Sitting of 29 February 1932

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For County of Dumbarton, in the room of Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb Thom, D.S.O., M.C. (Manor of Northstead).— [.Captain Margesson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    GOLD (EXPORT).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to give publicity in India to the fact that gold may now be realised at advantageous prices, with a view to stimulating the flow of gold from India?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The fact referred to has already received wide publicity in India. I do not consider that any Government action is required.
    Captain MACDONALD: Has there been any response to it?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes. I think £36,000,000 has been exported from there recently.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the approximate amount of gold that is stowed away in India?
    Sir S. HOARE: No. I have seen it estimated to be somewhere between £500,000,000 and £600,000,000, but that is quite a guess, as there are no adequate statistics on which to base it.

    CONFERENCE COMMITTEES.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement as to the doings of the Round Table Conference Committees now in India and what progress they are making?
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not think any useful purpose would be served, even if I had full material, by attempting to place on record a detailed statement of the progress from time to time of these committees' inquiries. I could supply my hon. and gallant Friend with a copy of the published questionnaire upon which the Franchise Committee are working; their activities are directed in the main to collecting such information as they can on the points raised in this document at each provincial centre which they visit. The financial investigations of the other two committees could hardly be tabulated.

    MIDNAPORE GAOL (ESCAPED PRISONERS).
    Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Secretary of State for India whether the three dangerous criminals who escaped from Midnapore Gaol on 13th February have yet been recaptured?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: In view of the fact that other prisoners have escaped from gaol, are the Government of India taking steps to see that their prisoners are properly looked after?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, I feel sure that they are.

    WORKING-CLASS ORGANISATIONS.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the organisation of peasants and workers is proscribed in India; what is the reason for this prohibition of working-class organisation; and whether any other workers' organisations, and how many, are similarly proscribed?
    Sir S. HOARE: There are many branches of the workers' and peasants' organisation all over India. If the hon. Member can supply me with details of any particular proscription, I will endeavour to answer his question. I can, however, assure him that if any working-class organisations have been proscribed, the reason is that they have taken an active part in the Congress campaign.

    SITUATION.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House the latest information he has as to the political situation in India?
    Mr. PRICEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will give information concerning the present political situation in India?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am circulating a statement covering the events of the last week.
    Following is the statement:
    The provincial reports are satisfactory and show no tendency anywhere for activities to increase, while in several provinces definite improvement has occurred, for instance in Bihar and Orissa, the United Provinces, Assam, the Central Provinces and the North-West Frontier Province. Particular evidence of this is the decrease in the number of convictions. Generally, the boycott is now the chief activity and attempts are being made in Bombay to extend it to banks. There is a growing interest in the new constitution which is being introduced in the North-West Frontier Province; the forthcoming elections are attracting much attention.

    KASHMIR.
    Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement as to the situation in Kashmir; and whether a British Prime Minister is to he appointed?
    Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary of State for India the present position in respect to the recent disturbed condition in Kashmir?
    Sir S. HOARE: The improvement in the situation to which I referred a week ago still continues, and no reports of recent disturbances have reached me. His Highness the Maharaja has appointed as his Prime Minister Lieut.-Colonel K J. D. Colvin, an officer of the Indian Political Department, whose services have been lent to the State at the Maharaja's request.

    BOMB EXPLOSION, NEW DELHI.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received from the Government of India a report of the attempt to blow up the special train in which the Under-Secretary of State for India and other members of the Round Table Committee were travelling from New Delhi to Agra on 5th February; and whether the report can be made public?
    Sir S. HOARE: My information is that a bomb exploded on the railway line in New Delhi on the night of the 15th January, its effect being merely to disturb the ballast. It was not until the next morning that the explosion was discovered, and as no marks were found on the train carrying the Franchise Committee which had passed the place during the night, it is uncertain whether the bomb was placed with the object of derailing that particular train.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether steps are being taken to make public that statement in order to confute the statement in the Press that a deliberate attempt had been made to destroy the train?
    Sir S. HOARE: I feel sure that my answer will receive publicity.

    DR. FORRESTER PATON.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for India the circumstances in which Dr. Forrester Paton, a Christian missionary, was beaten by the police in Madras, and subsequently arrested and charged under Ordinance V of 1932; whether he is aware that Dr. Paton denied the charge made against him; and whether, in view of the fact that the charge was subsequently withdrawn by the Government without leading any evidence, any disciplinary action is being taken against the police who were responsible for publicly beating Dr. Paton and lodging the charge against him?
    Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member for East Fife (Sir S. Duncan Millar) has already drawn my attention to this case. I am at present in communication with the Government of India about it.

    CHAMBER OF PRINCES.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India the names of the Indian States that are directly represented in the Chamber of Indian Princes?
    Sir S. HOARE: As there are 109 States the Rulers of which are members of the Chamber in their own right, I will circulate the list of names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list:
    LIST OF MEMBERS of the Chamber of Princes in their own right.
    Salutes of 21 Guns.

    Baroda, His Highness the Maharaja (Gaekwar) of.

    Gwalior, His Highness the Maharaja (Scindia) of.

    Hyderabad, His Exalted Highness the Nizam of.

    Jammu and Kashmir, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Mysore, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Salutes of 19 Guns.

    Bhopal, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Indere, His Highness the Maharaja (Holkar) of.

    Kolhapur, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Travancore, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Udaipur (Mewar), His Highness the Maharana of.

    Salutes of 17 Guns.

    Bahawalpur, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Bharatpur, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Bikaner, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Bundi, His Highness the Maharao Raja of.

    Cochin, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Cutch, His Highness the Maharao of.

    Jaipur, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Jodhpur (Marwar), His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Karauli, His Highness, the Maharaja of.

    Kotah, His Highness the Maharao of.

    Patiala, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Rewa, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Tonk, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Salutes of 15 Guns.

    Alwar, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Banswara, His Highness the Maharawal of.

    Datia, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Dewas (Senior Branch). His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Dewas (Junior Branch). His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Dhar, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Dholpur, His Highness the MaharajRana of.

    Dungarpur, His Highness the Maharawal of.

    Idar, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Jaiselmer, His Highness the Maharawal of.

    754

    Khairpur, His Highness the Mir of.

    Kishengarh, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Orchha, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Partabgarh, His Highness the Maharawal of.

    Rampur, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Sikkim, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Sirohi, His Highness the Maharao of.

    Salutes of 13 guns.

    Benares, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Bhavnagar, His Highness the Maharaj of.

    Coach Behar, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Dhrangadhra, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Tripura, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Jaora, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Jhalawar, His Highness the MaharajRana of.

    Jind, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Junagadh (or Junagarh), His Highness the Nawab of.

    Kapurthala, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Nabha, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Navanagar, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Palanpur, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Porbandar, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Rajpipla, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Ratlam, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Salutes of 11 guns.

    Ajaiganh, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Alirajpur, His Highness the Raja of.

    Baoni, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Barwani, His Highness the Rana of.

    Bijawar, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Bilaspur (Kahlur), His Highness the Raja of.

    Cambay, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Chamba, His Highness the Raja of.

    Charkihari, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Chhatarpur, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Faridkot, His Highness the Raja of.

    Gondal, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Janjira, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Jhabua, His Highness the Raja of.

    Maier Kotla, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Mandi, His Highness the Raja of.

    Manipur, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Morvi, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Narsingarh, His Highness the Raja of.

    Panna, His Highness the Maharaja of.

    755

    Puddukottai, His Highness the Raja of.

    Radhanpur, His Highness the Nawab of.

    Rajgarh, His Highness the Raja of.

    Sailana, His Highness the Raja of.

    Samthar, His Highness the Raja of.

    Sirmur (Nahan), His Highness the Maharaja of.

    Sitamau, His Highness the Raja of.

    Suket, His Highness the Raja of.

    Tehri (Garhwal), His Highness the Raja of.

    Vankaner (or Wankaner), His Highness the R.aj Saheb of.

    Salutes of nine Guns.

    Balasinor, The Nawab (Babi) of.

    Banganapalle, The Nawab of.

    Bansda, The Raja of.

    Bariya, The Raja of.

    Chhota Udepur (Mohan), The Raja of.

    Danta, The Maharana of.

    Dharampur, The Raja of.

    Dhrol, The Thakor Saheb of.

    Jawhar, The Raja of.

    Khilchipur, The Raja of.

    Limbdi (Limri), The Thakur Saheb of.

    Loharu, The Nawab of.

    Lunawada (or Lunawara), The Raja of.

    Maihar, The Raja of.

    Mayurbhanj, The Maharaja of.

    Mudhol, The Raja of.

    Palitana, The Thakor Saheb of.

    Rajkot, The Thakor Saheb of.

    Sachin, The Nawab of.

    Sangli, The Chief of.

    Savantwari, The Sar Desai of.

    Sant, The Raja of.

    Wadhwan, The Thakor Saheb of.

    BURMA.
    Mr. HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India the number of persons arrested and convicted of offences in connection with the rebellion in Burma since the outbreak of the present rebellion; and the number of those found guilty who have been sentenced to death or transportation for life?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have already asked for this information but have not yet received a reply.
    Mr. HICKS: When will that information be available?
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot give the exact date, but, I should think, very soon. I have asked by telegram for the information.

    PRESS ORDINANCE.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give particulars in regard to the daily and weekly newspapers against which action has been taken under those sections of the Ordinances relating to the Press?
    Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths) on the 8th February.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Since the 8th February have there not been many local and national newspapers censored?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, but. in that answer I told the hon. Member that I was obtaining the information for which he asked. I have not yet obtained it, but as soon as I have obtained it I will circulate it in the Votes or in answer to a question.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it takes so long to obtain official information when information is obtainable nowadays by air snail and other means to ordinary individuals?
    Sir S. HOARE: It must take some little time, whether by air mail or by telegram. Not only have I to consult the Government of India, but the Government of India have also to consult the provincial Governments.

    GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENTS.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for India whether Government advertisements are still appearing in newspapers which continue to preach the boycott of British goods and support the Congress organisation?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have no information. This is a matter which may, I think, safely be left to the discretion of the authorities concerned.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does not my right hon. Friend think it desirable that he should draw the attention of the Government of India to what may be an oversight, seeing that Government advertisements are appearing in papers that are definitely hostile to the whole Government policy?
    Sir S. HOARE: As far as I have been able to make any examination, I do not think that such advertisements have been

    757
    appearing recently. Anyhow, I will take into account the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to show him some.

    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a boy, Chandrakant N. Joshi, was charged under Bombay Ordinance V. of 1932 with picketing; that this boy is 14 years of age and was found guilty, and sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment and 12 cuts with a rattan cane; that this boy was bound on a triangle in the court room, stripped, and whipped with 12 cuts with the cane on his bare body; and under what law or ordinance this punishment was inflicted?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the Press, from which I gather that the boy was charged both under the Ordinance with molestation and under the ordinary law with disorderly behaviour, and was sentenced to one day's imprisonment on the first charge and to 12 stripes on the second, the Magistrate observing that he considered this the most suitable punishment. The whipping of juveniles is authorised by Section 5 of the Whipping Act, 1909.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Since the information that the right hon. Gentleman has received is merely the information that has appeared in the Press and is available to all other Members, will he make an official inquiry into the matter and find out the particulars?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have no reason to think that the information published in the Press is not. correct. The Press published an account of the case. I am quite ready to make further inquiry if the hon. Member wishes, but I do not think it will add anything to the information I have given already.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the inadequate information in the Press with regard to the bomb on the railway, might this not be just as wrong as that previous information? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make this inquiry.

    CORRESPONDENCE (CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state on whose authority and for what reason cables handed in at the Bombay Post Office by Miss Slade and Mahadev Desai between the 3rd and 7th January, and addressed to myself to the House of Commons, were refused by the postal authorities, the cause of delay in obtaining an explanation, and whether communications addressed to Members of the British House of Commons are still subject to censorship in India?
    Sir S. HOARE: Two cables, one from Miss Slade and one from Mahadev Desai, dated 7th January and 4th February respectively and addressed to the hon. Member, were withheld under the orders of the district magistrate, Ahmedabad. The Government of India have been unable to trace other cables addressed by Mahadev Desai to the hon. Member during January which have been held up. The action taken was taken under Section 5 (1) b of the Indian Telegraph Act, which authorises the detention of messages on the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety. No discrimination is being made in this matter between telegrams addressed to Members of Parliament and other telegrams The hon. Member first raised the question in this House on the 17th February, that is. 12 days ago. I had already initiated an inquiry, as a result of private correspondence with him. The inquiry, which was sent to India, forwarded copies of my correspondence, and went by air mail. The reply has been received in the form of telegrams which are of considerable length. In the circumstances, I do not consider that there has been any undue delay.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the reply that, although in theory India is governed by this House—[float. MEMBERS: "No!"]—Indian officials are to determine the information, such as it is, that Members of this House may obtain?
    Sir S. HOARE: My answer deals with that specific question. In this case, the authorities considered that the telegrams were to the public detriment. Not only were the telegrams addressed to the hon. Member, but identical telegrams were also

    759
    sent to several other persons in Europe and in America, obviously for the purpose of propaganda against the Government. In those circumstances, the authorities judged it right to have the telegrams censored.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The question I would like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is whether the correspondence of Members of this House is subject to censorship by an officer in India? I think it is begging the question to say that this House has no responsibility for the administration of India.
    Mr. SPEAKER: My reply to the right hon. Gentleman is that there is no distinction between messages sent to Members of this House or to anybody else.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Are we to understand that a Member of the British Parliament has no privilege in the (matter of getting information concerning events anywhere within the Empire, and that it depends on what the Secretary of State for India and his servants in India consider is good for us to know? [Horn. MEMBERS: "The King's servants!"] Well, the King's servants, then. The British people have to help pay for them, and this House controls. I do not want to drag in His Majesty's name, but this House is responsible, not His Majesty. The point I want to put to you is, that we have to judge these questions, and are we to understand that an official in India has it within his power to determine what information shall come to a Member of the British House of Commons?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not my business to determine what are the duties of the officials in India. All I can say on the matter is that Members of Parliament are not immune from any law which exists.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Members of this House have certain privileges, and one of them is that the constituents and the citizens of the Empire have a right to communicate with us. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] What I wish to ask you now is whether this matter can be referred to the Committee of Privileges? We consider that this is a breach of privilege. If you will permit me, I would like to put
    760
    the point once more, which is that an official, or the Secretary of State for India, claims the right to say what information shall be at the disposal of the Members of this House, and to ask that that question may be put to the Committee of Privileges.
    Sir S. HOARE: I suggest to you, Sir, if I may, that there is no privilege here at all. The action was taken by the authorities of the Government of India under Statute, and not under Ordinance at all. I would suggest to you that no distinction can be drawn between one addressee and another; otherwise, it will be possible in a period of emergency to disclose, for instance, information of military importance during a war, or during military operations.
    Mr. LANSBURY: On that point, may I say that this telegram was addressed to the House of Commons and to a Member of the House of Commons, and I think that in common fairness the right hon. Gentleman should read it—[Interruption]. I have had a copy; I can publish it at any moment; the right hon. Gentleman is making a great secret of it, as if it were some terrible document. I say again that the Committee of Privileges should consider whether in this matter the privileges of the House of Commons have not been interfered with.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not a fact that this House has never claimed any special privilege in the matter of correspondence, but has always recognised that its Members were subject to the same rules as apply to citizens of this country in general?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have looked into this matter to some extent, and I cannot find that any Member has ever claimed any special privilege. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) as to the Committee of Privileges, it is for the House to decide whether any question should go to the Committee of Privileges.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the case that hon. Members have, not only privileges, but obligations, not to ask provocative questions?
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance as to the way

    761
    in which I can raise this question? I understand you to say that the question whether it should go to the Committee of Privileges must be decided by the House. How can that be done?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: May I submit to you, Sir, that the matter should not be raised as, in the ordinary Parliamentary phrase, a matter of Privilege, because no such privilege exists?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand, Sir, from the statement that you have made, and from the proposition of the Secretary of State for India, that Members of this House have no privilege with regard to correspondence, but that all their correspondence may be censored, and that we shall be exclusively in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, or of his servants in India, as regards determining what information we may obtain? If that be the case, how can it be expected that we can apply ourselves to any such problem as the one that may exist in India at this moment?
    Sir S. HOARE: Before you answer that question, Sir, may I point out to you that no precedent is being created? The Government of India have been acting under the law of the land that has been in operation for many years. The position to-day is exactly what it has been for 20 years.
    Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the questions put to me, I can only repeat what I have already said, namely, that Members of Parliament are no different from anybody else as regards being subject to the law that exists. If the law says, in any Section of any Act of Parliament, that correspondence can be interfered with, a Member of Parliament, as a Member of Parliament, has no privilege over any other person.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that in this case a resident magistrate in India has the right himself to decide what shall or shall not be the information that shall go through to a Member of the House of Commons, and have we no redress?
    Mr. SPEAKER: As I said before, it is not for me to determine the matter; it is only for me to say whether the rights of Members of Parliament have been interfered with.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I am putting this to you, Sir, as the reason why a Motion of some kind—if not a Motion of Privilege, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has pointed out cannot be allowed, a Motion of some other kind—should be put down. Can you advise on that point?
    Mr. SPEAKER: All that I can say on that matter is that in this case it is quite clear that no question of Privilege arises. If the right hon. Gentleman likes to put down a Motion that this matter be discussed in the House of Commons, it is entirely for the Leader of the House to say whether he can give time for that Motion or not.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I presume that it is possible for this House, if it decides that there is Privilege, to create that Privilege, even if it does not exist at the present time—that we are the supreme arbiters.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House can do anything.

  CHILE AND MEXICO (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the British investors in Mexican Government securities have received nothing as the result of assistance from the international committee of hankers in respect of Mexican Government obligations, Which have now been in default for 18 years; and what steps he proposes to take with the Mexican Government on behalf of British investors, as the international committee has thus far failed to help them?
  Mr. EDEN: As I stated to my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 8th of February, the International Committee of Bankers on Mexico have, during the past 10 years, received sums amounting, with accrued interest, to approximately $45,00,000, of which approximately $5,000,000 were retained for expenses. My Noble Friend is incorrect in stating that British investors have received nothing as the result of assistance from the International Committee of Bankers, for understand that under the agreements of

  763
  1922 and 1925 the Committee made certain distributions, the details of which were duly announced at the time. British bondholders then received payment on exactly the same terms as holders of other interested nationalities.
  With regard to the second part of this question, I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) on the same day, in which attention was drawn to the new agreement between the Mexican Government and the International Committee of Bankers which was concluded on the 22nd of December last and which has been approved by both Houses of the Mexican Congress. In the light of this agreement, which covers the interest of British bondholders and under which payments are to be resumed on the 1st of January, 1934, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by addressing representations to the Mexican Government at the present stage on behalf of British investors alone.
  Lord SCONE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the so-called international committee consists exclusively of American bankers, whose interests are very different from those of the British bondholders whom they are supposed to represent; and further that this committee ceased to have any power, after the 1st July, 1928, to negotiate with the Mexican Government; and, in that case, will he take steps to have a new committee set up more truly representative of British interests?
  Mr. EDEN: No. I have no reason to suppose that individual representations by the British Government would have any more effective result for the British bondholders than the representations of this international committee.
  Mr. SMITHERS: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House how much is available for distribution, what steps the Government are taking to get the amount distributed, and why such a large amount is put down as expenses?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should put down that question.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE(for Vice-Admiral TAYLOR) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is
  764
  now in a position to state whether the Government of Chile has made arrangements to terminate its default upon its obligations to British investors, or what other proposals that Government has made and with whom?
  Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. So far as I am aware, no proposals with a view to the termination of the default have been made by the Chilean Government.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is proposed to recognise the new republic of Manchuria?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): No request for recognition has so far been made, and the question, therefore, does not now arise.
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many years Japan and China have been members of the League of Nations; what is the total quota of contributions towards the expenses of the League for which each country is liable; and how much of that total sum each country has paid?
  Mr. EDEN: Both China and Japan were original signatories of the Versailles Treaty and have been members of the League of Nations since its inception. The totals of their respective contributions due towards League expenses up to the end of 1931 were approximately: China 14,900,000 gold francs, and Japan 17,200,000 gold francs. Japan's contributions have all been paid. Between 1922 and 1930 China's payments became 9,708,917 gold francs in arrear, and by a decision of the 11th Assembly this amount is payable by equal instalments over a period of 20 years. The sum of 481,121 gold francs has been paid leaving 9,227,796 gold francs still outstanding. In respect of 1931 expenses, China's contribution was fixed at 1,438,861 gold francs, and the sum of 719,428 gold francs has been paid on account. China's total indebtedness to the League in respect of expenses is thus 9,947,229 gold francs.
  Sir A. KNOX: Does a country which has not paid subscriptions exercise full rights of admission to the League?
  Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Are these transitional benefits?
  Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: What was the last year in which China paid a contribution?
  Mr. EDEN: She paid half of her contribution for 1931.
  Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the situation in Shanghai; and with respect to proposals for a truce?
  Mr. EDEN: There has been little change in the military position at Shanghai in the last few days, except that the Chinese have evacuated Kiang-wan village. A communication has been received from the Japanese Government containing suggestions as to the manner in which the present situation might be brought to an end, and Chinese and Japanese representatives have met at Shanghai to discuss the position. I am not able at present to give any details, but the situation appears to be more hopeful, and I trust it may be possible to give further information within the next few days.

  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.
  Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of domestic servants with diplomatic immunity attached to the Embassies or Legations in London of the following Powers: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, Belgium, Norway, and Sweden?
  Mr. EDEN: According to a list recently furnished by the Soviet Ambassador, the number of servants employed by the Embassy is 16. No similar lists have lately been received from the other missions specified by my hon. Friend, but the information available, while it does not enable me to give exact numbers, indicates that in the case of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium, the figures are much the same as in that of the Soviet Union, and in the case of Norway and Sweden about one-half.
  Sir A. KNOX: Do all these Embassies enjoy diplomatic immunity for their servents?
  Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir, to a certain extent, but the detailed figures are seldom in our hands, because the personnel is somewhat fluctuating.
  Mr. SMITHERS: Can my hon. Friend say what steps are taken to ensure that domestic servants are employed as domestic servants and not as propagandists?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE,

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any action has yet been taken by him to implement the recommendation made in the report of the Committee on the Fishing Industry that his Department should co-operate with the English and Scottish Fisheries Departments with a view to taking advantage of the potential markets for dried fish and fish meal in Africa and the East?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The Department of Overseas Trade will be most ready to co-operate to the fullest possible extent with the Departments concerned.

    BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will make a statement in respect of the results achieved during the first week of the British Industries Fair?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am glad to be able to state that, so far as my information goes, the first week of the British Industries Fair in London and Birmingham has been outstandingly successful. Attendances of overseas buyers, of home buyers, and of the public are all substantially larger than in any previous year. Reports from exhibitors, while naturally incomplete at this early stage, indicate that valuable orders have been received both from the home and for the overseas markets.
    Mr. HACKING: Arising out of the very satisfactory answer, is not the presence of so many overseas buyers at

    767
    the British Industries Fair a clear indication that the export trade of this country is not likely to suffer as a result of the fiscal changes?
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can give the House any information as to the results of the British Industries Fair in London and Birmingham; the number of visitors to each section; and the approximate volume of orders placed?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: For the reply to the first part of this question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking). Full particulars of the total attendances will be announced at a later date. It is not possible to estimate the value of the orders already placed, but my hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement on this question after the conclusion of the Fair.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number of foreign and Colonial visitors to whom passes have been issued to visit the British Industries Fair at London and Birmingham?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Cards of invitation were issued in advance of the Fair to approximately 60,000 buyers in all parts of the world.

    EXPORT CREDITS.
    Mr. LAWSON(for Mr. LUNN) asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number of applications for guarantees which have been approved under the Export Credits Scheme since 1st November, 193]; the amount involved in such approved guarantees; and the countries where the exports are meant to go?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As many applications for guarantees under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme involve duplication, the most useful figures relate to contracts definitely concluded between the Department and the exporters. From 1st November to 27th February such contracts numbered 997 and covered exports to the value of £3,767,671. As there were 45 countries to which goods might be exported under these contracts a list is being forwarded to the hon. Member.

  AGRICULTURE.

    WHEAT PRODUCTION.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Agriculture what was the wheat acreage and the estimated amount of wheat available for milling purposes produced in Great Britain for the cereal year 1930–31; and what increased acreage would be necessary to produce the equivalent of 6,000,000 qrs. for which a subsidy is to be provided by the Wheat Bill?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The latest figures of acreage and production relate to the cereal year 1931–32, and, with my right hon. Friend's permission, I will give the available particulars in respect of that year. The area of wheat in Great Britain was 1,247,000 acres and the production 4,482,000 qrs. (504 lbs.). In addition 3,000 acres, producing 13,000 qrs., were grown in Northern Ireland. No estimate has been made of the proportion of the crop of any individual year that was of millable quality. The quantity of 6,000,000 qrs. (27,000,000 cwts.) referred to in the Wheat Bill represents 85 per cent. of the average total crop, including seed and non-millable wheat, on about 1,800,000 acres of wheat. This area is 550,000 acres more than the total area under wheat in the United Kingdom in 1931.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture what quantity of wheat of millable quality was produced in this country during the last cereal year for which figures are available; and what proportion was used for bread making and feeding stuffs, respectively?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No statistics are available as to the amount of wheat of millable quality produced in this country in any given year. It has been estimated, however, that on the average of the four years, 1924–1927, about 65 per cent. of the crop in Great Britain, which during those years averaged 6,300,000 qrs. (504 lbs.), was used for milling into flour for all purposes. This percentage does not purport, however, to represent the total supply of home-grown millable wheat, a substantial quantity of which is also used for feed and for seed.

    BACON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture when his plans in

    769
    regard to the bacon industry were communicated to oversea, producers; and whether such plans have been divulged to Home producers.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to his question on the 17th February, the preparation of a scheme for the re-organisation of the bacon industry is to be undertaken forthwith. I have had no communication with oversea producers on the matter.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether officials of his Department have been in communication with oversea producers, and is he not aware that some of the English producers of bacon are making charges against the Department that Continental producers have been notified while home producers are not aware of the scheme?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. There is no ground for such a statement.

  POST OFFICE.

    POSTAGE STAMPS (PRINTING).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSONasked the Postmaster-General what saving in expenditure is anticipated by printing postage stamps at the Stationery Office instead of by contract; and whether, in estimating any economy, he is allowing for the cost of enlarging or altering the printing works at Harrow.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Postmaster-General what has been the contract price for the manufacture of postage stamps during recent years; what is the anticipated cost of their production by the Stationery Office; and whether, before considering abandoning the system of private contract for this work, he will ascertain whether it is possible to obtain a private contract at lower rates than those now in existence.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): It would not be in the public interest to disclose the prices paid under Government contracts. For the rest, I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 25th February to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Can my right hon. Friend say whether a substantial saving has been effected by this new procedure?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. There is no new procedure. The question was directed as to whether the Stationery Office was about to proceed with the printing of British postage stamps, and the answer was given that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not propose to proceed in that way.

    POSTMEN.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Postmaster-General what is the average annual number of vacancies for postmen; and what proportion of these are filled by men who have served in the regular Army or Navy?
    Sir K. WOOD: The average annual number of postmen and porter vacancies during recent years has been about 3,000. Half of these are assigned to ex-service men; and the great majority of the ex-service men appointed are ex-Regulars.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is there any reason why all these vacancies should not go to ex-service men?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I think that there is. I think that ex-service men themselves would recognise that provision must be made for the boy messengers in the service; otherwise, those boys would be embarking upon what may be called a blind-alley occupation.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many boy messengers of 19 or over are still waiting for posts?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that that matter does not arise out of the question.
    Colonel CROOKSHANK: Are ex-service men only taken to include men who have served in the late War, or does it include time-expired soldiers, who have appealed to me to be considered as such also?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. It is not confined in that way. There are ex-Regulars with war service, what are called hostilities-only-men, and ex-Regulars who enlisted after the Armistice.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether there are any auxiliary postmen who served in the late War who are still waiting?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is also a matter which does not arise out of the question.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE, LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the Postmaster-General the number of telephones in the Liverpool district in 1912 and 1931?
    Sir K. WOOD: The number of telephones connected with exchanges situated in the county borough of Liverpool was 19,042 in 1912 and 41,098 in 1931.

    WIRELESS LICENCES.
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Postmaster-General the number of wireless licences taken out during 1931; and the number of stations traced without licences, together with the number of prosecutions and the total amount of fines?
    Sir K. WOOD: The number of wireless licences taken out during the year 1931 was 4,329,170. No record is available of the number of unlicensed wireless stations traced during the year. The number of prosecutions undertaken was 1,042, and the total amount of the fines imposed was £1,933, in addition to costs amounting to about £240.
    Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS: In view of the large number of licences now being taken out, will the right hon. Gentleman consider not enforcing the recommendations of the May Committee with regard to the Broadcasting Corporation?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter altogether.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLST(for Mr. HALL-CAINE) asked the Postmaster-General whether, as a result of the recent campaign against unlicensed wireless owners, he can state the results to date of the campaign which has been undertaken?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is difficult to estimate precisely the number of additional wireless licences taken out as a result of the detector van campaign which commenced in October last. Comparing, however, the total number of licences in force on
    772
    the 30th September last and on 31st January, there has been an increase of about 544,000. The greater part of this increase may fairly be regarded as directly or indirectly attributable to the campaign, although I am unable to say the precise proportion.

    SAVINGS BANK TRANSACTIONS (GOLD COINS).
    Captain ERSKINE BOLST(for Mr. HALL-CAINE) asked the Postmaster-General if he can make any statement as to the extent to which the advice of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to possessors of gold coins to pay them into Post Office Savings Banks has been adopted during the past fortnight; and whether any steps have been taken by his Department with a view to encouraging this action?
    Sir K. WOOD: The amount of gold coin received at post offices is very small and no separate record is kept of the amount paid into Savings Bank accounts. A slight increase has been observed during the last fortnight. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer received considerable publicity, and in these circumstances I do not think any further steps by the Post Office would be likely to result in a greater increase.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: In view of the fact that some people are not quite sure whether it is patriotic to sell their gold sovereigns, would it not be to the advantage of the State if the Postmaster-General were to announce definitely that people should sell their sovereigns and invest the money in British Government securities?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is a matter which must be left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of the profit that the buyers of gold are making?
    Sir K. WOOD: That raises quite a different question.

  OFFICIAL DESIGNATION ("BRITISH").
  45. The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel MOORE:
  "To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of using the

  773
  term British instead of English in all official statements involving matters which affect the common interests of England, Scotland, and Wales?"
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I wish to raise a point of Order and to ask for your guidance. When I handed in this question at the Table last Thursday it referred only to Scotland and England, as I was satisfied that there were sufficient voluble spokesmen for Wales in the House; but that view was evidently not shared by the Clerks at the Table, who have added "Wales" May I now have your permission to make another addition, Northern Ireland, and so get a complete answer?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon, and gallant Member had better put down another question.
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but so far as I am aware it is the custom to use the term British in such statements.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Would my right hon. Friend pass on his feelings in the matter to his colleagues, who have been guilty in wireless and other statements of referring to English produce?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that I can add to my statement.
  Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also recommend to the Members of this House that when they are speaking in this House and referring to British affairs they should use the term "British" and not say English?

  SCOTLAND (LOCAL GOVERNMENT).
  Mr. McGOVERNasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill at an early date to give Home Rule to Scotland?
  Mr. BALDWIN: No, Sir.

  BRITISH NATIONALS (FOREIGN DEBTS).
  Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether a day can be granted to discuss the repudiation of debts due to British nationals by Soviet Russia and other countries?
  Mr. BALDWIN: No, Sir; I can see no advantage to be gained from such a discussion at the present time.
  Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is a bad thing that private nationals should be deprived of their money when large loans have been made to Soviet Russia?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I entirely concur with my hon. and gallant Friend, but I cannot see that a Debate in this House would further matters.
  Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Then may I bring a deputation to see the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I would rather they went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (REPAIRS).
  Mr. McGOVERNasked the First Commissioner of Works what is the estimated cost of repairing and replacing the outside stonework of the Houses of Parliament and the number of men employed; and in what length of time it is expected to carry out the work?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The estimated total cost is £750,000: the number of men employed varies from 100 to 130: work has been in progress for three and a-half years and will continue, at approximately the present rate, for another nine or 10 years.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the fact that no information is given by the officials of Employment Exchanges to the officials of public assistance committees as to cases which have been referred to the courts of referees and the handicap which has been placed on the work of the latter bodies by this neglect; and if he will give instructions to the officials of the Employment Exchanges that the fullest information shall be given to the officials of the public assistance committees?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): It is, of course, my

    775
    desire that the fullest possible information should be given to the public assistance committees. If my hon. Friend will let me know in what respect he considers the existing procedure to be defective I will gladly look into the matter.

    ANOMALIES REGULATIONS (CHESTERFIELD).
    Mr. CONANTasked the Minister of Labour the number of married women who have been refused benefit, under the anomalies regulations, at the Chesterfield Employment Exchange; and the number of married women who have ceased to register for work since their benefits were refused?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Up to 30th January, 1932, 544 claims by married women were disallowed by the Chesterfield Court of Referees, under the Anomalies Regulations, Class (d). As regards the second part of the question the numbers of married women on the register of the Chesterfield Employment Exchange were 496 on 19th October and 98 on 25th January, but I cannot tell how far this drop was due to disallowance of benefit and how far to other causes.

    JARROW.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of persons in Jarrow-on-Tyne that have been unemployed for five years or more; and what steps are being taken to provide employment in that town?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available. As to the second part of the question, the only effectual way to provide employment is by a revival in trade, and the Government are bending all their efforts in this direction.

    WORK SCHEMES.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Minister of Labour whether any schemes of work for the unemployed have been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee during this year and, if so, the total amount of money involved in such schemes?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: In accordance with the arrangements made by the late Government for work schemes for the present winter, such schemes had to be actively commenced by 31st December in order to be available for grant. Under
    776
    these arrangements, no schemes could have been approved since 1st January, but, as stated in my reply of 26th November to the hon. Member, I extended the date for commencement to 31st January, in certain special classes of cases, and this resulted in the approval since 1st January of 18 schemes, at a total estimated cost of about £170,000.
    Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men will be employed?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member had better put that question down.
    Mr. HICKS: May I ask if it is true that the Unemployment Grants Committee have been asked to go very slowly in any further grants in this direction?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I dealt with that matter very fully in my speech about 10 clays ago, and I am afraid that I can add nothing further to what I said on that occasion.

  TANGANYIKA (CRIMINAL TRIALS).
  Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in connection with the murder of a man living on a farm at Arusha, Tanganyika, a person was arrested on 5th March but was not tried at Arusha until 3rd September; that two other alleged murderers were tried by the same court who had been kept awaiting trial for seven and eight months, respectively; and whether he proposes to take stem to expedite the hearing of such cases?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Robert Hamilton): My right hon. Friend has received no information on the cases mentioned, but will make inquiries.

  DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN.
  Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for War the number of persons who were blinded and driven insane as a result of service in the late War, and the numbers who lost either an arm or a leg or both arms or both legs?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have been asked to reply. The approximate numbers of pensioners in the

  777
  categories mentioned at the end of 1931 were as follow: Cases of total blindness, 975; of mental disorder in mental hospitals, 6,300; and cases of amputation of a leg or arm, or of both arms or both legs, 34,500.

  BEER DUTY.
  55. The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Colonel GRETTON:
  "To ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can give the excise figures of the number of barrels brewed in the month of January, 1932, and the amount of beer duty collected; and can he also give the number of bulk barrels brewed in the same month?"
  Colonel GRETTON: This question has already been answered by a Written Answer last Thursday.

  ELECTRIC CABLES (COST).
  Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Transport whether he will state the cost per 100 yards of placing electric cables underground and of placing the same cables overland in rural areas; and what proportion of cables have at present been laid underground?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): As the information which the hon. Member desires contains a number of figures, I will, with his permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  It is only possible to give approximate figures as the relative costs depend upon a number of factors such as the market price of copper and lead for underground cables and of the materials used for overhead line conductors; the voltage and current-carrying capacity for which the cables and lines are intended; the nature of the rural roads in which the cables are laid and hence the cost of excavation and reinstatement; and the span and hence the number of poles per mile in the case of overhead lines.
  An analysis of the returns of over 200 authorised undertakers who were supplying in rural areas at the end of March, 1930, showed that the average expendi-
  778
  ture incurred up to that date on high tension systems in general was upwards of £1,000 per mile for overhead lines as compared with over £1,600 in the case of underground mains, a difference of over 60 per cent. The expenditure in the case of low tension systems in general was upwards of £560 per mile on overhead lines as compared with upwards of £1,100 on underground mains, a difference of about 100 per cent.
  Since that date there has been a substantial fall in the price of materials and an alteration in the relative costs, particularly in the case of low tension systems. Estimates at the present time indicate that the approximate costs per 100 yards now range between the following figures:

  Voltage.

  Approximate cost per 100 yards.

  Overhead Lines.

  Underground Cables,

  From

  33,000

  …

  £42 to £57

  About four times the cost of overhead lines.

  11,000

  …

  £20 to £31

  From £68 to £102.

  400/230

  …

  £28 to £40

  From £34 to £71.

  The above-mentioned analysis showed that out of upwards of 7,300 miles of high and low tension transmission and distribution lines provided by the 200 undertakers in rural areas at the end of March, 1930, about 59 per cent. were underground cables and 41 per cent. overhead lines. No later analysis is available.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ALLOCATION OF ROOMS.)
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the First Commisioner of Works, if he will give an estimate of the cost to the taxpayer of supplying for the use of two persons a room in the Palace of Westminster, the cost to include lighting, heating, telephone, stationery, and the use of gas for a gas stove?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In the absence of particulars regarding the user of a hypothetical room in the Palace of Westminster, I fear it is not possible for me to give an estimate of any value.

  CARNARVON CASTLE (WELSH FLAG).
  Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS(by Private Notice) asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Red Dragon, the Welsh national flag, is to be hoisted at Carnarvon Castle to-morrow, St. David's Day, and what are the rules governing the hoisting of flags on the Royal Castles?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, castles appertaining to the Crown, which are not in the personal occupation of His Majesty, follow the normal rule for all Government buildings, namely, that the Union Jack only is flown on a specified list of days which does not include any of the national saints' days. Exceptions to the general rule have, however, been made in certain instances, of which Carnarvon Castle is one. Since 1922, the Union flag has been flown on the western tower and the Dragon flag on one of the eastern towers of Carnarvon on S. David's Day each year, and I am not proposing any changes in this arrangement.
  Mr. McENTEE: May I ask if there is a Welsh dragon in the Zoological Gardens?
  Mr. THORNE: Can the First Commissioner state approximately on what date the red flag will be flown on the Palace of Westminster?
  Mr. McGOVERN: Will the First Commissioner say if the Cabinet are unanimous in this answer?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Have they been consulted?

  OFFICIAL REPORT (DIVISION No. 89).
  Mr. HOLDSWORTH: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the OFFICIAL REPORT of last Thursday, Column 642, where there appears, in the Division List, the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)? Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman was present in that Division, or was it his spirit condemning the Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: My attention had not been called to that matter before, but I will look into it.

  GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR, REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1932 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £150,492,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance, and other Grants, and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, namely:

    CIVIL ESTIMATES.

    Class II.

    £

    India Office

    33,500

    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): Three weeks ago I was asked over 50 questions at this Table—a record number of questions to be asked of any Minister. It seemed to me that this interest in Indian affairs showed, in an unmistakable way, that the Committee was anxious to have a Debate in the course of which I could give them a full statement of the present position. So far from deploring this interest, I welcome it. So far from resenting any request for information, I am glad whenever I can to satisfy it. I issued a fortnight ago a Blue Book in which are set out in great detail the events of the last few months. I set those events out in detail because I was anxious that every Member should have a comprehensive picture of Indian affairs before him. If I speak at some little length, if I cover more ground than I naturally should in any ordinary Estimates Debate, it is because I realise that I am dealing with grave and serious questions on which every Member of the House has the right to have information and the duty to express his judgment upon them.
    Fortunately, I need not go into great detail in the matter of past history. The Blue Book sets out very fully and comprehensively the events that led up to the decisions that were taken at the end of last year, and shows in great detail the position in which we find ourselves at the end of the Round Table Conference, and it carries on the history up to a few weeks ago. When last I addressed the House upon Indian affairs it was at the moment when the second Round Table Conference came to an end. The delegates had parted on the whole in an atmosphere of good will. Only the representative of Congress stood apart, and even he sometimes seemed to dislike the discordant note that he was striking. It may, therefore, be said that at the beginning of December, when last we had an Indian Debate, there was a general atmosphere of good will and there was a general desire to advance along the road of co-operation. If I had been asked then to make a forecast of coming events, I think I should have said that the forecast was changeable, but that it was not immediately stormy. Then, within the space of almost a few days, the storm burst, the reverberations of which we are still feeling. Whatever may have been

    795
    Mr. Gandhi's personal inclinations, the fact remains indisputable that, in the second half of December, the leaders of the Congress organisation were determined to renew war with the Government of India. If any hon. Member will study the Blue Book that I have circulated, he will see instance after instance showing in an indisputable manner that a war mentality had possessed the leaders of Congress.
    The Blue Book shows in detail how the Red Shirt movement had been stimulated by Congress in the North West Frontier Province and how, in that very inflammable area, a critical situation had arisen which threatened the very basis of Government. The Blue Book again shows how, in the United Provinces, Congress stimulated a revolutionary movement which looked like leading to an agrarian revolution. There is also evidence in plenty—if I had the time I could give it in detail—that in the Province of Bengal the leaders of Congress, and particularly the left leaders of Congress, were in close contact with the terrorist movement. Look where you may, from the North of India to the South, there was overwhelming evidence that Congress was bent upon renewing the war against the British Government. Ever since the Irwin-Gandhi agreement, there had been signs that many prominent Indians in the Congress organisation were using the settlement not as a period of peace but simply as a period of temporary truce during which they were preparing for a renewal of war and taking every opportunity to magnify their own organisation at the expense of the established Government, and of setting up a parallel and a revolutionary government against the established forces of law and order.
    I claim that, in view of these indisputable facts, there was no course open to any Government worthy of the name to take any action other than that which we did take. The Government was faced with this direct threat to its existence instigated, not by a comprehensive movement covering the whole of India, but by a sectional organisation which admittedly only represents a small portion of the great populations of India. Any Government worthy of the name, if government
    796
    was to continue in India at all, was bound to accept the challenge.
    But I am aware—it has been borne in upon me at Question Time in the House—that there are some Members who, while accepting the general claim that the Government had to take action to meet this threat, yet think, first of all, that the action that we are taking is excessive and, secondly, that we are abusing the powers under which we are acting.
    Those are serious charges and they need to be answered. Let me take them in turn. Let me take first of all the charge that the powers that we have taken are excessive. I admit that the powers that have been given to the Government of India and the provincial Governments are very formidable. They are set out in detail in the Appendices to the Blue Book. They cover, and they are intended to cover, the whole field of possible attacks upon the Government. I believe that they should cover the whole of that field. I believe that it would have been a derogation of our duty if, faced with this critical situation, we had taken only inadequate powers. I believe, further, that we are much more likely to reach the point when emergency powers can be brought to an end if we act over the whole field and leave no openings to this hostile organisation to make our action unsuccessful. I therefore claim, first of all, that so far from its being a cause of criticism against us that we have taken full and comprehensive powers, criticism would have been just if the powers that we had taken had not been comprehensive.
    There is another consideration that I would like to put to hon. Members on the benches opposite. The attack that has been launched by Congress was not an attack upon the British Government but an attack on any government, and more than that it was an attack upon the whole community. I will tell hon. Members why I make that claim. If the machine of government had broken down it would have been apparent to the great populations of the Indian Continent that action such as Congress had launched had been successful, and it would have been a direct incentive to this community or that community to have undertaken the same kind of direct action. Every hon. Member of this House knows how inflammable is the material in India when anything touching the communal question

    797
    arises. During all these weeks I have been terrified lest a breakdown of the machine of government should be a direct incentive to the renewal of communal strife. Let hon. Members constantly remember those terrible events at Cawnpore last year. On no account must we run the risk of any repetition of that kind of catastrophe. I do urge upon every hon. Member of this Committee that at a time of crisis such as this it is essential that the central Government and the provincial Governments should have the greatest possible powers, drastic though they may be, to make a repetition of that kind of catastrophe as impossible as we can make it.
    I come now to the second criticism, to the criticism that the authorities are abusing the powers that they possess, that they are using them ruthlessly, and that they are using them in such a way as not only to deal with an actual emergency, but also in such a way as to suppress the legitimate expression of public opinion. There, again, I ask hon. Members to look at the actual facts of the situation. I am just as fully alive as they are to the danger of uncontrolled administrative action, and I tell hon. Members that the Viceroy and his Government are just as alive to that danger as am I. But when I look at the facts of the situation during these last weeks, and when I think of the dangers in India, when I think of the great difficulties with which the authorities, great and small, are faced, I do inevitably come to the conclusion that upon the whole these powers have been used with common sense and with moderation. It may be that here and there, probably in the face of great danger and difficulty, some individual may have misused his authority. If that be so, investigation always follows action of that kind in the ordinary course. So far as I myself am concerned, and it is also the attitude of the Government of India, we have been ready to look into a number of specific charges made in individual cases, and the result of our inquiries goes to show that, speaking generally, the authorities, and particularly the police, have behaved exceedingly well in a very difficult situation, and that upon the whole these drastic powers have not been abused or used to an excessive degree.
    4.0 p.m.
    Let me take the two charges that have been made in this House in this connec-
    798
    tion during the last few weeks. There is the charge that we have suppressed the expression of opinion by a censorship. There is no censorship in India of any reputable foreign newspaper correspondence. At one time there was a restriction for military purposes in the North-West Frontier. That restriction, I understand, has now been removed, and no check to-day is placed upon any foreign newspaper correspondent in sending news to this country or to any other country. That that is so, I think may be easily checked by the fact that many most inaccurate reports as to what has been happening in India have appeared in the foreign and the American Press. As far as the Indian Press is concerned, hon. Members will see in the Press Act and the Ordinances the action we have taken. Speaking generally, the action taken is designed for one purpose, and one purpose alone, namely, to stop incentives to disorder and terrorism, and not to stifle the expression of public opinion. There, again, I would invite the attention of hon. Members opposite to the Indian Press itself, for I think that if they will study the Indian Press themselves, they will see that a very wide latitude—some would say, much too wide latitude—has been given to the Indian Press as a medium for the expression of opinions hostile to the Government. So much for the Press.
    Now let me say a word or two about the police. Charges have been made against the police. It would be very surprising if in a situation of this kind charges were not made. But, upon the whole, the police have acted splendidly. They have acted often under the greatest provocation. They have acted against tremendous odds at great risk to their own lives and to the lives of their own families, and they have acted, speaking generally, with admirable restraint and conspicuous moderation. Charges are being made against them. I am aware of that, but I would venture to remind hon. Members that, in an emergency of this kind, there is a staple manufacture of atrocities in order to discredit the various servants of the Government generally. I would venture to remind hon. Members of what took place only last year in a situation not altogether dissimilar from the present situation. Case after case was trumped up against the police, and

    799
    when we came to examine into these cases, nine out of ten were discovered to be fabricated. Let me give the Committee an instance or two of this creation of atrocities. A long and circumstantial story of police brutality of a particularly disgusting nature to a volunteer in Rohtak was printed in the Congress Bulletin, and brought to the Secretary of State's notice. It was stated that the complaint had been made to a magistrate on oath. On inquiry, it was found that the magistrate, an Indian, had investigated the complaint and found it to be a tissue of lies. The volunteer was also examined, the day after the alleged assault, by two doctors, who failed to find any trace of injury of any sort.
    Again, it was alleged that the police in Borsad had dispersed a peaceful procession of women with great violence, beating them with lathis, kicking them, and pulling their hair. The procession had been organised to protest against the alleged ill-treatment of two women, mentioned by name, by the police. On inquiry it was found that the facts were entirely different. The police had taken action only when a crowd of men, collected behind the women, had started throwing stones, and the small force of 30 police was in danger of being overwhelmed by a mob of 2,000. It was inevitable in the scuffle that some women should be injured, but the worst injury sustained was a hurt to the knee. Of the two women said to have been ill-treated, one did not exist at all, and the other was subject to fits and had injured herself in a fit. It is also relevant, as an instance of fabrication of evidence by Congress, to refer to the report of the special officer appointed to inquire into allegations regarding the use of lathis in connection with the collection of land revenue in Bardoli. After a most patient inquiry into these allegations of police excesses, Mr. Gordon found that there was no evidence at all of police persecution. The witnesses put forward by Congress broke down under examination, and were one and all found to be lying.
    I cannot avoid the conclusion that one of the main objects of Congress in making these accusations was to discredit the police by making them appear as the persecutors of harmless and defenceless peasants. In one case, in fact, Mr. Gordon finds that there was a definite
    800
    conspiracy to bring a policeman, Sitaram Ganpat, into trouble. Charges of brutality were trumped up against him from three different villages. In no case was there found to be a shred of evidence against him. In fact, in the case of one village it was discovered that Sitaram was not even among the party of police on the occasion mentioned. This continual misrepresentation of the police is a fact that must be taken into account in judging of the behaviour of the police now. During the last campaign the police were in many places subjected to extreme provocation. Often they had to submit to personal abuse of the most offensive character, while every effort was made by members of Congress to make life intolerable for them and their families by means of the social boycott, and other devices of the same kind. Often they were in danger of their lives from infuriated mobs, and many of them received injuries, more or less serious.
    An example of what the police have to suffer is given in the Bombay fortnightly report that I have just received. After the dispersal of a crowd, a mob of 500 proceeded to the house of a brother of a police sub-inspector and assaulted him. There is another instance which I will give. I think that the Committee is entitled to have these instances. I take it from the events of the last few weeks to show how widely inaccurate are many of the reports circulated as to what is happening in India. Here is an example of the sort of exaggeration to which I have referred. A Lahore newspaper stated that 481 Red Shirts had been killed and 651 wounded—hon. Members will notice the detailed figures—on certain date in or near Kohat. The actual facts were that 14 had been killed and 28 wounded, and these figures had already been published in an official communique. To such an extent are exaggeration and falsehood possible!
    In view of this evidence, I suggest to hon. Members of this Committee that they should be very careful in sifting the evidence of charges for which now and then certain hon. Members make them-selves responsible. But when I say what I have said about the inaccuracy of many of the statements that have been current during the last few weeks, I should not like it to be thought that the Govern-

    801
    ment of India is not watching the situation very carefully, and is not as anxious as any Member of this House to avoid the possibility of any excessive action. Perhaps I cannot do better than quote to the Committee one or two extracts from a despatch of the Government of India to the Provincial Governments issued as recently as 9th February, dealing with the whole question of the use of the emergency powers. The instructions that it contains show the caution and moderation with which the Government of India are acting. I will quote one or two of the more important passages.
    "First the Government of India, recognising the responsibility attaching to the assumption of extraordinary powers, would again bring to the notice of local governments the great importance of exercising control and supervision over the exercise of those powers, and, second, that they would request local governments to satisfy themselves in regard to alleged instances of abuse brought to their notice, which is, of course, the normal practice and procedure.
    Some of the powers contained in the Ordinances are drastic, and the Government of India attach great importance to the control by local governments of their exercise. At the same time, the Government of India would request local governments (a) to satisfy themselves in accordance with the usual procedure, as to the facts of particular complaints or allegations brought to their notice, if they appear to be of such importance as to require such action; (b) to counteract false or exaggerated accounts of particular incidents by giving publicity to the actual facts; (c) in genuine cases of abuse to take such action as may be necessary by way of redress or by disciplinary measures.
    I am to make it clear that what is said above is not to be interpreted as representing in any way any deflection from the policy of Government to take firm and strong action in dealing with the civil disobedience movement. Such action is not prejudicial but rather confirmed by the avoidance of excess, and experience time and again has, in fact, shown that the best results are achieved by the observance of the strictest discipline. Nor is it to be interpreted as indicating any desire on the part of the Government of India that the servants of Government should not be assured of receiving the fullest support in all reasonable measures which are necessary in dealing with the civil disobedience movement. On the contrary, the Government of India will give their full support to local governments in all such measures, and they are confident that local governments will give similar support to their officers."
    These are the instructions of the Government of India to the Provincial Governments, and I think I can claim as evidence
    802
    that these emergency measures have been, on the whole, accepted as necessary in India, the fact that not. a single Vote of Censure either in the Legislative Assembly or in any of the Provincial Councils has been carried against the Government action, and that we have received many expressions not only from politicians, but from business men and particularly from persons of influence in country districts, that in their view these emergency powers were essential, were inevitable and are being used with caution and moderation.
    Before I leave this part of my subject, I should like to say a word or two about one phase of the situation that naturally causes us great anxiety—the position in Bengal and the terrorist campaign that has been launched against the Government during recent months. The most drastic powers contained in the Ordinances are powers that have been given to the Government of Bengal to deal with terrorism. Terrorism, as every hon. Member knows, has had a hold in Bengal for many years past, and in recent years, indeed in recent months, the terrorist threat has become far more serious. In the past few months there have been 19 serious terrorist outrages, for the most part against British officials. There have been outrages against women and children. A new and sinister feature of these outrages is that women and girls have been brought into the service of the terrorists. Only last week I had the painful experience of hearing from Mrs. Stevens, the widow of one of the most popular, one of the most intelligent and one of the most sympathetic officials in the whole of the Indian service, the story of her husband's murder at the hands of two girls.
    I will not repeat the details to the Committee nor will I give them extracts, of which I have pages, from terrorist leaflets that until recently were everywhere being circulated in Bengal, for the express purpose of inciting to the wholesale murder of British officials. Perhaps even more sinister than some of these other features is the undeniable fact that many of the more extreme Congress leaders in Bengal have been hand in glove with certain of the leaders of the terrorist movement. Do we need any further justification for the action that we have had to take in Bengal and elsewhere? It

    803
    would have been a surrender of the elementary duty of any Government if we had not invested the Government of Bengal with the fullest and most comprehensive powers possible to make an attempt to cut this blot out of the life of Bengal.
    I claim, in view of what I have said to the Committee, that we have had ample justification for the measures that we have taken that we have used those measures with caution and moderation and that the Government of India, from the highest official, from the Viceroy down to the most junior police constable, have acted with courage, with caution and with common sense, and that the machine of government, in the face of great difficulties, has functioned with remarkable efficiency.
    May I now sum up the situation as I see it to-day in India? I will begin with the North-West Frontier Province. All my information goes to show that the Red Shirt Movement there, which a few months ago was so imminent a danger to the Government as a whole, is beginning to collapse. From all sides there is evidence of a great change of opinion in the Frontier Province. Men who a few weeks ago stood out in an attitude of hostility are coming in to co-operate with the Government. Revenue is coming in better than it has come in for several years. I think it may be claimed that, speaking generally, the position in the North-West Frontier to-day is far more stable than it has been for many months past. Then there is the second danger zone, the United Province, a great province almost entirely agrarian, a, province in which there are more than 1,000,000 landowners, many of them very small landowners, and in which in the few weeks before Christmas there was every evidence of a movement so serious as almost to be an agrarian revolution. My information, confirmed in the last telegram that I received to-day from India, goes to show that what is called the no-rent movement is now virtually at an end.
    In most of the other Provinces the position is, on the whole, satisfactory. There are, however, two exceptions to which if I am to make a candid survey of the situation, I want to make allusions. There is the position in Bengal, where we have not yet been able to crush the terrorist
    804
    machine. It will take time, but I have no reason to suppose that we shall not succeed. Then there is Bombay. The position in the Presidency is definitely better, but the position in Bombay City itself is still unsatisfactory in the matter of picketing and the economic boycott. Even in Bombay City itself I think I should be right in saying that the position is improving. The Government of Bombay has full powers to deal with the situation, and I should very much hope to see a more marked improvement in the weeks to come than we have seen up to the present. On the whole, it can be claimed that the drastic measures that we have taken have achieved the results that we expected of them and that the position to-day is immensely better than it was in the weeks at the end of last year.
    There are still two serious difficulties before us. There is, first of all, that ever-present difficulty in Indian affairs, the communal trouble, and, secondly, there is the difficulty, particularly formidable in a great peasant continent such as India, of the economic depression. Of the communal position I intend to say not more than two or three sentences. I realise the deep anxiety that is felt by the minorities communities, particularly by the Moslems and the Depressed Classes. I know how anxious they are to be satisfied that their legitimate claims will be met before they agree to the provisions of a future Constitution. I also know, from long months of discussion, how many dangerous reactions are involved in the communal question, and I can only say to-day that the Government realise the importance and urgency of the question, that on no account will we repudiate our obligations to the minorities communities that we have most solemnly undertaken, and that we ask the representatives of the minorities, particularly the representatives of the Moslem community that has with great faith and loyalty abstained from non-co-operation, to believe in our sincerity and to be patient if, in the inevitable process of events, we do not rush into a premature decision. His Majesty's Government and the Government of India, are in close consultation over this thorny question, and until we have completed our discussions I cannot make any announcement of our immediate intentions.
    Then there is the second formidable difficulty that faces us, the economic posi-

    805
    tion. I do not know whether it is always realised in this House how great is the economic crisis through which India has been passing. India, as we all know, is a country for the most part of small and poor peasants, and the fall in prices has hit them as hard as it has hit any community in any part of the world. The prices of primary commodities have fallen in some cases by 100 per cent., and when we take into account the smallness of the income of most of these peasant proprietors and that nine out of ten of them owe considerable sums to moneylenders—there are no fewer than 45,000 moneylenders in the agrarian province of the Punjaub—we realise their grave position. The burden of debt upon their shoulders owing to the fall in prices has gone up sometimes to the extent of 70 per cent.
    To complete the picture, when we also take into account the fact that provincial revenues are to a great extent dependent upon the land revenue, it will be realised how very serious is the economic crisis through which India has been passing. Fortunately, however, there are signs that the prices of primary commodities in India are beginning to rise. Since September, raw cotton has gone up in price by 75 per cent., that of ground nuts by 58 per cent., that of jute and gunnies 50 per cent., and in the last few days there has been a jump in the price of paddy.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: Are those sterling prices?
    4.30 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes. The result is that the burden of the present fixed charges is gradually being reduced and buying power is being increased. This change is already showing itself in a better market for manufactured goods. Thirty million square yards of cotton goods were exported from the United Kingdom to India during January, this figure being 12,000,000 higher than that for December and 9,000,000 higher than that for last January. The figure for cotton yarn in January was the highest for more than a year past, and, indeed, only 15 per cent. below the monthly average of 1928. I do not wish to exaggerate the extent of these improvements. I mention them rather as signs, still uncertain, but none the less hopeful, of better times.
    806
    It is satisfactory also to note, at a time of such general economic depression, that there has been a striking improvement in the financial situation of the Government of India. Last September the financial position in India was as serious as it was in any part of the British Empire. On the one hand there was a serious Budget deficiency, and on the other hand the export trade of India, on which we are dependent for remittances to London, had fallen greatly. Indian credit stood very low in the City of London, and, to make matters worse, there was the certainty that in the near future certain short-term Indian loans were maturing, and it would have been very difficult for anyone last September to say bow exactly these maturities were going to be met.
    I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that we are no longer faced with so black a prospect as faced us last September. On all sides there has been a remarkable improvement. Ever since the rupee was linked with sterling last September things have been steadily improving, prices have been rising, and a new and unexpected feature has shown itself—the vast sums of gold which have been exported and have produced a striking improvement in India and in the rest of the world. No less than £38,000,000 sterling of gold has been exported from India since last September, and the export looks likely to continue. Gold has been exported from India since last September at a higher rate than it has ever been exported from the goldfields of South Africa. This export has greatly helped to strengthen the rupee exchange and the position of Indian credit in the markets of the city of London, and the world.
    If I needed evidence of this I would point to the fact that only a few weeks ago the Government of India was able to repay without further borrowing a loan of no less than £15,000,000 sterling which was raised in 1921 and 1922. Has any other great Government in any part of the world during the last six months repaid a big loan without having to borrow further for repayment? If I look at the quotations of the Government of India stocks in the City to-day I see the greatest possible improvement as compared with the quotations of last September. Let me give the Committee an instance. The 4½ per cent. sterling stock,

    807
    1950–55, which in September, 1931, was quoted as low as 61 now stands in the neighbourhood of 84, and the 5½ per cent. sterling stock, 1936–38, has risen from 80 to 97 in the same period. Thus a great step forward has been taken towards winning back for Indian credit the high place it formerly held in the estimation of the investing public. If I may sum up the economic situation in a sentence, I would say that India is through the worst of the crisis and is in a, better position to take advantage of a general recovery than almost any other great country in the world.
    The Committee has now borne with me for an unconscionable time while I have exposed to them the Indian situation as I see it to-day. Hon. Members will not wish me to take up their time further, but it may be that many of them will be saying to themselves "You have spoken to us of the India of to-day at great length, but you have said nothing to us of the India of to-morrow." Let them not think, if this criticism is in their mind, that I am not constantly pondering over the India of to-morrow. If I have not spoken of it to-day, it is because this Debate is for a specific purpose, to discuss Indian administration during the last few months, and I should have been out of order if I had plunged into a discussion of the constitutional changes of to-morrow.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Do I understand you, Mr. Chairman, to rule that any discussion of the Round Table Conference is out of order? I see that there is a sum of £36,000 in this Estimate on account of the Conference?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly such a discussion cannot be entirely out of order on this Vote, but I do not know how far I can allow a discussion on the India Round Table Conference to go, and I must see what direction the discussion takes. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, like the Secretary of State for India, knows that on this Estimate I cannot allow a discussion on any matters which involve legislation.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Surely we shall be able to discuss the expenditure on account of the Conference dealing with the future constitution of India? That is the whole point.
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's view. I was saying that perhaps many hon. Members may be under the impression that, while I am dealing with these questions of detailed administration, I may not be thinking of the bigger issues of tomorrow. I can assure them that that is not the case; whether in the field of administration or in the wider field of constitutional change we are just as anxious for co-operation with representative Indians as we have ever been in the past. The committees, composed as they are of representative Indians and British public men, that are working out certain details of the Indian Constitution in India to-day are the outward and visible sign of the sincerity of our desire for this co-operation. The emergency powers that we are discussing are not a sign of the end of a policy of co-operation. They are not a gage of war between Great Britain and India; they are not even the evidence of a conflict between the British Government and Indian political aspirations. They are neither more nor less than the bulwark of any Government against anarchy and revolution. They are as much needed for Indian constitutional progress in the future as they are for the avoidance of strife and bloodshed in the present. Let Indians of all sections of opinion realise this fact, and let them constantly remember the evidences that we have given them of our desire for co-operation, the long months of patient forbearance while the Government was subjected to threats and insults, the continuous and high-minded efforts of Lord Irwin for peace, the help that we have ungrudgingly given in trying to solve the constitutional problems of the future. Time after time we have proved our readiness to work with them provided that they sincerely desire to work with us and are prepared to work upon the lines of the policy that was approved last December by an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons. Upon these lines, we are ready to go forward. It is a crime against the future to put obstacles in our path.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, "That Item Class II, Vote 11 (India Office) be reduced by £100."
    We on this side, like the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, welcome this opportunity of discussing cur-

    809
    rent affairs in the great Dependency of India. I should have rejoiced very much in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman if it had been a little more helpful and encouraging. If he had not made the explanation he did in his concluding remarks I should have been disappointed with so meagre a reference to the subject of the Round Table Conference and the present position in relation to it, but I gather that the right hon. Gentleman deliberately excluded it from his observations in order that we might apply our minds particularly to the question of administrative actions and reactions, as we now see them.
    In his opening remarks, the right hon. Gentleman avoided—quite understandably—any elaborate review of the history of the present disturbances in India. I might perhaps be permitted to address to the Committee one or two facts that are worth recalling. When the Government of India Act was passed, the Committee will recall that here was an explicit undertaking given that within a certain period of time a Commission should be appointed in order to examine how far changes could be introduced into the constitutional arrangements as between this country and India. In view of that undertaking, the Simon Commission was appointed. The Committee may also remember that at the constitution of the Commission there was great disappointment in India—rightly or wrongly —by reason of the fact that the Commission remained, if I may call it so, a white Commission and did not contain in its membership representatives of the Indian people themselves. I cite these simple facts because I am going presently' to lead up to a proposition which I hope to be able to prove. What is happening in India and has happened in recent months has tended very largely to extend the degree of alienation as between the various sections of the peoples of India and ourselves, and I cite this simple fact concerning the constitution of the Simon Commission, not to re-open ancient history, but in order to show how easy it was on the slightest provocation to add to the degree of alienation which was then experienced in that great country.
    That difficulty was in some measure got over by reason of the fact that a Round Table Conference was ultimately arranged in this country. Unfortunately,
    810
    however, at the first Round Table Conference the Congress party, which, as we know, is Mr. Gandhi's party, remained outside participation in the Conference. Then, largely because of the—as I consider it—wise approach to the problem of the Labour Government of those days, the Delhi pact—the Irwin-Gandhi Agreement—was arrived at, and at the second Conference we had the very remarkable demonstration of the representation at the Conference of almost every school of thought, and that is most important. There were present, for instance, on the right, shall we say, representatives of the Princes, of the Europeans, of the Moslems, of the Untouchables and of the Anglo-Indians; and on the left there were the Liberals, the moderate party, and Mr. Gandhi himself representing the Congress party.
    Here, while the Conference was still sitting, we in this country passed through a General Election, and I want now, Sir, to make this observation: that my researches in the public Press have led me to the conclusion that it is obvious that as soon as the election was over, there was a steady drive embarked upon to close down the Conference as speedily as possible. That movement again, I think—for it was observed and even talked about, not among the Gandhi element alone, but even among the moderate element represented at the Conference—added to the element of alienation to which I have just referred. A large number of non-essential subjects were discussed, very important but not fundamental; the big, fundamental problem which should have been discussed, according to the Irwin-Gandhi Pact at Delhi, from the standpoint of the best interests of India, namely, safeguards, was not discussed at all. The Conference came to an end leaving a feeling of grave disappointment in the minds of those who had been present at the two Round Table Conferences.
    At the end of the Conference we were presented, as Members of this House, with a statement on behalf of the Government, and, if the Committee will permit me, I shall recall to their minds the sentiments which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister expressed at the final meeting of the Round Table Conference before its members dispersed. I propose to ask questions on this matter

    811
    presently, and I hope therefore that I may have the attention of the Secretary of State, who, I gather, will reply later on.
    "We intend to go ahead."
    That was, with the Round Table method; with a method of discussion; with a method, if possible, of conciliation. Then, further on, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "I propose, therefore, with your consent, to nominate in due course a small representative committee—a working committee —of this Conference which will remain in being in India, with which, through the Viceroy, we can keep in effective touch. I cannot here and now specify precisely how this committee can best be employed. This is a matter which must be worked out and must to some extent depend on the reports of the committees we propose to set up. But in the end we shall have to meet again for a final review of the whole scheme."
    The Prime Minister said:
    "We intend to go ahead,"
    and to that end some three committees, whose functions were specifically defined, were noted by the Prime Minister, and in addition to these a fourth committee, which he then called—I invite the Secretary of State's attention to this—and is called in a White Paper, a "working committee." But since then the working committee has undergone some little transformation. It seems that it is not now called a working committee; it is called a consultative committee.
    Sir S. HOARE: It is all the same.
    Mr. JONES: Let us see if it is the same. Before you can have a consultative committee there must be somebody consulting. Who is consulting on this consultative committee? As I understand it, the only spokesman who is known in India at this moment is the Viceroy himself. He is the spokesman of this committee. I am not speaking now from the standpoint of people here in England, but I invite the Committee to try to put themselves in the position of people who are somewhat suspicious of the Indian Government. Is it not natural that they will assume immediately that a consultative committee whose mouthpiece and spokesman is the Viceroy will, in fact and in practice, be merely the mouthpiece of the permanent officialdom in India? With whom is this committee consulting? In England, as I understand it, there is some sort of committee sitting under the
    812
    chairmanship of the learned Lord Chancellor, Lord Sankey, who work with him in this country. So far as I understand, again, only permanent officials—very excellent people, I have no doubt in their way—sit on that committee.
    The understanding at the beginning of this business was that when you use the word "conference" you imply conference, not between officials—for that is no change at all from the old practice—but rather between statesmen, and representatives of the different organisations. It is for that reason that the various parties were originally invited to participate and co-operate in common action. If, therefore, we are to be reduced to having a working committee—or, under the new denomination, a consultative committee—whose members are all, on that side and on this—I mean in India and here—merely permanent officials, what change is there from the old condition of affairs? Absolutely none, as far as I can see. The whole idea of conference as originally visualised is entirely abandoned, so that, so far from "going ahead," as the Prime Minister proposed to the last meeting of the Round Table Conference, we are in point of fact, seemingly, moving backwards. If you look at it from the point of view—if you like—of the suspicious Indian mind, clearly we are making no progress forward. There is no "going ahead."
    That brings me to the general proposition which I want to put before the Committee this afternoon. I want to try to bring home to the Committee that everything that is now happening in India indicates that there is every reason to assume that there is a change in approach, a change in outlook, concerning this problem. I have no doubt that this change will be a very welcome change to many Members of this House, but, if there is a change, let us be frank about it and accept it; do not let us pretend that we are still carrying on with the policy of the previous Government, which believed in the principle of conference. Do not let us pretend that we are doing that, when in fact we are doing something exactly the contrary.
    5.0 p.m.
    I need not recall to the Committee some incidents—in my judgment most unfortunate incidents—which have happened to strengthen the suspicion in India that there is a change in the Government's approach to this problem. I

    813
    myself am not anxious to take sides with Mr. Gandhi's party, or with the Moslem party; I am merely desirous of doing whatever I can to help forward the demand of the Indian people as a whole for a larger measure of self-government. I cannot, however, deny myself the opportunity of referring to what I suppose must have arisen from some measure of misunderstanding on both sides, namely, the extraordinary celerity—for I cannot call it anything else—with which Mr. Gandhi was suddenly clapped under lock and key soon after he returned to India. I heard the Secretary of State for India explain—and I listened with patience and with every desire to give a fair hearing to the presentation of his point of view—that he does not recall having given certain of the pledges which he is alleged to have made to Mr. Gandhi. If he says so, I accept it quite cordially. On the other hand, let us bear in mind that there clearly was an idea on the part of Mr. Gandhi that there was some sort of understanding that when he arrived in India there would be an opportunity for him to consult with the Viceroy regarding these Ordinances in various parts of the country. I do not press that point any further. I merely say that Mr. Gandhi thought so.
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not think that Mr. Gandhi since his arrival in India has suggested that there was any kind of understanding.
    Mr. JONES: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me. I am quite willing to give way to him in order that this matter should be made clear. I myself do not presume to pass judgment on the matter, one way or the other. The sole point I am making is that clearly there was a feeling in India, and I think in Mr. Gandhi's mind, that there was some sort of understanding that when he arrived in India he would be allowed to approach the Viceroy with a view to discussing these ordinances. However that is comparatively immaterial. But what was the reason for the extremely sudden and swift decision, before Mr. Gandhi had a chance even to look round in India or to exercise any moderating influence whatever, to put him speedily under lock and key.
    Whether we like Mr. Gandhi or not, according to our respective points of view
    814
    we must, as reasonable people, acknowledge that he represents a substantial body of opinion, be it misguided or well-guided. There is a solid body of opinion behind him, and if you are anxious to preserve the spirit of co-operation, it seems in the highest degree desirable to retain his willingness to co-operate to the last minute possible. I submit that clapping him into prison in such an unceremonious way has contributed in some degree to the exacerbation on both sides which has been so manifest in the last few weeks. In my opinion it is not for Mr. Gandhi or anybody else to claim a right for his organisation to be equal in power and authority to the Government of the day. That, I frankly admit to be a fair and sound proposition. But I have read these letters with some care. I admit that they have not been, in all senses, happily framed. I think that if I were writing them I should have written them differently. On the other hand I think that the Viceroy and his advisers showed a little too much punctilio in this matter. If they could have given way slightly, if they could have overlooked a little excessive zeal on Mr. Gandhi's part, they might thereby have saved considerable difficulty for India in the succeeding weeks.
    Let me turn to the present administrative situation. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has frequently used the word "war." The word "war" in the mouth of the Secretary of State for India, in regard to India, is a dangerous word. The right hon. Gentleman also used it in his broadcast speech. He is constantly harping upon that sentiment of war. Nor am I able to congratulate him upon the felicity of some of the other phrases which he has used. Let me take the last phrase in his broadcast speech.
    "As to the threats, I will answer them in the words of the Eastern proverb, 'Though the dogs bark the caravan passes on.'"
    The right hon. Gentleman has been very much impressed by that Eastern proverb. He has quoted it over and over again.
    Sir S. HOARE: It is a very good one.
    Mr. JONES: But is it a good one to use in regard to India? What is the effect of that phrase? People who have been cordial supporters of this country have resented bitterly a reference to them as though they were dogs. [HON.

    815
    MEMBERS: "No!"] It is no use denying it. No doubt we shall have explanations that that is not the sense in which the words were used. But the repeated use of that phrase has given real ground for offence to people who regard themselves as having every right to be spoken about with the same measure of courtesy as the right hon. Gentleman would desire himself. In the course of the broadcast speech he also used these words:
    "The fact is that the great majority of men and women in India are heartily tired of political upheavals. They do not want revolution, they do not even want political agitation. They want to get on with their awn jobs in their own way with as little interference as possible."
    Let us see how far that very delightful sentiment is carried out in fact. A question was asked the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon as to whether hon. Members of the House of Commons had a right to receive communications from India or not. Before I came here this afternoon, I received a cable message. It was not sent directly to me. I shall be perfectly frank with the Committee, and I shall tell them from whom this message came, though it is quite irrelevant to my point. It was sent by Mr. Malaviya. He was requested to cable a long message for the purpose of this Debate, giving his views of the situation in India. He drafted a message of 1,100 words, and the result to-day is this message from him:
    "Cabled 1,100 words yesterday. Withheld, technical ground."
    It is easy for the right hon. Gentleman to get up in his place in this Committee and say, "All is well in India. You need not worry. I am in complete charge; everything is going quietly. The caravan passes on." But how am I to check the right hon. Gentleman's statement? Have I not the right to check it? If people have a grievance against the right hon. Gentleman have they not the right to approach me and other Members of Parliament? Are we to be told that we are not to have access to information, because it is uncomfortable or inconvenient for the Government of the day that we should have such access? That is what it means. Mr. Malaviya was here at the Round Table Conference. He was distinguished enough to be invited
    816
    to this country to discuss matters with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but when he proposes to send Members of Parliament information on the state of affairs in India he is told that his message is objectionable. To whom is it objectionable?
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Does the hon. Member recall that under his Government the messages of the "Morning Post" correspondent were censored?
    Mr. JONES: I do not know of the messages to which the hon. Member refers, but the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has said that messages to the Press are allowed. Apparently it is only messages to Members of Parliament which are disallowed. The right hon. Gentleman said, in set terms, that no messages to the foreign Press are interfered with—no messages from English correspondents.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: They were, under your Government.
    Mr. J. JONES: They were not.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: What we are here concerned with, however is the fact that a distinguished Indian has by request prepared 1,100 words specifically to enable us to put a case in this Committee this afternoon, and he has been denied the right to send the message because a permanent official declares it to be objectionable. I saw a cable the other day which I shall read to the Committee and ask them to compare it with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It reads as follows:
    "Whole nation under rule of drastic ordinances. India-wide response to national call despite wholesale arrests leaders. Seventy-nine Congress bodies declared unlawful Bombay, forty-five Calcutta. Editor Bombay Chronicle arrested"—
    The Press is free—
    "Strangulation of Press expected. Lathi charge and curfew order, Cawnpore. Lathi charges and firing Benares. Here Principal and two leading professors arrested dead of night. National College and Mahadevbhai Desai Ashram as suspects. Mrs. Kamatadevi Chattophadhyaya and eight other lathes arrested Bombay. Secretary, Government of India has issued long and misleading statement in which he makes no mention Gandhiji's efforts to secure interview with Viceroy besides other serious mis-representations. In view of developing situation would suggest Bertrand Russell joins deputation contemplated by Horace Alexander."

    817
    That does not sound a very terrifying telegram. I do not observe the Secretary of State to tremble in his seat at hearing it read.
    Sir S. HOARE: It is very inaccurate.
    Mr. JONES: Yet in fact the Press of this country blazoned this abroad as being an objectionable telegram sent by Miss Slade to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). What is objectionable in it?
    Earl WINTERTON: It is not true.
    Mr. JONES: How does the Noble Lord know that it is not true?
    Earl WINTERTON: I know the person who sent it and also the facts.
    Mr. JONES: I should say that she knows the Noble Lord, and that his view would be equally acceptable to her. But how am I to know if it is untrue? The statement of the right hon. Gentleman is the only statement that I have, and he has no right to withhold from Members of Parliament access to information, even though it comes from those who are critical of his administration.
    I apologise for having to read a passage now which I dislike reading, but which I think it is in consonance with my public duty to read. This is the sort of happening at a district called Kairi. Certain men, whose names I will not bother to pronounce, were seized under an order by the Taluk Revenue Officer of Anand, the officer's name being Naik. The men were of these ages: 65, his son 15, the next 25, the next 60, the next 40, the next 30, the next 55, and the next 60. They were ordered to be taken, according to this document,
    "to the village tank, there stripped completely naked, and make to stand on all fours,"
    a very common form of treatment, judging from the documents that I have received. I have not been in India, and I can only judge of these things in relation to what the right hon. Gentleman says by way of contradiction or otherwise.
    "As if this were not enough, passers-by, including women, were brought from the village to see this humiliating spectacle.… One of the victims states thus regarding the incident. 'They attached from my house a buffalo and calf, all the brass pots they could find, a chair, a mirror, a cot and two quilts. They removed from the
    818
    person of my daughter-in-law two earrings, two toerings, and a small gold ornament. They drove out the children who were sleeping, and sealed my house. They then took my son and me to the police station and kept us there for an hour, after which time they took us to the tank, and there stripped us and made us stand on all fours. They kept us standing in that fashion for two hours. The Mamlatdar ordered the police to beat me every half hour, and I was beaten in all five times. I received no less than 30 kicks all over my body, not excluding my stomach. I was then taken to the lorry, and ordered to hold the wires of the battery in my hands. This was too much for me, and I agreed to pay up my dues. Thereupon they took me back to the village and returned the attached property belonging to me.'"
    Of course, I cannot speak of this thing at first hand, but neither can the right hon. Gentleman deny it, neither can anyone here deny it at first hand. They were not there any more than I was, and therefore it seems to me that there is an overwhelming case for inquiry. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that wherever cases are put up to him he will have them examined, but, with all respect, that is not enough for me, for the people in charge under these Ordinances now are his permanent officials of one sort or another. Indeed, the reports he gets from India are the reports necessarily of the people in charge, and they are not going to report to him, "I put these people in the tank and stripped them naked." We cannot expect it. Therefore, it is quite possible that every case may be well grounded. On the other hand it may be ill grounded. I cannot tell. All that I ask is that an impartial inquiry be conducted into these allegations for the sake of the good name of the Government of this country, as well as for future co-operation in that land. I observed the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) a minute ago indicate an unwillingness to listen to these things, because presumably this information—
    Earl WINTERTON: I indicated no unwillingness to listen. I did not interrupt the hon. Member. What I had in mind was that before the hon. Member gives these figures, he ought to state what is his authority for them, who has sent the information, and whether he is a reputable person.
    Mr. JONES: The Noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I heard him say "Nonsense."
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member did not.
    Mr. JONES: I beg your pardon, you did.
    Earl WINTERTON: I said nothing of the sort. I have not made an interruption of any sort.
    Mr. JONES: It may very well be that these allegations may be deemed to come from tainted sources. All that I ask is that if these allegations are made let us remember that similar allegations were made 10 or 11 years ago in regard to the treatment of Irishmen in Ireland, and there is a dangerous similarity, a striking similarity, between the allegations that are now advanced in this House concerning the happenings in India to what happened in Ireland not so many years ago. But let me assume that a statement of Indians is tainted, and let me pass to a source of information which I think will not be tainted. I refer to the treatment of a Christian missionary of the name of Dr. Forrester Paton. This is what is said of him, that the House may know the sort of person he is:
    "There is no missionary more respected and loved by Indians than Dr. Forrester Paton. He is the guide and inspiration of hundreds of students. His life of sacrifice and love of his hospital at Tirupattur is a most eloquent sermon of the beauty of real Christianity. A man of great wealth, he has, like St. Francis, adopted a life of poverty and wears as its outward sign the simple homespun dress of the villager. The other day he went to Madras to see whether it was true that the police were ill-treating the picketers and whether he could open a hospital for the wounded. As he was going through the bazaars, a police sergeant came to him. What country do you belong to? 'Scotland,' was the reply. Why are you wearing the uniform?' (wearing the Khadi clothes). Dr. Paton said he was working among the poor. 'Are you a missionary? Yes!' The sergeant then seems to have told Dr. Paton to go away. The doctor refused, and two sergeants beat him with lathis. He was wounded on both wrists, below the knees and in the forearm. A water-hose was then turned on him, and he was drenched. He tried to avoid the hose and took shelter behind a handcart, but the cart was pulled away and the full force of the hose directed on the unfortunate missionary. At last, severely beaten, wet through, exhausted, Dr. Paton escaped to the Y.M.C.A., where his wounds were dressed,"
    The sequel is interesting. Dr. Paton, in spite of that, was prosecuted.
    Earl WINTERTON: Who is the writer of that?
    Mr. JONES: Will the Noble Lord allow me for one moment? Dr. Paton was haled before the courts on the ground that he had defied the Ordinances, and so overwhelming was the case in favour of Dr. Paton that the charge was not proceeded with. They abandoned the charge. If this can be done, with regard to people who are anxious to help distress, by those who administer the Ordinances, is it not obvious that the extreme powers vested in them by these Ordinances are not being fairly or dispassionately used? Similarly I could go on showing how a woman was attacked, how hospitals have been seized and closed, that there is scarcely any type of citizen—
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: On a point of Order. As it is a fact that these statements made by the hon. Member will be published abroad all over India, are we not justified in demanding that we should know whence these statements are produced?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that question is quite properly raised as a point of Order, because I understand that the hon. Gentleman who is speaking is not suggesting that he is quoting from official documents. If he were, of course, it would be in accordance with the general practice that they should be produced.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has it not been generally held to be in accord with the ordinary practice of the House that an hon. Member who quotes from a document should be prepared to make himself responsible for it? Would it not, therefore be in order to raise the point as to the origin of these documents?
    The CHAIRMAN: In a matter of this sort the question really rests mainly with the House, but I think the House itself will naturally be an assembly which will treat quotations of this kind according to the evidence which is adduced in support of them, and as to where they come from or who may be the author of them.
    Mr. JONES: That is quite all right. As a matter of fact, these statements concerning Mr. Paton appear in a whole series of newspaper cuttings, not from

    821
    papers run by the Congress party at all, but run by, say, the Servants of India Society and like organisations, which are entirely moderate in their outlook, which are anxious to co-operate with the Government, but which are alarmed at the effect upon the spirit of co-operation which these incidents are generating in India. If I am to be asked for chapter and verse for every single case that I cite—I do not complain of it—if I am to tell who said this and who said that, may I ask the Secretary of State if he will give me the names of all the people who made that reply in the Blue Book? After all, the answer provided to-day, which the right hon. Gentleman extolled so much, from the Blue Book, must have been compiled by somebody. The information must have been given by somebody, and for aught I know—I do not say that it is so—the information may have been given by the very people against whom charges might have been made. So, if I am to be asked for the names of individuals, I shall ask for the same from the Secretary of State.
    Now may I take another case? I am sorry to detain the Committee, but it is important to put these points, because we have been assured that there is no case. Let me take the question of boycotting. There is a grave objection to the principle of boycotting. But what is boycotting? Let me read to the Committee what the Ordinance says that "boycotting" is:
    "A person is said to 'boycott'"—
    I am reading from the Ordinance, let the Noble Lord opposite remember—
    "another person who refuses to deal or do business with, or to supply goods to, or to let a house or land to, or to render any customary service to such person or any person in whom such person is interested, or refuses to do so on the terms on which such things would be clone in the ordinary course, or abstains from such professional or business relations as he would ordinarily maintain with such person."
    Mr. J. JONES: His Lordship would be in gaol for the rest of his life.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Let us put it in that way. Suppose the Noble Lord opposite does not desire to do business with me. Under this Ordinance, if it were in operation here—
    Mr. J. JONES: It is in operation, privately.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: If this were in operation, and the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord opposite were in England, and it was operated in the same spirit in which it is operated in India, they could be mulcted in imprisonment for refusing to do business with someone with whom they did not desire to do business. I ask the Committee, is there any vestige of liberty left under conditions such as those, where people are mulcted in damages for the duration of the ordinance because they refuse to do business with someone with whom they do not desire to do business? Liberty! The caravan, indeed, passes on!
    I will give another illustration, and take the case of the Indian Mr. Sen Gupta. Mr. Sen Gupta may have been an extremely inconvenient person when he lived in India. I do not know. But Mr. Sen Gupta was in this country for months, and was associated with people at the Round Table Conference. Long after the Conference was over, he decided to return to India. He had not set foot in India. He was still on an Italian ship in the harbour. He could not have said a word in India. He was arrested on an Italian vessel, and the captain of the vessel refused to hand him over until the Italian Consul had given his consent to his arrest. There was no charge of his having said anything, and no accusation of having done anything. He merely happened to be Mr. Sen Gupta, and on that ground, apparently, and on that ground alone, he was arrested before he reached his native land, and before he could say a word. On that ground he has been taken away to some remote prison, the location of which is entirely unknown. We on this side happen to be interested in trade unions. Under the Ordinance in a certain district in India, secretaries of trade unions have been called upon to turn up every morning with a book of accounts for the local police to inspect. I should like to see the Chairman and the Treasurer of the Conservative party compelled to turn up every morning and to see how they would like it. Perhaps we may come to that some day.
    I must add another observation. There is no class—I am sorry to have to say this, but it is true—young or old, rich or poor, Hindu or Modem, Christian or non-Christian, which has not independent

    823
    people who have been visited with dire punishment as a result of the application of these Ordinances. The most cruel thing of all, in my judgment, is the fact that boys of 13 and 14, because they have simply circulated pamphlets, which their fathers regarded as the last word in wisdom, no doubt, have now been hauled before the courts and sent away as a punishment for two or three years. I regret to say that in one case the magistrate actually ordered the boy to be whipped in court in the presence of all who cared to see it. It gives me no pleasure to say these things. Honestly and sincerely, I would infinitely have preferred not to have raised these matters at all. But I have done so for the reason that I am profoundly convinced that this kind of thing, even though it be limited to a few individual instances here and there, is bound to wreck every attempt at reconciling the various groups in India.
    After all, do not the Government desire some day or other—perhaps early, perhaps later—to be able to build another bridge between those various sections in India? If you apply your force you will win undoubtedly. You can prohibit their organisations, imprison their leaders, seek to restrain and to punish their followers, but you cannot win in the end. The only way of winning over these people is, not by the method of force, but by the arbitrament of reason. I invite the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, at this very late hour, in spite of the provocation's, which he may feel on his side the Government have had, and which others may feel on the other side that they have had, in spite of the exacerbation of feeling on both sides, once again to review the situation as it now exists and to limit speedily the exercise of the arbitrary powers of those in control in India, lest, perchance, in a year or two we may find that not only have we no friends of the Government, but that we may not even have friends of Britain left in India.
    As I have said, I regret very much to have had to say some of the things which I have said this afternoon. I would far rather have been in the position of being able to hold my tongue and say nothing if it were possible, but I have conceived it my duty to declare these things to the Committee, so that hon. Members may know what is being done in the name of
    824
    liberty in that country. I remember an old political leader once saying this to me. It is appropriate to proclaim that the people of this country have done such great things in that vast continent of India, and I do not take second place to anyone in my admiration of the achievements there. We have built waterways, it is true, we have built railways, and we have done enormous things. Tremendous things stand to our credit out there. But this old politician told me that the bird does not sing more sweetly because you gild the bars of its cage. The thing that is necessary for these people is that they should feel that liberty knacks at their doors, and I invite the Committee, and especially the Government, not to embark upon a policy in the belief that they can in any way by force crush the spirit of liberty, for liberty will live whatever governments may pass.
    Mr. LLOYD: I would like to say at once with what great satisfaction and warm approval we have heard the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State this afternoon. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member who has just sat down, and in particular to his strictures upon the facility of the phraseology used by the Secretary of State, and I cannot help thinking that he put a wrong construction upon, and made too much of, casual phrases used by the right hon. Gentleman. In general I do not think that the hon. Member made out a strong enough case to cause us to modify our attitude to the right hon. Gentleman, which I would define as one of admiration for the way he has administered the affairs in India during the past six months. I only hope that India herself realises the overwhelming support which is ready to back him through all difficulties. In any case, it is clear that we can rely upon the efficient administration of India as long as the right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State. In these circumstances, I wonder if there is not a danger of our giving too much of our time to purely political discussion. We hear a great deal of the political ferment in India, but I cannot help feeling that the Indian trader thinks much less of these matters than he does of the disastrous fall in the price of tea, jute and rice.

    825
    Surely it is hard economic questions such as these which are the urgent problems of our time, and I therefore ask the Committee to consider for a, moment the present prospects of commerce and industry in India. This subject is one of special interest at the present time because it is dominated by the approach of the Ottawa Conference and by the great benefits which, as I believe, India may well get there for her trade. But for the very reason that we centre such hopes upon the Conference we must face frankly some of the difficulties which exist. One of these undoubtedly is that there remains the old suspicion in India that her fiscal policy is administered, and, indeed, dictated from Whitehall in the interests of the trade of Great Britain. This of course has been expressed in the Fiscal Autonomy Convention. Thus, in recent years, although she has imposed differential duties on cotton, iron and steel which favour us, India has not felt able to give us a general preference. Perhaps this was inevitable in view of the Free Trade policy of this country. But to-day this has changed, and it is my purpose to emphasise that, as a result, the whole basis of the trade relations between India and Great Britain has changed as well. Now we can go to India and say that we are in a position to do a reciprocal trade deal giving advantages for any they may give to us. I do not mean that a narrow bargaining spirit should prevail at Ottawa. On the contrary, I hope that they will take a large and enlightened view. Mutual concessions there must be, but I hope that it may be possible to have a general survey of the commerce of the Empire with a view to considering how best to bring about the fullest possible development of production by all members of the Commonwealth. Possibly the great industrialists of the Empire themselves could come together to consider the allocation of markets in the Empire and outside to particular Empire industries.
    In such discussions I think that we should look to see India taking a prominent part as a country with a great commercial future. It is interesting to note that the British Trade Commissioner in India, in his last report, drew attention to the great advantages which would result from a mutual under-
    826
    standing between British and Indian iron and steel industries. In all these circumstances, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider the desirability of including in the Indian delegation to Ottawa unofficial members, and, in that case, whether he would not consider inviting some of the representatives of the great Indian industries themselves? If the Committee will bear with me, I would ask them to consider the concrete possibilities for India at the Conference. Of course, one turns naturally, at first, to the consideration of Great Britain, which is India's largest export market. Last year we took more than twice as much of her products as any other country. Tea is the commodity of which we take the largest quantity, and there can be no doubt that if we were ready to give a preference, it would be of substantial benefit to India. The Imperial Economic Committee have shown conclusively that a great increase in the imports of Java teas has occurred simultaneously with the reductions and abolition of preference on Empire tea. In India a prosperous tea plantation industry provides much employment and local orders, and it is worth while pointing out that, while the managing agents are British, the ownership of the tea gardens themselves is far more largely in Indian hands than is generally supposed in India. Putting tea on one side, if we turn to the rest of the imports we take from India we find they amount to about £26,000,000, and no less than £17,000,000, practically two-thirds, will from tomorrow be receiving the benefit of a preference over imports from foreign countries. The list is made up to about a half of manufactured goods, including carpets and pig iron.
    In my view, there can be no doubt that the continuance of these preferences would be of very great value to India. But that is by no means the limit of possibilities at Ottawa. There India will have the opportunity of reviewing her trade not only with Great Britain, but with the Crown Colonies. She attaches a great deal of importance to her trade with East Africa, where, for example, many of the Colonies take nearly one-half of their cotton goods from foreign countries, principally Japan. It is true that at the present time these Colonies are unable to grant a preference because of the Congo Basin Convention, but I

    827
    am sure that if India expressed a desire for a preference in those markets, it would carry great weight when the general question came to be considered. India might also be able to obtain substantial benefits from the Dominions at the Conference. For instance, Australia at present grants no preference to India. Australia buys only 10 per cent. of Indian tea, while taking nearly half her tea requirements from India's chief foreign competitor. There is one last but important benefit which I should like to see India obtain at the Conference. She is not, perhaps, in a very strong position to bargain for tariff concessions from foreign countries, while we, on the other hand, with our new elastic protective system, have a strong bargaining lever. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it might not be possible for the British Government, in negotiations with foreign countries, to take into consideration not merely the interests of Great Britain, but also those of India, with a view to obtaining tariff concessions for her goods in foreign markets?
    I apologise to the Committee for devoting so much time to this aspect of the question, but I think it is vital that we should give the most careful consideration to the interests of India herself in these matters. I would not conceal for a moment that there must be two sides to these transactions, as to any other useful ones. The Committee will readily appreciate the advantages which India can give us in return. Even when we take into account the great losses of trade in that market, she is still our greatest customer, and, leaving cotton on one side there is no question that a preference on machinery and general manufactures would be of the highest value to us. Here, again, I do not think we should do justice to the subject unless we remembered the great poverty of the ryot to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and the vigilant eye which the Government of India always keeps upon anything which may possibly affect the price of the articles he consumes. But I think it is open to us to point out, on our side, that the Indian revenue tariff, owing to the pressure of financial considerations, has now reached a level at which it would be possible for preferences to be largely given by a reduction or
    828
    abolition of the duty in the case of the United Kingdom goods.
    In recent months there have been some very interesting developments in Indian trade, with which I can best deal by giving concrete illustrations. The City of Birmingham does a great and representative Indian trade. One of our factories alone sometimes sends 75,000 Birmingham bicycles to India in the course of the year, and even in 1931 a single factory sold well over £100,000 worth of electrical goods to India. In recent months Birmingham manufacturers have found that their competitive position in the Indian market has been greatly improved by reason of the higher prices of goods from Gold Standard countries. As a result, they have produced larger quantities for the Indian market, and in some instances that has enabled them to reduce their prices. For example, Birmingham send £40,000 worth of suit-case locks to Bombay, and in that case it has been possible to reduce prices; and I am informed that larger orders would mean further reductions. This is, undoubtedly, a tendency of first-rate importance in a market where low price is nearly always a vital factor, and it has an interesting application to the question of preference. We, in this country, are aware that the reduction of price following long, continuous runs in the production of one article has reached an extraordinary development, such as was not contemplated a few years ago. Great progressive distributive organisations have found that under these conditions the British manufacturer can produce as well and as cheaply as any in the world. Is it not possible that by a carefully organised attention to the Indian market British manufacturers, under the shelter of a preference, might be able to supply the Indian consumer more cheaply than under the present haphazard system? With an improvement in the demand it will be difficult to set a limit to the development.
    We hear from distinguished Englishmen, who have spent their lives in the sub-continent, of the great economic changes of India. We learn that Indian village life is not immune from those changes which have transformed the countryside of the Western world. The spread of electricity and irrigation, the increased use of the motor car, the

    829
    generally greater availability of modern appliances, are having their effect. In the Punjab, especially, the ryot is at least to some extent changing his manner of life, and is taking to the simpler forms of agricultural machinery, and the use of cheap water pumps has spread with remarkable speed. Some of those, whose experience gives weight to their judgment, hold that this is the beginning of an economic revolution which will spread across India. If they are right, let us realise at once the industrial importance of this gradually increasing demand on the part of one-fifth of the population of the world for the attractive commodities of modern industry, and let us realise that in such a movement the interests of Indian and British industry would be complementary, and not antagonistic. For, while it is clear that much of the demand would be supplied from Indian factories, it is equally obvious that many of the articles could only be supplied at the minimum price, which is essential, by a country with the most highly specialised industrial organisation.
    The conclusion of the matter would seem to be that there is real business to be done between Britain and India, and, in the future, perhaps very great business indeed. Is it too much to hope that the two great countries will approach this matter in a practical spirit? I do not know whether hon. Members read a very interesting speech made a few days ago by Mr. Mody, a prominent Indian business man in Bombay. He was protesting against the disruption of the commerce and industry of the city by political extremists. I think that we, in view of our experiences here, can listen to that protest with some sympathy. Indeed, I think it is true to say that both countries, Great Britain and India, have in the last year nearly ruined themselves by allowing the intrusion of politics into the proper sphere of commerce and finance. We have settled that matter here, and are ready waiting for India to join us in a business enterprise for mutual profit.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am afraid that it is too much to expect that India will consider the proposition put forward in the extraordinarily interesting speech of the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Lloyd). India is not interested in manufacturing and trade at the present time. India will not approach Ottawa from the
    830
    point of view of developing trade. It is lamentable that it should be so, but it is so. The hon. Member himself must know that the tea trade in India is not in Indian hands, but almost entirely in British hands, and that the ryot, about whose industrial development he is so hopeful, is far too poor to buy anything. The difficulty in India is not in finding work, there is heaps of work to he done in India. The difficulty is to get the work done. The difficulty in India is want of capital, want of opportunity, want of land. I agree very largely with the speech made by the Secretary of State. I think the position in India is such today that probably the policy he outlined was the right one. But he, too, seems to be under the mistaken impression that there are 1,000,000 landowners in the United Provinces. There are no peasant proprietors in India; they are all tenants either of the State or of the great landlords. None of them is in a position to buy electrical power or anything else, and they are all on the verge of starvation.
    That is, as the Secretary of State rightly said, one of, if not the chief cause of, our difficulties in India to-day. Agitation springs up and finds good soil among people who are reduced to desperation by poverty, and the cure is not ordinances to repress, though they may be necessary, as I believe they are, at the present time; the cure is to give a chance of prosperity to the people of India. That prosperity will not be achieved and will not be forwarded by inducing India to go in for tariffs. They have had plenty of examples of tariffs in India—tariffs and bounties on steel and tariffs on cotton goods. The people of India, the poor unheard of people of India, are complaining, and even getting their complaints voiced in Congress, of the high prices which they are paying in order to protect Indian factories in India.
    6.0 p.m.
    I have said to myself over and over again during the last few months, What can one do in the situation in India, as it is to-day? I am less hopeful about the future than I ever have been. I am inclined to think that what Lord Irwin did, and what Gandhi did in conjunction with Lord Irwin, was probably the best thing that has happened to the relations be-

    831
    tween England and India. They have failed, and Congress has declared war. It is not only that Lord Irwin failed, but Gandhi has failed as well, and the possibilities of that co-operation, of which one hoped so much, has come to nothing. They would not have come to nothing if it had been only Gandhi who had had to be considered. They have come to nothing because Congress and the Congress leaders were determined that they should come to nothing, and I think that it is right that that should be stated in this House. Congress asked for trouble and they got it, and I do not think that they can complain of the action that the present Government have now had to take. Police are always the same, always white-washed saints to one side and blackguards to the other. We have seen plenty of police action in Europe during the last 12 years. We know what the police are. Here, I suppose, they are better than in most cases. I am not one of those who are frequent victims of the police. Wherever you get a population held down by the police, the police are bound to act, often with violence, and universally to deny that violence when it is questioned. The number of people who have been shot while attempting to escape exceeds the number who have been executed since the Flood. That is the inevitable result of oppression. You cannot help it. You can check it by a vigilant executive, but while the police are faced with angry mobs and are being stoned, you may be pretty certain to get a certain amount of violence.
    I want to utter a very serious word of warning to all who really hope for a free democratic India in the future. I am afraid that the Round Table Conference and the Commission sitting in India today are going to leave us worse off, so far as a democratic India is concerned, than we are to-day or than we were when the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were put on the Statute Book. I have all along mistrusted this federal plan, this alliance with the princes and, the rich of India. I have seen, all along, the intense anxiety of many of the professed Nationalists in India, lest the reforms contemplated an India where the common people would have control over the intelligentsia. Fear of the people is often a good enough excuse for extravagant racial hatred. It
    832
    is easy to rouse the mob against the Englishman, the Moslem or the Hindu, and to distract in that way the more sober people from the real economic issues that face India. Your federal solution would bring in the princes—what an assistance to Indian democracy !—the Princes of India, who, in their own petty realms, rule much as did the princes of Germany in the 18th century. The story of Jew Süss is repeated ad infinitum in the Indian realms.
    These are the people you bring in. Why? They are being brought in by the Government of India, by the rich and by those who have a stake in the country and are fearful of what might happen if India governed itself. We ought to see whether these princes of India understand in their own territories the elements of democracy before we put them in charge of British India, 200 years ahead of their intellectual and political development. The danger is that the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were for the people, and we all pressed for them at the time in this House. At any rate, they were on sound democratic lines. There was special representation for the rich and for the different religions, the different "communities," as they are called, but it was reduced, so far as the India Office and Mr. Edwin Montagu himself could manage it. Now we see that communal representation has a feast all on its own in every legislature in India. There is the priest, the fiery partisan elected solely on account of his hostility to every other crowd. There you will, indeed, get a useful democratic court! Those elections depend upon their bitterness, their intransigence, and upon stirring up voters against other people on purely communal lines—what a chance for democracy.
    What we are seeing to-day, and what we are reading daily in the papers, of the proceedings of the Commission in India under Lord Lothian, fill one with fear rather than with hope. If the Secretary of State for India were here, I would beg him to withdraw that Commission, which is only wasting money, and which can lead to no solution, for it is obvious that the Round Table Conference settled only one out of 20 points, and even that it referred back to the Prime Minister to enable them to make up their minds. Nothing could come out of the Confer-

    833
    ence. Here you have a Commission going round, deciding, making up their minds, not on the issue of a central government for India, for I do not think any person who has studied the question believes that there will be any considerable change in the central government, but considering the problems of local government in all the great provinces. In all those provinces the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms have worked fairly, and the Simon Commission made recommendations about the Provincial Governments which met with the acceptance and approval of most Radicals and democrats who knew much about the subject. They proposed greater decentralisation, greater powers for the local parliaments, more complete responsibility to the elected bodies of the executive, all moves in the right direction, and based on what we had done in Ceylon.
    Now the Lothian Commission is going through India considering these problems, and finding that with almost childlike candour, nearly all the witnesses that they see would like to change the system of voting in India. Curious that they should not have known it before! One of the features of the Round Table Conference was that all parties, and all those great and good that sat around that Table, were agreed on one point, and one point only. Even Gandhi had to put up with it. They were agreed on the point that the ryots of India should not have a vote. [Interruption.] I have only the "Times" report. The extension of the franchise was one of those things which were vested in the central government. Now we are seeing what the Commission is doing. They are finding that the people who give evidence before them would prefer a system of indirect election rather than direct election, that change which was, to my mind, most unfortunately suggested by the Royal Commission as to the election of the legislature at Delhi, where they recommended that direct election should be dropped and indirect election substituted for it. They are experiencing more pressure to change the system for the provincial councils to indirect election, which is regarded as so much better, productive of much better results and much safer than direct election.
    Of course there are plenty of good arguments for indirect election, the size of the electorate for one thing—an awful drawback, particularly when you have communal representation superimposed upon
    834
    the general electorate. The real objection to indirect election is that it is not democratic and it is not English. You have never seen it in this country, and you never will. We have had proposals that the House of Lords should be elected by the county councils, borough councils and city councils of this country. That, indeed, would be a system of indirect election. I think everybody who has studied the question knows that under that system you would get a permanent Tory representation of any body so elected. You would get the governing classes there. These people who are giving evidence before the Commission are the governing classes in India. They want to have power permanently in their hands. In the extension of the electorate, why, you might even get untouchables elected. You might, but it is almost impossible.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: You do.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, only on the communal system. They are never elected by a General Election. You might get them elected, however, if the franchise were extended. What is to stop that? It is to have indirect election. The hon. Member who speaks in favour of Indian protection might have had a glimpse, if he had studied the way in which these matters have been debated in Delhi recently, of the power exercised in India to-day by the financial magnates of India, by the steel magnates, by the jute magnates, by the cotton magnates. These people have power already. They have almost more power than the officials in India. They get their way about tariffs and bonuses. They might lose that power if there were an extension of the franchise, but they will solidify it for ever, in alliance with the Princes and the central Government, if they can found it firmly on indirect representation in the provincial councils; and, instead of the next step forward for which we have hoped—the advance from the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms to something a little better, even to the reforms advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs —we shall, if this Committee, in the present reactionary wave of sentiment about India which is going through this country, reports in favour of these things, have taken a step backwards instead of

    835
    forward, and India will be saddled firmly with a system which will perpetuate poverty beneath and wealth and extravagance above.
    "White parasols and elephants mad with pride,
    These are the flowers of a grant of land,"
    as the old Indian writer put it. They are also the flower of an undemocratic system imposed upon a people uneducated and helpless, imposed upon them at the bidding of those whose politics consist of denouncing the English, and whose economics consist in keeping down the working class in India.
    Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: This subject is so vast that one can concenttrate only on a few salient points. To begin with, I would warmly congratulate the Secretary of State for India and the Government on the firmness they have displayed and the manner in which they have "called" the Congress's "bluff." The Labour party seem to be unable to shake themselves free from the belief that the Congress really represents the people of India. As a matter of fact, the Congress consists of only a few of the intelligentsia; it does not by any means include them all, or any large number of them; and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and his friends behind him, are persistently deceived by the Congress, or deceive themselves, as to its value and as to its right to speak for the people of India. What, perhaps, has never yet been grasped sufficiently in this House, is that the swaraj to which people agree in theory means something very different to all the parties who agree to it. They may theoretically agree to such phrases as, "responsibility at the centre," "federation," "provincial autonomy," "democracy," and "safeguards;" but to them the swaraj which they seek means quite different things from what it means to us. To the Sikh, "swaraj" means Sikh-raj; to the Moslem it means Islamic-raj; to the high-class Hindus—the Brahmin and the bunnia—it means Hindu-raj. The Rajput has his own ideas; the Mahratta his; and, as things are at present, men of all these different classes are in doubt and anxiety as to what the future has in store for them.
    In the meantime, the one thing needed in India is the removal of fear and the
    836
    restoration of confidence. Congress during the last few years, and under the last Government, has attained a position to which it was never entitled, and which it had never before attained. It was allowed a latitude which resulted in the people of India being doubtful as to who was governing the country. Only the other day I was informed that the labourers in some mines with which I am acquainted said, "We never had a bad time under the British raj, but we now get lower wages and no price for our produce, and we do not want any more of this Gandhi-raj that has brought these troubles on. us." They were not altogether fair to the Gandhi-raj in this case, but, as Mr. Gandhi gets so much credit in cases where he does not deserve it, there is not, perhaps, much harm if he gets a little discredit where he does not deserve it.
    I am afraid that the Labour party do not understand in the very least what they are doing when they speak up for the Congress and the interests at the back of the Congress. They have stood, and we always understand that they will stand, for the benefit of the poor and of the masses, but they are acting in exactly the opposite way; they are putting forward proposals as to what the Government should do, and schemes which the Government should follow, which certainly be absolutely destructive of the happiness of the masses. When they only see one set of people in this country, why cannot they believe those who have spent their lives in administering the country, the people who have been friends of the poor? The other day a young gentleman, a recent acquaintance of mine, said to me, "The difference between us is that you care for the masses, while I do not." I confess that I was shocked for the moment at what appeared to be a rather callous statement, but, on reflection, I said to myself, "This man is probably just as humane as yourself, but the masses to him mean nothing but vast, blurred multitudes in whom he can take no real interest."
    The masses to us administrators, however, are men and women with whom we have talked, whose grievances we have tried to redress, whose courage under adversity we have admired, whose sufferings we have witnessed, with whose desire for help we have tried to comply,

    837
    and who, although they may commit many bad deeds, are very often capable of generosity which would shame many of us in this country. We stand for those masses. The British raj and British officers have always been the friends of the under-dog; and yet the party who always stand for the under-dog in this country are the very people who decry our efforts, who disbelieve what we tell them, and who listen to every word that the Brahmin who comes across here may say. They do not seem to understand that the advanced politician of that kind is a very crafty man. He is a great judge of character, and he is absolutely perfect at concealing his own thoughts; and, with these two qualifications, he gets round our people in this country and deceives them entirely. His talk is that which will please the listener. He talks divine stuff to the divine; he talks Socialism to the Socialist, or Communism to the Communist. He catches the listener's ear with whatever will please the particular listener to whom he is talking, and he winds up with sob-stuff of all kinds to those who are susceptible to it.
    Members of the Labour party are always falling victims to this kind of talk, and they really think that they have got at the truth. I am not accusing them of anything but being readily persuaded by people whose veracity or judgment they cannot readily discern. That party, by its policy during the last two or three years, has brought about the situation in which the present Government have had to act so firmly, and to resort to ordinances of various kinds. Had the ordinary law been administered with firmness during the last three years, there would have been no necessity for any of these ordinances. Members of the Opposition still seem, however, to persist in the idea that Congress can be conciliated, and that Gandhi can still be persuaded. That great soul—I do not know how else to describe him—is what I might call a synthetic saint. He believes to his own satisfaction that he has solved the great problem of how to serve God and Mammon at the same time. But he carries no real influence with the Congress, and they will discard him as soon as he ceases to be of use to them.
    6.30 p.m.
    We have to deal, in the Congress, with one of the powers of darkness in this
    838
    world, because they are leagued with all kinds of sinister movements—the reddest Bolshevism, the terrorists, and so on. They are absolutely unscrupulous. To give an instance, only the other day, when the Red, Shirts were tackled at Kohat, and the commanding officer of the cavalry regiment, who had made some prisoners, asked some of these Red Shirts why it was that they had been acting as they did, and had been hostile to the Government and mutinous, the answer that they gave was this: "We were informed that every mosque in India had been closed, and that no Mohammedan was allowed to read the Koran; and, when our religion was interfered with in that way, what course had we left except to resist the Government?" These are the devices by which, not the Mohammedans, but the Hindu Congress have used their influence to excite Mohammedans against the British raj. There is no limit to the use that they will make of every opportunity given to them, without the slightest scruple or regard for truth. In fact, this persistence in the effort to win over the Congress is about the same as would be the release of all the Dartmoor convicts in the hope that burglars and motor bandits over the country generally would be so touched that they would abandon their crime. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) seemed to see light every now and again in the course of his speech, but afterwards to go back into the dark. I find the greatest difficulty in ascertaining what it is that he really wants for India. Nothing seems to satisfy him. It is no good pleading for democracy if democratic institutions can take no root in that country. You cannot go forward on those lines until democracy establishes itself by reason and education. That must inevitably take time and, indeed, in a country of that magnitude, and with nationalities and races so distinct, it is inconceivable that you can have one democratic unity for the whole country.
    I was very much interested in what the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Lloyd) had to say about trade in India. I am a great believer in the possibilities of India, and I echo what he said. What I feel about it is that we cannot expect

    839
    India to agree to a fiscal system to the prejudice of her own industries. The greatest mistake ever made in our dealings with that country was the cotton Excise Duty. That mistake we must never repeat. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] You do not in any country put an Excise Duty on the necessaries of life, or on your budding industries, as they then were, But I know that there are millions of people in India who are perfectly willing and happy and anxious to trade with us, and that very liberty of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke was denied to them so Icing as Congress had the upper hand, owing to our own weakness. I can only hope that the discussions at present going on will bear some fruit, although I feel that progress has been extremely small towards union. It has really been disunion, and the inability of the Hindu-Moslem question to settle itself by agreement may resolve itself into an attempt by the Government to settle it for them. An autocratic Government might be able to do it, but it is extremely difficult for, a Parliamentary Government, based on democracy, to interevene successfully in a radical dispute of this kind. Every section of the poulation wants its own raj under the name of Swaraj. There is no common desire to be ruled by anyone else except themselves and, if they cannot rule the whole, they would rather be ruled by the British than by any other section, or nation or group of nations in India itself.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Gentleman has described to us what Swaraj is. It struck me it was something very like a National Government. It is one word, and it expresses a desire for a nation doing something or other, but each person interprets it according to his own particular predilections. We have here a Swaraj body. Some think it is Free Trade and some think it is Protection. Its supporters all interpret the word "National" in their own sense. I agree that in the Swarajist movement you have this extraordinary collection of people with very varied ideas. You have perfect idealists and you probably have thoroughpaced blackguards as well. But you cannot condemn a movement for its worst people, and you cannot merely dismiss a movement like this by suggesting that it
    840
    is mixed up with all sorts of things. I thought the hon. Gentleman was very interesting when he talked of Red revolutionaries, elders of Zion, and so forth, and was celebrating the great Reform Bill of 100 years ago, for he had more or less placed himself in the part of the Attorney-General of that day, who made the same sort of speech about the French Revolution. I do not disguise in the least the difficulties that the Secretary of State has to face. I know perfectly well the intransigence of the Congress party, and I am not in the least taken in with a good many of the professions that are made of democracy by people who do not know what democracy is, or of a wonderful love of mankind by people who have a very shrewd idea of their own interests. I have no sympathy whatever with anarchy and murder, and I fully recognise that the Government has got to be carried on. But what I want to know is, what is the Government policy? What do they intend to effect? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that everything in the garden is more or less lovely now. I suppose to-day is more springlike than two months ago, but it is pretty bitter all the same. The right hon. Gentleman has got his prisons crowded with people.
    Sir S. HOARE: They are not half as crowded as they were in your time.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I quite agree, and that is the trouble. Whatever Government you have, you have this difficulty. But the point is that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have any other idea than putting them in prison. The late Government developed, I thought with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman's leader, a method of conciliation and conference which, I believe, was leading to good effects. The right hon. Gentleman talked of war. He said the Swaraj had declared war. I rather thought he had declared war himself. He thinks somehow he is going to repress the Congress movement by force. I believe that that is a profound mistake. I agree that you have to suppress such things as the anarchist movement in Bengal. I quite agree that you have to preserve law and order. But that is a very different thing from condemning the whole Nationalist movement, and thinking that you are going to stop it by force. The right hon. Gentleman is making the same kind of mistake that has been made with regard

    841
    to every national movement there has ever been. The kind of mistake that they made on the Continent in 1848 is the same sort of mistake that he is making now.
    May I call attention to some things that are reported, so that before the evening is out we may know whether they are true. Is it true that petty, childish attacks on national flags and national uniforms are indulged in by the right hon. Gentleman's Government? The Indians have what they call a national flag. There are always parties that try to make the national flag their party colour. The right hon. Gentleman knows that quite well. It is very awkward for their opponents, because, if they tear it down, they are supposed to he traitors to their country instead of to the Tory party. It is precisely the same in the case of India with regard to their party flag. Then you have small boys run in for waving flags. Then you have the Gandhi cap. I do not admire it, but it is the uniform that has been adopted by the nationalists. Is it true that they are forbidden to wear it? I know that the police were found knocking them off people's heads when I was in India. I am not concerned to lead an attack on the police—the police always have a very difficult duty —but neither am I inclined always to applaud the police. There are some people on the back benches who believe that a policeman is always right as long as their Government is in power. All police forces make mistakes. They are all apt to get out of hand. But I am very doubtful whether the kind of way this business has been gone about by the right hon. Gentleman's Government is not going to make far more trouble than he has had already.
    There is a very great variety of opirrion in Congress. It ranges from extremists —anarchists if you like—right the way down to people who, if they were in this country, would be considered rather reactionary Conservatives, and every grade of Liberal between. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's action is driving everyone into the Congress party. If you allow it to be believed that the Nationalist movement is solely represented by the Congress party, if you proscribe every agitation of the Congress party or any action of the Congress party, you lead everyone who has any Nationalist sentiment in him at all to identify himself with the Nationalist
    842
    party. It seems to me that the statesmanlike line to take was to say, "We recognise this nationalist movement. We recognise its strength and its weakness. We will endeavour to work with all that is best in the Congress movement." The right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said Congress did not represent all the people of India. There is very little need to be told that. He said it did not represent the whole of the intelligentsia. We know that. But the fact is that sympathy with the Congress point of view is extremely widespread. When I was in India, I found it in quarters where you would not expect it at all. I found it widely spread among Government servants, among every class of intelligentsia and business people of every kind. They did not go actually with Congress, but they realised the strength of the Congress case., and they had a feeling for the Nationalist movement and you found it expressing itself in different ways. I am afraid that, if you take the action you say you are going to take, to suppress all Congress activity, all the young and more active people will seek to identify themselves with Congress. One never knows whether to speak of the Secretary of State or of the whole Government. It is a limited liability company. I should like to ask whether the Prime Minister is with the Secretary of State?
    Sir S. HOARE: There have never been any differences between us.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I fail, then, to Bee any particular effect on this Government of persons other than members of the Conservative 'party. It seems to me there is a danger that the Government are proceeding with the idea of brushing aside Congress. I recognise very well the position of the Moslems and the Depressed Classes, but the danger is that in seeking to placate minorities, you may estrange the majority. It is a difficulty that almost everyone seems to fall into in dealing with India. They always admit that minorities should have such a large representation on this, that and the other, that they turn a minority into a majority on every representative body. I am rather afraid that the Government are trying to rule by placating the minorities. I am rather afraid of that with regard to the introduction of the constitution in the North-West Frontier Province. I think it is dictated by a de-

    843
    sire to placate the Moslems. You are doing it while various Ordinances are in force in that province. It was a most unfortunate thing that the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms came in while special Ordinances were in force. When the North-West Frontier Province is being given reforms you are governing by ordinance; you are trying to introduce democratic institutions. I do not think you can do it under circumstances like that.
    The next point is with regard to the economic factors that underlie this discontent. In my view all these political and nationalist movements, while they have a considerable pull on the purely sentimental and political mind, if they are to be effective, always have to base themselves on real economic grievances. I think that that is profoundly true of India. Anyone will recognise that there are profound economic evils from which the mass of the people of India are suffering, and Congress as a revolutionary movement will of course exploit them. Take the case of the United Provinces. It is a landlord province. You have a number of very wealthy landlords, and we are told that there is a no-rent campaign. It may be partly a no-tax campaign, but there is also a no-rent campaign. It is not a new thing started by Congress. It was going on strongly when I was in India. The Government were trying to face it with a Bill to be agreed on between landlords and the Swarajists to give some sort of tenant right, some justice for tenants. The difficulty of the whole situation in India is that you are brought up against an economic position which is attributed to this country by people in India. There are great economic difficulties that alien Governments cannot remove and which can be removed only by Indians taking action themselves.
    That is why we on this side are a little disturbed at the line the Government have taken. We have said—that is myself and the other signatories to the Simon Report—that in our view the Nationalist movement had a force that might be used to save India. It seems to me that the Secretary of State is challenging the National movement. If he wants to work with the Moderates he is going the wrong way about it. I believe the danger is that he will
    844
    estrange group after group of Moderates. I do not think he will be able to govern by minorities. I think the danger is that he will get the whole of India against him.
    Take another case. There is the question of the trade of India, the boycott of British goods. I do not pretend for a moment that it is entirely a genuine patriotic movement. There are interested parties. It is extraordinarily useful to the Indian cotton trader to get rid of British competition. There is, too, the rivalry of Ahmedabad and Bombay. But there is something more than that. I do not think anyone can deny that in times past Indian commercial interests have been sacrificed to British. I certainly think, and I have abundant evidence on the point, that a large amount of discontent amongst commercial classes was caused by the rupee exchange. I know that there is considerable irritation at the present time owing to the Secretary of State having ordered the rupee to be linked to sterling against the wishes of all the chief trading people in India, and against the wishes of the Indian Government, I believe. It is represented and will be represented all the time as a fact that India is used for the interests of this country and not of Indians. Anyone reading the Secretary of State's speech will find in every single instance he gave, whenever he used glowing language, that things were better, not for the Indians but for investors in Indian stock. He took the instance of the tea industry, which is mainly in British hands.
    I suggest that there is a great danger in the point put by the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. G. Lloyd), and that is on the question of the Ottawa Conference. I would like to know how India is to be represented at Ottawa. Are the Indian people to be represented by the Secretary of State or is Indian trade to be represented there? It is a very dangerous thing if at a conference like that you attempt to deal with India from the standpoint of British interests. She has not full power like a Dominion. She is not a Colony. She has in a limited degree control through the fiscal convention. But I am a little afraid lest if you try to fix up any Empire agreement of that sort, unless you have a representation there that really represents the interests of India, you will only add fuel to the flame, and cause Indians

    845
    to say again that India has been sacrificed to British interests. Therefore I am a little disturbed at the idea of the Secretary of State going to the Ottawa Conference to make bargains on behalf of India which the Indian people may repudiate. I am very doubtful as to whether we ought to proceed on those lines.
    My final words will be these: I certainly did not catch a very hopeful note in the speech of the Secretary of State. Indians are apt to complain of a lack of sympathy and understanding. A great deal of our trouble is caused by the fact that we do not understand the Indian mind; and the Indian mind does not understand the British mind. I think Congress has done a great many foolish things because Indians do not under-stand British psychology. I think the Secretary of State does just the same. There was hardly a word that he said of sympathy with Indian aspirations. It was businesslike, cold, and I thought quite unsympathetic. There was very little at all of recognition of the fact that after all there was some case for India. There was no touch of warmth about it, but only a cold official and rather self-righteous recital, and it is a fatal thing with regard to India to be self-righteous. I think the present position is extraordinarily unsatisfactory. The experiment of trying to crush Congress is likely to fail. I believe that so far from it succeeding you will get only class after class joining in the movement until eventually you find yourselves, despite yourselves, creating a united India, united by a common hostility to the British connection; and that is the last thing I should wish to happen.
    Sir JAMES DUNCAN MILLAR: I feel certain that the Committee as a whole have realised the extreme difficulty of the task with which the Government is confronted in dealing with the situation in India. I wish to pay my tribute to the sincerity of the Secretary of State in his desire to do what he thinks is best and most helpful in securing better relations between this country and India. I have risen to deal with one point which was referred to by the hon. Member for Caer-philly (Mr. Morgan Jones) in connection with the administration of the Indian police. The hon. Member referred to the case of Dr. Paton, and I ask the Com-
    846
    mittee to allow me to say a few words about it. Dr. Paton is a distinguished graduate in medicine, who for many years past has devoted himself whole-heartedly to the service of the Indian people. He established a medical mission in South India, and his work has been recognised all over India as being most helpful, both in the medical and other services provided. In fact he is one of the many Britishers who have gone to India, and have helped to sweeten the lives of the Indian people and to improve the relations between the two great nations.
    Dr. Paton has never in any way associated himself with any political movement. His actions and his work have been entirely inspired with the one object of serving the poor and the afflicted and bringing home to them the 'New Testament lesson. There can be no shadow of doubt whatever that when the assault was made upon him by the police on the occasion in question, it was not only entirely unwarranted, and that the subsequent charge which was made against him and which was ultimately withdrawn, that he had been in the company of Congress volunteers who were picketing foreign cloth shops and that he had assisted in the boycott of foreign cloth, was also entirely unfounded. His statements are on record in the Presidency Magistrate's Court in Madras. Reference has been made to the need for producing documents. That statement, which was filed in court by Dr. Paton, remains on record, as he has had no opportunity of stating his defence publicly owing to the fact that the case against him was withdrawn. I venture to submit that the statement he there made is one which will be not only fully substantiated, but one which sets forth correctly all the facts.
    Although Dr. Paton was attacked with lathis and was twice placed under a watercart and treated in a fashion which this Committee would deplore, he has no feeling whatever of vindictiveness against the police or those who were concerned in the assault. While he could have lodged a complaint against them for unlawfully assaulting him he has refrained from doing so, and he does not desire in any way to complicate the political tension in India. His only concern is as to alteration of the present system and of the police instructions so

    847
    far as these were responsible for what took place on that occasion. There are two questions raised by this case. One relates particularly to the question of the assault upon a British subject. That is a matter which calls for full and adequate amends being made to Dr. Paton, and I have every hope that the Government will see their way to make such a statement along with a suitable apology when they have completed the negotiations which, I understand, are now taking place in India. The second question is a much more important one, and relates to the means which the Government propose to take to prevent the possible recurrence of such incidents and the use of force by the police in circumstances which make it unwarrantable and illegal.
    7.0 p.m.
    While we must sympathise with the police in India in the great difficulties and dangers so often associated with the discharge of their duties, I feel sure that the occurrence of such an instance as this is bound to suggest that to-day excessive force has been used outwith the powers of Section 128 of the criminal code and that beating with lathis and other forms of force have been employed in certain cases with unhappy consequences. I make no general charge against the police, but the instructions which have been issued, some of which have appeared in an official communique by the Government of Madras, with regard to the use of force in dispersing a crowd appear to me to require reconsideration. I understand that is a matter which the Secretary of State is prepared to look into. There is too large a discretion left to the police to-day in regard to the use of force outwith the actual provisions of the ordinances and of the criminal code. I am glad to say I had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Secretary of State, and I am confident that the Government in this matter are principally concerned to see that justice is done and are prepared to take into account the necessity in such cases of taking some form of appropriate action. I am certain it is their desire to see that excessive force should not be used and, where it has been or where it may well be used under existing instructions, I trust and believe that they will take im-
    848
    mediate action to make that impossible in the future.
    I hope the Secretary of State will be able to make some further statement with regard to this case at an early date. It is very desirable that that should be done. Such instances as this case are bound to create a great amount of uneasiness and are easily calculated to alienate loyal opinion in India. It is in the interest of the Government and of the people of India as a whole that these incidents should be carefully investigated and steps taken where, as in this case, there undoubtedly was an excessive use of force and an attempt made upon a gentleman, whose sole object and interest has been to promote the best interests of the Indian people and to secure in every way their advancement. In conclusion, I hope that the result of this incident may he not to create additional bitterness, but, instead, to lead the Government of India to remove causes which may lead to increased bitterness. I hope that Dr. Paton may find that the sufferings inflicted upon him have at least saved others from similar treatment and that they may lead to a new spirit of reconciliation in India which will bring men together instead of drawing them apart.
    Sir W. SMILES: This Debate has gone a long way from where it was started by the Secretray of State. I did not expect to hear the question of franchise raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). Although he has read the report of the Simon Commission, he has evidently not read seine of the reports of the provincial committees which co-operated with the Simon Commission, because one of the provincial committees advised adult suffrage and open voting, which goes a long way beyond anything that I heard mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Member. The fact is that when I discussed this very question with one of the members of the Simon Commission, who has, unfortunately, passed away since then, he said: "I agree with this preposition, although it would never go down in England where they support the ballot box." The ballot box is not so suitable for the East, where so large a proportion of the population cannot read. Very often at present, when people go to vote, they have their cards marked outside by

    849
    a babu, and, when you ask who they are going to vote for, they say: "I don't know, but the babu will mark my card." In my opinion, the only two courses are open voting or electoral colleges. I worked at the franchise for some few years in one of the smaller provinces, and at the end I could only suggest that as the nearest thing possible. I agree that it is not perfection by any means.
    I must begin by congratulating the Secretary of State for India on what he did when he took office. I was one of those who voted against the Government on that Division. I did it because for the first time I could not make anything out of that White Paper, which made me believe that the Government were neither going to keep order nor to push on fast with snore self-government in India. Both those things are now carried out very fully. For that reason, if there were a Division again, I should be very happy to vote with the Secretary of State. I certainly think that those two things must go hand-in-hand, and I do not agree with the hon. Member who spoke on this bench, who disagreed with me entirely and thought that extension of self-government and keeping law and order properly do not go hand-in-hand. We must remember that we are going to hand over the government in the future to the Indians, and it would be most unfair if we left the country in a state of chaos, riot and anarchy, which was what the country was rapidly drifting to.
    Speaking the other day about our trade relations in Shanghai, the Foreign Secretary said that he hoped that British trade would never wish to profit by the boycott of other people. I wish the same sentiment prevailed in Bombay at the present moment. I would ask the Secretary of State for India if he has any knowledge of the tenders of the Bombay municipality, in which it is stated on every tender form:
    "Intending contractors should note that the Corporation have expressed the opinion that no article manufactured in any part of the British Empire outside India should be used by any of the departments of the municipality or by any of its contractors except when they are not available in any other part of the world."
    It is all very well prosecuting these pickets, who only get four annas a day for picketing, if you let a big municipality like Bombay defy the Govern-
    850
    ment. This municipality's tenders are seen by a member of the Indian Civil Service. It is a very grave wrong that is being done to British traders. That is not the British idea, of fair play at all, and, when the Foreign Secretary said that we did not wish to profit in China by the boycott of the Japanese, I hope that the Secretary of State for India will bear the same thing in mind when dealing with these tenders of the Bombay municipality.
    A few weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State for India a question about the reduction of the Police in the United Provinces. My opinion is that the economy in the police forces in the United Provinces has been cut to the bone. If the right hon. Gentleman will look up the statistics of murders and crimes in 1931 and compare them with those of 1930, he will find a very serious increase. The fact is that the police have been badly overworked owing to this civil disobedience movement and that they have not been able to look after their proper duties. We did have an assurance from the Secretary of State in a debate some time ago that in no case would the pay of the lower ranks of the police be reduced. There are two ways of reducing pay: one is by actual wages and the other is by giving the police too long hours to work. If you pay them the same wages for working too long hours, it is exactly the same as cutting down their pay. Already I see in the paper that the police force in Delhi is not too good and that some of them refused duty the other day. I hope the Secretary of State for India and the governors of those provinces will be warned in time that there is such a thing as carrying economy too far. It is all very well having a balanced Budget, but it is no use handing over the provinces with a dissatisfied police force.
    The treatment of the prisoners in the gaols was also mentioned, but I think that the surroundings of the gaols at the present moment are healthy and comfortable, although we are informed that there are not so many people in gaol at present as under the late Government. My opinion is that in some cases the treatment of prisoners under trial and of political prisoners is a bit too good. I spoke to an Indian friend of mine about this. He is not a bad chap and went to prison in 1921 and suffered imprisonment for what he thought were the in-

    851
    terests of his country. He said that he had a jolly good time in prison. I saw him coming by train from one prison to another, and as he went down the platform he had two constables behind him, one of them carrying his suitcase. That is all right in the case of an aged gentleman, but not in the case of a young man, who ought not to expect the same amenities of life when he goes to prison as he would enjoy in the Taj Mahal Hotel in Bombay.
    The Debate has gone a long way from the course I expected it would take, but I would point out that in my opinion our only chance is to start by provincial autonomy. I have unfortunately not been long in the House of Commons, but I have a very good memory for the speeches I have heard, and I have not acquired the happy knack of forgetting them as soon as I hear them. I well remember a speech made in Delhi by the Foreign Secretary when he was summing up matters to the provincial committees just before he left India. He said that, when we were dealing with these provinces, we should not say that, because a certain province has not tried to work the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, it will always not try to work them. He put it in another way and said that, because a certain province has been a good boy, we must not assume it will always continue to be a good boy or that the province, which has been a bad boy, will always be a bad boy. I disagree with him in that view though I disagree with him in few things. I think the best thing would be to single out the provinces which have definitely and honestly tried to work the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms and to advance them to a further situation of responsibility. It is absolute madness to think of giving any extension of self-government to Bombay or Bengal at the present time. If the Secretary of State would look at the record of provinces like Madras or Assam, the smallest Province, he will find that they honestly and consistently try to work the reforms. The best method of procedure would be to offer self-government first to certain selected provinces, and to postpone it in those in which anarchy, riot and terrorism are rife, until things are quieter again.
    852
    As regards law and order, what one would have advised a few years ago is not safe to-day. We find that terrorism and the Congress party have got such a hold, due to the administration of the past two or three years, that what might have been safe and proper a few years ago is unsafe and improper to-day. It would be best to wait until a three-fourths majority of the Provincial Councils have voted in favour of giving powers to preserve law and order. If the Government would consult moderate opinion it would say, let the question of law and order be put on one side for a time, so that we may see how we get on, and later we might consider taking over the police force. One of the faults of our Administration has been that we have never supported our Indian friends. A statement has been made that more and more Indians have gone to the Congress party because they have seen them insult the British Government with impunity, defy them and make popular heroes of themselves.
    As the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) said, the people who have been strong enough to stand up for the British Government in the past have not been properly supported by the Indian Government. These people have had terrible pressure put on them in every way. In their caste people would not eat with them and would not associate with them. It is that sort of thing that has made people diffident in coming forward to stand up for the British Government. It is a common saying that the moderate Indian has no backbone. One feels that the British Government have never stood up for the moderate Indian.
    In speaking of the economic situation the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Lloyd) made an excellent, speech, but the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) completely disagreed with him in regard to the question of tea growing. The hon. Member for Ladywood said there were a good many Indians interested in tea growing, but the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said that none of them was interested in tea growing. Two or three years ago, before April, 1929, there were lots of Indians interested in tea growing, but on account of the depression in the

    853
    last two or three years they are bankrupt and broken to-day. They have been selling their gardens for anything they could get. The English companies have more liquid resources than the Indians and have been buying up a good many of these poor fellows. The very last thing that the British people who are out there desire is to see the Indian tea grower ruined. They want to see him prosperous. It may be a case of wishing good for themselves eventually, because if the Indian tea growers are making their profits, perhaps they will influence Government not to tax the tea industry when a further measure of self-government is given to India. For that reason we want to see plenty of Indians interested in tea, making a decent profit, and paying their labour properly.
    In regard to the extension of self-government, it is better to build from the bottom, and to start with provincial autonomy first. I find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme when he says that be does not believe in the Federal system. I do not believe in it. How can you expect a central Government to have a tremendous efficiency at the very start. There will be inefficiency at the start. I know of municipalities, for instance, which were completely taken over by Indians. As soon as a man was elected to the municipality he thought that that was a good reason why he should pay no more rates. Therefore, for two, three or five years the people who were elected did not pay their rates. Everybody thought that the best thing to do was to be elected to the municipality. Eventually one municipality, which I have in mind, went bankrupt. It was taken over by an Indian civil servant who made everybody pay up their rates. He got the place solvent again, built a new waterworks, and when he had put everything straight he handed over the municipality again to the municipal authorities. That municipality will go on well in the future. If we start extending self-government in India, we must expect inefficiency at the beginning. Hundreds of Indians have said to me that good government is no substitute for self-government. They expect inefficiency themselves and I think they should be allowed to try it in the Provinces. You cannot take a short cut to any political evolution.
    Mr. BERNAYS: These benches have not been exactly vociferous in support of the National Government during the last few weeks. Therefore, it is with peculiar pleasure that I rise to give general support to the Government policy in India. The only thing that gives me any cause for doubt is the company that I shall have to keep in the Division Lobby. The hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) said that he voted against the Government policy last year, but he felt that now he could vote for it. That seems to indicate some change of policy on the part of the Government, but I hope that it exists only in the mind of the hon. Member for Blackburn. If there is one great success that the National Government have achieved it is, in my judgment, the way they have handled the Indian situation. Their policy has been liberal and firm. At the Round Table Conference they pledged their support to the simultaneous extension Of provincial autonomy, with responsibility at the centre. Since the Round Table Conference they have shown that, while willing and anxious for the help and advice of advanced liberal opinion, they are determined to meet and defeat the forces of disorder.
    We have had from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) a formidable list of atrocities, and no doubt he quoted one or two very bad cases. But I suggest to him that you can get stories of atrocities like those by the bucketful in India. I have had them myself. I had from Indians last year the most detailed accounts of atrocities that had taken place, riots which I actually witnessed, and from personal evidence I was able to prove that there was not a shred of truth in the stories. The hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned the case of Mr. Sen Gupta. He said that he did not know anything about that gentleman. I suggest that in India they do know something about that gentleman. I heard Mr. Sen Gupta praising the murderer Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh was finally executed for having thrown a bomb into an assembly and having murdered Mr. Sanders. I heard Mr. Sen Gupta state that he wished there were more Bhagat Singhs in India. A man of that sort no Government can tolerate, whatever the complexion of the Government.
    The hon. Member for Caerphilly also mentioned tragic instances of boys who

    855
    were being imprisoned. I agree that it is a tragedy, but what about the Congress who encouraged those boys to break the law? The Congress in India are directly creating a class of law breakers which any Government, however Indianised it may be, will have to deal with when it comes into power. The methods that will have to be adopted to crush the civil disobedience movement are repugnant to all decent people, and no doubt a formidable indictment can be brought against the Indian police, but one ought to realise that these Indian policemen do work under the most extraordinary difficulties in maintaining order. I have myself seen supporters of the Congress trying to hold up civic life in Bombay by lying in front of the trams. As fast as the police cleared one line of trams, the Swarajists would rim along the tramlines, lie down again and hold up the trams there. That went on hour after hour, and in the end the police did use perhaps unnecessary violence. It is a terrible business. Many of these demonstrators were women. We have to remember that they have a very different view of women than we have in this country. Morever, these Indian police in their own homes are subject to every kind of persecution. We hear a great deal of persecution by the police, but there is a great deal of persecution of the police.
    The hon. Member for Caerphilly complained that the Secretary of State for India had used the word "war." Who used the word "war" first? It was the Congress who declared war on the Government. The Congress itself is a menace to law and order and it cannot expect to be treated as if it were a Sunday school. The Government is being justified by results. English friends of mine in India, by no means friendly to the National Government, tell me that the civil disobedience movement this time is a very different movement from what it was last time. A great many Indians, hitherto staunch supporters of Mr. Gandhi, feel that the Congress has behaved very stupidly in declaring war, when they were offered the most generous terms of peace. The very success of the present policy of suppression, necessary though it may be, has its dangers. I am sure we all miss the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and we all wish him a speedy return to
    856
    health and strength. A Debate on India is a very tame affair without him. What I am afraid of is that the Government's policy is strengthening the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends and giving them the excuse for insisting once more that resolute government can be a substitute for responsible government. There could be no more disastrous delusion.
    7.30 p.m.
    It is not merely the ordinance and the lathi that are keeping India comparatively quiet, but the belief that Great Britain intends to stand by her bond. It is becoming increasingly fashionable to ridicule the policy of conciliation adopted by Lord Irwin and to contrast it with the severer methods of Lord Willingdon, but surely one policy could not succeed without the other. It is only because Indians remember that the British Government have gone to the utmost limits of conciliation that they are willing to acquiesce in the temporary policy of repression. I suggest that this policy must be temporary. The problem of Indian advance is not solved when Mr. Gandhi re-turns from gaol. In a sense it is made much more difficult, because if you shut a man up one day you have to let him out, and, while I do not suggest that Mr. Gandhi is India, he is to a larger extent than is generally realised Hindu political India and without his cooperation I doubt whether there will ever be a permanent pacification of India. It is vital that the Government should proclaim once again their intention to proceed as speedily as possible with reforms. It has been lightly said in some quarters that the Government now believe that they can govern India for 30 years by Round Table Conferences, and an echo of that idea is being spread in India to-day. Moderate opinion, represented by Sir Tej Sapru, Mr. Jayakar and Mr. Sastri, is still fearful lest their legitimate demands will be side-tracked once more into the mere grant of provincial autonomy. I am certain that the Government intend to stand by their promises both in the letter and in the spirit, but the best answer to this unfortunate suggestion is a clear statement as to when the new constitution is likely to be ready. I hope that whoever replies for the Government he will be able to give some rough and ready idea as to when we may expect an opportu-

    857
    nity of discussing a constitution in this House. Such a statement would in my judgment do more than anything else to maintain and strengthen those new forces that are now rallying behind the Government in its policy of peace with order.
    Mr. JOHN: One must be surprised at the difference in the temper and direction of this Debate as compared with that which took place when this question was last before this House. We have listened this evening to a justification of the policy pursued by the Government in India. For the last Debate a White Paper was issued giving a comprehensive survey of the difficulties which confronted the Government and the Round Table Conference in the process of building up a constitution for India, and in that White Paper there was also a certain measure of appreciation of the progress that was being made. In the Debate itself a wave of optimism prevailed as to the possibility of some good things coming from the Round Table Conference, and the House affirmed its belief in an all-India constitution as being the only solution of the problem and approved a resolution saying that the utmost would be done to surmount the difficulties in the way. The Debate terminated in a spirit of good feeling and mutual desire on the part of the majority to do the utmost for India.
    In the White Paper the Prime Minister indicated that they intended to go ahead; time was pressing. The machinery for working out the details he said would be set in motion and the British representatives would be sent to India as early in the new year as possible. He also said that there were many obstacles in the way, but mere technicalities were not to stand in the way. Everyone realised and agreed that the task of building up a constitution for India required care, and courage and co-operation, and indeed that the success would depend very largely on the measure of co-operation which would exist. Those were the fears which existed during the last Debate. Since then the atmosphere has materially changed, it has become more cloudy, and, however much we may deplore it, there exists in the minds of Indians a great deal of suspicion as to the intentions of this Government, as to whether they really mean what they say. What is there to account for that change in the atmosphere and for the difference in the nature of the
    858
    Debate this evening and on the last occasion. Unfortunately the policy pursued by the present Government is entirely foreign to the spirit which prevailed in the last Debate and to the spirit which was dominant in the Round Table Conference. We appear to be returning to a retention of British domination in India. The policy pursued by the present Viceroy is entirely different from that pursued by his predecessor Lord Irwin.
    If the present Viceroy had shown a greater spirit of toleration it would have been far more effective than the policy adopted by him. If a meeting had taken place between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi to discuss the general situation in all probability it would have led to a mutual understanding and the present situation in India would in all probability have been avoided. Mere technicalities, said the Prime Minister, were not to stand in the way, but on this occasion a mere technicality was allowed to stand in the way of a fundamental principle. It as argued that the last Viceroy could not meet Mr. Gandhi because of the Civil Disobedience movement, the boycott and such things, but the Civil Disobedience movement was in existence when Lord Irwin met Mr. Gandhi. Lord Irwin believed that the best policy was to release Mr. Gandhi and his followers from prison, and as a result of that policy, negotiations were opened and a settlement arrived at, and it became possible for representatives of the Congress to come to this country to the Round Table Conference.
    To argue that these has been a change in conditions is to blind ourselves to the fact that there has been no variation of the conditions in which Lord Irwin met Mr. Gandhi and those which existed when the present Viceroy refused to meet him. Indeed, there was more justification for the present Viceroy to meet Mr. Gandhi than there was far Lord Irwin, because the present Viceroy had the experience of Lord Irwin as a guide. If the experieno of Lord Irwin in meeting Mr. Gandhi was such that the Civil Disobedience movement was discontinued, negotiations were opened and the Delhi settlement reached, that it became possible for Mr. Gandhi to represent Congress at the Round Table Conference, it is natural to assume that, if the present Viceroy had met Mr. Gandhi, the atmo-

    859
    sphere would have been, aleared, a mutual understanding arrived at and no need at all for the terrorism which exists in India at the present time. The Secretary of State has told us that the terrorism in India is being rapidly abated. I do not know whether he has considered the effect of the terrorism, so far as the Government are concerned, upon Indian opinion which is not directly interested or which has no sympathy at all with the activities of Congress.
    There is sufficient information available to show that a condemnation of the policy of the present Government is spreading outside the ranks of Congress members. Indian moderate opinion, which has no sympathy at ail with Congress or with the Civil Disobedience Movement, is condemning the Government for the policy they are pursuing. Take the Servants of India Society, which is not connected with the Congress movement, and of whom the leader is the Hon. Scrinivasa. Sastri. That particular society has passed a series of resolutions deploring the action of the Viceroy in refusing to allow Mr. Gandhi to discuss the ordinances as inadvisable and unjustifiable, and whilst condemning the resumption of Civil Disobedience, have protested against the ordinances, particularly their drastic character, which bring the public into conflict with the authorities, leading to lathi charges, which create widespread resentment in the country. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is no suppression of the Press. The journal of this particular organisation, the Servants of India Society Journal, of 21st January, pointed out that misgivings of the public against the sweeping nature of the ordinances and the extreme hardships and humiliation to which the people are subjected had not proved groundless.
    Take the United Provinces Liberal Association. They have protested, not only against these particular ordinances, but to the Viceroy against the action taken under them, and the lawyers of Madras have questioned the legality of the use of force in dispersing pickets. They say that the police in India at the present time are doing far more than they are really entitled to do under these ordinances. The complaint has been made against them, with regard to the lathis, that they have outdone or over-
    860
    stepped their duty. The Government argue as a justification for the use of lathis, or even for the beating of the pickets, that it is much less disgraceful to beat the pickets than to send them to prison. Not a bit. If the right argument were used, it would be that there is no room for them in the prisons. In all probability the prisons are full, and if they have no room to send offenders into the prisons, then, they might argue, the only alternative is to beat them. Probably the explanation is, as I said, that there is no room in the prisons at all. Then there are other opinions. The Indian Social Reformer quotes from a letter of a British missionary, who says:
    "As British people, who supremely value and need the personal friendship and fellowship of Indian people and desire for them a full and free life, the present situation is for us one of pain and keen regret."
    I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman believes that it is part of the evangel or of the gospel of this country to send missionaries to India, but some of us believe that the foreign policy of this particular Government ought to be Christianised, as well as India. Then there are the American missionaries. They have spoken and written in the same strain, and a number of them have even cabled to the Prime Minister and complained of the terrorism that existed in India on the part of the Government.
    Mr. BRACKEN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he will recall that the missionaries have not devoted much energy to enforcing these principles in Honolulu, a colony of the United States.
    Mr. JOHN: Probably, if the hon. Member had come under the influence of missionaries, it would have been to his advantage. Then take the Moslems. They say that they have offered cooperation to the Government provided that pressure is withdrawn and a general amnesty is granted to all those not convicted for violence. What has disturbed the feelings and agitated the minds of these people, missionaries to India, American missionaries? The Moslems, the members of the country societies, have no connection at all with the activities of the Congress. Surely the conditions in India must be much worse than they have been reported. What is reported in the Press to such an extent

    861
    as to agitate the mind of these people who, at the same time, condemn the civil disobedience and the activities of the Congress I These are the reports that have been brought into this country, which only shows that the disaffection extends outside the pale of the movement itself and those directly responsible for the activities complained of. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no suppression of the Press in India in any shape or form, even of the Indian Press. Actually, a large number of papers, including three members of the Nationalist Press, have been suppressed. Editors have been imprisoned, and a large number of them have had to pay large sums of money as security against their participation in any criticism, however moderate, of the policy pursued by the Government. To argue that this is a small movement, confined within a very small area, is to blind ourselves to the fact that there are practically 900 Nationalist papers in India at the present time, and that some of them have been suppressed and compelled to bind themselves not to criticise the Government. It is significant that one or two papers have been suppressed for criticising the Government's policy; it suggests that the Government itself is ashamed of it and that it is not prepared for the public Press to report it, or that it does not want information to come here to this country, so that an opportunity may be given for a full, free and frank discussion upon the general situation in the House of Commons.
    The hon. Member far Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) referred to the suppression of telegrams and cablegrams addressed to hon. Members of this House. What power have the Government to prevent hon. Members of the House of Commons from receiving the fullest information possible with regard to the general situation in India? The Indian Government compel the Nationalist Press not to give moderate criticism of the policy of the Government. If nothing at all is to be printed in the Nationalist Press of a critical nature, and if cables containing information sent to hon. Members of the House of Commons are prevented from coming over, how in the name of common sense are we to get a full, a frank, and a free discussion upon the Indian situation? We only get one
    862
    side of the report. I do not suggest for a moment that the report of the Secretary of State was coloured in any way, but, after all, it is one-sided. He has only got one particular side, and naturally he is going to defend the policy of the Viceroy in India; but there is no question that there are two sides, and it is only fair that the information that is being sent should be allowed to come through.
    Assume for a moment that it may be exaggerated, that it may be wrong. The place to decide whether it is exaggerated, whether it is untrue, whether it is wrong, is not in India; the place to decide that is on the Floor of the House of Commons, by discussion and argument. We can put forward the information we receive; the hon. Gentleman can then put forward the information he gets, and it can be left to the common sense of hon. Members of the House of Commons to judge what is the real situation in India. In fact, the suppression of these telegrams and cablegrams means that the people responsible for it are also attempting to curtail the scope of discussion upon the Indian question in the British House of Commons. They have no right to do so. The British House of Commons must be given an opportunity to discuss this question with the fullest scope and the fullest expansion possible. You may argue that that is not so unless the information is forthcoming. How are we going to discuss it? And if the Viceroy or the Indian Government are going to be the deciding factors, are going to arrogate to themselves the responsibility of saying what is and what is not to come, logically they will also decide the questions that are going to be discussed or not to be discussed in the House of Commons.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State referred to one or two great difficulties with which India is confronted at the present time, and one of them was the economic situation in the United Provinces. He said that the Indians in that area have been hit as hard as any community in the world. Prices have fallen by as much as 100 per cent., and as a consequence debts have increased up to about 70 per cent.; nine out of every 10 of the people are in the hands of the moneylenders, of whom there are about 45,000: These people, suffering from these economic conditions—these economic hardships;

    863
    —improperly fed, scarcely clothed, suffering from the exactions made upon them by the tax-collectors and by the moneylenders, found it impossible to pay the exactions that were made upon them. The result was a natural revolt of the peasants of the United Provinces against the economic conditions of to-day.
    It was not a political movement, it was not a movement against the Government, it was not even a movement in which Congress had any hand, for although the Viceroy condemned Mr. Gandhi because of the No-rent Strike in the United Provinces, Mr. Gandhi categorically denied the accusation as far as Congress was concerned, asserting that they had no connection with the No-rent Strike. The No-rent Strike was a spontaneous outburst on the part of the peasants of the United Provinces against the economic conditions that prevailed, and because of an economic problem. Even the Government, even the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the conditions were miserable. The Government in India admitted the miserable conditions, because they had already taken steps and made negotiations, and it had ultimately been decided that there should be a scaling down of the rents to 22 per cent. But how in the name of common sense were the peasants going to pay, even assuming that the rents were scaled down to 22 per cent., when their debts to the moneylenders were up to 70 per cent. and the prices had fallen by 100 per cent.? Nevertheless, notwithstanding the admission of the poverty-stricken conditions of the peasantry, what did the Government do? They introduced ordinances practically an the same lines as those in Bengal. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were forced to introduce an ordinance in Bengal because of the terrorist movement and because of the murders that had been committed. There were no murders in the United Provinces, there was no terrorist movement in the United Provinces, and still the ordinance that was introduced into Bengal in order to meet an organisation—or an alleged organisation—of terrorist assassins was also introduced in the United Provinces in order to meet a natural spontaneous outburst of revolt among a poor, downtrodden peasantry.
    8.0 p.m.
    We could go on giving descriptions of the conditions in India; we could also
    864
    quote from the reports in the Press, but I do not believe that any purpose could be served in that particular way. I think that the hon. Member for Caerphilly has already traversed that ground. But if the intention of the Government at the present time is to kill a nationalist movement, to kill a movement with a nationalist ideal, then it is doomed to downfall. Governments of all ages have tried and failed. You have failed in Ireland, and you are going to fail in India. [An HON. MEMBER "You have failed in England."] There is a law, both scientific and historical, that every-thing that is unsuitable and incompatible with life must die, and the converse is also true, that everything that is suitable and compatible with life must live. A movement that is going to serve its age and its country, a movement that is going to be of use and of service to men, will not only live but will demand a place in the growth and development of civilisation. You cannot suppress it. The history of India and the development of the Congress organisation is a clear demonstration of that fact. Originally your Congress movement was not even a party; it was not even an organisation. It was merely a platform for Indian political opinion. But to-day it is an organisation, a strong organisation with a political purpose, and so long as that organisation has a national ideal, it is going to live. Every movement has the instinct of self-preservation. You cannot kill that movement; it will live. What is required is the attempt to understand the Indian mentality; to try to ascertain the ideals of the Indians, and to try, by mutual co-operation and mutual understanding, to make those ideals practical in the history of the Indians; to try to bring about the creation of a popular democratic government for the Indians. The argument of a previous speaker was that we should go in for a policy of provincial Governments but even if you did adopt the policy of provincial Governments and a central Government and worked out a constitution for India on those lines, what hope would there be of working that constitution, with a large section of the nation sullen and indifferent? A constitution will not work, even if it has been agreed to, if you have a sullen and defeated section of the nation. We want

    865
    to get all the nation into co-operation with the Government and I suggest that we ought not to continue the policy of imprisonment of repression and of suppression. We ought to release Mr. Gandhi and his followers.
    It may be said that civil disobedience, unlawful assembly, boycotting and subversive propaganda must stop. It may be said that by resolute government we are going to change the temper of the people. But we cannot do so. We cannot obtain a loyal people by compulsion. We cannot secure co-operation by coercion. Co-operation is dependent on one cardinal principle, that all the parties concerned have one definite objective in view. If you release Mr. Gandhi and his followers there is the probability of arriving by mutual understanding at a solution of the problem. It may be said that that is impossible. A large number of people prior to the Round Table Conference scoffed at the idea of agreement and said that the result would be confusion. A right hon. Gentleman to-night has said that that prophecy has come true, but, if so, it has only come true because we have departed from the spirit and the real intention of the Round Table Conference. If we had operated in that spirit the expectations held of that Conference would have been realised. What we required to do to-day is to hammer out a Constitution for India, to get all parties to work together in a clear atmosphere and with that deliberation and freedom from passion which the problem demands.
    Mr. MOLSON: I feel a little sorry that so much eloquence should have been devoted by the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) to trying to prove what is, I think, universally admitted, and what would certainly be admitted by the Secretary of State. It is not the case that those who support the National Government in their present policy in India believe that a policy of repression can ever solve the problems of India. At the present time a two-fold policy is being pursued. To-day in India there are those who are willing to co-operate with the Government in working out the details of the Constitution which was adumbrated at the Round Table Conference. How are we to take seriously the suggestion that Mr. Gandhi should now be released, when only a few weeks ago he had the
    866
    opportunity of sitting on the consultative committee at Delhi and co-operating, but rejected it? We had for months been cooperating with Mr. Gandhi. It is he who has refused to continue co-operation. No Government, of whatever political complexion, could continue to ignore the fact that the Congress in all parts of the country, but particularly in Bombay and the United Provinces, was deliberately stirring up agitation against the Government.
    I only say that in passing because I wish to invite the Committee to devote attention to the terrorist movement in Bengal. I was very glad that the Secretary of State dealt at some length with that subject. It is, I think, not recognised as widely as it ought to be in this country, that there are still in Bengal the two terrorist organisations which were founded in 1907. They are identical organisations; in some cases the same men occupy posts in them. Chiefly in Western Bengal there is the Jugantar movement, which was started by Barindra Ghose who, shortly after the foundation of that organisation, was interned. In Eastern Bengal there is the Anusilan Samiti founded by Pulin Das. We know the apostolic succession has continued from that day to this. Having taken the advice of senior Members of the House, it is not my intention to give the names of three prominent Bengali politicians, men who have been active in the political life of Bengal and who have, in recent years, been connected with these terrorist organisations. The Secretary of State himself, however, has stated what it had been my purpose to prove that certain Bengali politicians have been terrorists. Although I do not think that Congress, in other parts of India, has been implicated in crimes of violence, in Bengal the conditions are entirely different and persons who have exercised great influence over the Bengal Provincial Congress, and also over the Calcutta Corporation, have been involved in these terrorist conspiracies. No Government, Indian or British, democratic or bureaucratic, which was responsible for the administration of Bengal could forbear from taking the most stern and resolute measures to root out this evil which, has been in existence for 25 years.
    We are asked by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) to sympathise with the lot of a boy who was

    867
    tried in Bombay for picketing. I would like to draw attention to the serious problem of the corruption of boys and, as we now know, of girls, by these murder conspiracies in Bengal. For five-and-twenty years certain schoolmasters and others connected with educational establishments in Bengal, have been getting hold of young boys, initiating them into these organisations and gradually leading them on to become docile tools in the commission of political assassinations. Under some of the rules of these societies which have been discovered there are provisions for admitting to membership boys under the age of 12. There are four different grades of membership and the principal promise which is made by the new member on his initiation is that he will not in any circumstances ever leave the organisation. The penalty for breaking the rules is death and many boys, not knowing on what they are embarking, are induced to join by appeals to their sentiment and their religious ideals. Once they join they are unable to free themselves from these conspiracies. At the risk of wearying the Committee, and because this is first-hand evidence of great value as to the nature of these organisations, which I am asking the Secretary of State to deal with resolutely, I propose to read an extract from a confession made by a lad called Birendra Nath Gupta, who murdered Deputy-Superintendent Shams-ul-Alam on the steps of the High Court in 1909. He said:
    "I was introduced to a gentleman named Jatindra Nath Mukharji … By reading Jugantar I got a very strong wish to do brave and violent works, and I asked Jatin Mukharji to give me work…He asked me if I shall be able to shoot Shame-ul-Alam, I answered that I will be able … I make this statement so as not in injure Jatin, but as I have come to understand that anarchism will not benefit our country, and the leaders (that is the Government) who are now blaming me, now thinking the deed that of a head-cracked boy, to show them that I alone am not responsible for the work. There are many men behind me and Jatin, but I do not wish to give their names in this statement. The leaders who are now blaming me should be kind enough to come forward and guide boys like me in the good ways."
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: What age is the boy?
    Mr. MOLSON: I think the boy's age was about 18. The Committee will for-
    868
    bear from smiling at the naive English of that statement when I say that it was made by the boy the day before he was hanged for the murder of Shams-ul-Alam. If that were the case in 1909, the virus has been spreading steadily ever since and I appeal to the Secretary of State to regard it as a duty to the boys and girls of Bengal and their parents to eradicate the evil. It is not merely a question of the assassination of policemen and British officials. It is the accepted doctrine of these organisations that dacoity, or robbery with violence, upon the most innocent people is justified if they are seeking funds for their organisations and not for their personal advantage. This has gone so far that even the venerated guardian of a Hindu shrine was murdered in a dacoity in order that one of these organisations might obtain funds. We cannot, with a clear conscience, introduce provincial autonomy in Bengal—as I hope may be possible in the not too distant future—if we are to hand over to Indian statesmen the damnosa hereditas of a province corrupted by desperate crime of this kind. I have an uneasy feeling that during the last few months and years the action of the Government of Bengal has not been sufficiently vigorous; and I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here, because there is a special question that I want to put to him, which I shall hope to have answered. It is this: Had the Government of Bengal no information beforehand about the raid upon Chittagong on the 18th April, 1930? Had they no previous information that terrorists intended to carry out that raid? If they had that information, what measures were taken; and, if no measures were taken, why were no measures taken? I do not ask for an immediate off-hand answer to that question. I am prepared to put it down as a question in a week or a fortnight's time if it is necessary to communicate with India upon the subject.
    The Committee may ask how it comes about that these organisations have been allowed to persist in Bengal for so long. The answer to that is that if you follow the graph of this revolutionary crime, you find that it always goes up when there are no special measures in force in Bengal, that it is then suppressed or driven underground when the necessary emergency powers are taken by the Government, and that as soon as those

    869
    powers come to an end, it revives. From 1907 to 1916 it went on increasing, and then special measures were taken; in 1922 most of the detenus were allowed out, and there was a revival of crime; in 1927 emergency measures were taken again, and it was suppressed; and in 1931, down to the present time, you have bad a further recrudescence.
    It may be asked, Why is it that the ordinary criminal law in force in Bengal is not adequate for dealing with these conspiracies? There are three reasons: The first is the question of evidence. There have been numerous cases of dacoities where the police have been in full possession of the facts, where they have received confessions from four and even five men who had taken part in a dacoity, where they have subsequently captured one of them and have known in advance where to look for wounds upon their bodies, and they have found the wounds in the place where their associates had said they bad been wounded on the occasion of such and such an affray. There have been full particulars known, and yet, because of the law of evidence, it has not been possible to obtain a conviction, because no admission made to a policeman is ever evidence.
    In the second place, another great defect of the ordinary law is that overt acts are necessary. In order to establish a conspiracy, there have to be a number of acts of violence extending over a certain time. It is hardly any exaggeration to say that, although the police may know that a certain gang is intending to commit a certain crime, they have to wait until the bullets have been fired before they can take action, and when they do take action the effect of waiting for overt acts is that they only get hold of the tools, excitable boys from schools or colleges, used for the purpose of assassination while the men who are responsible, the men who, as I have said, are some of them occupying the same positions in the organisations as they held in 1908, get off without being convicted.
    Thirdly, under the ordinary law of the land, trials have to take place in open court. In this country we are naturally attached to the principle of trial in open court, but trial in open court can, in certain circumstances, become either a
    870
    farce or a tragedy; and where you have conspiracies which do not hesitate to intimidate and even to murder judges, counsel, and witnesses, there you very soon find the courts reduced to impotence. Bimal Das, who has recently been convicted of the attempted murder of Mr. Villiers, would have been put on trial for the murder of Mr. Peddie had it not been that for some unaccountable reason all the Crown witnesses were unwilling to appear in court. In other cases it turns out to be, not a farce, but a tragedy. The first case was where an informer called Narendra Nath Gosain was murdered—that was, I think, in 1908. Soon afterwards another informer disappeared, and in a train a body was found with the features of the corpse obliterated with acid; and, in order to bring it up to date, it was last month that Ashutosh Neogy was shot in the streets of Calcutta because he was an informer against a certain gang.
    The Government of Bengal use, as one of their principal manuals, Mr. Dan Breen's "My Fight for Irish Freedom," and I would suggest that when the gunmen of Bengal are imitating the example of the gunmen of Ireland, the British Government might do worse than follow the example of the Swaraj Government now in power in Ireland. There, they did not use this temporary legislation, which, as I have shown, has never got to the roots of this conspiracy. In October last, in order to obtain power to set up secret tribunals for dealing with political assassination, they did not pass a temporary Act, they did not pass a permanent Act, but they passed the Seventeenth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, in order to enshrine those powers in the most permanent form possible.
    I have said that the Calcutta Corporation has been under terrorist influence. I am sure that the Government are fully aware that the Calcutta Corporation is an inefficient, a corrupt, and a purely political body. I need not go further than to quote what Mr. Subas Chandra Bose, the first chief executive officer of the Calcutta Corporation, and subsequently mayor, is reported, by his own organ "Liberty," to have said, about the hanging of Bhayat Singh. "India," he said, "was required to produce thousands of Bhayat Singhs before

    871
    she could attain Purna Swaraj," And in ease anyone questions my fairness in criticising the Calcutta Corporation through the sayings of even an ex-mayor, I would invite attention to the attitude of the Corporation itself in the case of the hanging of Denish Gupta. He was executed for the cold-blooded murder of Lieut.-Colonel Simpson, and the "Calcutta Municipal Gazette," of 11th July, 1931, contained on its front page a portrait of Denish Gupta, and the following report of a meeting of the Calcutta Corporation:
    "Execution of Denish Gupta. Corporation's tribute. Meeting adjourned. The Corporation of Calcutta expressed its sorrow at the execution of Denish Gupta and adjourned its meeting on Wednesday, the 8th July. When the Corporation assembled Councillor Bhupendra Nath Banujee moved This Corporation records its sense of grief at the execution of Denish Chandra Gupta, who sacrificed his life in the pursuit of his ideal. The House adopted the resolution standing. On the motion of Councillor Madan Mohan Burman the meeting was adjourned till Friday, the lath July. The Mayor, in associating himself with the resolution, paid a tribute to the courage and devotion of the deceased."
    I do not know how much longer the Secretary of State intends to leave the affairs of the second city of the Empire in the hands of a body of men who see fit to record their regret at the execution of a common murderer.
    I wish to say a word about the Press, particularly because of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John) has said about the suppression of free criticism. I do not think that he perhaps realises the stream of virulent and deliberately fabricated falsehoods which certain organs in India emit day after day and week after week for the express purpose of arousing racial hatred.
    Mr. J. JONES: Do you read the "Daily Express"?
    Mr. MOLSON: The nearest example which I can think of in this country would be the "Daily Herald," but even that, I assure the hon. Gentleman, has much to learn from the Indian Press. I should like to give a personal example. In 1928 "Forward," the Swaraj organ in Calcutta, came out with a paragraph stating that after a railway accident had taken place near Calcutta and as Indians
    872
    lay injured on the ground, Englishmen went around and gave directions for their murder. The Editor was sentenced to the wholly insufficient punishment of three months' simple imprisonment. While the appeal was pending, which I rejoice to say was unsuccessful, I was taken round the office of "Forward" by a young Bengali friend of mine who was on the staff, and the Editor was introduced to me. Inevitably his residence in the near future came up for discussion, and I said to him, "I suppose that a busy editor does not see everything that goes into his paper, and I feel quite sure that you did not yourself personally authorise that particular statement to be made in your paper." He said, "Oh, I did most certainly. I read it carefully before I allowed it to be put in." I asked him point blank if he believed it to be true. He evaded the question by saying that I did not realise what awful things sometimes were done in India. It is because of this deliberate fabrication of facts for the purpose of misleading thousands of Indians who have no means of finding out the truth and who never come across an Englishman from the beginning of one year to the end, that I claim that something should be done, not so much in the interests of the British Raj, as in the interests of those readers to prevent these untrue stories from being put about.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that we in this country were informed of a bomb outrage in regard to a group of our own Round Table Conference delegates in India, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State declared that he knew nothing at all about it.
    Mr. MOLSON: I was not aware of that alleged fact, and, in the second place, I do not see what bearing it has upon my statement.
    Mr. JONES: Not only was the statement circulated in the Press but it had been broadcast on the wireless during the afternoon that a bomb outrage upon a party of members of the Round Table Conference and others who were travelling in India had taken place, and my point is, that it was so inaccurate that the Secretary of State for India, when invited to reply with regard to the matter in the House, said that he had heard nothing about it; he could find no evidence.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I do not recollect that the Secretary of State for India ever denied it. He said that it was uncertain whether the bomb was placed there purposely or not. There has never been denial.
    Mr. JONES: Look at the answer.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I have got it.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Look in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I really did not recognise that the hon. Gentleman for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) was referring to the question put this afternoon. That was not my understanding of the matter in the least. [Interruption.] No, I think it could not be. In any case it has absolutely no bearing upon the point which I am making unless the hon. Gentleman goes on to allege that when the statement was made by the newspapers in the country they knew it at the time to be false. I was about to say before I was interrupted that the difficulty in the past had been that under the ordinary law there has only been a power of procedure against the printer and publisher of a newspaper. The seditious organs in India keep constantly a number of dummy printers and publishers who go to gaol one after another while the organisers behind who are really responsible for the policy of the paper are never reached at all. The only way to deal with them is by having permanently a power of confiscating the Press.
    I want to refer to the treatment of the detenues in gaol. I myself at Mandalay Gaol have seen them enjoying themselves playing tennis, and with an unlimited number of books. I have no objection to their enjoying some of the amenities of life there, but the allowances which at present are being made to them are totally excessive. It is in many cases profitable for some of these people to be interned. Far more serious, however, than the fact that their allowances are excessive, is the extremely slack discipline which obtains in many of these camps. There is communication between many of these detenues, and here I come to the next point. In the conspiracy to murder the district magistrate of Barisal, the Government of Bengal considered itself to be unable to protect him. He received a telegram from the Government
    874
    telling him to proceed on leave at 48 hours' notice. That was because it was known that an attempt was going to be made to murder him. I ask, can it really be regarded as a Government when it admits its inability to protect its own officials in the discharge of their duty? It is made almost absurd by what I believe to be a fact that the conspiracy to murder Mr. Donovan was arranged by three detenues already in the Government's hands, one in the detention camp at Calcutta, one in the detention camp at Hijli and the other in the detention camp at Jalpaiguri. I hope there is an opportunity now of dealing with this evil which has existed in Bengal for a quarter of a century.
    Another Governor is going out, and I am sure that we all wish him the best of luck. We all admire him for his enterprise in taking on one of the most difficult responsibilities in the British Empire, and I am sure that most of us hope that he will be strong and of a good courage. As far as physical courage is concerned, he cannot hope to excel the present Governor of Bengal, whose conduct the other day, I am sure, made us all proud to be able to call him a fellow countryman. But with regard to the future, I hope that Sir John Anderson will make his governorship memorable, and that the right hon. Gentleman will make his Secretary of Stateship memorable, by sweeping away what has been a blot upon the fair name of Bengal and what has been for a quarter of a century a reproach to the British Government.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I wish to congratulate most heartily the Secretary of State and the Indian administration on having at long last taken the strong line which they have taken. It was absolutely essential that law and order should be maintained in India, and that the law should apply equally to the Indians and to the British—apply to all, irrespective of nationality or colour. Congress has no more right to lay down the law and endeavour to lead India than has the Trades Union Congress in this country. There is a Government in India, and it is the duty of all who live in India to obey the law. Congress has been given ample opportunities of showing their ability and their willingness to help. What have they done x Instead of helping by suggestions, by trying to bring people together, by co-operation, they

    875
    have acted in every way contrary to what might have been expected of people who have told us they are out for the benefit of India and the Indians. The policy they have pursued has been they very policy which is going to be more damning to the future of India than any which anybody else could have brought in. They have advocated civil disobedience and the non-payment of taxes. Is that going to do the Indians any good? Are they by that means going to get self-government any sooner? No, Sir. They have advocated the boycott, and picketing, which, to my mind, has been far from successful in this country, should be absolutely forbidden in India. By picketing they have tried the native and the British police beyond endurance.
    Perhaps it is not realised in this country that for many years now the police in India have exercised great patience and forbearance in very difficult times, In this country we have from time to time had riots, but they have not been of long duration, whereas in India the patience of the police has been tried to the uttermost, and for my part I hope to see picketing forbidden by law. Added to that there have been violence and murder. Is that going to help the cause which these gentlemen tell us they are more keen about than we are ourselves? I fail to think so, and therefore I welcome the policy of the Government, and sincerely hope they will maintain it; because in India, even more than in this country, it is useless to be strong one moment and lenient the next. We must have a policy, and it must be a just policy, and that policy must be maintained, not in our interests, but in the interests of the Indian people. We must realise that the large majority of the people of India want no change at all, they are perfectly content. It is just a few, by way of being better educated than the rest, who are telling the people, "You may think you are happy, you may think that you are under good rule. Not a bit of it! Let us rule you, and then you will have a sort of heaven on earth."
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: That is what you said about tariffs.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: That is perfectly true, and it will doubtless be proved true in another three and a-half hours. But we cannot afford to tolerate law-breaking
    876
    and violence in India. This political warfare in India is upsetting trade and industry, which must be given a chance to revive, because it is on trade and industry that India must depend. Therefore, it is necessary that somebody should maintain law and order. We have beard a little to-night about propaganda. When I addressed the House in December I raised the question of propaganda. In the "Manchester Guardian" only a few days ago a writer complained that the restrictions are too severe. He said:
    "India to-day is in the grip of fierce and ruthless ordinances."
    I totally disagree, and believe there ought to be a far stricter censorship than exists already. We know that the newspapers in this country are exceeding fond of sensational information, and seemingly do not always strive to verify the information which they receive. The more sensational it is the more likelihood there is of its being printed. If a contradiction is sent, however, there is far less chance of that getting a place in the newspaper. In India the position is still worse. The local vernacular press reaches many Indians who are not well educated, who have no other source of information, and who are likely to swallow the information contained in those papers, which the editors of them, as the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) has said, know is not true. Therefore, I would like to see far stricter censorship. Those who are loyal and wish to be loyal are purposely led astray by these exaggerations in the local vernacular press, which do a great deal of harm.
    I wonder whether people in this country who talk about "opinion in India," and say that India wants self-government realise that there are 70,000,000 untouchables in India, one-fifth of her population, who have said that they will never have Gandhi or any of the Congress people as their rulers. They wish to remain under the British flag and no others. And there are many others who are in a similar position. We were told to-day from the Opposition benches that we are ruling India by force. What does force mean? We have in India an army numbering some 60,000. There are 1,280 civilians to every soldier. And yet we are told that we are using force! During the last few years we have re-

    877
    duced the number of Europeans in the Indian Civil Service, in the Medical Service, and in the Police Service by one-third, and have replaced them by Indians. Have we not thus shown Indians that we are willing to help them and that we would like the Indians to try to help themselves? What is their reply to us? Murder, assassination, boycott and picketing. We remove white civil servants and replace them by Indians. During the last few years, no less than one-third of English civil servant categories has been replaced by Indians. We are, therefore, gradually allowing the Indians to administer their own country, or to endeavour to do so. We look to them to show their willingness, and unless they do, the present resolution of the Indian Government must be maintained. We have shown our willingness.
    There are at present following up the Round Table Conferences, of which many people in this country did not approve, three committees sent out from this country, looking into the administration of India. For the sake of the unprotected and those who are anxious to remain under British rule, who form a great majority of the Indians, we must not relax the present methods until we are sure that it will be for the benefit of all India and for the benefit of Britons in India. I am afraid that that state of affairs will not come about for many years. The present position, which hon. Members of the Opposition, have criticised, is entirely the result of the work of the Congress. For my part I congratulate the Secretary of State for India. The hon. Member for Doncaster said just now that the name of the Secretary of State for India would be known hereafter as one who had helped towards maintaining law and order in India. I maintain that the name of the Secretary of State for India will be famous as having brought in the present regime in India. He has put things right, and he is doing his very utmost to help the Indians. If hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition want to help the Indian they will say to them: "You have the law. The law is the same, whether you are a black man or a white man, and it is up to you to obey it." When the British Government and the Indian Government realise that the law will be obeyed and that assassination, murder and picketing, and such things,
    878
    are to stop, then, and then only, can we begin to discuss the business again.
    Mr. J. JONES: This Debate reminds me of the time when, as a callow youth, I used to sit in the Gallery and first began to take an interest in politics. At that time the subject was Ireland. The old tales of woe that I have heard here this afternoon remind me of those Debates in the days of the Crimes Act, when Irishmen were looked upon as assassins, and when every organisation to which they belonged was looked upon as beyond the pale. All I live needed to do this afternoon has been to transcribe in my mind "India" for "Ireland" and "Ireland" for "India," and then I was brought face to face with it. I find that some hon. Members who have been to India and have made good salaries out of the exploitation of the Indian people, acting as magistrates, counsel or judges, have come back here to malign the people out of whom they drew their salaries.
    We were compelled to surrender co far as Ireland was concerned. What English Government would not give to reason, it finally gave to force. Ireland for 700 years carried on a guerilla warfare; I will admit, not very particularly refined as to the methods pursued. India has now taken a lesson from Europe, because countries in Europe have been discovered to have adopted all sorts of methods which are not considered moral and legal by the dominated country. All Empires base their powers over other countries, particularly over smaller and more helpless countries, upon the sheer force of their weight, upon their power to dominate by the force of arms that which they have attained. Suppose the Indians take us at our own word, and use force against force. What right have we to grumble I There are 300,000,000 of them, and there are only about 50,000,000 of us. I happen to be one of them. [Interruption.] The world will change, but some hon. Members will never change. They are like the Bourbons; they forget nothing, and they learn nothing. The people of India are just beginning to feel their feet. Many years ago hon. Members opposite would not treat an Indian as an equal. Thirty years ago an Indian, even if he belonged to a higher caste, would not be looked upon as being equal to a back-bench Member of the Tory

    879
    party, unless he was an upholder of English policy. If he were opposed to that policy, if he were liberal-minded, he was an outcast, and he would not be invited to the King's garden party.
    We believe that the people of India have the same rights as the people of Ireland. They may be different in their race, their colour and their religion, but in their country there is the same condition of things as existed in Ireland. English Governments have put the North against the South in Ireland. They have used the North as a barrier against the aspirations of the South. When hon. Members talk about the barriers that divide one section of India against the other, let them remember that. When hon. Members start talking about murder we have to ask, have not the British Imperialists committed murder Have Britons not murdered all over the Empire to get some of it under control I It is all very well, but we have shot down the natives of Africa in cold blood. Unarmed men, women and children have been destroyed for the purposes of making this Empire great and prosperous. We can say what we like about it, but that is true. History demonstrates it.
    The Indian Empire was built up by raids and murder by armed troops against defenceless men and women, and the history of this country wilt prove it. In Westminster Hall there is a tablet commemorating the trial of a gentleman whose crimes were so great in India that we had to try him here for treason. The treason was against the will of the State. At that time he murdered the people of India. He had committed a crime against civilisation. We tried him. I am not guilty. [Interruption.] He was acquitted, yes, but he would not be acquitted now. He was acquitted in the days when trials were arranged so that if they wanted to get a certain person off, and there was Royal influence behind him, he could get away with it. Let him now come along. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Campbell case?"] Yes, there was the Campbell case, but he did not get off; he was sent to prison. I want to remind hon. Members that no man who fights against the governing class of this country ever gets away with it.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Hear, hear!
    Mr. JONES: That is the reason why my hon. Friend belongs to the governing class. If he did not belong to that class, he would have been in prison long ago. [Interruption.] It has been proved to-night beyond the possibility of doubt that you are now trying to show the Indian people your strong hand; but remember that India is not the only country of the East. A great ferment is now going on in the East. How long are you going to live in the security which you imagine exists? The mailed fist is not going to dominate for ever. The East is gradually awakening. The hon. Members who spoke just before me asked the Government of India, and particularly the Government of Bengal, to use its mailed fist, and I hope that that message will go out to the people of India and to the other nations of the East, so that they may realise what they are up against—domination from the West. How long do you think it is going to continue? How long do you think that we, a small body of people here in the West of Europe, are going to dominate 600,000,000 people in the Eastern parts of the world? It may last your time, but it will not last all the time, and the sooner you make up your minds to be clean about the business, the better. [Interruption.] I am one of the untouchables in this House—untouchable in the sense that I am not expected to join in polite society; but, so far as the Indians are concerned, the untouchables belong to my class. I do not care who is against them; I am for them.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: So are we.
    Mr. JONES: I know you are, but you do not touch them much. We look upon all the Indian people—not a special section of them, but all of them—as fellow-citizens, and we are asking them to co-operate with us as far as possible. Our part in this Debate has been in that direction. No section of the Indian people is against us, and we are not against any section of the Indian people; we want to treat them all as partners in this great Empire. You have done all you can in the way of punishment. Those whom you consider to be guilty are being punished now, and what is to be the end of it all I Have you made them more amenable to your discipline? Are you going to make them obey your laws more easily? Are you going to achieve any

    881
    result as a consequence of this policy It is all very well to talk here in London about being strong in India, but remember that chickens come home to roost. We want to let the people of India know that, so far as the great democracy of this country are concerned, we are with them in their desire for control over their own affairs, and we are not going to stand for any domination, for any mailed fist business, or for any flag-wagging in this connection.
    9.0 p.m.
    Captain FULLER: As a new Member rising to address the House for the first time, I hope I may claim the indulgence which the House is so willing to grant to those who have to face this ordeal. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) in the peculiarities of his argument, because I feel that at this early stage in my political education I am not capable of any political gymnastics. Probably later, when I am more acquainted with things as they seem to he rather than as they are, I may be able to follow the hon. Member more closely. I would like, however, to say, with regard to one of the historical instances which the hon. Member gave to us, that the gentleman whom he mentioned, the first Governor-General of India, did not secure his acquittal through influence, but that it cost him some £80,000, and ruined him, not only financially, but in health as well.
    It is not my intention to follow the political argument of this Debate, but rather to bring to the notice of the Secretary of State what I consider to be a grievance in connection with another of those great Services in India, which, fortunately—or unfortunately—are very seldom heard of in this House. I refer to the Indian Army. Before I do so, however, I would like to make mention of the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). I listened to it with very great pleasure, because the first part of it, anyhow, showed that the hon. Gentleman was slowly retreating from some of those extreme views which I have always thought he held, towards the realm of fact. The first part of his speech impressed me a great deal; it is a matter of regret to me that I cannot say the same of the second part, in which he appeared to be endeavouring to emphasise that all our actions and all
    882
    the actions of His Majesty's Government since the Round Table Conference, and even before, were directed towards alienating the Indian National Congress and the Indians from co-operation with us in further constitutional advance in India.
    I do not think the facts bear out that assertion at all. If we consider briefly the period when the present form of government was introduced into India, under the Act of 1919, we shall see one long story of non-co-operation on the part of the Indian National Congress. When the Act was introduced—an Act which, it is only fair to say, disturbed a great many of us, but was undoubtedly a great advance on the road to self-government—we saw a manifestation of a most remarkable desire for non-co-operation on the part of the Indian National Congress. Then came that remarkable movement for which Mr. Gandhi cannot escape criticism. I refer to the way in which he played on the ignorance and credulity of the great mass of the Muhajarin in India, and launched them on to the Hijrat which ended in such disastrous results. Then came the boycotting which took place during the first of the Indian elections, and, subsequently, when the extremists saw that there was a desire among the moderates and the Liberal members in the country to co-operate with the Government in order to make the reforms a success, they gave up their non-co-operative attitude outside, and entered the Councils in order to wreck them from within.
    Then came the Simon Commission, which is fresh in the memory of all. I do not think that anyone can say that it was greeted with the co-operation which the facts and conditions of the time demanded. I well remember the day when the Simon Commission's Report was due to be published. Almost every vernacular paper in India published reports and statements condemning it and saying that in no circumstances would they co-operate in the scheme that it might contain, and this was before the contents of the report were known. That has invariably been the attitude of the National Congress. The suggestion has been made that we should give way to this body of men who have been the cause of so much distress, bloodshed, and disorder during the last decade. The real trouble is that

    883
    the Government have been too long-suffering. They have delayed too long in taking action against these people who would defy the law in any country and in any circumstances to suit their own ends. If Congress had its way, the result could be nothing else but chaos and bloody revolution. One of the greatest blessings of British rule is that we have been able to maintain law mid order in that great country and, not only that, but respect for one another's religion and that is only possible because we have determined in the past that we would govern.
    References have been made to the Press. It was one of my forms of mental recreation in India to read these vernacular newspapers. That form of pleasure is denied to a good many people. I can say without any hesitation that all the statements that have been made tonight in regard to the matter that appears in the vernacular Press are absolutely true. I had as my assistant an Indian who was himself an extremist, and on many occasions he had to admit that he was surprised that the Government should allow such horrible stuff to be printed against us. These were reputable papers and not the scurrilous rags that we hear so much about. Propaganda has reached very serious proportions indeed. Not only is it rife in every hole and corner in the provinces, but it has permeated into the Army itself. Commanding officers now have the unfortunate duty of countering this propaganda by issuing weekly statements of Government policy and explaining them to their men. It is, indeed, an extremely serious matter and one which should receive much more attention than it does. There is nothing wrong with the loyalty of the Army, but, when we remember that men go on furlough a distance of a thousand or two thousand miles away from their station into areas that are affected by this dreadful canker that has grown up owing to the activities of the Indian Congress, it is but human nature to listen, if not to act.
    Think for a moment how different things might have been had there been the co-operation that we are asking for. There would have been hardly any need for the Simon Report at all, because we should have had a manifestation of the
    884
    desire on the part of all sections to cooperate with us, and the constitution that we are haggling about to-day would have been an accomplished fact, to the satisfaction of all parties. So far from the door of co-operation having been slammed from this side, I am still firmly of the opinion that it is very widely open to all those who would care to enter to co-operate in working out this very serious question of another constitution.
    I did not mean to follow the political argument, but to bring to the notice of the Secretary of State one or two things in connection with the Indian Army itself. I refer particularly to the instructions issued last year in Army Instruction 132 as to compulsory retirement of officers from the service. What strikes me is the very arbitrary manner in which inefficiency is to be determined under the terms of this instruction. We read in paragraph (5), sub-clause (a), that it affects those who are inefficient in their present rank. The next sub-clause says it affects those whose retention is uneconomical to the State through no specific fault of their own. It has taken the Army authorities a considerable length of time to discover the inefficiency and the uneconomical effect in connection with these officers, because this schema affects captains who have from 15 to 18 years' service and colonels who have as much as 28 years' service, and one must admit that it is a considerable time to elapse before the Government have made up their mind that these officers are in-efficient. Moreover, these must be men who survived the extensive axe of 1922, when some 1,500 or more officers were compulsorily retired from the Service. While there appears to be no essential difference in their status and inefficiency, there is a very great difference indeed in the treatment that they are to receive. The first category that I mentioned get more than the second. It cannot commute any part of its pension, while the second may. This is a very serious thing for men who have spent the best years of their life in the service of the Crown and are now to be told that they are inefficient and uneconomical and, if they cannot be given some form of relief, they are likely to return to this country with nothing but a very meagre pension indeed.

    885
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider bringing to the notice of the Army authorities the desirability of mentioning the coat of living index in this country. Cost of living indices in India are unknown, and it will be an unpleasant surprise to them to find that their pensions are subject to an 8 per cent. cut owing to the cost of living. Moreover, this cut may increase to as much as 20 per cent. without any reference or appeal to anyone. I hope this matter may be further considered. I would like to pay a tribute to the many efforts which the Army in India has made during the last few years to economise; and I would say also that if they abandon some of their old ideas and the doctrine of indispensability, of which we heard so much the other day, they might be more successful in this direction than they have been. But out of this need for economy comes one rather serious question, and that is that it has been made a pretence for a further disbandment of units of the Indian Army. I understand that this House is responsible for the Government of India, and yet I have never seen or heard of any reference to this matter in this House. If the principle of economy is to decide the strength of the military forces in India it is a matter of very grave concern. Under this economy scheme, during the last two months or so, two Indian regiments and a number of ancillary units have been disbanded. I hope that the Secretary of State will be good enough to give us some information on the matter. I ask him whether the Committee of Imperial Defence was consulted, or whether the views of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff were obtained.
    One other question I wish to raise relates to the insurance fund which exists in India both for the Civil Service and for the Indian Army. The contributions of the officers who are to be axed under the recent scheme are not being returned to them in any way. Take the case of bachelors. It is quite impossible for them to participate in any benefit whatever. When the bachelor retires, as he will do under this scheme, no sort of return is made to him of the contributions which he has made over a large number of years. There is also something very unsatisfactory about the two insurance funds as they exist to-day. They are in essence and in effect insur-
    886
    ance funds for the families of Indian Civil servants and Army officers. In effect the contributions are treated as current revenue and are used for current expenditure—a most extraordinary thing to happen to moneys which are contributed for insurance purposes.
    Then, although the existing annuitants under both schemes have a right of suit against the Secretary of State to enforce payment of their claims, and while the Secretary of State's immediate control does remove a good deal of anxiety from those who have contributed and do contribute to the fund, at the same time there is a growing feeling of uneasiness as to what will happen to the money in the fund by a change of Government, if the contributions are still to be treated as revenue and the expenditure as expenditure in the ordinary annual Budget. Here is a question which has caused a good deal of anxiety in India for many years. I suggest that neither of these funds is at all on a satisfactory basis. I hope the Secretary of State will be good enough to look into the matter and see whether he can do something towards relieving what is really a grievance both on the part of the Indian Civil Service and the Army.
    Mr. CADOGAN: The absence of the exhilarating personality of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) makes our discussion to-night seen rather like Hamlet without the Prime of Denmark, but I think we must agree that what the Debate has lacked in excitement has been made up in interest. I am sure the Secretary of State cannot complain that there was any lack of interest displayed by the Committee when he was making his statement on the general situation. The Debate has naturally centred round the fundamental change which has come over the administration in India during the last few weeks. Whatever the result may be that that change will yield, it must be conceded by anyone who has given the matter any consideration that any change in our method of administration in India is not inconsistent with the undertakings that we have given to modify the constitution. The very fact that we are pledged to teach Indians to govern themselves, imposes upon us an obligation to ensure that Congress

    887
    leaders, or anyone else, shall discontinue teaching Indians to be ungovernable. I do not mean "ungovernable" to-day under the British Raj, but "ungovernable" in the future when and if, as we all hope, Indians will control their own destinies. That is a point which is apt to be lost sight of by those sentimentalists who are at pains to supply us with resolutions passed by obscure societies denouncing what are alleged to be the repressive and tyrannical measures of the British Raj.
    I must apologise to the Committee, and particularly to the hon. and gallant Member for Ardwick (Captain Fuller) for being ignorant of the fact that the extremely interesting speech to which we have just listened was a maiden speech. As it is the very pleasant duty that always devolves on a subsequent speaker to congratulate an hon. Member who has made a maiden speech, I hope he will forgive me for my omission, and let me make it up to him now by saying that I am sure the whole of the Committee listened to him with the utmost interest, and that we hope he will often give the Committee and the House the benefit of his knowledge upon India and upon other subjects.
    The Congress leaders, until they were put out of harm's way, had been busy teaching the unsophisticated millions of India no better lesson than to flout constitutional authority, inculcating the devastating principle, which is peculiarly inappropriate to the mentality and tradition of an Eastern people, that if the law of the land is unpalatable to any section of the community it may be stultified by a process of passive resistance, which in India, or indeed in any other country, invariably develops into one of active violence. For the Government to stand immobile and to allow such ideas to gain currency among the villagers of India, who compose 80 per cent. of its population and admittedly are illiterate, would surely be criminal. To allow the virus of these anarchical ideas to affect the body politic of India before its gristle had hardened into the bone of manhood—surely that would mean that the body politic would be suffering from a grave malady before it reached maturity.
    Before we hand over law and order in India let us be quite sure that those to
    888
    whom we relegate this awful responsibility are capable of inspiring respect for authority. The Congress leaders up to quite recently were relying upon mob rule, civil disobedience and the other expedients of mob rule. Surely the tyranny of the Moguls would be preferable to that. They failed to see that they were forging a weapon which, if they found themselves in a position of power, would be snatched from their hands and employed against them. The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) adduced the analogy of Ireland, but he forgot that it was not the British who murdered Michael Collins. That is the point. These agitators so often forge weapons that can be used against themselves. It is for that reason—if for no other—that the present Viceroy is justified in demanding that the law of the land shall be respected.
    A certain number of Members in the last Parliament, few of whom survive in this, were always anxious to impress upon us that the Congress leaders exclusively represented the political mind of India. If that were true, there would be small chance for the reforms. Even when Edwin Montagu endeavoured to meet them on their own ground, it was manifest that they were incapable of displaying any statesmanship whatsoever. When Lord Irwin went to the extreme limit of a policy of conciliation, they still evinced no proof of statesmanship and refused him their co-operation. What were the ostensible grounds of their refusing to work with Lord Irwin? That he could not be trusted. If I could not trust Lord Irwin, I could not trust the Archangel Gabriel. The real truth is that the Congress leaders were more actuated by motives of personal ambition than by motives of disinterested patriotism. It seems to be more easy to acquire a name in India by sedition, privy conspiracy and rebellion than by undeviating adherence to the slower and more legitimate process of adopting an honourable calling. I assure the Committee—if it needs any assurance —that Congress have no monopoly of all that is best in statesmanship in India. There are many Indians, some members of provincial governments, others in commerce or in the Services or in the legal profession, who, although their names may not be so familiar to us as those of the noisy agitator or the political assassin,

    889
    now that the latter are under lock and key, will be able to establish a claim to our regard. Many politicians there are in India of acknowledged wisdom and ability who have co-operated with us, and it is our duty to stand by them as they stood by us.
    We cannot blame Lord Irwin for having pinned any faith to the policy of conciliation. Had he been dealing with those who have an eye to their own interests, that policy would have been successful. We cannot blame Lord Willingdon for having dropped that policy when it had failed. It is noteworthy—and I do not think any Member in this Committee has alluded to it and I was rather surprised that no allusion has been made—that Lord Irwin in a speech he made recently in Leeds, which has made a profound impression all over India, a speech which proved his knightly chivalry, affirmed that, had he been in Lord Willingdon's place, he would have adopted the same policy. He added that the responsibility for recent upheavals in India had been due to the Congress leaders whose attitude had been quite unjustified. That was the one great risk which Lord Irwin took when he adopted that policy, that it might be manoeuvred for the purpose of creating a false impression on the Eastern mind. The late Lord Salisbury once said:
    "Where there is a suspicion you're your conciliatory methods are extorted from you by the violence they are intended to put a stop to, the policy of conciliation proves of no avail."
    I presume he made that remark in reference to Mr. Gladstone's Irish policy. If so, it was appropriate to its purpose, but it is still more appropriate to Indian affairs to-day. Conciliation is in the nature of a contract and requires the concurrence of two parties. If he, whom it is intended to conciliate, refuses to be conciliated, the contract is void, and he cannot complain if other methods are substituted. I am not so regretful as some hon. Members that the policy of conciliation has failed because conciliation has served its purpose in that it has eliminated an element which, far from advancing reforms, has tended to retard them. There are far better Indians outside the ranks of the Congress party who have got a political equipment more than adequate for the demands that self-government will make upon them. I had only two or three days ago a letter from
    890
    an Indian, who has been for some years a member of a provincial government, in which he says:
    "You may rest assured that Gandhi's non-co-operation cannot succeed provided' you people in Parliament give the Government out here the backing they desire, but a policy of indecision leads to bad consequences, and the time has arrived when the impression on the public mind, which has been created in the last few years, that Government takes strong action to-day and shows weakness to-morrow should be removed once for all."
    9.30 p.m.
    I am in hearty agreement with him, and one of the reasons I rose this evening was to ask for an assurance from the Secretary of State. There are rumours to the effect that the experiment of a year ago is to be repeated and that the Viceroy is being manoeuvred into parleying with those who prove themselves untrustworthy and disloyal and are now deservedly languishing in various gaols throughout India. How far that experiment was justified a year ago when Lord Irwin parleyed with Mr. Gandhi I am not prepared to hazard an opinion, but we all know it was fruitless, and it was only valuable in that it proved the complete lack of statesmanship that characterises Mr. Gandhi and his adherents. We have had much of that kind of experiment. When Mr. Gandhi came to London he disappointed everyone, even his own friends. As a Mahatma he may be everything that is expected of a Mahatma, but as a politician he proved a mere obstructionist without any constructive policy whatsoever. As we have got irrefragable proof of the futility of these parleys, I should like some assurance that the Government at any rate at present have no intention of parleying with the Congress leaders.
    There is another matter closely connected with the one to which I have referred and on which again I should like an assurance from the Secretary of State. It concerns Bombay where, as the Committee knows, there has been an industrial boycott which has been up till recently successful in a large measure. There is a rumour that there is an attempt being made to use the British industrial community as a catspaw and that British business men are being asked to join in a policy for the cancellation of the Viceroy's ordinances, the release of Gandhi, and a renewal of these negotiations. I trust that it is mere idle

    891
    rumour, although I understand that representations have been made to the Prime Minister. I can only hope that any such efforts will be unconditionally refused.
    I have only one further matter to raise on this Vote, and it is that the Moslem situation seems somewhat obscure. We have to congratulate ourselves that the situation in the North West Frontier Province is ameliorated and that the adherents of Abdul Ghaffar Khan have given in their red shirts. Perhaps they have come to the conclusion, like the man to whom the Lord President of the Council referred in his speech last week that happiness does not lie in possessing a shirt. The working Committee of the Moslem community does not seem to be drawn into line with our present policy. Moreover, the recent development with regard to the communal trouble is hardly reassuring. I cannot help feeling that we have in the past rather mishandled the Moslem community. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) warned us not to make too much fuss of the communities which appear to be loyal to us, in case we estrange the majority communities. In our efforts to conciliate the majority communities we have not only been unsuccessful in the venture but we seem to be well on the way to estrangling some of the minority communities.
    In long arguments that I have had with Moslems since the publication of the Simon Commission's Report, on what they considered our ignoring of their just demands in that report, I have often been at pains to remind them that there are 120,000,000 Hindus in British India. No one knows better than I do how difficult it is to strike a just balance between the two major communities and how much a solution will depend upon compromise. Still, I have an uneasy feeling that we cannot rely upon the Moslem community to endorse our policy, and it will be accounted to us for folly that we have estranged those who stood loyally by us when those whom we have supported have done nothing but thwart our efforts in the administration.
    I desire, in conclusion, to pay a tribute to the conduct of Indian affairs by the Secretary of State, under most trying and difficult circumstances. Having myself been in close association with this difficult Indian problem for three years
    892
    prior to his advent to the India Office, it was extremely interesting for me to note his reactions to that problem as each day he became more familiar with it. I am glad that he has not allowed himself to be led away either by the extremists on one side or the other but that he has felt his way circumspectly along the middle course. I trust that a combination of his wise statesmanship and the vast experience, the courage and the manly virtues of the present Viceroy, will, if anything can, guide the destinies of the Indian Empire to a happy issue out of the present crisis.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I would remind the Committee, as I did on a previous occasion, that we are discussing the affairs of over 300,000,000 of people, a vast Continent, which has been under the rule and jurisdiction of the British people or the British Government for nearly a century. I would also remind the Committee that at the end of that period we are discussing whether we should give self-government to that country, which was promised, when it was taken over from the old East India Company, that our sojourn in India was for the purpose of leading the Indian people along the pathway to self-government. We are discussing, in the language of one hon. Member, whether they are willing to be taught self-government. Remarks of that kind are an outrage to educated Indians. To talk of Sastri, or Sapru, or any of the Indian politicians as people who require us to teach them how to govern India, is a piece of impertinence, and I think it is high time that we dismissed that sort of thing from our minds.
    The real criticism of British administration lies in the fact that we are discussing it under the terms and conditions which apply this evening. If any historian wishes to record the failure of our Administration he has only to look up the record of the discussion this evening, because from first to last it has been one long tirade against people in India who are struggling for that freedom which Queen Victoria in her Proclamation declared to be the ultimate goal of the British connection. The discussion has ranged over a very wide field. Those who wished to make the greatest impression on the Committee have been at some pains to prove that the Congress members are associated with such persons as those who were mentioned by the

    893
    hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson). I understand that the terrorist movement has been in existence for 25 years. I do not think that anyone here would say that Mr. Bownaggere, who was a good Conservative Member of this House, a member of the Indian Congress, with being in sympathy with assassination or that Nairoji, who was a Liberal Member of this House, believed in assassination.
    Mr. MOLSONI did not make the allegation that the whole of the Indian Congress was connected with the terrorist organisation. All that I said was that the Bengal Provincial Congress has of recent years been associated with the terrorist organisation in Bengal. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to misrepresent me.
    Mr. LANSBURY: No, but the hon. Member grossly misrepresented the Congress. I shall be extremely surprised if the Secretary of State charges the Congress with fostering the terrorist movement in Bengal. He is as well aware as I am that it is a peculiar and particular sect of people who believe in a form of assassination and terrorism quite foreign to ordinary propaganda and even ordinary violence. I would remind those hon. Members who represent the Liberal party that it was the late Mr. Spence Watson, of Newcastle, who received into this country terrorists from Russia who had just escaped after assassinating sometimes a Czar, sometimes a Prince, and sometimes a Governor. They recognised in these men and women people who were fighting for national freedom, even if they did so in a mistaken manner.
    Congress, through Mr. Gandhi, has again and again done its level best to keep the Indian Nationalist movement on peaceful lines. Everyone who has studied the history of any nationalist movement knows that it starts in a perfectly peaceful way. They believe that by peaceful means they will attain their ends, but as the years pass and nothing happens a few break away and start on other lines. That happened in Ireland. In this House there was an Irish Home Rule party which for years worked in association with the Government of the day, and in the end accomplished nothing. First it was Parnell and his group which broke away and took on a different form of agitation and, finally, a Home Rule Bill was forced through this House. The
    894
    hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) is glad that the period of conciliation is at an end. Other hon. Members have said the same thing. It was said by Conservative speakers that 20 years of resolute government would see an end of the Irish Home Rule agitation. This is what the late Lord Salisbury said:
    "Parliament should give the Government of England the power to govern Ireland."
    That is what the hon. Member for Finchley and the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) have said about India. They want no more conciliation, no more discussion, but a period of resolute government—
    "Apply that recipe honestly, consistently and resolutely, for 20 years and you will find Ireland will be fit to accept any gifts in the way of local self-government or repeal of the coercion laws England may wish to give her."
    Exactly 20 years passed and the Tory party after having been in for 20 years were swept ignominously out of power. In 1906 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman came in and two years afterwards the Liberal Government brought forward their Home Rule Bill, which again was wrecked in 1914, to be followed in 1917 by the Easter Rebellion. That is the story of a little over 20 years of resolute government in Ireland, a tiny country—
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The story is inaccurate from beginning to end.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I will sit down for the hon. Member.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Really the story is inaccurate from beginning to end. In the first place, there was not 20 years of Conservative resolute Government. There was an interruption by the Liberal Government under Mr. Gladstone, when his Home Rule Bill was introduced. In 1906, after 10 years of resolute Tory Government, Mr. Birrell, speaking in this House, had to acknowledge that Ireland had never been more contented and prosperous for six centuries than it was at that time; but four years later the Liberal Government, owing to the fact that they had to keep their majority, brought in a Home Rule Bill in 1910—
    Mr. LANSBURY: This is sheer nonsense.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman gave way and invited me to make a statement. Am I not entitled to finish my statement?

    895
    I am perfectly willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it is extremely discourteous of him, after he has invited me to make a, statement, to interrupt it. I will sit down with the greatest pleasure and courtesy, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is behaving very courteously in not allowing me to finish the statement which he invited me to make.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): If the right hon. Gentleman gave way the hon. Member is entitled to make his statement, but at the same time I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House, and he gave way to the hon. Member to make a statement not to make a speech.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am perfectly willing to give way to anyone who desires to make a mere correction, but not to the hon. Member to make a, speech which is full of inaccuracies. The hon. Member must learn to sit still and listen to other people. The statement I made was that in 1886 Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill was rejected, and in that year the late Lord Salisbury said that 20 years of resolute government was required—[Interruption.] There was a short interregnum in 1892 for a couple of years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Three years!"] If it. was not 20 it was 17 years, and I am willing to give hon. Members the benefit of that slight correction. But the point is that at the end of the period a Liberal Government passed a Home Rule Bill which was held up in 1914. Then came the Irish rebellion, and at the end of it Great Britain conceded to Ireland much greater reforms, in fact a revolution in the government of Ireland, than those which Mr. Gladstone or Mr. John Redmund or any Irish Home Ruler ever imagined. That leads me to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. He thinks that weakness produces anarchy. No such thing; it is coercion that produces anarchy. If this country in 1886 had settled the Irish question along the lines of Mr. Gladstone's Bill, I think it is pretty certain that we should not have had the difficulties that we went through during the War.
    Mr. CADOGAN: Excuse me; I said that conciliation produced anarchy, not weakness.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Well, I think that proves my point. The argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman—[Interruption.] Well, you can only argue from one thing to the other. The problem in India is exactly the same. The people of India want self-government, and they have been promised self-government again and again by this House, by the Crown, and by the representatives of the Crown. No one can get away from that. The Irish people used to be told exactly what the Indian people are told: "You are not fit for it." The hon. Gentleman says that you make a mistake when you pursue a policy of conciliation, because that produces anarchy.
    Mr. CADOGAN: No, I did not say that; I said that you pursued the policy of conciliation and that it did produce nothing but anarchy.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I think it is rather unfair for the hon. Member to continue to interrupt and then to repeat the same thing over and over again. I only repeated his words, and he has repeated them over again. My argument against the hon. Member was that had this House pursued the policy of conciliation which Mr. Gladstone asked it to accept in all probability we should not have had the terrible happenings in Ireland that followed the Easter rebellion. Now hon. Members say, "What about India?" It is exactly the same. I listened to the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) this evening, and I could not understand where he stood in this position. Here are the people of India, standing, as it were, at that Bar; all that is vocal in India, both moderates and extremists, are united in this demand. Otherwise, why did they put forward the demand at the Round Table Conference? It is no use for hon. and right hon. Members to stand up and say, "Oh, the Congress do not speak for India." But that Round Table Conference stood for India, and every resolution passed there dealing with the constitution of India confirmed the principle of a central administration, free of any interference from this country, responsible for the Government of India. About that there is no question.
    Mr. CADOGAN: No.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Very well; if that is so, let us have an end to this nonsense

    897
    about the Congress not representing this, and the people of India not wanting that. If that conference at St. James's Palace was not representative of India, I should like to know of what it was representative. [Interruption.] Very well; that is the policy of the people of India. They are demanding, in contradiction to what has been said here to-night, self-government. That is their demand to this nation.
    The next question is: When are they to be fit for it? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me categorically, if he will, what these words mean in the memorandum of the Indian Round Table Conference. This is what the Prime Minister said at the Round Table Conference:
    "At the beginning of the year I made a declaration of the policy of the then Government, and I am authorised by the present one to give you and India a specific assurance that it remains their policy."
    That is, the policy of the present Government.
    "I shall repeat the salient sentences of that declaration.
    'The view of His Majesty's Government is that responsibility for the Government of India should be placed upon Legislatures, Central and Provincial, with such provisions as may be necessary to guarantee, during a period of transition, the observance of certain obligations and to meet other special circumstances, and also with such guarantees as are required by minorities to protect their political liberties and rights. In such statutory safeguards as may be made for meeting the needs of the transitional period, it will be a primary concern of His Majesty's Government to see that the reserved powers are so framed and exercised as not to prejudice the advance of India through the new constitution to full responsibility for her own government.' "
    Then he goes on to say:
    "As I say, my colleagues in His Majesty's present Government fully accept that statement of January last as representing their own policy."
    This I commend to the notice of those who have been talking about the fitness of India to rule herself.
    "In particular, they desire to reaffirm their belief in an all-India Federation as offering the only hopeful solution of India's constitutional problem."
    Does that statement mean that at a given point the people of India will receive an all-India federation, have absolute control in their own country in the same manner
    898
    as South Africa, Canada or Australia? The right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Gandhi discussed various questions between themselves, and I understand also that the Prime Minister took part in discussions. I saw Mr. Gandhi many times when he was here, and there was one thing about which he was never satisfied—I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree about this—that these statements meant what by their words they should appear to mean; that is, that the safeguards about the Army, the safeguards about finance, the safeguards about police, and the safeguards about other things that we all agree are necessary for the transitional period, were meant by this Government to apply for the transitional period only, and that at the end of the transitional period they would disappear altogether. The reason why Mr. Gandhi was never satisfied was because of the notion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and—if I may say so—the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, who spoke, as we all know, on the first night in closing the Debate, and hoped that his speech would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. It did not satisfy him, but all the same, there is, in my judgment, just a little ambiguity in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. That, however, can be cleared up to-night, and I should like to have it cleared up.
    The further point which was raised during that Debate was that if India is to be a partner—a free partner—in -the Commonwealth, will this Government, if it is in existence—for we can only pledge one Parliament at a, time—be willing, when the moment arrives for the granting of full powers and the taking away of the transitional safeguards, to visualise India coming into the Statute of Westminster in the same way as the other Dominions The Committee may think that I am labouring this point, but I am emphasising it because I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is the rock on which Mr. Gandhi and his friends have split with us. They do not believe that we mean the same things as they mean. They do not believe that we want India to be a, free and equal partner, on the same terms and conditions as the other Dominions within the British Commonwealth of Nations.

    899
    There is nothing to be surprised at in their doubts in that respect. Even English statesmen have often disagreed in the past as to what they meant. I well remember that the late Duke of Devonshire when Lord Hartington, in discussing Irish Home Rule with Mr. Gladstone, finally said "We do not mean the same thing." Mr. Gandhi says that when he and the right hon. Gentleman talk about Dominion status and self-government they do not mean the same things. Mr. Gandhi means first that India should have the right to self-determination. We who go into the Lobby to-night in support of this Amendment, whether we be few or many, will do so on behalf of the principle of self-determination for the people of India—the principle that the people of India themselves shall determine whether they wish to remain with us or part from us and that they alone have the right to give that reply. I believe, once that right is conceded to them, that everything else can be satisfactorily arranged. I do not believe that many people in India think that to-morrow they could take over the Government of India. I do not believe that many people in Congress would like the British Army, the British police and British Civil Service to pack up and go without any notice whatever. But I believe that a very large number of them think that they have the right to rule in their own country in their own way.
    The only other big question with which I wish to deal is that of India's fitness to rule herself in view of the existence of various communities in India and racial and religious differences of which we are told. I think that that is all beside the question. I do not think that it is for us to decide. I expect that like the people in Canada, who, for years, could not live peaceably together, they will probably find a way of doing so. It is well known that in the United States there are people of every nationality under the sun. Even in Canada, although we are often told about helping our own kith and kin there, I am very doubtful whether there is a majority of people of the British race. Every European nation under the sun is represented there. There are people of all religions and of no religion. In India it is perfectly true that there are Moslems and Untouch-
    900
    ables. By the way, somebody here tonight said that the 70,000,000 Untouchables would never come into this federation. I met representatives of the Untouchables and the Depressed Classes, not once but several times when they were here, and they are perfectly willing to come into this federation. They are just as keen on being part of an India governed by Indians as any Moslem or Hindu. I never heard any talk about taking care of these people until the question of self-government reached its present stage.
    The real point is that we arrogate to ourselves the right to say, "We know better what is good for you than you know yourselves." Good individualists never say that except when they want to rule somebody else. We are, I admit, a great individualist nation. We have done many big things in the world, and we have done many despicable things in the world. That, I suppose, is because we are human beings. But this doctrine that the British race is the only race which knows how to govern is sheer egoism of the worst description. We talk about having given self-government here and having given it there. We gave self-government in South Africa when we were obliged to do so, but we only gave it to the whites there. We have not given it to the Kaffirs or the Zulus or the black people of those countries. This nation of ours which boasts of having given self-government has never yet conceded the right of self-government to a nationality other than our own or a European nationality. Of that there is no question, and every step of self-government has had to be fought for before it was given.
    A reference has been made to sentimentalists in connection with this matter. I do not quite understand what the hon. Member for Finchley meant by sentimentalists, but up to the present, during my time, the sentimentalists have won in the fight in which they have been engaged. I have always held very strongly and hold still, in spite of the disillusionment that comes from listening to the speeches in the House of Commons, the belief that this country of ours would eventually transform the autocracy of our rule in India into a rule of self-government in that country. I believed that we would do it by peaceful means. I have often been laughed at for saying

    901
    that we would transform our relationships peacefully. People have said to me, "Look what has happened here," and "Look what has happened there." I have held that belief until now. I am just begining to think that this country of ours, having made all the promises that we have made to India, is going to allow a great and golden opportunity to go past.
    Instead of listening to the hon. Member for Finchley, instead of not wanting to enter into negotiations with Mr. Gandhi, I had hoped that the Secretary of State would have told us that the door was always open for negotiation. I believe that the door has been shut by sheer misunderstanding. I know to my own knowledge that Mr. Gandhi went from this country full of the belief that after he landed he would be able to go straight to the Viceroy and discuss what the ordinances were expected to accomplish. Whatever hon. Members may think of Mr. Gandhi he is certainly nonviolent, and he certainly believes in the things in which he says he believes He has had no chance this time. He was never allowed to go to the Viceroy or to have any discussion whatsoever. About that, there is no question, and had he been allowed to discuss, I believe that they would have found a way out; but as I see things going in India, you talk of trade, of commerce, of having business relationships, but I would like to ask any hon. or right hon. Member who has been standing up during the last four weeks telling us that this country of ours is now going to be master in her own house, Have not the Indian people the right to be the masters in their own house? Have not they the right to say, "Buy Indian," or "Buy Japanese" or "Buy American," or to buy anything else that it suits them to buy? What right have we to say to them that we will impose on them the obligation of buying what we choose?
    What I see in all this is a gradual deterioration in our relationships, a gradual sliding down the slippery slope, and I can see no way out but that you will lose India, and you will lose her because you have not the real statesmanship to bold her. We lost America for no reason at all that any sensible people could ever understand, but here is India, and I believe that even now, if we could
    902
    show her that we really mean that she shall have the right to come into the British Commonwealth as a free partner, we could get peace. But you have to establish confidence, you have to make them believe that you believe what you say you believe, and if you cannot do that, it is hopeless. Someone this evening talked about our 50,000,000 holding down the 300,000,000. What good will it do us to hold them down? What advantage shall we gain by holding this vast mass of people in subjection? You will just do what every conqueror has done, and that is, reap Dead Sea fruit and nothing else.
    I repeat what I said at the beginning, and that is that the greatest judgment on British rule in India is this Debate to-night. The greatest censure on our administration for all these years is the fact that, instead of India being contented, she is discontented, instead of being able to live peaceably under the British flag, you have to employ all these despicable methods of holding the people down, stopping their voice, stopping their Press, keeping them in subjection. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether there is not a more excellent way, the way that the hon. Member opposite does not like, the way of conciliation, the way of recognising the right of a great people to determine its own affairs.
    Sir S. HOARE: The Leader of the Opposition has spoken with very great heat. I do not resent that feeling. I agree with him that sentiment often counts very much in the conduct of affairs, and I would be the last Member in this House to under-rate its value, but I am sure he will forgive me if I tell him, in a few sentences and very simply, why I cannot altogether follow the line of argument that he has just put to the Committee. He seemed to me to be carried very far away from the actual facts of the situation, and I do not say that so as to put up facts and arguments in order to make any advance impossible. I say rather that we shall not make any advance at all, unless we actually face these facts. He seemed to me to assume from the very beginning of his argument that Congress was India and that India was Congress.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Excuse me. I took the Round Table Conference and its decisions as representing Indian opinion.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am in the recollection of the Committee, and I certainly thought the right hon. Gentleman went further, but the fact is that in many of these big questions upon which he touched there is no unanimous opinion in India at all. He has just said to us, "Give self-government to India, and give it at once." As a general phrase that may sound very attractive, but the difficulty comes when you try to analyse it. What kind of self-government? What kind of self-government is going to satisfy not one community, but all the communities in India? It is just those practical facts that we were facing at the Round Table Conference, and those practical facts were ever present to all of us, British delegates and Indian delegates alike. This is an extraordinarily difficult problem, and it cannot possibly be solved by phrases and generalities.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether in spirit and in letter we still accept the statement of the Prime Minister at the end of the Conference. I give him an unqualified affirmative, and I would suggest to him that we lost no time whatever in sending the committees out to India at once—and committees, I would remind hon. Members, on exactly the lines which were suggested at the Round Table Conference—and upon those committees all the Indian parties are cooperating, with the single exception of the Congress. It does show that we are carrying out our intentions to the letter, and that we are definitely determined to proceed along the road of co-operation which we described to the House in the Debate last December. Let me further remind the right hon. Gentleman that it takes two to co-operate. He seemed to think that we had broken down the line of co-operation. I totally and unreservedly deny that charge. If there has been any obstacle placed in the way of co-operation, it has been placed in the way by the action of Congress at the end of the year. To-day we are just as ready as we ever have been to co-operate with all or any section of Indian opinion which is prepared to co-operate with us. But they must co-operate with us, and they must also do so on the lines of the Government statement which we have twice repeated, and which was endorsed by an overwhelming majority in both Houses of Parliament last December.
    904
    I pass from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, although I shall refer to it again at the end of what I am going to say, to one or two other speeches which have been made in the course of the Debate. Many of the speeches have been very interesting, and I totally disagree with the Leader of the Opposition when he said just now that this Debate was of a very disappointing character. I think that it has been a most useful Debate, and we have had suggestions of the greatest value from every part of the House. I take, for instance, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Lloyd). My hon. Friend, we all remember, made a maiden speech which very much impressed the House before Christmas. It is much more difficult to make a second speech which equally impresses the House. In a maiden speech everyone is ready to give a welcome to a new speaker, to give him the best possible chance and to pay him every kind of compliment. In his second speech an hon. Member stands entirely on his own merits. I venture to think that any hon. Members who heard my hon. Friend this afternoon will say that his second speech was every bit up to the very high standard of his maiden speech. He broke new ground. He said, and said very truly, that in these Debates we are apt to exaggerate the political side of great questions, and not to think sufficiently, in this modern world, of the economic side, and he made to us a series of concrete and very practical proposals with reference to the economic development of India, and particularly to that economic development in connection with the Ottawa Conference. I will tell him in a sentence or two that, like him. I regard with the keenest anticipation the results of the Ottawa Conference.
    At the present moment the Government of India and I are in the closest communication as to the Indian representation at that conference. We are most anxious that India should play a prominent part at Ottawa. We are most anxious, also, and I am sure he will agree with me when I say it, that the paramount interest to consider at the Ottawa Conference in the ease of India will be Indian interests. We have not the least intention of dictating an economic policy from here, of saying what India should do or should not do at the Ottawa Con-

    905
    ference. We wish Indian interests to be constantly kept to the fore, and we believe that when Indian interests come to be considered it may well be found that there is a definite line of advance for India to take, in her own interests, in the matter of commercial agreements with other parts of the Empire. My hon. Friend alluded not only to the possibilities of greater Indian trade with this country but also to greater opportunities in the Colonial markets. I can assure him that that side of the question will be constantly kept in mind at Ottawa. I can assure him, also, that we shall keep in mind the other suggestion he made, namely, that it may be that after the discussions at Ottawa we may be able to help India materially in our negotiations with foreign Powers. I hope I have said enough to show both to him and hon. Members generally that we do regard the discussions at Ottawa as of the very greatest importance to India and to the whole economic future of the Indian Continent.
    I come to one or two other speeches of a different character. I cannot help mentioning the very interesting and independent speech of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I was delighted to receive a tribute from so independent a Member. I felt that there, at any rate, was the kind of impartial tribute to which one really attaches great value. Although I agreed with much that he said, I am not sure that I agreed with everything. He made, for instance, a very formidable criticism of the evils of indirect election. I have always thought that it might he possible to get a wider representation, especially for the villages of India, by means of some kind of village election, and this is, perhaps, one of the few questions upon which Mr. Gandhi and I agreed. The western method is more applicable to an industrial community like our own in Great Britain.
    10.30 p.m.
    I do not wish to get into an argument with hon. Members on questions of this kind. I will pass to another speech, made by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). While the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme complimented me, the hon. Member for Limehouse told me that I was moving towards every kind of calamity. I was putting the whole of India against
    906
    us by linking the rupee to sterling and I had done great injury to the economic life of India. I can only say in passing that, to judge by results up to the present moment, it does not seem as if that criticism has very much foundation. The hon. Member said that my attempts to satisfy the minorities was sure to fail, and that in that failure I was sure to turn the minorities against me. I thought I might appease right hon. Members and hon. Members opposite by the policy I adopted in giving a new Constitution to the North-West Frontier, but there, again, my action was doomed to failure. In view of these formidable prophecies of evil, I have no reply to make, except that the future will show which of us is right.
    A series of other interesting speeches was made by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. There was a speech made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson). He made a very interesting speech also in one of our recent Indian Debates. To-night he gave a quantity of first-hand information about the state of affairs in Bengal. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition criticised him for identifying Congress with the terrorist movement. I wish the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms were justified. It is true that there are many supporters of Congress that have no connection whatever with the terrorist movement, and that many members have repudiated terrorist methods, but it is equally true, so far as Bengal is concerned, that several branches of the Congress organisation are hand-in-glove with the terrorist movement. It is also true that several of the most prominent Congress leaders in Bengal have given their blessing to the terrorist movement. If I had the time I could quote to the Committee chapter and verse to prove the point that I am making. I have at my disposal a mass of material proving the truth of what I have just said. In view of these facts, I maintain that the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster were well justified, and that, so far as Bengal is concerned, there has been much too close a connection between the Congress organisation and the terrorist movement.
    I now come to a very interesting maiden speech by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ardwick (Cap-

    907
    tain Fuller). I venture to congratulate him upon the success of his effort. He was very wise, if I may say so, to concentrate upon certain definite points in regard to which he asked for information. He raised, in particular, a series of questions connected with Army administration. At this late hour I will not go into those details this evening, but I will undertake to look into the points which my hon. and gallant Friend raised, and possibly, if he will allow me to do so, discuss them with him at some later time.
    Then there was a speech made earlier by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Sir J. Duncan Millar). He raised a case which he had already discussed with me before, and which seemed to show that a well known Scottish minister of religion in India had been maltreated by the police. The hon. and learned Member raised the case in a very impartial and friendly manner, and, as he knows, I am looking very carefully into it. To-night I can only tell him that, from the information that has been given to me in the Debate to-day, it looks as if a mistake was made; but I would say, in justice to the authorities in India, that I have only heard one side of the case, and that I must keep my judgment open until I have the whole of the facts of the case before me. I can, however, assure the hon. and learned Member that, if a mistake has been made in this case, or in any other case, I shall admit it, and the Government of India will admit it. I would tell him, further, in answer to the more general case that he made about the administration of law and order in the Province of Madras, that only to-day I received a telegram stating quite categorically that the Government of Madras are carrying out, both in the letter and in the spirit, the instructions of the Government of India which I ventured to read out in my earlier speech this afternoon.
    Whereupon, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
    Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Import Duties Bill, without Amendment.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having re-turned—
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

  (1) Import Duties Act, 1932.

  (2) Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Maidstone Extension) Act, 1932.

  (3) Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sittingbourne and Milton) Act, 1932.

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed, "That Item Class II, Vote 11 (India Office), be reduced by £100."
  Sir S. HOARE: There are still one or two questions I have to deal with before the Debate comes to an end. There was the question raised by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan). The Leader of the Opposition was terribly critical of the speech of my hon. Friend. I think he was very hard on him. It did not seem to me to be at all the unsympathetic speech that the Leader of the Opposition represented it to be. Be that as it may, my Friend asked me whether there was to be any sudden reversal of policy. I can assure him that the answer is, no. Then there were a number of points raised in the very interesting speech of the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays), who has already written a book about India. I read it with great interest, though I cannot say that I agree with everything in it. I listened with interest to his speech to-day. He asked me one specific question—whether we could give a date within which the new Indian constitution would be completed? With the best will in the world, we cannot. We cannot give a date, for the obvious reason that there are many factors in the problem that are out of our control altogether. Let me give him one. We are trying to create an all-India federation. That means a Government in which British India and the Indian States take part. We cannot dictate to

  909
  the Indian States when they should come in, or how they should come in. A question of that kind must be a matter of negotiation, and with the best will in the world we cannot say when negotiations of that kind will be completed. What I can say is that we shall proceed with the work of building up the new constitution with all possible speed. We shall attempt to remove obstacles in the path of this difficult task, and there will be no unavoidable delay. But when it comes to giving an actual date within which that constitution will be completed, neither I nor he nor anybody else can possibly give it.
  Lastly, there were serious criticisms made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). He seemed to think we had gone back on the pledges of last winter, and that even if committees had been set up, they were not the committees contemplated by the Round Table Conference, and that altogether the chapter of co-operation was at an end. I can assure him that none of those charges is justified. He made great play with the fact that the committee that was at one time called the Working Committee is now called the Consultative Committee. The title makes not the least difference to the work of that committee. The committee is exactly what it was intended to be at the end of the Round Table Conference last December. He seemed also to criticise the fact that the committee was composed exclusively of Indian representatives. As far as I know, it was the desire of everybody concerned that the committee should be an Indian committee. The hon. Member is wrong. This particular Consultative Committee was always intended to be a committee of representative Indians from whom we could obtain the Indian view upon a certain number of specific constitutional questions, and the committee to-day, whatever its name, is exactly the committee contemplated last December.
  When I come to the more general question of co-operation, there, again, I

  Division No. 91.]

  AYES.

  [11.1 p.m.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Daggar, George

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

  Batey, Joseph

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Buchanan, George

  Edwards, Charles

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Grinfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Leonard, William

  must draw his attention to the fact that this kind of co-operation is still continuing. There is the fact that a number of prominent Indian representatives are working with the British representatives of this House and another place on all three of these committees. The hon. Member can, therefore, take it from me that the chapter of co-operation is on no account ended and that we are just as prepared as we were last December to co-operate with anyone who is prepared to co-operate with us.
  Another criticism that he made about our administration was in connection with what he described as the use of emergency powers. May I issue a word of warning in regard to this matter, a warning which was confirmed in the speech of the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays). Atrocities of this kind are very easy to fabricate. Our past experience has shown that in nine cases out of ten they are fabricated and that there is little if anything in them. Where there is a definite reason to think that there has been an abuse of powers, we certainly shall make an investigation. I rather regret the fact that the hon. Member did seem to take the responsibility for supporting a number of wild charges. I should be very much surprised if there is any substance in them. He also seemed to me to assume that the British Government and Congress were equal powers competing with each other. That is not so. He will remember, also, that he said that he would like to know the names of those responsible for the preparation of the Government reports in the Blue Books, which seemed to imply a doubt about their veracity. There is no justification for the criticism he made that our policy has been reversed and that we are now substituting the policy of conflict for the policy of co-operation which was supported by an overwhelming majority of this House last December.
  Question put, "That Item Class II, Vote 11 (India Office), be reduced by £100."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 195.

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

  Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

  Price, Gabriel

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  NOES.

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

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Grimston, R. V.

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Albery, Irving James

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Hales, Harold K.

  Palmer, Francis Noel

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

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Patrick, Colin M.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

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

  Peat, Charles U.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Hanbury, Cecil

  Penny, Sir George

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

  Harbord, Arthur

  Patherick, M.

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Hartland, George A.

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

  Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Pike, Cecil F.

  Bernays, Robert

  Hillman, Dr. George B.

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

  Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

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

  Pybus, Percy John

  Blindell, James

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Borodale, Viscount

  Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)

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

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Boulton, W. W.

  Hopkinson, Austin

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

  Hornby, Frank

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

  Remer, John R.

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

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Robinson, John Roland

  Broadbent, Colonel John

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

  Rosbotham, S. T.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Burghley, Lord

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Burnett, John George

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Scone, Lord

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Kirkpatrick, William M.

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Chotzner, Alfred James

  Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

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

  Christie, James Archibald

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Little, Graham, Sir Ernest

  Soper, Richard

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Lloyd, Geoffrey

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

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

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

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

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

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

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lyons, Abraham Montagu

  Stones, James

  Denville, Alfred

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Storey, Samuel

  Dickie, John P.

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Conner, P. W.

  Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Drewe, Cedric

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

  Magnay, Thomas

  Templeton, William P.

  Eastwood, John Francis

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Eden, Robert Anthony

  Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Elliston, Captain George Sampson

  Margesson, Capt. Henry David R

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

  Marjoribanks, Edward

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  White, Henry Graham

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Millar, Sir James Duncan

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Mitcheson, G. G.

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

  Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Glossop, C. W. K.

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Womersley, Walter James

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Muirhead, Major A. J.

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Munro, Patrick

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

  Graves, Marjorie

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Greene, William P. C.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Mr. Walter Rea and Lieut.-Colonel

  Sir A. Lambert Ward.

  It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  MANCHURIA.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Mr. COCKS: I desire to raise the question of Manchuria in the time left at our disposal and I shall be brief as I hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing it on another occasion. I hope that any remarks that I do make will be made with that restraint which the situation demands. Manchuria, as the House knows, is a province of China nearly as large as France and Germany combined. There is a very large population of Chinese—some 20,000,000—and a very small population of Japanese subjects—under 1,000,000, and mostly Koreans—and owing to the climate I understand that Manchuria will never be an outlet for the surplus population of Japan. The diplomatic history of Manchuria is long and complicated and I do not intend to try to unravel it to-night.
  The one document to which I call the attention of the House is the Nine-Power Treaty signed at Washington on 6th February, 1922, the signatories including ourselves, America, Japan and China. According to the first Clause the signatories agreed to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial and administrative integrity of China. Under Article 7 it was agreed that there should be full and frank communication between the contracting powers concerned whenever a situation arose which involved the application of the Treaty in the opinion of any one of them. How does the British Government regard these Clauses? On 13th July, 1928, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) then Foreign Secretary, said in this House:
  "The Government regard Manchuria as being part of China; they do not recognise Japan as having any special interests in that territory, other than those conferred by Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1928; col. 2637, Vol. 219.]
  On 30th July the same right hon. Gentleman said:
  "We do not recognise Manchuria as anything but a part of China. We recognise that Japan has great interests in Manchuria. … But our interest is in a united China under one Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1928; col. 1835, Vol. 220.]
  On 28th November the right hon. Gentleman said:
  914
  "Relations between Great Britain and Japan. … are based on the obligations of full and frank communication specified in Article 7 of the Washington China Treaty, 1922. … In these circumstances the two Governments have agreed informally that the close contact which they desire to maintain can best be promoted and developed by constant communication and consultation between their respective Ministers at Peking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1928; col. 395, Vol. 223.]
  I should like to know whether that constant communication has been carried on during the last nine months. I now wish to refer to the events of last autumn. After certain regrettable incidents during the summer, on 18th September, the Japanese military representative at Mukden stated that certain Chinese soldiers had destroyed a portion of the railway—a very small portion, only a matter of a few yards—close to Mukden. On the following day the Japanese military authorities seized Mukden, the capital of Manchuria, and other centres on the line. The operations were carried out with great precision, and seemed, in fact, to be the result of previous preparation. The Chinese troops, acting under orders, piled arms and put them back in store and made no resistance. The Chinese Government immediately appealed to the League of Nations and said that they were willing to do anything which the League suggested and agree to anything laid down by the League. I think it may be taken that ever since, the Chinese Government consistently carried out that policy and decided that they would agree to anything suggested by the League. A certain number of Treaties exist, or are alleged to exist, between China and Japan relating to Manchuria. Some of them date back to pre-War times, and some are secret Treaties. Others the Chinese Government say that they have not agreed to, but they have stated before the League that they are ready to submit all these Treaties to arbitration or judicial settlement. Consistently, the Japanese Government have said that in no circumstances whatever will they allow those Treaties to be settled by the League, by arbitration, or in any other way than by direct negotiations with China, without the intervention of any third party or neutral Power.
  During the autumn, in spite of the appeals of the League and the action of certain Powers, the Japanese military

  915
  authorities gradually got control of the whole of Manchuria, and at the same time threats were made that they did not intend to recognise any Chinese administration in Manchuria and that they did intend to set Manchuria up as an independent State.
  A few days ago that independent State was set up at Mukden, and all relations were broken off with the Chinese Republican Government at Nanking, and it was stated that the new State would have as perpetual life President the ex-Emperor of China, formerly known as the boy Emperor. On 7th January, the United States of America sent a very important Note to Japan in which they stated:
  "With the recent military operations about Chinchow the last remaining administration, authority, or Government of the Chinese Republic in Manchuria, as it existed prior to 18th September, 1931, has been destroyed. … In view of the present situation the United States Government deems it to be its duty to notify both the Imperial Japanese Government and the Government of the Chinese Republic that it cannot admit the legality of any situation de facto nor does it intend to recognise any treaty or agreement entered into between these Governments or their agents which may impair the Treaty rights of the United States. … including those which relate to the sovereignty or independence of the territorial and administrative integrity of the Republic of China. … The United States Government does not intend to recognise any situation or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenants and obligations of the Pact of Paris."
  His Majesty's Government did not send a similar note, but issued a communique in which it stated that, as Japan had agreed to the principle of the open door, they did not consider it necessary
  "to address any formal Note to the Japanese Government on the lines of the American Government's Note."
  I consider that that was regrettable. Not only does it give a false impression that we do not mind so much a treaty being broken as long as the open door is maintained, but that we should tolerate an injustice if we could get a share of the spoils. It undoubtedly gave encouragement to the militarist party in Japan, and I must say that I fear that the Government cannot altogether divest themselves of some responsibility for the increasingly aggressive attitude which was
  916
  adopted by the Japanese Government of afterwards.
  A few days ago a very important letter was published by Mr. Stimson, the American Secretary of State, and, after reviewing the circumstances of the signature of the Nine-Power Treaty and the Kellogg Pact, he stated:
  "It is clear beyond a peradventure that a situation has developed which cannot under any circumstance be reconciled with the obligations of the Covenants of these two Treaties and that if the Treaties had been faithfully observed such a situation could not have arisen."
  He goes on to suggest that unless these Treaties are kept, there will have to be a reconsideration of the Three Power Naval Treaty, particularly in respect to battleship construction and the fortification of Guam and the Philippines. He also suggests that if the Governments of the world would act along the lines of his Note of 7th January
  "a caveat will be placed upon such action"—
  that is, the violation of Treaties and Covenants—
  "which we believe will effectively bar the legality hereafter of any title or right sought to be obtained by pressure or Treaty violation."
  It is clear that there has been violation of three different Treaties, the Nine Power Treaty, the Kellogg Pact, and the Covenant of the League of Nations, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will do their best to influence such other Powers as they can to adhere to the position adopted by the United States. I hope that we shall inform as many Powers as possible that we shall refuse to recognise any agreement brought about by violence or the breaking of the Treaty. I hope there will be no attempt to recognise the situation in Manchuria as a price in return for a settlement at Shanghai. I think that that is very important. The Government has a great responsibility and a great deal depends upon its decisions. There is the question of disarmament, especially as applied to the Pacific. There is the question of the sanctity of international obligations, the question of the peace of the world and the security of the British Empire. All those things are involved to a certain extent in what is happening at the present time. I know that action may be troublesome, but as Hamlet found, the conse-

  917
  quences of inaction and hesitation lead to greater catastrophies.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I certainly make no complaint that the hon. Member wishes to discuss the important matter of the position of Manchuria. I do not think I can do better than briefly state the position as it is now, for as to that there seems to be some confusion. It is true that an independent administrative council has been formed in Manchuria and that the council consists entirely of Chinese and numbers actually amongst its members two Mongolian princes. This Council is to formulate details as to the organisation and constitution of the new Government. The hon. Member said that he hoped we should not recognise that Government. No application whatever has been made to us to recognise it so that that matter has not even been considered. As to the attitude of Japan to the new Government, the hon. Member rather seems to belie his own criticisms. My right hon. Friend told the House that His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokio reported that he had been officially informed by the Japanese Government that if, what we now know to be the case, an independent State be proclaimed by the Chinese in Manchuria the Japanese Government are no more likely to recognise that new State than any other Government. I would remind the House—and this is what is relevant to the position of our own country in the matter—that Japan has stated categorically on several occasions that she has no territorial ambitions in Manchuria, and no intention of interfering either with the principle of the open door, or—as the hon. Gentleman laid such emphasis upon it—the provisions of the Nine Power Treaty. We should certainty not agree to seeing the terms of the Nine-Power Treaty flouted, but in face of the assurance given by the Japanese Government I can see no justification for our assuming that anything of the kind is likely to take place. On the 8th January, the Japanese Ambassador gave a definite and categorical assurance to my right hon. Friend, and similar assurances have been given both before and after that date. The hon. Member stated that the action of setting up the independent State in Manchuria seemed to offer some grounds for independent action by our own
  918
  Government. He criticised us and reminded us that inaction might be more harmful than action. I cannot agree that this particular action of the setting up of a Chinese Government in Manchuria would be in itself a reason for action by His Majesty's Government.
  This is not the first time independent Governments have been set up in China since the Washington Treaty. There have been many similar instances. As is to be expected in the disturbed conditions which have ruled in China in recent years, events such as this, the setting up of independent or quasi-independent Governments, of schismatic Governments claiming to be free from the central authority, has been of frequent occurrence. Hon. Members will recollect the setting up of such a Government at Canton not many years ago. As a further illustration of the consequences of the little control of the central authority in China for many years past, there has been the setting up of the present position in Outer Mongolia, which was described by one who, I am sure, will commend himself to the hon. Member—Mr. Henderson, the late Foreign Secretary—in these words:
  "It has for many years enjoyed complete independence from its suzerain, China."
  Yet I do not remember Mr. Henderson making any representations about its independence, and I cannot even recollect the hon. Member rising in his place to suggest that such representations should be made.
  There are much stronger reasons than this precedent, or the series of precedents which I have cited, why His Majesty's Government, would, in our view, be wrong to take any independent action in respect of Manchuria. The events there are at present, as the house knows, definitely sub judice by the League of Nations. A commission appointed by that body, with the full consent, be it remembered, of the Chinese and Japanese Governments, will very shortly arrive in Manchuria, and it will be the task of that commission to hear evidence and investigate the situation on the spot. It would be wholly improper for the Government of this country, which is a member of the League of Nations, to express by action on its own account independent of the League its judgment upon a matter which is now under investiga-

  919
  tion. There is all the less justification for such a course in the fact that the Assembly of the League has been summoned to meet on 3rd March. I would ask the House to remember that this country, in this respect, unlike the United States, which the hon. Member quoted, has a double duty to discharge—its duty as a signatory to the Nine Power Treaty, which we admit and intend to fulfil, and its duty as a member of the League of Nations. We are fully conscious of the former responsibility, and we could not be excused were we to neglect the latter. It has been our policy throughout the long course of this anxious business to collaborate fully, frankly and faithfully with the League of Nations and with the Government of the United States.
  We shall continue in that policy. We will continue to seek for that dual co-
  920
  operation until this quarrel is settled and tranquillity is restored. I think I can promise that success in the achievement of a solution of this problem is definitely nearer than it was a few days ago. I think the justification of the policy that has been pursued is even stronger than ever it was. It is not our intention to depart from that policy in any instance. I am confident that in seeking to co-operate at once with the League and the United States, and to find a peaceful solution of the problem, we are interpreting the wishes of the House and of the country, and in that policy we shall persist.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (BRITISH AND FOREIGN PROSECUTIONS).
  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (BRITISH AND FOREIGN PROSECUTIONS).
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  ST. GERMAIN-EN-LAYE CONVENTION.
  ST. GERMAIN-EN-LAYE CONVENTION.
POST OFFICE.
  COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES (POSTMAN).
  COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES (POSTMAN).
  FACILITIES, WEST LEYTON.
  FACILITIES, WEST LEYTON.
  TELEPRINTERS.
  TELEPRINTERS.
EDUCATION.
  HEAD TEACHERS, SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SALARIES).
  HEAD TEACHERS, SECONDARY SCHOOLS (SALARIES).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING, DURHAM COUNTY SCHOOLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING, DURHAM COUNTY SCHOOLS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (HAMILTON).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (HAMILTON).
AGRICULTURE.
  BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  WHEAT BILL.
  WHEAT BILL.
INDIA.
  DISCHARGED OFFICERS (COMPENSATION).
  DISCHARGED OFFICERS (COMPENSATION).
  BURMA.
  BURMA.
  EMERGENCY POWERS ORDINANCE.
  EMERGENCY POWERS ORDINANCE.
  MURDERS.
  MURDERS.
  UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS.
  UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
  BEER.
  BEER.
  CHINA (BRITISH WARSHIPS, YANGTSE RIVER).
  CHINA (BRITISH WARSHIPS, YANGTSE RIVER).
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE OFFICES (INSPECTOR'S REPORTS).
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE OFFICES (INSPECTOR'S REPORTS).
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move, in accordance with the Notice on the Paper, that Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting in order to enable the Import Duties Bill to be passed through all its stages to-day. Your Lordships appreciate that if the Bill be passed it is proposed that the duties shall come into force to-morrow, and therefore it is essential that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent to-night. Perhaps it may be convenient if I say that I fear there is a strong probability at least that it will not be possible to finish the discussion before the usual dinner hour. Should that prove to be the case I propose to ask your Lordships to adjourn at about a quarter to eight until, say, nine o'clock, and to conclude the debate later this evening when your Lordships come back after dinner. I hope that that will be for the convenience of the House and that your Lordships will be able to make that arrangement, as it really is a matter of urgency and importance that a conclusion should be reached to-day on the discussion of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be suspended for this day's sitting.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

IMPORT DUTIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I have the great honour this after-
668
noon of moving in your Lordships' House the Second Reading of the Import Duties Bill, and I feel very diffident in that on what I may call so historic an occasion the task should have fallen upon one who is so fully conscious of his shortcomings in putting before your Lordships the case which is embodied in this Bill. But I shall occupy your Lordships' attention for as short a space as I possibly can, and I impose this obligation upon myself for three reasons. One is that I know that the great majority of your Lordships have anxiously awaited this day and that, from the discussions which have occurred in another place, you are now fully familiar with the provisions of this Bill. My second reason is that there are many speakers who are anxious to take part in this debate, and the third reason is that, as your Lordships are aware, we are bound by the rules of the House to pronounce our opinions on the main provisions of this Bill but are precluded from either altering or amending it. And so I feel that your Lordships will excuse me from going into the many details of this measure.
I may say that I, personally, feel a great pleasure and a great satisfaction in being allowed to perform this duty. Like most of your Lordships, I have been engaged in this controversy for the best part of thirty years, and, whilst I have found myself in very little sympathy with what we know as free trade doctrines, I have not been altogether confident that if the out-and-out Protectionists were given a free hand, we might not find ourselves in a most difficult position. And that is why I welcome this measure. It is an experimental measure, it is true, and it is a moderate one. It is an elastic measure, and I am quite sure, from the fact that it has met with the ominous forebodings of colleagues of my own like Sir Herbert Samuel, and at the same time has received the buffetings of Lord Beaverbrook, that this is a measure which is probably in accordance with the wishes and desires of the great majority of the people of this country.
I believe that I shall be followed in this debate by my noble friend who sits beside me on this Bench. I mean Viscount Snowden, and I much regret that we do not see eye to eye with each other on this policy. It is true it is not the first time on which the noble Viscount

669
and myself have found ourselves in disagreement, but it is also very obvious that, but for this very important measure and this very important policy, there is nothing at this moment which divides us far the purpose of carrying out the great objects for which we have come together. The noble Viscount will, I have no doubt, develop the case for Free Trade, which, unfortunately, at the present moment is a policy of free imports; and whilst I for one am fully in sympathy with the great ideal which he holds in front of us, still I feel somehow that in this practical world it is incumbent on us at this juncture by the measure which I am placing before your Lordships to put ourselves in a far more powerful and influential position than that which we occupy at the present moment.
Noble Lords opposite will approach this measure from a different angle. I have no doubt that they will fully carry out the main object of an Opposition, which is to oppose; but I think your Lordships will realise that when they represent, as they do, the Trades Union Congress they are certainly Protectionists in spirit, and I shall be interested to hear the arguments which they will put forward in opposition to this Bill. I have very little doubt that we shall be told that we have received no mandate, and they will add that a measure of this description requires a much fuller investigation than, they will affirm, this has received. This measure and this policy have been investigated for years past, and if anybody will only turn to the Returns which we have the opportunity of seeing we shall find that something must be done in this direction, or else we shall find this country languishing and, if we wait for the ideal of universal free trade, abdicating from the place which it now occupies among the nations of the world.
Noble Lords opposite appear to me, as far as I am able to judge, to be entirely oblivious of the situation in which we found ourselves last July. We were faced with a crisis which equalled in magnitude any crisis with which this country has been faced before. Notwithstanding the warnings of the noble Viscount who sits behind me, we continued a career of extravagant expenditure; until we found ourselves in a situation in which we were confronted with grave financial disaster. We met that crisis in a characteristically British manner. A National Government
670
was formed and the Budget was balanced—a great sacrifice for the people of this country. Now we are in process of correcting the adverse balance of trade. Noble Lords opposite no doubt will endeavour to belittle that crisis. They will have this advantage, that, by reason of the fact that it was well handled, the catastrophe did not eventuate. But I am sure that the great majority of the people of this country are fully aware that had not the Government taken the steps which it did take we should have found ourselves in a very different position from that in which we find ourselves to-day. When I say that we shall be assailed with the accusation that we have no mandate, I venture to suggest that every observation, we can make of the electorate and the House of Commons shows us very clearly that the great majority of the nation are anxiously waiting for a measure of this description, and that they are not prepared to accept any excuse for delay. I am sure that we should be wanting in our duty if we did not go forward with the measure which I venture to put before your Lordships this afternoon.
The passage of Bills Bill into law this evening furnishes us with one further instance of a great historical truth; that is, that we of all nations have made greater changes owing to the genius of our people for administration than any other nation in the world. We have brought into being new policies which would have created revolutions in other countries. We have done so because the country has arrived, slowly it may be, at a decision, and when it has arrived at a decision it has carried into effect those great policies which in the past and the present day have maintained us in the van of progress.
The Bill itself contains provisions with which, as I have said, your Lordships are familiar. The first is a Revenue Tariff of 10 per cent, ad valorem Customs Duty with certain exemptions. The second sets up an Advisory Committee to give advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the Treasury of their functions under the Act. Thirdly, the Committee may recommend additional Customs Duties as exclusion duties on articles of luxury or as duties to protect the home market. Fourthly, the Bill

671
includes Preference to the Dominions and the Colonies. Those are the main provisions which I put before your Lordships this afternoon and, with your Lordships' permission, I will deal briefly with the history which has brought us to the point at which we now find ourselves.
In the early part of the last century, we were a protected country and achieved a position which was the foremost amongst the nations of the world. We were in the fortunate position then of never having suffered from the ravages of an invasion. Therefore, we began the race in the competition for the world's markets with a great preponderating influence in our favour. We were the pioneers in scientific development and were in the fortunate position of owning a large and powerful mercantile marine. It was then obvious that in return for food and raw materials coming into this country free we should supply the world with all those manufactured articles which at that time, owing to the difficulties in which foreign countries had been placed for a considerable time, they naturally desired. Free Trade effected great changes in this country. It turned us, for one thing, into a creditor nation. Your Lordships will agree, I think, that a creditor nation is in a better position to use the system of Free Trade or to make its influence felt in lowering tariffs than any other nation. In my judgment it is a misfortune at this moment that America, in the position in which she finds herself, has not used her influence in the direction of lowering tariffs throughout the world, which, after all, is one of the main objects we have in view.
To return to the brief survey of history which I am endeavouring to make to your Lordships, we found ourselves, owing to these factors, in a position of supreme importance, but as the last century grew to its close the situation changed. We found that other countries under a system of Protection were beginning to develop their own markets. Whilst our figures of imports and exports naturally expanded, we found that other countries were gradually catching us up in the race and that their figures of exports were expanding in greater proportion than ours. We gradually began to
672
realise that our own home market was being affected by the possibility of foreign countries selling their wares in our market at prices which were lower than it was possible for our manufacturers to supply the needs of this country. That was due to more than one reason. One reason, and perhaps the main reason, was that the standard of living for foreign countries was lower than our own, and wages which foreign operatives received were lower than the wages which we were determined to pay in this country. Foreign countries had an additional advantage. By reason of our market being free to them they had the possibility of dealing with a large production, which in modern days is developing into what is called "mass production," and we know quite well that a large production means cheap production. As a result we have found that our own operatives in this country are suffering from grievous unemployment, to a very large extent by reason of the fact that the industries which they could operate to their own advantage and also for the welfare of this country have been taken from them, and are being taken from them, by industries which are being developed all over the world.
I am certainly not laying down the proposition that if we change our policy as we are changing it under this Bill we shall find ourselves at once in a prosperous condition, but I am quite sure, and I think your Lordships will agree with me, that the fact that we have something like 3,000,000 unemployed in this country is something which it is necessary for us to diminish as quickly as we possibly can. We know quite well the demoralising influence of unemployment. We know that when boys leave school they join the ranks of the unemployed, and we know that this has an effect throughout the country which we cannot look upon with equanimity. Therefore, it seems that instead of paying these vast sums which we are paying at present on social schemes, with which we all agree, it is far better that the operatives in this country should be occupied in healthy labour, and in furnishing for the home market those requirements which are necessary for their well-being. That is one feature of the great policy that I am venturing to put before you this afternoon.

673
I think your Lordships will agree, too, that in another respect the Bill places us in a totally different position from the position which we have occupied throughout the last century. Foreign nations have been able to disregard us in any negotiations which we were capable of putting forward. They have been able to look on our home market as a preserve for their own wares, and we have never been able, to discuss with them the possibility of their lowering their tariffs in return for something which we might give them. Now we find ourselves in a totally different position. Instead of approaching the nations of the world as a suppliant we come before them now its a powerful negotiator, and I am quite sure that by adopting that position we shall find that the policy which we all have in our minds at this moment of doing our utmost to lower tariffs will be furthered to a very large extent. I go so far as to say that the power which exists in this country for the, control of international affairs is so great, that if we adopt a policy which places us in a strong negotiating commercial position we shall find that all other countries will reconsider the policy which they have adopted up to the present time; and I do feel that in the desire which we have of seeing tariffs lowered all over the world Great Britain will be a great factor in bringing that policy to a successful issue.
The other provision to which I would venture to make reference is the question of Preference which is embodied in this Bill. I know that this policy is thoroughly in accordance with the sentiment of this country. We have been in a position of being unable to respond to the appeals and also to the Preferences which our Dominions have vouchsafed to us in years past. Now we can enter the Conference at Ottawa with confidence and with hope, and I am quite sure that by the negotiations which will take place there we shall find that the bonds of Empire, which are strong now in relation to sentiment, will be strengthened further by the great business connections that we shall be able to evolve by the policy we are adopting. Let us not underrate the material advantages which we can also derive. We know quite well that in the British Empire there exists wealth of all descriptions in enormous, almost limitless abundance. We know that our
674
Colonies and our Dominions are expanding markets, and we feel that if we can come to some definite arrangement with the British Empire we shall organise trade on lines for the mutual benefit of the Mother Country and the Dominions. We may, it is quite true, have to adopt a new orientation of policy, which is certainly put forward in some quarters—that is, if the world decides on dividing itself into self-contained units we shall occupy a more powerful and a more influential position if we can speak to the world with the voice of the British Empire.
My mind at this moment is not running altogether along those lines. I am thinking the policy which we want to adopt is the further policy to free trade within the British Empire, an ideal which we all have in our minds, but which we feel is not at those moment one for practical politics. One does venture to hope, however, that by reason of those scientific inventions which have annihilated space and have brought the countries of the world into a proximity of communication which none of us quite a short time ago ever contemplated, we shall be able to develop real co-operation amongst all the nations of the world. We know that this desire exists in all parts of the world. We see it in the activities of the League of Nations. We see it in the Disarmament. Conference which is now taking place at Geneva, and I am quite sure that if we can develop this understanding between our Dominions and our Colonies on the lines of co-operation, we shall be able to extend that policy throughout the world. I feel that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that if we can extend that policy we shall find that we have made a long step in the direction of bringing about the lowering of tariffs, which I think is one of the great objects we have in view at the present moment.
I had not intended to trespass even for so long on your Lordships' indulgence, but a measure of this kind, so important, and containing powers which we fee! can have so far-reaching an effect from the national and also from the international point of view, cannot properly be commended to your Lordships in a few perfunctory phrases. As one who has always been in conflict with what I may call the bleak, antiquated and impotent theories

675
of one-sided Free Trade and, at the same time, has feared the isolating tendencies of what I may call out-and-out Protection, I welcome this measure which organises our commercial activities on scientific lines and constitutes, in my judgment, a powerful lever towards, as I have said, the lowering of tariffs throughout the world. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the noble Marquess who moved the Second Heading of this measure and commended it to your Lordships did so with his customary moderation and sincerity. He gave us an historical survey of conditions under Protection in the early part of the last century. He omitted to include in his historical survey the conditions of the people under Protection in those days—the women and children working in coal mines for 12, 14, 16 and 18 hours a day, the children working in factories, the intolerable conditions under which workers suffered in those days. It was to break those conditions that they insisted on the removal of the tariffs of those days and the adoption of a system of Free Trade. His speech consisted of a series of assertions of factors in our national prosperity that we would all like to see, but he gave no argument proving that the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House will, in fact, help to attain any of those desirable ends.
The noble Marquess said that this was a day which had been looked forward to by many members of your Lordships' House for thirty years. It is in fact the culminating point of protectionist policy—a policy which has dominated the Tory Party for thirty years, a policy which has paralysed their thoughts and sterilised their ideas for something like thirty years. I believe that the future of the Tory Party is at stake with the success or failure of the measure now before your Lordships' House. One of the newspapers which does the thinking for the Tory Party, in a leading article to-day said:
"At 12 midnight Great Britain ceases to be the traditional easy dump for foreign produce and merchandise. Midnight is zero hour when the advance to prosperity under Protection begins."
That is a big claim. I notice that the noble Marquess made no such claim him-
676
self. Nevertheless, that is the sincere belief of thousands of supporters of the Conservative Party—that prosperity will begin directly tariffs are imposed. This newspaper went on to say:
"All controversy should then cease, and we can sit back and wait for prosperity."
If in fact the tariff system fails, the only choice before this country will be the adoption of measures such as are being tried out in Russia at the present moment.
It is because we believe that by the national planning of our industries alone can we secure prosperity that we are opposing the obsolete remedy which is now before your Lordships' House. The opposition of the Labour Party is not doctrinaire. Tariffs are a matter of expediency. We do not worship the god of Free Trade, but we have seen no evidence in any part of the world of the success of the protectionist policy which is now being adopted by this country. The Lord Privy Seal, the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, said recently that he would rather entrust Free Trade to Sir Henry Page Croft than to the Labour Party. That may be his opinion. I take it as a compliment to the progressive thought of the Labour Party that we are able to cast ourselves free from the shackles of Free Trade which have bound him for many years. I take it also as a reminder of the paralysing effect which he himself has had on the Labour Party for many years by his laissez faire policy.
Tariffs have nowhere in the world been successful in overcoming the economic evils to which the noble Marquess has referred. He told us that it was desirable to diminish unemployment in this country and that this measure would help to carry us to that end. In France, a protectionist country, unemployment stands at a figure of something over 3,000,000. In Germany, a highly protectionist country, unemployment stands to-day at 6,127,000. In the United States of America, a protectionist country, unemployment stands, we are told, at between 12,000,000 and 13,500,000 persons, representing in men, women and children 50,000,000 of the inhabitants of the United States. This is the magnificent policy which is going to cure unemployment in Great Britain, this policy which has caused an increase in unemployment in the countries which have adopted it and

677
used it in past years. Prosperity is to be brought about by a programme of Protection!
My Lords, the Government do not seem to know their own publications. Have members of the Government considered the Report of the Basle Committee on the economic position of Germany? That Report tells us that:
"The sharp reduction in the purchasing power of large masses of consumers has involved in the last two years the reduction or complete disappearance of industrial profits, serious unemployment and an uninterrupted slump in Stock Exchange securities."
And this Basle Committee's Report goes on to say:
"Finally, to this monetary crisis is now being added a tariff crisis, each country seeking to defend its diminished production against foreign imports by a further increase in import duties and other forms of trade restrictions, which in turn result in the still further shrinking of international trade."
This, then, is the policy of the Government which is to bring prosperity to the world!
The noble Marquess mentioned the standard of living in various countries. Is it a thing to be ashamed of that we have a higher standard of living than other countries? The standard of living, according to the Macmillan Committee, is in Great Britain 100, in Holland 87, in protectionist Germany 77, in protectionist France 58, in protectionist Italy 43. Is this what the Government desires—to bring the people of this country to a lowered standard of living. Yet we see that in country after country which has Protection the standard of life is lower than in Great Britain which has avoided Protection. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, mentioned that this would help us in our Budget deficit. Need I remind the House that protectionist France had this year a Budget deficit calculated at some £80,000,000, and that in the United States of America we are told by the new United States Ambassador to Great Britain that the Budget deficit was £186,000,000?
THE MARQUEES OF LONDONDERRY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he has made two mis-statements. One is in relation to the standard of living. I never said anything of the sort. Neither did I say anything about the Budget deficit. I do not want to interrupt, but
678
if the noble Lord goes on misrepresenting me I shall have to do so.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Marquess is wrong in saying I misrepresented him. He did mention the Budget and the standard of living of our people.
The MARQUEES OF LONDONDERRY: I am sorry to waste the time of the House. I did mention that we were undersold by other countries that had not the same standard of living as our own, but that is quite a different proposition.
LORD MARLEY: That is exactly what I was saying. The noble Marquess pointed out that we had a higher standard than the standard of other countries. Coming back to the Budget deficit, which the noble Marquess mentioned, possibly in the course of his historical survey, I merely pointed out that in protectionist countries Budget deficits are not unknown and I reminded the House that according to the new United States Ambassador to Great Britain the Budget deficit in that country for last year amounted to £186,000,000. For this year that deficit has risen to £247,000,000—pounds not dollars—and next year it is estimated that the Budget deficit will be £292,000,000. Surely, we can learn some lesson from a country of the wealth of the United States of America, instead of blindly following a policy which has been the programme of the Conservative Party for so many years and bringing it into effect at a time when its obsolescence must surely be obvious to all those who consider the matter impartially.
The noble Marquess suggested as the main reason for this proposal the readjustment of our balance of trade. I was reading a few days ago the report of a speech by one of the best known economists in Great Britain who was speaking at Oxford. He said:
"The long-ago exploded superstition that the balance of trade must be watched over and kept right by Parliament is only to be ranked with the once equally widespread belief that witchcraft must be smelt out and witches burned at the stake."
It is an exploded belief, because economists generally agree that the balance of trade must be automatic—automatically balancing itself by changes in the price level in the different countries. The balance of trade, as noble Lords know, consists of the visible balance between

679
imports and exports, a balance which has always been adverse to this country and for many years has stood in the neighbourhood of some £300,000,000 to £450,000,000. That adversity is paid for by the invisible exports of this country, our shipping, our oversea investments, short interest, commissions, and other items.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in another place, pointed out that almost the whole of what Viscount Snowden calls the alleged adverse balance of trade was in the invisible exports, and he went on to say that unfortunately these were the least possible for the Government to influence because shipping and foreign investments must depend on world trade. How, then, was this measure to assist in dealing with an alleged adverse balance of trade? Import duties, of course, would injure both of these items. They were bound, in so far as they prevented trade, to injure our shipping and, in so far as they affected the prosperity of other nations, to injure our investments abroad. Our total imports from abroad are three from foreign sources to one from Empire sources. More than 70 per cent. of our imports come from foreign countries. In any case these calculations of the balance of trade or balance of payments are based on inaccurate and unreliable figures. They have been subject in past years to immense changes in the calculations made by the Board of Trade and other sources. Even visible items have been subject to errors of £20,000,000 and £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 in various years. The invisible items in the last five years have been calculated and recalculated by the Board of Trade and have been proved to provide errors in the final balance amounting to as much as 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the total balance.
I submit that to found a great change in the policy of this country on figures as unreliable and inaccurate as are the figures of the balance of trade is unwise in the present changing state of the world. The Macmillan Report, dealing with this aspect of the case, pointed out that the Board of Trade figures were inaccurate and should be placed on a more exact basis. It says the figures have been subject in recent years to frequent and large revisions after publication, and that
680
it is evident there is so much guess work in them as to render them liable to an unduly wide margin of inevitable error. Yet on these misleading figures the Government are basing their whole policy for dealing with the balance of trade by means of Protection. We are told that this remarkable measure is to prevent the depreciation of the pound. Some of your Lordships were here a few weeks ago when we had a debate on the bank rate and we were told that the reason for the bank rate was to attract foreign capital and to check the withdrawal of foreign short-term balances. Those same words were used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place when introducing this measure; yet within ten days of the introduction of the measure we find the bank rate being lowered in spite of what we were told was the necessity for a high bank rate a few weeks ago in this House. The Macmillan Committee pointed out that a lowering bank rate affects adversely the balance of trade, yet here we have the Government on the one hand trying to cure an alleged adverse balance of trade by a protectionist policy, and on the other hand approving of the lowering of the bank rate which adversely affects the balance of trade. I hope that the Government's sponsors of this measure will explain that apparent discrepancy in their policy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the optimistic statements of all the great banks. In this House there are fifty Peers who are directors of great banks. Every one of those banks within the last few weeks has written or spoken against tariffs. I have in front of me statements by Lloyds, Westminster, Barclays, National Provincial, Midland and the Canadian Bank of Commerce, all of which have made statements along those lines. The Westminster Bank said: "Tariffs cause adverse balances and bring world trade to a standstill." The National Provincial said: "It is hard to increase exports with high tariffs." And so they go on, bank after bank.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord say who it is is making those statements?
LORD MARLEY: Some of the statements are made by the chairmen of the banks, and some appear in the monthly

681
publications which those banks isssue, usually under the title of "Review."
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does the noble Lord not know that the banks issuing those statements usually say that they are not responsible for all that is published in those publications?
LORD MARLEY: Some do, and some do not, and I am quoting from the ones which are not so headed. Then the noble Marquess made a great deal of tariffs as a bargaining weapon, but when impartial examination has been applied to the possibility of using tariffs as a bargaining weapon it has been inevitably found that the result of the bargain is to cause higher and not lower tariffs. The International Economic Conference, which met at Geneva in 1927, in its final resolution expressly included the fact that they found that tariffs as a weapon had often caused tariffs to be raised even higher in the opposing countries, and we must not forget that these tariffs promote a retaliatory instinct, We have had an example of that in the last few days in the case of the British Actors' Equity Association, which has approached the Government and asked them to remove the ban upon foreign artists coming here, because they fear that foreign countries will impose a ban upon them, to the mutual loss of both this country and other countries. That is one example of the retaliation which will inevitably occur in the relationships between this country and other countries who are met with our tariff barriers.
We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these tariffs were to help the cause of efficiency in industry. Surely the opposite is the case. Surely an industry is able, after a tariff, to settle down in comfort to use the protection of the tariff to allow it to get increased profits without reorganisation and additional work. I have here a letter, dated February 16, from a famous firm of stationers and notebook makers, and they say, writing to one of their correspondents:
"In view of the imminent introduction of a general tariff on all imported goods, we fear that the cost of certain of the materials used in the manufacture of our diaries will inevitably increase, not so much—
this is the important point—
"because any of the materials we use in our diaries are of foreign origin, but because
682
English suppliers will be able to increase their prices and still be competitive with foreign suppliers."
There is the efficiency that we get from a measure of tariffs!
Tariffs in the same way tend to bring about dishonesty in the presentation of evidence. A famous case occurred some years ago in bringing before the Safeguarding Inquiry Committee the case of certain American razor blades. The Committee of the Board of Trade was enquiring into those imports and Mr. Charlton, the works manager of Darwin's, Ltd., stated that the total annual imports of one type of American blades if spread out would cover England eight times over. That was submitted to pitiless examination by Sir William Pope, one of the senior mathematicians of Cambridge, and he pointed out that that calculation turned into actual blades meant that 800,000,000 tons reached our shore annually, and that each man, woman and child in this country used twenty million blades, weighing between nineteen and twenty tons a year, and that each inhabitant spent over £150,000 a year on safety razor blades. He said that he did not want to interfere with the innocent amusements of British people who used these blades, but, notwithstanding, it required explanation. The explanation, of course, was that the figures given before the Committee were utterly inaccurate and dishonest; and that is the temptation which tariffs must provide. Even in the House of Commons, in dealing with the Free List, we had wrangling and quarrelling as to what was to be included in the Free List, and I have here a Report of which the whole of one page was taken up in the consideration of whether, in addition to goat's hair, other animals' hair, horses' hair and human hair, should be included. It is logrolling and dishonesty following in the wake of this protectionist policy, as has occurred in other countries.
The real reason for this measure has been kept in the background by the Government. The real reason is the revenue to be derived therefrom. It is calculated at some £30,000,000, in so far as the measure fails to exclude imports. It is; a measure which will transfer to the backs of all the people, the cost of the duties paid, in order that they may be used to reduce the Income Tax of the better-off section of the people. Every

683
man, woman and child will have to pay a sum of 13s. a year in order that £13 a year may be remitted in taxation on the better-off portion of the community. Any impartial examination of tariffs surely must bring us to an understanding that they are not a perfect weapon with which to deal with the problems facing the country. They have been examined by the International Chamber of Commerce, and not approved. They have been examined by conference after conference, and not approved. Tariffs are the nationalist policy, which results in misunderstandings and disagreements between nation and nation. The Prime Minister himself in his speech at the Guildhall spoke of the complete breakdown of the doctrine of national economic self-sufficiency, and yet this is a step towards the adoption of that doctrine. The most rev. Primate, speaking at St. Paul's Cathedral, warned us of the disease of a selfish and self-seeking nationalism. Mr. Runciman himself has talked about "nationalism run mad," and has pointed out that those countries which were determined not to import would find it increasingly difficult to do any exporting. The League of Nations has repeatedly declared against a tariff policy as a measure of international peace. Surely these arguments are worth consideration when such a step is being taken?
What was needed was a mutual discussion with other foreign countries as to our trade relations with them, a discussion which should have taken place through the League of Nations—not tariffs before discussion, but arrangements with other nations whereby each might benefit from an increase in the volume of international trade. The planning of industry is the only way in which our difficulties can be dealt with. The planning of industry is not a part of tariff policy: it is the negation of tariff policy; it is a measure for preventing industry between nation and nation. Hence, because we see that tariffs have failed in other countries, because we believe that the reasons for the change are inadequate and unreliable, because we have seen harmful effects at home and harmful effects abroad, we condemn the measure of tariffs, and we shall oppose its passage in this House.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT SNOWDEN): My Lords, the noble Lord
684
who has just sat down has given a somewhat comprehensive and effective criticism of the Bill which is now before your Lordships, and it has been none the less effective because it comes from one who professes an indifference either to Protection or Free Trade. I shall have, in the course of my observations, to touch on many of the points which have been dealt with by the noble Lord. In the time at my disposal it will not be possible to do more than touch upon a few of the patent fallacies, the unfounded claims, and the contradictory assumptions upon which this measure is based. This is the most important measure dealing with trade and commerce which has been before Parliament for nearly a century. The measure is revolutionary in its character. It proposes to reverse the fiscal policy under which the trade and commerce of this country have been conducted for the last 85 years. I have described the measure as revolutionary and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that a step so fateful ought not to be taken unless we are convinced that our free trade policy no longer serves the best interest of trade and industry, and unless we have every assurance that the new policy is better calculated to obtain those ends.
We have always had our Jeremiahs predicting the impending doom of British trade. About thirty years ago the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain based his tariff campaign upon the allegation that our industries were dead or dying. But our industries refused to die in order to fulfil Mr. Chamberlain's prophecy; and twenty-seven years later our export trade in manufactured articles had risen by more than 100 per cent. Now, fortunately, we are able to test the alleged failure of Free Trade and the claims made in this Bill by hard facts and practical experience. Under Free Trade our exports have risen tenfold. The wealth of the country has increased seven times. The social condition of the people has improved immeasurably. As has been pointed out, wages are double the average of the wages in the protected countries on the Continent. We have social services—incomparable social services—costing the country something like £300,000,000 a year. And this marvellous advance in trade and commerce and in social progress under Free Trade has been achieved under great natural dis-

685
advantages. We have to import for manufacturing purposes the greater part of our raw materials. We bring them from the uttermost ends of the earth, work them up into the finished article, and find a market in foreign countries, surmounting their high tariff walls. We have in England the densest population in the world to support. Now, these are facts in regard to the service which has been rendered during the last eighty-five years to the trade of this country by our Free Trade policy.
It is true that during the last two years our trade, in common with that of all the other countries of the world but in a much lesser degree, has suffered severely from world economic condition. Mr. Runciman, speaking a few days ago, said that we have been able to keep up at a surprising level our trade while other countries have been growing poorer and poorer. Under Free Trade we have been able to maintain our trade at a surprisingly high level while protectionist countries have been growing poorer and poorer. If at this time protectionist countries were weathering the blast more successfully, if while we were depressed they were flourishing, then I admit there would be a case for a review of our fiscal system. But that is not the case. Facts and figures have been given by the noble Lord opposite to prove the very contrary. Mr. Runciman, to whom I believe the inspiration of this measure may be largely attributed—Mr. Runciman, I repeat, says they are growing poorer and poorer. I submit that the first thing that the supporters of this change haves to prove is this. Is Protection serving the interests of protected countries better than Free Trade, is serving the commercial interests of this country? And there can be only one answer given to that question by hard and irrefutable facts.
It is claimed that this Bill will give greater employment to our people, that it will secure the home market and that it will do one or two other things. I want to test these claims. Will it increase employment? The noble Lord who preceded me gave the figures in regard to unemployment in the principal protected countries of the world. In Germany there are more than 6,000,000, and in the United States certainly not less than 12,000,000. Up to quite recently Protectionists pointed to France as a bright
686
and shining light in the protectionist firmament; but we hear little of France to-day. France for some time succeeded fairly well in hiding the facts of her internal economic condition, but they are known to-day, and unemployment in France to-day is certainly not less than it is in this country. Therefore, by that test the first claim made by the Protectionists falls. If Protection is going to increase employment in this country we have a right to ask why it has not done that in protected countries.
The second claim is that it will expand our export trade. Last year our export trade fell by £181,000,000. The figures published last week by the Department of Commerce of the United States revealed the fact that in that year the export trade of the United States fell by £380,000,000, more than double the figure of the fall in this country. About ten days ago this information was circulated through the Press: The latest figures of world trade show that the total volume has fallen very sharply since October. In the last three months of 1931, while British exports were more or less stationary those of the United States, France, Germany and Switzerland fell abruptly. During this period British exports decreased by less than 1 per cent. But exports from the United States fell by 5 per cent., from Switzerland by 9½ per cent, and from France by 10 per cent. As to Germany the trade figures for December show a fall of 8 per cent, on the monthly average of the past nine months. Our exports last year per head of our population were double those of the United States of America. I ask your Lordships again, and I want an answer to the question: How is it that even in this time of unparalleled depression we are able to hold our position in the markets of the world more successfully than the great protectionist countries?
Then we are told that it will secure the home market. Last year nineteen of the principal countries of the world, excluding Great Britain, imported nearly £3,000,000,000 worth of goods from other countries, and these are all protectionist countries. Again I ask, how is it that tariffs are going to protect the home market here while tariffs have failed to protect the home market in any protectionist country in the world? As a matter of fact in normal times the United

687
states of America imports more manufactured articles than we do. Protectionists and those who are supporting this measure must answer these facts. Will Protection do for Great Britain what it has failed to do in every protected country in the world? Why do we stand better than these protected countries? Why are we able to keep our trade now while they are growing poorer and poorer? It is criminal to gamble with the vital interests of the country by adopting a policy while staring us in the face are the facts of the disastrous failure of that policy elsewhere.
While we are waiting for a reply to these questions I will turn to the examination of one or two other features of the Bill. The noble Marquess who submitted this Bill to your Lordships' consideration referred to the question of the mandate. I do not want unduly to stress the mandate. An undertaking was given by the leaders of the National Government at the Election that they would consider the whole question of the alleged adverse balance of trade, and would submit proposals, not excluding tariffs, which they thought were necessary to deal with that matter. Mr. Chamberlain said that they would bring an unprejudiced mind free from all fetters to the restoration of our financial stability, and to frame plans for securing a favourable balance of trade. I must confess that I have seen very little of the free and unfettered mind in the examination of this problem. From the first day the House of Commons met there began a raging campaign for full Protection. The limitation of the operation of the Government's proposals for dealing with the alleged adverse balance of trade has been frankly abandoned, and this measure is now put. forward, in the words of Mr. Chamberlain, to "kill Free Trade as dead as mutton." Mr. Runciman said there is nothing permanent. Well, there is nothing permanent in this changing world, least of all, I hope, the fallacies of the Protectionists, but it is permanent in the intention of its promoters. Sir Robert Home said he would not be content to accept a 10 per cent, tariff if they had not been able to build upon it higher tariffs and more complete protection.
No case has been established for tariffs on the ground of an adverse balance of
688
trade. May I be permitted to amplify a little the treatment of this question which was given by the noble Lord who preceded me? The usual test applied to our foreign trade to see if it is favourable—that is, if we are selling more than we buy—is to take the value of imported merchandise and exported merchandise, and to add to the exports what are called the invisible exports, as described by the noble Lord—that is, receipts from shipping, the income from foreign investments, commissions, insurance and the like. Now, if the visible and invisible exports fall short of the visible imports we are supposed to have an adverse balance, and it is assumed that we are running into debt, or that we are paying out of capital. By this method of calculation this country has always had a favourable balance of trade except last year, and the figures are not yet available.
I agree with the noble Lord that the figures of invisible exports are largely conjectural. There is no evidence whatever that we have a permanent adverse balance of trade, or even a permanent tendency in that direction. The fallacy of all this argument about an adverse balance of trade seems to arise from the assumption that trade is carried on between countries as countries. That, of course, is not the case. Trade is carried on by invididuals, and the total of a country's trade represents millions of individual transactions. Now it is quite true that if you strike an arbitrary line at a particular time you can very often get an adverse balance. That is always happening in a business concern. At seasons of the year traders, merchants and shopkeepers replenish their stocks. They buy much more heavily than they are selling, and they have an adverse balance of trade, but they do not worry about that; as a matter of fact it is a sign of the prosperity of their trade. They soon clear their stocks and the balance is reversed. A temporary adverse balance of trade rights itself by the operation of the automatic equilibrium. Where there is an adverse balance on individual accounts the individual restricts his purchases for the time being, and the balance is thus righted.
But there is one infallible barometer which shows whether there is an adverse balance of trade, and that is the exchange value of sterling. To pay for im-

689
ports the British trader buys foreign exchange. The foreign importer must sell foreign currencies and buy sterling, and, of course, if there is more sterling on sale than foreign currencies the exchange value of sterling falls. Rut the exchange value of sterling is not falling. It has been steady for the last few months. It is showing a tendency to rise, and it is showing a tendency to rise when one might have expected, owing to temporary transactions, that it would turn the other way. The Bunk of England has been buying foreign currencies very heavily of late in order to pay the £50,000,000 Bank of England loan, and yet in spite of that sterling is improving. That one fact alone is the answer, and the conclusive answer, to those who allege an adverse balance of payments on commercial transactions. One reason is, as the newspapers have been pointing out of late, that foreign deposits are coming to London because of increased confidence abroad in the position of this country. Mr. Runciman said the other day that it is all right now, but we do not know what may happen. Well, in this changing world we never know what will happen, but we have to base our actions, not upon remote possibilities of what may happen, but upon reasonable probabilities, and not upon baseless assumptions. There is nothing wrong now. Quite the contrary. If sterling should fall then it would indicate that for the moment there was something wrong, but the automatic equilibrium would very speedily set that right.
Now let me deal with one other important point in regard to the balance of trade. If there be an adverse balance—I mean an increasing adverse balance—it is not in the visible imports and the visible exports because—and this is a most important fact—the ratio between imports and exports remains the same whatever the figures may be. It is quite true, there is no dispute upon this point, that the invisible exports—that is, the receipts from shipping, commission, insurance, overseas investments—have fallen heavily, but the only result of that is that we have so much the less to invest abroad. New having satisfied themselves that there is going to be an adverse balance of perhaps £100,000,000 this year, they propose that we should deliberately restrict imports and expand exports. The fallacy that you can reduce imports and increase exports at the same time arises from not
690
recognising one inescapable fact, and that is that in the long run imports and exports must balance each other.
May I put a question to those who say that we can reduce imports and at the same time expand exports I That is the policy of every protectionist country in the world, and I want to put this question: If every country is aiming at reducing imports and increasing exports where is the market to be found for increased exports? I should like to have an answer to that question. The trade figures for last year show the futility of this idea that you can increase exports and reduce imports. In the last two years our imports have fallen by nearly £300,000,000. Upon the theory with which I am now dealing, the policy with which I am now dealing, that ought to have given us an enormous favourable balance. But what happened? Imports fell by that figure and exports fell by precisely the same figure. There is always this correspondence. If your Lordships will examine the figures of the last fifty years you will find that that correspondence between imports and exports has always existed. The Times put this very well in its commercial column a week or two ago, when it said that the smaller the amount of our imports the smaller must be the amount that the foreigners will have available to spend on British goods, and that any unnecessary restriction of imports was to be deprecated because it would limit exports and you would thereby reduce the total amount of international trade. I admit, my Lords, that there is one way in which you can reduce imports and expand exports. That is by sending your goods to the foreigner and declining to take any payment in return. But that is a policy which, I think, would hardly commend itself even to the most extreme Protectionist.
There is just one other point in connection with this matter with which I should like to deal in a sentence only. There is a vast amount of capital employed in this country and a great amount of labour employed in dealing with imports. If you restrict imports you render that capital useless, or you reduce its utility, you reduce employment at the docks and on our own railways, and you also reduce—which is most important—that very large invisible export which comes from shipping. If this Bill is intended to restrict the importation of

691
goods—and that is declared in its Preamble to be its object—I want to know why Empire goods are to be admitted free. If there be a case on the ground of an adverse balance of trade for reducing imports, it ought to apply to the Empire more than to foreign countries, because during the last three years the so-called adverse balance of trade with foreign countries has been getting less but with the Empire it has been increasing. Last year it was three times more than it was three years before.
I have felt it necessary to dwell at some length upon this matter of the adverse balance of trade, though, as I have said, it has been frankly abandoned as the main reason for this measure, and I now turn to other aspects of this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer described it as a measure for raising a substantial revenue and restricting imports. That is a very hoary protectionist argument. You are to stop imports from coming into the country and you are at the same time to raise a substantial revenue by taxing them. The Times calls it a Revenue Tariff, because we are told it sounds nicer and it is less likely to excite opposition. Mr. Runciman has calculated that the revenue from Import Duties will amount to about £30,000,000 a year. I am not going to anticipate the Budget, but I think I am justified in giving to your Lordships what is Mr. Runciman's idea as to the destination of this revenue. He said the drain on the direct taxpayers has gone far enough and the time has come when they ought to be relieved. That is a plain and a frank statement of the opinion of Mr. Runciman as to the destination of this £30,000,000; £30,000,000 of relief to the direct taxpayer, and an addition to the burdens of the indirect taxpayer—and the indirect taxpayer is mainly the working man.
But these duties, if they realise for the Exchequer £30,000,000, will take more than that out of the pockets of the consumers, for it is a well-known and true canon of taxation that indirect taxes take out of the pockets of the consumer more than they bring into the Exchequer of the State. Now if this revenue is going to be used as Mr. Runciman appears to assume, I say regretfully but emphatically that it will be a breach of the conditions upon which the Economy Act was
692
passed last year. We induced a large section of the working classes to submit to heavy reductions of their wages and to make other sacrifices on the ground that there was to be equality of sacrifice, and when I imposed the extra sixpence on the Income Tax it was to carry out that pledge—as far as equality of sacrifice can be secured—and to call upon the direct taxpayers of the country, who could not be reached in any other way, by a Government measure of economy to make that equivalent sacrifice. I should be appalled to think of what the consequences may be if the direct taxpayer is first of all to be relieved of the sacrifice that he was called upon to make at that time.
Now a good deal of discussion took place in the other House as to what the effect of this tariff would be on the cost of living. Mr. Runciman, in his airy way, said that it will not raise the cost of living at all—nothing of the kind. But Mr. Chamberlain was much more cautious. He admitted that it will and that is how he justified the exemptions from the tax. He said that we must be very careful not to raise the cost of living to the danger point. My Lords, of course it will raise the cost of living. The very fact that we had all that clamour last week for additions to the list of exemptions—clamour coming mainly from the Protectionists—shows that they know quite well that these tariffs will increase the cost of the article on which the tariff is imposed.
This Bill, said Mr. Runciman, is a slimming process. That is rather an unfortunate expression, but it is very appropriate. I understand that slimming is a process of reducing weight in order to add gracefulness to the figure, but to obtain gracefulness and beauty in the figure involves a great risk that the patient may be killed by the treatment. Well, that certainly is likely to happen here. The trade of the world has been undergoing a slimming process for the last three years and what is wanted now is not a further reduction of weight, but a considerable increase in weight. Mr. Runciman tells us he is still a Free Trader and he caustically told the House of Commons a little while ago that if Protectionists wanted to carry Protection they ought to entrust it to a Free Trader with an open mind. Mr. Runciman has

693
certainly an open mind on this controversy, but there are times when one wonders whether his support of these tariffs is not intended to show the absurdity and the hollowness of Protection. Whatever may be the reason there can be no doubt about Mr. Runciman's present enthusiasm, for he is beating his new drum with all the enthusiasm and fervour of a new convert.
The Bill proposes a general tariff of 10 per cent, on all imports, with a few exceptions. It is a beautiful little tariff, said Mr. Runciman, and it can do no harm. But this tariff is the widest in the world. Sir Robert Home told the House of Commons some days ago that in the United States of America two-thirds of the articles are admitted free. There are exemptions under this Bill, but they are only of a temporary character: certain food stuffs—wheat and maize in grain, and meat—are. exempted for the present. Well, I never could appreciate the logic and common sense of those who will permit their consciences to support a tariff, say, on bacon, oatmeal and scores of other articles of food included in this Bill, but refuse to swallow a tax on wheat grain. There is neither logic nor common-sense in that. If I were a Protectionist I should be a whole-hogger; it is the only logical position for a Protectionist to take. But these exemptions are only temporary. They are to be the subject of consideration at Ottawa. But the wheat quota, the Bill to deal with which is now before another place, is an alternative to a direct tax upon wheat and we have been told that the effect of that Bill will be to raise the price of the 4 lb. loaf by about a ½d. Bacon, we have been told, is to be dealt with in a quantitative regulation. Well, most raw materials—at any rate a large number—are to be taxed. Semi-manufactured articles, which are the raw materials for our manufacturing trades for export are to be taxed, and the effect of this must be exactly the same as a tax upon the pure raw material; it must increase the price of. the finished article, hamper our export trade, and give an advantage in the home market to the foreigner.
I feel quite unable to do justice to the spectacle presented last week of Protectionists filling the Lobbies of the House or Commons begging that articles in which they happen to be interested should
694
be exempted from the blessings of Protection, and extreme Protectionists asking that particular articles should be exempted because there were manufacturers and traders in their constituencies who were afraid that they were going to be hardly hit by it. It is a pity that the late W. S. Gilbert is not still alive. He might have written a libretto of such a comic opera as this. The 10 per cent., of course, is only a basis upon which additional duties are to be built. A Tariff Commission is to be appointed, and I do not envy those Commissioners. From to-morrow every trade in the country will be clamouring for additional duties, and at the same time it will be opposing duties for every trade in which it is not primarily interested. As the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, there is no guarantee of improved efficiency. There is no limit to these additional duties.
I have already, in one or two sentences, dealt with the point made by the noble Marquess as to securing the home market. He made a statement which I think was rather more extreme than he intended, to the effect that our workmen were being deprived of their means of livelihood because the home market was being taken away by the foreigner. As a plain matter of fact it is not the case. We have already 80 per cent, of the home market and, as I pointed out a little while back, we have retained more of our own market than many of the protectionist countries. Both the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of this Bill and the noble Lord who followed dealt at some length with what is called the bargaining weapon of the tariff. I noticed that my right hon. friend Mr. J. H. Thomas, speaking on Saturday, is reported as saying that he regarded tariffs as a curse, but he supported them only because he believed they would be useful as a bargaining weapon. No belief was ever more utterly opposed to all experience than this. AH experience proves that tariffs are useless as a means of getting a reduction of tariffs. Every country except ourselves has had this tariff weapon in its hands. Has it had the effect of reducing tariffs? Quite the contrary. The whole tendency has been otherwise. Of course you can point to a few isolated instances where tariffs have been reduced, but the reason was that it was necessary to import those

695
articles into the country, and it was not to that country's advantage that heavy import duties should be imposed.
May I be allowed to read a short sentence from the Report of the Balfour Committee dealing with this matter, because it puts the whole question in a nutshell?
"This argument—
that is the bargaining weapon of a tariff—
"appears to derive little support from the Report of the Economic Conference, which, by clearly exposing the successive steps of the tariff bargaining process by which the tariffs of the principal countries of Continental Europe are normally settled, shows conclusively that it cannot in the long run lead, and that as a matter of historical fact has not led to a reduction of the general level of tariffs. The tendency is in the opposite direction and that for a very good reason."
Mr. Chamberlain, speaking at Birmingham a week ago, said he could discern a disposition by foreigners to enter into a tariff bargain, but Mr. Runciman disposed of that. He said he had had his ear to the ground for some months and could discover no such rumblings—no such disposition on the part of the foreigner—and he quoted a long extract from the Board of Trade Journal showing that countries had put up tariffs and were not reducing them, and that more than twenty countries have this year increased their tariffs or imposed import restrictions. Only on Saturday the Portuguese Government announced a Decree raising their import duties by an all-round 20 per cent, and a 50 per cent, surtax on coal.
Now, Mr. Runciman said, in effect: "When I get this 10 per cent, tariff and additional tariffs I shall be able to go to foreign countries and say 'If you lower your tariffs to me I will lower mine '" Will he? Is there a Protectionist here who will allow Mr. Runciman to lower this 10 per cent, tariff? You know quite well there is not. Mr. Runciman would never be permitted to lower that tariff. He would never be permitted to lower an additional tariff by the force of the vested interests which had been created under the protection of that tariff. I have some experience of this both from the revenue aspect and from the tariff aspect. When I was in office eight years ago, I repealed the McKenna Duties, and incidentally the following year the industries concerned had the best year in
696
their history. But that by the way. During the last three years I had not been able to repeal the McKenna Duties because I could not afford the sacrifice of revenue; and do you expect that either Mr. Runciman or any other President of the Board of Trade is going to sacrifice that revenue when it has already been hypothecated? As I said just now, the protected trades will take good care as far as they can that there shall be no reduction of these tariffs.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer, because there are other members who wish to speak. I have dealt with but a few of the main objects of this measure, and I submit that no case has been made out for a departure from our present fiscal system. I submit that the present position of protectionist countries is a grave warning against our adopting such a policy, and that all the claims which are made for this measure are unjustified by experience. I will sum up in three or four sentences the case against the Bill. Its definite purpose is to restrict the volume of international trade and impose further hindrances in the way of the free flow of international commerce. It is designed to exclude foreign goods from this country and, at the same time, to obtain a larger market for our goods abroad. Our traders are to seek orders abroad by going to the foreigner and saying: "We are carrying on a great campaign in our country against the purchase of foreign goods. We are advising our people to buy only British goods. We have placed a tariff upon the goods sent from your country, but we want you to buy our goods." That, I think, is expecting a magnanimity from the foreigners that they are not likely to appreciate. By deliberately restricting imports this Bill will lessen exports. It is not required to deal with the balance of trade. It is admitted that it will increase the cost of living, and by so doing will lead to wage wars. It imposes heavy new burdens of taxation. It is useless as a bargaining weapon. And, finally, it has been passed without any mandate from the country. The House of Commons majority does not reflect the opinion of the country upon this question. Every time this issue has been submitted to the country it has been decisively and overwhelmingly rejected.

697
This Bill will pass. As Mr. Chamberlain said, arguments will then pass into facts, and that, my Lords, is our satisfaction in this our temporary defeat. Facts and experience will finally settle this question. Free Trade is not dead. There are far more Free Traders in the country to-day than there were three months ago. The post-bags of Members of Parliament give ample proof of that. Well, from one point of view I am not story. The generation which knew from experience the horror and starvation of Protection is gone. The new generation must learn what Protection is from its own experience and sufferings. Let the Protectionists glory in their temporary triumph and in the revival of a universally discredited policy. I do not underrate the difficulty of reversing a policy which has established, powerful vested interests. That is the reason why Protection continues in protected countries. While at the same time they realise its national disadvantages, they are powerless against protected interests. But I am confident that in this country a democratic electorate, when given the opportunity, will put national welfare before personal interests, and they will, an they have always done, when the opportunity comes give their condemnation to the proposals embodied in this measure.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, unlike the noble Viscount who has just sat down and the noble Lord who preceded him, I rise to bless this Bill, and not to curse it. Indeed, I welcome this Bill as a very important measure in the history of this country, and I congratulate the Government on having the courage to introduce it, and to introduce it in this form. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Neville Chamberlain on the part which he has played in the House of Commons in the passage of this great measure, and, if I may be permitted to do so, I should like also to say a word in the same sense in regard to the part which Mr. Walter Runciman has played.
We have just listened to a most forcible speech by the noble Viscount—a speech delivered, as is natural to him, in vigorous, expressive, and eloquent language. But it was a speech that might have been delivered many years ago be-
698
fore the War, and is just as little applicable to the conditions to-day as it would have been applicable to the conditions before the War. The noble Viscount informed us that from the formation of this National Government there had been a raging campaign for Protection in the House of Commons and outside it. But he also stated that this measure had not received the free and unfettered consideration which was expected at the time of the General Election. I think that the reply to that is that this measure has been introduced in another place by a Cabinet majority which we now know was 17 to 4. Four members of that Cabinet—the noble Viscount, Sir Herbert Samuel, Sir Archibald Sinclair, and Sir Donald Maclean—decided in their wisdom, and, I believe, in their sincere belief, to stand outside and not to support this measure. But, after all, the mandate at the General Election that was given to this Government was to consider all these various measures of dealing with the question of unemployment and the restoration of the balance of trade, and they have decided that this is the best way of dealing with those conditions; and I believe that the country is and will be behind them in the course which they are taking.
The noble Viscount spent a very considerable time in proving that the adverse balance of trade was of no account to-day. I should like to ask the noble Viscount to cast back his memory to August of last year. At that time the noble Viscount was a member of the Socialist Government. A very serious condition arose in our finances, and we were told by the Government of the day that the chief reason for those serious conditions was the adverse balance of trade that existed at the time. We were told, moreover, that the adverse balance of trade was within the figures of from £100,000,000 to £200,000,000. As the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, I presume that he himself had provided his colleagues with those figures and that those figures were given to the country under his authority. Yet the noble Viscount comes to your Lordships' House to-day and says that this adverse balance of trade does not matter. But what happened… at that time I Any number of solutions were considered in order to put right that adverse balance of trade. The

699
Socialist Government went so far as to consider the application of a 10 per cent. Revenue Tariff so as to put right that balance of trade. To-day in this Bill that 10 per cent. Revenue Tariff is provided. Yet the noble Viscount says there is no reason to have any fear at all with regard to the adverse balance of trade, notwithstanding the fact that this adverse balance still exists and, so far as we can judge, may exist for some time to come.
Then the noble Viscount went on to say that if this Revenue Tariff was used in any form whatsoever towards relieving the direct taxation in this country he would regard that as a breach of the Economy Act which was passed with his agreement a few months ago. I would beg to remind the noble Viscount that some nine months ago, in May of last year, before this blast fell upon the country in August, the noble Viscount in a speech in another place as Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am not sure but I believe it was when he was introducing the Budget there—informed the House that direct taxation, or rather, I think, industry, could not bear another straw of taxation; in fact if another straw were placed upon it it would break the very camel's back. What is the effect of that? Whether direct taxation be on the individual or on industry it comes to the same thing exactly. Notwithstanding that, in August or September, at the same time as the Economy Act was passed, the direct taxpayers of this country were requested, and they have patriotically responded to the request, to bear another sixpence on the Income Tax in addition to the three-quarters payment which they were asked to make in January of this year. Now the noble Viscount comes down to your Lordships' House and says, in spite of his utterances in May of last year, that if there is any reduction of direct taxation owing to this Bill it will be a breach of the Economy Act. I venture to say that the direct taxpayers of this country are so overburdened with, and so up to their necks in, taxes that unless there is some reduction and some amelioriation of their condition this country will perish and will go under altogether. It is only through a measure of the kind which is being discussed to-day that we are likely to find some amelioriation of those conditions.
700
The noble Viscount told us a great deal about imports and exports and gave us comparisons with his usual ability. But what we have to do is to look at the conditions in the country. We know that during the last ten years this country has been growing poorer and poorer. For ten years we have had at least 1,000,000 and now up to 2,500,000 or 3,000,000 unemployed. It commenced in the year 1921 and it is going on in 1932. What happened in foreign countries where they have that protective system which has been so decried by the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, and the noble Lord, Lord Marley, this afternoon I In those countries this great depression did not really begin until two years ago, in 1929. We have witnessed during those ten years the filching of more and more of our home markets from us by the foreigners. Why I Because of this free trade system, which I agree has done a great deal of good for us in the past, but of which foreign countries are taking an unfair and undue advantage to-day. After all, should we blame them? They find here a market which is absolutely unprotected, a market with 40.000,000 people in a great industrial county, with considerable riches, with a large number of Colonies and an Empire overseas, waiting for them to throw their surplus goods into it and to take the work from the people of this country. This Bill will do a great deal, I believe, to help this situation.
I am one of those who have advocated Protection for a number of years, but I have not done it because I am a Protectionist. I have done it purely from a business point of view. I believe that Free Trade and Protection are terms which ought to be abolished and that we ought to look at these things from the point of view of what is good or bad for the country. Therefore I do not agree with some of my friends who say that this Bill does not go quickly enough. I believe it goes quite quickly enough. I believe it is better for the trade of this country that we should go slowly, carefully and cautiously, and feel our way in this new departure. I believe it is only in that way that we can make a success of it, and it is only in that way that we are going to carry moderate opinion with us in the country.
The noble Viscount said in the course of his remarks that this Bill would prove

701
of no avail whatsoever as a bargaining weapon. I think we have already had one example of that. Within the past few weeks France placed a 15 per cent, surtax on coal coming from this country. I have no definite knowledge of the fact, but I believe that as a result of this Bill which is passing through your Lordships' House, France has thought better of that proposal because she has goods which she wishes to send to this country, and that 15 per cent, surtax has been taken off. I want also to give another example of what is happening us a result of this Bill. Your Lordships may know that in Central Europe, Austria, Hungary and Yugo-Slavia have been going through very difficult times indeed. I agree that all those countries have put on excessive tariffs, but they have always hoped to find a market in this country for their Surplus goods, and to-day, as a result of the tariff which is being imposed through this Bill, one Prime Minister and one ex-Prime Minister of those countries have made public statements in which they say that it is now necessary for those three countries to come together in an economic union in order to assist their own trade internally. There is the first example of the result of this Bill in lowering tariffs in other countries, because those throe countries will have to lower their tariffs in order to conic into an economic union. I suggest that will be a very great help to this country, because, when it does come to negotiating with those countries, as it will when our tariffs are put into force, we shall be able to negotiate on a very much larger scale with three countries in an economic union than we could do with three independent States of much smaller size.
Further, this Bill, framed as it is, enables the tariff to be built up upon a scientific and protective basis. There are, I know, a great many people in this country who would like to see a tariff based on all goods and all food stuffs. I have had some experience of tariffs in other countries, and I believe that is an utterly wrong way of approaching this subject; therefore I welcome with open arms the appointment of the Advisory Committee which, I am glad to say, is to come into existence to-morrow morning, in order that it may go into this question from a scientific point of view and produce a tariff which meets all the needs
702
and conditions of the various trades and industries with which the Committee will be concerned.
There are one or two points in this Bill to which I would like to make reference. First of all I wish to refer to Clause 5, which provides for the free entry of all produce and goods from Crown Colonies and Protectorates. I welcome that clause, because at last it is going to provide the means of a really useful reciprocal Preference between this country and our Colonies, but I am a little sorry that that clause has been drawn upon such narrow terms. I would have liked to see it a little more elastic. I should have liked to see a proviso to enable certain variations to be made in those tariffs in the case of Colonies that are not able to reciprocate with this country. I know there are some people who believe that it is possible to instruct the Governments of the Crown Colonies and Dependencies and Protectorates to do this or that, to put on tariffs or to take off tariffs, just as the Colonial Office or the Secretary of State for the Colonies may desire, but that is not the ease. Those Colonies have their own conditions, their own problems of trade, their own difficulties and troubles, and there must be a certain amount of give-and-take between this country and those Colonies in all matters, including the question of tariffs. In some of those Colonies, like Ceylon, where a Government was established last year or the year before, the local people have very considerable control over questions of tariff. There are Colonies like Barbados and the Bahamas which have responsible Governments, and I feel that it would have been better if we had had some elasticity in this clause so that if, for instance, Ceylon in her wisdom did not feel she could give us the measure of reciprocal Preference which we were able to give her here, we might have some bargaining power to negotiate with that Colony.
There is the question of tea, which is on the Free List, and of sugar. Sugar affects the Crown Colonies considerably, and I should like to say one word with regard to it. I do not like, and never have liked, the subsidy to beet sugar in this country. I believe now, with this Bill, it will be possible to prepare such a scheme as will eliminate the beet subsidy and put the

703
sugar question on a basis of tariffs altogether. Over and over again in this House some of us have advocated greater Preferences for the sugar Colonies, and I hope in the Budget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will now be able to carry out some of those suggestions. I should like to see the tariff on foreign sugar increased, the Preference column of that tariff left as it is, and beet sugar grown free of duty in this country, or with some very small excise which would enable it to compete. In that way in a market which amounts to some 1,800,000 tons per annum, there is room for both British beet and Colonial sugar, leaving something over for foreign sugar.
There is one other clause to which I wish to refer, and that is the clause which provides grants of Preferences to the Dominions, India and Southern Rhodesia. Under that clause no duties which are levied under the Bill or regulations will be payable until the 15th November—that is, after the Ottawa Conference. I understood that under the mandate granted at the General Election the Government were to proceed to Ottawa absolutely free and unfettered by any question of home conditions, that our representatives were to be allowed to negotiate about any product, and that they were to ascertain through those negotiations whether it was possible to receive sufficient consideration, to make it worth while to put duties on certain articles in this country. I am greatly disappointed because it transpired in the course of the debates in another place that meat is to be excluded from consideration at Ottawa. I cannot think that Mr. Walter Runciman, who I understand is the chief supporter of this in the Cabinet, had in mind the Ottawa Conference when he was pledging himself in his constituency during the General Election about meat, because the two questions are on an entirely different basis. I hope that in July when the Ottawa Conference meets conditions will be such that the Government here will be able to reconsider that issue, because I venture to believe that there is no more admirable example than that afforded by meat and pig products of the possibility of negotiation on the subject of imports of food, negotiation not only with our Dominions, but with foreign countries. I agree that lamb may not be of such value in such negotiations as beef or pig
704
products, but I do urge that the Government between now and July should, if possible, reconsider the attitude which they are at present adopting on this matter.
In the course of the debates in another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, did not entirely close the door, because he said that the time might come when the conditions might be such as would enable them to deal with this question from a preferential point of view. I would like to remind your Lordships that in meat we have an article which may prove to be a very valuable bargaining counter in negotiations with the Argentine and Denmark. With the Argentine we have to-day an adverse trade balance of £41,000,000. Where does that £41,000,000 go? Most of that £41,000,000 is spent in the United States of America. With Denmark we have an adverse balance of trade of £43,000,000. Where does that go I That is spent in foreign countries. This £84,000,000 comes out of the pockets of the people of this country and goes into the pockets of the Argentine and Danish people, and they spend it in other countries. Then, on the question of meat—and I am including pig products the whole time—what about the position of our own farmers I Our farmers in this country require protection for their meat and pigs products just as they require certain help in regard to their wheat cultivation. I suggest that we should help our farmers with regard to meat and pig products in the same way as we are helping them with regard to wheat. It has been suggested that there is a scheme under consideration by which there should be a quantitative import system for pig products and also, possibly, for meat. But if you adopt such a system it will cut out the easy method of helping your farmers and of helping the Empire and of redressing your adverse balance of trade with other countries by imposing import duties.
Finally, I would like to refer to a statement made by Mr. Bennett last year. Mr. Bennett, it is true, rather bluntly said that you must look after your own people first, then after the Empire, and then after foreigners. The Secretary of State for the Dominions, Mr. Thomas, repeated that view in somewhat similar language in the House of Commons last

705
week. I believe that it is the only reasonable and sensible way of approach to this question. We must look after our own people in this country. Then we must see what we can do for the Empire, having in view all the time possible sacrifices here and there so far as both the Empire and ourselves are concerned. Then, when we have looked after both those, we should consider our position with, regard to foreign countries. This Bill provides the basis for that policy. It is because of that that I welcome this Bill, and not only because of that, but because I believe that whilst this Bill is not the final solution or our ultimate salvation it will erect many milestones along the path to a new era of prosperity in this country and in the Empire.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I am professedly speaking on behalf of that section of the House with whom I always sit, but I aim afraid that I cannot claim that I necessarily represent their views because, being Liberals, we have different views on every single question and on this question we are certainly very much divided. I would like also to say that in criticising, as I propose to do very briefly, some features of this Bill I stand on this [the Opposition] side of the House for convenience, but I am as strong a supporter of the National Government as any noble Lord in this House. I was, if I may say so, delighted to hear of the agreement that had been come to by the various sections of the Cabinet. I think it would have been a fatal thing if this National Government, elected by the nation as a whole to can out certain national work, should have broken up and ceased to be national, and therefore I think that we should be very grateful to the Cabinet for the way this matter has been treated. It shows how unanimous they are and how friendly they are in regard to all other questions except this one of tariff reform.
I am speaking as a Liberal, and I am not sure whether noble Lords who before coming to this House had votes quite realise the position of Liberals in constituencies in which there were no Liberal candidates. I can assure you that the strain on them was very great indeed. At the time of the Election my daughter wrote to me saying that as a good Liberal she had gone to the poll wearing a crepe veil, her tottering feet
706
supported by two other disconsolate Liberals, in order to vote for a Tory and a Protectionist. That was the position we took up because we were anxious to vote for the National Government. One of the conditions, on which we gave our votes was that the Government should have a completely free hand in regard to this question of tariffs and other questions which would certainly arise, but I must say that it came rather as a shock to some of us that the proposals in this Bill were introduced at such a very early stage after the time of the birth of the National Government. It gives us rather a shock that a cut-and-dried Bill of this sort should be so rapidly produced, but my three political friends in the Cabinet would not have stayed there if they had thought that there had been any breach of faith on the part of the Government as a whole, and I do not allege any such breach of faith.
Defending this Bill, Mr. Runciman said it was a measure of gentle Protection. In his first fall from virtue, I am afraid my right hon. friend has used the time-honoured argument that it was only a little one. My fear is that these duties are bound to increase. We have seen that in every country. If it is said that the 10 per cent. duty is not successful it will be argued that if it were 20 per cent. it would be all right. What makes me nervous and anxious in this matter is that the Amerys and Page Crofts and others accepted the Bill as a solution of the question and gave it enthusiastic support. I cannot believe that they would be content solely with a miserable 10 per cent., or that the whole-hoggers would be content with a side of bacon. I fear therefore that sooner or later we shall have proposals to increase these duties until they become a great burden on the country.
The Lord Privy Seal has dealt with various points and I will content myself by referring to one or two. I am speaking here not as an extreme Cobdenite. Some of my friends are perhaps almost more royalist than the King. I speak as one who believes in Free Trade, though I do not consider it altogether sacrosanct. I do not at any rate propose to use the old arguments of Free Trade against Protection. They have been used for some 80 or 90 years and I think it is about time they retired on an old-age pension.

707
I will not touch either on the question of the Ottawa Conference and what we are going to do for the Dominions. That remains for the future. But I think it will be the case that the more we are able to come to agreement with the Dominions the greater will be the adverse balance of trade, and we shall not be really carrying out the object we have in view. In every other way I am in favour of Preference with the Colonies.
There are two good points connected with this Bill on which I should like to speak. The first is the Free List in the Schedule, which was much increased as time went on in the Committee stage of the Bill. That process was rather amusing to us Liberals. Liberals have always said that if you put a duty on an article of food or manufacture it will raise the price here, whereas the Protectionist has always said that the foreigner would pay. We have also said that one of the great evils of any Protection system is the logrolling and pressure to which it gives rise. It was amusing in the last few days to see what pressure was brought to bear in order that articles might be included in the Free List which were not there before —jewellery for Birmingham, newsprint and other matters. I am glad that this Advisory Committee is to be appointed. It will be a difficult job for those serving on it, but I am sure the Government will have, in the Chairman we have heard of and some of the other members, a good and impartial body. This Committee has a great advantage to my mind, though in a sense it takes the matter rather out of the control of Parliament. I think one advantage is that under this Advisory Committee we shall get rid of one of the evils that arises in other countries from the pressure and the log-rolling which have been brought to bear on representatives by their constituents.
The main point on which this Bill is supported is that the adverse balance of trade must be remedied. Protection has had a good many aliases—Protection, Retaliation, Fair Trade, Tariff Reform and now the Balance of Trade. In the ordinary way any person with many aliases is treated with some suspicion. The remedy proposed is the introduction of import duties. It is clear that import duties can reduce the adverse balance by preventing goods from coming in, but on the other hand, even more important to
708
this country than the question of imports is our great export trade, and I do not see how this tariff duty can be said to improve in any way the position of exports. The President of the Board of Trade says there is no tariff which would stimulate exports. That I think is true. Not only will it not stimulate them, but it will be adverse to their increase, one of the things the Government has in mind. The main reason at present why our balance of trade is bad and our exports have fallen off is that the cost of production in this country is high. We have high wages, some of our machinery is obsolete, and competition abroad is greater than in the past. In addition there has been this tremendous fall in the price of all the articles, both of commerce and food, which are the basis of satisfactory trade. Further there has been of late in almost every protectionist country a tendency to put up all import duties. There is hardly a country that has not of late diminished its purchasing power abroad by the limitation of imports. That has hit our trade. Is it not certain that this 10 per cent. duty, the abnormal duties, and the higher duties that can be imposed, will have a specific adverse effect on our exports and aggravate the position instead of improving it?
These duties certainly will not diminish the cost of production. Indeed it is admitted that these increased duties on many manufactured articles, and on food, will undoubtedly increase the cost of production. These tariffs, by reducing the amounts which other countries will take, will reduce our exports to them and the effect of reducing our exports will affect the question of our imports as well. I would like to read to your Lordships an authority on this. It is in these terms:
"The problem: How are we at one and the same time to diminish our imports and to increase our exports? It is a complicated problem, and one that has to be attacked from many angles, because it is hardly possible to find a proposal which will advance one of these two objects without its having some reaction, and without its affecting the other. The effect of the sudden closing of the market of this country to one class of goods from another country may easily produce such a reduction in the purchasing power of one of our customers in another class of goods as to have serious results upon our export trade."
My authority is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think he has expressed in much clearer language the views which

709
I have been endeavouring to express. It seems to me quite certain that as regards our merchandise, our visible exports, the tariff imposed on goods here must necessarily increase the cost of production; also that the imposition of the import duties will prevent many goods from coming in, and that those, of our customers who before have been able to purchase our goods may find themselves unable to do so because of our 10 per cent. tariff.
There is one other point which I think is a very vital point, and it is this. As I think Lord Snowden pointed out, there are not only these visible exports to which I have referred, of many millions a year, but also the invisible exports, which help to effect the balance of trade. There is the interest on investments, there is the shipping trade and the commission trade. All these invisible exports affect very largely the question of the balance of trade. As regards these investments, it is quite clear that the foreigner who owes us this money has to send his payment to us in gold or goods. He cannot send it in gold, because there is not enough available to go round, and he has to send it in goods. If we prevent him to a large extent by reason of the effect of the Import Duties, will he be able to pay us the interest on investments? I fear we may find that there will be default in this direction.
What, however, I am more interested in, because it is a point at which the introduction of tariffs hits the trade worse, is the question of the shipping trade. We are proud of our great mercantile navy and are doing our best to increase it, to improve our harbours and dockyards and to increase the facilities for carrying out its work effectively. This country, as world-carriers, has been far ahead of any other country in regard to its mercantile marine. Our mercantile marine has suffered much of late, due to the fall in the general volume of trade in the world. It is admitted that this measure will prevent the import of a very considerable quantity of goods from abroad. That is the object of the tariffs. That will mean, as far as shipping is concerned, that there will be no increase, but probably a diminution, in the shipping trade. Our ships will have to go out, it may be, with cargo, but will have to come back in ballast, and it will mean a considerable loss and
710
may be the final blow at their position. What I have endeavoured to say is that the introduction of this import tariff cannot possibly assist our general exports. It may improve trade in this country in some ways, but it cannot increase our ordinary commercial exports and will undoubtedly hit severely our hidden exports, our investments, and will deal a fatal blow to our shipping trade as well. Those are points which have to be considered in determining whether we will agree to this Bill or not.
Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this is a permanent scientific tariff designed to keep out foreign trade and encourage our home trade. The President of the Board of Trade supported that by saying that we shall have £30,000,000 of revenue, which can go in the reduction of taxation in some way. You cannot have it both ways. If the Bill is a success it will keep out goods and there will be no revenue. If you have a large revenue it will show that the Bill cannot have been effective, and it seems to me that that is the position which the Government have not fairly faced. If there is this revenue derived from these imports of foreign goods some consumers will no doubt get benefit from a reduction of taxation, but the whole of the country will suffer from the increased cost of manufactures and the increased cost of living.
Lord Snowden referred to the question of the cost of living, and I do not suppose that even the noble Viscount, who is going to wind up, will deny what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already admitted, that if you impose this enormous number of duties upon various articles and food the cost of living is bound to rise. In fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking of his meat duties, said:
"In present circumstances, and having in particular the question of the cost or living very much in our minds, we do not consider that this is a time when it would be prudent or wise to put a tax upon the import of meat into this country."
That means, in other words, that he admits that if we did put a duty on meat it would increase the cost of living in regard to that article. That has to be considered with reference to this whole matter.
One point more I would like to note, and that is this. The Chancellor of the

711
Exchequer said that this would be a permanent scientific tariff. The President of the Board of Trade said it would be not in any sense permanent, for Parliament could at any time repeal an Act of this sort. I am afraid that the President of the Board of Trade is wrong and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right. If this tariff is once imposed, in the conditions in which it is imposed, it will be impossible to take it off. If it were a simple 10 per cent, tariff it could no doubt be taken off at any time. But the whole object, or one of the main objects, of this 10 per cent. is to arrive at agreements, with the Dominions on the one hand and with foreign countries on the other, to give them reductions of various sorts in view of a quid pro quo. It is quite certain that, that being so, the hands of any Government will be so completely tied that they could not possibly repeal this Act in view of those bargains without a breach of honour. I think, therefore, that we must assume that this is a permanent Act, and the difficulties of repealing it would be very great indeed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said a day or two ago that the inter-actions and reactions of all these things—home trade, export trade, revenue, direct taxation, tariffs, and so on—are simply endless. The conclusion that he came to was that there was a balance in each case of advantages and disadvantages. In other words, it is a leap in the dark, and we do not know whether we shall land in a bog or on firm ground. As far as I am concerned, I could not vote for this Bill. On the other hand, I do not think it is worth while to vote against it, especially as it is a Money Bill, with which the House is not really concerned; and the House of Commons has so effectively expressed its views that I shall not vote against it. I hope myself that the Bill will succeed in the objects which the Government have before them—namely, the balancing of trade, the increase of revenue, the increase of industry, and the reduction of unemployment. I hope it will succeed, because undoubtedly things are in a parlous condition now, and if this Bill is to be effective at all it may be of some use to the country at large. What I feel is that, if it does not succeed, this experiment will have done a great deal of harm, and the last state of the
712
country will be worse than the first. Therefore, though still a Free Trader I should like to see this Bill succeed rather than have the poor satisfaction later of saying "I told you so" when it has not succeeded.
We have lived in the last few months very fast and gone very far, and especially in the last few days. We have in office a Government representative of three Parties in the State, with something like 550 supporters out of a House of 615. They have produced a Budget with a deficit of £170,000,000. They have gone off the gold standard; they have also gone off the personal responsibility standard. But I do not know whether your Lordships quite realise what is happening to-day. To-night when we go to bed, my Lords, we shall go to bed as members of a free trade country; when we wake up in the morning we shall be members of a protectionist country.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, I have listened to this debate with very great interest, and I must compliment the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, on the very powerful speech, from his point of view, which he delivered. But I cannot help thinking that he lives very much in the past, and does not seem to realise the condition of things at the present time. I am an old Free Trader. I have been a Free Trader for 60 years, and you may rest assured that it would be a very powerful reason which would induce me to support a Bill of this kind. But I am glad to say that I can give it my cordial support. What is the present position compared with what it was? For 85 years, said the noble Viscount, we have had Free Trade, and it has been of immense service to this country. I am not going to say for a moment that we have not received very great benefits from the Free Trade system. But things have changed. We were the chief producers of all kinds of machinery in the world. Any new country that was opened up was supplied by us with machinery for its various industries, and in the old countries also many of the industries were supplied by us with machinery. The result is that they are now able to compete with us, equipped in the very best way; and, unfortunately, in many cases they can produce the very articles we used to supply them with more cheaply than we can, and export them to this

713
country. As new countries developed we had always been the leaders, but by degrees, when other countries became equipped—many of them by our efforts and by our machinery—they were able to compete with us, and a good deal of the trade which we had has been lost to them.
I feel sure that the competition which is going to take place between those countries and ourselves will be much more severe than we have so far seen. We talk of unemployment. We have a vast amount of unemployment. Who is to say whether these unemployed are going to get employment hereafter, even when trade has improved? Every manufacturer and producer gets the best machinery he can in order to increase his production, and the result, is that men lose their jobs, and we have one man at a machine now doing the work that used to be done by two or three. What is to become of the unemployed? I think this problem is going to become a very much more serious one than many people in this country realise. It would be the greatest folly to allow the foreign producer to come and take possession of our markets, as he is doing now, and as I feel sure he will do unless we have some means of protecting ourselves. Barriers are put up against us by all countries. We have almost the only open market in the world, and, owing to other countries being able to produce in large quantities, they can produce more cheaply than we do. The result is that they take possession of our markets.
They not only put up barriers in the shape of tariffs, but now they are going in for licences. You cannot ship abroad unless you have licences to do so. Not only that, but they go so far as to say; "We are not going to allow you to send more than a certain number of things into our country." With such protection in opposition to us and considering the handicaps we are under, surely it is time for us to realise the position and take some action to protect our home market. That is the reason more than any other why I am prepared to support this Bill. I hope as time goes on it will result in giving that protection to our home market which in my judgment is absolutely necessary if we are to continue to give employment to our working men.
The expenditure we have to contend with is enormous, and I do not see how we are going to carry on our industries
714
unless some real effort is made to cut that expenditure down. I see that the expenditure on our Debt was only £24,500,000 in 1913–14. In 1931–32 our expenditure on the War Debt is £405,988,000. The rest of the Budget in 1913–14 amounted to £145,000,000, The rest of the last Budget amounted to no less than £397,402,000. With such a handicap as that the Government ought not to continue to give grants for all kinds of things that appear to me to be unnecessary in the counties. Driving to my office in Northumberland I passed some workmen altering a bridge. They were moving it a distance of perhaps 130 or 140 yards. That was absolutely unnecessary. What is such a distance to motor traffic there? A mere nothing, I had the Chairman of the County Council lunching with me that day and I expressed that opinion and asked what the work was going to cost. He said that according to the estimates it would cost £70,000. That sort of thing is going on all over the country and some check ought to be placed upon it.
Another question is that of our food supply. It was stated by the noble Marquess that our food supply is practically provided for by about three things—the exports, the invisible exports and the services rendered by our ships. I noticed that Mr. Runciman stated the other day that the Budget last year contained no less than £100,000,000 of capital. I do not know whether that included Death Duties or not. If it did not include them he might have added another £70,000,000. Surely we cannot shut our eyes to facts that concern us so much. As a business man I am brought into contact with men of commerce and business every day, and I am bound to make a protest on their behalf and to give the Government some support in dealing with those important matters. With all this capital expenditure we have no money for the development of our industries, and I speak with some degree of confidence. In the greatest industries we have—agriculture, ship-building, the coal trade and ship owning—nobody can get capital to carry on to-day. If you apply for capital nobody will give it to you. Depend upon it, all this expenditure that is going on is forcing away from industry the very capital that is necessary if it is to be carried on. I hope this Bill will not only deal with the question of imports but

715
will stimulate the Government to insist upon a further reduction of expenditure.
Surely, too, we ought to do something for agriculture. We can only produce about one-third of our food supply and have to buy the other two-thirds elsewhere. Owing to the expenditure to which I have referred, if our exports go down, if our invested capital abroad goes down, if the services rendered by our ships and other things go down, how shall we pay for that two-thirds of our food supply? People laugh and think it is impossible, but unless we wake up and deal with these questions we may get into much greater difficulties than any of us imagine. Therefore I think we ought to do what we can to deal with these special matters.
Surely no industry at the present time could employ more men than agriculture if some sort of protection were given to it. I think it is a duty we owe to our country to give agriculture protection in some shape or form. People are afraid of taxing food. I do not want to see the food of the people taxed, but I would much rather see food taxed than have no food at all. Something ought to be done in regard to that because the development of agriculture would enable us to employ a very large number of additional people on the land. And whatever may be the opinion of some experts I feel sure that if this country is to recover its position we shall be compelled to take measures to get men back on to the land. The towns have the power at the moment. The agricultural workers have not sufficient power to deal with the opposition they get from the towns, and I hope that the Government will have the courage to deal with that matter and make some effort to put land tenure in such a position as will enable a much greater number to be employed on the land than is possible at the present time. The Government have a free hand. Nobody can say that they have not, seeing that they came in with such an enormous majority. The Government also have the power. All they want is the courage, and I hope as time goes on we shall find that they will take courage and make such a mark in this country that their reputation will last for very many years.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, the last two speeches we have listened to this evening show, I think, the very great
716
change there has been in recent years regarding this fiscal question. The noble Lord, Lord Joicey, has always been a very keen Free Trader and one of the great leaders of industrial opinion in the North of England, and I do not think it would be possible to make a more forcible speech in favour of the solution of the problems which is proposed than the one he has made, so far as his own interests and the interests of those he has represented in the past are concerned. I should like also to refer to the speech of the noble Earl, for whom the House has great respect. He said that though he would not be prepared to vote for this measure to-night he wished it well. I sincerely hope that feeling will extend to the rest of the House, and though we are having this great controversy and debate on this Question to-night, I hope that all those who do not feel inclined at the moment to support the measure in the Lobby will realise how necessary it is to make it a success.
In the very interesting speech we had this afternoon from the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, he spoke very strongly, as always, against Protection. I would like to mention one fact which has always been very difficult for me to understand—that is, the attitude of a man who has been the great representative of the trade union interests in this country for many years. If there ever was a principle that is protectionist it is the principle of trade unionism. It is perfectly plain that if it had not been for that protection trade unions would never have been in the great position they are to-day. He spoke also with regard to bargaining power. I do not know what noble Lords, as a whole, think with regard to that, but it seems to me that the case was made out for bargaining power by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other House, and recent events have shown the great necessity for obtaining that bargaining power. It has been suggested this afternoon that we might negotiate with foreign nations without it. The late Mr. William Graham, whose loss every one in this House deplores, tried to negotiate with regard to this question, without any very marked success.
Reference was made this afternoon to the opinions of bankers. I was astonished to hear the statement that was made with regard to the opinion of bankers, because in my view the vast majority of

717
the bankers of this country are strongly protectionist; certainly they are in opposition to the present system of free imports. But I did not rise to speak about points raised in the debate. I want to make two points, and then I will sit down. One is in regard to the balance of trade. Mention was; made this afternoon of the inaccurate figures which had been given in certain directions. It was rather a surprise to me to hear that statement. I did not know we could not rely upon the figures which had been given. I do think everyone must realise that the balance of trade has made this action of the Government an absolute necessity. Noble Lords who have just spoken mentioned their views with regard to the tariff question, and said they would not vote against this measure. The noble Lord who spoke last has only changed his views recently, but I was one of those, if I may say so humbly, who had Colonial Preference in my Election Address in 1898, so I may be excused for speaking on this subject.
These are the figures I have in regard to the balance of trade. The excess of imports over exports of goods (including silver, coined and uncoined) in 1929 was £381,000,000; and in 1931 it had risen to £411,000,000. The excess of Government receipts from overseas over Government payments overseas was £24,000,000 in 1929, and in 1931, £16,000,000. The excess of British receipts from shipping ever British payments for shipping was £130,000,000 in 1929, and £80,000,000 in 1931. The excess of income from British investments overseas over interest paid in respect of overseas investments in the United Kingdom was £250,000,000 in 1929, and £165,000,000 in 1931. The excess of income from British banking services to overseas companies and persons over British payments for banking and services overseas rendered to United Kingdom companies and persons was £65,000,000 in 1929, and £30,000,000 in 1931. Lastly—I will not trouble the House with any further figures after this—the excess of receipts over payments in respect of other services was £15,000,000 in 1929 and £10,000,000 in 1931. Those figures show plainly the position of our balance of trade, and it seems to me that it is quite impossible for us to go on as we are at present.
The other point I want to mention before I sit down is in regard to the ques-
718
tion of timber from Russia. I dare say many of your Lordships will remember the very interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ernie, upon the question of the conditions under which timber is worked in Russia under the five-year plan. They are slave conditions to a considerable extent. I want to know, if I may ask, what His Majesty's Government are going to do in regard to that matter, because it is a very serious one. Mr. Baldwin, at the Conference of Women's Organisations in the Royal Albert Hall, on May 15, 1931, said;
"The time has gone by when we can leave our country open and free for the dumping of goods, produced under inferior conditions, from foreign countries or as a surplus of mass production. … The sending of goods by Russia to be sold at knockout prices was not trade; it was economic war, and a war much more dangerous to our people than a war of arms. The Russian system was the antithesis of everything sacred to a free race. … and we shall protect our own people from every attempt to sap the foundations of our civilisation by economic warfare."
In 1929 the trade agreement with Russia, with its most-favoured-nation clause, came into being. I want to ask His Majesty's Government under what conditions steps will be taken to deal with the solution of this problem. In conclusion I should like to say that I am delighted to think we are having the last day of discussion upon a controversy of this kind in this House for some time to come, and I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, in intervening in this debate to-night I have no desire to trespass unduly upon your Lordships' time, but I might be thought lacking in respect to your Lordships' House if I contented myself with giving a silent vote this evening against a first' class measure of His Majesty's Government of which I am a member. I have been long enough a member of your Lordships' House to know that candour and sincerity are always respected by your Lordships, and I am confident, therefore, that in the peculiar and delicate position in which I find myself I shall not appeal in vain for your Lordships' consideration and indulgence in the unenviable experience of speaking from the Front Bench in opposition to a piece of legislation of major importance promoted by the Government.

719
I confess quite frankly that I have sought long and diligently for an escape from my dilemma. I have listened to many of the debates in another place, and I have read others, and I have read much else besides, and if anyone has tried to review the whole problem in the light of present circumstances I have. I tremble to think how near I may have been to becoming a victim of my own cowardice. However, I stand at this Box to-night a rabid and impenitent Free Trader, and I believe with the fullest conviction that the tariff proposals of the Government are not only fraught with serious danger, but may even be disastrous to the economic and industrial life and prosperity of the nation. I think I can subscribe to almost everything my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said from this Box today, and also, with perhaps two exceptions, to all he said on this subject a little less than three weeks ago when the Vote of Censure in respect of Cabinet responsibility was under discussion.
The two exceptions to which I refer are these. On that occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, said he would just as soon trust the safeguarding of Free Trade to Sir Henry Page Croft as he would to the Labour Party. He further said that he was not attracted by the company on the other side of the House. That is not my position. I believe that the Party opposite will maintain intact the purity of its Free Trade principles, notwithstanding individual lapses, but after reading the speech delivered last week in another place by the honourable and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth, I should be very sorry to trust him with safeguarding the workers' standard of living, for he even urged the deletion of meat from the Free List. In other words he demanded that the meat of the poor should be taxed, apparently forgetful of the very large number of consumers who not long ago suffered severe cuts in their incomes and therefore are still less able to bear an increase in price of a most material commodity which they consume. I scarcely think that my noble friend could have been quite serious in expressing his preference for guardianship by Sir Henry Page Croft. I should much prefer to trust the security of Free Trade to those with whom both the noble Viscount and I were not only asso-
720
ciated but very happily associated until the distressing events of last July, and no one regrets more than I do the breaking of those ties. Personally I think it is little short of a tragedy that the opportunity was not taken by the official Labour Party of co-operating in the formation of an emergency Administration to ensure a fully representative National Government, thus making it all-embracing, to overcome the unfortunate but nevertheless de facto position. My contention at the time was that a real collapse of British credit would unquestionably entail the workers' standard of living being reduced in secret, and I was and still am convinced that the preferable course in the circumstances was an equitable scheme of open and frank reductions all round, even if only as a temporary expedient, until the deeper issues involved could be fearlessly tackled.
As I say, with those two exceptions I range myself beside the noble Viscount, and, perhaps greatly daring, I would add this. His speeches and writings are usually sufficiently seasoned with salt so that he might perhaps with advantage reserve at least some of that very useful commodity in case of need for some of his new friends rather than dissipate it all on his old ones. At the last Election I found my name, for the first time in my life, on the same handbill as that of a Conservative candidate. I withstood the shock and carried on, he being a supporter of the National Government. He spoke at his meetings and I spoke at mine. I contend that those of us who took the platform in support of the Government at the last Election and now find ourselves in opposition to one of their principal pieces of legislation, at least can say in extenuation of the anomalous position in which we find ourselves that we trusted those in whom we had the completest confidence. We were quite ready to support the most stringent economy and to co-operate in examination of everything, including tariffs, which might contribute to avert the financial danger with which the country was faced.
Personally, I accepted without reservation the Prime Minister's appeal to the nation. Not only the Prime Minister but other members of the Government were equally definite in their assurances

721
to those of us who feel strongly on the subject. Mr. Baldwin said:
"Perhaps I should say a word about those who have tried to confuse the issue with attempts to revive the old Free Trade-Protection controversy of 25 years ago. Now that is not the real issue."
Those are Mr. Baldwin's words. In face of such a statement as that I confess for my part that I rind it difficult to subscribe to the claim of the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of this Bill to-night, that there was a mandate given al the last Election for such a radical departure from our long-established fiscal system as is embodied in this Bill, which is simply unadulterated Protection, and on a permanent basis too.
I would go further, and with your Lordships' permission I would like to address myself to this question of mandate. I suggest to your Lordships that the position in whi.ch we find ourselves to-night has only been made possible by an Election being held in such haste and so unnecessarily last autumn—for which, by the; way, the Party opposite cannot avoid its meed of responsibility, for, gratuitously and with an entire, lack of any useful purpose, the Labour Opposition on the formation of the first National Government divided the House of Commons on almost any and every occasion, and did their best to impede the smooth running of the machinery of government. Thus they precipitated an appeal to the country, and so for good or ill the Election took place, with what result we all know. And we know, too, what use is being made of that result I see that Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, speaking at Birmingham on Saturday, is reported in The Times this morning as saying:
"If the Government show courage and more courage and always courage in being ready to do the thing that is necessary, without caring too much for ordinary electoral considerations, the result will be all right."
That is a Conservative ex-Minister speaking after the Election! What does the voice of the electorate matter after an Election so long as the tactics employed succeed?
Rush tactics have been tried before, as I well know, for the full blast of the last attack struck my constituency in all its intensity. I want to refer to that because I think it is significant. It is sig-
722
nificant that when time was taken to give an opportunity of facing the issue we had a very different verdict from that which will be recorded to-night. This noble Marquess, the late Leader of this House, was member for Rochester for ten years. The late Marquess died on the 22nd August, 1903, when the present Marquess succeeded. I am speaking from memory, but I think I am correct in saying that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain launched his Tariff Reform campaign on 15th May, 1903, so that during that summer of 1903 we had the raging, tearing campaign throughout the country. It so happened that Mr. Joseph Chamberlain resigned from the Government on September 18, 1903, which was less than a week from the; date the Election was taking place in Rochester, consequent upon the noble Marquess's accession to the Peerage. There was less than a week between Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's resignation and that by-election in Rochester, and thus it was that the Conservative candidate succeeded in securing a majority of 521 against Sir Harry Johnston, who was the Free Trade candidate. But with time to educate the constituency—and this is why I refer to the matter—and to carry on a campaign not only there, but throughout the country, there was a change. In less than two years, when a General Election came, Free Trade swept not only Rochester but the country.
I ask noble Lords behind me how they would feel if the position was reversed, if this had been a protectionist country for the last eighty or ninety years, had battled through a great World War and other shocks, emerging more successfully than any other country, and they, still Protectionists by conviction and experience, were faced with such a fiscal revolution as the sweeping away of tariffs by one fell swoop without that paramount issue having been clearly and unequivocally submitted to the country for its verdict. Then I ask them to try to enter into the feelings of some of us who are Free Traders by conviction and who have been in protectionist countries and seen something of the damage wrought by tariffs.
But to return. Mr. Baldwin also said at the Election that the National Government must be free to consider any and every expedient which may help to establish the balance of trade. But if imports

723
upset the balance of trade Empire imports do so as much as any other. How then can this Bill be said to help in correcting the balance of trade, seeking, as it does, to encourage Empire imports? We were promised an impartial inquiry. Instead, the fetters of Protection are being riveted upon us without there even having been an opportunity given to the country of saying yea or nay. A clear, straight fight in the country on this issue has been avoided and the assault on Free Trade has been carried by a flank movement, not to say a treacherous ambush. Is it surprising then that there are those who contend that a fraud has been committed on the electorate I A tariff as a temporary expedient to deal with an abnormal situation is one thing, but this Bill is not in that category. One of the Conservative Members for the City of London said last week, "There was nothing temporary about it. They had got tariffs on and they were never coming off again." Well, we shall see. Personally I never like to prophesy unless I know. The folly of economic nationalism and the fallacy that the State can increase its sales while declining to increase or even to maintain its purchases—as though the whole object of selling were not to obtain the means of buying—are futilities writ large in the Bill now before your Lordships' House.
It is contended that this Bill will increase employment. How can that be? That has not been the effect of Protection in other countries. By taxing the raw materials of our exporting industries their competitive power in oversea markets will be destroyed and those at present engaged in such industries thrown out of employment. If a tax is not going to entail an increase in the prices of raw materials for the replenishment of our industries why have a Free List at all I It was almost nauseating to watch the way full-blooded Protectionists were tumbling over one another last week in another place, seeking to secure inclusion in the Free List of the raw materials of industries in which they or their friends or others were interested. Was there ever such a public exhibition of inconsistency I There they were using free trade arguments that were long since said to have been buried—that a duty would raise the price and thus hamper the manufac-
724
turer in his quest for cheap raw materials—some of them still fondly cherishing the selfish hope of buying in a free trade market and selling in a protected one.
In my judgment not the least dangerous part of this reversal of our fiscal policy is the fact that Parliament will no longer be the sole arbiter in these matters. Duties will be imposed by the Tariff Committee and the Treasury, and Parliament will be merely called upon after the event to register its assent. The instrument which is really to determine and impose them is a nominated irresponsible body acting with the Treasury. In view of the late hour I will not deal with one or two aspects of the subject that I would have liked to touch upon. As one who has been engaged in the carrying trade, and associated with one of the big insurance companies as a director until retirement upon joining the Government, I should like to have dealt with invisible exports in the form of shipping and insurance services, interest from foreign investments and commission, but time forbids. I pass on because I feel very strongly that the troubles of our manufacturing and shipping interests—which are well supplied with the teeth and claws so j necessary for success in the coming struggle—are not of so much moment as | the interests of the teeming millions of those less capable of looking after themselves, and of the working and middle classes of our land.
The application of taxes on so many essential foodstuffs is in effect in the some category as an Income Tax levied inversely to the capacity to pay, so much larger a proportion of their incomes being spent in such necessaries. To inflict these burdens upon the poor with the intention—and I think that is not denied—of thus obtaining sufficient fresh revenue to enable a reduction to be made in Income Tax, is a form of "broadening the basis of taxation" to which I object. Surely it is an injustice to tax the food and necessaries of life of the less fortunate in order to add to the ease of the more fortunate. The new economic imperialism embodied in this Bill is in my opinion no solution of our present problems. Are not the nations of the world just beginning to realise their essential unity, and is not this the psychological opportunity of suggesting

725
the enlargement of the scope of the forthcoming International Conference to be held in June on War Debts and Reparations, so as to include the subjects of the restoration of facilities for international trade by the removal of tariff walls and trade restrictions, and thus change the whole aspect of the discussions that are to follow at the Empire Conference at Ottawa?
In days gone by the nations of the world have looked on with benevolent neutrality while this country has annexed vast areas of the earth's surface, and they have been content in the belief that those new territories would be open to their enterprise and their capita!, for them also to do business therein; but if all that is to be changed now, and an economic unit created opposing and retarding the trade of other nations, a very different and highly dangerous situation may arise. If only die time and thought and energy, in this and other countries, that are given to schemes for keeping out the foreigner were devoted to seeking to remove restrictions and causes of irritation, and to securing the free and unlettered exchange of commodities between the respective countries, and using the brain power of each nation for the common good, we should all be in a stronger position to withstand the worldwide economic hurricane that has now assailed us, if indeed the hurricane had come at all. Economic independence is an unrealisable dream. Nationalism, reducing the world into watertight compartments in the last resort, is both practicable and impossible of attainment. The nations, whether they like it or not, are all interdependent. The old Book is true. We are all "members one of another," and one of the essential conditions of the restoration of prosperity is the recognition of those moral laws which are woven into the very fabric of the universe. I believe that the moral injury that will be wrought by this Bill will be even greater than the economic harm.
In conclusion, I would add this, that after a dozen years' membership of the House of Commons, with its more restrictive Standing Orders, I am glad to avail myself of the more liberal procedure of jour Lordships' House, to say why it is I am content to avail myself of the arrangement offered by those who differ from us and sanctioned by your Lordships' House less than three
726
weeks ago, that those who dissent from this policy should remain in the Government. Notwithstanding my unabated hostility to the measure now before your Lordships' House, I believe that the National Government offers such unrivalled and unexampled opportunities for work of the greatest importance that it would be against the public interests to waste the chances that it offers, when, apart from the immediate fiscal issue before us, there are so many and varied fields of useful service, where such a representative Government, even, with Conservative leanings, can achieve so much valuable and welcome progress—in such matters as Disarmament, India, Reparations, public economy, and others—that those who have the privilege of sharing in the Government at such a time as this must take a broad and comprehensive outlook and not consider one individual item alone of domestic politics, however important, to the exclusion of all else. Therefore I hope the Government will remain National and add to its virtue knowledge—especially knowledge of the evils of Protection before too much irreparable harm has been done. Thus it is that I am prepared to take my part, in howsoever small a way, in the delicate task of assisting to maintain in office the present Government, which I believe may be effective for so many useful purposes, while showing myself a relentless critic of its fiscal nostrums.
Having made my position abundantly clear of having no part or lot in this matter, in response to the appeal in the leading article in The Times this morning it is my intention to await the results of this policy without capricious obstruction or undue impatience, and certainly without distortion, and no one will be more glad than I shall be if, in the event, we who view this Bill with such grave misgivings should prove, in the words of The Times, to be false prophets but loyal friends. Admittedly the Bill is an experiment, and I am only sorry that it cannot be tried without vested interests being built up thereunder, which all experience shows will be very difficult to get rid of. However, the verdict that is going to be pronounced upon this Bill in the Lobby of your Lordships' House to-night, is not the final one. That can only come after experience of its working, and by that final verdict we shall all no doubt be

727
content to abide. It only remains for me to add that I shall not easily forget the kindness and consideration shown me by your Lordships to-night in permitting me to discharge with so little embarrassment a task that nothing but a deep sense of public duty would have made me undertake in thus addressing your Lordships.
THE LOUD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I really owe you a very sincere apology for venturing to intervene for a few minutes in this discussion, for I am very well aware that I am about to have the audacity of diverting your attention from the main issues of this Bill, which constitute the interest of this debate, to the consideration of a single point. I can only hope that my brief dullness may be some relief to your Lordships after listening to the speech on which I congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down, in which, with so much vigour and vehemence, he has attacked not only this Bill but the motives of his colleagues on this very comprehensive Bench behind me. I know that in normal circumstances it would be most unfitting to speak about a single detail on a Second Reading debate. That is a process which ought to be reserved for the Committee stage. But these are not normal circumstances. We have no Committee stage, except one which is necessarily formal, and we are unable to move Amendments. The point to which I wish very briefly to call attention is one which concerns the public interest, the best interests, the intellectual interests, of the whole community, and I know no other way in which I can have it put on record that this matter was brought before your Lordships' House, and I hope that, if that is done, it may influence the Treasury and the Tariff Commission which it is proposed to create.
The point is the imposition of a 10 per cent, duty on objects of art which come from abroad, and which have been produced or created within the last hundred years. The incidence of such a duty is plain from Clause 20 of the Bill, and I have been asked to call your Lordships' attention to this matter by the Standing Committee of the Trustees of the British Museum, which, of course, includes the Natural History Museum, a body of which I have the honour to be the chairman. I submit that the imposition of this duty will be a very serious restric-
728
tion upon the power of the national and provincial museums to acquire objects of historical, artistic, and scientific importance for their collections. Ten per cent, may seem a very small sum, but it has to be remembered that, in answer to the appeal of the Government for economy, the British Museum certainly has reduced its estimates to the very bone, and it has no margin to spare. Let me give only two illustrations of the way in which this duty would affect the collections of these great national institutions. I take them from purchases to which the Trustees are already committed. One is the purchase of a reproduction of one of the most famous statues in Japan. The ship bearing it is, I believe, already here, or is expected every day, and unless this statue can be cleared by to-night the British Museum will have to pay more than £70 more than it had intended. Again, the Trustees have agreed to purchase a very important collection of lepidoptera from abroad at a cost of £1,000, and if this Bill passes they will have to pay £1,100, which they certainly cannot afford to do.
On the more general question, I am informed that 50 per cent, of the acquisitions of the Natural History Museum come from abroad, and many of them are objects which have certainly not been produced or created within the last hundred years. I take even the case of fossils. We had a very large consignment of them only the other day. A fossil, I presume, is a thing which might have been produced yesterday, even though in its ultimate origin it may be thousands of years old and it would seem absurd to impose a tax of 10 per cent, on scientific objects of that kind entering this country. Again, with regard to pictures, what authority is going to determine delicate points of date, as to whether a picture was or was not painted within a hundred years? Or suppose an English picture by one of our masters within the last hundred years has gone abroad, and is being sent back to this country: is it to pay a duty on its return? Or, again, what is to happen to valuable manuscripts which may be offered from abroad, characteristic of the life and history of some of our greatest authors or statesmen?
I venture to urge, in the first place, that there is no question here of increasing or protecting home industries. The

729
trustees of these museums are bound by duty to acquire whatever they think to be necessary for the adequacy of their great collections. They are not going to be induced by this duty to purchase airy more objects of British origin than they would do if the tax had not been imposed. They certainly would not dream of importing any object that could be produced here in this country. In the third place, the duty would, I suppose, be levied upon gifts of objects of this kind which may be sent from abroad, which we should all feel to ho most undesirable. And, in the third place, the gain to the revenue would be almost negligible. It would be certainly in the case of the national museums; the duty would be paid by the Government which levies it. It is only a question of accounting. The Exchequer would be receiving in one form what it would have to pay out in another form through the grants that it gives to these museums.
I therefore venture to ask with much apology for intervening in a single detail in this important Bill: Is it worth while to impose a duty which would really be a tax upon knowledge, upon the power of our great national institutions to acquire those objects—artistic, historical, literary, scientific—which are necessary for research and for the extension of the knowledge of our people? I do not say anything about the trade in these objects, which was mentioned the other day in another place. I confine myself to the simple position that I very strongly urge that at any rate objects acquired by purchase or by gift by our provincial or national museums should be exempted from the incidence of this duty. I again apologise for intervening. I do not know how otherwise I could have put this important matter on record, and I hope it will not be necessary for us to detain your Lordships further from the consideration of the great issues before you.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, I wish, to begin with, to support the most rev. Primate. It is not merely the question of the importation of objects of art less than a hundred years old. It must also be looked at a little more widely than that. I am entirely supporting the plea of the most rev. Primate in this matter, but I would like to point that, as far as I can read the Bill, the test of whether an article is to pay duty or not is that it
730
must be imported—and merely that it must be imported—from a foreign country. If the British Museum sends out a collector or an explorer to a foreign country, what he brings home will also be subject to duty as I read the Bill. And I cannot think that the Government have carefully thought that out, because it is absurd to say that if you send out a. collector or an excavator to a foreign country, and we have been to the expense of sending him and he brings home these things, that because they are imports they are liable to the duty. You can push it a little bit further. If a British artist makes any sketches or does any painting in a foreign country, on the Riviera or even in mid-Channel, when he brings those sketches or that picture home: they are imports. It is true that if he catches fish on the way home the fish will be fish of British taking and therefore free. But if he paints a picture on his passage across on the way home he will have to pay the 10 per cent, duty upon it.
I come back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Koch ester. In reference to that speech I want to say that I feel grateful to the noble Lord because he has spoken with engaging candour. About this debate as I have listened to it there has been from the beginning, if I may say so, rather a lack of candour. I do not say lack of sincerity but lack of candour; and the noble Lord put the point that he wanted to make in a way which I am sure your Lordships must have felt, whatever you may have thought of the particular expressions used. The noble Lord reproached those sitting with me for not having had the wisdom or the virtue to stand with himself and the others in this National Government. "Ought we not to have taken advantage of the opportunity," he said, "to join the National Government?" After the explanation of the noble Lord to-day as to the ambush into which he has fallen, I cannot think ho would seriously condole with us for not having fallen into the ambush. We surely are in a position to say that we felt all along we were being led in the wrong direction.
LORD ROCHESTER: Will the noble Lord allow me to explain? I said "not to say a treacherous ambush".
LORD PASSFIELD: I am sorry I do not follow the exact literary distinction

731
of that way of putting it. I am glad the noble Lord has put it in that way, but I am unrepentant. At any rate, we did not join in this so-called National Government. To come to the particular point of this Bill, I do not think it has been very definitely said this afternoon, except by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that this National Government was formed avowedly and expressly to deal with the national crisis. It was to have an open mind. It was not even to exclude a tariff if that were necessary to deal with the national crisis. That national crisis arose from two things, in my view. There was the drain of gold, which was solved by going off the gold standard. There was the necessity of balancing the Budget, which was solved by the Budget being balanced. Then the National Government, I thought, had really dealt with the crisis. But another object was invented between the formation of the National Government and the Election. That was that it was necessary to put right the adverse balance of trade. That really was the only remnant of the crisis, if it was a crisis at all, which was left, and the National Government got a majority to deal with that.
The National Government has brought forward this Bill. Again there seems to me, to put it quite politely, to have been a lack of candour, not of sincerity, about the way in which the measure has been brought forward. It is justified clearly by the mandate if it is a measure to avert the crisis and put right the adverse balance of trade, if that is a fair way of putting it, though I agree with the Lord Privy Seal about that. If that is the object of the Bill, why is there so much else in it and why is it so contrived that it will not and cannot put right the so-called adverse balance of trade? I think the Lord Privy Real has shown pretty definitely that it is an intolerable intellectual error to suppose that you can put right the adverse balance of trade simply by restricting imports. The inevitable effect of restricting imports is that thereby to some extent at any rate you diminish exports. I defy the Government to put forward any intellectual argument really to indicate how you can change the adverse balance between imports and exports merely by diminishing the quantity and the value of imports in some way.
732
Then it is said: "At any rate we shall get some revenue out of it." The Bill has been very strongly put forward and is, I suspect, supported very largely by a number of noble Lords, on the ground that this revenue will come in very useful. It has been mentioned this afternoon in fact that it is hoped it will be used in order to let us off the extra sixpence on the Income Tax. It has been suggested that it is not a very noble thing to do and that it might possibly be considered an actual breach of faith after what has gone before, that we should take this £30,000,000 in order to reduce the Income Tax by sixpence. The extraordinary thing is that if you do that, if you do get that revenue of £30,000,000 you have not diminished imports. The whole notion that it might diminish imports, the plea that you will alter the balance of trade by diminishing imports—it is stupid anyhow, but assuming that is the plea—the very feeling that you will get £30,000,000 of revenue means that you will not have diminished imports. You cannot alter the balance of trade in that way.
As a matter of fact, as the Lord Privy Seal pointed out, there has been no adverse change in the last few years in the visible imports and exports. The relation between them, which is the question here, has remaind fairly constant. I have before me the exact figures which show in what way and why we are concerned about this adverse balance of trade and in what way the position has been altered. I ask very honestly and sincerely, in what way this Bill will affect these items? First of all there are our exports. I think it has been shown pretty conclusively that the whole effect of this Bill will be to increase the cost of production. Some people think it will increase the cost of production a great deal, others that it will increase it only a little. Some people think it will increase the cost of production of all goods; while others think it will increase the cost of production only of some goods. But is there a single noble Lord here who doubts that either in the whole or in part of our production the cost of production will be increased to some extent at any rate by these Import Duties? I do not think any one can doubt that. If the only effect of the Bill upon the exports is to increase the cost of production, surely no one can argue that the effect of the Bill

733
will not be to diminish them. We may differ as to how much it will diminish them, whether by a great deal or a little, but nobody can say that it will not diminish them.
The next big item is our surplus from the national shipping. Obviously and admittedly if the Bill is to have any success at all in any direction it will diminish the amount of freight earned by our ships. That is perfectly clear. If it diminishes imports it will diminish the freight inwards. If it does not increase the exports it will not increase the freight outwards. Very likely ships will go outwards in ballast and we shall lose in that way. This Bill will really increase the adverse balance of trade by affecting exports. It will further increase the adverse balance of trade by diminishing what our shipping produces.
The next point is the income from over-seas investments. Where are our overseas investments? We are now in effect putting a differential duty on Colonial produce in favour of our own Colonies against the tropical possessions of foreign countries. That is the effect of the Bill as it now stands. That differential duty en the produce of our own Colonies as against the produce of foreign colonies is going to diminish our overseas interest and dividends. Remember again that tic duties are not levied on things that are done by foreigners. They are levied on things that are done in foreign countries by Englishmen. For instance, Brazil owes us a lot of money. It has gone into default. Brazil still exports coffee and a number of other things to this country. We are going to put a differential duty against Brazil on those articles which will inevitably reduce the exports of Brazil to this country. Is that going to make it easier for our nationals who are in Brazil, whose capital is in Brazil, who are, therefore, concerned in Brazilian trading? Are they going to be able to pay? They are not able to pay much now.
Take, for instance, Argentina. We are going to put on a differential duty in one way or another against part of the products of Argentina—we do not quite know what it is at present—and as compared with Canada. Will that benefit our investments in Argentina from which we get, I have heard it stated, £40,000,000
734
to £50,000,000 interest and dividend? Will that increase or diminish that amount? Of course it will diminish it. The noble Lord, Lord Joicey, who is not here now, instanced Argentina as a country where there is what he called "an adverse balance of trade"—that is to say, we are importing from Argentina £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 of goods and only sending there £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 worth. He calls that an adverse balance of trade. But the point is that Argentina owes us £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 a year, and the only way Argentina can pay us is by sending goods.
Have we not learned that? Every noble Lord here must have realised that the only way a country can pay is by sending goods. Have not we since 1910 had it beaten into us by hard experience that the only way that Reparations can be paid is by the export of goods? Everybody ought to have learnt that by now, even the least economist amongst us. The only way Argentina can pay interest to this country is by sending goods. Then we call it an adverse balance of trade. Would we rather that they did not pay us interest? We are going in the way to tend to make it impossible for them to pay the interest. This item of income from overseas investments is going to be reduced. You may quarrel as to whether it is to be reduced from all countries or only from some, from some enterprises and not from others, but this Bill must inevitably, because of its differential effect against those foreign tropical countries, make it more difficult for our people there, our own nationals, our own capital there, our own enterprises there, to send home these dividends and interest.
Those are the principal items. I think I may claim to have argued—I will not presume to say that I have shown, because that depends on the figures at the and of the year—but at any rate I may claim to have put up a case for saying that the adverse balance of trade is not such a dreadful thing as has been suggested. This Government exists as a National Government with the express mandate to remedy the adverse balance of trade, because if it does not do that I do not know what mandate it has. That is the only thing left which it has to do. But if it has to do that there is nothing in this measure which will even tend to correct the adverse balance of trade.

735
There is a great deal in this measure which will aggravate the adverse balance of trade, as I have shown, under those various heads. However, it may be said again that this Bill is not for correcting the adverse balance of trade. What happens, I find, when you argue it, is that a man shifts his ground. He falls back on the revenue. He then says it is not that we shall get money out of it; he has another case: that it will be a, weapon by which we can negotiate and get lower tariffs. That is the way people shift about from one leg to another.
Let us look at that, let us assume that is so. I think the Lord Privy Seal gave the actual fact of the experiences of other countries when he said that they have failed to get lower tariffs by their weapon of the tariff. They have failed in all tariff countries to do that, and the result is that tariffs are higher than ever in those countries. I do not believe there is any case in which negotiations have in the long run produced lower tariffs. But the Government itself does not seem to be aware whether that is so or not, because the Government is going now, assuming this is the true object, to negotiate with two sets of people.
It is going to negotiate with foreign countries, and it is going to do that by shaking this tariff in their faces, saying: "We have put 10 per cent, on your goods, and we have the power to increase the tariff in a particular case. We may increase the tariff in yours. What will you do about it? Will you give us a lower tariff? "At the same time the Government is to negotiate with another set of people for whom. I venture to believe it is even more concerned, being very anxious to get this other set of people to reduce their tariffs—I mean our Dominions and Colonies. In that case do they go to them as they go to the foreigners and say: "This is a splendid weapon this tariff we have put on against you; we do it deliberately, because we believe that this will enable us to negotiate more successfully with you"? Do they do that? No; they take exactly the opposite line. They put all the goods coming from the Dominions and the Colonies in the Free List. That is to say, in the one case they are going to negotiate with the weapon of a tariff, in the other case they have thought it better not to do so. I do think, in justice to them, they want the Dominions
736
to lower their tariffs, and they have approached the Dominions with a gift of no tariff.
They cannot have it both ways. If a tariff in being is a useful weapon to negotiate with in order to get lower tariffs, the Free List in being can hardly be considered an equally good weapon for negotiating with the Dominions. You may say that the Free List is a good weapon. Why then not turn it the other way about and have a Free List for everybody, or have a tariff for everybody? If the Dominions, if Mr. Bennett in Canada will be properly compliant in reducing duties, and if Mr. Lyons in Australia will take off the duties on British goods, then you can take off your duty. If you had put it on they might not have done that. The Government goes to the two sets of countries in two different ways. It goes to the foreign countries with the threat of a tariff, and it goes to the Dominions with a Free List. Which is going to be the better weapon for getting any reduction of tariffs? Personally, I do not think that either of them is going to be much of a success. That being so, is it not likely that this measure cannot redress the adverse balance of trade? I feel most assuredly that this measure cannot redress the adverse balance of trade, but will make it worse.
It is quite unlikely that this measure will induce either foreign countries or the Dominions to reduce their tariffs. What is left? What is left is that it will raise some revenue, and when the noble Lord, Lord Daryngton, made an appeal to everybody in the House to do his best in order to make it a success, I wondered in what particular aspect we were to make it a success. Are we to make it a success in approaching foreign countries to reduce their tariffs, or a success in regard to the balance of trade, or are we to make it a success by not doing either of those things and letting the foreign imports come in and thereby raising revenue from them? Are there not some noble Lords here who think that will be the best result of all, that we should get the £30,000,000 a year revenue and let the blessed things come in? Are we quite sure there are none here who think it would be a very good thing to get sixpence off the Income Tax?
It is not for me to say, but at any rate your Lordships are doing quite a

737
remarkable thing in passing this Bill. What this Bill is doing is that it is reducing the House of Commons in respect of taxation, to the same position as your Lordships' House. Your Lordships' House has the privilege of ratifying a decision which has been come to with regard to taxes, but no more. Now the House of Commons, with regard to the tariff, after this Bill has passed will have the pleasure find the honour of ratifying the decisions which have been come to by the Tariff Commission and His? Majesty's Treasury. It is an interesting? development of our Constitution that, having removed that power of interfering with taxation measures from this House, this Government should have taken a similar step with regard to the other House which will form an interesting chapter in our constitutional history. To-night will be remarkable not so much for the passing of a tariff measure, because there will be lots of tariff measures in future, but it may be written down as remarkable that on this night the privileges of the House of Commons in the matter of taxation, or this kind of taxation, were reduced to the same level as the privileges of the House of Lords. In spite of the desire of various noble Lords that we should all join together in joy at the passing of this measure, I intend, if it is not too late, to have the pleasure of voting: against it.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, I judged that he is a far better defender of Free Trade than the noble Lord who sits beside him, Lord Ponsonby. I certainly think that he ought to earn the plaudits of a certain section, anyhow, of noble Lords here. We have had two supporters of the Bill tin the Government Bench—of course (here are really a large number of supporters—and two attackers of the Bill. How very evenly the debate is balanced! I suppose we shall have a summing up from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack who, with judicial authority, will be able to hold the scales evenly between the two opposing parties. I was rather glad that the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal did not lay too much stress on the question of mandate, because there is certainly a good deal to be said on the other side. My impression of the General Election was that the feeling of the country went even beyond the proposals made by the National Party
738
Leaders. There were certain exceptions, of course, but I think the feeling of the country generally was strongly in favour of a change in the fiscal system and that it was against the system of free imports.
I was rather puzzled in the course of the debate to know what had really happened. We were thrilled a few months ago by being told that we were passing through a serious financial and monetary crisis, but as the debate went on we heard less of that financial and monetary crisis and the noble "Viscount the Lord Privy Seal seemed rather to minimise it. Short our memories possibly may be, but I believe that the financial crisis has passed and the balance of trade has been very largely improved simply because there was a change of Government which gave foreigners the idea that we were determined to put our financial house in order. It may have been due also in some measure to that Act which authorised import duties of 50 per cent. That has had a certain effect on imports and may have had some effect in reducing the adverse balance of trade. But I am bound to say that I thought, as I listened to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal, that the tune he sang now about Free Trade and the situation generally was very different from that at the time of the General Election. Then he did not seem to think that Free Trade was the great security which would save us from all danger, but now this new system which is proposed is to involve us in fresh difficulties and troubles.
I always like to hear the good old argument brought out—it really did my heart good to hear it again from the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal—"Look around at other countries. See what has happened where they have tariffs. Look at the United States with twelve million unemployed. Look at Germany. Look at France." I remember very well that only a few years ago when people said: "Look at the United States, there is a country with a great tariff system and look how prosperous that country is" we were always told by Free Traders: "You are quite wrong. It is the greatest Free Trade country in the world, because between all those States there is absolutely free trade." The argument is apparently good for the Free Trader whatever happens. If the United Slates is prosperous it is due to Free Trade and if it is not pros-

739
perous it is due to Protection. I am not myself very much in favour of taking one financial proposition and applying it to every country to see how it works out. Unfortunately the world's affairs are far more complicated than that. If you take the United States as an example you must consider the whole of the financial methods of that country, the speculation that goes on, and lots of other things besides the purely fiscal question. The same consideration applies to Germany. If Germany is paying out Reparations and borrowing from other countries even more than she is paying in Reparations, if you remember at the same time the inflationary period by which she was divested of her working capital, and if you add a few other little disturbances you will find that there are plenty of reasons to account for unemployment in Germany without attributing it entirely to Protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Marley, again rather puzzled me because he seemed to infer that the bank rate was responsible. Ho said there was some inconsistency in the action of the Government, because they were bringing in this Bill and only a few days ago the bank rate was lowered. But the Government do not lower the bank rate. I remember that we had a discussion on that point some time ago. He seemed to think that the Government were responsible for the bank rate, whereas of course the Bank of England regulates it. The position of the Bank of England is very simple. Everybody, of course, wants a lower bank rate, but you cannot always have it. There may be questions of foreign exchange and so on. It is very largely because of fresh confidence in the finances of this country, due to our having a stable and—shall I say?—a composite Government, that foreigners are buying sterling bills freely and that therefore there is no fear of withdrawals of balances.
Again, I was rather surprised at the argument that you can never use tariffs as a bargaining weapon. On that I would like to say incidentally, in reference to what the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal said about other countries being in such desperate straits because of their tariffs, that in all those countries there is no Party which desires to do away with tariffs—not one. There is no Free Trade Party to speak of in those countries. As I am rather inclined to
740
think that foreigners know their own business as well as I know mine, or perhaps even better, I think it is very significant that whatever may be said by Free Traders here there is no Party in those countries which wants to change their fiscal system. Indeed, in another connection, the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal told us that there were no fewer than twenty countries which in the last few months had raised tariffs. That seems to me to show that they do not think that tariffs are the cause of their, present financial troubles. The noble Viscount said that other countries are unable to make bargains with each other, but our position is a little different, if I may say so. By leaving our country so long open to free imports from all the world other countries have come to build their trade upon that system of free imports into this country and we have now a tremendous lever against those countries. If we cannot use that lever and cannot secure better terms in foreign countries, then we must have most incompetent negotiators and we had better engage those who are able to take advantage of this tremendously favourable situation.
I will only deal for a moment with the old argument that in stopping imports we must also stop exports or exports may diminish. The whole tendency of this legislation, if successful, is to diminish manufactured imports and to increase raw materials. It is making the character of the trade, if possible, more favourable to this country, and if that is so you get better shipping—and anything almost would be better than the miserable and unhappy condition of our shipping as it is to-day. The Lord Privy Seal said you will let in goods from the Dominions free. Well, after all, we may be allowed to treat the Dominions as part of our own family, and if we are to protect ourselves from the adverse balance of trade and check imports surely we may check those from foreign countries first. I think the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, fell into the same fallacy, if I may so call it, when he said that when you are dealing with the foreigner you will put up tariffs to bargain with while in the case of the Dominions you have no tariff. The answer is again that we regard the Dominions as members of the same

741
family and will not use the same business methods with them as with foreign countries.
In the few minutes I have left I should like to say two or three words on the Bill. I am very gratified that the basic tax has not been placed in the first instance too high and I will not enter into the dilemma, which has been answered ever and over again, that if the goods do not come in you get no revenue, whereas if you get revenue the goods will come in. You either get the revenue or the goods do not come in. But when you are changing over after all these years from a free import to a tariff basis, and as our trade has adapted itself to certain channels, it is most important that you should act in the process of the change with the greatest circumspection. I regard this Bill necessarily as rather tentative in its operation. There must be a great deal of examination before you can establish a useful scientific tariff thoroughly adapted to the enormous complexities of our trade and therefore I rather welcome the caution shown in the 10 per cent, duty. We are told it is not, enough to stop imports, but it so then there is the Advisory Committee. We have heard a great deal of discussion by economists of the necessity of consuming power to increase our producing power and of the unwisdom of too much economy. Now, prices of manufactures have gone down so tremendously that it is ridiculous to suppose that they can continue to be as low. You must have some rise in prices. At the same time that rise will be accompanied and, I hope, exceeded by the consuming power of the community because the more prosperous business is the more there is paid in wages and salaries and the greater are the reactions on other industries.
One of the reasons why I welcome the Bill is that I think, for the first time, we have the nation really considered as the producer and not as the consumer. The Government is establishing itself in the position of being the friend and no longer the enemy of the producer. A few years ago the Conservative Government produced an admirable measure for relieving industries of rates, but the next Government countered by the taxation of site values which has inflicted a corresponding and severe injury upon the
742
industries of this country. Burden was added to burden and we have the whole of world competition concentrated on this unfortunate island. This new attitude seems to me a great advantage in itself. It is, if you like, a revolution in your fiscal system, but it is more: it is a revolution in the view the Government takes of the relations between the producer and the consumer and of the necessity of doing all it can to assist the producer himself.
I am very glad that the Government resisted in another place all the attempts to insist that before any help was given in the way of tariffs there should be some curious examination by the Committee into the question of whether these businesses were efficient or inefficient. Businesses will become efficient very rapidly if they get more command of their home market. It is because, exposed to tremendous competition, they cannot go either to the banks or the public for money to put their house in order and to restore their plant, that change is necessary in this respect. I think it will add to our position and prestige abroad, where foreign business men have long been astounded at our fiscal methods and have been thinking that a system which has allowed this country to be completely at the mercy of all their exports, was almost a sign of some weakening of the brain. At the same time we have another opportunity of really re-starting the Empire, of avoiding all the difficulties at previous Conferences, and of approaching them with an enthusiasm and a readiness to meet them that I am afraid is not shared by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies. Indeed I cherish the hope, possibly a vain one, that the Liberal members of the Cabinet will regret in the years to come the too faithful reproduction of their lugubrious speeches in the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and that perhaps, through some of those tricks that memory sometimes plays us, they will go about boasting that they were members of that great Government which gave a new direction to the trade and fiscal system of this country.
[The sitting was suspended at twenty minutes before, eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, it is with a sense of diffidence almost amounting to apology that I ask leave to address your Lordships, only for a short time. It is not for me to give you an exposition of the technical and theoretical arguments, either on one side or the other, upon which the Bill now before you is based, but there are nevertheless certain aspects of this question which I think may be properly considered by your Lordships, and which it seems to me have not perhaps been sufficiently stressed. During the General Election last October there were many Liberals and Free Traders who were induced to vote for Conservative candidates, on the very definite and very clear understanding that no permanent change should be made in the fiscal policy of this country. I myself took part in Election addresses in some five or six constituencies, and induced Liberals, and possibly some of the members of the Labour Party also, to vote for a Conservative candidate who was supporting the National Government, but only on the understanding—I gave my word for what it was worth—that there would be no change in the fiscal policy of this country.
It is true that the Conservative Party admitted that they would try to introduce tariffs as part of the policy of this country, but it was quite certainly not admitted that that would be a permanent thing, and we saw the result of the statements made by the Conservative Party in the last Election in the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill. That Bill many Liberals, myself amongst them, were prepared to accept, in that it was a temporary measure. This measure now before the House is a very different affair. It is, so far as anything can be permanent, intended to be a permanent alteration in our fiscal policy. It seems to me that that is a very serious breach of faith with the electorate. This Government holds office as a result of the Election in October. If it does not actually owe its existence entirely to that Election, at any rate it owes a great deal of its strength to that Election, which strength is, largely at any rate, derived from the Liberal and free trade vote. I would suggest that there is a very definite dishonesty in trying to put this measure through this House and another place. I think we owe it to the
744
political honesty for which this House is so justly famous not to give our assent to this measure. Even those of your Lordships on the other side of the House who can see no particular evil in this Bill should, I think, refrain from giving it the sanction of your approval until you are certain that you do so only by the consent of a large majority of the electorate. I do not wish to cast any reflection on my noble friends opposite, but I would suggest that they were elected to office, not perhaps so much on account of their own merits, which are great, but from a panic-stricken fear of profligate and bankrupt Labour finance. That being the reason for their holding office, I can see no case at all for putting forward a measure of this nature.
Further, this Bill has two avowed objects which have been clearly and fully stated in another place. The first is to redress the so-called adverse balance of trade, about which the noble Viscount opposite has spoken at some length, and I am not going now into the question of whether or not an adverse balance of trade, so-called, is or is not an evil thing. I myself think that there is no intrinsic evil in it. But be that as it may, I am still entirely unconvinced that this measure will have any beneficial effect whatever on this so-called adverse balance of trade. You are going to restrict imports and I agree with the noble Viscount opposite in saying, without meaning to be offensive to him, that I am old-fashioned enough still to believe that you cannot restrict imports without equivalently restricting exports. Therefore, the only result of this measure will be that you will diminish the total volume of trade, both on one side of the balance sheet and on the other.
My noble friends opposite will doubtless tell me that what we lose in export trade will be made up in increased supply by the home market. But I would, with all respect, point out that that has nothing to do with redressing this adverse balance of trade, which is one of the avowed objects of this Bill. The only effect—and for my authority I have no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer—will be to increase the cost of living, which many millions of our people can ill afford. Secondly, against this restriction of imports you must set

745
the losses that we must infallibly sustain from a reduction and restriction in the value of our shipping, our insurance, and our commission business, which forms so large a part of the wealth of the country. Not only that, but you must remember that this Bill avowedly sets out to hamper and restrict the commerce of foreign countries. I hardly need tell jour Lordships that, owing to British enterprise and British capital, we have some £285,000,000 of income a year coming in to us from foreign countries.
I would ask you whether we are further to hamper and restrict the trade of those countries from which we derive so considerable an income. Ts it not possible, nay, I would say, is it indeed not probable that the paltry—perhaps "paltry" is an exaggerated word—but at any rate the £30,000,000 odd which the Chancellor of the Exchequer budgets to receive from the new Duties will be off-set and more than off-set by a reduction in Income Tax and Super-tax which is derived from this vast income of £285,000,000 a year? I will put it to your Lordships that it may be so, and no one n the Government, with the exception of certain members of it who have, I think, right convictions, seems to have thought of that. Secondly, this Bill gives rise to certain very fundamental and very important Imperial questions. I am not one who is insensible of the good will existing between ourselves and our Dominions and Colonies, and I am not unaware that the present, if ever, is a time when everyone both in this country and in the Dominions overseas is doing his best to further good will between the British Commonwealth of Nations and its mutual prosperity.
I do not want you to think that I am anti-Empire—I use that for want of a better word. It is not so. But I can see, and I see with very great foreboding, difficulties which will arise, in consequence of this Bill. Taking the most optimistic view possible that in June or July this year, at the Imperial Conference at Ottawa, the most favourable course of events takes place, and that (he Colonies come to us and say: "We will do for you exactly what you have done for us. We will allow you to import your goods into our country free of all duty as you have allowed us to import into Great Britain free of all duty." What, then, is the use of this tariff as a weapon for bargaining with foreign countries? How are we to
746
make reciprocal agreements with foreign Powers which may, and almost certainly will, upset the Colonial monopoly of the home market? I do not see how we can do it. Secondly, what is to happen if a Dominion comes to us and says: "We thank you for all you have done, for allowing our imports to come into your country free, but before we make an equivalent-agreement with you about your exports to us we must have a discriminating tariff against some other Dominion"? How are we to answer that? The question of wheat, I think, is a very obvious example, although I am aware that wheat is not particularly dealt with in this Bill.
Furthermore, a country in its earliest stages of development has the policy, and if I may say so rightfully has the policy, of developing its own secondary industries, since it is in those stages of development comparatively speaking able to food itself and is therefore more or less independent of the outside world for the absolute necessities of life. It is understandable enough that it should wish to develop its own industrial life, and I have no need to tell your Lordships that that is the settled policy of the Dominions. From my own experience I know it to be true both in Canada and Australia. This economic self-dependency is a natural, and I will go so far as to say, a healthy ambition with which we have neither the power nor the right to interfere. That being so, there is another difficulty which, owing to their mentality, if you like so to express it, we shall find it very difficult to surmount. I do not say for a moment that these difficulties are insurmountable, but I am unable to see any solution to them and I think that no one else will find a solution to them.
I do not wish to be pessimistic nor do I wish to make out that the fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government is utterly and entirely mischievous. I think it, if I may say so without disrespect, to be merely hopelessly and absolutely misguided. Having put several points before you inadequately it is not for me to take up the time of jour Lordships' House. I can only end by thanking you for the courtesy and indulgence and patience with which you have heard me. Let it not be said that that patience is one born of apathy Let it not be said that this House was a party to a measure which involved, however well meant a decep-

747
tion, nevertheless a deception on the electorate. Let it not be said that this House was a consenting party to a measure which will lead, as I am convinced, to disruption rather than co-ordination in our Empire, to political disharmony—I might use a stronger phrase than that and say political dishonesty—and not only that but will go further to clog and to stifle the progress of commerce in the world, a stifling and a clogging which has done so much to bring the world to its present disordered state.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I should like at the outset of my remarks very cordially and very sincerely to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down upon his first speech in your Lordship's House. He bears an honoured name in the battle for the free trade cause, and I am sure that whether there be agreement with him or not there will be agreement about this, that he has shown himself very well able to maintain the traditions of that honoured name. For my part I hope very much that in the battles which will ensue upon the passing of this Bill he will not infrequently intervene in coming debates on the free trade side.
This has been in many ways a very extraordinary debate. In fact, the longer I remain in your Lordships' House the more surprising do its proceedings become. I have now been a member of your Lordships' House almost exactly eight years, and I think in some ways this is the most singular day which I have spent within this Chamber. What is the position? This Bill, whether we agree with it or whether we do not agree with it, effects a complete fiscal revolution in this country. It entirely transforms, or will do, the industrial and trading system of the country. It is a Bill which not many years ago would have been strongly opposed by some very distinguished members of the Conservative Party. The Duke of Devonshire, the late Viscount St. Aldwyn, Lord Ritchie, the first Lord Cromer, Lord James of Hereford and others would have nothing to do with this policy of Protection. They were willing rather to separate themselves from their colleagues and from their Party. Yet today this measure is going to be passed without a syllable of protest from one member of the Conservative Party, and not only so, but I think I may say without disrespect that the contributions
748
which have been made in support of the Bill have not been particularly weighty. Certainly the ground which ought to be covered has up to this moment by no means been covered or traversed.
I do not wish to speak at all unkindly of the speeches. I have great regard for the noble Marquess who opened the debate and he made, as he always does, a very courteous speech. But his speech was brief and it seemed to me to burke nearly all the difficulties he had to face. He claimed, as Protectionists invariably do, that practically all their schemes are all advantages and no disadvantages—all credits and no debits. Our case is that the debits so enormously outweigh the credits that Protection, particularly for this country, will prove a specially bad piece of business. The noble Lord, Lord Daryngton, said this would be the last day of these debates. On the contrary I see a long vista of debates which are, in fact, only just beginning. I come to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. He made a prolonged speech and apparently there has been burning in his breast a desire to carry the fiery torch of Free Trade to the uttermost parts of the country, but the noble Lord has been singularly successful in stifling that desire because he actually joined this Government after the introduction of the Abnormal Importations Bill. The noble Lord was not in for the start; he came along afterwards. There is the wheat quota—no word of protest! What need was there for the noble Lord to join the National Government in the name of national unity? The same applies to the noble Viscount. He was not a member of the Labour Party when he joined the Government and he represents nobody but himself. The suggestion that we must have these men in the Government for national unity was a fiction. As a matter of fact the noble Viscount has been turned out of the Labour Party and has not the slightest chance of being taken back even if he wanted to return.
I come to some of the phases of the Bill which have been discussed a good deal, though not at undue length. I will not say much about the balance of trade, not because much could not be said but because it seems hopeless in your Lordships' House to get a reasoned reply to points put about this matter. On the introduction of the Abnormal Importations Bill I quoted Professor Edwin

749
Cannan, who has been most caustic in his language about this idea that it is the duty of Parliament to come along and deal with what is called the adverse balance of trade. I ventured on the last occasion of a, fiscal debate in this House very briefly to put before your Lordships the accepted economic teaching on this subject, and if the Leader of the House will allow me to say so I do not think he met the point. He said that a more ridiculous argument had never before been submitted to the House. I scarcely think that that is the way to deal with the accepted teaching of economists, not that I claim to be one, but I know what their teaching is. If I may do so, I would ask the noble Viscount to deal with the matter in a little more reasoned manner, and I would remind him of words I adapt of Disraeli—namely, that contumely is not logic and derision is not argument.
As a matter of fact, this Bill will only make the balance of trade worse and will make it more difficult to export British goods because of the increased cost of production. What we want is to sell British goods and that ought to be the slogan of the Government. They should devote their attention to that. As a matter of fact, this balance of trade is all dependent upon the most shifting and fluctuating foundation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not quite correct, but, even if the figures which have been put to the House represent the fact, this Bill is a wrong way of dealing with the matter.
Then I come to the £30,000,000 of revenue which we are told will be got by these tariffs. It is called broadening the basis of taxation, which really means that the rich pay less and the poor pay more. Even if you get £30,000,000 it will be the most expensive transaction that this country ever entered into. It will affect the cost of living and will raise prices. You cannot have two prices for the same thing in the same market at the same time. The effect of this Bill will be not only to raise the price of articles and commodities coming in from abroad, but to raise the price to the same extent of the same articles produced here at home, and the consumer will pay more than the Exchequer will get. This will increase the cost of living. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says
750
it will to some extent. Mr. Runciman says it will not. Lord Snowden said he could not understand the mentality of those who would support a tax on meat but would not put a tax on wheat.
The noble Viscount to-day made a very remarkable speech and one which I do not hesitate to characterise as an outrage on the Constitution delivered from that Box—a grave Parliamentary perversion. Viscount Snowden is given the credit by some people—I do not give him as much credit as some—for a large share in the return of this Government, but would it be believed that the noble Viscount virtually gave a pledge that a Bill like this would not be introduced, and yet he remains in the Government? During the election he said:
"I do not believe that the Conservative leaders would regard a majority obtained in the circumstances of this Election as giving them a mandate to carry a general system of Protection in the new Parliament."
That is exactly what they are doing.
"Such a radical departure from our established fiscal system could not be made without an emphatic and unequivocal decision of the electorate."
Yet this Bill goes beyond the possibility of those words and the noble Viscount sees lit to remain in the Government. Is he really labouring under the delusion that he can do any good either to himself or the Free Trade cause by speeches of that kind while he remains in the Government?
What about the wheat quota? The noble Viscount is in favour of the wheat quota and the wheat quota will raise the price of bread. Sir Herbert Samuel said so. So the noble Viscount, the great Free Trader, by his association with his present colleagues has become a bread taxer. And he is the man now who is condemning everyone else. That is an astonishing position for a man who likes to represent himself as almost the one righteous and virtuous person in a wicked and perverse generation. There is not the slightest need for him to remain in this Government on the ground of national unity. Noble Lords opposite were very pleased a few months ago to have the new recruit, the noble Viscount. I do not think they are quite so pleased now.
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord ARNOLD: Well, they are very easily pleased, and I venture to predict

751
that before long they will be wishing he were back on this side. But we do not want him. He is no use to us, not even on Free Trade. His position is absolutely untenable and impossible and nobody would be more virulent, venomous and vitriolic than the noble Viscount if anybody else were in the same position.
I will leave the noble Viscount and pass on. I say this Bill will increase the cost of living. There was an astounding spectacle in the House of Commons on Thursday night. You had two strong supporters of Protection, Lord Winterton and Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, rushing in and begging that zinc should be put on the Free List because if not, they said, it was going to give an advantage to the Colonies by getting a, price nearly as high as the foreigners and they did not really need that—giving the whole case away, smashing to smithereens the Protectionists' case that duties do not raise prices. I have heard Lord Hailsham claim that Safeguarding Duties do not raise prices at all. Of course they raise prices. I gave instance after instance and they were never refuted. And the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not reply to his noble friends: "Oh, there is nothing in all this. You are quite mistaken." On the contrary, he said it was a serious matter and would be looked into, and if the facts were as represented then the Government would do something about it. Well, the Government is going to have a busy time if it is going to look into all cases like that.
I was very much amused by the speech of the most rev. Primate. He reminded me of what occurred a few days ago when a friend of mine, a Protectionist for years, came along complaining, now that we are on the eve of Protection, that something was happening that he had not foreseen, that something was going to raise the price of an article which he uses in his business and he does not like it. He said to me, with rather a wry face: "I did not know Protection was like that." I said: "Protection is always like that. That is Protection." And there are a good many people who will find that out just as the most rev. Primate will. I went into a shop the other day to buy an article and said: "I think I will take another." The reply was: "We are not sure whether we have one at the same price or whether the next article paid the duty. I will just enquire." What is
752
the good of suggesting that tariffs do not raise prices I They raise prices by a higher amount than the duty.
I would like to say something about the Imperial and Colonial aspect of this Bill because it is a very important one. The Bill is put forward as a step in the direction of that Imperial economic unity of which we have heard a great deal in the last year or two. And who is the man who is going to have charge of the negotiations at Ottawa under Clause 4 of this Bill? That man is Mr. J. H. Thomas, the man who only a short time ago described the Canadian offer in the direction of this greater Imperial unity and reciprocity as "humbug." And then, when a Liberal member in the House of Commons very properly got up and moved an Amendment in favour of some sort of reciprocity, on the plea that we ought not to give all this to the Dominions unless we were quite sure they were going to give something to us, Mr. Thomas described it as an insult. I do not know how your Lordships feel, but personally it makes me shudder to think that the destinies of the Empire are in any considerable degree in the hands of a man like that.
I heard Mr. Thomas myself not long ago in the House of Commons pour scorn on these whole proposals. He pointed out that, as a matter of fact, many foreign countries treat us better than the Dominions do as regards tariffs. We have to bear that in mind. A very large trade is done by this country with foreign countries. I suppose that in 1929, the last normal year, two-thirds of our exports in manufactures went to foreign countries. Germany took more than Canada. Australia did not come too well out of it. South America took more than Australia. Holland took more than New Zealand. Look at the markets. The whole white population of the Dominions, is 22,000,000 and the white population of the whole of the rest of the world, leaving ourselves out of account, is about 500,000,000. The whole population of the British Empire is about 400,000,000, while the population of the rest of the world outside the British Empire is about 1,400,000,000. How, then, can you expect our trade to prosper if we are going more and more to restrict it in this way?

753
We all want to increase trade with the Dominions if it can be done on proper lines. We have had that matter out in your Lordships' House from time to time. No reply has ever been given to the fundamental objections to this policy. First, I may take the fact that the differing nature of the products which the Dominions send abroad make it quite impossible to devise any scheme which will be in any way reasonably equitable and symmetrical. No reply has ever been given to that. No reply has been given to the point that this policy will inevitably increase the price of living in this country, and that is not the way to make the Empire popular with the masses of the British people. No reply has been given to the very important point that it is fundamentally wrong to try to hedge round a quarter of the world's surface with tariffs, and shut it off as far as possible from trading with the rest of the world. That is the way to lead straight to economic war, and economic wars have often led to real wars, and that is the policy on which you are embarking.
No reply has been given, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, pointed out, to the certainty of retaliation, and the forming of counter combinations against the British Empire. The Protectionists go about claiming that everything is on the credit side, and that nothing is to be said on the debit side. We say that that is a fundamentally wrong view, and that this is a policy which in the end is bound to lead to the disintegration of the Empire. Take the matter as regards the Colonies. The Beaverbrook Press has been dancing about in childish glee because Colonial produce is to come in here free, and they seem to think that we are approaching—that is what they mean—the French Colonial system. They want us to make Mauritius like Réunion. Take those two Islands, which are similar in extent and population. Réunion is under the French Colonial policy, and to a large extent it can only trade with France. Its trade is only about one third of that of Mauritius. That is what you want to do under this Bill. It has well been dubbed a "kill trade" Bill. There you have practical experience going on year after year in those two Islands, and that is the kind of thing you want to do under Clause 5. We say it is a wrong; policy. It is an un-
754
just policy to the Colonies, and it is very unfair to the other trading countries of the world.
I promised the noble Viscount opposite that I would not be very long. He has been very courteous in the arrangement of this debate, and he must have the opportunity of speaking. We all want to hear him and wish to conclude the debate before too late an hour, so I shall not detain your Lordships further. I would say in conclusion that it has been stated in this debate that matters are now passing from the House of Commons, from the debating Chamber, from the Legislature to the field of industry and commerce, that they are passing from argument to fact. We Free Traders say with complete confidence that we know, despite the jeers and scoffings—to use no stronger word—at our so-called outworn shibboleths, that they are founded on the unshakeable ground of economic truth and also on the proved experience of a hundred years. We know also that practically every prophecy made by Protectionists since Joseph Chamberlain began his campaign in 1903 has been proved wrong. We know also that before long noble Lords who support the so-called National Government will be running about hurrying and scurrying and trying, by mis-statements and percentage perversions and general muddleheadedness, to explain away the mischief this Bill will have done and the suffering which it will have caused. That is what it will lead to, because that is what will happen as a result of meddling and muddling with the complicated mechanism of British commerce and finance.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it is perhaps not without some ironical pleasure that we Conservatives notice that, I think for the first time since the Parliament Act, the Party to assert the constitutional right of this House to reject a Money Bill is the Socialist Party. Our amusement is not lessened by the fact that the occasion which they have selected to invite your Lordships to take that heroic attitude is one on which what they are so often pleased to call the popular House has affirmed the principle of the Bill by a majority of more than seven to one—a majority which, I suppose, has hardly been equalled in the case of a Finance Bill, certainly for many decades past. I will

755
remind your Lordships and those of my noble friends who are tempted to accept the invitation of the Socialist Party, that what they are really asked to do under the Parliament Act is to delay the operation of this Bill for one month. If they were successful in the vote which they cast the Bill would become law, but it would become law in one month from now. The result, therefore, would be that for one month goods would come in free of duty and that the experiment which, however much they may dislike it, I am sure they would wish to be as successful as possible, would be made in circumstances which would almost foredoom it to failure. However, the Socialist Party has chosen to set a. precedent which may one day be a useful one to remember.
I agree, of course, that in a discussion upon a measure which profoundly changes the fiscal policy of this country those who resist the change have a right, as the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, has said, to call upon the proposers of the alteration to justify their position. However true it may be that the world has passed on beyond those Victorian shibboleths which the noble Lord still asserts with such unfailing conviction, it is also no doubt true that it is incumbent upon us who ask this House and who ask the country to accept this change to give reasons why the change is necessary. I am not going this evening to embark at any length upon the time-worn controversy of Free Trade against Protection—not, I beg the noble Lord opposite to believe, because I am afraid of embarking on that controversy, but because, first of all, we have never had free trade in this country; because, secondly, I believe that the country as a whole is heartily sick of the old time-worn arguments on one side and the other; and because, most of all, the conditions under which we live at present are conditions which were undreamt of when that controversy commenced and are conditions which could never have come to pass if Mr. Cobden had been right in his theories of political economy.
What are the conditions which, in the judgment of the Government and of those who support the Government, imperatively call for the change which this Bill embodies? First of all there is the adverse balance of trade—£113,000,000 according to the Board of Trade figures.
756
What is the answer which is put forward on the other side? They say that the Board of Trade figures are not necessarily accurate. Nobody is infallible in making estimates, but at least the Board of Trade figures are figures compiled with the greatest impartiality by people who have access to all relevant documents, who have made a lifelong study of the problem, and who at least are more likely to be right than anyone else we can invite to form an estimate. It is just as likely they have under-estimated as overestimated the adverse balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Marley, said that we cannot be sure that there is exactly this balance on the wrong side—that they may have allowed too little for our shipping profits. Well, the shipping authorities say they have allowed too much. But see what his argument leads to. It is rather like the suggestion that when a doctor has been called in to diagnose what is wrong with a patient and try to cure him, if he finds that the patient is apparently very ill from some internal complaint he should say: "I think this is the illness and this is the cure, but I will not try to cure it because until I carry out a post-mortem I cannot be sure I am right, so we will let the patient die first and then look inside him after and see if he really suffered from the disease I suspect." That is not the doctor I would wish for the noble Lord if he found himself in the condition in which our trade is in to-day.
My noble friend, Viscount Snowden, in his speech whose vigour, power, force and conviction we must all have recognised however profoundly we disagreed with him, said that after all there was an automatic check on any adverse balance of trade—what he called, I think, the automatic equilibrium of the exchange—and he said: "See how steady the exchange is to-day." Well, we have got about 30 per cent, off the gold standard already and to some of us that might seem a rather parlous state of affairs, but why is the exchange remaining steady to-day? Is it not obvious that it is because of the fact that this Bill has been introduced and because the peoples of the world know that this country is adopting a sane economic and fiscal policy? If, unhappily, this Bill had been defeated, does anybody suppose that the exchange would have remained steady then?

757
Follow a little further what this automatic equilibrium argument amounts to. Is amounts to this, that if there is an adverse balance of trade ultimately, when once we have left the gold standard the value of the pound measured in foreign currency will drop to so low a level as automatically to check the imports or to stimulate the exports and so to redress that adverse balance. See what that means. It is common ground with all of us on both sides of the House that many of the staple necessities of life and of industry in this country have to be obtained from abroad. Wheat and meat, the food of the people, and the raw materials for our great industries, like cotton and wool, all these things have to be bought from foreign countries, and if our currency becomes further depreciated they must cost more in terms of our currency. If the pound sterling is worth only 2½ dollars instead of nearly 5, twice as many pounds will be required to purchase the same amount of American goods and American goods will be twice as dear. That means that there will be imposed an ever-increasing handicap upon our industries, which have to pay more for their raw materials, and ever-increasing privation upon the poorest of our people, who have to acquire goods for their necessities, paid for by them in terms of British currency and acquired from countries with a gold standard.
In other words, the noble Lord and those who think with him are quite prepared to accept with equanimity a situation in which an enormous protection is imposed against foreign imports, upon the necessities of life for our people, an enormous burden caused by the increase in the cost of living and of handicap upon our manufacturing industries by the increased cost of materials. These things are all right so long as they are brutal and unreasoning in their incidence, but all wrong when dealt with scientifically by an elastic measure of tariffs. Can your Lordships imagine a more illogical attitude? We are told that Free Trade has not failed at all, that our exports have increased under Free Trade. So they have, but have you troubled to compare how they have increased proportionately to the exports of countries which are not under Free Trade? I have some figures here. I take 1880 because it is a round half century from 1930 and is about
758
the time when foreign countries were beginning to think that Free Trade was not quite all that we would have them believe. Comparing 1880 with 1930 the exports of manufactures increased in the United Kingdom by 117 per cent. In Germany the increase was 438 per cent. and in the United States 1,852 per cent. It will be said that in 1880 they had only begun and that their industries were infant industries and it is not fair to take the comparison with that year. I have also taken another year, the last year before the War, 1913, and you find, comparing 1913 with 1930, that our exports increased by 3 per cent., Germany's by 35 per cent., and the United States by 100 per cent. Does it look as if the free trade position was quite as rosy as Free Traders would have us believe?
Then Free Traders say—I think my noble friend Lord Snowden says—the foreign countries cannot shut out imports by means of a tariff because, he says, their imports were in the aggregate last year some £3,000,000,000. But whoever supposed that the object of a protectionist policy was to shut out all imports? The object of a protectionist policy, looking at it now from the point of view of Protection, and merely from the point of Protection, is to encourage production—to shut out the goods from a country which that country can produce for itself. But any country requires immense quantities of raw materials, of food stuffs, and other articles, which under any scientific tariff are encouraged to come in and not discouraged. And to say that there are £3,000,000,000 of imported goods in the rest of the world proves, if my noble friend will forgive my saying so, just nothing at all. Under a protectionist tariff we should propose, not to prevent imports, but to change the character of imports, and to insist that so far as possible, instead of importing manufactured goods which put our people out of work, we should import raw materials which afford employment for our people.
Then we had again that time-honoured Free Trade axiom "Imports always balance exports." I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, by asserting that everybody knows that is not true. That might seem almost discourteous, but I think an analysis will show that it cannot be accurate. In the

759
first place, in order to make it even approximately true you have of course to bring in all sorts of things which are not exports at all—so-called invisible exports; and to bring in on the other side all sorts of things which are not imports at all—invisible imports, payments to foreigners for services and for money which they have invested in this country. But when you have brought those two things in it by no means follows that imports balance exports. Even in that extended sense it would only be true supposing there never was a capital gain or loss at the end of the year; and as there is always a capital gain or loss at the end of the year it may probably be said that the statement is never true. And if at the end of the year the adverse balance of trade is £113,000,000, for example, that means in effect that we have lost £113,000,000, which we make up probably by selling foreign investments or something of that kind. We live on our capital; and so long as we have got any capital left to live on no doubt the process can continue, but it is not a very promising process for our posterity or for our trade if we are gradually destroying our invisible exports by destroying the capital out of which those exports are made up, and that is really what is involved in going on regardless of an adverse balance of trade and consoling yourself with the pious reflection that somehow or other imports always balance exports. That is a point which certainly Mr. Cobden never thought of, certainly which did not exist in the bygone days of Free Trade controversy—the adverse balance of trade.
What is the second? The second is the unhappy fact that we have two and three-quarter millions of our people unemployed. My noble friend Lord Snowden said that he could point to foreign countries where protectionist policy existed where there was also an equally large proportion of unemployed persons. I think that is true, but there is this difference: that whereas they enjoyed periods of prosperity and have now sunk to a temporary depression, our unemployment is a permanent post-War feature in our economic life. And, after all, when we remember that we are importing into this country every year some hundreds of millions of pounds
760
worth of manufactured goods, many of which could easily be made in this country, why should not we see to it that our own people should make these goods, and realise whatever wages are involved in them and whatever profit can be made out of them, instead of handing over the profit and the wages to foreigners and leaving our own skilled workmen on the "dole"? That is the alternative between the free trade and protectionist policies with regard to our unemployment. It is not for lack of efficiency that we cannot compete. My noble friend Lord Snowden says that already we have 80 per cent. of the home market. The reason we cannot compete is that we are so handicapped by the different standards of living at home and abroad and by the crushing burden of taxation which weighs upon British industry to a far greater extent than on any foreign country, that, in spite of the efficiency of our manufactures and in spite of the enterprise of our manufacturers and industrialists, they are unable to overcome the handicap unless they are given fair play.
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said that we were beginning at the wrong end when we were trying to check imports, because he said what we want to do is to sell British goods. I agree with him, but why should he confine his sales to foreigners? Does he not want to sell British goods to British buyers?
LORD ARNOLD: I said so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Then if the noble Lord said so, I hope he will go with me into the Lobby when we have found a way of doing it.
LORD ARNOLD: We want to sell to both.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: We will do one at a time. After all, so far as the home market is concerned it is surely plain—I should have thought almost beyond argument—that if you succeed in shutting out of the home market goods which the foreigner at present is selling here, but which can be manufactured in this country, you are to that extent creating employment in this country, and are selling British goods, which is the very object which the noble Lord desires with me to attain.
What is the third position which is a new feature since the War? In old days

761
the Dominions, the Colonies and the Mother Country were indissolubly bound by legal ties. That position has passed away, and to-day there is no legal tie which binds the Dominions to the Mother Country except only, perhaps, their allegiance to a common Sovereign. We think that there ought to be ties created to take the place of the legal ties which have been dissolved, and we believe that those ties can be found in economic bonds if only we can go about it in the right way. Do not let us forget that everyone of the self-governing Dominions only eighteen months ago affirmed their conviction that by a system of Imperial Preference those economic bonds could be created, and affirmed their willingness to enter into an economic system by which those bonds could be created.
Do not forget it was only by the deliberate policy of the Government of this country at that time that their offer was unfortunately rejected. Luckily for us, the Dominions, with more wisdom and more patience than our own Government was inclined then to show, did not take the refusal as final, and only postponed the matter until the meeting at Ottawa next August; and we are going to the Ottawa Conference determined if by human skill it can be done to negotiate such arrangements with the Dominions not that we may crush their industries by our own, not that their statesmen may put aside the interests of their own countries, which of necessity must come first to each of them, but that they and we may go into conclave each determined that while we take care of the interests of our own part of the British Commonwealth of Nations first, we put the rest of the Commonwealth only second and in front of any foreign nation, that we desire and determine so far as we can arrange it that the tariff shall be used so that those goods which the Dominions have to sell and which we need to buy shall come from the Dominions and not from abroad, and that those manufactured goods which the Dominions desire to buy and which they import every year to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds shall come from British factories rather than from foreign lands.
What next? The revenue position. The noble Lord, Lord Passfield, sneered at the suggestion that we are going to raise revenue by means of this Bill and sug-
762
gested that you could not raise revenue if you achieved Protection. Of course the goods that pay duty to that extent are not replaced by British goods, but what on earth is there to prevent this tariff from operating in some instances to provide protection by preventing foreign goods from coming in, and in other cases to provide revenue by insisting that those foreign goods that do come in shall be taxed? I am not able to see any inconsistency in it, and I do not believe that the noble Lord does either.
LORD PASSFIELD: Except the £30,000,000.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not care about figures, but £30,000,000 represents £300,000,000 of goods at 10 per cent. Our imports are about £800,000,000, are they not? The £30,000,000 of course represents 10 per cent. not only on manufactured goods, but raw materials and other things come in, and I think I am right in saying that last year we imported £800,000,000 worth of goods from abroad. Therefore it is quite obvious that there is plenty of room for a tariff to produce revenue and at the same time to have a very strong influence in protecting our industries and in providing markets for our home production. The noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, said that only the poor were hit by indirect taxation and that—
VISCOUNT SNOWDEN: No, not "only."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not wish to misrepresent the noble Viscount. He said that the greater part of indirect taxation would fall upon the poor. That involves two assumptions. He will forgive my saying that I do not accept either of them. The first is that wherever goods come into this country the whole of the duty is paid by the consumer. It obviously is not, because if the whole duty were paid by the consumer then the price would have to be put up by the whole 10 per cent. and in almost every case that would mean encouraging the home producer to come in and undersell him. There are cases no doubt in which the duty falls on the. consumer because the goods which are imported are goods which can only be made in a particular country, and where that country has a monopoly and can pass on the whole of the duty. But there are many other cases where the foreign importer cannot pass on the whole

763
of the duty because he would lose his market. He has to bear part of the duty in order to retain the market at all, and it is not true to say that in those cases the consumer bears the tax, which is borne, in fact, wholly or in part by the foreign importer or his agent or purchaser in this country.
The second assumption is that the poor consume the greater part of the goods which will be subject to the tax. I know of no statistics which will prove that statement. I do not know where my noble friend would draw the dividing line between those he calls poor and those whom he calls rich. Perhaps he puts it so high that there are very few rich people and therefore the poor would bear the tax. On the other hand, if he put it as low as he put his own Income Tax limits a few months ago, it may turn out that the so-called rich, at any rate the direct taxpayers, bear the bulk of the tax in so far as it falls on the consumer at all. But, even if it were true that the poorer part of the population paid the bulk of indirect taxation, it would equally be true that it is the poorer part of the population who gain the bulk of the advantage from the taxation, because it is they who gain the work that is going to be created by this tariff, and who will be rescued from the misery of unemployment and the "dole", and restored to self-respect and the facility for earning an honest livelihood.
As to the fifth point, which did not happen in the old days, we hope to use this tariff and right of discrimination which it affords to reduce foreign tariffs. We have heard, and it is no doubt true, that tariffs have reached unheard-of heights. We know there are all sorts of methods of restrictive regulation by which British goods are kept out of foreign countries and we intend to use the bargaining power which these duties offer to enable us to reduce those tariffs. The noble Lord said: "Oh, but people have not succeeded in doing it in the past." One reason may be that foreign countries always had the free market of Great Britain to dump goods into; but at any rate the alternative of what Lord Marley described as mutual discussion does not seem to be a very promising field. We have been having mutual discussion for about fifty years and tariffs have been going up against us all the time.
764
Then we propose to use this Bill to help to restore efficiency to industry. I am glad we did not have to-night the old cheap sneers at the efficiency of British industry, which I think were undeserved, but no doubt at the moment industry at home is heavily handicapped by reason of the uncertainty of having any market and the unfair competition of foreign goods produced under sweated conditions without having to pay the same taxes as British industry. By reason of these matters British industry is heavily handicapped—prevented from accumulating capital and such as is accumulated frightened away by the lack of certainty of a return. We intend to cure that by this tariff.
Finally we intend to avoid the consequence of doing nothing. Lord Marley said the only alternative to this Bill would be the methods of Russia. Well, we on this side of the House are not enamoured of the methods of Russia and we believe that a Bill calculated to prevent that alternative, which the noble Lord says is the only one, of having slave labour introduced here, is a Bill which, on that ground alone, ought to commend itself to the common sense of the people. Viscount Snowden relied, on the other hand, on the automatic equilibrium, and I think I have dealt with the arguments in answer to that.
At this late hour I do not want to take up more time. I do not promise— the Government has never promised—that this Bill is going of itself to bring about a millennium. I do not disguise from myself that from the purely political Party point of view this is a bad moment to introduce the Bill. It is a moment when we have been on the very verge of ruin; a moment in which the whole world is suffering from an economic depression unequalled perhaps in history; a moment in which we are told by all the economists that the prices of primary products are too low and must inevitably go higher. I am afraid there may be unscrupulous people who will not be slow to say when they do go higher that it is due to the Bill, even though they know it is due to world causes outside the Bill. I do not disguise from myself that this is a difficult moment at which to introduce the Bill, but I say it would be a tragic moment at which to leave things as they stand.

765
We are on the very brink of grave economic disaster. We are living in a condition when this country cannot afford to go on as she is without risk of widespread misery and literal starvation among large sections of our population. We believe that this Bill does offer fresh hope and fresh encouragement to industry; that it does offer a reasonable opportunity of gaining better access to foreign markets; we are confident that it does offer a real chance of developing the Empire markets, and of encouraging the settlement of our own people in our wide spaces and Dominions; that it does do something to forge fresh links, uniting the Empire together. We believe that this Bill does give to our people, who are almost despairing under the king-drawn-out agony of unemployment, a fresh hope and a fresh chance of finding work, and an opportunity of justifying themselves and restoring their own self-respect. For the rest we must leave it to the enterprise and to the energy of our people, of our workers, and of our industries.
My noble friend Lord Snowden has said that when the next Election comes the people will be swayed with the desire for national welfare rather than by any personal interest. I agree with him, though I cannot forbear reminding some in this House that it was not long ago that we used to hear the parrot cry, at
every Election: "Your food will cost you more." There is not much appeal to the national welfare in that slogan. I agree that the last Election has shown that if the matter is put straight before the people on national grounds they can be trusted to think imperially and respond to an appeal so made. I believe that, unhappily, Free Trade has been tried at the bar of public opinion and has been condemned. At any rate I am confident that it has proved itself unequal to the conditions in which we live to-day. I know that the tariff and Imperial Preference system, which we are to-day extending, has been tried on a small scale in the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, and the Safeguarding Acts, and has proved a success, and I believe it will justify itself by experience. At any rate I hope I am speaking not merely for my own Party but even for those Free Traders who believe that we are making a mistake, when I say that I hope and pray that this great adventure will enure to the national good, for the Imperial advantage, and for the advancing of that civilisation in which the British Empire takes so leading a part.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Malmesbury, E.

Aberdare, L.

Midleton, E.

Abinger, L.

Argyll, D.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Addington, L.

Marlborough, D.

Peel, E.

Alvingham, L.

Somerset, D.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Amulree, L.

Wellington, D.

Annaly, L.

Poulett, E.

Askwith, L.

Anglesey, M.

Radnor, E.

Auckland, L.

Exeter, M.

Rothes, E.

Basing, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Belper, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Selborne, E.

Berwick, L.

Abingdon, E.

Spencer, E.

Biddulph, L.

Airlie, E.

Stanhope, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Albemarle, E.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Brownlow, L.

Beatty, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Camrose, L.

Bradford, E.

Charnwood, L.

De La Warr, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Clinton, L.

Denbigh, E.

Chaplin, V.

Congleton, L.

Devon, E.

Elibank, V.

Conway of Allington, L.

Effingham, E.

Goschen, V.

Conyers, L.

Howe, E.

Hailsham, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Hambleden, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Iveagh, E.

Hampden, V.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Hood, V.

Cranworth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Knutsford, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Scarsdale, V.

Daryngton, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Desborough, L.

Dynevor, L.

Joicey, L.

Southampton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Lawrence, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Lloyd, L.

Sudeley, L.

Erskine, L.

Lovat, L.

Selsdon, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Luke, L.

Swinfen, L.

Faringdon, L.

Manners, L.

Templemore, L.

Fisherwick, L. (M. Bonegall.)

Marks, L.

Teynham, L.

Forster, L.

Middleton, L.

Treowen, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Glentanar, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Vivian, L.

Hampton, L.

Monson, L.

Waleran, L.

Hanworth, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Wargrave, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Wavertree, L.

Hawke, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Weir, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wharton, L.

Islington, L.

Roundway, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Jessel, L.

Sempill, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Snowden, V.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Sanderson, L.

Arnold, L.

Passfield, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Swaythling, L.

Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Addington be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Ruthven of Gowrie: Read, and agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2a accordingly.
Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House can tell us now what will be the business for the rest of the week?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for asking me this question. There are no Orders of the Day for to-morrow and therefore I think we may well give ourselves a holiday after sitting so late tonight. On Wednesday there will be the Third Reading of the Destructive Imported Animals Bill and of the Dangerous Drugs Bill, and there is also consideration of a Report from the House of Lords Offices Committee. On Thursday there will be the Second Reading of the Universities (Scotland) Bill and I understand that my noble friend Lord Charnwood has put down a Motion dealing with Waterloo bridge for that day.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:

Import Duties.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Maidstone Extension).

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sittingbourne and Milton).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on February 16 and 23 last discharged, and Bill committed.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL. [H.L.]
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.