Sitting of 10 November 1931

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBERS SWORN.
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:—

Right honourable James Ramsay MacDonald, County of Durham (Sea-ham Division).

Right honourable James Henry Thomas, Borough of Derby.

Frederick Hall, esquire, County of York, West Riding (Normanton Division).

The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (Lieut.-General Sir William Pulteney Pulteney, G.C.V.O., K.C.B., K.C.M.G., D.S.O.) was announced.
Addressing Mr. SPEAKER, the GENTLEMAN USHER said: "The King commands this Honourable House to attend His Majesty immediately in the House of Peers."
The House went, and, having returned—
The Sitting was suspended until a Quarter before Three of the Clock, and then resumed.

MEMBERS SWORN.
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:—

Right honourable Sir Robert Stevenson Home, knight, G.B.E., K.C., Burgh of Glasgow (Hillhead Division).

David Douglas Reid, esquire, County of Down.

Right honourable Sir Philip Albert Gustave David Sassoon, baronet, G.B.E., C.M.G., Borough of Hythe.

Sir Douglas George Cochrane Newton, K.B.E., Borough of Cambridge.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall, knight, Borough of Lewisham (East Division).

Richard James Meller, esquire, County of Surrey (Mitcham Division).

Mungo David Malcolm Murray, esquire, commonly called Lord Scone, County of

Perth and Kinross (Perth Division).

42

Arthur Ronald Nall Nall-Cain, esquire, Borough of Liverpool (Wavertree Division).

Douglas Hamilton, esquire, commonly called the Marquess of Douglas and Clydesdale, County of Renfrew (Eastern Division).

George Hathaway Eady, esquire, Borough of Bradford (Central Division).

Brevet-Colonel Douglas Clifton Brown, County of Northumberland (Hexham Division).

Alan Ernest Leofric Chorlton, esquire, Borough of Manchester (Platting Division).

Cahir Healy, esquire, County of Fermanagh and Tyrone.

Joseph Devlin, esquire, County of Fermanagh and Tyrone.

SESSIONAL ORDERS.

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

  WITNESSES.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any Witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Com-

  43
  mittee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime or misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

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

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

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS AND DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN.
Ordered,
"That Sir Dennis Herbert be the Chairman of Ways and Means; and that Captain Bourne be the Deputy-Chairman."—[The Prime Minister.']

KING'S SPEECH.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have to acquaint the House that this House has this day attended His Majesty in the House of Peers, and that His Majesty was pleased to make a Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, of which, for greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy, which is as followeth:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
My Government intend to pursue the policy of promoting peace and goodwill and to continue their active interest in the work of the League of Nations. Particularly, they are giving close attention to the preparations for the approaching Disarmament Conference, the successful result of which would, I am convinced, produce great and universal benefit.
The serious financial and economic situation of the world deeply concerns My Government. They will do their utmost in co-operation with other Governments, and in the spirit of mutual helpfulness, to find ways for restoring the volume of international trade.
The Indian Round Table Conference continues its work, and a Conference with Representatives of Burma will very shortly assemble. It is My earnest prayer that the deliberations of both these Conferences may be crowned with success.
In conformity with the undertaking given to the Representatives of My Dominions in 1930, a Measure will be laid before you to give statutory effect to certain of the Declarations and Resolutions of the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930. This Measure is designed to make clear the powers of Dominion Parliaments and to promote the spirit of free co-operation amongst Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
My Government have received from, the Government of My Dominion of Canada a proposal that the Economic Conference, which was adjourned in 1930, should be convened at Ottawa as soon as possible. This invitation has been welcomed by My Ministers and will be considered in the most sympathetic spirit and with an earnest desire to come to some mutually advantageous arrangement with the Governments of My Dominions.
Members of the House of Commons,
The Estimates for the public services will be laid before you in due course.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
The Nation, at the General Election, endorsed those measures for securing economy and balancing the National Budget which constituted the first essential steps in the solution of the financial and economic problems with which the country has been confronted.
The Nation was also invited by My Ministers to empower them to pursue a policy designed fully to re-establish confidence in our financial stability and to give them authority to frame plans for ensuring a favourable balance of trade.
They further sought from the Nation unfettered discretion to consider every proposal likely to be of assistance in these matters.
My Ministers have now received a clear and emphatic mandate to that effect.
The important problems involved are already under detailed examination by My Government. Decisions will be taken and applied with the least possible delay, and in due course any legislation that may be, required will be submitted to Parliament.
And I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your deliberations.

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
Mr. GEOFFREY LLOYD(in Court dress): I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
First of all, I must crave the indulgence that the House usually grants to those addressing it for the first time, and particularly on an occasion such as this, which is governed somewhat strictly by Parliamentary tradition. I do so with the more courage when I think of the exceptionally large number of new Members, who are bound to hear my appeal with a peculiarly personal interest. And I would assure you, Sir, that I am acutely aware of the fact that I am the first Member to address the House since your own kindly admonition in regard to the length of speeches.
I have been entrusted with the, honourable duty of moving this Address as the representative of the Ladywood Division of the great industrial city of Birmingham. It is indeed a privilege to be able to sound a small note of prelude in a Parliament that must be historic, by reason of the great crises which brought it into being, of the tremendous determination of the national will that it expresses—and, let us hope, of the deeds that it will do.
The Gracious Speech refers to that great mandate received by the National Government, and divides it into two parts which, as I believe, correspond with two separate impulses in the intention of the electorate. In the first place, the Speech from the Throne records that
"the nation …. endorsed …. measures for securing economy and balancing the national Budget;"
and later declares that the country has also empowered Ministers
"to pursue a policy designed fully to reestablish confidence"
and
"to frame plans for ensuring a favourable balance of trade."
48
Experience in the Midlands would seem to show that the older people had most in mind the first and more negative point, believing that this must be maintained to save the nation from utter disaster. But I think the younger generation paid more attention to the positive promise of action mentioned in the later paragraph. Certainly they played their part in the election with a will and in many ways. As National candidates, they fought and won many difficult constituencies; as volunteer pilots they assisted in the aerial transport of the Prime Minister; and they voted in their millions. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) must indeed reflect with special satisfaction on the behaviour of the large class of young women enfranchised by his Government. Some said they were irresponsible. Others said that democracy was bound to wreck itself by voting always for the course that seemed easiest at the moment. But the whole House knows what in fact happened. There was a tremendous uprising of the British nation, and, as I believe, a kindling of the ancient political tradition of our race. Unemployed men, themselves suffering cuts, voted and worked for the National Government. And in those ways this stupendous national majority came into being. What a responsibility upon the Government and upon Parliament! Every hon. Member knows that millions of our people are looking to this House with anxiety and hope.
A very large number of them, especially in the Midlands, are expecting that this House will establish a system of protective tariffs, because they are convinced it will help to get them work. Hon Members, of course, realise that we are faced with an entirely abnormal situation dominated by the fact that the pound is no longer fixed in terms of gold. That profoundly affects nearly every aspect of economic policy. It is therefore only reasonable that there should be an inquiry, which I think most of us await with confidence. But there is undoubtedly a great anxiety in this House and in the country lest the policy which may ultimately be adopted should he deeply prejudiced in advance by large forestalling importations in anticipation of a tariff. I have no doubt that this is one of the problems engaging the serious

49
attention of His Majestys Government. Of one thing I am certain—that if they decide to take emergency measures they will have the overwhelming support of the country.
There are two statements in the Gracious Speech which will be particularly gratifying to the supporters of the National Government, especially the younger portion of them. I refer first to the warm welcome extended to the invitation from the Canadian Government that the Economic Conference should meet at Ottawa as soon as possible. It is difficult to exaggerate the relief and enthusiasm that many of us feel at the prospect of that meeting. At last a British Government can go with an absolutely free hand to discuss plans for the benefit of ourselves and of the whole Commonwealth with all the Dominions. We feel that this marks the opening of a new epoch in Imperial history. We know also that the position of British agriculture is closely linked with Imperial trade questions. And again, we can reflect with a deep satisfaction that at last also we have won a mandate from the great towns for the assistance of agriculture. We have thus before us the possibility of achieving a great Imperial trade system, and a more balanced national economy in Britain.
The Government's supporters will also read with the liveliest satisfaction the passage in the Gracious Speech indicating that
"the important problems involved are already under detailed examination"
and
"Decisions will be taken and applied with the least possible delay."
I hope that right hon. Gentlemen will not think me presumptuous if, with respect, I address to them a plea on behalf of their younger supporters in the country. I know that, unfortunately, well-balanced opinion must at present be inclined to distrust any statements by the younger generation because of the wild outbursts by super youth-enthusiasts that we have heard so much of lately. To some of these young gentlemen indeed it is a terrible offence that any head with more than 30 years' experience should adorn the Treasury Bench. But the National Government's supporters are not of this type, and, indeed, they resent these wild exaggerations as being certain
50
to bring the young men of England into ridicule. They want rather to play their part as hard-working apprentices under the guidance of the experienced mastermen. But they feel the classic impulses of youth, and within the due limits of prudence, for which they rely upon their leaders, they would, I know, wish to put forward a plea for boldness. I would therefore venture to hope that Hit Majesty's Government will continue in the prompt spirit in which they have begun. There was, after all, no hesitation about the decision that the country itself gave in the Election. If the Government follow that example, they would err, if they must, on the side of vigour rather than of caution. They would act perhaps too quickly, but at any rate not too slowly. They would probably sometimes be over-strong, but they would avoid weakness. In this situation, the nation wants to feel the hand of the ruler and will warm to the support of the Government if it sees the marks of drive and determination.
In conclusion, I would say that all of us, irrespective of politics, realise the extraordinary gravity of the trade position and the uphill task the nation and the Government have before them. But I would point out one general hopeful consequence of that "clear and emphatic mandate" mentioned in the Gracious Speech. His Majesty's Government today can speak for the nation with a far stronger title than any previous Administration. They can represent Britain abroad with unparalleled authority; and let us not forget that their moral authority at home is of equal power. Quite apart from their own executive acts, they can give a lead to the whole country. They can point out that no Government alone can save the nation, but that every class, profession and institution must join in a united national effort. That is what we need. For indeed, beyond even the sense of immediate danger, we all feel, in one way or another, that our country is now moving in earnest into the characteristic epoch of the Twentieth Century. Britain will have to brace and change herself to face that new world, and we all want to play our due parts in seeing that she does so with honour and success.
Mr. FLINT: I beg to second the Motion which has been so ably moved

51
by the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Lloyd).
I am not equipped with any experience in this House which enables a Member to pay sufficient tribute to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, and it is particularly difficult when I remember that this maiden speech is being made in the presence of so many new Members far more able than I am, and especially in view of the fact that, of the 17,000 who cast their votes in one direction, there are no two who cannot say honestly that the responsibility is theirs. I most humbly desire to express my thanks for the honour and privilege which has been conferred upon my constituency by allowing one of the youngest Members of this House, and the one who had the smallest majority, to perform this duty.
The whole world must welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference, for, just as we, being one nation, can sink our differences, forget our quarrels, and unite together for the common good, surely it is possible for humanity itself to cease from war and to remember that we are all sprung from the same stock. Just as the good of the individual depends upon the welfare of the nation, so the good of the nation depends upon the peace and prosperity of the world. With the growth of the world's population, and the ever-increasing need for interchange of commodities, this interdependence must increase, and it is only by mutual trust and confidence that suitable agreements can come about. It is tragic that those agreements have deen delayed so long. I find that in February, 1910, the then hon. Member for Shipley, in proposing the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, used these words:
"It is to be most profoundly hoped that no legitimate opportunity will be missed to arrive at an understanding…with a view to lessening the crushing burden of armaments, which is scattering to the four winds of heaven the growing needs of social reform, depressing industry and credit, and which is rapidly threatening to sink the civilised nations of the world in the sea of bankruptcy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1910; cols. 36–7, Vol. 14.]
He then went on to refer to the warmth of his welcome at the Inter-Parliamentary Congress at Berlin, and assured this House of the good will and friendship of
52
the German people. That was 20 years ago. It is not for me to comment upon that or upon what happened afterwards, but I reiterate that there never was a time in the history of the world when suitable agreements were more imperative.
The whole of the British Empire must welcome the reference in the Gracious Speech to the Statute of Westminster. The Dominions are grown to manhood, and, as men, will be free, with their freedom recognised by law. Britain is the parent of a healthy family—a parent somewhat aged, perhaps, but, notwithstanding temporary ailments, sound in heart and limb; and, like many parents, it has been difficult for her in the past to recognise that her children have grown to manhood. She gave them the latchkey, but she reserved the right to bolt the door, and, although that right was never exercised, she does better to give them complete liberty. In that new spirit of freedom the Economic Conference is to meet again, and we may hope that in that spirit new ties will be formed, for their loyalty is undoubted.
May I be allowed to make a personal reference? I spent four years in hard physical work on a New Zealand farm. They were happy years, not because of the climate or of the work, but because the people made them so. When I first learned to drive a six-horse team along the furrow, my Colonial-born instructor would often talk to me of home, and, though he had never been here, home to him was Britain. That is so with all of them. Home is dear as the land whence came their ancestors. They find it difficult sometimes to appreciate why we have taken so few practical steps to facilitate mutual trading. We may, perhaps, excuse them when we remember that no economic ghosts trail their rusty chains through the corridors of the Antipodes; it is a long way from Wellington to Manchester.
In conclusion, may I be allowed to say this: I know that, in performing this duty, I should be guided by the traditions and customs of this House. If I have stumbled, I crave the indulgence of the House, and I beg that they will remember my inexperience. On behalf of many of the young and inexperienced Members in the House, may I say that

53
we feel that not only has the nation Bent us to this House to study its traditions, but that we have been sent as a token of the trust which the nation places in the great statesmen who have stood together united for the economic salvation of the country, and, finally, that we come here with an added injunction to study those leaders and profit by their example.
Mr. LANSBURY: It is my pleasing duty to congratulate very heartily both the Mover and the Seconder of this Address, and I can do that quite cheerfully and whole-heartedly, although they represent a point of view with which I thoroughly disagree. It was nice to hear from the Mover his generous words with regard to age. I think it is a good thing that that the House of Commons should have so many younger people in it to-day, though I should also like to say that, as someone else once said, or is said to have said, on behalf of himself, you grow out of youth and you gain your experience as the years go by. He was answering a gibe against himself. But the one thing that both youth and age always have to remember is that what matters with all of us is our minds, and that these can be preserved young if we keep them open to all the experiences and influences of our time. I should like to say also that, although there is a sort of unwritten tradition that on these occasions we should not be too controversial, I think that both the Mover and the Seconder were so to some extent, and that is inevitable in dealing with a crisis such as this. They will not expect me to agree that the nation has done exactly as they both imagine it has done. If they had been in this House, or if they had—as perhaps they may have done; I may be doing them an injustice—if they had taken any part in political life and in the political doings at the end of the year 1918, they would remember that very similar speeches to those which they have made to-day were made on that occasion, when we were told that there had been a great victory for national righteousness and for the stability and well-being of the nation. On that occasion, the country came through, in my judgment, one of the most vile electoral campaigns that has ever been conducted, with the possible exception of the "Chinese labour" campaign; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was chided
54
with regard to the lies that were told, he repudiated with scorn that any lies had been told, and designated them as "terminological inexactitudes." On that occasion, as the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary will remember, and as I think other Members in this House will bear in mind, the position was the exact reverse of the present position. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose absence we all regret, was the triumphant victor, and his party, or what remained of it, was scattered; and everyone knows that on that occasion the Prime Minister was chased through this country in a very similar manner to that in which we have been chased during this Election. Our every word has been distorted; we have been denounced as traitors; we have been denounced as people who loved every country but our own. The right hon. Gentleman was treated in the same way while right hon. Gentlemen were winning a national victory and telling the people to hang the Kaiser and squeeze the German nation till the pips squeaked.
I call attention to this because to-day we are reaping the fruits of that victory. This Gracious Speech tells us of some of them. But no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that, had the policy which the despised Labour party, led by himself, been adopted in the year 1919–20, neither Europe nor this country would be in the condition in which they are to-day. It was not the Labour party who imposed the reparations and indemnities; it was not Labour experts who defined again and again what Germany could pay, but the experts chosen by the Coalition Government in conjunction with other Governments. They have failed again and again to settle that problem, and, therefore, we are entitled to-day to say that it is just a little too soon to be quite sure that you so thoroughly represent the nation and that you so entirely represent what is patriotic and right. It may very well be that on another occasion there will be someone else sitting there and that the nation will have discovered that, just as we have now discovered that they were wrong in 1918, they have been wrong in 1931. The facts about that are clear and indisputable and can be proved from their own King's Speech.

55
I was told the other day that one of the younger Members opposite claimed that this was the Parliament of the Cavaliers. It was rather an unfortunate reference, because the Cavaliers went down very thoroughly before the yeomanry and the common people of the country and everyone who fought for the Parliament. When you reflect that in this election both the historic parties, with two or three of our sometime leaders, united to crush the Labour party, it is something to remember that 6,750,000 of the population refused to be stampeded. You may claim that you represent the nation, but, according to the electors, you only represent two-thirds of the nation. We are not so stupid as to deny that you have an overwhelming number of Members here, but, were the Home Secretary standing here instead of me, he would be claiming that, instead of having 50 Members, we should at least have 180. If that is the case, that should give those of you who are claiming that our small number represents our standing in the country something to think about, because the fact is that under the electoral system the number of seats that we have here to-day is out of all proportion to the number of electors whom we represent. But I am not a Liberal, and, therefore, I do not want to whine or cry about the political machine. I am going to read a statement that has been made, not by a blatant Socialist, but by a very respectable newspaper in the North of England. This is what the "Manchester Guardian" says. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) wants to know what I say. If I may read what the "Guardian" has said, he may take it that that is what I really think.
"The shortest, the strangest, most fraudulent election campaign of our time. The electorate has been swept away by panic and fear. By the side of the scare about the pound, the cry of "Hang the Kaiser" and the Red Letter appear almost respectable, The display of worthless German marks, one of Mr. MacDonald's theatrical gestures, the scare about the Post Office Savings Bank deposits, the solemn warnings of leaders like Mr. Baldwin, and prelates like the Bishop of London, that within a few hours, if Labour came in, British money would be worthless, will seem as foolish in the days to come as the wise utterance of the politicians who vowed to squeeze the Germans until the pips squeaked."
56
I read that because I could not have done it better myself. I do not profess to be a rhetorician or a master of words, and, therefore, when I find something better than I could produce myself, I do not mind using it. On the question of the Post Office, I hope some right hon. Gentleman on those benches—perhaps I might appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping will reassure the poor people who have money in the Post Office Savings Bank that, when a Chancellor of the Exchequer uses that money, he is only doing what every banker does. When a person deposits money with a bank, the bank does not dig a hole and drop it in and leave it there. It uses it, and makes a little out of using it for itself and for its shareholders. It is perfectly true that, if the whole of the currency went, everything connected with the currency would go, but it was a foul untruth to broadcast to the country that under the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was himself in charge of the finances of the country, money deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank was endangered. Nothing could be more wicked. I hope during the Debate the President of the Board of Trade will stand up in his place and will tell the country exactly what he meant, and will also make it perfectly clear that there never was on any occasion any question that the Post Office Savings Bank money, because it was lent to the Unemployment Fund, was in any danger. He knows perfectly well that it might have been used by the Government to pay wages, or to build dreadnoughts, but he also knows perfectly well that, while ever there was a penny in the country, the poor peoples savings would be safe. To use that as a stick to beat the Labour party was stooping so the very lowest depths.
There is another thing. We are told that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to his appointed place in the gilded Chamber, where I suppose he will have as his chief companion the greatest reactionary of my time, anyhow, Lord Banbury. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer out-Heroded even the right hon. Gentleman. He talked of the policy of the Labour party as Bolshevism run mad. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to get that cheer, because he himself, the auther and the writer of

57
the policy of the Labour party, is now a leader of the National party. Whatever of Bolshevism there is in "Labour and the Nation" or in the Labour party's manifesto, the right hon. Gentleman is as much responsible for as any man in the country. As for Philip Snowden—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]. He is no longer a Member of this House, and he is not a member of the other, either. That degradation awaits him.
Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in making a reflection on another place?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the adjective used was unnecessary.
Mr. LANSBURY: I did not use that adjective about the House of Lords at all. I think in the circumstances it is a personal degradation to Philip Snowden, but I had no intention—after all, I must be judged by my intentions—of saying anything derogatory either to this House or to another place. That statement as to Bolshevism run mad had particular reference to the financial policy of the Labour party. No one in the country knows better than the Prime Minister that Philip Snowden had more to do with drawing up the scheme for dealing with banks than any other member of the Labour party. It may very well be that he has changed his mind—and that is something that is quite intelligible and understandable—but he has no right to denounce colleagues, two-and-a-half years after they have adopted the policy which he himself framed, as Bolshevist or accuse them of doing anything which he thinks would inflame the passions of the people against the Government. He would have been the first at this Box to have contested that his scheme for dealing with panics was "Bolshevism" or anything of a violent character at all. He used that word definitely and distinctly to inflame passions against his opponents.
What are we to think of a statesman who in less than three years, upon a great matter of public policy, turns round and says exactly the opposite of that which he said three years before on a matter that was not hurriedly settled? It took nearly a year of very patient discussion on the part of committee after committee, of which Mr. Snowden was
58
the chairman, to formulate that policy, and when I look back and think over the election, and the methods and the means by which it was won, I marvel that any of us remain to tell the tale. We are very comforted by the thought. We are. quite certain that an election won in this fashion can only bring evil, and we are strengthened in that belief by this kind of innocuous document called the King's Speech. There has never before been a document such as this put before Parliament. It is full of the east wind of emptiness. There is, from beginning to end, no concrete proposal about anything of any worth. They are still going to consider. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) has gone out of the Chamber. I remember on the occasion of the King's Speech of the late Government the right hon. Gentleman said, "We are going to think," and on these benches there was great hilarity at the thought that the Labour Government was really going to be a Government that thought about thinking. Now, apparently after eight or nine weeks' of wondering about things, the National Government are still going to think and still going to inquire.
When we went out of office we were warned that in an hour, or two hours at most, disaster would follow, and we thought that when the National Government of individuals was formed they were going to bring forward some great scheme by which the difficulties, which are by no manner of means, as the Prime Minister told the country last night, at an end, were to be dealt with. Why is it that we had a General Election when it was quite unnecessary? I am perfectly certain that any sane outsider will agree with me, that had there been agreement among the men who were at the head of the last Government, had there been any measure of agreement between them, they had great power in this House to carry through whatever they pleased. About that there is no question. Why is it that this document, which is full of nothingness, is put before us? Why? Because they agree about nothing.
In the days when the father of the right hon. Gentleman opposite launched the campaign, which, we are told, has triumphed in this Election, I remember

59
that people were not quite sure where the late Lord Balfour, then Mr. Balfour, stood, and I recollect that there were people who were called "little piggers" and "whole hoggers." I suppose that some on those benches are "whole hoggers" and some are "little piggers." The whole hoggers, I should say, are led by the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister). He is probably one of the full-blooded "whole hoggers." The "little pigger" probably is the gentleman who is now at the Board of Trade. He has told us that he is in favour of a little bit of Protection. "Just let us have a little of it on luxuries." He wants to do the maximum of evil to our Allies in France for the minimum of advantage here. Then we have the Home Secretary. I do not know where we shall find him. I have heard him speaking below the Gangway as if he would die in the last ditch before ever a tariff should be dreamt of. I have often said that God makes various kinds of people and mixes them up in a very varied manner. I am afraid that He has mixed up such a varied lot on that bench that there will be an unholy mess shortly.
The only other thing I wish to say generally is that we shall take our stand definitely and without any reservation that this is not a National Government, and that it is a Government that has won office by chicanery and fraud, by the abuse of broadcasting, and by raising a panic for which each Member of it knew there was not the least justification. But we shall not leave matters there. We propose in this House, as you, Mr. Speaker, and the Rules of the House give us opportunity—not because it is the duty of the Opposition to find a policy for the Government—to put our proposals before the House for dealing with this crisis, and we shall try to do so in such a manner that the nation, or whoever reads the reports of the House will be able to judge between what we actually propose and the grotesque distortions and misrepresentations put before them by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We shall do that at the earliest possible moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then run away."] It really does not matter about the gibe that we ran away. Anyhow, we ran away from salaries that most of us would have been very glad to have main-
60
tained. We ran away from a position that most of us cared to occupy, and it is never an easy matter for any man to give up a position. Anyhow, a large number of our men have now to go and seek work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is an exhibition of the generosity and gentlemanly feeling of one set of men towards another set who have fallen in the fight. You sometimes hear that we preach the class war. That cheer was the greatest example of class hatred. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is proposed—there is nothing in this document here; we do not know what may be done—to go on with the London Passenger Transport Bill and when, and whether he can tell us what is to become of the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act. I am told that if that Measure expires at the end of this year 100,000 unemployed workers will lose both their Health Insurance rights and their pension rights. I should think that even a national party would want to prevent that from happening. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to tell me what he proposes to do.
I should like also to ask him whether it will be possible to tell the country something about Manchuria and the happenings there. We think that it is of some importance, seeing that this country is a member of the League of Nations and that China and Japan are both members of the League of Nations, that the House of Commons should be told plainly and distinctly what steps, in conjunction with other nations, our own Government are taking in order to bring that dispute to an end without any more bloodshed. I should like to ask him whether it will be possible for the Secretary of State for India to give us one of those statements that were made periodically by his predecessor, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, when Secretary of State, as to the condition of affairs in India at the present time, and also whether there is any statement which he can make in regard to the Round Table Conference. Finally, I wish to say that I have been, I know, controversial and probably—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, no!"] Yes, I intended to be. I make no apology at all for that. I have said what I think, and I meant every word of it, and I should repeat it if I had the opportunity. [Interruption.] Yes, that

61
may be, but I want finally to say that the events that followed 1918 were based on a policy of revenge. It is often said that morals and that sort of thing do not count in politics, but there is a sentence which says:
"Vengeance is mine; I will repay."
4.0 p.m.
Those hon. Members who have flooded the benches opposite and part of this side, at the end of 1918 cheerfully wanted to squeeze out of Germany and of Central Europe all that they felt they could possibly squeeze out of those countries. Vengeance was in the air. A peace was made which was no peace; a peace which imposed upon the German people the statement that they were responsible for the Great War, and they alone. Everybody knows now that the German people were no more responsible for the War than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, and now that we have been able to read the diaries and glance through the lives of the statesmen who made the War and who made the peace, is it not time, when considering what shall be done about Reparations and indemnities, that the Prime Minister should put before his colleagues and the world the policy of the Labour movement, the policy which said, "Wipe out all memories of the War, wipe out all thought of indemnities and all thought of reparations, and let us start fair"? I believe that if we do that, we shall as inevitably reap what we sow as we are reaping today what was sown in 1919–20.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I never more heartily and sincerely joined in the congratulations which are habitual to the Mover and the Seconder of the Address than I do this afternoon. They were both bracing in their youthful vigour and enthusiasm. I hope they will not be too much depressed in that respect by the almost equally youthful and bracing utterance of my right hon. Friend opposite who, until the end of the chapter, will always remain to all of us the embodiment of a man bearing heavy years but an extraordinarily youthful mind. They showed a modesty which was very becoming and a touch which was most effective, but, above all, a confidence, perfectly proper, which gives great promise of their own future, and ought to make this House
62
proud of the younger men who have come in to carry on its traditions and its life.
I heard with great interest the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman towards the conclusion of his speech. He said that he is not going to regard us as a National Government. As far as I am concerned, I have no interests in adjectives whatever. There we are. What gave me much more interest was that in a somewhat threatening but, to me, most encouraging voice, he announced boldly that he is going to make his position clear. I shall wait for that with great pleasure. I shall welcome those proposals which he has to make, and I assure him beforehand that we shall approach those proposals in a truly national spirit, in the sense that whatever is good in them we shall adopt, and whatever is bad in them we shall reject. He has some grievance about a statement made by Mr. Snowden regarding the banking programme which was introduced by the Labour Opposition—the section of the Labour party in Opposition—after the Election started. They knew perfectly well that, as long as they had responsibility for facing the crisis which their own leader admitted to have existed—they knew perfectly well that as long as they had to share responsibility for that, not a single item in that programme was ever mentioned as a cure for the crisis, and the only reference that my right hon. Friend made—the reference about which complaint has been lodged—was as to those proposals as a contribution to the solution of the national crisis of the time. Hon. Members opposite can say what they like and do what they like, but nobody knows it better than they, and certainly than the Front Bench opposite, that if those proposals had been put forth by them when they were in the Government, they would have intensified the crisis and brought it right smash upon our heads.
I will leave my right hon. Friend's reminiscences of the Election for his further consideration. I must say that he does appear, however, this afternoon in a somewhat innocent garb. I, too, have recollections of the Election. I, too, have recollections of statements made which, if I pause to characterise them, I would borrow his adjectives in order to impart them to the House. But there it is. This House is back after that Election. The nation appreciated

63
the issue. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that the result of the Election was an indication of how nothing but baseness and falsehood can operate upon the minds of the people of this country may be a very good debating point in this House, but to my mind it is an insult to the intelligence and common sense of the electorate. The attitude of the late Government compelled the Election. It compelled, first of all, the formation of the first National Government, and when the right hon. Gentleman says now, in his innocent tone of voice, that the Election was quite unnecessary, I ask hon. Members who were here in the last Parliament to remember the denunciation passed upon the Government from the Box opposite, the demands made, for instance, by Mr. Greenwood in one of his perfervid orations in this House, that before we were two days in office we ought to go to the country because we had no authority to continue. The situation was such that, if there were any doubt in the mind either of this country or of the nations of the world as to the authority of the Government, then that Government could not perform its work, and the recent Election was absolutely necessary in order to convince not only this country, not only the Opposition, not only cliques within parties, but everybody concerned in this country and the whole world that the Government who were going to see this country through its financial crisis had the authority of the country, and, in asking for that authority and that mandate, we went to the country, and we are back in the proportions in which we now are.
The work of the Government will follow precisely the lines of the Manifesto upon which they won the Election. The Government stated the problems which had to be faced. There was the currency problem and there was the credit problem. There was the balance of trade problem, and there was the balancing of the Budget problem. The Government said, "We ask for an open mandate from the country to enable us, not as a party Government but as a Government containing representatives of all the parties, to face those problems, to produce proposals for their solution and to carry them into effect," and that
64
is what we are proposing to do. That is the position. The balancing of the Budget has been affected by sterling going off gold. Nevertheless, the House may take it, and the nation may take it, that that aim which the last Government placed before it and took the first steps to secure, will be pursued by this Government, and that at the end of the year the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in the happy position of declaring that the Budget has been balanced, and that we are no longer living on our capital or upon borrowing. The industrial position is also showing very hopeful signs of improvement. There is no doubt at all that sterling going off gold gave certain advantages to our exports. But those advantages may well be temporary. They are advantages only in so far as they are special and peculiar to this country. They may be met by counteraction on the part of the importing foreign countries, or they may be met by similar currency movements either of will, of design, or perforce on the part of foreign countries trading with us. Therefore, they are not a sufficient answer to the problem of how to balance our national credit.
There is a great danger to the people of this country that these changes in currency value may be used for the purpose of profiteering. The Government will keep their eye upon that. The Government have already taken power to deal with it, and if in the evolution of these transactions the Government should find that that power is inadequate, is cither not drastic enough or not wide enough in its application, the Government will have no hesitation whatever in coming back to this House to ask for further power and amend that which is already passed. But there is one thing for which, at first sight, we have, perhaps, to apologise, though, as a matter of fact, it may be, if properly controlled, one of the most essential conditions for a reviving world trade; that is, the rise in the price of primary commodities. On that there is no party in the country that has written more and written more wisely than the party opposite that when the price of primary products, like wheat and like agricultural products, goes down and down and down until the power of the economic demand possessed

65
by agriculturists and others has become so small that the industrial populations cannot be kept in employment, then the first sign of a real revival not of national trade only but of world trade shows itself in an increase in the price of these things, and the recent increase really ought to be a sign of encouragement rather than a source of depression in our minds. Of course, one has to be very careful—and so long as this Government is composed as it is it will be careful—so long as the present Government is in power it will be careful—that these increases of prices in the primary products, in wheat for instance, will not be reflected in an exaggerated way in the cost of products. For example, the cost of bread if it is to go slightly up—as has been advocated by the other side so often—shall not go up one farthing above the economic limit which is necessary in order to revive world trade by raising the price of primary products.
What is happening in our own case at the moment by our increased productivity is that we are getting a bigger share in the world's trade than we have had recently, but the unsatisfactory position is this, that, although our nation may be getting a larger proportion of the world's trade, the volume of the world's trade itself is not as yet going up in a satisfactory way. That, therefore, brings us to the next task which the Government have before them and which, as a matter of fact, they have begun. My right hon. Friend referred to what I said about reparations, War debts, and so on. I say that now. Standing as I stand here to-day, responsible for my part, at any rate, in the work to which we have put our hands, I am consistent. I say here, as I have said on the benches opposite, and outside this House, that so long as the will of man forces upon the world an unnatural economic adjustment the world will never succeed and it will never prosper. You cannot decree by your will that certain blocks of gold—for it comes ultimately down to that when you have high tariff walls preventing imports—shall be transferred from one nation to another. That economy is crazy, and it is bound to result not only in the impoverishment of the nation that hands out the gold, but ultimately, if not immediately, in the impoverishment of the nation which re-
66
ceives it. Therefore, I am perfectly consistent in that respect. What has to be done is to get at once—it is already in hand—in contact, first of all, with the nations primarily concerned, so that arrangements may be made to extricate ourselves from this absurd economic entanglement which we have got into. But we have to be very careful about it, if we are to succeed and not to fail. That is the difference between succeeding and bungling—the amount of care and clear thought which are given to preparation.
If we came out straightaway and said that all this is to be renounced by a stroke of the pen, or by some act which amounts to a revolutionary act, what would happen? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman opposite do that two years ago? Because he knew perfectly well that that was not the way to do it. A declaration on the part of the present Government that that is what they are going to stand for—the right hon. Gentleman knew that perfectly well two years ago—would be an absurdity. It would lead to nothing but failure, and it would leave the problem in a more mixed-up position than it was before. No, we are not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman's advice in that respect, but we are going to follow this advice, that in the end, and before the world can fully recover itself, we must put completely behind us those very mistaken economic policies which we have been pursuing since 1918 or 1919. We, therefore, are getting into the necessary international conferences and negotiations. For myself, as I said last night, I place the very highest importance upon the visit of the French Prime Minister to the American President. I hope that it will lead, first of all, to an understanding between France and Germany, but in the full understanding, in the final understanding, every nation in the world must be party to the agreement. That is the policy of this Government.
As regards another aspect of the balancing of trade, as I have already said, we must consider what has been the effect on that balancing of sterling going off gold. Assuming that the effect is good in certain directions, there are other directions where counter-balancing effects have to be taken into account. Supposing the sum total was good, we shall make a profound mistake if we

67
assume that it is going to be a permanent effect. Among the various means taken to secure that end, there is the question of tariffs. So far as the Government are concerned they stick to the manifesto. [HON. MEMBERS: "What manifesto?"] The manifesto asking for power to consider the question, asking for power to investigate, asking for power to act. One of the great points made at the election was that we were committed to the taxation of food. We are not. Every consideration is to be taken into account. I am surprised at the Opposition, who themselves at the present moment are engaged in an inquiry into tariffs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Through the Trades Union Congress. It is all very well—
Mr. W. THORNE: You are wrong.
The PRIME MINISTER: One of the greatest jokes at the Election—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was a joke!"] Yes, it was a great joke, was the incursion of a leading trade unionist into my constituency. He went through like a whirlwind, and expected to sweep everything before him. As a result, he lost his own seat. I rather regret it. All I had to do was to quote a resolution, a decision of the Trades Union Congress which leaves tariffs as an open question, requiring further investigation—a decision temporarily suspended during the Election, in order that, with the minimum amount of uprightness and honesty to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's characteristics, they might denounce us as the intended taxers of the poorest of the poor people. Now that the Election is over, I presume that they will go back to their proper minds and their proper intentions.
At the present moment the old familiar word "dumping" is coming to the forefront of the stage once more. What is dumping? Let us drop that tendentious word. If there are excesses of imports which are to do serious and permanent damage to our trade, that is a problem. They may be sold at prices higher than our prices, they may be sold at prices the same as ours, or they may be sold at prices lower than ours. All these things have to be ascertained. This Government and this House are not going to come to conclusions and to produce Measures supposed to be cures or sup-
68
posed to be necessary simply in a blind, fumbling and unintelligent way. Figures are already in preparation, and before the House rises for this part of the Session, if the Government think it is necessary, they will report to the House, make recommendations, and ask for powers to deal with the problem which has been ascertained.
I hope that this will be a very short Session. So far as I am concerned, we will let you go as soon as you like, but in the meantime some business has to be done. First of all, I must ask—it will be done to-morrow, as is usual in these special circumstances—that Private Members' time, provided by Standing Orders, shall be given up to the Government. It is only formal, because any loss has to be made up. There are other things we must do. There is what is called the Statute of Westminster, which carries into effect agreements come to, first of all in a literal form, between the Dominions and the last Conservative Government and in a more legal form agreements on the same subject and covering precisely the same ground which the Labour Government came to with the Dominion representatives at the Imperial Conference. Therefore, we do not expect that there will be any controversy about it, because every party in the House and every section in the House stands committed to it. The Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will have to be dealt with, and there I think there will be no great difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman asked about two Bills. The London Passenger Transport Bill is at present under negotiation. I regret very much that it was quite impossible to get this Bill through during the last part of the last Session of Parliament. The Bill is still under consideration with the promoters and those concerned as to when it can be taken and whether they want it in its present form or not, or how the matter should now be dealt with.
Mr. HARRIS: It is a Government Measure.
The PRIME MINISTER: It is not exactly a Government Measure. I am not going to quibble about words, but so far as the Government are concerned they are fully aware of the tremendous loss of time and energy and drafting and thinking if the Bill is to be dropped, and, as far as I am concerned, it is our inten-

69
tion to get the London Passenger Transport Bill, either in its present form or amended in order to smooth its passage without really striking out any of its essential provisions, through Parliament and into an Act of Parliament. With regard to the Insurance Bill, if a question is put to the Minister of Health, who has the matter in hand—it has not been overlooked at all—at the end of this week or the beginning of next the House will be informed as to what we propose to do.
Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: In view of what the Prime Minister has just said, do I understand that before the House rises the Government will take action to deal with any flow of imports which are affecting this country at the present moment? May I ask him—I do not want an answer now—whether we may hear definitely from the Government before the Debate on the Address is disposed of what action will be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: I thought I was perfectly clear. The Government will take whatever action is necessary. If the Government discover after thorough and scientific inquiry that this is not a menace at all they will report it to the House, but the House will receive from the Government, before this part of the Session closes, their conclusions upon this subject. We must find out by inquiry what the figures are and how they are distributed over imports, and how they compare with the imports in previous seasons in previous years. But the Government must not produce their cure before they have diagnosed the disease. I assure the House that that is not the method by which the Government will proceed.
I was asked whether any information could be given with regard to the position in Manchuria. The information which has been published in the Press stating what has happened at the Council of the League in Geneva and giving the day to day movement of troops and events is practically all that we have got, I understand, at the Foreign Office, but if the right hon. Gentleman will give notice of his question and repeat it to-morrow as a Private Notice Question, the latest information will be given. With regard to the question of the Secretary of State for India making reports upon the con-
70
dition of India, I will communicate with the Secretary of State and whatever opportunity presents itself for that purpose will be taken. So far as the Round Table Conference is concerned, which I think was the final question the right hon. Gentleman put, it will go on, and I hope sufficient agreement will be reached to enable the Government to go ahead and produce their policy in the form of practical proposals for legislation. That is all I need say, because I hope that this part of the Session will be very short. What is required at this moment is administration and negotiation. The great menace, if I may use the word—I do not like it—the great problem in front of us is the financial problem of Europe.
Mr. HANNON: And of this country too.
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but the storm clouds are coming from there at this moment, and they intensify our position and make it impossible for us to avoid certain things which, but for them, we could easily avoid.
Mr. HANNON: Put this country first.
The PRIME MINISTER: You cannot possibly deal with the financial and industrial position of this country without considering it in relation to the weaknesses abroad. Our trouble two or three months ago was not owing to the internal conditions here, but to the influence of external conditions and external psychologies upon our particular financial position. These negotiations must be put in hand at once, and the Government will take up most of its time immediately upon that.
Viscountess ASTOR: May I put a question to the Prime Minister? I do not know whether it is in order, I do not know whether the Government is completely formed, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, considering that the women did so well in the last election, he does not think that it would strengthen the National Government if he had a woman on the Front Bench.
The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very glad not only to have one in the Administration, but half-a-dozen, and if my Noble Friend will find that there are not quite so many, or even perhaps worse than that, I, having made that statement

71
to her and given her that assurance, am perfectly certain she will not blame me for the result.
Viscountess ASTOR: Arising out of that answer, may I say that I cannot understand it?
The PRIME MINISTER: I plead guilty. I did not mean that the Noble Lady should understand it. But I promise her this, that what I have said this afternoon will enlighten her tomorrow morning when she looks up her newspaper. I have nothing further to add except to say this, that I believe the House, unique as it is, can perform a unique work for the restoration of this country. If it is not too late, and I hope it is not, I would appeal to the Opposition, while keeping its individuality perfectly distinct, to help the Government in every way on all these questions of national finance, national credit, and national confidence. Beyond that I do not go. What we want now is a breathing space so that we can adjust ourselves to the new world that has come upon us, partly by folly, partly by faith and partly by wisdom, since 1913. Unless and until we have adjusted our economics and our policy, unless and until we have adjusted our social fabric to that new world, this nation will be stagnant and uncertain, and will suffer severely and greatly from a serious lack of confidence. What I hope the whole House will do is to unite as one party in restoring the nation to that essential foundation of national strength, respect and greatness.
Mr. MAXTON: I wish to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Address. I wish to add nothing to what has been said by previous speakers with reference to the skill and capacity with which they have discharged their difficult task. I would only say this, that probably a long time will elapse before they have another opportunity of so easily catching the Speaker's eye as on this occasion. I congratulate them on having made the most of what might be a somewhat rare opportunity. In the short time that I shall address the House I do not wish to take it away from the traditional non-controversial mood which is supposed to be the proper atmosphere on King's
72
Speech day. I have this much in common with the Prime Minister, that we are both discards from the Labour party, he because he is alleged to have departed from the principles and policy of Socialism, and I and my colleagues because we have refused to do so. I think I really am in a happier position to-night than he is. He has got the numbers behind him. Presumably he has got power behind him. I hope that events will not disprove that assumption. I have nothing but a certain measure of independence and a very clear vision of the kind of country that I want this to be, and the type of life that I want our people to live. In past years I believe that his purposes and intentions were similar to mine. I am afraid that one of us must have been wrong in those days, because I cannot see any progress being made towards a Socialist ideal by—what shall I call it?—the congeries that is collected behind the present Government.
I think that proof of the Prime Minister's imprisonment is evidenced by the fact that in the whole course of his speech to-day he knew that it was quite impossible for him to mention the word Socialism or to refer to the sufferings and wrongs of the working-classes. I listened to the speech that the right hon. Gentleman made over the wireless immediately after the Election. I am not quoting precisely the words that he used, but there was a phrase like this: "The interests of the working-classes will not be over looked." That seemed to me just too, too nice to the working-classes. Considering that this Government sits here with the votes of something like 10,000,000 of the working-classes, it would seem to me just a little bit out of place to tell the 10,000,000,"Well, you have elected us. We do not need you for some considerable time, but you have our assurance that you will not be overlooked entirely. We are very much absorbed with the gold standard and the trade balance and so on, and with India and other things, but in the few intervals of leisure that we have we will see how the working-classes who voted for us are getting on." So far as I can see in the King's Speech that promise by the Prime Minister has not been fulfilled. So far as the King's Speech is concerned the interest of the working-classes has been entirely overlooked.

73
I do not know what is the period that the King's Speech is supposed to cover. Is it for the few weeks that elapse before the Christmas Recess or is it for 12 months? Or, as it has been on previous occasions, is it for a longer term? If we assume that it is for the period of a year as a minimum, this must be absolutely the first King's Speech within the memory of the oldest Member of this House when there has been no reference to some measure of social amelioration, however small that measure might be. I used to say frequently in the last House that there was no real crisis in this country except the crisis in the homes of the people. It used to be said by the Prime Minister and others opposite that if we restored the finances of the country and the trade balance, then incidentally the workers would partake in the resulting prosperity. Presumably that is the argument, that if you restore trade, restore money, restore the trade balance, then incidentally the workers will get their share of the new prosperity. But that has never been true at any time under the capitalist system.
There have been years of high capitalist prosperity in this country. There have been years and years when the industrialists and the captains of industry in this country were making millions, sending them abroad for investment and hoarding up surplus wealth at a great rate, and when budgets were small and easily balanced. The trade balance was all our way up to a year ago. It represented hundreds of millions to us. Even last year it was to some extent a favourable balance to this nation. Will anyone tell me that at any time, prosperous or non-prosperous, the working classes of this country were not poor? At the time of highest prosperity, at the time when British trade was triumphant over the whole world, when we could really claim to be the workshop of the world, children were dying in the slums, while the workers were being sweated for long hours in the factories, and general starvation or want was the lot of the whole working class.
If the Labour Opposition responds to the appeal made by the Prime Minister, to sink and sacrifice everything for the sake of restoring business and financial prosperity, what guarantee have we that
74
the new promise of capitalism is going to bring any more of the workers into prosperity than previous promises. Personally I have no faith in the ability of the Government to solve this crisis. I hope I may be wrong. I hope it may be true that this collection of men now called the National Government have developed ideas and character and capacity for action, when huddled together on one bench and collected from various parties—I hope that in their corporate capacity they will develop qualities and ideas that they never had when in separate parties. For the problem has been going on for 12 years. During all that time we have seen a steady deterioration of the national position, so far as trade, industry and finance were concerned. Each group in turn had its opportunities on the Government Benches—Liberal, Conservative, Labour, Conservative and Labour again. All the minds that have been available in this House during the last 12 years are the minds that are available to the National Government now. The nation went from bad to worse, till they came to us and said, "The ship of State is on the rocks. We are the captains who ran it on the rocks. Give us the power to sail it off."
I do not believe that the ideas or the capacity for self-sacrifice present either in the individuals concerned or in the political philosophies that have been contributed to the National Government, can do anything else but take this nation, not from crisis into prosperity, but from crisis into catastrophe. I could read between the lines of the speech of the Prime Minister last night, that he realised all the dangerous elements that there are in the situation. He has displayed it in his attitude to-day and in the speeches that he has made since the Election. He knows that the mere formation of a National Government, the mere getting together of three or four diverse elements in one party, does not, take this nation one step nearer to the solution of its difficulties. Nor does it establish that confidence, either here or abroad, which has been asserted by all parties to be absolutely essential to a solution of our difficulties.
Let us notice that the thing that caused the Government to come into being at all was the absolutely imperative neces-

75
sity of preventing the nation from going off the Gold Standard. That was the one thing which at all costs had to be prevented. It is the one thing that happened, and it is the one thing that the Prime Minister cited to-day as being a contributory factor in easing the situation. The going on the Gold Standard was a 10 years' process. For 10 years we struggled manfully to get on the Gold Standard and to get prices down. That was the great aim and object of successive Governments. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) struggled like a hero towards the Gold Standard. Another right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Philip Snowden, also struggled like a hero to keep on the Gold Standard. They both fought like maniacs to keep the nation from slipping off. Now that we are off they are all shouting "Hooray." It is 10 years' work wasted.
5.0 p.m.
If it is true, as the Prime Minister suggested to-day, that this keeping of lumps of gold is no use at all, let us remember that our financial policy, the policy that was pursued by successive Governments on the advice of their experts at the Treasury and at the Bank of England, was to get as much gold as possible into this country and to relate our currency to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Aye, aye. Now that we are off the Gold Standard and most of the gold is in America and France, we say, "Sour grapes. It was not gold at all. We were just chaffing you during those years, just playing with you and toying with you. Gold is no use to you at all. We have to get another standard." I agree, but all the elements in the National Government helped to propagate, in their own time and season, the myth of the Gold Standard and I am quite certain that they have not departed from it yet. Therefore, I say that any efforts that may be made by the present Government, whether in the direction of further economy, or in the direction of trade restrictions, or in the direction of trying to stabilise the monetary system of this country—all these methods in my opinion will make a bad situation infinitely worse until real catastrophe has to be faced, and when that occasion has arisen, then, for the first time, there may be a serious appreciation of the type of job which we are supposed to do in this House.
76
To-day I can only feel on one side a spirit of gloating over defeated opponents and I can only hear from the other side wailing about defeat. That is the spirit abroad in this House. On the one side, "We have won; woe to the vanquished," and on the other side, "We have been defeated but you did it in a dirty way." But wait! You will need a different spirit from that. You will need first, a definite recognition of the fact that the nation has to assume a definite and practical responsibility for the organisation and direction of our industrial life. You claim to have been elected in order to get some national control over foreign trade and exports. That is one of your mandates. You cannot do that unless you are going to control our internal industrial life; unless you are going to plan it out; unless you are going to decide what the nation wants to produce and what it has to import; unless you are going to decide where that is going to be produced and who is going to produce it, and under what conditions it is going to be produced.
There has been a great appeal for sacrifice. We tell the unemployed man to be a patriot and to tighten his belt and to live on 15s. 3d. a week, for the nation's good. But that is trivial stuff. That is childish, besides being mean and low and dirty. It is merely playing with a serious situation. You are imposing sacrifices on the man whose whole life is a sacrifice. But the Government will have to come along, as the Mussolinis have had to do, aye and as the Lenins and the Pilsudskis and the Spanish dictators have had to do, and say to the captains of industry, to the masters of money, to the chieftains of commerce "Look here, we cannot allow you to run your show to suit yourselves. You have to run it as the nation directs, and for the general national welfare." That is what this Government will have to do, among other things, if it is going to deal with the situation. Is it going to do that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Are its supporters game to support it in the doing of that?
Furthermore, you are facing a world crisis which arises not through scarcity, not through failure of crops, not through lack of raw materials, not through scarcity of labour, not through famine. You are facing a crisis which arises from a superabundance of material things and, behind that, a superabundant power to

77
produce more. In such circumstances, when you are facing a crisis which arises out of superabundance, it is the height of madness to say that the way out of the crisis is by compelling the mass of your own people to consume less than they are consuming to-day. But that is what we have said already. Already, employers are lengthening hours. Imagine lengthening the hours of employed workers when there are 3,000,000 workers who you cannot employ. But you say to the employed people "You have to work longer."
I was shocked to discover that now, when the nation is under the leadership of the Prime Minister, a factory in my constituency puts cotton operatives back to the early morning start at 6 o'clock and a working week of nearly 60 hours. That is since the National Government came into office. [Interruption.] An hon. Member who is too young to know that it is out of order to interrupt from below the Bar, says that they are getting paid for it. He is one of the Prime Minister's supporters, presumably. They are getting paid exactly the same for the lengthened working week as they were getting paid for the former working week. Is that the way to meet a situation which arises from superabundance? That only intensifies your crisis. You will have to get down to it, and devise ways and means of making it possible for your working people, now, to consume more of the material things of life.
That is a problem of statesmanship I admit. It requires a little more courage than knocking 2s. 9d. or 1s. 9d. a week off an unemployed man. You can do that in five minutes and damn the consequences, but it takes some brains and planning to establish a system that will guarantee to every human being in our nation the ability to maintain a decent standard of life and make himself an effective customer for the nation's products. That requires statesmanship. Will your Conservatives and Liberals and Simon Liberals and Samuel Liberals stand by the Socialist or ex-Socialist Prime Minister in establishing, for the first time in the history of this nation, an opportunity for the mass of the common people to live with some sense of security with some comfort for more than a week on end? Will they stand by that?
78
Not a sound from one of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] You are too late now. If you meant it, if you were genuine, the response would have been immediate.
I wish to put it to the Prime Minister that there are two or three things which he can do and which he ought to do. I also ask his colleagues the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education to bend their attention to these things, because they have had some association with the development of our social services. I ask the Prime Minister, in the first place, not to proceed further to put into operation that very dastardly Anomalies Measure in connection with Unemployment Insurance. The Prime Minister knows that it is no answer to me to point to the Opposition. I was absolutely consistent in my opposition to that Measure—
Mr. J. JONES: So were we.
Mr. MAXTON: Now that I see it in operation, I realise more fully than I did previously, how wicked it is in its effects, and how evil are its social consequences, and I am sure that hon. Members on this side above the Gangway who supported that Measure when it was being put through by the Labour Government, now realise that it was a wicked and indefensible thing.
Mr. THORNE: We did it to prevent worse.
Mr. MAXTON: And you have got the worst as well. You have got both. I also ask the Prime Minister not to proceed with the abominable means test which creates a most horrible situation in our big cities. There are three model lodging houses in my division and I visited them in the course of the election. Many of the inmates of a model lodging house of that kind are unfortunate men. Some are men who have deserted wives; some have deserted youngsters, some have deserted aged parents but every man living in that lodging house, because his earnings do not form part of a family income, is entitled on the means test to draw his full unemployment benefit. And yet in my constituency there are men who are doing their best to keep aged parents. There are men trying to maintain disabled ex-service brothers. There

79
are men who have youngsters—one of whom perhaps will run round with newspapers earning a shilling or two in that way. But if these men go to get unemployment benefit the aged mother's old age pension is taken into account, the disabled soldiers pension is taken into account, the two or three shillings a week which the wee boy gets from selling newspapers—all that is taken into account and because that man is doing his family duty as a husband, as a father or as a brother he is not to get his full allowance but something less and perhaps nothing at all. That is abominable. We used to be gibed at by people who said that we were out to destroy home life and to break up the family, to set father against son and wife against husband. I cannot conceive any measure for doing that more effectively than by this proposal if it is put into operation now.
There is one other thing which I would ask the Prime Minister to do. In reply to a deputation he gave a not unfriendly reply on this, and to questions put by my Friend the late Member for Camlachie on the same point he did not return a complete negative. That is the question of rents. We urge that, having regard to reductions which have taken place in prices and costs generally, now is the time to carry through a great reduction in Tents. All the reasons for giving house owners the right to the increase of 40 per cent. have now gone completely. The arguments of rising costs, expensive labour, expensive repairs, have all vanished. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I do not want to get into any hair-splitting on that point.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I refer the hon. Member to the report of the Departmental Committee on Rent Restrictions on which there were five members of the Labour party and a Labour chairman? If he refers to that report I think he will find that what he is saying now is not true.
Mr. MAXTON: I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew me a little better and knew my attitude in this House and in politics generally too well to think that reports of Royal Commissions—
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: It was not a Royal Commission but a Departmental Committee.
Mr. MAXTON: That is the measure of the hon. and gallant Member's mind, if he thinks that there is any essential difference. I might be prepared to pay a certain tribute of respect to a Royal Commission, but none whatever to a Departmental Committee. It is a matter of common knowledge that wages, and the prices of bread, butter, tea and sugar—it is part of the great Conservative defence of the system—have all come down since the Increase of Rent Act was passed 10 or 11 years ago. Therefore, I urge the Government to take the necessary steps in that matter. Already I see the difficulties which are likely to be encountered in that matter, from the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), but I ask the Government to take the necessary steps to reduce the rents of all houses to the pre-War level.
I ask them in the midst of their other absorptions, in their attempt to save the finance and industry of this country—in which I am certain they are bound to fail—to do two or three things which may alleviate the lot of the masses of the people of this country. For Heaven's sake, do not say, "Wait until this other trouble is over and then we shall deal with your case." That is always what is said to the workers—wait! They have waited patiently. They have shown to Ministers and to parties in this country a toleration and a patience beyond all understanding. I, for one, hope that that patience has now been exhausted. I hope, unless results are forthcoming and forthcoming very speedily, in the concrete experience of prosperity in the homes of the people, that they will not be disturbed by the comparatively small size of the Opposition in this House, that they will realise that the resources of the working class are not exhausted when a Parliamentary Opposition raises their grievances on the Floor of this House. I hope that the long-suffering working class will give definite evidence to those who have owned and controlled and run this country from the beginning of time, that they are not tolerating it any longer, and that we shall get for the first time in this country an opportunity to build a decent State, on a decent foundation, and that, having swept away all this superstructure of wealth and power and influence, of which the Noble Lady is

81
such an outstanding example, having swept all that out of the road, they can start to build up a new social order on foundations of human decency, fair play and common justice.
Duchess of ATHOLL: I should not have ventured to ask the ear of the House on the first day of a new Parliament were it not that there are some circumstances which have an important bearing on questions of trade and finance and that these questions are of importance and urgency to the nation at the present time. The circumstances to which I wish to draw attention are circumstances to which I think very insufficient public attention has been given. The Prime Minister has spoken of the question whether we have an excess of imports and, if so, whether those imports are underselling home products or not. I do not wish to go into that question, but I would respectfully say to him that the question whether there are agricultural products coming into this country of many different kinds which are underselling, obviously and cruelly, our home products is a question to which the rural constituencies of this country would give an immediate and identical answer.
I am here representing a rural constituency that has no doubt at all about that matter, but I do not wish to enter into that side of the question as to whether or not there is going on in this country what is commonly referred to as dumping. I desire rather to call the attention of the House to the peculiar form of competition, as I believe, dumping competition, to which this country and other countries of the world are being exposed owing to Soviet Russia's Five-Years Plan. That is a plan to which I think no exception could have been taken by other countries had the rulers of Soviet Russia given their great country sufficient time to develop their plan, but because they have been determined to carry through the reconstruction of the agriculture of the country and the building up of many new industries in an impossibly short time, they have done two things. They have subjected their people, on the one hand, to an intolerable strain, and they have subjected other countries to an excessive and also, as I think, intolerable strain from the competitive exports which they have sent them.
82
I wish to draw attention to the Russian side of the question, namely, to the terrible strain on the people of Russia to which the export policy of that country has subjected them. When a country has to suffer the form of competition known as dumping—and I believe we are suffering from that particular form of competition from other countries as well as from Soviet Russia—at least that competition from other countries comes to us from the manufacturers of those countries after they have satisfied the needs of their own people. After they have satisfied those needs, they send us their surplus and dispose of their surplus as best they can below the cost of production or below the cost at which we could produce, but we cannot be too clear that the dumping from Soviet Russia is of an entirely unparalleled nature, because Soviet Russia is not sending her country's surplus exports after she has satisfied the needs of her people; she is sending to other countries, and notably and primarily to this country, agricultural products of which her own people stand in the direst need. Therefore, the dumping of agricultural products from Soviet Russia to this end is something absolutely exceptional and unparalleled. I believe it to be something of which the world has never known the like.
Members of the last Parliament may remember that in January last on one and the same day we were given instances of the prices at which the main articles of food were being sold in Soviet Russia, on the one hand in the co-operative stores at prices fixed by the Government, and on the other hand on the free market. We were told that, for instance, wheat flour was being sold at Government fixed prices from 19s. a cwt. upwards, and on the free market, where, of course, price corresponds to supply, at no less than from £32 to £37 15s. a cwt. Another reply on the same day told us that Russian wheat was coming into this country at a price that averaged out over 1930 at no more than 6s. 1d. a cwt. There you had in two answers the whole of the terrible situation, of the agricultural products so badly needed by the people of Russia being supplied to them in such meagre quantities that there was that tremendous difference between the home, unregulated price, the natural price, and

83
the price at which the Government was exporting them.
The first of these same replies gave the prices for Russian butter, eggs, and poultry on the home market, which, when compared with the average prices at which those commodities came into this country, showed exactly the same tremendous and tragic difference. The same process is going on. A few weeks ago poultry were being sold in this country from Soviet Russia, I am told, at about 1s. 2d. or 1s. 6d. each, where they could command £2 2s. at least in their own country. Only lately I have been shown a letter written in October by a Russian scientist, saying that the food situation there now is much worse. The replies to which I have alluded were given last January, but this letter written in October says the food situation now is much worse. It states that sugar and bread of very poor quality can only be obtained on ration cards, the cards which limit the workers of Russia as to the amount of the necessaries of life that they can buy each month at a fixed price. It goes on to say that the non-manual worker can get no fats, no groats, no milk or dairy products. The latter are available only for children. There had been no meat in the co-operative shops for long, and throughout the summer fish had only been seen once.
Mr. MACLEAN: Will the Noble Lady quote the name of the profescr who wrote that letter?
Duchess of ATHOLL: I cannot quote the name of the professor at this moment, but I can quote the name of the newspaper in which it was published.
Mr. MACLEAN: And the name of the professor?
Duchess of ATHOLL: I cannot give the name at the moment, but it was a Russian scientist, and it appeared in the Russian paper "Dni" on 31st October. Readers of home newspapers will have heard lately of the prosecution that the Russian Government have conducted of the chairman and directors of the State Sugar Trust for having endeavoured to purchase direct from the peasants supplies for their own workers; and why have the directors done that? Simply because so often workers leave their jobs,
84
in spite of the dire penalties to which the Government subject them if they do leave their jobs, because of the insufficiency of food supplies in the restaurants in which they have to buy them. Therefore, the directors of the Sugar Trust thought that they would endeavour to secure supplies of a food for their own workers, and for the crime of interference with the system of centralised supplies, the chairman and directors have been prosecuted and punished. I only quote that as an indication that the scarcity of food, which was so obvious from those Parliamentary replies last January, is still very serious.
Because there is this terrible scarcity of food, the Government are able to conscript the work of workers all over the Soviet Union, men, women and children, for whatever work the Government desire them to do; and because a refusal of any work to which a worker is detailed may bring about loss of the precious ration card that alone enables him to purchase any food at a fixed and reasonable price, the Government have practical power to compel all the people of Russia to take whatever work they are detailed to do. Therefore, to-day we have a spectacle, such as the world has never seen, of a population of 160,000,000, men, and women, and even children from the age of 12 upwards, being set to work in factories, mines, timber camps or forests. They are made to work for an unlimited period anywhere in the vast area of the Soviet Union, and—
Viscountess ASTOR: I am not concerned with what the Government of Russia do, but I think we want as far as possible to tell the truth about the general mass of the Russian people. When one went there one found that the Russians know nothing about our conditions whatever, and we know very little about their conditions in Russia, but I must say that I never saw children of 12 years old in factories, and I saw the tremendous effort of the Russian people to educate their children—far greater than ever before in the history of Russia.
Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: You were personally conducted by the Soviet Government.
Viscountess ASTOR: No.
Duchess of ATHOLL: If the Noble Lady will devote a little time to studying the blue book on the Labour laws of Russia published by the late Government early this year, she will realise the system of increasing conscription under which the Russian people, men, women and children, have been living for the last 18 months, and I shall be very happy on another occasion, privately, to give her evidence of children from the age of 12 at work in the forests. She will find the decrees in the Blue Book if she will take the trouble to go to the Vote Office.
Viscountess ASTOR: I am not defending the things which go on in Russia, but I do not think it helps the situation here at home for us to interfere with the kind of Government that they have in Russia. I am far more interested in the condition of working children and working people here in England than in Russia—far more.
Duchess of ATHOLL: I think the House will observe that the Noble Lady has raised a point that I did not raise. I am entirely at one with her that the question of the form of government in Russia is no concern of ours. It is only when a country enters into trade relations with us and, as I hold, exports goods to us under conditions which very seriously affect our trade, that I think we are bound to look into those conditions and, as I think, too few people have studied those conditions. If the Noble Lady will study them, I am sure that she will see that forced labour is going on now in Russia. We are concerned with this, that by the admission of the ruler of the Soviet Union the Five-Years Plan cannot continue without a regular system of conscription, and the Noble Lady realises that that is going on.
Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!
Duchess of ATHOLL: I am sorry if I am to understand that she approves of it. It is entirely contradictory of the best and finest traditions of this country.
Viscountess ASTOR: Of course!
Mr. J. JONES: This is a family quarrel.
Duchess of ATHOLL: I will pass to another feature of work in Soviet Russia, that is, the increasing use of prison
86
labour on a commercial basis. Hon. Members may not have seen the figures published recently. An estimate was made by a Commissar of Justice, and the director of the Institute of Research on War, of what will be the net profit on prison labour in 1931. The estimate is that the net profit on prison labour in factories, mines, and various undertakings will be nearly 50,000,000 roubles, or £5,000,000 after meeting an estimated expenditure on prisons, various detention centres and so on, a figure which is put at £4,600,000. The figures therefore show an estimated gross output of prison labour of a value of £9,500,000. There again we have something that no civilised country of the world has ever seen, something that is very terrible indeed, which constitutes an entirely new factor in international trade relations. I ask the Government to look into this question very carefully in any examination that they may make. It is not enough to look into trade figures or prices. A grave responsibility rests on the Government to examine closely this question of general forced labour and of prison labour on a commercial basis. If they make that examination, I think that they will find that what I have said is justified, and they may then well ask themselves whether it is consistent with some of the finest traditions of this country to continue to trade with a country that uses its labour in that way.
It will be a terrible falling off in our ideas, close on 100 years from the time when the people of this country with less national wealth than they have today, spent over £30,000,000 to free the slaves in the West Indies, if, once we have ascertained these facts, we should be ready to go on trading with a nation that uses forced and prison labour so openly. If we do continue to trade with a country under those conditions, we shall set a terrible precedent to other countries. We not only go back on our own precedents, but open up menacing possibilities of other countries following the example of Soviet Russia, for, if we once countenance this thing in one country, we cannot object to it in another. If the Five-Years Plan, which is admittedly based on conscript and prison labour, is successful, other countries may think that it is an example they may follow with material advantage to themselves. In this matter

87
not only the traditions and the ethics of this country, but the self-preservation of this country, is at stake, because I do not believe that any system of tariffs to which the Government might bring themselves after careful consideration could effectively keep out the exports of a country so bent upon exporting and realising sales at any price as Soviet Russia appears to be under the pressure of the Five-Years Plan.
I would remind the House that there are other countries that have felt driven to take what seems a very drastic step. Canada, Rumania, Jugoslavia and Bulgaria have practically excluded Soviet goods; but they are not big purchasers and perhaps their embargo makes little difference. Belgium, however, is a bigger purchaser, and she has a system by which she imports only certain Soviet products under licence. Because we are the biggest purchaser of Soviet exports, a tremendous responsibility rests upon us in this matter, and if, after mature deliberation, the Government felt that this was a step that they were ready to take, I believe that other large purchasers of Soviet imports would inevitably be obliged to follow our example. The difficulty that has been held up hitherto has been that the Five-Years Plan has meant that Soviet Russia wished to buy machinery, and our heavy industries, in days when they were afflicted with terrible depression, grasped at any chance of securing orders from Soviet Russia, and the late Government inaugurated a system of guaranteeing credits on exports to Russia. Speaking on this subject last July, I said that I thought this was a very short-sighted policy on the part of our heavy industries, because it is clear that one of the main aims of the Five-Years Plan is to develop Russia's own heavy industries so that they will be no longer dependent on other countries. Now I regard it as risky to give any credits to Russia on orders of this kind.
If hon. Members have studied the second memorandum published by the Birmingham University Research Department into Russian economic conditions, they will have noted that from 1921 to 1930 there was an adverse balance against Russia of no less than £60,000,000. To 1929, moreover, the values of the exports represented only declared values
88
before they left Russia. They did not represent the actual sales, and the memorandum expresses the opinion that the actual sales between 1921 to 1929 were probably from 10 per cent, to 20 per cent. less than the declared values. It is further evident that these figures do not allow for freight from the Russian frontier, or for insurance and the payment of import duties at the other end. Therefore, in the opinion of men who have had experience of Soviet trading methods, the adverse trade balance of Soviet Russia was more nearly £70,000,000 or £75,000,000 than £60,000,000 to the end of last year. More recent figures as to her trade balance this year show a further very serious position. On the first six months of this year Soviet exports were £38,500,000, and imports £54,000,000, making an adverse balance of over £15,500,000, or one-sixth of the whole of Russia's trade turnover. Since these figures were published, there was, in July and August, a further adverse balance of £6,000,000, making an adverse trade balance of £21,500,000 against Soviet Russia this year, in addition to the adverse balance of some £70,000,000 for the 10 years preceding 1930.
That is a. very serious position. On the other hand, there is an article in The "Economist" of last week which seeks to show that the position is a more favourable one, but the writer of the article assumes that throughout these years Soviet Russia has been receiving credits of some two to three years, whereas the figures that were given by a very well-versed writer in the "Statist" early this year go to show that the average credits given to Russia by this country before April of this year averaged only about 12½ months, by Germany 10 to 11 months, and by the United States 7 to 8 months. Therefore, to assume that for the last 10 or 11 years Russia has been receiving credits of from two to three years in length is to assume that she is in a much more favourable financial position than more accurate figures warrant. But even the "Economist" admits that the debt incurred by Soviet Russia in all her purchases of machinery is somewhere about £100,000,000. The writer in the "Statist" has put it at £111,000,000 to 31st October last.

89
Convincing proof of Russia's financial difficulties is to be found in the fact that she has had to cut down her extension of factories and new undertakings for the Five-Years Plan. A decree was published in September very seriously restricting the number of new undertakings which might be proceeded with. That means that a good deal of the machinery which she has been purchasing will not now be utilised—that machinery has been ordered for factories that cannot be built or for which labour is not forthcoming. In view of all these facts—the adverse trade balance, the admitted debt of somewhere about £100,000,000, and the evidence afforded by the cutting down of the Five-Years Plan—it seems obvious that to make further credits to Russia must be a very risky financial operation. I therefore hope that we shall have an announcement from the Government that no more guarantees will be given of credits to Russia, and I hope that private agencies in this country, which have been making credits on a generous basis, will look very carefully into Russia's financial position before they give any further credits.
Finally, I want to mention the bearing that Russia's exports have on world trade as a whole. If hon. Members have read a report made to the United States Congress in January last, they will have seen an extremely interesting statement on this subject. That report declared that the American manganese industry had already been destroyed by imports of Soviet manganese, and that hundreds of American lumbermen and pulp workers had been driven out of work by imports of Soviet lumber and pulp. The competition of Soviet oil and wheat abroad was also being felt. It is obvious that other countries which produce the same primary products that Russia produces in so large a quantity must be feeling severely the same competition. If we look at our trade returns, we shall at once see how Canada, Australia, the United States and the Argentine have suffered from the quantities of Russian wheat that have come into this country in the last 15 months. We can see how Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland have suffered from our purchases of Russian timber, and how the Netherlands and Belgium have suffered from our purchases of Russian flax. These
90
artificially stimulated exports from Soviet Russia, where consumption is equally artificially and very cruelly repressed, must have a very large bearing on the question of the equilibrium of consumption and production in the world as a whole.
If the nations of the world would absorb fewer of those primary products from Russia, not only would the Russian people be able to consume more of their own agricultural products to their very great advantage, but we might see a great restoration of that equilibrium of consumption and production in the rest of the world which seems to have been so seriously upset in the last year or two. It is also evident that this would be a first step towards that rise in commodity prices, in the prices of primary products of which the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon as being so very important. Therefore, I would ask the Government to examine very closely the whole question of Soviet exports, the conditions under which they are produced, the conditions under which they are exported, and their result on the trade of other countries as well as of our own. If the Government do this, I am convinced that they will see that the civilised nations of the world stand in face of a great menace not only to their trade and their finance, but to the standards of life of their workers. I hope, therefore, the Government will endeavour to secure cooperation among other countries in meeting this menace; but, should they fail to secure that co-operation, I believe that if they will have the courage to do what they feel to be in the interests of this country, and consistent with the great traditions of freedom of this country, they will be able not only to restore our trade and to assist the people of Russia but to do a great deal towards the restoration of prosperity in the world in general.
Mr. J. JONES: During the past 13 years I have listened to many speeches in Debates upon the Address in reply to the King's Speech, but this is the first time I have had to listen for nearly an hour to a speech about something not in the King's Speech. It contains no reference to dumping, Tariff Reform or to any other nostrum so dear to the hearts of the new Members of the House.
Mr. WRAGG: It affects the balance of trade.
Mr. JONES: The balance in the bank affects you more than the balance of trade.
Mr. WRAGG: So it does you.
Mr. JONES: I am not troubled about that. I listened to the Prime Minister's speech this afternoon with a great deal of interest because of other speeches I have heard him deliver. The speech to which we have listened to-day is called the King's Speech, but we know that that is "all my eye and Betty Martin." It is not the King's Speech; he comes along to deliver it; his master's voice! We have a great procession to announce the fact that the King has delivered a speech to His Majesty's House of Commons and House of Lords, but everyone who has been a Member of this House for any number of years knows that the speech was prepared in the Cabinet Ministers' room. At least that has been the case up to now, so far as I understand English history; but according to what I heard on the wireless last night, this speech was not prepared in the usual way. The Prime Minister had consulted nobody, he had received no instructions, he simply delivered his thoughts. We find them to be scattered thoughts.
Nothing—with knobs on; that is the King's Speech. Therefore I want to know what all the bother of the last month has been about. We were going to save the pound. We have not saved it, we have lost it, because it is 3d. down on the international exchanges since this Government came into office. We were told we were to restore the balance of trade. Now we are told by one of the chief Members of the late Opposition that the only way to save the pound is to isolate Russia.
Mr. WRAGG: One of the ways.
Mr. JONES: Yes, one of the ways. We are going to isolate a population of 160,000,000 from trading with us because we do not like their ways—[Interruption.] I know they do not like you. I do not like you either.
Mr. WRAGG: On a point of Order. I did not say I did not like the hon. Member; I like him very much. I said they do not buy from us. They sell to us.
Mr. JONES: As a matter of fact, you are grumbling about giving them credits. The Noble Lady wants us to stop giving credits. Why do we give them credits? For the purpose of promoting trade. If we give them credits and they buy from us, why should it be said they do not buy from us? They have bought from us, and they are buying from us now. Some of our largest trading concerns are engaged in. trade relations with Russia. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is very little."] But every little helps in these days of depression, when all you people are going about cap in hand begging, "Please, Sir, will you buy British." As a matter of fact, you do not care whether they buy British or buy Russian, so long as you get a profit. You do not trouble your heads about where you get the money, so long as you get the profit and the interest. Now we hear this sort of stuff talked in the House of Commons, where we are supposed to be intelligent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Supposed to be!"] I gave you credit for that, I do not say you are. We are told we must refuse to trade with practically one-eighth of the population of Europe because we do not like their political complexion. I do not like Bolshevism, any more than do hon. Members opposite. I am opposed to dictators, from whatever class they come, and have fought them inside our own movement and outside. I do not believe in any kind of dictatorship. If I am told that the only way to save Europe is to isolate great bodies of people my reply is, "Do not isolate them, but try to educate them by example. Show them you are better than they are in your ideas and relationships, national and international, and you will have a better chance of doing what you want to do."
We have had delivered to us this afternoon the result of the doctor's mandate. We have the medicine which is to be given to us. We are only a small number of patients, and so the doctor will not be very busy. I do not think his panel will pay him during the next few years. [Interruption.] His panel will not pay him if he gets only the ordinary allowance under the National Insurance Act. However, it will not be MacDonald's mandate, but Baldwin's balsam that we have to swallow, and as soon as ever the doctor begins to deliver his medicine he will get an order from the surgeon to

93
cut it, and he will get out, just as another Prime Minister got out after the War. He was told to clear out, that he was no longer wanted. We now have before us this programme of the things the Prime Minister is going to think about doing—not the things he can do, because he does not know what we can do. He has consulted nobody, he knows nothing about anything, except that he has made up his mind to ask for a free hand. It will be a free hand in the pockets of the people, if the majority of his supporters have anything to do with it. The people who will have to pay will be those who have always paid, those who have the least with which to pay.
I have been here long enough to remember other King's Speeches, and I have heard the Prime Minister himself, when he was sitting on these benches, riddle them to pieces. This time we have got the most empty document I have ever read. There is nothing in it except words; and in the speech supporting it there was nothing but words. It was a conglomeration of nothingness—and it is called a King's Speech! I call it an insult to the King to make him responsible for such garble. Some of us on these benches are not prepared to sit down quietly. There are only a small number of us, but we will put up a fight during the life of this Government, which may not last as long as some of you think. Already there are signs of disintegration; there are people looking for office who ought not to have it and there are others who have got office who ought not to have it; and they are all very eager to further their own particular ideas. The Prime Minister's policy is, "Do not do anything controversial." How long do you think that will last? Can you introduce any policy into this Parliament, or any other Parliament, which will not be controversial? Can you raise any question of tariffs that will not be controversial? I ask some of my hon. Friends who sat alongside us in the last House whether they will accept full-blooded Protection such as some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite want? Will they be prepared to stand side by side with the Prime Minister if he agrees to a mild form of Protection, after all their past records? I cannot believe it.
94
I suggest that when that time comes—and it will arise shortly, it cannot be delayed long—this Government will fall to pieces because it contains within itself the elements of its own destruction. Our time will then come. A great revulsion took place in this election as a result of a series of wireless lies, of misrepresentations and of treachery on the part of those who have been nurtured in our movement, who have been fed with our food, who have been housed in our houses, and, when they were down and out, were carried to the ambulance camp by men and women who have gone down to the grave "unwept, unhonoured and unsung." Those men who have treacherously betrayed our movement will live to rue the day. Their newfound friends will desert them. Their old comrades stood by them in the days of adversity and through many a fight, and are prepared to fight again, but not in the same company. If a man has me once it is his fault; if he has me the second time it is my fault. We have no room for them now.
I said in the Election that this National Government was a national insult. The King's Speech to-day is an insult to the King, because it contains nothing definite to guide the people towards a solution of their problems. It leaves us in a condition of insecurity. The restoration of the pound, and the restoration of the balance of trade have been referred to by the Prime Minister—and in such language! He is a master of language. I am only a master of the ordinary dockers' English. The only language I know is the language of the people among whom I live and from whom I come. What I want the House to realise is that although we are a minority party we are going to be strong enough inside and outside the House to give a proper account of ourselves when the time comes to reckon up all the issues. The King's Speech contains no real propositions, but only innuendos and suggestions as to what may happen in the dim and distant future. The Government are going to consider this, that and the other. What have they considered? Nothing.
Will any Member of the Government tell us now what propositions they can put forward to meet the situation? I can admire the honest men and women

95
opposite who say they want Protection and a full measure of it, but I cannot understand the shilly-shallying policy of some of those who have got into this House under false pretences. They are part of a National Government—a national mix-up! The Election was fought by them on no real programme and no real policy. We on this side can at least thank Heaven that we come here as the representatives of about 7,000,000 people with a definite programme and a definite policy. We stood by certain principles; we were defeated, through mass psychology, by various means; but when the final issue is raised it will be found that the 7,000,000 people who voted for Labour in this Election will gain over more than those who voted against it, and the Labour movement will be brought to a real victory. It will be a spiritual victory as well as a material one. When this House comes to an end we shall be no longer a minority, but Labour will be the dominating factor in the country both politically and industrially.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I listened with interest to the speech which was delivered by the leader of the Socialist party the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I was glad to hear from him that he is no longer a member of the Labour party, although he calls himself a Socialist. A Socialist has been denned as a Communist without the courage of Communist convictions, whilst a Communist has been defined as a Socialist with the courage of his convictions. The hon. Member for Bridgeton seems to me to be half way between the two, and he told us that there was no measure of social reform in the King's Speech and no promise of any additional social service. It has long been my opinion that the British working man is sick to death of all this talk about social services, and he does not believe in them because he knows that, in the long run, he has to pay for them. The working man knows that our misguided free education, national health insurance, and unemployment benefit are costing him a good many shillings per week out of his own pocket, which he could expend much better himself and get better results. In the course of a few years it has been the case that almost all these so-called social
96
services resolved themselves into benefits for the people who administer them, and the real beneficiaries are almost completely forgotten.
One thing which the last election has established is that the mass of the working classes of this country, and in fact of all classes in this country, is extremely and almost fanatically honest. They do not want redistribution of wealth, or anybody's money by legislation, and they cannot understand the peculiar working of our social services. They know that the means test is the only possible test for any social service and any other test is wrong. Amongst the honest unemployed the means test is not resented. The unemployed man knows that when he has made his requisite contributions he is entitled to unemployed benefit, but he bitterly resents anyone, even were it only five per cent. of the recipients, receiving benefit to which they are not morally entitled. I have been told of the case of a man receiving £4 10s. per week who got married. He then sent his wife out to take a job and shortly after she obtained unemployment benefit. Cases of that kind make the whole community, including the rest of the unemployed, indignant and a practice of that kind spreads abroad. I believe that the great mass of working people bitterly resented the lax administration of unemployment benefit by the Labour Government, and, if all these abuses had not existed during the Administration of the Labour Government, the Unemployment Fund would not have got into such a bankrupt condition. These kind of social services originated in Germany at the hands of Bismarck who introduced them to please a somewhat unbalanced Socialist, Ferdinand Lassalle. Bismarck was an aristocrat who believed that mankind is divided into two classes, the thinkers and the workers, and that the workers should be patronised, shepherded and treated as if they were different from the others. That is an old prejudice derived from Aristotle and I believe the working men resent that kind of thing. I believe in treating the working man as the gentleman he is and not as somebody to have treatment different from myself. I am glad to see that among the working class and in fact among all classes of the community a large majority of them at the last election voted against those politicians who seemed to think that it

97
was necessary in order to obtain votes to offer bribes to the democracy. The politicians of all parties have forgotten the experience of ordinary life. In ordinary life you find that if you lend a man money you lose both your money and your friend and if you give people something which they have not earned they dislike you and some of them ask you to give them more. We all remember the kind of legislation introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who promised the people 9d. for 4d. but I am sure that the mass of the people heartily dislike that kind of legislation and the people have now returned a Government which is going to see that any abuses arising out of such legislation will be put an end to, and lax administration will cease to bring discredit upon the nation.
The first thing which the Government have to do is to redress the balance of trade. Our trade balance has gone wrong within the last few years and the explanation is quite simple. We used to export from this country enormous quantities of coal and millions of tons of coal were exported to the East and as the ships earned freight both ways large quantities of food supplies were brought back in exchange. All that has now ceased for oil has supplanted coal and our shipping, instead of being conducted on the old lines, out of Britain and back again, is conducted by means of ships burning oil or by motor' vessels which only come back to this country for repairs. We are no longer getting the money for coal that we used to get nor the freights for shipping coal. The work of the miners producing coal used to supply us with most of our imports but that system having ceased and the use of oil having taken the place of coal has caused the destruction of the trade. The new discovery of the cheap working of motor ships has finally put an end to what was at one time our most important and lucrative foreign export business.
We have to consider now whether we cannot so arrange that our people will produce more food out of our own soil and consume more of our own food products. Within a comparatively easy distance of London you can find land which is absolutely uncultivated. We want to encourage the development and the
98
establishment of factories in our rural areas where working men can grow their own food supply thus making themselves independent of foreign markets. It is in this direction and this direction alone that we can look for any amelioration of the lot of our people. I do not believe the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton that great masses of our people are sinking deeper and deeper into poverty. The mass of the people who are working have had their position immensely improved since my younger days and their standard of living has gone up. We want to see great improvements but the best way to proceed is by dispersing our population over wider areas and I am glad to notice some traders and manufacturers proceeding along those lines. The policy of scattering the population over wider areas has been adopted in different parts of the American Continent, and it has already been decided by Henry Ford to scatter his works, and he has decreed that his people should undertake a certain amount of land cultivation for their own consumption. The iron ore miners of Spain go in for cultivating land because they realise that times may get harder and they may be obliged to look after themselves and they do not rely on any industrial occupation to secure their food. I think those are the lines on which we can make a permanent settlement of the difficulties caused by the fluctuation of trade. At any rate, we have to make sure that it will be impossible for other countries in the future to send over to this country their surplus goods which have the effect of keeping down prices and which tend to disorganise the work in our own factories and throw the working class out of work.
We have also to get rid of that wretched psychology that one finds so much in the Press of the other side. I notice it very often in a paper which I read regularly, and which in many respects is a clever one, namely, "Forward." There one finds held up to public odium any company that makes a profit in its trade, and some of the speeches from the benches opposite consist of nothing but references to profit and dividends, as though any company which made a success of its business or was in a position to pay a dividend was some-

99
thing to be held up to the execration of mankind. They almost deify failure and bankruptcy. I am glad to see that the masses of our working people have now completely repudiated that contention. They believe in profitable business; they believe that it is right that a factory or business should make headway; they believe in the building up of capital, which is the seed corn of industry and the mother of wages. They have vindicated that belief in this Election, and it is for the present Government not to disappoint them, but to take energetic action to protect the homes of the people by seeing that our own market is made
100
secure for our own people and our own industry. If they do that, our foreign trade will take care of itself.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Charles Edwards.]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Frederick Thomson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes after Six o'Clock.

THE KING'S SPEECH.
The KING being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and then retired.
His Majesty's Speech was as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
"My Government intend to pursue the policy of promoting peace and good will and to continue their active interest in the work of the League of Nations. Particularly, they are giving close attention to the preparations for the approaching Disarmament Conference, the successful result of which would, I am convinced, produce great and universal benefit.
"The serious financial and economic situation of the world deeply concerns My Government. They will do their utmost in co-operation with other Governments, and in the spirit of mutual helpfulness, to find ways for restoring the volume of international trade.
"The Indian Round Table Conference continues its work, and a Conference with representatives of Burma will very shortly assemble. It is My earnest prayer that the deliberations of both these Conferences may be crowned with success.
"In conformity with the undertaking given to the representatives of My Dominions in 1930, a measure will be laid before you to give statutory effect to certain of the declarations and resolutions of the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930. This measure is designed to make clear the powers of Dominion Parliaments and to promote the spirit of free co-operation amongst Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
"My Government have received from the Government of My Dominion of Canada a proposal that the Economic

7
Conference, which was adjourned in 1930, should be convened at Ottawa as soon as possible. This invitation has been welcomed by My Ministers and will be considered in the most sympathetic spirit and with an earnest desire to come to some mutually advantageous arrangement with the Governments of My Dominions.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the public services will be laid before you in due course.
"My Lords and Members of the, House of Commons,
"The nation, at the General Election, endorsed those measures for securing economy and balancing the National Budget which constituted the first essential steps in the solution of the financial and economic problems with which the country has been confronted.
"The nation was also invited by My Ministers to empower them to pursue a policy designed fully to re-establish confidence in our financial stability and to give them authority to frame plans for ensuring a favourable balance of trade.
"They further sought from the nation unfettered discretion to consider every proposal likely to be of assistance in these matters.
"My Ministers have now received a clear and emphatic mandate to that effect.
"The important problems involved are already under detailed examination by My Government. Decisions will be taken and applied with the least possible delay, and in due course, any legislation that may be required will be submitted to Parliament.
"And I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your deliberations."
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales—Singly took the Oath.
His Royal Highness the Duke of York—Singly took the Oath.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester—Singly took the Oath.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro forma, read 1a.
LIST OF THE LORDS TEMPORAL.
GARTER KING OF ARMS GARTER KING OF ARMS attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table: The same was ordered to be printed.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
The King's Speech reported by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, it has fallen to me to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne, and I am very proud to have that honour. But I could wish that the duty had been placed in the hands of one more competent than myself, because, in these changing and difficult times, even those best able to know hardly dare to give expression to what they believe ought to be done. How much less then can one in my position dare to say much on the present situation of affairs? Before I go any further I would like to say how pleased I am, and I feel sure your Lordships are, to see the noble and learned Viscount (Viscount Hailsham) in the position of Leader of your Lordships' House. I feel sure that that important position could not be in better hands.

9
At the same time I would like to refer to the self-sacrifice of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in withdrawing. I hope that that docs not mean that your Lordships' House is going to be deprived of his presence and of his clear sense of judgment to which he has given expression in this House so frequently in the past.
There is still fresh in our minds the result of the recent General Election. Elections have been held in the past at times possibly nearly as acute as the present, but never in the history of Parliamentary government in this country has the nation expressed its wishes so clearly or so emphatically. It is to my mind a most triumphant vindication of modern democracy. We believe that the democracy of this country has taken the right course, and cast aside all others—has taken the view that the nation comes first and personal beliefs and feelings come second. It may be said, and it has been said, that the majority behind the present Government is so large that it may be a matter of embarrassment and a source of weakness, but in my view there is one basic essential to any treasures of reconstruction, and that is that the confidence of the world should be restored in this country, and the action of the electorate has done more to restore that confidence than the action of any Government could do, whatever may be its complexion.
The gracious Speech mentioned that His Majesty's Government would continue their support of the League of Nations. I feel that that will be echoed by the vast majority of the people of this country. The League of Nations has already done much great work, and I hope that it will do a great deal more in the future. At the present time they are faced with a difficult problem in the disturbances that are occurring in the Far East. I hope that their efforts to prevent serious trouble in that direction may be successful and that war may be pre-vented. Should, unfortunately, they not be able to achieve that end, I am quite convinced that at any rate they will be able to limit the evil effects of any trouble that may occur. We in this country, and, I think, the whole world, are realising more and more the interdependence of nations. Nations are no longer mutually antagonistic. They are
10
mutually dependent, and, through the League of Nations, we hope that that mutual dependence will become increased from year to year.
In the same paragraph reference is made to the Disarmament Conference. I do not propose to say much to your Lordships on that very difficult and intricate subject, but I will say this, that Great Britain with her great Imperial responsibilities, her great responsibility for internal security, has, in spite of those responsibilities, made proportionately greater contributions towards disarmament than any other nation in the world. I hope, therefore, that when our delegates go to that Disarmament Conference they will bear that fact in mind, and, rather than in an excess of zeal still further increase our own disarmament, will try and persuade other countries to disarm proportionately to ourselves.
Reference is also made to the Imperial Economic Conference, and I am glad to know from the Speech of the Prime Minister last night that the invitation to attend that Conference has already been accepted. I am sorry to see that the Conference cannot take place, apparently, before July in next year, but the Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for the Dominions would have the opportunity to go round to the various Dominions and study the situation at first hand. May I express the hope that his study of the situation at first hand may not necessarily stop short at a mere study, but that possibly he may, pending that Imperial Conference, be enabled to undertake provisional measures of agreement which may be put into operation before the Conference actually takes place?
The Government have had, as the gracious Speech states, a "clear and emphatic mandate" from the nation to undertake any measures which may be necessary to restore the balance of trade, and I hope that they will undertake those measures as soon as they can. I know that the questions under consideration are already being examined and I welcome the fact that His Majesty's Government have got to work as soon as they have. But I do hope that a detailed examination will not be too prolonged, because if it is too prolonged His Majesty's Government will find themselves in danger of being accused of

11
dilatoriness or of a fear of taking a definite action. That would be fatal to the Government and to the country. Action is required, and I hope action will be taken as soon as is practicable. I do not wish, however, to try to force His Majesty's Government and I would be the first to deprecate hasty action on the important questions that are before us.
There is one omission in the gracious Speech from the Throne which will have been noted by many of your Lordships: that is, there is no mention of agriculture. I, personally, am rather glad that there is no mention of agriculture. And for this reason. As many of your Lordships are aware there has recently been published by the Federation of British Industries and allied organisations an agricultural policy. Whether your Lordships agree with that policy or not is neither here nor there; the great point about it is that for the first time we have industry and agriculture working together. In the past we have always talked of industry and agriculture, with agriculture as trailing along behind industry rather like a lost lamb. Now the omission of any mention of agriculture in the gracious Speech confirms the view that agriculture is considered part of industry in this country. I hope it will continue to be so treated, because agriculture is every bit as important to this country as industry, particularly in regard to the restoration of the balance of trade. Our industries may increase our exports, but if you increase the agricultural production in this country you will be helping the balance of trade to at least as great an extent by reducing our expenditure abroad. I hope the Government will keep in mind the claims of agriculture and will do something to assist that industry which for so many years has been finding a difficulty in keeping its head above water.
The gracious Speech follows very much the lines of the appeal to the country by the Prime Minister. It goes into no detail because detail is impossible in these changing times, but it does say that His Majesty's Government have a "clear and emphatic mandate" and I think that if there is one thing above all that that clear and emphatic mandate means to His Majesty's Government, it is, to use a colloquial phrase, that the country ex-
12
pects them to get on with the job. That task is difficult. By virtue of their big majority the Government have a tremendous responsibility and they will need all the assistance they can get. I believe that your Lordships' House will be able to assist them in a way in which they need assistance more than any other and that is by the clear and constructive criticism which your Lordships'. House is so well able to offer.
I beg to move that the following humble Address be presented to His Majesty:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign,—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—
"Most Gracious Sovereign.—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: My Lords, the noble Earl who moved this Address deprecated his ability to do justice to his duties. I only hope that in seconding the Address I may fail to the same extent that he did; because it is at the present moment a very grave responsibility for anybody who is connected with the Government. There has never been a time within the lives of any of us when more has depended upon the action that will be taken within the next few months. The prosperity, the comfort and the happiness of the nation will depend for a long time to come on what line the Government take in the near future. Hence, in addressing your Lordships I might well find that the importance of the occasion was overwhelming if I did not know I could rely on the sympathy and understanding of your Lordships' House. I know that I can be sure of that from an Assembly in which there are many who are associated with some of the greatest

13
undertakings of commerce and where all have some special experience and knowledge that is of advantage to the nation.
The late Government was formed to deal with an emergency and its whole effort, if one excepts the time which it spent discussing its own Dissolution, was concentrated to that end. So it is no matter for surprise that there is nothing very definite in the gracious Speech as to the future legislation intended. Nor must we expect that the Government will be able for some little time to indicate the road it intends to travel. The world's situation is too chaotic; the repercussions are too doubtful. In these circumstances, notwithstanding what the noble Earl aid, my feeling is that well wishers to the Government can best help the Government by a display of patience and by discouraging any attempts which may be made to press the Government to produce indigested panaceas.
The gracious Speech from the Throne rightly indicates that the financial and industrial recovery of any one nation, and of our own nation amongst the others, requires international agreement and common action in various directions. We are suffering, not from a local but from a world-wide malady. An international agreement for a drastic readjustment of War Debts and Reparations is perhaps the most urgent treatment required and this is closely followed in importance by the necessity of a further international agreement to deal with that most difficult of problems, the exchange value of currency. Get these two obstacles out of the way and the stage is ready set to take advantage of the new spirit which is growing amongst many countries in Europe. There is no doubt that the logic of events has made itself felt and there are a number of our neighbours who on certain terms are prepared to make a start in reducing the barriers which now interfere with international trade. It is gratifying to note in the gracious Speech that the Government
"will do their utmost in cooperation with other Governments, and in the spirit of mutual helpfulness, to find ways for restoring the volume of international trade."
We have heard a great deal about the part played by the bankers of this country and of other countries; in recent months. There is a great deal which the bankers have done, there is a great deal which they can do, to help the credit
14
machinery of the world to turn round. But when all is said and done the bankers can only provide the lubricant and the skilled supervision, and unless the statesmen create a situation of reasonably free international trade the credit machine operated by the bankers will become overloaded and must in time seize up and bring disaster to us all. Your Lordships will receive with satisfaction the intimation contained in the gracious Speech that economy in public expenditure is to be continued and you will no doubt hope that it will be practised with even greater intensity. It is on a foundation of the right kind of economy that we must build. No country can thrive on taxation. The National Budget has been balanced and so long as it remains balanced there is no real risk of inflation. No one will complain of the taxation that has been necessary to balance the Budget in the special circumstances of the last few months, but everyone knows that it involves dangers of its own. It is a great pleasure to many of us who for long have admired the courage and steadfastness of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to know that now that the time has come when he can no longer grace the green benches of another place he will adorn the red and scarlet of your Lordships' House, and it is a matter of congratulation that His Majesty's Government may still rely on his guidance. We have it on his authority that national and local taxation together are now absorbing nearly one third of the whole national income. This clearly means that we have reached the point where taxation strangles industry and enterprise, and, moreover, are approaching the point when additional taxation will yield not-more but less to the Exchequer.
The realisation of this underlines and emphasises the determination to reestablish confidence in our financial stability which takes so prominent a part in the gracious Speech of His Majesty. What the country needs, as we all know, is a revival of trade. Unemployment is not a disease in itself. It is a symptom, a consequence of shrunken markets 'and restricted trade. How are we to revive our export industries? As I have said, we cannot do it by ourselves alone. It must depend on international action. But something can be done even without the passing of Acts of Par-

15
liament. Doors are open to those who will step out. Over against all the drawbacks of the fall in the exchange value of the pound there is this material point in its favour, that it gives our industry an opportunity to expand our export trade. Some are now rising to this opportunity and what we may hope is that industry generally will not fail, by modernisation where necessary and by enterprise everywhere, to recapture the overseas markets where the door is to some extent open. Industry and industrialists have a right to look to the Government and Parliament to maintain confidence, to keep a stable currency, to restrict taxation to the limit of what is absolutely necessary, to refrain from rash experiments in a period of uncertainty, and to give no Occasion for public doubts and alarms. It is in the full confidence that they will keep this duty before them that I beg to second the Address in reply to the gracious Speech.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I rise to continue this debate, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, and I think I owe your Lordships some explanation. My noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, who took the courageous action of remaining in the Labour Party, is I am glad to say in good health but at the beginning of a new Parliament he has felt that he is not inclined to undertake the duties of leadership. Lord Parmoor's long and honourable service in both Houses of Parliament, his genial and kindly disposition and his indefatigable energy have, I think, evoked in all quarters of the House feelings of esteem and affection, and I hope that he may be able to be present on occasions in future.
The natural succession to the leadership would have fallen on my noble friend Lord Passfield, but he desires to pursue his work and studies outside the Parliamentary sphere, and although I think we shall have the privilege of his help in debates in the future he did not want to undertake the day to day routine of leadership. Therefore, my Lords, at the request of my noble friends who sit with me and with the endorsement of the Leader of the Labour Party, I have been offered and I have accepted the post of Leader of the Opposition in your Lord-
16
ships' House. Two years' service in your Lordships' House hardly qualifies to take up the responsibilities of such a position as this. Moreover, in this record-breaking age I find myself breaking another record. I do not think that there has ever been a Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships.' House who has not held Cabinet rank. I am not sure that the fact that I was not in the last Cabinet may not be of some advantage to me. However that may be, I feel a desire to ask the indulgence of your Lordships in these new duties, and the experience of fairly constant attendance during the last two years makes me expect that I may receive it even when, on occasion, I may be obliged to speak rather plainly.
My first duty is a pleasant one. It is to congratulate the two noble Lords who have just addressed us. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who, I think, has not been in this House very much longer than I have, has already gained for himself, by his careful study and his felicitous powers of expression, a position among those who make really useful contributions to our debates. The noble Viscount, Lord Cowdray, a late colleague of mine in the House of Commons, who is greatly respected as lord of the manor in which I reside in Sussex, has with the proposer managed to express in the most felicitous language a general approval of the Speech from the Throne. The duties of mover and seconder are never easy, because they necessarily have a feeling of being restricted and semi-official and are deprived of the ease which a casual contribution to a debate allows; but in spite of this I am sure that the House feels that the two noble Lords discharged their duty with the highest possible credit.
I will in the course of my remarks refer later to the points which they touched on. In this very unprecedented situation it is impossible not to make some passing references to the General Election which has created the present-House of Commons. I have fought nine Elections and therefore I have some knowledge of electioneering, and of the sort of method which wins votes, but I do not believe—certainly not in my experience and I believe not in the experience of anybody living—that any other Election has been conducted in the

17
way in which this one was. In all fairness let me say that the idea of the best minds of all Parties coming together in a crisis and seeking the best solution is one that very naturally appeals to people, and seems theoretically to be of the highest wisdom, but those who have studied political history and Parliamentary practice know quite well that in actual fact that is never a success, and for a very simple reason. Men do not go into political life merely for the fun of the thing. They go into political life because they are charged with very strong feelings of what is the best course for the country to adopt, and they do not feel inclined at any time to subordinate their convictions and to compromise with others.
The result is that you get those forces pulling in contrary directions, and you do not get any possible stability. A collection of eminent men does not make a good Government, but a band of men who are bound together by the same principles and the same strong convictions; and yet, of course, in the public eyes a lot of big names attracts. Your Lordships know quite well what is meant by an all-star cast. It is always very amusing to see great actor taking the part of the butler, but if you want a bad performance go and see an all-star cast performance. In the effort to return this Government, on the vain pretence of its being "National," certain expedients were adopted which, I think, are without parallel. I do not refer to the usual language about the Union Jack and appeals to patriotism. That is done every time. I think perhaps that in the last three days the greatest effect upon the electors was produced by the scare that their Post Office savings were in danger—a most scandalously false declaration, but one which undoubtedly very strongly affected the 2½ million people who have small deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank.
There was another process which is certainly unprecedented. It is what I might describe as the stabbing-in-the-back process. From all the Conservative, platforms there was an outpouring of attack upon the late Labour Government and their administration over two years, and all the ills which the country was suffering from were attributed to that Government. At the same time the electors
18
were being urged to support the two men who were chiefly responsible for the policy of the Labour Government—the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were stabbing them in the back and yet trying to support them in that way. Then the late Labour Ministers also indulged in this stabbing in the back by an outpouring, which in the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was vitriolic to an extent which has never been known even in his methods, of abuse of their late colleagues. I think the keynote of the Election was the pronouncement of the gallant Admiral, now Member for Burnley. He said he stood only for the Union Jack, "to give politics a hell of a kick in the pants." That really describes the attitude of the supporters of this Government, and that was the Member who is preferred by the Prime Minister to Mr. Henderson, who was particularly successful as a Foreign Secretary, and who had worked for something like thirty years as a close colleague of the Prime Minister in building up the Labour Party. That sort of thing is not very worthy of our best political traditions, but it was this sort of method which was adopted.
The majority was given and the Government, after a little reshuffling, has been formed, still an all-star cast. Your Lordships have the advantage of the leadership of the noble and learned Viscount who is now Secretary of State for War, to whom I respectfully offer my congratulations. Although he and I perhaps have not seen eye to eye on many occasions in the past, and he has the vast majority of your Lordships' House behind him, whilst on our side—I was going to say "We are seven," but I am not quite sure about that—nevertheless, I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will not ruthlessly disregard the opinions and views and criticism's of the small band with whom I am proud to work, who, although temporarily eclipsed in the House of Commons, nevertheless represent a considerable number of voters in the country—something like 7,000,000—and a Party whose foundations are still very strong and firm.
The gracious Speech is, if I may say so, very much like the Government—unprecedented. It really is not a Speech giving proposals, it is a Speech asking for a blank cheque, and I do not suppose

19
any precedent could be found for that. With the first paragraph we can find no need for criticism. We all look forward to the Disarmament Conference with a good deal of anxiety, and we are specially proud on this side of the House that Mr. Henderson has been chosen as Chairman of that Conference; and I hope that, in the work that he does, he will have the full support of His Majesty's Government, and not be in any way hampered.
In the second paragraph the Speech says that the Government
"will do their utmost in co-operation with other Governments, and in the spirit of mutual helpfulness, to find ways for restoring the volume of international trade."
That section of the Speech was elaborated last night at the Guildhall by the Prime Minister, and I read his words with great interest. He said, among other things:
"His Majesty's Government is prepared to play its part in the disentangling."
Those who have knowledge of foreign affairs know very well how extremely difficult these International Conferences are; but what I want to plead for and at the same time ask for information about from the noble and learned Viscount, is whether His Majesty's Government are going to take the initiative. That is the point. We can all express pious opinions with regard to the advantage of international action, and, indeed, for the necessity of it. The noble Earl who moved the Address very properly said that the inter-dependence of nations was a factor that must be taken into account in these days. But we are as a nation habitually a little reluctant to take the initiative. Recently the initiative has been taken by the United States, and on former occasions by France. I hope that the Government, with the power that they have, will see fit to take the initiative, in order to call these Conferences together, without which it really will be futile our endeavouring to cure the ills from which we are suffering. With regard to India, we all hope well for the Round-Table Conference.
The next paragraph that I should like to refer to is the renewal of the invitation from Ottawa. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell us when that Conference will take place. I note, from what the Prime Minister said, that Mr. Thomas is going to undertake a world tour. I am sure Mr. Thomas will enjoy his world tour, and I am sure
20
the Dominions will enjoy hearing Mr. Thomas; but I am very doubtful as to whether that is a good method of getting Imperial economic questions settled, and I think the first function of the head of a Department is to remain at the centre and keep a very vigilant eye on what is going on all the world over.
But it is the second part which makes this Speech unique. There is no suggestion for any legislation at all. There are vague phrases to show that the Government want to have a free hand to do practically whatever they want. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount quite definitely whether the Government intend once more to have recourse to Orders in Council in order to bring their projects to fruition; that is to say, whether once more they are going to deprive the House of Commons of its legitimate rights of debate and the usual stages through which a Bill passes before it becomes an Act of Parliament. Of course, they can do what they like in the House of Commons, with the Opposition as small as it is; but still we do not want a precedent to be created, or that this method of speeding things up by depriving the Legislature of the opportunity for legitimate debate should become a constant practice. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell us whether that method is again to be adopted.
There are phrases which tell us that they are going to frame plans and that they are going to consider proposals. I do not know what their plans are likely to be, and I do not suppose they know at all themselves for the time being. But they are anxious that they should correct what is called the balance of trade, which at present is adverse. There is one consideration that I should like your Lordships to take into account in this connection, because ever since last August the panic spirit has not departed completely, and there is a tendency for interested persons to set up scares, like the scare about dumping, which is being promoted from some quarters at the present time. I would endorse what was said by the noble Viscount who seconded the Address, that the Government ought not to press forward undigested panaceas. If they do it will prejudice any impartial

21
examination of the questions that they have before them. With regard to this question of the adverse balance of trade, I should just like to quote from a financial authority, the Financial News. Last week the Financial News said:—
"It looks as. if the deficit on our merchandise account will be not much larger in 1931 than in 1930. We have apparently been reducing our unfavourable import excess on income quite considerably.… A review of the position does not suggest cause for any undue anxiety at present over the problem of the trade balance."
I only quote that to show that there is a tendency on the part of people who are interested, and who are pushing particular policies, quite legitimately, to exaggerate the straits in which we find ourselves and thereby to make it oven for a Government as powerful as the present one, a very difficult task in getting at the truth.
I do not desire to delay your Lordships for long. We consider that the present Government got into power by methods which were very unfortunate and very undesirable. We stand for a different policy which, for the time being, may have been discarded but which we have every reason to hope in the future will be adopted. We stand for those principles, and it was because we believed in them so strongly that we refused to compromise and to co-operate with others who thought differently from us. We believe that industry ought to be organised for the benefit of the community and not for private profit. We believe that the great social services should be controlled by public corporations and not run, as they are now, for private profit. We believe that the welfare of this country depends on the free circulation of the spare shillings of the millions of the people and not on the accumulated wealth of the few. We believe that until you can get some sort of public control and governmental voice in the present autonomous power of our banks and of the Bank of England it will not be possible to guarantee that we shall not find ourselves in another financial crisis in the future.
I regard the future with deep apprehension. The expedient which has been adopted of over-riding the free expression of divergent opinions honestly held, which we call the Party system, and
22
substituting for it a Government of notables slenderly held together by the very weak threads of compromise will not work out to the advantage of this country in the long run. To my mind this is not a moment for weak compromise to bolster up the social, industrial and economic evils which have become apparent and to conceal the disadvantages of our social system, but for bold action; and bold action cannot be expected from a Government constituted as the present Government is. Nevertheless, by its gigantic numerical strength it has led the people of this country to expect from it great things, great solutions, great cures, and their disappointment when it comes, their disillusionment and their awakening, are likely to find expression in an indignation which may have very shattering consequences.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I hope that the House will not convict me of egotism if I begin with just a word of thanks to my noble friend who moved this Address for the kindly reference he made to myself, and to your Lordships for the way in which you received that reference. No one can undertake the Leadership of your Lordships' House without a deep sense of responsibility and without a consciousness that the standard which has been set by the great statesmen who have filled this position in the past is a standard which it is very difficult to maintain. I myself can only bring to the fulfilment of its duties a real pride in the history and traditions of this House, an earnest desire to maintain its usefulness and its dignity, and a fixed determination to devote whatever abilities or energies I may possess to its service.
Fortunately, the first task which I have to perform as Leader of the House is one which is hallowed by convention and which I am able to discharge this afternoon with real sincerity. That is the task of associating myself with the expressions which have fallen from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition to the mover and seconder of the Address for the very excellent way in which they have discharged their respective duties. Like them I am for the first time making a speech on the Address, and I shall be very glad if I am able to acquit myself

23
with equal credit. The noble Earl the mover of the Address made more than one contribution to your Lordships' debates when we were in Opposition; I remember particularly that he was the means of initiating a very interesting discussion during last summer. The noble Viscount, the seconder, has behind him a, long Parliamentary experience in another place. I think that this House has reason to regret that since his accession to our numbers those local duties to which the noble Lord who leads the Opposition made reference, have prevented us from more frequently enjoying his assistance, and I am sure that I am expressing the hope of every member of your Lordships' House when I say that I trust that the success which has attended the efforts of the noble Earl and the noble Viscount this afternoon will encourage them to make further contributions to our discussions. If they do I am sure that those contributions will add value and dignity to our debates.
There is just one other personal reference. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition told us that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, had relinquished the official leadership of the Socialist Party in your Lordships' House. For a very long period the noble and learned Lord had discharged what was necessarily a difficult task whether he was representing the Government or the Opposition, because, as we all regret I think, there is a grave disparity in the numbers which belong to the different Parties. I am sure that we are all sorry that Lord Parmoor has felt it right to lay down those duties which he has discharged with unfailing courtesy and good temper and, while we welcome his successor, we would like to add our message of regret, if we may, to Lord Parmoor in his retirement.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: From these personal matters I turn to the immediate subject-matter of the discussion this afternoon, and the Address in answer to the gracious Speech. The noble Lord who leads the Opposition began his criticism with an interesting dissection of the recent Election. I suppose that must be a very tempting topic to noble Lords opposite. I do not think it would be profitable for me to follow him at any
24
length into his analysis of the reasons for his Party's overwhelming defeat. Ho attributed it, as I understand, partly to fear for the safety of Post Office savings, and partly to what he regarded as the stabbing in the back which he said was received from his late colleagues. With regard to the uneasiness of the public, I think it is quite true to say that a great many people were seriously alarmed as to what would be the consequence not merely to Post Office savings but to all the. liquid assets of anyone who had amassed any savings at all in this country, and to the fixed incomes of all who enjoy fixed incomes, if the country should have been mad enough to allow the Socialist Party with its reckless programme of extravagance to come back into office.
For myself, I believe that those fears were well founded. I should share the apprehensions of the noble Lord with regard to the future if I believed that there was any real danger that the people of this country would hereafter be so unwise as to accept a policy which was so emphatically rejected at the last Election. With regard to what he described as the abuse of late members of the Socialist Ministry, what I think he referred to was the fact that whenever a member of the late Socialist Government proclaimed his rooted objection to take a particular course one of his late colleagues was able to point out on unimpeachable testimony that the particular Minister had committed himself to exactly the opposite course a few weeks before, and I have no doubt that the exposure of the vacillation and uncertainty of the course pursued by members of the late Socialist Government was a powerful contributory cause to the feeling which undoubtedly swept the country, that people who were so reckless in their promises and so inconsistent in their performances could not be trusted with the administration of the affairs of the country.
I pass from those, which are, perhaps, not altogether profitable, considerations to the questions arising out of the language of the gracious Speech. The noble Lord asked me a question as to whether the Government contemplated taking the initiative in regard to International Conferences. I can only give a general answer, that if it should be

25
found necessary to take the initiative, if we find that it would be useful to summon a Conference on any given topic, we shall not hesitate to take that initiative, but we do not intend on every occasion to push ourselves forward. We believe that the fact that this Government has received so overwhelming a vote of confidence from the electorate is going to do a great deal to increase its prestige abroad, and to restore our reputation and our influence in the councils of the nations, but whether we use that influence either by directly starting a Conference ourselves or supporting proposals put forward by other nations must necessarily depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.
The next question that I was asked was with regard to the summoning of the Conference at Ottawa. I am sorry I cannot give a definite answer to that. For one reason the Canadian Government is the one which is summoning the Conference, and obviously it will be the one that will name the date which it finds most convenient, but I do not think that it would be found possible usefully to have a meeting for some months to come, having regard to the preoccupations of other Dominions and to the data which have to be got together before the Conference can reach a satisfactory conclusion. The noble Lord went on to criticise what he described as the world tour of the Dominion Secretary, and he said that he thought that that was a bad habit which ought not to be encouraged. He will forgive me reminding him that the precedent for it consists in the tour of the same Dominion Secretary when he was a member of the Socialist Government in 1929. Although, no doubt, one has to think very carefully before allowing one of His Majesty's Ministers to leave these Islands, yet occasions may arise when personal contact is useful. I do not think it is reasonable to say to the Dominions that whenever a personal interview is desirable it must always be the Dominion Minister who has to come here, and that we are never to pay a return visit. I believe that on the present occasion the opportunity which Mr. Thomas, who already knows these Ministers personally, will enjoy of personal discussion with them and their colleagues in the various Dominions of His Majesty, as to the multifarious problems with which he will have to deal during
26
the next few years, will be profitable to himself and will be of use to this country and to the Empire at large.
It is perhaps noticeable that in the gracious Speech out of twelve paragraphs no less than three are devoted to the Empire, and one deals with the only new matter which has arisen since the date of the Election, the convening of the Conference at Ottawa. I hope I am not committing any indiscretion when I suggest that the prominence which is thus given to Imperial affairs in the gracious Speech is an indication that the Government recognises the awakening of the nation to the importance of the Empire, its fuller realisation of the opportunities which that unity of Empire affords to each component part, and the determination of our people that the Empire shall remain more and more closely knit together as an instrument for civilisation and peace throughout the world.
The noble Lord complained that the gracious Speech was, in fact, the Government asking for a blank cheque. In fact, the Government has been given a blank cheque by the nation.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is quite true that at the last Election the Government did ask for a blank cheque. The Government, in fact, said to the nation, as I understand the manifestos which were then put forward: "We are in a time of real crisis and peril. The National Government has been formed, composed of members of all Parties of the State who have abolished their Party differences, who have agreed to sink their Party differences for the time being in the face of the overwhelming national danger, and to ask the people to trust them to co-operate together in meeting the danger which threatens to overwhelm us and to take whatever measures may be necessary for the common good."
It is true that this country does not like coalitions. It may be true that a Coalition Government is often not a success, but there are occasions in our national life, occasions of national peril so imminent and so overpowering, when the only way in which we could hope to meet and overcome them is by the union of all sections of the nation in the face of common danger. We believe, and the

27
nation agrees, that the present situation is one of those instances, and we intend that the confidence which the nation has given us shall not be abused. It is true that in the gracious Speech there is no suggestion of what legislative measures are going to be introduced. Do your Lordships not think it would be a sorry trick to play upon the electors if we had a programme of legislation ready arranged when we went to the country saying and promising that we would undertake to investigate the urgent problems of the nation with an open mind, that we would exclude nothing, that we would look with a single desire to find what was best for the national good and consider all possible solutions, if, in the face of that assurance, when the Government is returned to power, within thirty hours of the formation of the new Cabinet the gracious Speech had contained a ready-made programme of legislation? I can imagine the denunciation that would come from the Benches opposite on what they would have described as a trick and a fraud on the electors and on the people.
In effect we intend to carry out the pledge on which the country returned us to office. We are, as the Gracious Speech informs the House and the country, engaging immediately upon the investigations of the problems which concern us. No one who has held office is unaware that it is a difficult thing for a Government to devote itself exclusively to the consideration of one major problem, because as time goes on from day to day there are matters which flood in from abroad and from home which call for decision, which call for examination and which may prove bigger questions than those we are trying to determine. Such questions are arising and will have to be dealt with. So far as day to day administration permits we are agreed that we must press forward with the utmost earnestness and that there must be no loss of time in ascertaining the facts upon which any decision is necessary, and then without undue delay to give a real decision upon what is best in the interests of the nation.
The Noble Lord asked me whether I could give an assurance that in the future there would be no legislation by means of empowering the Government to proceed by Orders in Council. I can-
28
not give that assurance. I do not in the least say it will not be found advisable to ask Parliament for any such powers. I can say it is one of the alternatives which will no doubt have to be considered and if we believe that procedure by means of Order in Council is in any given case the best way to proceed we shall tell Parliament that it is our intention to ask Parliament to give us the authority. It is not the Government, it is Parliament, the House of Commons and this House, which will decide if we are to have those powers or not. If we do not make a case I hope we shall not get them. If we do make a case and establish to the satisfaction of this House and another place that the procedure we propose is the best one—that is by Order in Council—it would be foolish not to commence our career by acting on our pledge that we would not object to any course which might turn out to be the best and one which, if it does turn out to be the best, is obviously one we should take.
I am not sure if there are other specific questions the noble Lord addressed to me. The noble Lord said that the spirit of panic had not departed. I think he is wrong about that. I think there was a feeling of panic, or at any rate very nearly a feeling of panic, at the end of August of this year. If the National Government had not then been formed, if those who then undertook the responsibility (I am not one of them) of carrying on our affairs had not had the courage to undertake that task there would indeed have been panic in this country, and immeasurable disaster. The immediate cause for any alarm has indeed departed, but I am not for one moment saying that the cause for anxiety has passed away.
I think the noble Lord is quite right when he says there is a real danger that the people of this country, having given to this Government an overwhelming majority in another place and seeing this Government enjoying, as I hope and believe it does, the support of an overwhelming majority in this House, may be inclined to say: "We have done all we were asked to do. We have shown our confidence, we have re-established the position. All you have now to do is to go forward and return to the prosperity from which we were so rapidly departing

29
during the last Administration." That is a mistake. It is true that the Government has been given an overwhelming vote of confidence. It is true that the mere fact that that vote is so overwhelming is an incalcuable asset in dealing with foreign countries. I think that the splendid way in which the country responded to the call to patriotism, the splendid way in which it rallied to the support of the National Government, is a vindication of democracy. We went with no specious promises, no bribes of public money, no promises of unlimited expenditure out of an apparently bottomless public puree. We went to the country and said to the people: "The nation is in real peril and its recovery involves sacrifice for all and hardship on many. We do not promise that you will escape these hardships or avoid the sacrifices by returning us to office. What we do point out is that these sacrifices and hardships are necessary if the country is to be saved." And it is a very remarkable tribute to the real patriotism of this country—I think it is a tribute to and justification of all theories of democracy in this country—that when that was made plain to the people even those who were asked to suffer most did not hesitate to join in accepting the sacrifices and returning a Government which asked these sacrifices of them.
I cannot tell your Lordships what the legislation will be which will be called for. Although I speak now rather from a personal than a collective point of view, because I have had very few opportunities of consulting any of my colleagues, I think it is obvious that among the problems which we have to solve the question of the balance of trade which is referred to explicitly in the gracious Speech is a question which must call for a careful examination of facts, a careful weighing up of different suggested solutions and must call for the exercise of that patience for which the seconder of the Address asked. But there may be other more immediate problems. While that investigation is taking place it is to my mind plain that no Government can allow its eventual decision to be hampered or hindered by acts which would render that decision futile when it was reached. It must be possible, if there be a danger of the situation being gravely interfered with in
30
the interim, to protect the situation meanwhile. That is obviously a more urgent and a much easier problem than the other. That question, too, must be investigated in order to ascertain the facts, to see whether there is the danger at which some of your Lordships and some people outside have hinted, and if there is that danger to find what is the ready way of meeting it. I would only give to your Lordships with regard to that and every other matter, the assurance that if the Government comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to ask for powers to deal with that situation it will not hesitate to come to Parliament to ask it to arm it with any authority which it may regard as desirable.
I do not want to set an example in this House which has already been deprecated in another place of making too long a. speech from the Ministerial Benches. I desire only to say this in conclusion. We, the Government, do not ask from your Lordships who support us in such overwhelming numbers any blind acceptance of anything which we may put forward. We do not ask from your Lordships any relaxation of the vigilant watch which, as I know, your Lordships are accustomed to keep upon the doings of any Government of whatever political complexion. We certainly do not ask that the rights of the Opposition to criticise and attack shall be in any way curtailed or shall be in any way cut short because of their paucity of numbers. The very fact that they are so few makes us more anxious that each one of them shall have full opportunity of expressing a body of opinion which is certainly much larger outside the House than it is in existing conditions inside the House. But what we do say to your Lordships is this. We would ask that while you are vigilant, while you are ready to criticise, you should be friendly in your watchfulness, helpful in your criticism. There is criticism which is designed to thwart and hinder and destroy. There is criticism which is calculated to encourage, to foster, to support and to help on. I hope that we shall receive at your Lordships' hands that stimulating criticism which is a very helpful thing for those who are in office, which will be a real help to all of us in trying to carry out the mandate which has been placed upon us. I can promise I think for my colleagues, as I

31
certainly can for myself, that since the country has been good enough to place this overwhelming trust in us, we for our part will try to fulfil the pledge that we gave to seek no Party advantage but to seek only the national good and to bend ourselves with unsparing energy and with such talents as we may severally possess to the difficult task of solving the many problems which throng upon our country to-day, of attempting to restore our nation and our Empire to the place which it ought to hold in civilisation, to the fostering of the common weal of our people.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it is necessary that I should trouble the House for a very few moments having regard to the observations that have fallen from the noble and learned Viscount who has just addressed you. I find myself in complete agreement with all that he has said. I only desire to make one or two references to the gracious Speech from the Throne, but I would wish at the outset to add my compliments to both the mover and seconder of the Address for the felicitous manner in which they discharged their duties. We sit opposite the members of the Government in this House, but we are not in opposition. We are, indeed, a party of supporters of the Government. Speaking on behalf of the Liberals with whom I have been long associated and with whom I am at present sitting, I say that our position in the House does not in any sense indicate on our part any lack of support of the present Government. I desire to make this clear without drawing any distinction. I believe I speak for all noble Lords in this House who are associated, or even who have been associated, with Liberalism when I say that it is our set and determined purpose to give every assistance and support we can to the Government which is now in power. We do that entirely regardless of any Party considerations and for the reason that we are seeking, as are your Lordships sitting opposite, to do what we believe to be best in the national interest.
I agree fully with what my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House said just now, that that does not mean that we shall not criticise. On the contrary I think that if we can be of assistance it is our duty to criticise, to sug-
32
gest, to stimulate and, indeed, to contribute whatever is in our power. My own opinion of this Government and of the various Parties supporting the Government is that it is intended to be and should be a contribution by all members, irrespective of Party, to help forward the country in its present hour of crisis and trial. For my own part, having been a member of the Government until quite recently, I desire to express to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House my congratulations—if he will permit me—upon being a member of a Government to which so much is entrusted, to which so much power is given and by which so much responsibility has to be shouldered; and also to assure him that in whatever I may be able to do, whether in my personal capacity or in my association with the Party, he can always count upon me to do everything I can to assist the Government, because I believe it will act in the real interests of the nation.
I have wished to make one or two observations upon the present situation merely for fear that there might be any misapprehension, especially having regard to what has been said by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Of course we are all agreed in desiring that the activities of the League of Nations should ge further forward and be strengthened. We most certainly hold the view that it is much to be desired that the tension at present existing between Japan and China may be eased, and that there may be a solution of at least some of the immediate problems when the Council of the League of Nations meets again on Monday next, at whatever place may be determined. As to the observation made with reference to foreign policy, and especially to the stress laid upon taking the initiative, I would remind the noble Lord, who has himself had experience of foreign affairs, that to press an initiative is sometimes not the quickest way of arriving at a solution, and that it may be far greater wisdom to sit back and let another country take the initiative, and then support it. I think that what fell from the Leader of the House in this respect is absolutely correct—namely, that we should take the initiative when we can best serve the world's interests by it, and should not hesitate to do it even if it

33
required courage, but certainly should cot press ourselves too far forward and appear to be pressing for initiative when it is at the moment undesirable.
I will only add one other observation with regard to foreign affairs, and that is because I had the opportunity of observing at close hand. The response of the country to the appeal that was made to it by the Government has greatly impressed foreign Powers, to an extent which I believe it would be difficult indeed to imagine anything could possibly impress other nations. They are amazed. I believe that the true reason for the response of the electorate—overwhelming, far beyond the imagination, I think, of the greatest optimist who ever appealed to the country—is that the country had come to the conclusion, whether Conservative, Liberal or Labour, that there was too much Party recrimination and Party consideration in our political affairs, and that it, was necessary that we should attend to what was in truth the national interest—that we should at once discard altogether the idea that what we were going to do was going to serve the Party, and merely pay our attention to what was best in the interests of the nation. The appeal of the Prime Minister for support and confidence in carrying out a mandate designed for that purpose received a support which was overwhelming, and which, I believe, in the future will always redound to the highest credit of the electorate of this country.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, may I say one word, not of criticism of the Government but, adopting a phrase presented to us by the Leader of the House, in sympathetic stimulation. There is one question of very vital importance which was only touched upon slightly by the Leader of the House, and that is as to what action the Government propose to take in reference to the enormous influx of foreign goods into this land. I know that the whole question of whether there should be tariffs or not is one which is to be examined, and which must be examined, by the Government. I know, of course, of the speeches made by the Leader of the Conservative Party, and of his Manifesto, and I think I may say without want of respect that I know of the speeches made by my noble friend the Leader of the
34
Opposition with reference to dealing in the future with the question of tariffs; but this question of dealing with the balance of trade is really a very immediate one.
The Leader of the Opposition undoubtedly tried to assume, and asked us to assume, that there was very little in this matter. He belittled the question of the excess of imports. I suggest to him, and if I may also to the Government, that one of the main causes of the difficulty in which the nation finds itself has been the steady and persistent increase on the wrong side of the balance of trade. If we had been able to continue the balance of trade, which was at one time £200,000,000 in our favour, we should not have got into the difficult position in which the Socialist Government found itself. While my old colleagues in the previous Government attempted, and I hope successfully, to balance our Budget, we are still in the difficulty of having to balance our trade, which is far more important than balancing the Budget. Balancing the Budget may be done by economy or clapping on extra taxation. That is simple, provided the taxation is realised in the course of the year, but it is very doubtful, unless you get the balance of trade right, whether the taxation which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer put before the House will really realise the amount expected, and which we hope it will realise.
There is undoubtedly a far greater influx of foreign goods at the moment than there usually is or has been at any time during the last few years. These are facts which I think cannot be controverted, and if we are to assume it is the case that the Government must be allowed reasonable time in which to bring in their main legislation—probably it will not be until the House meets again next year—during the intervening three or four months there will be, unless something is done, week by week £2,000,000 added to the adverse balance of trade which we now have. I am bound to suggest, and I do suggest, to my noble and learned friend, that unless the Government intend to take steps to deal with it promptly (and there was something in his speech which led me to hope that they do intend to take steps promptly), to bring in some form of legislation, and

35
not wait until investigation has been made into tariffs—whether by prohibition in certain cases as Mr. Runciman suggested, or by licensing, such as was done during the War, or by a temporary tariff—unless some method is adopted which will restore the balance of trade or make it equal, the Government will have the overhanging menace of this adverse balance upon their shoulders while they are making up their minds.
I have endeavoured to get some information on this point. The Federation of British Industries has provided me with the latest information that they have been able to obtain from those who are engaged in the commerce of this country. There is no doubt whatever that steel which could be made in this country is to-day, if I may use a colloquial expression, being shovelled into our ports from Belgium and Germany. Shipments which usually at this time of the year come in boats with a cargo of about 1,000 tons are now coming in boats with a cargo of from 5,000 to 7,000 tons. Not only is that taking place in South Wales, but there is a large import in London, going through to the Midlands, all of which could be manufactured in our own country and which, if it were so manufactured, would restore to a very large extent the balance of trade which is now adverse, and about which I at least, and, I hope, His Majesty's Government also, are really anxious.
May I give one or two figures? The imports of foreign steel in August of this year were 43,000 tons. In September they were 53,000 tons. In October, when foreign nations began to realise that a change must inevitably take place in the fiscal policy of this country, they rose to 83,000 tons. The noble Lord who leads the Opposition surely cannot say that there is nothing in those figures which need cause alarm. Taking some other trades, in silk fabrics there was an increase in September of this year, as against September of last year, of 36½ per cent.; in artificial silk tissues, of 22 per cent.; and in artificial silk hosiery of no less than 60 per cent. I could also give many other figures, rising in the case of woollen underwear to an increase of 189 per cent, compared with the ordinary importation of previous years. Wherever one looks one finds that these figures are such as to cause the very gravest anxiety,
36
not merely in the commercial world—I have no interest whatever in manufacture or the commercial world myself—but in the financial world. The commercial question can be dealt with in the future undoubtedly, but at the moment it is the financial question in regard to which I desire sympathetically to stimulate my noble friend and the Government.
I have been a disciple of my noble friend and have worked with him in the cause for many years past. I look upon him, naturally, as my leader now, but I always have looked upon him as one who was not merely my colleague but my leader, and I cannot but realise that he must have the same views as I have, the same sense of anxiety, and the same desire to remedy the position that I have. I only desire therefore to ask him whether, knowing his great power in the Cabinet, he will make it his duty at the earliest possible moment to bring this matter before the Government, and not to allow the country to wait until the fuller and further investigation, which, I agree, must take place, is entered upon, but at once, if these facts which I have given are correct, and if there is still this grave adverse balance of trade of something like £2,000,000 a week—an adverse balance which must do harm to the balance of our Budget, and to the position of the pound sterling—to take their courage in both hands and bring forward in this House, or possibly in another place, the requisite legislation to deal with this matter by one or other of the methods which I have indicated.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, while acknowledging to the full that in the gracious Speech from the Throne His Majesty's Government have reserved to themselves the fullest power to deal with all matters that affect the balance of trade, I do regret, and regret very deeply, that it has not been found possible to include in the gracious Speech some specific reference to the mighty agrarian problem with which this country is faced at the present time. I regret it for a very special reason. I regret it because it would have been relatively easy in the gracious Speech to have sown that seed of hope which, swelling into confidence, is the only thing to-day which will prevent the dying embers of our greatest industry from expiring altogether. We all of us know

37
that hope, swelling into confidence, is the first step to revived prosperity, and in agriculture to-day confidence and a revival of prosperity are more urgent than they have ever been in the memory of the oldest man in this country.
Although I have expressed my deep regret for the reasons given, I do not allow myself to suppose for one moment that His Majesty's Government are likely to be unmindful of the problem to which reference has been made. On the contrary, I have every expectation that plans are already being discussed for dealing with this tremendous problem. And I am greatly encouraged by my recollection of the great interest and zeal which the noble and learned Viscount who, I am proud to know, is now the Leader of your Lordships' House, took in the many agricultural measures which were brought before your Lordships at the latter end of the last Parliament. To any noble Lord interested in agriculture that circumstance is certainly one of great encouragement, for his powerful voice in the Cabinet, I feel certain, will always be on the side of those who are advocating consideration of agricultural problems.
But I wonder whether, even now, the country as a whole realises how intense those problems are throughout Eastern England. We are at the beginning of the blackest winter that arable agriculture has ever known. We are now faced with what has been known to be coming for some time—we are faced with thousands of acres of derelict land, for which it is impossible to obtain any tenants, and from which it has been necessary to discharge the whole of the labour. Although I speak without knowledge of Yorkshire, I believe that far north of East Anglia the same conditions prevail, and also south of it. In all those villages able-bodied men are standing idle, with no prospect of re-employment. And, whereas it is possible to close a factory to-day and open it again in a month's time without much harm having resulted, it is impossible for a farm to go out of cultivation for months and thereafter to be brought back again into production, in the same way that you can switch on the power and start the wheels in a factory.
38
What is really happening, and has happened, to our agriculture is catastrophic, and the day I think is perhaps coming when it will not be so much, for the country to save the farmers, as for farmers Lo be asked to save the country. What is to happen when there are none, and how is the balance of trade to be brought into a favourable position if those who are now in agriculture are allowed to drop out of it, and there are none to take their place? The discouragement which they have received over long terms of years cannot be easily forgotton. It cannot be easily made good. That discouragement has been grave in the extreme. It has now reached its climax. What the country most fervently desires and requires is that greater and ever greater home production should prevail, enabling us thereby to reduce the tremendous commitments we have entered upon and the tremendous purchases that we make from abroad. How, then, will it be if the agriculturists who have been capable hitherto of that production no longer exist?
There is the gravest risk of the whole of the corn-producing areas of England becoming derelict and depopulated. No man now remaining, whether he be landowner or farmer, has any longer the means with which to carry on his hopeless enterprise. It is impossible to use terms which are too exaggerated, there is no possibility of exaggerating; the situation is one to which language is hardly capable of giving full expression. In such a situation as this I beg and implore His Majesty's Government, while not for one instant neglecting others of the immense problems with which they are faced—I do not wish to suggest to them that there are not other problems which, demand their immediate attention; of course, there are-not to allow a moment to pass without investigating and probing to the depths the needs of agriculture in England, and taking steps to save it before it is too late. I apologise for venturing to intrude upon this special occasion, but I do not think that Parliament should grow one day older than the day of its opening before the urgency of this particular problem is brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government. It was for that reason that I rose to address your Lordships, and I thank you for having given me the opportunity.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente, and Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The EARL OF ONSLOW appointed nemine dissentiente to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
Committee for Privileges—Appointed.
Committee for the Journals—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.
Appeal Committee—Appointed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House when it is proposed that your Lordships shall meet again?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for asking that Question. As he knows, they are not quite so expeditious in another place in dealing with the Address as we are accustomed to be here. I do not think that there is any business which is likely to occupy your Lordships' time during the present week and, therefore, if your Lordships thought it convenient, I would suggest that we adjourn until this day next week.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock until Tuesday next, a quarter past four o'clock.

BERKHAMPSTEAD GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Berkhampstead Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

GLOUCESTER GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Gloucester Gaslight Company.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CANNOCK AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Cannock Hednesford and District Gas Company, Limited:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

RHYL GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Rhyl Urban District Council:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SKEGNESS GAS ORDER, 1931.
Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Urban District Council of Skegness:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WANTAGE GAS ORDER, 1931.
Draft of a Special Order proposed to lie made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Wantage Urban District Council:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

NEWQUAY (CORNWALL) GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Newquay (Cornwall) Gas Company, Limited:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ALDERSHOT DISTRICT ELEC TRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1931.
Special Order in respect of parts of the rural districts of Alton and Peters-field in. the County of Southampton and parts of the rural districts of East Preston and Westhampnett in the Administrative County of West Sussex:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BLACKPOOL ELECTRICITY (EX TENSION) ORDER, 1931.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Fylde in the County Palatine of Lancaster:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

CREDITON ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.
Special Order for the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Crediton Electricity Special Order, 1925:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

GLOUCESTER GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1931.
Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Gloucester Gaslight Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HORNSEY GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Hornsey Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

LUTON GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Luton Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

EGREMONT AND CLEATOR MOOR ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
Special Order in respect of the rural district of Bootle and part of the rural district of Whitehaven in the County of Cumberland:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

NORTH WANSBECK ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Morpeth in the County of Northumberland:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

OSWESTRY ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) ORDER, 1931.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Oswestry in the County of Salop and part of the rural district of Llanfyllin in the County of Montgomery:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and referred to the Special Orders Committee.