoted words that:—
"… the interests of the African natives must be paramount, and that if, and when, those interests and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail."
86
I am not surprised that these words should have given rise to great misunderstanding in the minds of the settlers, who have risked everything and are deeply attached to their country and who are concerned lest their own interests should be merely subordinated to other interests, even of the natives. It seems to me that what we have to do is to recognise fully and frankly that the great interests represented largely by the white race and the black races are in need of each other. We ought to do nothing to suggest the antithesis that pro-native means anti-white, or that anti-white means pro-native. In the long run these interests are identical, and if at any point they seem to conflict our end should he not that any interest, as such, should prevail, but that justice should be done to each.
Justice in the old sense of the term means giving to each its due—due value and due consideration—and to my mind the most fundamental question which this Joint Committee will have to determine is what authority in the future in East Africa is to hold the scales of justice. I am not in any way anticipating the conclusions of the Joint Committee, but I think it might be admitted that some self-governing constitution, chiefly representative of the white settlers, would not be the best authority to determine this question of impartial justice, not because we doubt the fairness with which the settlers would consider the problem, but from the very fact that a Legislature representing something like one out of ninety-nine of the population of the country concerned, can scarcely be regarded as wholly impartial, and ought not to be a judge in its own cause.
Indeed, let us remember, with a view of dismissing this unnecessary misunderstanding, that the elected European members of the Kenya Legislature in their manifesto said that the colonists had never disputed the necessity of investing some central authority with the duty of holding the balance even in racial matters. There ought to be evolved some arbitral authority to exercise this great function, and the task of the Joint Committee would be to suggest what that; authority should be, and how it should be exercised. I should be surprised if they did not come to the conclusion that the only real arbitral authority must

87
be the Secretary of State himself, as responsible to the Imperial Parliament. But if the authority is to be arbitral, it ought not to be arbitrary; it ought to be exercised in the closest possible association with those on the spot, wale have vital interests, and those who are concerned day by day with the life and welfare of the native.
It. would be quite out of place at the present time to indicate even in the most general way the basis upon which such an authority might be suggested. My only desire at this stage is to deprecate the approach to the discussion of this immensely important problem as if one set of interests was to be arrayed against another. The value of the Joint Committee will be that it will help Parliament to decide, at a quite critical moment in the whole future history of that vast Continent, what is the system of government there to which we are steadily to direct our efforts for many generations, and what is to be the authority that can be trusted to deal justly in all questions affecting the races towards whom we have to exercise a most responsible trust. It seems to me only right that. matters so far-reaching should receive the fullest and most careful thought at the hands of Parliament, because I do not think General Smuts exaggerated the position when he said that the question of white and black on the Continent of Africa was going to be the most interesting and enthralling problem of the twentieth century.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this Motion is a similar one to that which the noble Lord the Secretary of State put down at the end of last Session, and withdrew. Many things have happened, and much has been said in the few months that have elapsed since then. In consequence it seems to me that the position has altered considerably, and has modified to a certain extent, and I think it calls for some further comment. In the first place, it has become abundantly evident that there is an almost complete unanimity of opinion among the white population in East Africa unfavourable to the two White Papers which were issued by the Government last summer—namely, the White Paper on Closer Union and the White Paper on the question of Native Policy; and,
88
as a matter of fact, it is the latter which has probably created the worst impression. This is a very unfortunate state of affairs, and I think it only right to say that one wonders whether in the circumstances, and owing to the sense of insecurity which has been created in East Africa, it is likely that the Joint Committee which it is proposed to set up can achieve any very tangible results.
I think this is doubly unfortunate, because when Sir Samuel Wilson went out to East Africa last year he managed to obtain a very extraordinary measure of agreement with regard to these problems, taking everything into consideration. He certainly carried out his work in an admirable way: but I am very much afraid that most of the good which he did has been done away with by these two Government White Papers, and particularly by the actual phraseology and the impression created by this White Paper on Native Policy. The interpretation which has been put upon the word "paramountcy," which has been referred to already this evening, has undoubtedly created alarm, and not only in Kenya itself, but in the two Rhodesias as well, particularly Northern Rhodesia. The white populations in those countries have acquired the conviction that the legitimate interests of the colonists will not receive fair consideration and support from the Colonial Office at home. Whether those fears are justified or not I do not know, but that is actually what has happened, and that is the situation which the Government have to face at the present moment.
With regard to the actual scheme proposed by the Government, I want to say very little. It was discussed last July at some length. I think I said even then that in my view it required a number of radical alterations before it could possibly be looked upon as acceptable. I do not wish to traverse that ground again to-day. On general principles, though, I would like to say that we on this Bench welcome the idea that the great question of policy in East Africa should he dealt with as far as possible on a non-Party basis, by some such means as the Joint Committee proposed by the Government. I am certain we are all most anxious to do everything we can to keep these big Imperial and Colonial questions out of Party politics. But there is one

89
point that I think I must make clear. The Government have expressed their intention to submit the White Paper on Closer Union to the Joint Committee, but it is not their intention, I understand, to submit the White Paper on Native Policy to that Committee. I think that is rather a curious step to have taken. It comes to this, that, in our opinion, in consequence of that action, the White Paper on Native Policy must be looked upon as a Party document and Prot as an agreed document, and must therefore be considered to be open to revision by any Government that may succeed the present one.
I should like to refer to the circumstances which have led up to the present state of affairs. There have been three Commissions or Inquiries in recent years rent out to East Africa. We first had one presided over by Mr. Ormsby-Gore, which was sent out by a Labour Government in 1924, and was an entirely non-Party body. That Commission made unanimous recommendations, I think, against any form of closer union. They believed that agreement on matters of common interest between the different countries out there could be attained by conferences, such as the Governors' Conference, and other technical conferences which might easily be set going. Then, in 1927, we Fad the Commission presided over by Sir Hilton Young, and that Commission certainly made some proposals with regard to closer union, but they were only made in broad outlines, many of the details were left out, and many problems and difficulties were left undecided. As the result of that, last year Sir Samuel Wilson was sent out to work out the details on the spot, in consultation with those whose interests were involved, and I venture to say again that he did so with very great success, and achieved a very great measure of agreement. But in spite of those three Reports, the Government have rejected the proposals of all three, and have instead put forward new proposals of their own. I venture to say that this is a somewhat extraordinary attitude to have taken up.
I do not wish to go further into the actual proposals because, as I have said, they were discussed at some length a short time ago, and admittedly, they are to be subjected to the consideration
90
of the Joint Select Committee. But I must repeat that I doubt very much whether, in consequence of the political and economic circumstances now obtaining in East Africa, the Joint Committee will be able so to amend the proposals of the Government as to make them either practicable or acceptable. However, in view of the expressed intention of those of us on this side to refer the Reports of these various Commissions to a Joint Committee, we are prepared to co-operate in further examining these proposals. At the same time, we reserve to ourselves complete freedom of action should there be a change of Government in the future.
I should like to say a very few words about the Committee and its composition. With regard to the Chairman—and here I feel certain the noble Lord knows that I do not speak personally in any way—I am very glad that it has been decided that the noble Lord himself should not be Chairman. That position, I think, would have been a very unfortunate one. The Secretary of State would have been at one and the same time Chairman of the Committee and chief protagonist of the scheme which was before the Committee. That, I think, would have created a very bad impression, and I am sure he will agree with me that there are plenty of precedents against such a course. I understand that nothing has been definitely settled on this subject, but I hope, if I may put it in that way, that a noble Lord who is not closely identified with the Front Bench of any Party may be selected to preside over the Committee. As to the procedure of the Committee, I feel very strongly, and I think the noble Lord stated in his speech that he agreed, that the Committee should be left free to regularise its own procedure both with regard to evidence and the documents, official or otherwise, which are to be called before it. I think that is an important point.
I do not think there is anything else which I wish to say about any detail of these proposals. I would only add in conclusion that which I know we all feel—tihat the question of policy in East Africa is a vast and complicated problem and that, whatever may issue from all these discussions, we may be certain that the effect of any decisions which are come to will be very far reaching

91
indeed. The government of a new country from Downing Street is a very difficult business at the best of times. The past success of Great Britain as a Colonial Power has depended to a very large extent on the ability of those at home to enter into the feelings of all the diverse populations subjected to official rule. One thing is absolutely certain, and I am confident that the Government realise this: no good can come to any section of the population, least of all the native section, if the good will between those who govern and those who are governed is in any way forfeited.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will not detain the House many moments in replying to the debate, but perhaps in courtesy I ought to say a few words with regard to some of the remarks that have been made. If I pass over most of them it is merely to save time, and to deal only with those on which some further explanation or elucidation might be given. With regard to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, I think a large part of his criticisms and objections turned on the use of the word "paramountcy"—the paramountcy of the native interests. That expression occurs not only in the Memorandum on Native Policy but at the beginning also of the Memorandum on Closer Union. Therefore, it is very specifically referred to the Joint Committee. Perhaps it was a natural weakness on the part of the Government that they did wish to maintain the principle of continuity as far as they possibly could, and I can assure the noble Lord that there was no notion in our minds of interpreting this in any new way. I want to say that quite definitely. As a matter of fact it was very fully and elaborately stated in 1923, not merely in a sentence but in a whole paragraph. That was examined in the Report of the Hilton Young Commission at considerable length, and the Government are not expressing any new doctrine when they simply repeat the declaration that the Duke of Devonshire made in 1923.
Then the suggestion is that at any rate it was wrong to distribute the Paper among the population. I do not know how far it has been distributed among the two and a-half millions of natives. I would only say that the 1923 Paper had
92
an equal circulation, as far as we can make out, and the Hilton Young Report also. It is not possible to keep these things secret if they are published. We have certainly taken no steps to distribute it among the native population. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we want to secure the good will of the people on the spot and, whatever may have been the faults of myself or of my colleagues in the matter, surely one of the best ways in which we can try to make amends is to call them into counsel in this Joint Committee. It is deliberately in order to obtain the greatest possible measure of good will that I am asking your Lordships to agree to a Joint Committee to go into the whole matter.
If I pass over the remarks of others and refer to what was said by the noble Earl who has just sat down, I would only ask him to note that I am sorry I cannot agree with him that there has been almost complete unanimity among the white population of East. Africa against both White Papers. I hope there has not been that, and that in so far as there has been objection to them it has not been to the whole of the Papers but only to some expression in them, or to some wrong phrase or something of that sort. At any rate, whatever sense of uncertainly may exist, that again is one of the reasons why we are asking your Lordships to agree to a Joint Committee. We want, if possible, to remove that sense of uncertainty and any ill will there may be.
We quite understand that the noble Earl who has just sat down reserves all the rights of himself and his Party in any future Government to disregard whatever was or was not done. I would only like to say, incidentally, that the Memorandum on Native Policy will necessarily be before the Joint Committee. It is actually referred to in the Memorandum on Closer Union. It is actually founded on the Hilton Young Report, which was definitely referred to the Joint Committee. There wall certainly be no attempt on my part to prevent the Joint Committee taking it into account as fully as it chooses in relation to the powers which are proposed to be given to the High Commissioner, to which it is exactly relevant. So that

93
there is no withholding at all. Having said so much, I do not propose to detain our Lordships any longer.
LORD DELAMERE: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships if I have not followed the rules of your Lordships' House in rising to say one or two words after the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies has spoken. I must say that I was taken in by a noble Lord opposite who, I expected, was to speak this afternoon, and whom I saw drinking a glass of water. I hope your Lordships will accept my humble apology if I have not entirely followed the rules of your Lordships' House, with which I am not acquainted. I am afraid that I shall not be able to give you a very connected statement upon the facts that have been mentioned this afternoon.
I should like to start by taking exception to a remark made by the noble Lord who moved this Resolution. He said just now that it was impossible to prevent publication of the White Papers, including the White Paper on Native Policy, nor their wide distribution among the natives of countries which are governed by Governors appointed from this country. I may say that the note at the beginning of the Memorandum on Native Policy states that instructions have been sent that the widest possible publicity should be given to the statements made of native policy, and that copies should be communicated to the Government officials who may be in any way concerned, and in particular that every administrative officer—that is; the officer living among the natives—should be supplied with a copy. I was very glad to hear Lord Lugard speak on this subject, although. I am afraid we are not in entire agreement. If it had not been for the noble Lord, we should not be sitting here talking about East Africa to-day, because the British territories in East Africa would probably not have been in existence.
If there were any purpose in doing so, T. would appeal to the noble Lord to withdraw this Motion and, at the same time, to withdraw the White Paper on Native. Policy which was issued last June. I am quite sure that that would be the best plan for the noble Lord to adopt from the point of view of reopening discussions upon the whole matter in East Africa in an atmosphere in which it is
94
possible to talk about these things from a construcitve point of view. I am sure noble Lords will not think I am saying too much when I say that if the policy laid down in the statement of conclusions were enforced, it would meet with the strongest possible political obstruction right through the whole of the East African territories, from the local Governments, from the officials, and from the colonists in those countries. That being so, what is the practical object in laying before this Committee, partly chosen from your Lordships' House, the consideration of a policy so far removed from the actual facts of the East African situation, and so impossible of acceptance by the colonists of Eastern Africa, in whose hands, whatever may be the Constitution of the future, the happiness and well-being of the natives is bound to rest?
I must say it was a shock to me, as one of the greatest believers in democratic institutions, to hear from the most rev. Primate that in his opinion Parliamentary institutions were not fitted to be applied in East Africa. The most rev. Primate will forgive me as a new but not young member of your Lordships' House, if I say that so far as I am concerned I believe, and shall continue to believe, that Parliamentary institutions are the only institutions in the world to-day that are showing any possibility of the development and progress of the countries in which they exist. Your Lordships will remember that in the East to-day there are only three countries which have adopted Parliamentary institutions on the plan more or less that we have in Europe—Turkey, Japan and China. In regard to China I ought perhaps to say that it is on the way to adopt Parliamentary institutions. Those are the only three countries in Asia so far as I know which are really making progress. I believe that those people in East Africa whom I have the honour to represent now in England, believe that the only possible correct form of government for East Africa is a form of government which has been adopted throughout the South African and East. African Territories which to-day are governing themselves by means of a system of sell-government in which British colonists and European colonists are completely paramount. I honestly believe there is no other possible policy.

95
We talk round these things. We say that we ought to find some other method of governing those countries. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, some little time ago, you have got to govern with the help of your own people and your own colonists in Africa. Now you have, as an effect of this White Paper of 1930, the position that the white colonists of East Africa are today in a frame of mind which makes it extremely difficult to make clear to them a great many of the issues which are impending in the future, because this White Paper has undoubtedly made them think that it is the wish of this Government to withdraw from them the trust of the people at home and to withdraw from them the government of these countries. I think the position of East Africa to-day—I specially represent Kenya, but Tanganyika undoubtedly agrees with us—is that unless some conclusion can be come to in this country that His Majesty's Government are willing to trust their own people in East Africa, we would rather see closer union go into cold storage for a time and all Changes of Constitution for the time being laid aside to be revived only at a time when more thought can be given to the question.
I am sorry in a way that we are going to have this Joint Committee appointed. On the other hand I should like to say that we have nothing to conceal. If this Committee is appointed we shall undoubtedly do our best to put all our opinions before that Committee in the hope that some method may he found which will still enable your own people in East Africa to believe that they are advancing to self-government on the ordinary lines of all the British Colonies that have gone before in Africa.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them there-with and to desire their concurrence.

RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD VISCOUNT BRENTFORD had given Notice that he would call attention to the relationship between this country and the Government of the Soviet Republic of Russia; ask His Majesty's Government—

1, What steps they have taken or propose to take dealing with Russian propaganda in the Empire;

96

2, Whether they propose to take any and, if so, What steps to prevent the dumping in this country of the products of Russia grown or manufactured under unfair conditions;

3, Whether they still intend to continue the export credits scheme to Russia;

and move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Questions which I desire to ask the Government this afternoon are, I venture to submit, of some considerable importance. In putting the Questions, I really am going to suggest that the Government or the Foreign Secretary have been guilty of either misleading Parliament or, at all events, of a complete change of view—one or the other—since these troubles began. Your Lordships will remember that as long ago as March, 1927, when we were in office, the present Prime Minister declared quite definitely that the propaganda of the Russian Government in this country was illegitimate. He went out of his way to make that declaration. Moreover, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at the same time, in March, 1927, made a very clear statement that there was no difference between the Russian Government and the Communist International. In fact, his statement was very considered. Indeed, said Mr. Snowden, the Soviet Government, the Communist International and the Russian trade unions are a trinity—three in one, and one in three. I want your Lordships to remember those two statements, because a complete change seems to have taken place as far as I can gather in the mind of Mr. Henderson, the present Foreign Secretary.
The Government were determined, apparently, to re-establish relations with Russia. Mr. MacDonald himself, in a speech during the Election, said that they must do it, if they came into power, by hook or by crook. "By hook or by crook" is the foundation, as it were, of the policy of the present Government in dealing with the question of relations between us and the Soviet Government. As soon m the present Government came into office there was an announcement in the King's Speech that discussions had already begun. The Foreign Secretary, in order to make it clear to the

97
House—and I venture to think in order to placate opinion on our side of the House—laid it down quite clearly that we were not going to tolerate any form of propaganda, of interference in the internal affairs either of this country or of any of the Dominions or of any part of the British Empire.
That is the basis which the Foreign Secretary laid down as the one upon which negotiations were going to take place between Russia and ourselves, and when an arrangement was come to between Russia and ourselves, it was clearly provided that we should each of us refrain from and restrain all persons and organisations under their direct or indirect control from any act liable in any way whatsoever to endanger the tranquillity or prosperity of the British Empire or the Soviet Republic. That is an extract from Article 16 of the previous Treaty made in 1924 between the Labour Government and the Soviet Government. Article 16 was actually re-enacted by Mr. Arthur Henderson and by, I think, Mr. Dovgalevski, who was Russian Ambassador or Russian Envoy to treat in these negotiations. Article 16 actually went so far as to bar all organisations receiving financial assistance from either Government. I ask your Lordships specially to take note of those words "financial assistance," because I shall show to your Lordships very shortly that financial assistance has quite recently been given by the Russian Government to one or other of these organisations.
When these negotiation's took place the present, Prime Minister was perfectly aware of the position between the Russian Government and the Third International. Really the charter as it were of my case in this debate is the celebrated Despatch by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald when he was Foreign Secretary, dealing with the Zinoviev Letter of October 24, 1924. Re sent a Despatch to Russia in which he laid down with the utmost clearness that—
"No one who understands the constitution and relationship of the Communist International will doubt its intimate connection and contact with the Soviet Government."
He went on to say:—
"No Government"—
98
he was speaking of our own Government, the Government of Great Britain—
"will ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Government by which the latter is in formal diplomatic relations of a correct kind with it, whilst at the same time a propagandist body organically connected with that foreign Government encourages and even orders subjects of the former to plot and plan for its overthrow."
I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord President of the Council, who I understand will reply for the Government, whether any change has taken place in the view of the Government since that celebrated Despatch of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in 1924. I would like to ask whether they are now prepared to tolerate in a Government with which they are "in correct"—that is his expression—"correct diplomatic relations," propaganda organically connected with that foreign Government.
Mr. Henderson, speaking in the House of Commons on November 5 last year, when he was dealing with the question of the resumption of these diplomatic relations, referred to that Despatch of 1924, and ho said:—
"It has been plainly stated to the Soviet representative, and stated again twice by myself, that the Communist International will be regarded by His Majesty's Government as an organ of the Soviet Government."
In your Lordships' House the late Lord Thomson, whom we miss so much, said on December 4 last:—
"From the outset the Government have made it clear that they will regard this undertaking—"
that is, the undertaking in reference to propaganda—
"as including the Third International."
If these statements were at the time correct, and I believe they were, I want to ask the Government this afternoon whether they adhere to them, whether they regard the Third International as organically connected with the Soviet Government, and whether they regard the undertaking given by the Soviet Government as still including the Third International.
I cannot conceive it possible that they are not aware that either the Third International or the Government itself is still indulging in propaganda. In September last year there was a Conference of the principal scouts of the Red agita-

99
tion in the East, and Stalin himself—not merely a member of the Third International, but, as far as we can fix the appropriate rank, the Prime Minister of Russia at that time, and certainly the leading member of the Russian Government to-day—Stalin informed the Assembly that the Soviet Government had decided to grant for the year 1930 to the special section of the Third International occupied with work in the East a total credit of 500,000 dollars, of which 200,000 dollars was for India alone. Here you get the most powerful member of that Government announcing to the Red Scouts, a branch of the Third International, that the Government was actually going to provide them with a definite sum of money for agitation in India. That clearly comes within Article 16 of the Treaty of 1924 to which I have referred.
Then, as your Lordships know, the Daily Worker, a paper which perhaps one does not always read, was started on January 1 of this year, and its first issue in this country contained a message from the head of the Third International announcing that it was to be "a new and powerful weapon in the fight against capitalism, against nationalism, and against the Socialist-Fascist-Labour Government." I am here trying to help the Labour Government. I sympathise with them in the attack that has been made upon them by the Socialist Republic of Russia. But, whether we have a Labour Government or a Conservative Government, I equally deny the right of any foreign country or foreign propaganda organisation, after the signature of that Treaty, to take any part in propaganda against the Government in this country. On January 17 the Daily Worker made no secret about its desires when it stated that the International was engaged in stirring up unrest in this country, in India and in Australia. That was too much for the present Foreign Secretary, Mr. Henderson, who apparently had his attention called to it in the House of Commons. He told the House that he had called the attention of the Soviet Ambassador to this and had informed him that such action was likely to impede the improvement in the relations between the two countries. And then Mr. Henderson added, in a moment of real bathos:-
100
"For the present His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any further steps."
He clearly admitted, by calling the attention of the Soviet Ambassador to this matter, that it was propaganda within the meaning of Article 16, propaganda which the Soviet Government had undertaken not to indulge in. He calls their attention to it and he says that for the present His Majesty's Government intend to take no further steps.
That was eleven months ago. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite will tell me whether "for the present" is still to be read as applying to the present day, and whether they are taking or have taken any further steps. When he was further pressed in the House of Commons, Mr. Henderson actually said:-
"I did not ask His Excellency for any reply."
I suppose it was a kind of pleasant afternoon at the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Secretary said to the Russian Ambassador "This is all very wrong and against Article 16 and your solemn Treaty; have another cup of tea, and do not trouble to answer." The Foreign Secretary said: "I did not ask him for any answer." I wonder what the Ambassador said. We were not told this in the other House. The Foreign Secretary, after making this complaint, did not ask for an answer. Did the. Ambassador sit still and say nothing at all? I should like to know that. A few days after, the Izvestia, which, as your Lordships know, is one of the official papers in Russia, said that the Soviet Ambassador had given Mr. Henderson a very definite and unequivocal reply to the effect that his point of view with regard to the activities of the Comintern was not, and never would be, accepted by the Soviet Government. The Foreign Secretary has said that the Ambassador made no reply and, if the Lord President says that the Ambassador never said this, I accept that in preference to any statement in any Moscow newspaper whatever.
In May it went a little further, and the Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons that he was keeping an eye on the matter. He did not explain the precise manner in which he was keeping his eye upon Russia, because he was not certain that it would be in the public interest to do so. Things have

101
moved since that date, when it was not in the public interest for Mr. Henderson to tell the nation what he was doing with the eye that he was keeping on Russian propaganda in this country. In May of this year the Third International sent out two telegrams of rather great importance, signed by Stalin—I repeat, by the most important Cabinet Minister in Russia. These were an appeal to the people of India, Asia and Oceania. One ran:—
"We send you an appeal asking you to fight against capitalists. Wage battle against them without mercy. Our Government takes under its protection all revolutionary organisations of the entire world."
This appeal is sent out broadcast to the people of India by a man who is a responsible Minister of the Russian Government, which has entered into a Treaty with this country to stop all propaganda, either here or in any of our Dominions. On the following day the Pravda, another official newspaper of the Russian Government—as your Lordships know, no statement of any importance regarding foreign policy can be made in any newspaper in Russia without the full approval of the Government of the day, for there is a strong censorship—the Pravda declared that the International would give the Indian revolutionaries its sympathy and unlimited assistance, which would enable them to fight to the finish. It is bad enough to have propaganda in this country, but it is worse for a Government which has entered into this solemn Treaty to make this attempt at propaganda on the very combustible character of the Indian people.
Therefore it is no longer necessary for me to prove the propaganda. In the House of Commons on June 6 of this year the Foreign Secretary made a statement in which he said:—
"I have never denied, and I am not going to try and persuade the House that propaganda is not going on."
I am simply quoting from the mouth of the Foreign Secretary—
"I have to bring that propaganda home to the Government before I can take action."
Stalin is a member of the Government. I have quoted to your Lordships telegrams sent by him. Mr. Henderson went on to say that if the Government could bring it home that the Russian Government were responsible, the
102
Government would do one of two things. Here at last is a really strong action that is going to be taken by the Government! As soon as they can bring it home to the Russian Government that there is propaganda, they will do one of two things. I wonder if all of your Lordships realise what those two things are. The Government would either break off relations with the Russian Government, or they would—
"ask the House to release us from the statements that we made in the early stages of debate on this subject."
Was there ever a more pusillanimous statement made by a Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, or made on behalf of this Government? It was made by the successor of Disraeli, Palmerston and all the great Foreign Secretaries of the past. "Either we will break off relations": we all know that they will not break off relations. Russia, must know by now that nothing will induce them, however much they may be kicked by Russia, to break off those diplomatic relations which they have establislhed by hook or by crook.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LOAD PARMOOR): Will the noble Viscount tell me the date of the last statement?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: On June 6, in the House of Commons, and then Mr. Henderson said that if they did not break off relations the other great step they would take would be to ask the House to release them from the statements made by them in the earlier discussions. What does that mean? The Government made certain declarations to the House of Commons, which I have read to your Lordships' House. They were perfectly clear and perfectly definite, and then Mr. Henderson says: "If we find that those agreements are being broken then we will ask the House of Commons to release us from the statements we have previously made." Is any further faith ever to be placed in any statement, of the Government, either in the House of Commons or elsewhere? When they get, into difficulties they will ask the House of Commons to allow them to be released from their statements made about Soviet propaganda!
I go further. In July of this year-Stalin made a speech to the 16th Con-

103
gress of the Russian Communist Party. I quote him because he is one of the most important Ministers—the equivalent of a Cabinet Minister in this country—in Russia to-day. He spoke of the revolution in China and referred to an Indian revolution which
"will hasten the end of the capitalist domination over Asia. The workers' movement in India should emerge from the limits of non-violence as well as of full nationalism."
This is your friend or ally, with whom you have entered into diplomatic relations. This is the leader of a great friendly Government, who has undertaken not to have any propaganda of any kind inimical to the British Government and to the British Empire. He continued:—
"The problem to be resolved is how to throw the English into the sea and put an end to the imperialistic exploitation."
What is the representative of the Foreign Office in this House going to say to your Lordships this afternoon with regard to that? Is it a breach of the Treaty? Clearly it is propaganda. It is an incitement to the subjects of the King-Emperor to rebel. It is an incitement to violence on the part of the subjects of the King-Emperor in India. Is the Foreign Secretary coming down at long last to say: "I am exceedingly sorry but I must withdraw all I said with regard to propaganda, and ask the House and the country to release me and the Government from what I have said" I do not think your Lordships will release them, and I doubt whether the Opposition in another place will do so.
But more has happened since Parliament met. On October 29 Mr. Henderson, replying to a Question by Sir William Davison, said he had been making inquiries into this propaganda and as a result he had seen the Soviet Ambassador and represented to him that his Government had not been observing the pledge against propaganda which was exchanged last year. Mr. Henderson added:—
"The Ambassador assured me in reply that his Government had done and will continue to do all in their power to observe the pledge regarding propaganda."
"All in their power," when I have read the statement of the Prime Minister in Russia himself which is an appeal published to the world and to the people of
104
India to throw off their allegiance ! Then the Ambassador, Mr. Henderson says, went on to add that "his Government could not control the activities of the Third International." We know they can. I am sorry to give a blunt negative to the Russian Ambassador. The Russian Government are in the closest touch with the Third International. They have what is known in the City as interlocking directors. There is no secret about, it. It is known to the world and to our Government here. I have read the statements of Mr. MacDonald and of Mr. Henderson and it is no good the Russian Ambassador denying it. Our own Government say they agree that the Government of Russia is responsible for the Third International and that is why we made Article 16 explicit. It was to cover any body which was either in touch with or subsidised by the Russian Government.
Then the Secretary of State went on to say:—
"In the interview that took place I very fully stated the interpretation which this Government placed upon the question of propaganda, and the obligation which we thought that his Government entered into when they signed the propaganda undertaking on the 3rd October."
No wonder the House of Commons was startled. Sir Austen Chamberlain got up and asked whether the reply of the Soviet Ambassador was not a repudiation of the interpretation which the British Government had put upon the Treaty. The answer of Mr. Henderson was certainly the most astonishing answer that I can remember. He said:—
"It is quite clear that there are two interpretations. I placed my interpretation, and I have given the House what he said was his interpretation. That is as far as I am in a position to take the matter."
The Government said: "This is our interpretation. We entered into the agreement relying upon that interpretation. The Treaty was based upon that interpretation. We told the Ambassador what that interpretation was. Now the Ambassador puts forward a different "I interpretation." shrug my shoulders," says Mr. Henderson, "and that is as far as I can take the matter." I hope the President of the Council will be able to take the matter a little further this afternoon, and that he will

105
be able to give us a little more assurance that his Government are going to take the matter further.
It was taken a little further in the House of Commons on November 5, when a further Question was asked by Sir Kingsley Wood and Sir William Davison, who enquired as to what date Mr. Henderson first ascertained that the Soviet Government repudiated our interpretation of the pledge, and Mr. Henderson replied referring to the speech which he made on November 5, 1929, and said that the hon. member
"will nowhere find any statement by me to the effect that the Soviet Government accepted the interpretation which His Majesty's Government placed upon the pledge—namely, that it covers propaganda by the Third International. No question of repudiation, therefore, arises. I have, however, repeatedly made it plain that this is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon it."
How were those negotiations conducted? They were not five-minute negotiations, as the House knows. There were negotiations in London, and then the Foreign Secretary and Dovgalevski motored off to a small hotel in the town of Lewes, and there had their negotiations and came to conclusions. Are we asked to believe that the Foreign Secretary enters into negotiations on a very important question, which the Government put very much to the forefront with the electors in the course of their campaign, and that in the course of these negotiations either in London or Brighton or Lewes, they never, to put it quite frankly, had it out with one another, that Mr. Henderson never said to the Russian Ambassador "Well, quite clearly we are going to guard against the Third International interfering: that is our object"?
Are we to assume that the Soviet Ambassador said nothing the whole time, and never stated his view? Obviously, if the Ambassador had said: "Oh no, the Third International has nothing to do with us," then the Foreign Secretary would say: "It is no good entering into this Treaty." This is, of course, the 1924 Treaty which has been revived by Mr. Henderson. But it is a very curious statement. It goes a little further than anything Mr. Henderson said in the House of Commons last week. If the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House would look at the speech
106
of Mr. Henderson in the House of Commons on November 5, 1929, he will find, a rather more definite statement. He, said—
"After 1924 it has been plainly stated to the Soviet representatives, and stated again twice by myself, that the Communist International will be regarded by His Majesty's Government as an organ of the Soviet Government."
Only last week Mr. Henderson referred to that statement again and said: "That is my position—the position I laid down in a speech on November 5, 1929." He-further said:—
"We stand by the declaration of 1924 that we could not allow any direct interference from outside in British domestic affairs and would insist on the promise, given by the Soviet Government to refrain…."
And then he added this very remarkable' sentence—
"This is, in fact, an undertaking that: Soviet propaganda will not be tolerated in any form or at any time."
To that statement Mr. Henderson referred only the other day in the House of Commons.
Finally he said at the end of his speech:—
"Let the put the House, in mind of the two conditions which were laid down last July … First the Government declared that an agreement embodying a definite undertaking with regard to propaganda was necessary … The first (condition) has been fulfilled in the restoration of Article 16 and the interpretation which I placed upon that Article in the negotiations with M. Dovgalevski."
That is the first time I have been able to find out that Mr. Henderson has ever admitted that in the original negotiations fifteen months ago with M. Dovgalevski he told him then and there of the interpretation which he placed upon it. Well, in that case how can we be satisfied to leave this matter in the hands of the Government who now practically take refuge in saying "We have nothing further to say"? I ask these Questions of the noble and learned Lord this afternoon. I do not want to-use harsh language, but I think the wriggle and the wobble of the Foreign Secretary in the last few weeks in the House of Commons, the efforts he has made to evade this question are such as to entitle us to ask these Questions in this place, where more freedom is possible perhaps than in another place.

107
May I deal for a moment with the question of dumping? This question is becoming a very serious one indeed, particularly if the answer to the first Question I put is, as I think it will be, unsatisfactory. If the real truth is that the Russian Government first of all try to beat us by propaganda, and secondly try to beat us in the economic market by destroying our trade and commerce, then really we have to consider in the third Question whether we shall go on any longer financing them with export credits. The Trades Union Congress even dealt with this matter. Mr. Ernest Bevin, a trade unionist, told his colleagues there that Russia was dumping goods here which were manufactured for little or no wages, but only for food and clothing. The Daily Herald gave descriptions of food queues in Russia and imports into this country. I will not labour that, but I want to make quite clear what I mean by "dumping." Ordinary dumping, of course, is the export of the surplus which the home market cannot reasonably dispose of. But in this case the dumping is part of a deliberate policy of a Government to destroy our trade here—dumping which consists of manufactures or cereals produced by what is, in effect, slave labour, without, as Mr. Bevin said, the payment of any wages, but only payment by food and clothing.
Are we to draw the line, or are we to go on and on till the Russian five-year plan is fully carried out? Five hundred tons of Russian soap were dumped here the other day. Coal, of course, is being dumped in all part of the world in competition with ourselves. I agree that we cannot prevent coal being dumped in Italy or other countries which are not members of the British Empire; but coal is actually being dumped in Canada to-day at a figure which leaves the price of Is. 3d. a ton, pit-head, after the cost of transport has been paid. But Canada appears to be one of those countries which is a little more alive to the evil of dumping of slave-produced goods than we are here. I should like to know the opinions of trade unionist miners on the dumping of Russian coal. Actually some of it has been sent here. We have heard of carrying coal to Newcastle, but at a time when the Government have just passed a Coal Bill for increasing the price of coal and protecting the work and wages of the miner, they are apparently
108
prepared to allow Russian coal to be dumped here. I have no time to go fully into the activities of the Russian five-year plan, but it is known that the plan lasts for five years, 1928–1933, no fewer than 2,000 new factories are being built, various State trusts are being put into operation, trusts for machinery, trusts for cotton, trusts for steel, trusts for canning, and so forth; and the whole scheme involves expenditure in the heavy industries of nearly £1,000,000,000 and in the light industries of £260,000,000, while the people of Russia are starving. The dumping, of course, has been most felt in the East of Europe, in Rumania, Bulgaria and so on, and from the dumping of timber in the Baltic States. The timber trade in Latvia and Estonia is almost at a standstill.
A very remarkable letter from a British officer on one of our ships at Archangel appeared in the Daily Mail in August of this year—I have verified this letter—describing the loading of timber vessels by convicts, as he calls them, working on twelve-hour shifts, marched about in gangs of two to three hundred, and all of them destitute. He says that they were not convicts in the ordinary acceptance of the term, not criminal convicts; they were slaves, pure and simple, and as slaves ninety-five per cent. of them did not know why they were there. To see them hungrily watching our men going along the decks at meal time with their steaming soup, roast beef, vegetables and so forth would make a stone heart bleed.
There are also some very remarkable statements made by two Socialists who have recently been to Russia—Mr. Toole, Member of Parliament for Salford, and Mr. Hughes, who, I think, is on the staff of one of the Government papers called Forward. They tell us what they saw of the horrible condition of affairs in Russia, of the food queues, of the efforts of men and women to get even a small quantity of food. Remember that wheat, the main food of all, is being exported very largely from Russia. My noble friend who will open the debate on agriculture to-morrow or myself will deal with the food question, so I will not touch upon it now. But the prices of food in Russia compared with the prices at which it is dumped here show clearly that there is a definite attempt on the part of

109
Russia to impede our own trades in this country. She has actually exported to this country a great deal of confectionery and sugar goods which, I believe, have been very largely manufactured out of the Cuban sugar which we exported to Russia under the provisions of the exports credits scheme, which your Lordships will remember was discussed in this House a few months ago. Actually, we are lending money to Russia to buy Cuban sugar in order that it may be Made into sweetstuffs there and re-ex-ported to this country to the detriment of our own manufacturers. Mr. Toole, who is a Socialist, remember, gave a very grim picture of Russia. He said that it will take many years to make the place -sanitary. From the worst English slums there does not issue a stench—this is a Socialist Member of Parliament who is speaking—like that from parts of Leningrad and Moscow. If this is a real effort on the part of Russia, and I think it is, to destroy or to hinder our trade, as part and parcel of their propaganda scheme, surely we are entitled to ask the Government what they are going to do about it.
In October of this year another Russian Government publication was issued which I have had translated as "National Economy." It has a rather difficult name to pronounce—Narodnoye Khoziav stvo. It is an economic paper issued by the Government, and it definitely says—
"We are making a concentrated effort on the export front. Our exporting organisations … are exporting and will continue to export everything that can be disposed of in foreign countries. Our enemies may howl about dumping as much as they like. Our system"—
our system !—
"enables us to compete against all corners at all times."
In a second paper, the Economic Review, also a Government paper, there is this statement. Again, I may say, that I am indebted to the courtesy of a newspaper with which all your Lordships may not always be in agreement, the Daily Mail, for supplying me with certified extracts from these papers. The Economic Review says:—
"Our five-year plan provides for an increase in our exports from 774,000,000 roubles to 2,050,000,000 roubles in 1932 … Exports of industrial products are assuming greater importance at the expense of agricultural exports. Despite the
110
howls of the capitalist Press against our exports, our competitive ability will soon show that we can stay on the market."
That is what is going on.
Now just as in connection with the last question I appealed to the present Prime Minister, so I appeal to him again. Speaking at Birmingham in October -of last year, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald dealt with the question and said:—
"Where there are glaring examples of sweated goods produced under conditions against Which people could not compete without lowering their standard of living…."
Will any noble Lord deny that the goods produced in Russia to-day for the export trade are produced under conditions against which British people could not possibly compete without lowering their standard of living? They are produced under conditions of slavery, as the noble Lord knows. They are produced under conditions of poverty and hardship such as God forbid that our English workmen should ever be driven down to. What was the remedy mentioned by the Prime Minister?
—"the remedy is not safeguarding but prohibiting the entry of such goods."
I again appeal to the Prime Minister. There is his statement, that the remedy for sweated goods pouring into this country is prohibition. What are the Government going to do about it? Are they going to adopt the Prime Minister's opinion of last year, that it is not a question of tariffs, but of prohibition? I say to your Lordships that it is time—and it will be very much time in 1932—for arrangements to be made to prohibit absolutely the importation into this country of sweated goods at a price utterly below that at which English workmen can compete. France is moving already, and a special Commission has just been instituted to control the import of goods from Russia. Holland is moving. Belgium is establishing a system for dealing with the matter. Rumania has already stopped goods from pouring over her eastern frontier, and, as I told your Lordships, Canada has moved. Are the Government doing anything? America realises the position. The Assistant Secretary to the Treasury made the very remarkable statement recently that this is part and parcel of an economic war against the capitalist

111
States of the world. We have propaganda, and we are asking the Government to deal with propaganda. We have imports of sweated goods. We now ask the Government what they propose to do in regard to them.
Lastly, and I think I need not deal at any length with this, there is the question of export credits. The Minister for Overseas Trade in the House of Commons last week said that we have given Russia £4,750,000—sterling not roubles—in export credits, of which the Government are liable for £2,750,000. When he was asked what security we have for this £4,750,000 of money, he said it is in effect a loan that we have made to Russia. This in spite of the fact that, as I said a few months ago in dealing with this matter, there has been for some time past a balance of trade in Russia's favour in this country, a very large balance of money which Russia is using, not to buy British goods—she prefers to buy British goods on credit—but for buying goods from some of our competitors in America and so forth. Is it reasonable that we should go on lending Russia more and more money when she is really using all the cash she can get to finance this five-year plan for importing into this or any other capitalist country, or any country which is in close relationship with ourselves, goods produced under the conditions which I have described, and which are certainly described by the Prime Minister's statement?
I ask the Government to answer those three questions, to deal fully and fairly and frankly, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will, with the question of propaganda. Whether he is able to make any statement on behalf of the Government I do not know, but I ask him to make a statement, if he can, as to what the Government intend to do regarding this dumping, either of food or manufactured articles, and whether they intend to take any action in the near future in regard to that matter; and finally whether they still think it right, necessary, or wise to continue the export credits system between this country and Russia. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I want to say one word on the subject of export credits. The present Government have given Russia credit to the extent
112
of several millions of pounds in spite of the fact that the record of that Government is the record of a bandit and a robber. In regard to the future possibilities, I would point out that Russia, with its immense population, as the noble Viscount has already pointed out to your Lordships, organised agriculturally and industrially, working for a pittance and less than a pittance, can so undercut our world trade and our home markets that any Government here in the future might find it necessary to pass an anti-dumping measure against Russian imports. Supposing that happened, the men who control Russia would have a strangle hold. They would be the masters, and they would say: "Very well; we refuse to pay for the goods we have bought from you if you refuse to allow our produce to came into your country." I think no more credit should be given to Russia, if only for that reason. If people want to trade with Russia, let them do so at their own risk. I am entirely against the taxpayers' money being risked to provide the Government of Russia with the means to destroy our trade and prosperity. That is the only point I wish to make.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, has used some strong language in moving his Motion. I hope to show that the allegations he has made, particularly against the Foreign Secretary, are wholly without foundation, and for that purpose I shall quote consecutively what the Foreign Secretary has said from the time when he first spoke about this matter in November, 1929, up to the present time. I quite admit that we approach this question from an entirely different standpoint from that of the noble Viscount. The present Government approach it as a very important factor in what is called the unemployment question, and both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, naturally enough, during the last Election, both by statement and speech, said that in order to deal with the curse of unemployment they would do what they could fully to re-establish trade relationship between this country and Russia. That really has been the basis on which the whole of our policy towards Russia has been based. I should like to ask the noble Viscount this. Assuming that that basis is right—that it is of enormous im-

113
portance in order to increase the volume of exports from this country and so to relieve the great evil of unemployment that we should encourage our export trade to Russia—would be then use the language that he has used in addressing your Lordships this evening?
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If the noble Lord asks me a question, I will answer it, but if he is to put a series of questions perhaps I had better answer them at the end.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Viscount, will answer them, if he desires. He will have an opportunity of replying. I want to keep the questions in regard to the Foreign Secretary, extremely important as they are, distinct. I desire at the moment to test what has been said about the export credits. It really is the third question—"Whether they still intend to continue the export credits scheme to Russia"? I will say at once the answer is that we certainly do. But what the export credits scheme to Russia means is this, that we give the credits to our own exporters which enables them to carry on that export trade which in other circumstances they could not succeed in doing. Is that a laudable thing or not? I say that under existing conditions of unemployment—I do not want to quote, but I could quote any number of illustrative statements—nothing is more important than to increase the volume of our experts, and a Government with that object should do what I shall show in a moment we have done—namely, give credits to enable that export trade to be carried on.
I must say one or two preliminary words before I come to the actual terms of what is called the export credits scheme. I know that the noble Viscount took a different view from what I am stating at the time of the Arcos raid. I am not going back into that. He has since stated—and I do not say I agree with him, because I do not—that so long as the credits were continued the political diplomatic breach was not of much moment. The answer to that is, I think, quite complete, and it is that the moment a breach took place our trade decreased and decreased in a steadily growing proportion. After all, that is only what you would expect. Trade, to a great extent, depends upon diplomatic friend-
114
ship between the two countries concerned. In fact, that is the basis of a large amount of our foreign trade. You may obtain foreign trade in one country or another, but in our present condition it is essential that we should keep the volume as large as possible, and for this purpose we are utilising our system of granting credits to exporters in order that they may be able to carry on a trade of this character. They could not carry it on without these export credits, certainly not to the extent that they do now.
Let me give an illustration in answer to what the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow said. He seems to think that the object of the credits system is to provide money for Russia for Russian trade or to assist the propaganda which has been referred to against this country. The matters involved in propaganda I desire to keep distinct for the moment. I shall have to go through them, I am afraid, at some length before I sit down. The Overseas Trade Acts from 1920 to 1930, which you are now dealing with, empower the Board of Trade, with the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with the Advisory Committee appointed for that purpose, to give guarantees in connection with the export of goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom. So far as the Consultative Committee is concerned the noble Viscount knows quite well that it has a free hand. As a matter of fact the Chairman and all its members except three were appointed before the present Government came into power, and they were appointed from the point of view that they were persons who had great knowledge of trade conditions here and abroad. The Committee comprised a large number of the first men in the City of London, and they had sufficient knowledge to give advice to the Board of Trade in any particular case whether it was advisable to give these credits to the exporter or not.
Since 1921 there has been practically no legislative restriction on the destination of exports in respect of which guarantees might be given, but Russia, under conditions which I shall state, was excluded from the scope of the scheme by administrative action until August, 1929. Therefore up till August, 1929, the benefit of fostering export trade

115
by helping the credit of the exporter—he was the person aimed at—was not attained as regards Russian trade, although it was as regards trade in all other directions. That was not a legislative restriction but an administrative one. The President of the Board of Trade then announced that the Advisory Committee would be free to consider applications in connection with transactions in Russia. At a meeting of the Advisory Committee held a few days later the Chairman stated that the President of the Board of Trade had made it clear to him that in the case of Russia, as in the case of other countries, the Committee would be free to recommend or decline any transactions and to form their own opinion as to the length of credit and any other matters which might come up for consideration.
Does the noble Viscount desire that this system of assisting export trade should be discontinued? That is what it really comes to. Are we in this great market of Russia—in which, of course, we would seek to do trade if we were not met with what I may call "propaganda difficulties"—are we, apart from that, to stop credits of this kind, or are we to encourage trade which in the aggregate tends to become a very large trade indeed, giving employment to a number of men who would otherwise be unemployed in this country? I have a quotation from the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, himself. The reference is to the House of Lords OFFICIAL REPORT of Thursday, July 3 last. The noble Viscount said:—
"your Lordships will find if it is very carefully examined that the increase of trade is due more to the removal of the ban"—
that is the ban against giving credit to exporters to Russia—
"and the opening of the export credit system to Russia than to any resumption of diplomatic relations."
I entirely agree in one sense with the noble Viscount. I think the resumption of political relations was more favourable to trade than he considers, but I think he is quite right in saying that the encouragement of resumption of this trade—which after all is far less than it used to be with Russia in the old days—is more due to removal of the ban which up to that date had prevented credit being given to exporters to the Russian market.
116
I entirely agree with him there, but when we come to the question of propaganda he may say that the advantages are more than counterbalanced by disadvantages on the other side. I am dealing, however, for the moment, with the credit system and I find—I do not know whether he himself used this expression—that the expression has been used in many quarters that in order to relieve the great burden as well as the great misery of unemployment, it is hoped that the Government will give full assistance by taking off the ban which up to a certain point had prevented credit being given to exporters to Russia. When speaking of trade with Russia, members of the Opposition, I think—I do not want to say anything personal—invariably talk as though the primary object of the export credits guarantee scheme were to benefit the Russian Government. Of course it is nothing of the sort.
LORD NEWTON: It does benefit them.
LORD PARMOOR: Incidentally it does benefit them. That is all the better to my mind—a double advantage. But that is not the basis of the scheme. The scheme is to increase our exports, and I say again that in view of the present conditions of unemployment that is the most serious question which any Government has to face. The object of the scheme is to assist exporters from the United Kingdom, to increase their overseas trade. Incidentally some benefit may be conferred on Russia, but surely that is not a reason for withdrawing these facilities? In any case the Government have no intention of doing so. I do not want to repeat myself, but the Government look on this Russian question as in the main an economic question. They regard Russia as a great field for absorption of the manufactures of this country. They believe that as far as combating unemployment is concerned it is a most fruitful field to which they can look in the immediate future. Therefore, although Russia may be incidentally benefited, they give these credits, not to Russia but to the exporter—to the British exporter—in order to encourage the maximum exports of goods which otherwise would not be sent abroad, in return, of course, for the remuneration which comes here.

117
One noble Lord spoke as if we were piling up the resources of Russia. Of course in one sense all trade is important to both parties concerned, but are we to starve people in this country by keeping up a campaign which in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, cannot be justified? Russia is put on the same basis as other countries as regards the encouragement of exports from the United Kingdom. That is the whole matter when you put, prejudice on one side. I do not know that it is necessary to say any more. I cannot believe that, taking that question by itself, any one who feels the terrible conditions which undoubtedly exist—and are growing, I am sorry to say—in this country, can do otherwise than support the Government in attempting to increase as much as may be the volume of our exports and particularly in encouraging exporters to send goods to the Russian market.
There is one more matter on which perhaps it is hardly worth while to dwell at length. The noble Viscount referred to the sugar question. That, again, has been a matter of misapprehension. Very careful inquiries have been made as to the actual facts. I am bound to say that in my opinion there is more prejudice on this point than on almost any other point where Russian trade is concerned. These are the facts. Raw sugar is imported into this country and is refined here, giving employment to a large number of people and representing about 30 per cent. of its value. That refined sugar, like any other product or manufacture, may be exported to Russia under the export credits scheme. Inquiries have been made into this matter. Mistakes and misstatements have certainly been made in regard to it. It is perfectly obvious that this is a trade for Russia itself, and not, as has been suggested, for some outside interests which do not affect Russia or Russian trade at all. I will not go into all the facts, though I have them here, but, your Lordships may take it quite certainly from me—and the noble Viscount gave me a good character in that respect—that inquiries that have been carefully made into this matter have dispelled the illusions with which it was surrounded and have eventuated in showing that this is a trade carried out for the profit
118
of this country, which does the refining of this sugar, and represents about 30 per cent. of its value.
I will come to propaganda last, if I may, because I think it is very important. The next question is dumping. I agree with the noble Viscount that we have to consider first of all what we mean by the term "dumping." I understand that in his opinion it is not dumping if a country of origin has a surplus amount of a particular article and exports it as a matter of business—I am not dealing with the other matter now—to other countries. We do not dump our cotton goods in India because we export goods which are surplus in this respect, that they cannot be consumed in this country. We do not dump Northampton shoes and boots in Canada (I think that was an illustration that I saw given) because our manufacturers are enabled, as a matter of legitimate trade, to produce a surplus quantity. Indeed, if it were not for that, all international trade could be interfered with.
International trade depends on the production of surplus quantities in the countries of origin, and there is no reason why they should not make the best they can of the export of those goods to other countries. As a matter of fact, "dumping" is a word very largely used merely of that process. Long before the dumping of corn from Russia—which, after all, is a very small matter—came to the front, what we were complaining of here was the dumping of prairie wheat, which, of course, can be produced, as we all know, far more cheaply than people can produce it in this country. What people complain of is that another country, which can produce any product of manufacture on lower terms than we can in our own country, should send it here; and "dumping" is used as a term of reproach by people who are anxious in their own interest to stop imports of that character. But that is absurd when you come to the question of trade. It is the very essence of trade to produce commodities where you can do so most cheaply and to exchange them for other commodities produced by another country on cheaper terms, in order that world consumers may in the long run be benefited.
As regard unfair conditions, I entirely dispute what the noble Viscount has said,

119
I am quite aware that on this Russian question you find almost any statement made, and you have to consider everything carefully. We are told about the dumping of wood, and I think even stolen wood, as an export from Russia to America. After investigation, America admitted that timber and no further question was raised upon the ground of unfair conditions. If we were to take the Statute to which the noble Viscount referred—I have not got it with me but no doubt your Lordships are aware of it—I think there is an attempt there to give a specific meaning to the word "dumping," and it was done in this way; that wherever goods were sold at less than their cost of production in the country of origin, that was a case which might legitimately be considered as unfair competition, and therefore dumping. Of course that is a most difficult and complex problem and, as has been pointed out, the definition does not meet the difficulties. Take what we are dealing with here. I will not go particularly into wheat—I think the noble Viscount pointed out that we might have a discussion another day—but, if you take those commodities which are said to be dumped into this country from Russia, they are almost infinitesimal, and really they do not matter, except that everyone who produces those commodities in this country naturally dislikes the importations which are able to undersell him in the ordinary average market. But if you take the view that I do, and that always has been taken, that you have to consider the interests of the consumer, then, if there is nothing unfair, it is unjust to him to exclude commodities because they can be produced more cheaply in some other area than our own.
I want to put this, if I may, to the noble Viscount. I dare say he is aware of the meeting at Warsaw which, I think, took place last spring or summer. A number of countries were represented there, and one of the questions was whether it was fair that countries should give bounties to their own manufacturers in order that they might undersell in the foreign market. The general view was against it, and I should agree with that view. Moreover, an arrangement was made, and a Committee was constituted which is now considering the matter, and I suppose we shall hear some time what the result is. But unless you can find
120
unfair conditions, I am bound to admit that I think the word "dumping" is a mere term of prejudice. Of course, if there are unfair conditions it is different, but when the noble Viscount talks about unfair conditions, we want the conditions very carefully ascertained and very carefully stated in order not to make any error in a matter of that kind.
Let me put this to the noble Viscount. Taking the policy of His Majesty's Government, it is that we desire, and always have desired and advocated in the International Labour Office at Geneva, that, having regard to differences in conditions of climate and so on, you should have a standard living wage for standard working hours, below which no country should be allowed to compete in the international market. I am in favour of that proposal. A good many people may not be, but those who are not in favour of it are always stating the objection that it is an interference with English liberty. I say take that test if you like. Take the Washington Conference. If it becomes a matter of international arrangement then I think the particular country which does not comply with the condition so assented to may well be said to be carrying on what is called dumping under unfair conditions. Does the noble Viscount wish an arrangement to be made so that the standard of living may be made reasonable and decent in all countries? It has not been the policy of the Government with which he was associated, since the Washington Convention in 1920, signed by the late Lord Balfour but never ratified. So far whenever ratification has been sought to be brought on it has been argued that an international standard of living would interfere with the interests of this country. I say that there ought to be such a standard, and then you can determine whether dumping is unfair or not.
Then I come to the question of propaganda. I wish that the noble Viscount could have levelled his criticisms against myself rather than against the Foreign Secretary. I believe I am equally guilty, and the Foreign Secretary of course cannot be here. If suggestions are made of mala fides—I think it went, to that—they ought to be made in the Assembly where the Foreign Secretary himself is, and I am sure he would repudiate suggestions

121
of that character with every success. First of all I would say a word as to the general position, and then I will give chapter and verse, as far as I have got them. From the very start—the noble Viscount is quite right—the Foreign Secretary has said that there is a, difference of view. The difference of view was whether the obligation with regard to propaganda included the Third international or not. Also, from the fiery start—this is much more important —-until now, on every occasion the Foreign Secretary has stated quite clearly, I think without any possibility of misconception, the Government's view of what the condition was. The noble Viscount has said that it is a terrible thing to have an arrangement in which the two parties take a different view of an essential term. That may be so, but in this case I think it does not matter. When from the very start that difficulty is recognised and established, if we should take the view, which we of course have, that it includes the Third International, what does it matter? It leaves it in our power, and the Foreign Secretary has made it quite clean—I want to use his own words because his honour has been questioned—made it quite clear from the very start that his view and the view of the Government was that the Third International must be controlled, that it came within the obligations attaching to the Soviet Government, and that they were determined, if conditions arose, to break off the agreement owing to a breach of that condition.
What is there then either dishonourable or false, or anything of that kind, in an arrangement of that sort? It was made quite clear from the beginning. I must in justice to the Foreign Secretary go as shortly as I can through the history of events. I also want to say a word on one other matter which I think the noble Viscount forgot. At some time about last May the Foreign Secretary stated that he had appointed a small body to which could be referred the question whether a breach of the propaganda condition had been proved, and if so what steps should be taken. That body was constituted, and met, and the Home Secretary has stated that in the action lie has taken—or not taken if you so prefer to put it—he did not act out of accord with the representations made, but followed those recommendations. That I
122
thought was accepted in the other House by every one who heard it. I do not like to leave this matter at this stage, and I think reference should be made shortly to what is the history of this matter. Otherwise, unless you have the whole picture in your mind, you cannot, I think, justly deal with an accusation such as the noble Viscount has made. On the other hand, I should not have an opportunity to repudiate, as I do wholly and absolutely, any suggestion of the kind which has come from the noble Viscount.
We are all aware that there is a conflict of opinion between the two Governments as to the relations existing between the Soviet Government and the Third International in Moscow. Not only are we all aware of it, but on every occasion the Foreign Secretary has made that quite clear. The Soviet Government contend that they have no control whatever over the activities of the Third International. That they have always contended. His Majesty's Government, on the other hand, have always maintained and still maintain, without any change of any kind, that the two organisations cannot be thus dissociated, and from that position they neither desire nor intend to retreat.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: I am glad to hear that the noble Viscount assents.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I have said it over and over again to-day.
LORD PARMOOR: If the noble Viscount says "Hear, hear," then we come to this point, the question of policy, and when we come to the question of policy I again want to follow the various steps which I think we have rightly followed, with full explanation by the Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, and with such explanations as Lord Ponsofiby and myself have been able to give in this House from time to time. When the pledges regarding propaganda were exchanged on December 20 last the Soviet Government were under no delusion regarding the interpretation which His Majesty's Government held on the subject of propagandism. No doubt the organs of the Soviet Press have continued to repudiate the responsibility of the Soviet Government for the acts of the Third International, but, if noble Lords

123
have followed the debates in another place they must be aware that His Majesty's Government have remained unshaken by these disclaimers, and that they maintain the view which they have always held and expressed.
Now let us see what the Government's course of conduct has been. In fact, His Majesty's Government have taken serious action on two occasions. On January 1—I recollect very well the late noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, making a very explicit speech on that occasion—a new Communist publication appeared in this country, called the Daily Worker. I do not know whether I ought to congratulate the noble Viscount because he is the first person I have ever heard of who has seen or read that publication. I do not know whether it has ever appeared except on that one occasion, and then there were only a few hundred copies. That publication contained a message addressed to it by the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist International. So many questions were raised on this article in this House and in another place that your Lordships are no doubt familiar with its terms. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs decided that it could not be overlooked, and on January 7 last he drew the attention of the Soviet Ambassador to the article, and expressed his regret at its appearance in an organ of the British Press. He added that he could not fail to regard the message as an action calculated to impede the improvement in the relations between the two countries which the negotiations at that time had as their object.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: The noble and learned Lord has accused me of varying things, but I read that to the House half an hour ago. And he himself has not read the concluding words—
"For the present His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any steps."
That is the gravamen of my remarks.
LORD PARMOOR: Perfectly right. All the facts were discussed, all the facts were known. His Majesty's Government, who have always declared that they must be the judges in this propaganda question, decided to take no steps—of course, largely owing to the great importance of maintaining friendly trade relationships with Russia. There the
124
matter dropped. It is all very well to go back now nearly a year. The matter was discussed, the Foreign Secretary giving the frankest and fullest explanations. He did not disguise that there had been in his opinion a certain infringement of the undertaking of the Soviet Government, and after that full inquiry, and a very long debate in this House, the impression left on my mind was that the two Houses and people generally were satisfied that on that occasion, at any rate, the Foreign Secretary had taken the right action.
On June 6 last Mr. Henderson again made his position absolutely clear. He did not deny that there were reasons for dissatisfaction at the way in which the propaganda pledges were being carried out. Is not that perfectly straightforward? He adverted to an announcement he had made on May 26 to the effect that His Majesty's Government had set up appropriate machinery for sifting all the evidence of propaganda in their possession with a view to deciding what action would be appropriate in all the circumstances. Is not that right? What is there not straightforward in that? Of course, if the noble Viscount wants to break off relations with Russia in all circumstances, I can understand his attitude, but if we want to maintain, for trade purposes, the ordinary diplomatic friendly relationships, then I say we were quite right not to take umbrage at what is a comparatively small matter and to set up a body which could advise and consider the evidence.
Your Lordships know that on October 29 my right hon. friend again made representations to the Soviet Ambassador on the question of propaganda. He asked the Ambassador to impress seriously on his Government that the continuation of this propaganda would be calculated to endanger the relations between the two countries. In reply the Ambassador assured him that the Soviet Government have done and will continue to do all in their power to observe the pledge given on December 20 last, but he added that they could not control the activities of the Third International. There were renewed Questions on this point in another place—I should think a hundred or more—reiterating the position of His Majesty's Government. The

125
Foreign Secretary emphasised two points, and said, first, that the Soviet Government are still held responsible for the action of the Third International, and, secondly, that His Majesty's Government intended in the first place to be judges of the importance of any incidents that may arise and of the action, if any, which they judge it necessary to take. We come there to a question of policy, not a question of honour. On a question of policy surely the Government must be the judges of whether any particular breach should lead to the giving up of the economic relationship between the two countries. They must be the judges of what action it is necessary to take. Of course, it is impossible for any other body than the Government to be the judges in such a matter. I quite agree that if the Government are not prepared to take a responsibility of that kind they are not worthy to govern she country.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I accept that.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, but I said—if they are not willing to take the responsibility. The noble Viscount differs from us there, and that is the real basis of the whole of his speech. I am not going to try to convince him; it would be a hopeless task. But what I say is that all the insinuations be made against the honour of the Foreign Secretary are wholly without foundation, and upon this point of policy, whether we are right or wrong, the Foreign Secretary was right when he said that the Government would take the responsibility. I think the noble Viscount agreed with me that if they could not do that they would not be worthy of being the Government of a great country like ours. There is no change. This remains the position. This is what the Foreign Secretary then said. There is no change and no intention to change. I hope the noble Viscount considers that. There is no change of policy, and no intention to change our policy. I would, however, ask noble Lords whether they are not magnifying out of all proportion the question of propaganda so far as it has been carried on in this country. I take that as a test and I take it as to the credit of the Labour Government. Communism has died out. There are only a few thousand left. It is at
126
this country that Russia aid the Soviet Republic look askance, because they feel that the good sense and good feeling and the desire for stability amongst the working classes of this country have been so great, that not only have they made no advance in propaganda here, but they have fallen altogether out of any chance of taking any step in that direction.
I have gone, I am afraid, at great length, but it was necessary to do so, through the points which the noble Viscount raised. Do not let him think that we do not differ. Of course, we differ. But I hope he will reconsider some of the phrases that he used regarding the attitude of the Foreign Secretary of this country. Although I do not want to put any special weight upon this, I would ask him to recollect that Stalin has no official position in the Russian Government. He really represents the Third International, which, although it is an outside body, is, I admit, the body as to which, under the terms of the arrangement we have made with the Russian Government, we did regard and will regard and shall regard an obligation as existing upon them to stop any propaganda from that body. I thank your Lordships for listening to me. I am afraid I have been rather long but the matter is of great importance. With regard to Papers, I should like to say that there really are no Papers that could be permitted. The noble Viscount knows, from his experience of administration, that matters which have passed confidentially in the course of diplomatic relationship cannot be published. If you once broke into the immunity of diplomatic relationship in those matters it would be almost impossible to carry out any real understanding between two countries.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have no desire to prolong this debate which certainly, as regards the last speech delivered, has been of the unsatisfactory nature which characterises Russian debates. I only rise to call attention to the conflict between my noble friend Lord Brentford and the noble and learned Lord opposite on the question of dumping. What I gather from the noble and learned Lord is that there is no dumping and that, if there was any dumping, it would be a good thing.
LORD PARMOOR: I did not say that.
LORD NEWTON: I also gathered from him that there is no justification for the expression "slave labour." I will not go into that, but I confess that, so far as I can see, I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend. Here may I say parenthetically that I hope he will not find it necessary to withdraw any single expression he made use of in the course of his speech. With regard to the question of dumping, which appears to me to be far more important than even the question of propaganda, it ought to be plain to the meanest intelligence in the country that the Soviet Government, after waging political war upon us for the last thirteen years, is now embarking upon an economic war. I do not think that anybody can be blind to the fact, and it seems to me one of the most alarming portents that have confronted us for some time. It is perfectly idle to contend that it is not going on. Although it may seem an almost impossible thing for one country to destroy the industry of all civilised Governments, these people, unfortunately, have a much greater potentiality of doing it than anybody else. They start with the initial advantage of repudiating debts. They steal all property and they conscript labour. I believe unemployment is a crime in Russia at the present time.
LORD PARMOOR: There is none.
LORD NEWTON: Labour can be conscripted to any amount and, as everybody knows, the ordinary person in Russia is completely under the control of the Government who can do whatever they choose with him. In those circum stances, the so-called five-year plan, which many people are inclined to de ride, is really a universal danger, and in my opinion it is the highest form of folly to speak of it as if it was a contemptible effort to which no attention need be paid. To me, at all events, it seems one of the most formidable menaces that we have been confronted with. I gather from the statement of the noble and learned Lord and from statements in another place that nothing whatever is going to be done, and that the Government are actually going to continue the policy -of financing this movement which is directed against ourselves. All I can say is that though I
128
have often ardently wished for the termination of His Majesty's Government, I feel all the more strongly now that in the interests of this country and of everybody who has any vestige of common sense their end ought to come before long, so that the disastrous policy upon which they have embarked with regard to Russia, fraught as it is with all these dangers, may be immediately reversed by their successors.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, at this hour of the evening, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will not expect me to deal with the case that he has made. There will be other opportunities, I doubt not, I hope there will be—
LORD PARMOOR: I appreciate that.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: —to discuss various points with him. Therefore, I will not trouble about the two first points he made. But he has accused me of using language which, perhaps, is not usual in your Lordships' House. I had no intention of using any unparliamentary language, but so far as what I meant is concerned I do not withdraw one word that I said. I charge the Foreign Secretary, in effect, with having stated to the House of Commons on November 5 last year, just twelve months ago, that he had entered into a certain agreement with Russia,. He read that agreement to the House. It was perfectly clear. There was nothing whatever said that we take one view of the meaning and the other side take another view. It was read to that audience of the English House of Commons straight out and it was as perfectly and transparently clear as any legal document could be.
He did not say: "I think it my duty to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and this House that though they have signed this agreement they do not agree with it.
Though we think it includes the Third International, the Russian Government are laughing in their sleeves the whole time because they do not mean to be bound by it." He did not say that. What he did say was—
"We stand by the declaration we made in 1924 to the effect that we could not allow any direct interference from outside in British domestic affairs and would insist that the promise given by the Soviet Government to refrain from any act liable

129
to endanger the tranquillity or prosperity of the British Empire, and to restrain from such acts all persons and organisations under their direct or indirect control…."
He used the words again—"refrain" and "restrain." This is, in fact, an undertaking that Soviet propaganda will not be tolerated in any form or at any time.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: The noble Lord opposite comes and says that it is admitted that is propaganda. Mr. Henderson admitted that in the House of Commons. If you want to break there are sufficient reasons for doing so. May I paraphrase the noble Lord in conclusion by saying: "If you do not want to break then you will stand anything." Is it not possible for the noble Lord to give some Papers?
LORD PARMOOR: I do not know the Papers which the noble Viscount thinks could be given, hut if he would suggest them and they can be laid on the Table we will do so, but he knows that these diplomatic matters cannot be disclosed. I am not aware of the nature of the Papers, but I will have inquiries made. If I can assist the noble Viscount I am most anxious to do so, but I hope he will not press the Motion. I am sure that would be the better way.
LORD NEWTON: May I be permitted to suggest that there could be no difficulty in publishing Papers relating to the conditions of labour in Russia? That would settle the controversy between the two noble Lords. Would the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, entertain any suggestion of that character?
LORD PARMOOR: It is very difficult to give an answer across the floor of the House as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, knows. He is fair in all these
130
matters. The suggestion will be considered with a view to seeing if it can be adopted. I cannot go beyond that. I think if we left it in that way that would be best. We are constantly meeting, and I will do all I can to bring the view that has been expressed to the notice of the Foreign Office, but I cannot go further than that, because I do not know what the nature of those Papers may be.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I do not want to press the Government unduly. Naturally I would not ask for Papers relating to Despatches from our Government to our own Ambassadors, but if there are any communications between the Foreign Office and the Russian Government I think we ought to have them. I cannot think that would be against public policy. That is the kind of Paper I had in my mind. Then in regard to the question of dumping, I think there must be considerable information at the Board of Trade as to what has been dumped in the course of the last twelve months, and there must be somewhere in our Government Departments a great deal more authentic information than perhaps the public has in regard to the conditions of the working people of Russia. A statement has been made at the Trades Union Congress by some of the noble Lord's supporters, and I think it would be fair to him and them and all of us that we should have all the information which the Government has it in its power to give. I say this in order that the noble Lord may realise what I want. I will gladly talk the matter over with him, relying, as I know always can, on any undertaking he gives. I will not press my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR informed the House that he had received from the Senior Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court of Justice a certificate under the seal of the said Court that Henry William Montagu Paulet, Marquess of Winchester, was on the 8th day of November, 1930, adjudicated bankrupt: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
Special Order in respect of part of the County Borough of Rotherham in the West Riding of the County of York:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to Special Orders Committee.

GLASTONBURY GAS ORDER, 1930.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Glastonbury:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CLACTON GAS ORDER, 1930.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Urban District Council of Clacton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.