Sitting of 8 December 1931

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

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 87, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private pills should be first considered and they had determined that the Bills contained, in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—

  Blackpool Improvement.

  Bournemouth, Poole, and Christchurch Electricity.

  Bridgwater Corporation.

  Brownhills Urban District Council. Dagenham Trading Estate.

  Doncaster Extension.

  Gas Light and Coke Company.

  Hove Pier.

  Kingston-upon-Thames Extension.

  Metropolitan Water Board.

  North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.

  Port of London (Various Powers).

  Rhyl Urban District Council.

  Rotherham Extension.

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

  Sidmouth Water.

  South Metropolitan Gas.

  Thames Conservancy.

  Walthamstow Corporation.

  Warrington Extension.

  Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council.

  Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier.

  Wolverhampton Corporation.

  Worksop Corporation.

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
  Resolved, That the Amendments to Standing Orders, relative to Private Business, as set out in the Schedule attached hereto, be approved:—

  SCHEDULE.
  Standing Order 4, lines 2.5 and 26, leave out "parish or parishes in which it is situate," and insert "city, borough (metropolitan or other), or urban or rural district, and, in the case of a rural district, the parish or parishes in which it is situate, together with an estimate of the area of so much of the surface of such common or commonable land as is proposed to be taken or used compulsorily; and."
  Standing Order 4, line 26, at end, insert as a new paragraph,—
  (e) in the case of a Bill authorising the taking or compulsory user of the surface of any public park or public open space situate wholly or partly in any city, borough (metropolitan or other), or urban district, or of any protected square mentioned in the Schedule to the London Squares Preservation Act, 1931, the name or description of the park, open space or protected square, and of the city, borough (metropolitan or other), or urban district in which it is situate, together with an estimate of the area of so much of the surface of such park, open space, or protected square as is proposed to be taken or used compulsorily.
  Standing Order 39, at end, insert as a new paragraph,—
  (17) Of every Bill affecting property vested in or under the management of the Forestry Commissioners or containing references to the said Commissioners, at the office of the Forestry Commission.
  Standing Order 216, at end, insert as a new paragraph,—
  Where any such Bill originating in the House of Lords is whilst pending in that House referred to the examiners for examination as to the applicability of and compliance with Standing Orders of that House—

  (a) the examiners shall report to this House whether any of the Standing Orders of this House relative to Private Bills are applicable to the Bill, and if applicable whether or not they have been complied with; and

  (b) if the examiners report that any such Standing Orders are applicable and have not been complied with then, notwithstanding that the Bill has not yet been introduced into this House, the Select Committee on Standing Orders shall have power to report to this House whether such Standing Orders ought or ought not to he dispensed with.

  Standing Order 275, line 18, leave out "17th day of April," and insert "27th clay of March."
  Line 21, leave out "17th day of December," and insert "27th day of November."
  Appendix (B), page 258, line 17, leave out "Omnibuses," and insert "Public Service Vehicles."
  Lines 32 and 33, leave out "Trackless Trolley," and insert "Trolley Vehicle."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    TEA SUPPLIES.
    Mr. STUARTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the tea supplied to His Majesty's Army is wholly produced within the Empire; and, if not, whether he will ensure that only British Empire tea is purchased in future in order to support the Government's Buy British campaign?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): All tea bought by the War Department for the Army and the Air Force is of Empire origin.

    ILLNESS (NOTIFICATION TO NEXT OF KIN).
    Viscount BORODALEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the case of Trooper Brown, 12th Lancers, which was brought to his notice on 23rd November, he will issue instructions that the initial telegram informing the next of kin of a man who is dangerously ill shall contain information of the nature of the man's illness or injuries?
    Mr. COOPER: The Regulations provide for the nature of the man's illness to be stated in the telegram which is sent to the next of kin when a soldier is reported "dangerously ill." It is regretted that in this particular case this information was not given in the telegram, though it was supplied by a letter sent on the same day.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: In view of the long period of foreign service that this distinguished regiment is now undergoing, and the care that it takes to keep in touch with all their kith and kin at home, will the hon. Gentleman not see to it that these mistakes do not happen again when their men are away in hospital?

    FIELD-MARSHALS.
    Mr. COCKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many Field-Marshals on the active list were employed and how many unemployed on 1st January, 1921, and on the same date in each succeeding year down to 1st January, 1931?
    Mr. COOPER: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    The figures, which include the two Field-Marshals of the Indian Army, are as follow:—

    *Employed.

    Unemployed.

    1921

    …

    5

    5

    1922

    …

    4

    6

    1923–24

    …

    3

    6

    1925

    …

    2

    7

    1926

    …

    3

    5

    1927–30

    …

    4

    4

    1931

    …

    2

    6

    * Includes the post of Constable of the Tower of London.

  SCOTLAND.

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. WEDDERBURNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the financial results of the past Scottish fishing season and the extent to which this has been prejudiced by foreign imports of fish?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The total catch of the Scottish summer herring fishings, to which I assume the hon. Member's question to refer, had a value of £921,000 in 1931 as compared with £1,269,000 in 1930, a decrease of 27 per cent. The total catch amounted to only 528,540 crans in 1931 as compared with 802,500 crans in 1930, a decrease of 34 per cent. The decrease was due to scarcity of fish on the grounds and not to the competition of foreign imports.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PUBLICITY) ACT, 1931.
    Mr. WEDDERBURNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many organisations in Scotland have been approved by his Department under the provisions of Section 1 (1) of the Local Authorities (Publicity) Act, 1931; how many applications, and by whom, have

    1663
    been refused approval; and what is the general policy which he proposes to adopt in this matter?
    Sir A. SINCLAIFI: One organisation—the Scottish Travel Association—has been approved. Application for approval was received from one other organisation—the Scottish National Development Council—but my predecessor in office was not satisfied from the information supplied to him that this body fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the Act. As regards the third part of the question, each application must be considered on its merits, and it is not possible to lay down any general policy.

    IMPORTED MEAT SALES.
    Captain SHAWasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of shops in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen which are exclusively engaged in the sale of imported butcher meat?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I regret that the desired information is not available.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the public assistance committee at Montrose are imposing test work on all applicants for able-bodied work; that this is the only committee in Scotland to impose such a test; and if he will take steps to end this practice?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am having inquiries made into the matter.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is there a demand for versatile and able-bodied lawyers in Montrose?
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Mrs. Wilson, 303, Thistle Street, Glasgow, when being paid her relief from the Greenock Public Assistance Committee has had her 7s. 6d. from health insurance taken into account, and that this practice is illegal; and if he intends to take any steps to prosecute in this case?
    Mr. SKELTON: I am aware that Mrs. Wilson is receiving relief at the rate of 7s. 6d. a week from the Greenock Public Assistance Committee. I am having inquiries made as to how this figure is arrived at.

    GLASGOW RENT COURT (RE-ENROLLED CASES).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that since 1st January, 1931, until 18th November, 1931, 23,000 cases have been taken for re-enrolment at the Glasgow Rent Court; that for the same date 4,000 decrees have been granted against tenants; and that in many cases decree is granted without the sheriff having heard the cases; and if, in view of the present winter, he intends to take any steps to deal with this problem?
    Mr. SKELTON: I have made inquiry and I am informed that between 1st January and 18th November, the number of cases re-enrolled at the Glasgow Rent Court was 11,825. During the same period 4,030 decrees were granted, of which 2,733 were in re-enrolled cases and 1,297 in new cases. No decrees are granted without the sheriff hearing parties except in cases where the defender does not appear or is not represented or where the parties have arranged matters between themselves; as regards the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on 24th November.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: As the number of decrees is on the increase, will not the hon. Gentleman take some extra steps to deal with the situation?
    Mr. SKELTON: The number of removals or evictions which follow the decrees is extremely small, and the decrees themselves are merely a method of getting arrears of rent paid.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    MINERS' WELFARE FUND (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary for Mines if he will consider the advisability of setting aside a definite percentage of the proceeds of the miners' welfare levy for the purpose of creating a fund to supplement the provision now made for the dependants of the victims of mining disasters?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I have no power to direct

    1665
    the allocation of this fund. The duty of its allocation is vested in the committee set up for that purpose under Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920. The hon. Member is no doubt aware that an independent committee has recently been appointed to inquire generally into the work and the future scope of the Miners' Welfare Fund; and if he so desires, I will see that his suggestion is brought to the notice of that committee.
    Mr. LUNN: Would it not be better to divert some of the funds that are already existing, with no dependants now living, rather than to take money from the Welfare Fund?
    Mr. FOOT: Well, of course, that will not arise.

    REORGANISATION COMMISSION.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the total cost to date of the committee appointed to deal with the coal mines amalgamation; and will he give separate figures for the chairman and each member of the committee?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The total expenditure incurred, up to the 30th November, in connection with the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission was approximately £20,000. The amount paid to the chairman, including expenses actually incurred in connection with travelling and subsistence allowances on the Treasury scale, was £6,375. Three of the other commissioners received in respect of remuneration and expenses £858, £764 and £705 respectively. The fifth commissioner is serving in an honorary capacity.
    Mr. TINKER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me for what period that is? Is it 12 months?
    Mr. FOOT: Yes. I think the actual work commenced in December of last year, and the figures that I have given the hon. Member are to the 30th November last.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does the hon. Gentleman not think they are a little bit overpaid for the output?
    Mr. FOOT: On that, there may be many different opinions.

    PITS CLOSED (LANCASHIRE).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines (1) the number of mines closed down in Lancashire during 1930 and the number closed in 1931;
    (2) the number of persons thrown out of work through the closing of the mines that were closed down in Lancashire during 1930 and 1931 to date?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Sixteen pits, employing 986 wage-earners, were closed during 1930 and have not since re-opened. The corresponding figures for 1931 (to 21st November) are 18 pits, employing 3,490 wage-earners.
    Mr. BATEY: Can the Minister say whether he has made any investigation as to the cause of the closing of the pits that have been closed this year?
    Mr. TINKER: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, can he say whether, before they are closed, any questions are put to the Minister of Mines in regard to the closing of them?
    Mr. FOOT: Not necessarily, nor is information given as to the reasons why any particular pit is closed down.
    Mr. BATEY: The Minister has not attempted to answer my question, as to whether he has made any inquiries as to the cause of the closing of those pits this year.
    Mr. FOOT: No inquiry has been made as to these particular pits. Unfortunately, the experience to which I have referred is not confined to Lancashire. The number of wage-earners this year is less than the number last year. I do not think there is any direct association between this and the operation of the Coal Mines Act.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: With reference to the hon. Gentleman's statement that the number of wage-earners has decreased, has the output of coal increased or decreased?
    Mr. FOOT: It has decreased in this year as compared with last year.

    HOURS OF WORK CONVENTION.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make any statement in regard to the ratification of the recent International Labour Convention on the hours of work in coal mines?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Yes, Sir. At the request of His Majesty's Government, the International Labour Office is issuing invitations to the Governments of the six other countries chiefly interested, that is to say, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Netherlands and Poland, to attend a meeting at Geneva on 7th January for the purpose of an informal discussion upon the question of ratification.
    Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Member intend to be there to represent the Government?
    Mr. FOOT: Yes, it is my intention.

    SIR ERNEST GOWERS (AMALGAMATIONS).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary for Mines what outside bodies or persons were consulted in the appointment of chairman of the Mines Amalgamation Commission; and whether any conditions were imposed by them?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am informed that the Secretary for Mines in the Government of the day called into consultation a number of people whose experience and judgment would in his view be valuable. Such consultations are solely within the discretion and the responsibility of the Minister and are confidential. I am therefore unable to give any further information.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On whose invitation was Mr. Montagu Norman brought in to give advice?
    Mr. FOOT: I have already stated, at the beginning of my answer, that the Secretary for Mines in the Government of the day called in consultation a number of people whose experience he thought it would be advisable to have, but I am advised that without the consent of the Minister and the persons who were called into consultation, I cannot give any further information.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Is there any truth in the statement made by Mr. Shinwell that pressure was brought on him by the Governor of the Bank of England to appoint this particular gentleman as chairman?
    Mr. FOOT: Upon that, of course, I am governed by the answer that I have already given. There was a number of
    1668
    consultations, and, without the consent of the parties concerned, I cannot give the information asked for.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it not a fact that Mr. Montagu Norman butted into this business?
    Mr. FOOT: The facts are as I have stated.

    LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
    Mr. SOPERasked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the recent low-temperature carbonisation plants erected on the Continent, using a British process, he will take steps to assist British coalowners to establish this industry in Great Britain, thus providing employment and profitably utilising small coal and producing clean smokeless fuel with the recovery of motor spirit and valuable oils?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am following the development of this process, in this country and elsewhere, with great interest, but I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave on the 18th November to a question by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Has there been any advance at all in this matter in this country?
    Mr. FOOT: Constant advances are being made. This is primarily a matter for the business interests concerned; it is not a Government activity, except in the way of encouragement and assistance by way of research.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Secretary for Mines the value of refined petroleum products imported into this country during 1930, and the value of refined petroleum products produced in this country for the same period?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The declared value of the refined liquid petroleum products imported into this country during 1930 amounted to £42,160,187, according to the published trade returns. Home-produced and home-refined petroleum productions were about equal to 30 per cent. of the quantity of the imported products.

    1669
    I am unable to give an accurate figure for the value of the home produced and home refined products, but it would represent less than 30 per cent. of the value of the imported.
    Mr. ALBERY: Are the Government considering the imposition of a duty on these products to facilitate regaining the trade balance?
    Mr. FOOT: That does not arise on this question.

    BUY BRITISH CAMPAIGN.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is satisfied that the publicity secured by the Empire Marketing Board in their Buy British campaign is proportionate to the cost involved?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir. The total cost to the Empire Marketing Board is expected to be about £12,000. My expert advisers report that the amount of publicity secured by this expenditure is so large and diversified as to render useless the professional standards by which they are accustomed to measure commercial advertising campaigns costing 10 or 20 times as much. I take this opportunity of thanking in the name of the Empire Marketing Board all those who have assisted this campaign, from the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Their generous and active support of the movement inaugurated by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has produced what is believed to be the greatest peace-time campaign upon a single theme ever conducted in this country.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is it a fact that, in spite of all these efforts, sales have actually gone down?
    Mr. THOMAS: No, and I am sure that no one will be more delighted than my hon. Friend to know that the reverse 1S the case.
    Major NATHAN: Is it not the fact that the Buy British campaign is a serious factor in the increasingly adverse position of the sterling exchange?
    Mr. THOMAS: I cannot answer that question, but, if the implication of my
    1670
    hon. Friend is against the Buy British campaign, then I will join issue with him.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what have been the results of the Buy British campaign?
    Mr. THOMAS: Reports received by the Empire Marketing Board indicate that this campaign has literally pervaded the whole Kingdom. The Board are amply satisfied that the campaign, notably reinforced, as it has been, by the distributive trades, has effectively brought home to the country the patriotic duty of buying, so far as possible, the products of the home country in the first place, and, in the second, the products of the Empire overseas. The results of that achievement, which promise to continue long after the campaign is ended, can never be statistically measured. But ample inquiries made by the Empire Marketing Board in a wide variety of markets confirm what must, I believe, be the per sonal experience of Members of this House, that the public's will to purchase has by this campaign been directed to a dramatic extent towards home and over-sea sources of supply.
    Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) sailed to America in a German ship?
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will take steps to make known in the Dominions and Colonies the publicity in favour of their products secured by the present Buy British campaign?
    Mr. THOMAS: The Empire Marketing Board, with the assistance of the over-sea Governments concerned, have long devoted careful attention to securing that their work on behalf of Empire products should be understood by those in whose interests it was primarily undertaken. Active steps are being taken and will be continued to keep the oversea Press in touch with the progress of the Buy British campaign.
    Mr. McENTEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that British instead of American typewriters are used in Government offices?

    ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS DUTY.
    Mrs. COPELANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large amount of fine china (safeguarded) which has recently been imported from the Far East, the volume of such importations will in future be taken into consideration instead of only the weight?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Particulars of the weight and declared value of china, including translucent pottery and all pottery known as china or porcelain, other than electrical ware, imported into the United Kingdom are regularly published in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom."
    Mr. HALES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the duty on china will be raised to 50 per cent. so that all pottery will be under the same duty?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: At present the duty is on the basis of 28s. per cwt.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be possible for the Board of Trade to consider a change in the duty from duty on weight to duty on value?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That would depend on how far the imports come within the definition of abnormal imports.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the heavier china is the cheapest, and that, therefore, if the duty is put on weight it will spread the duty more fairly?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I press my question, and would the President of the Board of Trade consider receiving a deputation from the trade on this point?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am finding it difficult to receive all the deputations that want to see me, but I need hardly say that my right hon. and gallant Friend has always a special call on my time.
    Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEWasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will define more clearly what is meant by the terms overcoats and mantles in the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) (No. 1) Order, dated 23rd November, 1931?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chorley on 2nd December.
    Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the word "mantles" has no longer any real significance in describing women's wearing apparel, and will he not take steps to cover every type of women's imported made-up garments, made from the cloth covered by the duty, in exactly the same manner as men's garments are covered?
    Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot add anything further to my previous answer.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in order to remove doubts as to the interpretation and extent of the Abnormal Imports Regulations, he will state whether import duties are being charged on proofed garments and proofed cloth?
    Major ELLIOT: The Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) No. 1 Order, 1931, excepts proofed garments comprised in the description "Overcoats and Mantles" from the charge of duty under the Order, but proofed garments, if any, falling within the description "Men's and Boys' suits," etc., would be chargeable with the duty. Tissues in the piece of a description included in the Order are not relieved from the duty by reason of being proofed.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in order to remove doubts as to the interpretation and extent of the Abnormal imports Regulations, he will state whether import duties are being charged on toy teddy-bears, imitation pearl beads, Christmas tree ornaments, dolls' house toys made of glass, and mirror glass in wooden or metal frames?
    Major ELLIOT: None of the articles mentioned would be held liable to duty under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Orders, 1931, Nos. 1 and 2.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute negotiations with foreign countries whose exports are affected by the Ab-

    1673
    normal Importations (Customs Duties) Act and the Emergency Customs Duties Bill to secure tariff reductions for British exports?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not consider that the emergency duties imposed or contemplated under the Measures referred to are suitable as a basis for negotiations of the nature contemplated by my right hon. Friend.
    Earl CASTLE STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether greaseproof paper can be manufactured in this country in quantities sufficient to meet the normal home demand?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the manufacture of paper of the kind mentioned is being developed in this country, and I am making further inquiries as to the progress made.
    Major NATHAN: Is it not a fact that it would take upwards of 12 months for paper manufacturers in this country to divert their machinery to the use of such paper, and that, if manufactured here, it would be inferior in quality for its purpose to that which is imported?
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Always decry British manufactures! My word, we have got some people in this House. [Interruption.]
    Mr. STONESasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that in paper trade circles tissue paper is always defined as paper of 7 pounds per ream, 20 inches by 30 inches, of 480 sheets or under, whether the qualification in regard to weight exceeding 10 pounds to the ream of 480 sheets, 20 inches by 30 inches, applies to tissue paper?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Any tissue paper falling within the terms of the definition contained in the Order is dutiable, but tissue paper the weight of which is equivalent to not more than 10 pounds to the ream of 480 sheets measuring 30 inches by 20 inches when fully extended is not liable to duty.
    Mr. RATCLIFFEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that silk and artificial silk hose are being imported without the seam sewn up the back of the stocking and that in
    1674
    this way the recent dumping Order is evaded by only paying duty on tissue; and what steps he intends to take?
    Major ELLIOT: I am not aware that unfinished stockings of silk or artificial silk are being imported without payment of the duty imposed by the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931. Such articles are liable to the new duty.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: If the hon. and gallant Member will inquire in the West End of London, he will find that such is the fact.
    Mr. REMER: Is the Financial Secretary not aware that there are many thousands of stockings not paying duty coming into this country?
    Major ELLIOT: If the hon. Member will give me information of any such goods, I will make inquiries.

    DEAD SEA PRODUCTS.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and nature of the products of the Dead Sea imported into this country during the present year; and to what countries were any re-exported?
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of the shipments of bromine and other products by the Dead Sea Company to this country since May of this year; and to what destination have these products, wholly or partly, been re-exported?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the six months ended October, 1931, the only chemicals imported into the United Kingdom and registered as consigned from Palestine were 2,480 cwts. of bromine and bromides. No such imports were registered during the first four months of this year. I am unable to say whether these imports came from the Dead Bea Company, or to which countries all or part may have been re-exported.

    TEA.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of pounds of tea of non-Empire origin imported into this country in each of the years 1920, 1925, and 1930?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Ms. Hore-Belisha): The total weight of tea im-

    1675
    ported into the United Kingdom during the years 1920, 1925, and 1930, consigned from foreign countries, was 57 million lbs., 65 million lbs., and 96 million lbs., respectively.
    Sir A. KNOX: In view of the progressive increase in the imports of foreign tea, will not the Government consider the advisability of putting an import duty on foreign tea?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There has also been a progressive increase in the import of tea from Empire countries, and that now represents over 82½ per cent.
    Sir A. KNOX: But is it not true that the percentage of foreign tea is now very much greater than it was 10 years ago?
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take with regard to the communication he has received from the Empire tea associations in the interest of these associations, in view of the increasing importation of tea grown outside the Empire?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have noted the representations made by the associations referred to but am unable to make any further statement at present.
    Sir JOHN FERGUSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the import of Dutch-grown teas has increased from 32,000,000 pounds in 1921 to 76,000,000 in 1930; and will he take immediate steps to impose a duty, in view of the fact that Holland imposes a duty of 7d. a pound on tea reaching her ports?
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the imports of tea from foreign sources, having increased from 32,000,000 lbs. in 1921 to 85,000,000 lbs. in 1930, have resulted in severe loss to Indian and Ceylon growers; and whether, in view of the fact that ample tea for all Empire requirements is grown within the Empire, he will extend a measure of protection to Empire growers?
    Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the
    1676
    increase in the importation of foreign-grown tea into the United Kingdom and the correspondingly reduced imports from India and Ceylon, and with a view to improving the position of the tea producers in India and Ceylon, he will consider the advisability of imposing a tax on the importation of foreign-grown teas?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have already stated in reply to similar recent questions, I am unable to make any statement on this subject at present.
    Sir J. FERGUSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the large increase in these importations from Holland, especially during the last three years?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, my attention has been drawn to it.
    Sir F. HALL: Will this matter receive further consideration in the month of April?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be happy to answer that question then.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter on the Budget at that time?
    Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to receive a deputation on this question?
    Captain HEILGERSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Java tea is being blended with Empire tea and sold as Empire blend during the Buy British campaign, he will take steps to prevent the sale thereof under this misleading description?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will be glad to consider them.
    Sir J. FERGUSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give statistics to show to what extent the requirements of the United Kingdom and the Empire can be provided for by Empire-grown tea; and what is the percentage of Empire tea imported in 1920 and 1930 compared with the total imports for these years?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The quantity of tea produced within the British Empire is greater than the consumption of tea within the Empire, but the Empire does not produce tea of all qualities and flavours. Of the total imports of tea into the United Kingdom during the years 1920 and 1930, the proportions consigned from British countries were 86.9 and 82.3 per cent, respectively.
    Sir J. FERGUSON: Does not that show a very large increase within that period of years, out of all proportion to the quantity used in this country?

    IMPORTS.
    Mr. SOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the values of ornamental glass imported during the months of August, September, October, and November for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931, respectively;
    (2) the quantity and average value per dozen of table forks imported during the months of August, September, October, and November, for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931; and can he give similar particulars with regard to exports of British forks for the same period?
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of doors of foreign manufacture imported into this country for the most recent month for which figures are available; and what the figures were for the same month last year?
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of imported mohair-pile table covers for the last month for which figures are available, and the corresponding figures for the same period in 1930?
    Mr. RUNC1MAN: I regret that the desired information is not available, as the imports and exports of these goods are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. LUKE THOMPSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether seeing that the imports of brushes and brooms have considerably increased during the first 10 months of 1931 as compared with the same period in 1929, he is prepared to include this industry in the next list of duties under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?
    Mr. STOREYasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that illuminating glassware is usually made in the same works and the same furnaces as domestic glassware, and that the order, under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, which applies to domestic glassware only is likely to lead foreign manufacturers to concentrate upon dumping illuminating glassware, the imports of which have been steadily increasing; and whether, in view of these facts, he will include illuminating glassware in the next order under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act;
    (2) whether, in view of the large imports of writing and printing papers from foreign countries during October and as British mills in depressed areas are only working at from 65 per cent. to 75 per cent. of their full output, he will consider including these papers in the next Order under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?
    Mr. BOULTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the abnormal importation of sheet lead and lead pipes into this country which is competing with the home industry; and whether he will consider taking steps to safeguard this industry?
    Earl CASTLE STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports of fancy cotton hosiery in 1930 were five times as great as the imports in 1928, and that imports of fancy woollen hosiery in 1930 were nearly twice as great as the imports in 1928; and whether he will deal with these imports under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931?
    Mr. PERKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that a duty has been imposed on woollen materials in the piece and that no duty has been put on the finished article, such as bathing costumes, etc., he will consider the advisability of such a duty?
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the quantities of foreign cement imported into this country during the past six weeks; and, seeing that this abnormal import has brought to a standstill the cement factories on the Medway, with resulting loss of employment to a number of people,

    1679
    whether he will take steps to protect this industry?
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state whether needles will be included in the next Order issued under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931, in view of the considerable increase in importations in the last two months?
    Mr. LYONSasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if his attention has been called to the recent imports of elastic webbing; and whether he proposes to take any action in this regard under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931;
    (2) if his attention has been called to the imports of cotton hose and underwear; and whether he proposes to take any action in this regard under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931;
    (3) if his attention has been called to the fact that out of 18,259 machines in the silk industry in Great Britain 10,356 were idle in November, 1931; and if it is his intention to take any action with regard to this industry under the Abnormal Importations Act, 1931?
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the telegram, of which a copy has been sent to him, from the bright-steel bar manufacturers to the effect that they ask for security against foreign competition and emphasise that, if included under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, they will raise no objection to a duty on their raw materials, including black bars and billets; and whether he will now impose the duties referred to?
    Mr. RATCLIFFEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the increase of the importation of artificial silk tissue, pure or mixed, in October, 1931, 1,741,624 lbs. weight, as compared with October, 1930, 1,322,844 lbs. weight; and if it is his intention to apply the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931, to these articles?
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has
    1680
    been called to the abnormal increase of silk-piece goods, wholly of silk, imported in August, 1931, to 3,204,319 square yards from 2,789,177 in 1930; in September to 4,638,814 square yards from 3,391,646 in September, 1930; in October, 1931, to 3,743,044 square yards from 3,696,999 square yards in 1930, and 3,353,756 square yards in 1929; if he is aware that there are large stocks in Lyons unsold, and that the bankers are ordering the manufacturers to sell these stocks at any price available; and if he intends to bring these goods under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931?
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a communication from the Cold Rolled Brass and Copper Association, embodying details of abnormal imports of brass, copper and nickel silver articles with serious effect upon employment in Birmingham; and if he proposes to make an early Order extending the provisions of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931, to these industries?
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the competition from which the English paper mills are suffering at the present time, he will consider the extension of the provisions of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931, to include printing paper, news paper and writing paper in addition to the categories of paper stated in the No. 2 Order annexed to the said Act?
    Viscount EDNAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the economic position of the iron and steel industry as reflected in the financial reports of its operation now becoming available, he will take action before Christmas, under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, to prevent forestalling of the effect of more permanent measures?
    Captain DOWERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that 250,000 dozen felt-hat hoods from Monza, Italy, have been imported into this country during the last few weeks, the bulk of which were sent by parcel post to avoid the figures appearing in the Trade and Navigation Returns; and, in view of this abnormal importation of felt hoods, will he reconsider his previous decision and impose a duty?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the House has been informed on many occasions recently, it would not be proper for me to give any indication of what articles may or may not be included in any future Orders that may be made under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Does slot the procedure which the President of the Board of Trade has bad to adopt show the necessity of setting up a tariff commission?
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that granite will be included in the next list?
    Dr. MORRIS-JONES: In order to save the time of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prohibit all imports?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do not all these questions indicate a good deal of discontent with the Government?
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: May I ask when we may expect to get, a reply?
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the intention of the Government to protect the lace industry from foreign competition; and, if so, when the lace duties will be reimposed?
    Mr. BOULTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the trade of scales and handle manufacturing in fancy timbers is now experiencing foreign competition; and, in view of the unemployment caused, will he consider taking such immediate steps as are necessary to safeguard this industry?
    Mr. LEVYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that cotton yarn from the Continent is still being imported into this country in large quantities, underselling our own yarn manufacturers by 1½d. per pound; and what action does he propose to take to stop this competition?
    Major BEAUMONT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take action to prevent the dumping of iron and steel products
    1682
    into this country at prices substantially lower than they are sold in the country of origin?
    Lord SCONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider imposing a tariff on imported toys and games, seeing that the annual value of such imports exceeds £2,000,000?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only powers I have to impose duties are those under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, and in this regard I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Members for Barnsbaple (Sir B. Peto), Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), and South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on 25th November.
    Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that these duties prevented the lace trade of Nottingham from being wiped out; and will he use his influence with the Cabinet to see that they are reimposed at, the earliest possible moment?
    Major THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to stop dumping as apart from abnormal importation?
    Mr. McGOVERN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation from the industries concerned?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already answered a question on that subject this afternoon. With regard to the lace trade, the condition of the trade will, of course, be taken into consideration. As for the difference between dumping and abnormal importation, I am afraid I am not ready with a definition.
    Mr. MAXTON: The previous reply, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, had reference to deputations from industries which do not want tariffs. What my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) asked was whether he would receive a deputation from those who do want tariffs?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: From my recent experience, I should say the time absorbed by deputations from those who do want tariffs is just as great as from those who do not.
    Earl CASTLE STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish figures which will show the imports of elastic cords, webs, braids,

    1683
    and fabrics in the months of September, October, and any successive periods in the month of November of this year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the months of September and October, 1931, the total declared value of the imports into the United Kingdom of elastic cords, webs, braid and fabrics not comprised under other headings, such as apparel, in the Import and Export List, was £20,088 and £24,160, respectively.
    Mr. LEES-JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will permit the importation into this country, duty free, of Swiss embroideries or organdies processed from grey cotton piece-goods made in and exported from this country?
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if, when he is considering measures to check the abnormal importations of manufactured cotton goods commonly known as coloured cotton, he will, in view of the advisability of introducing some system to cater for British yarn sent abroad to be specially dyed, make provision for this?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: These matters will be borne in mind if and when the occasion arises.
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the President of the Board of Trade the comparative imports of- wire and wire products during recent weeks and during a similar period in 1930; and whether he will deal with this matter under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931?
    Sir H. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the depression in the wire industry; whether there are abnormal imports of wire and wire manufactures; and if he intends to take action?
    Major THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to prevent the abnormal importations of wire and wire products which can be manufactured in this country?
    Mr. STOURTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the abnormal imports recently of wire and wire products, he will consider imposing a duty on these articles at an early date?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of recent imports of wire and wire manufactures of iron and steel will be found in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom." For the rest I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given on the 25th November to the hon. Members for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), and South-East Leeds (Major Milner).
    Captain BARTONasked the President of the Board of Trade the total imports of hemp line and tow yarns, cordage, cables, etc., of hemp or like material under a quarter-inch in diameter, binder and reaper twine, and other descriptions, respectively, for November, 1931?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the imports of these articles during November will be published on Friday in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom."
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the President of the Board of Trade the volume and value of the imports of women's shoes into this country for each of the past three months, as compared with the corresponding periods last year; and the export figures of such shoes for the two periods in question?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. and gallant Friend will find particulars of the imports and exports of women's boots and shoes in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom." Figures for the month of November will be published on Friday next.
    Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: If these figures prove that there is a considerable reduction in exports and a considerable increase in imports, will the right hon. Gentleman give favourable consideration to this case in making further Orders under the Abnormal Importations Act?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any statement in anticipation of the drawing up of the next Order.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of newsprint imported for the year ended December, 1930, from the British Dominions and from foreign countries; and

    1685
    the amount of coal which would be used in producing the foreign importation if produced in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend will find detailed particulars of the imports of news printing paper into the United Kingdom during the year 1930, consigned from British and foreign countries, in Volume II of the "Annual Statement of the Trade of tike United Kingdom" for 1930 (p. 272). I have not the information necessary to answer the second part of the question.
    Mr. ALBERY: If the right hon. Gentleman has figures for the imports, is it not a simple calculation to find out bow much coal would be required?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid we have no means of ascertaining that.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will my right hon. Friend consult the newspapers about this matter before coming to a decision?
    Mr. CROSSasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, as far as figures are yet available, there has been greater abnormality in the quantity of imports of woollen blankets or of cotton blankets, stating the dates to which his figures refer;
    (2) the quantities and values of cotton sheets and cotton blankets, respectively, which were imported into this country in August, September, October and November, in each of the years 1924, 1930, and 1931?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the imports of cotton sheets and cotton blankets are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom. I regret, therefore, that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total imports in tonnage and value of special steels during the months of September, October, and November, 1931?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the imports of special steels are published in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom." The accounts for November will be published on Friday.

    SHIPPING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. LUKE THOMPSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give, for the first 10 months of 1929 to 1931, the total number of foreign vessels cleared from British ports to other British ports, together with the net registered tonnage of the same?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available, but for the whole year 1929 the foreign vessels that cleared with cargo at ports of the United Kingdom for other ports in the British Empire numbered 321 with a tonnage of 720,701 tons net, the corresponding figures for 1930 being 319 vessels of 697,512 tons net.
    Mr. THOMPSON: Does not my right hon. Friend think it desirable that this large tonnage should be carried in British bottoms?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: So long as we can retain such a large proportion of our trade without any of these restrictions, I believe the shipping industry is prepared to continue its competition.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the monthly statistics on iron and steel not being available until five or six weeks from the end of the month, and the desirability of the iron and steel industry keeping in close touch with imports and exports, he will consider making available his departmental statistics at more frequent intervals?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the imports and exports of iron and steel are published monthly in the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" on the tenth working day of the month following that to which the accounts relate.
    Mr. CLARRY: Would it be possible for these figures to be made public to the industry concerned soon after the 10 days?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are published with the general figures 10 days after the end of the month and are then open to everybody to read.
    Mr. CLARRY: Is it not a fact that the figures are obtained in 10 days in the Ministry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We cannot do it in a shorter period than of one month.

    BEER.
    Lieut. - Colonel SPENDER - CLAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the beer, appearing in Government returns as imported beer without reference to the country of origin, is manufactured in the British Isles?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my right hon. and gallant Friend to the table on page 41 of the Second Volume of the Annual Statement of Trade for 1930, from which it appears that of 1,593,588 standard barrels of beer imported in 1930 1,564,512 barrels came from the Irish Free State and seven barrels came from other British countries.

    FOREIGN DRESS GOODS.
    Mr. LEVYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a merchant buying dresses of silk content abroad pays 33⅓ per cent. on importing them into this country on the whole value of the dresses, whereas a private individual only pays on the silk content, and that this difference acts to the disadavantage of British traders; and what action he proposes to take?
    Major ELLIOT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to a question on this subject addressed to him by the hon. Member for the Clayton Division of Manchester (Mr. Flanagan) on the 26th November.

    MACCLESFIELD SILK.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, in several of the large stores in London and the provinces in connection with the Buy British movement, large signs are exhibited with the words Genuine Macclesfield Silk,, whereas only one piece of the silk so exhibited was manufactured in Macclesfield and the remainder was of foreign origin; and what steps he will take to deal with such cases of misrepresentation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will furnish the with particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will consider whether action can be taken.
    Mr. REMER: If the right hon. Gentleman will go into any of these stores, he will find that this is happening.

    RASPBERRY PULP.
    Lord SCONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give instructions that imports of raspberry pulp shall in future appear separately in the Board of Trade Returns, in view of the fact that such imports are making it impossible for the home grower to obtain an economic price for his produce?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It has recently been decided that, as from the commencement of next year, the general import heading "Fruit not liable to duty as such and fruit pulp, preserved without sugar—other than canned or bottled," shall be sub-divided so as to distinguish (1) Strawberries, (2) Blackcurrants, and (3) Other sorts. Consideration will be given to making provision for the separate enumeration of other descriptions of fruits, should the imports during 1932 be large enough to justify further subdivision of the heading.
    Lord SCONE: May I urge upon the hon. Gentleman the necessity of including raspberries?

    RETAIL STORES (UNITED KINGDOM GOODS).
    Mr. MABANEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the figures in the possession of his Department that indicate, either for groups of retail stores or individual retail stores, the percentage in value of their stocks purchased in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The desired information is not available.

    IMPORTED MILK.
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the amounts of liquid milk imported into this country in September, October, and November of this year, respectively, at what ports did the milk churns arrive, and to whom were they consigned?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: During the months of September and October, 1931, the only fresh liquid milk imported into the United Kingdom was consigned from the Irish Free State and amounted to

    1689
    3,330 cwts. and 4,589 cwts. respectively, principally over the land boundary into Northern Ireland. In addition, 555 cwts. and 223 cwts. respectively, of unsweetened preserved milk (other than condensed and powdered milk) were imported into the United Kingdom during these months at the ports of Middlesbrough, Hull, Leith, Manchester and London. I am unable to give the names of the consignees. Particulars for November are not yet available.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Was there no liquid milk imported to Newhaven port during October or November?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman the best answer I can.
    Mr. MAXTON: Is is the fact that the home supply at this moment does not meet the demand?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is probably true.

  BRITISH MIGRANTS, AUSTRALIA.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the progress of the Royal Commission inquiring into migrant settlers' affairs in Australia?
  Mr. H. THOMAS: I understand that the Royal Commission is at present taking the evidence of the settlers, which should be completed by the end of January. The evidence of the official witnesses is expected to be taken in February.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the deplorable position of these settlers, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the States and the Commonwealth Governments to fulfil their pledges to the men?
  Mr. THOMAS: It would be unwise to make any overtures when an inquiry is taking place, because it would possibly be misunderstood.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Speak up; we cannot hear the reply.
  Mr. MAXTON: We are interested in this, too.
  Mr. THOMAS: I gave precisely the same reply that I gave to my hon. Friend last week, that it would be unwise to interfere.
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that over 1,000 unemployed emigrants from this country to Western Australia are living under conditions of hardship; that work is impossible to obtain; and that refusal to come to relief camps renders them liable to a charge of vagrancy; and what action he proposes to take to help these fellow countrymen?
  Mr. THOMAS: I fear that it is undoubtedly the case that there are a number of migrants from the United Kingdom in Western Australia who are unemployed, but I have no reason to believe that the steps which have been taken to assist the unemployed there differentiate in any way between the unemployed who are migrants and those who are native born. The Government of Western Australia have taken steps to cope with the problem of unemployment there, and it is for them to decide what is the best way of dealing with it.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the last two parts of my question.
  Mr. THOMAS: I have first to ascertain the accuracy of my hon. Friend's statement. I do not doubt it, but I have not had it confirmed yet. When I get the information, I will consider it in the light of the answer.
  Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no difference between migrants and native-born, but is not there a difference in responsibility to these two classes?
  Mr. THOMAS: None; I have emphasised clearly on many occasions that if this Government, or indeed any Government, accepted a responsibility which rightly belongs to the Dominions, it would be a profound mistake and would lead to considerable misunderstanding.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hold in my hand a cablegram sent to me this morning—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!

  IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps he has yet taken to prepare the proposals to be laid before the coming Imperial Conference?
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what preparations have been made for the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference; and what arrangements have been made for continuing such preparations during his absence in South Africa?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on these matters before the House rises.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Will the question of the trade of the Colonial Empire be included in these proposals?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question had better be put on the Paper.

  ARMAMENTS.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of requesting the Committee of Imperial Defence to state what increase in the armaments of this country will be necessary, in view of the uncertainty of the pooled security of the League of Nations being realised as disclosed by recent events in Manchuria?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I see no reason to take the action suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. MANDER: But does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable to get ready for the next war, in view of what is happening in Manchuria?

  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
  Mr. COCKSasked the Prime Minister whether our representatives will be instructed before attending the World Disarmament Conference next year to propose an all-round 25 per cent. cut in expenditure on armaments?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 2nd December, in reply to questions by my right hon. Friend
  1692
  the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether consideration has been given by the Government, in connection with the forthcoming Disarmament Conference, to the possibility of establishing an international force?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): All questions connected with the forthcoming Disarmament Conference are receiving the fullest consideration by His Majesty's Government, but I am not in a position to make any statement on particular problems.
  Mr. MANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this question is not overlooked?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    CIVIL SERVICE ROYAL OOMMISSION (REPORT).
    Major NATHANasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has reached any conclusions upon the Report of the recent Royal Commission on the Civil Service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply on this subject given on the 19th November by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Sir A. Pownall).

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of persons employed in the Customs and Excise Department in the weeks ending 31st October and 28th November respectively?
    Major ELLIOT: The total staff employed in the Customs and Excise Department on the 31st October, 1931, and the 28th November, 1931, respectively was 11,886 and 11,866.

  BREAD PRICES (FARTHINGS).
  Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether,

  1693
  in view of the slight fluctuations in the price of bread which are likely under the quota system, he will arrange for additional farthings to be coined and put into circulation, so that retailers may be enabled to charge actual prices?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I see no reason to suppose that there will be more numerous fluctuations in the price of the loaf under the wheat quota scheme than there are at present. Moreover, there appears to be no special demand for farthings at times when the price of the 2 lb. loaf involves an odd farthing, as it frequently does under present conditions.
  Mr. McENTEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed any increased demands for pounds?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    INCOME TAX.
    Sir ALFRED BEITasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to carry out the recommendations in Section XII of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, 1920, regarding the taxation of co-operative societies?
    Rear-Admiral SUETERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the co-operative movement now numbers 423 affiliated societies and has 3,000,000 members, he will consider setting up a small committee to devise means for bringing the profits of these societies under Schedule D of the Income Tax, as recommended by the Royal Commission of 1920?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer that I gave on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) on the 24th November last.
    Sir A. BEIT: If I put down this question after the next Budget will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say that I am asking him to anticipate the following year's Budget?

    LAND VALUES TAX (VALUATION).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state whether it is the intention of the
    1694
    Government to abandon Part III of the Finance Act, 1931, which relates to land valuation?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to the discontinuance of expenditure on the valuation of land under the provisions of Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now define the position of the Government in respect of the land tax duties imposed by Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government have given careful consideration to the question of proceeding with the valuation provided for in Part III of the Finance Act, 1931. As the House knows it was estimated that the total cost of the valuation would be from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000. A certain amount of money has already been spent but the great bulk of the expenditure is still to come. In the meantime the need for economy has become paramount and the Government feel that, in present financial conditions, they would not be justified in incurring further expenditure upon an object which, in any case, could not produce any return for a considerable time.
    Without prejudice therefore to the merits of the plan, which have not been under consideration, the Government propose to suspend work upon the valuation and to disperse the temporary staff which has been engaged in connection with it. The necessary legislation will be included in next year's Finance Bill.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Seeing that the tax was imposed by Parliament, and machinery set up in order that it might be effective, under what power does the right hon. Gentleman act in suspending the will of the House, as expressed in the last Budget?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is mistaken. I am not suspending the tax. That would be a matter for legislation, as I have already explained.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the present Lord Privy Seal said that it was his desire, under this tax, to restore God's land to the people?
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not, as a matter of fact, suspending the tax, because he is suspending the machinery by which alone the tax can be made effective, and under what power is he doing that?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have already informed the hon. Member, I am not suspending the tax; I am only suspending the valuation.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: How can the right hon. Gentleman impose a tax if he does not know the valuation on which it is to be imposed?
    Mr. RHYS: Will it be necessary to make any return to Somerset House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. ATTLEE: In view of the unsatisfactory answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment on the first opportunity.

    ENTERTAINMFSITS DUTY.
    Mr. POTTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the hardships caused by the additional Entertainments Duty imposed upon exhibitors in the cinema business by the supplementary Budget of September last, he will consider the question of exempting seats up to 6d. from such liability?
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether his attention has been called to the hardships in working-class districts by the re-imposition of the Entertainments Duty on seats up to and including 6d.; and whether he will consider any revision of this tax;
    (2) whether he is aware that the Entertainments Duty upon 3d. seats is equal to a 33⅓ per cent. tax; whether he is prepared to impose a tax of 33⅓ per cent. upon all seats over 2s.; and, if not, whether he will reconsider the tax upon the cheaper seats?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would remind the hon. Members that the revised scale of Entertainments Duty has only been in operation since the 9th November and it would be premature at this stage to draw any conclusions as to the effect of the new rates on entertainment proprietors or the public. The incidence of this duty, as of other duties, will be considered in the ordinary course in connection with the next Budget but I am not prepared to make any statement on the subject at the present time.
    Mr. POTTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable revenue is being lost to the State having regard to the imposition of this extra tax on the cheaper seats?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to carry the same imposition, 33⅓ per cent., if he can justify it, on to the dearer seats as well?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of percentage is not uniform now, for instance on the 6d. seats it is only 16⅔ per cent.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Is it the policy of the Government to impose the heaviest burden on the working classes?

    PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (GROSS AND NET COST).
    Mr. POTTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in view of the difficulty in ascertaining from the national accounts the total expenditure and the total revenue of each Department of State, he will take steps to have these accounts so framed that such information can be more easily obtainable?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information in question is given in statements appended to the Estimates of each Department, and also in the Public Departments: Gross and Net Cost Return, which is published annually.

    REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will cause to be prepared figures of national income and outgo in respect of the year 1930–31, and an estimate in respect of the

    1697
    current year, on similar lines to those given in Parliamentary Paper No. 93, of Session 1909?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The preparation of a Return on the lines suggested would involve more labour and expense than I could regard as justified by the results. The information desired in respect of the year 1930–31 can be obtained from the Finance Accounts, 1930, already published (House of Commons Paper 106/1931), and from the Public Departments: Gross and Net Cost Return, which will be available early in the new year.

    ARMAMENTS (EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. VYVYAN ADAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total expenditure to date upon armaments by this country since the signing of the Peace Treaty in 1919?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the defence Estimates include provision for such objects as pensions for retired officers and men, civil aviation, etc. The defence expenditure proper for 1930–31 amounted, after the elimination of such non-military items, to approximately £92,000,000. For earlier years I would refer him to the published Appropriation Accounts of the relative Departments, but he will understand that for the reason which I have just given the figures must be proportionately adjusted.

    DOUBLE TAX (RELIEF).
    Major NATHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether negotiations other than with Sweden and Switzerland have been concluded or are on foot for reciprocal arrangements relating to taxation as envisaged by Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1930?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements under Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1930, have not yet been made with any countries other than Sweden and Switzerland, but negotiations are on foot in a number of cases.
    Major NATHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, if it be not contrary to the public interest, with what countries further negotiations are on foot?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it would be advisable to answer that question just at present.

  HOLIDAYS ABROAD (TAX).
  Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, steps His Majesty's Government are taking with regard to the proposal to impose a tax on all persons leaving this country merely for the purposes of holidays in foreign countries?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have taken note of the suggestion n made by my hon. Friend.
  Sir C. RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same reply was given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer some months ago?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am.
  Sir C. RAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman accelerate his consideration of the question?

  MONETARY SITUATION.
  Mr. COCKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take the initiative in calling together a world conference on gold or, failing that., whether he will take steps to call together a conference of all the countries now off the Gold Standard to discuss the present monetary situation?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon) on the 3rd December.
  Mr. COCKS: Have the Government any policy on this subject, or are they following in the footsteps of the last Government?

  RUBBER INDUSTRY (BRITISH CAPITAL).
  Sir J. FERGUSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what estimate is made of the amount of British capital invested in the rubber industry on which no profit is returned and of the consequent loss to the Exchequer in Income Tax?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that this information is not available.

  NORTH ATLANTIC ICE PATROL.
  Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the President of the Board of Trade why the proportion of the cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol paid by His Majesty's Government is to be increased; and by whom that increased proportion has been paid in the past?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The scale of contributions to this service was originally fixed by the International Safety Conference of 1913–14. The 1929 Safety Conference revised the scale to represent more equitably the interests of the contributing countries in the service. This revision involves an increase of the contributions of this and certain other countries, and a corresponding decrease in those of certain others.

  AUCTIONEERS AND ESTATE AGENTS (BANKRUPTCIES).
  Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of bankruptcies in the auctioneers' and estate agents' profession during the past 12 months?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the 12 months ending 30th November last, there were 30 bankruptcies of auctioneers, house and estate agents.

  RIVER THAMES (PILOTAGE EXEMPTIONS).
  Mrs. RUNGEasked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons for exempting vessels of a certain class from the need for carrying British pilots in the Thames; whether, in the case of Dutch lighters, such exemption is due to reasons applicable to all such vessels or those possessing a special character; whether all such permitted exemptions are reciprocal in the case of nations whose ships benefit thereby; and, if not, what is the reason for differentiation of treatment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The exceptions under the Pilotage Act, 1913, from compulsory pilotage in the London Pilotage District of vessels which are under 50 tons gross or are employed in coasting or home trade and are under 3,500 tons gross apply to all vessels, British and foreign. The main reason for the exceptions was doubtless
  1700
  familiarity with the waters. I understand that in most foreign countries there are no exceptions from compulsory pilotage, but under the Pilotage Act there is no power to discriminate between British and foreign ships.

  IMPORTED RUSSIAN BUTTER.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to recent Russian official statements as to the insanitary conditions of many of the farms where milk is produced in Russia; and what steps are being taken to see that the large quantities of butter which are being imported into this country from Soviet Russia are manufactured under hygienic conditions such as are required from British and Dominion farmers?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): My right hon. Friend is aware of statements in the Press on this matter. Russian butter with other foods is subject to examination on arrival under the Imported Food Regulations and the Preservatives Regulations. My Department has not investigated the conditions under which the butter is produced, but arrangements were made last summer for samples of the butter to be examined bacteriologically. The reports on these examinations were satisfactory, but my right hon. Friend is considering the desirability of further similar examinations.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the facts referred to are taken from a Russian official statement, and does he not think his Department should take notice of official statements with regard to an article of food?
  Mr. BROWN: I am aware of that fact, and the Department has taken notice.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that any examination of milk products is quite unsatisfactory and unreliable and that, in order to get it reliable, you must examine the conditions of production at the source.
  Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Why is it not necessary to examine at the source of supply in foreign countries seeing it is necessary in this country?
  Mr. BROWN: That is another issue.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Why are different conditions required for British and Dominion farmers?
  Mr. BROWN: My Department is concerned with the quality of the butter, and examination has beer made and will be pursued if necessary.

DIVISIONS.
Mr. MAXTON: I wish to raise with you, Sir, a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) at the conclusion of the Indian Debate one evening last week, so that we may have your guidance and ruling on the matter. The group with which I am associated feel that on certain occasions we have views that we wish to have recorded in the House. It may be a minority view, but it is one that is important to us. We do not want to make ourselves a nuisance—at least, we do not want to make ourselves more of a nuisance than is necessary to record our point of view. Therefore, while upon occasions we shall call a Division, we recognise that the numbers in our Lobby would be so small as to make it undesirable that the rest of the House should be put to the inconvenience of going into the Lobbies. A reading of the rules and regulations and a consultation with Erskine May indicate that, while the practice has fallen into abeyance, it is within your power, without taking a Division, to record in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those who dissent from the majority view of the House and I should like to have your ruling on the matter.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has stated quite accurately that a Standing Order was passed in 1888 giving the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, the right, if in his opinion a Division was unnecessarily called, to take a vote of the House or the Committee by calling upon Members who dissent to stand in their place. Under that Standing Order, it was required that the number of Members who had risen should be declared by the Chair and their names taken down in the House and printed in the Division list. That Standing Order, as the hon. Member knows, was repealed
1702
in 1919, since when the Speaker or Chairman has not had that power. He has had the power of asking Members who dissent to rise in their places, but he has not had the power of taking the names of those who dissent or having their names published in the Division list, and, in order to do that, it would be necessary to amend the Standing Order and bring it into the same form as it was when it was repealed in 1919. The hon. Member is not right in saying that the Speaker or Chairman has that power unless there is a Standing Order to that effect.
Mr. MAXTON: My reading of the Standing Order indicates that after a Division has been taken, whether by passing through the Lobbies or by Members standing up, it is necessary for you, Sir, to declare the result of the Division, and on the Standing Order it seems to be well within your province to declare that the Ayes or the Noes have it, as the case may be, with the Members for so-and-so dissenting, which would achieve the end of recording their votes. I would suggest that you consider whether it is not within your power to do so.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have already said that that is not in my power without an Amendment of the Standing Orders.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Statute of Westminster Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS (EMERGENCY CUSTOMS DUTIES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DRNNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Minister to apply Act.)
Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "considers that it is desirable so to do," and to insert instead thereof the words:
"is satisfied that production in the United Kingdom of fruit, vegetables, or flowers will be thereby increased, or that the importation of any such articles, being articles of luxury, is not in the public interest."
I move the Amendment because we are not satisfied with the Bill, which leaves the power to select entirely in the hands of the Minister when he deems it desirable to choose any of the articles in the Schedule. Yesterday the Minister, speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, said:
"This Bill … is very definitely related to the general national emergency, andponit3 to the need of taking every possible step to reduce the imports of commodities which can either, on the one hand, be produced within this country, or, on the other hand, can be properly done without altogether."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1931; col. 1539, Vol. 260.]
The Minister expressed the intention of the Bill in those words, and we insist that the Amendment which we are moving will give a more direct effect to the Minister's intention than the words which we wish to leave out. If I may be allowed to sketch the procedure under the Bill, the Minister is given special powers, as in a previous Bill dealing with new taxation, to issue Orders-in-Council specifying what articles are to be selected, and, having issued his Order-in-Council, to give notice as soon as possible to the House of Commons by laying on the Table of the House a copy of the Order. An Order will only remain effective for 28 days unless in the meantime it is approved by this House. There is provision for a longer period. If the House does not happen to be sitting, the 28 days can be extended until
1714
the House meets again. The maximum duty being imposed under these Orders is at the rate of 100 per cent. ad valorem upon the imported article. The Act can remain in operation for 12 months only. The Bill itself is quite simple, but it is the Orders-in-Council which provoke our opposition, and it is because of the Minister's reticence in regard to Orders-in-Council and general information with reference to those Orders that I have some comments to make in moving the Amendment.
We have not yet been told by the Minister which articles are likely to Le taxed and which articles are not to be taxed immediately. We have been given hints by the Minister that there may be variations and that there may be an immediate selection of some articles and that others may have to wait until the appropriate season comes along. Indeed, the Minister can select any of the articles according to his fancy. He may have his prejudices and his predilections. He will probably have the good advice of the officers of his Department added to his own great knowledge of agriculture and of the import trades, but the Bill says nothing about the duration of an Order. Having chosen his articles, there is nothing in the Bill, and nothing has been told us, as to the length of time the Order is to apply to a particular article.
4.0 p.m.
The Act, it is true, only goes on for 12 months, but we have not been given any explicit assurance that orders which have been issued will operate for the whole of the 12 months, and we have not been told the rate of duty likely to be put upon any selected articles. We may find that there may be a varying rate of duty for the full period of 12 months or a full rate for a limited period less than 12 months. All these things are left in doubt. The Minister has not taken us into his confidence. We do not know what are his intentions, and we cannot discuss fully the merits of the Bill unless we know how the Measure is to be applied to the commodities mentioned in the list. We can see a good many dangers ahead, but if the Amendment which we propose is accepted, it will make it much more certain that the fullest consideration will be given to the conditions to which the Minister referred on the Second Reading. Without the existence of some scheme, all

1715
kinds of complications, and, indeed, most incongruous results may be produced. We heard last night the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) refer to the importation of new potatoes from Algiers and from the Channel Islands. Potatoes from both places come into our market at the same time, the new potatoes from Algiers valued at only 3¼d. a lb., and the new potatoes from the Channel Islands at 10d. a lb. The Minister has not the power to impose a duty upon potatoes from the Channel Islands, although it would be very proper, in a Bill to prevent luxury imports, to put a tax on the most expensive luxury. In the Bill, however, there is provision for taxing only potatoes from Algiers, and not from the Channel Islands.
Mr. HANNON: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that potatoes come in from Algiers and the Channel Islands at the same time, and are sold in our market at 3¼d. and 10d. a pound respectively?
Mr. GRENFELL: Yes, I can produce evidence from the records of the Board of Agriculture. I remember the figures being given very well, and there is no question that there are many of these apparently irreconcilable facts. But the hon. Member must know that, while the wholesale price of the imported potatoes from Algiers is 3¼d. a lb., the retail price may be very much higher, and if he wants to get an explanation why potatoes at 10d. and potatoes at 3d. a lb. are bought and sold at the same time in the home market, he may find that there is not so much difference in the retail price as at the time of arrival.
Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Algiers potatoes come in into this country at the end of March and the beginning of April, and the Channel Islands potatoes not till May?
Mr. GRENFELL: I will produce the figures before I sit down. I have not armed myself with all the details. They were given last night and not challenged then. I thought that I might give these figures, as they were not challenged by the Minister himself, although he was in the House at the time. The Minister has
1716
the power, which probably he will utilise, of putting on, perhaps, 100 per cent. duty—I do not know his intentions—on the Algiers cheap potatoes, and make them twice as dear or more before they reach the retailers, and so prevent cheap potatoes from coming on to the market, while allowing the luxury potatoes to come in. All kinds of queer results will happen from the application of the Bill as it stands, but if the Amendment we propose be accepted, we shall avoid many of these complications.
The Amendment requires the Minister to be satisfied on two points only—that he shall not impose duties, unless he is satisfied that, as a result of those duties, there will be an increase in the home production, or that the importation is of a luxury character not in the public interest. We want the Minister, before issuing his Orders, before determining the scale of duties and the period for which the duties are to be imposed, to have consideration for those two points. With regard to increase in the home production, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul), who spoke last night—and I listened to him with interest—gave us some figures. If there is one thing for which I criticise the Minister and those who support him it is the entire absence of figures and details. Here is a piece of legislation brought in for a special purpose, involving the future of the importation of these articles, the quantities coming in, their time of arrival and so forth. The Minister ignores all these details, and it is only from the speeches of some hon. Members that we have had any information to clarify the position.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft said that we are employing at the present time 18,000 people in commercial glass houses, and that they produce an output of the annual value of £5,000,000. If you take the ordinary rate of wages paid to men in this class of labour, it will be found that approximately one-third of the value of the product is paid in wages. Taking 18,000 people at a wage of £100 a year each, the figure is 35 per cent. of the total. It is a small proportion of the value of this class of production that goes in wages at the present time. Then there are the rents and the ground rents—[An HON. MEMBER: "And coal"]—I will say something about coal, too.

1717
Suppose the Minister does exercise his power, and puts an average of 50 per cent. duties on tomatoes and other horticultural products that come into competition here, and he thereby raises that £5,000,000 to £7,500,000 at the least, what proportion is to go in additional wages to the men in that industry? What advantage is there to be to the men employed in the industry? Is it not clear that unless there is some safeguard, there is the possibility of a considerable increase in profits?
We know well enough that this kind of commercial glass-house cannot be improvised. You cannot by a duty secure an increase of production under five years or more, and in the meantime, there is an increase of 50 per cent. in the price of the article, which will benefit exclusively those who sell the produce, without giving the country one iota of benefit. I hope that the Minister bears that in mind. When there is no possibility of increase in home production, the duty should not be put on until he is assured that the industry is prepared to take advantage of the increase of price. We all hope that the increase of price will be very small, because the additional money will have to be found by the consumers in this country, the consumers who, in the main, are the poorer class of people, who are already having a very difficult time.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft to a statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. One is almost afraid to quote these figures, because someone who was not present during the Debate last night may challenge them. But my hon. Friend was quoted by the hon. Member for Lowestoft as saying that in 1929 we grew at home 240,000 cwts. of strawberries, and in the same year we imported 200,000 cwts. The importation in that year was 5/11ths of the total. Next year, for a reason not given by the Minister or any of his supporters, probably owing to a failing season—
Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Of the 200,000 cwts. imported, can the hon. Member say how much came from the Channel Islands?
Mr. GRENFELL: I am speaking of the total quantity imported. In 1929, there was probably a short crop.
Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: I think the reference was to cherries—not strawberries.
Mr. GRENFELL: The figures, I think, referred to strawberries, but for this purpose cherries will do quite as well. The quantity imported was 200,000 cwts., and the home crop 240,000 cwts. The next year the home crop was 404,000 cwts., and in that year the imported cherries only ran to 60,000 cwts. The consumption in both those years was approximately the same, the difference being one of only 24,000 cwts. It was a reduction of just over 5 per cent. as between years when the home production varied from 240,000 cwts. to 404,000 cwts. Which of those two years would the right hon. Gentleman have in his mind when assessing the rate of duty to be put on cherries, for example? Would he put a duty on to prevent the 200,000 cwts. coming in, or would he put on a duty just large enough to prevent the 60,000 cwts. coming in, or a duty which might be so large as to stop the cherries coming in altogether, and find that when he has been successful in stopping the cherries coming in, he has left this country, in a season of short crop, with only just half the quantity of cherries that is normally consumed?
The Minister must really pay attention to that kind of thing. It is not enough to ask the House to give him power to issue orders when he thinks it desirable to do so, without keeping before himself and the House two main considerations, one of which is the increase in the home production, and the other the stopping of luxury articles from coming in—not stopping the cheap supplies of fruit and vegetables for those people who must have cheap supplies. From the two illustrations I have selected it will be seen that it is quite possible for the Minister to make a mistake, and to find that he has left the people at home with fruit either too expensive to buy, or with no fruit at all, because the duty has stopped all foreign importation. Plums come into the same category, and the same illustration can be used with regard to figures given in this House in these Debates. One is almost tired of talking about cabbages and tomatoes. Plums and cherries sound very much nicer, and one is glad to go from the vegetable world to the fruit world.

1719
All sorts of abnormal results may accrue from the Minister's action, unless he has regard to the two considerations that I have mentioned. The importation of luxury articles is not in the public interest. I assume that the Minister wants to prevent certain articles from coining in because, in common with his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, he is anxious to preserve the balance of trade in this country. He is anxious to stop expenditure on unnecessary things. We cannot argue the general question of the balance of trade to-day. If our Amendment were accepted it would be possible for the Minister to issue his orders and to make a selection of articles, because there are certain commodities which, in accordance with our Amendment, it would not be in the public interest that they should be imported. We do not believe that this country should be made a depository for all sorts of dumped goods. We object to dumping in the real sense but not in the sense that is so often interpreted in this House by hon. Members opposite. We do not believe that vast quantities of goods should be brought in here from abroad if there is home production of the articles in sufficient quantities and at a reasonable price. Our Amendment would imply that the Minister should have regard to the state of the market. Where it is not in the public interest to bring in unwanted goods we do not mind the Minister having power to issue orders prohibiting those goods from coming in.
On the general argument against food taxes, we maintain that it is necessary for the Minister to have the power which we offer in our Amendment. The Minister does not always decide what is the suitable occasion on which to take such action as is contemplated in the Bill. He is subject to all kinds of influences when he makes his choice. He is subject, like other Ministers, to pressure in the House and outside the House. We resent his action and that of his supporters in coming to the House and imposing food taxes under the guise of meeting emergency conditions which are supposed to prevail during the coming 12 months. That is the beginning of food taxation. Under the Bill the Minister may find it
1720
desirable to impose the maximum duty on all the articles mentioned in the Schedule. Among his supporters there will be found some person, or some group of persons, or some representatives of vested interests who will go over the list of articles, one by one, and make out a case for the highest duty on each article, and the Minister will be forced by the sheer weight of pressure 'behind him and by a certain amount of support—support which he might like to shake off and of which he would like to be independent—to put on the maximum scale of duty, unless he is able to say to the representatives of the vested interests, whether in this House or outside, that he is only empowered to issue orders on the two grounds laid down in our Amendment. If he accepts our Amendment we will strengthen his hand and help to give effect to the Bill as he explained it yesterday. We desire to protect the people of this country from the ramp which is taking place and which must end in a very high scale of taxation on the food of the people.
Mr. PRICE: I support the Amendment, and, in doing so, I should like to draw attention to one or two statements that have been made by the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to know what is the objective of the Minister and his supporters in seeking to put duties on a large number of articles of food, such as vegetables and fruit, and also on flowers. It has been stated that the object of the Government is not to provide revenue but to keep out of the country the commodities that are scheduled in the list. If that be their objective, our Amendment is fair and just. Our Amendment says that the Minister shall have power to apply the Act if he
"is satisfied that production in the United Kingdom of fruit, vegetables, or flowers will be thereby increased, or that the importation of any such articles, being articles of luxury, is not in the public interest,"
That is a fair Amendment and it ought to meet the desires of the promoters of the Bill. In the list there are certain articles in regard to which there is considerable difference of opinion. There are great differences of opinion as to what is a luxury article. No one has been bold enough to say that a turnip

1721
or a tomato is a luxury or that certain other articles in the list are luxuries. There are articles scheduled in the list which are the daily common food of the working people. We are entitled to say that if the Government prohibit various vegetables that are imported into this country during times when there are no home grown vegetables to take their place, the only thing that can happen will be that the cost of living of the working people will be tremendously increased.
Many jokes have been made on the question of tomatoes, but I submit very seriously that on a large percentage of the tables of working people the tomato plays a very important part as an article of every day food. Can the Minister of Agriculture say that if a duty of 100 per cent. is to be put on these articles that there will be English grown tomatoes to take their place and that they could be sold at such a price that the working class could afford to purchase them? The Amendment gives the Minister all the power that he need desire. We have a right to know what articles will be scheduled and what amount of duty will be imposed.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
Mr. PRICE: Unless the Minister is satisfied that home-grown produce is available in abundance and at a reasonable price he ought not to raise any objection to an Amendment which gives him power to levy the duty when that objective has been achieved. There is no justification for putting duties on articles of common daily food unless the Minister can say that we have sufficient home-grown commodities to replace them at the same price. The wives of the working men, who have to purchase the food, ought to be assured that the duty that has been imposed has been in accordance with the Government's election addresses and that it will not increase the cost of living. The Amendment ought to satisfy not only the Minister but everyone interested in agriculture or horticulture. I hope the Amendment will be accepted; if not, I hope that those who are opposed to any increase in the cost of living will COMB into the Lobby to support us.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not for one moment consider the acceptance of the Amendment. If he did accept it, the Bill might as well be torn up. There are differences of opinion as to what articles of food the working-classes consume. I admit that the hon. Members who are supporting the Amendment have shown that they are opposed to the imposition of anything in the nature of food taxes. They appear to have overlooked the fact that it is little more than a month since the National Government were returned with sufficient powers to carry into effect any sort of Measures which they consider to be of advantage to the people of this country.
Mr. PRICE: May I ask whether the hon. and gallant Member, or any member of the party supporting the National Government, stated in his election address that he was in favour of the taxation of food?
4.30 p.m.
Sir F. HALL: I am not in a position to answer for anybody but myself, but I say this, that as far as my constituents were concerned I asked for full powers to do whatever was necessary to deal with the problem of unemployment. The memories of some hon. Members are very short. They forget the difficulties which we are facing and the fact that the amount of unemployment, although slightly reduced during the last few weeks, is still abnormal. The Government must carry out whatever measures they consider necessary to deal with that problem. We have been taunted with the fact that the importation of these articles is only a very small proportion of the total imports of the country. That may be so, but we must not overlook the fact that the countries from which they come are favoured with much better weather conditions and that these early importations have a very detrimental effect on the growers of these articles in this country. The list of articles it has been said, does not include this produce and that produce. Many other articles might have been mentioned and I am sorry the list is so small; I should like to have seen many other articles in the list. It is only by the protection of our industries that we can possibly hope to reduce the

1723
amount of unemployment which unfortunately exists.
It has been said that many of the working classes will not be able to have some of these articles on their table. Many of the middle classes also are not in a position to spend money on what may be called luxury articles. If they are luxury articles and can be produced in this country by all means let us give a certain amount of protection to those engaged in the industry. Much of this produce is grown under glass, and surely a measure like this is going to give an impetus to the building and construction of glass-houses whilst there is also the increased transport which will be necessary in the case of increased production in these various industries. Have hon. Members of the Labour party studied the rate of wages paid in other countries in the production of the articles mentioned in the Schedule I It is well known that in the south of France and in Italy the wages paid to horticultural labourers and agricultural labourers are not comparable with the wages paid in this country. They are always telling us that they are advocates of increased wages for the working classes, but I could understand that attitude a little better if they paid some attention to the way in which this increase could be obtained. I suppose hon. Members of the Labour party are carrying out what they consider to be the duty of an Opposition. It is not a question as to whether it is advisable or inadvisable; they are going to oppose whatever measures are proposed simply because they are an Opposition. I have discussed these matters with some members of the Labour party and they have expressed an opinion which is quite common amongst the party, that it is time some measures were taken to protect the industries of this country.
I am glad that these proposals have been brought in. They are just a sample of what I hope will be a full dose in the near future. Practically all Members on the Government side of the House have been returned on the distinct understanding that they will take all steps necessary to improve the general position of the country. The first thing to do is to find labour for our own people. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept
1724
the Amendment; it would take away the kernel of the Measure altogether. It is a small Bill as it is, but in these days we have to be thankful for small mercies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will set to work after the Recess and inquire most carefully into many other articles which can be produced in this country and bring forward a Measure to look after the interests of this country. If he does I am sure that he will have the whole-hearted support of the great bulk of Members of the House.
The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): It would be well if I indicated to the Committee my view of the Amendment. I cannot accept it. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have tried to imply that the National Government were not given a free hand to deal with these problems. I think that is beyond all doubt, and, therefore, any suggestion that this Measure infringes any principle or rides across any pledge which we may have given to our constituents is beside the mark. I have here a statement made by an hon. Member in an agricultural constituency, in which he made it perfectly plain that as far as the farmers and market gardeners and smallholders were concerned—it is their interests we are considering to-day—he was prepared to support the National Government in a policy of prohibition or quotas or tariffs, or in any other way which would give the most effective help.
The Amendment, if I judge aright, is based upon the lines of the Abnormal Importations Act. That shows that there are many hon. Members who seem to think that you can treat industry and agriculture on exactly the same lines. It makes one rather despair of the outlook of some hon. Members on the agricultural problem when they believe that you can apply exactly the same principles to agriculture as you do to industry. In the case of the Abnormal Importations Act the Board of Trade have to satisfy themselves that commodities are being imported into the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities before making an Order imposing duties under that Act. The test which the Board of Trade have to apply is a mathematical test. In the case we are now considering it is very far from being such a test. It is true that the Orders which I shall make will be

1725
based upon statistics and returns, but, quite obviously, there are a great many other factors which must be taken into account. It is impossible at this stage for me to divulge or state in any way what I propose to do in the Order. If that were done one of the main objects of the Bill would be defeated.
It must be remembered that every Order the Minister of Agriculture makes will be submitted to the House. The Minister will have to defend the Order, and the House will be able to judge whether that defence is adequate or inadequate. On the occasions when any Order comes up for discussion the House will be Able to discuss the reasons why the Order should be made. Take the case of early potatoes. It is quite clear that some of these early potatoes are luxury articles, and so far as they are concerned hon. Members opposite have not the slightest desire to interfere, even if we put a duty upon them or shut them out altogether.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The question of early potatoes has been dealt with time after time, but would the Minister of Agriculture say to which new potatoes he refers when he says they are a luxury. Does he refer to Algerian potatoes, to Spanish potatoes, or to the potatoes from the Channel Islands?
Sir J. GILMOUR: The potatoes from the Channel Islands are not touched by this Measure. Of course the luxury potato comes from outside that area. The point is very clear. The object of these Orders is to encourage our own people to plant early potatoes.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Channel Islands when he speaks of "our own people" We ought to be clear about it.
Sir J. GILMOUR: The Channel Islands are part of the Empire, and I am dealing with this problem from that point of view.
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. The words in the Bill are
"The production of which in the United Kingdom can be increased."
That does not include the Channel Islands.
Sir BERTRAM FALLE: If the great Dominions and other dependencies are not excepted why should the Channel Islands be?
Sir J. GILMOUR: After this controversy over my unfortunate body perhaps I may be allowed to develop my own argument. If I were completely tied down by the Amendment, I do not think it would be a workable proposition. Clearly, in dealing with a question like that of potatoes, there is the possibility of increasing the quantity of our early potatoes, but if it be demanded of the Minister that in no circumstances shall he make an Order unless he is at that period completely satisfied that there is going to be an increased production of these early potatoes over what exists at that moment, obviously the Minister could not make such a statement, or, if he made it, I should be very doubtful of his position. It is clear that we must have latitude in this matter. I admit that a great deal of what one would have to decide in issuing these Orders is bound to be a matter of opinion. The Minister's opinion would be based upon the best information which the Government Department could secure from the market at the time and from the records of the past, and this House could look as critically as it pleased at an Order when it was made. In all these matters we are dealing with a Measure which is to last for only a year. It is introduced as an emergency Measure. It is directed to encouraging the production in this country of some of these early vegetables, and to giving our own people an opportunity which they have a right to demand. In the circumstances I am unable to accept the Amendment.
Mr. GROVES: I am greatly surprised at the speech of the Minister. I imagined that he would readily accept the Amendment, if he really had any faith in the statements of those who advocate tariffs in this country. As I understand them, the advocates of a tariff say that one of the results of putting on a protective duty is to increase home production. The charge that a tariff will increase prices and send up costs to the consumer has often been met by Protectionists with the reply, "But you forget that by putting on a tariff your industry at home will increase, your home market will increase,

1727
your overhead charges will be less, your unit costs will be reduced, and there will be no increase in price." The Amendment merely applies to the Bill the test of the tariffists themselves. The Amendment says that before this duty is imposed it is necessary to be sure that there will be an increase in production. I thought that the Protectionist was always confident that a tariff would increase production, and as a result would keep more people in employment. Now the Minister refuses to apply his own principles. He shakes his head, but it is within the recollection of the House that he has said during this Debate that this Bill will increase production in this country, as far as the commodities included in the Bill are concerned. We ask him to be true to his own principles. Even the preamble of the Bill contains almost the very words of the Amendment. The Preamble says:
"The production of which in the United Kingdom can be increased."
It is admitted, therefore, that production can be increased in the United Kingdom. We are seeking to put that into the Clause, and yet the Minister has not enough faith in his own tariff gospel to apply the very test which Protectionists have asked us over and over again to accept. We have been told that there is a crisis, a tremendous emergency in this country, that the country is toppling over the precipice, and yet yesterday and to-day we have had one of the sparsest attendances I have ever seen in the House. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) and others charged us yesterday with not being sympathetic to agriculture. They told us that they were the party who had the interests of agriculture at heart. Yet yesterday we had a count and this afternoon we have had a count. It shows the cynicism of hon. Members when they cannot attend even in an emergency to discuss this great industry of agriculture. This is a fiddlers' Bill. If Rome is burning this House is fiddling at the moment. In a state of grave emergency we are dealing with carrots and turnips and asparagus. Could anything be more ridiculous?
The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that this is not the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. GROVES: I have only one other point to make. One thing that strikes me in the Bill as important is that it marks a distinct change in the policy of this country as far as industry is concerned. I always thought that the way to prosperity was by expansion, by increased production. It has been our proud boast in the past that British industry has developed, that our markets have extended, that our production has increased, and that progress means increased production. Here are a Bill and a Clause which reverse the whole of that doctrine, and British agriculture in this instance, and British industry in general, are now being forced to accept a policy of restriction and of scarcity. The right hon. Gentleman stands for a policy of restriction and curtailment. "Less, scarcity, increased prices, more costly living for the workers and consumers"—that is the policy of the Bill and of the Clause—scarcity in order to save the agricultural industry. "Let us have less and less, and higher prices. Let us make the cost of living dear, let us have scarcity instead of abundance, dearness instead of cheapness"—that is the policy of the Bill. I say to the Minister and those who support him, "Oh, ye of little faith!" If they had the faith that the Bill would increase home production why do they not accept the Amendment? As a matter of fact they know that it will not increase home production. They are afraid of the results of their own policy. They are running away from their own principles. This is a tariff Government. I admit that it has the right to bring in tariffs if it so desires. I do not know about the Liberals.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss that question on this Amendment.
Mr. GROVES: I want to ask the Minister again quite nicely and sympathetically to accept the Amendment. Let us have an exhibition of courage. Let us on this side feel that the Protectionists as a party and the Protectionist Minister of Agriculture are not afraid to have in black and white on the Statute Book that this Bill will increase home production, that it shall not become operative unless it does increase home production, that the Minister knows it will increase production and that unem-

1729
ployment will become less, and that because there will be increased home production prices will not be raised. Let us see him here and now prepared to accept the whole of the principles of the tariffists, and to stand firmly by them, with flag flying, in support of the Protectionist policy of the Tory party.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has made a Second Reading speech into which I do not propose to follow him further than to say that the Bill is a good beginning in dealing with agriculture. I was very glad to hear the Minister say that he could not accept this Amendment. It seems highly desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should have as free a hand as possible particularly in the interests of providing employment. I intervene in order to say a word on behalf of the nurserymen in my constituency of Windsor and in the districts of Wycombe and Farnham. These nurseries already give a large amount of employment and by the judicious use of this Measure that employment might be greatly increased. When we come to deal with the Schedule, I hope it will be possible to get the Minister's assurance that the items mentioned therein will be interpreted as widely as possible. I should like to ask him in particular if he can extend the item of foliage so as to include such products as shrubs, ornamental trees and herbaceous and Alpine plants and fruit trees. If he could do so, it would greatly increase employment in the nurseries which I have mentioned. I feel satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman is taking the proper course in refusing to accept this Amendment.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not responded to the appeal which has been made to him. If he really believes in the terms of the Preamble he has no alternative but to accept the Amendment. It is perfectly obvious that despite the protestations of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) to the effect that the Bill is going to create a tremendous amount of employment in certain parts of the country, the right hon. Gentleman himself has no faith that it is going to provide any employ-
1730
ment at all. The Preamble includes these words:
"With a view to reducing the importation into the United Kingdom of certain classes of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and other horticultural products, the production of which in the United Kingdom can be increased."
Why should he include those words in the Preamble and then shy at the words of the Amendment which are practically the same? The explanation is perhaps to be found in Clause 1 of the Bill. The Preamble is a very nice and ingenious demonstration to the horticulturists of the country, but in the very first line of Clause 1 the Minister takes power to supersede the terms of that Preamble absolutely and entirely. Clause 1 provides:
"If the Minister … considers that it is desirable to do so, he may … by order apply this Act."
He may or he may not. Apparently he can ignore the Preamble. Because of that fact the right hon. Gentleman ought not to hesitate to accept the Amendment. If he believes that certain articles are luxuries and ought to be kept out, we do not object. If on the other hand he feels that the imposition of duties on these articles will create more employment, then he ought not to object to the Amendment. It was obvious from the speech that the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich had not been present during the earlier Debates on this Bill, or else that he had, unfortunately, failed to understand many of the arguments which were submitted. May I recall to him the intention and purpose of the Bill as explained by the Minister himself. The Minister says he wants to secure an improvement in our adverse balance of trade. Therefore he brings forward a Bill giving himself power to impose duties on certain imported fruits, vegetables, flowers and so forth. He proceeds to say, in effect, that imported potatoes from Algeria at 3¾d. a lb. are luxuries and that a duty must be imposed upon them which will make it impossible to import them in future. He is going to keep out Algerian potatoes at 3¾d. a lb. and Spanish potatoes at 3d. a lb. as luxuries, but he is going to continue to permit the importation of new potatoes from the Channel Islands at 10¼d. a lb.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the question of these potatoes is a matter which might be better discussed on the schedule.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I quite agree, but I think the point which I was about to make has some relevancy to the Amendment. We suggest in the Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman ought to assure himself and the Committee that the Bill is going to create more employment. We say that the mere process of keeping out certain articles will not in itself create more employment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether new potatoes are to be grown in this country to be available in January, February or March and if so what amount of employment would be required to produce those potatoes. It is to be remembered that new potatoes constitute an important item in the Schedule. We want to be assured, if the Amendment is not accepted, that we are not going to keep out Algerian and Spanish potatoes at 3d. and increase the importation from the Channel Islands of potatoes at 10¼d. To do so will not help to secure a favourable balance of trade. It will be to encourage luxury imports instead of discouraging them and it is not calculated to create any more trade in this country.
The Minister will have power under the Bill to prohibit importation or to impose duties up to 100 per cent. in the case of tomatoes. Is the mere process of doing so going to find employment in this country? If he thinks so, why does he not accept the Amendment? We had an experience last year which ought to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. The available supplies of strawberries were then about 50 per cent. of the normal quantity. Surely if the Minister thinks that the Bill is going to have any effect in providing more employment in the production of strawberries, he ought to accept the Amendment. But we are obliged to conclude that as regards luxuries, only the 3¾d. potato is a luxury while the 10¼d. potato is a necessity and that tomatoes imported between January and April at 4d. to 5d. a pound are also to be regarded as luxuries.
The Preamble to the Bill ought to indicate the intention of the Government. Having given the Minister the powers which he seeks, we ought to have a defi-
1732
nite guarantee from him either that more employment will be found in this country, or that he will not impose duties, such as would increase the cost of living, on any of the articles of necessity embodied in the Schedule. We would have more confidence in the result of the Bill if the Minister would see the wisdom of accepting our Amendment. The Bill may find more work in the Channel Islands, but it will not find any more work here. It may help to enrich a few people in the Channel Islands, but it will not help the financial position of this country and in the absence of the words proposed by the Amendment we have no confidence in these proposals.
Sir B. FALLE: I should like to correct one or two statements made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), doubtless in all good faith, but in which he is mistaken. He referred to potatoes from the Norman Islands at 100 a pound. As a matter of fact, such potatoes are not imported in any considerable quantity, but are sent here by parcels post. They are grown under glass and there is no earthly reason why they should not be grown under glass in this country in the same way and if they were grown in the same way in this country, it would give more employment here. I can assure the hon. Member from personal knowledge that such is the case. The same remark applies to tomatoes. All the early tomatoes which come to this country from the Norman Islands are grown under glass and there again, no earthly reason exists why they should not be grown under glass in this country. That would also give more employment here. If there is increased production here, market gardeners must employ labour. It seems to me that a large part of the hon. Member's argument relating to potatoes and tomatoes and such like, which come here from the Norman Islands is based on a mistaken view—
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the hon. Member does not object to the figures recorded in the Minister's own departmental document. Should any of the figures in the return relative to any of these articles be wrong, we accept no responsibility for them. We only state them as we find them here.
Sir B. FALLE: I wish to point out to the hon. Member the fact that in regard to the potatoes to which he has referred as corning from the Norman Islands, it is not a question of tons. As I say they are sent here by parcels post in a form which is a speciality of the Islands. They are sent by those growers whose farms never exceed 25 acres who have the wisdom to grow them under glass and there is nothing to prevent them being grown in the same way on this side. The bulk of outdoor grown potatoes do not fetch 1½d. per pound. As regards the price of 10¼d. a pound, it is absurd to suggest that any Considerable quantity of potatoes is imported at that price. In no case is as much as half a ton of potatoes in one lot sold at that price. Why, if it were found that potatoes could be grown under glass in this country to be sold at £100 a ton, the gold mines of Johannesburg would not be in it with such an enterprise. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures he gave must have been for pounds, not tons and they only affect the small grower, who never owns more than 20 acres of land in the Islands, and whose produce is grown, as I say, under glass.
Major BRAITHWAITE: I want to thank the Minister for resisting this Amendment. The Opposition always try to block anything that savours of industrial progress. In any matter of Protection, they always demand some sort of safeguards; even though they have in front of them the ridiculous failure of their own Free Trade policy. I am particularly sorry to find that one of the
Yorkshire Members in the Labour party has taken such an active part in opposing this Measure. The farmers in his constituency expect him to look after them, not to oppose them, and I am very glad indeed that the Minister has told them plainly that the Government will not tolerate any nonsense of this sort. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he can definitely give us a proper definition of when a potato is new and when it is old.
The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which should be addressed to the Minister later on.
Major BRAITHWAITE: I hope the Minister, in resisting the Amendment, is also going to use the utmost vigour in prosecuting this Measure in every possible way, that the powers which he is taking will be used in a very strong way, and that we shall find immediate results. Our potato growers, particularly in Yorkshire, do not want to find themselves subject, as they were two years ago, to having to store their potatoes and then finding that they could not even get the amount of money required to cart them to the station. That was the ridiculous position in which the past Government, with their Free Trade tenets, placed our farmers, and now that we are going to remedy the situation, I hope the Opposition will alter their view when they see the beneficial results of this Measure.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 37.

Division No. 34.]

AYES.

[5.19 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

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

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Browne, Captain A. C.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Buchan, John

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Albery, Irving James

Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th, Centr'l)

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'I, W.)

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Burghley, Lord

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'K'nh'd, W)

Bernays, Robert

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Burnett, John George

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

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Butler, Richard Austen

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Apsley, Lord

Borodale, Viscount

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Aske, Sir William Robert

Bossom, A. C.

Carver, Major William H.

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Boulton, W. W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Bowater, Col. Sir T, Vansittart

Castle Stewart, Earl

Atholl, Duchess of

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

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

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Braithwalte, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. SirJ. A.(Birm.,W)

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

Balniel, Lord

Broadbent, Colonel John

Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Chotzner, Alfred James

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Patrick, Colin M.

Christie, James Archibald

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Pearson, William G.

Clarke, Frank

Hepworth, Joseph

Peat, Charles U.

Clarry, Reginald George

Herbert, George (Rotherham)

Penny, Sir George

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Percy, Lord Eustace

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Colfox, Major William Philip

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Petherick, M.

Colville, Major David John

Hornby, Frank

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

Cook, Thomas A.

Horobin, Ian M.

Pickering, Ernest H.

Cooper, A. Duff

Horsbrugh, Florence

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L

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

Potter, John

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Power, Sir John Cecil

Craven-Ellis, William

Hurd, Percy A.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.(M'tr'se)

Purbrick, R.

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

Pybus, Percy John

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

James, Wing-Com. A, W, H.

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Cross, R. H.

Jamieson, Douglas

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Crossley, A. C.

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Ramsbotham, Herswald

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colenel Bernard

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Ramsden, E.

Curry, A. C.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Rankin, Robert

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Ker, J. Campbell

Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Rea, Walter Russell

Davison, Sir William Henry

Kimball, Lawrence

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Denville, Alfred

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Remer, John R.

Dickie, John P.

Knebworth, Viscount

Rentoul Sir Gervals S,

Donner, P. W,

Knight, Holford

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Doran, Edward

Knox, Sir Alfred

Robinson, John Roland

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Drewe, Cedric

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Ropner, Colonel L.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Law, Sir Alfred

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodoridge)

Duqgan, Hubert John

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Rothschild, James L. de

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Leckie, J. A.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Dunnlass, Lord

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Eady, George H.

Lees-Jones, John

Runne, Norah Cecil

Eden, Robert Anthony

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Ednam, Viscount

Levy, Thomas

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Lewis, Oswald

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Llewellin, Major John J.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Salt, Edward W.

Elmley, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

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

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

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

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Mabane, William

Savery, Samuel Servington

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Scone, Lord

Fermoy, Lord

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

McEwen, J. H. F.

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Flanagan, W. H.

McKeag, William

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

McKie, John Hamilton

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

McLean, Major Alan

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Cornll N.)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

Magnay, Thomas

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Cot. Sir M.

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

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Marjoribanks, Edward

Smithers, Waldron

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

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Glosson, C. W. H.

Millar, James Duncan

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Mills, Sir Frederick

Soper, Richard

Golf, Sir Park

Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'damp; Chisw'k)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Gower, Sir Robert

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Mitcheson, G. G.

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Graves, Marjorie

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Moreing, Adrian C.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Grimston, R. V.

Morgan, Robert H.

Stones, James

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

Strauss, Edward A.

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

Morrison, William Shephard

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & ZetI'nd)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Hanbury, Cecil

Munro, Patrick

Summersby, Charles H.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

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

Hertland, George A.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

Normand, Willrld Guild

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

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

Nunn, William

Thompson, Luke

Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

O'Connor, Terence James

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Ormlston, Thomas

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

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

Palmer, Francis Noel

Train, John

1736

1737

Turton, Robert Hugh

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Wells, Sydney Richard

Womersley, Walter James

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Weymouth, Viscount

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

White, Henry Graham

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Wills, Willrid D.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Wayland, Sir William A.

Wise, Alfred R.

Mr. Shakespeare and Lord Erskine.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Griffiths, T, (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maxton, James

Batey, Joseph

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

Milner, Major James

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Price, Gabriel

Buchanan, George

Hirst, George Henry

Rathbone, Eleanor

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kirkwood, David

Tinker, John Joseph

Cove, William G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hen. George

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Daggar, George

Leonard, William

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Edwards, Charles

Lunn, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McGovern, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Is there any Rule of the House that precludes a Member from giving a vote in the Opposition Lobby when Members are going through the Government Lobby?
5.30 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN: I think that I can explain to the hors. Member what happened to him. The operation of voting consists of two parts, one, getting into the Lobby, and the other, getting out of the Lobby. The hon. Member, I think, failed in the first part. The difficulty for Government supporters is getting in. Getting out is easy enough.
Mr. JONES: That is all very nice and fine, but is there not some time allowed, in the case of a huge majority, for the other Members of the House to give their votes?
The CHAIRMAN: The Rules of the House provide for the doors of the Lobbies being locked after a certain time. I understand that there is more than the usual accommodation in the Lobby which the lion. Member uses.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the. Clause stand part of the Bill."
Viscount WOLMER: I wish to raise a point on this Clause, because it seems to be the only point in the Bill where it can be raised. It is a point of some importance. In Clause 1, Sub-section (2), and subsequent Sub-sections, it is provided that when the Minister makes an Order it requires the assent of this House but not of the other House. It is laid down in Sub-section (3) that
1738
"an order so made may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in the like manner subject to the like provisions."
I take that to mean that if the Minister wishes to amend the Order in any respect, he has to bring it again to this House, and on the decision of this House rests whether the Order shall be amended or revoked. I take it that it is the view of the Government that this is a money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, and that therefore the other House has no right to be consulted in regard to Orders made under it. I understand that Mr. Speaker has given a certificate in the case of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act that it is a money Bill, and it is to be presumed that he will give a certificate in the case of this Bill also. That being the case, I do not wish to complain on a technical score about the procedure which the Government have adopted in this Bill. In so much as it is only a temporary Measure which is to expire in a year's time, I have no complaint of substance to make in regard to this point. We on this side of the Committee, however, hope very much that before this Session is over we shall have a permanent Act dealing with importations of agricultural produce and embodying the Government's agricultural policy, or a very large part of it. If that be the case, I hope that my right hon. Friend will so draft that Bill that any Orders made under it will he subject to review in another place as well as in this House.
I urge that for this reason. Although this Bill may be technically a money Bill, it goes very much beyond what Parlia-

1739
ment meant when it defined a Money Bill in the Parliament Act. A money Bill as there defined is primarily a Bill to raise taxes. The primary object of this Bill is not to raise taxes, but to give protection to certain classes of British agriculture. Therefore, it raises great questions of policy in which the other House has as much right to be consulted as this House. There is the further point, which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will appreciate, that, if his agricultural policy is to be successful, one of the most necessary conditions is that there shall be a quality of permanence and of security about it. I remember that when my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council announced about 18 months ago his acceptance of the policy of the guaranteed price for wheat, he laid special emphasis on the necessity of getting that policy in a form which would be permanent and not subject to sudden reversals like the Corn Production Act. If the agricultural policy of the Government can be reversed by a vote merely of this House, you are sacrificing one of the great elements of security and permanence which our Constitution still provides.
Therefore, I have risen at this point to express the hope that the Minister of Agriculture will not regard this provision in Clause 1 as a precedent for any further Bill that may take the place of this Bill when it expires. It is absolutely essential for the success of any agricultural policy that the farmers should feel that they have security in regard to its provisions. It is the object of my right hon. Friend and of his supporters here to get increased agricultural production in this country. That necessitates the employment of further capital, and, in regard to the Bill which we are now considering, for instance, the building of more glasshouses. I hope that a great deal of fresh capital will come into the industry as a result of the Bill and give employment in other trades as well as in agriculture. But that result cannot possibly be achieved unless those who are considering embarking their capital have some security that the policy on which this Bill is based will not be reversed in five years time by a vote of what may be a transient majority in this House, such as we had in the last Parliament. There-
1740
fore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of this, because I am sure that it is a point to which the National Farmers Union and farmers generally will attach the greatest importance. We are not yet living under single chamber Government, and I hope that this Clause will not set any unfortunate precedent in that respect.
Mr. HARRIS: I quite agree with the Noble Lord and I hope, from another point of view, that the Minister will not regard the Bill as a precedent, for I think that it is a thoroughly bad precedent. I also agree with the Noble Lord that it goes far beyond the Parliament Act, for the framers of that Act never thought that a Minister would be given power to levy taxes by an Act of Parliament. I have great faith in the benevolence and sound constitutional position of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, and, if we are to have taxes imposed by the Minister of Agriculture, he is as safe a man with his Scottish caution as we could have. The suggestion now, however, is that the House of Lords is to butt in and have a share in this taxing. The purpose of this Bill is to levy taxes at the Customs House or by giving monopolies to or opportunities for farmers to raise prices by eliminating competition. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is impossible at this stage to divulge what he intends to do as it would prevent what he wishes to carry out. The Committee will agree that we have in the right hon. Gentleman the personification of modesty, a man of probity and a man whom we can trust, and I am going to ask him a simple question. Has he any idea of the rate of tax which he intends to levy under these powers? That is a very reasonable question. We know that the President of the Board of Trade fixed his tax at 60 per cent. He had very good reason for not telling the House what he intended to do, because the object of his Bill was to prevent forestalling. This Bill is not intended to prevent that. It deals with perishable articles, and it is quite impossible in the case of cherries, cabbages, or broccoli or whatever is to be taxed to forestall. The right hon. Gentleman must have some idea of the sort of tax he is going to impose. Is he going to vary it according to the country from which the articles come, or according to

1741
the articles to be taxed? On what principle is he going to levy his tax? We are entitled to know that before we depart from this Clause.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that arises on Clause 1.
Mr. HARRIS: Clause 1 provides that these Orders shall cease to have effect at the expiration of 28 days, and I assume that the farming community will want some guidance as early as possible as to how the taxes will be levied and how they are to be announced, so that they can get ready to produce the crops that hitherto were imported. For instance, tomatoes require glass-houses to be constructed—
The CHAIRMAN: These points should be raised on the Schedule, and not on Clause 1.
Mr. HARRIS: I do not want to discuss the articles but to raise the simple point as to how the taxes are to be announced, when, what amount, and how much notice the importers are to receive on the one hand, and, what is more important, how much notice the producers are to receive on the other band. Agriculturists will have to make up leeway for the shortage of supplies which will be consequent on the levying of the tax, and they must have reasonable warning. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that you cannot provide glass-houses or provide for new crops without many months' notice. This Bill is for only 12 months; it provides for emergency Customs duties; and, if it is to be effective in its working to help agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman should not wait for the Recess, but immediately announce the rate of taxes, how they are to be imposed and when they are to be imposed, so that the farming community can get to work to produce the necessary crops, and so that the supply should be available. I understand that currant bushes have to be planted—well, I am, not sure whether it is not too late to plant them now. The Noble Lord, who is an expert in agriculture, will tell us whether it is too late. In the small garden plot which I have we put in our currant bushes in the autumn. [Interruption.] I am told that now is the time.
The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether the hon. Member has already made this speech, but he ought to have done so on Second Reading.
Mr. HARRIS: I am only pressing the Minister with regard to the word "now"—the time. I wish the Minister to announce his taxes at once, before we part with this Clause. If he will do that he will be helping agriculture, helping to protect consumers, and helping his Bill to work.
Sir J. GILMOUR: I would say, in reply to the Noble Lord, that the procedure which is being followed in this case is exactly the same procedure as was applied by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in connection with an earlier Measure, and I believe it is correct to say that this will be a Money Bill. I am, of course, very sensible of the fact that in another place there are many Noble Lords who are intimately connected with agriculture, whose interest in the matter is considerable, but under our procedure we must carry out the steps in the way we are carrying them out. With regard to what the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) said, I shall divulge these Orders as soon as I have the authority of Parliament to do so. He has invited me to do something which is quite contrary to Parliamentary usage. I cannot promise to make the announcement before this House rises, because probably the Measure will not receive Parliamentary authority until the last moment.
Mr. HARRIS: Cannot you give us a hint?
Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. A hint is often not entirely correct, and, in my view, it would be unwise to say anything.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman rebuking the Noble Lord. I have always thought the Noble Lord had never read the whole of this Measure, otherwise he would not have put to the Minister the question which he did. If he will turn to page 4, he will find it stated quite clearly that the Measure is to continue in force for 12 months, and no longer. He assumes that this Government is a stable Government, that it has a great deal of per-

1743
manency about it. I am very pleased for once in a while to see that the Liberal party in the person of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) are waking up to the realities of the situation. In Clause 1 the right hon. Gentleman is taking the powers that are necessary for administering this Bill. Last evening he let drop one or two statements which are very important in connection with this Clause. Before we pass the Clause, we are entitled to know from him what he meant by those statements. He said:
"I have discussed with them, in a perfectly amicable frame of mind and with, I hope, mutual advantage, seine of the aspects of these problems, the problem of the tomatoes we get from the Canary Islands, or the early potatoes we get from Spain, or the other goods which come from Holland, Belgium or France."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December. 1931; col. 1638, Vol. 260.]
We are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what progress he has made with representatives of foreign countries who came here, presumably, on account of this Bill being before us. There is another point which I do not think I can raise in a general way except on Clause 1. At the period of the year when this country is not producing commodities available for consumption is it intended to impose a duty on similar commodities from foreign countries at that time?
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is too late. He should have raised this point on Second Reading.
Mr. DAVIES: I bow to your Ruling, but I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman introduced these points into his speech last evening, and I thought this would be the only opportunity I should have of dealing with them, because Clause 1 is intended primarily as the governing Clause of the Bill. One thing the Committee ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman is whether he hopes to increase the horticultural products of this country by the imposition of these duties. When the Noble Lord told us this afternoon that another place ought to have a determining voice on this issue, I was very pleased indeed to hear the democratic sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am also pleased to see for once in a way two prominent Liberal Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I have been pointing out all along that we
1744
have not had a fair representation of the Government in the conduct of this Bill. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us, at any rate, what progress he has made in the negotiations he has had with foreign countries with regard to these duties?
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot allow that question to be gone into here. Even though this is one of the most important Clauses of the Bill, the hon. Member cannot be allowed to make a Second Reading speech.
Mr. COVE: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this Clause in a very inadequate manner. He confined himself to generalities. An hon. Member opposite seemed to be missing the whole point of the Clause when he was pleading for democracy. It is too late in the day to plead for democracy. This Clause establishes a dictatorship in the Ministry of Agriculture, and I can see the right hon. Gentleman enjoying himself in the role of farmer dictator, especially during the festive season which we are about, I hope, to enjoy. As he is going to be a dictator, I do not expect him to give us details, to say whether he will impose a duty of 50 per cent. or 80 per cent., but we have not had from him any general indication of the principles upon which he will act. There is a phrase in the Bill which empowers him to impose these duties as he may think "desirable." As far as I can see, he can impose duties on whatever things he wishes, and the amount of the duty may depend on how he is feeling when he gets up in the morning. If he is in a happy frame of mind he will let the consumers off lightly, but if he rises in A bad frame of mind the consumers will "get it in the neck." High duties when he gets up bad tempered, and low duties when he is in a nice mood.
We are giving very wide and dangerous powers to the Minister, and genial though the right hon. Gentleman may be, and is, we ought not to part with this Clause without some definite indication as to the principles upon which he will act. I do not think any Member of the Committee has the slightest idea whether the Minister will base his action on statistics as to production in foreign countries, or upon the statistics of production in this country, upon the statistics of pre-

1745
vious years or upon what. We are left in a complete fog, and out of courtesy the right hon. Gentleman ought to let us know what is in his mind. We ought to press him to tell us exactly what is behind the word "desirable." If he does so, I am sure it will help us to come to a more reasonable decision when we go into the Lobby. I repeat that I do not expect him to take the Committee completely into his confidence. I should not expect a dictator to do that, because it would be alien to the spirit and methods of a dictatorship to take a democratic assembly into confidence on minute details, but we may as well keep up the semblance of being a democracy. We have been elected, and I presume that the supporters of the National Government regard themselves as part of the democracy. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman at least to let us know the general principles upon which he will act in applying this Bill.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I very respectfully raise with you, Sir Dennis, the point which you decided against my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)? Sub-section (1) of this Clause says that the Minister, if he considers it desirable so to do,
"may, with the concurrence of the Treasury, by order apply this Act to any article of any of the descriptions set out in the Schedule to this Act."
My hon. Friend wanted to know from the Minister how he would decide what was desirable, and I understood you to rule that that could not be raised on the Clause. I respectfully suggest that we are entitled to discuss the Clause, and to ask the Minister to explain it to us. I would like to have your Ruling.
The CHAIRMAN: I have no recollection of giving quite such a Ruling as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but when it came to a question of arguments in favour of or against making an Order applying to certain articles then I said, and I still say, that the time to raise that is on the Schedule, where the particular articles are set out.
Mr. LANSBURY: I understood you—or I may have misunderstood you—to say that the point raised by my hon. Friend was not in order. He was asking how the Minister would decide when it was desirable to make an Order. Will it be
1746
when he has convinced himself that there is enough of a certain article in a country, or that there is too much of it in the country On what basis will he decide whether a thing is desirable or not? I understood you to rule that that could be discussed only on Second Reading.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. The hon. Member was referring to other matters. The point which the right hon. Gentleman is now raising is quite in order.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Minister of Agriculture tell us the basis on which he thinks it is desirable to make an Order? Will it be the price at which the articles will be sold? I think it is important that we should know what the right hon. Gentleman considers is desirable and what is undesirable, and before we part with this Clause we ought to have an answer to that question. I do not want to argue this point at any length, but I would like an answer to the question as to what is the basis upon which the Minister is going to determine that an Order is necessary?
Mr. COVE: We ought to be clear as to the general intention of the Minister. We ought to be told when an Order is desirable and when it is undesirable.
Sir J. GILMOUR: I can understand the anxiety of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to draw me upon this subject. I fully explained all these points on the Second Reading when I stated fully the intention of the Government in dealing with this problem. The administration and the issuing of an Order must be determined by the responsible Minister, after the fullest consideration of every kind of representations made to him. Of course, f cannot go into details until I have determined what the Order is to be, how it is to work, and for what period. It is a limited period in any case. I shall be prepared to give the fullest details when I bring an Order to this House, which I shall do on the first opportunity, as is provided for in the Measure, and that will provide an opportunity for the discussion of these points.
Mr. COVE: No.
Sir J. GILMOUR: The fact remains that I shall have the responsibility of issuing the Order, and I shall give a full explanation when I bring the Order before the House.
Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand what we are asking for. We want to be quite sure that the Minister will not consider the making of an Order unless he is convinced that there is an abundant supply of commodities at a reasonable price—I am referring to articles used largely by the working people. We want to be told by the Minister that that is the basis upon which he will decide whether to issue an Order or not. That is a very simple question, and it is one which should not be postponed. It is a matter of principle.
Sir J. GILMOUR: It is impossible, at this stage, to go into the details as to what I shall do in regard to this or that particular commodity. I shall have to take into account not only the question of supplies, and the nature of the commodity, but whether it is a pure luxury or partly a luxury. It would be unfair to go into all those details now, and say what I shall do until I have had an opportunity of consulting with those concerned and of making up my mind.
Mr. MANDER: I want to know whether it is desirable that the administrative authority for issuing these Orders should rest with the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that a Measure of this kind is in charge of the Minister of Agriculture, but there are a good many interests which feel that it would be desirable to place the administration of this Measure in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade, because there is a feeling that the Minister of Agriculture is too closely interested, and is too much under the influence of the Farmers' Union and bodies of producers of that kind. It is felt that the interests of the consumers are not likely to receive the same sympathetic consideration from the Minister as the producers. This point has been put to me by those representing industrial areas which are going to be affected by this Measure. I ask the Minister if he has considered this point, and whether he thinks it might not be possible to introduce an Amendment—
The CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the point with which he is dealing has already been settled by the House is the Financial Resolution, and that point cannot be further discussed on this Amendment.
Mr. MANDER: Will the Minister of Agriculture be good enough to tell the Committee, that before issuing these Orders he will consult the President of the Board of Trade, because that would give an assurance to the country that the point of view of the consumer as well as the interests of the producer would be considered?
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I do not object to the Minister of Agriculture issuing these Orders on personal grounds, but I object on other grounds. I do not know that it would be a much better safeguard if the Minister did consult the President of the Board of Trade, who knows much more about shipping. The President of the Board of Trade is no longer a member of the Liberal party, and I do not know that we trust him any more than we trust the Minister of Agriculture. There is a good deal involved in the question which has been put to the Minister by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I do not think there is much to choose between the two Ministers. Much as we dislike the policy of the President of the Board of Trade, and much as we detest all his political associations, we are prepared to accept him as the best Minister for dealing with such hopeless propositions as those which are raised in this Bill.
Mr. HARRIS: The President of the Board of Trade is responsible for dealing with food prices which come under his supervision, and we want these orders to be considered from the point of view of the consumer. For this reason, I think it is advisable that the President of the Board of Trade, as the protector of food prices, should be consulted before any Order is made.
Mr. COVE: I could not allow this Debate to pass without commenting on the plight of the Liberal party—
The CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 350; Noes, 39.

Division No. 35.]

AYES.

[6.12 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Copeland, Ida

Herbert, George (Rotherham)

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Albery, Irving James

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Hornby, Frank

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Horobin, Ian M.

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

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Cross, R. H.

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Crossley, A. C.

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

Apsley, Lord

Curry, A. C.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Aske, Sir William Robert

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)

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

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Atholl, Duchess of

Davison, Sir William Henry

Hurd, Percy A.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Denville, Alfred

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.(Montr'se)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Dickie, John P.

Iveagh, Countess of

Balniel, Lord

Donner, P. W.

James, Wing-Com, A. W. H.

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Doran, Edward

Jamieson, Douglas

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Drewe, Cedric

Jennings, Roland

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Duckworth, George A. V.

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Duggan, Hubert John

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

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

Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)

Dunglass, Lord

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Eady, George H.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Eden, Robert Anthony

Ker, J. Campbell

Bernays, Robert

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Kimball, Lawrence

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Blinded, James

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Elmley, Viscount

Knight, Holford

Borodale, Viscount

Emmoll, Charles E. G. C.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Bossom, A. C.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Law, Sir Alfred

Boyce, H. Leslie

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Leckie, J. A.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Lees-Jones, John

Briscoe, Richard George

Fermoy, Lord

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Levy, Thomas

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Flanagan, W. H.

Lewis, Oswald

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Llewellin, Major John J.

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

Fraser, Captain Ian

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Browne, Captain A. C.

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Buchan, John

Ganzoni, Sir John

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Burghley, Lord

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

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Glossop, C. W. H.

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Burnett, John George

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Mabane, William

Burton, Colonel Henry Waiter

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Butler, Richard Austen

Goldie, Noel B.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Butt, Sir Alfred

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

McEwen, J. H. F.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Gower, Sir Robert

McKeag, William

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

McKie, John Hamilton

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Graves, Marjorie

McLean, Major Alan

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Grimston, R. V.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Carver, Major William H.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Magnay, Thomas

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Maitland, Adam

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

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

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Hanbury, Cecil

Marjoribanks, Edward

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Blrm., W)

Hanley, Dennis A.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Martin, Thomas B.

Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

Hartland, George A.

Merriman, Sr. F. Boyd

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edlnburgh, S.)

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Millar, James Duncan

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

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

Mills, Sir Frederick

Chotzner, Alfred James

Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-

Christie, James Archibald

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

Clarry, Reginald George

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Morgan, Robert H.

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

Morrison, William Shephard

Colfox, Major William Philip

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Colville, Major David John

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Munro, Patrick

Cook, Thomas A.

Hepworth, Joseph

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

Runge, Norah Cecil

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

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Nunn, William

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

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

O'Connor, Terence James

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Thompson, Luke

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Salmon, Major Isidore

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Palmer, Francis Noel

Salt, Edward W.

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Patrick, Colin M.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Pearson, William G.

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

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Peat, Charles U.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Train, John

Penny, Sir George

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Turton, Robert Hugh

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

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

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Petherick, M.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston}

Scone, Lord

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Pickering, Ernest H.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Potter, John

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Power, Sir John Cecil

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Wayland, Sir William A.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

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

Wells, Sydney Richard

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Weymouth, Viscount

Ramsbotham, Herswald

Smithers, Waldron

White, Henry Graham

Ramsden, E.

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Rankin, Robert

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Soper, Richard

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Rea, Walter Russell

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T, E.

Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George

Reed, Arthur c. (Exeter)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Wise, Alfred R.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Remer, John R.

Stones, James

Womersley, Walter James

Rentoul Sir Gervals S.

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Strauss, Edward A.

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff}

Robinson, John Roland

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Summersby, Charles H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Sutcliffe, Harold

Mr. Shakespeare and Lord Erskine.

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grunoy, Thomas W.

Maxton, James

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Milner, Major James

Batey, Joseph

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Price, Gabriel

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hirst, George Henry

Rathbone, Eleanor

Buchanan, George

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cape, Thomas

Kirkwood, David

Tinker, John Joseph

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Cove, William G.

Lawson, John James

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Daggar, George

Leonard, William

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Edwards, Charles

Lunn, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

McGovern, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Groves, Thomas E.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

CLAUSE 2.—(Charge of Customs duties on articles to which, this Act applies.)
Mr. ATTLEE: On a, point of Order. I should like to ask your Ruling, Sir Dennis, with regard to the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—in page 2, line 36, after the word "the," to insert the word "average." I understand that you consider that that might increase the charge, and would, therefore, be out of Order, and I should like to submit one or two points to you. In the first place, I suggest that, in dealing with the strict rule against increasing the charge, one has to look rather closely at the precedents, because this method of taxation
1752
is quite unprecedented. Formerly we have always been dealing with something quite definite—a definite tax of a definite amount or of a definite percentage, and a definite time. In this case we are giving power to put on a tax up to 100 per cent., and, therefore, there is not the same exactitude about the tax as we have been accustomed to.
My second point is that the Amendment would make an alteration in the method of valuation, and I submit that it is impossible to say that a change in the basis of valuation, from one year to the average of a number of years would necessarily increase the charge. It would depend on the facts in any case—facts which are not ascertained—whether it

1753
would or would not increase the charge. It is an alteration of the method of valuation. If I might instance as a precedent an Amendment moved by yourself—though I do not know whether it is fair to quote to the gamekeeper an Amendment which he moved at the time when he was a poacher—I would remind you that you moved an Amendment to the Finance Bill last summer proposing that the Land Value Tax should be charged, not in respect of the year 1934, but in such financial year as Parliament might hereafter determine. You were yourself doubtful in regard to that Amendment, because you realised that it might be applied at a time when it increased the charge or at a time when it lowered the charge. In fact, you said:
"I know that this is an alteration which could not be made except at the instance of the Government and that it would necessitate a further Financial Resolution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1931; col. 839, Vol. 253.]
You moved the Amendment in a particular form, because you wanted it discussed, and, although there was the possibility, under your Amendment as it stood, of a hypothetical increase in the charge if the tax were in respect of the year 1933 instead of 1934, your Amendment was allowed to be moved, because I imagine it was not contested that it dealt with the principle of the method of valuation. I submit that, if we are going to have a number of Bills of this kind coming forward, we shall be extremely hampered in discussing them if any Amendment dealing with the method of valuation is to be ruled out of order on the mere hypothesis that it might increase the charge. I submit that whether it will do so or not is not a matter that would be within your knowledge as Chairman, but that it depends on statistics, and, in many cases, on statistics which may not even be in existence. I submit, therefore, that we should be allowed to move this Amendment and to debate the question whether the valuation should be based on one year or on the average of a number of years.
Mr. COCKS: Further on that point of Order. I submit that this question, in addition, to depending, as my hon. Friend has argued, on statistics which are not ascertained, depends also on the intention of the Minister as to the amount of
1754
the duty that he proposes to place upon these particular commodities. That duty may be anything from 1 per cent. to 100 per cent., and, if it is thought that the taking of an average would mean an addition to the taxation, the Minister himself might put on a lower duty, say 40 per cent. instead of 50 per cent, or whatever might be in his mind. We do not know what is in his mind. I submit that that fact should also be taken into consideration in dealing with this point.
The CHAIRMAN: I have given the point to which the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has called attention very careful consideration, because I was really anxious, it possible to admit the Amendment as one which could be discussed. But I think that, if the hon. Member will follow my argument carefully, he will probably see that the question is not, as suggested by him, a mere question with regard to the valuation. Sub-section (2, c) of Clause 2 provides that the duties to be charged shall not exceed a certain percentage, and then it says that in the case of certain articles:
"the value thereof for the purpose of the foregoing limitation"—
I call special attention to this word "limitation"—shall be taken as provided in the Bill. The Amendment now referred to proposes to alter the method of fixing the value in such a way as to alter a definite limitation which is in the Bill, and, therefore, if the limitation which is in the Bill be altered in such a way as to make that limitation, possibly, less effective or more elastic, or to allow of any possibility of a greater charge, the Amendment becomes, as I think the hon. Member will realise, one which could not be accepted. I have considered the particular arguments which the hon. Member has put, and I think that, after what I have just said, he will perhaps realise that this is not a mere case of a method of valuation, but is something quite different, which would alter the limitation.
6.30 p.m.
As regards the form of this Bill, and its not having the same exactitude as has been given in previous cases, I do not think that that applies to the particular argument with regard to this Amendment. I agree that the comparative novelty of the form of the Bill makes it the more necessary to consider very carefully any questions of this kind which

1755
arise. The Amendment that the hon. Gentleman referred to as having been moved in the last Parliament by the then Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) is one which can be very easily distinguished from the Amendment now under consideration. I cannot charge my memory with all the points that he refers to in regard to that Amendment. I can only venture respectfully to suggest to him and his friends that the hon. Member for Watford in the last Parliament was apparently more successful when in Opposition in drafting his Amendment than the Opposition are on this occasion.
Mr. ATTLEE: The only part of your argument, Sir Dennis, that I cannot follow is that you assume that a change in the basis of valuation from an average of three years to one year is taking away a limitation. It may be making it even a greater limitation. It is a pure matter of assumption. Supposing the price this year was 25s. and the average for the last year was 23s. So far from imposing a charge, I should be making the limitation more effective. I suggest that the matter is really on all fours with the point to which I referred in your action on the Finance Bill, which was not challenged at all.
The CHAIRMAN: The argument, the correctness of which I must not be taken to admit that the effect of this Amendment might be further to restrict the tax or narrow the limitation carries no weight whatever. It is at least as likely, the hon. Gentleman will admit, that it may go the other way, and that is quite sufficient to take the Amendment, out of what can be in order. I am inclined to
think myself that one would be perhaps rather stretching a point—but I had intended to do so on this Amendment—if I thought it dealt simply and solely with the question of the machinery of valuation, but I am quite satisfied that on this occasion it does not do so. In that connection, the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that we are not now dealing with something uncertain, because we are dealing with a Bill which, when it becomes an Act, will only be operative for one year and, therefore, we know that we are dealing with a question of the difference between the price last year and the price in the last three years, and we are not dealing with the question of the price in the previous three years of any future years to come. In these circumstances, it is perfectly clear to my mind that we should be altering the limitation of the charge in such a way that that limitation might be widened in the future, and in those circumstances I have no option but to rule the Amendment out of order.
Mr. BUTLER: May I ask your guidance, Sir Dennis, about the first of the Amendments that we are discussing—the inclusion of the word "average." Would it not be possible to consider that small Amendment? Would not that arise in the question of the machinery of valuation? I raise it because I have received a special request to do so.
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is impossible. The whole point of this Amendment is raised by the word "average."
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 323; Noes, 39.

Division No. 36.]

AYES.

[6.35 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Albery, Irving James

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Browne, Captain A. C.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)

Buchan, John

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Burghley, Lord

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

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Burnett, John George

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Butler, Richard Austen

Aske, Sir William Robert

Blindell, James

Butt, Sir Alfred

Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Bossom, A. C.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Atholl, Duchess of

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Carver, Major William H.

Balniel, Lard

Brass, Captain Sir William

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

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Briscoe, Richard George

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hepworth, Joseph

Penny, Sir George

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Herbert, George (Rotherham)

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Petherick, M.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Pickering, Ernest H.

Chotzner, Alfred James

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Christie, James Archibald

Hornby, Frank

Potter, John

Clarry, Reginald George

Horobin, Ian M.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Clayton, Dr. George C,

Horsbrugh, Florence

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Colfox, Major William Philip

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Colville, Major David John

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

Pybus, Percy John

Cook, Thomas A.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Copeland, Ida

Hurd, Percy A.

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Ramsbotham, Herswald

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. 31r R. (M'tr'se)

Hamsden, E.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

Rankin, Robert

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Jamieson, Douglas

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Jennings, Roland

Held, David D. (County Down)

Cross, R. H.

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Remer, John R.

Crossley, A, C.

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Curry, A. C.

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

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Robinson, John Roland

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Ropner, Colonel L.

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

Ker, J. Campbell

Ross, Ronald D.

Davison, Sir William Henry

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kimball, Lawrence

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Denville, Alfred

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Dickie, John P.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemou'h)

Donner, P. W.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Doran, Edward

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Drewe, Cedric

Law, Sir Alfred

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Duckworth, George A. V.

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Salmon, Major Isidore

Duggan, Hubert John

Leckie, J. A.

Salt, Edward W.

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

Dunglass, Lord

Lees-Jones, John

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Eady, George H.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Eden, Robert Anthony

Levy, Thomas

Savery, Samuel Servington

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lewis, Oswald

Scone, Lord

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Llewellin, Major John J.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Elmley, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Emrys- Evans, P. V.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. sir Walter D.

Essonhigh, Reginald Clare

Mabane, William

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

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Smithers, Waldron

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

McEwen, J. H. F.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Flanagan, W. H.

McKie, John Hamilton

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Soper, Richard

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

McLean, Major Alan

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Stones, James

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

Maitland, Adam

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Strauss, Edward A.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Goldie, Noel B.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Summersby, Charles H.

Gower, Sir Robert

Martin, Thomas B.

Sutcliffe, Harold

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Millar, James Duncan

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

Grimston, R. V.

Milne, John Sydney wardlaw-

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

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

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Morgan, Robert H.

Thompson, Luke

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

Morrison, William Shephard

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Hartley, Dennis A.

Munro, Patrick

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Train, John

Hartland, George A.

Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

Nunn, William

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

O'Connor, Terence James

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

O'Neill, Rt. Hen. Sir Hugh

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Palmer, Francis Noel

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

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

Patrick, Colin M.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Pearson, William G.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Peat, Charles u.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

1758

1759

Wells, Sydney Richard

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Weymouth, Viscount

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

White, Henry Graham

Wise, Alfred R.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Womersley, Walter James

Mr. Russell Rea and Lord Erskine.

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H, Kingsley

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Groves, Thomas E.

Maxton, James

Batey, Joseph

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mllner, Major James

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

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

Price, Gabriel

Buchanan, George

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cape, Thomas

Hirst, George Henry

Tinker, John Joseph

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Cove, William G.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Kirkwood, David

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Daggar, George

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Edwards, Charles

Leonard, William

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Lunn, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McGovern, John

Mr. John and Mr. Cordon Macdonald.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Basis of value in, case of articles to be charged to duty on value.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Sir S. CRIPPS: May I ask a question of the Minister as regards the meaning of this Clause, in order that we may be clear about it? The Clause lays down the value of any imported articles which are to be charged to duty by reference to the value as fixed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. We do not quite appreciate how that works in with the provision in Clause 2 which says that the value shall be determined by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. As far as we can appreciate the position, two persons cannot determine the same value. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain how the value is to be fixed in one way under Clause 3 (1) and in another under Clause 2 (2, c).
Mr. HARRIS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Sub-section (2) of the Clause requires the production of books such as the Commissioners may require for a proper valuation of the article, and also the production of documents. I may be wrong, but this seems to be an unprecedented policy, introducing into our system of collecting taxes an inquisitorial method which is quite foreign to our country. I do not think that there is any case of taxes levied where the Customs House official goes down to a man's private office and examines books and papers in order to
1760
arrive at the right figure. The general custom is for a declaration to be made by the person passing any particular article through the Customs on the basis of the invoice and on a statement by the importer. I do not think that there is any precedent for a Customs House official having the right to go into a counting-house to look at ledgers and other books in order to arrive at a value upon which a tax is to be levied. It is a new principle, rather Russian in spirit. It is the kind of thing one expects from Russia of officials going into warehouses, offices, banks and counting-houses and examining books. This Measure may be difficult to work and it may be considered necessary to make this new departure, but it requires some explanation. We want to know how far the Minister's officials are going to delve into the affairs of private people in their own offices.
Sir J. GILMOUR: As I understand the question, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked me why the Commissioners of Customs and Excise should be mentioned and have certain powers under this Clause. I think that it is clear that this is an administrative action, and that they are the people who handle the goods and know the methods by which the Customs deal with the problems, and they will, in fact, work upon the Order which will have been issued and which will be their guide. They will, of course, eventually have to carry out the machinery. A good deal of the work which they are going to do is not, in fact, connected with a direct

1761
ad valorem tax; some of it is by weight and some by measure. It will be their duty to deal with that side of the matter. This provision is identical with a similar Section in the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act dealing with the precedent to which the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) called attention.
Mr. HARRIS: There is a fundamental difference. The Abnormal Importations Act imposed an ad valorem duty on an ordinary Customs basis. These duties are to be levied at the discretion of the Minister, which is quite a different thing.
Sir J. GILMOUR: After all, we are taking no other powers in this Clause. The hon. Member talked about inspecting books and so on, but these powers, I understand, are exactly similar to those contained in the Abnormal Importations Act. In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should add that Clause 3 refers to the ad valorem, duty, whereas Clause 2 (2) deals with duties not based upon value. This Clause is limited to an ad valorem duty.
Mr. JOHN JONES: I have heard a lot of talk about duties and the methods of collecting taxes. It is most extraordinary that some of the people who are advertising themselves as experts have not yet explained to us how they can make things better by taxing everything. I have heard this afternoon a good deal of talk about the taxation of various articles necessary for the people's consumption. The right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench has pointed out the legal difficulties in the situation. How are you going to collect the taxes? My question is, who is going to pay them? I am not an ex- pert, but simply one of the representatives of the common people, and I should like to know, when you have done all your collecting of taxes, who is going to foot the bill Poor old Phil Garlick, the man who always pays The right hon. Gentleman opposite, studying his Bill as best he can, with his Scottish logic and his English ignorance, is telling us now how we are going to get over it. The more we get over it, the more we get under it. There is trouble for us everywhere we go. I have been trying this week to study my Income Tax papers. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell
1762
me what is going to happen to me after 1st January.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is hardly an imported horticultural article.
Mr. JONES: I am an importation from Ireland, but I am not a foreign product, I hope. Who is going to pay for the goods which come into this country? Who brings them in? I would like to ask hon. Members opposite and around me—we are surrounded by them; we are an island of Socialism surrounded by an ocean of Toryism—if they can tell us who brings those goods into the country? I live in the East End of London where the importers are great supporters of the National Government. They are always waving the Union Jack in front of the union jackasses. They are always telling us that the Empire must be saved by buying British goods, and then they go and buy foreign motor cars. Most of the motor cars in Palace Yard to day—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No question of motor cars arises under this Clause. It deals solely with the value of certain imported articles.
Mr. JONES: Thank you, Captain Bourne, for correcting me. Motor cars are not in question, but carrots are. If they are Spanish carrots, of course, they are different. People who do not want Spanish carrots do not buy them. Who buys them? Hon. Members opposite, because they want them in season—the season that suits them. Our carrots are generally dangled in front of our noses, as they were in the General Election. The people swallowed them, and now they have got the result of swallowing the carrots. Hon. Members opposite do not understand what carrots are; they know what 18 carat is. They do not understand the ordinary carrots which the common people are expected to consume. I ask the Committee to remember the fact that we have got here a collection, an accumulation of heterogenous units, units most of them, forming the Government, and they cannot govern. They were out to save the pound, and they lost the quid.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of order; the question of the composition of the Government does not arise on this Clause.
Mr. JONES: No, Captain Bourne, I am sure that it does not. It could not arise on any Clause. The composition of this Government cannot be described by anything in the English language. It is a conglomeration of people who do not know where they are. Even their Prime Minister does not know where he is, because he is surrounded by people who do not believe in his principles, and he has surrounded himself by the inconclusiveness of his own conclusions. I do not care whether it is parsnips, turnips, carrots or savoys, you can tax everything everywhere, but you will never solve the economic problem of the working classes of this country by mere taxation. You can protect as much as you like, but the only people who want protecting are the workers who require protecting against the classes who have exploited them all through the centuries.

Clause 4 (Determination of disputes as to value) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Exception for transit articles.)
  Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 40 to 42.
  The lines we wish to delete read:
  "Subject to compliance with such conditions as to the security for the re-exportation of the articles as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may impose."
  We desire an explanation on this particular point. The Minister of Agriculture, dealing with the Bill yesterday, skipped over this Clause very lightly. He did not explain much about it. In fact, the only words he used were:
  "Clause 5 exempts from duty articles imported for re-exportation after transit or shipment."—[OFFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1931; col. 1541, Vol. 260.]
  That was all he said in reference to this Clause, and I take it he expected some questions would arise during the Committee stage which would give him a further chance to state what the Clause means. We on these benches are not quite satisfied that it ought to be left in the hands of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, because we think the matter is much too important, and that the Minister himself should be the person to determine the articles that are
  1764
  for re-exportation. We also wish to know the terms and conditions which will govern these particular items, because in the previous Act, the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, there is some difficulty at the present time. We wish to make sure that no similar difficulty arises in regard to this Measure. It is for those reasons that we are anxious that the Minister should give a fuller explanation of the position. and then, if he satisfies us, probably the Amendment may not be pressed to a Division.
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: This Clause, as I think the hon. Gentleman realises, is identical with Section 5 of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act. As far as I know, all those who deal in any goods which are subject from time to time to Customs and Excise, and all those who operate transport or transshipment are fully aware of the circumstances and the methods employed. There is nothing new here, and the power is essential if the provisions in relation to transport and transhipment of goods are to be operated at all. It is quite clear that we cannot accept the Amendment suggested. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is not a new method in dealing with these matters, that it is in actual operation at the present time and is well understood by those who come under it.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that already vexatious and troublesome conditions have been imposed on traders under the Abnormal Importations Act. While the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was nothing new in the wording of this Clause, it is a new innovation to put an import duty on imported foods such as are mentioned in the Schedule. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that if in the hard industrials import duties have been troublesome, with regard to vegetables and fresh fruit, unless the right hon. Gentleman takes every precaution to see that the work is made smooth and is facilitated rather than harassed, one can readily understand that disturbance is bound to take place where there is any re-exportation of any of these articles. All we ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to make doubly

  1765
  sure that the conditions when made will be such as to facilitate re-exportation rather than create trouble and disturbance in the trade. If the right hon. Gentleman assures us that everything that can be done will be done to make conditions decent and smooth, we shall not press this Amendment.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, I give that assurance at once. It is not the desire either of myself or of those who will operate the machinery to cause unnecessary trouble, and I shall certainly see that everything possible is done.
  Mr. TINKER: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 (Short title, construction and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 2 to 5.
I will endeavour to give the reasons as clearly as I can why the Labour party is attacking the Schedule point by point. We have been able to-day to draw from the Minister some information that we failed to get earlier. But there are one or two points still not clear, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what is likely to happen with regard to some of these fresh fruits. Take cherries, to commence with. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government is the old adage, "Buy your own cherries." That would have been all right if there were cherries to buy, but as there are no cherries to buy on occasions, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to enlighten the Committee on a point particularly important to those persons who live in the North of England. I am assured that the whole crop of cherries is to be found in this country in the South of England only. The point put to me by persons who, I think, may rightly claim to know as much about it as the right hon. Gentleman himself, is this: If we are to prohibit all imports of cherries, and confine ourselves to the crop in the South of England only, there will not be sufficient cherries to supply more than the require-
1766
ments of London and the surrounding parts, with the result,, I am assured on authority, that in effect the people of Lancashire and Yorkshire will never see a cherry again unless they pay a visit to London. That is taken by some hon. Gentlemen as very humorous, but it is really a very serious point.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this point made by some of the merchants in regard to cherries does not hold good? I have information about the home crop from one of the best books of statistics on agriculture that I have ever seen. Incidentally, this book is produced by a Tory organisation, otherwise the Central Chamber of Agriculture. It should not be a Tory organisation I know, but that is what it actually is. Liberal Members, I feel sure, will vote for my Amendment, especially after the speech made last night in another place giving them warning against the pace that the Government are travelling towards Protection. The whole home crop of cherries in 1929 was 296,000 cwts. The imports in 1929 were 143,000 cwts. The imports in 1930 had fallen to 60,000 cwts. I should imagine, at a rough guess, that all the cherries imported and growing in this land will hardly supply more than one cherry each for every member of the community. I have not gone into decimal points about it, but I want to press that point.
The day will come, in spite of the fact that we are a small number on this side of the House when the right hon. Gentleman will be compelled to take notice of what we are saying even on an issue like this. But that day is not yet. It will come, though I am not sure that the onslaught on the Government will be from this side. It will be from among themselves. Disintegration is beginning to take place already among the Government, and some day they will fall like a pack of cards. Let me pass on to currants. This book, although a very remarkable booklet, does not give us anything at all about blackcurrants, the amount imported and the crop in our own land. There are figures which tell us what the home crop was in 1929. It is unfortunate they do not say the colour, because I am sure the colour weighs enormously with the right hon. Gentleman; if it were red it would be very revolutionary. The

1767
home crop of currants in that year was 328,000 cwts., and the imports for the same year 141,000 cwts. I see that I was wrong in saying that the information I desired was not in the book. It is here, and I am very glad. Last night the right hon. Gentleman touched upon the canning industry. I was bred and born in a part of the world where they turn out tin-sheets and send them to America for the purpose of canning Californian fruit. A great deal of progress has been made since then and in Llanelly, South Wales, a good number of people are employed to produce these tin-sheets. The right hon. Gentleman, although he paid a little tribute to the canning industry and wants it to flourish, said he rather inclined to the view that that industry should confine itself entirely to the crops of our own country.
Let me put a proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. Suppose it were possible by this Bill, which I very much doubt, to find work for 100 more persons in this country in the production of the commodities which he is going to prohibit, if he prohibits fruits which are used for canning purposes in this country, how many people in that industry will he put out of work? That does not require a great deal of arithmetic calculation. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman asked his Department to settle the point, or perhaps he might consult the President of the Board of Trade, or the Lord Privy Seal, who is an expert on decimal points. Let me put the point in another way, for the sake of clarity. Suppose the canning industry in this country use 100,000 cwts. of foreign fruit and that the right hon. Gentleman prohibits that foreign fruit from coming into the country, how many people in the canning industry will be thrown out of work and how many persons will be put into employment in horticulture by the same process?
Having dealt with cherries and currants, I come to gooseberries. Here, again, I am fortified by figures from the Tory book of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. If hon. Members are interested to know the personnel of the Committee of that body I would remind them that the chairman was the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr.
1768
Amery), who, of course, knows all about gooseberries, tomatoes and the rest of it. He has appended his name to the document. I have taken a great deal of trouble to enlighten myself on this subject. In 1929, 15,000 cwts. of gooseberries were imported into this country, whereas the home crop was 645,000 cwts. In that respect we ought to pay tribute to the home growers for having beaten the foreigner, without any Protection. If that could be done generally by our industries the Empire would be safe, the pound would be safe, and the balance of trade would be settled immediately. Let me put to the right hon. Gentleman a question which has been put to him several times. He has been cute enough—I say that without meaning any offence—not to answer the question. Is it his intention when he knows that an article is not available in this country to prohibit the same kind of article coming from abroad by putting a duty up to 100 per cent. against it? Unless an article is produced in this country at a given moment, will he prohibit that article from being consumed in this country, by prohibiting its importation?
With regard to hothouse grapes, I confess that I am not much enamoured of the task to deal with the subject. The only time that I buy hothouse grapes is for the use of hospital patients, and I think that practice is common among most working people. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember the very important fact that a goodly amount of grapes are bought for the purpose of taking them to hospitals and to sick people. While it may be said that the hothouse grape is a luxury, I do not think that anyone can say that the humble plum is a luxury. The mushroom, the turnip or the carrot may fall into another category, but you cannot call the plum a luxury, unless it be the political plum. There are, of course, political plums and there is a great deal of ambition in regard to that kind of plum, but so far as I can see no political plums are left at the moment for any Liberal or Tory back-bencher to receive. The home crop of plums in 1929 was 1,215,500 cwts. and the importation 505,000 cwts. I am particularly interested in this subject because I am connected with a trade union which has among its members the jam makers employed by the Co-operative Wholesale

1769
Society. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite do not know about the Cooperative Wholesale Society, let me tell them that it is the largest importer of wheat in this country. I do not know whether it is the largest importer of fresh fruit. [HON. MEMBERS: Russia."] I would not be surprised if hon. Members eat some of the produce of Russia without knowing it, and acclaim it as good. Incidentally, some of our patriots are always crying out "Buy British!" That cry is not always genuine. We ought to alter the motto, and say: "Sell British."
With regard to plums, let me put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. If there are no plums available from our own crop and there is a glut of plums on the foreign market, are we right in assuming that for the purpose of protecting our own crop, say, in July, the right hon. Gentleman will prohibit plums coming from foreign lands for two or three months before July? Unless I mistake the object of the right hon. Gentleman, this is a prohibition Bill in respect of fruits that are regarded by him and his Department as luxury.
I have come across some strange illustrations of how the human mind works in regard to tariffs. I met a piano dealer who is very keen on preventing all manner of musical instruments from coming into this country, but in his own home the only piano that he owns is a German grand piano. Tariffs for everybody else, but not for him. He wants to prohibit foreign goods for everybody else, but not for himself. That is usually the attitude of tariffists. They break the rules whenever it suits them. [An HON MEMBER: "What about raspberries?"] Raspberries are not included in the Schedule. If they were included I should be glad to refer to them. Hon. Members opposite seem to assume that because we represent industrial constituencies we are ignorant of agriculture. If a census were taken, I could probably claim to have worked longer on the soil than any Member of the House. For over three years I was a farm labourer. You cannot get much nearer the soil than that. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is a farmer, but there is a vast difference between a gentleman farmer and a farm labourer.
1770
7.30 p.m.
Let me deal with strawberries. The home crop in 1929 was 340,000 cwts. and the importation 80,000 cwts. Supposing there was a glut of strawberries in a given month on the Continent and no strawberries in this country in that month or the succeeding month, would the right hon. Gentleman prohibit the whole of the foreign strawberries in order to protect the home grower, say, two months hence? The crux of this matter is in the Schedule and my purpose is to delete fresh fruits, on the assumption that the two things that the right hon. Gentleman intends to do cannot be achieved. He proposes to put a prohibitive duty on these fruits in order to help the home grower, but in spite of the fact that there is in this House the largest number of Tories that has ever sat in the House of Commons he cannot alter the climatic conditions of this country. He cannot alter the course of the sun. He cannot say that France and Italy shall not grow grapes and other fruits six weeks earlier than we can grow them. Nature will still produce crops and fruits in abundance, but all we shall do by this Bill will be that they will rot along the Mediterranean coast in Italy and France simply because we in this country propose to save the pound by prohibiting their importation into this country. I feel proud when I go to the Continent that I am a Britisher. Some people consider that a Socialist cannot be a Britisher. I belong to a nationality which was here ages before the English came to these shores, and I have therefore a right to be proud of my country. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the two or three points I have put to him. In the first place, how much of the work of the canning industry will be destroyed if he prohibits some of the fruit now coming in which is being used by the industry; and, secondly, does he intend to preclude by these duties the importation of these fruits in one month in order to help the home growers in succeeding months? I have now put my points as clearly as I can and, having done so, I beg to move the Amendment.
Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that the hon. Member thinks that I have failed to answer him on previous occasions, but

1771
frankly I am a little disappointed with him. He draws a horrible picture of the effect of this Measure with regard to soft fruits, and says that we shall be able to go along the south coast of France and see these fruits rotting all along the Mediterranean coast. Does he give a moment's consideration to those unfortunate people in our own country whose products are rotting in the ground and on the trees? Let us come down to real business in this matter.
Mr. DAVIES: My point was that the fruit is grown in the south of France at a different period to that at which it is grown in this country.
Sir J. GILMOUR: That does not alter the fact that there is an influx into this country of fruit at an earlier time, which has the inevitable result of leaving the greater portion of the fruit in this country to rot on the trees. Is nothing to be done in a case like that? If that is the attitude of the hon. Member and his friends then I join issue with them. This Schedule is a very modest one. It has been designed to stimulate the production in this country of a good many articles which we can quite properly produce without any difficulty. Obviously, grapes stand in a class by themselves. We can produce all the grapes referred to in the Schedule—hothouse grapes—without difficulty, but at the present moment we are facing a considerable competition from the Continent in this direction. Not only can we produce the grapes but it would mean an increase in the building of glass-houses and an increase in the use of coal.
As regards the rest of the soft fruits, I have been asked whether I am satisfied that nothing I shall do will interfere unduly with the canning industry. I am as alive to the importance of the canning industry as any hon. Member, but it is quite clear that if the canning industry is to be successful the factory should be surrounded and be able to draw from the district around it fresh vegetables and fruits. With regard to the jam making industry, it is beyond dispute that it has made use of certain importations at a time which has been very detrimental to the quite as good if not better produce of this country, and which from every point
1772
of view could quite properly be used. We desire that the cream shall not be taken off the market. A. great deal has been said about cherries and the risk of those living in the North not getting any of this fruit. We need not be over-anxious on that matter. It is quite clear that we shall get our share of cherries, but in that case, as well as in the case of plums, it is the importation of these early fruits, which are sold at a higher price than the home producer can command when he takes his produce into the market, which takes the cream off the market, and it is to deal with that side of the question that I am asking for the powers in this Measure.
Certain figures have been quoted in the case of strawberries. I see that the imports, especially of early strawberries, have risen from 15,000 cwts. in 1913 to 88,000 cwts. in the current year, and that the acreage of strawberries fell from 32,000 in the years 1920 to 1924 to 22,000 in 1929. There has been a slight rise in the last two years. The loss of employment as well as of production on that item alone is pretty serious, and we are justified in doing something which will stimulate the industry. I am asked whether I mean to shut out articles which are not produced in this country. If they are purely luxury articles, which under no circumstances are produced in this country, they are clearly articles which we can do without. For instance, plums are produced in this country. We propose to deal with the early importation.of plums. They take the cream off the market and leave our trees with the plums rotting upon them. That is not the way to assist the canning industry. I have listened to all the arguments on the question of soft fruits, and I am bound to say that I have heard none which moved me.
Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not want to delay the Committee in coming to a discussion of tomatoes which some hon. Members are anxious to raise, but it does seem to me that the Minister of Agriculture is entirely confusing the real issue. He speaks about strawberries and regrets the falling off in the crop. That has nothing whatever to do with the price. In fact, the price went up for the British crop during the years 1927, 1928 and 1929 by over 200 per cent. above the pre-War price, and the reason why there has been a reduction in the quantity of straw-

1773
berries grown in this country is because of the reduced purchasing power of the people, not because a fair price, and a good price, has not been obtained for the strawberries. The experience is that you never get crops rotting on the trees unless you get an internal glut. It is not because of importation that our crops rot on the trees. The experience of the last 50 years shows that when you get a big crop, say, of plums, people say that it is not worth while picking them because there are so many on the market, because of the internal production not because of imports. And there has been no available means for absorbing that surplus.
This year for the first time the canning industry has provided a means for absorbing the surplus of internal production, and it is by providing a means of stopping the internal market being flooded that the right hon. Gentleman is most likely to protect the growers of this country. If he will inquire he will find that in the present year the position as regards soft fruits in the district of Worcestershire is that there was a very heavy crop of strawberries, but, owing to the fact that the canning factories were able to take the surplus off the market, prices were maintained and fruit growers did very well. It had absolutely nothing to do with the question of importation; and that is why we think a Bill taxing these fruits is entirely the wrong way to assist the fruit growing industry. If the right hon. Gentleman would devote his energies to encouraging the growth of canning factories on a co-operative basis and provide a means whereby the growers of this country will not flood their own markets in a good season, he will do far more than by cutting out a few thousand cwts. of strawberries or gooseberries or anything else.
I want to draw his attention also to this feature of the problem. This is a Bill for a year only. It is to last no longer; and when he says that it is to encourage the production of these products in the United Kingdom, I should like to know whether it is because it is his opinion that the trees are going to bear more this year? He surely does not
think there is sufficient time for any one of these crops to come to fruition. In the case of cherries it takes five years, currants two to three years, gooseberries three years, grapes seven years, plums about five years and strawberries, which are the quickest, take two years before they come into bearing. How on earth can a Bill which is to last for only 12 months increase the production of crops which cannot possibly come to fruition for two years at the very least? I wish the Minister would let us have the information.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister not going to reply to the questions of my hon. and learned Friend? The questions call for some reply. In the case of strawberries, cherries and gooseberries the right hon. Gentleman must know that supplementary supplies, if grown in this country, can only be made available in a period of years. If there should be a surplus next year the Minister might be justified in taking some steps, but we ought to be warned by the right hon. Gentleman as to what he is going to do. What does he intend to do to ensure that normal supplies of these various fruits will be available to the population? We know that between 1913 and 1931 the number of strawberry plants has been reduced. That was neither because of the imports of strawberries nor because the grower had not received a, reasonable price. During the last five years the average price has been 150 per cent. above the pre-War price. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he is going to do if the 66,000 or 88,000 cwts. of imported strawberries are kept out next year? What is he going to do to ensure that a normal supply of the fruit will be available for consumption and for the canning industry? We have debated the matter for four days and the right hon. Gentleman has not yet given us the information.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 42.

Division No. 37.]

AYES.

[7.50 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Allen, Maj- J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.W)

Atholl, Duchess of

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

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

Atkinson, Cyril

Aichison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Albery, Irving James

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

Aske, Sir William Robert

Balfour, George (Hempstead)

Balniel, Lord

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M,

Ganzoni, Sir John

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Marjoribanks, Edward

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

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

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Bateman, A. L.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Martin, Thomas B.

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Goldie, Noel B.

Millar, James Duncan

Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Gower, Sir Robert

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Moreing, Adrian C.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Morgan, Robert H.

Blindell, James

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hen. John

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Grimston, R. V.

Morrison, William Shephard

Bossom, A. C.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Moss, Captain H. J.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Munro, Patrick

Boyce, H. Leslie

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

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Hanley, Dennis A.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Hartland, George A.

Nunn, William

Broadbent, Colonel John

Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

O'Connor, Terence James

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Browne, Captain A. C.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Patrick, Colin M.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Pearson, William G.

Burghley, Lord

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Peat, Charles U.

Burnett, John George

Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxfd, Henley)

Penny, Sir George

Butler, Richard Austen

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Butt, Sir Alfred

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Herbert, George (Rotherham)

Petherick, M.

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Pickering, Ernest H.

Carver, Major William H.

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

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

Hornby, Frank

Potter, John

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Horobin, Ian M.

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Horsbrugh, Florence

Power, Sir John Cecil

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Howard, Tom Forrest

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Pyhus, Percy John

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

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

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Chotzner, Alfred James

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)

Christle, James Archibald

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Ramsden, E.

Clarry, Reginald George

Hurd, Percy A.

Rankin, Robert

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Colfox, Major William Philip

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Colville, Major David John

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Cook, Thomas A.

Jamleson, Douglas

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Copeland, Ida

Jennings, Roland

Remer, John R.

Cranborne, Viscount

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Crooke, J. Smedley

Johnstone, Harcourt (S, Shields)

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Crossley, A. C.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Robinson, John Roland

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Ker, J. Campbell

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Curry, A. C.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Kimball, Lawrence

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Runge, Norah Cecil

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

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

Denville, Alfred

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Dickle, John P.

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Salmon, Major Isidore

Donner, P. W.

Leckie, J. A.

Salt, Edward W.

Drewe, Cedric

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Duckworth, George A. V.

Lees-Jones, John

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Duggan, Hubert John

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)

Lewis, Oswald

Scone, Lord

Eady, George H.

Llewellin, Major John J.

Selley, Harry R.

Eastwood, John Francis

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Eden, Robert Anthony

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Ellis, Robert Geoffrey

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Mabane, William

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

Elmley, Viscount

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Smithers, Waldron

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard

McKeag, William

Soper, Richard

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

McKie, John Hamilton

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Stones, James

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

McLean, Major Alan

Strauss, Edward A.

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Flanagan, W. H.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Sutcliffe, Harold

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Magnay, Thomas

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Maitland, Adam

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Thompson, Luke

1776

1777

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Wise, Alfred R.

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Wolman, Rt. Hon Viscount

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Tryon, Ht. Hon. George Clement

Wells, Sydney Richard

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Weymouth, Viscount

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

White, Henry Graham

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Womersley.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

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

Milner, Major James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Owen, Major Goronwy

Batey, Joseph

Hirst, George Henry

Price, Gabriel

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

John, William

Rathbone, Eleanor

Buchanan, George

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cape, Thomas

Kirkwood, David

Thorne, William James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Tinker, John Joseph

Cove, William G.

Lawson, John James

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Leonard, William

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Daggar, George

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lunn, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Edwards, Charles

McEntee, Valentine L.

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McGovern, John

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maxton, James

Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Gordon Macdonald.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 6 to 13.
8.0 p.m.
I regard this Amendment as one of the most important on the Paper. The essence of it is that all fresh vegetables mentioned in the Schedule should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. I think that the National Government ought to be very thankful to the Opposition for putting down these Amendments. Had they not done so the Government would have been in considerable difficulty with all those people who are clamouring for one thing and another, and the Minister of Agriculture, particularly, might have been faced with a discussion on the wheat quota, concerning which I understand that he is involved in considerable difficulty with the millers and others at the moment. I understand that for the present we are only dealing with this list down as far as the words "Potatoes (New)" because it is desired to safeguard an Amendment to be moved later by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) when I understand we may have an opportunity of seeing the Liberal party demonstrate in force.
The principal reason why I move to exclude these vegetables is on the ground of health. However valuable fresh fruit may be, we are certainly advised by all competent medical authorities that there is very great value indeed in fresh vegetables. It is therefore difficult to
1778
understand why the right hon. Gentleman should seek to include all the vegetables named in the Schedule many of which are absolute necessities to the people of this country. I am not altogether a vegetarian; In the last Parliament there were several Members, supporters of the then Government, who could have spoken on this subject with greater authority than I but I wish to go through this list and give some reasons why particular items should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. I shall not deal at any length with asparagus, though I take exception to a good deal that has been said from the other side as to the working class not having the opportunity or not deserving to taste asparagus. I know of no reason why on occasion any man or woman should not have the opportunity of partaking of asparagus or of any other vegetable or fruit.
With regard to green beans, I am in some doubt. The Solicitor-General is in his place and perhaps he will indicate to the Committee what is included in this term. Unfortunately the Attorney-General is not with us though we gather from the newspapers that after the Christmas Recess it is hoped that he will be able to join our Debates as he did in the last Parliament. The Solicitor-General if asked for a definition of this term may take the opportunity of telling us that at the last Election he gave his opponents beans. I know that there are butter beans, kidney beans and French

1779
beans, but I have not hitherto come across this expression "green beans." For broccoli we must all have a sympathetic affection and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council is not with us when this subject is under discussion. Only a year or two ago he prophesied a great future for that industry. I am afraid that it has been strangled since by high railway rates and other factors. We know that broccoli is exported to a large extent and the Minister ought to tell us why he has included it. As to cauliflowers we have already asked the right hon. Gentleman why he includes cauliflowers and not cabbages. He will no doubt take this opportunity of explaining with his usual care why cabbages have been overlooked.
I need not spend any time on the consideration of carrots and chicory, and I pass quickly to the subject of new potatoes. Throughout these Debates we have pressed for a definition of new potatoes. In this matter also the Solicitor-General may be of great assistance to us for we have not yet had any explanation of this term. I am informed by people in the trade that there are periods of the year when new potatoes can be bought at 1½d. and 2d. per lb. and at such times they are certainly not luxuries. Frequently they are the only potatoes which can be bought in a satisfactory condition—I refer to the imported new potatoes. I gather that there are occasions when a British potato crop is short and in the early spring unsaleable, for one reason or another. The hon. Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Blindell) is an authority on potatoes and during the discussions on the Agricultural Marketing Act he told us a great deal about the subject. I am sure the Committee would much appreciate his advice upon this matter and I hope he will intervene to assist us.
Then we have green peas, mushrooms, and lettuce. I submit that in the interests of the health of a great part of the population it is extremely desirable that the duty proposed by the right hon. Gentleman should not be placed upon any fresh vegetables. They are, as I have said, a necessity of life. They are at present very cheap. The right hon. Gentleman has not, so far, admitted it, but
1780
perhaps he will now tell us whether he does not anticipate a definite rise in the price of all these vegetables if this duty is imposed. It would be a very serious matter indeed if the prices of such articles as potatoes or lettuce were increased by this duty. The right hon. Gentleman has evaded every specific question which we have put to him, or at any rate every question which he had the least difficulty in answering. I should like to repeat one question which I have already put to him. Has he consulted the trade in regard to these vegetables included in the Schedule? Further, why has he excluded onions? He did not answer that question. But I should particularly like to know if he has consulted the duly constituted associations in the trades concerned, because I am told that there are serious complaints against him in this connection.
If he will allow me to say so the right hon. Gentleman seems invariably to close the gate after the horse has gone. In connection with the wheat quota he did not consult the milling and other interests until after the announcement was made in Parliament. The millers have taken umbrage at him and we understand that they are now refusing to have any part or lot in working the quota. In his own interests the right hon. Gentleman ought to consult the various bodies connected with these trades because they can give him much valuable advice on this subject. I am not sure whether they would advocate with me that all these fresh vegetables are to be left out of the Schedule, but they will tell him of the increase in price which will be necessitated by these proposals. For the reasons I have given I commend the Amendment to the Committee.
Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that Members of the Opposition have shown a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to this problem of vegetables. They have complained about these proposals as being likely to affect what they choose to describe as the chief food of the masses of the people. I wish to make it clear that the Bill is directed to dealing with those articles of early importation which take the cream of the market in this country. I am sure that even hon. Members opposite will not pretend that early carrots and turnips from France and elsewhere are anything but luxuries. It

1781
will not be argued that these form a part of the general food of the people. When we come to other items, such as asparagus, green beans, green peas, mushrooms and even those early salads especially cucumbers which come from Belgium and Holland, I do not think that any of us can honestly say that these are not articles which we can encourage our people to produce at home if we reduce the imports from abroad. They are articles which can be produced at home. One has to remember, in considering this problem, that the importation of miscellaneous vegetables has increased by about 100 per cent. in the last 10 years. That is a fact which we ought to take into account.
Major MILNER: Is not that due to increased population and increased consumption?
Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, all those factors have something to do with it, but the fact remains that many of our market gardeners and people who have in the past grown these vegetables and marketed them successfully have found it extremely difficult to do so. I am anxious by this method to stimulate the production of those articles which we can produce ourselves. I have been asked particularly about new potatoes. This is a matter which, admittedly, we shall have to deal with carefully, but, as an instance of what is going on, I only mention what happened in one year within recent memory, when we were importing new potatoes at something like £30 per ton in very considerable quantities, whereas we had in this country quite sound and good potatoes which were not able to find a market at all. That of itself, I believe, justifies something being done in that regard. It has been said that it is difficult to define a new potato. I believe that that term is easily understood, not only by the wholesale and retail trade, but also by the growers and the consumers, and I do not think there is any difficulty anticipated—certainly not by my advisers—upon this point.
Mr. ATTLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a definition?
Sir J. GILMOUR: The Committee may expect me to give some very full definition on this subject, but I do not propose to enter into that. I am satisfied from
1782
my association with agriculture that it can be very properly understood. I might have difficulty in defining an elephant, but I know one when I see it; and those who have to deal with this problem, will, I am sure, be able to find an easy solution. I have been asked whether I have consulted the trade associations. That can properly be done when I come to decide upon the definite action which I shall take in issuing the Orders, and I am quite prepared to enter into negotiations and hear the views of those who are concerned.
Major MILNER: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet done so?
Sir J. GILMOUR: That is so. I have, of course, obtained certain information, but I have not officially seen these bodies. Before I issue the Orders, however, I shall be glad to confer with some of them. I believe I did mention that we have not included onions because of the size of the importations coming from abroad and the fact that we do not grow in this country a very material amount.
Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: We are very happy to find that the Minister of Agriculture is beginning to appreciate the importance of many matters that we have placed before him. Last night we endeavoured to stress for a long time the importance of the canning industry, and now we are delighted to learn that the right hon. Gentleman is beginning to appreciate the importance of that industry. After realising the impression that we have made on his mind, I wonder whether we can get him to think of some other matters in this connection. The object of the Bill is to stimulate the growth of home products, and I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of what his Department has been doing recently in preventing home products, particularly vegetables. I have in my hand some Regulations that have been issued by the Department during the last few weeks, which set out deliberately to prohibit the growth of vegetables in this country, and I am sure that if I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this point—I am sorry that he has left the Committee—he will take steps to see that some of these Regulations are withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that, if the right hon. Gentleman were here, I could not allow him to defend Regulations which have nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I understand that the Amendment is to exclude vegetables from this Order and that the purpose of the Bill is to stimulate home-grown products. I put it to you, Sir Dennis, that if a Regulation recently issued by the Ministry of Agriculture prohibits homegrown products, the purpose of the Bill as a whole falls to the ground.
The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the purpose of the Bill. I said that I could not allow the Minister to defend Regulations which had nothing to do with the Amendment.
Mr. ATTLEE: Slay I put it to you, Sir Dennis, that my hon. Friend is endeavouring to exclude vegetables from the Bill, and one of the reasons for their exclusion is the fact that there would not be enough in this country. I think he would be justified in showing that at
present there are hindrances in the way of producing the necessary supplies.
The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think that up to that point the hon. Member would be right, but I purposely said in the first instance that I could not allow the right hon. Gentleman to defend Regulations which had nothing to do with the Amendment. The hon. Member is justified in criticising up to a certain point the policy of the Department in regard to the production of vegetables.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I am obliged to you for that Ruling, Sir Dennis. It seems to me to be patent that it is impossible for vegetables to be grown in this country, which, after all, is the object of the Bill, if these Regulations stand. I accept your Ruling, I have made my protest, and I shall leave it at that.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word "Tomatoes" in line 11, stand part of the Schedule."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 42.

Division No. 38.]

AYES.

[8 23 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Flanagan, W. H.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Fraser, Captain Ian

Albery, Irving James

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

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Ganzoni, Sir John

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W]

Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

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

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Gledhill, Gilbert

Aske, Sir William Robert

Chotzner, Alfred James

Glossop, C. W. H.

Atholl, Duchess of

Christle, James Archibald

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Atkinson, Cyril

Clarry, Reginald George

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Goff, Sir Park

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Goldie, Noel B.

Balniel, Lord

Colville, Major David John

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Cook, Thomas A.

Gower, Sir Robert

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Copeland, Ida

Granville, Edgar

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Crooke, J. Smedley

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Bateman, A. L.

Crossley, A. C.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Grimston, R. V.

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

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

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th, Centr'l)

Denville, Alfred

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Dickie, John P.

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Donner, P. W.

Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Blindell, James

Drewe, Cedric

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Duggan, Hubert John

Hartland, George A.

Bossom, A. C.

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Eady, George H.

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

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Eastwood, John Francis

Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

Boyce, H. Leslie

Eden, Robert Anthony

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Elmley, Viscount

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

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Browne, Captain A. C.

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Hepworth, Joseph

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard

Herbert, George (Rotherham)

Burghley, Lord

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Burnett, John George

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Butler, Richard Austen

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Hornby, Frank

Horobin, Ian M.

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Salmon, Major Isidore

Horsbrugh, Florence

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Salt, Edward W.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Marjoribanks, Edward

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

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

Martin, Thomas B.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Scone, Lord

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Millar, James Duncan

Selley, Harry R.

Hurd, Percy A.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Morgan, Robert H.

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Morrison, William Shephard

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Jamieson, Douglas

Moss, Captain H. J.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Jennings, Roland

Muirhead, Major A. J.

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

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Munro, Patrick

Smithers, Waldron

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Somervell, Donald Bradley

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

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Nunn, William

Soper, Richard

Ker, J. Campbell

O'Connor, Terence James

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Stones, James

Kimball, Lawrence

Palmer, Francis Noel

Strauss, Edward A.

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Patrick, Colin M.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Pearson, William G.

Sutcliffe, Harold

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n,S.)

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Petherick, M.

Thompson, Luke

Leckie, J. A.

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Pickering, Ernest H.

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Lees-Jones, John

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Leighton, Major B. E. p.

Potter, John

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Lewis, Oswald

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Llewellin, Major John J.

Power, Sir John Cecil

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Pybus, Percy John

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Ramsden, E.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Rankin, Robert

Wells, Sydney Richard

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Weymouth, Viscount

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Reid, David D. (County Down)

White, Henry Graham

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

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

McKie, John Hamilton

Remer, John R.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

McLean, Major Alan

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Wise, Alfred R.

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Womersley, Walter James

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Robinson, John Roland

Wood, Major M, Mckenzie (Banff)

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Magnay, Thomas

Runge, Norah Cecil

Maitland, Adam

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

and Mr. Harcourt Johnstone.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

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

Maxton, James

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Milner, Major James

Batey, Joseph

Harris, Percy A.

Owen, Major Goronwy

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hirst, George Henry

Price, Gabriel

Buchanan, George

Holdsworth, Herbert

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cape, Thomas

Kirkwood, David

Thorne, William James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Tinker, John Joseph

Cove, William G.

Lawson, John James

Wedgwood, Rt Hon. Josiah

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Leonard, William

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Daggar, George

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lunn, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Edwards, Charles

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

McGovern, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grundy, Thomas W.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, column 2, to leave out the word "Tomatoes."
The Committee must realise that I have never been very much in love with this Bill, but I appreciate that under its title it apparently aims partly at keeping out luxuries. Some of the items in the Schedule can certainly be interpreted as
1786
luxuries. Asparagus is one, and a case can be made out for new potatoes, but not a very strong one. In these days, however, tomatoes have become one of the ordinary articles of diet in working-class homes.
Major COLFOX: Rubbish!
Mr. HARRIS: If the hon. and gallant Member will come to my district, he will

1787
find that tomatoes are a very general diet. In the last two years a variety in diet has been preached by doctors with successful results, and it has largely been responsible for an improvement in the health of children, who used to have to put up with bread and dripping and occasional meat. They have now been encouraged to eat fruit and vegetables, and particularly tomatoes. In fact, in the winter time, when eggs are 3d. each, tomatoes form a convenient substitute to eat with the morning rasher of bacon. The Minister of Agriculture said yesterday:
"Quite clearly the tomato is a vegetable used by a great mass of our population, and it would be a foolish thing if any action or Order for which I was responsible I should make it impossible for the mass of our people to get the advantage of eating such a vegetable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1931; col. 1639, Vol. 260.]
By moving this Amendment I am trying to make it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to do that foolish thing, and to remove from him the responsibility of making this pleasant article of diet more expensive. I know what pressure will be brought to bear by the interests concerned. I have seen lobbying going on already from various interests, and I have heard in this House and in various parts of the country growers of this and that agricultural product waxing eloquent upon the amount of employment that would be given if they had protection for their produce. The tomato, however, is different in one important respect; it is that in the luxury and expensive side of the trade it is entirely produced in this country under glass. The persons aimed at by the right hon. Gentleman, who in times of stress still indulge in magnificent banquets at which they wish to introduce expensive food, will not buy tomatoes from the Canary Islands; they buy good quality high-class British tomatoes, and those will be grown whatever happens.
I want to ensure that we get cheap tomatoes from abroad in the early months of the year, when other vegetables are expensive and in short supply, in order that they may be obtainable at a, reasonable price in the markets of our provincial towns and in the streets of London. We know how difficult it is to get good vegetables in winter, even
1788
in the House of Commons. Generally, we have to put up with brussels sprouts. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, anxious to keep out foreign vegetables, did not include brussels sprouts in his Bill. It is true they are grown in this country, but they are blessed with a foreign name. We know how difficult it is for us, in our foggy, damp climate, to grow good vegetables in the winter—except under glass. I do not know whether there are any hon. Members representing the tomato industry who want to encourage the putting up of glass-houses. If that be so, I would remind them that this is an emergency Measure, for 12 months only, and that in that period they cannot hope to create a new industry which will provide the country with all the tomatoes it requires.
If we retain the word "tomatoes" in this Bill we shall be adding to the cost of living of ordinary people at a time of great economic stress. There is much hardship in the homes of the people, especially among the unemployed, who have had to submit to a cut in their insurance pay. The Prime Minister told us only a few months ago that it was better to make an open cut in their pay rather than to increase their cost of living by a tariff. I have his speech here, but I will not read it. On 11th September, in this House, he defended the cut in preference to the policy, which hon. Members opposite were charged with desiring, of imposing a 10 per cent. duty for revenue purposes on all articles imported into this country. Now we have a possibility of a duty of 100 per cent. on tomatoes, if the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to work his wicked worst, and he takes full advantage of the opportunities which this legislation gives him.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's speech yesterday I think the word "tomatoes" slipped into this Bill by accident. He has omitted many things, including the homely onion and brussels sprouts, and I now ask him, towards the close of the proceedings on this Bill, to make us a concession by omitting tomatoes. It would strengthen his Bill, and prevent much of the criticism which is bound to arise, seeing that prices are already advancing. Milk is rising, bread is rising, and we do not want this one

1789
little article—a luxury if you like—which varies the drab, daily diet of the ordinary working-class home to be made more expensive. Tomatoes are the largest item in these imports. No less than £4,000,000 worth of tomatoes are imported every year, mostly, of course, from the Canary Islands. At a time of economic pressure, with a long dull winter before us, and in face of the guarantee by the Prime Minister to do nothing to make life more difficult for the working classes, we beg the Minister not to add to the cost of living in this way.
Mr. COCKS: This is the third time I have risen to take part in these discussions on tomatoes, and I do not apologise for this triple persistence, because after each of my former speeches the Minister of Agriculture has made a certain advance in the direction of defining his intentions. For that I wish to thank him, and I am hopeful that to-night he may make another advance in the direction of meeting our views. In his speech last night the Minister said:
"During the winter months we get a good many tomatoes from the Canary Islands and these consignments are admitted at a low price. I do not think they can be termed a luxury. On the other hand, in the months of May, June, July and August, substantial supplies come into our markets from the Netherlands and France, and it is these imports which directly compete with the home produce."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1931; col. 1640, Vol. 260.]
From that statement, I take it the Minister means to apply this duty only in those four months, and that in particular because of the competition from Holland, which, incidentally, is more or less a Free Trade country. Let me give the figures showing the wholesale prices of the best quality tomatoes in those four months, as recorded in official statistics. Twelve lbs. is the quantity of tomatoes in each case. In May British tomatoes were 13s. 3d. per 12 lbs., or roughly 1s. 1½d. per lb. Dutch tomatoes, competing ones, 9s., or 9d. per lb. Then there are the cheap tomatoes from the Canary Islands, which, as the Minister will admit, are not competitive at all, and which are the food of the poor people. The price for them is 4s. 11d., or roughly 5d. per lb. To place the British and the Dutch tomatoes on a basis of equality it would be necessary to put a
1790
duty of at least 4d. per lb. on imported tomatoes—not the Dutch alone, it would have to be put on all foreign tomatoes—and that would mean that the price of cheap Canary tomatoes would be 9d. instead of 5d. per lb. In June the price of British tomatoes was 8s. per 12 lbs., or 8d, per lb., Dutch tomatoes 6s. or 6d. per lb., tomatoes from the Canary Islands 4s. or 4d per lb. That will mean a duty of at least 2d. to bring the Dutch tomatoes up to the level of British tomatoes, and the workman will have to pay 6d. per lb. for cheap tomatoes instead of 4d., an increase of 2d. per lb. In July British tomatoes were 6s. 10d. per 12 lbs. or just over 7d. per lb., Dutch 4s. 6d., or 4½d per lb., and tomatoes from the Canary Islands 4s. 6d., or 4½d. If the duty is put on it will mean that the price of cheap tomatoes will be 6½d. per lb. instead of 4½d.—and really it will be a little more, because these are wholesale prices. In August British tomatoes were 5s. to 5s. 2d. per 12 lbs., or just over 5d. per lb., Dutch tomatoes 2s. 8d. or about 2½d. per lb. No Canary Island tomatoes come in the month of August. If a duty is imposed the workman will have to pay 5d. per lb. instead of 2½d.—that would be the wholesale price; it would be more retail. Those are first quality tomatoes. I will not take up the time of the Committee by giving the figures of the second quality tomato, but the proportions are much the same.
My point is that the Minister's proposals mean that the worker will have to pay at least 2d. a lb. more for those cheap Canary Island tomatoes which the Minister admits are not competitive, and as one lb. of tomatoes does not go very far, that means a serious charge on the budget of a housewife whose husband is earning only 40s. a week or under. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the tomato was formerly known as a love apple. Let the Minister show his love for the working people of this country by allowing them to obtain untaxed and cheap tomatoes. Let him enact the part of Paris, and present this love apple to the people. By so doing, he may not gain the favours of the Venus of Bournemouth or the Juno of Spark-brook, but he will win the approval of Pallas Athene, whose praise to a sensible

1791
man like himself is more precious and more lasting.
Mr. BUTLER: This is the first time I have taken part in this Debate, and I do so because I regard this question as the crux of the whole Bill. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) called the tomato a love apple, and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) threw an apple of discord among us by introducing this Amendment. I certainly disagree with my hon. Friend, because I wish to retain tomatoes in this Bill. I regard the tomato as embodying some very great principles in agricultural advance upon which I congratulate the Minister. I believe that in this simple fruit we have embodied two great principles. One is that we treat agricultural products in the way they ought to be treated, that is in the same way as industrial products by imposing a tariff. That is sound economics, and that is the proper way in which to do something to balance our trade in the course of the coming year. On these questions I am willing to face facts, and I told my constituents at the last Election that I would be willing to consider any method whatever, and keep a free hand to use the best method. I think that the method which has been proposed for tomatoes by the Minister of Agriculture is the best.
The second principle which the tomato enshrines is the principle that processed articles in agriculture which undergo a process of manufacture, so to speak, in the glasshouse or the factory, in which case bacon would be included, or any form of processing, are to be treated by the system of a tariff, whereas the crop article should be treated by the system of the quota. I believe that is sound economics. We hear in agriculture something about the law of diminishing returns, and Mr. Venn in his article tells us that this law applies especially to those articles submitted to the attention of the ravages of nature, and he distinguishes between those and the industrial articles which are submitted to treatment in glasshouses or the factory where they come more under control. The law of increasing returns applies, as has been proved, to industrial concerns
1792
like motor cars and other manufactured articles, and if you apply the tariff to the tomato, which is a processed article, it will not respond to the law of diminishing returns but to the law of increasing returns. Therefore, the fears of the hon. Member for Broxtowe will not be justified. The same result will follow as follows in the case of manufactured articles which have been submitted to a tariff. We believe that will be the result of applying a tariff to tomatoes. I maintain that those two principles are the principles upon which the future agricultural policy of this country will be able to establish itself.
Although this is a small question dealing with one particular rare and refreshing fruit, in future, if these principles are applied to our agricultural products, we may look with hope to the success of the Minister of Agriculture in tackling our agricultural problems. As regards tomatoes in particular, I do not entertain the fears expressed by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, which I do not think are justified. I believe that it is quite possible for the Minister to put on a seasonal tariff to deal with tomatoes. I have consulted representatives of the tomato industry in my own district, and far from being Lobbied by them, I have found out the facts of the case. The cheap tomatoes are produced between May and October, and it would be possible to have a date tariff which would meet the fears which have been expressed by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green. In those circumstances, the British crop usually produced between May and October would be able to be produced in the same way as before. Therefore, I think that the fears which have been expressed in regard to the seasonal nature of the tomato can be easily met by the Minister.
I have found in my own district that a new hope has been instilled into this industry as a result of these proposals. Many people have complained of the Government starting their policy in such a small way, and I quite agree with them. I would point out, however, that we have many great problems to face, and if we go on steadily in the right direction, I think we shall succeed. In Stansted, Essex, these proposals will be a help to the men in time for next season's trade, because they mean that the greenhouses

1793
can be dealt with scientifically during the winter, and work done to make the crop a more favourable one. In the course of last winter this particular work was not done, because there was no hope forth-coming from the Ministry of Agriculture. I congratulate the Minister upon including this fruit or vegetable in his Bill. I hope that this Measure will be the germ from which a great agricultural policy for this country will spring.
Major COLFOX: Of the two speeches which have been delivered in support of this Amendment, each contains, in my judgment, its own fallacy. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) seemed to assume that the tomato was a necessity to a working-class family. I entirely combat that idea. I do not, of course, say that the tomato does not appear as an article of diet in a great many working-class homes. I know that it does, and I am very glad that it should. But, nevertheless, it is a luxury and not a necessity, and there is no reason that I can see why anybody, whether rich or poor, who indulges in a luxury, should not pay his quota to the national Exchequer for that privilege and pleasure. The hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) entirely overlooked the possibility of tomatoes coming in cheaply during the winter months, and assumed that a tariff put on tomatoes would necessarily raise their price to an extent represented by the various figures that he quoted. I do not profess to be an expert in regard to the prices which are obtainable for tomatoes in different months of the year, and, therefore, I do not wish to suggest that the hon. Member's figures were either right or wrong, but I do know that this Bill proposes to put a tariff only on such tomatoes as are imported from outside the Empire, whereas those which are imported from within the Empire will, as at present, come in free.
9.0 p.m.
The Imperial aspect of this particular duty seems to be in danger of being entirely overlooked. The various West Indian Colonies, all of them units of the British Empire, are in a position to grow tomatoes at a very reasonable cost of production and at times of the year when it is almost impossible to grow tomatoes in this country. The season during which they can be grown and shipped from the different West Indian Colonies varies, of
1794
course, according to the Colony, but roughly it may be said to be from November to April, inclusive—a time when it is impossible to grow any such fruit in England, or even in the Channel Islands. Under the proposals of this Bill, if a tariff is to be put on tomatoes coming from such places as the Canary Islands, North Africa, Italy, Spain, and so forth, while at the same time those grown within the Empire are allowed to come in free, there is no reason whatever to suppose that the price will be raised much, if, indeed, at all, in the English market, because then a hitherto scarcely tapped source of supply will be available to supply the English market. Hitherto there has been little or no encouragement to growers in the West Indies to attempt to develop a market in England, because their supplies have had to undergo a long sea voyage across the Atlantic, and, at any rate, in building up a new trade they would find themselves severely handicapped by the competition from existing sources of supply like the Canary Islands, North Africa and so on. If, however, they were to be assured of an Imperial preference over their competitors outside the Empire, it would be very well worth the while of the different West Indian Islands to organise and build up a trade which would be of immense advantage to themselves and to us in the Motherland as well. Many of the West Indian Islands have been very badly hit by the economic depression, and particularly by the bad times on which the sugar industry has fallen, and, if they could be assured of a preference, and a lasting preference, on this crop, which in that climate is easily grown, they would be in a fair way to regaining some measure of their lost prosperity, and would be able once more to build up a trade in place of that which they have lost. Therefore, I most strongly welcome this proposal in the Bill, not only from the point of view which has been stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), with whom I entirely agree, but also from the Imperial standpoint, which is by no means of little importance. I would, in conclusion, urge upon my right hon. Friend that, when he is considering the details of the imposition of this tax—the rate at which he proposes to impose it and the different times of the year

1795
during which he proposes to impose it—he should consider the claims and possibilities, not only of those people who grow the fruit in this country and the Channel Islands, but also of those who grow the same commodity in more distant parts of the Empire, and particularly in the West Indian Islands.
Dr. SALTER: We have not yet had from the Minister any definite statement as to the period of the year during which this tax is to be imposed, and I want to say a word, on behalf of consumers in the poorer districts of London, against the imposition of a tax at any period of the year, whether it be a date tax or a seasonal tax, to use the terms applied by a previous speaker. In South-East London we have a population of over three-quarters of a million of very poor people indeed. In North Lambeth, Southwark, Walworth, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe and Deptford, there is a population of considerably over three-quarters of a million, composed almost wholly of the casual labour class. The artisan class, the small officials, and so on, all moved away years ago to more desirable residential districts, and the people left are people whose average wage to-day—those who are in full employment—does not exceed £2 or £2 5s. a week, out of which extremely heavy rents have to be paid, amounting to one-third and even more of the total wage.
One of the speakers on the opposite side of the Committee stated that he did not consider that tomatoes were an essential item of diet. I would almost go so far as to say that they are an essential item of diet, having regard to the fact that those of whose wants and needs I am speaking are people who cannot afford to purchase the alternative forms of vegetable diet which are necessary in order to keep them in adequate health. The cheap tomato is the particular vegetable which supplies the whole of the vitamin content which from other sources has to be obtained from a whole series of different vegetables, and the improved health of the densely populated working people in the central areas of London and other big towns in recent years is largely, if not wholly, due to more varied and better dietary. I object on their behalf
1796
to increasing the price of this extraordinarily valuable vegetable from the point of view of vitamin content.
It is no use to say that the English tomato is the alternative for these people. The price of the English tomato is absolutely prohibitive to the great mass of the people to whom I am referring and on whose behalf I am speaking. I have made some special inquiries with regard to the street markets in the areas in South London to which I have referred. There are three or four markets, and I have had inquiries made at 248 street stalls, all of which sell tomatoes. Not one of the stallholders ever handled an English tomato. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] I do not know what the hon. Member means. I think it is a shame that people who would buy English tomatoes if they could have not the wages to enable them to do so. They would prefer English tomatoes, as I would, if they could possibly pay for them. None of these stallholders handles an English tomato because the price is prohibitive to their customers. In the larger shops, where English tomatoes are on sale, the price is 1s. 2d. a lb. Foreign tomatoes are on sale on the stalls at 6d., and that represents the outside figure which the poorer working people can pay. During the summer time, when I understand the Minister contemplates imposing the tax, foreign tomatoes, Dutch in particular, are available at 3d. and 4d. a pound retail, and the lowest price of the British tomato anywhere is 8d., and for the most part it is a shilling. If you put 100 per cent. import duty on foreign tomatoes, you are going to rule them out completely from the dietary of the poorer people and put them clean out of their reach.
I was astonished to learn from an hon. Member opposite that, if we put on this proposed tax, the ultimate result would be a reduction in the price. Certainly that is not the experience of tariff countries anywhere in the world. The hon. Member cannot point to a single Protectionist country where food prices are as low as they are here. Wherever tariffs have been put on, there has been an immediate rise of price, and it has been maintained, and to suggest that the imposition of 100 per cent. tax will lead to a reduction in the price of articles such

1797
as tomatoes is ridiculous. Earlier in the Debate we were told that the tax would lead to increased production here, that new glass-houses would be erected, and that it was a most desirable thing to get people back to a healthy country life. That is a most absurd argument, because it is a notorious fact that men who are employed in hot-houses are subject to a much higher death-rate and disease-rate than people who work in the open. They are peculiarly susceptible to pneumonia. The death-rate from pneumonia is higher among workers under glass than any other class of population. Their power of resistance to infection is reduced by working in the torrid atmosphere and the risk of chills and so on, in coming out of a temperature of 80 or 90 degrees to one of 32 or less, enormously increases the danger of pneumonia and similar diseases. We ought to do everything we can to encourage open-air work and to discourage work under glass. I would do everything in my power to prevent the erection of more glass-houses and the employment of more men under those conditions. I believe it to be entirely inimical to the best interests of the working people that they should be driven to employment of this sort. I would much rather see them engaged in open-air work.
We do not possess a climate suitable for the production of tomatoes in the open-air except to a limited extent and for a short period in a year, whereas the districts from most of which our winter supplies of tomatoes come are areas where the tomatoes are grown in the open—the Canary Islands and North Africa—and, looking at it from the larger human point of view, it is very much more satisfactory and economic for the tomatoes to be grown in the open and to be sent here than that we should herd our people under very disadvantageous and unhygienic conditions of labour leading to a largely increased death-rate. I am very strongly opposed, as are a great many others who are interested from a public health point of view, to an increase in the glass-house industry. Clearly one of the objects of a tariff on tomatoes is to extend the glass-house cultivation of tomatoes, because otherwise it is meaningless. From a public health point of view, as well as from the economic point
1798
of view, it is disadvantageous, and I hope that the Amendment will be carried.
Sir J. GILMOUR: I have had to consider very carefully the inclusion of tomatoes in this Schedule. I had to ask myself: Is this a matter which involves a large sum of money in importation into this country, does it represent a class of product which can be grown in this country, and is there room for expansion of that industry in order to fill in at any rate a proportion of what we import? I was finally moved to put tomatoes into my Schedule, first of all, because in 1930 we imported into this country no less than £4,545,000 worth of tomatoes. Whatever hon. Members on either side of the Committee may think about the wisdom or unwisdom of their inclusion, I think they will agree that when one is considering the possibility of reducing the imports of goods or food products of which we can quite properly increase the production in this country, it is essential that I should so include them.
I have listened with a great deal of sympathy to those Members who have spoken in support of the view that we should not interfere with the widest use of tomatoes which come into this country at very cheap rates, and which are available to the poorest of our people. Within some measure I am in agreement with that point of view, but there is, on the other hand, a very considerable importation of tomatoes which comes into direct competition with an industry which we can quite properly carry on in this country. I think that it is not beyond the wit of even an unfortunate Minister like myself to devise an Order which will conserve properly a large part of the importation of very cheap tomatoes at certain times of the year, but which, on the other hand, can equally, and, I think, properly, lessen the importation that comes from abroad in competition with an industry in this country which, even in glasshouses, can be expanded very considerably, and which is to-day to my knowledge, being expanded in the Channel Islands, for instance, on the mere promise that the Government are quite determined to do something to stimulate production in our own islands and within our own jurisdiction.

1799
I have listened, also, with interest to those who speak about the properties and value of this food, and no one wants to destroy the production of that food. On the contrary, I am one of those who think that production should be increased. I have heard people say that the glasshouse industry is so unhealthy that it ought to be put down. I am always ready to listen to medical advice, but I confess that I am satisfied we can produce in this country, without any injury to a large number of people, a glasshouse industry which can effectively be used for our own purposes, first of all, to produce fresh fruit at a reasonable price, and, secondly, to reduce the amount of money we expend upon articles of a similar nature from abroad. For those reasons, I am unmoved by anything I have heard, and I can assure the Committee that as far as regards certain parts of the year and certain classes of cheap tomatoes, those matters will be taken into consideration.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am amazed at the figures which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman. He says that £4,500,000 worth of tomatoes come into this country. That is proof positive that those tomatoes are the food not of the few but of the many. This is the worst case we have had so far of a genuine tax upon the food of the people. £4,500,000 worth of tomatoes is consumed by the poor people in this country. [interruption.] Almost all of them. The difference in price is enormous. It is the difference between 1s. and 2d., and when you have figures like that you must realise that you are definitely taking steps to stop a very vital foodstuff from coming into the poorest homes of this country. We are offered, almost with a jeer, the alternative of getting these tomatoes grown in hothouses in this country. It is ridiculous to suppose that we can produce by any sort of organisation of industry tomatoes in glasshouses in this country to compete with the article produced abroad in the sun or in the open. Therefore, there is no chance of English-grown tomatoes coming down in price so that the poor can buy them.
Major BRAITHWAITE: As I understand the position, the Minister has power to impose a duty only up to 100 per cent., and if tomatoes now cost 2d. a pound, they cannot possibly cost more
1800
than 4d. if he puts the maximum duty upon them.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: They will cost 4d. instead of 2d.
Major BRAITHWAITE: That is not 1s. a pound.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: The shilling is the price of the English-grown tomato. You are deliberately putting 100 per cent. tariff upon an essential food coming into this country. At one time the tomato was one of the rarest possible vegetables and was very expensive, being produced solely under glass, but for the last generation tomatoes have been one of the chief vegetables eaten by the poorest class of people. You are selecting this product for a tariff which will make this particular food twice as dear as it is to-day, and will not bring the competing foods produced in this country within reach of their larder. I myself produce tomatoes. My tomatoes become ripe about September and October, very late in the year, and I consume them myself.
The question is, Are we going to stop tomatoes from coming in only at one part of the year, or throughout the year? I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he contemplates putting on this monstrous food tax only during certain portions of the year. I should like to know what portions of the year? Because if the tax is put on for those few months—and I am afraid it will be the hottest months of the year, June, July, August, and September—tomatoes will be dearer for the working class, whereas during the rest of the year they may be brought in and the working class may continue to obtain their food. It is during the hottest months of the year that the need for tomatoes in the poorest parts of the country is greatest. Therefore, you are selecting just those months when the population have their lighter meals to block out the tomato from the English market, and shut up all the shops in Deptford and elsewhere. It is cruel to put on a tax just when people need tomatoes most. It is cruel to double the price of an article which has become essential to every poor family in this country. Whereas nearly all the other taxes proposed are taxes upon luxuries, this is essentially a tax which will hit the poor people, and not the well-to-do.

1801
There has been a certain amount of indifference on this question, because it is put out that these are luxuries. This, really, is a tax which is not a luxury tax, but a tax on food. I am bound to say that I think it will produce more unpopularity, more inconvenience and actual ill-health among the people of the country than anything else which either the right hon. Gentleman or the President of the Board of Trade have proposed. This is not the thin end of the wedge, but a direct food tax of the worst sort, which will be felt in every home in the country. I beg the right. hon. Gentleman, when he puts the tax on, to put it on for the shortest possible period, and not in the hottest months of the year, and that he will let it be not 100 per cent., adding 2d. per lb. to this article, but a far smaller tax, remembering that
this is not a luxury but a food of the people. I feel so strongly on this question that I wish the Committee would continue to debate it all night long, as we have suspended the Rule. Much as I regard the Statute of Westminster Bill, the next Order on the Paper, as important, this is of far more importance to everybody, and I hope before the Debate closes we shall have from the right hon. Gentleman some sort of guarantee that the tax will not be 100 per cent., and that the months selected for it will not be those months of the year when people need tomatoes most.
Question put, "That the word 'Tomatoes' stand part of the Schedule."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 47.

Division No. 39.]

AYES.

[9.29 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Colfox, Major William Philip

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T, (Leeds,W.)

Cook, Thomas A.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Albery, Irving James

Copeland, Ida

Hartland, George A.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)

Crooke, J. Smedley

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

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Croom-Johnson, R. P,

Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Crossley, A. C.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Aske, Sir William Robert

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Atholl, Duchess of

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

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Atkinson, Cyril

Denville, Alfred

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Dickie, John P.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Balniel, Lord

Donner, P. W.

Hepworth, Joseph

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Drewe, Cedric

Herbert, George (Rotherham)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Duggan, Hubert John

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

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

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Eady, George H.

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Eastwood, John Francis

Hornby, Frank

Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)

Eden, Robert Anthony

Horsbrugh, Florence

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Elmley, Viscount

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Bossom, A. C.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C,

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Hurd, Percy A.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard

Insklp, Sir Thomas W. H.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

Jamieson, Douglas

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Jennings, Roland

Broadbent, Colonel John

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Flanagan, W. H.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Browne, Captain A. C.

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. C. T.

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

Burghley, Lord

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Burnett, John George

Ganzonl, Sir John

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Butler, Richard Austen

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

Ker, J. Campbell

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Gledhill, Gilbert

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Glossap, C. W. H.

Kimball, Lawrence

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Goff, Sir Park

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Carver, Major William H.

Goldle, Noel B.

Knight, Hoiford

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Gower, Sir Robert

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Granville, Edgar

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Leckle, J. A.

Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Lees-Jones, John

Chotzner, Alfred James

Grimston, R. V.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Christie, James Archibald

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Lewis, Oswald

Clarry, Reginald George

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Clayton, Dr. George C.

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

Llewellin, Major John J

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Palmer, Francis Noel

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

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Patrick, Colin M.

Smithers, Waldron

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Pearson, William G.

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Petherick, M.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Peto,Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)

Soper, Richard

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Potter, John

Stones, James

MacDonald, Bt. Hn. J. R, (Seaham)

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Strauss, Edward A.

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

McKie, John Hamilton

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Sutcliffe, Harold

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Pybus, Percy John

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)

McLean, Major Alan

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Thompson, Luke

Maclean, Bt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Ramsden, E.

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Rankin, Robert

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Magnay, Thomas

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Maitland, Adam

Raid, David D. (County Down)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Remer, John R.

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Manningham-Bulier, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Marjoribanks, Edward

Robinson, John Roland

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Martin, Thomas B.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wells, Sydney Richard

Millar, James Duncan

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Weymouth, Viscount

Milne, Charles

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Morgan, Robert H.

Salmon, Major Isidore

windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Salt, Edward W.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Morrison, William Shephard

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Wise, Alfred R.

Moss, Captain H. J.

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Womersley, Walter James

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Munro, Patrick

Scone, Lord

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Selley, Harry R.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Nunn, William

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Mr. Shakespeare and Mr. Blindell.

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Owen, Major Goronwy

Batey, Joseph

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Price, Gabriel

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Harris, Percy A.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Buchanan, George

Hirst, George Henry

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cape, Thomas

Holdsworth, Herbert

Thorne, William James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kirkwood, David

Tinker, John Joseph

Cove, William G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lawson, John James

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Daggar, George

Leonard, William

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Edwards, Charles

Lunn, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

McGovern, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Mr. John and Mr. Gordon

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maxton, James

Macdonald.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Milner, Major James

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 14 to 17.
Although my name does not appear on the Order Paper in support of the Amendment, I have pleasure in moving it. I was interested to hear the Minister of Agriculture restating as the object of the Bill the desire of the Government to rectify the trade balance. I am inclined to think that the operation of this part of the Bill in that direction will be so negligible as to warrant its deletion from the Schedule. Those hon. Members who desire to rectify the balance of trade have apparently the country behind them.
1804
In that case one would have thought that a simple appeal to the people who sent 400 representatives to this House, to refrain from acting in an unpatriotic manner, as they must be doing to make this Bill necessary, would have been sufficient, but it would appear that, although they supported the present Government at the poll, they are not prepared to act loyally in that direction. The object of the Bill, as stated in the Preamble, is to reduce the importation of products
"the production of which in the United Kingdom can be increased, or which are articles of luxury."

1805
Sufficient has been said to indicate that we on these benches are not disposed meekly to accept the concept of luxury which has been expressed on the Government benches. The purchase of flowers is deemed to be something out-with the necessary requirements of the working people, but I remember listening to an address by an individual who is not inclined to my political views who asserted emphatically that every effort on the part of the working-classes to beautify their lives was a definite advance. Therefore, I am prepared to include flowers as one of the needs of life in the tenement system of Scotland, and I am prepared to support the purchase of flowers to any extent that I can. It is one of the mediums through which working people display their affection at the hospitals. The flowers that are taken to hospitals on visiting days and Sundays ought to be kept in mind, and this tendency on the part of working-class people to display their affection for sufferers ought to receive consideration. In regard to the proposal to tax plants that come into the country in flower, such as azaleas, surely it ought to be quite easy to keep them out by appealing to the people who are capable of purchasing them, the people with money, and asking them to refrain from buying them.
With regard to bulbs, the public park departments of various cities and towns from time to time have to purchase large quantities of bulbs, which can only be purchased in the large quantities that are essential because they are cheaper than they can be produced in this country. While it may be the case that there is a tendency on the part of growers in this country to increase the supply of homegrown bulbs, I think the supply is negligible. I should like to know what is a rose tree under this Bill. Is it intended to call a bush a rose tree? Does the definition include the bush form of roses that are imported and purchased by thousands of people in order to respond to the request of the housing authorities that the tenants should endeavour to keep the amenities around their homes as good as they possibly can. In responding to that appeal people buy and successfully grow the rose trees that are imported. It is only a small portion of what is termed a rose tree that is really a rose tree. Many rose trees are grown on briar stock, with briar roots, while there are
1806
rose trees which are grown on rose stock and rose roots. With regard to the duty, it is provided that it may be charged by reference to value, weight, measurement or quantity. What will be the duty on bulbs, rose trees and other things of that description?
The suggestion that the Opposition are hampering a growing and promising industry is one which I cannot accept, especially when it comes from hon. Members opposite, who have constantly told us that a little competition is a good thing. From the journals which cater for the people who have gardens, I gather that there is a growing number of people indulging in this form of activity. If one takes up the gardening manuals you will continually see new names in addition to the old names and, therefore, if this growing industry is to be urged to further effort there is no better method of doing this than to put it on its mettle by a little opposition. I trust that these items will be excluded from the Bill.
Sir J. GILMOUR: We have now arrived at the last part of the Schedule which deals with flowers, plants, foliage, bulbs and rose trees. I have no desire, let me say, to prevent people taking flowers to hospitals or to their friends, nor do I desire to stop anybody growing a rose tree in his garden outside his door, but here again there must be some sense of proportion. Two classes of cut flowers are coming into this country. There are the cheap or early French flowers, and the forced flowers, which come into direct competition with our own hothouse flowers. It might be said that anything which would prevent the very early appearance of mimosa and anemones from the South of France would be unreasonable, but at a time like this we must forego some of our luxuries. At the same time, we can vastly increase the production of flowers in our own country, very much to the benefit of that healthy outdoor exercise about which the hon. Member for Bermondsey West (Dr. Salter) lectured us a short time ago. It is true that some of these flowers can be grown under glass, but there are a great number which can be grown in the open.
Take the question of competition in rose trees. The rose trees which come into this country are used for the main

1807
part in private gardens, they are not in the main nursery stock. Unfortunately, it is the fact that these rose trees come in in enormous quantities, are auctioned in the country districts at prices absurdly below the original cost of production, and they really mean that a great many of our gardeners throughout the country are faced with a competition which is unreasonable and unfair. Something like 8,600,000 of these rose trees came into this country mainly from Holland last year. I agree that the question of bulbs is a more difficult problem. Many of the bulbs are the raw material of the flower industry in certain parts of the country. On the other hand, there are parts of the country where we are building up a rapidly increasing and important bulb growing industry, and is it to be said that we are not to help in that matter? It will be the height of folly to put on so high a duty as to hinder or prevent the production of flowers by those in this country who treat bulbs as their raw material. We must have a sense of proportion in this matter and that is the reason why I included bulbs in the Schedule. The Committee has had a considerable and an instructive Debate on this problem, and I hope that it will now allow me to have the remaining part of the Schedule.
Mr. LEWIS: I have been struck with the fact that throughout the whole of the Debates in connection with this Bill, including the Debate on the Financial Resolution and on Second Reading, no one has endeavoured to put the case for the rose growers. One hon. Member has gone so far as to move an Amendment which would take rose trees entirely out of the scope of the Bill, and, therefore, it is time that someone gave the Committee the case of the rose growers and why rose trees should be included in the Schedule. The National Rose Society, which has been in existence for over 50 years and numbers to-day 16,000 members, including not only trade members, but private individuals as well, has for a number of years been spending money in encouraging the development of the rose industry by means of shows and in other ways. Very largely as the result of this the rose growing industry in this country has developed considerably within the last 20 years. Compared with the big indus-
1808
tries, it is, of course, very small, but it is still worth the consideration of the Committee in several respects. It is efficient. No one will deny that they produce the finest roses in the world. It is enterprising, in that it is constantly evolving new types of roses. It is an industry in which workers and employers work very harmoniously together, and the lowest form of labour in the rose growing gardens in this country usually gets the rate of wages laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board, while there are opportunities for those men who desire to become skilled and experienced in their work to get more. On all these grounds the industry is worthy of consideration by the Committee.
In the last two or three years it has been subjected to very severe foreign competition which is threatening to strangle the industry. Let me give the Committee one example from my own constituency. A big rose grower there last year at the end of the season had to destroy 100,000 trees which he had been unable to sell. Yesterday he told me that this season his sales to date are 70,000 trees less than they were last year, and I understand from the representatives of the National Rose Society that they would be well under the mark in saying that, if things continue as they are, the rose growers of this country at the end of this season will have to destroy something like 30 per cent. of the trees they have grown because they have been unable to sell them. As hon. Members know, they cannot be kept for sale after the first year. The root of the difficulty is simply the price. It has been found by the growers in this country that it is not possible to produce for less than 6d. a rose that can be put on the market in the form of a tree 12 months old. The cost varies from 6d. to 10d. a tree in different parts of the country.
Dr. SALTER: Is that wholesale or retail?
Mr. LEWIS: That is the wholesale price. Twelve months ago trees were being offered in competition with them from the Continent at a price of 30s. per 100, that is to say 3½. each. This season they have been sold in large quantities at as low a price as 10s. a 100, and even less, or 1¼ each. It may be true that in some respects the competing foreign

1809
article is inferior to the British article. The foreign article often proves to be diseased, or not to have been grown with sufficient care, so that in its later stages it does not do well. It often proves to have been misdescribed. It is impossible for the purchaser in this country, unless he be a very great expert, to detect the difference on purchase, so that even though it may be inferior the foreign article effectively competes with the British article.
What will happen to these imported trees if they are included under the Bill? The maximum duty that can be put on them is 100 per cent. If that is based on this year's price, say 10s. per hundred, it means a duty of 10s. per hundred, an all-in-cost of, say, 20s. If advantage is taken of the provision in the Bill that the duty can be based, not on this year's price but on the price 12 months ago, the position will be rather more favourable, because the price 12 months ago was 30s. So that 100 per cent. duty on the price 12 months ago, added to the price of 10s., will give an all-in-cost of 40s. Even if that more favourable course is adopted, the foreign trees can be sold at something like 5d. a tree, as against the 6d. which is the lowest price at which they can be produced in this country. I hope that the Minister will make the regulations as tight as possible to get over that difficulty. It is not competent for a private Member to move an increased charge, and I should not have been in order if I had endeavoured to move, as I would have liked to have done, a maximum duty of 6d. a tree for rose trees, leaving the 100 per cent. duty for other things. It is not possible for the Minister to do that on the Report stage of the Bill, because he is limited by the terms of his own financial Resolution. It would, of course, be possible to produce a new financial Resolution, but that is asking too much with existing demands on Parliamentary time.
Undoubtedly this difficulty has arisen largely as an oversight. The Minister has not had an opportunity of seeing the representatives of the National Rose Society or of the smaller professional body, the British Rose Growers' Association. I do not complain of that. I know that the Bill has had to be produced in a great hurry. But if the Minister has
1810
had an opportunity of seeing representatives of these societies I feel sure that he would have dealt with this matter in a different way. I am certain that he is anxious to give efficient protection to the rose growers in this country. I believe he is genuinely anxious to keep out a large proportion of these foreign competing trees. I am sorry that it is not possible now to suggest an Amendment to the Bill, but I think that the Committee as a whole will feel that an overwhelming case can be made out for British rose trees getting that amount of protection which they can get under the Bill.
10.0 p.m.
Apart from the financial benefit to the rose growers of this country, the increased employment and the rest of it, there is another aspect of the matter, and that is looking to the future of rose growing in this country. The rose growers for some years have been very gravely concerned at the spread of a disease known as rust. The disease undoubtedly shows signs of spreading more rapidly where there are large importations of foreign trees. If something can be done to limit the importation of these foreign trees we shall go a long way towards making it possible to control the disease and assist the permanent benefit of an industry which no Member of this House would like to see drop out.
Dr. SALTER: The last speaker asked the Minister whether, before he decided finally on the amount of duty that he was to impose, he would see representatives of the National Rose Society. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will see representatives of the National Gardens Guild, a very important body with many hundreds of thousands of affiliated members. I will try to put to the Committee a side of the case with which most Members are probably entirely unfamiliar. There are huge districts in our great industrial towns, and particularly in London, very sordid, very drab and very grey, where there is practically no garden space, only a small forecourt or backyard, very often paved or asphalted. It is impossible in those areas for the inhabitants to grow much in the way of flowers, or to do much of what we understand by gardening, but owing to the efforts of a large number

1811
of social and philanthropic organisations in recent years, and particularly as a result of the activities of the National Gardens Guild and the London Gardens Guild, there has been encouraged the development of plant culture on window sills, in pots and boxes, and even on paved forecourts, to an extent that, if it could be estimated, would probably astonish hon. Members.
I happen to know the figures in regard to the Bermondsey area where a large proportion of the population occupy great tenement blocks or else very small houses in connection with which the garden space is very cramped. The local Gardens Guild in that borough has in recent years encouraged the cultivation of flowers and plants and, as a result, last year there were 2,880 competitors in a competition for forecourt, backyard and window sill displays, and the great majority of those competitors exhibited rose blooms. They obtained their rose trees from Messrs. Woolworths at 3d. or 6d., whereas the cheapest English-grown rose trees are from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. In the confined and sooty central areas of London rose trees will not endure for more than one season or at the most two seasons. Consequently, these people have to purchase every year.
In this matter, we are really covering the same ground as we did in regard to tomatoes, because we say that by these proposals you are going to deprive these people of the possibility of obtaining the pleasure of cultivating roses. They cannot, like hon. Members opposite who have nice gardens in residential districts, grow their rose trees from year to year. They are obliged to get a new specimen every year or sometimes even two in the same season. The market for these very cheap rose trees is almost entirely among the poorest of the people. These trees are not purchased by the well-to-do people in the suburban areas. They are almost wholly confined to working-class districts, and, if you keep them out or put a prohibitive duty upon them, you will abolish for the people whom I represent, the pleasures of rose cultivation.
Mr. D. D. REID: I happen to represent a constituency which grows a great number of roses, and I would like to make some comments on the speech of the hon.
1812
Member for Bermondsey West (Dr. Salter). I am sure that no one in the Committee wishes to do anything to injure the cultivation of flowers or plants by the people of whom he has spoken, but I think that some of his statements are exaggerated. He speaks of buying rose trees in Woolworths for 3d. or 6d. but that is nothing like the price of which the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) was complaining. The price of which he was complaining is more like one-third of 3d.
Dr. SALTER: The hon. Member for Colchester was referring exclusively to wholesale prices whereas I was referring to retail prices.
Mr. REID: At the other end of the scale I suggest that there is also exaggeration in the hon. Member's statement. He speaks of home-grown roses being sold at from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. I am familiar with the catalogues of most of the principal rose growers, and I think he will find in the catalogues of the biggest growers very much lower prices than those. Indeed, I would say that 9d. or 1s. is an average price. We have no desire to interfere with the work to which the lion. Member for Bermondsey West refers, but he has said that these roses do not go to the suburban gardens. Our information is that they do go to the suburban gardens and that they do enter into practical competition with the roses raised by British labour in this country. These roses to which reference has been made are raised in one or two countries on the Continent. Formerly a great many of them went to Germany and America and some other countries. All those markets are now shut to them. Importation into those countries is now strictly prohibited with the result that the growers in Holland and elsewhere, when they have sold all the roses which they can sell through the normal channels, have a surplus stock remaining, for which they can find no other outlet but by dumping in this country. That is the only thing which we want to stop. If the roses are grown and sold at something like the cost of production our growers have nothing to fear. What they protest against is surplus stocks which

1813
have been left over being dumped into this country and brought into competition with roses raised under decent conditions by British employers with British labour.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 39.

Division No. 40.]

AYES.

[10.13 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Eady, George H.

Knight, Holford

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Eastwood, John Francis

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Eden, Robert Anthony

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Albery, Irving James

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

Elmley, Viscount

Leckie, J. A.

Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lees-Jones, John

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Lewis, Oswald

Apsley, Lord

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Aske, Sir William Robert

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Llewellin, Major John J.

Atkinson, Cyril

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Flanagan, W. H.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Balniel, Lord

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Fraser, Captain Ian

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Fromantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Fuller, Captain A. E. G.

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Ganzoni, Sir John

MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

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

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

Beaumont, R. E. B.(Portsm'th, Centr'l)

Gledhill, Gilbert

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Glossop, C. W. H.

McKeag, William

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

McKie, John Hamilton

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Goff, Sir Park

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Goldie, Noel B.

McLean, Major Alan

Bossom, A. C.

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)

Bowater, Col. sir T. Vansittart

Granville, Edgar

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Bowyer, Capt, Sir George E. w.

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Magnay, Thomas

Boyce, H. Leslie

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

Maitland, Adam

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Grimston, R. v.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Broadbent, Colonel John

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

Brown, Ernest (Lelth)

Hanley, Dennis A.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Browne, Captain A. C.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hartland, George A.

Martin, Thomas B.

Burghley, Lord

Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Burnett, John George

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

Millar, James Duncan

Butler, Richard Austen

Haslam, H. C. (Lindsay, Horncastle)

Milne, Charles

Calne, G. R. Hall-

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Hellgers, captain F. F. A.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C, R, (Ayr)

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

Morgan, Robert H.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Carver, Major William H.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Hepworth, Joseph

Moss, Captain H. J.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Hillman, Dr. George B.

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Chalmers, John Rutherford

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Munro, Patrick

Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

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

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Hornby, Frank

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Chotzner, Altred James

Horsbrugh, Florence

Nunn, William

Christie, James Archibald

Howard, Tom Forrest

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Clarry, Reginald George

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Clayton, Dr. George C.

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

Palmer, Francis Noel

Colville, Major David John

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Patrick, Colin M.

Cook, Thomas A.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Pearson, William G.

Copeland, Ida

Hurd, Percy A.

Peat, Charles U.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.

Petherick, M.

Crooke, J. Smedley

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Jamieson, Douglas

Pickering, Ernest H.

Crossley, A. C.

Jennings, Roland

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Potter, John

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

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

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Power, Sir John Cecil

Denville, Alfred

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

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

Dickie, John P.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Donner, P. W.

Ker, J. Campbell

Pybus, Percy John

Drewe, Cedric

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Ralkes, Hector Victor Alpin

Duckworth, George A. V.

Kimball, Lawrence

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Duggan, Hubert John

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

Ramsden, E.

Rankin, Robert

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Wallace, Captain D. E, (Hornsey)

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn.Sir A. (C'thness)

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Remer, John R.

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

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

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-

Robinson, John Roland

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Wells, Sydney Richard

Ross, Ranald D.

Soper, Richard

Weymouth, Viscount

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Stones, James

Windsor-CIive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Russeil, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)

Strauss, Edward A.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Wise, Alfred R.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

Sutcliffe, Harold

Womersley, Walter James

Salt, Edward W.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Thompson, Luke

Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Scone, Lord

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Selley, Harry R.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

and Mr. Blindell.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Milner, Major James

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Owen, Major Goronwy

Batey, Joseph

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Price, Gabriel

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hirst, George Henry

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Briant, Frank

Kirkwood, David

Thorne, William James

Buchanan, George

Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George

Tinker, John Joseph

Cape, Thomas

Lawson, John James

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Leonard, William

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Daggar, George

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Edwards, Charles

McGovern, John

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maxton, James

Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th December],
"That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[The Solicitor-General.]
Question again proposed.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
I rise to resume my argument in favour of my Amendment. I ask the indulgence of the House in this argument and of your special indulgence, Mr. Speaker. You know that I and some of my hon. Friends hold strong views about this Statute as a whole, and it is sometimes difficult to exclude general arguments about it from technical arguments. I know that this argument must necessarily
1816
be of a technical nature, and I leave conscientiously considered, as far as I can, to see how I can advance arguments in a proper manner within the technical limits of the Amendment. The Government placed those who have been considering this Lords Amendment in some difficulty last night, because after a discussion of six hours on the subject of vegetables, we were given five minutes to discuss the question of the date when the new constitution for the British Empire should come into operation. The question of date is of paramount importance in this matter, and we were not perhaps unreasonable in insisting that more that five minutes' debate should be given to it.
I was not surprised that the Government treated us in that way, because that has been their consistent policy on every stage of this Bill, but I appreciate the point of view of and the argument which will no doubt be adduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. He will say that this is a mere drafting Amendment. As a man of great Parliamentary and legal experience, he will appreciate that that is the kind of argument which is always

1817
adduced when a Government find themselves in a technical difficulty, when they have left out something which ought to have been inserted and then repent at the eleventh hour. He will realise that that argument is also constantly used in the Law Courts. But it needs very little research indeed to realise that this is not merely a drafting Amendment, but one of paramount importance. One has only to look at the resolutions of the Imperial Conference, upon which the Statute of Westminster Bill is based. We have been told throughout the Debate, by every right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who has spoken, that those Resolutions must be regarded as a law of the Medes and Persians; that they are the foundation of the Statute of Westminster Bill; that we must not depart from them by one jot or tittle, because they are a promise we have made to the Dominions, an agreement of honour which the House is pledged to fulfil precisely, as has been requested and demanded. The first operative Resolution of the Imperial Conference is contained in this Official Report of—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into the whole history of the Statute.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I was coming to the Resolution on which this Subsection must have been based. In that Resolution of the Imperial Conference it says that the let December, 1931, should be the date as from which the proposed Statute should become operative. Clearly, this Sub-section was put into the Statute of Westminster Bill in order to give legal form to that Resolution. Indeed, the precise words will be found in Sub-section (2) at the end of Clause 12. It is the Sub-section which the Lords now seek to eradicate from the Bill, and that is a violation of a most solemn pledge given to the Imperial Conference. Therefore, if we are to place any weight whatever upon the argument which was brought forward again and again that this Bill and this Sub-section embody a pledge definitely given at the Imperial Conference—it is an argument which has been consistently adduced by the Secretary of State for the Dominions and by the Solicitor-General and others—then we must admit that that pledge has been violated already by the Lords Amend-
1818
ment which seeks to take out of this Bill this solemn pledge given to the Dominions.
10.30 p.m.
I wish to place only this reliance upon that point, that having regard to the fact that we have already broken that solemn pledge the whole situation has now changed with regard to the matter of the date. That is why I have produced my Amendment that the Lords Amendment be considered this day three months, or, alternatively, be laid aside, so that we can come to some understanding in regard to the date. If this Amendment be carried, if we agree with the Lords in their Amendment, then this Bill will come into immediate operation as soon as the Royal Assent is given—whenever that may be, and I cannot possibly say when that will be. If, on the other hand, this Amendment of the Lords is not agreed to, then it will be clear on the face of things that the pledge to the Dominions has been broken, and that the Bill is self-contradictory in its very terms. If there was a solemn pledge with regard to the date of 1st December, there was also a solemn pledge with regard to the other proposals in this Bill. As we have already broken our pledge with regard to the precise date, it cannot make any difference in principle whether we delay this Measure for another week or another month. We have already broken our pledge and merely for the sake of putting this Statute into operation immediately, surely it would not be just not to grant our request that we should have a few days or weeks more for the consideration of this Measure, especially having regard to the circumstances which have arisen.
This proposal to lay aside the Lords Amendment is justified by precedent, and circumstances have arisen during the last few days which wholly alter the situation. There has been a change of Government in Australia and those Australian representatives who supported this Statute—
Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that is not in order. The hon. Member is really arguing against the Bill.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I was not proposing to argue against the Bill. I was arguing about the date on which the Bill should come into operation, and whether a further consultation would not be ad-

1819
visable in the present circumstances. There may be a change of Government in Australia, and the Secretary of State for the Dominions in supporting this Bill placed great reliance on the opinion of the Governments of the Dominions. Public opinion in the Dominions may have changed since the last Imperial Conference, and there is to be a General Election in Australia and a new Imperial Conference. We are told that we are now fulfilling a pledge given at the last Imperial Conference, and it is useless for the Secretary of State for the Dominions to say that you could not raise a constitutional question at the Imperial Conference.
I think that I have made myself plain with regard to the facts. The pledge given by the Dominions reinforces my argument for a revision with regard to the question of the date, and the date is the essence of this matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words as regards the merit of leaving out this Sub-section or including it. This is the subject matter of the Amendment with which the Solicitor-General proposes to agree. My argument is that the course adopted by the Government is contrary to the tradition and the custom in England with regard to laws recently passed. Respect for laws is one of the traditions of the English character. We have been told by those who defended this course in this or the other House that this is a Statute not to be regarded seriously, and I will quote the words of the learned Viscount—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot repeat the arguments used in another place in order to influence this House.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: These arguments were not used in another place, and that is not my object. My object is to put this Bill before the country in the way which is most beneficial to the country and the Empire, and I will reinforce my argument as to whether I am in order or not by quoting the words of Lord Hailsham. He said:
"We English are sufficiently flexible and sufficiently sensible to allow Statutes which have become obsolete to remain inoperative. I do not see why this Statute of Westminster, even if it contains some of the dangers which some people see in it, should not share the fate of its earlier predecessors. I believe that the Statute of West-
1820
minster, whether it is strictly a correct legal document or not, is regarded, by many of the Dominions at any rate, as a legal expression of the Balfour Declaration."
As far as I understand the argument of the Noble and learned Viscount, it was that this is a solemn pledge which we must fulfil to the Dominions, but that it is not a Bill which ought to be taken seriously. He later described the Bill as a "strait jacket" in which the British Empire would never be mad enough to place itself. I do not know whether that was consistent with the English tradition which always regards a law which has recently been passed as one which should be observed and obeyed, or whether the Noble and learned Viscount had in mind other words which were used by the great American President who presided over the Congress which determined what the American Constitution should be which has lasted for two centuries—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now dealing with the whole principle of the Bill, and that is entirely out of order on this Motion.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: If that were my only argument, it would be out of order, but my argument is—
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order even though it be part of the hon. Member's argument.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: My object is to show that this is a most exceptional Statute, and that, having regard to the fact that it is a most exceptional Statute, and is to be disregarded, according to the advice of those people who have been concerned to defend it both here and in another place, it is far better that this Statute should be marked out as one which is not to be regarded, because it contains utterly contradictory pro-visions—
Mr. SPEAKER: That might be an argument against the Bill, but on this Motion arguments either for or against the Bill are out of order.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: It is an argument for the inclusion in this Statute of Sub-section (2), which my hon. and learned Friend is seeking to exclude, in order that people may mark the Statute out as one which has not had the ordi-

1821
nary consideration that is usually given by Parliament to Measures of this immense importance. I urge that these words should be included in this Statute in order that Lord Hailsham's prophecy in regard to the Statute may be fulfilled more easily, and in order that they may be a mark of the lack of consideration—
Mr. SPEAKER: Now the hon. Member is erring on the other side. In order to influence this House, he is dealing with arguments which were used in another place.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: No, Sir. With great respect, I thought I informed you that the speech from which I quoted was not delivered in Parliament, but was de- livered, I think on the 10th November, before the Royal Empire Society, where the Noble and learned Lord was the only speaker present who took that point of view. I urge that these words should be included in the Statute, in order that that express prophecy should he fulfilled, in order that this strait jacket shall never be worn, in order that it shall be relegated into the cobwebs of the obscurity which it deserves, in order that they may be a mark of the scanty consideration which the Government have allowed to be given to this Measure, and in order that they may be a standing justification of the few lawyers and Unionists who, as best they could, have opposed this Measure with all their strength.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to risk incurring your displeasure or being ruled out of order by entering into the merits or demerits of this Measure, but only to support my hon. Friend's request that more time should be allowed for its consideration. There are three reasons which I would adduce for my support of my hon. Friend. One is that we took 400 years to build up this Empire, and now we are giving it away in two days, and I think that that reason alone for further and more meticulous inquiry is one which is well worthy of consideration. The second reason is that we have some pretty adequate information as to the attitude of some of the Dominions on the question of delay. Several States in one of the Dominions, and New
1822
Zealand itself, have expressed a desire for further consideration of the Bill and it would, therefore, be advisable in the interests of the Dominions that they should have that facility and that we should have the benefit of their advice. In an answer given yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Dominions in regard to New Zealand's attitude, as far as I could gather, it was very unsatisfactory.
There is another point, which I have raised before and which might very well be brought into this argument. If the Imperial Economic Conference is going to be held at an earlier date than was originally proposed, surely in the atmosphere it may engender there may well be a further atmosphere of a closer political union between various parts of the Empire. May I put one last argument on the somewhat debatable point of India? We have been told that Dominion status may be granted to India. Surely, in this new era, which may mean so much for the future of India, it would be advisable to have three months in which to see what Dominion status is likely to mean to India, and we should have that time further to investigate and decide whether this Statute can be put into operation at the end of that three months or whether, in view of the new facts that may be elicited—
Mr. SPEAKER: To put it off for three months is to kill the Bill.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It is the Amendment—
Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment, if carried, would kill the Bill.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I thought that in three months time the House would be sitting again, and, therefore, we should have an opportunity of discussing it after the period of three months had transpired, when we should have all that further information before us which would enable us perhaps to come to a wiser decision.
Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 12.—(Short title and commencement.)
Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 11, leave out Sub-section (2).
The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is only necessary to say, after the speeches to which we have listened, that this is an Amendment which will, I think, commend itself to the common sense of the House. The Bill, as it left this House, contained a provision that it should conic into operation on 1st December. As 1st December has passed, before the exigencies of Parliamentary time has permitted it to pass through another House through all its stages, it must be conformable only to common sense that we should omit the provision that it should come into force at a date which has already passed. The effect of assenting to the Amendment will be that the Bill will come into force when it receives the Royal Assent. I hope that fact will be sufficient to convince the House that the entertaining speech, which it is difficult to take very seriously, of the hon. and learned Gentleman has no substance in it.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had not concluded his observations with his last remark, I should not have spoken again, but I will say this, that he has obviously missed the whole point of my argument. This is a most exceptional Statute. We have been told to disregard it entirely by those responsible for it. We have been told that it means nothing, and that is why I want it to be marked out from all the other Statutes by having a contradictory provision in it. I wanted it to be obvious that it is a Statute which should be ignored, as we have been told it should be ignored. It is absolutely unique and I want the whole world and the Dominions to understand that this Statute is nothing in the great and memorable history of the British Empire.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.
Ordered,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the arrangements for the Report of Debates and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for this House and the public services generally:
Mr. Bernays, Mr. Bracken, Mr. Cove, Mr. Hall-Caine, Lieutenant-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Hammersley, Sir Basil Pete, Dr. Salter, Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman, Rear-Admiral Sueter, and Mr. Summersby nominated Members of the Committee."
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power to report from time to time."
Ordered,
"That Three he the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Ordered,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills, and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them beet suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee shall have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House."
Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Ainsworth, Mr. Batey, Mr. E. T. Campbell, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Curry, Mr. D. L. Davies, Mr. Harris, Captain Ronald Henderson, Mr. Hurd, Brigadier-General Makins, Miss Pickford, Mr. Savory, Mr. Annesley Somerville, and Mr. Templeton nominated Members of the Committee.
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:"
Ordered,
"That Three be the quorum."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
Resolved,
"That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Hallaton and parts of the rural districts of Billesdon, Melton Mowbray, Barrow-upon Soar, Lough-borough, and Market Harborough, in the county of Leicester, which was presented on the 17th day of November, 1931, be approved."—[Mr. Pybus.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

LAND VALUE TAX (VALUATION).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —[Captain Margesson.]
Mr. ATTLEE: I rise to call attention to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day with regard to the Land Valuation Department and the proceedings under the Finance Act, 1931. I asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, and his answer did not seem to me to deal with the point which I raised. If one looks at the Finance Act, 1931, it is obvious that it lays down clearly that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall, as soon as may be after every valuation date, cause to be ascertained at that date the land value of every land unit for the purposes of the Act. That is the order of this House. It is a Bill passed in due form into the law of the the land. It lays dawn that on a certain date, that is to say, 1st January, 1932, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall take certain steps, shall value land and so forth for the purposes of that Act.
I always understood that when an Act became the law of the land, it was the duty of every citizen to carry out the law. I have yet to learn how the right hon. Gentleman has any right to disobey the law without any statutory justification. The right hon. Gentleman comes along and says, "I do not, propose to obey the Finance Act, 1931." The Finance Act has been passed. It has ordered certain things to be done, and the right hon. Gentleman merely says, "Oh, by an administrative Order I am
1826
simply going to disregard the law entirely. I am not going to take any steps with regard to valuation. I am going to dismiss all the officers who have been appointed to deal with this valuation." Without appealing to this House and without any attempt at altering the law, the right hon. Gentleman has simply put himself into the position of a dictator. We have had a good deal of steady en croachment by the executive on the legislature, but I think that this is going rather far.
I suppose that there has never been quite such a docile House as this. We have an entirely new method of taxation now under which, instead of the House of Commons imposing taxes, we give power to the various Ministers—to the Minister of Agriculture, the President of the Board of Trade, and so on—from time to time, as they please, to tax what persons at what amount they choose. Now we have something further, and an Act of Parliament is, apparently, to be put aside by the right hon. Gentleman on his own initiative. For some reason or other he is in a great hurry. He is pressed by hon. Gentlemen all over the House. They want their pound of flesh, because no one will take the plea of economy seriously. There is nothing of economy about it at all. We know perfectly well that the Conservative party hate and loathe the Land Duties, and have been clamouring to get rid of them, and with a Conservative or Coalition Government with a majority of Conservatives returned, even if the pound were looking its best and the country's finances were flourishing, they would still have objected to this and have made their Minister toe the line.
It is worth while glancing at the reason, which is to he found in the speeches that were made by the Lord Privy Seal when he was in the House of Commons. He explained to the House that this was the first real attack on the land monopoly of the country. The land monopoly was the greatest burden on industry. I understood that we wanted to lift off the burden from industry, and I want to know what the Lord Privy Seal is doing in this crisis in deliberately keeping on the heaviest burden on industry? I do not know whether, with the House of Commons' right to decide taxes and the right hon.

1827
Gentleman's power to dispense with the law—and he is the first man to do it—the collective responsibility of the Cabinet has gone also. I suppose that this has been approved by the Lord Privy Seal. Let us see what he said on a previous occasion. He said that this was a far-reaching step which would liberate the land for the people and abolish once and for all the tyranny under which the people of this country have suffered. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree, but their colleagues in the Cabinet agreed. I have quoted the Lord Privy Seal. Let us see what the Home Secretary said. He was enthusiastic; so were the Minister of Transport and the Secretary for Scotland. But let us see what the Home Secretary said:
"My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) will speak on this matter, in which he has a special interest."
Then came a voice,
"He turned it down."
The right hon. Gentleman replied,
"He was in bad company in those days."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1931; col. 1667, Vol. 251.]
Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is in bad company now. The reason is perfectly clear. If anyone studies the questions put by hon. Members opposite it is plain that there is no question of economy whatever in this. It is simply that the Conservative party are demanding their pound of flesh. They are certainly rubbing it in with the Lord Privy Seal. He has been deprived of his Socialism, of his Free Trade and now of his Land Tax, and there is nothing left to him but his coronet.
I should like to know what is going to happen to the staff engaged to make this valuation. There must have been a staff ready, because the valuation was to start on 2nd January, 1932. There must have been gentlemen with high professional qualifications brought there, and what is going to happen to them? Are they going to be thrown out of jobs altogether, or are they, perhaps, to be turned on to other work with regard to customs and tariffs? There is a further point on which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something. What is
1828
going to be the actual course of events after 2nd January, 1932? The right hon. Gentleman is a James the Second, and is dispensing with the law, but he intends also to make the Commissioners break the law. It will be the Attorney-General's duty to see that the Commissioners carry out the law, so that we are going to have the House even more divided against itself than at the present time, because we shall have the Attorney-General, I hope, bringing to book the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that this is something against which the House, even though it is a new House of Commons, should strongly protest. We thought that the power to dispense with the law had been finally abolished. If it was not good enough for us to allow a King to do that, I hope we shall not allow a Chancellor of the Exchequer to do it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am not surprised that the hon. Member has taken the course which I expected he would take. When he came to look into the Finance Act of 1931 he found that there was not sufficient ground for the question which he put to me this afternoon. Therefore, he has had to change his ground and to substitute for the attack which he proposed to make, a general attack upon the consistency of the Members of His Majesty's Government. He is not a great authority on consistency himself, for in one breath he has been saying that this is the most docile House he has ever known and in the next breath he told us that we have to toe the line to meet the demands made upon us. I leave him to reconcile those two points of view as to the conduct of the present House.
He will forgive me if I do not enter into a disquisition as to the merits of the case, because it is not on the merits of the Land Value Tax or of the Land Valuation that the decision of the Government, which I announced this afternoon, has been taken. It is simply and solely on the question of economy. A matter of £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 does not seem worth while troubling about, according to the hon. and gallant Member. It was exactly that attitude of mind which brought the country to the necessity of supporting a Government which took responsibility from its predecessors, who ran away.

1829
As to the technical point on which the hon. Member has attacked me, I would say that there is no breach of the law here at all. He is quite mistaken in his view as to the provisions of the Act. The operative part of the Act is that which prescribes that the tax, according to Section 10, is to be levied for the year ending the 31st March, 1934. The tax is to be collectable on the 1st July, 1934, provided that the valuation is complete in time to allow the tax to be collected on that date, and provided that in the meantime this House does not alter the Act so that the tax shall not be collectable on the 1st July, 1934. Therefore, it does not matter whether the valuation is completed now or whether it is completed at some time in the future, so long as it is completed in time to enable the tax to be collected on 1st July, 1934. The Statute say, "as soon as may be." What is, "as soon as may he?" Obviously, this valuation cannot proceed unless there is money to pay for those who are engaged in the valuation. That money will not be forthcoming unless the House votes the money, and that money will not be voted by the House unless the Government ask the House to vote it. The Government informed the House this afternoon that it does not propose to ask the House to vote that money.
It is obvious that the money to carry out the valuation will not be forthcoming—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked what is going to become of the staff. The staff were engaged on a temporary basis; that was the term of their engagement. They will therefore receive the notice, which is one of the terms of their engagement, and after that they will he free to seek other employment.
Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The House has listened to a most extraordinary speech. During the last four or five weeks we have seen the Government riding roughshod over the ordinary privileges of Parliament, but we did not expect them to succumb so early to such
1830
a speedy and complete defiance of the constitution of this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the operative part of the Finance Act of 1931 is the tax which comes into operation in 1934. The operative part of the Act is whatever the Act says shall be the operative part. It may be that the tax may never be imposed at all, but that would not relieve the Government of the obligation of making this valuation. It is not that the valuation is a piece of mere administration. It is an obligation laid upon the Government, not an administrative act; and in the event of an administrative act of the Government being in the view of the House unwise or inexpedient the House can move a Vote of Censure upon the Government. But this is not an act of administration. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman or to any other Member of the Government to retard or accelerate a piece of administration. That is a matter entirely in their hands, and the House has no control except by moving a Vote of Censure. But that is not the point we are raising here.
We are not raising the point that the Government in the exercise of their prerogative have retarded the administration of an Act of Parliament. What we are charging the Government with is a complete defiance of the will of Parliament. Hon. Members may regard this matter lightly, but every hon. Member, whether he is a Tory, a Liberal, a National Liberal or a Member of the Socialist party, is the custodian of the privileges of this House, and no Government ought to be tolerated because they have succumbed to forces outside this Chamber. [Interruption.] It has become notorious that the policies of this Government are not made in this Chamber at all but at deputations at the Carlton Club, or wherever hon. Members opposite may foregather. The Minister has not replied to the point. The Act says that the Commissioners "shall, as soon as may be after every valuation date" cause a valuation to be made. "As soon as may he" is an ordinary legal term meaning I am informed, "as soon as possible." That means in this case "immediately after" the Act has been passed.
I do not know whether the National Government will say that they have not at their disposal the same wisdom as the last Government. I should have thought

1831
that this Government would have found possible what the last Government found possible. This Statute does not use extraordinary language. Many Statutes contain exactly the same phrase and it is assumed, if that language has been passed by the House and has received the assent of the Crown, that the Government will proceed to carry it into effect. As we understand it, it will not be the duty of the Attorney-General to consider whether land taxes are palatable or unpalatable. At least, it was considered the duty of the Attorney-General in 1924 to ignore the politics of the Government of the day. As we understand it, it will be the duty of the Attorney-General to ascertain what is the law, and what is the will of Parliament and it will be his duty to prosecute the right hon. Gentleman, if he prevents the Commissioners from carrying out the duty laid upon them. It will be his duty to prosecute the Commissioners upon whom the Act lays the obligation to carry out the valuation, if they fail to do so. To this point the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself at all. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may regard this as a subject for hilarity. I ask them to realise that if the mere fact that an Act is undesirable, the mere fact that an Act is repugnant is to be given as a reason why that Act should be violated, then they are setting a very dangerous precedent. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that he is exposing himself to a serious charge. If the valuation is not preceeded with and the Attorney-General does not take steps to carry out the will of Parliament, it will be our obligation to accuse the Government of violating the will of Parliament in order to prevent the carrying out of an Act of Parliament merely on the ground that it is politically repugnant to them.
I would also call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the House has already voted money for this purpose. The right hon. Gentleman may have been returned as a Member of a National Government. He may have behind him a majority of 400 or 500 but he is not yet, in himself, the House of Commons, and the Tory party in itself is not yet the House of Commons. [Interruption.] At least there are certain forms which we have to go through. Do not be quite so brutal. If you are going to
1832
have a dictatorship please consider Constitutional forms. Some day they may save your heads. It is enough for a large majority to be returned to the House of Commons; it is enough for Members to put questions; it is enough for them to bring pressure to bear, and along comes a Minister of the Crown surrendering to the clamour of back-benchers, not presenting a Bill at all, but merely coming and saying, "Yes, we agree that this Act was undesirable. We do not like it. It was repugnant to us and we do not propose to carry it out."
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's last statement was rather feeble. If this is an economy proposal why was not the repeal of this Section of the first Finance Act, 1931, included in the provisions of the second Finance Act? If the right hon. Gentleman had come to the conclusion that, having gone off the Gold Standard, it was so necessary that economy should be made in this direction at the moment, why were not these provisions contained in the second Finance Act, 1931? That was the Economy Act. At that time the country was attempting to prevent the currency going off the Gold Standard. It was the whole aim of Parliament. The last election was fought to try to defend, as far as possible, the value of the pound sterling. This is not a matter in which we are purchasing goods from the foreigner. It is not a matter of the balance of trade. It is not a matter of paying anyone good pounds for stuff supplied from abroad. But it is a matter of internal economy and has nothing to do with the balance of trade.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in the excuse he has brought forward to-night he has simply revealed that what he has done in a most flaccid, feeble and cowardly way, he has succumbed to the pressure that has been put upon him. I can sympathise with him, for I am not raising the matter at all because land taxes are favourable to me. I have a view about them which it would be improper and out of order for me to advance now. I am not concerned at all about the land taxes, but I am concerned about the prerogatives and privileges of this House, and it is the duty of His Majesty's Opposition, if the Government have no regard for them, to defend them as best they may. I know

1833
that the right hon. Gentleman has his docile hordes behind him. They will do whatever he asks them to do, provided that he dances according to their tune. If it is economy there is no obstacle. I am reminded that the obstacle might be in the other House.
Although this is a controversial matter, I am raising it as a point of constitutional importance. The right hon. Gentleman will say to all these people who have been engaged on land valuation, "We no longer have any use for your services. It is true that the State entered into a contract with you which you thought was good till 1934, and that the House of Commons has voted the money for the purpose, but, without consulting the House, in our wisdom we have decided that not only will we flout the House of Commons, but we will violate the contract into which we have entered with you." Then this House has to wait until the Finance Bill of 1932 to indemnity the Government for their action, although in the meantime the House is sitting.
The learned Solicitor-General is interested in an argument on the other side, but he should attend to his job, which is the matter now before the House. Having regard to the fact that hospitality has not been found for his superior, he is for the moment in charge of the legal opinions of the Government. If we cannot press this matter to a conclusion now, we shall have to do so at some other time, and the question is whether it is competent for the Government to arrest the administration of an Act of Parliament, and to set aside the obligation which the House has imposed on the Government, while the House is sitting, until such time as the House is asked to indemnify the Government some four or five months hence. Is not that a complete abrogation of the functions of the House of Commons?
I suggest, in all seriousness, without making one comment upon whether these taxes are good or bad, that although some hon. Members may have strong prejudices about them and may desire at the earliest possible moment to bring them to an end, it is not a good thing for this House to allow the Government, because of considerations of political expediency and internecine conflict, to
1834
flout the will of the House and take from it privileges which for 400 years have been the pride of this country.
Mr. LAMBERT: The real point is that it would be quite impossible for the Government to carry on this land valuation in the present House of Commons. There is no question but that there is an enormous majority in this House against these land taxes.
Mr. BEVAN: Who knows that yet?
Mr. LAMBERT: If my hon. Friend does not think there is, I can only think that he has not been watching the House of Commons.
Mr. BEVAN: May I suggest that it was not my case that there might not be a majority in the House for the repeal, but no Government has a right to assume support in the House of Commons; it must win it.
Mr. LAMBERT: If the Government put that to the test, it would win it. Whatever may be the constitutional argument, in my judgment, the Government are perfectly right in suspending these duties.
Mr. McGOVERN: Oh!
Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. Member should not get excited. I am not excited.
Mr. McGOVERN: No, you are delighted; you are a landlord.
Mr. LAMBERT: Yes. I never believed in these taxes, and I am glad that they will disappear. I should have wished that the Government had repealed the whole thing, lock, stock, and barrel. That would have been the wisest course, but as it is I congratulate them upon having suspended these duties. They could not carry them on in this House of Commons. There have been 700 officials appointed in the last few months for this land valuation, which is perfectly useless. I will not argue the merits of the question of the falling pound, but when my hon. Friend said, "What will you do with these officials?" I thought we had been passing a Bill which was quite admirable for them—the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Bill. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he puts them to growing new potatoes and tomatoes.
Mr. COCKS: I am profoundly shocked by the remarks we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman, who is one of the oldest Members of this House. If he had not been interrupted in his political career, he would have been almost the Father of the House. We have seen the spectacle of this right hon. Gentleman, who was nurtured under the eyes of the great Mr. Gladstone, getting up and saying he does not care a rap for constitutional principles. But he objects to this Land Tax, and says that the whole thing ought to be torn up, and that he does not care if the Constitution is torn up with it. How are the mighty fallen, and to what depths of degradation have the great Liberal party descended! The right hon. Gentleman also said that there was a large majority against Land Taxes in the House. But is there an overwhelming majority in the Cabinet? Are there not members of the Cabinet who stand by the Land Tax and do not want to see it wiped out in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. What the Government are doing is to get out of the difficulty of a difference of opinion in the Cabinet by rendering the tax of no avail by an administrative act which my hon. Friend has shown to be absolutely unconstitutional. The House has a right to demand an answer on these points.
It was stated during the Debate on the Finance Act that it would take two years to make the valuation before the tax could be imposed. That is why the tax was postponed till 1934. By stopping the valuation the Government will make it impossible to impose the tax in two years' time. By a subterfuge, they are not repealing the Act, but rendering it impossible for the State in two years to impose a tax which was voted by this House. From the constitutional point of view that is an appalling position. It is a position that would not have been taken by all the great constitutionalists of the past or by the Leaders of the Conservative or Liberal parties. It seems to me that, when you get Liberals and Conservatives together, principles vanish altogether. As a comparatively new Member of the House of Commons, I consider that it is the duty of the House to protest against the act of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. HARRIS: I want to say a word as one who voted for the Act of Parliament which provided for the valuation of the land. I would remind the House that it was passed actually in this year. Some of us may be old-fashioned in believing that it was a good thing in the interest of the State that there should be a valuation of the land. There has been no great change to justify, without the authority of Parliament, this reversal of policy. I should like to know what the Prime Minister thinks about it. The land tax was the policy of the Prime Minister, and he fathered this particular Act of Parliament. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, is still a member of the Cabinet. Before there is a reversal of policy like this the Prime Minister ought to come and justify it in the eyes of those who spent many laborious nights to make this Act of Parliament.
It may be necessary to economise in many directions. I agree that it might have been advisable to slow down the procedure, but that does not justify a complete reversal of policy without the authority of an Act of Parliament. If it is necessary for various reasons to conciliate the Conservatives, who make up the great majority of this Parliament, then let them come down and bravely face the fact, so that it may be recognised that there has been a complete reversal of policy. Then we shall know where we are.
Mr. McGOVERN: I have listened to many defences from responsible Ministers, but I do not think I ever heard a weaker case than that put forward as a defence for this reversal of policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke with the air of a man who has confidence in the large number of supporters behind him. In putting forward that defence he was not caring whether he had reason or justification for so unconstitutional an act; he cared only for the fact that the vested interests in the country were behind him. A right hon. Member opposite spoke with delight of what he termed the inevitable repeal of these Land Taxes. He said there was a majority in this House for their repeal. I question whether there is a majority in the country for it. [Laughter.] Landowning Members may laugh, but that is only an attempt to deride something

1837
which they know is absolutely true. If this proposal had been put to the country and the working classes had been told that instead of stabilising the pound you were going to stabilise the income of landowners, a different tale might have been told.
When the present Prime Minister came to Glasgow on the eve of the 1929 Election, he said, with reference to the De-rating Act, and the pleas put forward by democratic local bodies for its repeal, that he questioned the right of a Government on taking office to repeal the Acts their predecessors had passed so short a time before. He said at that time that it was anti-democratic. I want to know where the present Prime Minister stands when an Act of this kind is going to he repealed by a Government of which he is the head. It only shows to me what I have believed for a long time, that on the Front Bench there is very little principle actuating the Members who are desirous of retaining office. The present Government are simply the servants of outside forces, who are dominating this House, and using the cry of economy and national necessity to plunder the resources of the nation. I want to say that Liberals who supported in the Division
1838
Lobby the land taxes are now to be found in a Government which is repealing that which they said on a former occasion they were prepared to defend to the last ditch.
I warn the Members of the present Government that they are setting an example to the working classes of how unconstitutional constitutionalists may become when they assume office and get a vast majority behind them. It is a lesson that will be remembered by the working classes when they resume real power in the interests of the working classes. I do not think a more flagrant abuse of democratic power has ever been known. This is simply the beginning of the inevitable ending of these Land Taxes. They are preparing the way for throwing over the Prima Minister. The Home Secretary and the Members of the Cabinet who belonged to the Liberal and Labour parties in the past. They are preparing to go the whole hog in the interests of the robbing, moneyed classes of this country.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FOREIGN EXCHANGES (CONTROL).
  FOREIGN EXCHANGES (CONTROL).
  IMPORTS.
  IMPORTS.
  EGGS (IMPORT FROM AUSTRALIA).
  EGGS (IMPORT FROM AUSTRALIA).
  ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS (CUSTOMS DUTIES) ACT.
  ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS (CUSTOMS DUTIES) ACT.
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  SAFETY CONVENTION (NORTH ATLANTIC SERVICE).
  SAFETY CONVENTION (NORTH ATLANTIC SERVICE).
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD-LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD-LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL.
  BRITISH ARMY (FULL-DRESS UNIFORM COST).
  BRITISH ARMY (FULL-DRESS UNIFORM COST).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (WORK SCHEMES, SCOTLAND).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (WORK SCHEMES, SCOTLAND).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.
  SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.
  LAND VALUATION, ISLE OF WIGHT.
  LAND VALUATION, ISLE OF WIGHT.
  INCOME TAX (PAYMENT, EMPLOYÉS).
  INCOME TAX (PAYMENT, EMPLOYÉS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  TEMPORARY CLERKS.
  TEMPORARY CLERKS.
  PENSION WORK.
  PENSION WORK.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  QUOTA.
  QUOTA.
  MINE LIGHTING.
  MINE LIGHTING.
  ACCIDENTS (BOYS).
  ACCIDENTS (BOYS).
  COLLIERY DISASTERS.
  COLLIERY DISASTERS.
  COLLIERY EXPLOSIONS.
  COLLIERY EXPLOSIONS.
  SUBSIDENCES (ROYAL COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
  SUBSIDENCES (ROYAL COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
  NATIONAL MARKS ACT (IMPORTED EGGS).
  NATIONAL MARKS ACT (IMPORTED EGGS).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM) had given notice to move, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Ker (M. Lothian) over the other Orders of the Day. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name in order to enable the debate on the India Resolution to take precedence of the other business of the day.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Ker (M. Lothian) over the other Orders of the day.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

INDIA.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN)THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN) moved to resolve, That this House approves the Indian policy of His Majesty's Government as set out in Command Paper No. 3972. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, just ten days ago I stood at this box making clear to the House that the Government was determined, at any cost, to maintain the authority of law and Government in India as against attempts to overthrow it by terrorism and assassination, and I said that this was essential, not only to protect the lives of Government servants and the liberty of the individual, but to make it possible for India to attain to self-government along
300
constitutional lines. To-day I have the more pleasant task of setting forth the other half of the Government's policy, its proposals for advancing responsible government in India. For in the long run repression is no remedy. Political discontent requires a political cure.
The essence of the problem, perhaps, which confronts Parliament to-day in the discharge of the weighty responsibilities which rest upon it, may be illustrated by an experience which befell me in India-some twenty years ago. I met a young tahsildar in the United Provinces, a man reputed to be an excellent official, yet a strong Nationalist, and a Nationalist in those days, when the collector was still the unquestioned father and mother of his district, was comparatively rare. The tahsildar said to me something like this: "England has done much for India. She has given her unity and honest government. She has built railways and irrigation canals. She has done more—she has, through her sons, shown us a type of character, incorruptible, straight, fearless, public-spirited, a type which we can admire and wish to emulate. But the real lesson that she has taught us is this, that if as a nation we are to have straight backs and to be able to look all the world fearlessly in the face as equals, we must learn to govern ourselves whatever the cost may be. That is what you English would do if you were in our position, and that is what I," said the tahsildar, "mean to devote my life to secure."
I was young in those days and before I left India I wrote an article for a British review in which I described, among other things, the Nationalist movement, and I said that in my view that movement was essentially healthy, for it was a movement for political virtue and self-respect. I showed the article to the Indian civil servant with whom I was staying, a man who afterwards attained to the highest office in India, and he said to me: "Do you realise that Nationalism, the demand that the British Raj should be replaced by an Indian Raj, is, strictly-speaking, sedition? It is sedition in the same way as the demand for Parliamentary responsibility was treasonable in England in the days of the Tudors or the Stuarts, for no one may legally challenge the divine authority of the British Raj."
Two years later the world war fell upon the world, and among other things it blew sway the foundation upon which the old India had rested. In August, 1914, partly because of the unstinted service tendered to the Allied cause by the Princes, the people and the soldiers of India, and partly because of the rapid growth of the demand for self-government, a fateful pronouncement of the future policy of Great Britain to India was solemnly made with the agreement of all parties and the approval of Parliament. I will read the essential words of that Declaration, because they govern everything that has happened since:
"The policy of His Majesty's Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every Branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire."
Thus was initiated the most tremendous constitutional experiment ever attempted in human history, the attempt, in a country containing over 300,000,000 people, to substitute for the old foundation of unquestioning obedience to authority a new foundation for government in India—namely, the consent of the governed as expressed through responsible and not merely representative institutions, and to do this by constitutional and not by revolutionary means.
The pronouncement of 1917, however, contained another element. It stated that progress in this policy could only be achieved by successive stages, and the Act of 1919 which gave effect to it provided that the judge of the time and the measure of each advance should be Parliament and that after the lapse of ten years a Statutory Commission should be appointed to advise it in discharging its task. The expedient which was adopted in the Act of 1919 for giving effect to the pronouncement during the first stage of advance was dyarchy in the Provinces and representative but not responsible institutions in the centre for British India. At the same time a Chamber of Princes, a purely consultative body, was brought into being for what has sometimes been called, by way of contrast, British India. I am inclined to think that despite much subsequent criticism Parliament was fundamentally right in
302
approving of the principle of dyarchy in 1919. For the root difficulty in giving effect to the pronouncement of 1917 was to develop Indian political Parties and Indian political leaders, basing themselves on the popular vote, which were experienced and powerful enough to carry the prodigious weight of the huge structure of Indian Government constructed and supported during the preceding century by Great Britain.
The dyarchic system was based upon the belief that to attempt to do this by confronting an irremovable Executive with a representative Assembly was bound to exaggerate the habit of irresponsible criticism, and that the best way of developing the capacity for responsible self-government was by entrusting to Indian shoulders, from the start, the full responsibility for certain aspects of Indian Government. The Statutory Commission has pointed out the weakness of the dyarchic system in the circumstances in which it was actually started in most Provinces, though in Madras, the one Province in which a stable political majority was established in the Legislature and also the practice of joint responsibility among the Ministers, the system worked very well. The Statutory Commission, therefore, recommended that full responsibility for provincial government, subject to certain safeguards in the hands of the Governor, should be entrusted to the Provincial Legislatures.
When, however, the Statutory Commission was appointed in 1927—two years before the appointed day—it was made quite clear that in coming to conclusions it was essential that Parliament should have the advice not only of its own Commissioners, but also directly of Indian opinion. Accordingly, in announcing the appointment of a Statutory Commission in 1927, consisting of the representatives of all three Parties, the Government-stated:
"that it was not the intention to ask Parliament to adopt the proposals [of the Statutory Commission] without first giving a full opportunity for Indian opinion of different schools to contribute its view upon them. And to this end it is intended to invite Parliament to refer these proposals to consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses and to facilitate the presentation to that Committee both of the views of the Indian Central Legislature by delegations who will be invited to attend and confer with the Joint Committee and also of

303
the views of any other parties whom the joint Parliamentary Committee may desire to consult."
Moreover, when the Simon Commission reached India it proposed that its investigations in India should take the form of a "Joint Free Conference consisting of the seven British Commissioners and a corresponding body of representatives chosen by the Indian Legislatures"—a method which, while it was brought into being, failed of its full effect for reasons which I need not refer to to-day.
A year later, however, the Simon Commission went still further. Writing to the Prime Minister on October 16, 1929, the Chairman said:
"As our investigation has proceeded, we have become more and more impressed in considering the direction which the future constitutional development of India is likely to take, with the importance of bearing in mind the relations which may develop between British India and the Indian States.… It seems to us that what would be required would be the setting up of some sort of Conference after the Reports of the Statutory Commission and the Indian Central Committee have been made …. and that in the Conference His Majesty's Government should meet both representatives of British India and representatives of the States …. for the purpose of seeking the greatest possible measure of agreement for the final proposals which it would later be the duty of His Majesty's Government to submit to Parliament."
That was the genesis of the Round Table Conference. The decision to summon the Conference was announced by the Viceroy on December 1, 1929, and on July 9, 1930, in a speech to the Indian Legislature, he described it as a joint assembly of representatives of both countries on whose agreement precise proposals to Parliament may be founded.
Thus, while the ultimate responsibility for deciding upon the nature of the Constitution rests, and must rest without equivocation upon Parliament, it is the settled policy that the preparation of the proposals which His Majesty's Government will eventually submit to the consideration of Parliament is to proceed as far as possible by conference and by agreement. The reason for this was well expressed by Mr. Baldwin in another place a few days ago. He said:
"It is from [our] teaching that the demand for democracy has come … and you have to remember that an essential and inherent factor in democracy is the consent
304
of the governed, without which democracy cannot function. You must gain that consent, and that is the basic idea of proceeding by conference."
The Statutory Commission reported in May, 1930, and made proposals for constitutional development in British India with which your Lordships are broadly familiar. In November of the same year the Round Table Conference assembled and the Indian Princes immediately vindicated the prescience of the Statutory Commission by a far-reaching initiative which they took.
During the first plenary session of the Conference, two things were made clear. In the first place the delegation of the Princes almost unanimously declared for a Federal Constitution to include all India and not British India alone. In the second place a demand came from every delegation—from the Princes at one end to the representatives of the depressed classes at the other—that this Federal Constitution should provide for responsibility both in the Provinces and at the centre, subject to safeguards—providing always that adequate security was guaranteed to minority rights. The Conference then went into Committee to endeavour to work out practical proposals on this basis, and may I say in passing that in these Committees no document was more frequently quoted than the monumental Report of the Statutory Commission itself? There emerged from this Conference an outline of a Constitution based upon All-India Federation and upon the introduction of responsibility at the centre as well as in the Provinces, subject to well-defined safeguards in the hands of Great Britain for the rights of minorities, for defence, and for the financial stability and internal security of the Indian realm. There emerged also a measure of general agreement as to the nature of the guarantees which were to be embodied in the Constitution for the rights of minorities, great and small. There was also agreement as to the security to be afforded against unfair discrimination against British trade and for the future of the Services.
The Conference then adjourned in order to give time for public opinion, both in India and in Great Britain, to consider its Reports. It was followed by the cessation of organised civil disobedience in India and acceptance by the Indian

305
National Congress of the broad basis of federation, responsibility and safeguards, "in the interests of India"—a phrase which may present some difficulty if you think that the interests of England and India are divergent, or very little difficulty if you think, as I do, that they fundamentally coincide.
In September last the Conference began to reassemble with certain additions in personnel, notably Mr. Gandhi, as sole representative of the Indian National Congress, but the Conference set to work under conditions of considerable difficulty. In the first place the British Government and people were absorbed in the financial and political crisis which began with the formation of the National Government and only ended with the completion of the new Government early in November. In the second place the delegates from India once again failed to find among themselves a solution for the minorities problem, though the nature of that problem has now been pretty sharply defined. Yet despite these difficulties, despite a campaign of pessimism and disparagement, despite the obvious difficulty of finding a basis of agreement between the standpoint of the Indian National Congress and more moderate opinion, I think it is true to say that the better mind of India, as well as a considerable majority of British opinion, as expressed last week in another place, has substantially endorsed the conclusions of the Conference.
I believe that the work which has been done by these two Round Table Conferences, whose discussions are embodied in detailed Reports and whose outcome is the declaration of His Majesty's Government contained in the White Paper now before your Lordships, represents a stage in the evolution of the relations between India and Great Britain whose importance it is impossible to exaggerate. The final decision about the new Constitution rests with Parliament, but that it should have been possible for some hundred Indian delegates, representing every shade of Indian opinion and interest, and some twenty British delegates, representing all three Parties represented in Parliament, to sit round a single table and hammer out the basic outline of a new Constitution for submission by the Government to Parlia-
306
ment, in order that it may obtain its approval in proceeding further along the line before the final draft is made to give effect to these broad conclusions, is in itself, I venture to believe, the best hope that in due time we shall solve the greatest problem which has ever been presented to human statesmanship at a single time, in harmony and with success.
I have dealt at some length with the development of events which have led up to the White Paper, because I have thought that in opening this discussion it might be of some service to your Lordships to have the history set before you. I should now like in my concluding remarks to say something about the merits of the proposals in the White Paper. No one can approach the consideration of the Indian problem of to-day without a profound sense of its un-exampled difficulty, and without deep anxiety about the responsibility which rests upon Parliament in dealing with it. On the one hand you have the basic facts so constantly before the minds of those who knew best what may be called the Old India. There is the central fact that India contains 350,000,000 inhabitants, belonging to many races, speaking many languages, and still mainly illiterate, divided by a cleavage in religion at least as deep and profound as that which divided Protestant and Catholic in the Middle Ages: divided also by the fact that two-thirds of India has experienced British rule for more than a century, while the other third, under the rule of its hereditary Princes, is still in great measure the India of mediaeval times. How, it is often asked, can Western democratic ideals be applied to a country so varied and so vast and so little experienced in the practical working of those ideals, and what will be the effect of attempting this tremendous change on that 80 per cent. of the population of India which lives in the villages, preoccupied with the crops and seasons and with the problems of family and of caste, whose principal interests are peace, order and stable prices for what they produce?
On the other hand you have the facts of what may be called the New India. It is almost a century to-day since Macaulay launched India on its course of education in British ideals of liberty and progress. There are at this moment nearly 95,000 students in Indian Universi-

307
ties alone, and the total number in recognised educational institutions is over 11,500,000. Indian youth, pouring in torrents out of these schools and Universities, stands as a whole, to-day, where my tahsildar friend stood twenty years ago, and is strongly and increasingly Nationalist. Women, too, have begun to throw off the traditional reserves and to take an active part in public affairs. The vernacular Press flourishes not in the larger cities alone but reaches in some form almost every village. Social movements of every kind, which it is very difficult for external power to appreciate—movements dealing with untouchability, with child marriage, with the housing conditions in the towns, with the liquor traffic, and with the reform of social and religious customs—have sprung into being, and their adherents demand the right to remodel and transform the older ways of Indian life by legislative action wrought by Indians alone. Economic development and the present world depression are bringing home to more and more people every day the fact that poverty and economic maladjustment are not the result of the will of the gods but the result of causes within the control of man himself.
Finally, and not least, is the fact that the idea of India making itself responsible for its own Government is no longer seditious but has been for nearly fifteen years the settled policy of Great Britain, as it has been shown to be the unanimous demand of every section of Indian opinion at the Bound Table Conference itself, provided only, as always, that the rights of minorities are adequately assured. In determining its Indian policy I venture to think that Parliament has to take not only our own set of facts, but both of these sets of facts, into account, and I for one cannot sec that it can adopt any other policy than that set forth in the White Paper, which rests the foundation of the new Constitution of India during the next stage of its development on the three root principles which have emerged from the discussions of the last four years—federation, responsibility, and safeguards. Let me say a brief word about each.
Federation means the maintenance of Indian unity. The greatest contribution of England to India has been its unity. Federation is the inevitable consequence
308
of the pronouncement of 1917 if the unity of India is to be combined with the growth of responsible government; and the profound thanks of Parliament are, in my judgment, due to the far-sighted statesmen among the Princes who, on their own responsibility, took the initiative in moving federation to the front of the picture at this critical stage in the evolution of the Indian Constitution. But federation is not less important as an element in the solution of the main minority question. For it is only by the statutory division of the powers of government between States and Provinces on the one side and the federal authority on the other, so that neither can interfere with the other, that you will be able not only to bring the Indian Princes into an All-India Constitution, but to establish the basis upon which the secular Hindu-Moslem conflict can be solved. And it is only, further, by building into the structure of the Constitution real guarantees for individual liberty and for minority rights that you can erect a Constitution strong enough to be a security for internal order, for liberty and peace, as the British power is gradually withdrawn.
Next comes responsibility. When we consider the varied facts about the changing India of to-day and the colossal domestic problems which confront her, is it conceivable that they can be solved otherwise than by placing the responsibility for their solution on Indian shoulders, provided always that the security of India, the stability of its government, and the rights of minorities are preserved? Is it conceivable that this Parliament, preoccupied with the unexampled problems and movements of its own domestic world, can also solve the problems of a subcontinent 6,000 miles away, containing 350,000,000 people, on the move, as the people of Britain and of Europe are on the move, through the advent of new ideas and new economic forces of every kind? It seems to me unanswerable that, as proposed in the White Paper, we should transfer responsibility for dealing with Indian social and economic conditions to Indian shoulders as soon as a proper constitutional structure can be devised.
I am all the more convinced of this by the consideration that governmental responsibility, that is, the effect of re-

309
sponsibility for government on those who wield it, is probably the one solvent which may make possible the solution of difficulties which now may seem to be insoluble. It is a commonplace of our public-school system that the way to train boys for responsibility is to place responsibility upon them. The very basis of our Parliamentary system is the maintenance of an Opposition whose criticism and promises are tempered by the knowledge that at any time they may be called upon to fulfil them. It is the uniform verdict of our Imperial history that the one way to convert rebels or revolutionaries into constructive statesmen is to thrust responsibility for government upon them, and so make them responsible for the consequences of their own acts. There is a peculiar alchemy in this old Empire, perhaps because we have been so often willing to place responsibility on our own rebels, and in so doing to win them after a time to loyal and enthusiastic acceptance of the British Common wealth system. We have had experience of that kind in this country, in Ireland, in Canada, in South Africa. If I could convince Mr. Gandhi that it is in the real interest of India that he should persuade his young and enthusiastic followers to capture the machinery of government in India by constitutional means, I believe that he would do more, to develop in them that independence of character and that capacity for self-government than he can do by any form of direct action.
Finally, there are the safeguards. As I see it, the purpose of safeguards is to ensure that during the next stage of Indian constitutional government, while India is developing the Party structure and the political habits and conventions which are capable of bearing the full weight of an All India Government, there should be ample security for three things—for the unity and defence of India itself, for the maintenance of the structure of the Constitution, and for the just rights of minorities of all kinds. These safeguards were discussed at length in the various Reports of the Indian Round Table Conference. They are set forth in the Prime Minister's statement of January 19, and again in the White Paper which is before you. They were defined by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India in another place last week, and perhaps I may be allowed to quote what he called
310
a rather abrupt summary of them again here to-day. He said: "First of all, until India is in a position to defend herself, our command of the Army must be clear and undisputed and our control of foreign affairs must be reserved. Secondly, our relation with the Princes must be retained by the Crown. Financial stability must be efficiently safeguarded, and so, ultimately, must internal security. Minorities must be protected, there must be no unfair economic or commercial discrimination against the British trader, and the rights of the Services recruited by the Secretary of State must be safeguarded."
That concludes my survey of the genesis and nature of the general policy submitted for your approval in the White Paper before the House to-day. It is a policy which represents an agreement between the three main political Parties represented in another place. It is a policy worked out by a process of conference on equal terms with representatives of all the main elements of Indian political life, and I believe it commands the agreement of the great mass of responsible opinion in India. So far as I can see, there is no alternative policy open to us. If we try to go faster we imperil the structure of government in India, and therefore probably the peace and liberties and security of the Indian people. If we try to go more slowly we shall deprive ourselves of that consent and co-operation without which the pronouncement of 1917 cannot be realised, and we are likely to be drawn into difficulties of every kind. I earnestly trust, therefore, that the White Paper will receive the endorsement of this House, so that the Government can go forward in working out the mass of unsettled detail in co-operation with a small working Committee of the Round Table Conference to be set up in India, knowing that in so going forward it has the authority of Parliament behind it. The detailed inquiries which are to be set on foot immediately relate to the franchise, and to the division of financial resources between the Federation on the one side and the Provinces and the States on the other, and to the financial problems connected with certain individual States. The Princes are also to endeavour to reach a conclusion about their own representation in the Federation at an early date. At some later date when all necessary material is ready the Round Table Conference will re-assemble

311
in some form for a final review of the whole scheme and, thereafter, a draft Constitution will be presented by the Government for the consideration and decision of Parliament.
I confess I am somewhat at a loss to understand the meaning of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, proposes to move to this Motion to-day. Your Lordships are not being asked to pronounce a final judgment regarding the solution of the Indian problem. You will only be asked to do that when a draft Constitution is submitted for your consideration. You are now being asked to approve of the Government proceeding to develop that Constitution on the lines which have emerged from the inquiries, the discussions, and the Conferences of the last four years. The Government cannot accept the Amendment because its adoption would inevitably have the effect of casting doubt in India on the intention of Parliament to proceed on these general lines. If your Lordships definitely disapprove of the White Paper you are naturally perfectly entitled to reject this Motion; but merely to declare that you refuse to pronounce a final judgment regarding the solution of the problem when you are not being asked to do so, in view, too, of the fact that Parliament will have another and full opportunity of doing so later on, can in the judgment of the Government only produce doubt and confusion at a time when definite and resolute action along lines laid down in the White Paper is imperatively needed.
One word in conclusion. Indian politicians, especially of the extremist kind, often point to Ireland as the model they wish to follow. I venture to think that in doing so they misread the true meaning of that history. The root of the trouble in Ireland in recent times has arisen from the fact that the Irish question was drawn into the Party politics of Great Britain. One great Party in the State was long reluctant to admit the force of Irish Nationalism or the necessity for giving it legitimate satisfaction. The other Party in the State was just as reluctant to admit the force of what, in the parlance of Indian politics, is called Communalism in Northern Ireland, or the necessity for giving it also legitimate satisfaction. As the re-
312
sult to-day both the United Kingdom and Ireland are divided, though not, I hope, for ever.
In India we have so far avoided these pitfalls. The Indian question has been kept out of Party politics. The predominant place to be conceded to Indian national sentiment is fully recognised in the White Paper. So is the necessity for giving ample guarantees to communal and minority rights and aspirations. If we continue to move forward on these lines and if, at the same time, we keep the structure of government firm and intact we may sec at no very distant date a self-governing India which is also a united India, and the forging of new bonds of permanent friendship and cooperation between the Indian and the British peoples. I cannot believe that your Lordships will imperil the attainment of this end by accepting the Amendment and I, therefore, commend with confidence to your Lordships' acceptance the Resolution which I have the honour to move to-day.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the Indian policy of His Majesty's Government as set out in Command Paper No. 3972.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD had given Notice that he would move as an Amendment, That this House, while appreciating the efforts made by His Majesty's Government during the Round Table Conferences to resolve the grave problems connected with the future government of India, considers that the moment has not yet arrived at which His Majesty's Government, mindful of their supreme responsibilities for the safety and welfare of the people of India, can pronounce a final judgment regarding the solution of the problem.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name my first duty is to express my thanks to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the delay which, though not a very long one, has enabled many of your Lordships to be present for this debate when otherwise you might not have been. I should like also to preface my observations with a brief personal explanation. I desire to make it perfectly plain that, in moving this Amendment on what is admittedly an important occasion, I am actuated by

313
no hostility of any kind to the Government. On the contrary, as the noble Viscount who leads the House knows I think, I was not much slower than anyone else in taking an individual part in trying during the Election to get the National Government returned to power. I would only say that I have no other desire than that this Government should move from strength to strength in the prosecution of those great causes and in the pursuit of those policies for which it was returned to power.
Nor do I approach this great problem of the future government of India in any grudging or reactionary spirit. May I venture to remind your Lordships that as soon as ever the great Act of 1919, the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms Act, was passed into law, I not only accepted the reforms which were embodied in the Act fully and completely, but I took an active part in their inauguration and in fashioning the electorate. I look back with satisfaction on the fact that the Government of which I was then the head was able, through troublous times, in pursuit of those reforms to carry every measure without once having re-course to the powers reserved to the Governor and the Government. I stood by that Act then, as I stand by it to-day, with complete and unswerving loyalty.
Having said so much, I should like to turn at once to the point which my noble friend who has just spoken has made. Ho wants to know why I am moving an Amendment because this House is not being called upon for a final judgment to-day on the policy outlined in the White Paper. That is technically true, but it is a very narrow shade of meaning. I take the view that if we were to allow this Resolution to pass without protest, when eventually the Bill he has referred to comes before Parliament we should find ourselves in an invidious if not a dishonest position, and at any rate not free to vote against it on that occasion. If we are going to pursue an honest policy in regard to India it seems to me that we ought to take the first opportunity of making the request I am venturing to make to your Lordships' House to-day for further time to consider the great problems that are before us.
My right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary was at great pains the other day
314
in another place, to recall the circumstances in which this Act of 1919 was brought into being. In spite of his well-known lucidity, I do not think the new members of the House of Commons, to whom he was specially addressing himself that afternoon, could have derived a quite complete or accurate picture from his recollection. It is true, of course, as he said, that that Act was passed in the critical days of the Great War and in circumstances which, undoubtedly, bind us in very special honour to the fulfilment of the purposes of the Act. It is true that the whole country at that time, more especially those who had fought alongside the Indian troops and had been eye-witnesses of their gallantry and devotion, were moved with generous impulses towards the peoples of India, and rightly moved. Even so, some of us were disturbed at the proposals in that Act. I can only speak for myself, but if my apprehensions were overcome, as they were at that time, it was largely because Mr. Montagu continuously and emphatically urged, and rightly urged, that within the scope of the provisions of this Act, Parliament was to retain complete control at every stage of inspection of India's progress, to stand still, to go back, or to go forward. So much is all that forgotten—or at any rate ignored—that to-day we have Government spokesmen arguing that any reluctance to proceed blindfold at the Prime Minister's pace in this matter is to betray the Montagu Act and to be faithless to our pledges to India. It is nothing of the kind. That is an entirely wrong interpretation, as your Lordships will see if you read Section 41 of the Act of 1919.
The Foreign Secretary said too that there were two categories of people concerned in this great affair. One was that of the people who honestly and sincerely desired to achieve or promote self-government in India; the other category was that of the people who did not. Surely there is another category which he did not mention. There is a third category compounded of men in India and in this country who, for the best possible motives, will risk ruining the whole future of responsible Government by precipitate progress and who bid fair to destroy the foundations which some of us have had a hand in trying to build up. Has nothing happened in the last twelve

315
years in the world? Have the constitutional ruins that litter the Near East, the Middle East, and the Far East to-day no meaning to us in relation to Section 41 of the Act? Are we to learn nothing from the crash of these jerry-built constitutions built upon sand, perhaps upon safeguards too, upon phrases rather than foundations? Is it mere reaction or is it prudence and statesmanship to be sure of solid foundations before we attempt to build so great a house? Because, after all, we may not forget Russia, we dare not forget China, and we have to remember that the whole future of India and its peoples—more than that the whole future of the East Indies—depends upon our decision. Therefore, phrases will not do.
The Government say to us in effect: "Although we have had the advantage of sitting for weeks in close and intimate conversations with India's representatives and you have not, although we have had Cabinet after Cabinet and find ourselves still with many perplexities, although the minorities were not only baffled but beaten in any attempt to find common ground, although the Princes are still far from unanimity, and although, with all this exclusive information, we are only just able to resolve our own mind, yet we insist that Parliament shall come to an immediate decision, and, if you do not do it, you are reactionaries and betraying our pledges to India." Of course, that is a paraphrase, a summary, but it is rather the kind of argument adopted to those of us who hold these views. It is because I hold that that attitude is wide of the mark and unreasonable that I have ventured to place the Amendment on the Paper to-day. I for one, if I only had two people in the Lobby with me, should refuse to be a party to seeing the work of Hastings, Clive, Hughes, Elphinstone, Bartle Frere, Curzon and Morley, all disposed of in a day's debate or hastened into past history in an hour.
After all, I knew Mr. Montagu's mind very well. I had constant and continual conversations with him about those reforms at that time. I know that he foresaw that great convulsions might well, and probably would, follow upon the Great War. That is why he caused his Act to contain the prudent precautionary provisions which it did con-
316
tain. It is now suggested that if we are to make use of his prudence or to avail ourselves of his foresight, we are betraying his purpose. I do not think that is a reasonable attitude. There are few people in this country who, in this matter of reforms, desire to go back. I am certainly not one of them. There is no one who desires to go back, but it is none the less our responsibility to decide the manner and the moment of our next advance.
I confess that I do not understand—and I have read all the speeches very carefully—what is the purpose of this hurried declaration of policy. What the Government, I understand, have said is that we are going to explore the situation further with Committees. If that is so, surely it is a little absurd and a grave mistake to decide your policy before you have heard the findings of your Committees. I know, of course, that the Foreign Secretary said that the reason why it was so necessary to have a declaration from the House was that some people in India have come to believe that our rate of advance was
"so slow that it can never be seriously intended to get to the goal."
All this has happened before. Are we really to be asked to make a hurried declaration of policy every time someone reports to somebody else that someone doubts our good intentions in India? Only two years ago we had the declaration of Dominion status made by my noble friend, who, I think, knows that it was an unhappy declaration. How was it justified at that time? Mr. Benn, speaking in the House of Commons on November 7, 1929, used exactly the same arguments and quoted my noble friend Lord Irwin:
"He [the Viceroy] said in the first place, that doubts have arisen in India as to the sincerity of British Parties in the matter of the Montagu policy and that for the removal of their doubts it was necessary to issue a clear declaration of existing policy."
We have bad it twice in two years. It was not sufficient at that time to clear the doubts by announcing Dominion status. We have now to make another declaration to clear the doubts again.
How many more times are we to have to do it? Would it not have been better to demonstrate conclusively at that time, as I am sure it would be better at this, to any anxious minds in India or any-

317
where else that these doubts were completely groundless, and to show that any and every pledge made under the Act of 1919 had been completely fulfilled in the spirit and in the letter, and then to proceed with unperturbed haste upon the path prepared and approved by Crown and Parliament? That would seem to me the wise way to move. Is the pace really so slow as the Foreign Secretary suggested? Everybody who knows India knows that Indianisation of the Services has proceeded in India not only as fast as was promised but far faster. Everybody knows, for instance, that the Statutory Commission was appointed and set up ahead of its due time. In every manner and by every means we have carried out in every detail everything and more than we promised in the 1919 Act. Far from being slow, I am afraid that ten years is a very short time in the life of the world or in the history of a country to make such great changes. Now we are being asked to advance again at a dangerous speed down a road which may, we believe, lead to our goal, but every inch of which has got to be made as we go and made through utterly uncharted country. I do not think we are proceeding so slowly as all that.
I spoke just now about foundations as against phrases and of the great need for foundations. May I say a few words more on that subject? The second Round Table Conference is just over. I admit that I have never viewed the Conference procedure with much sympathy, and I still think that we should have achieved more if we had proceeded by the constitutional method of discussing the Statutory Commission's Report and setting up our usual machinery of Joint Committees to come to aid our ultimate decision. None the less, I am not at all disposed to quarrel with those who say that the Round Table Conference has done, in the event, more good than harm. I think perhaps I underrated its work before it started. I think it has certainly dissolved a good deal of suspicion. It certainly disclosed the difficulty, and that is a great deal. More than that, I am afraid it has revealed chasms far wider and deeper than the worst pessimist had over thought of in this country. The Prime Minister, and I believe others also, urged in the White Paper that we should avoid vague generalities. I very cordially
318
concur. Indeed there is scarcely anyone now who does not realise the danger of any vague phrase, whether federation, Dominion status or the like. Ambiguity has ever been the father of friction and far the greatest danger, the unforgivable sin in my judgment, would be to mislead and deceive the peoples of India into thinking they are going to get something which they are not going to get or not going to get as soon as they hope to get it. I can imagine nothing that would be more likely to lead to bitterness and ultimate disaster.
Therefore it is our duty to consider carefully whether the words in the White Paper are likely to be fulfilled and whether they can in any manner mislead the peoples of India. May I read certain words in the White Paper and, as I read them, will your Lordships remember that the Prime Minister has begged us to avoid all vague generalities? It is in paragraph 2, I think, that these words occur—the interpolations will be my own:
"The view of His Majesty's Government is that responsibility for the Government of India should be placed upon Legislatures, Central and Provincial, with such provisions as may be necessary to guarantee, during a period of transition, the observance of certain obligations"—
we are not told what—
"and to meet other special circumstances"—
we are not told what special circumstances—
"and also with such guarantees"—
we are not told what guarantees—
"as are required by minorities to protect their political liberties and rights.
"In such statutory safeguards as may be made"—
we are to avoid vague generalities!—
"for meeting the needs of the transitional period, it will be the primary concern of His Majesty's Government to see that the reserved powers are so framed and exercised as not to prejudice the advance of India through the new Constitution to full responsibility for her own government."
I was talking about foundations. Is there any hint of sure foundations in this rather vague statement? Let us remember, too, that the Prime Minister in another place begged my right hon. friend the Member for Epping to withdraw his Amendment on the ground that all the right hon. Member desired to achieve by his Amendment was compre-

319
hended in the White Paper. I think your Lordships will all agree that any form of words which so comfortably comprehends the views of the Prime Minister and Mr. Winston Churchill must have been eviscerated beyond all meaning. Further, do we know, for instance, and does the Government know what it means when it talks about federation? No one has yet, so far as I know, really evolved an idea of what a Federal Government for India may ultimately mean. The conditions are obviously entirely different from those which prevailed in a federation like the United States of America or any of our great Dominions. In the British Colonies you had a number of bodies already more or less self-governing "and all of a like nature with constitutions practically identical. In India we have two absolutely different bodies; you have the self-governing or practically self-governing units—the Provinces, already with Legislatures and already subject, as to their Constitution and as to the rights of the population, to the rule of law. You have on the other hand in India a large number of purely autocratic States governed by Rulers who so far have never subjected themselves as an Executive against their citizens, to any rule of law except their own will. It is at least not an extravagance to say that it is gravely open to question how far there is any possible position in practice for an autocratic Ruler in a democratic federation.
We are invited to abrogate Parliamentary control over India without knowing any of these things and without even waiting to know what the exploratory Committees are going to find out. The minorities have not been settled and we know how important they are. The Mussulmans have said over and over again: "We do not want responsibility at the centre until our position has been secured." The depressed classes have said just the same thing. In what manner does His Majesty's Government mean to secure, for instance, the future of the Anglo-Indians to whom we owe such a debt of loyalty and gratitude in India? I think the noble Lord, when he replies, will say that the Government have specifically avoided any attempt at the immediate achievement of their purpose. Yes, my Lord, but, if you so reply to me, I say that none the less you are still inviting us to pledge our-
320
selves to them before you have proved their feasibility, and in a matter so important I think that is imprudent and unwise. How many people at home are there who so lightly passed this White Paper in another place who have the smallest knowledge or could give any unbiased account of such a happening, for instance, as the Moplah Rebellion, the most bloody revolution in the history of the British Empire since the Indian Mutiny? How many of them understand, when they talk of federation with the Indian States, the true inwardness of a matter like the recent affair in Kashmir No, it is all endlessly vague and susceptible of different interpretations.
Like others I very much admire the courage of the Secretary of State's speech in another place. No one could have been more precise than he as to the necessity of safeguards, but even he gave us no single hint as to how they could be made administratively effective. If safeguards are really essential—and both he and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, are emphatic on this point—we ought to be told how they are going to be operated before, and not after, we part with our control of Indian affairs. We know nothing about this and I doubt if anyone knows, but let us assume the safeguards can be made effective. What then remains of responsibility? Listen to the list of them—I will not read all of them because the noble Marquess has just given the formidable list—command of the Army, control of foreign affairs, relations with the Princes, financial stability to be effectively safeguarded, internal security safeguarded ultimately, minorities to be protected, British trade to be protected against unfair discrimination, rights of the Services to be maintained. Really, what is left of responsibility if all these safeguards are to be made effective? Surely the noble Lord must agree that responsibility must become a shadow, or, conversely, if full responsibility is attained, the safeguards are worthless. I cannot believe you can get good feeling from India by proposals of that kind. In the situation of this country, to dare neither to give nor to refuse is, I believe, a very disastrous policy.
In conclusion, I want to say we all recognise with what high motives and purposes the Prime Minister is moving in this matter. We all know and admire

321
the efforts made by the Secretary of State to meet the views of both Moslems and Hindus alike. But some of us who are not without experience in the East Dear greatly that we are on the wrong load to-day. If they want to help India cannot the Government see by now that whatever it gives—it may be very little at a time—it must give fully? A gift hedged about with every reservation and Fenced so straitly with every safeguard is no gift at all. There is another course. What is it? May I suggest that you pause awhile in your present programme, The change the direction of your present march; that you stop building from The top, and begin building from the bottom like all good builders do? Extend your franchise, widen your basis, deepen jour foundation. Then you will begin to find out what the great masses of the people in India really think, then you will find out, by interpreting their needs, chat the real masses of the people, not the minute and urban fraction, need. Thus, finding out these things by means of the franchise, you will know the new structure upon which you are trying to build. If you broaden your base, then you will have found out what the people really need, and when you return, after broadening your franchise, you will find loyalty and support. You will find that as you build your house the need for safeguards gets less and less and not more and more, as it is to-day.
In moving this Amendment I have three reasons. One I gave at the beginning. A second is that I object to the whole proceeding. I object to this government by Declaration. We have had too much of it lately, abrogating the authority of Parliament. A Conference is held, the Prime Minister goes down to it, he makes a speech, and we are told we have to pass it because it is a Declaration. I think we have had enough of that. There is another reason; it is far the most important one to me, and I believe it will be to your Lordships. It is because the policy of the White Paper, in my judgment, will please no one in India, will manifestly achieve neither security, democracy nor good government, because I fear and believe it will only still further trouble the hearts and minds of the Indian people instead of healing them and advancing their welfare. It is for these
322
reasons that I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("House") and insert ("while appreciating the efforts made by His Majesty's Government during the Round Table Conference to resolve the grave problems connected with the future government of India, considers that the moment has not yet arrived at which His Majesty's Government, mindful of their supreme responsibilities for the safety and welfare of the people of India, can pronounce a final judgment regarding the solution of the problem.")—(Lord Lloyd.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, it is not my intention to detain the House by a long speech. The noble Marquess who represents the India Office has dealt very fully with the Prime Minister's Declaration. But as for nearly two years Indian affairs have occupied the greater part of my time, and, during the crisis through which we have recently passed, almost all my thoughts, I should not do justice to this House or to myself if I did not add a small contribution to what he has said. During the recent discussions there have been many appeals to formulas and much mention of abstractions such as Dominion status, self-determination, responsibility at the centre and the like. Different people attach different meanings to these phrases, and there is no very general agreement as to their real signification. I prefer, if possible, to state our present problem in rather simpler English as follows: India, insistent, desires to have a greater share than she has at present in the management of her own affairs. To what extent, how and when is this to be accomplished? To that question permit me to address myself.
May I be allowed, in order to make my observations clear, to discuss the present situation, to draw your attention to the Round Table Conference, and especially to that part of the work which was dealt with by the Federal Structure Committee, and, finally, to offer some suggestions as to the future? Generally speaking, I suppose everybody who belongs to a civilised community desires three things: first, to live under a Government which can protect him from external aggression and maintain internal peace and order; secondly, to enjoy some measure of material prosperity; and, thirdly, to gratify from time to time his political ambitions. For it is an old philosophy

323
that the State is a creation of nature and man is by nature a political animal. Let me ask you to examine how far British rule in India has satisfied those requirements. For the last two months it has been my duty to listen to much criticism of the British in India, and I desire to say at once that I will make no apology for what we have done. Mistakes have naturally been made, but our record is one that will stand the test of time and one of which we need not be ashamed. We never went to India to conquer, we went there to trade. Only gradually, and most reluctantly, did we exchange the rôle of merchant for that of ruler. Only gradually, and most reluctantly, did we extend our rule over the area which is now known as British India. A career in India has offered generation after generation of our young men an opportunity, not of gaining wealth but of serving the State. The lives which have been given in many a district smitten with plague, in many a district smitten with famine, afford us a magnificent example of self-sacrifice and devotion to the public good.
"Peace hath her victories
No less renowned than war."
And it is in this spirit and not in the spirit of those who hope to maintain domination over subject races that the work of Great Britain in India has been accomplished and is still being accomplished.
We have defended India against foreign aggression. We have done our best, often under most difficult circumstances, to maintain internal order. With regard to material matters I will not refer to our system of railways, posts and telegraphs. In a remarkable article written to The Times newspaper by a member of your Lordships' House, the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland—an acknowledged authority on the East and a distinguished Indian ruler—summed up the record of the British Raj in this respect. He pointed out that immense tracts of desert land have been made fertile by means of the greatest irrigation works in the world and that the yield of crops has been enormously increased as the result of scientific agricultural research. Great industries which add to the resources of the peasantry have been built up by British enterprise and with the aid of
324
British capital. The Sukkur barrage will bring 4,000,000 acres of waste land under cultivation. In the Deccan the Bhandardara dam has converted great tracts of desert into prosperous gardens, while the Lloyd dam, the largest mass of masonry in the world, will hold a perennial supply of water which will feed a total of 675,000 acres. These are the real monuments of our rule. I do not pause to consider what has been done for education, for commerce, for industry and the general well-being of the people.
Nor have we failed by gradual advances to satisfy their political ambitions. As far back as the year 1S92 the Indian Councils Act introduced a small popular element into the Legislative Assemblies. From the first English statesmen have looked forward to what to them was the fulfilment of their end—the creation of an India which, developing its own culture and standing on its own feet, would henceforth walk in co-operation with this country along the path of national development to the goal of prosperity and peace. The reforms introduced by Lord Morley and Lord Minto, further reforms associated with the names of Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford, have only been progressive steps in a policy of ordered evolution. Whether each reform was introduced at exactly the right time or whether it exactly suited the circumstances of the moment it would be unprofitable here to discuss. What we have to deal with is the situation in which we find ourselves—a situation in which a body of educated and cultured opinion, nurtured on our own political ideals and sharing, as we have taught them to share, our own political ambitions, press upon us their desire to go a further step along this road and assure us of their willingness to tread it with us. Whether the educational system introduced into India by Lord William Bentinck and Lord Macaulay was the best under the circumstances it is academic now to enquire. The authors upon whom for many years Indian education was based were Burke. Bentham, Mill and the philosophical radicals, and I for one appreciate the difficulty of looking upon Eastern conditions through Western windows.
But, my Lords, great as have been our achievements, both on the material and on the political side, much remains to

325
be done and much, in my view, to which, on the political side, we are, pledged. It has naturally fallen to my lot to hear many public speeches made by Indian representatives and to have many private conversations with them. There are extremists both in England and India. Their views are entitled to respect but it is quite impossible to comply with their demands. Let me, however, endeavour to place; before you what appears to me to sum up moderate Indian opinion. Indian statesmen say that the most striking feature of India at the present time is the poverty of the masses of the people. This is apparent from the reports of two recent Royal Commissions—one on agriculture and the other on labour, respectively presided over by the Marquess of Linlithgow and Mr. Whitley. The poverty of the Indian population, they say, has for its accompaniments exceedingly unsatisfactory hygienic and housing conditions, mass illiteracy and its resultant ignorance and suspicion. In short, the standard of living of the great bulk of Indian people is extremely low and consequently their efficiency and productive capacity are also very low.
They further say that the population of India has in the last ten years increased from 320 millions to 350 millions and this increase will only result in a further depreciation of the standard of living. Whatever critics may say, there can be little, doubt that the? British Government have consistently followed a policy of keeping taxation in India as low as possible. High taxation of a poor country by a foreign government will inevitably cause discontent. Unfortunately the geographical position of India entails the maintenance of a large and expensive Army and a very considerable portion of the available revenues of India is absorbed by military expenditure. A comparatively insignificant sum, it is said, is available for schemes which are calculated to improve the efficiency and standard of life of the people. Owing to their poverty money is not available for measures absolutely necessary to secure social progress, and without such progress the political situation will remain unstable.
It is also pointed out that there is another difficulty in the Indian situation. The middle classes in India are in
326
desperate straits. Every year thousands of young men—you heard the figures given by the noble Marquess—complete their school and University careers, and there is in most instances no employment available for them. It is impossible for these middle-class young men to secure land even if they wanted to pursue farming as a profession, and industry is developing too slowly to absorb more than a very small fraction of them. What is the consequence? They have nothing to occupy them and can look forward to nothing, and as a result they ascribe their unhappy situation to political causes. The majority swell the ranks of the Congress Party, while a minority have adopted Communist doctrines and a certain number have become terrorists. The War has brought India into closer connection with the outside world, and they have learnt to compare their situation with the condition of people in other countries. Now, continue the moderate Indian statesmen, the remedy lies in entrusting the duty of raising money for schemes of betterment to the representatives of the people themselves. This does not mean, they say, that safeguards are not to be provided for the obligations which have been incurred by the British Government. The foundations of social progress in India have been laid by the British Government, but the designing of the structure and the actual building had better be left to the Indian people themselves.
Those are the views of moderate Indians, and with them I find myself if not in complete agreement at any rate in very general agreement, and I have come to the conclusion that until those views are satisfied we shall never have lasting peace and lasting prosperity in India. I am profoundly convinced that the policy which the Government propose to pursue is the one which will produce a result which we all desire, and that is a happy and contented India. That policy was stated with precision by the Prime Minister on January 19 last, at the end of the first Session of the Round Table Conference. Mr. Baldwin, then Leader of the Opposition, speaking in the House of Commons on January 26, said:
"We have only one duty, and that one duty is to try to implement so far as we can what has been done in the Conference"

327
What, then, is the position? All Parties, Labour, Conservative and Liberal, supported the Declaration. The matter does not rest there. We now have a National Government, and in the White Paper which has been issued upon the present occasion the Prime Minister says:
"My colleagues in His Majesty's present Government fully accept that statement of January last as representing their own policy."
The White Paper was drafted by a Cabinet in which was included, you will allow me to remind your Lordships, Sir John Simon, Chairman of the Statutory Commission. That White Paper has the approval of an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons.
I am not one of those who speak hard words of gentlemen who disagree with this policy. They are entitled to their opinions, and their informed criticism is a great help to those who are charged with the laborious task of drafting a new Constitution for India. It is difficult, however, to follow the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd. If it means, as I think it does mean, that we should proceed with due care and caution, the noble Lord need have no fear on that score. We are not now discussing a final Bill in Parliament. If, on the other hand, the Amendment is meant to recommend some policy other than that which the Government has recognised as its own, the noble Lord will, I am sure, forgive me for telling him quite frankly that in my opinion the honour of the Cabinet and of the House of Commons is pledged to the White Paper.
Why do I oppose the Amendment? For one reason, above all others, because it will excite suspicion in India. I will venture to make an appeal to the noble Lord. I will ask him to consider the advisability before the end of the debate, of withdrawing that Amendment. One thing I can tell the noble Lord, and one thing only, will prevent what may be a peaceful solution of the Indian problem, and that is Indian doubts of our good intentions, and Indian disbelief in the fulfilment of our promises. Nothing will do more to dispel those doubts, and nothing will do more to dissipate that, disbelief, and nothing will do more to ease our difficult task in India, than the
328
unopposed affirmation by the House of Lords of the Government's Declaration.
Let me state my own position? I believe that the proper solution of the Indian problem is an All-India Federation. Not only is an All-India Federation possible but it is probable, and many of us here will live to see it. We ought not, however, to give any pledge which we cannot perform. We cannot promise that an All-India Federation shall come into force at any particular moment of any particular day of any particular year, because its accomplishment depends upon factors some of which are beyond our control—such factors, for example, as the accession of the Princes to the new form of government. These questions will be settled, and the pledge I give, and I give it carefully, is this: I will do everything I possibly can here towards the accomplishment of an All-India Federation in the shortest time which is reasonably possible.
Let me now turn to the work of the Round Table Conference, and especially that part of it which was dealt with by the Federal Structure Committee. Anyone who sat at St. James's Palace and listened to the arguments brought forward by our Indian fellow-subjects must have felt a thrill in the thought that they, men and women, were in truth members of the British Empire, and that it was owing to its fostering care that they were able to pursue and appreciate our ideals and to shape those arguments. No one, however, could be insensible, as he listened, to the thought that there was another side of the picture. In their enthusiasm they perhaps underrated the difficulties, and were inclined to forget the heavy burden of care which those assume who undertake the creation of a new order of things. It is easy for orators to excite enthusiasm by fervid appeals and high-sounding phrase, but I hope that in moments of exaltation the difficulties of the draftsman will not be forgotten. He, at any rate, has to produce a scheme which will work.
When I speak of the difficulties I cannot forebear to note the wise statesmanship which inspired the speeches of the Indian leaders. They have looked fairly and squarely at the necessity for safeguards. They are prepared to wait for details if the principles are affirmed. We call them safeguards, and so indeed they

329
are, safeguards in the interests of India and of this country; for in defence, in finance, and in many another matter the interests of India and of England are closely bound up together. When one member suffers all the other members suffer with it. As I have been obliged in the course of my remarks to refer to safeguards I am compelled to add a few further observations upon the matter. To me, personally, the heaviest weight is that of the responsibilities and duties which we owe to the people of India—responsibilities which, owing to no fault of their own, they are not at the present moment able to discharge, and responsibilities which we must shoulder for them for some years to come; the duty of protecting the country from that external invasion which through the centuries from time to time has been the curse of the countryside—from the foreign invader who has descended upon the peaceful population, murdering its men, violating its women, putting its children to the sword, and leaving behind him nothing but distress and desolation; the ultimate duty of maintaining that law and order under which all members of the community may live peaceably; the duty of protecting minorities of all sorts and kinds from oppression and persecution, and of seeing that they get a fair share of ordered government, peace and material prosperity.
We owe duties to the Indian minorities—to the Moslems, to the Sikhs, to the depressed classes, to the Anglo-Indians and to the Indian Christians, to those of our countrymen who have embarked in trade and commerce, and those of our own countrymen who at our invitation have engaged their careers and devoted their lives to the Civil Service of India. We must take care that at the inauguration of the new order provision is made to place these classes and these people beyond the reach of any sudden wave of political excitement. It follows that the Army in India is our special responsibility, and that any Constitution must contain such provisions as will ensure that, until the need is past, we can effectively discharge our duty in that regard. It follows also that similar provisions are necessary to safeguard the relations, of India with foreign States, and not only with foreign States but with
330
the Native States of India, to whom public faith, guaranteed by a long string of Treaties and a long chain of dealings, is pledged to secure fair treatment and freedom from encroachment. With regard to finance, in my view this is not the time for public discussion of such a delicate matter. The safeguards which have been indicated must be maintained. Indeed, from conversations I have had with members, of the Federal Structure Committee, it might well be that if the question of finance had to be settled at this moment it would be a case, not for relaxation, but for a tightening up, in India's own interest, of the safeguards already referred to.
Now, it may be asked in what degree have the two long sittings of the Round Table Conference advanced this work? They have made it clear, as I believe, to the inhabitants of India and to the civilised world that His Majesty's Government remain unwavering. They stand firm by the pledges which they have given, and are ready, as circumstances permit, to foster the growth of an All-India Federation. He who, whether on the Indian side or on the British, now bends his energy to conciliation and to co-operation deserves well of both countries, and helps in the accomplishment of another great advance in the history of the human race. He who, on the other hand, from whichever country and from whatever motive, whether for Party purposes, private gain, or personal vanity, obstructs our path and refuses to join with us in this great task of co-operation incurs as heavy a weight of responsibility as any man has ever assumed in a crisis of the world's history. We, for our part, will go forward and no effort shall be relaxed and no trouble shall be spared. Conciliation, consultation, co-operation are the order of the day. But permit me to make to you some suggestions as to the future.
For the next three or four years the initiative with regard to India is in your hands. What is to be your policy? If you do nothing, if you make only niggardly advances you will have chaos in India for the rest of your time; your military expenditure and your Income Tax will go up; your revenue returns will go down, and everything will hasten to decay and dissolution. Do not be deceived. The political pendulum in this

331
country is sure to swing back and an advanced form of Government in a moment of enthusiasm might be prepared to go to lengths which would be harmful both for India and for England. If, on the other hand, you come forward with a generous measure of self-government for India you will attract to you the good will and co-operation of all parties not only to the benefit of India, but as I believe to the benefit of Great Britain and the world. The initiative, I repeat, is with you, and you may be able to effect a settlement which will last not only your time but that of your children's children. Do not forget the history of the Sybilline Books. Now—now is our accepted time; now is our day of salvation. This opportunity may never come again. Do not let us hesitate to seize it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I feel guilty of an act of presumption in rising to address your Lordships when I know there are so many noble Lords present and, I hope, willing to speak, who can speak with such infinitely greater authority based upon experience of personal and responsible government in India. But it may be that, holding the office I hold in the life of our country, some words may be expected from me on a theme so vital to the future of Great Britain and of India. I can only promise that my remarks shall be brief as I have no desire to stand between your Lordships and the noble Lords who are so much better qualified to speak on this matter than I can pretend to be.
I think I may claim to represent a multitude of my fellow citizens not specially associated with any political Party who are convinced that the time has come when we must implement the promises already abundantly made and begin definitely to set our faces towards enabling India to attain some real measure of self-government with generous trust and confident hope. The difficulties are formidable beyond all words. The White Paper itself sufficiently discloses that. Indeed, it bristles with difficulties which are yet unsolved. Yet I am sure that those difficulties must be approached with one great fact dominating the mind: that is, the growth, the width, the depth of the national movement in India itself. It no longer characterises any one class,
332
or section, or party, or creed. It is universal, I do not say among the multitudes living in the village communities but among all Indians who are capable of political thinking. The Conference which has just concluded is sufficient proof. There all elements of Indian life and society were assembled together and, with no exception, they looked forward to the day when the aspirations of India will be fulfilled by one India with one responsible form of government.
There are many interesting illustrations of the movement of this national spirit in other directions. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to give one. The Anglican Church in India has attained its autonomy as a self-governing Church within that widespread commonwealth of churches which is loosely called the Anglican Communion. By virtue of the Act which was commended to your Lord ships by the late Lord Birkenhead, it has been set free from any restraints of establishment in India and from all the legal bonds which would bind it to the Church of England in this country. Its motive in so doing has been simply that it may be able to adapt itself in its future life more, easily and quickly to Indian life and thought. At the present time an interesting experiment is being made in South India as to whether all sections both of British and Indian religious opinion may not be gathered together in a united church. The express object is in order that such a Church may be able to give an Indian expression to the life and thought of the Church Universal. These are only illustrations of the way in which in all sections of Indian life there is the feeling that this national movement in India is a great power which remains, which has a great destiny before it and with which this country must cordially co-operate.
Indeed, we ought not to be surprised. It is only the result of our own government of India. As I think the noble Marquess who brought this Motion forward said, the starting point for considering this great theme is not the Declaration of 1917. We have to go back a hundred years to the famous minute of Mr. Macaulay which, as your Lordships know, inaugurated the scheme of English education open to all Indians who chose to avail themselves of it. I do not say that was a very wise minute. Like the

333
noble Lord who moved the Amendment, I have often thought that at that time it might have been better to take another method, to begin rather at the bottom and work upwards through native institutions and through the development of native culture until something really more Indian than English was evolved. But at least at the time, in the sanguine spirit of the middle of the nineteenth century we thought that we were giving the best that we had to give. At any rate, it is too late to arrest the course which then began. We must accept its consequences. The consequences are that the whole youth of India ever since that time has had its entry into a literature and a life which is permeated by the spirit of liberty and self-government. We cannot be surprised that India should now be anxious to reap where we ourselves have sown. I think the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said that we had had enough of Declarations. I think that is true. It is perilous to make many more of them. What is needed is that we should show we mean what we say in these Declarations and are prepared to face their consequences.
If I may allude to the Amendment which has been moved, I may say in passing that I see very few signs of finality in the White Paper which we are asked to commend. On the contrary, to me it opens up a whole widespread avenue of difficult subjects which have yet to be explored before Parliament is capable of making any final judgment whatsoever. But the importance of the Amendment is not in what it says but in the consequences which it will inevitably bring with it. The noble Lord said that one result, at any rate, of the Round Table Conference with which we were satisfied was that it had largely dissipated suspicion. The certain effect of passing this Amendment would be to increase the suspicion which has been so largely removed. It would make Indian opinion think that there was a very large section of British public opinion represented by this House which really in its heart did not stand behind the Declarations that already had been made. To my mind the merit of the White Paper and of the Motion before the House is that it does give a proof of good faith and I am bound to say that, there was some need of such proof being given.
334
There has been a great deal of mischief created by haggling in this country over the particular term "Dominion status." Surely that is a phrase which has given rise to very needless misunderstandings. I accept most fully what was said about it in another place by Mr. Winston Churchill when he said that status only means position, rank, and cannot be regarded as meaning the structure of any Constitution. Precisely. No one could suppose that the Constitution of India could ever be evolved along the lines that have been followed by great Dominions like Australia and Canada. Surely the right way to look at the whole matter is to say to India: "Who can doubt but that we wish to give the great Empire of India a place within the British Commonwealth of Nations not less distinct and marked than the Dominions of Canada and Australia?—and, on that common ground, let us work together to secure within that Commonwealth a Constitution for India, which reflects its own particular problems and characteristics and history and needs."
Indeed, what gives one hope in this great matter is the measure of success which has already attended such co-operation as has been possible. So far as I am capable of pronouncing any opinion upon it, the Round Table Conference has exceeded in its value any anticipations that could originally have been framed without it. I myself, having some experience of conferences, though attended by representatives less gifted with copious eloquence than our brothers from India, thought that it would probably result in no kind of practical result. On the contrary, it has been to me most remarkable to watch how certain great outlines of a future Constitution of India emerged until at the end of the Conference it was plain that, so far as the representatives of India were concerned, there was before their minds a clear picture of the future, an All-India Federation, with responsible government combined with the safeguards so abundantly mentioned, and provincial autonomy in the Provinces.
It is most remarkable that the co-operation of a larger number of representatives of all classes in India than has hitherto assembled should so soon have been able to reach so large a measure of agreement. There is a great deal that remains and I confess that, when I look

335
at what remains to be done, I am still, both in the Native States and in British full of apprehension as to the difficulties India, told me. It was that he involved, but at least a great step forward has been taken and a step from which it is now impossible for this House or Parliament to retreat. I hope, therefore, that India, with this evidence of the good faith of the British Government and I people, will trust the word that has been I given and trust the assurances that have been made.
It is difficult to say what influence Mr. Gandhi will have on his return. I had the great privilege of very long conversation in private with Mr. Gandhi. It was impossible to resist the fascination of his strange and mystic personality. Equally impossible, if I may say so, to follow the movements of his very subtle and elusive mind. I would find it difficult to say, after a very long time of conversation, what Mr. Gandhi really meant either to say or to do when he returns to India. But I venture to hope, speaking of him with great respect, that he will not occupy himself on his voyage home in attempting to read a hidden meaning into this White Paper. I hope that he will take it as it stands as a sincere expression of the desire of the great majority of the people of this country. When he returns I trust that he will, on reflection, see that his own ideals are much more likely to be fulfilled if he steadily follows the policy of co-operation with his fellow Indians and abandons the methods of civil disobedience or even any words that may contribute to the outbreak of violence. I cannot but hope that he will see that it is most dangerous, even in the interests of his own dream of a self-governing India, to accustom the people of India to methods which are subversive of any civil government whatsoever.
This carries with it the corollary that the British Government and people must be ready to give generous trust to India. That they will make mistakes is inevitable and that is the reason why these safeguards and powers reserved to the Governor General are so essential. But responsibility, as the noble Marquess who moved this Motion reminded us, is the only teacher of statecraft. I was very much struck by what a friend of mine, who had occasion to visit all parts of India and to make very careful inquiries into the administration of Indian affairs,
336
both in the Native States and in British India, told me. It was that he was immensely impressed by the administrative ability that had been created among the Ministers of the Native States and he said the reason was that they had responsibility. On the other hand, I am assured that there is, even among some of the most difficult and at present the most intransigent leaders of Indian thought, great administrative capacity, only they have never been able to exercise it because these men have been in the position of permanent opposition. They have never had any responsibility and criticism divorced from responsibility is incapable of effecting any good.
I believe that very different qualities would be called out in these men if they found themselves responsible for the first time for the consequences of their own acts and words. I trust, therefore, that this House and this country will follow the evolution of Indian self-government with patient and generous trust. It is no longer enough for the West to impose its government upon the East, however beneficent it may have been. It is not satisfactory that India should continue to waste its energies on criticism and resentment of that government by the West. The time has come when East and West working together, each giving of its best, may endeavour to further a great common task. To govern India has been the greatest achievement which this country has ever attempted—a noble trust which, as the noble Lord on the ' Woolsack has pointed out, has called forth the devoted service of some of the ablest of our countrymen. It will be an even higher achievement, an even nobler task, to assist India to govern itself.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, after listening entranced to three out of the four speeches which have preceded me I expect my feeling is very much that of those of your Lordships who are here, and perhaps of those of your Lordships who have gone away, in asking what we are here for? Are we here for the Second Reading debate of a Bill that has not yet come into existence or are we engaged in discussing the Motion which is on the Paper? We have had all the apparatus of the full-dress Second Reading debate—the careful historical summary checked by having the dates before us; the personal reminiscences of

337
early youth when one was in India; high exhortation and professions of personal belief; and strictures passed on those who venture to disagree—all that wealth of eloquence and uplift which is characteristic of a Second Heading debate of the utmost importance; and finally, the noble and learned Lord on the Wool-tack has told us that in his view the Indian problem is quite a simple one, that all India desires is to govern herself in her own way, that we shall never have peace till we let them have their own way, and that if, greatly or meanly daring, we do not let them have their own way our Income Tax will go up.
On the other hand, he and the most rev. Primate comforted us by the heartfelt assurance that they believe that self-government would be good for India and that under that mild discipline they would rise to higher things. But at any rate we were warned, we temerarious and obstinate minds who venture to decline this hush-hush appeal, that humble as we are and unimportant as we know ourselves to be, a word, a vote, almost a look of ours will fill India with distrust and suspicion, and shake the edifice of confidence erected at St. James's Palace through innumerable tedious meetings; and if it does not bring the Empire crashing down round our devoted heads will hold us up to the execration of humanity, black and white. I resent being reminded in this homiletic way that we must remember to observe our pledges, that we must be humble, that although a branch of the Legislature and entitled to vote on occasions, and even now and again to make our votes count for something, we must not in the hearing of an attentive Continent say what is in us—namely, that we think this scheme vague, uncertain, and unsafe—lest we should offend all those distinguished persons who were good enough to come and enjoy the hospitality of this country and hold converse for so long.
It has been inevitable to introduce the personality of Mr. Gandhi. He is no doubt one of the most impressive of political figures in India. Everybody seems to agree that he is elusive and among many other singular qualities he possesses in a high degree the rare faculty of making great statesmen with whom he holds discussion seem faintly ridiculous. Why we should hang all our
338
bells on one horse, and that Mr. Gandhi, I do not understand. I do not understand that India agrees with Mr. Gandhi, and Mr. Gandhi sometimes is in a difficulty to know with which part, of India he should agree himself. But until he has returned to counsel with the powerful party of which he is such an ornament we do not know where we stand with Indian opinion.
As regards pledges some of us think we are entitled to speak of pledges as much as the other side. We are quite as willing as the other side to fulfil every pledge that has been given. We are not aware that we have violated any pledge, and when I come to think of what happens to the pledges of statesmen at home, which are sometimes heard of a great deal at Election times, and less afterwards, I think on the whole that what has been done by this country with regard to pledges to India has been pretty good. But the pledges that are given are not unilateral pledges. They are not mere promises to give to the Indian population, if they are or even if they are not good, what they ask for or what we hope will please them. They are pledges also to the Empire and to this country and we are as much bound by our pledges to see that there is as little risk and mischief as possible to England and the Empire as we are bound to see that India is helped forward on the way to self-government or to whatever you call the goal.
How has the Act of 1919 been treated in fact? Any one who reads it with care will see that the Preamble and the provisions about an inquiry into the fitness of India to receive further political advancement were meant to be what is now called a safeguard. They were not put in merely to defer a difficult question for another ten years. It was the intention of Parliament, and it was the effect and meaning of the Statute, that there should be an inquiry into facts of a specific kind, that the facts so ascertained should be considered by Parliament, and that further legislation, forward or backwards as the case might be, should depend upon the question whether or not in fact India had made any progress towards being fit for the very difficult combination which is being put before her, the engrafting of purely Western ideas; upon minds of purely Oriental experience. I am not so enamoured of White de-

339
mocracy as to be very sure that I can confidently expect they will like it when they have got it, but, it is quite certain, if democracy is to be worked as we know it in this country, there is a very long lesson to be learned of political compromise, political common action, political understanding, and common determination to turn your back upon mere wrecking, before the institution can be said to work well.
Has anything whatever been brought before us to show what is the state of India now as compared with eight or ten years ago in that respect? None whatever. The inquiry was not into the way in which what I may call the Montagu scheme, the existing scheme, has worked. That has been commonly condemned by calling it dyarchy, a name which is unattractive but represents the thing, and the thing was inevitable under the circumstances. But beyond that, so far as I know—I think I may say confidently so far as nine-tenths of your Lordships know—we have not had either the information for ourselves or the verdict of those who have had it before them to tell us what progress India has made in those directions. And in those matters, what is ten years? It is a mere day in the life-time of a country that is to learn to be fit for self-government on democratic lines.
I think the moral to be drawn from the way in which these provisions have been treated is a grave one. No Act of Parliament was passed to modify the Act of 1919, but, by agreement of leading statesmen among themselves, a different procedure was substituted, and instead of finding out by the Statutory Commission or another what is the condition of affairs politically in India, they set to work to find out what it is that Indians will agree to, or that they want, and in that they failed completely. There were a great many things that they have agreed to want, but those they can only get, if one side gets something which the other side refuses. It is perfectly clear that federation is a mere word signifying nothing until you know upon what terms the sovereign Princes are to come into federation, and that you cannot know until they have agreed what share they are prepared to take in the Central Government in which they are to be represented. In the same way you cannot tell
340
what democratic institution can be set up until you have decided, or Indians have agreed, what is to be the relation between the minorities and the majorities; and these two things are at present as far from being settled as ever. The only solution put forward is that expressly stated in the White Paper, that if they cannot agree among themselves England will have to settle it for them.
Well, how are we to tell now whether we are considering a scheme which, at any rate as far as it goes, will be carried out, or whether we may find that, owing to the perversity of the Indian political population, the scheme is to be one which will be based on something totally different—namely, a London-made mechanism for keeping the peace between the communities and securing the rights of minorities; and a London-made scheme—there are plenty of people who would like to make that scheme—to show how hundreds of sovereign Princes, with Treaty rights under the Crown, which are sacred unless they are willing to abandon them, may be persuaded or cajoled or squeezed into giving up their rights lest worse things should come upon them? We hear a good deal about safeguards. If I were the adviser of any of those minority communities, which, thank heaven, I am not, I should suggest to them that statutory safeguards may be not much more good to them than the statutory safeguard with regard to the inquiry into the facts, which is the gist of the Act of 1919, has been to us. Paper safeguards are like other pieces of paper, made to be torn up.
I ask myself, why was this brought before the House? It is, and I hope I have shown in substance that it is, a premature Second Reading discussion upon a Bill which may never eventuate. Why was it brought before the House? The Government needed no assent from us. Our approval of their plan would not strengthen them in the least. On the contrary, to ask our approval until it had been ascertained before-hand that we should say "Yes, yes," was running the great risk that we might upset the peace, order and good government of India by a rash word spoken from one of these Benches. What is it for? I can quite understand why it was necessary to introduce it into the other place.

341
Speaking as far as I understand politics, which is not very far, I should say that whatever else the present National Government got at the last Election, it got no mandate whatever to introduce a scheme for revolutionising the government of India. I will make bold to say that there would not be one candidate in one hundred who ever mentioned India and the Round Table Conference in his campaign, and that there would not be one voter in 10,000 who would have listened to him for a moment or cared twopence about it if he had.
Whatever this mandate may be—and there are differences of opinion I believe about that—it was not a mandate to revolutionise India. Mandates do not matter much; majorities will do as well as or better than any mandate; but at the same time it does strengthen your position if you can get a mandate in an indirect way by bringing the question before the House of Commons, making it a matter of confidence, and carrying the day. It matters nothing whether it is a question of confidence here. The Government will not rely on our confidence, and gets on exceedingly well, I notice, without it. But it is another thing in the other place. Therefore, when the approval was given by a highly satisfactory majority, the hand of the Government was strengthened, and the possible danger to them was averted, and I think they have every reason to congratulate themselves.
There has been a great deal of clamour that they should agree upon something, and do it. A policy of action has been demanded, and it has been said that they were not active enough, and perhaps not agreed enough, but here, at any rate, is a policy of action upon which they are quite united. No Cabinet Minister has been mentioned as likely to resign in consequence of differences of opinion over this White Paper. It is indeed said to have been the product of twenty draftsmen's hands working in singular unison, and I think it was the Lord Chancellor who proudly said that one of the artificers of this great work was the Foreign Secretary. So, I understand, he was. I do not think he had very much to do with the drafting of it, or, if I might humbly say so, it would hive been rather better drafted, but he
342
did say something in his speech that I want particularly to recall to mind and it was this. The language of the important paragraphs repeats the word transition. It is a limitation upon the guarantees; such provisions as may be necessary to guarantee, during a period of transition, the observance of certain obligations. That expression recurs later on and it has been part of the essence of the formula ever since there was a formula earlier in the year. "During a period of transition" means that it is a period the end of which is contemplated, that it is not a series of permanent provisions but that in framing them in the first instance it is contemplated and indeed acknowledged and laid down that a time will come when these things will come to an end.
I wonder whether the minority communities quite appreciate the weight of that word "transition," quite Tinder-stand that the safeguards, whoever frames them and whether they like them or not, are only "during a period of transition" and that in the fulness of time, sooner or later, they will pass away. The only word that I recollect seeing in any of the debates explaining this was when some Member, greatly daring, interposed in the Foreign Secretary's speech an allusion to this subject, and he said airily: "Certainly. Everything in this life is transitional." If that is all that can be said about it—and I am sure the best that could be said of it would be said by him—then I would say, firstly, that transition means that these things will pass away and in the new heaven and the new earth they will not be found. Secondly, that this lightness of heart I am quite sure will not be characteristic of the minorities in question, who see the airy structure of their safeguards dissolved in this way.
I will not weary your Lordships by saying more about the question before us, but I want to give two reasons why, I think, we ought not to answer that question now. I have not made up my mind about this and I have not closed my ears. I have as much good will to the people of India as any member of the Conference or any supporter of His Majesty's Government. But until we know more about it, until we have had time to digest the discussions that took place and the reports of the various sub-

343
committees that were drafted with infinite pains and talent, and to ascertain what is going to happen in India say in the next month or two, I do not think we are equipped to make up our own minds even if the time had arrived when it was necessary for us to express some sort of opinion. Therefore, to my thinking the right answer to make on this occasion is that we are unable to anticipate what is really matter only for a Second Heading of a full Bill by giving an unconditional approval to a provisional scheme of which the details are entirely speculative and are not known to anybody. It is of great importance to us—it is no doubt important outside—for this reason: this is a great State matter upon which many of us feel deeply. The Under-Secretary told us in eloquent language a few nights ago that, speaking at any rate with regard to large numbers of the official classes, every Englishman in India carries his life in his hand.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: In parts of Bengal.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: "In parts of Bengal." I beg pardon. In parts of Bengal it is at present. Let us hope that it will stay there.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It will not be your fault.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: I hear the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, ejaculate that it will not be my fault. I bitterly resent that interposition. So far as I know I have guarded my lips as carefully as any man can be expected to who is not prepared to sacrifice his convictions. I do not see why adherents of one particular Party or advocates of one particular scheme or believers in one panacea should have the monopoly of the right to say what they think upon important matters. If anyone is going to be upset by anything a creature like me can say, then God help India for its case is bad indeed. At any rate we in England do not forget those who run risks in India and we are not satisfied that until the political sections in India are prepared to walk along the ways of peace the time has arrived when with any safety whatsoever any great progress can be made with
344
what is intended to be a pacification. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Lloyd, whether he elects, as some have suggested, to content himself with a mere negative of the Government Motion, or whether he thinks it better to press the Amendment in its present or some other form—who wants to niggle about the wording of this Amendment? I hope you will support him in arriving at the conclusion that the time has not yet come when we should be called upon to do that which we can do with some effect when a Bill comes before us but which now we can do with no effect at all.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is not necessary for us to assume that anyone who takes a special line on this matter is either indifferent to the fate of India or unsympathetic to its aspirations. For my part I am perfectly willing to accord to others a full belief in their sympathy towards India and their sense of responsibility if they also will accord to me the same consideration in the few remarks that I have to make. The noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down could not understand why this matter was brought before your Lordships' House at all. It is not for me to answer that question, of course, but in my judgment it comes before your Lordships in this way: that His Majesty's Government had made certain pledges to the Round Table Conference and it desired to have the assent of Parliament to the general principles of those pledges.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, in introducing his Amendment did so in a powerful speech and his experience in India and his capacity as an administrator require that grave attention should be paid to his words. But at the same time I could not help feeling that that which was most prominent in the speech of the noble Lord was that psychology of distrust and apprehension of things that might take place under certain circumstances in the future. I have always understood that the basic principle of Toryism was distrust of the people tempered by fear. I think that was the keynote of the apprehensions of the noble Lord this afternoon. He wondered how many people in this country understood the significance of the word "federation," and it may be that comparatively

345
few do, but nearly all of them know instinctively that federation, with all its difficulties, is preferable to riot and revolution and chaos in India. The noble Lord's name is most beneficently associated with a dam in India, which has enriched and blessed that country. I hope that by his Amendment this afternoon he will not create a barrier which is the reverse of being beneficent to India.
It is greatly to be deplored that a small, noisy, irresponsible but nevertheless dangerous section in British political life have thought it their duty, whatever principles they hold, to declare that the Round Table Conference was a failure and that what India requires in the future is the strong hand of the policeman rather than the understanding head of the statesman. This point of view was put with more force than eloquence in another place the other day by one of those politically paleolithic men whom the General Election has thrown up with such unnecessary redundancy. He said that the two things which we want in India are guts and brains; that "we can do without the brains but we must have the guts." I venture to hope that in using those words the speaker did not make a virtue of necessity.
In so far as the Conference is concerned the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, was good enough to express the opinion that the Conference did more good than harm. I had the privilege of attending nearly all its sittings, and I want to say to your Lordships, in all sincerity, that it was probably the richest experience that I have had in my life, and that so far from being disappointed with it I was intensely comforted and sustained by what I heard there. I regard it as having been a noble effort on the part of well-informed men of all Parties in this country and of all Parties in India to seek a solution of this most difficult and complex problem. It has sometimes happened to us individually that we have had to venture forth in a fog to reach a place that we knew existed, the general direction of which we knew, but which when we set forth we found it difficult to achieve. This was the case with the Conference, but the fog was not in the Conference but in the problem itself. Why should any one have expected that
346
in a few short months a perfect Constitution would have been produced, delicately and perfectly adjusted in all its parts? That would have been a miracle, and I think your Lordships will agree that miracles do not happen—in British political life at any rate. The subject was too big; it was too complex; it was too vast to admit of hasty decision.
To take up the subject of India is like trying to grip with one hand a vast globe. It is too large to grasp and too precious to let fall. Yet in my judgment the Conference came very near to achieving the miraculous. Nothing so big, so fundamentally healing, or so full of promise for the future peace of India in her relations with this country, has happened in our time. Let us think what the position was two short years ago. India was full of suspicion. There was non-co-operation, and on the part of even moderate people in India there was only a sullen acceptance of the existing conditions. The spiritual ties which bound this country to India were at that time nearly severed, and there was the prospect of years of dislocation of administrative difficulty, and of repression. There was the danger, too, that Great Britain might accept that situation, and repeat the dangerous policy that lost this country the American Colonies. The Bound Table Conference has avoided all that, and India and England sat together week after week and faced together, frankly, outspokenly, this problem the solution of which they have to find for the good of both.
Let us remember above all else that the delegates to that Conference have returned to India, assured for the most part of the good faith of the British people and of their great desire to see that self-government is given to India. Compared with that enormous achievement the alleged failures of the Conference are but as dust in the balance. Before the Conference began the temper in India was that somehow or other it would be right to get rid of British control: now the attention of India has been turned to the practical problem, in the solution of which Princes, statesmen, representatives of labour, of the depressed classes and other minorities, have all put themselves under obligations to do their bit to secure a peaceful ending to this great trouble. I have had nearly

347
fifty years experience of conferences. I know something of their psychology, of the impatience of enthusiastic inexperience, of their exaggeration of their grievances, and of their attempt to belittle the difficulties in the way, but I have never been so deeply and so continuously impressed as I was at the Bound Table Conference with the willing subordination of personal aims to the general good, and with the dignity of the Indian delegates. Their work together during many weeks impressed itself indelibly upon my mind.
The second great achievement of the Conference is this, that the conference method is to continue, and henceforth the centre of activities is to be in India itself, rather than in this country. The Conference was adjourned and not dismissed, and thereby certain dangers were avoided. His Majesty's Government was saved from the duty of imposing a decision upon the Conference, which might have turned every man in it from a co-operator to a critic. To-day it remains an obligation upon each one of them to contribute to the desired end. It may be, as speakers this afternoon have suggested, that the old Empire is passing away, and doubtless it will pass. But I am reminded of a phrase in a venerated book that "if that which is done away with was glorious, how much more that which remaineth is glorious."
Having said so much in support of the Conference, I should like to be permitted to offer one or two words of criticism of the White Paper. We are not called upon to pass judgment upon this unfinished picture, the shades and tones and distances of which have not yet been put in. We do indeed think that the Government approached its task in too timid a spirit, rather in the hope that some blessed accident would show them what the next step should be. We prefer to leave captious criticism to-day to the super-patriots who write in the Press and elsewhere. But, in supporting the statement before your Lordships' House, we on the Labour Benches must not be held to approve of all that it contains, nor be committed to any future policy. What I mean by that is that there are certain phrases in the White Paper that honestly leave us quite anxious and perplexed.
348
On page 5, for example, you have these words:
"You have indicated your desire that no change should be made in the Constitution which is not effected by one all-embracing Statute covering the whole field, and His Majesty's Government have no intention of urging a responsibility which, for whatever reasons, is considered at the moment premature or ill-advised. It may be that opinion and circumstances will change, and it is not necessary here and now to take any irrevocable decision."
If this merely means that a certain stage may be reached in the development of these plans when India may change its opinion and wish to begin the experiment of provincial autonomy before that of central responsibility, then our anxieties would be lessened in that respect; but if it means that His Majesty's Government reserve the right to impose upon India any plan irrespective of the wishes of the Indian people, then we should feel alarmed, and it is right that I should speak frankly on that point before your Lordships this afternoon. We cannot put ourselves in such a position that His Majesty's Government could say to us at a later stage: "Because you approved of the White Paper you are thereby committed to whatever interpretation we may choose to put upon the words which were laid before you." We reserve the right to consider future stages upon their own merits. I think your Lordships will agree that that is our right in the circumstances in which we are placed.
Then we should like to know whether it is really the intention of His Majesty's Government to pursue the plan indicated with reasonable speed. Committees, as your Lordships are aware, can kill by delay, as well as by adverse decisions, and we cannot help remembering that every one of the delegates from India has, so far as we know, returned to that country uncommitted. We should have hoped that His Majesty's Government would have obtained from them, some of them at any rate, an assent to the general principles laid down in this Paper before they returned, and I should like to ask whether that has been done.
Before I close I should like to say that in my judgment both India and England owe something to the devotion, the self-sacrifice, and the clear-headed sense of those who were responsible for the conduct of this Conference, and who bore the

349
heaviest share of responsibility: to the Prime Minister for his unwavering insistence upon continuity of policy, and to the genial leadership, the patient help and guidance in the Federal Structure Committee of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The time and the great need produced the man, and his name will always be honourably remembered as one of the founders and architects of the United States of India. And to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for his constant attendance and his helpful contribution in moments of crisis, we are all under a debt of gratitude. And, if I might be so bold, I would add that the Labour representatives, too, tried to play their part with a due sense of responsibility.
In my view we are at the parting of the ways in regard to India, and it is within our choice to say what the future relationships between the two countries shall be. We have to conceive of India as she is to-day and as she may be, not as she was ten, or twenty, or thirty years ago. India is not static, she is alive, intensely alive and on the march, and not even the impulsive theorist is so great a danger as the retired administrator with a frozen mind. I believe it was Palmerston who said that if you really desire to be thoroughly misinformed about a country you should seek the advice of someone who has lived in it for thirty years and who speaks its language. The problem is, of course, difficult beyond all description, but it is not insoluble, and I believe personally in the will and the ability of the Indian people to rise to the task which will be imposed upon them.
Unnecessary delay in satisfying the aspirations of a great people is just as dangerous as foolish haste. Self-government for India cannot be deferred until she has a completely educated population, as the noble and learned Viscount suggested, nor until every Indian advocate has learnt the wisdom and the strength of restraint. And let us remember that other nations set oat on their journey towards self-government with even fewer qualifications than those that India now possesses. For instance, we had our own civil wars in the 17th Century. The United States began her independent life with a violent revolution to be followed by a bloody civil war. Changes of this kind very rarely occur without
350
some dislocation and some anxiety, but on the whole we shall be well advised if we trust the Indian people, and I appeal to them, to trust us. Many of us in the Labour Party worked and spoke and fought in Parliament and elsewhere through many difficult and lonely years, for Indian self-government, and we have earned our right to make an appeal to the Indian reformers to think twice and thrice before they bring upon India the disaster of deliberate disobedience, passive or active. It is not in that way that causes are won.
What are a few years in the history of India? She was old in the business of civilisation before Europe was young, and she can well afford to be generous in her patience. I should like to say in my closing words that we, too, are often disappointed with the pace of things and some of us are compelled to endure the bitter disappointment and discipline of delay. At the same time we know that what we possess we have won by the steady process of natural development, by patience under defeat, by undying faith in the method of reason and not by gusts of violent passion or riot or revolution or non-co-operation. I venture in my great hope for India's peaceful future to suggest to them that they, too, must tread that same pathway, because it is both the safest and the quickest way towards the end desired.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, as is only fit and proper in so grave an issue, this has been a remarkable debate. It has been remarkable for one thing above all others—that it has been conducted in an orgy of sentimentality, of which the speech we have just listened to has been a good example. We have been very far away from the facts which count and from the realities of Indian administration. We have been thinking very little of that great Service which risks its life and limb every day in order to maintain the credit and prestige of the British Raj in India. I said that this has been a remarkable debate. Perhaps it will be remarkable for one thing which has not yet come to pass. I understand I am to be followed by the late Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin. We all know of him that he is a man "from whom nobody can differ except in opinion," as I have had the misfortune to do; but when he speaks your Lordships will learn, because I

351
think it is his maiden speech in this House though far from being his maiden speech in Parliament, something of the way in which in India he wielded the wand of the magician. When he went to Delhi the lines are especially true that,
"A golden palace rose or seemed to rise,
The appointed seat of equitable laws
And mild paternal sway."
Whether his rule finished entirely according to that high standard I hardly know. At any rate, a debate in which he presents an explanation of his policy in India will of itself be remarkable.
As I say, we have been far away from the realities of administration and yet it is the realities of administration in India that count. It is the men who have been carrying out the administration of India who have alone made the continuance of government possible under what are familiarly called the "Montford" Reforms. Nobody, I think, knows that better than the noble Marquess whom I see upon the Benches opposite. I listened with great attention to the able and forceful speech in which the noble Marquess the Under-Secretary presented this Resolution to your Lordships' House. He seemed to me a little too much dominated by those abstract ideas of the equality of all races through all times in all things, and I could not quite agree with him when, in speaking of India, he said that the consent of the governed is that without which democracy cannot flourish. Personally, I do not believe that democracy in India can flourish in our time or for an unlimited period. May I also say that when he used the argument that there are 11,500,000 in the recognised educational institutions of India, he did not tell your Lordships that hardly any of those who go to the elementary schools ever get beyond the first standard of the curriculum; therefore, it is not an education which fits any man or woman for the exercise of civic rights.
Speaking on Thursday last in another place the Lord President of the Council asked for a mandate "in the most difficult task that any one in the Empire ever tried to undertake." In my judgment, in saying this he was not guilty of the slightest exaggeration. I cannot see that what we are doing here this evening, or can do, will make it less
352
difficult to manage. No doubt it is satisfactory to the self-esteem of your Lordships' House that we are now being treated on a footing of equal status, if I may use a word so greatly beloved of Indian controversialists, with the other House. At all events—I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, is of the same opinion—the White Paper, of which we are asked to signify approval, settles nothing and tends still further to unsettle everything. He himself said that the Labour Party were made anxious and perplexed by the paragraph in reference to the pace of what is called advance. It may be that the Indian problem is a jigsaw puzzle which can never be solved; at any rate, I do not think our debate here this afternoon any more than the debate in another place will do anything to solve it.
In dealing with Indian affairs the two qualities most necessary are singleness of purpose and sincerity of speech. It used to be said in the East: "Ho said 'Yes' or 'No' like an Englishman." We seem to have lost our power of saying either "Yes" or "No" without confusion. At the beginning of the debate in another place the Prime Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect and I am quite sure it was only by inadvertence, gave some account of his negotiations with Sir John Simon about the Round Table Conference. I think it is a pity that he only told half the story. The whole is worth telling and is strictly relevant to the issue. Still that is for his judgment and not for mine. The fact that this great act of renunciation follows so closely on the heels of the Statute of Westminster which your Lordships passed with so many misgivings and so much reluctance, although in a sense it is a fortuitous coincidence, has, I venture to think, a logical sequence. It has been asserted that there is no connection between the two because to bring India into the category of a self-governing Dominion of the Crown will require a separate Statute. No doubt that is technically correct, but that is merely a technical point. I am a very old Parliamentary hand and I have hardly known a case of any Government of which it would not be true to say that the head of it could pass into law any emergency Bill he chose with the cry of the interest of the State behind him. Especi-

353
ally is that true now that your Lordships have chosen to so large an extent to efface yourselves as a Legislative Chamber. The present Prime Minister as the head of a National Government has a special position which gives him additional power for such a purpose.
In his eloquent speech the other night on another matter, my noble friend Lord Lloyd talked about the conspiracy of silence here at home as to the means by which a section of the Legislative Assembly in India are endeavouring to drive the English officials from the country, and he said truly that
"Her politicians will never have a greater need of the best type of trained Englishmen to guide and advise them or the masses more urgently need the impartial sympathy of the British officer among them."
I observe that the Indian-owned Press was very prompt to deal with the issue he raised. I am quoting now from The Times of December 4, and The Times cannot be accused of being adverse to what are called the national aspirations of the Indian peoples. The Times, referring to Calcutta, said:
"The newspapers here, however, are full of comments on Mr. MacDonald's statement in the House of Commons and the more extreme of them are still fulminating against the Bengal Ordinance. The Congress Press takes an almost unanimous line in professing to regard Mr. MacDonald's statement as a 'huge sham.' and reproaches the Indian delegates to the Round Table Conference with being content to return empty handed. The majority of newspapers print statements by Congress leaders hinting darkly at a now struggle to begin as soon as Mr. Gandhi returns."
That comes from Calcutta and from a well-informed correspondent and one may take it as more accurately representing the facts of the case than the optimistic speeches to which we have been listening this evening.
I felt rather sorry for the noble Marquess who introduced the Resolution here to-night when he pointed out that it was very different from when he last addressed the House on behalf of the Bengal Ordinances and gave such a detailed and accurate statement of the state of crime in Bengal. One of the most important Indian delegates was; interviewed by The Times on this subject, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, who did very good work at the Round Table Conference. He said
354
that, in order that the work should be successful,
"it is essential that there should prevail in India a calm atmosphere and general good will. It seems almost impossible to secure this with the unfortunate happenings in Bengal and the repressive measures that are announced there in rapid succession."
The "unfortunate occurrences" were the assassinations of British officials and the "repressive measures" were merely to give our countrymen there, who are doing their duty to this House and to the Empire, some chance of life.
"Whatever may be urged in favour of the necessity of special measures, the recent Ordinance sanctioning death penalty for attempt to murder, trial in camera and no appeal, cannot under any circumstances be defended, being opposed to fundamental notions of justice."
Though it is only against the criminals who are charged with these infamous crimes! But still the statement is important because Sir Chimanlal Setalvad cannot be looked upon as an extremist and, therefore, I suppose he speaks for the great body of the Indian delegates to the Round Table Conference. He also said:
"It is difficult to judge from this distance, but it looks as if Bengal is being treated as in a state of war."
That seems to me to point the moral of the tale in much better terms than anything we have heard on general grounds about the necessity of satisfying the national aspirations of India. In this connection it should be remembered that the very word India does not occur in any of the 222 languages that are spoken there. It is an entirely European idea and the unity of India has been wholly the work of this country. When we talk of safeguards, I quite agree that they must be real safeguards. The worst of the safeguards that have been proposed—and it is a weak point—is that they depend entirely on the power behind them, which can enforce them, and, therefore, the most important safeguard of all is the safeguard for internal security.
In the second Report of the Statutory Commission it is stated:
"If the external menace to India's peaceful development is serious, the possibilities of internal disturbance are not less grave. It must be borne in mind that the periods during which India has been free from civil strife have been few find of short duration. It has only been, when a strong Central Government"—

355
I commend that to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—
"has been able to keep peace among the divergent elements in the peninsula that progress has been possible. Experience has shown in other countries that a period of transition may easily result not in ordered advance but in a lapse into civil war and anarchy. The danger of disorder in India is ever present. There are inflammable elements in the population and jealousy and ill-feeling between important communities which from time to time cause riots and disturbances. The history of communal disturbances during the past two years"—
we must recollect, that they have been far more numerous in the last few years than in a whole century in India—
"shows how slight an incident may cause trouble, which, if not checked at an early stage, can easily spread from district to district. Nowhere in the world is there such need for prompt action as in India and nowhere is the penalty for weakness greater."
In face of that, are we going to recommend that the central power should be weakened when it ought to be strengthened, if we are to judge by the experience of the last few years? It is for you of course to decide whether you approve the White Paper and whether at least there should not be some emphasis laid on the greatest need of all, the safeguard of internal security by the exercise of the Governor's power.
The belief, we all know, is current in many parts of India that the British Raj is done for and that the British are on the run. It is a very serious thing because it shows that the fabric of good government, which has been laboriously and conscientiously built up in the last 150 years, is being broken down and cast to the winds with nothing else to take its place. To make this belief universal in India is, of course, the whole policy of the Congress Party and the Congress Leaders. It is the very essence of the Gandhi creed, which, of course, is what we are up against at the moment. I was told by an official of great experience and—unlike the noble Lord who has just spoken—I attach great importance to the opinion of these Indian officials, because in no part of the world is it so true as in India that government is administration—that in a Bengal village a headman, who had been most troublesome of late years, came up to him on his last visit and said: "Why are you still here? I thought Gandhi was king now." Well,
356
Mr. Gandhi has left our shores and carried his tortuosities with him, I sincerely hope never more to try our tempers and our patience. He is now more fitly colloguing with the enemies of this country in Continental cities. To make a prophecy about a man so wholly untrustworthy is very dangerous, but I venture to suggest that from the moment he lands in Bombay again he will be at his old trade of making mischief with his dear helpmate Jawaharlal Nehru, always taking cover behind some general phrases which mean anything or nothing, but resolved in spite of his covenant with the noble Lord, Lord Irwin, to omit nothing that will harm British power, British profit and British prestige.
Great Britain holds India not by terror, but by awe, and that awe Mr. Gandhi and his fellow conspirators are resolved to whittle away. It may be you are deciding to-morrow evening that "the key of India" is to be thrown into chaos and confusion, "a dread Empire" to replace the Pax Britannica which still to some extent prevails. I wish there were more disposition to accept the burden of responsibility in these dark days. I confess I greatly fear that the setting up of the roaming and floating bodies which, far from the healthy influence of public opinion at home, are to carry on the work of the Round Table Conference—in spite of the fact that I see the noble and learned Lord is likely to be at the head of them—may do more harm than good. They will be taken for so much more than they are really worth. Of this I am sure, that if they do their work thoroughly it will take them a very long time, and meanwhile the Round Table Conference will drag its slow length along the coming years, doing nothing in particular, but keeping up all the apparatus of make-believe and pretence by which it has been distinguished, I think, above all other Conferences of which I know. My impression therefore does not tally with that of the noble Lord who said he thought it was one of the most efficient bodies of which he had had experience.
There is, says the Prime Minister, to be a meeting for the final review of the whole scheme. After that, it has to be embodied in a Government of India Bill, which will, I imagine, according to precedent—and in this case the precedent embodies a principle—not only have to

357
be considered in all its stages by both Houses of Parliament, but be referred to a Joint Committee which, presumably, will not be bullied into conformity as on the last occasion of 1919 by the Secretary of State for India. It sounds as if we shall have plenty of time for second and third thoughts before we make the great surrender that is going to wipe out from our maps the British Empire, as I still venture to call it, in spite of the Statute of Westminster, as we have known it in our time. It is for the reason that I believe the Amendment put down by Lord Lloyd will secure for us more consideration and is opposed to the policy of rush in India, that I support him here this evening.
LORD IRWIN: My Lords, in venturing for the first time to ask your Lordships' permission to address you I, along with all others who have taken or will take part in this debate, am extremely conscious of the burden of decision in these matters which rests upon His Majesty's Government and the Government of India, and last, but by no means least, upon His Majesty's Viceroy in India; and therefore I would attempt, as I hope all those who participate will attempt, to say no word that might in any degree add to the weight of that burden here or there. I wish I could feel that the noble Viscount who has just preceded me in this debate had been as successful, in what I have no doubt was his desire, to avoid making the task of those administering the government of India at this time any more difficult. I can conceive that much of what he said will in fact, when it reaches Indian cars, operate adversely to the task that he would wish our Government in India to be pursuing.
Whatever may be the purpose of this debate I can assure him that I do not conceive its purpose as being that to which he was good enough to invite me—namely, that I should offer an explanation of my policy to your Lordships' House. In the first place, I am not aware that a, Viceroy, as such, has a policy of his own. His policy is that of His Majesty's Government whom he serves. And in the next place, if there were ever need or occasion for me to offer an apologia it would not, I think, be now.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I did not use that word.
LORD IRWIN: I was not suggesting words to my noble friend, but I think that was perhaps the suggestion of his speech; nor indeed would I for another reason venture to do that, because I would feel some danger of falling within the category of those whom the noble Lord who spoke for the Labour Party described as the most dangerous of guides—namely, administrators who had left the country with frozen minds.
I am not concerned to discuss, as others have done, the purpose of this debate. That is for the spokesman of the Government. I only make this observation. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and who I am delighted again to find as a colleague, complained with great force about the extent to which the House and the country were being rushed to form a judgment upon these great matters. He appeared to imply that four or five days ago, or whenever the Prime Minister made his declaration, was the first occasion on which anyone interested in these affairs had had his attention directed to them. The facts are of course very different. The noble Marquess who inaugurated the debate gave us a history of them. There have been deliberations for the last two or three years, reports of the Conferences and frequent debates in Parliament, and I would have supposed that any of your Lordships who had been through that intellectual process would not find it an impossible task to decide, without undue delay, whether you thought the broad plan of procedure and programme suggested by the Prime Minister was such as ought or ought not to commend itself to you.
It is easy, and in one sense quite true, to say that the Conference was much more successful in discovering difficulties than in resolving them. That is quite true. At the same time I think it is also true that only those are likely to depreciate the work of the Conference who, for one reason or another, have from the outset been suspicious of, and disliked, the Conference method, and, in the second place, have always underestimated the difficulties that the Conference was quite certain to encounter. Take first the Conference method—and I take it that, speaking broadly, the object of giving approval to this White

359
Paper is to say that we, broadly, approve the Conference method. As to that, my own view most emphatically is that while nothing can derogate from the sovereign power of Parliament, yet the noble Marquess, Lord heading, and I think the spokesman of the European delegates, if I remember rightly, spoke the literal truth when they recorded their judgment that the Conference method had been abundantly vindicated by the establishment of understanding and contact and the like. I, for my part, can have no kind of doubt that the chances of the solution of this greatest of Imperial problems have been immeasurably advanced by the fact that you have decided to give India the right and the opportunity of being with Great Britain joint architects of her own Constitution.
I made the reflection as my noble friend below me was speaking, and as my noble friend who preceded me was speaking, what a curious thing, to me at all events, it seemed that those European delegates who come from Calcutta, Bombay and from India, who have their lives to live there, whose business is at stake there, who are in daily touch with the currents of thought, who live and sleep with these problems—that they, so far as I know, should all take a different view from the noble Lord below me who spoke earlier or from the noble Viscount, Lord Burnham, who has just spoken. I am not saying they are necessarily right, but I am saying it is a fact that should give your Lordships pause before you assume that they are necessarily wrong. Therefore I think that all those who hold that view of the Conference method and its potential value will welcome the statement of the Prime Minister, which in my judgment signifies broadly adhesion to and pursuance of that method.
It is, of course, folly to underestimate the difficulties. They are grave and immense, but I submit with all deference that it is foolishness not less grave to underestimate and underrate the common ground that has in fact been achieved between British Indian delegates, between the delegates from British India and the States, and between Indian and British delegates. A great deal of common ground has been achieved. I associate myself wholly with the noble Lord who spoke earlier—I think it was the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack
360
—who said that he was not astonished so much at the failure to reach agreement on this or that, as he was at the extent to which agreement had in fact emerged as a result of two years' discussions. Therefore, as I conceive it, in those circumstances the definition of purpose and the definition of clear programme will provide at once an incentive for this Conference spirit to be maintained and made effective.
His Majesty's Government no doubt must have expected, when they authorised this Declaration of the Prime Minister, criticism, and that from two opposite quarters. There were those—and we have had examples of it this afternoon—who think that the quite simple and effective remedy for the difficulty is to stand still if not to go back to something like a paternal system of government, being prepared, no doubt, to meet whatever reactions that possibly may have with a very stout and strong hand. That is one plan. There has been criticism on the other side from India by people who refuse to recognise that the most insurmountable obstacles at the present time are obstacles that Indians themselves alone can remove, and who are, therefore, tempted to find an explanation of them in charges of bad faith or lack of will on this side. Those seem to me to be the two extremes of criticism, and I hope that the bulk of opinion, both Indian and British, will gradually be found to rally between those two extreme poles. I believe that the events of the last ten years, and the discussions of the last two or three years, have succeeded in focussing thought both in this country and in India on realities that had not previously been so clearly apprehended.
I do not want to develop them as your Lordships have had them in mind. It would be convenient, perhaps, to put them together. First of all, the double obligation on Government for realising what political development nowadays entails and involves. By that I mean the one obligation, the clear obligation, of maintaining law and order, and in that respect I have no doubt whatever Parliament will be prepared to give support to whatever powers the Government of India think are necessary either against terrorists or against any potential resumption of civil trouble. The other

361
is that of which, as has been said, all our history is eloquent, and which statesmen should never forget, that consent is ultimately the foundation, and the essential foundation, of your rule. Mere repression unaccompanied by what the noble Marquess who introduced the Motion called the other half of the policy—mere repression is as futile a remedy for political discontent as I personally believe prohibition to be a futile remedy for the alcoholic craving. It is incomplete and inadequate. I think that only the Government that is able to convince reasonable men that it is pursuing with vigour and with determination and with a real intention to succeed, a constructive policy of winning agreement—only that Government can appeal for the support of reasonable men which it is necessary to have if, and when, they have to employ severe measures against unreasonable men. That I think the Conference has done.
I think another result of recent years has been a much truer recognition in England of the force and the nature of Indian aspirations. I venture to suggest that it is a very wrong diagnosis, if such be still made, to suggest that the troubles of the day are due cither to the naughtiness or to the mistakes of particular individuals here or there. That there has been naughtiness and that there have been mistakes I would certainly be the last to deny, but they are not, I think, the fundamental causes. The trouble which we are gathered here to discuss is certainly not a product of the last two or three years. After all, when the Conservative Administration was in power and when the late Lord Birkenhead was Secretary of State and the Indian Congress first proclaimed its creed of independence, that in itself was only the sequel to events which had been operating while my noble friend was Viceroy, and a long time before him and before Mr. Montagu made his famous Declaration. It is indeed true, as has been over and over again said, that it is all part of a much wider thing than just the stirring of national discontent in India.
I was interested when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to Mill. When I was coming home from
362
India I travelled with a very distinguished man who said to me: "What could you expect when I was sent out to lecture to Bengali students in Calcutta and the textbook that I was given was 'Mill on Liberty' "? The noble Lord below me who moved the Amendment asked whether we had learned nothing from the collapse in Europe of paper Constitutions. My language is not equal to his, but I would ask him with all respect, is there not a world movement from which we may also learn? Are we not to deduce something from the passage of the flame, from the stirring of dry bones across Turkey, Iraq, Persia, Afghanistan, China, Japan? There is manifesting itself in different ways, a great movement across Asia that up to a few years ago would have seemed in comparison stable and unmoved. Can you expect that India would be outside all that kind of movement of idea? You cannot insulate ideas by countries or by continents.
I would also say that I believe it to be a profound delusion to treat this Indian opinion as the work of an insignificant minority which, rightly, firmly, courageously, effectively handled, would quickly fade away and give you no more trouble. I am free to confess that before the civil disobedience movement started I consulted two or three of (I think) the ablest men in India and went over the ground very intimately with them as to whether it was not possible, supposing one could get the necessary support from this country, to inaugurate a plan of such rigid repression as would create the desert which we should then call peace. I postulated suppression of the Press, the closing of Councils, the suppression of public speech. All that I think would have been a possible method with which to treat that movement. But whenever I discussed the question with those who were in a position to form an opinion, I always came back to the same question of, supposing it had been a possible thing to do, where would you have been at the end of one, two, three or five years as regards the main problem which it is the concern of this House to solve? You would have been not only no further forward; you would have been many laps further back. Therefore it is that we have to turn our mind to the way of constructive agreement.

363
I do not by any means underrate the fact that the Conference should have revealed a general willingness to acknowledge the necessity of these so-called safeguards. I am very well aware, and we all ought to be aware, that that general agreement at the present time as to safeguards relates only to very broad purposes that have to be safeguarded. If noble Lords ever did me the honour to read the agreement for which I was greatly criticised with Mr. Gandhi, they would see that he himself accepted the principal purposes which were defined in the agreement as matters to be safeguarded, but it is quite true that there is still a great difference, a strongly held difference of view as to how effect should be given to safeguarding those purposes which it is generally agreed should be safeguarded. Therefore, while perhaps my noble friend who moved this Amendment will say: "Well, if there is all this difference of opinion let us save time and stop talking and decide something," I take the other conclusion—and I think it is the right conclusion. I say that if there are these differences it is a conclusive argument why we should pursue efforts to reach agreement where we have not yet been able to succeed in doing so; in other words to pursue examination of these matters with frankness and with determination to secure agreement.
I have heard a good deal of reference during this debate by some who have spoken—I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, referred to it—to the question of British pledges. My noble friend below me dwelt upon it at some length. They said with great force that as far as they knew there are no pledges that this country had not up to now honoured. I entirely associate myself with that view. There is no question in my mind at all of the strongest protagonist of opinion in agreement with my noble friend who moved this Motion having been in any way false to any pledge. I cannot conceive of any of my friends falling under that description. But that is not the point. The question has been put in debate: What is the trouble about in India? Why is it necessary for the Secretary of State or anyone else to make a declaration in order to reassure Indian opinion that, on your own showing, ought never to have been disturbed? I can only tell
364
you my own experience and why I formed my own opinion on that subject.
I do not mention individuals for obvious reasons. All that I know is that in the first year or two when I was Viceroy I constantly met responsible Indians coming out from this country where they presumably had been in touch with politicians of standing and importance. All of them, or a great many of them, gave me the impression that we had made generous promises of course after the War, when we were all in a mood of some elation, but that having had time to reflect we were getting more sober and sane and had generally modified our views or had calmed down, and Indian mentality and expectation would have to adjust itself to that view. I do not say whether they were right or wrong, but I say unhesitatingly that that was the impression right through political India, and I am not prepared to say that there was no justification for it. That impression has been immensely reinforced from time to time by speeches made by public men in this country and it has been constantly supported by a type of writing that is common in a certain kind of newspaper. All that does harm.
But that, of course, is a very different thing from the kind of doubt many of your Lordships feel as to whether the whole democratic outfit is or is not good for India. I can well understand those doubts, and if I could have approached the problem with a perfectly free hand and we had not all got the commitments and the history of the past years to meet and reconcile with the facts of to-day, I can imagine a very strong case being made on those lines; and I certainly do not identify any doubt of that kind with what is commonly known as reaction. Any of my noble friends in this House who may hold the view that the democratic method is wrong, may be just as sincere in their view as I am in my view, but what I wish to put to them with respect is this. Do they not think that the Chairman of the Statutory Commission—and I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Burnham gave his assent to this sentiment in the second volume of his Report—do not they think that that Report was right when it laid great stress upon the importance not only of

365
a Constitution being intrinsically good but that it should be able, I think the phrase was, "to rally the forces of public opinion to its operation and support"?
The conclusion which I draw from that in that it is no good saying to Indian political opinion: "After all, we do not believe very firmly in democracy, and do not think you would work it very well, and therefore you cannot have it." If India wants to try a Constitution such as we have carefully evolved, then I suggest that your Lordships will, subject to whatever qualifications are necessary to fit the circumstances of India, have to allow that effort to be made, feeling quite sure, as I feel sure, that once you allow that effort to be made you have created the best conditions for Indian opinion to evolve whatever variations Indian traditions "may demand, but yon certainly will not be able to impose any different order of ideas by unilateral admonition or imposition. Therefore, if we accept, as I hope we may, the necessity of this country continuing its interest and its responsibility in Indian affairs, in matters fundamental to the welfare of India on the one hand, and the necessity of securing consent on the other, remembering that consent will be the best safeguard of all, and that good will is the best security for British trade, then it seems that we are forced back upon responsibility and safeguards.
My noble friend Lord Lloyd made great play with a dilemma. He says, if you get all these safeguards, what becomes of your responsibility? He could equally have put the other horn of the dilemma: if you have real responsibility, what becomes of the safeguards? I admit my noble friend's dilemma, and it is, I quite admit, unanswerable; but I ask him to answer mine. If there is force in his dilemma it really means one of two things. Either you never mean to transfer responsibility to a central Indian Legislature at all, or if you do transfer you are going to do it all at once. That id a much more powerful dilemma, to my mind.
LORD LLOYD: My noble friend must not think that I assent, but I shall have an opportunity of answering him to-morrow.
LORD IRWIN: My dilemma seems to be more forcible than my noble friend's,
366
and neither horn of my dilemma is such as can commend itself to a, prudent man. Therefore we are forced back upon what my noble friend rejects. From another angle, which has not been specifically mentioned this afternoon, I reach the same conclusion, that the general course, the federal plan, with safeguards and responsibility, is right. The noble Marquess who opened the debate referred to the difficulties of a popular Legislature with an irresponsible Executive. The noble Marquess who sits opposite will, I am sure, bear me out in saying that those difficulties, for those who have to administer on the spot, are real and not likely to grow less. There are only two remedies for them. One remedy is to go right back and create the type of Legislature which will work smoothly with responsible government. The other plan is to try and go forward and create the type of Executive that, through responsibility, will secure harmony with a popular Legislature. It is that course which I believe we must attempt to pursue.
There will be criticism, of course, of what has been said from India, where mistrust has very deep roots and is nurtured on impatience, and where it tends to make the wisest people fail to realise that to try to measure Indian history by one or two years is as futile and inapt as trying to measure the height of Mount Everest by a two-foot rule. I hope, however, that all in India will be prepared to ponder the significance of the Prime Minister's statement—not only its contents but the fact that he was speaking, as we have been reminded, for the great bulk of political opinion in this country. In my view there need be now no reason for fear in India, after that statement, that there is any risk of any sharp deflection of British policy as a result of political accidents, and I can see no justification on that statement for any Indian patriot doing other than bending his whole energies to the translation of his hopes into the practical shape of a Constitution which may contain within itself the seed of natural expansion and growth.
It is very easy to criticise, especially if you have no responsibility for policy. It is easy to say that all this effort to advance on these lines involves, a risk. I do not know what does not involve a

367
risk, but every noble Lord has to weigh for himself whether the risk of this course is greater than the risk of that course. You may say that it is not logical. I have never yet seen a scheme fashioned by the ablest brains for India that could be said to be logical. You must face illogicality. I feel not less than any other man in this House the immense contribution, for example, that the Services have made and paid to India for many, many generations; it is impossible to exaggerate or to overestimate it. And I can very well imagine with what apprehension many of them, though by no means all, and many of us here on their behalf, may look forward to a new India, where different conditions and largely different values will prevail. But, as regards the Services, I have very little doubt in my own mind that, if we can steadily pursue the path, and succeed in it—the task of creating a real partnership between Great Britain and India—there will be work for the best of our race to do in India for many generations to come, and work which India will gratefully welcome and receive.
I conceive that India is easily the most difficult Imperial problem that we either have or have ever had. It raises the question of races, the problem of defence, and many others, all aggravated and complicated by the circumstances of the present time, and it is, therefore, not unnatural that those of us who take the kind of view I take should be from time to time criticised as defeatists, advocates of defeatism, and the like. We shall be told, of course—we are told—that the British Raj is done for—the kind of thing that is bound to be said as soon as there is any talk of transfer of power. It is to the interests of both, of the most ardent Nationalists and of the extreme diehards, to say the same thing. It is inevitable. But in my judgment the real defeatism and the real defeat would be so to act as to ensure failure of your principal purpose; for, while we stand still, which I think would be the effect of the Amendment of my noble friend if carried, or while we move slowly, or while we go back, let us not forget that the Indian problem is doing none of those things: it is moving fast, and it is moving past you. And if I might inflict on your Lordships a quotation from a Latin author, which is quite outside my line,
368
but to which somebody drew my attention the other day, I would say: "Fronte capillata est, post est occasio calva"; of which I give the translation as it was parodied by a mediaeval writer in these words: "Opportunity has hair in front, but is bald behind; if you meet her, catch her by the forelock, for Jove himself cannot catch her if once let slip."
And therefore it is not that we have lost the will to govern, or that our nerve is so shaken that we can only abdicate responsibility, but that for many of us the world seems to be changing before our eyes, and the old sense of Empire, the possessive sense of Empire, as I call it, no longer seems to reflect at least my thought. And so, although I know that we shall make mistakes, although I know we shall have disappointments, and that many people whose help we would fain enlist may withhold it, yet I feel very little doubt that, provided we pursue the purpose proclaimed in 1917, which was itself the outcome of forces long previously in operation, it will increasingly be recognised how vital the contribution of Great Britain and India is to the welfare of each other, so that those two countries, whose fortunes and whose destinies have been so strangely and mysteriously intertwined by history, may be able for all time to bring the service of their several gifts to the aid and the welfare of a common Imperial society.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned till to-morrow, the debate to have precedence over other business.
Moved, That this debate be now adjourned till to-morrow, the debate to have precedence over other business.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CLYDEBANK BURGH OKDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

INDIAN PAY (TEMPORARY ABATE MENTS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Lothian).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the pay of any person in the police force who draws less than 120 rupees per month."
The noble Viscount said: It was with pleasure, mixed with some surprise, that I heard my noble friend Lord Lothian say on the Second Reading of this Bill—
"I may add that as regards the police service, the police drawing less than 120 rupees per month are exempted from the operation of the Bill."
My pleasure was caused by the hope that such a just provision was indeed already contained in the Bill. My surprise was excited by the fact that, although I had carefully read the Bill, I could not recollect that it contained any such clause exempting from the Bill those members of the police force who draw less than 120 rupees a month. I have carefully re-read the Bill several times, and I still fail to find that such persons are exempted from having their pay reduced; and, unless it be the fact that they are either indirectly or in some recondite manner not to come within the scope of the Bill, I think it would be advisable to state the fact in plain terms, so as to prevent any propaganda being put about that these poor people will be, or can be, made to suffer. It is with the object of enabling my noble friend to add to his statement on the Second Reading that I move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am afraid that this Bill does not cover the point which my noble friend has raised. It only relates to that small section of the higher service who are covered by the Act of 1919. It simply gives power to
370
the Secretary of State in Council to reduce by an amount not exceeding ten per cent, the pay of that particular class. The pay of the lower ranks of the police comes under the Provincial Governments, which are not affected by this Bill. It has, however, been arranged that in the general scheme for pay cuts in India an exemption shall be made in the case of members of the police force in receipt of 120 rupees a month or less; that is to say, up to and including the grade of sub-inspector. Nor will the pay of European sergeants of police be cut. Therefore, the Amendment does not really arise and I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If, as my noble friend says, in some recondite manner these people are exempted, I do not propose to press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (PROLONGATION OF INSURANCE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I understand that it has been arranged that your Lordships' House should meet again at 3 o'clock to-morrow. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.