Sitting of 28 October 1930

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

SPEAKER'S WARRANTS FOR NEW WRITS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had issued, during the Recess, Warrants for new writs, namely:—
For the Borough of Paddington (South Division) in the room of the Right Hon. Henry Douglas King, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., R.N.V.R., deceased; and for the
County of York, West Riding (Shipley Division) in the room of William Mackinder, Esquire, deceased.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Edward Taswell Campbell, Esquire, for the borough of Bromley.
SESSIONAL ORDERS.

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

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

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

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

KING'S SPEECH.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have to acquaint the House that this house has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and that His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy, which is as followeth:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
IT has given Me much pleasure to receive My Ministers from the Dominions and the Representatives of India who are attending the Imperial Conference. I watch with deep interest the progress of their labours, the satisfactory result of which I shall confidently await.
I hope soon to welcome the Representatives of the Princes and Peoples of India who are about to join with members of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament to consider the future constitutional position of India.
My intention is to inaugurate this Conference, and I earnestly trust that in the conclusion of its proceedings may be found agreed and wise solutions of those important questions upon which it will be railed to deliberate.
My relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
I was very glad to entrust My Son, the Duke of Gloucester, with the duty of representing Me at the coronation of the Emperor of Ethiopia.
My Government took an active part in the proceedings of the Assembly of the League of Nations in September last. General agreement was reached upon the Treaty of Financial Assistance to States Victims of Aggression which was recently signed at Geneva. The application of this Treaty is conditional upon the coming into force of a General Disarmament Convention, which I trust will shortly he concluded.
Members of the House of Commons:
Estimates for the Public Service will be laid before you.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
I follow with grave concern and sympathy the continuance of heavy unemployment among so many of My People.
Economic depression unfortunately continues to dominate the markets of the world and the accompanying restriction of international trade is felt with particular severity in those industries which are especially dependent on export.
My Government will persist in its efforts to develop and extend home, Imperial and foreign trade and to help in measures which will lead to greater efficiency in industry.
Proposals will be laid before you for the promotion of increased settlement and employment on the land, and of large-scale farming operations, and for the acquisition and improvement of agricultural land in need of re-conditioning; and for the organisation of producers for marketing purposes.
I propose immediately to set up a Commission to inquire into the whole question of Unemployment Insurance and in particular into the allegations of abuse of its provisions. The Commission will be asked to present interim Reports on the most pressing questions and, if required, legislation based upon them will be introduced. In the meantime a measure to make further financial provision for the Unemployment Fund will be laid before you.
My Ministers propose to introduce legislation to secure for the community its share in the site value of land.
Measures will be submitted to you for raising the Age of Compulsory School Attendance, for amending the law relating to Trade Disputes and Trade Unions, and for the setting up of a Consumers' Council.
My Ministers propose to introduce legislation for the modification and extension of the Law relating to town planning and to the preservation of rural amenities; and for the amendment and consolidation of the Factory Acts.
A Measure of Electoral Reform will be submitted to you.
Bills will also be laid before you to enable the ratification of the Washington Hours Convention and of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and for the establishment of a new statutory authority to deal with passenger traffic in London.
I pray that, under the blessing of God, the outcome of your deliberations may advance the happiness and well-being of My people.

DEBATE OH THE ADDRESS.
Mr. CHAR LETON: I beg to move,
"That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
May I be allowed to say how glad the House was to learn that the health of His Majesty has been so improved as to enable him to come in person to-day to open Parliament, and we pray that his health and strength may be maintained.
My constituents no less than myself feel the honour that has been conferred upon us in entrusting me with this Motion. It has also been conveyed to me that the whole City of Leeds also realises the distinction which has been placed upon that great city. My fellow engine —drivers— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—would naturally approve of an engine-driver being chosen to take up the running at the beginning of a new Session; and we are all assured that the very best way to get to one's destination with safety and dispatch is to get behind the engine-driver. I realise that custom has placed certain restrictions round my historic task, and the traditions of the House are such that this is seldom, if ever, violated. Should I stumble, I must crave your indulgence, not that I would set up the plea of in-
8
experience, but there are other reasons. A few days ago, at a very interesting gathering presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the Home Secretary quoted a line or two which is familiar to most when he said:
"When in that House M.P.'s divide, They've got to leave that brain outside And vote just· as their leaders tell 'em to."
I can quite imagine leaders—and they are not all on the Front Bench; they are all round the House—dreaming of those golden days when they could command the loyalty of their party. To-day some of these erstwhile leaders never know -when they may be called upon to walk the plank. In those days, in filling the role that I and my hon. Friend beside me are doing to-day, it was fairly easy to steer a middle course. The fairway was broad and deep. But to-day we sail our little craft on uncharted seas. Below we have hidden rocks and shifting sands, and we are also in danger of coming into collision with some of the prodigals returning home. So our task is not quite what it always has been.
We were pleased to see the reference in the Gracious Speech to the Imperial Conference. That Conference, it seems to me, meets under the most difficult circumstances in which any previous conference has ever met, and it will need all the essentials of British statesmanship to find solutions to the problems. How acute some of the difficulties are the ordinary person is not aware. It is emerging as time goes on how very difficult some of these problems are. I can quite believe that the statesmen from across the seas may be tempted to apply desperate remedies for what they believe to be desperate diseases, and little wonder. I hope and believe that all the proposals for the solution. and mitigation of the problems will be examined very carefully in the light of the best interests of the great commonwealth of nations to which we all belong. In the words of the Gracious Speech, we watch with deep interest the progress of their labours, the satisfactory results of which we shall confidently await.
Reference is also made in the Gracious Speech to the coming Round Table Conference on India. The more I learn about this -subject the more I become impressed

9
with the immensity of the problem. I am also struck, and somewhat alarmed, at the assurance with which many people dogmatise about this great Continent, its peoples, religions, languages and customs. I feel sure that very few of us know very much about India at all, and I hope that nothing will be said or done by any of us from now onwards, until the Conference has done its work, which may endanger its usefulness, for so much depends upon a friendly settlement of the great problems.
We rejoice to hear of our peaceful relations with foreign Powers and pray that this may for ever continue. At present, the world is war weary, and it seems to me that now is the time when a special effort for permanent peace should be made. It is no use talking of the horror of war. Youth will always scoff at that. I do not think the limitation of armaments alone is enough. The only line upon which, it seems to me, we shall secure permanent good is the path along which the Government are proceeding. Yesterday we witnessed the recording of something attempted, something clone. With the aid of modern science the whole world heard, in a manner never before possible, three epoch making speeches. I believe that is now behind us, and in front of us we should go on and encourage our statesmen to proceed on these lines. Although each nation has its difficulties, most. of those difficulties are born of fear. A week or two ago I paid my first visit to Carnarvon Castle. I walked round the battlements and saw the thick walls and all the arrangements that had been made for the defence of that spot against enemies, but no enemy except time has reduced it to ruins. So many of the things which we are pressed to do by way of force will crumble with time. If we want peace, we must develop the will to peace. To me the greatest condemnation of war is the futility and the imbecility of it, because you never come out of a war with your problems solved as you thought they were going to be when you went into it.
The trade unions will welcome the allusion to the Trade Disputes Bill. As a lifelong trade unionist, I want to submit that the trade unions have a very definite place in modern life. They have played an important part in the building up of cur present civilisation. Our contem-
10
poraries do not always recognise that, but few thoughtful people, looking back, will deny it. The modern trade union leader has quite a different task to perform from those who preceded him. He is something like Father O'Flynn. He is:
"Checking the crazy ones,
Coaxin' onaisy ones,
Liftin' the lazy ones on wid the stick."
My own experience of the railways—and I believe every railway director and officer will bear me out—is that we have created order by our trade union efforts and by the co-operation of the trade unions the management, and I am sure there is not a director or officer who would ask for the abolition of trade unionism on the railways. I want to suggest that the Trade Disputes Act was the result of some hysteria following the demonstrations of sympathy with the miners when they were locked out. I would ask, has time brought no healing balm? Do we now believe all we said then or would we say it now? I fear not. I do not confine this question to either side of the House. Has not the time now come to reconsider the question of trade union rights in accordance with the ideas of liberty which we in England enjoy? I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) would have been present, because I wanted to make a direct appeal to him. It seems to me that he ought to be the first to come along and help us, because I would tell him, if he were here, that he has killed all thoughts of a general strike, at least in his time, for did he not warn us, standing at that Box amidst the breathless silence of the House, in solemn tones, that if ever again we launched a general strike he would re-issue the "National Gazette," a challenge that we dare not take up, the horror of which is too terrible to contemplate.
We also welcome the reference to the raising of the school age. This is close to my heart and is to me of first-class importance. Many of us on this side left school at a very early age. We know the handicap of little schooling. I left school before I was 12 years of age and, while the door of knowledge opens easily, on oiled hinges, when one is young, when one is old the hinges are rusty, they creak, and the latch is difficult to raise and, if we have had to work when we

11
ought to have been at school or at play, it is difficult to get the student habit in after life. It seems to me that the aim of education is to provide an environment so that each individual can develop to the fullest possible extent his innate powers. I believe the greatest danger to the State is an uneducated democracy. I put it to the sense of fair play. It is not fair that great masses should be denied what is at the disposal of the few. When I speak of raising the school age, I do not want merely that we shall train children to be more fitted to worship at the shrine of the "Goddess of Getting On," as John Ruskin called it. I want to approach it rather from the ideal of Tennyson, when he wrote:
"Let knowledge grow from more to more,
But more of reverence in us dwell;
That mind and soul, according well,
May make our music as before,
But vaster."
We welcome the reference to the ratification of the Washington Convention. We trade unionists have already enjoyed the eight-hour day and the 48-hour week in all the great industries. Our regret is that in those industrial countries where the long hours of the employés compete unfairly with ours, the eight-hour day and 48-hour week should be set aside. It is because of that unfair handicap that we support it. We also welcome the announcement of the consolidating and improving Factory Bill which has been promised by Home Secretaries on both sides of the House. We believe there is much to be done. We believe many of the regulations want bringing up to date, and we welcome the announcement. The Gracious Speech does not provide for establishing Socialism in our time; it does not even propose to establish at once all the ideas contained in "Labour and the Nation," but it does provide for a generous contribution towards the building of that edifice which, given the opportunity, the Government propose to erect.
Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: I beg to second the Motion so ably and happily moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton). I regret that I am unable to claim that long association with the House which equips a Member to deal, in the able manner in which the Mover has done, with the Gracious Speech to which reference has
12
been made. I also express my thanks for the honour and privilege which have been conferred on my constituency and the county to which I am proud to belong, and the industry of agriculture with which I am equally proud to be associated. I think that when the Labour Government do a small tenant farmer the honour of recognising the industry on such a classless basis—and I would have the House observe the movement of the times in relation to agriculture and the present Government—it signifies that we are moving along lines of classless justice fur the whole of the industry. Therefore, it is with peculiar pleasure that I venture to speak, not only on behalf of the producers and the peasantry of the countryside, but also for every section associated with that isolated life which so many of us have to live. I cast my eye to the right of the Front Bench and I see four historic ages. I understand that the City of London has been honoured in every Parliament with distinct representation on the Front Bench on the opening day of the Session, and the oldest historic industry in the world, established by Adam himself, is now, perhaps, almost for the first time, being addressed from a Labour Bench by a tenant farmer claiming a right which will increasingly be recognised on this side of the House, as upon all sides, as agriculture more definitely agrees within itself as to what it requires.
I am informed, as a new Member, that the approach to my few remarks in relation to the Gracious Speech should not be heavy; that the lighter touch is much the better line to pursue upon a non-controversial occasion when we are thinking, all of us, more about the definite development of the whole of this great British Commonwealth of Nations than, as, perhaps, we are sometimes, of partisan advantages and other things. It reminds me that on an earlier occasion when a candidate for a rural constituency, an ancient borough, invited the Member and the two candidates to meet their unemployment committee to discuss that great question, and, the Mayoress having given us her blessing, the chairman proceeded, in an address of half an hour, to instruct us as to the line along which we were to proceed. The Member and the two candidates were

13
definitely informed that on no account were they to make any political suggestions, and you can imagine the difficulty that some of us felt in facing up to a position where there were very real problems to the solution of which private enterprise acting alone was totally incapable of rendering any assistance. You can imagine what a difficult position we were in.
This afternoon my position is much easier, because I find that there are definite proposals in the Gracious Speech from the Throne which enables one who is associated with the agricultural industry to offer one or two remarks in relation thereto. I should like to refer to the fact that unemployment and agricultural reform are closely connected in that Speech. To bring together idle men and idle land, in so far as they can be constructively organised on business lines, appears to be an avenue along which, judging from the proposals, coming legislation will lead into better channels. We are face to face with a challenge from the countryside. It is being met in the Gracious Speech which we have just heard, and to those of us who know something of the conditions of British agriculture it brings a very real measure of hope. This is not the time or the place to examine those proposals in detail, but there are one or two outside aspects which seem to make the position more hopeful than it looks, judging from the existing situation. I refer to the spirit and purpose of this House. We know that the Prime Minister is exceedingly anxious and that he has been, in his early days, associated with the industry of agriculture. No less interested is the right hon. and distinguished leader of His Majesty's Opposition, and certainly we may suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has an association with agriculture second to none in regard to his desire for rural reform. In looking at the position to-day, we discover that in recent years the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has passed on from the policy enunciated in the Land Campaign with which I have never seen very great reason to find fault. He has gone into farming himself, and I am going to suggest that the more Members there are in this House who will go into farming the sooner will this House be able to grapple with problems
14
the solution of which will only come from those experienced in the industry itself. Indeed, if I can say it without being misunderstood, I can conceive of no better development along that line than to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—my right hon. Friend shakes his head, but if he could prevail upon the First Lord of the Admiralty to enter into co-operation with him I am sure he would teach him how to make farming pay along cu-operative lines.
The point associated with the King's Speech which I desire to make here is that we have definite proposals for large-scale farming and for other developments associated with the acquisition and improvement of agricultural land. I must apologise for keeping the House, but I should like to offer one word of comment in regard to that aspect of the position. I should be forgetful of my knowledge of the inside of this great industry—I am afraid that I am rather taking advantage of this occasion to push one industry more than another, but, remembering the long silence in this House in relation to this industry—[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"]—Hon. Members opposite know how true that is. But with regard to any developments in large-scale farming and any developments in placing unemployed men upon the land, having in recollection the working of the Land Settlement Act as an administrator on a county council through the dfficult years since the war, I would urge most respectfully but very firmly that we should move very carefully in that form of development in the countryside or the condition of the unemployed man may be even worse than it is.
I am in favour of such a development. I do not know whether hon. Members who deplore the difficulties will help us to remove them, but I suggest that in that development we should do well to remember that there are certain factors which are very essential. You want suitable land. You must have suitable land. You must have suitable renting. You must have suitable land made cheap, and you must have suitable equipment, which is a, very vital factor. I think that along these lines we can make a start in rebuilding rural Britain which will not be unworthy of the efforts of this great House.
I think that Ruskin has a word in relation to the matter in his "Seven

15
Lamps of Architecture." It will be difficult task rebuilding rural Britain, but there are men in this House on all sides bigger than their party who can surely come to the help of this hard pressed industry. We are "down and out" in many aspects of arable agriculture, and I should be neglecting this opportunity if I did not urge this House to realise that we must secure some measure of economic justice in relation to prices [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"]—I did not say fiscal justice but economic justice along humane, just lines, so that we can secure an honourable stabilised price adequate to cover the cost of production and to give a living wage to the workers. As we face these introductory features of what may well prove to be largely an agricultural Session, I think of the spirit expressed by Ruskin in his "Seven Lamps of Architecture":
"Therefore, when we build, let us think that we build for ever. Let it not he for present delight, nor for present use alone; let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for, and let us think, as we lay stone on stone, that a time is to come when those stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say as they look upon the labour and wrought substance of them, 'See! this our fathers did for us.'"
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: It is always the task of the Leader of the Opposition to offer the first observations in the new Session when the mover and the seconder of the Address resume their seats. I should like to say one or two things, as is the custom, about the speeches to which we have just listened. They were not conventional speeches, and they were none the worse for that. I listened with great interest to both of them, and, if I may say so, the speech of the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) was a speech instinct with sincerity and, what is perhaps rarer than sincerity, with wisdom. I naturally, perhaps, had a peculiar appreciation of that speech because he seemed more to enter into the difficulties of leaders, and most men would say unhappy leaders. I think that his remarks on India might well be taken account of by every Member of this House. I am sure that he will allow me, having made an allusion to himself as an engine driver, to congratulate him on this run on having ob-
16
served all his signals and, on that account, being able to pull up at the right platform, amid the cheers of the populace. In regard to the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor), I am not striking a controversial note when I say that his task was difficult. We all share the feelings to which he gave expression at the end of his speech. How far we may find agreement in methods I cannot at this stage say. In the absence of any detailed knowledge as to how the Government propose to increase settlement on the land, to set up large-scale farming operations, and to acquire and improve agricultural land in need of reconditioning, we must wait and see.
It will, doubtless, fall to the lot of the Prime Minister, as the Leader of the House, to-day to give expression to the feelings of this House with regard to the tragedy which occurred three weeks ago to the R.101. It is his painful duty to do it, but, as custom compels me to speak on this occasion before him, I would merely say that in all that he may think fit to say he will carry with him the heartfelt sympathy and support of every Member on this side of the House. I would like for myself and for all who sit behind me to say to him that, over and above the great public tragedy, we feel the profoundest sympathy for him in the loss of a man who was not only a colleague but a trusted and well-beloved friend.
Although I know that it is not usual, and I will only take a moment in doing it, I cannot refrain from reminding the House that we only separated at the beginning of the month before last and five well-known figures have been taken from us. Death puts an end to all party struggles, and the House itself mourns the loss of four Members of Parliament, two on my side and two on the other side; on my side two colleagues who were trusted, respected and liked and on the other side of the House two private Members of valued and tried service to their party—all faithful servants of this House. The whole House mourns the loss of Sir Lonsdale Webster, to whom fitting tribute will be paid at the proper time to-morrow. I would only say now, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, that, while we lament Sir Lonsdale Webster's death, we congratulate Sir Horace Dawkins on the appointment that has been

17
made and we are quite confident that, like Sir Lonsdale Webster, he will be the guide, philosopher, and friend of every Member of this House, from the Speaker on his Throne to the newest recruit who sits in the House.
It is my duty to put certain interrogations to the Government. There are always points in the King's Speech on which the House desires to be enlightened, and there are always points, perhaps more important, to which no allusion is made in the King's Speech, on which the House also desires to be enlightened. The object of my question is that the Government may give such information at an early stage of the debate as they may think fit, so that the House may be helped in its proceedings in the next two or three days while the general debate lasts in discussing the subjects which they would like to discuss. The House is, of course, well aware that the more controversial matters on which the Opposition finds it necessary to censure the conduct of the Government, past, present or prospective, are generally deferred until after the first few days. This afternoon my task is rather to seek for information, in the hope that the information will be given.
The King's Speech strikes different people in different ways. No doubt it has given immense satisfaction on the benches opposite. Our first feeling is that it is a gigantic act of faith. We say that the work outlined will probably occupy Parliament for three years at least. Believing that, the first question that I desire to ask the Prime Minister is, can he give us any indication at this stage as to the principal business which he proposes to take between now and Christmas. That is to say, on which of these rare and refreshing fruits he will make a start. We will come back to these fruits in a moment.
I pause now to look outside the King's Speech. There are three things on which I desire specific information. They are all important, but I think that, at the moment, the first one is the most important. I think we all understand, from what we have read in the more reliable portions of the Press, that a despatch has been received from the Government of India. I have no knowledge of the nature of that despatch, nor do I know whether it is confidential, but I do feel, and I feel very strongly, that
18
it is desirable that that despatch should be made public, if possible, at the earliest moment possible. I think that here I can hang my hat on the peg provided by the hon. Member for South Leeds. Knowledge is essential in these matters, and all the proceedings that can be should take place in the open light of day. Rumours are busy, they always are busy, and we cannot help them, and they do a great deal of harm. I would merely say now that I think the sooner the considered opinion of the Government of India is known in this country the better it will be; the better it will be for the chances of the Conference, and—I say this without knowing at all what is in the document—I cannot help thinking that its publication would allay a good deal of criticism which has been uttered in various quarters and which I think it would be wise to allay at the earliest moment possible.
There are two questions connected with the Colonial Office on which I think the House should have some information. We should like to hear from the Prime Minister as soon as is convenient to him whether we are right or not in believing, as many of us did believe when we read it, that the wording of the White Paper on Palestine does mark a definite alteration in the policy which has been pursued by successive Governments since 1917. In our view, after careful consideration of that document,' we thought that it did mark a very serious alteration. The real danger of that is obvious to the House, because, if that be so, it means that we are going back on our word. At no time ought this country to go hack upon its word, but at a time like this it is peculiarly dangerous with the present state of the whole of the Eastern and Oriental world, and at a time when we are embarking on an epoch marking conference with our Indian fellow subjects. If there should be any doubt as to our intention and ability to hold to our word, however awkward and difficult it may be for us, it might make much more difficult the solution of problems which in themselves are difficult enough always.
The other point in connection with the Colonial Office is as to what is being done in regard to East Africa. We have none of us heard much about that matter lately. There have been reports that the

19
Government propose to set up a joint committee. Perhaps the Prime Minister will be good enough to tell us as soon as he conveniently can whether that is so, what the nature of that committee will be, and exactly what its functions will be. People who are connected with or interested in the very difficult problems of the East African colonies are getting anxious about the time which is passing without apparently any definite decision being come to. I think the House would be relieved to know exactly what the situation is in that regard. These are the three principal points outside the King's Speech on which I desire some information.
4.0 p.m.
Of the King's Speech itself I know that, in the main, we have to wait until the legislation is produced to give effect to the proposals which appear in the Speech, but it is not unusual to review two or three of the main items in the. King's Speech, sometimes to request further information and sometimes merely to offer a little useful criticism. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is yet in a position to tell us anything about what is going on in the Imperial Conference. I cannot, of course, having had the experience of presiding over these Conferences, press him to do so before the time that he thinks fit. A veil seems to have been drawn over their proceedings, and all that we know is that he is confidently awaiting satisfactory results. The question is the amount of confidence and the extent of time you have to wait. Is it a case, which was alluded to by a writer probably as familiar to him as he is to me, and as loved by him as he is by me. that
"it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive?"
Is the Conference going on hopefully without arriving at any destination, or is it going to arrive at a destination, and, if so, what destination? I think we should like information on that. Then, of course, on this side of the House, we are very glad to hear that the Government
"will persist in its efforts to develop and extend home, Imperial and foreign trade."
We like the word "persist." We think it might be possible to tell the House something about the efforts that have been made, because you cannot persist unless
20
you have started. On this side of the House we have not yet noticed the start. The only thing we have noticed is the Tariff Truce, but we do not quite see how that is going to help Imperial trade. We hope to hear before very long exactly what has been done with regard to the Tariff Truce, exactly what is the effect of it, and how it will help either home or Imperial trade.
If I say that I should regret the setting up of a Royal Commission, I shall be told that I set up plenty of Royal Commissions myself, but I hope that we shall have some further information as to why it is considered necessary to set up a Royal Commission on the question of unemployment insurance. It was with great regret that, owing to a reason which I gave to the Prime Minister, I was unable to join in one of his three-party conferences. It was with all the greater pleasure that I was able and glad to join in the conference on unemployment benefit. think the Government will admit that I asked to serve on that committee two most admirably equipped men for the purpose, and, although I have not the pleasure of complete familiarity with their work, I think the Liberal party put on that committee two excellent men for the work to act with those who were put on by the Government themselves. It seemed to me that they had the capacity, the skill and the judgment really to make recommendations upon which the Government, if they thought fit, might act on their advice without waiting for the time that must elapse until the Royal Commission can begin to advise, because it is common ground among us that there is a great field in unemployment insurance that gives us cause for apprehension today. That is felt in all parties in the country, and it would have been perfectly possible in this House, by agreement between all parties, at any rate, to have taken some steps that would help in the situation, and that we should not content ourselves at the present moment with doing nothing for the unemployment insurance scheme except come to this House and vote more and more money to go into a bottomless pit of borrowing. I heard tremendous cheers from the other side when this paragraph was read:
"My Ministers propose to introduce legislation to secure for the community its share in the site value of land."

21
And no one smiled with more knowledge and sympathy than the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Very few hon. Members opposite were in the Parliament of 1909. I am going to make no criticism of site values at this moment, but I would remind the House of this—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it well—that there was never a more brilliant team than that team in Mr. Asquith's Government which defended the proposals for the Land Value Duties. It was an amazingly competent team, and it took them months. I ask myself, where is that team to come from to-day?
Mr. McSHANE: From Paddington!
Mr. BALDWIN: I have studied very carefully the form of all the candidates for Paddington, and I cannot quite see who is going to make any contribution to that topic. I merely relate this that hon. Members opposite may have some idea of the complications of the subject. I suppose there was no better equipped and acuter brain than that of Mr. Haldane. I remember Mr. Haldane defending a Clause at the bench opposite. I was a private Member. He said, "It is no use my explaining it to you because, if I did, you would not understand it." I can assure the House that hon. Members who cheered that statement have no idea of the course upon which they are embarking, if, indeed, the ship ever puts out from harbour.
There is only one other subject on which I would like to say a word, because it was omitted by both the Mover and the Seconder of the Address—"a Measure of Electoral Reform." Those few beautiful words have set me thinking. I asked myself subsequent questions to which I cannot at present find an answer.
Mr. WALLHEAD: About the Referendum?
Mr. BALDWIN: No, it is not. A Measure of electoral reform may mean one of two things, and I am afraid the Prime Minister will not tell us yet which. It may mean that it is an effort of his party alone to try to tinker with electoral law in such a way as will at the same time bring the greatest amount of benefit to his party and the least amount to mine. On the other hand, it may mean that that correspondence which I read with such regret, although
22
I have been engaged in some correspondence of my own—I have every sympathy with people who take part in correspondence—it may be that that correspondence which was in the papers about a fortnight ago between two very distinguished leaders of parties, really meant nothing, and that, after all, when the unthinking concluded that a breach had been made which nothing could heal, yet righteousness and truth have kissed each other. Be it so. We shall maintain a respectful silence until the cause of the osculation has died away, when we shall consider what we shall do. There is only one other observation I have to make. I have seen many Speeches, and they have always concluded with a prayer in a certain form. This time that form has been altered. All I can say is that, having regard to the contents, it was time it was altered.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): It is my first duty to join with the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating those who have moved and seconded the Address. They adopted the usual modest reserve and genial good humour. They have been very happy in their blending of classical poetry and ancient history, and they have commended to the House the King's Speech with all that light and deft touch which we have been accustomed to see displayed by those who have performed these functions. With the Leader of the Opposition, I congratulate them both most heartily.
I regret that what I have to say this afternoon must open in a note of sadness. The disaster which befell Airship R.101 on that Sunday morning stands alone in the record of such mishaps for the bitter fatefulness of that tragic drama. As not only the head of the Government, but the Leader of this House, I take the opportunity of having placed upon our records our grief for the loss of the brave men of all ranks who met death together, and now so appropriately share a common grave. Their leader was a devoted friend of mine. He was also a great Minister devoted to the service of this State in many fields of action, the inspiring head of a department of gallant pioneers in whose ranks have been enlisted some of the finest and most single-minded and promising of the youth of this country—the Air Force. They have all gone, but in the music to which one moved on that

23
day of funeral, the prayers of uncontrollable grief were broken by the twittering notes of sustaining faith and hope, and those twittering notes now must become the predominant music to which we move in the future on the paths which they have followed. I know that Lord Thomson, Sir Sefton Brancker and their comrades believed that they were pioneers of conquest, and they have handed over a great trust to the nation to continue their work.
Our first duty has been to have a thorough and searching inquiry into the causes of the accident, to secure the best judgment and the best thought and the fullest powers which can be set up. I think I can say, in the name of the whole House, that we have been fortunate both in the court and in the assessors, and we are under great obligations to them for having undertaken their task. It is not fitting that I should pass on without an expression of thanks and gratitude to France, and especially to M. Tardieu, as head of the nation, for the way he so feelingly associated himself personally with the State ceremonies attending the disaster and the arrangements he caused to be made in the work of taking the bodies home with efficiency and reverence and to the Mayor of Beauvais and all the kindly people whom he represents for what they did with so much human consideration and thoughtfulness, with so much tender care and feeling, to respect the dead and nurse the living. France has once again touched the hearts of our people. Regarding Sir Lonsdale Webster, a fitting opportunity will present itself to-morrow for us to pay a tribute to his memory.
The Leader of the Opposition put some questions to me, and I hasten to answer them. He asked me, first, what the business between now and Christmas was to be. I should like the business between now and Christmas to be to as great an extent as possible in the nature of unemployment emergency measures, and there will be two Measures taken, not wholly exclusively to that end—the Education Bill, and the Bill relating to agriculture, the big one. His next question related to the Dispatch of the Government of India. A Dispatch has been received from the Government of India giving the views of the Government of
24
India on the constitutional questions which we must discuss at the Round Table Conference. It is the intention, it is the decision, of the Government to publish that Dispatch, but a little time must elapse. I do not mean a long time, but a necessary, short time, or as short a necessary time as possible—I am anxious to get the right expression—must elapse while we are exchanging views with the Government of India on one or two points, but the Dispatch will be published in a shape and form uniform with the Simon Report.
The next question he asked was whether the wording of the White Paper on Palestine does or does not mark a departure in the policy of this country to the Palestinian Mandate. It does not. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, when he says that the word of England must not be broken, that we did not inherit a word, we inherited words, and the words are not always consistent. What has to be done is in the spirit of the Mandate, and, sticking strictly to the letter of the Mandate, to straighten out the differences between the contradictory parts of certain declarations. I repeat, there is nothing that has amazed the Colonial Office more than the extraordinary meaning and the extraordinary intentions attributed to the Colonial Office and to the Government on account of the publication of the White Paper. His fourth question was: Have we anything to say about East Africa? That will be announced as quickly as possible. At the present moment the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has not returned to this country. He went on a mission to see something of the Colonies, and as soon as he returns we shall be in a position to make an announcement.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask about the Imperial Conference. He says: "What is going on in the Imperial Conferences?" I am perfectly amazed. I thought the right hon. Gentleman knew more about what was going on at the Imperial Conference than the Dominion Prime Ministers themselves. Again and again, has he not associated himself with statements and proposals even before they were made? I read a letter signed by the right hon. Gentleman saying "I approve of this," and at that moment the Prime Minister concerned was explaining to us what he had said. The

25
right hon. Gentleman anticipated his mind; and he was quite wrong in the meaning he attached to it. I can give a very good report of the Imperial Conference. The Imperial Conference, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is divided into two main sections, although for one reason or another the economic side is receiving almost exclusively all the attention. Hon. Members think they may make more political capital out of that. [Interruption.] I am glad if I have misjudged hon. Members opposite. But hon. Members, or those who are not hon. Members, who believe that they can make more capital out of the economic problems of the Imperial Conference are not doing the Imperial Conference justice. I am not at all sure that the most important and permanent part of the work which is being done at the Conference is in applying and putting a definite content into the various phrases and declarations made by our predecessors in 1926 relating to the constitution and political relationship of the various Dominions. That work is being proceeded with very rapidly, and my report this morning is that it is drawing towards an end.
As regards the economic side, a great deal has been written about it. Let me make it perfectly clear to the House where we stand. The common purpose of the Dominions, and the common purpose of the home Government, is to increase inter-Dominion trade without any Dominion suffering in its own economic position. I see my experienced friend the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) smiling. He knows perfectly well that within those words there is not only one simple problem of adjustment between two countries, but an extraordinary complicated problem of adjustment and readjustment, and adjustment again, between a whole group of Dominions, each one of which quite rightly and properly claims to be in its own eyes first and foremost. That is the problem that has to be solved. Each Dominion, quite rightly, has made it perfectly clear that its claims must be for its own needs first, and in so far as Preference, or anything else, goes it is only in so far as that preference can be given without injuring what is considered to be the Dominion interest giving the preference. May I claim, even in front of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this country enjoys the status of a
26
Dominion? Must, I be asked to put on a white sheet and confess to faults if I report to this House that we have fought for the interests of this country in exactly the same way At any rate, we have done it. The question is not a phrase, but what is being offered; for how long is it being offered, and under what conditions is it being offered?
The House must remember in talking about Preference that there are three classes or grades of Preference, and one cannot build up a policy of Preference without understanding the triple character of the practice of Preference. There is first the Preference which is protectionist, full Protection, and the wall which is labeled Preference is sufficiently high to keep out any inflow of goods from the Mother country. There is a second class of Preference, a preference given to goods and manufactures not yet started in the Dominion giving the preference but scheduled by the Dominion as being products which they themselves will make and which as soon as they start making they will make under the shelter of a protective wall. This second grade of Preference is a preference which is constantly moving up and up against us and against the world in accordance with the stage reached by the Dominions in manufacturing the goods which are the subject of the preference. Then there is the third grade of Preference, when the Dominion tells us there are certain things—one Dominion says motor chassis—which it never intends to make, and which it does not believe it could make even if it intended to make. In respect of classes of goods like that when we get a preference it is a preference which is absolute, and it will be of the greatest value to our producers. These three grades must be remembered, and, when one talks with the Dominion Premiers and Ministers of Commerce, there is nothing that impresses itself more upon one than this, the tremendous keenness they all have to meet us and help us within the limits of their ability.
One of the first conclusions one comes to when he gets right down deep into it is not that the Dominions and Commonwealth people are niggardly, for indeed they have been very generous, but what has happened to the British producers and manufacturers to make so little use

27
of the preferences they are getting in the Dominions. There would be far more added immediately to the production of this country and exported to the Dominions if our manufacturers took full advantage of every opportunity than if the Dominions themselves increased their preferences by 5 or 10 per cent. You find this: We have got now whole grades of examples of defective production, defective marketing and defective competition. Here is one taken from the "Montreal Gazette" of 12th September. It is only one sentence and deals with only one point. It is only an example of 'how the opportunities given to us by our Dominions have not been adequately seized upon by our producers here:
"I would also like to have heard him"—the "him" refers to Lord Melchett—
"tell us if the British industries are going to continue forming cartels with our American neighbours, allotting Canadian territory to our rivals in trade, as was done in the tinplate and many other industries."
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what we had done for trade. I am not at all sure that a very formidable dossier cannot be produced, that one of these efforts that we made very successfully for trade produced a very substantial order for certain important lines in the engineering group. Yet when the order came over here, I mean the request for the tender, the reply was sent back: We cannot deal in these goods; you must apply to Westinghouse of the United States." I dare say that the manager of that firm will be explaining that the trade has gone down on account of the taxes imposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Believe me, if we can get the Imperial Conference to work that out, to examine all these things and to take steps to get the offered market for British industry, then our exports will go up by very substantial figures and our unemployment figures will come down very substantially.
There are two things that have emerged from the Imperial Conference. The first is that Empire Free Trade is an absolute fraud. No honest man, after what has transpired at the Imperial Conference, can pretend that Empire Free Trade is an issue that ought to go before the electors of this country. The second
28
thing is this: that if it is going to be a simple exchange, our imposing tariffs for the purpose of allowing a wider field of preference to be shown us, the only tariff that we can propose, that is worth anything to the Dominions, is a tariff on food. You can devise and you can sit as sympathetically as you like, and you can ask them, "Well, now, what do you want of me? What can I give you in our market? How can I help you to get more of your products, primary or secondary, into our markets?" The very first thing that every Premier says, and in some cases not only the first thing but the last thing, is "Tax wheat." We cannot do it. Yet there is no one who has got down to details, who has seen production on the one hand and imports on the other, who has listed out the material that we want to produce in this country and then market from this country, and the materials that the Dominions can put into this country—there is no one who has taken the trouble and the patience to examine all this in detail who believes that there is only one way of helping inter-Dominion trade—the way of tariffs. There are other ways, and those other ways are being carefully explored.
I do not propose to go through the items in the King's Speech, but I should like to say this in regard to international affairs: The Speech may be one which it will take three years to get through. I am not a betting or bargaining sort of man, either on the Tote or otherwise, but, if hon. Members will secure us for three years, we will under take to go a very much longer way in national reconstruction than is indicated in the Speech. But it is perfectly right, and I have no objection at all to the House taking the view, that the Speech has to be taken as a whole. We shall do our best to get it through this Session, but, if not, it will be continued and the work will be done, because it is only by continuity in the working out of a scheme, carefully balanced both in home policy and foreign policy, that this country is going to be led out of the mess in which it is at the present time. In foreign policy we are laying emphasis upon arbitration and disarmament, for only by arbitration and disarmament are you going to establish peace. There must be no mistake about

29
this: We cannot isolate ourselves in these policies; if disarmament, naval disarmament, land or air disarmament, is to be carried out substantially, it can only be done by international agreement, and only in so far as other nations can come in and take their share in disarmament. We cannot go away into a garden of our own; we can only march when other people are marching alongside us.
Then the right hon. Gentleman put a question to me about unemployment. We are inquiring; we propose to set up this inquiry, this Unemployment Insurance inquiry.
Viscountess ASTOR: We have had an inquiry already.
The PRIME MINISTER: The Noble Lady does carry on, with charming persistency, this role of the innocent. We are talking about the King's Speech. In the King's Speech there is a paragraph which says that the Government are going to set up a Royal Commission, and as regards that paragraph the Leader of the Opposition has put a question to me, and to that question I am about to give an answer. The three-parties consultation, to which he referred, was a very valuable one indeed. It is a novel experiment. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman gets complaints from behind him. I confess to him that I get plenty of complaints from behind me, over these transactions. I am absolutely unrepentant. If by laying our heads together on these very complicated questions of social polity and policy we can discover common grounds, without in any way sacrificing any of the political principles which must divide us, if in practice, in administration, in the direct contact between the State and the individual it is possible for us, by exchanging views, first of all to smooth the way for effective legislation, I am at the disposal of the House. As a result of that investigation it was perfectly evident that the intricacies of this problem have to be examined and considered, and recommendations made regarding them which would have as little party taint as the report of any Royal Commission can ever secure, That conclusion was come to as a result of the conferences which were carried on with so much helpfulness and so much good will.
I want to put this question to the House. We are publishing week by week
30
the figures of unemployment. There is no country in the earth that defines unemployment as it is defined in those figures. I was talking to a big American industrialist the other day. He had been into our figures of unemployment and had been visiting and coming into personal contact with people who were unemployed. He told me that, if the United States issued unemployment figures to include the unemployed who are in our figures, the United States figures would be anything between ten and twelve millions. Yet the House knows perfectly well that by those figures of ours we are seriously handicapping ourselves in the eyes of the world. What does it mean? My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) the other day made a discovery. He said that there is a great deal of abuse. Is there? There is no use in simply throwing interjections at each other on the subject. Of course, it is a thing capable of proof. If anyone said that absolutely there is no abuse, he would be wrong certainly. What one wants to know is, is there such an appreciable percentage of abuse as to create a general wrong? There is not. But there is something of a different character.
The sort of cases given, of £3 earned and then unemployment for the rest of the week and drawing what is called the dole—these are not abuses. There is not a single one of these payments given except after the decision of an umpire. [Interruption.] I have not come to the end of my story. What is the explanation? I am not apologising. I am explaining the thing which you are up against, so that if you want to deal with it you can do so with accurate knowledge, and so that you may help the right men and not the wrong men. Take those people and the a week they are getting. They are insured. They are in full benefit. They pay the contributions. They are not what is offensively called "on the dole" at all. They are on insurance. The Insurance Fund is being used perfectly legally, and there is no fault and no fraud. It may be that one can say that, by experience of the working of the Act, ways and means have been found of getting things which were never contemplated in the Act. That is all right, but do let us be careful of what we say. All these abuses—so-called

31
—if hon. Members will look into them when they appear in the newspapers and so on, are not the abuses of evil-minded, robbing, malicious, dishonest people. They are abuses in the working of the Act that have been used for certain purposes, and let me warn you that those who are guilty of that sort of abuse are as frequently the employers as the workpeople.
There is another thing. I was in this House—it seems a tremendously long time ago—when the right hon. Gentleman opposite introduced his Bill to establish the Employment Exchanges. The purpose of that Bill was to make labour fluid. I remember perfectly well the right hon. Gentleman explaining that the scheme had been devised for the purpose of making labour as fluid as possible. Now one of the most curious effects of insurance has been to reintroduce an extraordinary amount of stagnation. The transfers that have been made have led to much good in training, but have been of very little value for their main purpose of draining off. That problem remains unsolved. Take another case. There is a great deal made about the vast amount of money that is paid—£20,000,000 from the Exchequer and so on—and when you, Mr. Speaker, read about the Bill that is going to be introduced shortly to increase the borrowing powers, there was some laughter. Is the country quite sure that it is not getting value for its money? I am perfectly certain that it is. With the volume of unemployment and the volume of destitution—or the destitution that would be had there been no Unemployment Insurance Fund—can anybody, even with a very stunted imagination, think of what would happen if no such assistance had been given?
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think it immoral to borrow money for this purpose?
The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend has an economical mind. Here I want also to put in this word of warning. Before anything like this was done we found district after district becoming derelict. We found great local government areas becoming bank-
32
rupt. That has been saved by the operation of this Fund and hon. Members, when they look at the money or at the figures indicating the money, must remember to put a social meaning and a social content into those figures. I am perfectly certain whatever unfortunate experiences may be contained in it which ought to be cleared out of it, that taken as a whole the country has had full value for every 6d. spent.
Bills will be produced as we go along—[HON. MEMBERS: "Electoral reform!"] Some hon. Members seem to go tremendously fast, but they are always behind. [Interruption.] As I say, Bills will be produced, and every time a Bill is being produced the right hon. Gentleman opposite will make a familiar observation, an observation which we have heard 20 times in the course of a month—the Trade Disputes Bill, to increase the chances of industrial peace in this country and to remove an Act characterised by prejudice rather than by justice—the Electoral Reform Bill to deal with the escapades of parties who are too wealthy to observe the law with strict accuracy. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that in the production of this programme I shall, most unwillingly, have to draw very heavy drafts upon the time and the efforts of the House, but we are convinced that it is necessary for national well-being and national up-building. We cannot agree. Our Government will always be conducted by party. There will always be great differences, some of us looking perhaps one way and some of us another, some of us, perhaps, having one kind of upbringing and others another, which means differences in political standpoints. But I do hope, however hard and trying the Session may be, that we shall all do our best to keep national interests in front of purely partisan advantage.
Mr. WELLS: As representing the area which has suffered most grievously owing to the disaster to the R.101, I rise for one purpose only, and that is to express on behalf of the relatives of those who lost their lives, their grateful thanks, first, to France for its spontaneous sympathy and ready help; to the Prime Ministers and Governments of the Dominions who have shown by their actions and words their sorrow, and to

33
those Governments throughout the world who have expressed their sympathy and especially to Dr. Eckener who paid such a personal tribute in this country. Lastly, to the people of this country from the highest to the lowest, I offer the thanks of those for whom I speak, for their generous sympathy and their expressions of sorrow, particularly to the officers and men of the Royal Air Force who by their personal attentions and ready help did their best to lighten the burdens of those who mourn. Also today I wish to thank the Prime Minister and the Houses of Parliament for their generous sympathy.
The blow has fallen with particular severity on Cardington and Bedford. All those who worked in the airship works carried out their duties in happy comradeship. They put their best into their work. They took a personal pride in it and had the utmost confidence in the ship and in the officers and men who handled that ship. I would say to-day that the spirit of Cardington is not broken. To them this disaster does not spell defeat. They are ready to carry on, if called upon, and there will be no lack
34
of volunteers to handle a ship if wanted. They believe that what other countries are doing we shall be able to do and are able to do. This disaster may cause a set-back, but, as was said by one there who lost her husband in the disaster, "My son will be ready to fly in R.102." I would beg one thing of the Government, namely, that the dependants of those who have been lost should be dealt with in a considerate and generous manner. I feel sure that such is the wish of the whole country in view of the fact that these gallant men who lost their lives were undertaking a great and perilous adventure in the cause of Empire.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
Adjourned accordingly, at Three minutes before Five o'Clock.

THE KING'S SPEECH.
The KING being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and then retired.
His Majesty's Speech was as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"It has given Me much pleasure to receive My Ministers from the Dominions and the Representatives of India who are attending the Imperial Conference. I watch with deep interest the progress of their labours, the satisfactory result of which I shall confidently await.
"I hope soon to welcome the Representatives of the Princes and Peoples of India who are about to join with members of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament to consider the future constitutional position of India.
"My intention is to inaugurate this Conference, and I earnestly trust that in the conclusion of its proceedings may be found agreed and wise solutions of those important questions upon which it will be called to deliberate.
"My relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
"I was very glad to entrust My Son, the Duke of Gloucester, with the duty of representing Me at the coronation of the Emperor of Ethiopia.
"My Government took an active part in the proceedings of the Assembly of the League of Nations in September last. General agreement was reached upon the Treaty of Financial Assistance to States Victims of Aggression which was recently signed at Geneva. The application of this Treaty is conditional upon the coming into force of a General Disarmament Convention, which I trust will shortly be concluded.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"Estimates for the Public Service will be laid before you.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"I follow with grave concern and sympathy the continuance of heavy unemployment among so many of My People.
"Economic depression unfortunately continues to dominate the markets of the world and the accompanying restriction of international trade is felt with particular severity in those industries which are especially dependent on export.
"My Government will persist in its efforts to develop and extend home, Imperial and foreign trade and to help in measures which will lead to greater efficiency in industry.
"Proposals will be laid before you for the promotion of increased settlement and employment on the land, and of large-scale farming operations, and for the acquisition and improvement of agricultural land in need of re-conditioning; and for the organisation of producers for marketing purposes.
"I propose immediately to set up a Commission to enquire into the whole question of Unemployment Insurance and in particular into the allegations of abuse of its provisions. The Coin-mission will be asked to present interim Reports on the most pressing questions and, if required, legislation based upon them will be introduced. In the meantime a measure to make further financial provision for the Unemployment Fund will be laid before you.
"My Ministers propose to introduce legislation to secure for the community its share in the site value of land.
"Measures will be submitted to you for raising the Age of Compulsory School Attendance, for amending the law relating to Trade Disputes and Trade Unions, and for the setting up of a Consumers' Council.
"My Ministers propose to introduce legislation for the modification and extension of the Law relating to town planning and to the preservation of rural amenities; and for the amendment and consolidation of the Factory Acts.
"A Measure of Electoral Reform will be submitted to you.
"Bills will also be laid before you to enable the ratification of the Washington Hours Convention and of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and for the establishment of a new statutory authority to deal with passenger traffic in London.
"I pray that, under the blessing of God, the outcome of your deliberations may advance the happiness and wellbeing of My people."

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

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The King's Speech reported by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. When the Address was moved at the beginning of the first Session of this Parliament, as I see by reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT, some of the noble Lords opposite commented on the emptiness of the Back Benches on this side of the House, and they appeared to suggest that reform might be desirable in that direction. Well, the Back Benches are not now wholly untenanted, and, as far as I know, there is no reason why in the future they should not be more completely filled; it may not be beyond the bounds of possibility that some of the noble Lords opposite may in the course of the coming Session undergo conversion.
I am the youngest Back Bench member on the Government side, and I am at present not wholly familiar with the usages of your Lordships' House. I must therefore ask your Lordships to pardon me if I should, on this very formal occasion, make any departures from the usual customs of the House, and I will ask you to put down any mistakes that I may make to my extreme youth and inexperience. Before I come to the gracious Speech itself I should like to remind your Lordships that this is the first occasion on which His Majesty has opened Parliament for two years, and I am sure that I shall be expressing the feelings of your Lordships' House when I say that we all rejoice to know that His Majesty's presence here to-day was a sign of that complete restoration to health which we and all his subjects throughout the Empire have so ardently desired.

5
I now come to the gracious Speech itself. It begins with references to the Imperial Conference now sitting and to what is known as the Round-Table Conference on India. We shall all hope, I am sure, that the deliberations being carried on by the Imperial Conference will lead to a better understanding on the part of the Empire as a whole of the needs and aspirations of its different members, and the result, we trust, will be to bind together the various parts of the Empire into one united whole, working for the prosperity of all; not, my Lords, an Empire united on the basis of sordid economic motives against the rest of the world, but an Empire united as a great force for righteousness and peace, taking a great part in a league of nations and striving for the good of humanity.
The Indian Round-Table Conference, which we are glad to know is going to be inaugurated by His Majesty himself, will have great issues before it, and it in to be earnestly hoped that the result of the Conference may be to convince the people of India that we do mean to give India responsible self-government at the earliest possible moment. We hope that plans may be devised which may hasten that day and make it possible to work out in harmony and peace measures for the realisation of that goal.
We shall all welcome, I am sure, the reference to the General Disarmament Convention. All who are anxious that everything should be done to prevent future wars will welcome any measure of that kind. I am not one of those who believe that war can be prevented merely by disarmament because it is, unfortunately, in these days so very easy to re-arm. I believe that the prevention of war ultimately depends on permeating the peoples with the will to peace. If this Convention can be the means of persuading nations even to reduce their armaments, will not that, my Lords, be a sign of the growth and extension of that will to peace?
I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the paragraph in the gracious Speech referring to the very grave problem of unemployment. The question of unemployment has, of course, been in the thoughts of the Government continuously all through last Session and they have brought in several measures with the
6
object of finding work for men who are unemployed and also for alleviating the lot of men for whom work could not be found. The problem is still very vast. The Government have done much, but forces have been against us all over the world. But for the measures which have been brought about by the Government the numbers of the unemployed would undoubtedly be much greater than they are now. Unfortunately, they are still greater than they were a year ago. The problem is very serious; but that does not mean that we must adopt quack remedies. Many remedies are being suggested up and down the country on the ground that we must do something. We must do something, but we must try to do the right thing and not rush to remedies which have been tried and found wanting in the past and will not cure but only aggravate the disease.
As to the statement in the gracious Speech where it says that the Government intend to persist in measures for the expansion of home, foreign and Imperial trade and to help in measures for the increase in the efficiency of our industry, I think those two principles are the only two principles on which it is possible to work for the improvement of trade and the diminishing of unemployment—the extension of our markets and the increase of efficiency. I do not believe and the Government do not believe that you can increase trade or diminish the numbers of unemployed by erecting barriers in the way of the exchange of goods and services between the peoples of the earth. Nor can you do these things by measures which so often turn out to be merely the bolstering up of inefficiency in our home industries.
In connection with the unemployment question two proposals are suggested in the gracious Speech. A Land Settlement Bill will be brought forward, by means of which it is hoped that employment may be increased by bringing men on to the land and also that agriculture may be made more efficient. Again, an Agricultural Marketing Bill will be brought forward in the Session, which also should have the effect of increasing the efficiency of agriculture and of filling up the gap which exists between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays. There is one other measure as regards

7
the land referred to in the Speech; that affects the question of site values. I think the time has come for revaluing the land once more in order that the increase in the value of land, which has come about owing to the growth of the needs of the people and not through the services rendered by its owners, should be taken and spent for public purposes.
In the gracious Speech several measures are mentioned which appeared in the last Speech from the Throne—measures which it was not found possible to carry through in the last Session. I suppose there are very few, or any, Governments which have ever carried through all the measures which they had pledged themselves to carry through in the time allotted for that purpose, and the Government are determined to make good their failures in that direction (due to lack of time) in the coming Session. Of those measures one is the proposal connected with education, a subject which is of great personal interest to myself, and in which I have been engaged for many years. It is proposed to raise the school-leaving age from fourteen to fifteen, and to couple that proposal with maintenance grants. I wish very much that fifteen could have been sixteen. Sixteen is surely young enough for children to go into industry. At the age of sixteen our boys and girls are entering upon what is probably the most receptive period of their lives. It is the age at which the children of the well-to-do classes are beginning to take education seriously, and it is an age at which no well-to-do parents would think of bringing their children's education to an end. However, to raise the school age to fifteen is certainly a step forward in the realisation of the Labour Party's programme of education—namely, free education from the nursery school to the University for every child who is capable of benefiting.
Some of your Lordships opposite may regret that it is proposed to couple the raising of the school age with the maintenance grant, but I do not think any noble Lords opposite will go so far as a leading London journal yesterday morning in referring to these maintenance grants as bribes. I think that, if I may say so, was a monstrous insult to the working people of this country. But it
8
may be thought that at this time we cannot afford maintenance grants. I think that maintenance grants will really, in the long run, turn out to be an economy, for the education obtained even by this extra year will, I am convinced, make a great difference to our future generations of young men and women. After all, what finer asset could a nation have than an educated people? It would not, I think, be fair to ask the parents of these children to provide this asset out of their slender incomes, which, owing to the loss of their children's earnings, will be reduced by the raising of the school age.
The other two measures which it was not found possible to carry through in the last Session were the amendment of the Trade Disputes Act and the setting up of a consumers' council. When the Trade Disputes Act was passed in 1927 the Labour Party said definitely that they would repeal it or amend it at the first opportunity. They gave that pledge to the trade unions—to two and a half million men and women forming, with their families, something like a quarter of the population of the country—and that pledge they are determined to fulfil. The Labour Party have always regarded the Trade Disputes Act as containing a great measure of injustice, and trade unionists throughout the country, or at any rate thinking trade unionists, regard the Act as unjust. They regard the illegality of sympathetic strikes as unjust. They regard the interference with their methods of raising levies as unjust, and 150,000 civil servants regard the limitation of their rights of political and industrial association as unjust. That is the case.
I say that trade unionists regard these things as unjust. I am not saying rightly or wrongly. I am not giving my own opinion. This is not the time to do so, but that is the state of things. Is it wise, my Lords, is it a good thing to have large numbers of men under this sense of rankling injustice? Is it wise to let this sense of injustice smoulder? Would it not be better to remove this cause of discontent, and to trust the good sense and the love of fair play which exist among the working men and women of the country just as much as it exists among

9
other classes? Would it not be wise to trust them to use reasonable freedom wisely?
The Government are intending, as the Speech mentions, to set up a consumers' council with definite powers over prices. If you look at the statistics of wholesale prices and compare them with the statistics of retail prices you will see there is a very considerable gap between the two. If the consumers' council can devise any measures of bridging that gap, and bringing the two sets of prices nearer together, I think they will confer a very great advantage on the community. I must not detain your Lordships by mentioning all the measures which are dealt with in the gracious Speech. I will only conclude by saying that I believe that if the measures that have been put before you in the gracious Speech can become law during this Session, then some very valuable legislation will have been placed on the Statute Book which will add greatly to the happiness and welfare of the whole nation. I beg to move the Address in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—
"Most Gracious Sovereign.—We. Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. (Lord Sanderson.)
LORD MARKS: My Lords, the short acquaintance I have had with your Lordships' House has convinced me that no matter from what quarter of the House any noble Lord speaks, he is quite sure of sympathetic attention even though his remarks may challenge the opinion's of some who may be listening to him. My nineteen years' experience in another place has made me welcome the courtesy that is shown on all sides of the House to every member who is speaking, regardless of the subject upon which he may be speaking. It is the tradition of this House to extend consideration and also courtesy to those who have but briefly previously addressed your Lordships. My experience in another place I have found
10
during my apprenticeship here has not served very much to help me in an Assembly where everything is different, where courtesy reigns supreme and where there is a smouldering of criticism but nothing in the way of violent objection. Thus, to-day, I might well wish that someone with greater experience in your Lordships' House and more familiar with your Lordships' observances should have been entrusted with this honourable though very onerous duty of seconding the Address. It is an onerous duty to have to respond to a gracious Speech which has outlined so many subjects that your Lordships hereafter will be engaged in deliberating. It it also a privilege, as my noble friend who has moved this Address has said, to be able in the Reply to convey our great delight that the Sovereign has once more been able to take his place in this Chamber as the head not only of the Chamber but of the people who are rejoicing at his return to health.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD MARKS: We all of us, therefore, feel in a very special measure gratitude that His Majesty has come through tribulation and trouble closer to us by his presence here to-day. His Majesty expresses at the very outset of his gracious Speech his grave concern, and at the same time his sympathy, with the continued unemployment from which so many of his people are suffering. Unfortunately, unemployment is not concerned with one industry or with one district. It runs throughout the country. The time has gone by for any one industry to consider that it is itself without relation to every other. Industry is like a row of bricks. You disturb the end one, and the others will be disturbed in turn. Throughout the country to-day all industries are depressed. Why? The spending power of the world has been lessened, and if the spending power of the world has been lessened the goods on which the money would have been spent are not required and the produce is not sold. If this were a local matter, if this were a simple industrial matter, it might be possible to allege difficulties in reference to the manner in which that particular industry was conducted. But unfortunately it is not local, it is general.

11
Then His Majesty refers, in the next sentence, to the effect of the international industrial economic disturbance, which is another illustration of the fact that all industries as well as all nations are interrelated. We are so concerned with that which is happening in another nation that distress, unemployment, lack of spending power in another nation will react upon us, the producers of those things that all the world has need of. It is universal, unfortunately. The League of Nations has appointed a Committee to consider this question and those familiar, as I am, with the United States of America, which I have visited regularly for the last thirty-five years and from which I returned only two weeks ago, know that it is a country suffering far more from depression than we are, with far more unemployment than we have, with no system, no methods and no alleviation in sight other than by grants voted by Congress to help over the difficulty and voted by the City of New York to keep off that which is appearing to be winter starvation. Tariffs have not helped them. Other things have hindered them. While there has been mass production and huge quantities of manufactures have been made, if the spending power of other nations and of themselves is lessened, then mass production only adds to stocks which are not required and which are there rusting and being kept for what may be hoped to be better times hereafter.
The next paragraph of the gracious Speech mentions that there should be and that there must be means taken for increasing efficiency in connection with our industries, particularly for the Imperial and export trades. The single unit in manufacture is a mistake to-day. The small manufacturer cannot keep going in face of the better tools and better plant that others may acquire and that he is unable to obtain for his own particular uses. There must be consultation and better marketing, and there must be some kind of counsel, not only among workmen but between masters and workmen, if betterment is to be expected.
In connection with farming, it was my good fortune and honour to represent for nineteen years an agricultural constituency, and I know only too well the difficulties of the farmer. He may be likened to a man running a factory, but while the factory manager can generally control
12
that which is done within the factory, the farmer cannot control the elements which may make or mar all his efforts. It is therefore essential that, as in manufacture so in farming, there should be consultation. Farmers are naturally suspicious one of the other, they have hitherto abhorred co-operation, have dreaded combination and have preferred to market week by week, wasting their time in buying and selling small quantities when greater sales and better marketing would have brought more results to them and cheaper produce to the people purchasing from them. Greater co-operation in farming is therefore essential if betterment is to be expected. The difficulties in connection with farming can be seen by going to Lincolnshire, where there are to-day thousands of tons of potatoes, grown last year, which cannot be sold. This year's crop is coming on and there appears to be no market for the old potatoes at prices that would even pay for transport. Quick transport, cheap handling and not too many handlers are needed if farming is to be improved, and it is the hope of the Government, in the measure that they propose, to remove some of these difficulties and handicaps that are holding the agricultural industry back.
With regard to unemployment insurance, there is no man in your Lordships' House or in the other House who would challenge its necessity. Unfortunately, however, there is no man who has not had personal experience of the fact that there is at present grave abuse in connection with insurance. His Majesty's Government are familiar with the allegations, they know the difficulties and they propose that a Commission shall be immediately set up to enquire into these allegations and to investigate the abuses. While there are undoubtedly shirkers, idlers and wasters, the huge majority of men want work, not "doles," and it is therefore the desire of the Government that the insurance question should be examined root and branch, in order that the difficulties may be removed and the abuses corrected.
There is further mention in the gracious Speech of the land. It is the view of the Government, and indeed of most people except the very fortunate, that where the money of the community has been spent to produce the betterment of land and an unearned increment, then some

13
Of that value and unearned increment should be returned to the people who found the money and who have been taxed or rated to bring about those improvements that have brought about betterment to the advantage of the particular landowners who happened to own the land. It is the desire of the Government that methods should be introduced that will bring to the community as a whole some of these benefits and will return to those who have found the money some interest or compensation for the sacrifices that they have made for the benefit of others.
With regard to the amenities of the country, it is our desire to maintain them, and town planning is to be more rigorously enforced. It is a fearful thing to travel into some pleasant outside district and find it being ruined for all time by hideous structures that are being erected here and there without any care being taken of the amenities of the people who desire to live there. It is the wish of the Government that, in connection with town planning, slums should be prevented by a better re-arrangement of houses and, in connection with the amenities of the country, that beauties should be maintained rather than that the selfishness of individuals should be pandered to. Accordingly there are to be brought to your Lordships' care and attention proposals for dealing with the town and with the country.
Unfortunately, there are a large number of people who have but little time to spend in the country and whose lives, for the greater part, are spent in factories, badly ventilated, improperly cared for and with sanitation abominably out of date. Ill health is fostered by factories that ought to be under supervision and under Government control. It is the desire of the Government that the Factory Acts should be strengthened in ender that the health of the workers and the comfort of all those concerned therein may be preserved.
Many of your Lordships have been familiar with Parliamentary Elections and have had painful experiences. Each can bring forward his own particular delights or miseries to the challenge of keener delights or miseries from those with whom he is engaged as the result of the out of date methods by which the representatives of the people are elected. A Com-
14
mittee has been sitting and all Parties agree that the present system is defective. All Parties have been seeking to find some remedy, but they have failed. The Government propose to bring forward an amendment of the law to deal with Elections, in regard not only to the method by which Members are elected but also, no doubt, to the means that cause their election. At the present time wealth can control, and does hamper, the choice of the people in many districts. While it is illegal to engage any hired vehicle to carry any voter to the poll, it is not illegal for hundreds of vehicles to be brought from outside to do that which the individual or the friends of the individual in the place are unable themselves to do. The Government propose that the whole question of electoral reform shall be the subject of examination.
While the Speech of His Majesty started with a note of grave concern and sympathy, it concludes with a prayer and a hope that our deliberations may under the blessing of God be made to contribute to the happiness and well-being of the people. With the courtesy of this House and with the traditional fairness of this House those recently coming into it have been charmed, and it is because of that courtesy and that fairness, and that method of expressing views without too much criticism of those who fearlessly express their views, that I am sure that the concluding paragraph of the Speech, which prays that the happiness and wellbeing of the people will result from your Lordships' deliberations, will prove to be well founded. I beg to second the Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before I address myself, according to immemorial precedent, to the speeches to which we have just listened, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one brief word upon the heavy losses which your Lordships' House has sustained since we were last assembled within these walls. The hand of death has been heavy upon the members of this House—on some of its most distinguished members. Lord Birkenhead was, I think it may be conceded, the most brilliant of our comrades. He was not only a most eminent lawyer and Judge, but at his best he was a genius in his skill in debate. He was a hard fighter, but he was a loyal colleague, as

15
I can testify from my own personal experience. I am sure your Lordships will all agree that the House is much poorer by the death of Lord Birkenhead.
Then we have to mourn the loss of a great personal friend of many of us, the Duke of Northumberland. I think it may be said of him that even his distinguished abilities were outshone by his character, the integrity and chivalry of which were acknowledged by men of all classes and of all political complexions. And lastly, there is the gap in the ranks of His Majesty's Government in your Lordships' House. Lord Thomson lost his life in a terrible national tragedy, and that has reacted upon us in that we have lost his valuable services—valued alike by the Government and the House. His was a usefulness which was evident before our eyes, growing both in his Department and in his work in your Lordships' House itself, and we desire, in all parts of the House, to share with his colleagues profound regret for his loss.
I turn now to the business of this evening, and to the speeches we have listened to from the two noble Lords who have addressed us. They have performed their work with the success which we are accustomed to await in this House. To the noble Lord who moved the Address in reply to the gracious Speech we listened with great sympathy. He had evidently every facility for addressing your Lordships. He was full of aspirations after better things. He was full of admiration for His Majesty's Government. We do not quite share, perhaps, his enthusiasm, but he expressed it in very moderate terms and we have no complaint to make. He congratulated the Benches opposite on being a little better filled than they used to be. There is a slight improvement, but I think the noble Lord was too sanguine if he thought he would be able to welcome many of my noble friends who sit around me as converts to Labour policy. The Labour policy of late years has not been such a conspicuous success that it is likely to attract any of us, and indeed, if we are to record changes, I think there is a very serious question whether the noble Lord will not have to abandon some of the Free Trade opinions which he expressed to-day, and with his Party pass
16
gradually over to the anti-Cobdenite phalanx which sits opposite him.
As to the noble Lord who seconded the Address, he recalled your Lordships' attention to the courtesy with which we conduct our debates, and I think he was well justified in doing so. I am certain that nothing which he said would tempt me to fail in that courtesy, for he addressed us in very moderate language. He has, of course, a great knowledge of commercial and industrial life, and what he said to us on that point we listened to with great attention. I think he exaggerated, if I may say so, the condition of our factories. A Factory Act is undoubtedly overdue, but I do not think I share with him the language with which he condemned the present condition of our factories and workshops.
LORD MARKS: Some of them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am glad I get that correction from the noble Lord, but if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow I think he will see it was not so moderately stated in his original remark. I am quite certain that both these two noble Lords will gratify the House on many occasions by taking part in our debates, and we shall always be very ready to hear them.
Now I turn to the gracious Speech from the Throne. It begins, as Speeches generally do, in very decorous language, and, so far as the foreign references are concerned, I have no adverse comment to make. I shall have a word or two to say upon the phrases which deal with Imperial affairs; but before I do so, I should like to dwell upon what, after all, is the leading topic at this moment, the burden of industrial distress and unemployment. That is the matter which is really before the country, it is that which presents the problems which the Government have to meet. And I say they have utterly failed to meet them. In the gracious Speech of the condition of distress they speak with sympathy. Well, sympathy is a very simple matter. Anybody can speak with sympathy; but when it comes to practical work, what are they going to do? There is, of course, the passage in the Speech which speaks of developing and extending trade. I really do not know what that phrase means. No doubt when the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the

17
House rises to reply, he will tell us what is in the mind of the Government to develop and extend trade. What is really wanted is a totally different attitude on the part of His Majesty's Government.
What does industry want at this moment? It wants, in the first place, confidence; it wants, in the second place, economy of the public funds; it wants, in the third place, a spirit of co-operation between the workers and the employers, between capital and labour; and it wants, in the last place, extended markets. Now, what have the Government done in all those matters? What have they done to restore confidence? Look at the unemployment figures. They are mounting up week after week—day after day almost. All the promises which the Government made on the hustings have vanished into thin air. They have been able to do nothing. Of course, now it is all world causes. But when the late Government were in office, unemployment was all the fault of the Ministers. Of course, there is no restoration of confidence as the country watches the unemployment figures increasing and the Government do nothing to help. We do not know, for example, what their policy on Safeguarding is going to be. We know, of course, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in this connection the most important of His Majesty's Ministers—
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, does the noble and learned Lord accept everything that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says? If so, I am sorry for him. But what is the policy about Safeguarding? Are the Government going to put an end to the Safeguarding which already exists? Are they, on the top of this very serious industrial position, going to add to unemployment by removing the Safeguarding Duties? I ask the noble and learned Lord, when he gets up to reply, to tell us that.
Then, what else do we find in the gracious Speech? Does the noble and learned Lord think that land valuation, with the legislation which is supposed to follow, is likely to restore confidence? For I can tell him it will not restore confidence. Like the last efforts on the
18
same lines, it will only chill enterprise and stop development both on the land and in industry. Then I turn to economy—the administration of the affairs of this country economically. What about the enormous increase in the Budget? I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for whom the noble and learned Lord has such a great affection, has already added some £26,000,000 to the public burden, and, with his promises and intentions, it will rise to some £40,000,000. For that he will have to provide by taxation. Does anybody see in the Speech from the Throne any indication of an economical frame of mind? I have nothing to say, until I see the detail, against the large-scale farming and the re-conditioning of land. It may be a good thing in itself, but it is certain to be very expensive.
And then education. The noble Lord who moved the Address, and who has devoted a great part of his life to education, spoke with some enthusiasm of the Education Bill which is foreshadowed, and for my part I have nothing to say, so far as the principle of the thing is concerned, against raising the school-leaving age of children where the circumstances are such as to permit it. But I say that to raise the age of the children at the schools at the present moment will throw another burden upon the country which it really is absolutely unable to bear. New buildings will have to be erected, and large additions made to the public grants of money. Then there is this system of maintenance of children while they are at school, of which I cannot speak with any approval whatever. Where is the money to come from? Where is this Rake's Progress in extravagance to stop? My Lords, the Government have utterly failed to show a spirit of economy.
Next I turn to co-operation. Is it not absolutely essential in these days to persuade capital and labour to work as they ought to do, conscious of a common interest, to try as far as possible to eliminate all the spirit of antagonism which in the past, I am sorry to say, has very often characterised these relations? The Government come along, not content to leave things alone. They must raise again all the difficulties, all the anxieties, all the friction of the Trade Disputes Act—the political levy, the General Strike, the intimidation clauses. All the things which we were familiar

19
with a very few months ago are to be brought up again, and all that the late Government did, and most rightly did, to put an end to this industrial strife, is to be scrapped again by a Government who cannot let good things alone. There they show no conception of the obligation which the present crisis in industry throws upon them. Lastly, there is the question of markets. What are they going to do to extend the markets? As far as I know, the commitments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are to put an end to Preference as soon as he can. Is that to be still the policy of the Government? Are they going to stop the Preferences which at present exist? I am sure they are not going to extend them. And there, again, the Government are doing nothing to help us in our distress.
I do not know that I need say very much about the paragraph as to electoral reform. None of us sitting on this side of the House was quite sure what it meant. The noble Lord the seconder of the Motion evidently thinks it means a Bill of very considerable proportions. But, as he only went as far as investigation and did not seem to think it was going to develop into legislation, I do not know that we need trouble very much about it. I wonder whether the noble and learned Marquess (Lord Reading) the Leader of the Liberal Party knows what the paragraph about electoral reform means? I expect he knows much more about it than most noble Lords in the House. No doubt he will speak later in the debate. I do not know what he will say on this head, but I feel a certain confidence at any rate so far as he himself is concerned that he will not allow the interests of this country, or allow an increase in the risks of our industrial position to be bartered for same promise of electoral reform. Surely, the Liberal Party has too great a history for them to sink so low as that!
There is, of course, and this is the truth, a sense of insecurity in this country, a dangerous sense of insecurity, and that extends not merely to our domestic affairs but to our relations with our Dominions beyond the seas. The Government have been very ready, and I do not blame them for this, to take part in great Imperial Conferences. I think they rather like the pomp and circumstance of Imperial Conferences.
20
Indeed, it is very right and proper that these important gatherings should be surrounded with a fitting dignity. This dignity, the meetings in the Royal Gallery and the use of St. James's Palace may be very proper, but they are no substitute for a policy. What the Government want in these things is a policy. As far as I know, when they meet the Round-Table Conference on Indian affairs they will do so with no ideas of their own. So far as they are concerned it will be a mere fishing inquiry. The only thing which they have contributed to the elucidation of the subject has been to snub Sir John Simon. That does not appear to be a policy worthy of the name.
Then there is the Imperial Conference now sitting. I see no signs of a policy belonging to His Majesty's Government at the Imperial Conference. I cannot believe that they will treat the representatives of the Dominions as they have treated Sir John Simon, and snub them. They must face the facts, and I hope they are facing the facts that a distinct offer has been made to them on behalf of the great Dominions of the Crown and that they are hound to make a reply. So far as the Party to which we belong on this side of the House is concerned there can be no doubt. We read the offer of Mr. Bennett, the Prime Minister of Canada, to this country and, without hesitation, the Conservative Party accepted the challenge which he made. To us there was no doubt that the principle of Preference which he offered ought to be approved. It was not difficult for us, for we have contended for this policy for the last thirty years. For the last thirty years we have looked forward with hope to the time when there might be closer economic union between ourselves and the Dominions beyond the seas.
The leaders of the Conservative Party have been criticised because they have gone forward to meet the offer of the Prime Minister of Canada. They have gone a step further forward than they did before in the controversy that has raged. Of course, they have. The offer of the Prime Minister of Canada has made a profound difference in the position. It is no longer a vague question. There is the substantial offer of a closer fiscal union between this country and

21
the Dominions. We, of course, were prepared to respond to it and we shall respond to it if we get the opportunity, as your Lordships know. In the first place, there is no doubt that those who represent the Conservative Party in those days will be prepared to establish a general tariff upon which Preference will be granted to the Dominions. Some people call it an emergency tariff and some people call it a revenue tariff. I prefer the latter name. If there were no fiscal questions between ourselves and our Dominions, a revenue tariff would be essential in the present condition of the public finances. Direct taxation has not only reached its limit, it has passed over its limit so far as the prosperity of this country is concerned. Some other means of revenue must be found, and it can only be found in indirect taxation. Therefore if Conservatives once more come into power that must be the first matter to which they would devote their attention.
But how far would that general tariff go? What would it include? Would it include only manufactured articles or would it go further? That is the matter which is so much a subject of strife at the present moment. For my part, passionately as I have desired and my friends have desired this closer economic union with our Dominions all my life, I am not going to be deterred by any fiscal scruple from embracing the opportunity. We are not afraid to go any length which the interest of this country will allow in order to promote this end. But Mr. Bennett's offer is double. It is not merely that he suggests we should have increased indirect taxation upon which we can grant Preference to the Dominions, but he proposes that he and his colleagues the other Prime Ministers should grant certain conditions in return, and of course the arrangement must depend upon what those conditions may be. These distinguished statesmen must be aware that we can only persuade our countrymen to accept this policy if they are satisfied that it is a fair bargain as between them and the Dominions beyond the seas. But if that condition is fulfilled, for my part I have no fear of meeting the public opinion of my country. After all they have an imperial destiny, and they are proud of their imperial destiny, and we may safely go to them
22
and say: "We have met our brothers beyond the seas; they have made an offer to us, and we ask you to accept that upon conditions fair alike to them and to ourselves and redounding to the future greatness and prosperity of our Empire."
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, will you permit me for a very few moments to express first of all my complete accord and that of those associated with me with the remarks which fell from the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition regarding the great loss which this House has sustained by the death of the three noble Lords to whom he referred. He said at one moment that he believed he was speaking on behalf of all members of this House. We of the Liberal Party in your Lordships' House agree with everything that he said so tersely and so well.
May I be permitted to say one special word with regard to Lord Birkenhead? I do it not as one who occupies for the moment the position of Leader of the Liberal Party in this House, but I do it because I have been associated with him ever since he commenced his career at the Bar. I have known him from his early moments up to the last, differing from him in polities from the first to the last except, of course, during the War, when we were associated in the War Cabinet and in various War measures. I think the noble Marquess selected his language well when he said that this House had lost its most brilliant ornament. Brilliant is a word often misapplied and too lightly used, but it never was better used than in relation to the intellect, the capacity and the fascination of the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead. As a Lord Chancellor, although he occupied that great office for only a short time comparatively, he will live long in memory. The wisdom and the soundness of his judgment, the clarity with which he expressed himself, and the industry which he devoted to the various matters that came before him, entitle him to a very high place among Lord Chancellors in history. May I, in a last word, say that all who knew him intimately, and all who were associated with him as a friend, will think of him as one of the most loyal, courageous and affectionate of friends.

23
I turn now to what has been said during the debate on the gracious Speech from the Throne. I am sure we are all pleased to have had the advantage of listening to the remarks of the noble Lord who moved the Address, and who gave us the benefit of his cultivated mind and of his reflections upon the problems of the day. The noble Lord who followed him was formerly a colleague of mine in another place, and he has now apparently seen the error of his ways. He speaks with authority on matters of business, and I have no wish to controvert anything that he said, but I must make one observation with regard to America. In dealing with the unemployment problem he said that he had just returned from America. He told us the situation was worse there than here, that unemployment was greater there—I suppose he means in proportion to the population—and that conditions altogether were more serious than with us. May I remind the noble Lord, who is a supporter of the Government, that that situation has arisen only within a comparatively few months, and that here we are dealing with a problem which has been with us for a number of years?
The Party that succeeded at the Election and now form the Government of the day obtained their success very largely by criticisms directed upon the outgoing Government for their failure to deal with unemployment, and by promises that they themselves would deal with it adequately. May I respectfully say to the members of the Government and of the Party supporting it that they will now understand better the danger of making promises of which they cannot see the certainty of fulfilment? Apart altogether from the Party question, the disappointment to me in the Speech from the Throne is that unemployment is not treated as it should be, as a grave emergency problem which requires grave emergency measures. On the contrary, so far as I am able to judge from the reference to the measures that are to be introduced, there is nothing in them which can help very much to alleviate unemployment. There are various references to agriculture, and to the other proposals that are to be made, but, of course, everything depends upon the measures introduced and the extent to which the Government intend to go.
24
There is, however, nothing in the Speech to indicate that there is any great remedy for unemployment.
It may be that there will be very little controversy. We cannot tell until we know the details of the measures to be introduced. But I submit to your Lordships in the present grave situation, which is continuing year by year, in which the numbers of unemployed are increasing by leaps and bounds so that in the Recess—that is, within the very few months in which Parliament is not sitting—the numbers of unemployed increased by 138,000, if the Government contrast those figures with the numbers they had to deal with at the Election when they made those promises, they will realise how utterly they have failed to deal with the gravest problem before them and how necessary it is for them to apply their minds to real remedies for dealing with the situation in the manner which is demanded, to tackle it as if we were in the midst of the gravest crisis we have known. I have no wish to be unfair to them. I realise that the economic conditions of the world have increased unemployment and multiplied their difficulties: but I look around and strive to find what the Government are going to do, and I confess I can see nothing in any of the measures promised which will really relieve this situation or which show a true appreciation of its gravity.
It may be, I dare say, that some members of His Majesty's Government think that the remedies which have been discussed with them, which have been handed to them for their consideration, are, as one of the speakers said, quack remedies. I do not know. But if by "quack remedies" is meant something which will cure unemployment, I agree with them. If there is meant something that is not a permanent cure, I differ from them, because in a situation of this character you should meet unemployment as it stands. After all, business is not always going to be in the present depressed condition. The time will come, assuredly—and let us hope soon—when the tide will turn and employment will increase. Meanwhile, in order that there should be at least some improvement, I should have thought it was worth trying to apply some of the

25
remedies suggested. Some of those which have been put before the country may mean a loan for the time being. I would prefer that rather than that the moral fibre of youths and of older men aiso should be sapped by getting accustomed to living on the "dole" instead of having to go out to work.
I turn now for a moment to one of two subjects to which I shall refer very briefly. Reference has been made in the course of the debate to the proposals to amend the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927. I rather wonder, as the noble Marquess did, why this moment is selected for putting that forward in the King's Speech. Here we are faced with these grave difficulties to which reference has been made on all sides of the House, the difficulties not only of unemployment but of the tremendous economic depression, the difficulties we have with the Dominions and the offers made to us. There are great problems in front of us which must depend to a large extent upon co-operation between employer and employed. I fail to understand why at this moment, in this crisis—because it is a crisis—we should have to deal with this question of the Trade Disputes Act. It may be said that it is because promises have been made and have to be carried out, something in the nature of what is often described as a "political promise," which, translated into plain unvarnished English, means a statement made during an Election in order to obtain votes so that the gainer may be one of a Government or at least a supporter of a Government. I am not blaming the Labour Party for that. Unfortunately, it is a thing which happens too often in an Election on all sides. But the question has to be faced, why this measure is to be introduced at this moment. I do not know. To what extent amendment is to be made one cannot judge. There is nothing to indicate. I merely pass on with the observation that very powerful arguments will have to be addressed, I should imagine, to your Lordships' House before you would agree to deal with any of the fundamental propositions which were dealt with in the Trade Disputes Act, 1927.
Then there is a measure proposed for electoral reform. The noble Marquess was good enough to think that I knew more about it than he did. Indeed, he seemed to suggest that I had the secret
26
of it in my pocket and that I probably understood all that it meant. Well, I wish I did. At any rate, if I did I could understand what it was I had to deal with. I could then make up my mind whether it was worth while to accept this offer and whether it would induce me to do certain other things, whether I would respond to the bait. I think I should have to consider not only this measure but other measures which will come up for consideration, to consider the extent of the price to be paid, not in the interests of the Party but in the interests of the nation. All I can say with regard to it is that I am as innocent of knowing what is intended as the noble Marquess. I am not sure—if he will permit me to say so—that the noble and learned Lord who leads the House on the Government side is more familiar with what is proposed than either the noble Marquess or myself. If he is, I would be glad if he would tell us. It would at least throw some light on what is now rather dark and obscure.
What is the measure of electoral reform which is to be introduced? Of course, if the Government have clearly in mind which of various kinds of electoral reform they intend to adopt, it is very easy to say. They will have to make up their minds. If they do not even know whether the proposal is to go beyond dealing with motor cars, as the noble Lord the seconder of the Address seems to think—and I suppose he must know something on the subject—or if it is to relate only to election expenses, as has been also suggested, then perhaps the kind of electoral reform may have been well chosen. In the course of time I suppose we shall be told what is meant and then we can judge. I will say nothing further about it than that it is the duty of the Government to introduce a. Bill just as it would be the duty of any other Government.
The whole of the democratic system is to a certain extent at stake. It cannot be permitted that the present state of things should continue in which, by the mere chance of the vote, more than half the members of the House of Commons are elected by a minority vote, a situation in which one section get one seat for 20,000 or 30,000 votes while another section—as happens to the Liberals—only get one seat for every 90,000 votes. Apply that principle to the test of

27
democracy and find the answer. If the Labour Party wish to deal with this position as custodians of democracy, as in truth trustees for the people of this country, let them put to themselves this question. Suppose they found themselves in the same position as the Liberal Party at this moment, with one member for 90,000 votes as against one member for 20,000 votes in one case or one member for 30,000 votes in another case, would they be satisfied and would they think there was no necessity to introduce any measure to deal with it? Or would they, on the other hand, say, more eloquently than I can, that the whole system is a mockery and a betrayal of what is meant by democratic government?
I have but one other word to say. It hardly touches the terms of the gracious Speech from the Throne, but I cannot address your Lordships without making some reference to the Government's latest statement of policy in regard to Palestine. Letters have been written to the newspapers and observations have been made on the matter. Discussion of it would perhaps be inappropriate in this debate, but I desire to impress upon His Majesty's Government that it is not only a question as between Jews and Arabs, but that British honour is at stake and that it is their duty as a Government to clear up any difficulties there may be and to restore peace, so far as they can, so that it may no longer be open to critics to complain that a British Government passed their word with allied and associated nations, such as the United States, during the War, in order to produce a particular condition of things, and that when, after the War, difficulties and dangers faced them they took a different view and, in effect., resigned from the promises that they had given.
I can hardly conceive that the Government intend this. It may be that the Government have been maladroit in the Observations that they have made and in their statement of policy. I have known such things happen, not only with this Government but with others. I must state, however—though the question cannot be raised in detail now—my view that the Government have made a grave mistake. While they have stated that they must be fair to both sections—which nobody will controvert—and that the civil and religious liberties of the Arabs must be respected as much as those of
28
any other section—which, of course, is just as fundamental as the right, whatever it may be, that may be given to the Jews—yet I feel bound to say that, when the Government have once pledged themselves to the establishment of a Jewish National Home, they should not be at liberty in later years to take action which produces the impression amongst many who are interested all over the world that they are really playing them false. I repeat that I do not believe that the Government can intend this, and I hope that some time during the course of other debates—not at the present moment, for I do not expect the. Leader of the House to deal with the matter now—they may give us a statement of a specific kind and make an answer in very different terms.
My last word is with reference to India. I notice from the beginning of the Speech that His Majesty intends himself to inaugurate the Round-Table Conference. I am sure that everyone will have heard this with the greatest satisfaction. He impresses upon the country the most momentous character of this Conference, and I trust that at the end we may find that some solution has been reached that will make for greater happiness and contentment in India.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to begin my remarks to your Lordships by expressing—although the matter has already been referred to—our gratitude for the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the Resolution that is now before your Lordships' House. The mover is, of course, in a special way an expert on educational topics. He was, as we know, at one time head of Ruskin College at Oxford, and he has an immense amount of educational experience. I certainly welcome his view that, for the good of the country, the time has now come, after a long period of deliberation, for the age of compulsory education to be at last raised from fourteen to fifteen. He, indeed, desired that it should be raised to sixteen, and theoretically I should not disagree with him; but I think that, under existing conditions, such an extension would not really be a possible policy.
As regards the seconder of this Resolution, he has, I suppose, a larger trade experience than almost any member of your Lordships' House. It has fallen to my lot to work with him far beyond the nineteen years that he spent in the

29
other House, and almost, I think, from the very beginning of his professional life and my own. I think we may feel confident that he would not have made the statement that he made—an extremely important statement—as to the conditions in America unless, as he told us, he had visited America year after year—I think for thirty-five years—and knew all the conditions there. He pointed to the present depression, not as an accidental matter of the moment, but as a depression brought about by conditions in a country which, perhaps above all others, has relied upon the doctrine of Protection.
There is one other duty which I have to perform before I come to the proposals of the King's Speech. The tragic accident which caused the death of Lord Thomson and so many of his air comrades touched the finer chords of national consciousness and of human sorrow. There was a wonderful outburst of sympathy and sorrow, both here and in other countries. The brightest gleam that shed its ray over the gloom of the tragedy was the ready sympathy and aid so generously and spontaneously given by the French Government and the French people. This sympathy and aid were doubly appreciated, I am sure, by all members of this House. This outburst of national friendliness at a time of national grief will not be forgotten in the future relationships of the two countries.
On this Bench, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated, we mourn the loss of Lord Thomson as that of a much valued friend and a loyal and faithful colleague. He was ever ready to give to all of us full measure of loyal assistance. He was endowed with a nature and character which responded readily to the unselfish claims of close co-operation, with little thought of the risk that he was running. Personally I shall always cherish a long letter which he wrote to me, I think the last letter before he left on his fatal voyage, with no indication that he thought that he was meeting any special source of danger or difficulty. In this House he was creating for himself a position of much influence, both for his personal qualities and for his innate courtesy when he took part in our debates. He showed himself a man of cultured knowledge, possessing a varied
30
range of wide experience of different countries and a power of expression to be found not only in his speeches but in his all too few published writings. On behalf of my colleagues I thank the noble Marquess opposite for the very kind references that he made to our much beloved colleague.
As to the late Duke of Northumberland, I agree with what the noble Marquess has said as regards his personal qualities of complete uprightness and unselfishness. They were evident to every one who ever worked with him. It fell to my lot to work with him in connection with the New Church Assembly, and of all the colleagues that I ever worked with in Church matters I never found a sounder guide or more capable friend than the late Duke of Northumberland.
We come to a different character in the case of Lord Birkenhead. He was a great figure in the true sense of the term in this House. He was endowed by nature with a splendid mental equipment, and an exuberant vitality, perhaps open at times to the criticism almost of extravagance. Personally, I had experience of the force of Lord Birkenhead's invective, but it left no bitter feeling and aroused no personal resentment. The sword is now sheathed, and the rest has come. Outside your Lordships' House I did not know Lord Birkenhead with out intimacy in his public life. I had the misfortune to lose my seat in the House of Commons at the Election when Lord Birkenhead was first returned, and our views on political subjects grew widely different. In this House his name will he remembered as that of a great Lord Chancellor, worthy to be associated on equal terms with his great Tory predecessors in the last century, such as Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Halsbury. There is no need to emphasise his dominating influence in debate in this House. During his Lord Chancellorship it fell to my lot to be often his colleague, either in this House or as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. As a jurist and an exponent of legal principles he showed himself a great master craftsman. It is in his judgments that he has left us a record of his power of adapting and clarifying the legal principles of which we are justly proud, and which are accepted throughout a large

31
portion of the civilised world. We on this side like to associate ourselves with all that has been said with regard to the life of Lord Birkenhead by the noble Marquess opposite.
When we come to the King's Speech, there is one passage in it to which little reference has been made but which has a great bearing on the question which the noble Marquess raised, as to the confidence and security in the future of our dear country. Perhaps, before going to that passage, I might remind your Lordships that in the quiet of the Foreign Office, sometime yesterday, the Naval Treaty with America and Japan was ratified, in which the three great naval Powers of the world, in a spirit of peace and co-operation, agreed to reduce to a corresponding extent their Navies and their naval power. If you want confidence that is how you get it. If you want confidence you must have the spirit of international co-operation, and whatever else can be said for or against the present Government, I claim that their international policy has given us a position of confidence and security which, as I shall show presently by a few figures, has enabled us not to fail, as the noble Marquess has suggested, but to carry through out great burden of taxation in a way which is the admiration of other countries—a burden which, after all, has not come from us but is the result of war expenditure and war loss.
Then in the sixth paragraph of His Majesty's gracious Speech appears this:
"My Government took an active part in the proceedings of the Assembly of the League of Nations in September last."
I know from many sources, and not least from a source well known to the noble Marquess opposite, that the position which the Foreign Secretary took in the Assembly at Geneva last September threw into our hands the leadership in all the progressive work in favour of peace and disarmament. Is not that a great merit, when we are considering the confidence and security which this country can afford at the present time? The same paragraph continues:—
"General agreement was reached upon the Treaty of Financial Assistance to States Victims of Aggression which was recently signed at Geneva. The application of this Treaty is conditional upon the coming into force of a General Disarmament. Convention, which I trust will shortly be concluded."
32
We signed the Treaty of Financial Assistance, and it received twenty-eight signatures, but there was one condition—namely, that the application of the Treaty is conditional upon the coming into force of a general disarmament convention which in the Speech His Majesty trusts "will shortly be concluded.' I think every one who studies what passes at Geneva must agree that. the time has come when all countries concerned must do their best to carry out the obligation of disarmament attached to the Covenant of the League itself, and that we cannot expect much progress until that condition is fulfilled. It is a matter of national honour which has not been fulfilled for more than ten years, and I hope that when the present Preparatory Commission is settled this Disarmament Conference may be carried out in connection with the Geneva Assembly.
Those are some of the great factors which in my mind tell against the pessimism of the noble Marquess as regards the conditions in this country. Let me deal with the suggestions which he has made, but perhaps he will not mind my asking him one or two questions before I seek to answer the questions which he put to me. Is he in favour of a Free Trade Empire? If so, it would be in the teeth of the opinion of the Prime Minister of Canada, which he has quoted to us this afternoon. Is he in favour of the taxation of food? I think myself nothing can be more unjust in a country like ours, where 90 per cent. of the population are working industrialists, than to allow any step to be taken which would have the effect of increasing the cost of the food of the poor people of this country. And I say it is unjust in two ways. As a matter of taxation, you are shifting the burden from the well-to-do to the poor; as a matter of wages, you are reducing the real value of wages at the same time as you are pretending to maintain their actual level. It is a cruel suggestion to tax the food of this country, and if there is one thing to which I believe the Government are absolutely opposed it is that we will not assent to any measure which would be in the nature of placing taxation upon food in this country, and particularly upon wheat in this country. Because, as the noble

33
Marquess knows perfectly well, as poverty increases the consumption of wheat and bread among the poorer classes increases. So that you actually take the commodity upon which they are most dependent and put new taxation upon them—you increase their cost of living. And this, as I understand, the noble Marquess is prepared to do, merely on the dictation or suggestion of one or two of the Prime Ministers, putting on one side the consideration of what the fatal effect may be upon this country itself.
Just let us think for one moment what the facts are. Over 90 per cent. of the population in this country are urban workers in factory and suchlike occupations. It is a different position altogether in France, where only 50 per cent. are workers under the conditions in which our workers are employed. In Germany recent statistics show that about 31 per cent. are engaged in rural occupations, whereas in this country only about 7 per cant. are so engaged. I will go into the agricultural question presently; I do not intend to shirk that for a moment. But that is not the question I am asking now. Does the noble Marquess agree to the doctrine of food taxation? Does he believe that food taxation can be other than a great injury to our working classes? If he believes that, I ask him once again to modify his opinion, once again to consider what the conditions are, and what our obligations are. And then perhaps he may revert to an opinion which I think he once held, that, whatever else might be done as regards Imperial Preference, at least there should be no taxation of the food of the people.
What Mr. Snowden has said—and I do not want it to be misinterpreted, because, after all, he is the exponent of the Government on these questions—is not a protest against all Preferences, but a protest against any taxation of food or raw materials, which is an entirely different thing. Where tariffs exist, Preferences may be allowed. I recollect the noble Viscount, Lord Grey of Falloden, at one time speaking in this House and drawing a distinction, which is proper and essential, between allowing deductions from tariffs already imposed and imposing duties on such things as food and raw material. Let us see what the statistics are. Though our export trade has recently declined—no one denies that, unfortunately—it
34
is notable that in the second quarter of this year the total production in Great Britain fell only 8 per cent. as compared with the first quarter; whereas in Germany, a protected country, it fell 16 per cent., and in the United States it fell 14 per cent.—and that is a protected country with an enormous home market and home reserves. That is to say, we are keeping the home market, which is taking a larger quantity of goods. That comes from the greater prosperity of the working classes in this country, which is the best market for home produce, and the only one, in my opinion, which will enable us really to increase the effective demand. I would add that the Master Cutler in Sheffield a little while ago called attention to the fact that the output of steel in Sheffield is 50 per cent. more than it was before the War.
It is a misapprehension of the conditions to suppose that this country, which is a Free Trade country, is suffering from the absence of Protection, and that it is Protection that we want and that would give us increased trade. The story of Protection in other countries is easily to be read. It is always the story of raising the height of your protective barrier, hoping that, by excluding the beneficial interchange of goods with other countries, you will get some special advantage for your own. That has always been a failure. In 1914, when the Great War broke out, was any other country enjoying anything like the same prosperity as we were, not only in regard to our total wealth, but in the condition of our labouring and poor classes? And now, after having borne the major part of the expenses of the great world war, we are still better off than countries which are relying upon Protection at the present time. I know that reference is sometimes made to France, but the conditions affecting the working people in France are very much worse than they are in this country, and France has the advantage, which I hope we shall have, of a large resident population of smallholders or small owners who, in the aggregate, contribute enormously to the prosperity of France.
My answer to the noble Marquess's first point, then, is that not only is there no loss of confidence, but confidence in the

35
securities of this country is in many respects higher than ever it was. I do not know how many of your Lordships studied the Speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the City the other night. So far as finance is concerned there is no country in the world where money can be obtained on such easy terms, there is no country in which confidence is such that money can be obtained at so low a rate of interest.
Then the noble Marquess referred in the second place to economy. I admit economy is a very great difficulty at the present time. I believe the only real economy is a drastic reduction in our expenditure on warlike equipment and machinery. We have to do what we did after the Napoleonic wars. After the Napoleonic wars, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, the depression was worse than it has been after the recent Great War. But at that time we did make a most drastic reduction in all unnecessary expenditure, particularly on war equipment; and it was not for a long time after our recovery that we engaged in warlike expenditure—which I do not grudge in one sense, but which ought not to be allowed as long as the difficulty and evils of unemployment are what they are at the present time.
The next factor to which the noble Marquess referred was co-operation. I agree with him entirely. The difficulty rather comes from human nature as far as I can understand. Why people are not more friendly and more co-operative I cannot very well understand. At any rate, I have this consolation that the whole co-operative movement of this country are supporters of the Labour party on the ground that they are doing what they can to promote co-operation as between the worker on the one side and the employer on the other, or, if you like to put it in another way, to make the two have a common interest without any intermediate bargaining of a third party at all.
The last matter to which he referred was extended markets. There again I entirely agree with him. It is our policy. It is our policy to have what he called an extended market both as regards home conveniences and as regards the organisation particularly of the markets between this country and the various members of our Empire. I think I gathered aright
36
from his expression that he favoured that. I am sure there is nothing more important in our general agricultural industry than a better marketing system. I think that the Imperial Marketing Board has been a great success and that we ought to extend to our own people the same advantages that we are extending to our various Dominions in different parts of the world under that Board.
The other matter that I want to answer the noble Marquess upon is the question of agriculture. I think he has considerable knowledge of agriculture; in fact, I am sure he has. He has not been a farmer for perhaps so many years as I have, but he has been a farmer for a good many years. What we say is that both from the point of view of employment and the utilisation of our land we want a very large increase in small holdings or small farms, which are looked upon as what are called farms of the family unit. I know that in my own district the creation of those farms has been of enormous benefit. During the time of greatest depression there has never been a difficulty in finding capital. Nay, more than that, what those people object to is any taxation of wheat because they are not so much producers as purchasers of wheat for the feeding of their poultry and cattle, which is their chief industry. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed that Mr. Snowden said the other day in his speech that he had had a letter from a majority of a meeting of farmers in Sussex in which they begged him not to assent to the contention that dear wheat was to the advantage of all farmers in this country. They said: "There is nothing we want more than cheap wheat. We depend upon it to feed our cattle and pigs, and every penny you put on in the way of more expensive food is not an advantage to us but a great detriment to our whole farming system."
I can give your Lordships another illustration from my own experience. I happen to know Gloucestershire pretty well. I went to Gloucestershire the other day and a farmer whom I know very well came and said to me: "What do you mean by suggesting any taxation on wheat?" I said: "That is not my suggestion." He replied: "I can tell you that every farmer in the Cotswolds objects to that. What he wants, and I

37
hope you will take notice of it, is protection for his barley." So it goes round, and everyone wants protection for his special interests. Everyone, as Mr. Snowden pointed out, is lobbying that his special interest might be protected; and the loss is mainly borne by the poor consumer to whom cheapness is an interest more essential than any ether as regards our farming conditions. At the same time I entirely sympathise with the troubles of our farmers. They have gone through with great courage the process of the adaptation of their farming conditions to the new conditions in agriculture. They have been slowly eliminating what is called cereal cultivation, which cannot be carried on under economic conditions. Mr. Orwin, a Professor and Director of Agricultural Research at Oxford, said that no worse policy can be adopted than to encourage farmers, under a system of protection, to carry out an unproductive cultural system; whereas, if they were left alone and the policy of adaptation was followed, the difficulty would disappear if you only gave them patience and time.
Indeed, as I dare say the noble Marquis would know from his long experience, the present depression, bad as it is—I quite admit it is very bad indeed and no one is more sorry for the farmers in, that respect that I am—is not, approximately, as bad as the conditions were in the final decade of the last century. Therefore, as I say, I think our policy is right—marketing boards, the encouragement of smaller farms and, on the other side, factory farms. I do not know whether your Lordships have read an account of the experiments of Mr. Bayliss on the Berkshire Downs, whose farming was on what is called the factory system for cereal cultivation only. There was not a single beast of any kind in the 14,000 acres which he farmed, and farmed with great prosperity. I hope that I have answered the questions which the noble Marquess asked me. I am not so hopeful of obtaining a recruit as my noble friend behind me was, but I know that the conditions in the country and the conditions that I have mentioned are well known to the noble Leader of the Opposition and that he is always ready to bring a fair mind to solving, if he can, the difficulties of the present time, particularly that of unemployment.
38
I may say one other word about unemployment. Is there are member of your Lordships' House who does not think that the responsibility lies upon the State and that as regards the able-bodied who are out of employment the State must be responsible either for employment or maintenance? The particular localities affected are already hopelessly involved. What further will he have us do? We have tried every avenue, and I understand in the things that we have actually done we have gone to an extravagant extent in creating, I might almost say, a considerable number of employed persons. What more would you do? Would he spend less on the unemployment question or more? I think he would find it very difficult either to have greater economies or to suggest any better system than that which the Government have pursued.
I would like to say a word or two in answer to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I am glad he made the statement that he did not expect me on the present occasion to deal with the Palestine question, but I want to say this by way of a general answer to what he has said. I dare say he will raise a discussion upon this point before long, and I want to say that I feel certain that we have made every effort to fulfil all the obligations of our national honour both to the Jews and to the Arabs. It is not an easy question, but I think the allegation that we have not done our best to deal justly with the rights both of the Arabs and of the Jews has no foundation whatever.
I will not go over the unemployment matter again, but I wish to make a reference to the Trade Disputes Act. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, I think made a, mistake in one respect. The trade disputes proposal was not introduced for the first time by the present Government in the King's Speech. It appeared a year ago.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am aware of that.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought the noble Marquess said this was the first time the Government had brought it forward. He knows that there are difficulties in regard to the Trade Disputes Act—difficulties which bring a sense of rankling injustice to a large number of people.

39
He knows the old cases which are decided. He knows what was recommended by the Royal Commission under Lord Dunedin, and he knows that the recommendations of that Commission were incorporated in an Act of Parliament, and that what at any rate trade unionists desire is that they may be put in the position which they held before the 1927 Act was passed. I am not expecting the noble Marquess to agree with all I say, but I think what I have said will make it quite clear what the position is.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Will the noble Lord forgive me if I interrupt him before he passes to another subject? That would be true with regard to the political levy, but there are other matters dealt with in the Act. I do not know whether the observations he is making are intended to convey that all of them will be repealed, or whether it is merely the political levy part that is to be repealed. I was anxious to know that.
LORD PARMOOR: It is not merely the political levy. There are other matters which are to be repealed, but I do not want to go into the question at the present time. The other matter which the noble Marquess referred to was electoral reform. I cannot say how much I agree with him there. I am afraid I would go too far for some of my friends if I disclosed my whole mind. The present system of representation in this country is in many respects a mockery, just as President Garfield pointed out that in large sections of the American Republic it was a mockery because large minorities were disfranchised in some portions of the electorate. The result at the last Election, as the noble Marquess has told us, was that each elected Liberal Member represented something like 90,000 votes. That is a matter which has got to be dealt with. We boast that ours is a mother of Parliaments on the ground of our representative system. I hope that our representative system will be reformed. I hope that broader representation will he given to minorities, and that every attempt will be made—I cannot say more than that—to meet the obvious injustices which overtook the noble Marquess's Party, at any rate at the last Election.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When the noble Lord says he hopes this will
40
happen, does he mean the Government intend to legislate on this subject in the present Session?
LORD PARMOOR: That is so. When I say the Government intend to legislate upon it in the present Session, perhaps I ought rather to put it in this way, that it is our expectation and hope. The noble Marquess's experience of political life is such that he knows nobody can go beyond that. The Government's desire is to deal with this question as a pressing evil. As to exactly when it can be done I am afraid I cannot say anything more definite and clear at the present time. The noble Marquess knows very well that all Parties in turn, it does not matter which, feel the difficulty of carrying out the policy which they have promised at Election times. But I want to say this. Ours is the greatest democratic Constitution in the world. We have got a solidity and a stability and a competence that you do not find elsewhere. I saw the other day that the Communists in this country had degenerated to a few thousands, and the reason of that is that the working classes of this country have a unique experience, a right judgment and a desire for stability which makes them not on the side of creating no confidence but on the side of bringing into all parties and all classes a spirit and a real sense of stability and liberty combined.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE VISCOUNT HUTCHINSON (E. Donoughmore)THE VISCOUNT HUTCHINSON (E. Donoughmore) appointed nemine dissentiente to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
Committee for Privileges—Appointed.
Committee for the Journals—Appointed.
Appeal Committee—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, there are no Motions, I understand, upon the Paper this week. There will be nothing until Wednesday in next week. We know that at the beginning of a Session our work is generally light. I may tell your Lordships that in accordance with my view of the power and dignity of this House there will be a series of Bills—I am afraid not very important ones—which will be brought before your Lordships before Christmas as well, I hope, as some major Bills that will he sent to us from the other place before that date. In those circumstances is it worth while in your Lordships' opinion that we should meet again this week?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as far as noble Lords sitting on this side of the House are concerned, I am sure they would be quite content to assent to the suggestion which I understand the noble and learned Lord makes, that we should not meet again this week. Does the noble and learned Lord propose to adjourn to this day week?
LORD PARMOOR: We have Motions down on Wednesday and Thursday of next week, but nothing before. I think if we adjourn to Wednesday of next week, that will be best.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Very good.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o' clock.